Generic KM#?

Numista is using those non-existing numbers a lot, and forgot to add the real km# in the references as well. Today we have a limit of maximum 5 references per coin, so we're in another problem area.

Example

Cuba  5 centavos

N#1126

In numista it's having the non existing (generic) km#412, so I wanted to add the REAL km#412.1 and km#412.2, but that's not possible, since the coin already has 4 references, so only the km#412.1 can be accepted!

The References in the coin sheet are

KM# 412, JMA# MC4, JMA# MC5, Schön# 706.2

The poor referee (adanieluy) can do nothing, but to decline my CR, because of the 5 reference# clause.

As such I understand all the generic numbers, but please also give the real km# or allow them them to be included by upping the limit? I always seek by the coins REAL km# and not by a generic not existing number, evidently, no?

Maybe as an interim work around do this?  Wonder if this will work with search.

Hard to test for me, but try it with USA, $20 km74.1 / kmA74.1 since they are both under km74.1, which in this case is generic and real!!)! And those coins haven't been done yet, I think?

I thought you were talking about made-up numbers like 123a-1(13) or similar. 

There is absolutely nothing “generic” about the type number 412 and of course does it exist. 412.1, 412.2 etc are just variants of that type. It's like saying Europeans don't exist because there are Brits, French, Germans etc.

You can always find them when you search for KM#412.

Sjoelund

Hard to test for me, but try it with USA, $20 km74.1 / kmA74.1 since they are both under km74.1, which in this case is generic and real!!)! And those coins haven't been done yet, I think?

Not done yet.  Waiting for you to fix the 1861 Pacquet graphic.  😁

And you're right, KM# A74.1 will be added to references.

Idolenz

I thought you were talking about made-up numbers like 123a-1(13) or similar. 

There is absolutely nothing “generic” about the type number 412 and of course does it exist. 412.1, 412.2 etc are just variants of that type. It's like saying Europeans don't exist because there are Brits, French, Germans etc.

You can always find them when you search for KM#412.

Words only:

Here a search in the SCWC, containing REAL KM# for the 412 in Cuba, nothing found of course!

Here the search in the SCWC for the real KM#412.1 and of course it's found

Here the search for the real km#412.1 in numista and of course it's not found

So you have to look for a generic , non existing “KM#” like 412, and then i find the real 412.1 and 412.2 etc! Incredible?

It's completely illogic, isn't it? Hence my demand.

I'm not sure how you're searching KM (your screen shot doesn't show the search failing) but any text search for KM#412 must work since that text is present. What you really mean is that Numista is grouping 412.1, 412.2 and 412.3 on a single page (as we do on thousands of other pages) and, because text in yearlines in not searchable, the search on Numista fails. The proper solution is to make yearline comments searchable. The interim solution is to add text to the comments along the lines of:

There are three variants of this coin.

KM#412.1 Thick "5"

KM#412.2 Thin "5"

KM#412.3 Small “5”

The alternative is three separate pages (again something we do in many cases).

ceh2019

I'm not sure how you're searching KM (your screen shot doesn't show the search failing) but any text search for KM#412 must work since that text is present. What you really mean is that Numista is grouping 412.1, 412.2 and 412.3 on a single page (as we do on thousands of other pages) and, because text in yearlines in not searchable, the search on Numista fails. The proper solution is to make yearline comments searchable. The interim solution is to add text to the comments along the lines of:

 

There are three variants of this coin.

KM#412.1 Thick "5"

KM#412.2 Thin "5"

KM#412.3 Small “5”

 

The alternative is three separate pages (again something we do in many cases).

I know all that! I just want to get the real km# in the numista references (eventually also the generic) and that's it. Try to search the 412 in scwc and you'll get, as I, a stop (right bottom of screen at the end of the catalog(! Do you understand me?

rsirian1

Maybe as an interim work around do this?  Wonder if this will work with search.

 

I thought about this more and it won't work.  A km search for 412.1 will still work but a search for 412.2 won't work.  You'd have to use a wild card *412.2 which isn't helpful.

