Canada: 10 cents 2022, individual coin versus coin from a roll? [gelöst]

N#301234

What's that supposed to mean, both lines are about individual coins, aren't they. If the “individual coin” is from a set or coin card, then say so, please?

I don't understand it either - for some reason this is prevalent with recent circulating commemorative coins in Canada - the Mint releases special wrap rolls to be purchased, but in my opinion Numista does not list “products” but coins. 

It is also indistinguishable to determine if a coin is from a special wrap roll or not - so it should only be one listing.

I hope it gets resolved.

Added pictures of rolls and adjusted descriptions on year lines to change the order. Individual coin will appear on the first line now.

Regards,

Thanks, but I think you haven't really understood what it's all about.

I'll try to explain in detail:

1. Yesterday I got a 10 cents coin from 2022 in a trade.

2. I wanted to enter the single coin into numista correctly.

3. I saw two different year lines offered by numista

3.1 One with a coin from a roll

3.2 One as an individual coin

4. I got a single coin in my swap, but if it's from a roll or not, I cannot know!

5. As far as I can see, I can add my coin to any of the two lines, since a single coin corresponds to both definitions

6. I would be lying by entering my coin in any of the two lines, since I don't know in which, it belongs!

Maybe we need to a 3rd line for just a single coin like mine, which must be a bastard 🙃

It's really ridiculous, isn't it?

I think it would be better to simply have it as one line rather than two - it unnecessarily complicates things for coin collectors.

Although some of us do collect coin rolls - I don't see why one cannot enter is as a comment on the side ex: “50 in special wrap roll from Mint”, rather than dedicating a special line.

Plus there is no real way of distinguishing a coin from a special roll or not.

Québécois

Added pictures of rolls and adjusted descriptions on year lines to change the order. Individual coin will appear on the first line now.

 

Regards,

Doesn't really help anything, it's just as confusing as before🤪

We already had this discussion twice in the past, I don't understand why you open another topic for this.

One line is for Roll collectors and the other for the “traditional” coin collectors. If you don't have a Special roll (see pictures) add you coin on the other line. It's quite simple I think. Sorry, but I don't see the confusion.

Have a nice day !

Obviously, it's not simple, the language is not descriptive enough! “Individual coin” should be “Normal circulation coin”. Then it would be easy to understand.

Sjoelund

Obviously, it's not simple, the language is not descriptive enough! “Individual coin” should be “Normal circulation coin”. Then it would be easy to understand.

I think I really found the solution now, don't you think !!! 🤣

I don't think I'm the laughing stock here. Do you?

Sjoelund

I don't think I'm the laughing stock here. Do you?

 

Well, if you don't appreciate a little humour…

Have a nice day.

Put in the first line, 

if you think this coin was never in a roll, then add it here

In the second line,

If you think, this coin was once in a roll, then add it here.

EDIT: If you can't think, then don't add the coin at all!

I suppose the Canadian Supermarkets get their coins in rolls from their respective headquarters or banks and the coins are all circulation coins, even if they are from 2022? 

Please change the wording, as I have already asked. By the way, I appreciated your “joke”. I laughed for 2 seconds, shaking my head.

The way you're handling this, will not make the Numista database a very precise image of, what people actually have in their collections, can't you understand that?

What’s the difference between an  XF roll and a UNC roll?

Up to you . Do you add the total amount of the coins of the roll to the coin tally or only One coin?

Québécois

We already had this discussion twice in the past, I don't understand why you open another topic for this.

 

One line is for Roll collectors and the other for the “traditional” coin collectors. If you don't have a Special roll (see pictures) add you coin on the other line. It's quite simple I think. Sorry, but I don't see the confusion.

 

Have a nice day !

 

 

First, as a Canadian coin collector, I would like to thank you for all your work. I would like also to thank you for your creative/simple way for us ROLLS collectors to be able to inventory our SPECIAL ROLLS . Using these lines, we are even able to swap our SPECIAL ROLLS now.

It's quite simple to me, for each SPECIAL ROLL in my possession, I enter the number of UNC coins in the ROLL on the line identified for SPECIAL ROLL. If I own more than one ROLL, I add the UNC coins for every SPECIAL ROLL in my possession.

