Possibility to enter a range for the weight of a coin

I just opened a new post about this not knowing that someone else already had this idea. I'll copy my arguments here from my other post.

Some coins don't have one fixed weight but a range of weights. Reasons for that may be different varieties of the coin with different weights like e.g. those two:

N#39072

N#5197

Or as it happens with mostly old coins, due to old minting techniques the weight differs for each piece, like e.g. here:

N#312375

My suggestion is to add the possibility to add a range of weight for coins. So under "technical data" we would add 1.4 g – 3.0 g for the first example coin above.

The difference that it would make is this:

Case 1:

The coin exists in a variety with weight of 1.4 g and one variety with 3 g (like first example above).

On the coin page no number is entered for “weight”. Someone who looks for the coin by weight will not find it. If it is possible to have on the page a range of weight, the person will find the coin when searching by weight.

Case 1:

On the page there is entered a weight (second example above); here it says 4g but someone has the light version of the coin that weights just 2.5 g. So again, if this person looks for the coin by weight (entering the number 2.5) he will not find the coin in the catalog.

So giving possibility to add a range of weights just is a way to actually give correct information about the coin type! Any number that is entered until now is just one case that might be correct or not.

Coming back to Einstein: Everything is relative😄

BasterosHello, 

I think it would be useful to add the possibility to enter a range for the weight of a coin. 
Example: 2.8-3.1g

Many coins have variable weights, especially ancient coins, without being varieties.

For ancient and medieval coins, it would be a great enhancement! Current form field was really built for modern standardized coins I believe.

It sure would, but in a search it's next to impossible to implement. The next best thing would be to have two fields, the one already existing and then a new one with a range (if needed). The new field would only be for information.

I agree that we can elaborate more on weight (mass) in our guidelines.  

I think we could stick with the current format of entering a single value (which is how the issuers do it), but could enhance our guidelines to help submitters deal with variation.

A few thoughts  (comments welcome):

1. When the issuer's specification is known, this should be the weight.  This will apply mostly to modern coins, but is also known for many older coins where the mint records were available to catalogers.

1a.  If it is known that most examples being bought and sold in the current numismatic market differ from the issuer's specification this can be mentioned in the Comments section.

2. When the issuer's specification is not known, the mass should be the one measured on the submitter's coin, or of the coin in the reference used (for example, an auction listing, or catalog).  If that source cites a range, enter the midpoint of that range in the Weight filed, and put information on the range in the Comments section.

2a.  If it is known that there is a wide range in weight of examples being bought and sold in the current numismatic market, that information can be entered in the Comments section.  The more specific the information, the more helpful it is.

OK - “Variable weight”

Better - “Variable weight.  Examples for sale on MA-Shops in August 2022 ranged between 1.4 and 2.0 grams.”

Above and beyond - “Variable weight.  Statistical analysis of 30 examples sold at ABC Auctions between 2018 and 2022 gave a median of 1.7 grams with a standard deviation of 0.15 grams.” 

3.  When assessing weight variation, examples that are clipped significantly, holed, or otherwise significantly damaged should be excluded from consideration.  

Sounds OK with me. Keep it the comments?

Sjoelund

Sounds OK with me. Keep it the comments?

I don't have strong opinion but feel keeping it in comments will change nothing (for ancient coins, people will just copy paste data from very coin they found on auction websites or weighted themselves)

Adding a range field would create more awareness on this issue imo.

And adding it in the comments section will not improve the search function. The BIG advantage of numista is having information in standardized fields that can be read by machines like the search function. Adding information in the comments section is nice but not more than that.

It's the same difference like between a pile of paper lists with tons of information in it and a digital list where you can search for information automatically…

I think for the case of light and heavy varieties of the same type, we could/should have two different listings, even if other catalogs do not split them.  We can put “light” and “heavy” in the titles.  I realize this is not the most common case under discussion here, but it is the one for which the current catalog structure already has a ready solution. 

I think for a weight range field we have the opportunity to get a lot of questionable information (did the range come from a reliable reference?  If yes, which one and where do we enter that?  If not, then how was the range obtained? And so on). 

At the same time, I do want the search functions to be as helpful as possible, so I am “on the fence.” 

 Some pages already exist. Examples: 

N#18127 [heavy] 

N#891 [light] 

ZacUK

 Some pages already exist. Examples: 

N#18127 [heavy] 

N#891 [light] 

For modern coins that's OK, but for older coins, with no official mass indication, I can't see it function?

