Guideline updates

Hello

I have some suggestions for the guidelines

1. Language of ruler’s name in titles (Section 3.2.1. • Ruler’s name §4 and §5)

• If the coins show the unabridged name of the ruler in Latin script, then use the language on the coins.
  Note that the unabridged name of the ruler may not necessarily be present on all the coins of an issuer. Some coins may only display an abridged name, or only the portrait. In these cases, the titles of all the coins of an issuer that depict the ruler should be consistent and use the name as it appears on some of the coins.
  • 20 Kreutzer - Franz Joseph Supersaxo (the English name, because the Latin name is abridged on all the coins: "F. I. S. SAXO")
  • 5 Ducats - Franciscus I (the full name “FRANCISCUS” is on the coin)
  • Ducat - Franciscus I (even if only "FRANC" appears on this coin, the full name “FRANCISCUS” is on other coins of this issuer)
• If the name of the ruler is absent from the coin, is abbreviated, does not use Latin script, or appears in multiple languages, then the English name should be used.
  • 1 Matona - Haile Selassie I

According to this guideline, these names should be changed:

• Napoleon I → Napoleone I
• Louis XIV → Ludovicus XIV
• Franz Joseph → Franciscvs Iosephvs
• John → Ioannes
• James → Iacobvs

To avoid this, I suggest that these two paragraphs are changed to be in line with the guideline for banknotes (Section 4.2.1. • Ruler’s name):

If the ruler’s name, monogram, effigy, or personal coat of arms are present on the coin, then include the ruler’s name in English, separated by a spaced hyphen.

Using only English would further avoid confusion coming from modern local languages, such as: 

• Kazimierz Sprawiedliwy for Casimir II the Just
• Lipót for Leopold
• Miksa for Maximilian
• Ioannes Pavlvs II for John Paul II

2. Language of the face value in titles (Section 3.2.1. • Face value §7-8)

• If the unabridged name of the currency unit is present on the coin in Latin script, then the name of the coin should show the currency unit in the language on the coin.
  • Solidus (in Latin, as inscribed on the coin)
  • 1⁄24 Taler (in German, as inscribed on the coin, instead of “Thaler”)
• Note that the unabridged name of the currency unit may be present only on some coins of an issuer. In this case, the titles should be consistent and use the name that appears on the coins.
  • 5 Centesimi (“5 C.” on the coin, but other coins from the same issuer use the full name: 5 Centesimi)
• If the name of the currency unit is absent from the coin, is abbreviated, does not use Latin script, or appears in multiple languages, then the English name for the currency unit should be used. Plurals should be used for values greater than 1.
  • Shilling (in English, because the name is not on the coin)
  • 5 Francs (in English, because “FR.” is an abbreviation for Franken, Franchi, or Francs)
  • 5 Agorot (in English, because the coin uses non-Latin script)
  • 5 Dinars (in English, because multiple languages are on the coins: Dinara, Dinarjev, etc)

and Banknotes (Section 4.2.1. • Face value §5)

• If the unabridged name of the currency unit is present on the banknote in Latin script, then the name of the banknote should show the currency unit in the language on the banknote.
  Note that the unabridged name of the currency unit may be present only on some banknotes of an issuer. In this case, the titles should be consistent and use the name that appears on the banknotes.
  • 1 Dollar
  • 5 Złotych

According to this guideline, these names should be changed:

• Thaler → Talervs
• Ducat → Dvcatvs
• Krone and Coronae for the same issuer

I suggest that this is used instead:

• The name of the coin/banknote should show the currency unit in English.
• English plurals should be used for values greater than 1.

Using English would also avoid inconsistencies with the same coin being called differently because of the language spoken today on the territory where the coin circulated 1000 years ago. E.g.:

• Denarivs
• Dinero
• Denarius
• Denier
• Denar
• Denár

In English, this is called a “denier”. The local languages at the time when these coins were in use (Frankish, Alemannic, High German) differ from modern French, German, Spanish, etc.

