I've got a question about the listings of Russin Empire coin types on Numista.
Why on earth are we having now all those sub-types from Krause based on different mintmarks being listed as separate types? Numista has been consistent in other countries combining all those sub-types if their KM numbers are minor into a single consolidated entry based on the major KM number. So why are we having the break down of Russian Empire types based on the mintmark?
I suggest re-working the Russian Empire Numista listings and augmenting the sub-types into major types like the rest of Coin Numista.
E.g. C# 147.1 and C# 147.3 should be merged into the major type listing (single entry) and within this major type entry it is okay to have those sub-types, etc.
Otherwise one will end up collecting the Russian Empire coins not by major types but rather by mintmarks. Please note that this minor types listings strategy has been implemented now for all Russian Empire coinage, so we should start merging throughout the entire Russian Empire listings to bring everything into order.
Exactly!!! Let's make Numista consistent, all those who are eager to collect sub-types and mintmarks will not be hurt in any way if we merge sub-variants into major types!
Having one page with 84 year/mintmark lines is not a good idea. Especially taking into account that some subvariants (e.g. 4 eagle designs, overdated coins) wouldn't be listed there....
In Russia traditionally different mintmarks counted as different types. I don't know anybody who collect by type without mintmark differentiation.
If an aim is to make usable catalog, just leave it as it is. If an aim is to be consistent, merge the pages.
My personal list of scammers from Numista: erniemix, yvain, CassTaylor
I do not agree here, take Switzerland coingae for example ) Some types run for more than 50 years and it is okay to have such a long listing within the major type. Numista should be aimed at both types of collectors - type collectors and "year/mintmark/specialist" collectors. So having the major listings first by type will serve the first type of collectors and those who want everything in detail will find everything within the corresponding major type entry. Let's be consistent, Numista is not only the place for Russian coinage collectors but for everyone interested in numismatics. Yes, we need all details, sub-types, mintmarks, eagle designs, etc, it is very interesting and deserving - BUT let's have it all detailed within the major types break-down.
If you collect by mintmarks - it is not an issue to mark the corresponding mint mark within the major type listing as it is the usual practice here on Numista. I do understand your point of view @Grinya and your interest here to leave the listing as it is as you collect Russian coinage by mintmarks - but let's not forget about other types of collectors, let's Numista serve the community and not individual collectors, Numista is not a catalog of Russian coinage only, it is a general source of numismatic info first (major types) and then detail comes into play for those like you who want maximum (within major type listings) - this approach will suit the needs of any imaginable collector.
Also please note that traditionally also French, Italian coinage of the 19th centure is also collected by mintmarks and some years ago we had it listed here on Numista in the same way - with the break-down into sub-types as Krause suggested. Then the listings were reviewed and augmented into major types, and all those break-downs by sub-types and mintmarks are all within the major types sections now. And no one has ever argued or complained. It is rather the ancesctry and drawback of the Krause catalogs tradition to break some countries' coinage by mintmark which is not correct and we must not mimic Krause catalogs here. The same goes with some other countries which were finally reviewed and cleaned up. Let's be consistent! There are those keen on collecting every major type and those going into every possible detail - we must serve and cover both! Let's keep to the golden mean and everyone will be happy! Regards, Alex
I beleive when you have a coin which was minted for 35 years with 7 mintmarks, it will be quite a great mess. Much bigger then just a list of the years.
We shall have an aim of usability, not standartisation.
I do understand your point of view @gebikimame2017 and your interest here to change the listing as you don't collect Russian coinage by mintmarks - but let's not forget about other types of collectors.
We shall split coins for different countries in the way which suits best for the country and traditions of collecting and cataloging. Especially if you take not modern coins.
