Krause has filed for §11, a chance for Numista?

Hi,

https://www.ecommercebytes.com/2019/03/14/ecommerce-could-not-save-niche-magazine-publisher/

Now the dream of Numista could come true.

Somebody will have to provide a numbering system AND the numbers for all new coins now.

Is Numista SOLID enough to take over as wanted by quite a few people? Will Numista be able to set up an unpaid structure to do that? How is the succession and knowledge if Xavier is no longer available? There is certainly more pertinent questions, but something has to be done.

Using Schön numbers is not really an option, since the catalogs are in German and not very nicely organized, or let me say, it's much harder to use than the SCWC catalogs.

What do YOU think?

Ole

I think it is a great idea. I had the same suggestion before.
https://en.numista.com/forum/topic77699.html

Quote: "ken6528"​I think it is a great idea. I had the same suggestion before.
​https://en.numista.com/forum/topic77699.html

​Hi,

thanks for the link, but that was BEFORE the §11 of SCWC!

I think we should NOW have a REALISTIC discussion of the possibility of Numista of doing something related to catalog numbers!

Please stay on this thread for this new turn of fate for KM#...

Ole

Filing for bancrupcy isn't the same as going out of business.

Quote: "Houseofham"​Filing for bancrupcy isn't the same as going out of business.

​No, but since they have no means, no expertice left in their sceleton structure and no "good-will" to sell, they are in my opinion just bankrupt!

Greetings
Ole

As already noted in the other thread, technically, Numista already has catalog numbers - that's the number after "pieces" in the URL.
So, say, just as an example, the Lincoln Shield cent could be described as Numista 10969.

(I have actually used that system previously in my CCF posts; it's convenient to be able to describe a coin as, say, Numista 83165 and not have to look up which other catalogue this type might show up in.)

Quote: "January First-of-May"​As already noted in the other thread, technically, Numista already has catalog numbers - that's the number after "pieces" in the URL.
​So, say, just as an example, the Lincoln Shield cent could be described as Numista 10969.
​
​(I have actually used that system previously in my CCF posts; it's convenient to be able to describe a coin as, say, Numista 83165 and not have to look up which other catalogue this type might show up in.)

​Heavy contradiction.....

for type collectors, that might be correct, but I'm absolutely not sure of that!!!!! If the collector goes for the extension AFTER the KM#, it's certainly completely wrong. Look here:
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces2297.html

For me that system would not work at all, since I'm collecting by year, mint and eventual variants

Anyway, there is no logical system behind that numbering, is there?

No, the next years are not going to be easy and some grey cells need to be used a bit more than usual, right?

Ole

We shall surely discuss this on admin meetings.

So, I exchanged few words with Xavier, and yes, we should take that chance!

Quote: "Jarcek"​So, I exchanged few words with Xavier, and yes, we should take that chance!

​Organize it well first and try to keep the "logic" of the KM in your numbers and extend the numbers from the last official numbers from KM and don't start from scratch on all the coins.

Let's see if we'll get any new catalogs this spring before taking any action.

Just my opinion of course....

Ole

The current logic for the number in the coin page URL is an incrementing number for new coins (including coin creation requests which were eventually rejected by referees), independently of the country or any characteristic of the coin.

Ole, you mentioned that would not work for you. Could you please explain why?What would be the ideal coin numbering for you?

Quote: "Xavier"​The current logic for the number in the coin page URL is an incrementing number for new coins (including coin creation requests which were eventually rejected by referees), independently of the country or any characteristic of the coin.
​
​Ole, you mentioned that would not work for you. Could you please explain why?What would be the ideal coin numbering for you?

​Hi Xavier,

it's as simple as this:

for type collectors, that might be correct, but I'm absolutely not sure of that!!!!! If the collector goes for the extension AFTER the KM#, it's certainly completely wrong. Look here:
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces2297.html

For me that system would not work at all, since I'm collecting by year, mint and eventual variants.

So for me you cannot use an automat to give the numbers and for everything don't forget, that a lot of variants are found AFTER the original number is given, which you have to foresee from the beginning to be able to link the numbers logically to make sure that for exemple (Australia) all the variants of 1 cent coins from 1966 to 1984 will be together.

OK, project that exemple into the near future for any other country, where we just know to start with, that a new type has been introduced in a country. After 2 years it is found out that the first year was minted in 2 different places with each a different die (up-turned 5 versus down-turned 5), this you might decide to split into two sub-numbers, which no automat can do. In the second year of that type's life, all are minted in the place of the up-turned 5! To take this a bit further, this coin changes the alloy in the 3'rd year, but in the 4't year it goes back to the original alloy. Somebody find a strange variant of a coin from the first year (no top of the 5, f.ex.) In the 5th year, a colored specimen is introduced, but the old coin is still minted. The numbering system will have to take all these possibilities into account AND still keep those coins in a logical chronological and number system.

As you see, you need some serious brain storming before doing the slightest attack of introducing a new numbering system.

Do you want to give separate numbers for different mints (like for the French coins) or not (like the German coins). Yes, all those basics have to be cleared up as well.

Bon courage (good luck)
Ole

Quote: "Sjoelund"​Anyway, there is no logical system behind that numbering, is there?

True, we would really need a good and logic system. Take Falkland Islands for exampel. There we have:

• ​½ Penny 1974-1983, KM#1
  
• 1 Penny 1974-1992, KM#2
  
• 1 Penny 1998-1999, KM#2a
  

With the existing Numista piece numbers (NP#) it would be:

• ½ Penny 1974-1983, NP#7137
  
• 1 Penny 1974-1992, NP#5729 ​
  
• 1 Penny 1998-1999, NP#9406
  

No logic at all.

To start with, all countries needs to start with NP#1, otherwise it will be a disaster. All denominations should also follow the previous, unless devaluations, or other major changes has been made. So all Falkland Islands 1 pennies should be NP#2, as 2a, 2b, 2c, etc. after changed of composiions and queen's portrait (etc.).
So Falkland Islands 2 pence 2004-2011 (KM#131) should be NP#3b. This would make it much easier to add newly released coins, and all 2 pennies would come after each other. It would also be much easier when looking for a specific coin. Personally I can look for hours after a commemorating coin, which all of a sudden has a 1000-number, but all other with the same denomination has a number in the 70 range. Just put them together and make it a complete system.

Edit: Of course a dot, like Krause uses (2a.1) or colon, do be more unique (2a:2) can be used if necessary, like with different mint marks etc.

Hi Ngdawa,

very well said!

Here is something I found on the internet
http://portlandcoins.blogspot.com/2013/11/what-are-km-numbers.html

What are KM Numbers?
Mauritius 1992 5 rupees, KM# 56
Once you start to explore the world of foreign coin collecting, you'll inevitably run across KM numbers (frequently abbreviated "KM#"). Collecting sites like Numista and World Coin Gallery list them prominently in their search results. eBay auctions for individual foreign coins frequently contain them. NGC's World Coin Price Guide includes them in its results. And if you ever tried to trade coins with someone with more collecting experience, they probably asked for, or gave, a KM number when describing a coin.

KM numbers are a numbering system for world coins created by the authors of the Standard Catalog of World Coins - Chester Krause ("K") and Clifford Mishler ("M") - which was first printed in 1972. The authors very astutely realized that it would make it easier for collectors to use their reference guide, and to be able to discuss specific coins, if there was a shorthand way of identifying a specific coin (instead of saying "The second type of the India 25 paise coin from 1967").

In the Standard Catalog, each country's coins are given a number (starting at 1 and counting up). KM numbers are generally assigned from oldest to newest, then from smallest to largest denomination. For example, in Mauritania the KM numbers look like this (ordered by KM number):
1/5 Ouguiya (1973): KM# 1
1 Ouguiya (1973): KM# 2
5 Ouguiya (1973-): KM# 3
10 Ouguiya (1973-): KM# 4
20 Ouguiya (1973-): KM# 5
1 Ouguiya (1974-): KM# 6
Notice that for the coins starting in 1973, the KM numbers follow the denominations - 1/5, 1, 5, 10, 20. Then in 1974, the 1 Ouguiya changed its design slightly and was given a new number (#6).

When a coin gets a new design (even a slight change), it usually is given a new number. In Great Britain, the pound coin cycles through different reverse designs to signify the 4 members of the United Kingdom (Great Britain, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales). Each of these reverse designs is given its own KM number. Sometimes, a small design change receives a decimal-point number ("214.2") instead of an entirely new number.

When a coin's composition (the metal that it is made of) changes, however, it usually does not get a whole new KM number (as long as the design stays the same). Instead, a letter is added to the KM number to signify the change in materials. For example, Singapore's KM#1 is the 1 cent coin made of bronze; the copper-clad steel version is KM#1a.

