Error in the data

160 posts

Forum »

Barlasov

Joined: 4 Feb 2011
Posts: 6

Posted: 20 Apr 2011, 07:11 #

There is an error in the data of 1 Cedi Gana KM# 19.
Written: Weight - 30 g, Diameter - 11.9 mm.
Correctly: Weight - 11.9 g, Diameter - 30 mm.
Best regards
Barlasov

Makake77

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Posts: 1723

Posted: 21 Apr 2011, 13:36 #

thanks - corrected

androl

Joined: 17 Jan 2011
Posts: 293

Posted: 25 Apr 2011, 17:27 #

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces11060.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces6744.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces7253.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces2873.html
these all have the wrong currency (ALK instead of ALL)

Makake77

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Posts: 1723

Posted: 25 Apr 2011, 17:50 #

ok - corrected

androl

Joined: 17 Jan 2011
Posts: 293

Posted: 25 Apr 2011, 18:23 #

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/liechtenstein-1.html#devise385
the three ecu/euro coins should be marked as tokens

androl

Joined: 17 Jan 2011
Posts: 293

Posted: 26 Apr 2011, 02:07 #

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces13048.html
wrong calendar, should be Persian

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces6017.html
wrong images of a 1354 coin
could you please insert these images (made by me) of the 1346 coin

Makake77

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Posts: 1723

Posted: 26 Apr 2011, 19:26 #

done - thanks a lot.
except for liechtenstein - which I am not so sure. they're sold as official commemoratives.
at least it seems so. they have the "unusual coins" X# code of Krause. However, they're listed

androl

Joined: 17 Jan 2011
Posts: 293

Posted: 26 Apr 2011, 19:57 #

I think they have the same status as the German Euro "commemorative medals" from 1997
http://storage.supremeauction.com/flash/ebay2/17/96/41/17964181/23559158v.jpg
the euro and the ECU have never been the currency of Liechtenstein, so they cannot by definition be coins
on the other hand, there are German coins in Euro that could be used for payment in a short time in special places in 1997/1998
http://www.numisworld.de/main_unten.php?UserID=IKFYOfcmXuc0g&WG=2&KAT1=23

what is a token? I think all "non-coins" (medals without denomination in valid currency) should be treated the same way

at least the head line "Liechtenstein - ECU (European Currency Unit, 1979-1995)" is incorrect when the coins/medals are from 1993-1998

another error:
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces16452.html
This coin is medal alignment (at least mine)

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces5201.html
Diameter: 19.5 mm

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces1276.html
Diameter: 21 mm

these two seem to be identical
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces3908.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces8186.html
except one says 8 g and one 10 g and mintages don't match
lettering should be capitalized
ah, I see, one should be silver and one copper-nickel

Magus

Joined: 9 Dec 2010
Posts: 122

Posted: 26 Apr 2011, 22:54 #

Nevermind. Forget what I posted.

androl

Joined: 17 Jan 2011
Posts: 293

Posted: 30 Apr 2011, 00:41 #

these two coins
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces1106.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces9226.html
should have only different years.
Worldcoingallery writes that the second coin has been issued since 2008

Magus

Joined: 9 Dec 2010
Posts: 122

Posted: 4 May 2011, 07:52 #

Year error for Yemen Arab Republic 1 Rial. One of the years listed is 1414 (1994). Since the Yemen Arab Republic merged with the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen in 1990, clearly that year is in error.

Makake77

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Posts: 1723

Posted: 5 May 2011, 12:02 #

yea, it's 1993

no really - it's listed in the catalogs. either an error or they used that coin even after they merged

as for the thai coins. has yet to be done in the future. thailand might take some time - but someone
of the team already did a lot of work there.

Magus

Joined: 9 Dec 2010
Posts: 122

Posted: 6 May 2011, 07:40 #

I was just assuming it was an error because there's a similar but smaller coin in the Yemen - Republic section with the same year.

I guess they must have made both that year then.

androl

Joined: 17 Jan 2011
Posts: 293

Posted: 6 May 2011, 13:29 #

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces7480.html
Engravers J. Kaiser (obverse) (like all AT euro coins)

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces109.html
the numbers of the normal sets and proof set are switched
http://www.euro-auflagen.de/index.php?lang=en
e.g. 2002 = 100.000 Proof
2003 = 120.000 Proof, 180.000 normal BU in sets
2003 J is correct

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces110.html
same numbers as above
2003 D is 70,620,000 for circulation + 180.000 sets (should the sets be included? I think so...)
2004 D is only in 140.000 sets, the number 70,760,000 looks like mistaken from 2003 D (including 140.000 sets, while the numbers of 2004 A,F,G are without sets)

Makake77

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Posts: 1723

Posted: 7 May 2011, 11:53 #

will do on sunday. thanks

err ... after closer looking. might take some more time.

Magus

Joined: 9 Dec 2010
Posts: 122

Posted: 8 May 2011, 01:10 #

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces14684.html
Obverse and reverse images are swapped

Magus

Joined: 9 Dec 2010
Posts: 122

Posted: 8 May 2011, 08:26 #

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces9380.html
This one was listed as a 1 Cent but Krause says it's 10 Cents. Please change the value.

androl

Joined: 17 Jan 2011
Posts: 293

Posted: 9 May 2011, 10:52 #

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces6486.html
reverse is upside-down, please insert this:

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces5738.html
could you please add the lettering to the dates
(I removed the "2048-2052" comment from the coin title - someone wanted to point that 2061 doesn't exist? The scanned coin is 2061, and I have it too from that year)
there are still many Nepal coins without transcription of the dates, and no section in Numisdoc

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces2446.html
lettering should be adjusted to the scanned coin
PERÚ
no Braille dots, 10, line break, CÉNTIMOS
the line comments for KM# 305.4 could have U and E capitalized
what is the difference between KM# 305.1 and KM# 305.2?

timlang2

Joined: 27 Apr 2011
Posts: 11

Posted: 9 May 2011, 16:13 #

Errors in George V Sovereign, Wrong allignment and several missing dates. Coin is currently locked

I am currently only interested in swapping for uk milled coins not in my collection. Many Thanks

Makake77

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Posts: 1723

Posted: 12 May 2011, 11:04 #

done - thanks. need link for sovereign

androl

Joined: 17 Jan 2011
Posts: 293

Posted: 14 May 2011, 17:14 #

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces17263.html
the ring is not silver (.375 Ag), but "white gold" (.375 Au, .625 Ag)
the weight is 18.50 g
http://www.taxfreegold.co.uk/1994hongkong10dollarsbimetallicbauhiniaflower.html

Magus

Joined: 9 Dec 2010
Posts: 122

Posted: 15 May 2011, 05:06 #

Tibet 1 Srang: value needs to be changed to 1.