Sjoelund

I know all that! I just want to get the real km# in the numista references (eventually also the generic) and that's it. Try to search the 412 in scwc and you'll get, as I, a stop (right bottom of screen at the end of the catalog(! Do you understand me?

I'm afraid I don't have SCWC in pdf form, so I can't replicate your search. Nevertheless, the text “KM#412” is clearly present, so perhaps you are searching for the text as a separate word? My solution will work for searches in Numista until we can add more reference numbers or make the yearlines searchable.

I meant searching on Numista, I personally don't care what Adobe's search algorithm can or can not. My PDF reader finds it but that's beside the point, claiming a KM#412 doesn't exist is Cyprus level inanity.

Like I give a hoot about most countries variants and I would list this coin as a KM#412 in my filing system. Of course you can specify the variant .1, .2 or .3 but the main type is 412.

A long discussion and no end in sight, just allow 10 reference numbers, and we'll all be happy@ Simple, I would say, and we all get we want and that's a good thing.@

Personally I would like to see something like;

Reference | #1 | #2 | …

A : 51.1 | 51.2 | 51.3

B : 104 | 105 | 106

C : 17 | 17a | 17b

Or make it just a field per reference where you can separate #s with a ; 

Idolenz

Personally I would like to see something like;

Reference | #1 | #2 | …

A : 51.1 | 51.2 | 51.3

B : 104 | 105 | 106

C : 17 | 17a | 17b

Or make it just a field per reference where you can separate #s with a ; 

Not understood, no reference from #n to Capital letter.

I didn't want to draw a picture so I just used text. The letters just represent different reference cataloges, 

the |　| are boxes/fields for the different catalog numbers (those are made-up).

and how does that solve my initial problem?

You can add you variants and still have more references withoud adding the same catalog again and again, it would also be searchable for who ever searches for sub-reference numbers.

Have you tried, if it works? If it does, then the problem is kind of solved,

No, it doesn't work like that right now but that's why I said “Personally I would like to see something like”.

I also don't think that this is very far removed from the system we have right now and could be implemented relatively easy.

Idolenz

No, it doesn't work like that right now but that's why I said “Personally I would like to see something like”.

I also don't think that this is very far removed from the system we have right now and could be implemented relatively easy.

and I just want 10 references per Numista number? That's more realistic, no?

Why is there a limit of 5?  Does the entire catalog shut down if you can add as many as needed?  There's no limit to the number of Mints, so why references?  

I know Xavier was looking at this issue and it should be solved in the future in some way. (Range references, higher limit, references on year lines)

As for original question, we should not have generic numbers even though the refer to the type by common sense.

Jarcek

I know Xavier was looking at this issue and it should be solved in the future in some way. (Range references, higher limit, references on year lines)

 

As for original question, we should not have generic numbers even though the refer to the type by common sense.

Thanks Jarcek, , somebody from numista at last using common sense😉

When will numista augment the number?

Jarcek

I know Xavier was looking at this issue and it should be solved in the future in some way. (Range references, higher limit, references on year lines)

 

As for original question, we should not have generic numbers even though the refer to the type by common sense.

From what I've seen so far, references on year lines would probably help us solve the problem for Canada but adding 5 references to the 5 existing references would also help.

Best regards,

Idolenz

You can add you variants and still have more references withoud adding the same catalog again and again, it would also be searchable for who ever searches for sub-reference numbers.

I like this system a lot, several boxes for the same catalog. When the page is displayed now, it repeats the same reference name every time, and that doesn't make much sense. If the catalog is the same (eg Spanish notgeld banknotes),

 with the system proposed by Idolenz you could see something like this:

Turró# 2213 / 2214 / 2215 / 2217, N# 335570

This is a very hard to solve issue.

Out of the real/not real ref #s, the problem is that not all catalogues assign numbers with same rulers (and of course we all have seen Krause using different rules on the same variation).

I think current 5 ref #s are enough, if they can include all the variations.

Will explain to be clear:

We don't follow any catalogue classification for split or merge pages. That's great!