Additionally, this would avoid complicated plural forms like Złote and Złotych (in English: zloty/zlotys) and difficult to understand coin names in the local language such as 

• szeląg gdański
• dwuzłotówka koronna
• półtalar wikariack
• czterotalar gdański

3. “1” in face value  (Section 4.2.1. • Face value §5)

For denominations of one unit, the numeral “1” can be mentioned or omitted. The presence of the numeral “1” should be consistent for a given issuer and a given period, and across issuers that share the same currency. It is decided by the referee(s) in charge, based on the usual practice in the literature and other sources, and by the presence of the numeral “1” on the coin as a word or numeral. Denominations different from “1” should always be included.

1. 1 Thaler
2. Thaler
3. 2 Thalers
4. Denarius
5. 1 Cash

This is not clear and very vague. Following it to the letter, the presence of “1” is decided based on:

• Usual practice in literature and
• Presence of “1” on the coin

“and” implies that both these conditions have to be simultaneously satisfied. Looking at the “1 Cash” example, it should be called “cash” because the catalogues used in the references don’t use “1” (coin is called “Jia You Tong Bao”) and there is no “1” on the coin. 

So either the coins should be renamed to follow this guideline literally, or the guideline should be changed to something that is actually helpful. 

I was told by several referees that they “prefer” to do it differently than what the guidelines actually say, so some of my contributions were entirely rejected. It is very demotivating for contributors to invest time in edits that then get rejected because referees “prefer” something else, entirely not transparent and not in line with the guidelines. As a random example, if I want to add an Austrian pfennig, and I look at the relevant section, how am I supposed to know what the referee prefers:

Contributors are unable to help in situations like the one above, because it is not clear what is expected. Letting referees decide arbitrarily results in amateur-looking situations in which the same coin has or omits the “1” in the title because two referees “prefer” to do it differently: 

• Tremissis and 1 Tremissis
• Denarius and 1 Denarius
• Denier and 1 Denaro

I believe there were at least three simple solutions offered to this issue in the past. Still, if referees are supposed to actually do whatever they want, at least delete this guideline, as the “1” on the coin and reference catalogues seem to be entirely irrelevant and contradict the examples.

4. Coin and banknote types (Sections 3.2.7. Type and 4.2.8. Type)

3.2.7. Type

Assign the coin to an appropriate category:

• Standard circulation coin: for non-commemorative coins that were issued as legal tender or could be used in regular commercial activities.
• Circulating commemorative coin: for coins that were issued for a limited time to serve as legal tender and commemorate a specific subject.
• Provisional coin: for emergency (for example, depression notgeld, siege money, etc), and temporary coins that circulated as a complement to or substitute for legal tender.
• Non-circulating coin: for coins that have a face value associated with a circulation currency, but were never intended to be used in regular commercial activities, but rather as investment or collector pieces.
• Token: for coin-like objects that were issued privately and could be used in limited commercial activities:
  • for specific products, goods, or services
  • within specific institutions, organisations or private companies
  • for specific events
• Pattern: for coins that were produced to evaluate a proposed design. These can be off-metal strikes, piedforts, essais, etc.

(…)

4.2.8. Type

Assign the banknote to an appropriate category:

• Standard circulation banknote: for non-commemorative banknotes that were issued as legal tender or could be used in regular commercial activities.
• Commemorative note: for banknotes that were issued for a limited time to serve as legal tender and commemorate a specific subject.
  • 100 Lei (Great Union)
• Provisional note: for emergency (for example, depression notgeld, siege money, etc), and temporary banknotes that circulated as a complement to or substitute for legal tender.
  • 10 Kreutzers — issued temporarily due to a shortage of small change
  • 10 Groschens — issued during the siege of Erfurt
• Non-circulating note: for banknotes that were never intended to be used in regular commercial activities, but rather as a financial reserve.
  • 10 Francs — reserve banknote
• Trial note: for banknotes that were produced to evaluate a proposed design. These can be colour trials or design trials.
  • Note that issues with the same design and physical properties (for example, proofs, specimens, replacements, and remainders) should be listed as date lines for the circulation types. Trials should be listed separately from the circulation types.

