Has anyone thought about adding in printer's details? [solved]

Has anyone thought about adding in printer's details?

Xavier, please add in a list of banknote printers - like you have done with mints for coins.

Aidan.

Quote: "BCNumismatics"​Has anyone thought about adding in printer's details?
​
​Xavier, please add in a list of banknote printers - like you have done with mints for coins.
​
​Aidan.

​ I think that's good suggestion. As of today, we are all adding printer's detail into comments.

Such a list would be very handy indeed.

Yep, I think this would be a good idea, so you could perhaps search by printer.

I agree as well. Many notes, especially in the America's, are distinguished solely by the printer.

Many World banknote collectors collect Euros based on country issued & where the note originated (available through the note's printer code). This more often determines the true rarity of the First & Europa series banknotes.

For example:
P-3x printed & issued from Germany (common*)

(Printer code "P" from G&D Munich/Leipzig)

P-3y printed in UK issued from Greece (uncommon**)

(Printer code H from DLR Gateshead)

*approximately 30,000,000 total banknotes reported with the P code
** approximately 757,000 total banknotes reported with the H code
This info is available on EuroBillTracker

I think it is important. Also, each firm tends to engrave its own plates. Which is why they have amperage catalog numbers. I am not convinced we should have condensed listings. We should have imprints. And I am of the mind that they should have their own page.

We should definitely list different printers in different "year" lines but putting them in separate pages when the only difference is the printer seems too much. It's true that SCWPM sometimes splits up notes based on printers but my experience is that this causes confusion and tends to overlook changes beyond the printer. Take a look at the mess SCWPM made of the Bolivian notes as an example.

Quote: "Oklahoman"​I think it is important. Also, each firm tends to engrave its own plates. Which is why they have amperage catalog numbers. I am not convinced we should have condensed listings. We should have imprints. And I am of the mind that they should have their own page.

​
I am in agreement with you there.

Of course, we should be adding in T.B.B. catalogue numbers as well as other catalogue numbers.

Series 6 of the British Armed Forces notes - N.D. (1972) Decimal Currency issue - has 2 separate 'P.M.' catalogue numbers, as both Bradbury, Wilkinson, & Co. & Thomas De La Rue & Co. Ltd. printed them.

Printers' names should be treated like we do with mints for coins - use both abbreviations (like mintmarks) & names in full.

Aidan.

I completely disagree. If it is confusing to a collector, then they should be educated and Numista could be their teacher. My hope is that Numista is good enough to help facilitate counterfeit detection, and attributions...none of which we can do if we just lump it all in the same listing with an image that does not reflect the notes listed. Different imprints are differently engraved, different imprints use different security devices. That should be acknowledged. And we should raise up the uninformed to a high level of education, and not dumb everything down to a low common denominator of education. Putting everything into one category is dumbing it down. There may be valid reasons to condense listings but confusion of the collector is not a valid reason. I would go so far as to argue that imprints should be a top consideration for pages instead of being ignored...since different imprints mean different paper, threads, watermarks, strips, engraving, fonts, serials, UV responses, microprintings, letter/fractional prefixes, number and placement of serials, etc.

SCWPM biggest problem was cataloging in formats that was comfortable to that nations collecting style. The Bolivian listings were very organized. Just lots of them. Looking at the several 10 Bolivianos, they should be divided as shown in the catalog. P#204 is a much simpler background print, which is more complex with a provided border on the P#210. 204 only has numbers in the bottom left and right corners...while 210 has numbers in all four corners. Lathe work is so much darker than on the 210 than on the 216. The 218 has the 4 numbers in the corners of the 216 removed. 223 added bars for the blind and new types of security thread. As well as an offset registration device...i would need to see 228 in person...maybe additional microprinting...but no one can argue the portrait is differently engraved than the 223 portrait...although both are the same imprint. I own 233 238 243 and would need to examine them again...one seems to have a different watermark from earlier ones... and then date and law changes...as well as bank names...

Varieties like that should be imaged and documented, which they can't be when we force them into single listings. We would still get rid of several listings if Bolivian notes were done by imprint. But they would be authentic and documentable differences...

Quote: "Oklahoman"​I completely disagree. If it is confusing to a collector, then they should educate themselves. My hope is that numista is good enough to help facilitate counterfeit detection, and attributions...none of which we can do if we just lump it all in the same listing because the picture is the same. Different imprints are differently engraved, different imprints use different security devices. That should be acknowledged. And we should raise up the uninformed to a high level if education, and not dumb it down. I will not be dumbing it down. And putting everything into one category is dumbing it down.

​
We should be using Numista to create an educational resource to teach everyone across the board from newbies right up to the extremely specialised collectors.

Yes, there is so much to discover in numismatics.

Aidan.

Quote: "Oklahoman"​I completely disagree. If it is confusing to a collector, then they should educate themselves. My hope is that numista is good enough to help facilitate counterfeit detection, and attributions...none of which we can do if we just lump it all in the same listing because the picture is the same. Different imprints are differently engraved, different imprints use different security devices. That should be acknowledged. And we should raise up the uninformed to a high level if education, and not dumb it down. I will not be dumbing it down. And putting everything into one category is dumbing it down.

​My point was that we shouldn't create new pages when the only difference is the name of the printer. If there are differences in design or security devices, they require separate pages. What we shouldn't do is assume that different printers are intrinsically different, as SCWPM sometimes does. Some are, many are not. We educate best when we get our facts right.

I don't think you understand that I am saying the different imprints are intrinsically different. The nations do not "own" or possess the master plates. When they go to another firm those are engraved anew by different artists. Sometimes better, but many times for the worse. You can see in the engravings from firm to firm the quality or lack there of. I own thousands of notes and study them. Even when a firm does not place their imprint on a note, many times it is a very easy thing to attribute them.
The best thing that Krause did was separate by imprint. They are intrinsically different. My decades of study, research, and numismatic library document this over and over. You might enjoy the book, International Engraver's Line, and an extremely interesting work on the heads of Queen Elizabeth II by PJ Symes. Fascinating...the attributable differences in the different engravings by different firms of the same portrait. They don't even look the same.

Im surprised this is such a battle...its one I have never had to have with anyone with banknote experience before... the black and white images of SCWPM could easily have some collectors wondering why they aren't all the same catelog number...even TBB, which likes to condense listings has left most of the separated listings alone..

I hated Reading condensed classics or listening to anything abridged growing up. I disagree that we should practice it here.

I do look forward to having solid criteria that is detailed and not just anti Krause decisions that disregard why it was done in the first place. Feedback should be based on color images of the notes when possible as well. But when a publishing firm has spent the time and money over decades to establish what is the world standard even now, it is odd to just disregard the thinking behind the decision making. Like lobbing a fire cracker at a battle ship, my friend George Cuhaj says...

Part of the problem is that, for coins, small differences in dies are rarely given separate pages, so it seems out of place to make spearate pages for similar small variations in banknotes. Re-engraving a plate can take place within a single printer, so I dislike the idea of taking it for granted that a different printer means different plates. If it can be proven, fine, but it must be proven. Once that's happened, we can decide if the differences are enough to warrant a separate page.
Given where we are with the note catalogue, we must be careful not to swamp the system with varieties that can't be justified in retrospect. The existence of the "year" line allows us to register all the types (no dumbing down required) whilst we build, then we can examine the details at our leisure.

Thank you for expressing your thoughts. My decades of experience and research will probably inform my actions.

Quote: "Oklahoman"​Thank you for expressing your thoughts. My decades of experience and research will probably inform my actions.

​As will mine. I don't think we're as far apart as all that.

Printers' details should be added in the same way as for mints in the coin sections - not in the comments section.

I think Xavier is not right to reject the idea - considering that printers' details are pretty important.

Aidan.

Hello,
There is now a dedicated field for the printer.
See for example here: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/note201710.html
There are about 50 printers listed in the database so far. Please open tickets related to printers in the forum section "Numista banknote catalogue" if a printer is missing.

Thanks for finally doing this, Xavier.

Aidan.