Fake descriptions in Malaysia and Singapore coinage

7 posts
It seems strange that these articles describe fake coins.

1. Singapore 10 cents 2013-2017 article
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces42895.html

does not describe the coin at all. In the lettering part there is just a few characters instead of
SINGAPURA சிங்கப்பூர் 新加坡
MAJULAH SINGAPURA
2013
SINGAPORE

The text in translation has nothing to do with the text which it intends to explain.
Obviously there should be
SINGAPORE Singapore Singapore
ONWARD SINGAPORE
2013
SINGAPORE

2. Malaysia 1 cent 1973-1988 article represent another fake:
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces6989.html

Saying nothing about completely wrong grammar in descriptions of 2 out of 3 sides of the coin, the side with a crescent (most probably named as Obverse by mistake) shows clearly visible inscription GC. But this information is hidden from reader.

The modifications https://en.numista.com/catalogue/contributions/voir_demande.php?id=2154287
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/contributions/voir_demande.php?id=2245709 were rejected by a referee. The attention of the very referee was pointed to unintentional rejection which conflicts the catalog demands via personal message:
" It was suggested to put missed lettering from the image according to the obligations of the Numista catalog, as the catalog demands.

You gave an explanation:
Comment: Not neccessary.

which contradicts the rules of Xavier:
"Include the small letterings like the engraver name and motto on the coats of arm."
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/contributions/instructions.php

[...]"

In which way is it possible to write the truth in the Malaysian and Singapore coinage part of the Numista catalog?

Addition.
Just to complete the information of the missed 1 cent 1973-1988 article, in the part, which describes crescent, there should be

Lettering GC
Alexander from Cyprus
http://eucoins.byethost9.com/
My suggestions https://t.me/enjoyyourcollection
You know what, let me go through your problems one at a time. This isn't the first time you've done this to a referee and probably won't be the last. I get that sometimes referees' formatting choices might not be ideal; (sometimes I have the urge to start telling other refs how to structure their listings to my liking too)- but the way you've chosen to go about complaining is petty and ridiculous.

1.
SINGAPURA
சிங்கப்பூர் 新加坡
2013
SINGAPORE

That is the lettering from the Singaporean article. 75% of the characters you want there to be are present, other than the motto on the coat of arms. I'll get back to that later*.

2.
You tell me what good typing "Singapore" three times would do that typing it once doesn't. For English speakers at least two of the four multilingual "Singapore" words are easily deductible as "Singapore", so I think you're being particularly pedantic on this one. Same with the motto*.

3.
If you took even ten seconds to look at the rest of the Malaysia listings you'd see all the sides with the crescent are the "obverse" in a consistent listing.

4.
Geoffrey Colley's name (GC) is very clearly visible in the engraver's box. Someone with more than half a functioning brain cell might be able to make the connection themselves the first time.

* The opinion that lettering on coats of arms and other minute details should not be included has been discussed before, at the behest of this same member. There's a certain degree of referee autonomy here, and like several others I have decided against including those in the lettering box.

You know what, I'll call your bluff. Go through all the Singapore coins and add 3 more "Singapore"s to the translation box of each. Do that to all 406 relevant coins, and then we'll talk some more.
Very well said Cass.
Library Media Specialist, columnist, collector, and gardener...
Cass,

you have my full support in this as well!

Ole
Globetrotter
Coin varieties in French:
https://monnaiesetvarietes.numista.com
cyprusalexander,

why do you say those coins are "fake" by the way? Please explain! Or don't you master Shakespeare's tongue?

Ole
Globetrotter
Coin varieties in French:
https://monnaiesetvarietes.numista.com
Alex, either you start behaving constructively or you honorously refrain from posting anything on the forum. Your behaviour is symptomatic for Asperger's and obsessive-compulsive disorder. Not that these are necessarily bad personality features (it takes a bit of OCD to make a great coin catalogue), but it's your antisocial touch to it we can clearly do without.
Let us have a look step by step.

The first post already gave answered to many questions, it is worth just to read it.
Quote: "CassTaylor"
​2. <...> so I think you're being particularly pedantic on this one. Same with the motto*.


It seems that this accusing is not to the correct person. It is to the rules of Numista catalog. Till now we have:
Quote: "cyprusalexander"
​which contradicts the rules of Xavier:
​"Include the small letterings like the engraver name and motto on the coats of arm."
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/contributions/instructions.php
​[...]"


This first post already explain, whom CassTaylor should accuse. Let us for future discussion name this quote [1].
Quote: "CassTaylor"​​
​3.
​If you took even ten seconds to look at the rest of the Malaysia listings you'd see all the sides with the crescent are the "obverse" in a consistent listing.



​Exactly. It is a side work. The position of the sides Obv. and Rev. are confused. According to the numismatic textbooks for students, the side with the name of country is the main in this particular case. So the sides should be switched. Something like this happened with Russian coinage, but a recently came referee made this huge job and put the sides in correct order. We have to thank him for this only apart of many other improvements. It is much more then thousand articles.
Quote: "CassTaylor"
​* The opinion that lettering on coats of arms and other minute details should not be included has been discussed before, at the behest of this same member. There's a certain degree of referee autonomy here, and like several others I have decided against including those in the lettering box.



It is not clear at all. First, the link is to the case which is solved completely. Second, the solution is done there according to the rules, mentioned in the first post [1].
Quote: "CassTaylor"
You know what, I'll call your bluff. Go through all the Singapore coins and add 3 more "Singapore"s to the translation box of each. Do that to all 406 relevant coins, and then we'll talk some more.


Now we have contradiction. Here we have direct instruction to correct just 406 articles according to the rules of Numista. Let us name this quote [2]. It is from one side. But the first post explained, that any attempt to do that meets rejection! It is from the other side. Personal message to the referee brought to no results. As it was already mentioned all answers are in the first post, it is worth just to read it. I don't mind and I do make these corrections (see the first post with modifications). But as CassTaylor explained these modifications are correct and they are to be done, still there is no way to do them in this particular cases. It is not good to receive 406 rejections.
Quote: "Sjoelund"​cyprusalexander,​
​why do you say those coins are "fake" by the way? Please explain! Or don't you master Shakespeare's tongue?

​Ole
If you ask this question it means that it is worth to answer it. First of all, thank you for the reference to the person whose mind through Hamlet and Othello connected yours and mine countries. Second, it does not seem to be very difficult. As I understand, one of reason, why Xavier introduced this rule [1] is to help a collector find everything about a coin in its description. Actually on mine opinion it is a great idea. People who study numismatics as science (not just as passion, which is excellent) know from their experience that the main source of information about coin is the coin itself. In these cases descriptions do not correspond any coin. There are no coins with such descriptions in real world. That is why the descriptions are about fakes. It is easy to verify: it is enough to present an item corresponding the description, which was issued by mint during the time of emission. Then, for this item is coin by definition, the description corresponds ... to the coin. But... in this case I'm pretty sure the Numista catalog will add one more article for your discovery. Most probably not an extra line in year distribution but the whole article.

As for the last remark, I believe it was answered in the first post completely and commented with the help of the second post here.

To summarize, am I right that the answer to the question in the first post:

In which way is it possible to write the truth in the Malaysian and Singapore coinage part of the Numista catalog?

is :

in the modification requests the link to this post should be added, so a referee will follow the instructions of CassTaylor [2]?
Alexander from Cyprus
http://eucoins.byethost9.com/
My suggestions https://t.me/enjoyyourcollection

» Forum policy

Used time zone is UTC+1:00.
Current time is 18:34.