This does not reflect the types that can be selected in the drop-down lists. So, either the guidelines or the drop-down categories should be updated.

Also discussed here.

5. Composition (Section 3.3.1.)

§1 Select the composition and material(s) from the drop-down lists. For uncommon compositions that are not in the database, select “Unknown or other” and describe the composition in the “Additional details” field.

Should be just “other” as in the drop-down list.

§4 For coins containing less than 50% silver, select “billon silver” and specify the silver content in the additional details field:

Should be just “billon” as in the drop-down list.

6. Typo (Section 4.6 Comments §5):

“For literature that is in theNumista bibliography, use the…” 

There is a missing space

7a. Broken link (Section 4.2.10. Series)

• Use sentence case.
  • 1956 series

Should be updated:

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/index.php?mode=avance&ct=banknote&se=1956+Series&e=autriche

7b. Broken link (Section 3.2.9. Series)

• Swiss mountains

Should be updated:

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/index.php?mode=avance&ct=coin&se=Swiss+mountains&e=suisse

Thank you
 

Why English and not the language of the country? Your method would change Spain's “Juan Carlos” to “John Charles”. Surely that can't be acceptable? The problem in part is caused by the use of Latin but we quite happily have titles for British coins (bearing Latin inscriptions) with the local names of the rulers. Why apply a different rule to other countries?

Where I agree (in part) is your highlighting names like półtalar wikariack. Surely this should be “½ Talara”? However, there's no need to remove foreign plurals, since they can easily be understood from the rest of the text on the page.

Hello,

1. Language of ruler’s name in titles (Section 3.2.1. • Ruler’s name §4 and §5)

I agree that we should edit the guidelines and not use the language of the coin. Ruler names should not be over-anglicized though: we should use the name “Juan Carlos” rather than “John Charles” for example, and that's what the English Wikipedia is doing for example (see here). I'm not sure how we can best describe that without ambiguity. Maybe something like that:

If the ruler’s name, monogram, effigy, or personal coat of arms are present on the coin, then include the ruler’s name, separated by a spaced hyphen. The name of the ruler should be spelt as usually found in English texts.

I'd rather not use the language of the country. It may be difficult to understand for most people for medieval or ancient states, and even for modern states with very different languages, even if the name is converted to Latin script.

2. Language of the face value in titles (Section 3.2.1. • Face value §7-8)

I tend to agree that we should also use the English name (or rather: the name as commonly spelt in English texts) for face values too.

Zloty is a good example, where plurals are confusing: 1 złoty, 2 złote, 4 złote, 5 złotych, 14 złotych, 24 złote, 2.5 złotego.

It's also a good example because there seem to be no consensus on the English spelling: mainly zloty (but we also find złoty) for the singluar; zloty, zlotys, or zlotych for the plural. See Merriam-Webster, Encyclopædia Britannica, Wikipedia.

3. “1” in face value  (Section 4.2.1. • Face value §5)

The “and” should be understood as a list of factors for decision, not as a strict logical “and”.

Anyway I agree that the rule is ambiguous and can lead to inconsistency and frustration. I don't have a better solution for the moment.

4. Coin and banknote types (Sections 3.2.7. Type and 4.2.8. Type)

We should align the types in the guidelines and in the catalogue.
It is also discussed more recently on the referee forum here. 

5. Composition (Section 3.3.1.)

I changed to “other” and “billon”.
I still need to implement the possibility to indicate the silver fineness in billon coins.

