Request to merge 6 Groszy 1650-1668 from Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth into a single consolidated Numista entry [solved]

Hi,

I suggest merging all these mint-separated Numista coin entires for 6 Groszy from Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth 1650-1668 into a single coin type where all these mint marks will be taken into account:

N#168265

N#168272

N#168268

N#168267

They are all of the same design and inscriptions and differe only in mint marks on the reverse like TBL, GBA, AT et. 

Thank you!

Alex

I'm against it. I don't see any benefits from having pages with about 100 year/type lines.

The approach that Polish referee has chosen is quite balanced (I may add that this is probably the best country catalog on Numista). And the coins also differ by design.

if you want to merge something, it is better to start with this: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/index.php?e=france&r=Double+Tournois+-+Louis+XIII&ct=coin&tb=y&tc=y&tn=y&tp=y&tt=y&cat=y&ru=&ca=3&no=&v=&i=&b=&d=&u=&a=&dg=&m=&f=&t=&w=&mt=&g=&se=&c=&wi=&sw=

You can also reduce them quite a lot because without the catalog most of the lines are quite useless.

Idolenz

You can also reduce them quite a lot because without the catalog most of the lines are quite useless.

Would you make this job?

And would you substitute the referee that mayprobably leave his post after his great job that he did spending plenty of hours will be destroyed by such request? At least I'd left my post and would never make catalog improvements in case my job would be destroyed such way.

UPD: people who collect such coins have a catalog. Even I have it because it may be downloaded online. 

Also referee proposed a way how to show each variety (in comments)

Personally no, and I am glad I don't have to use the part of the catalog because I couldn't use it for the life of me. 

Much work went into it that's for sure but to me it looks like it's a straight up copy of Kopicki, which contains many unproven entries the author simply put in without verification (I read this on multiple different forums). Most of the titles are/were (like I said I don't visit this part often) completely in Polish, countless coins are doubles from other parts of the catalog simply because they are listed in Kopicki and  the lines aren't explained like we are supposed to do.

Using specialised catalogs is a but-load of work to guarantee the accessibility for normal users.

We didn't get that here, what we got are a bunch of translated place names for mints for some reason.

Not caring to much if something gets merged or not, I am just not a fan of spot the difference with dozens of similar entries were you just got some pictures of more similar entries.

/rant

@Grinya 

Well, as I can see you have made a mess for Russian Empire coins listing them by numerous mints and now protecting the same controversial approach for Polish-Lithuaninan coinage. 

Yes, the same applies to French coinage where French referees are also reluctant to change the approach and do not list major types, instead they list everything by minor details like mints (although the coins are of teh same design).

Regarding this particular 6 Grosch coin, can you decide which type you have by those just numerous Kopicki numbers without any additional info??? It is just useless in the way it is organized now.

As you can see from the screenshot - the design is the same, the same lettering and the rest, the only difference is those mint letters like TBL, TLB, GBA, AT, TLB, NG, TT,  ACPT.

And these mint marks sometimes even represent different mints like “TBL” at the same time.

How do you determine this for your coin if you are not a specialits in Polish-Lithuanian coinage and if you do not have Kopicki catalog by hand??? Moreover it is in the Polish language. For a usual or casual collector (not an advanced and specialist one) marking his/her coin based on the major design is just enough. Finding and determining your coin you have has to be easy on Numista and should not mean that you must be an expert in some particular coingae period. 

And within the major coin entry you can dump as much detailed info as possible, I am not against it, it is very nice to have all those details collected and described in minute details. But we have to strive to make Numista a comfortable place for both types of collectors - novice/casual, regular and expert/specialist, comprehensive and each type of collector should be able to find everything that suits his/her needs.

And the way now Polish-Lithuanian coingae is listed mostly is targeted at only specialized Polish collectors who know Polish, who have Kopicki catalog and who care about all those minor details. Again, it is quite okay and all these Kopicki numbers, illustration of varieties, etc must be on Numista - but WITHIN the major type entry. This way all those who are not specialist will find it easy for them to find and mark their coin, especially taken into account the fact that we have this nice option when adding any item (coin or banknote or exonumia) as “Undertermined”, meaning that you can mark your item as matching the major type listed and come back again for more research to determine the exact details later.

The same about Russian Empire coinage! If Krause catalogs did list some countries or periods breaking them by mints does not mean that we must copy this approach here on Numista. If we list augmented major types only based on different designs does not mean that all those expert collectors will not have their details, they will have them - but within major types. So as to say we will have the best of two worlds.

