Delete/move members Barbados [solved]

38 posts • viewed 107 times

This message aims at: requesting the modification of a banknote in the catalogue

Status: Done
Upvotes: 1
Downvotes: 0

» Quick access to the last post

1. Please delete this:
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/note209069.html

and move the members here:
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/note214378.html


2. Please move members for P#67 from here:
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/note207858.html

to here:
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/note275505.html

3. Also please move the members for P#68 from here:
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/note238607.html

here:
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/note275507.html


Thank you!
If I've understod correctly, the proposal is to have the $2 notes divided as follows:

P#54 & P#60 (1998-2000)

P#66 (2007-2012)

However, looking at the notes, the only difference I can see is between P#54a and all the others, the difference being in the see-through optical device. Can I therefore suggest that we have two entries as follows:

P#54a (1998)

P#54b, P#60 & P#66 (1999-2012)
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
If you look closer you will see there is a difference between 54, 60 and 66. The upper left dollar sign and the number are different. Also 66 is dated the others aren't, and last 66 has a segmented security thread that says CBB. So no, I think this is the way they should be listed. I agree there is a difference between 54a and b but is explained in the comments section with photo.
Are you talking about the $2 sign at the top left of the reverse? These are the same for P#54b, P#60 & P#66 but different for P#54a, matching the change in see-through optical device. I agree that P#66 is dated and has a different thread, so that could be the basis for a separate P#66 entry, but I still see no differences between P#54b and P#60.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
$2 on the obverse is filled with dots for 54 and 60, and with lines for 66. Also The reverse is redish pink for 66 and not greenish blue or whatever that color is for 54 and 60. So 66 is clearly different than the others. Now for 54a , b and 60.. The only difference is that 54a has 2 quadrants of the windmill filled, that's why I decided to list it together with 54b and 60. I don't think it needs a different listing as long as I've uploaded a photo there that explains this small difference.
Sorry, the scans I have didn't show that much detail. OK, P#66 is distinct.
However, I feel that the differences between P#54a and P#54b & P#60 are at least as great as the differences between P#54b & P#60 and P#66 and that P#54a deserves it's own entry. It's not just the windmill, it's also the addition of red to the reverse, as you can see here http://banknote.ws/COLLECTION/countries/AME/BBD/BBD0054.htm. Yes, an image showing the differences would help but I think a lot of type collectors will want one of each.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
You are right, I missed the red part on the reverse. I will create an entry for 54a. Thanks for that!
So...please delete 54a from here: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/note214378.html
and move the members here: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/note275713.html
Quote: "allexis"​So...please delete 54a from here: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/note214378.html
​and move the members here: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/note275713.html
​Why do you want to keep the listing no one has been using, an remove the one people are using - and even has pictures of the signatures?
Coin referee for: AZE, FRO, GRL, US-HI, KOR, KGZ, MLI, MHL, MMR, PRK, UZB, SML, TAT, TWN, TJK
Banknote referee for: AGO, AZE, BLR, ECS, GEO, HTI, KAZ, KGZ, KOR, MNG, MRT, PMR, PRK, ROK, SWE, TJK, TKM, TUR, UZB, WSM, ZWE
Because 54a is different from 54b and 60. Soo.....I created an entry just for 54a and I need the members moved there. I wasn't asking for the entire listing to be deleted, just that year line. I thought It was clear.
Quote: "allexis"​Because 54a is different from 54b and 60. Soo.....I created an entry just for 54a and I need the members moved there. I wasn't asking for the entire listing to be deleted, just that year line. I thought It was clear.
​Are they really that different that 54a needs its own listing?
Coin referee for: AZE, FRO, GRL, US-HI, KOR, KGZ, MLI, MHL, MMR, PRK, UZB, SML, TAT, TWN, TJK
Banknote referee for: AGO, AZE, BLR, ECS, GEO, HTI, KAZ, KGZ, KOR, MNG, MRT, PMR, PRK, ROK, SWE, TJK, TKM, TUR, UZB, WSM, ZWE
Do you expect me to say NO?
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/note275713.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/note214378.html
Quote: "allexis"​Do you expect me to say NO?
​Reverse seems to be a little more colourful, but thats it. Serms like a reference picture in the comments field seems to suffice enough. A whole new listing seems a little too much, I reckon.