It is imporant to note that KM numbers are only unique within a country - most countries have their own "KM# 1". They also usually aren't specific to a year - Switzerland's KM# 29 (20 rappen) starts in 1881 and continues to this day. In order to properly refer to a coin you should include:
KM number
Country
Year
Denomination
For example: Netherlands 1 Gulden 1973 KM# 184

As you can see from this example, in many cases the KM number is actually unnecessary to identify a specific coin. The country, denomination, and year are sufficient to pinpoint the coin being discussed. The most crucial use of KM numbers occurs when there are multiple designs for a single year. For example, the India 10 paise coins between 1988 and 1993 were issued in 2 different styles - a scalloped coin (KM# 39) and a plain round coin (KM#40). In this case, using the KM number would help communicate which coin you are referring to.

Because of the way the numbers have to be assigned, KM numbers are not very useful for organizing coins in a collection. Numbers that are close to each other could represent different designs of the same coin, or completely different coins. If you stored your collection in KM# order, it would probably look a little funny. And it is very difficult to find a coin in one of the Standard Catalog of World Coin books by KM number and country alone, because the catalog is organized by denomination and year. However, it is common to write KM numbers on the coins in your collection (usually on the back of your protective coin flips) so that, should you need to know them, you don't have to repeatedly look up the coins in a catalog.

Other Catalog Numbers

The Standard Catalog of World Coins was not the first to assign numbers to coins. Even within the Catalog there are references to coin numbering systems that were introduced by other catalogs and are in common use. While KM numbers are probably the most familiar for world coin collectors, you may also run across:
Y#: Modern World Coins and Current Coins of the World - Richard S. Yeoman
C#: Coins of the World, 1750-1850 - William D. Craig
K#: Illustrated Catalog of Chinese Coins - Eduard Kann

Ole

PS, I know, I have the internal rules from KM somewhere, but I have not found them yet!

Quote: "Sjoelund"​​Organize it well first and try to keep the "logic" of the KM in your numbers and extend the numbers from the last official numbers from KM and don't start from scratch on all the coins.

​Like I stated above, I reckon we should be even more logic - which is easly done with my proposal. Although, I think we in one way will have to start from scratch. But, each referee can have a first saying in making the numbers for their own coutry. Some countries are small with just a handful coins, and these are made easily (probably just change KM# to NP#, or whatever we wanna use), but countries like USA and UK would take forever, and would need more involved people.

Now Mali looks like this:

• 5 Francs Maliens KM# 2
  
• 10 Francs (Independence) KM# 1
  
• 10 Francs (Independence; Piedfort Essai) KM# PE1
  
• 10 Francs Maliens KM# 3
  
• 10 Francs (President Modibo Keita, "1967") KM# 5
  
• 10 Francs (Independence) KM# 13
  
• 10 Francs (Essai) KM# E3
  
• 10 Francs KM# 11
  

But could be like this:

• 5 Francs Maliens NP# 1
  
• 10 Francs (Independence) NP# 2
  
• 10 Francs (Independence; Piedfort Essai) NP# 2a
  
• 10 Francs Maliens NP# 2b
  
• 10 Francs (President Modibo Keita, "1967") NP# 2c
  
• 10 Francs (Independence) KM# 2c:1
  
• 10 Francs (Essai) NP# 2d:1
  
• 10 Francs NP# 2d
  

I can see why one would like to sort the series together, but then we're back where Krause left us. I reckon it's would be easier to after demonination. At least that's how I am cataloguing my collection. All inputs are welcome!

Hi Ngdawa,

OK, but the exemple is too simple, we need a country with variants in the year lines and change of alloy inside the type, to be able to really see, how your suggestion would work. Also foresee years and types NOT known yet! In your exemple, that would not be possible.

Furthermore you would have to DEFINE clearly how to do it in a number system procedure.

I did NOT manage to find the "old" KM procedure, which was in a mail from around 2005, which I don't have anymore, and the guy who had sent it to me is no longer on this earth. On the other hand I've asked my contact in KM to find an exemple for me, let's see, what comes out of that?

Ole

Please note that number change is always inconvenient, but is surely more easily done on website than on the printed Krause versions...

What if the numbering system started with a 2 letter country code? Example NP# US … or NP# UK.. .
That way it would be separated by country first. Coins with a number 1 ( NP# US 1) .With that form when you search you would come up with 1 coin only. When you search for KM# 1 you get 390 matches now.

Quote: "Jarcek"​Please note that number change is always inconvenient, but is surely more easily done on website than on the printed Krause versions...

​No, you have to foresee the eventuallity of same, nothing is easier because it online. My collection, my doubles are NOT online. Don't live in a dream world, be practical and down to earth.

Think, plan and prepare the numbering procedure for anything, that might OR might not happen.

Ole

Hi,

here is the answer from KM today:

We do have rules we follow internally for the creation of KM numbers. We do not share that criteria because the KM numbering system is owned by us. We are the only people who can legitimately create KM numbers.

I do not know, but I assume, this person is informed about the §11!

Just to say, that Numista has to be on their feet to make their own procedure worth of a few years of survival, because after the disappearence of Xavier, it's the law of the JUNGLE, which we don't really like to leave to our future generations of collectors, do we?

Ole

That's not a vey solid thought! What would that add except an extra "intelligent" coding of a number, which is completely irrelevant to our subject.

Sorry for being blunt, but that's a fact.

Ole

Quote: "Sjoelund"​

Quote: "Jarcek"​Please note that number change is always inconvenient, but is surely more easily done on website than on the printed Krause versions...

​​No, you have to foresee the eventuallity of same, nothing is easier because it online. My collection, my doubles are NOT online. Don't live in a dream world, be practical and down to earth.
​
​Think, plan and prepare the numbering procedure for anything, that might OR might not happen.
​
​Ole

​Well, once you change something on the website, changes are for everyone who has coins listed there. I meant it eliminates the problem of people having thousands of printed catalogues which now have wrong numbers.

Hi Jarcek,

don't forget there is a huge world outside of NUMISTA! You cannot force people (like me) to ONLY adhere to rules of numista. As you know, a lot of people will not put their collections or their doubles into Numista, but in the eventual "numista number" future the numbers still have to be logical, like they are mostly today using the KM#, if not Numista will have lost the war of succession. You see, what I mean? Numista doesn't and will never govern the collectors!

Be flexible, listen and learn!

Ole

I just pointed out one small advantage website has over printed catalogue. Krause has somehow tied hands and only changed numbers when really desperate. This leads into weird situation when they missed a coin https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces30911.html and then pretend it does not exist, because what, they had the numbers already in place, and this would have to be awkwardly placed on the end of the catalogue.

Also, they are not following their own procedures regarding KM numbers. https://en.numista.com/catalogue/republique_tcheque-1.html?o=k

They either wanted to make nice KM1 here, or added numbers hastily and nobody cared to correct those.

I am just saying that such errors are MUCH more easily solved on website, than in the printed book. Of course, there still will be a majority who will have this or that coin labeled wrong, because something had to be fixed, but I guess that it is a price of having all coins numbered.

Hello guys, fascinating thread!
I just wanted to say that in my opinion it would be neat to have numbers assigned like social security does for people in France. For instance country/value/type in this value/year/variants. That way it seems you could add new discoveries or find your coin easier. Do like this please o mighty wise admins ; i won't even claim the copyright

Quote: "Sjoelund"​Hi Ngdawa,
​
​OK, but the exemple is too simple, we need a country with variants in the year lines and change of alloy inside the type, to be able to really see, how your suggestion would work. Also foresee years and types NOT known yet! In your exemple, that would not be possible.
​
​Furthermore you would have to DEFINE clearly how to do it in a number system procedure.

​I have an exam on Monday, but if I'm allowed some time I could make a try with my system for a country with many mintmarks for same year (India?, USA?) and a country with many known varieties (ideas?). My idea was to make it sumple to add oncoming dates, but I might've had bad examples. This shouldn't be hastily done.

We could make numbers like NC# for coins and NB# for banknotes, if we decude to ever include banknotes.

Take your time, we have plenty of time to set it up correctly

Ole

In the event that a new numbering system is created, will it replace/eliminate the KM#, Y#, etc. catalog references. I ask because I have over 13,000 coins in 2x2 flips with the KM# or Y# catalog number printed on them. Or, will a new numbering system be implemented for future entries only.

In my opinion it should ONLY be for new coins, where NO KM# will be given....

Ole

I guess that we would not like to replace anything. There will simply be a new numista reference number. It will probably have some special place to show and special place to fill (probably only acessible by referees).

Current references will surely be still showing on the pages.

Quote: "Jarcek"​I guess that we would not like to replace anything. There will simply be a new numista reference number. It will probably have some special place to show and special place to fill (probably only acessible by referees).
​
​Current references will surely be still showing on the pages.

​Please, please, ONLY acessible for qualified referees We wouldn't like to see endless discussions about the given numbers, would we?

Ole

Jarcek, would that be a new numista number in conjunction with an existing KM# or only for new entries that have no catalog number.

Quote: "SRV5490"​Jarcek, would that be a new numista number in conjunction with an existing KM# or only for new entries that have no catalog number.

​It should only be for coins with no KM#, can you imagine the work to go back in time to customize a number for the old entries, nearly 420 years, no way possible.

