Quotethese are marked as "decimalized pound", but with values in multiples of 1/240 pound, so they are sorted strangely
no not quite. as you can see these are marked "maundy coinage". that is - they started this coinage
when a pound was still 240 pennies and still continued to strike these when they decimalized it.
Before we had a separated section for Maundy Coinage - also because of this issue you noticed.
But then decided to put the newer Elizabeth II ones into "decimal pound", the older stay as pre-decimal.
Problem is: early Maundy Coinage incorporates circulation strikes also while later Elizabethan don't.
And this seems to be an odd mix of an entry for a 1 Ecu (pictures and KM number) and a 30 Sols (all the other data). I think this entry should probably just be deleted.
Quotethese are marked as "decimalized pound", but with values in multiples of 1/240 pound, so they are sorted strangely
no not quite. as you can see these are marked "maundy coinage". that is - they started this coinage
when a pound was still 240 pennies and still continued to strike these when they decimalized it.
Before we had a separated section for Maundy Coinage - also because of this issue you noticed.
But then decided to put the newer Elizabeth II ones into "decimal pound", the older stay as pre-decimal.
Problem is: early Maundy Coinage incorporates circulation strikes also while later Elizabethan don't.
but they are listed as decimalized pound!
the pre-decimal issues were in 1/240 pounds before decimalization and are now in 1/100 pounds since decimalization.
The new issues have always been in 1/100 pounds.
1/240 pounds is historically correct for the fewer first issues and wrong for the more newer issues
1/100 pounds is correct for all them
what wrong effect would it have if they are sorted as decimal values?
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces1223.html
what's the obverse and the reverse?
Value = reverse or name of the country = obverse? (moderator says: "The "People's Rep. of China" title is always on the obverse.")
the description is wrong anyway
by the way, does it say "People's Rep. of China" or "People's Bank of China"?
I think it says "People's Bank of China" on both sides 中国人民银行
"People's Republic of China" would be 中华人民共和国 ... ah, I see, this is on the other coins
so all the coins that currently have the value on the obverse don't have 中华人民共和国 at all
I agree with the above reply - surely it is not new policy to add Bimetallic to the Shape field?!!
Also those three links above do not work - only for whoever sent them in, not members generally.
But put bimetallic into Metal field - it is common sense. Just add it to the front of what is already there, with a colon as well. So the above reads Bimetallic; Aluminium-bronze center in Copper-nickel ring
Shape occasionally has bimetallic or trimetallic, but I think it can be moved to "Metal." Problem is, it is not a metal. Bimetallic refers to the shape.
Hey Androl!
I appreciate your requests and the obverse should always have The People's Rep. of China on the obverse. Any coin, whether the value is on the obverse or reverse. It would not make sense if just a few coins had the title on the reverse. Chinese coins have always had the obverse with the country name.
The desc. is actually wrong. If you'd like, please change it.
Thank you all for the requests.
Kenny
- Verifying your Asian and British-territorial coins everyday with the best quality photos and the best information.
Quote: SmartOneKgProblem is, it is not a metal. Bimetallic refers to the shape.
Bimetallic is not a metal, right, but it is not a shape either. And I think it describes out of what a coin is made, so it fits to the description of the metal.
I think this is a philosophical question...
The shape of a coin is the relation of the whole coin with the surrounding air, no matter if the coin is plated or bimetallic, but "bimaterial air center in metal ring" would be a shape
and the composition ("metal") describes of what materials the coin is made
Quote: SmartOneKgI appreciate your requests and the obverse should always have The People's Rep. of China on the obverse.
...Chinese coins have always had the obverse with the country name.
the problem is that those coins do *not* have PRoC on them, they only have PBoC on both sides
all the coins have a side with value, but only some have a side with the country name, so why would it not make sense to have the one feature, that all coins have, always on the same side?
Quote: ZacUKthose three links above do not work - only for whoever sent them in, not members generally.
I hope it is possible for team members to see the requests
it was about three of these: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces12458.html
I've just made new requests for all 9 bimetallic 50 Schilling coins
In fact, I really appreciate your requests and the way you've written this article is very nice. You should ask Xavier to be a Numista team member. Most, if not all of the work you've done is perfect.