Quote: "gebikimame2017"Also please note that traditionally also French, Italian coinage of the 19th centure is also collected by mintmarks and some years ago we had it listed here on Numista in the same way - with the break-down into sub-types as Krause suggested. Then the listings were reviewed and augmented into major types, and all those break-downs by sub-types and mintmarks are all within the major types sections now. And no one has ever argued or complained. It is rather the ancesctry and drawback of the Krause catalogs tradition to break some countries' coinage by mintmark which is not correct and we must not mimic Krause catalogs here. The same goes with some other countries which were finally reviewed and cleaned up. Let's be consistent! There are those keen on collecting every major type and those going into every possible detail - we must serve and cover both! Let's keep to the golden mean and everyone will be happy! Regards, Alex
Well, the example links you have quoted - they are all about not 19-th centure coinage, but rather earlier centureis where coins are listed based on the numbering of Specialized catalogs, the same e.g. about the Polish-Lithuanian coinage, etc. And I think all this is also not that ideal and has to be reworked one day by setting up major types and the rest of detail pushing within the major type listing. Let's see what others think on the issue and whether my suggestion is upvoted or downvoted, I mean let the Numista community speak up and decide what will be the final decision here :)
Quote: "Grinya"Having one page with 84 year/mintmark lines is not a good idea. Especially taking into account that some subvariants (e.g. 4 eagle designs, overdated coins) wouldn't be listed there....
In Russia traditionally different mintmarks counted as different types. I don't know anybody who collect by type without mintmark differentiation.
If an aim is to make usable catalog, just leave it as it is. If an aim is to be consistent, merge the pages.
I'm not sure if it's the "traditional" opinion, but I think that's the first time I'm hearing of it being at all common. If I have an opportunity I'll ask some dealers for their opinion; maybe it's more common than I thought.
I do know that my attempts at a Russian Empire type set did not include mintmarks. But I mostly arrived at the concept independently (without looking up what the official position is).
Hi, exactly! And we need to strive for consistency on Numista, let us put everything in uniform order, the is is the generally accepted rule to break up the big thing into smaller pieces and then the smaller pieces will list all sub-pieces within: Country's coingae is subdivided into major types, and then within major types we do have all those variants like mintmarks, mint official names, etc. The fact that some coin listings on Numista are still not "groomed" and "cleaned/tidied up" to match the uniform approach to cataloging is just an excuse and it means that the corresponding moderators have not yet completely done their anticipated "homework" )
Throughout Numista catalog such cases are treated by augmentation of KM# numbers into major groups to have major types, Numista should not try to mimic Krause catalogs as they are full of errors and inconsistency and subjectivity. So again this is not an excuse!
Quote: "Sjoelund"France is split as well, whereas Germany is not. Don't ask for consistence, please.
BUT we can NOT change the given km#, so it'll be difficult to find a way around the historic facts?
IIRC the reason why 17th century French entries are split by mint is because different mints kept separately but frequently introducing minor design changes (e.g. new portraits), so if we wanted to add a type for (e.g.) each new portrait we had to make them separate for each mint.
Sure, that list of 97 different Double Tournois types that @Grinya linked looks ridiculous, but the alternative is either this or one page (maybe two or three at a stretch) that would have the combined information for all 97 types, which is surely a lot more unmanageable.
So? There is no logic to SCWC, we already knew that. The KM# are still the common way to communicate about the same coin, and that we can NOT break down.
Quote: "Sjoelund"So? There is no logic to SCWC, we already knew that. The KM# are still the common way to communicate about the same coin, and that we can NOT break down.
But we can have (and already do have) multiple listings connected to the same KM number.
Quote: "January First-of-May"Sure, that list of 97 different Double Tournois types that @Grinya linked looks ridiculous, but the alternative is either this or one page (maybe two or three at a stretch) that would have the combined information for all 97 types, which is surely a lot more unmanageable.
Hm, you supported 84 lines (as minimum, because of plenty of additional variants not listed here e.g. different types of eagle for one year or overrated variants) in one page for the Russian 5 kopeks, but didn't support 97 for French Double Tournois....
