Improve Lettering consistency [solved]

There need to be better guidelines for the lettering and translation of legends for better consistency.

1. Accurate punctuation and symbols should be included. E.g:
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces173802.html

2. A consistent way of demarcating different bodies in the legend. For example these three coins:
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces169990.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces151857.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces92595.html
One uses " // ", another one " / " and another one has one body of text per line. And there are many other styles. I think a good compromise is this:
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces90246.html
where bodies of text are kept in one line, even if on the coin they are split. (ie. "ONE HALF PENNY" instead of a word on each line). But keep different bodies of text separate (ie. "COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA" is on a different line)
On the same topic, what should happen when the writing is interrupted by a design feature, like here:
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces109038.html

3. Regarding the date on a coin, it is confusing for coins issued in several different years, like on this one:
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces902.html
it should instead be written as "[date]" like here:
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces40626.html

4. Same for coins with different Mint Marks, Privy Marks "[mint mark]" should be used, unless there is a different page for each mint mark. Alternatively, there could be a dedicated field for the mint mark, like for the engraver, and possible mint/moneyer marks could be listed separately, one per line:
AL-lV (Karlsburg, Transylvania)
KB (Kremnitz, Hungary)
BEZ (Bistrice, Romania)
HS (Hermannstadt)

5. The translations are very inconsistent throughout. Especially for legends with abbreviations. I propose to have three fields:
Field 1, the original legend, e.g.:
ADOLPHVS · D · G · S · R · I · PRIN · ET · A · FVLD [Date]
GB
Mint Mark: "B", "F" or no mint mark
Field 2, the unabridged, romanised version (converted to latin script, if original is in Greek for example):
ADOLPHUS D(ei) G(ratia) S(acri) R(omani) I(mperii) P(rinceps) ET A(bbas) FULD(ensis) [Date]
G(iorgio) B(althasare)
Mint Mark: B(ouillone) or F(ulda)
Field 3, the translation:
Adolphus, by the Grace of God, Prince of the Holy Roman Empire and Abbot of Fulda
Giorgio Balthasare, the engraver's name
Bouillone or Fulda

We badly need the new version of the Guidelines

I disagree on 2 points:
-1. punctuation. Too variable on old coins and often not visible on worn coins.
- Field 2 at the end. It is enough to add it in the description. And I would avoid complicated syntaxis with upper and lower case, parenthesis etc. It takes time to write. Please lets keep it simple.

Agree on points 2 and 3.
4 I don't quite understand. There is a field for mint mark in the date lines.
The meaning of the letters can be added in comments.

Don't forget that the more we add fields, there more empty fields will be for 1000s of coins, unless you work hard to fill them.

Thanks Escape!

re. point 4, here is an example:
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces7077.html

There are 5 possible mint marks, yet in the "Lettering" only one of them is listed.

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/contributions/instructions.php

The Guidelines for Lettering are different to what you've suggested (e.g. punctuation). But I think the guidelines are sensible. I would however suggest:

• add guidelines for the Translation section so it's clear what should go in there
  
• clarify in the guidelines where the Mint Mark explanation should go (in description, comments, translation)
  
• clarify in the guidelines how split legends should be treated
  

Re. the punctuation, I agree that older coins are not always consistent, but to be consistent with the rest of the guidelines, the punctuation of the coin in the photograph should be included, and should any varieties exist, they should be listed in the comments

Other team member, Pejounet is currently working on new updated guidelines, and I have not seen the draft yet, so I am not sure if your comments are or aren't already included.

Thanks for researching on this, I agree on all 4 points.
if a coin has more than 1 year or mintmark then there should be only marked (Date) and (Mintmark)

point 2 yes we should have consistency here, problem is that different sites and authors use different ways and we have all possible ways in our catalogue.
in general what I see is / indicates a non continuous legens seperated by something whereas // indicates that the text continues but on a different line.
whatever we follow as directions it would be better to have only one way used in the lettering of Numista.

As we now have a new guideline, I guess this suggestion can be close?