Swiss 5 Rappen: 1851 BB is referred to as "Rare" even though it has a mintage of 12,042,000 which makes it by far the most common date of the type.

Polish coins that current have inaccurate decimal values despite the first złoty being a non-decimal currency:
1 Grosz Polski: change value to 1/30.
3 Grosze: change value to 1/10.
1/2 Grosza - Stanislaus Augustus: change value to 1/60.
5 Groszy - Nicholas I: change value to 1/6.
10 Groszy - Nicholas I: change value to 1/3.

Makake77

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Posts: 1723

Posted: 17 May 2011, 12:51 #

done - thanks
the 5 rappen coin had a significantly higher market value despite having the most mintage.
Maybe a catalog error - maybe not. I deleted the comment. however it might be that this
mintage year is really hard to come by because they might have remelted them?

androl

Joined: 17 Jan 2011
Posts: 293

Posted: 17 May 2011, 21:15 #

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces7289.html
please add year 2058

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces1571.html
I have this coin from 2032, but now I see it entered as 2031. The comments on the right are not matching the dates, the 2031 line has 2032 in the comment (2030 has 2031, 2032 has 2033, 2033 has 2034, 2034 has 2035 and 2037 has 2036). Could it be that someone changed the years on the left without changing the comments and without transferring the users' entered coins?

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces6765.html
the image is wrong, this is the right one (without FAO inscription) - but upside-down:
http://worldcoingallery.com/countries/coine_zb.php?image=nmc8/15-1

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/malaisie-1.html#devise163
I think these coins all have obverse and reverse confused. Obverse is the side with the country's name, or not?

Makake77

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Posts: 1723

Posted: 17 May 2011, 22:22 #

en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces7289.html
catalog says there's no 2001 issue. at least my catalog tells me that the next 2 rupees issue
is

QuoteKM# 1151.2 2 RUPEES
Brass, 25 mm. Obv: Traditional design Rev: Three domed
building Edge: Plain
Date Mintage F VF XF Unc BU
VS2058 (2001) — — — — 1.50 —
VS2059 (2002) — — — — 1.50 —
VS2060 (2003) — — — — 1.50 —

it looks very much the same as that coin. did they change the KM#-number?
2058 will be added if this get clear

en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces6765.html no, actually it seems very much like it is
correct that way > compare the date letters in the comments with those on the coin

en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces1571.html > I don't know how sort out this mess.
I won't touch this! Someone of the team might know if collections got transferred.

About the reverse/obverse swapped: no not neccessarily. We tend to use denomination / nominal
letters on the reverse, subject on the obverse. There are exceptions of course. like those coins where
the coat of arms has a denomination on it's side, too. coat of arms are often treated as obverse, but
not the "name of the country".

androl

Joined: 17 Jan 2011
Posts: 293

Posted: 18 May 2011, 11:44 #

sorry about the 2 Rupees, I don't know the difference either, I just didn't see the other coin

about 5 Poisha, there are two coins
one 1973-1974
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces6765.html
and one 1974-1977 (FAO)
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces1790.html

here, both coins are the same, so you can't determine the type of a 1974 coin
at WCG, the 1973-1974 coin does not have the additional text on the lower gear side
http://worldcoingallery.com/countries/coine_zb.php?image=nmc8/15-1

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces2104.html
I added the correct lettering (found with Google)

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces432.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces429.html
these two have the same images
WCG has a 1981
oh and why doesn't it take my data for obverse engraver (Arnold Machin), though it's not locked?

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces385.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces383.html
all the same as above, but here, the engraver field is locked at empty
1968 at WCG

Magus

Joined: 9 Dec 2010
Posts: 122

Posted: 20 May 2011, 19:49 #

Somalia 250 Shillings / Scellini (Queen Victoria): silver fineness is .900

Also, the obverse lettering says "DEI GRATIA", not "DET GRATIA".

Makake77

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Posts: 1723

Posted: 24 May 2011, 12:31 #

thanks to all of you - all matters should now be dealt with and corrected. please check

Magus

Joined: 9 Dec 2010
Posts: 122

Posted: 25 May 2011, 13:20 #

Germany - Weimar Republic 500 Mark: Somehow I don't think there's a year "32767 F" for this coin.

Makake77

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Posts: 1723

Posted: 26 May 2011, 11:00 #

agreed

Cerulean

Joined: 1 Nov 2010
Posts: 1915

Posted: 27 May 2011, 19:16 #

The lettering and the obverse/reverse images are mismatched on this coin page:
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces5117.html

androl

Joined: 17 Jan 2011
Posts: 293

Posted: 30 May 2011, 19:55 #

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces385.html
the Engraver (Obverse) field is not locked, but I still can't enter anything

Engraver is Arnold Machin

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces11316.html
Shape = Equilaterally curved Heptagon (7-sided)

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces15760.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces6576.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces2728.html
the thicknesses are different between these coins
I have 1984, 1986 and 1994, they are about 2.9 or 3.0 mm
the cricket coin is a little bit thinner (~2.8 mm)
the new coins are much thinner (~2.5 mm)

ZacUK Numista team

Joined: 3 Jan 2011
Posts: 16698

Posted: 30 May 2011, 21:16 #

I also have some where the field is not locked, but I still can't enter anything

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces19434.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces21552.html
Svetlana Zaskievich on both sides (Reverse side already done)

The lettering and the obverse/reverse images are mismatched on these coin pages:

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces4678.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces8868.html
Lettering or pictures needs reversing i.e. do not match

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces2631.html
Assuming Obverse and Reverse pictures are correct
way round, remove Obverse lettering

Token collector [1600-1899] with some coins

Magus

Joined: 9 Dec 2010
Posts: 122

Posted: 30 May 2011, 22:20 #

Austrian Thalers:
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces21963.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces21962.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces21961.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces9220.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces18811.html

The value needs to be changed to 2.

Austrian 4 Ducat:
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces15156.html

Value needs to be changed to 64 (assuming the 1 Ducat's value of 16 Gulden is accurate).

