Menu

Mint Field

59 posts

This message aims at: suggesting an idea to improve Numista

Status: Implemented
Upvotes: 26
Downvotes: 0

» Quick access to the last post

In a message I sent to Xavier:

For a long time I have had the idea of having a drop down menu for mint marks/mints in the year list. Although some mints have marks (French "wing" mark, German A D F G J, etc.), other mints have no marks (Royal Mint, etc). Because we can't include non-marked mints in the field, I have included the mint in the comments field instead. By any chance could you implement a mint drop down list that would include both mark and non-mark mints?

A drop-down menu for mints should be implemented to include mints that do not have mintmarks.
Kenny

- Verifying your Asian and British-territorial coins everyday with the best quality photos and the best information.

Check out my Facebook, Kenneth Gucyski.
Yes, I agree with you. This sounds like a good idea, especially for Roman and medieval coins. I also think we should include pictures for non letter mintmarks.

By the way, did you ever get anywhere with your Xīnjiāng idea?
Not all... I'm in charge of a medieval country and all have the full city name or an abbreviation in few letters to mention the city mint. I've an example of a coin which only has the city name as a variety and I needed to fil; it using the city name (NANCI/SIERK).

However I agree with the main idea. Can you explain what you wanted to include inside your drop down system?
Administrateur du catalogue, référent de nombreuses nations antiques et de la Lorraine.
Catalogue administrator, numerous Antique nations and Lorraine referee.
I guess most Roman coins mention the mint as well. But its not really a mint mark as much as spelling out the name of the mint.

Honestly the whole Numista system is not really compatible with Roman and medieval coins but that's a different story!
It depends on coins. Some ones have for example a few letters like SMK[x] or SMAN[x]. (The [x] is symbol of a secondary variety mark we call "officinas")
Administrateur du catalogue, référent de nombreuses nations antiques et de la Lorraine.
Catalogue administrator, numerous Antique nations and Lorraine referee.
I was thinking of something else when I read the title "mint field"

I read all about those "officinas" - they add a whole new dimension of confusion to the already confusing hobby of collecting Roman coins!
Letter, then mint next to it, ex:
Select mint (for coins with mint unknown, current setting)
_____ - Royal Mint
(wing) - Monnaie de Paris
FM - Franklin Mint
PM - Pobjoy Mint

...among other mints. The mint will not show on the page after modifying (unless it has a mint mark letter) and the user can hover over the mint mark to see which mint it is. This is good for coins minted at Calcutta, for example, that do not have a mint mark but are indicated by (c), which do not appear on the coin and is very ambiguous. This also makes the comment fields shorter.
Kenny

- Verifying your Asian and British-territorial coins everyday with the best quality photos and the best information.

Check out my Facebook, Kenneth Gucyski.
Sounds good. :)

But we shouldn't have a space if there isn't an actual mark. And we should try to digitize as many marks as possible.
The idea is quite good. However we should care about identical mintmarks (i.e. D = Denver and Munich).
Administrateur du catalogue, référent de nombreuses nations antiques et de la Lorraine.
Catalogue administrator, numerous Antique nations and Lorraine referee.
Good point. Maybe list the country of issue in the front like currencies as well.
Kenny

- Verifying your Asian and British-territorial coins everyday with the best quality photos and the best information.

Check out my Facebook, Kenneth Gucyski.
We should list all mintmarks by emitting country. And in France, we have a very long list...
Administrateur du catalogue, référent de nombreuses nations antiques et de la Lorraine.
Catalogue administrator, numerous Antique nations and Lorraine referee.
Quote: "neilithic"​I was thinking of something else when I read the title "mint field"

​hahaha....I spat a bit of coffee out reading that. :O
Restoration addict : Verdigris Removal : Zinc White spot removal : Iron Rust Removal : Silver brooch/necklace mount Removal
agree. Mint field needed

D
Numista referee for  Georgia.  Also  for Belgian Congo, Congo free state, Katanga, Kenya, Ruanda-Burundi, Ruanda-Urundi, Seychelles
Also agreed.

Perhaps a drop down menu specific to the series to avoid the D = Denver / Munich problem. If it mint mark isn't present but the mint can be identified it could be italicized and open a second field to briefly describe the location and ideally include a photo.
Non illegitimis carborundum est.  Excellent advice for all coins.
Make Numismatics Great Again!  
I agree on that

Ole
Globetrotter
Coin variants in English:
https://sites.google.com/site/coinvarietiescollection/home
In French on Cobra's site (not the same)
https://monnaiesetvarietes.numista.com
Any way I can add there will have a VERY long list as there were lots of mintmarks mainly in the Roman period, frequently changing on minting periods and officinae.
Administrateur du catalogue, référent de nombreuses nations antiques et de la Lorraine.
Catalogue administrator, numerous Antique nations and Lorraine referee.
Quote: "pnightingale"​Also agreed.

​Perhaps a drop down menu specific to the series to avoid the D = Denver / Munich problem. If it mint mark isn't present but the mint can be identified it could be italicized and open a second field to briefly describe the location and ideally include a photo.
​Yes, it has to be specific for a "country".
Good idea.
Lots of extra work though :~
Quand l'Histoire et la Géographie se croisent sur nos pièces de monnaie ...
Referee for Austria-Habsburg, Austrian Netherlands, Austrian States, Bohemia, Silesia.
Traducteur, demandez en cas de besoin ! Translator, ask if you need !
Like the "Circulating issue" field that wasn't around when I became a member or team member, over time new pages implement the new feature, and old pages either convert automatically or dedicated members implement the feature one by one
Kenny

- Verifying your Asian and British-territorial coins everyday with the best quality photos and the best information.

Check out my Facebook, Kenneth Gucyski.
Quote: "KennyG"​Like the "Circulating issue" field that wasn't around when I became a member or team member, over time new pages implement the new feature, and old pages either convert automatically or dedicated members implement the feature one by one
​...which would need to be improved as well, as this feature needs to be updated separately in French and English.
Administrateur du catalogue, référent de nombreuses nations antiques et de la Lorraine.
Catalogue administrator, numerous Antique nations and Lorraine referee.
I'd imagine that, like the currency list, the mint list would be interchangeable.
Kenny

- Verifying your Asian and British-territorial coins everyday with the best quality photos and the best information.

Check out my Facebook, Kenneth Gucyski.
Isn't the mint mark for Paris a cornucopia?

A wing on French coins is a privy mark and refers to Lucien Bazor, who was Engraver General during 1931 - 1957. On that subject, if a separate mint mark field is added, can we also add a privy mark field?
Another good point as well. France, the Netherlands, Belgium have privy marks. In addition, when France had multiple mints, they had not 2 marks like now but 3. The letter mintmark is always associated to another mintmark AND a privy mark.
Privy marks have sometimes variations (added star for leaving position in the Netherlands) or sometimes 2 shared privy marks for a same year (French 1994 coinage split between Dolphin and Bee privy marks)
Administrateur du catalogue, référent de nombreuses nations antiques et de la Lorraine.
Catalogue administrator, numerous Antique nations and Lorraine referee.
Any update on the suggestion? Mint field would be a wonderful addition!
Quote: "lebryant"​Any update on the suggestion? Mint field would be a wonderful addition!
Dropdown list would be a pretty long list and hard/impossible to maintain properly then mint field exists for manual input only for now.
Any idea to improve another way is welcome.
Sapientiae plerumque stultitia est comes.
Si c'est un grand plaisir d'être reconnu par ses amis, c'est peut-être encore plus flatteur d'être reconnu par ses adversaires.
Be yourself; everyone else is already taken.
Status changed to Accepted (Xavier, 21-Dec-2019, 06:29PM)
Status changed to Started (Xavier, 31-Dec-2019, 12:17PM)
Hello,

The mint or mints are now displayed on the coin pages :)
The mint and the associated mint letter is mentioned in the "Features" box if there is only one mint or below the coin description if there are several mints.
See for example:

This field can be edited on the coin modification page. You will need to enter the mint letter (free text) and select the mint from a dropdown list. If you can't find the mint, please open a ticket on the forum Numista catalogue: "Request about mints". Jarcek, pejounet or I will add the missing mints.

It is possible to associate a picture to a mint. That feature is still in beta version and it is discussed here: https://en.numista.com/forum/topic44000.html
Status changed to Implemented (Xavier, 19-Jan-2020, 09:36PM)
That third link, where is the Mints section?