Coin referee for: AZE, FRO, GRL, US-HI, KOR, KGZ, MLI, MHL, MMR, PRK, UZB, SML, TAT, TWN, TJK
Banknote referee for: AGO, AZE, BLR, ECS, GEO, HTI, KAZ, KGZ, KOR, MNG, MRT, PMR, PRK, ROK, SWE, TJK, TKM, TUR, UZB, WSM, ZWE
I beg to differ. It's not that the reverse is "a little more colourful", it has an entirely different colour scheme, with much of the dark blue replaced by light blue or red. That's in addition to the change in the see-through optical device.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Quote: "ceh2019"​I beg to differ. It's not that the reverse is "a little more colourful", it has an entirely different colour scheme, with much of the dark blue replaced by light blue or red. That's in addition to the change in the see-through optical device.
​I still don't lkke the idea of splitting a KM# in two different listings. It's been decided to nlt do as Colnect, each sub-number and signature variant has its own listing, but have one KM# in one listing - and differences between sub-numbers explained in the comments.
I would be all for to follows Colnect's format, since it's verh easy to find the right variety, but we must be consistent, and the layout of Numista's catalogue would be really messy if that format was followed.
Coin referee for: AZE, FRO, GRL, US-HI, KOR, KGZ, MLI, MHL, MMR, PRK, UZB, SML, TAT, TWN, TJK
Banknote referee for: AGO, AZE, BLR, ECS, GEO, HTI, KAZ, KGZ, KOR, MNG, MRT, PMR, PRK, ROK, SWE, TJK, TKM, TUR, UZB, WSM, ZWE
If we would follow Colnect's format, I would've split this listing into five different entry.
Coin referee for: AZE, FRO, GRL, US-HI, KOR, KGZ, MLI, MHL, MMR, PRK, UZB, SML, TAT, TWN, TJK
Banknote referee for: AGO, AZE, BLR, ECS, GEO, HTI, KAZ, KGZ, KOR, MNG, MRT, PMR, PRK, ROK, SWE, TJK, TKM, TUR, UZB, WSM, ZWE
I agree we must be consistent. However, since KM and Pick are entirely inconsistent, we cannot use them as our sole guide. Instead, we must be consistent with the coins and notes themselves. If they differ, we split, if they do not differ, we group, regardless of what KM and Pick say.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Quote: "ceh2019"​I agree we must be consistent. However, since KM and Pick are entirely inconsistent, we cannot use them as our sole guide. Instead, we must be consistent with the coins and notes themselves. If they differ, we split, if they do not differ, we group, regardless of what KM and Pick say.
​I agree with you, and like I said, I would love to split up all signature varieties as well, since then it would be much easier to browse and find the right type.
The reason why I oppose is because of consistency (people wouldn't find the right type, and ask for adding of 45b or 45a, depending of which listong the find first), and it would be very confusing. Maybe we need to re-think the whole layout of the banknote catalogue to make it adjusted for banknotes?
Coin referee for: AZE, FRO, GRL, US-HI, KOR, KGZ, MLI, MHL, MMR, PRK, UZB, SML, TAT, TWN, TJK
Banknote referee for: AGO, AZE, BLR, ECS, GEO, HTI, KAZ, KGZ, KOR, MNG, MRT, PMR, PRK, ROK, SWE, TJK, TKM, TUR, UZB, WSM, ZWE
In the list of notes, the P# is quite prominently displayed, so I'm not sure people will find it that hard to find the correct note if they only know the P#. On the other hand, someone with an example of P#54b who doesn't know the P# would find it very odd if their note were listed under a picture of a differently coloured note and not with the later identical notes. What do we say to them? That we're following the mistakes of another catalogue?
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Quote: "ceh2019"What do we say to them? That we're following the mistakes of another catalogue?
​To be fair, Numista has been blindly following Krause since the beginning, and gladly copying all its faults and errors, so this single note would be a stand out for actually doing something right. The problem is that we have thousands of coins and banknotes to correct, if we would start to change now.
Coin referee for: AZE, FRO, GRL, US-HI, KOR, KGZ, MLI, MHL, MMR, PRK, UZB, SML, TAT, TWN, TJK
Banknote referee for: AGO, AZE, BLR, ECS, GEO, HTI, KAZ, KGZ, KOR, MNG, MRT, PMR, PRK, ROK, SWE, TJK, TKM, TUR, UZB, WSM, ZWE
Nobody said not to split a P# in different listings if the differences matter. A different colour is the first thing you see (although I missed it), so it is probably the biggest difference. Pick says the only difference is the optical device, that made me miss the color change. So we can't rely on it every time. Anyway I don't know what the problem is...I've split a P# because of color change so what???? I don't see anybody trying to convince France referee/s not to split P# in 5 millions entries.
I can assure you that I have not been following KM and Pick blindly in my contributions to Numista and I can point to numerous other examples where this has not been done. If we have a lot of corrections to do, let's agree that this is the right way to do things and get on with it!
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Quote: "allexis" I don't see anybody trying to convince France referee/s not to split P# in 5 millions entries.