Mostly, we merge coins/notes that evidence to be from the same general design, variations may be different years, different dies (specially aged ones, for dies were hand-made, so variations are expected).

We know the most used catalog by everyone is Krause. We all know they have different rules to assign ref #s, and while they give same generic # in a case, they give different in others, with the same variation.

Now, I think is usual for collectors who “specialize” on certain countries, regions, eras, etc., they prefer to use the local catalogs, or the theme catalogs, since they have better information, and ussually more accurate than the world catalogues (Kruase, Yeoman, Schon, etc.).

I have seen in many cases, they tend to split more the #s, and on the Spanish speaking countries (may be in others too), they use to give the generic # based firstly on years (Argentina-Bottero, Janson; Cuba-Aledón; Brazil-Amato, Bentes; Colombia-Restrepo; Spain-Calicó; Uruguay-Silvera, Rotondaro, CG; etc.).

A few examples: 

Argentina 1 Centavo 1882-1896:
Krause: KM# 32, Janson: CJ# 38 to CJ#51, including 1885 variants CJ# 41.1, 41.2 and 41.3.

All are listed on the same Numista page., On Krause 1 Ref #; on Janson 13 Diiferent “Generic” Ref#s, or 15, with variants.

Cuba 

(example given by Ole at start of thread) 5 centavos 1981-1989:

Krause KM# 412.1, 412.2 and 412.3; Aledón JMA# MC4, MC5 (they consider KM# 412.1 and 412.2 the same, or didn't noticed the variation); Schön 706.2;

5 Centavos 1989:

Krause KM# 412.3a; not listed on Aledón, variation is different metal, steel instead of copper-nickel, and thin typography.

Diferent case:

10 Centavos Intur 1981:

Krause KM# 415.1; Aledón JMA# MC9;

10 Centavos Intur 1981-1989:

Krause KM# 415.2 (both years); Aledón JMA# MC10, only 1989, the other does not exist;

10 Centavos Intur 1989:

Krause KM# 415.2a; Aledón JMA# MC8;

10 Centavos Intur 1989:

Krause KM# 415.3; Aledón not listed.

Each one is a different Numista page.

First Cuban example has the problem that so far there are 6 different ref#s, and may be more (I have other local catalog, by Roberto Menchaca García. In this catalog doesn't assign ref #, but used Krause notation, they list 1 more variant, corresponding to KM# 412.3a. Taking into account the missing listings, would be a total of 9 or 10 variants (not sure if the separate con is the same for Schön, or it has a different ref.; also as shown ref is 706.2, I assume the variants may have different numbers or sub numbers; I don't have Schön, so I don't know their way of notation.

The second Cuban case is an alternative to have separated pages for each type of coin (simmilar to Krause style, they list separately sub types). This example has the problem that when a collector only is interested on coin types (not interested on variants), they would have several pages for each type instead of only one. If they register 415.1, then 415.2 and 415.3 will show as not having the coin. This also means collector needs to be aware of the variants, and check each page before knowing if they have or not their target made. In other words, when selecting “hide coins I have” will show as missing types they really have.

  My idea is to have 5 refferences, one for a different catalog, with the possibility of registering different numbers for each in same line, maybe separated with commas, slashes, or whatever may be used, and the searh be made towards included ref. (would look for something between a space and a comma; Xavier would find the correct way for the search).

In the case of Argentina example, they could have:

KM# 32 (searching for KM# 32 will find it)

CJ# 38, 39, 40, 41.1, 41.2, 41.3, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51 (searching by 38, or 40, or 41, or 4.2, will find it)

In the case of Cuban 5 cents, refs list would show as:

KM# 415, 415.1, 415.2, 415.3, 415.3a (generic “415” may be avoided or included, depending of the programming parameters)

JMA# MC4, MC5

Schön# 706.2 (etc.)

Hope this idea may help to decide how to solve this problem. Any additions to improve it will be welcome, for sure.

I'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing.

I ask for more than 5 references from the SAME catalog, and you seem to talk about MAXIMUM five different catalogs?

Sjoelund

 

I ask for more than 5 references from the SAME catalog, and you seem to talk about MAXIMUM five different catalogs?