Ole

Once guideline is established, all referees will have to adhere to it.

All coins in the catalogue will be numbered, probably with some exceptions.

It would be interesting to know up to which point KM has a copyright!

If it's only on the acronym "KM#", then it will certainly be easier to make a continuous system KM to NU!

I cannot believe, that the numbers following the "KM#" can protected in any way.

To check

Ole

I sincerely dont think continutation would have any meaning.

Quote: "Jarcek"​I sincerely dont think continutation would have any meaning.

​Just think about all the people now using the KM# as a sort criterium. Personnally I don't, but more than 50% of the swap lists I receive are sorted by km#.....

Ole

Quote: "Sjoelund"​Hi,
​
​here is the answer from KM today:
​
​We do have rules we follow internally for the creation of KM numbers. We do not share that criteria because the KM numbering system is owned by us. We are the only people who can legitimately create KM numbers.
​
​I do not know, but I assume, this person is informed about the §11!
​
​Just to say, that Numista has to be on their feet to make their own procedure worth of a few years of survival, because after the disappearence of Xavier, it's the law of the JUNGLE, which we don't really like to leave to our future generations of collectors, do we?
​
​Ole

​Can simple numbering system be trademark protected.

Quote: "SRV5490"​
​​Can simple numbering system be trademark protected.

​Yes, it is associated with a brand and can be protected.
You cannot protect a particular number itself (not that I know of) but the classification system as a whole can be. Don't know if they protected it though.

Quote: "ngdawa"To start with, all countries needs to start with NP#1, otherwise it will be a disaster. All denominations should also follow the previous, unless devaluations, or other major changes has been made. So all Falkland Islands 1 pennies should be NP#2, as 2a, 2b, 2c, etc. after changed of composiions and queen's portrait (etc.).

This is similar to what I was thinking, although not with the letters.

If you look under the Livonian Order, there are currently 49 schilling pieces (with the schilling being the sixth denomination). I do not think letters would suffice with that because the 49th coin would be... maybe #6bx? I don't know. I would prefer to follow with more numbers--something like #6.49.

While I also like the look of letters, I was thinking those could possibly be reserved for new additions. Say I added a new schilling page under the Livonian Order that happened to be number 9 out of now 50. Rather than shifting all the following pages by one, I would think to keep the current #6.09 as #6.09, and just call the new addition #6.08a. That way, nothing would shift, and the new addition would appear between #6.08 and #6.09.

And I do think it may be best to avoid shifting reference numbers as much as possible. With new coins being added to Numista daily, if the numbers were shifted with each addition, I feel like the number system would regularly out-date itself. Someone could refer to a coin with reference #6.36 one day, but in a week, that same number could be shifted to a different coin.

interesting read *following thread*

Quote: "Sulfur"

Quote: "ngdawa"To start with, all countries needs to start with NP#1, otherwise it will be a disaster. All denominations should also follow the previous, unless devaluations, or other major changes has been made. So all Falkland Islands 1 pennies should be NP#2, as 2a, 2b, 2c, etc. after changed of composiions and queen's portrait (etc.).

​
​This is similar to what I was thinking, although not with the letters.
​
​If you look under the Livonian Order, there are currently 49 schilling pieces (with the schilling being the sixth denomination). I do not think letters would suffice with that because the 49th coin would be... maybe #6bx? I don't know. I would prefer to follow with more numbers--something like #6.49.
​
​While I also like the look of letters, I was thinking those could possibly be reserved for new additions. Say I added a new schilling page under the Livonian Order that happened to be number 9 out of now 50. Rather than shifting all the following pages by one, I would think to keep the current #6.09 as #6.09, and just call the new addition #6.08a. That way, nothing would shift, and the new addition would appear between #6.08 and #6.09.
​
​And I do think it may be best to avoid shifting reference numbers as much as possible. With new coins being added to Numista daily, if the numbers were shifted with each addition, I feel like the number system would regularly out-date itself. Someone could refer to a coin with reference #6.36 one day, but in a week, that same number could be shifted to a different coin.

​Thanks for the input, mate! I will experiment with both letters and numbers and see what works best. I agree that it must be easy and convenient to add new coins.

@ngdawa

if you really want to test your system, see how it would work on Indian coins, especially the Rs 5 commemoratives issued between 2003-2005.

For instance Rs5 dandi March

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces5708.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces27777.html

The second coin was released a few years after the original cupro nickel. Moreover, the mule version of the cupro nickel and ferritic steel coin are as common as the main version in each metal. Numista doesn’t even seem to record the mule versions.

how would your numbering system work for coins of this one theme issued years apart and in two different metals with a couple mule thrown in just for fun

Quote: "Jarcek"​I guess that we would not like to replace anything. There will simply be a new numista reference number. It will probably have some special place to show and special place to fill (probably only acessible by referees).
​
​Current references will surely be still showing on the pages.

​Yes, please let us not re-invent the wheel !! There are hundreds of thousands of types out there with a KM# reference that is known and accepted world-wide. The new Numista reference should relate to new issues and those currently without a KM# ref.

but how about the existing KM numbers that are wrong?
Example:
combining 2 types together although different
or not following their own rules in cases like 55.1 vs 55a
or coins that have duplicate km numbers etc etc

Quote: "radrick007"​

Quote: "Jarcek"​I guess that we would not like to replace anything. There will simply be a new numista reference number. It will probably have some special place to show and special place to fill (probably only acessible by referees).
​​
​​Current references will surely be still showing on the pages.

​​Yes, please let us not re-invent the wheel !! There are hundreds of thousands of types out there with a KM# reference that is known and accepted world-wide. The new Numista reference should relate to new issues and those currently without a KM# ref.

​Does this necessarily mean to reinvent the wheel or to replace something? I mean, if we develop a flexible numbering system, this could be beside the KM# and should be introduced also for existing coins (even if this is a lot of work). For example, in my collection I always mention 2 or 3 catalog numbers for different catalogs in the labels. It is not replacing them, just a different and better system. Starting with a new numbering system for coins without KM brings us to the problem, what happens, if next year a new version of a coin with an existing KM# comes out.

By the way, I liked the country code suggestion, to have numbers like NU#US:1.3a... we could even bring this down for example to an issuer-level

Edit:
To have an easy example... lets take Malta:
Here we have

• Lira (1972-2007)
  
• Euro (2002-date)
  

This could translate (according to ISO country codes) to:
NU#MT1:1.4a
(Malta, first category/issuer, first coin, fourth version and another letter to distinguish whatever)... this is a lot of flexibility and we have a unique number per coin, which I find much better than 600 times KM#1 ;-)

No one is talking about "reinventing the wheel", just improving it to make it more round and smoother to roll.

I think that our hard work on the expansion of the catalog has also contributed to Krause's bankruptcy

Sjoelund: In my opinion it should ONLY be for new coins, where NO KM# will be given....
Q: What if someone buys the rights to the KM numbering system? All this work could/would be for nothing then.

Sjoelund: ​Please, please, ONLY acessible for qualified referees We wouldn't like to see endless discussions about the given numbers, would we?
Reply: That's really sleek. (I just had to point this one out )

Sulfur: While I also like the look of letters, I was thinking those could possibly be reserved for new additions. Say I added a new schilling page under the Livonian Order that happened to be number 9 out of now 50. Rather than shifting all the following pages by one, I would think to keep the current #6.09 as #6.09, and just call the new addition #6.08a. That way, nothing would shift, and the new addition would appear between #6.08 and #6.09.
ashlobo: how would your numbering system work for coins of this one theme issued years apart and in two different metals with a couple mule thrown in just for fun
Q: How about using intermediate/temporary code's for new coins, before cementing them with permanent consecutive number.

caesar1990: By the way, I liked the country code suggestion, to have numbers like NU#US:1.3a... we could even bring this down for example to an issuer-level
Reply: Personally, I like whole numbers (just plain and easy), no codes to understand. Further, personally I very much dislike appendix in a type of a letter (KM#1a), its a public acknowledgment you blew it in the past.

further:

• What if a coin is sadly added twice, with different number and afterwards joined in only one, does Numista in this case intend to warn all users who possess this coin, whose number was deleted? How will this affect collectors outside Numista, trustworthiness issue? This I opened on forum before. What to do with deleted number?
  
• What if Numista numbering system just picks off from KM#, KMN# like?
  
• (maybe a million dollar question) Why does the numbering system has to be consecutive as is KM's legacy? Yes, I know its neat, but when many people are included, things go wrong. Is it so wrong if the numbers are added by a country as any new coin is added along the way? I truly do not care if numbers are in order with regard to coin denomination/metal/next series of denominations and metals, as long as there are no doubles (with this regard, Numista page could automatically add next number to each new validated coin - eliminate human error). The story is about unique code per coin and it will simply never work as most of us wish (1 unit = N#1, 2 units = N#2, 3 units = N#3, 1 silver unit = N#4, 2 silver units = N#5, 3 silver units = N#6, 1 gold unit = N#7, and so on...), except if the "cementing" of consecutive numbers is done by truly eager and professional country referees (who read a lot , have many sources to follow) and long time after the coin was minted (years?). At the same time, automated numbering within country can be also very useful for Exonumia and Tokens for each country (somehow even for those tokens AND COINS, that are used in more than one country).
  
