No, this isn't about Donald Trump or Kim Yung Un. It's about the Numista management.
A long time ago I asked the admins for a way to list sets in the catalogue and got the usual reply....it's in the pipeline, we'll get something set up at some stage. I waited several months an asked a couple more times and got the same reply. So I decided to take matters into my own hands and I set up a separate section within the New Zealand catalogue.
The sets are separated from the rest of the coins, they have their own KM#s they are logically set out, and each page has a line where you can enter the whole set into your collection, but also links to all the coins that are in the set so you can put them in individually as well if you like. I've had nothing but positive feedback for the way we have sets listed in the catalogue.
Now I've been contacted by the admins to say that the sets will be removed to "clean up the catalogue" again with the promise that some vague time in the future there will be a section to list sets. Now I say they should not be removed until the new section we have been promised is in place, in my mind there is no logical reason to remove a section that work well and that people like just because you want to tidy things up.
If you haven't seen how we've listed them, have a look and tell me what you think.
I really like what you've done, personally though, as a non-set-collector, I'd prefer to see it as a completely different section (like tokens) that being said, I'm not sure I'd be in favour of deleting your hard work.
Loruca
I collect anything: If it's Italian or Italian states i collect it even more!
Yes I like the sets. Although I’m not too concerned about it since I usually put it in UNC and comment set issue. I do believe it’s something that will benefit the catalogue though.
I think it's important to distinguish between mint issued sets and those cobbled together by any Tom, Dick or Harry. I don't collect mint sets and my first instinct is always to crack them open to pick out what I need but I think they should have a place in the catalog subject to the above.
I notice that they have KM numbers. Let's make that the acid test. Someone has already done the heavy lifting. KM number = in you go, granny's set of colorized state quarters from HSN = no thanks.
If there's any doubt, simply refer them to that pinnacle of numismatics - Maundy Sets. Anyone claiming that these are not genuine numismatic items is a halfwit.
Non illegitimis carborundum est. Excellent advice for all coins.
Make Numismatics Great Again!
I like how you have them Neil. Iam not a collector of specimen set. But lets face it, they are made by the mint. Who makes the coins. And they been around for 180 years, So they should be here. The oldest one I can think of is the specimen set of George IV 1826. What had 11 coins in it. So by removing them is turning are backs to part of the history of coins, and coin collecting. So they should be here.
Let me elaborate, I'm not talking about whether or not the sets belong in the catalogue. The admins have said that there will be a section for sets to be entered. My problem is that the NZ sets are supposed to be removed before the new sets section has been put in place under the guise of "cleaning up the catalogue" Now in other countries the sets have been entered in along with the general coins and they haven't been entered well, but I feel that the NZ sets are already tidy, well ordered, and separate from the rest of the coins, there's no reason to remove them until the new sets section is up and running and they can be transferred in.
Yes Neil. They should leave New Zealand a loan. They are very well put together. WE have heard in the pipeline to many times. And I think it just away for some to remove what they don't want.
Hmm, tough one indeed. My first thought is to say you overstepped your mandate and you should be have been ready for a situation like this.
However, I take it at face value that your changes are indeed improvements and they would be more helpful than the status quo. You've obviously invested time and good intention.
Perhaps, can the numista team save your information at the back end till they finally do (if ever) come out with that update?
i can see how this will leave a bitter taste in the mouth., but I don't know how useful it is to put this frustration out here in the discussion forum. Eitherways, I hope it gets resolved in a way that acknowledges your valuable work. The last thing we should do is just delete it all as if it were a nuisance
I think what you have done is genius. I also think it would work with banknotes and an adjusted template. Folks who dont like sets dont have to look at em.
Library Media Specialist, columnist, collector, and gardener...
Quote: "ashlobo"i can see how this will leave a bitter taste in the mouth., but I don't know how useful it is to put this frustration out here in the discussion forum. Eitherways, I hope it gets resolved in a way that acknowledges your valuable work. The last thing we should do is just delete it all as if it were a nuisance
The work was not mine, it was mostly another member muzz0000, I just tidied up his entries, added some links and approved them, but the reason for putting this on the forum is to gauge what the end users of this site think about the way the sets have been handled by the admin team. Many may not know that we have set up a separate section for them, many may not know that the sets are all about to be stripped out of the catalogue.
Like I said, I've had nothing but positive feedback about the sets section, yet they are all due to be stripped out of the catalogue with no definite timeframe about a replacement for them.
Personally I think the sets are good additions to the Numista catalogue as standalone entries, but given that the set's contents are already documented in the Numista catalogue as separate coins, it would be redundant to add sets to the catalogue just because they have KM#s.