6. Typo (Section 4.6 Comments §5):

Fixed

7a. Broken link (Section 4.2.10. Series)

Fixed

7b. Broken link (Section 3.2.9. Series)

Fixed

You're going to find it very difficult to enforce the guideline “spelt as usually found in English texts” since there is inevitably a variety of spellings to be found, each with their own vociferous proponents. On the other hand, the guideline “using the local language” is easy to enforce and generally unambiguous. We could run into issues where the spelling in the local language has changed since the coin was issued but these are not going to dominate the listings.

With regard to złoty, this is a good example of how inconsistent the use in English is, hence the advantage of using the local form. Just because English and French have simple plurals, let's not “dumb down” the catalogue by ignoring those languages which have more complex systems. I'd be particularly disappointed to see this coin changed from “2 Maloti” to “2 Lotis” but that's where this guideline would seem to lead us.

ceh2019

Why English and not the language of the country? Your method would change Spain's “Juan Carlos” to “John Charles”. Surely that can't be acceptable? The problem in part is caused by the use of Latin but we quite happily have titles for British coins (bearing Latin inscriptions) with the local names of the rulers. Why apply a different rule to other countries?

Where I agree (in part) is your highlighting names like półtalar wikariack. Surely this should be “½ Talara”? However, there's no need to remove foreign plurals, since they can easily be understood from the rest of the text on the page.

This is the same coin as this

N#186018
 https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikariatsmünzen_(Sachsen)

I am all in! 

And we should change the Ukrainian hryvnia-hryvnias (not hryvni, hryven); kopiyka-kopiykas (not kopiyky, kopiyok). I have had these arguments for a long time.

Hello, 

Thank you for the fixes

Xavier

1. Language of ruler’s name in titles (Section 3.2.1. • Ruler’s name §4 and §5)

I agree that we should edit the guidelines and not use the language of the coin. Ruler names should not be over-anglicized though: we should use the name “Juan Carlos” rather than “John Charles” for example, and that's what the English Wikipedia is doing for example (see here). I'm not sure how we can best describe that without ambiguity. Maybe something like that:

If the ruler’s name, monogram, effigy, or personal coat of arms are present on the coin, then include the ruler’s name, separated by a spaced hyphen. The name of the ruler should be spelt as usually found in English texts.

 

I'd rather not use the language of the country. It may be difficult to understand for most people for medieval or ancient states, and even for modern states with very different languages, even if the name is converted to Latin script.

I'm not sure where the idea that Juan Carlos I is John Charles I in English comes from. I can't find any reference of this. In English, he is Juan Carlos I.

To clarify, in English means the common form used in contemporary English works of general reference (encyclopedias, periodicals, biographies, etc.) In English does not necessarily mean anglicised. 

For minor rulers, it will be impossible to find a general reference, as some are only known from coins. In general, pre-19th century names are anglicised. In the mid-1800s, there is a transition period and then we have people like Wilhelm II and Juan Carlos I. Today, some names are still anglicised, such as popes: Francis, and not Franciscvs. This practice is related to the use of a lingua franca for international affairs and in religious services, usually Greek or Latin. 

So to clarify the guideline, it could be:

If the ruler’s name, monogram, effigy, or personal coat of arms are present on the coin, then include the ruler’s name, separated by a spaced hyphen. The name of the ruler should be the common form used in general references written in contemporary English. If general references are not available or sources are conflicting, then use an anglicised form for pre-19th century names.

I also suggest that Section 2.3. §5 should be updated  accordingly.

2. Language of the face value in titles (Section 3.2.1. • Face value §7-8)

I tend to agree that we should also use the English name (or rather: the name as commonly spelt in English texts) for face values too.

Zloty is a good example, where plurals are confusing: 1 złoty, 2 złote, 4 złote, 5 złotych, 14 złotych, 24 złote, 2.5 złotego.

It's also a good example because there seem to be no consensus on the English spelling: mainly zloty (but we also find złoty) for the singluar; zloty, zlotys, or zlotych for the plural. See Merriam-Webster, Encyclopædia Britannica, Wikipedia.