As for the argument of tdziemia regarding the quality of information – that's another big issue. I might open a new thread for that but in short: maybe we need to add the sources of all information.

For every field that is filled you need to specify where the information comes from. Measured by user X, catalog Y, official numbers from mint/national bank…

And still if we split different subvarieties in different pages….there are still the coins that just vary in weight without being different varieties. And it's not possible right now to register the correct basic information about them.

DonChori

As for the argument of tdziemia regarding the quality of information – that's another big issue. I might open a new thread for that but in short: maybe we need to add the sources of all information.

For every field that is filled you need to specify where the information comes from. Measured by user X, catalog Y, official numbers from mint/national bank…

 

And still if we split different subvarieties in different pages….there are still the coins that just vary in weight without being different varieties. And it's not possible right now to register the correct basic information about them.

I think that'll be too “heavy” for the normal user just creating a new coin, you kind of force them to do a work, they might be able to do. Who would verify the sources? KISS: Keep It Simple & Stupid, please.

Sjoelund

DonChori

As for the argument of tdziemia regarding the quality of information – that's another big issue. I might open a new thread for that but in short: maybe we need to add the sources of all information.

For every field that is filled you need to specify where the information comes from. Measured by user X, catalog Y, official numbers from mint/national bank…

 

And still if we split different subvarieties in different pages….there are still the coins that just vary in weight without being different varieties. And it's not possible right now to register the correct basic information about them.

I think that'll be too “heavy” for the normal user just creating a new coin, you kind of force them to do a work, they might be able to do. Who would verify the sources? KISS: Keep It Simple & Stupid, please.

Well, it's another thing than the here discussed one and it could be just voluntarily, not compulsory.

And one more argument:

If in the catalog there is written the coin should have a weight of exactly 5 grams; mine looks the same but it is more than 0.5 g heavier or lighter, then I ask myself if the coin is genuine or not. If I can actually see on the coin page that a range between 4.5 and 5.8 g is normal, then I know everything is fine. Again, it's just about having correct information at the page.

DonChori

Sjoelund

DonChori

As for the argument of tdziemia regarding the quality of information – that's another big issue. I might open a new thread for that but in short: maybe we need to add the sources of all information.

For every field that is filled you need to specify where the information comes from. Measured by user X, catalog Y, official numbers from mint/national bank…

 

And still if we split different subvarieties in different pages….there are still the coins that just vary in weight without being different varieties. And it's not possible right now to register the correct basic information about them.

I think that'll be too “heavy” for the normal user just creating a new coin, you kind of force them to do a work, they might be able to do. Who would verify the sources? KISS: Keep It Simple & Stupid, please.

Well, it's another thing than the here discussed one and it could be just voluntarily, not compulsory.

 

And one more argument:

If in the catalog there is written the coin should have a weight of exactly 5 grams; mine looks the same but it is more than 0.5 g heavier or lighter, then I ask myself if the coin is genuine or not. If I can actually see on the coin page that a range between 4.5 and 5.8 g is normal, then I know everything is fine. Again, it's just about having correct information at the page.

Why not introduce two new fields, which the users can easily enter, if need be, Minimum weight and Maximum weight. During some time some years ago, I entered hundreds of my measurements of the weight of my different coins, when it was not given in numista…. for those with a weight given, that weight was quite often not corresponding to the one I had measured, so I changed those as well. Now if my measured weight is different from the one stated “officially” in numista, I will not touch the numista weight, but see if my coin is below the Minimum and then enter it, or higher than the maximum and then enter it. 

One day, the deciders can run an average and compare it to the “official” weight, if they want. Anyway, we members would have been served well with that system?

tdziemia

 

1. When the issuer's specification is known, this should be the weight.  This will apply mostly to modern coins, but is also known for many older coins where the mint records were available to catalogers.

1a.  If it is known that most examples being bought and sold in the current numismatic market differ from the issuer's specification this can be mentioned in the Comments section.

A good example of this subcase is the Catherine II 5 kopeks; we know exactly how much it should nominally weigh (1/320 of a pood = about 51.19 grams), and the weight field gives this value, but in practice the weights frequently vary by tens of grams in either direction, and the comment section says as much (I think it actually somewhat underestimates the sheer variance).

Related: https://en.numista.com/forum/topic140503.html