The metal composition description for 1938-1940 France 25 Centimes KM 867b says "Nickel silver (Copper 600‰, Nickel 200‰ and Zinc 200‰)" No mention of silver in percentages. Please correct with real composition.
Nickel silver does not actually contain silver--it is a deceptive term, like Nordic Gold.
And I do actually have a pending suggestion that involves removing the Nickel silver term in favour of Nickel-brass (which is the same as Nickel silver).
This has nothing to do with "the intent of human languages". We are trying to create an accurate desciption of coins. Having the word "silver" in the composition of a coin which contains no silver is simply inaccurate. This post proves that the use of this term causes confusion. The article you link to even discusses the fraudulent use of this term.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Quote: "ceh2019"We are trying to create an accurate desciption of coins.
en.numista.com is an English language reference so we should use standard English terms with well-defined meanings.
Yes, the term Nickle Silver has been used fraudulently, but so has almost every word in the English language.
The term Nickle Silver has been used non-fraudulently in English for a hundred and fifty years. It has a well established definition. The Oxford English Dictionary entry includes quotes from two encyclopedias, one from 1860 and one from 1862. A Random House dictionary says the term originated in 1855. I just opened four dictionaries and there was an entry for nickle silver in each of them.
The world isn't going to throw out all dictionaries and rewrite all metallurgy and metal production references because you don't like one of the terms.
If the common term is Nickel silver then we should use Nickel silver. Same with Nordic Gold. The argument that the Wikipedia article discusses the fraudulent use of this term is not really an argument. Some people will try to trick you, but for a catalogue, I don't see why that should be a reason not to use it. Besides, the exact composition is mentioned on the page.
As long as the exact composition is also given it should never cause any confusion (well, almost never ). When the mints that produce the coins say they're nickel-silver that's what typically gets added as the composition in the catalogs. Some examples:
One thing to consider is that we have both "nickel silver" and "nickel-brass" as selectable compositions, even though they are the same composition. I think there should be no problem with eliminating "nickel silver" because the alternative is already there.
With that being said, my suggestion wasn't about completely eliminating the term "nickel silver" (while I would like to see it gone, I know some might like to see it stay). My suggestion was change it to the following:
Nickel-brass (Nickel silver)
As well, in that same thread, I suggested moving the specialized terms in parenthesis after the metal they actually are. For example, we could keep Nordic Gold as a separate composition, but change the name to the following:
Brass (Nordic Gold)
I had made quite a few suggestions regarding the composition list... but they have been pending for quite a while, at this point.
Those sound very sensible as they ought to ensure anyone thinking nickel silver or Nordic gold are accurate terms gets the message. I'd suggest putting the misleading terms in quotation marks to further indicate their unreliability but I'm not sure how universally that would be understood.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Yes, I'd assume that too but only because I'm familar with the way the term is used and the fact that these are most likely base-metal coins. As a clear statement of the composition, it's a complete failure.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Quote: "ceh2019"Yes, I'd assume that too but only because I'm familar with the way the term is used and the fact that these are most likely base-metal coins. As a clear statement of the composition, it's a complete failure.
Agree 100%. I am a big proponent of adding the actual composition to all the coins, when known, obviously. As an alternating, many of the nickel-silver coins also say (copper, nickel, zinc) without actual numbers. That helps.
Yes, it helps a lot but clearly eug was confused as to which of the two descriptions was correct (since they contradict one another) and I can't say I blame them one bit.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Thanks all for the education on Nickel Silver, a term that I was obviously unfamiliar with. The alternate term Nickel-Brass would have been understandable to me.
Dear ladies and gentlemen, our problem is much bigger and deeper, we do not follow the report of the technical maker of coins or medals at all.
In the case of circulating state coins, the notification is usually communicated by the national banking authority.
We insert pathetic sometimes really different views and fairy tales ( o Commonwealth ) etc.
We should adhere to standards: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_System_of_Units https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_table
,, Nordic gold,, -it is perhaps clear that gold does not contain and is the name of a metal compound patented by the inventor
( definition -
,,Nordic gold is one of the alloys used to make coins. It is composed of 89% copper, 5% aluminum and 5% zinc and 1% tin.,,
And now look at what I've dealt with here in the past: our national pride , a coin which was beautiful in its composition, and here something inaccurate internationally.
written next to a coin: Composition-Aluminium-bronze https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces2644.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our bank and manufacturer state exactly: Material: 91% Cu (copper), 8% Al (aluminum), 1% Mn (manganese), non-magnetic https://www.zlate-mince.cz/cssr_1_kcs.htm
This is the wording of the law:
48.
Decree of the Minister of Finance
of 23 July 1957
on the issue of 1 CZK coins
Pursuant to Section 3, Paragraph 2 of Act No. 41/1953 Coll., On Monetary Reform, the Minister of Finance announces:
§ 1
On September 2, 1957, 1 CZK coins (hereinafter referred to as "coins") are put into circulation.
§ 2
(1) Coins are minted from aluminum bronze with a composition of 91 parts copper, 8 parts aluminum and 1 part manganese. 250 coins are minted from a kilogram of coin metal. The diameter of the coin is 23 mm and its edge is knurled.
(2) Coin minting should be as accurate as possible. If this cannot be achieved completely, a deviation of up to and including a gross weight of 15/1000, an aluminum content of 1% and a manganese content of 0.2% is permitted.
§ 3
On the obverse of the coin is the national emblem of the Czechoslovak Republic, around it the inscription "REPUBLIKA ČESKOSLOVENSKÁ" in one line with two linden leaves, between which is the year of manufacture. On the reverse is a picture of a woman planting a linden tree in the ground with her right hand and holding a linden seedling and a spade leaning on the ground in her left hand. Above the planted linden tree is the coin value "1". Below the painting is the name of the author "M. Kučová".