Also, the Austro-Hungarian Gulden was decimalized in 1857, which isn't reflected on the site currently.

androl

Joined: 17 Jan 2011
Posts: 293

Posted: 31 May 2011, 10:41 #

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces21132.html
date and currency don't match

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces4355.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces6122.html
both Diameter = 19 mm

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces1684.html
confirming year 2001

Makake77

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Posts: 1723

Posted: 31 May 2011, 11:51 #

thanks- done. except for "date and currency don't match" which I don't understand. what's the error here?
and: is 1 Austrian Thaler = 2 Gulden? I think to recall that a thaler has about 2 1/3

Magus

Joined: 9 Dec 2010
Posts: 122

Posted: 1 Jun 2011, 07:49 #

Quote: Makake77thanks- done. except for "date and currency don't match" which I don't understand. what's the error here?
and: is 1 Austrian Thaler = 2 Gulden? I think to recall that a thaler has about 2 1/3

Austria was part of the Holy Roman Empire at the time, so that would make their thaler the Conventionsthaler. And Wikipedia claims the gulden was defined as half a Conventionsthaler. After the Gulden was decimalized, they defined the new Gulden as 2/3 of a Vereinsthaler.

Unless Wiki got it wrong again. But the current value on the entries of 1 Thaler = 1 Gulden is clearly wrong. I made the mistake of assuming the other Austrian Thaler entries were right in that regard when I made the new entries.

androl

Joined: 17 Jan 2011
Posts: 293

Posted: 1 Jun 2011, 11:52 #

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/philippines-1.html#devise151
it says "Philippines - Peso (1864-date)"
and the 1 Barilla coin is from 1766
so the date and the currency don't match

Quote: Makake77We tend to use denomination / nominal
letters on the reverse, subject on the obverse. There are exceptions of course. like those coins where
the coat of arms has a denomination on it's side, too. coat of arms are often treated as obverse, but
not the "name of the country".

what do you do when one side has the nominal in native script and the other one in western script?
like the last Japanese coins, all except 5 yen have the country name, the motif and the denomination in Japanese numerals on one side, the denomination in western numerals and the year on the other.
5 yen is missing the denomination in western numerals, and the country name is on "the other side", which results in that you have "the other side" as obverse. The only common thing thus is the country name on the obverse, or the "mostly readable denomination to Europeans" on the reverse
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces1590.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces929.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces922.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces1026.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces1589.html

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces1938.html
Commemorated event is 40 years of Deutsche Mark, not 30 Years of Federal Republic of Germany

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces843.html
1997 G (not proof) is missing

Magus

Joined: 9 Dec 2010
Posts: 122

Posted: 2 Jun 2011, 17:38 #

I was filling in the data for https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces21969.html when I realized it's a duplicate of https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces8468.html

Please move the mintage figures over and delete the duplicate (note: there is no 1700 example of this coin; whoever made the duplicate entry clearly misread their 1760 coin because the 6 was worn down).

Makake77

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Posts: 1723

Posted: 2 Jun 2011, 21:49 #

yes - thanks. however - this may take some time. please be patient. other fields of work come first -
and the weather is too fine to spend behind a desk

radrick007

Joined: 7 Feb 2011
Posts: 3048

Posted: 2 Jun 2011, 22:09 #

I quite agree - but there is always the option of laptop on the table out in the garden, a glass of wine by your side ...

Just because you can't see it ... doesn't mean it isn't there - Anon.

Former coin and banknote catalogue referee.

Magus

Joined: 9 Dec 2010
Posts: 122

Posted: 4 Jun 2011, 23:23 #

½ Rigsdaler - Frederik VII: Change the number to KM#759. Apparently it got locked just before I noticed I'd entered the wrong number the first time.

Makake77

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Posts: 1723

Posted: 5 Jun 2011, 23:11 #

corrected. and deleted the year that would not fit to 759. it was a 760 one

Magus

Joined: 9 Dec 2010
Posts: 122

Posted: 6 Jun 2011, 03:54 #

Please replace the reverse photo in https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces22091.html (which looks like it's been sealed in amber or something) with this:

Makake77

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Posts: 1723

Posted: 6 Jun 2011, 10:54 #

yea - will do. could you give credit / copyright information?
nothing entered yet.

Magus

Joined: 9 Dec 2010
Posts: 122

Posted: 7 Jun 2011, 12:40 #

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces11288.html
Silver fineness is .900

Makake77

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Posts: 1723

Posted: 8 Jun 2011, 13:41 #

done - thanks

Magus

Joined: 9 Dec 2010
Posts: 122

Posted: 9 Jun 2011, 03:40 #

Uruguay 1 Peso, KM#30: Obverse and reverse lettering are swapped

Uruguay 50 Centésimos, KM#106: Mintage figures:
2002: 10,000,000
2005: 15,000,000
2008: 35,000,000

Uruguay 1 Peso, KM#103: Mintage figures:
2005 So (KM#103.2): 40,000,000
2007 So (KM#103.2): 25,000,000

Uruguay 1 Peso (unlisted): Mintage figures:
2011: 20,000,000

Uruguay 2 Pesos, KM#104: Mintage figures:
2007 So (KM#104.2): 25,000,000

Uruguay 2 Pesos (unlisted): Mintage figures:
2011: 20,000,000

Uruguay 5 Pesos, KM#120: Mintage figures:
2003 (KM#120.1): 15,150,000
2003 So (KM#120.2): 30,000,000
2008 So (KM#120.2): 20,000,000

Uruguay 10 Pesos, KM#121: Mintage figures:
2000 (actually minted in 2004): 10,000,000
2000 (actually minted in 2006, dated "* 2000 *"): 40,000,000

Makake77

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Posts: 1723

Posted: 9 Jun 2011, 10:48 #

interesting. where did you get these infos from?

Magus

Joined: 9 Dec 2010
Posts: 122

Posted: 9 Jun 2011, 16:09 #

Krause for most of them. The rest I found here: http://www.monedasuruguay.com/

Also, Brazil 40 Réis - Pedro I, KM#363 should have a value of 40, not 1/3. There were no subdivisions of the original Brazilian Real, after all. And Uruguay 50 Pesos (Bicentennial) needs the diameter and weight figures switched, I screwed those up when I entered it.

Makake77

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Posts: 1723

Posted: 9 Jun 2011, 18:30 #

don't forget to check for permission. see images from monedasuruguay. Do we have a permission?

androl

Joined: 17 Jan 2011
Posts: 293

Posted: 11 Jun 2011, 21:17 #

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces5474.html
missing variant: I have this coin from 1999 with DomRep mintmark (like "u")

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces1652.html
this is coin alignment like all the other coins from S.K.