Maybe we shouldn't write Bimetallic. That's what I have thought. If it says "ring" and "center," that is good enough to know; why should we write Bimetallic if it is given in words for each metal?
This is what I think. Whether it says PRC or PBC, it should be on the obverse, while any other image or inscription should be on the reverse. I hope you get what I'm saying.
You should ask Xavier about this. I can't do anything about this, but it sounds like a good idea.
I'll submit your requests, androl. Thanks!
Kenny
- Verifying your Asian and British-territorial coins everyday with the best quality photos and the best information.
Quote: SmartOneKgMaybe we shouldn't write Bimetallic. That's what I have thought. If it says "ring" and "center," that is good enough to know; why should we write Bimetallic if it is given in words for each metal?
Why? So that when somebody runs a search for "bimetallic", they get all the bimetallic coins in the Numista database. Seems like a good reason to me.
Which leaves us with deciding whether it should be spelled "bi-metallic" or "bimetallic". The former is how Krause spells it.
On an unrelated note, can anybody make sense of this coin? https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces24434.html
Initially I was assuming just a duplicate, but the Indo-China 1 piastre coin was only minted with the seated Liberty design through 1928. Would this just be a token copying the old coin?
I can make sense of this coin. It's a reproduction coin, or counterfeit. I sent a message to the guy, which he didn't respond to. Many Chinese dollars are copied in this time period, even ones made of silver, and they are not real. So this should be considered a token, in the token section of Numista.
Kenny
- Verifying your Asian and British-territorial coins everyday with the best quality photos and the best information.
Quote: MagusSpain, 1 Seiseno - Philip V, KM#248: The coin pictured is actually the Treseta, KM#249. Krause seems to have swapped the pictures of the two coins.
I recently bought one of those seisanos on eBay. I can upload correct pictures and create an entry for the treseta using the current image.
I don't believe you've made a post before, so umm let me say welcome to the Numista forum!
Now, thing is, Prime, we have a strict copyright policy. You can scan the coin (which is best at 800px), or take a photo, which is not prefered, but you may not use any photo from eBay.
I believe the photo is from Muenzauktion, currently. So, please, upload your own photo.
Thank you!
Kenny
- Verifying your Asian and British-territorial coins everyday with the best quality photos and the best information.
We are filled with photos from them still. It's like photos from CoinArchives, where it's a collaboration of photos from different sellers who have different opinions about copyright.
Your photo is, of course, an acceptable image source. Usually Numista's photos are based on a scale:
We have been very strict recently on copyright. Before the copyright selection bar began, which you probably have experienced, we could label any copyright we wanted or leave it blank. Several of Numista's original photos by Xavier have been deleted, which I try to revive by looking in the history.
Anyways, please add your own photo using a scanner, most preferably. Thank you.
Kenny
- Verifying your Asian and British-territorial coins everyday with the best quality photos and the best information.
Cook Islands, 5 Dollars, KM#20: Krause says there are three different mintmarks for this coin:
1978FM (M) - mintage 250
1978FM (P) - mintage 11,000
1978FM (U) - mintage 3,659
And this seems to be an odd mix of an entry for a 1 Ecu (pictures and KM number) and a 30 Sols (all the other data). I think this entry should probably just be deleted.
Also, these problems haven't been addressed. Just in case they got buried under all the new posts and went unnoticed, I'm reposting it.
How come when changing a year (to correct an erroneous year entry), it keeps the old year in parentheses?
I just bought a whole bunch of stamps so I drifted off on coins for a bit. The dates that have that issue are the new feature by Numista. It is bitter-sweet in a way. The thing is, you have to delete the year and remake it. Tell me what entries has that problem, and I'll fix it.
I'll fix the Nepalese coins, as I am the admin for Nepal and the other Asian countries.
The Swiss coins are countermarked coinage, right? That is on purpose. Unless it isn't, but you'll know by reading paragraph number one.
Kenny
- Verifying your Asian and British-territorial coins everyday with the best quality photos and the best information.
Actually, those particular Swiss coins are not countermarked. They're just ones where I made an error in the original date entries, then tried to fix them.
