Moving cardboard coins to banknote section or removing cardboard coins from banknote section. [solved]

Hi,

i have notice that some cardboard coins are put in the banknote section while some are in coin section. Can someone could explain to me why ?  ie this one :N#103129

ok, you say that some guy wrote a catalog in 2006 saying that this is not a coin but banknote. Ok, no argue with this, we can wrote anything we want. But what says other catalogs ? Like gadoury for notgelds ? What says other catalogs where simmilar items are ? Like Spanish German catalogs  etc? numista now move french cardboard coins to banknote section while  Belgian,Spanish German cardboard coins are in coin section,  can someone tell me the difference ?

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/index.php?r=&ct=coin&im1=&im2=&tb=y&tc=y&tn=y&tp=y&tt=y&cat=y&ru=&ca=3&no=&v=&i=&b=&d=&u=&a=&dg=&m=24&f=&t=&w=&mt=&g=&se=&c=&wi=&sw=  

I think it should be decided  one way or another

https://en.numista.com/forum/topic129761.html

Regards,

Damian

Damian, cardboard coins should be under ‘Banknotes’, in my opinion.

Aidan.

BCNumismatics

Damian, cardboard coins should be under ‘Banknotes’, in my opinion.

 

Aidan.

I dont have issue with this. All cardboard should be in Banknotes or in Coin section. Right now some are in banknotes and some in coins.

Aidan, one thing that im wondering  is that we have ie 10 catalogs saying that cardboard coin are coin and 1 catalog say its a banknote. So who is right ? Even french dont know. Cgb.fr says its banknote numiscorner its a coin. Ma-shops says its a coin and at the same time its a banknote. Maybe this one catalog is correct and rest 10 are wrong, i dont know, what i know is that we need clarify what to do in numista catalog. One way or another. You cant have a cookie and eat the cookie. 

Regards,

Damian 

Round should be coin and square banknote, it’s that easy.

We should start with an accurate definition of what a coin is.

Indomini16

Round should be coin and square banknot, it’s that easy.

I'd put it a different way, but probably almost the same in practice:

• Manufactured to be folded repeatedly and not break: Banknote.
• Easily broken if folded: Coin.

The small round cardboard pieces of money I've seen would be unusable if regularly folded. The small items thin enough to be folded without immediate damage have been rectangular.

The guidelines state that a coin is “A rigid piece of material that has a determined value (denomination) within a currency system.”

So if we follow it they should all be coins (if the cardboard is rigid indeed, ofc)

The only reason to do a round shape is to imitate a coin so a round cardboard banknote is actually a coin. I dare to think there is no round flexible banknote.

I just had a look and there is a lot … Cardboard banknotes and at least these ones need to move to coins.

I think this should be sort it out. We cant have  half in coins and half in notes.  One way or another.

On antoher thread Zegeri suggested this : 

1.- Rigid material → coin

2.- Flexible material → banknote

3.- Cardboard →  proposing:

3.1.- Round/oval shape → coin

3.2.- Rectangular shape → banknote

I'm fine with it. WDYT?

Compendium

On antoher thread Zegeri suggested this : 

 

1.- Rigid material → coin

2.- Flexible material → banknote

3.- Cardboard →  proposing:

3.1.- Round/oval shape → coin

3.2.- Rectangular shape → banknote

 

I'm fine with it. WDYT?

All sounds good.

As an example, in the context of the Irish Ballykinlar tokens - circular card tokens which were produced by the internees in Ballykinlar internment camp in 1921 - the tokens themselves were described by their creators as ‘coins’.

Compendium

On antoher thread Zegeri suggested this : 

 

1.- Rigid material → coin

2.- Flexible material → banknote

3.- Cardboard →  proposing:

3.1.- Round/oval shape → coin

3.2.- Rectangular shape → banknote

 

I'm fine with it. WDYT?

For me also sounds good. All have sense.

doc_man

Compendium

On antoher thread Zegeri suggested this : 

 

1.- Rigid material → coin

2.- Flexible material → banknote

3.- Cardboard →  proposing:

3.1.- Round/oval shape → coin

3.2.- Rectangular shape → banknote

 

I'm fine with it. WDYT?

For me also sounds good. All have sense.

Fully agree.

Ok, then I must move all the round/oval cardboards pieces of the Spanish Notgeld Banknote catalog to Spanish Notgeld Coins catalog, is that ok?

oynbcn

Ok, then I must move all the round/oval cardboards pieces of the Spanish Notgeld Banknote catalog to Spanish Notgeld Coins catalog, is that ok?

Yes

If you have courage you can also do requests for non spain ones :-)

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/index.php?r=&ct=banknote&im1=&im2=&tbb=y&tbc=y&tbl=y&tbt=y&cat=y&ru=&ca=931&no=&v=&i=&b=&ib=&ie=&u=&a=&dg=&m=&f=103&t=&t2=&mt=&g=&se=&d=&c=&wi=&sw=

Compendium

If you have courage you can also do requests for non spain ones :-)

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/index.php?r=&ct=banknote&im1=&im2=&tbb=y&tbc=y&tbl=y&tbt=y&cat=y&ru=&ca=931&no=&v=&i=&b=&ib=&ie=&u=&a=&dg=&m=&f=103&t=&t2=&mt=&g=&se=&d=&c=&wi=&sw=

I will pick those ones

Ok, I'll do the spanish ones this weekend 😉

Jarcek

doc_man

Compendium

On antoher thread Zegeri suggested this : 

 

1.- Rigid material → coin

2.- Flexible material → banknote

3.- Cardboard →  proposing:

3.1.- Round/oval shape → coin

3.2.- Rectangular shape → banknote

 

I'm fine with it. WDYT?

For me also sounds good. All have sense.

Fully agree.

Can you edit the guideline accordingly?

Following a feedback from a referee, it seems alignment is not complete here, so I'd like to restate the issue and list 2 solutions to get a better sense of who would like what.

Issue

The guidelines state that a coin is a rigid material whereas a banknote is a flexible material; but cardboard is  kind of ambiguous, and we currently have it both listed as coins (70 items) and banknotes (26 round items + 3 oval items).

Solution 1

Consider that round cardboard items should be listed as coins, as they're not intended to be folded and are designed to look like coins > vote YES if you think it makes sense.

Solution 2

Consider any cardboard item, whatever its shape, should be listed as banknote, as they're not really “rigid” > vote NO if you think it makes sense.

Make sure to continue this thread to share any additional thought, ofc. Thanks!

PS: I voluntarily exclude rectangular cardboard items of the discussion; they are currently only in banknotes (412 items + 4 square ones)

PS2: amongst other possible mix was suggested to differentiate printed/milled cardboard items; seemed less obvious to me but don't hesitate to present other suggestions like this one in thread too!

