I have read much about Mahmud II. Hope someone will translate the text on this Medal. How do we know if it is from Algeria? It looks to be a modern item?
Thank you for help.
Quote: "Camerinvs"Who approved this coin page?? It’s mostly wrong, with irrelevant information for the obverse and reverse.
Both images are upside down, too, and I think this was already in the catalogue.
This is fake Arabic; not any real legends. One barely recognizes the word “sultan” in the third register on the second picture.
Fine! What shall we do about it? If it is rubbish then it should be removed. Wonder what is the point of creating a Token with gibberish? Thank you for info.
Quote: "Camerinvs"I've just sent corrections for both pages.
Where did anyone get this "evolation of Mahmud II" thing? These tokens (there are two) are in fake Arabic. They are a poor imitation of real coins.
They were together with a kg coins I bought in Denmark. You may delete them if you think it right. I had no idea of what tyey were. Thank ypu for help. The info I gave received from Numista.
Ah, at first I didn’t realize you had created the coin pages, but whoever the referee is, he/she should have known better and modified the info on the spot.
We should keep them in the catalogue as modified. I thought they were already in the catalogue, but no. There are just other variations of basically the same imitation.
You know that this is exonumia and not a normal country? The refs aren't specialized in Arab trinkets they just try to stem the flood of crap that gets washed up in that section.
Why would you submit something first without knowing what it is and then ask for translations, attributes, and explanations later? I also agree with Idolenz.
I assumed it went to someone who was a referee for Algeria. If not, apologies.
I never thought about it, but based on what Idolenz says, I suspect some referees receive all kinds of doubtful "coins" which they have to deal with, at considerable expense of time. So, this is a good point.
My suggestion is that there should be a short checklist before one can submit a new item. I say "short" because we don't want to discourage the submission of new items. The two questions that come to my mind are:
> Are you sure this item is not already in the catalogue?
> Are you aware that you will be asked to provide your source(s)?
I know a few people on here who have regularly submitted coins and tokens that already existed. I myself contributed to remove such duplicate pages, and it's a waste of time for everybody. Perhaps this would happen less if there was a checklist?
I am careful to always provide my sources at the end, which is actually marked as an obligatory section to fill. I'm not sure this is always respected, but it should be.
There already is a requirement that sources be referenced to provide proof and verification as to what is being proposed. Just look at the sheer number of edit, contribution, and modification requests the OP has requested over the years. This is just one person. I can't imagine the number of requests being sent for approval overall. Then I see complaints about the time it takes to review and "approve" of whatever is being requested. It should be no surprise that some referee's can easily be overwhelmed and not be perfect every time. Especially some very obscure requests such as tokens, souvenirs, medals, etc, etc etc. Not to demean or diminish them but I don't think these obscure items should be or warrants a priority. "Stem the tide of crap" pretty much sums it up . Perhaps we should have volunteers for each country strictly for Exonumia and leave the referees who signed up for actual monetary, legal tender coins out of it so they can concentrate on what they volunteered to do. Coins.
car wash tokens, bus tokens, phone tokens,
lucky-horse-shoe, type-set-your-message-and-pull-the-crank tokens,
love tokens, lodge tokens, hobo nickles,
buttons, jewelry, laving dishes,
I have a weakness for these, rubbish though they may be.
Jamais l'or n'a perdu la plus petite occasion de se montrer stupide. -Balzac
I would like the requirement of providing sources to be mentioned from the very start, even before people start filling a new page.
Tokens are part of the economic experience. I know that some think that shopping-cart tokens (for example) are not serious and shouldn't be added to the catalogue (there actually was a discussion about this on the French forum). I believe shopping-cart tokens are legitimate economic artefacts and if archaeologists find them in 2000 years from now, they will try to understand their function like we do for the many crappy Roman lead tokens. Shopping-cart tokens are actually more interesting from a numismatic point of view than the RCM's Bugs Bunny medallic coins.
Personally, I also include postage stamps as economic artefacts. For many countries, including many British colonies and dominions, stamps were introduced before a national coinage. And many polities had their own stamps but never had their own coinage, such as British Columbia.
Again, I am not trying to slight Exonumia. I just think they have their own place just like banknotes and should have their own experts, judges and referees who are willing to take their time to research and judge countless requests. Joes car wash tokens. Great, which Joes car wash? Lets spend all our time discussing the finer points of Joes car wash tokens and all the varieties minted over the years. If I ever volunteered my time to be a referee, I certainly would not want to be obligated to referee Banknotes or Exonumia. I think existing referees who volunteered to take them on should not be so harshly judged on oversights. Especially entirely new additions to Numista such as Banknotes and the completely obscure, open ended, and anything qualifies as Exonumia.
Oh, no. I didn't think for a moment you were trying to slight exonumia, harryg!
It's a huge, disparate category. Perhaps some day, tokens that have an exchange value: bread / beer / dry goods / milk / transportation / etc. should be given their own section because they serve a function very similar to money?
I can now see that my two Tokens are rubbish. The info I used, I received from Numista, the very forum we now are using. The referee that OK'd my tokens had no chance of checking them, that is the nature of most tokens. At the time, I was not particularly interested in them, I thought the strange title was enough explanation.
As a beginner I am tempted to remark about the coin section. There are umteen thousand so called coins, denominated in Pounds, Dollars, etc, which are produced only for collectors, are these coins? How can they be coins when they are never used and often can't be used? Many tokens are really used as coins, they buy a service and as such, are more coin than a glorified 100 dollar silver disc produced for collectors.
Quote: "Zelo"I can now see that my two Tokens are rubbish. The info I used, I received from Numista, the very forum we now are using. The referee that OK'd my tokens had no chance of checking them, that is the nature of most tokens. At the time, I was not particularly interested in them, I thought the strange title was enough explanation.
As a beginner I am tempted to remark about the coin section. There are umteen thousand so called coins, denominated in Pounds, Dollars, etc, which are produced only for collectors, are these coins? How can they be coins when they are never used and often can't be used? Many tokens are really used as coins, they buy a service and as such, are more coin than a glorified 100 dollar silver disc produced for collectors.
Ultimately, people must purchase tokens and most exonumia with actual currency such as coins and banknotes. You seem adept at contributing to the catalog, why not volunteer as a referee for exonumia?
Status changed to Solved(Zelo, 11 Oct 2021, 22:22)