For every other single, individual, normal circulation coin (NOT IN A SPECIAL ROLL) in my possession, I use the other line (the one NOT for SPECIAL ROLL). As I do for the Collector cards, Pack, Sets and etc (when a line exist).

By entering my coins in ROLLS on the SPECIAL ROLL line, I can quickly identify with the other SPECIAL ROLL collectors what I have to offer for swaps and what rolls they have that might be interesting to me.

I have read that Mike from Australia experienced the same kind of resistance when he started to enter the Australian Cards and etc. I also suppose there was also some resistance from the circulation coin collectors when Numista started to enter Collectors coins. I consider all this as normal evolution. As more and more mints/countries follow the Australian and Canadian exemples, you will see the advantages of this simple solution proposed here on Numista.

If a “dumb” blonde like me can use these new lines, everyone can.

Celine F.

P.S. You have understand the concept of some people collecting ROLLS of coins, not only single coins. You might not be interested in collecting ROLLS, but others are. Just like some only collect circulation coins not year sets or collector's coin.

 

I have read that Mike from Australia experienced the same kind of resistance when he started to enter the Australian Cards and etc. I also suppose there was also some resistance from the circulation coin collectors when Numista started to enter Collectors coins. I consider all this as normal evolution. As more and more mints/countries follow the Australian and Canadian exemples, you will see the advantages of this simple solution proposed here on Numista.

 

If a “dumb” blonde like me can use these new lines, everyone can.

 

Celine F.

 

P.S. You have understand the concept of some people collecting ROLLS of coins, not only single coins. You might not be interested in collecting ROLLS, but others are. Just like some only collect circulation coins not year sets or collector's coin.

I suppose you are referring to Mike's reply in this topics : https://en.numista.com/forum/topic126256.html

P.S. Merci Big Mac pour ton message d'appui, ça change des bêtises/critiques qu'on reçoit régulièrement. Quelques fois, même souvent, les gens n'ont pas l'air de comprendre que les référents ne sont que des bénévoles qui font leur possible pour améliorer le catalogue en tenant de faire plaisir au plus grand nombre de membres possible. Je suis toujours surpris quand ils se demandent ensuite pourquoi il manque des référents et pourquoi leur(s) demande(s) de changement prennent une “éternité” à être approuvées. On devrait se syndiquer !!!  🤣🤣🤣

Concerning rolls in Canada - at least since 2017 - all commemorative and circulating coins have had both a special wrap roll (sold by the Mint or dealers) as well as consumer rolls (in paper or clear plastic wrap distributed to banks), now this gets complicated when it comes to coloured and non-coloured coins as the Mint sells special wraps with one OR the other, while banks receive mixed rolls. 

Has there been discussion previously about adding a separate line for these sorts of rolls (ie, not special wrap rolls, but bank rolls)?

Merci! J'apprécie le temps que vous prenez afin de maintenir le catalogue.

 

I do feel we are reproducing the over complicated section of french banknotes here. For the benefits of a minority we are making a change that is not support by the current guideline.

The catalogue is for coins, sets are not allow yet, coin rolls can be seen as set. When the new category for set will be set up these rolls will fits perfectly to the new category.

and I just want the text in the “invidual” to be changed into “circulation”, but we are far from rational.

From a white haired (formerly blond) “dumb” person.

Sets and rolls are not referenced in Numista. These yearlines should be deleted.

Only sometimes a specific version exists only from sets,in these cases we can precise it in the variant comment, but if the set/roll uses same coins variant than usual coins, then it shouldn't be differentiated.

Compendium

Sets and rolls are not referenced in Numista.

I'm still up for it in a dedicated Set section as requested here.

Of course a dedicated section with specific entries is possible in the future, still not prioritized though as far as I know :-)
But still these “sets/rolls” false variants shouldn't appear on coins' entries

And the referees are told how to treat that? Who verifies?

Sjoelund

And the referees are told how to treat that? Who verifies?

Appeals are made for that :-)

Compendium

Sjoelund

And the referees are told how to treat that? Who verifies?

Appeals are made for that :-)

So, is this thread treated as an appeal, or should I make a CR again?