I think he's suggesting allowing 5 different catalogs with unlimited reference numbers for each.  Something like this:

Might be, but it's not clear. If it's the case, then why split it up at all? Just allow 10, 15 or more references of any source, and it's done?

Sjoelund

Might be, but it's not clear. If it's the case, then why split it up at all? Just allow 10, 15 or more references of any source, and it's done?

Really no reason to limit the number of catalogs. 99% of the time there will be 5 or fewer.  I like the format of listing the catalog once then all the numbers associated with it.  Much cleaner than this:

Sjoelund

I'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing.

 

I ask for more than 5 references from the SAME catalog, and you seem to talk about MAXIMUM five different catalogs?

No, I'm not limiting the catalogs; I thin if adding more reference lines, making list of numbers for each catalog could work fine, I guess not many coins or notes would need to have more than 5 different catalogs mentioned. How many WORLD catalogues exist?; how many local catalogs may be at a country? I don't think there will be many coins or banknotes on over 5 different books. 

Please think of some coins with loads of ref #s, but in few catalogs:

Examples: México 8 Reales (JML - Insurgent countermarked coinage) (1811-1822) 12 different variants on Krause,

Argentina 1 Centavo 1882-1896 15 different variants on Janson,

Spain ½ Real - Ferdinand V and Isabella I (Segovia) (1497-1566)  11 different variants on Calicó,

Uruguay  2 Centésimos 1943-1951 8 different variants on Silvera Antúnez.

Uruguay (banknote) 50 Centésimos (Law of Aug. 14th., 1935) (1937)  20 different variants on Rotondaro

I bet same happens in many other countries, specially on aged coins and notes

I don't know how the Numista web works, is very possible adding more ref #s be hard to implement, otherwise it may have been done already, but searching for a reference included in a line, maybe easier to do (currently you can search for a piece of text on lettering, or part of a country name, so it is possible, and maybe is not needed to modify database structure, but only the routine for searching it.

Again, on your example of Cuban coin:

You may have 

Catalog/refference

KM# 412, 412.1, 412.2, 412.3, 412.3a

JMA# MC4, MC5 

Schön# 706, 706.2

You may search: KM# 412 = will give you the pages having 412 in it (all of them); 

KM# 412.2 = will return only that coin;

KM# 412.3 = will return Km# 412.3 and 412.3a

Schön# 706 = will return all with “706” generic number (I'm not sure if in this case generic number is about a single coin with variants, or a series. This is cause On ROT (Rotondaro catalog) they use XX.YY.ZZ format, where  XX is a series of notes, like all printed on 1935 batch; then YY is the face value, and ZZ is the variant; maybe different series letter, different year, or different signatures combination). I guess using the way I suggest will give us a larger (maybe unlimited) refference numbers on each catalog, with at least 5 different catalogs to list.

Hope now is more clear.

I do agree with you, but it should be understood (based on your example) that :

If the numista catalog has the km412.1 km412.2 km412.3 and so on are mentioned only in the year lines, you'll still get all the  km412 (generic) coins, but I'm OK with that. Numista will not show only the relevant year lines.

I'll show you a case, where a “broad” generic number search would be rather helpful. The other day I helped to add reverse texts in some Canadian coins and remembered a way KM used for the numbers for Canada and maybe also for other countries, since it's completely adhering to the KM-rules for creating numbers!

Take KM480, a 25 cents with 3 different alloys

KM184 Ni

KM184a Ag

KM184b Fe-Ni

Now when I search for km184 I only get km184, which is logical as is. If I want to see km184a or b, I will have to launch a new search for each.

You might (I can) argue, that the KM184 is a generic KM#, which also should include KM184a and KM184b, which should also be found by the search KM#184?

Personally I would like to have the option for using "generic" searches, either in the standard search or maybe as a parameter option in your profile.

search with 184* will find all three.

rsirian1

search with 184* will find all three.

Good idea. Not only the three, but all coins from Canada with the string “184” somewhere in the km#. Never thought about that it would work, so I never even tried. My fault again.