Next I leave you a table with the different date assumptions that I think may exist and with the date that I think should be used in the catalog for each one of them. If any of you know any other course, do not hesitate to comment. Below the table I have put the link of each of the coins on which the example is based.
This should be added to the Numista catalogue guidelines as a example like you said to clear up the predicament that we have when adding coins (this could include banknotes and Exonumia as well) that fit each criteria.
Hi to whoever is reading this. Did you know that TYPEWRITER (on a QWERTY keyboard) is the longest word you can type using only the letters on one row of the keyboard.
This should work for coins but for notes we need to consider cases such as this.
Date on note: 1960 (year of law governing issue)
Dates issued: 1985-1990
This kind of thing happens a lot. Should they always be ND (1985-1990) or perhaps just ND (1985)? What if the law is only one year before the first issue?
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Quote: "ceh2019"This should work for coins but for notes we need to consider cases such as this.
Date on note: 1960 (year of law governing issue)
Dates issued: 1985-1990
This kind of thing happens a lot. Should they always be ND (1985-1990) or perhaps just ND (1985)? What if the law is only one year before the first issue?
The guidelines do not cover banknotes. That should be in Section 4 which is yet to be written.
Personally I don't care to much if there is a 1-3 year discrepancy I know how some countries mints work.
But number 4 ... no, hell no this should be a ND it's half a century off.
Not as offset but another example of a big frozen date range that should be a ND in my books.
Quote: "Idolenz"Personally I don't care to much if there is a 1-3 year discrepancy I know how some countries mints work.
But number 4 ... no, hell no this should be a ND it's half a century off.
Not as offset but another example of a big frozen date range that should be a ND in my books.
...yeah, half a century off is strong evidence that the date was deliberately fudged for some reason.
(Possibly comparable case: the assorted tree coinage of Massachusetts, which reportedly maintained the original date 1652 for decades to maintain a legal fiction of not requiring royal approval to their coinage - there having been no king of England in 1652 to ask such approval from.)
The 1780 Maria Theresa thaler is probably the big-name example of a frozen date, having been issued dated 1780 to this day.
I see that for some reason all the non-proof variants are combined on a single year line; they really, really shouldn't be. Who decided that?
A modern circulating frozen date example: Thailand 50 satang "2500" (issued with this date, corresponding to 1957 AD, until 1980).
The modern coins of Azerbaijan are tricky; they do not have a date, and are apparently listed under their 2006 date of issue, except for a special issue in 2011. Do we know that they were actually minted in 2006, as opposed to "2006-present" or similar?
My collection is only of coins, I do not collect banknotes so I do not know very well how the dates work. I made this table thinking only of coins, maybe someone who understood the subject could do something similar for the bills. Sorry for that.
Regarding what has been commented, example number 4 is the one that also generates me more doubts, but in my opinion the expression ND (No Date) should be reserved for coins without a date or with a date (like example 6) that leads us to intuit the year of issue: 1909-1969 (birth and death of a personality) and legend "PERARIGNAR ANNA CENTENARY", which suggests that the year of issue is 2009 (ND 2009)
It happens something similar with the frozen date coins, like 1780 Maria Theresa Thaler, we could use here ND 1780, but again, for me to use ND if the coin has a date, will make catalogue more difficult to understand, we have General Comments field and PArticular Comments in each year line to be able to make the appropriate clarifications regarding the issuance dates.
Coin referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Liberia and Spain
Banknote referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea and Spain
Firstly, I just want to point out that the guidelines refer to the minting date, not to the date when coins are issued into circulation or to collectors. These may be different and we are only concerned with the minting date, which is the one usually shown on the coins.
I believe points #1, #5, #6, and #8 are already covered in the guidelines.
When there is a difference between the date on the coin and the minting date, both can be displayed like this: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces88029.html
We can add this to the guidelines, and this should cover #2, #3, #6, and #7.
This leaves #4: This should be as Idolenz says in my opinion too, and this is covered in the current guidelines.
Quote: "stratocaster"Hello
Thanks for the suggestion.
Firstly, I just want to point out that the guidelines refer to the minting date, not to the date when coins are issued into circulation or to collectors. These may be different and we are only concerned with the minting date, which is the one usually shown on the coins.
I believe points #1, #5, #6, and #8 are already covered in the guidelines.
When there is a difference between the date on the coin and the minting date, both can be displayed like this:
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces88029.html
We can add this to the guidelines, and this should cover #2, #3, #6, and #7.
This leaves #4: This should be as Idolenz says in my opinion too, and this is covered in the current guidelines.
I think the solution you propose is fine, the truth is that I did not know that the option you have shown in the example existed, and I think it could be a good option. When a modification request or a request for a new coin is made, how is that date entered in parentheses, in which field should it be entered?
As for the proposed solution for example 4, it is not my favorite, but I think it could also be valid.
Coin referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Liberia and Spain
Banknote referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea and Spain
Going only by the minting year is also complicated. IIRC the US commemoratives have several well-attested cases where the entire mintage was made in December of the previous year. A few countries start issuing the new year's circulating coinage (suggesting that it already started minting) in December as well...
Quote: "January First-of-May"Going only by the minting year is also complicated. IIRC the US commemoratives have several well-attested cases where the entire mintage was made in December of the previous year. A few countries start issuing the new year's circulating coinage (suggesting that it already started minting) in December as well...
The year on the coin please.... minting year is NOT on the coin, but in some files in the different mints.
The problem with the year on the coin is that it can be off by hundreds of years, as in my example above. This field shows collectors how old a coin is and is used for the dashboard graph. So it can be misleading.
What is the problem with using both years when the minting is known to have happened one, three, or a hundred years before or after?
Quote: "stratocaster"The problem with the year on the coin is that it can be off by hundreds of years, as in my example above. This field shows collectors how old a coin is and is used for the dashboard graph. So it can be misleading.
What is the problem with using both years when the minting is known to have happened one, three, or a hundred years before or after?
The problem with using both years is that this field is intended for the date in the original calendar. What would you do with my Thailand example?
So the date should be the one written on the coin, in the calendar used on the coin.
The override appears in brackets, and it should show the actual dates when the coin was minted, in the Gregorian calendar, even if they don't correspond to the date written on the coin. So for the last point that had to be clarified (#4), I believe this should be 1790 (1840-1843).
This allows both pieces of information to be visible and searchable, so it should cater to all needs and we can close this request?
