Error in date list

Hello, it seems to me that the dates of the coins are not written in order.

The dates are handled in two ways. The first is listed as “1293 (1876) 11”.  The 1876 is the start of the reign and ignores the 11. Later we have “1293 (1883) 18” where the 18 was taken into account for the AD year. The bunch at the top all have AD 1876 and the years after are sorted alphabetically, “17” being before “8” because “1” comes before “8”.

So part of the problem is how the AD years are handled.

But there is another issue. Looking at the “1293 (1883) 18” row, the mintage line comment says “١٢٩٣/١٨-1891”. The AD years in the date column should match the mintage line AD years but they seem to be off by one to three years depending on the mintage line. (Ignoring the 1876 lines.)

Anyway, I don’t understand why 8 and 9 years come after 17 and not before 11.

In Krause's catalog, these years are listed first, but year 24 comes after year 13.

What's going on here?

The sort is by character order. The dates aren't considered numbers but a series of characters. “1” comes before “8” so “17” comes before “8” because it compares the characters left to right.

1293 (1876) 17

1293 (1876) 8

The first character difference is the column with “1” and “8”.

Artem777

Anyway, I don’t understand why 8 and 9 years come after 17 and not before 11.

Part (maybe all) of the problem is that the RY year is being recorded in the “Mint letter" column which is read as a character, not a number. 

This is a problem with many of this type coin/dating system and blatantly violates the rules, “Do not use this field to record regnal years, mint official’s marks, or other pieces of information. Use the comments field instead.”  

There needs to be a better way to record RYs on year lines.

Then why is "18" after "9" and not before?

Artem777

Then why is "18" after "9" and not before?

You need to check every part for each comparison:

1293 (1876) 9

1293 (1883) 18

The first line says it was made in 1876 (wrong, but that's what it says) and the second says 1883. 1876 comes first as it is lower than 1883.

Okay, I get it. But where did the date 1883 come from if it was 1876 first and the date on the coin never changed (1293- ١٢٩٣)?

And one more question, if 1293+11 = 1304 and 1876+11 = 1887, but it says that it is 1884?

That's 3 years less.

In 3 kurus 1223 km#602 everything is written down clearly.

N#40893

Here if 1223+26=1249 which corresponds to the written year, also the date 1808+26=1834 which also corresponds.

Artem777

Okay, I get it. But where did the date 1883 come from if it was 1876 first and the date on the coin never changed (1293- ١٢٩٣)?

And one more question, if 1293+11 = 1304 and 1876+11 = 1887, but it says that it is 1884?

That's 3 years less.

Someone messed up in editing the coin. I believe those edits are special and require a referee. I can't give a more detailed answer as I've never used the interface to set up those dates.

In looking up a coin of this type that I have (AH 1293/year 32) I came across the same issue that Artem777 brought up: the dates in the “date” column of the valuation table are out of order and some are not correct for this coin.  The column of converted AD dates that is located immediately to the right of the UNC values appears to be correct to me (though some are out-of-order as Artem777 noted).

I really like the fact that the valuation table includes the column to the right of the UNC value that includes the AH date and regnal year in Arabic numerals and the conversion to the AD date. This is super helpful to someone new to all of this like myself.

In addition to being out of order, the AD dates in the date column appear to be incorrect after the “1293 (1876) 9” entry. For example, the next entry is “1293 (1883) 18”. The date in parentheses is supposed to be the AD date of the start of the sultan's reign and should be the same (1876) for all of these coins. The two digit date after that is the regnal date (when the coin was actually minted) and should be added to the first year of the sultan's reign to get the actual AD date (which for this example should be 1876 + 18 = 1894, not 1883 as indicated in the date column). These same date errors also appear for all of the coins in the “past sales” section of this webpage.

I think someone needs to go into the webpage for this coin and manually correct the order of the dates and the incorrect AD dates in the “date” column and the “past sales” section. Correctly dating coins that use the regnal dating system plus a different calendar plus a different writing system is extremely challenging for people new to coin collecting, and the issues pointed out on this coin's webpage could cause a lot of confusion and frustration for new collectors.

One other issue with the valuation table that looks odd to me (but I am not sure if it is incorrect) concerns that stated mintages for many of the dates for this coin. For example, the valuation table gives the mintage for the AH 1293/year 32 coin as 3, 334,000 and has a value for it (in EF) of $11 - reasonable, I think for a 100+ year old silver coin in a nice (but not perfect) condition. However, the valuation table gives a mintage of only 7,000 and a value of $12 (in EF) for the AH 1293/year 23 date of this coin. A mintage of only 7,000 pieces would make this date extremely rare, yet it is valued only $1 more (in the same grade) than a coin with one of the highest mintages in the entire series (well over three million pieces - over 450 times the stated mintage for the AH 1293/year 23 date). 

It would be very interesting and helpful if someone with the proper reference(s) could investigate and verify that the stated mintages for the various dates of this coin are correct. Some (like the example I gave above) have very low stated mintages, but their valuations are more consistent for coins of much higher mintages.

The date table was compiled incorrectly and will be edited so that it works properly.

The mintages came from the Krause catalog.  We use these data in Numista unless there is another published source that refutes them.   

thoram2

 

However, the valuation table gives a mintage of only 7,000 and a value of $12 (in EF) for the AH 1293/year 23 date of this coin. A mintage of only 7,000 pieces would make this date extremely rare, yet it is valued only $1 more (in the same grade) than a coin with one of the highest mintages in the entire series (well over three million pieces - over 450 times the stated mintage for the AH 1293/year 23 date). 

 

Numista does not valuate any coin. It calculates values based on member input and auctions. If enough members state they bought the coin for so much then the value in Numista is calculated from that data. No attempt is made to correlate mintages, values on other sites, etc.   

As an example if 5 members input what they paid for this coin as $8, $10, $12, $200, $1500 then the value in Numista would be $12.

The date table is now working correctly.

There appears to be a problem with the way the auction listings are feeding the valuations for this coin.  

For example, the valuation mentioned, for regnal year 23 came from an auction sale for coin with regnal year 14.  

I think these auction sales are being added by the robot, but the regnal years are often coming out wrong (maybe the robot does not read Arabic? Time to send it back to robot Berlitz).

I will look into it.

tdziemia

 

I think these auction sales are being added by the robot, but the regnal years are often coming out wrong (maybe the robot does not read Arabic? Time to send it back to robot Berlitz).

 

I will look into it.

What Arabic is there to read?  Clearly 11 and not 19.

Maybe if this is ever implemented these Robot errors will stop.  https://en.numista.com/forum/topic154011.html

Meanwhile, I've submitted change requests for the (many) mistakes on this one.

As did I on the US ASE coin, 46 auction change requests/one coin page. Clearly it will take a long time to clean up the Robot's mess.

It only took me 10 🙂.

Almost every auction sale was regnal year 11, 13 or 23.  So all the valuations for rare years will disappear eventually.  Oddly, all the regnal year 32 coins were read correctly (or maybe another member already caught those).

I've posed the question with the other Admins who know more about the robot than I do (personally I've never met him).

Let me introduce you.

In the beginning the Robot wasn't adding auctions. That came later so most pages have some that were added correctly by members or refs.