is about the correcting typos, so the article will be linguistically correct and to bring the quantity of lines in 1953 to standard view used by local collectors.
A modification was spoiled as usual by His Majesty:
Note. Obviously the percentage is from wrongly described occurrence of lines and has nothing to do with frequency as it expected to be. This is not the case of this topic and in this post onwards this nonsense will be omitted.
Linguistics is an absurd again, the 2 lines for 1953 are absent in Mintage section.
In which way the article can be restored? The referee in question already named Himself as His Majesty, though His Majesty continues to demonstrate personal incompetence (see https://en.numista.com/forum/topic51669.html for details).
For for years the spoilage made by His Majesty annoys collectors, we again should rise the question to substitute the referee in general and find the way to correct this spoiled article, so collectors will classify coins in their possessions correspondently.
Your title says “polite”, but your use of “His Majesty” to refer to the referee isn't.
When you discuss a coin, please include a link to the item in Numista to make it easy for readers to see the coin page.
Please be more explicit in how the modification was spoiled.
It's a pain to scan text character-by-character. The only change I noticed from your request was that the translation of the lettering was improved. Yes, there was a typo in the year of the replacement, but that is easy to fix with another modification request. But please read the guidelines on the translation field before you submit another change request for a translation field.
Could you please show it to us? Honestly, I have NOT found one single die A for the 1953 on the Internet. So please make the effort to document your findings?
There is two official (based on our Finnish catalogs) variations as cyprusalexander mentioned. According to SNY catalog 2023 they are 525.1.1 and 525.1.2 where ornament is either close or far from "5". I'll try to arrange photos later.
Out of all that, I came to this result. Do we need two year lines for the 1953?
I forget the guy from the island, since for once he was right on, but he couldn't really explain himself. If he had set up this presentation we would all have understood, I think?
There is nothing else for admin to do, so I close this request.
If you have complaint about my work, I would propose looking into guidelines first whether your translation was not in wrong format (as I accepted the rest of the change). If you still think that I somehow spoiled the catalogue by enforcing the formatting presented by guidelines you continually fail to perceive, please complain directly to Xavier.
is about the corrections of the grammar (wrong use of symbol “&” in English) and the introduction of discovery of 3 dies of the Obv. in Bangladesh 5 takas KM#26.
About Grammar.
Now we have strange situation: Reverse
Jamuna Bridge stretching over water with clouds above. Name of bridge in Bangla above, date and value written in figure and words in English & Bangla.
should be anything but without union of English with Bangla. The modification proposed:
Jamuna Bridge stretching over water with clouds above. Name of bridge in Bangla above, date and value written in numeral "৫" and words in English and Bangla.
About Comments.
Till now only the Rev. dies were described. But it was found that there are 3 completely different Obv. As the result the mistakes in Comments were corrected and the final text is:
---
The four stars obverse representing the four principles of the first constitution of Bangladesh in 1972: nationalism, secularism, socialism, and democracy.
The Jamuna Multi-purpose Bridge is also known as the Bangabandhu Bridge. Its length is 5.63 km over the river Padma.
The four stars obverse representing the four principles of the first constitution of Bangladesh in 1972: nationalism, secularism, socialism, and democracy.
The Jamuna Multi-purpose Bridge is also known as the Bangabandhu Bridge. Its length is 5.63 km over the river Padma.
Varieties:
Each year there were original dies in use both for the obverse and the reverse.
Obverse Die I 2005 - water lily without outline, the tops of lower inner grains in ears on the level of the third from the bottom wave. Die II 2006 - similar to die II 1996, water lily with outline, but at the top and the bottom there are vertexes of the 12-sided polygon (in 1996 there were sides). Die III 2008 - water lily without outline, the tops of lower inner grains in ears on the level of the second from the bottom wave.
Reverse Die A 2005 - clouds in abundant, reaching the central word. Die A 2006 - two rows of clouds, being the lower one as a narrow line. Die A 2008 - clouds in abundant far from the central word.
Note. There are many more differences between dies such as thickness of fonts and waves, additionally for the reverse: position of cars on bridge, mutual position of words and parts of bridge.
Correspondence with the Standard Catalog of World Coins:
I+A 2005: KM#26.1.
II+A 2006: KM#26.2.
III+A 2008: KM#26.3.
Part of emission in 2006 was struck on weakly magnetic planchets.
---
Here is the result
First of all, if referee has question, he/she asks them before decision. Here we have opposite: rejection was made in advance!
Second, His Majesty did not correct humiliation over copyrights! There is text and images taken from presented modification, but the reference to the author was not restored! I wander is it His personal policy or it is reflection of the whole Numista team position?
Third, His Majesty keeps mistakes, which after the discovery of the 3 dies of the Obv. became spoilage.
For HIs Majesty did not use standard procedure to ask questions, let us answer His question here.