Edit - next day, it is now there. :)
My collections >
http://mycoinssite.webs.com/apps/photos/album?albumid=13560800
also 13750057 also 15924495 also 15995337
http://mycoinssite.webs.com/apps/photos/album?albumid=16060326
Quote: "Xavier"​​The mint and the associated mint letter is mentioned in the "Features" box if there is only one mint or below the coin description if there are several mints.
​I know it's confusing to have 2 different places. I could not decide which place is the best. When the information is short (one mint only), I like to have it in the blue box "Features" on the right hand side. But when more space is needed (several mints), it's better to have in the main part of the page, i.e. between the edge description and the general comments. Perhaps it should be in the main part of the page even for a single mint. I'm open to feedback.
With this system, there is still the issue with coins that don't have mint-marks but have been minted (depending on the year) in a different mint. As an example the 1 cent coins from Estonia, minted in 3 different mints.

Will there also be a possibility to connect a mint to a year line? Instead of filling up comments like now.
Just call me Bram
I agree this is a limitation. Comments for each year line would still be needed in this case.
Quote: "Xavier"​I agree this is a limitation. Comments for each year line would still be needed in this case.
​ok, thanks
Just call me Bram
Definitely an interesting feature. A few thoughts I have:

-----

For consistency amongst all pages, I think it would be best if mintmarks appeared in only one place on the coin page.

Obviously, for pages with multiple mints, it would look nicer on the main page than in the 'Features' box. But when there is only one mint... I think it could still look nice on the main page. Take the edge, for example: sometimes, there is a single word for edge description. Regardless, it looks nice on the main page. I imagine, even if there is one mint without pictures, it would still look nice.

-----

With that being said: is there a specific format for adding a mint? I think this would certainly help with consistency, and may help with some of the... obsolete countries. For example, between Livonia and Livonian-related places, there were thirteen mints total. One of the most used was Reval (modern-day Tallinn), spanning across three issuers. What would be the proper format?
  1. Name at the time, country at the time.
  2. Modern name, modern country.
  3. Name at the time (modern name), country at the time (modern country).
  4. Name at the time (modern name), modern country.
  5. Other?

Regarding points 1 and 3: it may look slightly odd. Cities tend to be consistent, but boarders are not. That would equate to three separate mint listings for the same mint.

Regarding 2: this may also look odd. The coins say the name at the time, and the pages make no reference to the modern names because... well, those names did not exist at the time.

I think 4 would look the nicest: Reval (Tallinn), Estonia.

But of course, if there is something else already decided (or something better someone is thinking of), it would be nice to know/hear. 0:)

-----

Also: when it comes to Livonia, there is never really a mintmark. Instead, the mint is written in the coins' inscriptions. Or it is not written anywhere at all, but the mint is still known. Would it be possible to add all those ones?
Quote: "BramVB"​With this system, there is still the issue with coins that don't have mint-marks but have been minted (depending on the year) in a different mint. As an example the 1 cent coins from Estonia, minted in 3 different mints.

​Will there also be a possibility to connect a mint to a year line? Instead of filling up comments like now.
Hello.
​I think this is the most informative way to display of mints. Of course, I would suggest leaving this way: a field with a mint for each date line.
Thank you very much, Xavier!

Sulfur, I vote for more info in general. But I think the format should be more flexible eg:

Nemausus, Gallia Narbonensis (modern-day Nîmes, France)
Cyzicus, Mysia (ancient city in modern-day Turkey)
Strasbourg (moneyer: Henri Delbecque, Directeur 1861-1870)

If the city changed country, I think this would also be interesting to show. E.g.:
Geneva, Republic of Geneva (modern-day Switzerland) - before 1798
Geneva, département du Léman, France (modern-day Switzerland) - 1798- 1815
Geneva, Switzerland - after 1815

best
strato :wiz: caster
Hello,

The mints are now always displayed in the main part of the coin page, below the description, even if there is a single mint.

The format of the names of the mints needs to be discussed. I believe we need different entries when the mint changed. For instance, ancient coins minted in Londinium should have a different mint from the modern coins minted in London by the Royal Mint. I would not create separate mints for each director though: they are still the same mint. It might be interesting to have an additional field for directors, especially if they have different privy marks.
I like both proposals "Reval (Tallinn), Estonia" and "Nemausus, Gallia Narbonensis (modern-day Nîmes, France)", we will need to choose. For modern mints, I'm not sure whether it should as "Bavarian Central Mint" (the official name), "Munich" (the city) or "Munich (Bavarian Central Mint)" (both).
For modern Japan I have either one mint :
  • Japan Mint, Japan
or 3 branches :
  • Japan Mint, Osaka branch, Japan (made coins befor WW2)
  • Japan Mint, Tokyo branch, Japan (made coins before WW2)
  • Japan Mint, Hiroschima branch, Japan (makes all coins since WW2)

For some issues there is as far as I know no way to know were they were made.
Sorry, but from an informative point of view, the location of the mints in the main part of the mint page clearly loses to the indication of the mint for each date (in the case of several mints for one page).

As for the mints already entered. Please pay attention to the search. For example, you can find the option "Moscow ..., Russia", but the search does not work if you start looking for "Russia ...". It would be nice if the search uses the full name of the mint.
Regarding ancient/medieval states:

Well, it looks like we can at least agree that all modern names should be included. That is a start. :D

We have:
  1. Reval (Tallinn), Estonia
  2. Nemausus, Gallia Narbonensis (modern-day Nîmes, France)

From the way I see it, with old countries... naming could get a little confusing if we stuck to the second option. Going back to Livonia, let us consider Riga (modern-day Riga, so not need to specify a 'modern-day' city name). If we were to give separate names for the different countries when the coins were minted, we would have:

Livonian Order and Archbishopric of Riga:
  • Riga, Hanseatic League (modern-day Latvia)
(The City of Riga, while not a 'Free city' at the time, was rather independant and separate from the Archbishopric of Riga/Livonian Order. I am... not even sure if the Hanseatic League would be proper, but that is the best I can think of.)

Free city of Riga:
  • Riga, Free city of Riga (modern-day Latvia)
(Riga had status as a 'Free city' after Livonia fell, so it was basically its own country. But listing the mint like this, I think, looks rather odd.)

Duchy of Livonia:
  • Riga, Duchy of Livonia (modern-day Latvia) or maybe
  • Riga, Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (modern-day Latvia)
(Under Polish-Lithuanian control, but rather independant.)

Swedish Livonia:
  • Riga, Swedish Livonia (modern-day Latvia) or maybe
  • Riga, Sweden (modern-day Latvia)
(Under Swedish control, but again, rather independant.)

Comparibly, all above issuers could be contained under a:
  • Riga, Latvia

Or, because I do like the specification of 'modern-day', I think this would look better:
  • Riga, modern-day Latvia

In regards to Reval, I would say to continue using parenthesis:
  • Reval (Tallinn), modern-day Latvia

So... the format I like is:
  • Former name if applicable (modern name), modern-day modern country
-----

Regarding modern mints:

I would say that including the exact mint would be nice (and I am sure, with these modern countries, the exact names would not be difficult to find). But I would assume most people do not really know the exact location of these mints, which means including the city may also help (they may not know the city either, but they would have a better chance knowing the city than knowing the mint). The format I would think of is:
  • Mint name (alternate name/new name?), mint city ('branch' if multiple cities), country

So... some examples:
  • Moscow Mint, Moscow, Russia
  • Krasny Mint (Red Mint), Moscow, Russia
  • Royal Canadian Mint, Winnipeg branch, Canada
  • Royal Canadian Mint, Ottawa branch, Canada
Hello,

The naming of the modern mints looks great!

I think the different mint marks should be somehow included. Actual photos/drawings would be nice, but a description could be a good placeholder, with directors optional:

Paris, France - Rooster
Paris, France - Cornucopia

or:

Paris, France - Cornucopia, Rottiers de Montaleau 1793-1795
Paris, France - Rooster, Charles Pierre de l'Espine 1821

Re. old mints, maybe this overview with examples can help decide for the different cases:

My preferred option is always at the top.

Sulfur, re. the changes in the name of the countries, I would judge case-by-case and basically go to the nearest one known with certainty. So, instead of Duchy of Livonia / Swedish Livonia / Livonian Order, I would just say Livonia.

Gallia Narbonensis / Rome would be a similar example. If we know the province with certainty, we use it, otherwise we go to the higher level. Finally, if this is not possible, we just skip the "old"country, case-by-case.

I think for ancient mints, the province is as important as the city.

Best
strato:wiz:
Hm... while what you visibly showed certainly looks much nicer than what I was imagining, I am still not sure.

Compared to your format, my format is quite generic, which I do not think is a bad thing. The more specific your format is, the more exceptions and issues you will need to deal with.

For example, regarding you point of known certainty, what is better for the Duchy of Courland and Semigallia?
  • Mitau, Livonia (modern-day Jelgava, Latvia) or
  • Mitau, Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (modern-day Jelgava, Latvia) or
  • Mitau, Courland (modern-day Jelgava, Latvia)

The area of the Duchy of Courland and Semigallia came from Livonian territories, and the creation of the duchy was a direct result of the Livonian Wars. Livonia did not really have control of this area--Poland did--but the area itself was quite autonomous. Autonomous to the point were Courland even had its own colonies in Tobago and the Gambia. So... how do we list which country the mint was in?

In regards to the country list, this place is under Livonia. Its geographical area fits. Politically, this place was more Polish (and if we get to the point where one country can appear under multiple issuers, I am sure this place will also be appearing under the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth). But regardless of the Commonwealth, it was quite independant.

Under Livonia, the Duchy of Courland and Semigallia is probably the most... conflicting with your format. But I am sure, under other countries with many issuers, there will be other comparible examples to this place (I think the Visby mint of Gotland could also pose an issue).

With my format, there is not really any question about the Duchy of Courland and Semigallia because we do not have to make a decision on which old country this place belonged to:
  • Mitau (Jelgava), modern-day Latvia

With all that being said, with my format, the old countries are still not really lost. We have the Duchy of Courland and Semigallia listed as the issuer, and if you click that link, you can see the other places under the country's 'See also' links. So even if the old countries are not listed right beside the mint, you can still find them. ;)
And then in Australia we get coins such as this example ......

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces104148.html

This coin was struck (actually made), at the Royal Australian Mint in Canberra, but it has quite a few Mintmarks, Privymarks and Counterstamps on it.

Each year the RAM releases a themed coin on the 1st of January. In 2017 the theme was commemorating the Trans Australia Railway.

The coin is initially released in a 4 Coin Set that has 1 coin with a 'C' Canberra Mintmark, 1 with a [B ] Brisbane Privymark, 1 with a [M] Melbourne Privymark and 1 with a [S] Sydney Privymark.

Also on the 1st of January the same coin is available on the Visitor Press at the RAM where for $3 you can stamp a blank coin with a 'C' Mintmark for yourself.

Then during the year at various Coin Shows around the country in the three largest cities, Brisbane, Melbourne & Sydney, the coin is available with corresponding Counterstamps (B), (M) & (S).

Then at various RAM Popup Shops throughout regional Australia the RAM mobile team attend and supply the coin (usually for about $6) with a (MAP) Counterstamp. This Counterstamp is in the shape of Australia hence why it is called the MAP Counterstamp.

All of the above Counterstamps are applied on site on a portable coin stamping machine. Pre struck coins that were made at the RAM (With no Mintmark) are fed into the machine and are Counterstamped.

Just to clarify in regards to modern Australian Coins .....
A Mintmark eg 'C' is a raised letter on a clear field of the coin
A Privymark eg [M] etc is an incused letter on a small raised square added to the coin
A Counterstamp eg (S) etc is a raised letter or shape in a depressed circle punched into the coin.

In prior years we have also had Privymarks and Counterstamps for Adelaide, Hobart, Darwin, Perth, Gold Coast, Albany and other more obscure ones too, around 38 different ones all up.

But basically the coins are all made or struck at the Royal Australian Mint in Canberra. Some coins have Mintmarks/Privymarks/Counterstamps etc applied there, but many as noted are added to the coin afterwards in other parts of Australia. Currently we manage these in Numista by commenting on each coin line.

The new Numista Mintmark feature will not really be able to manage all of the above so we will need to continue managing them by coin line descriptions etc.

Regards Mike


Co-Referee for Australia - I Collect - Australia, UK & Dependancies, Some NZ, USA & Euros. I also have other World Coins that I swap.
@brismike:
I think you can add the mint letters in the new section. But otherwise, minting only happens once technically. The other letters are just countermarks.