Sjoelund

Compendium

Sjoelund

And the referees are told how to treat that? Who verifies?

Appeals are made for that :-)

So, is this thread treated as an appeal, or should I make a CR again?

With regards for members who spent their time adding these lines and entering theirs rolls or cards in their inventory, I will not approuve any CR to remove the Special Rolls or Collectors Cards lines for the Canadian issuer until this has been properly discuss in the next referee meeting.

Catch22, then!

Sjoelund

Catch22, then!

Canada: 10 cents 2022, individual coin versus coin from a roll?

Sjoelund, you still don't get it.

It's not individual coin versus coin from a roll, it's one coin or one ROLL of COINS.

The line is there to differentiate an object not it's origin, just as we do for Circulation coins, Specimen coins and Proof coins or coins from Sets.

Céline F.

P.S. The 10 cents Bluenose special rolls are sold around 10$ each but contain 50 coins for a total value of 5$. Do you see the difference in value that lead people to collect these special rolls now ?

Not to mention that in 2023 there will be no canadian circulation 5c, 10c, 25c or 50 cents except those in sets or collector cards. If we don't use those lines, there will be none of these 2023 canadian coins on Numista.

From the mint official web site:

As we focus our attention on commemorating the reign of Queen Elizabeth II (1952-2022), the Mint will not be issuing any 2023-dated Canadian circulation coins featuring both the traditional reverse designs and an obverse featuring Queen Elizabeth II. Instead, we are offering a collector’s edition of these annual issues that have been struck in limited numbers. These are non-circulation coins, meaning they are legal tender but not intended for general circulation. The obverse also bears a special marking that includes four pearls symbolizing the four effigies that have graced Canadian coins and the double date of her reign.

Except according to you 

“The line is there to differentiate an object not it's origin, just as we do for Circulation coins, Specimen coins and Proof coins or coins from Sets.”

There would only be one line - as the coins in the rolls ARE THE EXACT SAME as the ones not in special rolls, the same way a 2023 25c coin in the Baby Set cannot be differentiated from the 2025 25c in the O Canada set.

As seen in this page

N#353891

I do not agree with having multiple lines for the same coin (even if in different products), because we have not done so for decades (otherwise imagine the hundreds of lines in in the 2003-2022 Caribou quarter)

Some collectors do purchase Mint products and sets, but coins should not be differentiated based on the set they come from if they cannot be distinguished if taken out of the set.

Please see the previous 2 threads on this topic:

https://en.numista.com/forum/topic126256.html

https://en.numista.com/forum/topic124989.html

and let me quote Mike, another referee :

Québécois

 

Looking at the number of members so far who did add these Rolls and Cards in their inventory, they are collectors of Special Wrap Roll and Keepsake Cards. They exist and are here to stay. They are happy to enter these in their inventory and I'm happy to help them do so. This way they will be be able to swap and inventory their treasures like anyone else here. 

We will have to adapt to the new collectors ways of collecting or go play dinosaur.

I agree with you. New coin collectors like to see more information about the way a coin has been issued. I get requests to add PNC issues for Australian coins and special carded versions plus coins released by the Mint in Rolls. These have very different values than a standard issue. So I am also very happy to accommodate this. 

I understand the old argument about once the coin is removed from it's coin card or other packaging etc it is just the same coin and where should it be input. Well just input it on whatever line you want.

Mike 

The issue here is not about the need (collecting new numismatic items like sets or rolls) but about the method (versions table were created to differentiate subtypes or yearlines of each coin/banknote/exonumia, not for rolls)

I understand how users were eager to reference their items and therefore asked for this “quick” solution, but still think these new objects need dedicated entries, following our guidelines.

For instance, by definition a set or a roll cannot have same weight and dimension than a single coin. 

I suggest we wait for new functionality to reference them before updating those lines.

I think that various coin wrappings (card, roll…) should go to exonumia as separate categories. If you read the definition of coin here, in Numista, you will see that these do not fall under it. And - you cannot use them for any transaction unless you unwrap them. 

Regarding the Canada 10c coin - my entry was by some misterious bug added to rolls, not a single coin. So I guess the majority of entries under “roll” is also due to the same bug. 

This discution remind me the famous pages of New Zeland sets and the reason why neilithic left.

Any decision on that topic? Coin rolls and complet set are now allow on coin page?

Not roadmapped yet :-)

So it's fine to add rolls to pages?

Indomini16

So it's fine to add rolls to pages?

Nope :-)

This is still up? If the coin wrapped in special roll is undistinguishable from coin wrapped in toilet paper, then it should be merged. Guidelines specify this.

Merged
I sent the Change request to add up mintage and precise it includes 40K rolls of 50 coins

Here we go again !!!

FYI, If you are not interested in these Special Rolls many other members are (mainly from Canada and Australia since these countries mints are offering them).

Special roll collectors are paying double the price for them and want to be able to enter these in their inventory. As long as members will be submitting requests, I will accomodate them until Numista comes up with another solution. It doesn't prevent any other members to do their thing as usual so I don't see a BIG issue with this. Don't you have more important things to fix ?

If you are unhappy with this creative solution from special roll collecting members, why don't you just look the other way. One of these days it will get fix and everyone will be happy.

Bonne vacances d'été.

Québécois

Here we go again !!!

 

FYI, If you are not interested in these Special Rolls many other members are (mainly from Canada and Australia since these countries mints are offering them).

 

Special roll collectors are paying double the price for them and want to be able to enter these in their inventory. As long as members will be submitting requests, I will accomodate them until Numista comes up with another solution. It doesn't prevent any other members to do their thing as usual so I don't see a BIG issue with this. Don't you have more important things to fix ?

 

If you are unhappy with this creative solution from special roll collecting members, why don't you just look the other way. One of these days it will get fix and everyone will be happy.

 

Bonne vacances d'été.

 

 

 

 

Please, dont misunderstand me: one day we will maybe create those new page types, and it will be fine to use them.

Waiting for that, messing with existing fields is no good for catalogue consistency and WILL lead to an enormous rework afterwards, to fix all those “creative solutions”

FYI many users ask for stamps entries regularly for instance, or military medals, or many many things they collect and would love to register here. Coins, medals, stamps, rolls… Some of these items are in Numista scope, some dont, some will be, but we have to wait for the feature anyway. 

I sincerely hope you'll enforce this mindset :-)

You can't undo what members did just like that. Lets have this topic properly discussed in the next referee meeting. I asked for this discussion before.

I don't agree with you, this is not messing with existing fields.

Members from Canada and Australia came up with this solution without consulting each others. Both referees from both countries think it's a suitable solution and agreed to accomodate them. If Numista ever come up with a solution, WE, the referees from these countries, will do the rework.

Re-bonne vacances.

Québécois

You can't undo what members did just like that. Lets have this topic properly discussed in the next referee meeting. I asked for this discussion before.

 

I don't agree with you, this is not messing with existing fields.

 

Members from Canada and Australia came up with this solution without consulting each others. Both referees from both countries think it's a suitable solution and agreed to accomodate them. If Numista ever come up with a solution, WE, the referees from these countries, will do the rework.

 

Re-bonne vacances.

WE, I didn't make an inappropriate comment about the Feudal manners. OMG.

Sjoelund

 

WE, I didn't make an inappropriate comment about the Feudal manners. OMG.

Encore un commentaire incompréhensible qui ne fait pas de sens, peut-être devrais-tu écrire en français si tu as quelque chose à communiquer car ce n'est pas un succès en anglais.

Québécois

Sjoelund

 

WE, I didn't make an inappropriate comment about the Feudal manners. OMG.

Encore un commentaire incompréhensible qui ne fait pas de sens, peut-être devrais-tu écrire en français si tu as quelque chose à communiquer car ce n'est pas un succès en anglais.

Why do you want me to write something which is clear in English in Canadian?

Québécois

You can't undo what members did just like that. Lets have this topic properly discussed in the next referee meeting. I asked for this discussion before.

 

I don't agree with you, this is not messing with existing fields.

 

Members from Canada and Australia came up with this solution without consulting each others. Both referees from both countries think it's a suitable solution and agreed to accomodate them. If Numista ever come up with a solution, WE, the referees from these countries, will do the rework.

 

Re-bonne vacances.