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces7515.html
are you sure that this coin is demonetized? It's the same type as the newest coins, just with reeded edge and "Showa" date

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces4994.html
and all other 50 cent coins from 1996 to 2008
it seems the designer G. Cogle made only the old design with downward 5, the design with upward 5 has LL as initials
(L. Lotriet like on the 1 Rand ??)
so also the reverse lettering is 50c LL, not GC

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces9157.html
why is there 1753 two times?
and by the way, would it be bad to replace the images of all these old copper coins by something that doesn't just look like two black circles?

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/erythree-1.html#devise136
please change Nafka -> Nakfa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eritrean_nakfa

Magus

Joined: 9 Dec 2010
Posts: 122

Posted: 12 Jun 2011, 07:11 #

Sweden 1 Riksdaler Riksmynt (KM#693): The images and the weight and diameter info are wrong; they're for KM#685, 1 Riksdaler Specie coin with a second denomination of 4 Riksdaler Riksmynt. KM#693's correct weight is 8.5 grams and diameter is 24.9 mm. Here are correct images:

Lübeck 4 Schilling (KM#143), Lübeck 8 Schilling (KM#144), and Lübeck 32 Schilling (KM#167): These should be under Lübeck Thaler, not Lübeck Mark.

Makake77

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Posts: 1723

Posted: 16 Jun 2011, 11:28 #

@Androl
1) added the DomRep entry. However: I did not find it in the catalogs - I only heard of this one.
So, I need more information on the coin's features to give it a correct KM#x.y number for
its subtype. It is hendecagonal? has it smooth edge? what type of asoka column. please check!
2) done
3) set to "unknown"
4) done - thanks. more of those to correct?
5) merged - will be checked soon (whole of german states)
btw: I would like to have better images instead of "black circles". however - all of this takes a lot
of time. We would like replace all images with better ones and ask users to upload hi-res ones instead.
since that is not so easy we will have to wait and have users add better content and ask for it.
I appreciate any help here.

Makake77

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Posts: 1723

Posted: 16 Jun 2011, 11:34 #

@Magus.
1) thanks - corrected (do we have permission for these images, are they yours?)
2) thanks - corrected

Magus

Joined: 9 Dec 2010
Posts: 122

Posted: 23 Jun 2011, 18:30 #

Sweden 1 Riksdaler Riksmynt (KM#693):
Weight still needs to be changed to 8.5 grams and diameter to 24.9 mm.

And yes, that's my pictures of it.

Cerulean

Joined: 1 Nov 2010
Posts: 1915

Posted: 23 Jun 2011, 19:40 #

The obverse and reverse images on this page need to be flipped so they match their descriptions.
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces9671.html

Makake77

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Posts: 1723

Posted: 23 Jun 2011, 20:32 #

yes, done. thanks

Magus

Joined: 9 Dec 2010
Posts: 122

Posted: 24 Jun 2011, 17:30 #

Republic of China 20 Cash (Y#308a): Image thumbnails show up as black squares. It appears that the images are actually in PNG format and merely had the file extension manually changed to .jpg

Makake77

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Posts: 1723

Posted: 24 Jun 2011, 17:50 #

corrected. you were right about the PNGs.
did not verify the sheet though. I'm not into correction of China coins right now

androl

Joined: 17 Jan 2011
Posts: 293

Posted: 24 Jun 2011, 23:57 #

Quote: Makake77@Androl
1) added the DomRep entry. However: I did not find it in the catalogs - I only heard of this one.
So, I need more information on the coin's features to give it a correct KM#x.y number for
its subtype. It is hendecagonal? has it smooth edge? what type of asoka column. please check!

hendecagonal, smooth edge, 6 g, diameter 26 mm, Asoka 14 mm
(Type B? C? It doesn't match with the description - my "1999 *" coin has the same 14 mm Asoka, also 6 g, 26 mm
there are also two lines for 1999 * now)

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/erythree-1.html#devise136
please change Nafka -> Nakfa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eritrean_nakfa

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces1924.html
please delete the third N on the reverse

Quote: Makake774) done - thanks. more of those to correct?

Makake77

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Posts: 1723

Posted: 26 Jun 2011, 00:28 #

tomorrow

will go to bed now

Makake77

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Posts: 1723

Posted: 27 Jun 2011, 11:05 #

1) India coins: mintmarks will be revised now. However: I cannot say if the Type A-C characteristics are
good or not. I took them out of WC catalogs. You have to check with other 2 rupees coins if these match.
if your 1999 is missing then - I will add it.
The double 1999* was a Llantrisant issue. I changed the mark now.
2) cannot change to Nakfa - this is something you should ask Xavier about
3) whole lot of entries corrected - thanks
4) cannot say why this happens - if fields are not locked. ask Xavier and report this bug to him
5) check if Swiss coins are missing that are still marked as demonetized but are not
6) according to catalogs they have .835 silver alloy, removed token mark, they are listed as "medals"
7) you're right. Maybe I will merge the other coins to look like the 5 Fr coin
8) date corrected
9) what is the difference? is the first one not curved? it looks like that

androl

Joined: 17 Jan 2011
Posts: 293

Posted: 27 Jun 2011, 21:13 #

thanks for correcting

the 25 thebe coin has flat parts on the edges, connected by rounded corners. The 1 and 2 pula coins have curved edges

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces10557.html
you forgot this, 33 mm diameter

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces4451.html
here, the obverse is upside-down (there are two palm stems near "Banque"), and so it is coin alignment
my coin is 8.11 g, so 8 g would be better than 7.95 g

Magus

Joined: 9 Dec 2010
Posts: 122

Posted: 29 Jun 2011, 10:59 #

United States - 5 Dollars "Indian Head" (KM# 129) is listed as demonetized.

The thing is, there are no demonetized US coins. The Coinage Act of 1965 remonetized all previously demonetized US coins and banknotes.

Cerulean

Joined: 1 Nov 2010
Posts: 1915

Posted: 29 Jun 2011, 15:34 #

This page has the wrong photo:
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces2676.html

The page is for Y#96, but the coin pictured is Y#72.

kommodore

Joined: 5 Nov 2009
Posts: 3010

Posted: 29 Jun 2011, 17:06 #

Quote: MagusUnited States - 5 Dollars "Indian Head" (KM# 129) is listed as demonetized.

The thing is, there are no demonetized US coins. The Coinage Act of 1965 remonetized all previously demonetized US coins and banknotes.

Actually the 5 dollar gold coin is worth 5 dollars?

So you could give 5 dollar gold coin to buy a happy meal at mc donalds?

Magus

Joined: 9 Dec 2010
Posts: 122

Posted: 29 Jun 2011, 17:48 #

Quote: kommodore
Quote: MagusUnited States - 5 Dollars "Indian Head" (KM# 129) is listed as demonetized.

