I purchased this coin. It came in a flip. How am I supposed to list this in Numista? All there is is a ridiculous date line of this coin in a cardboard holder with a mintage of 2,000 thrn a second dateline of the same identical coin in a set. Also with a mintage of 2,000.
This is not cool. They are the same date, design, condition. Why are they differentiated by packaging?
How is a coin neebie supposed to know how to list there coins? Even seasoned collectors would not know how to list this. I hope numista will fix this. Absurd to catalog packaging at the expense of clear cataloging of a coin. Both lines are the same damn coin. If its wrong its wrong. Fix it. This is not what a premier coin catalog site should do. Please fix this weak listing. Or perhaps give me some insight into how we should decide which option to use when we get the coin that is in neither packaging choice? Maybe a new line that says raw. Or paper stapled holder. Or flip. Be sure and include mintages…
Library Media Specialist, columnist, collector, and gardener...
I purchased this coin. It came in a flip. How am I supposed to list this in Numista? All there is is a ridiculous date line of this coin in a cardboard holder with a mintage of 2,000 thrn a second dateline of the same identical coin in a set. Also with a mintage of 2,000.
This is not cool. They are the same date, design, condition. Why are they differentiated by packaging?
How is a coin neebie supposed to know how to list there coins? Even seasoned collectors would not know how to list this. I hope numista will fix this. Absurd to catalog packaging at the expense of clear cataloging of a coin. Both lines are the same damn coin. If its wrong its wrong. Fix it. This is not what a premier coin catalog site should do. Please fix this weak listing. Or perhaps give me some insight into how we should decide which option to use when we get the coin that is in neither packaging choice? Maybe a new line that says raw. Or paper stapled holder. Or flip. Be sure and include mintages…
Careful, the Aussies, the Canadians and the Kiwis collect like that, according to their argumentation for “molesting” the Numista catalog.
There might be others doing the same. This has been discussed a lot in our forum, and I think it is now allowed, at least for some countries.
I agree, it makes the catalog difficult to figure out, if not impossible to use for “normal” members.
Make a request to merge the BU lines together. With the new set feature the referee has no argument to keep these superfluous lines any longer. If possible create the missing set and ask if the year line comments will survive a transfer so the hissyfit will be reduced as the members will still know what set it was originally and they can manually move to the set pages.
Not sure how practical it is to use numista to track the collection if I cant track the collection. There is not a third option as I said, I can hardly guess which line to put my coin under, it forces me to falsify my collection.
Seems to me that their should be one line with the full mintage, and that the numista user should use the comment section to detail which packaging they have for their item.
This is goofy and makes stats less reliable.
I really hope that numista will fix this.
Library Media Specialist, columnist, collector, and gardener...
Idolenz, this sounds more like a task for you and numista admin, rather than the collector who would be wasting their time creating a request of the same referees who are making these sort of listings anyway.
If this is wrong format, not sure why they are not being asked to fix it. I just now that it is concerns like this that I hear at club meetings and numismatic shows when I advocate for Numista, which I love to do, and I have no response for certain nations that choose not to make logic a part of the algorithm.
Library Media Specialist, columnist, collector, and gardener...
I sometimes collect by packaging. But they should support a numista standard listing and either have images in a supporting role, and then comments in the comment section of a line.
But to break up a single date coin into multiple lines and show a partial mintage instead of a single date line with a total mintage, they are jacking up the algorithm. I literally have no clue how to catalog some coins in numista when referees do things this way…That is unusual to say when I am a 40 year plus collector and a former referee for Isle of Man and Gibraltar. There are potentially dozens of packaging options f single year single coin issues, and then multiple year sets with different packaging. I have not been shown a way that makes more since than a date lines based on a total mintage for the type, and perhaps a differentiated line based on condition. Even the referees doing these listings have not offered a solution for coins found without packaging.
Its weird that the packaging is more important than the coin in the packaging. Even our stats are affected. You cant list a mintage for the coin, because the mintage has been subdivided by packaging…this also denies me my green checkmark for when I have all of a listing.
I like that we can do sets now. I would think that referees would be expected to adjust these listings to follow numista expectations. for single listings.
Library Media Specialist, columnist, collector, and gardener...
I don’t think the blame lies with Numista or the referees adding these coins, but the countries producing 4000 non-circulating coins just to sell at marked up prices.
If I were to hazard a guess as to where your coin came from, I would say from the year set, because someone in New Zealand could spend the other 3 Dollars 80 as cash, hence why it is out of its packaging and alone, being a non-circulating non use 5 dollar coin.
Either way, it is kind of irrelevant where you record it as it is not with the rest of the BU coins from the year set, or with the coin card. But I do agree the page should say 2009 - 4000 mintage with a note about the coin card and link to the year set, after all more and more coins will be broken out of their packaging the longer time goes on.
„If your reply or post in the Forum stinks of AI, I will call you out! Knowledge comes from experience, the I in AI stands for incompetence.“
And the over 300 Australian coins? The point is fixing these one at a time when/if somebody complains is not a solution. They're being added faster than being removed. Three 2026 coins so far.