Users can simply indicate they got  50 copies of the coin when they add their collection. I think it is a suitable solution waiting for Numista to register maybe sets and rolls in the future, even simpler than adding false yearlines, dont you?

Compendium

Merged
I sent the Change request to add up mintage and precise it includes 40K rolls of 50 coins

You deleted the year line for this roll without notice ? 

Sjoelund

Québécois

You can't undo what members did just like that. Lets have this topic properly discussed in the next referee meeting. I asked for this discussion before.

 

I don't agree with you, this is not messing with existing fields.

 

Members from Canada and Australia came up with this solution without consulting each others. Both referees from both countries think it's a suitable solution and agreed to accomodate them. If Numista ever come up with a solution, WE, the referees from these countries, will do the rework.

 

Re-bonne vacances.

WE, I didn't make an inappropriate comment about the Feudal manners. OMG.

C'est vrai que votre phrase ne fait pas de sens même en utilisant le traducteur.  😇

Peut-être que vous devriez régler vos problèmes en privé avec le Québécois, ça devient agaçant et ridicule et à cause de vous plaintes ce sont nous les membres du Canada qui payons car nous perdons les infos de notre inventaire sans même être averti.

À mon âge, je n'ai pas de temps à perdre. Saisir ceci à nouveau juste parce qu'une ligne supplémentaire vous irrite, m'irrite encore plus.

CF.

We discussed with admins and we confirm:

- no one should create yearlines for set/rolls

- collectors can set “50” when entering their collection, and put a specific comment in their private space to indicate it is a roll

Québécois

I don't agree with you, this is not messing with existing fields.

 

Members from Canada and Australia came up with this solution without consulting each others. Both referees from both countries think it's a suitable solution and agreed to accomodate them. If Numista ever come up with a solution, WE, the referees from these countries, will do the rework.

It do have consequences for users as the site is not made to support this creative solution.

Values, weight and dimensions, double tick, ect.

The discussion is not around if they are or not collectible, there is no doubt about it. But how they are currently forced in our database.

3 years ago we had no database for banknote so we had no banknote.

An idea is running to include a new category for sets that will fitt perfectly your rolls need but so far it’s just an idea so there is no need to mess the database with unsuitable items until we get the new category.

I did not want to get into this topic since I understand both parties and it is difficult to reach a reasonable agreement. My opinion from the beginning is that if a coin is not different at all, it should have a single year line regardless of how it is presented (for circulation, rolls, blister or sets).

That being said, the phrase "- no one should create yearlines for set/rolls", if I understand it correctly, modifies and affects the entire Numista catalog. For example, in all countries that use the Euro we have this:

Does that phrase mean that we have to eliminate all the lines of years that indicate Set? Do we know the work that this implies in the entire Catalog? What is done with the mintage, does it add up in a single line? Who moves all the users from one line to the other?

My proposal, knowing that it goes against my initial opinion and the Numista guidelines, would be to leave things as they are for now until we can find a good solution for the different forms of presentation (rolls, blisters, sets...)

oynbcn

That being said, the phrase "- no one should create yearlines for set/rolls", if I understand it correctly, modifies and affects the entire Numista catalog. For example, in all countries that use the Euro we have this:

 

 

Does that phrase mean that we have to eliminate all the lines of years that indicate Set? Do we know the work that this implies in the entire Catalog? What is done with the mintage, does it add up in a single line? Who moves all the users from one line to the other?

In my understanding the sets mentionned here are not proof coins, so it is just a comment about those coins having been issued in sets in the first place. And we dont merge them as coins are different.

Exactly as we let comments about rolls in pages where part of coins were issued in rolls.

No, this is not true. The first two lines (without comment and with comment "In sets only) are exactly the same coin in this and in most cases in Numista. Should they be merged on one line? The Proof coin is obviously different and must maintain its own yearline.

Oh sorry i missed first line indeed, my bad

Yes then, if there is no difference between coins, there shouldnt be an extra yearline for sets

Sets or rolls = exact same issue about messing database due to a wished feature not released yet :-)

Compendium

Oh sorry i missed first line indeed, my bad

Yes then, if there is no difference between coins, there shouldnt be an extra yearline for sets

Sets or rolls = exact same issue about messing database due to a wished feature not released yet :-)

That applies to these as well?

rsirian1

Compendium

Oh sorry i missed first line indeed, my bad

Yes then, if there is no difference between coins, there shouldnt be an extra yearline for sets

Sets or rolls = exact same issue about messing database due to a wished feature not released yet :-)

That applies to these as well?

