This is a thread to report duplicates in the catalogue.
Please provide a link to the Numista page, and optionally provide information on which one should
be deleted and why. The team will handle your request as soon as time will permit us.
Once the issue is resolved, kindly edit your post to "done" to keep the thread short and clean.
Here's a confusion of the Egypt 25 Piastres. One states it's a ND, which it's not, the other has barely any information. It's the same note, but the picks are different. Something's wrong here. It's a dupliate, but still not?
In regards to Egypt P# 42 and P# 47, Bank Note Museum explains that Pick duplicates some years in error. Difference in coat of arms on reverse of notes. http://www.banknote.ws/COLLECTION/countries/AFR/EGY/EGY0042.htm No Information on actual years of P# 47
Απόσπασμα: "Coinman48"In regards to Egypt P# 42 and P# 47, Bank Note Museum explains that Pick duplicates some years in error. Difference in coat of arms on reverse of notes. http://www.banknote.ws/COLLECTION/countries/AFR/EGY/EGY0042.htm No Information on actual years of P# 47
Will
Cheers mate! This means that both pages are showing a P-47 banknote, since P-42 has two stars in the white middle field of the flag in the CoA. P-42 must then be for the United Arab Republic.
The first (higher grade) image of P-42 posted on Numista is actually P-47 & should be removed/deleted. The circulated image below (posted by "@Hakim") is P-42b and should remain.
Απόσπασμα: "Serial_Number_8"The first (higher grade) image of P-42 posted on Numista is actually P-47 & should be removed/deleted. The circulated image below (posted by "@Hakim") is P-42b and should remain.
Confusion about Angola P-96 and P-98, which both has two pages with both Picks. Maybe one page for both is fine, or one for each pick, but two for both seems a little much:
Απόσπασμα: "ngdawa"Confusion about Angola P-96 and P-98, which both has two pages with both Picks. Maybe one page for both is fine, or one for each pick, but two for both seems a little much:
It looks like the difference between P#31 and P#35 is the signature, and the difference between P#35 and P#39 is the watermark. Combining the pages makes sense to me; however, my main concern is with the current format of the year-lines. The difference between these three Pick numbers is not mentioned within them, which I would think is important. As well, there are not actually any year-lines for P#39.
I would suggest either including the Pick numbers on the individual year-lines (and explaining the difference in the comments section), or listing the differences on the year-lines themselves. The first would likely be less crowded, but I know you are not a fan of numbers in the year-lines.
Regardless: I sent a request to add the P#39 year-lines.
Απόσπασμα: "ngdawa"Confusion about Angola P-96 and P-98, which both has two pages with both Picks. Maybe one page for both is fine, or one for each pick, but two for both seems a little much:
I'd say split them to one page for each pick. What do you think?
I am leaning towards keeping them combined because the only major difference I can see is the date. To split them... perhaps I am missing something?
I will take an exttra look, but I would suggest to combine them as well.
It looks like the difference between P#31 and P#35 is the signature, and the difference between P#35 and P#39 is the watermark. Combining the pages makes sense to me; however, my main concern is with the current format of the year-lines. The difference between these three Pick numbers is not mentioned within them, which I would think is important. As well, there are not actually any year-lines for P#39.
I would suggest either including the Pick numbers on the individual year-lines (and explaining the difference in the comments section), or listing the differences on the year-lines themselves. The first would likely be less crowded, but I know you are not a fan of numbers in the year-lines.
Regardless: I sent a request to add the P#39 year-lines.
Well, when it's justified I have no problem adding picks in the date list, but sub-numbers I see no point when the date list is as neat as it is. If you want sub-numbers, just count "a, b, c, ..." until you reach your year. More than one line with same date but different signatures? Then simply count "1, 2, 3 ...". No need to mess it up when it's not necessary. Some listings have even three or four "912a" because the subs are not listed in SCWC, and then it's just getting ridiculous.
But here it's about the main picks, so here it's justified and I'm all for to add them in the comment field.
Απόσπασμα: "ngdawa"Confusion about Angola P-96 and P-98, which both has two pages with both Picks. Maybe one page for both is fine, or one for each pick, but two for both seems a little much:
I'd say split them to one page for each pick. What do you think?
I have edited this listing now so both picks are in it, since it actually seems like it's only the signature that is the difference (except for the prefix combinatoon of 1 MQZ for Pick 96 vs. Aabd for Pick 98). But now we can saftely remove this one.
A while ago, I did ask for a different thread to be unpinned, but a new one took its place. Regardless, I would be happy with having this unpinned.
With that being said, these types of threads are not inherently bad--it just comes down to preferences of the master referees, I'd think. The equivalent coin threads work because there are people who regularly deal with them. If we were to get a banknote master referee who likes these types of threads, a thread like this would be efficiant, but it seems to not be the case right now.
