Belarus 100 Rubles [επιλυμένο]

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/note202767.html

The year lines are 2000 and ND (2011). But there is no ND banknote, both of them are dated 2000, the difference is made by the security thread. Should the second line be changed to 2000 too? And explain in the comment section that they were put in circulation in 2011?

NDs are also used for frozen dates, yes it's not ideal but 2000 would be wrong.
Maybe D the year to 2000 (2011)?

I chose to put them as ND since it's not dated 2011, but with the first year of issue date. It also felt weird to put 2000 for the 2011 issue, since the date rabge of the bite will then be incorrect (it will look as a one year note).
Maybe a comment Dated 2000 could be added in the date list, but it seemed messy and I don't really see the reason since there's already enough info to identify the two.

I understand what you did there and I am not saying is wrong but for some could be confusing. To be honest I had to check SCWPM to understand that the second one was 2011. Maybe we could come up with a better way to list this kind of examples.

It's the same with Russian banknotes with fixed dates:
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/note211668.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/note202400.html

Exactly the same yes, maybe a comment will make it less confusing.

This seems to be an area of much inconsistency on Numista. I would like to see "Date" considered as the date appearing on a note (when one appears), not the actual date. ND would be used only if no date appears. Any discrepancy should be explained in a comment.

Will

Απόσπασμα: "Coinman48"​This seems to be an area of much inconsistency on Numista. I would like to see "Date" considered as the date appearing on a note (when one appears), not the actual date. ND would be used only if no date appears. Any discrepancy should be explained in a comment.
​
​Will

​Even if the date appearing on the note is wrong?
So, ibstead if being the first catalogue ever (at least what I know of) to show the exact date of issue, you'd like to show, you mean that P# 15c, 1917-1920 should be re-dated to 1898, because that what is says on the banknote?

Just my opinion, I know there can be others. But I think Pick does it the way I would. Date would mean apparent date from note, not necessarily accurate. It's a matter of definition of Date. Discrepancies from apparent dates can be explained in comment. After all "ND" is not an exact date when it appears in Date. It is basically an explanation that no date appears on the note. It can be explained in a range or exact date given in parentheses if known. I know Pick uses dates like L1898 in the case of a law date authorizing the issue and then gives the exact date if known.

From SCWPM dating explanation: "In general the date actually shown on a paper money issue is indicated in some manner. Notes issued by Special Law or Decree will have L or D preceding the date. Dates listed in parentheses may differ from the date appearing on the note; they have been documented by other means. Undated notes are listed with ND, followed by a year only when the year of actual issue is known."
To me that means the date on the note has priority.

As for Russia P# 15c, Pick uses only number 15, no sub-numbers, with ND (1915 -old date 1898). I don't mind the explanations being given on Numista of signatures and other issuing bodies but Pick sub-numbers a, b, c should not be invented. There is a comment in Pick following P# 15 that later governments also issued the note. In fact Numista has an 1898 date already given for 1915 modification, so I would just leave the page alone other than removing the Pick sub-numbers since we have done more identification work than Pick. Although it might be better to delete the 1898 date entry and make the information about 1915 and later modifications being made to the 1898 note a comment since all the dates following the 1898 entry are presumably the actual modifications covered in the 1898 line. Most dating decisions will not be so complicated.

Will

I brought up this very issue recently here: https://en.numista.com/forum/topic109524.html. There are a great many coins and notes for which the only visible date is not the date of issue. Surely the answer is to have an option of "Fixed date" (or frozen) which then open up boxes (like ND currently does) to allow us to add the actual date or dates of issue?

Απόσπασμα: "ceh2019"​I brought up this very issue recently here: https://en.numista.com/forum/topic109524.html. There are a great many coins and notes for which the only visible date is not the date of issue. Surely the answer is to have an option of "Fixed date" (or frozen) which then open up boxes (like ND currently does) to allow us to add the actual date or dates of issue?

​That's a great idea!

Απόσπασμα: "allexis"​

Απόσπασμα: "ceh2019"​I brought up this very issue recently here: https://en.numista.com/forum/topic109524.html. There are a great many coins and notes for which the only visible date is not the date of issue. Surely the answer is to have an option of "Fixed date" (or frozen) which then open up boxes (like ND currently does) to allow us to add the actual date or dates of issue?

​​That's a great idea!

​I agree. This is a great idea!

That is a great idea.

So for this note, I sent a request to add "dated 2000" to the end of the ND(2011) year-line. With frozen dates, the printed date is more accurate, but when it is listed as only ND, people would likely expect there to be no date on the note (or coin) at all--and that is why frozen dates are always nice to list in the year-line comments, because there is actually a date on the note (or coin).

Right now, there is no one perfect way to deal with frozen dates. I did make a suggestion to have the option to include both the issue date and the printed date (back in May 9, 2020), so I will give that thread a bump.

Απόσπασμα: "Sulfur"​So for this note, I sent a request to add "dated 2000" to the end of the ND(2011) year-line. With frozen dates, the printed date is more accurate, but when it is listed as only ND, people would likely expect there to be no date on the note (or coin) at all--and that is why frozen dates are always nice to list in the year-line comments, because there is actually a date on the note (or coin).
​
​Right now, there is no one perfect way to deal with frozen dates. I did make a suggestion to have the option to include both the issue date and the printed date (back in May 9, 2020), so I will give that thread a bump.

​I got all excited and thought this was implemented, but I guess it's not, then?

It has not been implemented yet, no.

I have suggested this idea over a year ago, and so I bumped that thread, linking this thread along with the bump (so when Xavier gets to that thread, there will be a direct link here to show the support). Until then, there is not much else we can do.

With that being said, this thread is under the ticket "requesting the modification of a banknote in the catalogue". There is nothing I can do about implementing this perfect solution, so for the time being, the best we can do is list the frozen date in the year-line comments. And because that has been approved, I will mark this thread as done--but just know that the suggestion has been made, and we just have to wait for Xavier to get around to it.