Egypt banknotes dates problem

I asked by mistake for a year line to be added for this N#206660 Instead of 24.08.1993 i asked for 24.08.1993. It was rightfully rejected with the mention that the year line 28.04.1993 already exists. This is wrong, it does not exist. All dates are compresed in a 1993 year line. And I see that all dates for 1994 are waiting to be merged in a single year line. Can i ask the referee @Dr_Teek  why are you doing this? It is not the first time I tried to add a year line you reject it and then had to appeal to get it approved.  

I just checked other banknotes that i have in my collection. Why are you merging dates???? N#205827 ND 2015-2022??? 

N#212981 why comment to move to year line 2021? I am sure i added this year line to the list.

N#205837 same thing here 2022

N#202087 and here

Why is this allowed @vladthiengo  @Oklahoman 

Hello, Allexis! 
 

The registrations of some Egyptian banknotes are undergoing a reformulation, as there were registrations with dozens of lines of dates, many with the same signature and other details. This may be the case. 
 

In fact, it is somewhat confusing to have a registration with several dates (day/month/year) of the same type with the same signatures, prefixes, etc.

So what does it matter that they have same signatures and different dates? Are we merging this now? 

 

In fact, it is somewhat confusing to have a registration with several dates (day/month/year) of the same type with the same signatures, prefixes, etc.

It is confusing to have different year lines is that what are you telling me?

Hello @allexis, as we discussed earlier in a different topic, a conclusion was reached by the admins:

Compendium

We discussed with fellow Admins about that. When dates linked with prefixes are only known by literature, they should be listed as comments in the entries. Yearlines should gather different prefixes.

This conclusion stems from the unique nature of Egyptian banknotes, as I explained previously — where the date may change with nearly every prefix. For example, this particular note spans from prefix 16 to 83, meaning 68 different dates, not counting replacement notes.

Some pages may even exceed a hundred date, which would make it impractical to list each one separately.

As for why I responded that the year line was added — it's because I had just finished updating this page yesterday, so at the time of my response, it was already there.

Regarding the appeal you mentioned: I wasn’t aware of that — tell me which note it was so I can remove it 😄 (just kidding, of course). Still, please feel free to let me know if this happens in the future so we can discuss it — I’m always open to discuss things about the catalogue to make it available and friendly for all users (Beginners and Experts). 

Yeah so every Egyptian banknote will not feature different year lines just a year? Did i got this right?

allexis

Yeah so every Egyptian banknote will not feature different year lines just a year? Did i got this right?

There are issuers who printed dates on the banknotes that did not correspond to an approval law or anything like that. They simply dated the issues (days and consecutive days up to) without any other difference in the bill (signature, prefix, etc.).

In the case of the Egyptian issues, the referee took the initiative to rearrange the records so that it would be better organized; even because it would be difficult for a record with different dates and different dates (of that type) to cover all the dozens, hundreds of issues of different days and months of issuance of the same note.

There is a difference between a record that has dates printed due to the approval of a law, due to a decree that would allow the printing of the bills; and these Egyptian bills, which seem to have a "dater" on the printers that changed the day every zero hour. In the comments field, you can enter the dates in detail (in the way the user wants to organize their collection), in case someone wants to list all the dates on the same bill.

Clearly, we are dealing with different organizational preferences. Naturally, there will be different and different opinions. What we can do is, once again, listen to some opinions on the matter. We can see the pros and cons of registers with dozens and dozens of identical lines, with less than a day's difference on the calendar.

Regards,

Vladimir.

vladthiengo

allexis

Yeah so every Egyptian banknote will not feature different year lines just a year? Did i got this right?

There are issue In the comments field, you can enter the dates in detail (in the way the user wants to organize their collection), in case someone wants to list all the dates on the same bill.

I would, but guess what,  I don't know what the dates are anymore because the year lines were merged. How does listing dated banknotes as ND makes Numista a serious banknote catalogue? 

allexisHow does listing dated banknotes as ND makes Numista a serious banknote catalogue? 

I understand this was an issue and will not be carried as each line now is dedicated to a year (and even a month if all the notes printed in that year is in one month). In addition most of the details are covered in the comment.  

@allexis there are a lot of different interesting varieties in Egyptian banknote other than date 

I am sorry to say this but Colnect is a better banknote catalogue then we are. All that we do is merge, merge and merge, ignoring useful information and compresing everything for….you tell me. And I am not speaking only about Egyptian banknotes. Do as you please, I don't care anymore. This will probably be my last post on this forum and the last time I will try to be helpful. Rant over, goodnight!

Ok, I’m sorry that you’re feeling this way — but let’s talk seriously now.

Please point out a single variety for this specific note that is not already covered within the year lines or represented in the comment section. All the merged lines are accounted for by prefix, and the corresponding information is documented clearly in the comments.

On the other hand, key and valuable varieties — the ones expert collectors actually care about — are already highlighted here, unlike in alternative catalogues. For example:

• 1985-Jul-08 – Rare; Prefix (20/غ); ST(1); With the Mosque Name — not found on the other site. Only the common one without the text is listed there.
• 1987-Feb-01 – Replacement note with two distinct varieties (solid vs. segmented security thread); both are listed here as separate lines. The other site only mentions one.
• 1989 Issues – Four prefixes produced with either solid or segmented threads — only one version is mentioned on the other site, and there’s no indication of the alternative security thread, whereas both are clearly represented on Numista.
• 1994-Oct-18 – Replacement Note; Prefix (300); ST(2); Signature: Ismail Hassan — not mentioned on the other site; only the version with signature Salah Hamed is listed.

So, with all due respect — I honestly don’t understand what you mean by “ignoring useful information.” The examples above are important rare varieties that matter to serious collectors, and they are properly documented in our catalogue.

Am I understanding it correctly that Egyptian listings are condensing listings so that different varieties and different dates are being listed on single lines of the catalog?  Help me understand how that makes our catalog better instead of driving away edits and users to more user friendly websites?

If there are 500 different month/day/year combinations for a specific year, then there needs to be 500 datelines.  I completely disagree with what you guys are doing!  At least Allexis is not wrecking the pages.  I think condensing the pages is what is wrecking.

Oklahoman

Master Banknote Referee

I absolutely do NOT support the condensing of dates to a single year line.  If you have banknotes that have different months and dates , but the same year, they need to all have their own date line.

This is ghastly.  

Please do not do this.

Vlad!! How is it that your hand is against everything that me and other hard working referees have done?  You have been instrumental in concerning changes in latin America, and now you have a hand in this concerning change in Egyptian listings?  A different date on the banknote is significant enough to warrant its own line.  

Please do not be a part of this Vlad.  This catalog does not need condensed.  

Please stop.

Benjamin

Wooow, too much drama. 😄

I don’t think it’s fair or constructive to use terms like “wrecking the page.” We’re all here to make the best out of Numista, and a collaborative spirit is essential to that goal. I honestly don’t understand why we can’t have a calm, constructive conversation about this — there’s no need for things to become upset or aggressive. We’re all here for the same reason.

Also, before turning me into the bad guy with a delete button, just a reminder: I reached out to you back in November 2023, and followed up more than once before any changes were made. The current structure reflects a consensus reached among the admins, including Master Banknote Referees, not just vladthiengo, but also gyoschak. This wasn’t a sudden change.

As I’ve already explained the rationale behind this approach earlier, I won’t repeat it again. What matters is that no information is being erased — only reorganized to serve both collectors and catalogue clarity. In my opinion, with the presence of the “example” option, users are more than welcome to add examples of their notes linked to specific lines based on the prefix — and voilà, nothing is missing. With time, each line will have a number of prefixes with pictures from the examples attached to it.

You are, of course, welcome to disagree and propose improvements. But I ask that we keep the conversation grounded in facts and conducted with mutual respect. The last thing I want to do is go against everything that you and other hardworking referees have done. 

A month, day, year on a banknote line  makes more sense then a prefix line as a division.

I completely support Allexis in this.

Obviously there is no consensus on this.  

The improvements you ask for would be to go immediately back to the way it was.

I cannot comprehend how dates are being condensed at the expense of serial number prefixes…

Serial numbers and types are not even enough to warrant their own pages…but we are going to get rid of dates at the expense of prefixes?

I cannot see how the public will recieve this confusion.

My words are an accurate description of your intentions though.  So I will stick with my terminology and hope you fail with your changes.  There should not be change for changes sake. That is all this is.

It's Rhursday and Allexis is still correct.

Please wait with changes until we come to some conclusions to banknote guidelines.

I would like to see the differents day, month year on their own line than lumping them all together. The too long argument does not stand, have you seem some of the US coin pages. MMMMM