• Try not to be too much public over numbering system, you never know, those spooks on Colnet might catch some Numista numbering flu (along with pics)...
  

I think the aim of having consecutive numbers for a country's coins in order by date is a large part of why KM fell years behind. Wanted to wait and be sure there weren't any interloping releases.

I will continue to use the URL numeral as the Numista catalog number. They might not be any meaningful order, but they are immediate and certain.

Quote: "druzhynets"​I think that our hard work on the expansion of the catalog has also contributed to Krause's bankruptcy

​I think you are right! I haven't purchased a new Krause book in several years since I found Numista. It is much easier to locate and identify a coin using the internet. Not to mention easier to update error, add new coins, etc...

In this day and age is the "# sign" really necessary. Personally I don't need a symbol to tell me that a number is a number.

Quote: "SRV5490"​In this day and age is the "# sign" really necessary. Personally I don't need a symbol to tell me that a number is a number.

​I think the # sign could be a good idea. Image references like "1 dollar 2005 2007". What is date, and what is reference number?

The reference number would be preceded by letters, like KM555 instead of KM#555. Or in the case of Numista numbers, NUM555 instead of NUM#555.

The # is also useful to separate ID from reference itself as some reference use letters.

Example: KMA254 could be KM#A254 or KMA#254 with KM and KMA being different books.

I would say that the Krause system is by far the most logical, just poorly executed. Starting with the first coin issued as KM1 and then going through in order is the best way in my opinion.

A couple of advances on it that I would like to see, if Numista decide to create their own cataloguing system, is to recognize variations like tokens, coins, sets, etc and to have the country in the catalogue reference so you get a unique catalogue number for each entry across the whole Numista catalogue

Something like

the first coin issued for New Zealand would be NC#1NZ (Numista Coin #1 New Zealand)
The first currency token issued for New Zealand would be NT#1NZ (Numista Token #1 New Zealand)
The first mint set issued for New Zealand would be NS#1NZ (Numista set #1 New Zealand)
The first banknote issued for New Zealand would be NB#1NZ Numista Banknote #1 New Zealand

The similar items for Australia would be NC#1AUS, NT#1AUS, NS#1AUS, NB#1AUS
Then Papua New Guinea would be NC#1PNG, NT#1PNG, NS#1PNG, NB#1PNG
And so on

Quote: "Sjoelund"​In my opinion it should ONLY be for new coins, where NO KM# will be given....
​
​Ole

​Or We can just rename KM# to NC# and continue in the same manner of numbering?

If that is not breaking of copyrights?

Quote: "pejounet"​The # is also useful to separate ID from reference itself as some reference use letters.
​
​Example: KMA254 could be KM#A254 or KMA#254 with KM and KMA being different books.

​Apparently the use of the # sign is just a matter of taste. I see it as something stating the obvious.

As in, KM# "the following is a number".

Quote: "neilithicman"​I would say that the Krause system is by far the most logical, just poorly executed. Starting with the first coin issued as KM1 and then going through in order is the best way in my opinion.
​

We should keep in mind that catalog numbers can't be changed after we assign them and we must anticipate new entries as well.

This system may work for "new" countries like Australia and NZ but it can't be applied for most of the other issuers : plenty of coins are not listed in the numista catalog yet and new types minted during ancient and medieval periods are found / attributed every year.

For example, Paul Balog has referenced in 1964 a bit more than 900 different mamluk coins... hoever we only have 1/8 of them on Numista (reference "Bal II#") :
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/mamluk_sultanate-1.html

Even if we list all of them, we still have new coins to add on this list (about one hundred so far), like those fals :
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces142659.html (attributed few years ago by Illisch)
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces135035.html (unknown until last year)

Plus, the attribution of some others have changed as well :
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces164629.html (attributed to the rule of Ali II at first and now of Muhammad II, so about 20 years before).

I only talked about one issuer here (first one that came in my mind as I worked on this coinage today), but we can arrive to the same conclusion for some others too.

Honestly, I had totally forgot about all this, but somehow a thought crossed my mind today and I remembered this thread.

I took some 3 hours tonight to make a proposal for the Numista numbers. I mean, I just have 3 exams on Monday, so I got some time to spend on this........

Anyway, I made a standard NC# (= Numista Coin Number), so that NB# (=Numista Banknote Number) can be created later on.
I also have NT# (Numista Token Number), NE# (=Numista Essais Number), and NP# (=Numista Pattern Number). There are also some smaller additions, which probably will explain themselves, but I will make a note for clarification.

I chose Algeria because......I don't know why, I just did.

Anyway, I just realised I didn't include the KM#, but I'm waaaay too lazy to do it now, but they are in chronological order, so you can easily follow from SCWC 1601-1700 to SCWC 2001-date to find the coins.

So here we go - and please let me know what you think.

Algeria
Mehmed III
NC# 1 Mangir, 1595
NC# 2 Sultani, 1595
NC# 3 Debased dinar, 1595

Ahmed I
NC# 1:a Mangir, 1603
NC# 2:a Sultani, 1603-1609
NC# 2:b Sultani, 1603
NC# 2:c Sultani, 1617
NC# 3:a Denased dinar, 1603

Mustafa I
NC# 2:d Sultani, 1622

Murad IV
NC# 2:e Sultani, 1623-1636

Ibrahim
NC# 2:f Sultani, 1640-1642

Mehmed IV
NC# 2:g Sultani, 1648
NC# 2:h Sultani, 1648-1681

Mustafa II
NC# 2:i Sultani, 1698

Local coinage (NL# = Numista Local Coin(age) Number)
Philip II
NLC# 1 2 Maravedis, 1618T
NLC# 2 4 Maravedis, 1618T
NLC# 3 8 Maravedis, 1618T

Carlos II
NL# 2:a 4 Maravedis, 1691
NL# 3:a 8 Maravedis, 1691

Ahmed III
NC# 4 ½ Sultani, 1730-1731
NC# 5 Sultani, 1712-1728
NC# 5:a Sultani 1723-1734

Mahmud I
NC# 6 ¼ Sultani, 1731-1757
NC# 4:a ½ Sultani 1730-1754
NC# 5:b Sultani 1730-1754

Osman III
NC# 6:a ¼ Sultani, 1754-1757
NC# 4:b ½ Sultani, 1754-1757
NC# 5:c Sultani, 1754-1758

Mustafa III
NC# 7 1/8 Budju (3 Mazuna), 1759-1769
NC# 7:a 1/8 Budju (3 Mazuna), 1760-1777
NC# 8 ¼ Budju, 1758-1759
NC# 8:a ¼ Budju, 1759-1774
NC# 6:b ¼ Sultani, 1757-1773
NC# 4:c ½ Sultani, 1758
NC# 5:d Sultani, 1757-1771
NC# 9 ½ Zeri mahbub, 1762

Abdul Hamid I
NC# 7:b 1/8 Budju (3 Mazuna), 1774-1788
NC# 8:b ¼ Budju, 1774-1788
NC# 6:c ¼ Sultani, 1778-1780
NC# 4:d ½ Sultani, 1782
NC# 5:e Sultani, 1773-1788

Selim III
NC# 10 Fels, 1791
NC# 7:c 1/8 Budju (3 Mazuna), 1785-1800
NC# 8:c ¼ Budju, 1789-1800
NC# 11 ½ Budju, 1791-1800
NC# 6:d ¼ Sultani, 1794-1799
NC# 4:e ½ Sultani, 1800
NC# 5:f Sultani, 1788-1800
NC# 10:a Fels, 181x
NC# 7:d 1/8 Budju (3 Mazuna), 1800-1805
NC# 7:e 1/8 Budju (3 Mazuna), 1806-1807
NC# 8:d ¼ Budju, 1800-1805
NC# 8:e ¼ Budju, 1806-1808
NC# 11:a ½ Budju, 1800-1805
NC# 6:e ¼ Sultani, 1802-1807
NC# 6:f ¼ Sultani, 1806-1807
NC# 4:f ½ Sultani, 1800-1805
NC# 4:g ½ Sultani, 1806-1807
NC# 5:g Sultani, 1800-1807
NC# 5:h Sultani, 1806-1807

Mustafa IV
NC# 7:e 1/8 Budju (3 Mazuna), 1807-1808
NC# 8:e ¼ Budju, 1807-1808
NC# 6:f ¼ Sultani, 1807-1808
NC# 4:g ½ Sultani, 1807-1808
NC# 5:h Sultani, 1807-1808