​We are trying but facing blank denial at the moment.

https://en.numista.com/forum/topic105738.html
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Quote: "allexis"I don't see anybody trying to convince France referee/s not to split P# in 5 millions entries.
​Then you've read the forum poorly, and failed to notice that everyone outside of France has stopped to collect French banknotes because if the disaster of a catalogue...
Coin referee for: AZE, FRO, GRL, US-HI, KOR, KGZ, MLI, MHL, MMR, PRK, UZB, SML, TAT, TWN, TJK
Banknote referee for: AGO, AZE, BLR, ECS, GEO, HTI, KAZ, KGZ, KOR, MNG, MRT, PMR, PRK, ROK, SWE, TJK, TKM, TUR, UZB, WSM, ZWE
Quote: "ngdawa"
Quote: "allexis"I don't see anybody trying to convince France referee/s not to split P# in 5 millions entries.
​​Then you've read the forum poorly, and failed to notice that everyone outside of France has stopped to collect French banknotes because if the disaster of a catalogue...
​Look mate I don't know what your problem is but I've been saying that part of the catalog is a mess since the beginning.
https://en.numista.com/forum/topic96628.html

Don't assume things about me please.
Quote: "ceh2019"​I can assure you that I have not been following KM and Pick blindly in my contributions to Numista and I can point to numerous other examples where this has not been done. If we have a lot of corrections to do, let's agree that this is the right way to do things and get on with it!
​Like I said, I'm all for it, and I even tried to make the "board members" to make it right from the beginning. It all ended up doing the same as usual. So bow, when people are being "radical" by correcting these errors, forum posts are popping up with people complaining.

I, too, first missed the colour differrnce, but still think a comment in the comments field would suffice. But if you split, do you reckon I should split the North Korean listing I posted?
Coin referee for: AZE, FRO, GRL, US-HI, KOR, KGZ, MLI, MHL, MMR, PRK, UZB, SML, TAT, TWN, TJK
Banknote referee for: AGO, AZE, BLR, ECS, GEO, HTI, KAZ, KGZ, KOR, MNG, MRT, PMR, PRK, ROK, SWE, TJK, TKM, TUR, UZB, WSM, ZWE
Quote: "ngdawa"​If we would follow Colnect's format, I would've split this listing into five different entry.
​Just realised I forgot the link, so here it is: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/note204141.html
Coin referee for: AZE, FRO, GRL, US-HI, KOR, KGZ, MLI, MHL, MMR, PRK, UZB, SML, TAT, TWN, TJK
Banknote referee for: AGO, AZE, BLR, ECS, GEO, HTI, KAZ, KGZ, KOR, MNG, MRT, PMR, PRK, ROK, SWE, TJK, TKM, TUR, UZB, WSM, ZWE
The former Portuguese colonies notes (Mozambique, Cabo Verde) have different P# for different seals. The North Korean have the same P#. So why not?
Quote: "allexis"
Quote: "ngdawa"
Quote: "allexis"I don't see anybody trying to convince France referee/s not to split P# in 5 millions entries.
​​​Then you've read the forum poorly, and failed to notice that everyone outside of France has stopped to collect French banknotes because if the disaster of a catalogue...
​​Look mate I don't know what your problem is but I've been saying that part of the catalog is a mess since the beginning.
https://en.numista.com/forum/topic96628.html

