These are clearly very similar notes that, elsewhere, would be grouped as a single entry. What gets me is that this level of separation is deemed acceptable for recent French notes but unacceptable for far more significant differences in earlier issues, in particular, the Assignats. Take https://en.numista.com/catalogue/note211788.html
for example. I have ben told by the referees that this note is the same type as http://banknote.ws/COLLECTION/countries/EUR/FRA/FRAA0064.htm and http://banknote.ws/COLLECTION/countries/EUR/FRA/FRAA0068.htm
despite the fact that only P#A53 was issued by Louis XVI (as shown by the text "L'An quatrieme de la Liberté" in addition to the date) whilst the other two were issued by the First Republic (the year of the Republic shown in addition to the date as these preceed the Republican calendar) but differ by the removal of all references to the King on P#A68 (look at the text in the triangle at the bottom of the notes).
It seems these referees are a law unto themselves.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Quote: "ceh2019"These are clearly very similar notes that, elsewhere, would be grouped as a single entry. What gets me is that this level of separation is deemed acceptable for recent French notes but unacceptable for far more significant differences in earlier issues, in particular, the Assignats. Take
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/note211788.html
for example. I have ben told by the referees that this note is the same type as
http://banknote.ws/COLLECTION/countries/EUR/FRA/FRAA0064.htm
and
http://banknote.ws/COLLECTION/countries/EUR/FRA/FRAA0068.htm
despite the fact that only P#A53 was issued by Louis XVI (as shown by the text "L'An quatrieme de la Liberté" in addition to the date) whilst the other two were issued by the First Republic (the year of the Republic shown in addition to the date as these preceed the Republican calendar) but differ by the removal of all references to the King on P#A68 (look at the text in the triangle at the bottom of the notes).
It seems these referees are a law unto themselves.
Those are clearly different I agree. The problem is some, and I am not talking only about the French entries, are organizing their part of the catalog based on local catalogs or personal preferences. The catalog should look the same for everybody.
When a nation has a ref, we no longer receive the edits or new page requests. This seems to me to be a situation where all these pages could be lines on a single page.
But I am not sure we can dismiss this out of hand. Do the French really collect this way? If they do, it should be considered. I know many are annoyed that the USA seems to have all the notes on a single page, and wish they could break it up.
I am of a mind that it will be resolved eventually. It may change, it may not. But I think it more important that a countries listings are consistent with each other.
Pick and Krause tended to defer to how the collectors of a nation, and the references for that nation organized and presented the information. If they had not, no one would have contributed.
I do not understand everything about the french listings, but I will, since I have to figure out how to catalog my french stuff soon.
The listings match. They are well written. They seem to be complete.
Library Media Specialist, columnist, collector, and gardener...
The different types of recent banknotes were did using a complete reference book.
The first test with all types of 50 frs St Exupéry on one only page was very hated by many french collectors, so we followed the Fayette book to don't have all lines (too many lines) on one page.
For comments, Eagle68 is writting all in french pages and when it will be finished, we will translate comments and line comments on english version. Some changes are also done as the adding of signatures part, so the french version isn't finished, it's in test too, for the moment.
It will be more easily to classify french notes on english version.
For the assignats :
For me, we must use the system applied with french notgeld notes : to reunite some very similar banknotes on one page. As for the french notgeld notes, only the date, the watermark or the motto are minor changes.
The frame, the dimensions, the value, the divinities around the triangle and the triangle are same, same as the french notgeld notes. Moreover, to do the distinction can multiplicate many pages for one or two lines each time, as the french notgeld notes at the beggining.
For authorities, in modern french banknotes, we have several notes which were continued to be print under different political regimes. For this situation, we use the first authority which print the note. It's not a problem.
It's only to follow the same logic of french notgeld notes, but Xavier can want to be more precise for assignats. If he wants, we can separate in several pages. He decided for french notgeld notes to reunit similar and i let him decide for assignats. I have not preference.