( https://www.zakonyprolidi.cz/cs/1957-48 )
that one percent of manganese is important to me and also beautiful pure copper.
It's terribly inaccurate for some coins here , those who add new coins should make an effort to look at the metal content, And when the manufacturer and the state undertake to use a patented mixture on euro coins ,, nordic gold ,, so let's respect it -and for the piece of metal we collect we can easily write the composition of this metal......I know again for a long time, but briefly in one sentence I can't.
Ahoj Ivan
Is "nordic gold" patented? If so, should we write "Nordic Gold®"? The symbol is "R" in a circle, incase it's too small to be clearly seen (as it is on my screen).
For the 1 koruna, can I suggest that you request a change so that the exact composition is displayed? Perhaps the ultimate answer is to do away with names for metals altogether and only show the elemental composition? However, I speak as someone with a degree in chemistry, so that kind of precision is always going to appeal to me.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Quote: "ceh2019"Is "nordic gold" patented? If so, should we write "Nordic Gold®"? The symbol is "R" in a circle, incase it's too small to be clearly seen (as it is on my screen).
For the 1 koruna, can I suggest that you request a change so that the exact composition is displayed? Perhaps the ultimate answer is to do away with names for metals altogether and only show the elemental composition? However, I speak as someone with a degree in chemistry, so that kind of precision is always going to appeal to me.
Quote: "MIMAEL"
And now look at what I've dealt with here in the past: our national pride , a coin which was beautiful in its composition, and here something inaccurate internationally.
written next to a coin: Composition-Aluminium-bronze
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces2644.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello Ivan,
With all due respect, I don't understand your attitude on this. Many times the compositions on Numista mimic those found in SCWC. This is such a case. If you have information "proving" the exact composition, why have you not put in a change request to add it? I've been on a mission to do exactly that for US coins.
Just my opinion,
Regards
Quote: "MIMAEL"
And now look at what I've dealt with here in the past: our national pride , a coin which was beautiful in its composition, and here something inaccurate internationally.
written next to a coin: Composition-Aluminium-bronze
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces2644.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello Ivan,
With all due respect, I don't understand your attitude on this. Many times the compositions on Numista mimic those found in SCWC. This is such a case. If you have information "proving" the exact composition, why have you not put in a change request to add it? I've been on a mission to do exactly that for US coins.
Just my opinion,
Regards
Yes, I fully agree with the criticism and I am aware of it ,,rsirian1,, you are right.
I don't want to make excuses even if I have a reason, I'm kind of inconsistent, sometimes humorous moody...... etc.
I do not add coins, I do not repair and rather I act impulsively - the last time I fought for one unknown country and I failed so I resigned.
Waiting to get better by summer is my personal goal and exercise plan.
But I'm not the only one with this coin in the collection, maybe you'll admit it. Nevertheless, thank you for the criticism, it always strengthens me and convinces me that working on yourself is always important - thanks and I wish you health.
I have to add ,, It was just an example from our database and a form of communication,,
I hate the term "Aluminium-Bronze" as it implies a composition of Copper, Aluminium, and Tin or Copper, Aluminium, Tin, and Zinc. However, the actual composition ranges from 91% Copper, 8% Aluminium, and 1% Manganese to 92% Copper, 6% Aluminium, and 2% Nickel.
Master Coin Referee
Coin referee for CRI, GTM, HND, NIC, PAN, and SLV.
Revisor principal de monedas
Revisor de Numista para monedas de CRI, GTM, HND, NIC, PAN y SLV.
Quote: "Some_Nerd"I hate the term "Aluminium-Bronze" as it implies a composition of Copper, Aluminium, and Tin or Copper, Aluminium, Tin, and Zinc. However, the actual composition ranges from 91% Copper, 8% Aluminium, and 1% Manganese to 92% Copper, 6% Aluminium, and 2% Nickel.
Only because the term "bronze" is used for copper/tin alloys rather than the more descriptive term "tin bronze" since tin bronzes came first. To me it does not imply a copper-tin bronze with aluminum added. It implies to me a copper alloy with aluminum as the primary (sometimes only) alloying element.
Quote: "rsirian1"Only because the term "bronze" is used for copper/tin alloys rather than the more descriptive term "tin bronze" since tin bronzes came first. To me it does not imply a copper-tin bronze with aluminum added. It implies to me a copper alloy with aluminum as the primary (sometimes only) alloying element.
This assumes that the average Numista user knows these metallurgical terms. Most people will simply assume that Aluminium-Bronze means Aluminium, Copper, and Tin.
Master Coin Referee
Coin referee for CRI, GTM, HND, NIC, PAN, and SLV.
Revisor principal de monedas
Revisor de Numista para monedas de CRI, GTM, HND, NIC, PAN y SLV.
Quote: "rsirian1"Only because the term "bronze" is used for copper/tin alloys rather than the more descriptive term "tin bronze" since tin bronzes came first. To me it does not imply a copper-tin bronze with aluminum added. It implies to me a copper alloy with aluminum as the primary (sometimes only) alloying element.
This assumes that the average Numista user knows these metallurgical terms. Most people will simply assume that Aluminium-Bronze means Aluminium, Copper, and Tin.
Agree. Actual compositions should be added if known.
Status changed to Rejected(pejounet, 16 Mar 2022, 05:46)
). When the mints that produce the coins say they're nickel-silver that's what typically gets added as the composition in the catalogs. Some examples:
