The article KM#75 about Canadian 50 cents copper-nickel early issue of late Her Majesty has an unexpected absurd.
The technical data state:
and so on.
But the mintage section gives:
and so on.
Notes.1. 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. 2. The description of individual features of coins are seen at the image. Of course they are not varieties and according to Numista policy should be removed immediately. Though this is not the case of this topic and in this post onwards this nonsense will be omitted.
It is in obvious contradiction with Numista policy: different technical data mean different articles!
In which way the wrongly described coins can be moved to correct position? At the moment these coins represent excellent absurd of loosing control over catalog.
The article KM#75 about Canadian 50 cents copper-nickel early issue of late Her Majesty has an unexpected absurd.
The technical data state:
and so on.
But the mintage section gives:
(…edited for brevity)
It is in obvious contradiction with Numista policy: different technical data mean different articles!
In which way the wrongly described coins can be moved to correct position? At the moment these coins represent excellent absurd of loosing control over catalog.
You can submit a Creation Request for the silver version (if it exists). Then the collections currently on these date lines can be moved.
Status changed to Done(tdziemia, 25 Aug 2024, 20:53)
I wander how it is possible to create an article by a person, who never kept the rare coin in hands? Is it not to create according to tastes and policy rules by the Numista team?
More over we passed already: information about a coin which was kept in hands met with the statement of His Majesty:
This is the reason a Numista specialist (not His Majesty of course) will put the silver coins at the article about silver. Otherwise it is impossible to find the necessary article, being coin in hands.
I wander how it is possible to create an article by a person, who never kept the rare coin in hands? Is it not to create according to tastes and policy rules by the Numista team?
More over we passed already: information about a coin which was kept in hands met with the statement of His Majesty:
This is the reason a Numista specialist (not His Majesty of course) will put the silver coins at the article about silver. Otherwise it is impossible to find the necessary article, being coin in hands.
The only absurd things here are your continuing rants about the catalog. What part of “You can submit a Creation Request for the silver version (if it exists).” don't you understand? Stop wasting other people's time with your ******* nonsense!
Silver 50 cents coins for 1969 and 1970 are planchet errors. Only 6 known for 1969 therefor they have a great value. Maybe this usefull info should appear in BOLD in the comment section, this way everyone would be happy.
😘
Céline F.
(Anciennement référente pour billets du Canada / Former referee for Canada's banknotes)
Silver 50 cents coins for 1969 and 1970 are planchet errors. Only 6 known for 1969 therefor they have a great value. Maybe this usefull info should appear in BOLD in the comment section, this way everyone would be happy.
😘
No it is completely wrong. The new technical data - the new coin article. It is the only consistent policy. See the correct behavior of Numista team without attempts of harassments toward the author clearly demonstrated here at similar case:
Of course you know it, it is just a reminder, how the specialists do it. That is why a new article is necessary to solve this lovely absurd in Canadian metal of 50 cents.
It is not clear, if someone has courage to mark this case as “solved” maybe that person will demonstrate courage to show the new article which removes the absurd and improve the catalog?
The lines for Silver coins should be removed from this coin (KM#75). Members who added these Silver coins should receive an email (with a link to this threads) asking them to review their entries for these coins since it's probably an entry mistake.
I still think we should add a comment in bold somewhere to let members know about those error coins (planchet error).
Bonne continuation.
Céline F.
(Anciennement référente pour billets du Canada / Former referee for Canada's banknotes)
You agree with cyprusalexander that a new coin page needs to be created like the current one except the composition is silver?
No I agree to The lines for Silver coins should be removed from this coin (KM#75).
Since error coins are not to be entered in Numista, I propose to add a comment in the comment section about the existence of Silver planchet errors for 1969 and 1970.
Céline F.
(Anciennement référente pour billets du Canada / Former referee for Canada's banknotes)
You agree with cyprusalexander that a new coin page needs to be created like the current one except the composition is silver?
No I agree to The lines for Silver coins should be removed from this coin (KM#75).
Since error coins are not to be entered in Numista, I propose to add a comment in the comment section about the existence of Silver planchet errors for 1969 and 1970.
That's what I thought. cyprusalexander is proposing that a new coin type (coin page) be created ("That is why a new article is necessary to solve this lovely absurd in Canadian metal of 50 cents.") although he doesn't deem himself qualified to create it.
Looks like it is settled, thank you and well done!
Let all 30 people who have in their possession a few silver coins decide by themselves, who made wrong attribution. And indeed for I do not know the data of the silver coin, and I do not authorized to move the collectors to the new article, it is hard to understand, why it was proposed to me to do this instead of correct this technical issue by authorizes specialists (a referee plus a site developer) of Numista.