Now, I gotta fix them. Thing is, when someone changes the existing year, the existing year is in paranthesis while the new year is the actual year. So umm I'll fix it. Soon.
Kenny
- Verifying your Asian and British-territorial coins everyday with the best quality photos and the best information.
Believe that the diameter of the Hong Kong ten cent 1993-1998 is incorrect and should be 17.55. Also did they still make them in 1998 as China took back over in 1997?
Quote: bam777Believe that the diameter of the Hong Kong ten cent 1993-1998 is incorrect and should be 17.55. Also did they still make them in 1998 as China took back over in 1997?
I have many Hong Kong 10-cent and 20-cent coins from 1998. it's one of the more common dates for those types.
Colombia 1 Peso https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces2433.html
I have this coin from 1994 with two variants of the 100. On one coin, the 100 is 4.5 mm high, on the other one, the 100 is 5.5 mm high.
No difference on any 1.5 or 2 mm high numerals or on the size of the date (between which I don't see any difference, as the date letters are the only numerals smaller than 4.5 mm) - they are all 2 mm high, as well as the REPUBLICA letters
the PESO letters are 2.2 mm (with small 100) and 2.8 mm (with large 100) high
do the mentioned differenced in the sheet even exist, or are they totally misunderstood?
Re: the Dominican Republic 5 Pesos 1997, this is the entry from Krause -
KM# 88 5 PESOS
Bi-Metallic Stainless Steel center in Brass ring, 23 mm. Subject:
50th Anniversary - Central Bank Obv: Denomination and national
arms within circle, date below Rev: Head facing within circle, two
dates below
Just because you can't see it ... doesn't mean it isn't there - Anon.
there are a gazillion euro coins with "Engraver: L. Luycx", and one had "Luc Luycx". I changed it to L. Luycx, and the moderator said "should be full name Luc Luycx".
then I changed some coins from L. Luycx to Luc Luycx, and now that is rejected too.
I also entered "G. Stamatopoulos" or "Georgios Stamatopoulos" as the engraver of all the 2€ EMU coins, as it has been entered in some of them before, and that is rejected with the comment "it's the designer".
Now what? Luc Luycx is the designer of the common side and Georgios Stamatopoulos is the designer of the commemorative side. What should be entered?
I thought that the 4-dollar Stella coin was made of gold, not aluminum.
(EDIT: I stand corrected. There are a few aluminum stellas known to exist.)
Aluminum was still a rare and expensive metal in the 1880s, more valuable by weight than gold. In 1884, the price of aluminum was USD $16/lb in 1884 dollars. Adjusting for inflation, that's over USD $383/lb in 2010 dollars. Compare the 1884 price of aluminum, about USD $24/oz, to the price of gold in the 1880s, approximately USD $20/oz. The current price of aluminum in 2011 is about USD $1.05/lb, second in cheapness only to steel.
Quote: CeruleanI thought that the 4-dollar Stella coin was made of gold, not aluminum.
is that a reason why requests are rejected? I have very often the feeling that a change from A to B is rejected because the moderator knows that A is wrong, and knows that B is better than A, but thinks that it should be C and not B . But then, he doesn't change it to C and it stays at A.
for example we have 17 EMU 2 Euro coins, 13 of them "2 Euro (10 years EMU)" and 4 "2 Euro (10 Years EMU)". When I wanted to change the 4 coins to "2 Euro (10 years EMU)", the moderator rejected and told me, it should be "2 Euro (EMU)". But he doesn't change the 17 coins. So no-one will change them.
Quote: CeruleanAluminum was still a rare and expensive metal in the 1880s, more valuable by weight than gold. In 1884, the price of aluminum was USD $16/lb in 1884 dollars. Adjusting for inflation, that's over USD $383/lb in 2010 dollars. Compare the 1884 price of aluminum, about USD $24/oz, to the price of gold in the 1880s, approximately USD $20/oz.
are you mixing oz and lb? with your numbers, 1 oz would be 1.5 lb
I agree with the above reply - surely it is not new policy to add Bimetallic to the Shape field?!!
Also those three links above do not work - only for whoever sent them in, not members generally.