Mahmud II
NC# 12 2 Asper, 1821-1828
NC# 12:a 2 Asper, 1831-1834
NC# 13 5 Asper, 1821-1828
NC# 14 10 Asper, 1821
NC# 15 Kharub, 1821-1826
NC# 15:a Kharub, 1829-1836
NC# 7:f 1/8 Budju (Suman Budju), 1808-1809
NC# 7:g 1/8 Budju (Suman Budju), 1810-1819
NC# 7:h 1/8 Budju (Suman Budju), 1813-1829
NC# 16 1/6 Budju (Tugrali-ness-flik), 1829
NC# 16:a 1/6 Budju (Tugrali-ness-flik), 1831-1836
NC# 8:f ¼ Budju (6 Mazuna), 1813-1830
NC# 8:g ¼ Budju (6 Mazuna), 1830
NC# 8:h ¼ Budju (6 Mazuna), 1830
NC# 17 1/3 Budju (Tugrali-batlaka), 1808-1813
NC# 17:a 1/3 Budju (Tugrali-batlaka), 1811-1819
NC# 17:b 1/3 Budju (Tugrali-batlaka), 1829
NC# 18 ½ Budju, 1808/09
NC# 18:a ½ Budju, 1808/09
NC# 18:b ½ Budju, 1830
NC# 19 Budju, 1820-1829
NC# 19:a Budju (Tugrali-rial), 1831-1837
NC# 20 2 Budju (Zudj Budju), 1820-1828
NC# 6:g ¼ Sultani, 1809-1827
NC# 6:h ¼ Sultani, 1830
NC# 4:h ½ Sultani, 1814-1824
NC# 5:i Sultani, 1808-1234
NC# 5:j Sultani, 1819-1829
NC# 5:k Sultani, 1830

French Colonial
Abdel Kader
NC# 13:a 5 Asper/Kharuba, 1834-1841
NC# 13:b Kharuba, 1838-1842
NC# 13:c Kharub, 1838
NC# 16:b 1/6 Budju (3 Mazuna-Nasfia), 1838-1839
NC# 18:c ½ Budju, 1840
NC# 19:b Budju (Tugrali-rial), 1840

Pattern
NP# 1 ½ Budju, 1807
NP# 2 ½ Sultani White Metal, 1807
NP# 3 2 Sultani White Metal, 1807

French Occupation
NC# 21 20 Francs, 1949-1956
NC# 22 50 Francs, 1949
NC# 23 100 Francs, 1950-1952

Token Coinage
NT# 1 5 Centimes, 1916-1921
NT# 1:a 5 Centimes, 1916
NT# 1:b 5 Centimes, 1917-1919
NT# 1:c 5 Centimes, 1921
NT# 2 10 Centimes 1916-1921
NT# 2:a 10 Centimes, 1916
NT# 2:b 10 Centimes, 1917-1919
NT# 2:c 10 Centimes, 1919-1921

Bone (NTb# = Numista Token bone Number)
NTb# 1 5 Centimes, 1915
NTb# 1:a 5 Centimes, 1915
NTb# 2 10 Centimes, 1915
NTb# 2:a 10 Centimes, 1915
NTb# 3 50 Centimes, 1915
NTb# 3:a 50 Centimes, 1915
NTb# 4 1 Franc, 1915
NTb# 4:a 1 Franc, 1915
NTb# 4:b 1 Franc, 1915

Bougie, Chamber of Commerce (B stands for Bougie)
NT# B1 5 Centimes, 1915
NT# B2 10 Centimes, 1915
NT# B2:a 10 Centimes, 1915
NT# B2:b 10 Centimes, 1915

Constantine, Chamber of Commerce (C stands for Constantine)
NT# C1 5 Centimes, 1922
NT# C2 10 Centimes, 1922

Oran, Chamber of Commerce (O stands for Oran)
NT# O1 5 Centimes, 1921
NT# O2 10 Centimes, 1921
NT# O2:a 10 Centimes, 1921
NT# O3 25 Centimes, 1921
NT# O3:a 25 Centimes, 1921
NT# O3:b 25 Centimes, 1922

Republic
NC# 24 1 Centime, 1964
NC# 25 2 Centimes, 1964
NC# 26 5 Centimes, 1964
NC# 26:a 5 Centimes, 1970
NC# 26:b 5 Centimes, 1974
NC# 26:c 5 Centimes, 1980
NC# 26:d 5 Centimes, 1989
NC# 27 10 Centimes, 1964
NC# 27:a 10 Centimes, 1984-1989
NC# 28 20 Centimes, 1964
NC# 28:a 20 Centimes, 1972
NC# 28:b 20 Centimes, 1975
NC# 28:c 20 Centimes, 1975
NC# 28:d 20 Centimes, 1987
NC# 29 50 Centimes, 1964
NC# 29:a 50 Centimes, 1971-1973
NC# 29:b 50 Centimes, 1975
NC# 29:c 50 Centimes, 1980
NC# 29:d 50 Centimes, 1988
NC# 30 1 Dinar, 1964
NC# 30:a 1 Dinar, 1972
NC# 30:b 1 Dinar, 1972
NC# 30:c 1 Dinar, 1983
NC# 30:d 1 Dinar, 1987
NC# A30 1 Dinar, 1991 (Gold)
NC# 30:e 1 Dinar, 1992-2010
NC# 31 ¼ Dinar, 1992-2003
NC# 32 ½ Dinar, 1992
NC# 34 2 Dinars, 1992-2010
NC# A34 2 Dinars, 1991 (Gold)
NC# A34:1 2 Dinars, 1996 (Gold)
NC# 35 5 Dinars, 1972
NC# 35:a 5 Dinars, 1972
NC# 35:b 5 Dinars, 1972
NC# 35:c 5 Dinars, 1974
NC# 35:d 5 Dinars, 1984
NC# 35:e 5 Dinars, 1992-2013
NC# A35 5 Dinars, 1991 (Gold)
NC# 36 10 Dinars, 1979-1981
NC# 36:a 10 Dinars, 1979
NC# A36 10 Dinars, 1979 (Gold)
NC# 36:b 10 Dinars, 1992-2013
NC# 36:c 10 Dinars, 1994
NC# 36:d 10 Dinars, 1994
NC# 37 20 Dinars, 1992-2013
NC# 38 50 Dinars, 1992-2013
NC# 38:a 50 Dinars, 1994
NC# 38:b 50 Dinars, 2004-2013
NC# 39 100 Dinars, 1992-2013
NC# 39:b 100 Dinars, 2002

Essais
NE# 1 20 Dinars, 1949
NE# 2 50 Dinars, 1949
NE# 3 100 Dinars, 1950
NE# 4 5 Dinars, 1972
NE# 4:a 5 Dinars, 1972
NE# 4:b 5 Dinars, 1974
NE# 5 10 Dinars, 1981

Piedfort with Essais (NPE# = Numista Piedfort Essais Number)
NPE# 1 20 Dinars, 1949
NPE# 2 50 Dinars, 1949
NPE# 3 100 Dinars, 1950

Patterns
NP# 4 100 Francs, 1950

The last coin in SCWC 2001-date (12th edition) has KM# 137, here it has NC# 39:b.
The Gold issues got an capital A before the number, to distinguish them from regular coins. I didn't give the silver editions any special letters, but I thought about to give them a capital What do you think? Or should they have their own number?

Is this actually really true?
I had seen that new books had been published which are available from July
example here https://www.amazon.com/Standard-Catalog-World-Coins-1901-2000/dp/1440248966

nevermind I just read this here https://www.steinhilberswanson.com/blog/2019/04/possible-layoffs-announced-as-company-looks-for-buyers.shtml

https://publishingperspectives.com/2019/06/penguin-random-house-wins-bid-to-buy-fw-medias-list/

I spotted this story today regarding Krause bankruptcy.

Hi,

where do we stand with this?

Ole

Hi,

where do we stand with this?

Ole

Quote: "Sjoelund"​Hi,
​
​where do we stand with this?
​
​Ole

​To me it's pretty clear that no one cares anymore. A year has passed and not a word has been uttered. People seem to be more interested in the TBB.

Here is an example of a logical use of a "numista" number.