Thank you!

Alex

Idolenz

countless coins are doubles from other parts of the catalog simply because they are listed in Kopicki and  the lines aren't explained like we are supposed to do.

 

 I am just not a fan of spot the difference with dozens of similar entries were you just got some pictures of more similar entries.

 

Exactly, I fully agree. It is a nightmare to determine which even major type you have, lines without explanation and just Kopicki numbers. Let us merge/augment all these entries into something more usable like major types and list all the details within them.

A couple of more examples, all this is just useless until you have Kopicki catalog and know Polish or have a specialized Górecki catalog for Półtorak coins or Cezary Wolski for 1 Solid copper coins (so called Burattini)

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/index.php?e=pologne_lituanie_section&r=&ct=coin&im1=&im2=&tb=y&tc=y&tn=y&tp=y&tt=y&cat=y&ru=&ca=3&no=&v=1.5&i=&b=&d=&u=&a=&dg=1612-1627&m=&f=&t=&w=&mt=&g=&se=&c=&wi=&sw=#

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/index.php?e=pologne_lituanie_section&r=&ct=coin&im1=&im2=&tb=y&tc=y&tn=y&tp=y&tt=y&cat=y&ru=&ca=3&no=&v=1.5&i=&b=&d=&u=&a=1614&dg=&m=&f=&t=&w=&mt=&g=&se=&c=&wi=&sw=

gebikimame2017

Hi,

 

I suggest merging all these mint-separated Numista coin entires for 6 Groszy from Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth 1650-1668 into a single coin type where all these mint marks will be taken into account:

 

N#168265

N#168272

N#168268

N#168267

 

They are all of the same design and inscriptions and differe only in mint marks on the reverse like TBL, GBA, AT et. 

 

Thank you!

 

Alex

Please look more closely and check your last statement… 

Having already created them like this, I disagree to consolidate them.  

However, we can always make modifications (for example in the comments section) to make a listing more helpful and user friendly.  

For example, the mintmaster initials and portrait determine the mint.  So we could add more in the comments section on this.  

I agree the long list of dates and Kopicki references would be more useful if more photos were added.  It is a collaborative catalog, so you could help with this if you want.

I collect PLC.  I do not speak Polish.  And I do not own Kopicki.  

tdziemia

 

I agree the long list of dates and Kopicki references would be more useful if more photos were added.  

Well, having images to illustrate every Kopicki number is not enough, we must state clearly and descriptively for each line what is the key difference between numerous lines/numbers. More detailed info must be included so that every collector could easily determine his coin.

BUT again all this info has to be within a single major entry, it is bad practice to break the same type of the coin into numerous sub-types based only on the difference of the mint mark letters/privy marks. The key when listing a coin as a separate Numista entry (major type) is teh design, composition, weight, etc BUT not minor minute details like mint marks. 

@gebikimame2017,

I haven't made “a mess” in the Russian catalogue, it was done before me:)

And this is not a mess - the mess is when you have 100 year/mint lines within one page.

I don't agree that Numista shall be developed to fit needs only of “a usual or casual collector (not an advanced and specialist one)”. This approach wouldn't allow people who want to dig into some topic more deeply use Numista, while in the current situation “usual or casual collector” can simply add his coin as "Undetermined" and be happy with this.

And yes, I could define the type of my 6 Groszy coin. Also I could define types of some of my solidus by comparing them with photos in comment sections of Polish catalog on Numista, this is much easier then compare them with Kopicki.

And the last question: are you ready to do the job of merging these pages, or your proposal is that Polish-Lithovian referee shall delete what he has been doing for some years?

@Idolenz, 

yes, the Kopicki catalog is not ideal, as well as any other catalog of medieval coins, but some catalog shall be a good start for Numista catalogisation anyway. You need to base a Numista classification on some catalog to avoid a mess… 

For the Golden Horde silver coins classification I, first of all, use Sagdeeva catalog that hardly contains even half of the coins types, also has some mistakes etc. But this is anyway the best way to start a classification while some corrections may be done after this.

Grinya

 

I don't agree that Numista shall be developed to fit needs only of “a usual or casual collector (not an advanced and specialist one)”. 