Users with sets could simply add them to their collection one by one going through the coins' Numista pages; already a particularly useful format given how sets over time can be broken up. I reiterate that in my opinion, sets don't add anything to the catalogue we don't already have; not to mention it could potentially mess up Numista collections and stats for some members.
I love the idea of sets. No reason in my opinion why you can't have both the separate coin and the set listed.
Would be great for the UK ones too, the 1887, 1937, 1902 ones etc, as well as the more modern sets.
Personally insofar as forum moderation, light touch but iron fist. If people start to feel like they can take the piss or you look weak, they will exploit it. That said, I'm a big proponent of free speech and all that yadayada and people here are great, so I don't need to do much.
Yes set should stay. Cass Taylor Please don't get mad. But with that said are we going to remove all the poofs too, Poof coins are already documented same KM numbers and two lines. My thoughts are if sets are out all poof should be out to. Poofs were not made for circulation , just like sets. Poofs are just as redundant they have the same Km numbers and two lines for the same coin.
First of all, good work!
As a collector of San Marino coinage where most of the coins are issued in sets, I think that's a good idea. Set collectors would definitely benefit from this.
Here are few tips on how do I think this should work. Sets can be represented either as a separate currency or a separate page, that's not crucial. The special 'set' entity must be created in order to not mess up the stats: when you add any set to your collection, the number of your coins, the total weight of collection and all other relevant stats must be updated correspondingly; also all the coins included in the set should be marked as present in the collection. In the meantime, it should still look like a set entry in the wish list and in the swap list. Also sets should be able to have more than two photos as long as most of the sets have some very nice covers which certainly should be included.
I like too the idea of sets and I would like to see it implemented by the referees of other countries. And Numista administration should support any improvement of the website, especially when this does not imply modifications at large scale.
I dont collect sets but they are integral part of Numista and we must keep them. The way how they were handled in NZ its great ! Until we create a new section for them we should keep them in the NZ format.
Regards,
Damian
Quote: "ALLRED1950"Yes set should stay. Cass Taylor Please don't get mad. But with that said are we going to remove all the poofs too, Poof coins are already documented same KM numbers and two lines. My thoughts are if sets are out all poof should be out to. Poofs were not made for circulation , just like sets. Poofs are just as redundant they have the same Km numbers and two lines for the same coin.
I'm not going to be mad if sets stay, just saying.
But look at it this way; the Numista catalogue was created for coins, hence the lines for filling in value, material, diameter/thickness/weight, etc. that sit empty for those set entries. IMO I'd rather see a whole separate format for sets if we're going to include them; forcing a set into a form designed for individual coins that fails to display the statistics of each of the coins included in a set seems not just redundant given the coins already exist with details in the catalogue, but also kind of pointless.
Not to impugn on the work done by Neil and muzz, of course.
Quote: "ALLRED1950"Yes set should stay. Cass Taylor Please don't get mad. But with that said are we going to remove all the poofs too, Poof coins are already documented same KM numbers and two lines. My thoughts are if sets are out all poof should be out to. Poofs were not made for circulation , just like sets. Poofs are just as redundant they have the same Km numbers and two lines for the same coin.
I'm not going to be mad if sets stay, just saying.
But look at it this way; the Numista catalogue was created for coins, hence the lines for filling in value, material, diameter/thickness/weight, etc. that sit empty for those set entries. IMO I'd rather see a whole separate format for sets if we're going to include them; forcing a set into a form designed for individual coins that fails to display the statistics of each of the coins included in a set seems not just redundant given the coins already exist with details in the catalogue, but also kind of pointless.
Not to impugn on the work done by Neil and muzz, of course.
Quote: "CassTaylor"Personally I think the sets are good additions to the Numista catalogue as standalone entries, but given that the set's contents are already documented in the Numista catalogue as separate coins, it would be redundant to add sets to the catalogue just because they have KM#s.
Users with sets could simply add them to their collection one by one going through the coins' Numista pages; already a particularly useful format given how sets over time can be broken up. I reiterate that in my opinion, sets don't add anything to the catalogue we don't already have; not to mention it could potentially mess up Numista collections and stats for some members.
The idea behind them was it made it easier to swap sets. Rather than going through a users swap list tracking down all the relevant coins in the set, you can just enter the set, once you get the coins you can either keep it as a set in your collection, or use the links to enter the coins individually into your collection.
But again, I'm not arguing whether or not sets should be in the catalogue as this discussion seems to have moved to, the admins have said they will be in the catalogue in a separate section. The reason I'm bringing this up is what I see as the illogical step or removing the sets that have already been entered BEFORE the new sets section has been established. It means that those wanting to swap sets will have to enter the swaps the long way.
