Greetings. I am the ref of Isle of Man. I am in a pickle with these listings. The IOM is unique among countries in that on coins of a single KM type we might have a coin of no mintmark, obverse mintmark only, reverse mintmark only, or obverse and reverse mintmark. Added to this mess is mintmark combinations with die letter combinations. Add to that mix privy marks. Further confuse the mix with marks and letters that travel. Now apparantly there is a "law" of Numista that I am breaking, and I damaging the website in the process. First of all, I am an expert of modern Manx coinage. I have an extremely large collection of Manx coinage that will probably never be complete. This gives me great joy, as I always have something to look for. I have extremely low mintages, patterns, and literally dozens of coins that still need added to the catalog. I have been in communication with other collectors of Manx coinage for decades. I have been a listed and unlisted contributor of the Krause catalog for years. A number of images found in the Krause catalog are of the actual coin in my bank boxes. I take numimatic scholarship very seriously. I would invite the reader to please look at the Isle of Man for KM#19 listing of the half penny. This listing describes everything about the coin. The legends, depictions, dating, and design of every coin in this listing. Exept the mintmark is described in the comments. Why? Because it only applies to a single date of this type. The mintmark appears again in the place where a Numista member tracks their coins. Why should I list a mintmark in the lettering that may or may not be on a fraction of the coins in this type? Isn't this way adequate for a novice as well as detailed enough for an expert? Now please look at Isle of Man KM#32, also a half penny. This type has mintmark, die letter, and privy marks found in various places and combinations that depend on the date. Should I create a page for each incarnation of this KM type? No! In the description and legends, I have recorded what is common to each coin of this type. In the comments and in the dates where you input the number of coins you own are listed the numerous varieties of this KM type. The Numista "law" would make this coin page hard to navigate. If I included the mintmark, the die letter, or the privy mark in the lettering or design section of the coin pictured for this listing, then I would be excluding probably 80 to 90 percent of the coins in this type! I could very well confuse a nonexpert user of this site by describing a type they dont have. The comment section is where all the combinations of letters and marks are found on this KM type. The years where a collector checks there coins is a second place where varieties of this KM type are logically listed. Please give feedback that is helpful. The Numista "law" has to be flexible to also be a Numista "justice." In fact, if I did as a bully demands then the Isle of Man or even the Korean listings would become ridiculous. Refs are sometimes chosen for their expertise as well as their enthusiasm. Please help us, not torment us.
Library Media Specialist, columnist, collector, and gardener...
Referees for ancient Rome are preparing document for Numisdoc, on how they manage it, how they write names etc. etc. I believe the same can be done for other countries, for Isle of Man especially. Mintmarks there are very complex, and confusing for begginers, so it should be explained thoroughly, and that should be done in comments.
Catalogue should provide info and respect country's coinage.
Quote: "Jarcek"Referees for ancient Rome are preparing document for Numisdoc, on how they manage it, how they write names etc. etc. I believe the same can be done for other countries, for Isle of Man especially. Mintmarks there are very complex, and confusing for begginers, so it should be explained thoroughly, and that should be done in comments.
Catalogue should provide info and respect country's coinage.
See those two:
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces93807.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces92297.html
One lists all lettering variants and other lists mintmark information in comments.
Wouldn´t it be a bit better for the catalogue if we tried to standardise these kind of things? We should have some guidelines on how to present these and when varieties should be split or kept together. I know it is difficult and every country has differences, but i believe that this is still possible.
Referee for Ancient Greece, Norway and the Kingdom of Cyprus
I too, have over 500 coins from the Isle of Man, and although I only collect one off of each KM#, I really like the way that each of these 1/2pence coins have been listed.
It gives collectors a full view of every variation of this coin that is available. It will also mean that hopefully, collectors will not request additional lines due to another variation being found.
To do this to every Isle of Man coin where these variations occur, is a huge task, and the referee should be applauded for his efforts, which I would like to be one of the first to do so.
I would like to wish you all the very best in your efforts to make Numista an even better place to list our collections.
The coin pages for the 1/2 penny KM#19 and KM#32 are just perfect!
You are right it isn't useful to put the mint mark in the lettering when not all the dates have that mint mark. But for the sake of date/variety collectors it has to be somewhere of course. And your solution to put it in the "comment" sector is perfect. Everything what need to be found on the coin page, can be found. And every different mint mark/variety has its own year line. Congratulations!
