Divide nation reign/republic

28 posts

» Quick access to the last post

I think that dividing nation reign/republic will be more useful.

Example:

Italy Reign (1861-1944)
Italy Republic (1945-...)
I agree

Gianna
CirculableCoins
I do as well, but many people don't. Italian sources indeed often distinguish between the Kingdom of Italy and the Republic of Italy. It also orders the coins a bit nicer. A gold royal 100 Lire followed by a steel republican one is a bit too much of a stretch in my humble opinion.
Hello,
Many countries are de facto already divided like that, France, Germany, Austria, Poland via a change in currency, etc when there was the major political change related to the Republic.
It would certainly be good for Italy.
Worth asking the team.

Regards.
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 !
On Numista, the catalogue divisions should in my opinion only be by currency; if we go by political regime change, then we would have trouble defining what constitutes a big enough regime change, and countries like France would look like this:

Livre Tournois (Ancien Regime) (781-1795)
Franc (1ere République) (1795-1804)
Franc (1er Empire) (1804-1814)
Franc (Restauration) (1814-1830)
Franc (1er Empire - Cent Jours) (1815)
Franc (Monarchie Juliet) (1830-1848)
Franc (2e République) (1848-1852)
Franc (2e Empire) (1852-1870)
Franc (3e République) (1870-1940)
Franc (État Français/ Vichy) (1940-1944)
Franc (4e République) (1945-1958)
Franc (5e République) (1958-)
Quote: "CassTaylor"​On Numista, the catalogue divisions should in my opinion only be by currency.
​I agree!
Italy should be divided in the following way;

Kingdom of Italy - King Victor Emmanuel II - 1861-78.

Kingdom of Italy - King Umberto I - 1878-1900.

Kingdom of Italy - King Victor Emmanuel III - 1900-46.

Republic of Italy - 1946-2001 - 1 Lira upwards.

Republic of Italy - 2002 onwards - 100 Euro-Cents = 1 Euro.

Aidan.
Quote: "BCNumismatics"​Italy should be divided in the following way;

​Kingdom of Italy - King Victor Emmanuel II - 1861-78.

​Kingdom of Italy - King Umberto I - 1878-1900.

​Kingdom of Italy - King Victor Emmanuel III - 1900-46.

​Republic of Italy - 1946-2001 - 1 Lira upwards.

​Republic of Italy - 2002 onwards - 100 Euro-Cents = 1 Euro.

​Aidan.
​Yes ;-)
excellent!
CirculableCoins
Ireland since 1928 should be divided as follows;

Irish Free State - King George V - 1928-35.

Irish Free State - King Edward VIII - 1936. Only coin for the Irish Free State in 1936 - the Farthing.

Irish Free State - King George VI - 1937.

Dominion of Ireland - King George VI - 1939-48.

Republic of Ireland - 1949-69 - Pre-Decimal coins.

Republic of Ireland - 1969-2000 - Decimal coins - 100 Pence = 1 Pound.

Republic of Ireland - 1990 - ECU coins.

Republic of Ireland - 2002 onwards - 100 Euro-Cents = 1 Euro.

Aidan.
Divisions should go along currency systems. There was already example of crazyness in France and many other countries would suffer the same.
Catalogue administrator
"Italy should be divided in the following way;
Kingdom of Italy - King Victor Emmanuel II - 1861-78.
Kingdom of Italy - King Umberto I - 1878-1900.
Kingdom of Italy - King Victor Emmanuel III - 1900-46.
Republic of Italy - 1946-2001 - 1 Lira upwards.
Republic of Italy - 2002 onwards - 100 Euro-Cents = 1 Euro.
Aidan"