Quote: "Indomini16"​As we now have a new guideline, I guess this suggestion can be close?

Wow, this is probably one of the very first posts I ever made. Indeed most points are irrelevant with the new guidelines.

However, I would still support a field for the unabridged legend. Currently, we list this in the "translation" field:
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces273832.html

Quote: "stratocaster"​Wow, this is probably one of the very first posts I ever made. Indeed most points are irrelevant with the new guidelines.

​I'm used to look at the idea to improve Numista and upvote the ones I like :-)

Quote: "stratocaster"​And there are many other styles. I think a good compromise is this:
​https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces90246.html
​where bodies of text are kept in one line, even if on the coin they are split. (ie. "ONE HALF PENNY" instead of a word on each line). But keep different bodies of text separate (ie. "COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA" is on a different line)

A problem could be with roman coins.
Here: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces45293.html
GLORI-A EXER-CITVS is a different coin, with a different RIC# than GLOR-IA EXER-CITUS.
So how the design splits the lettering does matter.
http://numismatics.org/collection/1944.100.13030

http://numismatics.org/collection/1944.100.13491

Quote: "juliofcampos"​​A problem could be with roman coins.
​Here: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces45293.html
​GLORI-A EXER-CITVS is a different coin, with a different RIC# than GLOR-IA EXER-CITUS.
​So how the design splits the lettering does matter.
​http://numismatics.org/collection/1944.100.13030
​
​http://numismatics.org/collection/1944.100.13491

​Well, that point is not in discussion anymore with the new guidelines.

Re. RIC, I am not aware of coins split based on this criterion. RIC generally splits based on portrait types. Those two examples are diademed and laureate portraits. Furthermore, one is Lugdunum, the other Thesalonika.

Hello,

There is now a dedicated field for the unabridged legend.

For example: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces31984.html

Quote: "stratocaster"​Thanks Escape!
​
​re. point 4, here is an example:
​https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces7077.html
​
​There are 5 possible mint marks, yet in the "Lettering" only one of them is listed.

​Then just "A (one of 5 mint marks)"

Quote: "apuking"​Thanks for researching on this, I agree on all 4 points.
​if a coin has more than 1 year or mintmark then there should be only marked (Date) and (Mintmark)
​

​In my opinion you have to show which mint mark is on the coin and then add (mint marks see Mint marks) or somthing similar, but the mint mark has to mentioned, be it "A", "B", crossed hammers, sailing boat or whatever. Don't need to run run the risk of mixing up Mintmasters, die numbers or other initials!!!

stratocaster
3. Regarding the date on a coin, it is confusing for coins issued in several different years, like on this one:
N#902
it should instead be written as "[date]" like here:
N#40626

4. Same for coins with different Mint Marks, Privy Marks "[mint mark]" should be used, unless there is a different page for each mint mark. Alternatively, there could be a dedicated field for the mint mark, like for the engraver, and possible mint/moneyer marks could be listed separately, one per line:
AL-lV (Karlsburg, Transylvania)
KB (Kremnitz, Hungary)
BEZ (Bistrice, Romania)
HS (Hermannstadt)

I’m very surprised to see comments like "[date]" in the lettering field. This will become very complicated to implement new language in Numista. By example if we release a Spanish version of Numista a page with “date” will become very complicated to understand for a non English speaker as Date is Fecha in Spanish.

Please revise the lettering consistency, we can not approve comments in a language independent field.

XavierHello,

There is now a dedicated field for the unabridged legend.

For example: N#31984

Thank you! great addition.

Indomini16 

I’m very surprised to see comments like "[date]" in the lettering field. This will become very complicated to implement new language in Numista. By example if we release a Spanish version of Numista a page with “date” will become very complicated to understand for a non English speaker as Date is Fecha in Spanish.

Please revise the lettering consistency, we can not approve comments in a language independent field.

This proposal is 3 years old and irrelevant since the release of the current guidelines. Please ignore this thread and follow the guidelines.

 

I think this thread can be closed now.