The thing is, there are no demonetized US coins. The Coinage Act of 1965 remonetized all previously demonetized US coins and banknotes.
Actually the 5 dollar gold coin is worth 5 dollars?
So you could give 5 dollar gold coin to buy a happy meal at mc donalds?

Its legal tender value is 5 dollars. Its actual value is far higher, of course.

Valdij

Joined: 19 May 2011
Posts: 81

Posted: 4 Jul 2011, 23:28 #

Hello.
There are some errors at the following coins:
Korea - South, KM#54, KM#55 and KM#66
Wrong: Nickel
Right: Silver 0.925
Best regards.
Valdij

If women didn't exist, all the money in the world would have no meaning.
"Aristotle Onassis"

Makake77

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Posts: 1723

Posted: 5 Jul 2011, 11:24 #

ok - both Japan / South Korea got corrected

Magus

Joined: 9 Dec 2010
Posts: 122

Posted: 6 Jul 2011, 00:07 #

Swiss cantons 40 Batzen (Bern - Counterstamped) KM#180: Could somebody please remove the overload of mintmarked host dates? There's no data available on which dates actually got counterstamped, and Krause says that the vast majority of all Bern counterstamped coins were melted down, meaning that most of those host dates probably don't even exist. And there's no way to know which ones ever did.
China 150 Yuan (Phoenix and Dragon) KM#319: Mintage is 1,500
China 100 Yuan (Fu, Lu, and Shu) KM#508: Mintage is 99

ZacUK Numista team

Joined: 3 Jan 2011
Posts: 16698

Posted: 6 Jul 2011, 23:22 #

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces4821.html

Please amend 1916 to 1916H as per photo of my coin (and I think the coin on the above page is the same). There were only made 1916H 1917 1917H so not a plain 1916 as far as I know. Thanks :)

Token collector [1600-1899] with some coins

Makake77

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Posts: 1723

Posted: 8 Jul 2011, 01:53 #

done

Cerulean

Joined: 1 Nov 2010
Posts: 1915

Posted: 11 Jul 2011, 22:34 #

Please double-check that the weight and diameter listed here are correct:
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces1668.html

The values given do not match the values I get when I measure the coin directly.

Magus

Joined: 9 Dec 2010
Posts: 122

Posted: 18 Jul 2011, 00:51 #

United States - 10 Dollars (Library of Congress) - KM#312: I don't think those gold and platinum fineness figures are accurate. Gold and platinum each account for 48% of the coin's total weight, but since it's bimetallic rather than a gold/platinum alloy, that doesn't mean .480 fineness for each metal. I can't find any data on the actual fineness.

Canada - 2- Dollars (Royal Wedding) - KM#1111: According to the Royal Canadian Mint website, the diameter of this coin is 38mm, not 40mm.

United States 50 Dollars "Buffalo Head" KM#393: Name should be changed to: 50 Dollars "American Buffalo" (Gold Bullion Coinage), since "American Buffalo" is the official name of the coin. Gold fineness is also .9999, not .999 (this is in fact the entire reason the particular coin was created, so that the United States would have its own .9999 gold bullion coin).

United States $10 First Spouse coins, KM#407, KM#408, KM#409, KM#410, KM#430, KM#431, KM#432, and KM#433: Given that it says right on the coin that it's made of .9999 gold, I would presume that's the case.

Magus

Joined: 9 Dec 2010
Posts: 122

Posted: 20 Jul 2011, 05:50 #

Several Spanish pre-decimal gold coins are valued incorrectly. An escudo was 16 reales, not 40 reales.

1/2 Escudo - Charles III - KM#425: Value should 8.

1 Escudo - Charles IV: Correct value is 16.

2 Escudos - Charles III - KM#417a: Correct value is 32.

2 Escudos - Ferdinand VII - KM#468: Correct value is 32.

2 Escudos - Ferdinand VII - KM#478: Correct value is 32.

8 Escudos - Louis I - KM#332: Correct value is 128.

8 Escudos - Ferdinand VII - KM#485: Correct value is 128.

androl

Joined: 17 Jan 2011
Posts: 293

Posted: 23 Jul 2011, 15:35 #

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces1340.html
please change thickness to 2.5 mm

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces1339.html
please change thickness to 2 mm

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces1335.html
please change diameter to 21 mm

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces1326.html
confusion: I have this coin from 1997 and 1998 with thin flan (2.1 mm, 6.85 g) and 6x T.C. ||||| inscription, is this KM#1027.2 or KM#1027.3?
and KM#1027.1 can be separated in two variants, 1994-1996 with big design and 1996/1997 with small design, 1996 having both variants

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces6642.html
wrong image, a raised legend looks like this
http://i.colnect.net/images/f/233/704/10-Zlotych-Kazimierz-Wielki---raised-legends.jpg

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces18642.html
please change to medal alignment

ZacUK Numista team

Joined: 3 Jan 2011
Posts: 16698

Posted: 23 Jul 2011, 20:14 #

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces3461.html

If I did not have a second coin (Malaya 1 cent) beside the above coin I would not have noticed the difference. I already had KM# 2 of 1939 which agrees with the size of 21mm, and now I have a 1943 which is a fraction smaller (and very slightly less thick). Mine is 20mm so please check catalogues then amend the above page if required. They are both George VI coins, so perhaps the size difference is why they are different KM numbers. I also took a picture with the top against a line I drew on paper and the bases against a ruler. Thanks

Token collector [1600-1899] with some coins

radrick007

Joined: 7 Feb 2011
Posts: 3048

Posted: 24 Jul 2011, 07:33 #

Krause confirms that Malaya KM#6 should be 20mm diameter. Weight is correct.

Just because you can't see it ... doesn't mean it isn't there - Anon.

Former coin and banknote catalogue referee.

Makake77

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Posts: 1723

Posted: 24 Jul 2011, 22:50 #

have some patience guys

next week brings some corrections. having a lot to do in my job these days

Magus

Joined: 9 Dec 2010
Posts: 122

Posted: 27 Jul 2011, 22:02 #

Ethiopia - 1/32 Birr - KM#10: Date should be 1889, not 1899.

Liechtenstein - 1 Krone - Y#2: Add the year 1900 with a mintage of 50,000.
Liechtenstein - 5 Kronen - Y#4: Add the year 1900 with a mintage of 5,000.

I've tried to add both of them myself, and it keeps getting rejected for no apparent reason.

Magus

Joined: 9 Dec 2010
Posts: 122

Posted: 1 Aug 2011, 04:28 #

Swiss cantons - 1 Angster (Schwyz): This entry actually combines four distinct coins (KM#34, #40, #51 and #55).