My personal list of scammers from Numista: erniemix, yvain, CassTaylor
Quote: "January First-of-May"Sure, that list of 97 different Double Tournois types that @Grinya linked looks ridiculous, but the alternative is either this or one page (maybe two or three at a stretch) that would have the combined information for all 97 types, which is surely a lot more unmanageable.
Hm, you supported 84 lines (as minimum, because of plenty of additional variants not listed here e.g. different types of eagle for one year or overrated variants) in one page for the Russian 5 kopeks, but didn't support 97 for French Double Tournois....
Not 97 lines but several hundred lines, because each of those 97 pages (actually 95 now that I've checked; the last two results are unrelated gold) has multiple individual entries. And it's not the amount of lines that I didn't want but the amount of images that would be required for disambiguating what all those variants mean.
(Close-ish Russian analogue: imagine if this page was the only listing for Mikhail I kopeks, and all the KG varieties had to be lumped there as year lines, with explanatory images. I don't like the current situation with wire money either, but the alternative is far messier.)
As for "overrated variants", that's what I would call a Freudian typo, but from context I suspect that you probably meant "overdated". (Which my spellchecker doesn't recognize, as it happens.)
AFAIK the current Numista policy is to add a comment saying "overdates exist", but it probably depends on the specific series and how well it's collected by variety.
Quote: "Sjoelund"BUT we can NOT change the given km#, so it'll be difficult to find a way around the historic facts?
We would not be changing any KM-numbers--Krause assigned them, and there is no reason to change them.
We would only be combining these KM-divisions into single pages. For example, imagine there is a page with "KM#128" in the reference section, then "KM#128.1", "KM#128.2", and "KM#128.3" specified in the year-line comments--there are hundreds of examples that do this, albiet with different numbers. And this is really all we would be doing with Russia.
And if there are any examples where there are two completely different KM-numbers for the same type, we would have both numbers appearing in the reference section so both numbers would be searchable--again, we would not be changing any KM-numbers by doing this.
Status changed to Accepted(Sulfur, 26 Oct 2021, 02:20)
@Sulfur Exactly! That is what I have been trying to explain. No KM#s are going to be removed or get rid of, the goal is to augment the listings into more general major types, and within the type the division by mintmakrs and separate KM sub-numbers will remain intact in year lines, just as with other Numista listings.
Those who care about every detail, sub-types, different mint marks and minmaster's privacy marks will not be hurt at all. All the datails will remain intact, except for augmentation of the same data into major types again based on KM numbers. Like KM#1.1, KM#1.2, KM#1.3, KM#1.4 becoming KM#1, and within as year lines will be the same KM#1.1, KM#1.2, KM#1.3, KM#1.4 numbers + the coin type detail card will also have all these KM#s enumerated so that it is searchable and conistent.
Sad to see that Numista will go out of usability in favor of standardization
Would it be done with French catalog? Would you destroy a job of somebody who created these pages, to make it like in Krause which simplified a lot of things?
My personal list of scammers from Numista: erniemix, yvain, CassTaylor
At least I would not. My collection file is build up according to Krause! I know I'm old, for the moment just 75, but it goes on every year.
I used to be a contributor to KM long before numista was thought about. I'm still a contributor, but I can't really see, how Numismaster is developping. But then numista is a one person experience, so probably more prone to a sudden stop: That was it, Folks! Famous endings.
Then where do we collectors stand? Where would be my documentations (just hoping they were pirated and then widely spread), you argumentations about coin questions etc etc.
I suppose nothing lasts, and each new generation will restart the documentations of everything, since the past disappeared with KM, Numista and what have you?
Please stop using french Double Tournois example, as if it was a normal part of Numista… the only reason this sub part is not cleaned yet is because I had to prioritize other tasks (and lets admit those fixes are cumbersome to do…).
This french section came from one catalog only, CGKL, dedicated only to deniers and double tournois, hence the (way too specialized) sorting.
I'm all for factorization, both for consistency and readability purposes.
BUT, it is only possible if a referree steps up for this task on russian catalog
Status changed to Rejected(Compendium, 21 Aug 2023, 16:51)