Perfect
It's like in Italian paper catalogs
And it's the best division
Thank you
Ok for seperating Kingdom and Republic but please keep them together, no split needed for each single ruler.
if we follow that logic I would have to create 25.000 thousand new currencies for the German states:O
If you like coins, medals and tokens with ship motives follow my new instagram account with regular updates @numisnautiker
From time to time I sell some coins on Ebay make sure to follow me @apuking on Ebay.
Hello apuking
I prefer splitting each single ruler
Italian paper catalogs dived each single ruler
And italian collector use this catalogation ;-)
Quote: "MicheleTN"​Hello apuking
​I prefer splitting each single ruler
​Italian paper catalogs dived each single ruler
​And italian collector use this catalogation ;-)
​and I use the KM catalogs, since I collect from ALL countries. All local catalogs are divided like your Italian catalog, Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, Argentinian, German etc. The only one a bit different is the US Red Book since it's classified by denominations!
Stick with KM, please, it's so much easier!
Ole
Globetrotter
Coin varieties in French:
https://monnaiesetvarietes.numista.com
I agree with Apuking here. Oversplitting is silly but to me KM is not the holy grail either. KM started splitting per century and I am sure that if Numista did that no one would be happy. Instead we try to do some historical splitting and in the Italian case taking a 1946 cut-off makes it more readable to me.
Hi.

Km is splitting by centuries, which is just a practical split because of the size of the catalogs. If anybody wanted to split Denmark it should be when we went from skilling to oeter. Even there I wouldn't like to see a split though. Brazil from Reis to centavo is no valid split for me. The UK from shilling to pound not good either.

In the end we all have our specific points of view! The idea for me is mainly to be able to access the catalogue WITHOUT knowing who was the ruler (Habsburg or not) in any given period. Austria is just good enough for my purposes. I don't want to know the full table of rulers of any country. It's simply too much not really needed knowledge if you have 38.000 different coins from some 300 countries!
KISS. Keep It Simple (and maybe Stupid)
which is good enough for my collecting interests.
Just my opinion of course.
Ole
Globetrotter
Coin varieties in French:
https://monnaiesetvarietes.numista.com
Quote: "CassTaylor"​On Numista, the catalogue divisions should in my opinion only be by currency;
​I agree completely!
Division should be by currency only. We might give an option for users to divide by reign also, as it is possible now by date, face value and reference.
Catalogue administrator
Quote: "Sjoelund"​ The idea for me is mainly to be able to access the catalogue WITHOUT knowing who was the ruler (Habsburg or not) in any given period.

​This is critical.

Ease of catalog searches is far more important than historical divisions.
Quote: "Jarcek"​Division should be by currency only. We might give an option for users to divide by reign also, as it is possible now by date, face value and reference.
​This is good to know. But I still feel that some countries, like Egypt, have been re-arranged in a way that does not match this policy of "Division should be by currency only." And I wish that we could have had a definitive ruling when that was happening because, as much as I've tried to live with it, it bothers me because this isn't how things are supposed to be.
I think the problem is in the current format of the catalog; any major changes would involve too much labor / expenses.

Technically, it would be more convenient if coin lists could be filtered using buttons, in particular:
- by dates of minting
- by dates of circulation (which are not always identical with the above; some coins are minted years before they are put into circulation)
- by currency types
- by reforms (discontinuing the use of certain coins, even if the currency was still the same)
- by issuing authorities.

The last three options are often independent from each other.

In the case of Italy, while state symbols changed after proclamation of the Republic, there was no monetary reform, the currency was still the same.

Let's compare this case e.g. with that of the Soviet Union ruble (1924-1960). In 1947 there was a reform that affected ONLY banknotes; the coins remained in circulation, and their design was not affected at all (except for the number of ribbons on the coat of arms, but their numbers changed several times during the Soviet epoch).

Contrary to the above, in 1917 the Communists who took power did not make any monetary reform; they even kept printing backdated banknotes with the symbols of the Imperial Russia (from 1 to 500 rubles) and the Provisional Government (dated 1917 and later). Should we consider it a "different ruble"? I don't think so.

Going back to the filtering options. Since filtering is currently impossible (too expensive) to implement, it seems to be a lesser evil to leave everything "as is". Creating too many subperiods by grouping the above criteria will result in a crazy infinity of categories.
My (still modest) collection:
https://en.numista.com/echanges/voir_collection.php?id=75443
So conlusion is that this old divide for PLC:

-Elbing - Talar
-Talar (1764 – 1795)
-First złoty (1496-1850)
-Real (hammered coinage, 1517-1678)


is better, than my historical "crazyness" and making this divide, reference to polish catalogues?