Question:
Why would we delete image information we have and added useless text from Krause?
Answer. Part about Krause. Most probably, His Majesty did not read Krause, otherwise He will see, that the new classification does not correspond the Standard Catalog of World Coins.
Indeed:
As we see the Standard Catalog of World Coins does not have: Varieties:
Each year there were original dies in use both for the obverse and the reverse.
Obverse Die I 2005 - water lily without outline, the tops of lower inner grains in ears on the level of the third from the bottom wave. Die II 2006 - similar to die II 1996, water lily with outline, but at the top and the bottom there are vertexes of the 12-sided polygon (in 1996 there were sides). Die III 2008 - water lily without outline, the tops of lower inner grains in ears on the level of the second from the bottom wave.
for obvious reason. It is this publication which for the first time introduces the Obv. dies. The Standard Catalog of World Coins describes in details the Rev. In modification the Rev. is described: Reverse Die A 2005 - clouds in abundant, reaching the central word. Die A 2006 - two rows of clouds, being the lower one as a narrow line. Die A 2008 - clouds in abundant far from the central word.
Note. There are many more differences between dies such as thickness of fonts and waves, additionally for the reverse: position of cars on bridge, mutual position of words and parts of bridge.
We see, that the description together with high quality big size images
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/images/6761fc4611690.jpg with copyright allows collector to distinguish the dies looking on coin at outstretched arm, no neediness to take a magnifying glass and to spot a car and a train on the bridge. This is the main reason, why the description concentrates on the structure of clouds only.
As we see there is not much, if any added from Krause. When His majesty wrote “useless text” what does He mean? Maybe it is possible to meet His criteria, just let they be known.
And the next part in question: Why would we delete image information
What does it mean? There are only two extra images in the Comments apart of the one which copyrights are humiliated:
1.
Just open this image and compare it with https://en.numista.com/catalogue/images/6761fc4611690.jpg Yes, additional example does not give any useful information. That is why a question of common sense: why the reader should read about it? Answer: it is removed from the modification.
2.
It is just enough to read
to understand that the author of this image demonstrated personal illiteracy, for KM#26.3 has a lot of differences from KM#26.1 (see above) and to keep it is intentional spoilage: now we know that the situation is much more interesting and not so simple as presented with horrible misleading by image https://en.numista.com/catalogue/images/5dd6926e369d0.jpg
So it should be removed of course.
And now the main reason Why.
After the presented discovery there are such combinations at the moment: Correspondence with the Standard Catalog of World Coins:
I+A 2005: KM#26.1.
II+A 2006: KM#26.2.
III+A 2008: KM#26.3.
But no one told us that it is the only possible option. After the complete description of all dies are introduced to collectors, any of them has chance to discover mules!
At the moment it is not possible.
In which way the modification request can be restored?
And what is most important, a standard referee will see all these mistakes immediately, but His Majesty is doing everything quick and always with mistakes. In which way the referee will be substituted?
You obviously left out how the request looks to prove your point. (Again, but I am used to that.)
Lets show everyone:
1. Attribution of your image was never there, it was forgotten when this page was first modified with your image, so there is nothing to restore, just add. And I just added it.
2. Typo in description - ampersand is representing “and”. I replaced it anyway.
3. As for the images, current page goes from easiest distinguisher - Ole's image into more in-depth explanation about changes on obverse, which come from you.
4. Example could be moved to examples.
5. Krause info is truly useless, as we already have references on yearline.
In conclusion, you deleted clear images about reverse and added just a text instead. For this reason, obviously incorrect change was rejected.
Let me also remind you of something.
Forum policy
Basic rules
The Numista forum is a place for members to discuss and exchange together. To maintain a friendly atmosphere and a quality of discussions, please read this policy before using the forum:
Respect the members of the site by avoiding derogatory and upsetting messages, as well as non-constructive criticism. Be polite and courteous. Words like “hello” and “thank you” are highly welcome.
I would like to point out that saying author of another image is personaly illiterate is quite derogatory.
is about the corrections of the grammar (wrong use of symbol “&” in English) and the introduction of discovery of 3 dies of the Obv. in Bangladesh 5 takas KM#26.
About Grammar.
Now we have strange situation: Reverse
Jamuna Bridge stretching over water with clouds above. Name of bridge in Bangla above, date and value written in figure and words in English & Bangla.
should be anything but without union of English with Bangla. The modification proposed:
Jamuna Bridge stretching over water with clouds above. Name of bridge in Bangla above, date and value written in numeral "৫" and words in English and Bangla.
About Comments.
Till now only the Rev. dies were described. But it was found that there are 3 completely different Obv. As the result the mistakes in Comments were corrected and the final text is:
---
The four stars obverse representing the four principles of the first constitution of Bangladesh in 1972: nationalism, secularism, socialism, and democracy.