I recently purchased a collection of Agatha Christie books from Amazon. The books arrived in a cardboard box. They are cheap paperback books.

Paper books, with cardboard covers in a cardboard box / Livres de papier, avec couvertures de papier, dans une boîte de carton.

The meaning of this phrase is lost in English and French, but it makes sense in Spanish. We have three different words for the three thicknesses of paper: papel, cartulina, cartón vs paper, cardboard, cardboard vs papier, papier, carton.

In the message of my proposal that Compendium has brought here, I warned that was only talking about thick cardboard (the material of Amazon's box). Not paper (the pages of the books) or thin cardboard (the books covers), which are flexible materials and therefore banknotes according the Guidelines.

zegeri

I recently purchased a collection of Agatha Christie books from Amazon. The books arrived in a cardboard box. They are cheap paperback books.

 

Paper books, with cardboard covers in a cardboard box / Livres de papier, avec couvertures de papier, dans une boîte de carton.

The meaning of this phrase is lost in English and French, but it makes sense in Spanish. We have three different words for the three thicknesses of paper: papel, cartulina, cartón vs paper, cardboard, cardboard vs papier, papier, carton.

In the message of my proposal that Compendium has brought here, I warned that was only talking about thick cardboard (the material of Amazon's box). Not paper (the pages of the books) or thin cardboard (the books covers), which are flexible materials and therefore banknotes according the Guidelines.

Yes me too (french language bias), thanks for the precision!

I thought that the decision had already been made, based on the aforementioned criteria, which is why I already began to transfer these round/oval pieces of cardboard to the coin catalogue. 

Even so, my vote would still be NO. My explanation is that if we consider a piece of rectangular printed cardboard as a banknote, just because the shape is round, it should not be considered different. The material is still not totally rigid (cardboard (thin or thick never is), and the printing method is the usual one for banknotes at that time, it is not a milled (or other) minting process as in rigid metal coins.

So for me, this round cardboard pieces are still banknotes.

If we follow Krause's criterion (we don't have to), only those that are metallic are mentioned as coins from this period. If we follow the criteria of specialized catalogs (we don't have to) in the case of Spanish Notgeld, they are described as circular banknotes printed in printers. But if in the end the difference is going to be made only by the shape (round cardboard are coins and rectangular cardboard are banknotes), then in the field of shape in the notes, let's leave only the rectangular and square shapes.

Of course there are different thicknesses of cardboard mainly are 1mm ,3mm 5mm. it's not really a naming issue. At numista we have cardboard so lets use it. Yes, you have different cardboard thickness. You have hard cover of the book or pages of the book. Do any of you have a cardboard coin/banknote? Well, i have and i can tell you its rigid. Not like a hard cover book, not like dhl envelope ( in my opinion dhl envelope is flexible) If we look for modern comparison i would tell its like a shoe box. If i rolled up the dhl envelope it will go back to its original state. If I did the same with my coin, it would be destroyed or bent like coins.

oynbcn

My explanation is that if we consider a piece of rectangular printed cardboard as a banknote, just because the shape is round, it should not be considered different. The material is still not totally rigid (cardboard (thin or thick never is), and the printing method is the usual one for banknotes at that time, it is not a milled (or other) minting process as in rigid metal coins.

You are mixing two different issues. One is that cardboard is a semi-rigid/semi-flexible material. The other is the manufacturing method.

You can maintain that semi-rigid materials to be considered flexible and then banknotes in Numista. There is no problem with the Guidelines and I would agree, probably many others too.

But if you say that the criterion is the manufacturing method, no. You can find counterexamples of all kinds on cardboard, printed coins, milled banknotes, paper and plastic printed and glued to a rigid material. Anything you can think of, someone in Niue or Palau has already done it and in full color.

zegeri

oynbcn

My explanation is that if we consider a piece of rectangular printed cardboard as a banknote, just because the shape is round, it should not be considered different. The material is still not totally rigid (cardboard (thin or thick never is), and the printing method is the usual one for banknotes at that time, it is not a milled (or other) minting process as in rigid metal coins.

You are mixing two different issues. One is that cardboard is a semi-rigid/semi-flexible material. The other is the manufacturing method.

You can maintain that semi-rigid materials to be considered flexible and then banknotes in Numista. There is no problem with the Guidelines and I would agree, probably many others too.

But if you say that the criterion is the manufacturing method, no. You can find counterexamples of all kinds on cardboard, printed coins, milled banknotes, paper and plastic printed and glued to a rigid material. Anything you can think of, someone in Niue or Palau has already done it and in full color.

Yes, you are right in manufacturing method. For me is not problem at all, let's do like Zeggeri proposed, I think is the best option. 

doc_man

Of course there are different thicknesses of cardboard mainly are 1mm ,3mm 5mm. it's not really a naming issue. At numista we have cardboard so lets use it. Yes, you have different cardboard thickness. You have hard cover of the book or pages of the book. Do any of you have a cardboard coin/banknote? Well, i have and i can tell you its rigid. Not like a hard cover book, not like dhl envelope ( in my opinion dhl envelope is flexible) If we look for modern comparison i would tell its like a shoe box. If i rolled up the dhl envelope it will go back to its original state. If I did the same with my coin, it would be destroyed or bent like coins.

Sorry, but I have some cardboard coin/banknote and I can tell you is flexible. What Zeggeri comments is important, and yes, it is a naming issue, and with what you comment we have just verified it. You have cardboard pieces that are not flexible and I have cardboard pieces that are flexible, so the same word is being used for different materials. That is a problem.

When I look for spanish "cartulina" in Wikipedia and then change to english version, it came this:

"Card stock, also called cover stock and pasteboard, is paper that is thicker and more durable than normal writing and printing paper, but thinner and more flexible than other forms of paperboard.

Card stock is often used for business cards, postcards, playing cards, catalogue covers, scrapbooking, and other applications requiring more durability than regular paper gives."

Well, paper money in Numista made with “this material” (at least in the Spanish Notgeld section) is called cardboard.

Maybr we can have in Numista two options: Thick cardboard (mostly rigid) and thin carboard (more flexible)

oynbcn

doc_man

Of course there are different thicknesses of cardboard mainly are 1mm ,3mm 5mm. it's not really a naming issue. At numista we have cardboard so lets use it. Yes, you have different cardboard thickness. You have hard cover of the book or pages of the book. Do any of you have a cardboard coin/banknote? Well, i have and i can tell you its rigid. Not like a hard cover book, not like dhl envelope ( in my opinion dhl envelope is flexible) If we look for modern comparison i would tell its like a shoe box. If i rolled up the dhl envelope it will go back to its original state. If I did the same with my coin, it would be destroyed or bent like coins.