Ole

Quote: "ngdawa"​Honestly, I had totally forgot about all this, but somehow a thought crossed my mind today and I remembered this thread.
​
​I took some 3 hours tonight to make a proposal for the Numista numbers. I mean, I just have 3 exams on Monday, so I got some time to spend on this........
​
​Anyway, I made a standard NC# (= Numista Coin Number), so that NB# (=Numista Banknote Number) can be created later on.
​I also have NT# (Numista Token Number), NE# (=Numista Essais Number), and NP# (=Numista Pattern Number). There are also some smaller additions, which probably will explain themselves, but I will make a note for clarification.
​
​I chose Algeria because......I don't know why, I just did.
​
​Anyway, I just realised I didn't include the KM#, but I'm waaaay too lazy to do it now, but they are in chronological order, so you can easily follow from SCWC 1601-1700 to SCWC 2001-date to find the coins.
​
​So here we go - and please let me know what you think.
​
​Algeria
​Mehmed III
​NC# 1 Mangir, 1595
​NC# 2 Sultani, 1595
​NC# 3 Debased dinar, 1595
​
​Ahmed I
​NC# 1:a Mangir, 1603
​NC# 2:a Sultani, 1603-1609
​NC# 2:b Sultani, 1603
​NC# 2:c Sultani, 1617
​NC# 3:a Denased dinar, 1603
​
​Mustafa I
​NC# 2:d Sultani, 1622
​
​Murad IV
​NC# 2:e Sultani, 1623-1636
​
​Ibrahim
​NC# 2:f Sultani, 1640-1642
​
​Mehmed IV
​NC# 2:g Sultani, 1648
​NC# 2:h Sultani, 1648-1681
​
​Mustafa II
​NC# 2:i Sultani, 1698
​
​Local coinage (NL# = Numista Local Coin(age) Number)
​Philip II
​NLC# 1 2 Maravedis, 1618T
​NLC# 2 4 Maravedis, 1618T
​NLC# 3 8 Maravedis, 1618T
​
​Carlos II
​NL# 2:a 4 Maravedis, 1691
​NL# 3:a 8 Maravedis, 1691
​
​Ahmed III
​NC# 4 ½ Sultani, 1730-1731
​NC# 5 Sultani, 1712-1728
​NC# 5:a Sultani 1723-1734
​
​Mahmud I
​NC# 6 ¼ Sultani, 1731-1757
​NC# 4:a ½ Sultani 1730-1754
​NC# 5:b Sultani 1730-1754
​
​Osman III
​NC# 6:a ¼ Sultani, 1754-1757
​NC# 4:b ½ Sultani, 1754-1757
​NC# 5:c Sultani, 1754-1758
​
​Mustafa III
​NC# 7 1/8 Budju (3 Mazuna), 1759-1769
​NC# 7:a 1/8 Budju (3 Mazuna), 1760-1777
​NC# 8 ¼ Budju, 1758-1759
​NC# 8:a ¼ Budju, 1759-1774
​NC# 6:b ¼ Sultani, 1757-1773
​NC# 4:c ½ Sultani, 1758
​NC# 5:d Sultani, 1757-1771
​NC# 9 ½ Zeri mahbub, 1762
​
​Abdul Hamid I
​NC# 7:b 1/8 Budju (3 Mazuna), 1774-1788
​NC# 8:b ¼ Budju, 1774-1788
​NC# 6:c ¼ Sultani, 1778-1780
​NC# 4:d ½ Sultani, 1782
​NC# 5:e Sultani, 1773-1788
​
​Selim III
​NC# 10 Fels, 1791
​NC# 7:c 1/8 Budju (3 Mazuna), 1785-1800
​NC# 8:c ¼ Budju, 1789-1800
​NC# 11 ½ Budju, 1791-1800
​NC# 6:d ¼ Sultani, 1794-1799
​NC# 4:e ½ Sultani, 1800
​NC# 5:f Sultani, 1788-1800
​NC# 10:a Fels, 181x
​NC# 7:d 1/8 Budju (3 Mazuna), 1800-1805
​NC# 7:e 1/8 Budju (3 Mazuna), 1806-1807
​NC# 8:d ¼ Budju, 1800-1805
​NC# 8:e ¼ Budju, 1806-1808
​NC# 11:a ½ Budju, 1800-1805
​NC# 6:e ¼ Sultani, 1802-1807
​NC# 6:f ¼ Sultani, 1806-1807
​NC# 4:f ½ Sultani, 1800-1805
​NC# 4:g ½ Sultani, 1806-1807
​NC# 5:g Sultani, 1800-1807
​NC# 5:h Sultani, 1806-1807
​
​Mustafa IV
​NC# 7:e 1/8 Budju (3 Mazuna), 1807-1808
​NC# 8:e ¼ Budju, 1807-1808
​NC# 6:f ¼ Sultani, 1807-1808
​NC# 4:g ½ Sultani, 1807-1808
​NC# 5:h Sultani, 1807-1808
​
​Mahmud II
​NC# 12 2 Asper, 1821-1828
​NC# 12:a 2 Asper, 1831-1834
​NC# 13 5 Asper, 1821-1828
​NC# 14 10 Asper, 1821
​NC# 15 Kharub, 1821-1826
​NC# 15:a Kharub, 1829-1836
​NC# 7:f 1/8 Budju (Suman Budju), 1808-1809
​NC# 7:g 1/8 Budju (Suman Budju), 1810-1819
​NC# 7:h 1/8 Budju (Suman Budju), 1813-1829
​NC# 16 1/6 Budju (Tugrali-ness-flik), 1829
​NC# 16:a 1/6 Budju (Tugrali-ness-flik), 1831-1836
​NC# 8:f ¼ Budju (6 Mazuna), 1813-1830
​NC# 8:g ¼ Budju (6 Mazuna), 1830
​NC# 8:h ¼ Budju (6 Mazuna), 1830
​NC# 17 1/3 Budju (Tugrali-batlaka), 1808-1813
​NC# 17:a 1/3 Budju (Tugrali-batlaka), 1811-1819
​NC# 17:b 1/3 Budju (Tugrali-batlaka), 1829
​NC# 18 ½ Budju, 1808/09
​NC# 18:a ½ Budju, 1808/09
​NC# 18:b ½ Budju, 1830
​NC# 19 Budju, 1820-1829
​NC# 19:a Budju (Tugrali-rial), 1831-1837
​NC# 20 2 Budju (Zudj Budju), 1820-1828
​NC# 6:g ¼ Sultani, 1809-1827
​NC# 6:h ¼ Sultani, 1830
​NC# 4:h ½ Sultani, 1814-1824
​NC# 5:i Sultani, 1808-1234
​NC# 5:j Sultani, 1819-1829
​NC# 5:k Sultani, 1830
​
​French Colonial
​Abdel Kader
​NC# 13:a 5 Asper/Kharuba, 1834-1841
​NC# 13:b Kharuba, 1838-1842
​NC# 13:c Kharub, 1838
​NC# 16:b 1/6 Budju (3 Mazuna-Nasfia), 1838-1839
​NC# 18:c ½ Budju, 1840
​NC# 19:b Budju (Tugrali-rial), 1840
​
​Pattern
​NP# 1 ½ Budju, 1807
​NP# 2 ½ Sultani White Metal, 1807
​NP# 3 2 Sultani White Metal, 1807
​
​French Occupation
​NC# 21 20 Francs, 1949-1956
​NC# 22 50 Francs, 1949
​NC# 23 100 Francs, 1950-1952
​
​Token Coinage
​NT# 1 5 Centimes, 1916-1921
​NT# 1:a 5 Centimes, 1916
​NT# 1:b 5 Centimes, 1917-1919
​NT# 1:c 5 Centimes, 1921
​NT# 2 10 Centimes 1916-1921
​NT# 2:a 10 Centimes, 1916
​NT# 2:b 10 Centimes, 1917-1919
​NT# 2:c 10 Centimes, 1919-1921
​
​Bone (NTb# = Numista Token bone Number)
​NTb# 1 5 Centimes, 1915
​NTb# 1:a 5 Centimes, 1915
​NTb# 2 10 Centimes, 1915
​NTb# 2:a 10 Centimes, 1915
​NTb# 3 50 Centimes, 1915
​NTb# 3:a 50 Centimes, 1915
​NTb# 4 1 Franc, 1915
​NTb# 4:a 1 Franc, 1915
​NTb# 4:b 1 Franc, 1915
​
​Bougie, Chamber of Commerce (B stands for Bougie)
​NT# B1 5 Centimes, 1915
​NT# B2 10 Centimes, 1915
​NT# B2:a 10 Centimes, 1915
​NT# B2:b 10 Centimes, 1915
​
​Constantine, Chamber of Commerce (C stands for Constantine)
​NT# C1 5 Centimes, 1922
​NT# C2 10 Centimes, 1922
​
​Oran, Chamber of Commerce (O stands for Oran)
​NT# O1 5 Centimes, 1921
​NT# O2 10 Centimes, 1921
​NT# O2:a 10 Centimes, 1921
​NT# O3 25 Centimes, 1921
​NT# O3:a 25 Centimes, 1921
​NT# O3:b 25 Centimes, 1922
​
​Republic
​NC# 24 1 Centime, 1964
​NC# 25 2 Centimes, 1964
​NC# 26 5 Centimes, 1964
​NC# 26:a 5 Centimes, 1970
​NC# 26:b 5 Centimes, 1974
​NC# 26:c 5 Centimes, 1980
​NC# 26:d 5 Centimes, 1989
​NC# 27 10 Centimes, 1964
​NC# 27:a 10 Centimes, 1984-1989
​NC# 28 20 Centimes, 1964
​NC# 28:a 20 Centimes, 1972
​NC# 28:b 20 Centimes, 1975
​NC# 28:c 20 Centimes, 1975
​NC# 28:d 20 Centimes, 1987
​NC# 29 50 Centimes, 1964
​NC# 29:a 50 Centimes, 1971-1973
​NC# 29:b 50 Centimes, 1975
​NC# 29:c 50 Centimes, 1980
​NC# 29:d 50 Centimes, 1988
​NC# 30 1 Dinar, 1964
​NC# 30:a 1 Dinar, 1972
​NC# 30:b 1 Dinar, 1972
​NC# 30:c 1 Dinar, 1983
​NC# 30:d 1 Dinar, 1987
​NC# A30 1 Dinar, 1991 (Gold)
​NC# 30:e 1 Dinar, 1992-2010
​NC# 31 ¼ Dinar, 1992-2003
​NC# 32 ½ Dinar, 1992
​NC# 34 2 Dinars, 1992-2010
​NC# A34 2 Dinars, 1991 (Gold)
​NC# A34:1 2 Dinars, 1996 (Gold)
​NC# 35 5 Dinars, 1972
​NC# 35:a 5 Dinars, 1972
​NC# 35:b 5 Dinars, 1972
​NC# 35:c 5 Dinars, 1974
​NC# 35:d 5 Dinars, 1984
​NC# 35:e 5 Dinars, 1992-2013
​NC# A35 5 Dinars, 1991 (Gold)
​NC# 36 10 Dinars, 1979-1981
​NC# 36:a 10 Dinars, 1979
​NC# A36 10 Dinars, 1979 (Gold)
​NC# 36:b 10 Dinars, 1992-2013
​NC# 36:c 10 Dinars, 1994
​NC# 36:d 10 Dinars, 1994
​NC# 37 20 Dinars, 1992-2013
​NC# 38 50 Dinars, 1992-2013
​NC# 38:a 50 Dinars, 1994
​NC# 38:b 50 Dinars, 2004-2013
​NC# 39 100 Dinars, 1992-2013
​NC# 39:b 100 Dinars, 2002
​
​Essais
​NE# 1 20 Dinars, 1949
​NE# 2 50 Dinars, 1949
​NE# 3 100 Dinars, 1950
​NE# 4 5 Dinars, 1972
​NE# 4:a 5 Dinars, 1972
​NE# 4:b 5 Dinars, 1974
​NE# 5 10 Dinars, 1981
​
​Piedfort with Essais (NPE# = Numista Piedfort Essais Number)
​NPE# 1 20 Dinars, 1949
​NPE# 2 50 Dinars, 1949
​NPE# 3 100 Dinars, 1950
​
​Patterns
​NP# 4 100 Francs, 1950
​
​The last coin in SCWC 2001-date (12th edition) has KM# 137, here it has NC# 39:b.
​The Gold issues got an capital A before the number, to distinguish them from regular coins. I didn't give the silver editions any special letters, but I thought about to give them a capital What do you think? Or should they have their own number?