You took me completely wrong! I didi not articulate this at all. If you look at my posts earlier I wrote the following:

“But we have to strive to make Numista a comfortable place for both types of collectors - novice/casual, regular and expert/specialist, comprehensive and each type of collector should be able to find everything that suits his/her needs.”

Also I wrote that I am not against any detailed info, any catalogs and catalogization - it is very welcome BUT we must do that within major coin type Numista entries.

Regarding Polish-Lithuanian coinage listing we have now - yes, the issue here is that it was done wrong from the very start, the referee had to follow Numista catalog rules and list major types only as with the rest of coins and banknotes on Numista (except for French and partly Russian) and as a result all this hard work probably spanning over a couple of years seems to be wasted and rather worthless now and must be re-done in a proper way anyway.

Have a look at Colnect platform, for example, it has become a complete mess with everything (stamps, coins, banknotes), they divide everything into countless sub-sub-sub-types and this is where Numista is heading after all making a mess and becoming a resource that will only attract the most advanced collectors specializing in some areas. This is not a good tendency to my mind. We must strictly follow the Numista catalog structure - list only major types based on the major characteristics (design, composition, weight, etc.) what is laid out in Numista guidelines section for catalog admins. Instead now we have the situation when we have numerous Numista admins and each of them administrates his batch of regions he is responsible for in the way he considers as the best, so we have some chaos and inconsistency resulting in the fact that there are both “correct” (followed by guidelines) listings where we list only major types and “incorrect" listings where every major type is broken down into countless sub-types based on minor details like mint marks.

I think we need more strict rules to force onto admins so that they all follow the same approach and coordinate between each other, otherwise we are steadily heading to complete chaos in the end.

I haven't developed an opinion about whether those four listings should be combined.

But if they aren't combined then each should be added as links from the others to make the connection obvious.

…And (addressed to the original poster)  AT and TLB are NOT mint marks of Krakow, so I will work with the referee to clarify what these symbols mean in the comments section, and also to implement bjherbison's suggestion of cross-referencing the different mints.

I agree that it is always a difficult question of when to split mints on older coins like these.  Polish coins during this reign are very messy with initials and symbols of local mint officials, the crown treasurer and others appearing on coins of all the crown mints (Krakow, Poznan, Bydgoszcz, Lwow and Wschowa).

@gebikimame2017,

This is an endless dispute between rules/standardisation and usability. I'm for usability, in case a page has ~100 years AND variety lines, it shall definitely be splitted (in case this is not a Swiss coin that was minted 100+ years). The rules shall have reasonable exemptions, and this particular 4 pages are very reasonable splitted

Okay, probably you also have some sense when saying this. Then if not merging into a consolidated entry - it would be nice if the listings could be improved by adding additional info for each line/Kopicki number so that User could easily distinguish between all the numerous varieties and could determine the mint easily and following some logical algorithm whihc must be added to the description. Otherwise it would be nstill better to merge all the separate mint entries into a single major type.

gebikimame2017

Okay, probably you also have some sense when saying this. Then if not merging into a consolidated entry - it would be nice if the listings could be improved by adding additional info for each line/Kopicki number so that User could easily distinguish between all the numerous varieties and could determine the mint easily and following some logical algorithm whihc must be added to the description. Otherwise it would be nstill better to merge all the separate mint entries into a single major type.

+1

From my point of view, a yearline description should never be just a reference number.

Numista must be usable even for users who dont have each reference book. Surely a true description can be added.

I also agree. Feel free to create a modification request and add these descriptions to the mentioned pages!

gebikimame2017

Okay, probably you also have some sense when saying this. Then if not merging into a consolidated entry - it would be nice if the listings could be improved by adding additional info for each line/Kopicki number so that User could easily distinguish between all the numerous varieties and could determine the mint easily and following some logical algorithm whihc must be added to the description. Otherwise it would be nstill better to merge all the separate mint entries into a single major type.

These are reasonable improvement recommendations, and some of these changes are being implemented.  

- In the comments section, there is a sort of “headline” about all the symbols on the coins and what they mean, and which ones can be used to definitively determine the mint

- For many of the varieties, the Kopicki number is also given a description of what makes it different

- For some varieties, a photo is provided.

Here is an example with the changes you suggest:   Szóstak / 6 Groszy - Jan II Kazimierz Waza (Kraków mint) - Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth – Numista 

It is a lot of work, and still in progress.

Thank you so much for the added info! But I think we also need to add this descriptive info for each line in the way it is done throughout Numista.