In Section 2.5. there is also this mention:

All currencies are listed in English in the database, according to the main listings (not alternative forms) of Oxford English Dictionary and Wiktionary.com.

I think this paragraph should be moved above 2.5.1., as it is talking about currencies in general, not just currency splits.

My idea behind this paragraph is to use OED as the primary source. However, OED is not freely accessible, so Wiktionary is an accessible alternative. When there are conflicts between these sources, I think the OED should take precedence. So this guideline (3.2.1) could be rephrased:

• The name of the coin should show the currency unit in English, according to the main listings (not alternative forms) of the Oxford English Dictionary and Wiktionary.com.
• English plurals should be used for values greater than 1. If multiple plural forms are accepted, the first form listed in the Oxford English Dictionary should be preferred.

Another argument against local languages are countries with more than one official language. For example using German, French, or Italian for Swiss coins would be problematic. Same goes for other countries, Belgium, Canada, and most multi-ethnic empires.

For reference, the OED entry for zloty:

3. “1” in face value  (Section 4.2.1. • Face value §5)

The “and” should be understood as a list of factors for decision, not as a strict logical “and”.

Anyway I agree that the rule is ambiguous and can lead to inconsistency and frustration. I don't have a better solution for the moment.

What are the deciding factors for choosing to use “1” for the last example in the guidelines?

And what are the issues with the three+ solutions that were offered before? Maybe if you explain this, then we can help to find a working solution to this issue:

4. Coin and banknote types (Sections 3.2.7. Type and 4.2.8. Type)

We should align the types in the guidelines and in the catalogue.
It is also discussed more recently on the referee forum here. 

Okay sorry, I don't have access to this.

I'm happy with these changes for the spelling of rulers and face value.

ceh2019, I don't think we “dumb down” the catalogue by using the spelling recommended by the Oxford English Dictionnary.

The question is more about choosing between using English consistently on the whole catalogue or using a mix of English and other languages.

I just have 2 minor concerns with the last draft of guidelines:

• Access to the Oxford English Dictionnary is paying ($100 or £100 per year). If a majority of contributors and referees can't access it, it will be difficult to enforce the guidelines.
  For example I can check that the plural of loti is maloti according to the Wiktionary and Merriam-Webster, but I personally can't check the Oxford English Dictionnary. This is an issue since these sources differ for some plurals like the plural of zloty.
• Can we specify the rule “If general references are not available or sources are conflicting, then use an anglicised form for pre-19th century names.”? I fear it might be ambiguous. Does it mean we "anglicised the names of people dead (or born? or started to rule?) in year 1800 or before"? And what about later rulers? Should we use the native language of the ruler? or the (primary) local language of the ruled state? I guess anyway there should be “general references” for most rulers after 1800.

I had a change request with thosand sepperators for value and translated lettering (like 1,000 yen).

Right now only the use for titles is describes in the guidelines could we add the other fields too?

Xavier

• Access to the Oxford English Dictionnary is paying ($100 or £100 per year). If a majority of contributors and referees can't access it, it will be difficult to enforce the guidelines.
  For example I can check that the plural of loti is maloti according to the Wiktionary and Merriam-Webster, but I personally can't check the Oxford English Dictionnary. This is an issue since these sources differ for some plurals like the plural of zloty.

I think Wiktionary can be a good secondary reference for quick checks, but it may have some consistency issues as a primary source. Merriam-Webster is primarily based on American English (e.g. catalog, not catalogue) and plural forms may differ.

I think OED is the most robust and stable source in these matters. Here are the entries for loti and maloti, for example:

Indeed OED is not free, but a copy should be available in most libraries and universities. I also think it's not a source that needs to be checked by referees on a daily basis, and the community should be able to help.

