We just released an update about reference to external catalogues.
Up to now, it was only possible to attach reference numbers to a type of coin, banknote or exonumia item. However, many reference catalogues assign a different number or sub-number per variety, date and/or mintmark. These reference numbers were often entered in the comment field of the type or of the mintage lines. This was not optimal for several reasons:
Reference numbers entered in the comment fields cannot be found with the search by reference number.
These references usually specify the catalogue only with a code made of a few letters. There is no way for visitors to click on them and get more information about which catalogue the number comes from.
There is a risk of missing information or even discrepancy between the English version and the French version of Numista.
With today's update, it is now possible to attach up to two reference numbers directly to the year line. These references are searchable in the search by reference numbers. They will be shown on the mintage line an they are also shown in an aggregated way in the feature box of the type.
We will migrate progressively the references from the comment fields to the new dedicated field. Welcome to everyone who wants to join the effort!
Modification page for mintage lines (variety lines) with the new column for references)The mintage table with different references for each line of https://en.numista.com/catalogue/note433797.html
But at some point we will have to return to a full width desctop format for the website with that much information on a single line without having to squish some fields 😅.
Great addition - Numismaster has been adding separate KM# numbers for some Australian coins recently if they have a different privymark. This is something that was not done in the past. No idea why they have started to do it. This will help with that.
Regards Mike
Master Referee - See my profile for what I collect.
But at some point we will have to return to a full width desctop format for the website with that much information on a single line without having to squish some fields 😅.
The mintage table in the modification form is indeed more and more wide. It's becoming a problem. That's why we chose to make the second reference hidden by default if it's empty, and show it below the first reference if not empty.
It will be an issue even more in the future if we decide to attach mints to mintage lines.
PCGS and Greysheet numbers can be quite lengthy and they don't really help for the identification of a coin. In order not to overcharge the display, we decided to make an exception and not display them directly on the page of the coin type.
These numbers are used to integrate with Greysheet systems and provide pricing information. We show them on the page of the year line, together with the pricing. For example: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/entry.php?id=420957
Why do we have PCGS as a reference? They are links only to individual graded coins.
The PCGS numbers added on Numista are the unique identifiers of the coin in PCGS CoinFacts. They are not the certification numbers of individual coins.
On a second look yes you are right. I came across one of those when editing the catalog and it looked like one of those ‘check this if the case is legit’ codes but there are more specimens in different grade listed (but MS64 and MS63 looked identical to me on first glance).
One small thing that might need a fix with the new feature though is; when you remove your improvised reference accumulations and put the year line references in the new boxes you get them listed in the feature box automatically but lose them on the search pages (unless they get added after the daily update cycle).
Great tool, I think it can be very useful for everything you mentioned in the first post.
I don't know if there is a quick method to move all the codes from the year line comments to the new reference boxes, or if it should be done manually and individually.
On the other hand, I understand that when there is only one (or more) identical reference for all the year lines, nothing should be done, is that correct? Likewise, when there is only one year line on one type, it is assumed that the references described in features are sufficient, right?.
By clicking on "?" next to references, I see that it is clear that when there are several lines for the same type and same code number, that same code should not be entered repeatedly. It maybe could be right to describe in "?" that when there is only one year line, no code number should be entered in this box.
Many thanks again for this and for all the improvements you made!!!
Coin referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Liberia and Spain
Banknote referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea and Spain
When you have an object in the collection, this creates a space between the references and the frequency. I think it would be better to move the "modify" and "delete" icons to the left.
Great tool, I think it can be very useful for everything you mentioned in the first post.
I don't know if there is a quick method to move all the codes from the year line comments to the new reference boxes, or if it should be done manually and individually.
On the other hand, I understand that when there is only one (or more) identical reference for all the year lines, nothing should be done, is that correct? Likewise, when there is only one year line on one type, it is assumed that the references described in features are sufficient, right?.
By clicking on "?" next to references, I see that it is clear that when there are several lines for the same type and same code number, that same code should not be entered repeatedly. It maybe could be right to describe in "?" that when there is only one year line, no code number should be entered in this box.
Many thanks again for this and for all the improvements you made!!!
Due to the varying format, we could not really find a way to move the references from year line comments to the new reference field. It needs to be done manually.
The sorting at the moment is also at times a bit scrambled on the edit pages because the new reference field isn't used before (or at all) the comment field.
The sorting at the moment is also at times a bit scrambled on the edit pages because the new reference field isn't used before (or at all) the comment field.
The sorting at the moment is also at times a bit scrambled on the edit pages because the new reference field isn't used before (or at all) the comment field.
So you might get:
1900 - KM#2 - alpha
1900 - KM#3 - beta
1900 - KM#1 - gamma
So it use to be that the sorting was due to the comment line. Variety 1, Variety 2 and so forth being first when the year is the same or ND. I take it now it will be based on which reference is first? With the example mention above you could still have the same results with the KM# if another reference is first?
I just switched them around and if TC reference is first they reverse on the page making Variety 2 first.
There are requests in the forums for the reference to be sorted on the list. Will this have to be addressed now?
Also when editing the page at the top where references are mention, only 3 appear and did so automatically. Why doesn't the reference TC-395012 automatically appear? As a test I added another year line 1948 with 2 more reference. All the references disappeared except for TC-17959.
Variety lines that have the same year and mintmark used to be sorted by comment, and the reference was usually the first part of the comment. They are now sorted by the first variety line reference, then by comment.
The “Features” section shows both the references associated to the type (filled at the top of the modification form) and the variety line references (filled in the variety table of the modification page). If the same catalogue is used for both the type and the variety lines, the number associated to the type has priority.
In your example, the type had the reference TC# 17959 and the 2 variety lines had the references TC# 395012 and TC# 17959. The reference of the type had priority, so the “Features” section showed only TC# 17959. I removed the reference TC# 17959 from the type (at the top of the modification form) and the “Features” section now correctly shows both TC# numbers from the variety lines.
Would it be possible to allow for more than two references per yearline? United States coins such as this are currently occupied by PCGS and Greysheet references.
Master Coin Referee
Coin referee for CRI, GTM, HND, NIC, PAN, and SLV.
Revisor principal de monedas
Revisor de Numista para monedas de CRI, GTM, HND, NIC, PAN y SLV.
I recently added an item to Exonumia (USA) and doing a search for all of them from the reference does not produce the new submission. Here is a link to the new one.
Yes, I guess so… anyway it should be described in guidelines. This option is usefull mainly for the types with multiple variants that has own references/sub-references.
I keep only Schon#38 as main reference and all sub-references 38.1, 38.2, 38.3 etc are put on yearlines. This allowed to reduce a lot of number of references in main field.
However, some other catalogues (eg. Mackay for IOM coins) have completly different numbers for particular yearlines so it can be difficult to put all on main reference field and I would prefer to keep them only on yearlines.
I think the reference numbers should be added in the general field (and optionally in the year lines). Or not?
Missing the point. References added to the yearlines should behave exactly the same as references added to the general field, especially on searches. If not then you're forced to do double work by adding them both places.