"These are clearly very similar notes that, elsewhere, would be grouped as a single entry. What gets me is that this level of separation is deemed acceptable for recent French notes but unacceptable for far more significant differences in earlier issues"
I agree with "ceh2019" & "allexis" because SCWPM is extremely redundant (with some of the examples cited) & several countries either get extensive listings (& new P# for the most minor change) or no recognitions at all. This is the first thing that becomes apparent to any banknote collector when picking up the SCWPM how some countries (Macau/ East Caribbean States) have notes given separate P# (for micro differences) while others have no separate designations (Canada).
In Canada, Charlton Catalogue has separate entries for many signature change-overs & short prefixes which Krause chose to ignore. It's like the folks were on holiday when so many changes were made with the CDN Journey series. Every single 2000-2003 $5 (P-101 & P-101A) & $10 (P-102 & P-102A) have the year the note was printed (small on the lower border) so in Charlton Guide year each change-over & signature (prefix) change-overs is listed. Many florescent security patterns were changed (& co who printed changed). You won't see any of that info reported in SCWPM. The $10 (P-102) was printed 2 years before $5 (P-101) & the design modifications were extreme (like an entirely new banknote with security strip, gold leaves gone in place of a new watermark, etc) so the 2 notes (series in Canada) are night and day yet SCWPM could only add an "A" to designate the difference? From a CDN perspective the gloss over of all the many variations does not make sense.
But I believe SCWPM were on the right track when they've gave the same P# for all the many different year changes for the Original Journey & the security updated version. From a global perspective they added letters (a,b,c, etc) for each year/signature change up for the CDN Journey series. I'm okay with that b/c I know the catalogue is listing notes from a much more distant/general view. IMO: a world catalogue cannot possibly cover the minute changes that occur over an entire series (which ranges in many years/has many prefixes/various signatures). It would be better to simplify rather than over-complicate matters when it comes to listing several years where the banknote design is exactly the same (only the year might be different). Users who add their notes can signify on the "public comments" section if their note has any added collector significance.
Quote: "Arendil"For the assignats :
For me, we must use the system applied with french notgeld notes : to reunite some very similar banknotes on one page. As for the french notgeld notes, only the date, the watermark or the motto are minor changes.
The frame, the dimensions, the value, the divinities around the triangle and the triangle are same, same as the french notgeld notes. Moreover, to do the distinction can multiplicate many pages for one or two lines each time, as the french notgeld notes at the beggining.
For authorities, in modern french banknotes, we have several notes which were continued to be print under different political regimes. For this situation, we use the first authority which print the note. It's not a problem.
This only goes to show that the significance of the changes in the assignat designs has not been appreciated. When the king was deposed, the notes changed to signify this, something which didn't happen when the État Française came into being. The change may not appear significant if you know nothing of the history of the period but switching from the "Year of Liberty" to the "Year of the Republic" was about far more than changing the date (shown separately). The subsequent change in motto to remove mention of the king is far more significant than the decree date change occuring on the Debussey 20F notes and yet one gives rise to separate entries whilst the other is ignored. It's the lack of consisentency that's the primary problem here. Other assignats which only changed decree dates are (and should) be grouped, despite SCWPM splitting them up. If we get this right, we can have a listing for the assignats which will clearly show how they act as a record of the momentous historical events occurring during their issue.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
OK so the French part is designed to please the French collectors, the USA part is designed to please the American collectors. What if every nation want their own design of the catalog? What happens with the consistency if everybody has his/hers own system?
Well. It's a good thing that hasnt happened. And thankfully people usually look at a note or a nation. Not all of them at once. This really seems to be a micro issue, not a macro issue. Xavier is tracking and on top of the issue.
Library Media Specialist, columnist, collector, and gardener...
Quote: "allexis"OK so the French part is designed to please the French collectors, the USA part is designed to please the American collectors. What if every nation want their own design of the catalog? What happens with the consistency if everybody has his/hers own system?
