You can submit modification to the page or create the separate pages. PM the referee directly for this.
Sapientiae plerumque stultitia est comes.
Si c'est un grand plaisir d'être reconnu par ses amis, c'est peut-être encore plus flatteur d'être reconnu par ses adversaires.
Be yourself; everyone else is already taken.
At first sight, the one obvious split is between copper and bronze. It seems from the prices that these weren't regular strikes but they should have their own page.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Quote: "pejounet"You can submit modification to the page or create the separate pages. PM the referee directly for this.
Hi, I know I can do that, but I cannot decide the detail of the split up, can I?
Ole
That's why I mentioned to directly PM referee on this.
From above post I understand you suggest a split by KM# so somewhat "basic" request. If it is something else, add details on the post about the proposed way.
Sapientiae plerumque stultitia est comes.
Si c'est un grand plaisir d'être reconnu par ses amis, c'est peut-être encore plus flatteur d'être reconnu par ses adversaires.
Be yourself; everyone else is already taken.
Quote: "Sjoelund"Because most collectors have their coins organized by km#. If you don't have the km#, what would a "type" collector be? One type = One KM#!
It's an interesting notion but I wonder if it's true? I've never relied upon KM or Pick since they are so inconsistent. Has a survey ever been carried out among members on this question?
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Quote: "Sjoelund"I suppose Numista uses the km# as a basis for counting the types, but of course I cannot be sure?
For me, the problem is what is a single KM#? In the example we're looking at here, is there a single KM number, 5, or are there four, 5.1, 5.1a, 5.2 and 5.3? Personally (and of course this is inevitably subjective), I'd say 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 are sub-types and 5.1a is a distinct type because of the metal change. Where Numista is currently falling down is not including the full KM# in the year lines. Then, at least, those who see four types can get the information they need.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
I don't know if this answers your question, before this was all in one article with the km# indicated in the year lines, now it has been split up, I think.
Hello everyone, the debate opened by Ole is interesting as well as the comments and opinions provided here. I would like to be able to point out some point.
1. It has been commented here how to establish different KM. The KM are codes given by a certain Catalog (Krause), without a doubt the catalog with the greatest relevance worldwide (with its errors, obviously) within the numismatic world, so the different KM are already established in that catalog and neither Numista nor any other numismatic catalog should modify them. In terms of its nomenclature, the KM#5.1 is different from the KM#5.2, regardless of whether at Numista we consider both KMs to be the same type. KM#5 does not exist in Belgium, so using KM#5 as a reference would not be appropriate. Whenever possible and there is not an excessive amount of KM allocated, each individual page of Numista should reflect all the KM that is reflected in it.
2. Numista, as an independent catalogue, can and should have a criterion when it comes to establishing what is a new type of coin and, therefore, a different page in our catalogue. The criterion can group several KM with different numbering, but always respecting this numbering (both in the Reference box and in each year line for different KM)
That said, in this case I think that all the different KM should be reflected in the reference box and reflected in each year line the KM assigned to each line (KM#5.1, 5.2 and 5.3) and separate in another different type, following Numista's criteria, KM#5.1a, since there is a change of material.
Coin referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Liberia and Spain
Banknote referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea and Spain
When I visit an "assembled" coin, I normally add the subnumbers to the reference list, which should have been there from the beginning, but it's never too late, is it?
The type collectors should really be happy and stand behind this, since the type counter will go up, when the assembled numbers get split up in some cases..... I don't collect by types, but years, mintmarks and variants, but of course I still get a type counter (for the moment 11.480) free by numista
I understand Sjoelund's reaction to the KM number. That's why the subtypes are explained in the comments field. I don't think that too much importance should be attached to the SCWC, too many errors and imprecision. Personally I know many Belgian coin collectors, but none of them use the SCWC as a reference. It is maybe better not to overload the date lines with information that can be included in the comments field. And if the date lines should have a subtype number, it should be the Morin ones.
Referee for Luxembourg, Belgium, Germany 1871-1948, Prussia, Brandenburg, Nassau
I'm not Belgian, but I do collect all the Belgian coins by km# and km-sub#. I don't have a Belgian catalog, like most non Belgian collectors, so I stick to the KM#, which is all I have since I started my collection decades ago!