Sorry, but I have some cardboard coin/banknote and I can tell you is flexible. What Zeggeri comments is important, and yes, it is a naming issue, and with what you comment we have just verified it. You have cardboard pieces that are not flexible and I have cardboard pieces that are flexible, so the same word is being used for different materials. That is a problem.

Agree, i have verify only on one item and this does not refer to other items which can be more or less flexible. How to distinguish which one should be banknote or a coin ?

…. and I have now in the coin section items where the composition is not specified. Paper ? Cardboard ? I don't know. 

And  : 3.1.- Round/oval shape → coin

… what's about token?!?

I am not very happy with transfer from one section to another without validation of the referee who receive the item. 

katermurr

…. and I have now in the coin section items where the composition is not specified. Paper ? Cardboard ? I don't know. 

 

And  : 3.1.- Round/oval shape → coin

… what's about token?!?

 

I am not very happy with transfer from one section to another without validation of the referee who receive the item. 

 

 

Yes, fully agree. For example, I have a personal excel control of all the pieces in the catalog part of which I am the referee, and in that table I write down the data that is missing or if the information is complete. If pieces enter without the validation (or at least the knowledge) of the referee, this control becomes very complicated.

I said it before; in my opinion it is quite simple:
   A coin, no matter the material it is made of, is struck or pressed which gives it a kind of relief.
   A banknote is printed with ink, maybe in differnt colors.

oynbcn

katermurr

…. and I have now in the coin section items where the composition is not specified. Paper ? Cardboard ? I don't know. 

 

And  : 3.1.- Round/oval shape → coin

… what's about token?!?

 

I am not very happy with transfer from one section to another without validation of the referee who receive the item. 

 

 

Yes, fully agree. For example, I have a personal excel control of all the pieces in the catalog part of which I am the referee, and in that table I write down the data that is missing or if the information is complete. If pieces enter without the validation (or at least the knowledge) of the referee, this control becomes very complicated.

Could some improvement hints supplement this?

Bonjour, (et en réponse au MP de Pascal)

Depuis leur création au début du siècle dernier, et contrairement à ce qu’affirme « doc-man », ces billets, en France, sont connus comme tel, tant par les collectionneurs, par les professionnels, par les grands auteurs de livres répertoires ou d’études que par les communes les ayant édités. 

Alors, pourquoi vouloir changer ce qui fonctionne normalement. Pourquoi se triturer les méninges pour un sujet aussi simple ? Pourquoi penser qu’il y a une ambiguïté au sujet de ces billets ? Quel est le but recherché ? Pourquoi vouloir copier ce que font les collectionneurs d’autres pays dans ce domaine ? C’est leur liberté, et nous avons la notre, différente.

Laissons les collectionneurs gérer leurs collections selon leur propre critère, arrêtons de tout vouloir réglementer, uniformiser, même au risque de déplaire à quelques ronchonneurs… 

Kreutzer67

Bonjour, (et en réponse au MP de Pascal)

 

Depuis leur création au début du siècle dernier, et contrairement à ce qu’affirme « doc-man », ces billets, en France, sont connus comme tel, tant par les collectionneurs, par les professionnels, par les grands auteurs de livres répertoires ou d’études que par les communes les ayant édités. 

 

Alors, pourquoi vouloir changer ce qui fonctionne normalement. Pourquoi se triturer les méninges pour un sujet aussi simple ? Pourquoi penser qu’il y a une ambiguïté au sujet de ces billets ? Quel est le but recherché ? Pourquoi vouloir copier ce que font les collectionneurs d’autres pays dans ce domaine ? C’est leur liberté, et nous avons la notre, différente.

 

Laissons les collectionneurs gérer leurs collections selon leur propre critère, arrêtons de tout vouloir réglementer, uniformiser, même au risque de déplaire à quelques ronchonneurs… 

Don't you think this is an issue of consistency ? 

Issue

The guidelines state that a coin is a rigid material whereas a banknote is a flexible material; but cardboard is  kind of ambiguous, and we currently have it both listed as coins (70 items) and banknotes (26 round items + 3 oval items).

Kreutzer67

Bonjour, (et en réponse au MP de Pascal)

 

Depuis leur création au début du siècle dernier, et contrairement à ce qu’affirme « doc-man », ces billets, en France, sont connus comme tel, tant par les collectionneurs, par les professionnels, par les grands auteurs de livres répertoires ou d’études que par les communes les ayant édités. 

 

Alors, pourquoi vouloir changer ce qui fonctionne normalement. Pourquoi se triturer les méninges pour un sujet aussi simple ? Pourquoi penser qu’il y a une ambiguïté au sujet de ces billets ? Quel est le but recherché ? Pourquoi vouloir copier ce que font les collectionneurs d’autres pays dans ce domaine ? C’est leur liberté, et nous avons la notre, différente.

 

Laissons les collectionneurs gérer leurs collections selon leur propre critère, arrêtons de tout vouloir réglementer, uniformiser, même au risque de déplaire à quelques ronchonneurs… 

Grumpy... you can see here a lack of understanding of the topic and a broader perspective...

Of course it's a matter of consistency. These days, anyone can write a catalog of their own choosing. In France, they themselves do not know how to treat such items. CGB refers to the catalog that it is a banknote while numiscorner claims it is a coin and gives a guarantee.

 Conformity This item is certified authentic following the expertise of two recognized numismatic experts. Our team carries out nearly 100,000 numismatic expertises each year for private individuals, professionals and administrations. Our company was founded in 1977 and we are members of the main international numismatic organizations (ANS n°11680, ANA n°3175551, ANS, IBNS n°11418, PMG n°3721, PCGS n°1048758, NGC n°3721)

 https://www.ebay.com/itm/325125397291

My question is, what about this item says other catalogs ? What gadoury Monnaies de nécessité françaises  says ? What other catalogs from germany,spain,belgium says ? Numista should have wider look and catalog such items based on multiple catalogs not relay on only one.

……………..

Grincheux... vous pouvez voir ici un manque de compréhension du sujet et une perspective plus large..