From two different currencies.

I don't think I've ever seen an entry that needed to be split into four before.

KM#34 is years 1773, 1774, 1775, 1776, 1777, 1778, 1779 and 1780.
KM#40 is 1781, 1782, 1791, 1792 and 1797.
KM#51 is 1797 and 1798.
KM#55 is 1810, 1811, 1812, 1813, 1814, 1815, 1816, 1821, 1827, 1838, 1843, 1845 and 1846.

KM#34, #40 and #51 are Schwyz gulden (?-1798) coins with a value of 1/240, while KM#55 is a Schwyz frank coin (1810-1846) with a value of 0.005.

Russia - 15 Kopeks - Y#21a: Years 1861 and 1862 don't exist for this coin.

androl

Joined: 17 Jan 2011
Posts: 293

Posted: 2 Aug 2011, 20:46 #

Thank you for implementing this new system where we can edit everything and it is reviewed later!
Now we even have a list of "Change requests" in the menu, where all requested changes can be viewed, I've just found this link. Great!

anyway, I don't see why this one is rejected

(just trivial tidying)
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/contributions/voir_demande.php?id=511600

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces1548.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces7912.html
Iceland 10 Kronur, both are 27.5 mm large, 1.8 mm thick, but different metals,
so the first is 7.95 g, the second is only 6.95 g (my two coins, 1984, 2004)
(now okay)

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces254.html
this coin was issued during the reigns of Charlotte and Jean, so I tried to write both into the coin title

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces1072.html
the data of weight and thickness don't match. There are two variants,
one is 1.7 mm (should it say 1.7, 1.72 or 1.6?) and 10 g,
the other is 2.3 mm and 14 g
(now okay)

then one question: how to capitalize words correctly? I heard that all currencies should be capitalized. How should metal descriptions be capitalized (when they are not the first word of the description)?
"copper-nickel" (correct English orthography)?
"Copper-Nickel" (metal names capitalized)?
"Copper-nickel" (I don't see any reason, but some coins have it this way and change requests are rejected)?
How to spell "bimetallic"? "bi-metallic"? "Bi-Metallic"? "Bi-metallic"?

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces5990.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces4046.html
please change 15 ribbons -> 16 ribbons and 14 ribbons -> 15 ribbons, this is how the other corresponding coins have it and how Wikipedia says it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Emblem_of_the_Soviet_Union
(the Finnish ribbon was removed in 1956)

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces590.html
Weight 11.183
Diameter 28.0
please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_peso#Nuevo_peso
or http://www.bibliojuridica.org/libros/1/263/5.pdf

Magus

Joined: 9 Dec 2010
Posts: 122

Posted: 3 Aug 2011, 09:27 #

More bad entries:

1 Schilling (Schwyz): Needs to be split into KM#15 (1623, 1624, 1629, 1630, 1633, 1653, 1654, 1655, 1656 and 1673) and KM#31 (1730). Can't find any evidence of a 1597 dated Schwyz coin of this denomination existing.

1 Batzen (Schwyz): Don't even know what this should be split into, because there's overlap between the years.

1 Groschen (Schwyz): Needs to be split into KM#49 (1791) and KM#50 (1793).

5 Schilling (Schwyz): Needs to be split into KM#42 (1785) and KM#46 (1787).

Whoever's making these entries, somebody needs to inform them that just because coins have the same denomination doesn't mean they're the same coin.

androl

Joined: 17 Jan 2011
Posts: 293

Posted: 3 Aug 2011, 15:40 #

Quote: MagusMore bad entries:

1 Schilling (Schwyz): Needs to be split into KM#15 (1623, 1624, 1629, 1630, 1633, 1653, 1654, 1655, 1656 and 1673) and KM#31 (1730). Can't find any evidence of a 1597 dated Schwyz coin of this denomination existing.

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces23945.html
KM#31 already exists as 4 Kreuzer Solothurn

Quote: Magus5 Schilling (Schwyz): Needs to be split into KM#42 (1785) and KM#46 (1787).

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces23944.html
KM#46 already exists (1 Thaler Bern)

Magus

Joined: 9 Dec 2010
Posts: 122

Posted: 3 Aug 2011, 19:39 #

Krause gives separate sets of numbers for each Swiss canton. Just like they do for the German states.

androl

Joined: 17 Jan 2011
Posts: 293

Posted: 3 Aug 2011, 23:52 #

so there needs to be a correction in the site before the numbers can be added

I think these three tokens are the same
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces11515.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces23558.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces11051.html

and these too
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces10084.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces23557.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces15473.html

what to do with this piece?
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces16208.html
is it a real coin or fantasy?

KennyG

Joined: 25 Apr 2010
Posts: 5285

Posted: 5 Aug 2011, 00:50 #

I should get those checked out for you.

We hardly look into the *Tokens* section so it's a mess. That Indian coin, by the way, is play money. It is a Fantasy, or perhaps not even, and should be listed under tokens. That's why it is spelled "East Indya Company."

Kenny

- Verifying your Asian and British-territorial coins everyday with the best quality photos and the best information.

Check out my Facebook, Kenneth Gucyski.

Ginger

Joined: 19 Aug 2007
Posts: 2256

Posted: 5 Aug 2011, 20:53 #

I've just corrected the gold fineness on the 10 dollars files. Sorry I've been quite late on this one

Si tu cognes ta tête contre une cruche et que ça sonne creux, ce n'est pas forcément la cruche... lollll mon proverbe préféré !

androl

Joined: 17 Jan 2011
Posts: 293

Posted: 6 Aug 2011, 13:08 #

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces794.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces795.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces9954.html
I tried to give these three coins names with description about their difference, but the requests keep being rejected
coin (2) has had the brackets (value as 10) before, I only added "" like at coin (1) (value as "DIEZ"), and now the brackets are all away... How to distinguish coins (2) and (3)? Do they have differences? I wrote "1992 issue" and "1998-2000 issue" but the moderator seems to not like this and even doesn't add the correct capitalization and dash before Juan Carlos at coin (3).

Where to use brackets at all? At coins that look the same at first glance (like the three coins above)? Or at all coins that would have the same name without brackets (even when they look different)?
I think the first group needs brackets so that the user doesn't think "I have this coin from a different year, why isn't it included in this page?", and the second group needs brackets so that the coins are distinguishable in lists without pictures, like the swap list or so. What do you think?

then he says that "Weight 4 g" is better that "Weight 4.0 g" because the .0 is unnecessary

The second one is more precise, I have 4 coins where my scale shows 15.97 g for all 4, so the weight is not only 3.9 g or 4.1 g, but exactly 4.0 g

and once more about monarchs: should they *always* be added in the name or only where they are displayed on the coin?