​This effort I did on Posted: 1-Jun-2019, 11:19PM. Got no response , or feeback, at all for over a year, so I can't say I'm that keen to try again.

HI,

I hadn't thought to change coins with KM# ALREADY assigned, just the coins with MISSING KM# OR wrongly assigned by KM.

Your approach is much more work than actually needed, but that's for the Xavier and the referees to decide?

Ole

Quote: "Sjoelund"​HI,
​
​I hadn't thought to change coins with KM# ALREADY assigned, just the coins with MISSING KM# OR wrongly assigned by KM.
​
​Your approach is much more work than actually needed, but that's for the Xavier and the referees to decide?
​
​Ole

​True, but the KM's are so flawed so it would be weird to just "continue". But yeah, it sure would be the easiest and fastest way. But the issues with KM #'s wouldn't be solved.

Quote: "ngdawa"​

Quote: "Sjoelund"​HI,
​​
​​I hadn't thought to change coins with KM# ALREADY assigned, just the coins with MISSING KM# OR wrongly assigned by KM.
​​
​​Your approach is much more work than actually needed, but that's for the Xavier and the referees to decide?
​​
​​Ole

​​True, but the KM's are so flawed so it would be weird to just "continue". But yeah, it sure would be the easiest and fastest way. But the issues with KM #'s wouldn't be solved.

​No, unless you buy KM Editions to become the owner.... You know, in my collection I have most of coins with km#, be they as they are, all the rest have the # "new" and it's ONLY those I would like to give a numista number.

Quote: "Sjoelund"​​​[...] all the rest have the # "new" and it's ONLY those I would like to give a numista number.

​So, let's do it!

Quote: "ngdawa"​

Quote: "Sjoelund"​​​[...] all the rest have the # "new" and it's ONLY those I would like to give a numista number.
​
​

​​So, let's do it!

​Yeah, but we still have the rules to be put in place by Xavier and his "troop" of referees and of course his OK.

I've been pondering this issue myself but I hadn't seen this thread until yesterday. My solution shares ngdawa's basic principles of the first part corresponding to the denomination and the second part corresponding to the type. However, I think we'll find far too many cases with more that 26 types per denomination, requiring extra letters if we follow that method.
Instead, I propose the following. For each denomination, we assign two capital letters. For each currency, we could start with a different letter (although some currencies will need more than 26 denominations, so we'd have consecutive first letters there) then we have three of maybe four digits for the type. Within types, if we need it, we can distiguish sub-types with lower case letters. An NC# or NB# would therefore look like "AF023b", where "AF" would tell us the denomination, "023" the type and "b" the sub-type.
In common with ngdawa's system, this could be generated by the database underpinning Numista, since each denomination has a unique value and then each entry with this value can be assigned a number in the order they appear. If a new type is added later, we give it the next available number. This will mean some pieces have out-of-sequence numbers but surely that's better than "A23", as sometimes appears in KM# or P# when they missed something?
There might be occasions when a little flexibility is required but if we set it up right in the first place and test it before setting anything in stone, it should work.

The new 2020 Standard Catalog of World Coins, 2001-Date, 14th Edition, should be available on 11-08-2020: https://www.bol.com/nl/f/2020-standard-catalog-of-world-coins-2001-date/9200000097012262/
You already can reserve a copy.

but will you get it?

We'll see. Availability is postponed till the 18th now.

Quote: "Essor Prof"​We'll see. Availability is postponed till the 18th now.

​Here is the answer from Tom Michael:

Hi Ole,

Hope you are doing well and staying healthy!

We are working directly in the database and making changes and updates all the time. You can send your updates to me. Right now I am working from home.

As before, I store everyone's input in files awaiting cross referencing and entry. Much of my time lately is also being spent on testing a new website platform for a new live database, which should be available on the web later this year. The first you might seen your updates and lots of other new material would be through this website. We are also publishing the magazines; Numismatic News, Bank Note Reporter, Coins and World Coin News. I have been writing quite a bit for World Coin News since late in the fall of 2019. Mostly new issues updates, auction reports, book reviews and such.

All of the F + W Media books were bought by Penguin Random House. We published the SCWC 1901-2000 47th edition through F + W and then all remaining stock was handed over to PRH. We gave them completed files for the SCWC 2001-Date 14th edition, but they have not yet published that book. PRH is taking pre-orders through Amazon and listing the publication date as August 2020.

I have pre-ordered a copy for myself, because I think that will be the only way for me to obtain a copy of my last book. Keep in mind that I finished the updating for the SCWC 2001-Date 14th edition in July 2019. The only place I have seen PRH offering the old KP book titles is through Amazon.

Many years of work were expelled by many people, myself very much included, to develop the SCWC series of five titles. It would be very sad if no more were ever produced, but that is truly out of my hands at this point. However, I do still have the ability to continue updating the database, as that was bought, along with the magazines, by my new employer Active Interest Media (AIM). AIM is supporting the COTY program and encouraging the build-out for a new website, so I am feeling good about the survival of the data I have spend so much of my life building.

We too have been working from home since March 16th. We get out once a day for a walk and once a week for supplies. All of this is done very close to home and while wearing face masks. I'm glad we are still able to work on the magazines and database! It's important to see that the hobby of coin collecting stays strong.

Best Wishes for good health and happiness,
Tom

Quote: "Essor Prof"​We'll see. Availability is postponed till the 18th now.

​Here is the answer from Tom Michael:

Hi Ole,

Hope you are doing well and staying healthy!

We are working directly in the database and making changes and updates all the time. You can send your updates to me. Right now I am working from home.

As before, I store everyone's input in files awaiting cross referencing and entry. Much of my time lately is also being spent on testing a new website platform for a new live database, which should be available on the web later this year. The first you might seen your updates and lots of other new material would be through this website. We are also publishing the magazines; Numismatic News, Bank Note Reporter, Coins and World Coin News. I have been writing quite a bit for World Coin News since late in the fall of 2019. Mostly new issues updates, auction reports, book reviews and such.

All of the F + W Media books were bought by Penguin Random House. We published the SCWC 1901-2000 47th edition through F + W and then all remaining stock was handed over to PRH. We gave them completed files for the SCWC 2001-Date 14th edition, but they have not yet published that book. PRH is taking pre-orders through Amazon and listing the publication date as August 2020.

I have pre-ordered a copy for myself, because I think that will be the only way for me to obtain a copy of my last book. Keep in mind that I finished the updating for the SCWC 2001-Date 14th edition in July 2019. The only place I have seen PRH offering the old KP book titles is through Amazon.