Bien sûr, c'est une question de cohérence. De nos jours, n'importe qui peut écrire un catalogue de son choix. En France, ils ne savent pas eux-mêmes comment traiter ces objets. CGB fait référence au catalogue qu'il s'agit d'un billet de banque tandis que numiscorner affirme qu'il s'agit d'une pièce de monnaie et donne une garantie. Conformité Cet article est certifié authentique suite à l'expertise de deux experts numismatiques reconnus. Notre équipe réalise chaque année près de 100 000 expertises numismatiques pour les particuliers, les professionnels et les administrations. Notre société a été fondée en 1977 et nous sommes membres des principales organisations numismatiques internationales (ANS n°11680, ANA n°3175551, ANS, IBNS n°11418, PMG n°3721, PCGS n°1048758, NGC n°3721) https://www.ebay.com/itm/325125397291

Re-bonjour,

Je suis fort étonné et déconfit d’apprendre qu’en France nous ne savons pas comment traiter ces objets. Heureusement, de grands experts reconnus (lesquels ?) nous sortent de notre ignorance. Messieurs Elie, Pirot, Lecompte, Nesly et consorts seront honorés de savoir que leurs travaux sont considérés par certains érudits de n’importe quoi. 

La conformité est mise en avant mais par rapport à quoi ? À qui ? Ne peut-on laisser les gens collectionner selon leur habitude dans leur propre pays ?  Ce qui gêne certaines personnes, donne satisfaction à d’autres personnes. Qui a raison ? Qui a tord ? 

Je collectionne depuis plus de cinquante ans. Cinquante ans dans l’erreur ? Je ne suis expert en rien, ni membre d’aucune société savante ; mon expérience me suffit à moi-même sans pour autant vouloir m’imposer. Vous voulez imposer le terme « monnaie » au lieu de « billet » ? Faites selon vos idées, je garde les miennes. 

In the case of Spanish Notgeld, all pieces of paper or cardboard (even round and oval ones) are considered banknotes by web pages, online catalogs and specialized printed catalogs. Metallic coins (those also cited by Krause) are the only ones considered coins. 

Example of one of the online auction houses that are most dedicated to the sale of these pieces: Ibercoin Auctions (could give more examples).

“Billetes Guerra Civil” = Banknotes Civil War

For example, someone whose collection is based on banknotes and is specialized in Notgelds, would surely want to have these circular pieces in their collection. Someone who collects coins will surely want to have the ones that Krause cites (of metallic material), but he is not so interested in these round pieces of cardboard (probably he does not even know they existed)

Kreutzer67

Re-bonjour,

Je suis fort étonné et déconfit d’apprendre qu’en France nous ne savons pas comment traiter ces objets. Heureusement, de grands experts reconnus (lesquels ?) nous sortent de notre ignorance. Messieurs Elie, Pirot, Lecompte, Nesly et consorts seront honorés de savoir que leurs travaux sont considérés par certains érudits de n’importe quoi. 

 

La conformité est mise en avant mais par rapport à quoi ? À qui ? Ne peut-on laisser les gens collectionner selon leur habitude dans leur propre pays ?  Ce qui gêne certaines personnes, donne satisfaction à d’autres personnes. Qui a raison ? Qui a tord ? 

 

Je collectionne depuis plus de cinquante ans. Cinquante ans dans l’erreur ? Je ne suis expert en rien, ni membre d’aucune société savante ; mon expérience me suffit à moi-même sans pour autant vouloir m’imposer. Vous voulez imposer le terme « monnaie » au lieu de « billet » ? Faites selon vos idées, je garde les miennes. 

Numista does not aim at having country-speficic rules for classification. Hence the need to think about why we sort things out this way or not, instead of just copying national editorial traditions which are not always coherent.

Numista n'a pas vocation à définir des règles de classification spécifique à chaque pays. D'où le fait de réfléchir à ce qui fonde telle ou telle classification, plutôt que de simplement reproduire les traditions éditoriales nationales qui ne sont pas toujours cohérentes.

Kreutzer67

Re-bonjour,

Je suis fort étonné et déconfit d’apprendre qu’en France nous ne savons pas comment traiter ces objets. Heureusement, de grands experts reconnus (lesquels ?) nous sortent de notre ignorance. Messieurs Elie, Pirot, Lecompte, Nesly et consorts seront honorés de savoir que leurs travaux sont considérés par certains érudits de n’importe quoi. 

 

La conformité est mise en avant mais par rapport à quoi ? À qui ? Ne peut-on laisser les gens collectionner selon leur habitude dans leur propre pays ?  Ce qui gêne certaines personnes, donne satisfaction à d’autres personnes. Qui a raison ? Qui a tord ? 

 

Je collectionne depuis plus de cinquante ans. Cinquante ans dans l’erreur ? Je ne suis expert en rien, ni membre d’aucune société savante ; mon expérience me suffit à moi-même sans pour autant vouloir m’imposer. Vous voulez imposer le terme « monnaie » au lieu de « billet » ? Faites selon vos idées, je garde les miennes. 

Hi,

I only know what Pirot wrote about this item, that is why i asked what other french catalogs says about it. If you say  that Lecompte, Nesly, Gadoury  say that this is banknote i dont have any problem with this. we have 4/4 saying its a banknote. Right now i know that 1 /4 say its a banknote. Also what i know that this page, seems to be similar to CGB says its a coin. https://www.numiscorner.com/products/515118-coin-france-ville-de-mayenne-mayenne-5-centimes-1917-20-au-55-58

NumisCorner is the international brand of the French market leader in numismatics, “Comptoir des Monnaies”, founded in 1977. - i could say they know a lot about coins. Correct me if im wrong. CGB is younger : Established in Paris since 1988, CGB Numismatics Paris has become the top numismatic company in France. It has over 80,000 coins, banknotes and numismatic books for sale on its website www.cgbfr.com

Aside from whether this item is a banknote or not, it is important that the numist has consistency about this topic. Of course there may be exceptions.

PS

its important to look on each coin from different point of view. ie. in Polish section you can find coins from partition of Poland. All polish catalogs say that this one N#88415 is polish under partition. But they are wrong. With co-op  with russian referee we analysis that this one should be under russian and belive me im far from sending anything to russia.

……………..

Salut, Je ne sais que ce que Pirot a écrit sur cet article, c'est pourquoi j'ai demandé ce qu'en disaient d'autres catalogues français. Si vous dites que Lecompte, Nesly, Gadoury disent que c'est un billet de banque, je n'ai aucun problème avec cela. nous avons 4/4 disant que c'est un billet de banque. En ce moment, je sais que 1/4 disent que c'est un billet de banque. Aussi ce que je sais que cette page semble être similaire à CGB dit que c'est une pièce de monnaie. https://www.numiscorner.com/products/515118-coin-france-ville-de-mayenne-mayenne-5-centimes-1917-20-au-55-58 NumisCorner est la marque internationale du leader du marché français de la numismatique, « Comptoir des Monnaies », fondé en 1977. - je pourrais dire qu'ils en savent beaucoup sur les pièces de monnaie. Corrige moi si je me trompe. CGB rajeunit : Implantée à Paris depuis 1988, CGB Numismatique Paris est devenue la première entreprise de numismatique de France. Elle propose plus de 80 000 pièces, billets et livres numismatiques en vente sur son site www.cgbfr.com

En plus de savoir si cet article est un billet de banque ou non, il est important que le numiste soit cohérent sur ce sujet. Bien sûr, il peut y avoir des exceptions.