@Sulfur:
Thanks for a great example. I agree, identifying the original country may prove difficult. But I think this extra step would be really nice for the history of the mint and coin.

I think it would be hard to come up with a one-size-fits-all system. Here is another example, which occurs very frequently for roman coins:

"Uncertain mint, Moesia"

The modern country won't help (Serbia? Bulgaria? Romania?)

I think a comprehensive structure like this would work:

<Mint Mark/Letter> - <Mint Name>, <Mint Branch>, <"Old" City>, <"Old" Country> (modern-day <New City>, <New Country>). <Mint Master> <Years active>*
*mint masters only for different mint marks
And then we only record information that is known with certainty / relevant.
Would it be acceptable to add extra comment field in section "Mints", where only certificate pictures could be added? This way it can also be counted for how many coins there are pics of certificates uploaded.
LP
Hello,
I suggest we start with a simple and not too strict format for the mint names, then we can adjust in the future.

For simple cases:
<Mint/City name>, <Country>
E.g. Moscow Mint, Russia

When there is a mint name different from the city name
<Mint Name>, <City or mint branch>, <Country>
E.g. Royal Canadian Mint, Winnipeg branch, Canada

When the city name or country name has changed:
<City name>, modern-day <Current name>, <Current country>
E.g. Mitau, modern-day Jelgava, Latvia

For ancient coins, the ancient name of the region probably makes more sense than the current name
<City name>, <Region name>
E.g. Philippi, Macedonia

Also, let's use the name of the mint in English when there is a recognized English name. Otherwise, let's keep the name in the local language (except if it's a non-Latin alphabet).
Here is the current list of mints:
  • Bavarian Central Mint, Munich, Germany
  • Casa de Moneda de México, Mexico
  • Czech Mint, Jablonec nad Nisou, Czech Republic
  • Hamburgische Münze, Hamburg, Germany
  • Heaton's Mint, Birmingham, United Kingdom
  • Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato, Rome, Italy
  • Kazakhstan Mint, Ust-Kamenogorsk, Kazakhstan
  • Kremnica Mint, Slovakia
  • Mennica Polska, Warsaw, Poland
  • Monnaie de Paris, Paris, France
  • Monnaie de Paris, Pessac, France
  • Moscow Mint, Russia
  • Perth Mint, Australia
  • Pobjoy Mint, Surrey, United Kingdom
  • Real Casa de la Moneda, Madrid, Spain
  • Royal Australian Mint, Canberra, Asutralia
  • Royal Canadian Mint, Ottawa branch, Canada
  • Royal Canadian Mint, Winnipeg branch, Canada
  • Royal Dutch Mint, Utrecht, Netherlands
  • Royal Mint, Llantrisant, United Kingdom
  • Royal Mint, London, United Kingdom
  • Saint Petersburg Mint, Russia
  • Singapore Mint
  • Staatliche Münze Berlin, Berlin, Germany
  • Staatliche Münzen Baden-Württemberg, Karlsruhe, Germany
  • Staatliche Münzen Baden-Württemberg, Stuttgart, Germany
  • United States Mint, Denver, United States
  • United States Mint, Philadelpha, United States
  • United States Mint, San Francisco, United States
  • United States Mint, West Point, United States
As we have
Heaton's Mint, Birmingham, United Kingdom
then we need the other one as well
Kings Norton Mint, Birmingham, United Kingdom

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces578.html
My collections >
http://mycoinssite.webs.com/apps/photos/album?albumid=13560800
also 13750057 also 15924495 also 15995337
http://mycoinssite.webs.com/apps/photos/album?albumid=16060326
we still have numisdoc?

Why not creating/using that as a receptacle for mint marks as well, seems logical to me?

In the year lines, it's only of use, IF there is a mint mark or other clearly defined differences to distinguish one mint from another, length of claws (Australia), serif or no serif (Chile/Israel,Sweden), etc , etc, AND ONLY if the difference happens INSIDE the SAME year.

If there is NO differences, thus no way to tell from which mint the coin was struck, then the information will only be highly disturbing! If in my collection I never thought to mention where my coin was struck and I find in numista, that it was struck in Finland, then I would automatically (or NOT) check my coin. When finding out that all the coins of this type were ALL struck in Finland, that information is just generating A LOT OF EXTRA WORK for me for nothing!

