Up to and included 2017 the 2 cents coin has the original design with the KM#182, but in 2018 the design has changed as you can see above, but since KM doesn't attribute KM# any longer, Numista is stuck. I suggest to use the original KM# and then applying the rules for small design changes to create the NC#182.1 (NC = Numista Coin #) for the new coin.
What do you think, should we take the numbering into our own hands, or just let everything be as is?
Like I said before, that's for the Numista Top to decide. But I have to agree, without reference numbers it's a lot more complicated to organize our collections.
While I agree that somebody has to fill the void left by the Krause Publications demise, it can't be done haphazardly and have any chance of success. Many things will have to be decided and formalized first. Among them are, in no particular order (feel free add or disagree):
What exactly are the "rules" for numbering and how/where are they formalized and documented?
Who, if anyone or group, has approval authority for new numbers or sub-numbers? Can any member create a new number and submit to a referee for publication (much like Sjoelund is doing here)?
How will the new numbers be published and distributed? Are they to be used by Numista members only or is the purpose to be universal? Is the expectation that in the future we'll see Ebay listings for "2028 USA UNC Quarter NC#624.3"?
Will this be a money making operation with paid positions or done similar to how the coin catalog is maintained? If Krause went under doing this, how will Numista do it differently to make it viable long term?
Is Numista willing to take on other organizations/companies who may be starting a similar effort to replace Krause? Do we want to take on a new numbering system for two years and then decide we can't do it as well as company XYZ?
I'm sure there are many other questions than need to be answered first and as Essor Prof says it has to be driven by the Numista top.
If you start with a NC#100 f.ex in year 2000 for a given coin in a given land
as long as design and alloy stay the same let's say up year 2005, the NC#100 is staying with the years
2000 NC#100
2001 NC#100
2002 NC#100
2003 NC#100
2004 NC#100
2005 NC#100
in 2005 in September the coin changes the lay-out slightly and will then get a new #
2005 NC#100.1
2006 NC#100.1
in 2007the coin will be changing the alloy and will again get a new #
2007 NC#100.1a
The rule is a letter is added when the alloy changes and a subnumber ".n" when the design changes.
The rule for mint marks ought to be like it is for Germany, the same number is used for all the mint marks, except if the coin changes it's design or alloy for just one mint, then the above rules come into play.
For new coins the next free number will be used serially linked with the last existing KM#, to be discussedif any "room" should be left before the NC# takes over. If the last KM# was KM#694, then the NC# could be the nearest 100, thus NC#700. Of course somewhere in the Numista hierarchy a file containing the used numbers for a given country should exist and the number can only be given by the person group in charge of the country (referees).
Actually I cannot see many other rules?
I'm not trying to say the rules are extremely extensive, just that they have to be formalized, complete, fixed and published prior to issuing any new numbers. The process for adding, amending and creating new rules also has to be established. You may be the ideal person to lead the "rules committee." Otherwise we're in a "Ready, Fire, Aim!" situation.
Quote: "rsirian1"I'm not trying to say the rules are extremely extensive, just that they have to be formalized, complete, fixed and published prior to issuing any new numbers. The process for adding, amending and creating new rules also has to be established. You may be the ideal person to lead the "rules committee." Otherwise we're in a "Ready, Fire, Aim!" situation.
As such it's simple. It has to be well organized, but not organized to death