Alternatively, for British English, Collins is free, as well as Lexico, which is based on the Oxford Dictionary of English (different to the OED). However, these dictionaries and Merriam Webster are, in my opinion, unsuitable because they are missing a lot of more obscure currencies. E.g. mouton, nummus, angel, lion, rider, mariengroschen, radiate are very detailed in OED, but are mostly missing from the others, except Wiktionary.  

I originally included Wiktionary also because in certain respects, it is even more complete than OED. For example, it has an entry for luigino, victoriatus, dodrans, centenionalis, etc., which are missing from the OED. 

I think it would be okay to recommend only Wiktionary for its completeness and skip OED. Wiktionary is also a collaborative project like Numista. 

• Can we specify the rule “If general references are not available or sources are conflicting, then use an anglicised form for pre-19th century names.”? I fear it might be ambiguous. Does it mean we "anglicised the names of people dead (or born? or started to rule?) in year 1800 or before"? And what about later rulers? Should we use the native language of the ruler? or the (primary) local language of the ruled state? I guess anyway there should be “general references” for most rulers after 1800.

I can't think of any example of a ruler post-1800, or even 1700,  who cannot be found in press or encyclopaediae. And if there is some obscure micronation prince, the practice post 19th century varies, and some names are still translated, e.g. Victor Emmanuel III and all the popes. So I would leave this open to interpretation because I think cases will be very rare and I wouldn't know what to recommend. The threshold could be more specific:

If general references are not available or sources are conflicting, then use the anglicised form for rulers born before 1900.

Idolenz

I had a change request with thosand sepperators for value and translated lettering (like 1,000 yen).

Right now only the use for titles is describes in the guidelines could we add the other fields too?

The guideline for thousand dividers is in section 1.2 and applies to every field in Numista.

There are also guidelines for the face value field in section 3.2.5 §4.

• The currency should be specified in English. Note that even if the currency unit is in a foreign language in the title and on the coin, the face value field should always use the English name:
  • 5 Pounds (note that the currency is called “livre” on the coin)
  • 1 Shilling (note that the currency is called “solidus” on the coin)

I think this should also be updated if the titles switch to English:

• The currency should be specified in English, according to the main listings (not alternative forms) of Wiktionary.
• English plurals should be used for values greater than 1. If multiple plural forms are accepted, the first form listed by Wiktionary should be preferred.
  • 5 Pounds

Xavier

ceh2019, I don't think we “dumb down” the catalogue by using the spelling recommended by the Oxford English Dictionnary.

The question is more about choosing between using English consistently on the whole catalogue or using a mix of English and other languages.

We dumb down by insisting on the use of a single language at the exclusion of the local language. The OED may respect the local forms of some names but it doesn't cover everything. We should use a single language (at the moment English or French) for the descriptive elements (design, metal, colour, etc.), the local language for names (denominations and people) and digits for numbers. It's a completely foolproof method that is consistent by design and as inclusive as possible. Any other method is inevitably going to cause endless arguments about what is and is not “English”. Here we are told that “Juan Carlos” is English but I'll bet the same person would be adamant that Carlos III of Spain should be called "Charles III". This method simply invites such inconsistency.

I would like to add another suggestion:

For Banknotes Section 4.8 :

Each distinct combination of date, printer, type of issue, and design variety should be recorded on a variety line. The same date may appear on multiple lines, for each mint, design variety, and type of strike (proof, regular, etc).

should read:

Each distinct combination of date, printer, type of issue, and design variety should be recorded on a variety line. The same date may appear on multiple lines, for each printer, design variety, and type of issue (specimen, regular, etc).

I think this was partly copied from coins but does not apply to banknotes

Thank you

I would like to add another suggestion, to add guidelines for registering past auction sales. 

Maybe there could be a link to this section at the top of the “Register a sale” form

5. Register a sale

Fields marked with an asterisk [*] are compulsory.

5.1. Sale details

5.1.1. URL of the page describing the lot*

• The link should point to a specific lot (not to multiple lots).