Where am I wrong?

Ole
Globetrotter
Coin variants in English:
https://sites.google.com/site/coinvarietiescollection/home
In French on Cobra's site (not the same)
https://monnaiesetvarietes.numista.com
Quote: "Cyrillius"​As for the mints already entered. Please pay attention to the search. For example, you can find the option "Moscow ..., Russia", but the search does not work if you start looking for "Russia ...". It would be nice if the search uses the full name of the mint.
​This is fixed.
Quote: "ZacUK"​ As we have
​Heaton's Mint, Birmingham, United Kingdom
​ then we need the other one as well
​Kings Norton Mint, Birmingham, United Kingdom

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces578.html
​Thank you! I added the Kings Norton Metal Company.
Quote: "Sjoelund"​In the year lines, it's only of use, IF there is a mint mark or other clearly defined differences to distinguish one mint from another, length of claws (Australia), serif or no serif (Chile/Israel,Sweden), etc , etc, AND ONLY if the difference happens INSIDE the SAME year.

​If there is NO differences, thus no way to tell from which mint the coin was struck, then the information will only be highly disturbing! If in my collection I never thought to mention where my coin was struck and I find in numista, that it was struck in Finland, then I would automatically (or NOT) check my coin. When finding out that all the coins of this type were ALL struck in Finland, that information is just generating A LOT OF EXTRA WORK for me for nothing!
​I fully agree. Let's use the mint letter or the comments in the year lines if there is a difference between the coins minted in one mint or another.
If all the coins of a type were minted in the same mint, the mint should not be added as a comment to the year lines. It should only be visible in this new field, displayed on the page of the coin type.
How about local goldsmiths? Do these also count as mints? Like Zlatarna Celje and Zlatara Majdanpek, both having a distinct mint mark?
LP
Quote: "stratocaster"​@Sulfur:
​Thanks for a great example. I agree, identifying the original country may prove difficult. But I think this extra step would be really nice for the history of the mint and coin.

​I think it would be hard to come up with a one-size-fits-all system. Here is another example, which occurs very frequently for roman coins:

​"Uncertain mint, Moesia"

​The modern country won't help (Serbia? Bulgaria? Romania?)

​I think a comprehensive structure like this would work:

​<Mint Mark/Letter> - <Mint Name>, <Mint Branch>, <"Old" City>, <"Old" Country> (modern-day <New City>, <New Country>). <Mint Master> <Years active>*
​*mint masters only for different mint marks
​And then we only record information that is known with certainty / relevant.
​Hm... fair enough. With my process, Uncertain mint, modern-day somewhere would certianly not help. Excsptions are everywhere. z)
Quote: "Xavier"When the city name or country name has changed:
<City name>, modern-day <Current name>, <Current country>
E.g. Mitau, modern-day Jelgava, Latvia
I will format my requests accordingly. Although, I do have one more stylistic request, if it is at all possible:
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces71799.html

For pages where there is no mint letter--only a mint--would it be possible to removed the empty space in front of the mint? Everything else on the page is justified to the left with no indents, so having one indented line looks kind of odd.
For information, the list of mints is available in Numisdoc:
https://en.numista.com/numisdoc/articles/mints.php
Please add these historical, now defunct, US mints:

Carson City, Nevada
Charlotte, North Carolina
Dahlonega, Georgia
New Orleans, Louisiana
Done. Please open a separated ticket if you need other mints to be added in the future.
Quote: "Xavier"​Hello,

​The mint or mints are now displayed on the coin pages :)
​The mint and the associated mint letter is mentioned in the "Features" box if there is only one mint or below the coin description if there are several mints.
​See for example:
​​

I like how it looks for modern coins, it certainly helps users identify the mint, and removes the obligation for the referee to translate the comment to the other side of the site. But it confuses me a little how it will look for old coins (in my case: the same mints for coins of the Russian empire).
Quote: "Sulfur"
​For pages where there is no mint letter--only a mint--would it be possible to removed the empty space in front of the mint? Everything else on the page is justified to the left with no indents, so having one indented line looks kind of odd.
​Done :)
See here for example: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces71799.html
Perfect. Thank you! :D

» Top of the page

Used time zone is UTC+2:00.
Current time is 01:49AM.