Interregnum — First złoty (1573, 1632)
Stefan Batory — First złoty (1576-1586)
Gdańsk under siege — First złoty (1577)
Zygmunt III Waza — First złoty (1587-1632)
Elbing — Swedish occupation — Talar (1626-1657)
Toruń under siege — First złoty (1629)
Władysław IV Waza — First złoty (1632-1648)
Jan II Kazimierz Waza — First złoty (1649-1668)
Toruń — Swedish occupation — Talar (1655-1658)
Michał Korybut Wiśniowiecki — First złoty (1669-1673)
Jan III Sobieski — First złoty (1674-1696)
August II Mocny — First złoty (1697-1733)
August III — First złoty (1734-1763)
Fryderyk Christian — First złoty (1763)
Ksawery — First złoty (1764-1768)
Stanisław August Poniatowski — First złoty (1764-1795)



Putting about 1 000 - 2 000 coins into one bag, one artificial division is better beccause it will look nicer for all foreign collectors ? and they will not be affected by "stupid" historical information of my country?


P.S. for Poland divided into "first zloty, second zloty, third zloty".... there is not such thing in any polish catalogue.
I think there are several points in play here.

1. Numista (the software) cannot currently accommodate the personal preferences of everyone who collects coins. It has been written in such a way that the coins of nations are divided up into groupings by currency. Maybe coins could be divided up into other sorts of groupings (by reign, etc.) but Numista does currency. If we force other divisions for which the software is not designed onto the current structure, we make it inconsistent, less usable, and more confusing.

2. Originally Numista's organisation was based on the Krause organization which was, in my opinion, a good thing. (I regret the day it was decided that we should move away from that.) The Krause currency splits are a good, standardised, high-level system that people can understand without being expert in each country's history. It might make sense to use the divisions from a specialised Polish catalogue if you are a specialist in Polish coins but 99% of people looking at the Polish pages on Numista are not going to be specialists and just want to see the coins arranged in an understandable way.

3. Surely we want countries to be arranged in more or less the same way? Right now we are moving into the territory where administrators for different countries are re-arranging their own countries to match their own personal preferences rather than an objective, overall standard. For example, the rules that have been applied to the rearranged Egypt are completely different from the rules in play in South African catalogue. This is a major problem for the quality of Numista, in my view.

4. This point is going to upset people and so be it... they won't be as upset as I am over all the catalogue changes happening at the moment: Deviation from a uniform, globally accessible method of arranging the catalogue that can be applied (more or less) to all countries or matches a well-regarded outside authority like Krause, irrespective of whether Krause is always 100% correct or not, makes the Numista catalogue less useful and is therefore a form a catalogue vandalism. (Just like the mania for changing all currency names into their local languages from some time back.) It doesn't matter how much any individual prefers their local, specialist catalogue's way of arranging coins - any approach is an arbitrary matter of personal choice and we should be sticking with one that makes the Numista catalogue as accessible to old and new users as possible. In my opinion, that means going with Krause, generally speaking.

I know that a storm is likely to follow this message but someone has to express this opinion. My apologies if anybody is personally offended. I know we all work hard on our coins and on Numista, and I understand that other people also have strong ideas. I'm not married to the Krause way of doing things but I am discouraged to find major catalogue rearrangements happening all over Numista and I am beginning to wonder if this site has the long-term value I am looking for if its catalogue arrangement strategy can be so volatile.
1. I see nothing wrong on deviation from Krause if we can prove it is better or more correct.

2. Yes, Numista was build for currency system and will be this way.

3. Krause system is very simplified and it thus allows international use. We try to do the same. But we also aim for being professional and complete catalogue. This is quite contradicting to Krause.

4. Because that system based on reigns (or however national catalogues divide the coinage) is more proffessional and sometimes it would make more sense. Thus I will be proposing new sorting method in addition to Face value/Date/Reference. It will be the already mentioned reign or rule. So member will open catalogue, see normal currency menu (which is mostly based on Krause) but by one click he would be able to sort out all coins by rules.