​Don't assume things about me please.
​Wait. Did you just get offended? By me, shitying in the French catalogue and joking that everyone outsude of France stopped collecting French banknote because of a messy catalogue? C'mon mate, don't be so serious. We both want the same thing – fixing the catalogue. I meant no harm. Sorry!
Coin referee for: AZE, FRO, GRL, US-HI, KOR, KGZ, MLI, MHL, MMR, PRK, UZB, SML, TAT, TWN, TJK
Banknote referee for: AGO, AZE, BLR, ECS, GEO, HTI, KAZ, KGZ, KOR, MNG, MRT, PMR, PRK, ROK, SWE, TJK, TKM, TUR, UZB, WSM, ZWE
Quote: "allexis"​The former Portuguese colonies notes (Mozambique, Cabo Verde) have different P# for different seals. The North Korean have the same P#. So why not?
​Different Picks is definitely different listings. The problem is signatures and a, b, c's numbers, which could be very different.
Coin referee for: AZE, FRO, GRL, US-HI, KOR, KGZ, MLI, MHL, MMR, PRK, UZB, SML, TAT, TWN, TJK
Banknote referee for: AGO, AZE, BLR, ECS, GEO, HTI, KAZ, KGZ, KOR, MNG, MRT, PMR, PRK, ROK, SWE, TJK, TKM, TUR, UZB, WSM, ZWE
Not offended, overreacted, there is nothing to be sorry for.
Quote: "ngdawa"​​
​I, too, first missed the colour differrnce, but still think a comment in the comments field would suffice. But if you split, do you reckon I should split the North Korean listing I posted?

​Personaly, I collect these as separate types since they had different intended circulations but it's a tricky call. What you have created is very clear and I can't see how anyone could be confused by it, so it certainly isn't something I'd want to mess with right now.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Quote: "ngdawa"
Quote: "allexis"​The former Portuguese colonies notes (Mozambique, Cabo Verde) have different P# for different seals. The North Korean have the same P#. So why not?
​​Different Picks is definitely different listings. The problem is signatures and a, b, c's numbers, which could be very different.
​The seal on the back of those notes is different so I think they should be different entries. Would you split a note for having two different commemorative overprints but same design in general?
Quote: "ngdawa"
​​To be fair, Numista has been blindly following Krause since the beginning, and gladly copying all its faults and errors, so this single note would be a stand out for actually doing something right. The problem is that we have thousands of coins and banknotes to correct, if we would start to change now.
​This is not true at all, and I am actually surprised by this attitude.

When we see Krause is wrong is wrong--or when Krause's format is not compatible with our own--we do not follow Krause. Usually, in regards to banknotes, that involves combining numbers; hower, there are multuple examples where individual numbers have been divided.

This is no different, and a colour scheme change is a good reason to split pages.
Status changed to Done (Sulfur, 20-Feb-2021, 16:39)
Back to the purpose of this thread: this is done. :)
Thanks but there are other three modifications needed at the beginning of the thread. It was a long one and you missed them.
Status changed to Started (Sulfur, 20-Feb-2021, 17:20)
Status changed to Done (Sulfur, 20-Feb-2021, 19:42)
True... I saw the long discussion and assumed the original request had been changed to what followed. My apologies for that.

All are done now. :)

» Forum policy

Used time zone is UTC+1:00.
Current time is 17:40.