PS

il est important de regarder chaque pièce d'un point de vue différent. c'est à dire. dans la section polonaise, vous pouvez trouver des pièces de monnaie de la partition de la Pologne. Tous les catalogues polonais disent que celui-ci N#88415 est polonais sous partition. Mais ils ont tort. Avec la coopération avec l'arbitre russe, nous avons analysé que celui-ci devrait être sous russe et croyez-moi, je suis loin d'envoyer quoi que ce soit en Russie.

oynbcn

In the case of Spanish Notgeld, all pieces of paper or cardboard (even round and oval ones) are considered banknotes by web pages, online catalogs and specialized printed catalogs. Metallic coins (those also cited by Krause) are the only ones considered coins. 

 

Example of one of the online auction houses that are most dedicated to the sale of these pieces: Ibercoin Auctions (could give more examples).

“Billetes Guerra Civil” = Banknotes Civil War

 

For example, someone whose collection is based on banknotes and is specialized in Notgelds, would surely want to have these circular pieces in their collection. Someone who collects coins will surely want to have the ones that Krause cites (of metallic material), but he is not so interested in these round pieces of cardboard (probably he does not even know they existed)

You can find others example that says coins.

Compendium

Numista n'a pas vocation à définir des règles de classification spécifique à chaque pays. D'où le fait de réfléchir à ce qui fonde telle ou telle classification, plutôt que de simplement reproduire les traditions éditoriales nationales qui ne sont pas toujours cohérentes.

 

L'incohérence est liée à l’histoire, aux traditions du pays. C’est ce qui fait au contraire la spécificité et la richesse d’une collection. Vouloir tout uniformiser fait perdre les marques de l’identité de ce pays. Les remous de l’histoire sont une richesse qu’il ne faut pas gommer, mais au contraire magnifier afin de la faire connaître au plus grand nombre, même au prix d’une entorse à la cohérence des règles voulues et suivies par Numista.

Kreutzer67

 

L'incohérence est liée à l’histoire, aux traditions du pays. C’est ce qui fait au contraire la spécificité et la richesse d’une collection. Vouloir tout uniformiser fait perdre les marques de l’identité de ce pays. Les remous de l’histoire sont une richesse qu’il ne faut pas gommer, mais au contraire magnifier afin de la faire connaître au plus grand nombre, même au prix d’une entorse à la cohérence des règles voulues et suivies par Numista.

 

 

Certes mais les usages francais different (cf Numiscorner) et je ne suis pas persuadé que les utilisateurs de ces monnaies à l'époque les appelait vraiment “billets”, si?

katermurr

…. and I have now in the coin section items where the composition is not specified. Paper ? Cardboard ? I don't know. 

It's not possible to keep these value when you change category, it's why it's necessarily empty.

Indomini16

katermurr

…. and I have now in the coin section items where the composition is not specified. Paper ? Cardboard ? I don't know. 

It's not possible to keep these value when you change category, it's why it's necessarily empty.

😵‍💫  OMG

Indomini16

oynbcn

In the case of Spanish Notgeld, all pieces of paper or cardboard (even round and oval ones) are considered banknotes by web pages, online catalogs and specialized printed catalogs. Metallic coins (those also cited by Krause) are the only ones considered coins. 

 

Example of one of the online auction houses that are most dedicated to the sale of these pieces: Ibercoin Auctions (could give more examples).

“Billetes Guerra Civil” = Banknotes Civil War

 

For example, someone whose collection is based on banknotes and is specialized in Notgelds, would surely want to have these circular pieces in their collection. Someone who collects coins will surely want to have the ones that Krause cites (of metallic material), but he is not so interested in these round pieces of cardboard (probably he does not even know they existed)

You can find others example that says coins.

Yes, is true, and this is a fairly rigid cardboard, I have some of these pieces and they have always been considered stamp-coin. I suppose that is why from the beginning they are in the coin catalog.

I see its harder topic then any of us thought. My proposal to solve this is issue  is to create a new section called notgelds. 

What do you think ?

doc_man

I see its harder topic then any of us thought. My proposal to solve this is issue  is to create a new section called notgelds. 

What do you think ?

Ok, good idea. But are these ‘notgelds’ coins or banknotes….?😜

doc_man

I see its harder topic then any of us thought. My proposal to solve this is issue  is to create a new section called notgelds. 

What do you think ?

6 vote in favor against 1, what you are saying is not reflected in the votes.

oynbcn

Yes, is true, and this is a fairly rigid cardboard, I have some of these pieces and they have always been considered stamp-coin. I suppose that is why from the beginning they are in the coin catalog.

So you agree these are coins? But not the local ones made a the same period?

Compendium

On antoher thread Zegeri suggested this : 

1.- Rigid material → coin

2.- Flexible material → banknote

3.- Cardboard →  proposing:

3.1.- Round/oval shape → coin

3.2.- Rectangular shape → banknote

I would just adjust:

3.- Cardboard/High grammage paper →

3.1.- Round/oval shape → coin

3.2.- Rectangular shape → banknote

Why a government or a local issuer will ever release a 40mm diameter high grammage paper item, is it to make sure you put it on you coin part of your wallet or on the banknote part?

Let’s say that for a 45mm down it’s obviously to replace a coin and 45 and more it’s just ridiculously not practical it’s why you don’t have any 150 m diameter banknotes.

I soul stick to the proposition of Zegeri as it’s in ligne with the usage of the item.

Indomini16

doc_man

I see its harder topic then any of us thought. My proposal to solve this is issue  is to create a new section called notgelds. 

What do you think ?

6 vote in favor against 1, what you are saying is not reflected in the votes.

As for me i already agreed that they should be moved, like mentioned above but i can feel it is not  good solution for others who as i assume didnt  vote. Just trying to find a good solution for everyone.

Indomini16

Compendium

On antoher thread Zegeri suggested this : 

1.- Rigid material → coin

2.- Flexible material → banknote

3.- Cardboard →  proposing:

3.1.- Round/oval shape → coin

3.2.- Rectangular shape → banknote

I would just adjust:

3.- Cardboard/High grammage paper →

3.1.- Round/oval shape → coin

3.2.- Rectangular shape → banknote

Why a government or a local issuer will ever release a 40mm diameter high grammage paper item, is it to make sure you put it on you coin part of your wallet or on the banknote part?