 

I understand that yes, but do we really know what it would imply to do this now? The first is an incredible amount of work for everyone and the second is that information would be lost (types of Sets, mintage...) that would be very useful when an alternative to Sets, rolls is given... so you don't have to go back to find all that information. 

I repeat that I am in favor of two identical coins must be in a single line, but I don't think it's time to do it until there is an alternative to the Sets issue. 

And if this decision is really made (which involves a lot of work for everyone) it should be announced in a separate Topic and even notifying all the referees, since many may not have heard of this very important change.

oynbcn

 

I understand that yes, but do we really know what it would imply to do this now? The first is an incredible amount of work for everyone and the second is that information would be lost (types of Sets, mintage...) that would be very useful when an alternative to Sets, rolls is given... so you don't have to go back to find all that information. 

 

I repeat that I am in favor of two identical coins must be in a single line, but I don't think it's time to do it until there is an alternative to the Sets issue. 

 

And if this decision is really made (which involves a lot of work for everyone) it should be announced in a separate Topic and even notifying all the referees, since many may not have heard of this very important change.

I'm not disagreeing with you.  I'm just wondering why for the coin in this post the decision was made and the year line removed (twice since it reappeared after the first removal) but isn't being enforce across the board.  Why pick on Canada only?

Good questions.

I'd say simply because it is how any collaborative database moves on: by iterations which always begin by localized discussions and actions which raise awareness.

Wikipedia, wikidata, Numista, etc. are full of inconcistencies. We are all working hard to, little by little, find solutions, automatize stuff, align everyone.

rsirian1

oynbcn

 

I understand that yes, but do we really know what it would imply to do this now? The first is an incredible amount of work for everyone and the second is that information would be lost (types of Sets, mintage...) that would be very useful when an alternative to Sets, rolls is given... so you don't have to go back to find all that information. 

 

I repeat that I am in favor of two identical coins must be in a single line, but I don't think it's time to do it until there is an alternative to the Sets issue. 

 

And if this decision is really made (which involves a lot of work for everyone) it should be announced in a separate Topic and even notifying all the referees, since many may not have heard of this very important change.

I'm not disagreeing with you.  I'm just wondering why for the coin in this post the decision was made and the year line removed (twice since it reappeared after the first removal) but isn't being enforce across the board.  Why pick on Canada only?

Yes, I don't understand why this kind of predilection for the Canadian catalog either. I don't know if, when making the decision for this specific coin, they thought about the repercussions that this would have on the entire Catalog. 

I repeat, this is not the time to make these changes without having an alternative prepared for these currencies. Information will be lost and possibly, some referees who have put in an impressive effort to collect all the information on Sets and Rolls and many users who do their collection of Sets and Rolls are not very happy with doing this now.

I think this issue is important enough to be discussed in a separate Topic before making a decision that affects so many users and the Numista catalog.

rsirian1

oynbcn

 

I understand that yes, but do we really know what it would imply to do this now? The first is an incredible amount of work for everyone and the second is that information would be lost (types of Sets, mintage...) that would be very useful when an alternative to Sets, rolls is given... so you don't have to go back to find all that information. 

 

I repeat that I am in favor of two identical coins must be in a single line, but I don't think it's time to do it until there is an alternative to the Sets issue. 

 

And if this decision is really made (which involves a lot of work for everyone) it should be announced in a separate Topic and even notifying all the referees, since many may not have heard of this very important change.

I'm not disagreeing with you.  I'm just wondering why for the coin in this post the decision was made and the year line removed (twice since it reappeared after the first removal) but isn't being enforce across the board.  Why pick on Canada only?

I would like to read the answer to these questions. I personally know Quebecois as we are neighbors in our RPA (résidence pour ainé(e)s), the amount of time he invested in the last 2 years is incredible. It's almost a full time job for him. He deserve better recognition than what he gets for all he did. I know for sure that Canadian members will be really angry if you remove all the extra infos they added to the database over the past years. Are you trying to push Québécois to resign because of his different with Sjoelund the autor of this topic ?