The Jamuna Multi-purpose Bridge is also known as the Bangabandhu Bridge. Its length is 5.63 km over the river Padma.
The four stars obverse representing the four principles of the first constitution of Bangladesh in 1972: nationalism, secularism, socialism, and democracy.
The Jamuna Multi-purpose Bridge is also known as the Bangabandhu Bridge. Its length is 5.63 km over the river Padma.
Varieties:
Each year there were original dies in use both for the obverse and the reverse.
Obverse Die I 2005 - water lily without outline, the tops of lower inner grains in ears on the level of the third from the bottom wave. Die II 2006 - similar to die II 1996, water lily with outline, but at the top and the bottom there are vertexes of the 12-sided polygon (in 1996 there were sides). Die III 2008 - water lily without outline, the tops of lower inner grains in ears on the level of the second from the bottom wave.
Reverse Die A 2005 - clouds in abundant, reaching the central word. Die A 2006 - two rows of clouds, being the lower one as a narrow line. Die A 2008 - clouds in abundant far from the central word.
Note. There are many more differences between dies such as thickness of fonts and waves, additionally for the reverse: position of cars on bridge, mutual position of words and parts of bridge.
Correspondence with the Standard Catalog of World Coins:
I+A 2005: KM#26.1.
II+A 2006: KM#26.2.
III+A 2008: KM#26.3.
Part of emission in 2006 was struck on weakly magnetic planchets.
---
Here is the result
First of all, if referee has question, he/she asks them before decision. Here we have opposite: rejection was made in advance!
Second, His Majesty did not correct humiliation over copyrights! There is text and images taken from presented modification, but the reference to the author was not restored! I wander is it His personal policy or it is reflection of the whole Numista team position?
Third, His Majesty keeps mistakes, which after the discovery of the 3 dies of the Obv. became spoilage.
For HIs Majesty did not use standard procedure to ask questions, let us answer His question here.
Question:
Why would we delete image information we have and added useless text from Krause?
Answer. Part about Krause. Most probably, His Majesty did not read Krause, otherwise He will see, that the new classification does not correspond the Standard Catalog of World Coins.
Indeed:
As we see the Standard Catalog of World Coins does not have: Varieties:
Each year there were original dies in use both for the obverse and the reverse.
Obverse Die I 2005 - water lily without outline, the tops of lower inner grains in ears on the level of the third from the bottom wave. Die II 2006 - similar to die II 1996, water lily with outline, but at the top and the bottom there are vertexes of the 12-sided polygon (in 1996 there were sides). Die III 2008 - water lily without outline, the tops of lower inner grains in ears on the level of the second from the bottom wave.
for obvious reason. It is this publication which for the first time introduces the Obv. dies. The Standard Catalog of World Coins describes in details the Rev. In modification the Rev. is described: Reverse Die A 2005 - clouds in abundant, reaching the central word. Die A 2006 - two rows of clouds, being the lower one as a narrow line. Die A 2008 - clouds in abundant far from the central word.
Note. There are many more differences between dies such as thickness of fonts and waves, additionally for the reverse: position of cars on bridge, mutual position of words and parts of bridge.
We see, that the description together with high quality big size images
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/images/6761fc4611690.jpg with copyright allows collector to distinguish the dies looking on coin at outstretched arm, no neediness to take a magnifying glass and to spot a car and a train on the bridge. This is the main reason, why the description concentrates on the structure of clouds only.
As we see there is not much, if any added from Krause. When His majesty wrote “useless text” what does He mean? Maybe it is possible to meet His criteria, just let they be known.
And the next part in question: Why would we delete image information
What does it mean? There are only two extra images in the Comments apart of the one which copyrights are humiliated:
1.
Just open this image and compare it with https://en.numista.com/catalogue/images/6761fc4611690.jpg Yes, additional example does not give any useful information. That is why a question of common sense: why the reader should read about it? Answer: it is removed from the modification.
2.
It is just enough to read
to understand that the author of this image demonstrated personal illiteracy, for KM#26.3 has a lot of differences from KM#26.1 (see above) and to keep it is intentional spoilage: now we know that the situation is much more interesting and not so simple as presented with horrible misleading by image https://en.numista.com/catalogue/images/5dd6926e369d0.jpg
So it should be removed of course.
And now the main reason Why.
After the presented discovery there are such combinations at the moment: Correspondence with the Standard Catalog of World Coins:
I+A 2005: KM#26.1.
II+A 2006: KM#26.2.
III+A 2008: KM#26.3.
But no one told us that it is the only possible option. After the complete description of all dies are introduced to collectors, any of them has chance to discover mules!
At the moment it is not possible.
In which way the modification request can be restored?
What has this got to do with the original Finnish coins? Stick to the subject of the thread, or make a new chain, please.