In other words, I want both usability and profesionality.
Catalogue administrator
Quote: "andrewdotcoza"​I think there are several points in play here.

​1. Numista (the software) cannot currently accommodate the personal preferences of everyone who collects coins. It has been written in such a way that the coins of nations are divided up into groupings by currency. Maybe coins could be divided up into other sorts of groupings (by reign, etc.) but Numista does currency. If we force other divisions for which the software is not designed onto the current structure, we make it inconsistent, less usable, and more confusing.

​2. Originally Numista's organisation was based on the Krause organization which was, in my opinion, a good thing. (I regret the day it was decided that we should move away from that.) The Krause currency splits are a good, standardised, high-level system that people can understand without being expert in each country's history. It might make sense to use the divisions from a specialised Polish catalogue if you are a specialist in Polish coins but 99% of people looking at the Polish pages on Numista are not going to be specialists and just want to see the coins arranged in an understandable way.

​I totally agree that Numista can´t accomodate the personal preferences of every collector and in some cases the division of countries are traditionally based by ruler rather than currency. For example as a referee of Norway i would prefer to have a division by reign, rather than have a sea of more than 250 coins in a single currency that runs for over 200 years. It makes it somewhat diffcult to navigate through the catalogue. On the other hand though, in the catalogue of the Kingdom of Cyprus, even if there were many rulers, the single division by currency does not affect the navigability of the catalogue, as there are only a few denominations for each ruler. So my point from this is that a certain degree of flexibility should be allowed when dealing with the catalogues of different countries.

For your second point, Numista is still based on the Krause system of cataloguing. For example, if you see the German states part of the Krause catalogues, these are divided into separate states, just like the new division is done in Numista now, and the currency splits are generally following the Krause example. But as Jarcek said, deviating somewhat from Krause is not necessarily a bad thing, as long as it follows a logical and historical reasoning.

In my mind Numista serves two purposes: To provide a general numismatic reference but also provide an accurate catalogue for the more serious and specialised collectors. The balance between these two are not easy to be obtained and there will always be disputes on what should be included and what not. Most collectors, need time to reach a decision to where they want to focus their collections, and when this time arrives, Numista should be the tool that can provide the information and knowledge from a general numismatic collection to a more specific.

So to sum up, the new changes that are implemented in the catalogue at the moment will provide the possibility for the more specialised collectors to benefit from the catalogue, but i also agree that a simpler or having different types of oganisation of it, should be implemented to make the navigation of the main catalogue easier.
Referee for Ancient Greece,  Norway and the Kingdom of Cyprus
Quote: "Stavros"​So to sum up, the new changes that are implemented in the catalogue at the moment will provide the possibility for the more specialised collectors to benefit from the catalogue, but i also agree that a simpler or having different types of oganisation of it, should be implemented to make the navigation of the main catalogue easier.
​Yes, but I'm talking about what we have at the moment. As Numista grows, I am sure new features will be added and we will be able to "slice and dice" the catalogue as each of us see fit by turning on and off the features to sort by reign, currency, etc.

For now, though, segregating by reign using the currency division tool is actually making the data less usable in the future when a proper reign sorting tool is provided.

And besides, why is it hard to navigate a large number of coins in one section? This has never been a concern in the years that I have been active on Numista. Some sections naturally have a large number of coins in them and trying to subdivide this to accommodate an arbitrary preference of maximum section size is just weird, because it is forcing a Web usability issue onto numismatics.

I feel very strongly that we should accept that Numista "is what it is" at the moment and support Xavier's work on providing more advanced sorting features in code rather than subverting his current work to emulate functionality that is planned for the future.

This mania for subdividing countries is just a fad that is a few weeks old, and it will pass when everyone realises that things were better before, just like with localised currency names.
British Guiana & British Guiana & West Indies should be listed separately - as Guyana's coins started from 1967.

Aidan.

» Forum policy

Used time zone is UTC+1:00.
Current time is 07:42.