Let’s say that for a 45mm down it’s obviously to replace a coin and 45 and more it’s just ridiculously not practical it’s why you don’t have any 150 m diameter banknotes.

I soul stick to the proposition of Zegeri as it’s in ligne with the usage of the item.

as example my coin weight about 1g shape round will be this coin or note ?

doc_man

I see its harder topic then any of us thought. My proposal to solve this is issue  is to create a new section called notgelds. 

What do you think ?

Bonjour,

Encore une nouvelle catégorie ?? Ce qui existe actuellement me semble grandement suffisant sans encore créer des risques de confusions comme nous en avons rencontré, et rencontrons toujours, lors de la création de la section “jetons" entre les “monnaies de nécessité” et les jetons de nécessité"… 

Pourquoi faire simple quand on peut faire compliqué ?

Kreutzer67

doc_man

I see its harder topic then any of us thought. My proposal to solve this is issue  is to create a new section called notgelds. 

What do you think ?

Bonjour,

Encore une nouvelle caBonjour D'après votre expérience, quelle solution proposez-vous ? En gardant à l'esprit, bien sûr, que la solution actuelle sur le numist n'est pas assez bonne.tégorie ?? Ce qui existe actuellement me semble grandement suffisant sans encore créer des risques de confusions comme nous en avons rencontré, et rencontrons toujours, lors de la création de la section “jetons" entre les “monnaies de nécessité” et les jetons de nécessité"… 

Pourquoi faire simple quand on peut faire compliqué ?

Hello, 

Based on your experience, what solution do you propose? Bearing in mind, of course, that the current solution on the numista is not good enough.

……..

Bonjour, 

D'après votre expérience, quelle solution proposez-vous ? En gardant à l'esprit, bien sûr, que la solution actuelle sur le numista n'est pas assez bonne.

Bonjour,

En quoi la solution actuelle sur Numista n’est-elle pas assez bonne ? Considérant que ce sont bien des billets, ils ont donc bien leur place dans la catégorie « billets de nécessité France ». 

Les considérer comme « jeton », cette solution dans Numista ne serait pas meilleure vis-à-vis des jetons dits en métal…

Kreutzer67

Bonjour,

En quoi la solution actuelle sur Numista n’est-elle pas assez bonne ? Considérant que ce sont bien des billets, ils ont donc bien leur place dans la catégorie « billets de nécessité France ». 

Les considérer comme « jeton », cette solution dans Numista ne serait pas meilleure vis-à-vis des jetons dits en métal…

Au risque de me répéter : Don't you think this is an issue of consistency ? 

Issue

The guidelines state that a coin is a rigid material whereas a banknote is a flexible material; but cardboard is  kind of ambiguous, and we currently have it both listed as coins (70 items) and banknotes (26 round items + 3 oval items).

Kreutzer67

Bonjour,

En quoi la solution actuelle sur Numista n’est-elle pas assez bonne ? Considérant que ce sont bien des billets, ils ont donc bien leur place dans la catégorie « billets de nécessité France ». 

Les considérer comme « jeton », cette solution dans Numista ne serait pas meilleure vis-à-vis des jetons dits en métal…

as you can see its an issue of consistency , did i respond to your question ? Could you also answer my question ?

Based on your experience, what solution do you propose? Bearing in mind, of course, that the current solution on the numista is not good enough.

………….

comme vous pouvez le voir c'est une question de cohérence, ai-je répondu à votre question ? Pourriez-vous également répondre à ma question ? D'après votre expérience, quelle solution proposez-vous ? En gardant à l'esprit, bien sûr, que la solution actuelle sur le numista n'est pas assez bonne.

Ma solution est des plus simple : les intégrer dans la catégorie “billet de nécessité” tel qu'ils le sont actuellement. 

Je ne comprends toujours pas en quoi la situation actuelle n'est pas cohérente….! 

Kreutzer67

Ma solution est des plus simple : les intégrer dans la catégorie “billet de nécessité” tel qu'ils le sont actuellement. 

 

Je ne comprends toujours pas en quoi la situation actuelle n'est pas cohérente….! 

I see that you are the referee of French banknotes and French Notgeld coins. I am going to try to explain what is the topic (an dissue) that is being discussed here: it is about establishing a common criterion, based on the widest possible consensus, to determine where the round pieces of cardboard should be classified, whether in the coin catalog or in the banknote one. Right now, as Compendium has said, these pieces are in both Catalogs. And when we say the round pieces of cardboard, we are talking about all the existing ones in all the Numista catalog (not only those from France) 

For example, I'm referee of banknotes of your neighboring country to the south (Spain), and round cardboard pieces were also made here. The criteria established must be used for all issuers.

From what I see, your opinion (one more), the same as mine (also just one more) is that they should be classified into banknotes. Let's see what the rest comments and what final criterion is established in Numista. Whatever this is, at least on my part, it will be accepted without any problem. I believe that we are mature people and we must accept decisions, even if they do not coincide with our criteria.

Merci pour ton soutien Oynbcn ! 

Je suis d'accord pour trouver une certaine cohérence sur Numista. Mais, en même temps, il me semble nécessaire également de tenir compte de la manière dont sont collectionnés ces billets par les collectionneurs du pays émetteur.

Je crois qu'il est grand temps de mettre un point final à cette polémique, sans intérêt au final, et que les responsables du site prennent une décision, qui fera des déçus, mais qui de toute manière leur appartient.  

Thank you for your support Oynbcn!

 I agree to find some consistency on Numista. But, at the same time, it also seems necessary to me to take into account the way in which these notes are collected by collectors in the issuing country. 

For my part, I believe that it is high time to put an end to this pointless controversy in final, and that the persons in charge of the site make a decision, which will make tops, but which in any case belongs to them.

Kreutzer67

 Je crois qu'il est grand temps de mettre un point final à cette polémique, sans intérêt au final, et que les responsables du site prennent une décision, qui fera des dessus, mais qui de toute manière leur appartient.  

Ok thanks everyone! As both I and Jarcek already stated here, we support the idea that round/oval cardboard items are classified as coins. Given the few upvotes, i dont see any reason to change the rationale. It means 29 items must be moved. It is because you refused those requests as referee that I continued the thread which was long indeed, but allowed everyone to speak up ;-)

Please accept next requests. I'll add in the todo list to update the guidelines.

Compendium

Kreutzer67

 Je crois qu'il est grand temps de mettre un point final à cette polémique, sans intérêt au final, et que les responsables du site prennent une décision, qui fera des dessus, mais qui de toute manière leur appartient.  

Ok thanks everyone! As both I and Jarcek already stated here, we support the idea that round/oval cardboard items are classified as coins. Given the few upvotes, i dont see any reason to change the rationale. It means 29 items must be moved. It is because you refused those requests as referee that I continued the thread which was long indeed, but allowed everyone to speak up ;-)

 

Please accept next requests. I'll add in the todo list to update the guidelines.