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces6404.html
what does "no exit" mean on the 1998 year? Could someone not spell "does not exist"?

Makake77

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Posts: 1723

Posted: 6 Aug 2011, 20:21 #

some done

@Androl

QuoteThank you for implementing this new system where we can edit everything and it is reviewed later!
Now we even have a list of "Change requests" in the menu, where all requested changes can be viewed, I've just found this link. Great!

anyway, I don't see why this one is rejected (just trivial tidying)
en.numista.com/catalogue/contributions/voir_demande.php?id=511600

en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces1548.html
en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces7912.html
Iceland 10 Kronur, both are 27.5 mm large, 1.8 mm thick, but different metals,
so the first is 7.95 g, the second is only 6.95 g (my two coins, 1984, 2004)
(now okay)

en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces254.html
this coin was issued during the reigns of Charlotte and Jean, so I tried to write both into the coin title

en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces1072.html
the data of weight and thickness don't match. There are two variants,
one is 1.7 mm (should it say 1.7, 1.72 or 1.6?) and 10 g,
the other is 2.3 mm and 14 g
(now okay)

then one question: how to capitalize words correctly? I heard that all currencies should be capitalized. How should metal descriptions be capitalized (when they are not the first word of the description)?
"copper-nickel" (correct English orthography)?
"Copper-Nickel" (metal names capitalized)?
"Copper-nickel" (I don't see any reason, but some coins have it this way and change requests are rejected)?
How to spell "bimetallic"? "bi-metallic"? "Bi-Metallic"? "Bi-metallic"?

en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces5990.html
en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces4046.html
please change 15 ribbons -> 16 ribbons and 14 ribbons -> 15 ribbons, this is how the other corresponding coins have it and how Wikipedia says it:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Emblem_of_the_Soviet_Union
(the Finnish ribbon was removed in 1956)

en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces590.html
Weight 11.183
Diameter 28.0
please see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_peso#Nuevo_peso
or www.bibliojuridica.org/libros/1/263/5.pdf

1) Honestly - the new system poses some problems to us as admin/verification team.
A lot of useless requests are coming our way - so I would ask you to only file requests that concern
about missing data / or wrong data. Change of title etc. is still prohibited.
There's a reason why we implemented a lockdown on completed / verified sheets. ;)

2) Was rejected because there were parts in this request that could not be accepted.
The new system has checkboxes for us to select which part is to be accepted and which to be rejected.

3) Please do not expect that we will change every little aspect of weight variation. This just happens.
A lot of world coins have differing weight in small sizes. It is often to be considered normal.
Besides - weighing machines might differ, too. So - I won't change 2nd digit (0.0x) numbers.

4) It has to be Copper-nickel, Nickel-brass, Aluminium-bronze etc.
Aluminium is spelled like this, not Aluminum, and the former Cupro-nickel (which would be the correct
form) was replaced by Copper-nickel throughout the database to correspond to WC catalog entries.
btw.: there are not only "some coins" written this way but all of the verified ones - this is the form
to be ;). And: it is "Bi-Metallic" followed by [...] center in [...] ring...

5) I think english version of USSR coins yet has it - I did it a while ago. Is this what you mean?
So please be patient. USSR coins will be translated to french version soon enough. It all takes a lot
of time here.

6) weight 11.18 to be changed to 11.183 is not needed. btw. diameter IS 27mm not 28 like said on
the page you visited. Don not always trust other sources - there might be errors, too.
I took a ruler and checked myself - it is 27mm. Nothing beats a ruler and two eyes!

androl

Joined: 17 Jan 2011
Posts: 293

Posted: 6 Aug 2011, 22:17 #

2) well, i posted this one because I think that both of my two changes were absolutely following common sense and what you told me. Now you say that they could not be accepted because one of them is not okay. Which one? "trial strike = no" or "markkaa-> Markkaa"? Or are there hidden change request parts, like changes of non-locked fields that are changed immediately, that are not shown in the request page? Sometimes I get a "Partly validated" on requests with only one change.

3) I know, and I sometimes make figures less detailed like changing 2.44 to 2.4 when I notice that I have two coins and one is 2.38 and one 2.43. Coins from some countries vary pretty much in weight, while other coins from other countries are pretty precise (see my question about changing 3 g to 3.0 g).
This request was about changing the given weight of 8 g to 7 g. Whether it says 6.95 g or 7 g doesn't matter. I made a new request later and it was changed from 8 g to 7 g, and then I edited my post and wrote "(now okay)".

4) okay, I probably made my opinions from some coins that all had "Copper-Nickel". So now I know what should be, even if I don't understand that strange orthography

6) then we have different coins. I have N$10 1992 and 1993 and $10 1998 and 2002, and all four are exactly 28.0 mm

Makake77

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Posts: 1723

Posted: 7 Aug 2011, 00:54 #

2) then I don't know if these rejects were made by me - because I had to reject some.
there is still a chance that your reject was done by error (clicking on time too much), so feel free to try it
again. And: if parts are rejected - that had a reason for. You cannot expect that every thing gets
changed. We base our validation on different catalogs used, internet resources or own coins.
If changes are not proven or do not sound plausible there's a rather great chance they get rejected.
But don't give up - we need you people and help is appreciated - as long as a "No" to some changes
is acceptable

3) yes - you're right on this. otherwise we might have to change some coins over and over again. just
because some people claim that "their" coin is heavier or lighter.

4) That orthography was accepted by the whole team to find a standard that fits for any of us and
corresponds to the way the catalogs have it. Personally I think "Copper-Nickel" looks better, too.
But we won't change that again. I think "Copper-nickel" is still pretty enough

6) strange thing. because I have both the Bi-metallic Copper-nickel center and the Silver center one.
Both are 27mm using a ruler ("Geodreieck", I don't have that hitech equipment of yours

but it seems I have to buy such a thing)

Makake77

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Posts: 1723

Posted: 7 Aug 2011, 10:35 #

Quoteen.numista.com/catalogue/pieces794.html
en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces795.html
en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces9954.html
I tried to give these three coins names with description about their difference, but the requests keep being rejected
coin (2) has had the brackets (value as 10) before, I only added "" like at coin (1) (value as "DIEZ"), and now the brackets are all away... How to distinguish coins (2) and (3)? Do they have differences? I wrote "1992 issue" and "1998-2000 issue" but the moderator seems to not like this and even doesn't add the correct capitalization and dash before Juan Carlos at coin (3). :|