But put bimetallic into Metal field - it is common sense. Just add it to the front of what is already there, with a colon as well. So the above reads Bimetallic; Aluminium-bronze center in Copper-nickel ring
No - really! Bi-Metallic has not to be in the shape field! don't do that. whenever I see this I erase the Bi-Metallic and put it in the metal field where it belongs - or at least makes the most sense IMHO
QuoteI guess that can make sense, ZacUK.
Shape occasionally has bimetallic or trimetallic, but I think it can be moved to "Metal." Problem is, it is not a metal. Bimetallic refers to the shape.
No, I don't think Bi-Metallic is a shape. Shape is round, square whatever
Maybe it lacks a "special" field here. But no need to mix it up - since 90% of the coins verified have it "Bi-Metallic" in the metal field. please don't start another revolution here
QuoteWhy? So that when somebody runs a search for "bimetallic", they get all the bimetallic coins in the Numista database. Seems like a good reason to me.
facial value in figure form would be either 0.2 or 0.20 which does not make a difference.
but without the "EUR" letters - otherwise it would not be accepted.
2/10 or 1/5 could be used, too. see pre-decimal coinage figures.
added 1991 for zinc type. there already was a note about 1991 metal error types. I think I recall a
discussion about this in the forum a while ago. but what makes you so sure there are 1987 and 1989
issues in copper plated zinc?
this is my collection of Barbados cents:
1979 3.11 g 1.55 mm
1980 3.04 g 1.6 mm
1982 3.09 g 1.6 mm
1986 3.09 g 1.6 mm
1987 2.50 g 1.5 mm
1989 2.55 g 1.6 mm
1993 2.52 g 1.5 mm
1995 2.53 g 1.6 mm
1996 2.51 g 1.6 mm
1997 2.51 g 1.6 mm
1998 2.50 g 1.6 mm
1999 2.50 g 1.5 mm
this means there must be different materials in the 1986 and 1987 cents
there are always small changes in thickness (0.05 mm, I can't tell the thickness of a coin that precisely!) and weight (+- 0.05 g).
When you look at the numbers 3.11, 3.04, 3.09, 3.09, 2.50 and 2.55, would you say the first four and the last two are statistical variations of the bronze composition? I can't think of any bronze composition that has the density of zinc
Zinc is lighter than bronze, a bronze coin is roughly 3.1 g, a zinc coin is roughly 2.5 g, with same thicknesses
Are 2.50 and 2.55 statistical variations of 2.5 g or of 3.1 g?
A bronze coin with 2.55 g should be thinner than 1.5 mm
France 1 Liard, KM#585: Year 1787 (no mintmark) doesn't exist. Nantes is the only mint Krause lists for this coin in 1787.
France 12 Deniers, KM#600: Krause doesn't list 1792 D°(Dijon) or 1792 O (Riom) for this coin. It doesn't list those mints as ever making this coin at all. I'm assuming whoever put those on the year list misread the mintmarks on their coins.
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces18465.html
Why does this have "Maundy Coinage" in the title? In the 1600s there was no separate Maundy coinage; Maundy sets used the standard circulating coins.
Also, shouldn't coins from before England and Scotland unified their currency go under England rather than United Kingdom?
most early types have circulation issues within the mintage list.
it has maundy coinage in the title because it is maundy coinage.
we cannot have both types listed - a circulation and maundy type separated.
we had this before and it created a lot of confusion and requests to add "missing" years that
were listed in the other entry.
as for the "england" coins: 1707 is the date given. we might transfer them. not sure though
should finenesses of silver or gold be written with four decimals? I think .835 or .925 silver is always exactly .8350 and .9250 in theory, the zeroes are just useless
some coins (Portugal) have descriptions as Silver (.9170), which looks unbelievable, shouldn't it be .91666.. in theory? Even if the mint really defined its silver as .9170, I don't think that difference is much important.
other coins have .9999 where the sources give .999, so it's just wrong...
I tend to think that going to 4 digits is pointless if the 4th digit is a zero. But as for .9999 where sources say .999, that seems to be one of the most common things for Krause to get wrong. For example Krause (or at least Numista; my Krause 2001-date is only 5th edition and doesn't even have them listed) says the US First Lady gold $10 coins are .999 fineness, when they're mandated by law to be .9999