I think I answered just above :-)

Big Mac

Are you trying to push Québécois to resign because of his different with Sjoelund the autor of this topic ?

Ridiculous rabble-rousing!

Ok - I have stayed out of this up to now but I feel I must have a say. As mentioned earlier in the thread this has come up before. It seemed to be an issue for some particular people but eventually it settled down. Now it seems to have blown up again but Canada is copping it.

As far as Australia goes I would be  VERY pissed off if I was made to remove all the work that has gone into setting up the Australian catalogue just so that someone can be happy to see some mintage lines merged.

I have put countless hours of my time into improving the Australian catalogue since I joined the site. Even before I became referee I updated so many missing items it was not funny. I am sure the previous referees were sick to death of seeing requests from me.

If I was made to remove mintage lines for Baby Sets, BU Year Sets, PNC Issues, Rolls & Other special releases we would lose a massive amount of information that is of immense information to Australian coin collectors.

Just taking one coin for instance >>>  N#7378

Have a good look at the page, including the read more bit in the comments. Just look at the info and pictures included.

You might not know it but this was the only $1 coin released into circulation by the RAM in 2007.

So it is a very common circulated coin mintage of over 20 million. You can pick these up on ebay etc very cheaply. We have 1303 members who claim to have the circulation coin

However 10,000 were issued in RAM Rolls (500 Rolls) they attract a premium value and are highly collectible. 

A Roll will cost you at least 4 times face value ($80), 4 members on Numista have got rolls of this coin. Some collectors in Australia only collect Rolls.

Australia Post issued 4,000 of them in a PNC which also attract a premium value and are highly collectible.

You will typically pay around$25 to $30 for one of these. Only 3 members have got the PNC edition.

PNC's are a very special thing in Australia, some people only collect them and not other coins.

And only 250 were issued in a special VIP case to official attendees at the actual APEC meeting. These ones are a special GEM quality.

These almost never come up for sale but when they do expect to pay around $150 or more for one. I have got one of these and the quality is stunning.

This is a screenshot of my page for this coin …

So just to make Sjoeland Happy you want me to undo all this work? And Compendium, I can't believe that you are backing the idea. If you are a coin collector would you not want as much information about a coin as you could get?

If and when we do somehow manage to get Sets installed in Numista as a separate item I will be the one sorting it all out. If we remove the information we currently have that will make things much more difficult to re-instate.

So I am not in favour of removing these mintage lines and I am sure that 100% of Australian coin collectors would agree with me. I also fully support what the Canadian Referee Quebecois has done and agree with all he has said as does Big Mac.

Now can everyone calm down, go have a drink, chill out, leave things alone and when Sets can be an item lets revisit what has to be done.

Regards Mike

Please everyone calm down a bit. I never said anyone would delete all errors now. This thread was about one specific case, on which admins were asked about guidelines. We answered. 

No one can delete all that in one click btw, as it will be enormous work as everyone know… which is exactly the issue!

Again, a lot of people here are making the case that these sets/rolls are highly valued collectibles, but no one disagrees with that

Just, Numista does not have a way to support it correctly as yearlines. You can keep all infos in comments anyway, just yearlines are not meant for rolls/sets or else.

Creating an engagement bias is no good argument : any referee could add hundreds of stamps entries in Numista, we would still say it is not admitted.

So in a nutshell:

- please from nowon put these infos in comments, not in yearlines

- admins wont delete anything, it will be up to referees and contributors to clean the catalogue little by little

- if and when rolls/sets pages are created on Numista, all these infos can be used in them (huge rework anyway)

Compendium

Please everyone calm down a bit. I never said anyone would delete all errors now. This thread was about one specific case, on which admins were asked about guidelines. We answered. YOU DELETED THE LINE WITHOUT NOTICE or PROPER DEBATE.

Just, Numista does not have a way to support it correctly as yearlines. You can keep all infos in comments anyway, just yearlines are not meant for rolls/sets or else. WE THINK IT WORKED JUST FINE LIKE THAT SO WHY NOT ? NO ONE HAS CAME UP WITH JUST ONE GOOD REASON EXCEPT SOMEONE'S STUBBORNNESS ?