Where to use brackets at all? At coins that look the same at first glance (like the three coins above)? Or at all coins that would have the same name without brackets (even when they look different)?
I think the first group needs brackets so that the user doesn't think "I have this coin from a different year, why isn't it included in this page?", and the second group needs brackets so that the coins are distinguishable in lists without pictures, like the swap list or so. What do you think?

then he says that "Weight 4 g" is better that "Weight 4.0 g" because the .0 is unnecessary The second one is more precise, I have 4 coins where my scale shows 15.97 g for all 4, so the weight is not only 3.9 g or 4.1 g, but exactly 4.0 g

and once more about monarchs: should they *always* be added in the name or only where they are displayed on the coin?

en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces6404.html
what does "no exit" mean on the 1998 year? Could someone not spell "does not exist"? :O

1) They have a "Type 1 denomination" or "Type 2 denomination" for now - maybe that is changed again.
no worry - Spain will come on the list soon enough. Problem is - Spain isn't verified yet, a lot of other
things come first. So that's just a matter of time someone of us cares about these coins. Just be patient, please!
Indeed, a "1998-2000 issue" in the title isn't that nice to look at, and very redundant information since
you can easily see in the year list that the coin was only minted through 1998-2000 then. So no
need to write it in the title (same rules goes for "aluminium type" etc. - if you can see this in the data.)

2) "where to use brackets"? - well, we use brackets to distinguish major varieties that separate coins
into completey different KM#s for example. Or for coins that look similar but are not (see German empire
coins with different coat of arms design). We also use brackets to distinguish change of monarch's
portrait design (like Elizabeth II's portraits from Type 1 to 4). Brackets are also used here to give a
short summary of the commemorative event - but this might change in the future. I think your request to
add a bracketed note about the change of denomination type for the peseta coins would have been ok.
I suppose it was just too early - because we did not care about spanish coinage yet (see above).

3) I added a dash. And yes - rulers are always written followed after a dash, not only if a portrait is
present.

4) "no exit" is most probably an error and means does not exist. 1998 belongs to KM#989. This
will be corrected in the future. You see - there's still a lot of work to do.

androl

Joined: 17 Jan 2011
Posts: 293

Posted: 7 Aug 2011, 16:43 #

so I think Ukraine is also still to do, there's a big mess with the different variants, so I'll only post these two here:
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces3304.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces11193.html
these two show images of two different variants with five+one (left+right of the line) berries (both overall 46 berries, different align of the 1 o'clock and 4 o'clock groups)
there's a third variant with six+one berries for the 2 Kopiyki (overall 49 berries)
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/photos/ukraine/g9.jpg
so if the description of the 10 Kopiyok is right, then there are three different 10 Kopiyok 1992 coins

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces3305.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces11197.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces11196.html
(1) and (3) have the same description, picture of (1) was made from picture of (2) by digital manipulation, although the result is equivalent to picture of (3).

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces706.html
this coin tells me one weight and thickness, and then I have to say whether my coin is a thick flan or thin flan variety

luckily for me, the guy who measured the thickness had a different coin than the guy who measured the weight

I made a request with my data for weight, thickness and diameter (3.5 g, 1.5 mm, 24.5 mm)
someone with a thick coin could complete the data

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces7.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces19263.html
these two seem to be absolutely the same, and the mintages are overlapping and slightly differing
I think there are distinct designs with "O. Roty" or "D'AP. O.ROTY" for all Semeuse coins except 2 Francs where there's only one third distinct design with "D'APRES O.ROTY".

Magus

Joined: 9 Dec 2010
Posts: 122

Posted: 9 Aug 2011, 09:50 #

France, 20 Francs - Napoleon I, KM#661: Year 11 (1802) does not exist for this coin.

androl

Joined: 17 Jan 2011
Posts: 293

Posted: 9 Aug 2011, 13:54 #

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/contributions/voir_demande.php?id=519977
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/contributions/voir_demande.php?id=519986
I have the feeling, some moderators throw a coin when deciding about requests

Name/type of the coin (en) test -> validated
so the coin is called "test" now
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces20743.html

just by the way: what's the difference between UK KM# 808 and KM# 825, both 1 Farthing George V (1911-1925 and 1926-1936)?
Wikipedia says the alloy changed in 1923 from 95% copper, 4% tin, 1% zinc to 95.5% copper, 3% tin and 1.5% zinc (what a great change

)

radrick007

Joined: 7 Feb 2011
Posts: 3048

Posted: 9 Aug 2011, 15:10 #

There are actually two issues within UK KM#808, namely 808.1 and 808.2, which relates to the way the bronze was produced and resulted in a darker finish for the 1911-1918 issues. For the KM#825 in 1926 the design of the obverse was altered very slightly, known as "modified effigy", but the difference is quite hard to spot from an individual coin and is easier to recognise with 2 coins next to each other.

Just because you can't see it ... doesn't mean it isn't there - Anon.

Former coin and banknote catalogue referee.

Xavier Site admin

Joined: 16 Jan 2007
Posts: 9120

Posted: 9 Aug 2011, 17:16 #

Quote: androlhttps://en.numista.com/catalogue/contributions/voir_demande.php?id=519977
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/contributions/voir_demande.php?id=519986
I have the feeling, some moderators throw a coin when deciding about requests
Name/type of the coin (en) test -> validated
so the coin is called "test" now
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces20743.html

Hello,
Thank you for this report Androl. It's important to be aware of one's weakness.
There can be some chance when you have your request processed, since we have several validators, but such requests should definitely never be accepted.
I am going to investigate to understand what happened and take measures to improve the validation process.

androl

Joined: 17 Jan 2011
Posts: 293

Posted: 10 Aug 2011, 00:44 #

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces13352.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces13350.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces13351.html
these are marked as "decimalized pound", but with values in multiples of 1/240 pound, so they are sorted strangely
the issues before decimalization have been in old pence, of course, but on decimalization day, they were in fact upvalued by factor 2.4 and are now worth their face value in new pence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maundy_money#Maundy_coinage

QuoteOn Decimal Day 15 February 1971, the pound sterling became decimalised, with 100 new pence instead of 20 shillings of 12 pence (240 pence) in a pound. No change was made to the design of the Maundy pieces, and all Maundy pieces, both pre- and post-Decimal Day are deemed denominated in new pence, more than doubling the face value of the pre-1971 pieces. (Lobel, p. 626)

Makake77

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Posts: 1723

Posted: 11 Aug 2011, 23:57 #

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.

Forum »

Numista coin catalogue

» Forum policy

Used time zone is UTC+2:00.
Current time is 07:36.