Many years of work were expelled by many people, myself very much included, to develop the SCWC series of five titles. It would be very sad if no more were ever produced, but that is truly out of my hands at this point. However, I do still have the ability to continue updating the database, as that was bought, along with the magazines, by my new employer Active Interest Media (AIM). AIM is supporting the COTY program and encouraging the build-out for a new website, so I am feeling good about the survival of the data I have spend so much of my life building.

We too have been working from home since March 16th. We get out once a day for a walk and once a week for supplies. All of this is done very close to home and while wearing face masks. I'm glad we are still able to work on the magazines and database! It's important to see that the hobby of coin collecting stays strong.

Best Wishes for good health and happiness,
Tom

I just tried to pre-order it on amazon.com, but got this:

At Bol.com availability is delayed again, till August 25 this time:
https://www.bol.com/nl/f/2020-standard-catalog-of-world-coins-2001-date/9200000097012262/

Interesting thread, I just joined recently 2021 and wondered how to substitute KM#. KM# are the international standard, but in my eyes with flaws. E.g. a code KM#10 says nothing if you don't add the country. So my private #-systems maps this to ALB-10 (ISO-Albania KM#10) and so on.

As the KM-system does not change a # once assigned, any further variances of coins receive sub-numbers as 20.1 or 20a, 20.1a and so on, and this is inconsistent. Numista shows more variances for many coins - with the same KM#.

The Numista-# is an established unique global simple code and therefore likely the most elaborated system in the World.

Now I read some suggestions in this thread on new, more complicated codes, similar to KM, per country, sub-types etc. In short: A new #-system is the worst idea. Why?
* The Numista# is already there and heavily in use. Don't invent the wheel twice.
* We live in the computer age of data bases. A simple key is what you need anyway for any record.
* Collectors worldwidely have 1000s of individual needs for structuring and coding there coins. Coins and collections and preferences are changing all the time. It will be way more effective to map the N# to whatever structure the individual collector suits.

If people have in mind to just sort hundreds of coins blindly by the N# to have a perfect list, it will never work for all. It never worked with KM either. Instead the current N# is perfect to specify any coin in the World and do your own mapping.

Finally, how could the N# be further established to substitute KM one day? Simply by using it!

Hello and welcome to Numista.

You may find this interesting if you haven't found it yet.

https://en.numista.com/forum/topic77699.html

Quote: "Didi99" For instance country/value/type in this value/year/variants.
​

​My thoughts, too. The code (NOT plain number) should describe the main characteristics of a coin.

Existing catalogues don't necessarily follow some logical pattern: they just assigned a NUMBER to each coin chronologically, no matter what country, type etc of coin it was.
It is possible, though, to assign a CODE to each coin that will place it quite precisely in the numismatic field, especially to coins from recent history (1800-now) where little surprises can happen. Of course, the existing KM number should feature alongside the new code.

For instance (https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces53.html):
USAS10c10.1a

USA – country code (United States)
S - coin type (Standard circulating/Commemorative/Non-circulating/Token/Pattern)
10c – denomination (main currency in uppercase, parts of main currency in lowercase)
10 – serial number of this denomination (10c) in similar type (S)
1 – design variation (if any)
a – composition change (if any)

If a collector wants to further specify their coin within this code, they may add year and mint after the main code: USAS10c10.1a/1970/D

I don't think an "Intelligent" number would ever be the way, much too complicated and open for mistakes of not foreseeing all possible variations.

Quote: "Dejan"​For instance (https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces53.html):
​USAS10c10.1a
​
​USA – country code (United States)
​S - coin type (Standard circulating/Commemorative/Non-circulating/Token/Pattern)
​10c – denomination (main currency in uppercase, parts of main currency in lowercase)
​10 – serial number of this denomination (10c) in similar type (S)
​1 – design variation (if any)
​a – composition change (if any)
​
​If a collector wants to further specify their coin within this code, they may add year and mint after the main code: USAS10c10.1a/1970/D

​That scheme works for the United States, but doesn't work as well for countries that have had multiple currencies. In that case a currency indicator should be added (and should be added from the start to avoid renumbering if there is a later currency change).

For an example of a code like that in use, see Numismatic Catalog of Venezuela. Code mpc0.25r-aa07v2 is:
Coins / Province of Caracas / Peso Fuerte / 1/4 Real (Cuartillo) / Design A / Type A / 1817 / mpc0.25r-aa07v2
https://www.numismatica.info.ve/en/coins/mpc0.25r-aa07v2.htm

Quote: "bjherbison"​

Quote: "Dejan"​
​​10c – denomination (main currency in uppercase, parts of main currency in lowercase)
​​
​
​

​​That scheme works for the United States, but doesn't work as well for countries that have had multiple currencies. In that case a currency indicator should be added.

​Currency indicator IS there — c(ent) in the example .
Besides - I don't know many "formulas" that can be applied to 100% of the cases. I believe the upper code works for more than 90% of all modern coins.

Pound and Penny?
Half dime and half dollar?
Qirsch and Piastre? (same thing?)

It will be so complicated that it's impossible to use!

Quote: "Dejan"​

Quote: "bjherbison"​
​

Quote: "Dejan"​
​​​10c – denomination (main currency in uppercase, parts of main currency in lowercase)
​​​
​​
​​

​​​That scheme works for the United States, but doesn't work as well for countries that have had multiple currencies. In that case a currency indicator should be added.
​

​​Currency indicator IS there — c(ent) in the example .
​Besides - I don't know many "formulas" that can be applied to 100% of the cases. I believe the upper code works for more than 90% of all modern coins.

Cent is a denomination inside a currency. ​The meaning of "c(ent)" is dependent on the currency. When countries switch to a new currency often the denominations stay the same (old cents/dollars vs new cents/dollars worth 1000 times more).

Yugoslavia had currency YUR with Dinars starting in 1992, and currency YUO with Dinars starting in 1993 (and several other currencies with Dinars). Treating all the 1 Dinar coins as a single series obfuscates the coinage instead of creating an understanding of the coinage.

(And even more often, the first letter stays the same. For example, Brazil Crusado followed by Cruzeiro.)

Quote: "bjherbison"​

Quote: "Dejan"​
​

Quote: "bjherbison"​
​=1em​Cent is a denomination inside a currency. ​The meaning of "c(ent)" is dependent on the currency. When countries switch to a new currency often the denominations stay the same (old cents/dollars vs new cents/dollars worth 1000 times more).​Yugoslavia had currency YUR with Dinars starting in 1992, and currency YUO with Dinars starting in 1993 (and several other currencies with Dinars). Treating all the 1 Dinar coins as a single series obfuscates the coinage instead of creating an understanding of the coinage.

​While existing catalogues' numbers make it crystal clear 🙂

Quote: "Dejan"​​​While existing catalogues' numbers make it crystal clear 🙂

Sorting all them by KM#, I see only one discontinuity:

• Serbian dinar = KM# 1-24
  
• Federation dinar = KM# 25-41
  
• Hard dinar = YUD = KM# 42-138
  
• Convertible dinar = YUN = KM# 139-148
  
• Reformed dinar = YUR = KM# 149-153
  
• October dinar = YUO = KM# 154-159, KM# 167
  
• January dinar = YUG = KM# 160
  
• Novi dinar = YUM = KM# 161-166, KM# 168-182
  

It would be better if there was some additional convention (e.g. Serbian dinar started at #1001, Federation dinar at #2001, hard dinar at #3001, convertible dinar at #4001, etc.), but, overall, there's much wisdom in this chronological sorting.

numbering systems you only need if you have paper version only.

If you have a digital database (like numista) you only need a unique number for each entry (the N#) as quick reference. All other issues you sort individually by selection entrys by field from database.

And don't forgett: Any kind of numbering system will have an end where it does not longer work.

There are some trade-offs between a numbering system like Krause-Mishler's (KM) and one like Numista's (N).

I store most of my coins (except those in sets, capsules, etc.) sorted (precisely, by country → type → year → mint mark). Sometimes, I break countries by historical periods (the fact that KM use a chronological order is very useful). Photo's below.



I know people use different systems, and not all group/sort the coins physically, but I like the gist of KM because it tends to clusterize coins with similar designs/subjects. Sorting coins purely by denomination, or purely by year, are good approximations, but they're less holistic in my opinion.

If something like KM types did not exist, it would eventually emerge, even if ad hoc — custom Excel sorting is just this, but with less discipline. Some things annoy me about KM and Yeoman in particular, especially the fact that the definition of type and variant are historically inconsistent between countries.

The N system has indeed some advantages in the digital realm, as the identifiers are universally unique and plain (no variants, etc.) and, even better, they map deterministically to Numista URLs/URIs. It's a great match to barcodes, QR codes, etc. Sorting by N# is usually just gibberish, though, and doesn't map to real-world intuitions. It's still very immature, too, as pages are frequently joined and divided, but it tends to improve over time as refereeing rules and conventions evolve.