Creating an engagement bias is no good argument : any referee could add hundreds of stamps entries in Numista, we would still say it is not admitted. NO ONE ADDED STAMPS BUT THANKS TO YOU, ONE MIGHT NOW.

 

So in a nutshell:

- please from nowon put these infos in comments, not in yearlines NOT USEFULL FOR TRADES

- admins wont delete anything, it will be up to referees and contributors to clean the catalogue little by little YOU DID DELETE LINES IN THE CANADIAN CATALOG, WILL YOU BRING THAT INFO BACK ?

- if and when rolls/sets pages are created on Numista, all these infos can be used in them (huge rework anyway) EASY TO DO WHEN INFO IS STILL AVAILABLE PUBLICLY IN NUMISTA.

 

This thread is going in circle.

From the very beginning of Numista Sets and rolls are out of scope. When you apply to become referee you commit to work for the benefits of Numista in agreement with the guidelines in place.

You can obviously disagree with the rules, but you have to disagree at first place to open the debate.

Now we are going the other way around, you don't agree with the rules and find a creative solution. And when someone is asking for consistency, you complain abou the future of the hours you spent in creating something that goes aside the rules …

Again the amount of work invest in building this creative solution should have been spent in changing the rules no in tricking the system …

I don't collect set but still would like to have a section for it that's why I created a thread about it, I will not start to push sets in the catalogue and then after thousands of them are in the catalogue start to complain when lines are moving out… 

Just stop for a second and think. No-one is actually adding sets. Mintage lines are being added to a coin to specify that it is PART of a set. A Baby Set, or a Mint BU Year Set or a PNC etc.

I see that just about all Euro coins are mentioned with a mintage line as “Only in Sets”. Yet the coins in those sets are the same coin as the normal circulation coin. Do you think Euro coin collectors would like those lines removed? I think you would have a revolt.

Hopefully we can have a Sets section eventually and when we do this will have all seemed like a storm in a tea cup.

Take care and relax - Mike

SCWC KM numbers for Australia KM# 401 coin, 2006.  Offered to the discussion without comment:

Je viens de revenir de vacances, effectivement Mike a raison, je suis “VERY PISSED OFF”.

Il y a des centaines de ces lignes dans le catalogue. Bien sûr, il y en a pour le Canada mais aussi pour d'autres pays.  C'est un fait accompli, ne vous en déplaise. Elles étaient là avant que je devienne référent. Je ne suis pas l'initiateur de cette solution de contournement, mais je l'approuve entièrement ainsi que son utilisation par les membres. Tous espéraient que cette solution soit temporaire, j'en suis certain.

À ceux qui disent d'être patient et d'attendre une solution, relisez les forums, ça fait plus de 7 ans que les demandes pour inclure des ensembles (set), cartes et etc ont été exprimées. Il serait peut-être temps de s'y attaquer en priorité.

À chaque fois que le sujet refait surface, je suggère une discussion entre les référents concernés et les administrateurs mais jamais personne n'a pris le temps d'organiser cette discussion ouverte et dans un esprit de collaboration avec toutes les parties impliquées. Au lieu de ça, on a eu droit à une décision unilatérale qui a mené à une suppression d'information.

Et la réponse donnée à la question POURQUOI maintenant et POURQUOI le Canada en particulier est loin d'être satisfaisante pour moi… et pour d'autres aussi semble-t-il.

Plusieurs référents et membres me disent en privé ne plus vouloir participer car trop déçu de la façon dont les choses sont gérées, je commence à comprendre leurs raisons. Ce n'est pas normal pour un site qui se dit collaboratif que ce genre de situations se produisent.

Je demanderais aux personnes qui ont supprimé l'information de la récupérer N#301234 . Du moins le temps qu'une décision globale soit adoptée et appliquée dans l'ensemble du catalogue ou qu'une vraie solution permanente soit disponible.

Pour l'instant, je n'approuverai plus de nouvelles demandes de ce type mais il faut proposer rapidement une solution permanente si celle-ci ne vous convient pas.

André alias VERY PISSED OFF.

😄