In the catalog part of Spain, all the circular and oval banknotes have already been converted to coins. I still think it's a mistake, but opinions, as always, there will be as many as people think. I already commented that I would respect the decision and that's how it has been.

I have left the links to other rectangular banknotes from the same issuers on these pages, so that at least the collector of Civil War banknotes (to which these pieces belong) can be guided through two different catalogues.

Another good option would have been to create a new Catalog called "Coinotes", and so everyone would be happy (better to take this with a sense of humor). 😆

Indomini16

oynbcn

Yes, is true, and this is a fairly rigid cardboard, I have some of these pieces and they have always been considered stamp-coin. I suppose that is why from the beginning they are in the coin catalog.

So you agree these are coins? But not the local ones made a the same period?

NO, I have said that these pieces have always been called stamp-coin, just as the others have always been classified as banknotes in most catalogs. My opinion is that all these pieces should be in the Banknote Catalogue, but don't worry, your opinion (and that of many others) has been the majority, so they have already been moved to where you wanted. No problem.

I ask the administrators to eliminate the "Round" shape of the banknotes catalog, since in the end this has been the only criterion for transferring these pieces to the coin catalog. As you can see, once these notes have been converted to coins, there will no longer be round notes in the catalogue, so it is better to remove “Round” shape so that no one would think of creating a circular banknote in the future.

oynbcn

Compendium

Kreutzer67

 Je crois qu'il est grand temps de mettre un point final à cette polémique, sans intérêt au final, et que les responsables du site prennent une décision, qui fera des dessus, mais qui de toute manière leur appartient.  

Ok thanks everyone! As both I and Jarcek already stated here, we support the idea that round/oval cardboard items are classified as coins. Given the few upvotes, i dont see any reason to change the rationale. It means 29 items must be moved. It is because you refused those requests as referee that I continued the thread which was long indeed, but allowed everyone to speak up ;-)

 

Please accept next requests. I'll add in the todo list to update the guidelines.

In the catalog part of Spain, all the circular and oval banknotes have already been converted to coins. I still think it's a mistake, but opinions, as always, there will be as many as people think. I already commented that I would respect the decision and that's how it has been.

 

I have left the links to other rectangular banknotes from the same issuers on these pages, so that at least the collector of Civil War banknotes (to which these pieces belong) can be guided through two different catalogues.

 

Another good option would have been to create a new Catalog called "Coinotes", and so everyone would be happy (better to take this with a sense of humor). 😆

Well what do you think about this ? A Porcelain  banknote :D

doc_man

oynbcn

Compendium

Kreutzer67

 Je crois qu'il est grand temps de mettre un point final à cette polémique, sans intérêt au final, et que les responsables du site prennent une décision, qui fera des dessus, mais qui de toute manière leur appartient.  

Ok thanks everyone! As both I and Jarcek already stated here, we support the idea that round/oval cardboard items are classified as coins. Given the few upvotes, i dont see any reason to change the rationale. It means 29 items must be moved. It is because you refused those requests as referee that I continued the thread which was long indeed, but allowed everyone to speak up ;-)

 

Please accept next requests. I'll add in the todo list to update the guidelines.

In the catalog part of Spain, all the circular and oval banknotes have already been converted to coins. I still think it's a mistake, but opinions, as always, there will be as many as people think. I already commented that I would respect the decision and that's how it has been.

 

I have left the links to other rectangular banknotes from the same issuers on these pages, so that at least the collector of Civil War banknotes (to which these pieces belong) can be guided through two different catalogues.

 

Another good option would have been to create a new Catalog called "Coinotes", and so everyone would be happy (better to take this with a sense of humor). 😆

Well what do you think about this ? A Porcelain  banknote :D

No, this must go to the new “Coinote” section 😉

doc_man

Well what do you think about this ? A Porcelain  banknote :D

Just out of curiosity, is that a real banknote?

I really like it :-)

It is printed with ink, so it is a banknote.

yvon

It is printed with ink, so it is a banknote.

That's exactly what I thought, but it seems that not because of the decision that has been made.

Indomini16

doc_man

Well what do you think about this ? A Porcelain  banknote :D

Just out of curiosity, is that a real banknote?

I really like it :-)

This is a porcelain version of the original Oldenburg 100 Mark note from 1875. The banknote was put up for auction in 2004 on eBay. It is probably an anniversary advertisement of a bank from Oldenburg from the 1960s or 1970s

doc_man

oynbcn

Compendium

Kreutzer67

 Je crois qu'il est grand temps de mettre un point final à cette polémique, sans intérêt au final, et que les responsables du site prennent une décision, qui fera des dessus, mais qui de toute manière leur appartient.  

Ok thanks everyone! As both I and Jarcek already stated here, we support the idea that round/oval cardboard items are classified as coins. Given the few upvotes, i dont see any reason to change the rationale. It means 29 items must be moved. It is because you refused those requests as referee that I continued the thread which was long indeed, but allowed everyone to speak up ;-)

 

Please accept next requests. I'll add in the todo list to update the guidelines.

In the catalog part of Spain, all the circular and oval banknotes have already been converted to coins. I still think it's a mistake, but opinions, as always, there will be as many as people think. I already commented that I would respect the decision and that's how it has been.

 

I have left the links to other rectangular banknotes from the same issuers on these pages, so that at least the collector of Civil War banknotes (to which these pieces belong) can be guided through two different catalogues.

 

Another good option would have been to create a new Catalog called "Coinotes", and so everyone would be happy (better to take this with a sense of humor). 😆

Well what do you think about this ? A Porcelain  banknote :D

for me, Exonumia > Replica

regarding :

3.- Cardboard →  proposing:

3.1.- Round/oval shape → coin

3.2.- Rectangular shape → banknote

for me it should be coin or banknote but not depending from the shape. As cardboard is not flexible, my opinion is coin. 

oynbcn

I ask the administrators to eliminate the "Round" shape of the banknotes catalog, since in the end this has been the only criterion for transferring these pieces to the coin catalog. As you can see, once these notes have been converted to coins, there will no longer be round notes in the catalogue, so it is better to remove “Round” shape so that no one would think of creating a circular banknote in the future.

This one is round and clearly paper, so the shape can stay, but for thin paper ones.

katermurr

doc_man

oynbcn

Compendium

Kreutzer67

 Je crois qu'il est grand temps de mettre un point final à cette polémique, sans intérêt au final, et que les responsables du site prennent une décision, qui fera des dessus, mais qui de toute manière leur appartient.  

Ok thanks everyone! As both I and Jarcek already stated here, we support the idea that round/oval cardboard items are classified as coins. Given the few upvotes, i dont see any reason to change the rationale. It means 29 items must be moved. It is because you refused those requests as referee that I continued the thread which was long indeed, but allowed everyone to speak up ;-)

 

Please accept next requests. I'll add in the todo list to update the guidelines.

In the catalog part of Spain, all the circular and oval banknotes have already been converted to coins. I still think it's a mistake, but opinions, as always, there will be as many as people think. I already commented that I would respect the decision and that's how it has been.

 

I have left the links to other rectangular banknotes from the same issuers on these pages, so that at least the collector of Civil War banknotes (to which these pieces belong) can be guided through two different catalogues.

 

Another good option would have been to create a new Catalog called "Coinotes", and so everyone would be happy (better to take this with a sense of humor). 😆

Well what do you think about this ? A Porcelain  banknote :D

 

for me, Exonumia > Replica

 

regarding :

3.- Cardboard →  proposing:

3.1.- Round/oval shape → coin

3.2.- Rectangular shape → banknote

 

for me it should be coin or banknote but not depending from the shape. As cardboard is not flexible, my opinion is coin. 

This is not entirely true right now at Numista. As I have already commented before, the word cardboard (at least in the Numista Spanish Notgeld section) has been used for quite rigid cardboard and for flexible cardboard (almost thick paper).

I think that to avoid this issue, you could add the card stock material (flexible) and I myself would change the notes that need it. In Spanish we call it “cartulina” while carboard is “cartón”

From Wikipedia:

“Card stock, also called cover stock and pasteboard, is paper that is thicker and more durable than normal writing and printing paper, but thinner and more flexible than other forms of paperboard.”

If you do not consider to add this new material (card stock), I will change myself all the notes that have cardboard in material field (except the circular and oval ones that are really made of rigid cardboard) to the material paper, adding the comment (if possible) of thick paper, to be able to understand better that the material in question is flexible. In fact, I think that “cartulina” or card stock can be closer to thick paper than to thin cardboard, since at least it shares the characteristic of flexibility with paper.

There is no longer the need to add this new material (card stock), all the Spanish Notgeld notes are already corrected to their correct material 

Composition: Paper 

Additional details: Thick paper or card stock

 Of course, flexible material (I have some of them)

oynbcn

There is no longer the need to add this new material (card stock), all the Spanish Notgeld notes are already corrected to their correct material 

 

Composition: Paper 

Additional details: Thick paper or card stock

 

 Of course, flexible material (I have some of them)

If the flexibility is the key, what about coins made out of lead than? They are also flexible in a way.
Will these coins be considered banknotes?

yvon

If the flexibility is the key, what about coins made out of lead than? They are also flexible in a way.
Will these coins be considered banknotes?

When I pick up a banknote I can fold it in half with almost no effort, and when I immediately unfold it (again, almost no effort)  there may be a small crease but no significant damage. This also applies to paper the same size as a small lead coin.

The lead coins I have seen would take a non-trivial amount of effort to fold, and a significant effort to unfold. The result would likely be a mangled or broken coin. Have you seen any lead coins that can be repeatedly folded and unfolded as easily as a sheet of paper or a piece of thin cloth? (US banknotes are made up of cotton and linen, not paper.)

If we were all sitting around a table with a pile of thick and thin, round and rectangular, numismatic items I suspect we would have no problem agreeing how to separate them into coins and banknotes. But we aren't together, we all don't have samples of the same items, and some of the words used aren't precise.

bjherbison

yvon

If the flexibility is the key, what about coins made out of lead than? They are also flexible in a way.
Will these coins be considered banknotes?

When I pick up a banknote I can fold it in half with almost no effort, and when I immediately unfold it (again, almost no effort)  there may be a small crease but no significant damage. This also applies to paper the same size as a small lead coin.

 

The lead coins I have seen would take a non-trivial amount of effort to fold, and a significant effort to unfold. The result would likely be a mangled or broken coin. Have you seen any lead coins that can be repeatedly folded and unfolded as easily as a sheet of paper or a piece of thin cloth? (US banknotes are made up of cotton and linen, not paper.)

If we were all sitting around a table with a pile of thick and thin, round and rectangular, numismatic items I suspect we would have no problem agreeing how to separate them into coins and banknotes. But we aren't together, we all don't have samples of the same items, and some of the words used aren't precise.

Hi, I completely agree here with you. I wanted to point out that flexibility can not be the main property to be considerd 
 a banknote. In my opinion the struck or printed-option makes more sense.

Just quick update from french side  about  my coin : 

Noelia Faucher (NumisCorner.com)

Mar 6, 2023, 14:50 GMT+1

Dear Damian,
 
Thank you for your patience.
 
Our expert manager says that it is cardboard coins.
 
In the meantime, I remain at your disposal for any further information.
 
Best regards,
Noelia Faucher
Numiscorner Customer Service
Tel : + 33 (0)3 28 14 42 36
Mail: contact@numiscorner.com
Website: www.numiscorner.com

Sorry to bother but this one was print by IMP. DELEMAR & DUBAR LILLE as you can see on the item.

How can I mention the printer if we move it to coin?
Just to make the issue a bit more complex … sorry.

Indomini16

Sorry to bother but this one was print by IMP. DELEMAR & DUBAR LILLE as you can see on the item.

How can I mention the printer if we move it to coin?
Just to make the issue a bit more complex … sorry.

That is because it is a banknote 😉

oynbcn

That is because it is a banknote 😉

Even if I don't agree at 100% I see the limitation …

I'm just a bit surprised that no one came with this argument before …

Oh indeed… but wa maye argue that current coins with imprints only have mints referenced

doc_man

Well what do you think about this ? A Porcelain  banknote :D

That's very interesting! Do you have a better pic of it? And a pic of the reverse?

What are its dimensions?

Indomini16

oynbcn

That is because it is a banknote 😉

Even if I don't agree at 100% I see the limitation …

I'm just a bit surprised that no one came with this argument before …

I did, please, see my post of 3-Mar-2023 in this topic. And not only me, some other users have done it too in other topics of this same issue. I still think that these banknotes are in coin section only by his shape.

So this is the topic that created this mess https://en.numista.com/catalogue/eckartsberga_notgeld-1.html More here https://en.numista.com/forum/topic130380.html

as i wrote above and i think i was ridiculated, the best way to solve the issue is to create section "Notgelds" Mine coin is rigid cardboard so its a coin but allexis items were printed and they are notes

Regards,

Damian

I think they should be in the banknotes section. They're made of paper, not cardboard or hard material. It is no different from other notgelds in the banknotes section.