• Preferably, the link should point to the lot in the auction house archive. Alternatively, links to bidding websites, such as Sixbids or Numisbids are also allowed.

• If the lot was sold, the sale price should preferably be freely visible on the linked page without requiring registration. Prices may also need to be checked on separate results sheets when they are not displayed on the lot page.

5.1.2. Auction house *

• Select the auction house from the drop-down list. Only auction houses that have given permission to Numista are available in the list.      

5.1.3. Auction *

• Select the auction from the drop-down list. If the auction is missing, request it on the forum.

5.1.4. Auction date *

• Verify that the auction date is correct and change it if necessary.

• For auctions that span multiple days, pick the day when the specific lot was auctioned.

5.1.5. Lot number

• Specify the lot number.

5.1.6. Lot pictures *

• Upload up to five photos.

• Only use the auction house catalogue photographs. 

• Only add photos of the specific coin type or variety if the lot contains multiple pieces.

• Photographs showing the obverse and reverse together should be split.  

• The first and second photos should be the best obverse and reverse photos available. The subsequent photos may show the edge, grading slab, or other details.

5.1.7. Sold status

• Tick the “The lot was unsold.” box if there were no bids, the reserve was not met, or the lot was withdrawn before the auction.

• Tick the “The lot contains several items.” box if there were several items in the lot. Do not divide the sale price to the number of pieces in the lot, even if all pieces are of the same type, variety, and grade .

5.1.7. Sold currency *

• Verify that the auction currency is correct and change it if necessary.

5.1.7. Sold price *

• Specify the sale price as it appears on the linked page. This is usually the hammer price and does not include auction fees. 

• If the sale price as it appears on the linked page includes the auction fees, tick the box “The price includes buyer's premium.” Do not attempt to calculate and include the auction fees if they are not readily included on the linked page.

5.2. Identification

5.2.1. Version *

• Pick the date or variety from the drop-down list.

5.2.1. Grade

• Select the grade as specified in the lot description.

• If the description does not include a grade, do not attempt to grade the item yourself.

• For items with different grades for the obverse and reverse, select the lower grade.

• For in-between grades, select the highest whole grade below the in-between grade:

  ⸰ VF-XF → VF

  ⸰ about XF → VF

  ⸰ almost XF → VF

  ⸰ nearly XF → VF

  ⸰ VF+ → VF

  ⸰ XF– → VF

• Use the following conversion table to correlate grades to the American Numismatic Association scale:

or

• Proof coins in mint state should be recorded as UNC.

5.2.2. Grade details

• Specify additional details that are relevant to the sale price. Only specify information that is present in the lot description:

  ⸰ independent coin grades for slabbed coins:

    -   NGC AU58 Details

    -   NGC AU Strike 4/5, Surface 3/5

    -   ANACS PF64 RB

    -   PCGS SP66 BN

  ⸰ in-between grades or grades that cannot be selected at step 5.2.1.

    -   about XF, nearly CF

    -   poor, choice UNC, gem UNC 

  ⸰ damage, flaws, plugs, corrosion, bends, scratches

  ⸰ any traces of cleaning, tooling, graffiti, mounts, or former mounts

  ⸰ patina, lustre

  ⸰ adjustment marks

  ⸰ minting defects

    -   die crack, double die, weak strike, worn die

  ⸰ minting errors

• Specify the additional details in English/the language of the lot description (?)

• Keep the details concise. The grade details can consist of up to 50 characters.

Your excel table looks to me like they are just translations with the grades being the same, the biggest problem is that the grades do not align which can lead to misunderstandings.

See THIS old thread about this topic.

Idolenz

Your excel table looks to me like they are just translations with the grades being the same, the biggest problem is that the grades do not align which can lead to misunderstandings.

See THIS old thread about this topic.

Yes good point, that's why it would be good to have some guidelines for this. 

I proposed another version above, but there's no perfect solution.

I have another suggestion, for 4.4.3 Designer (obverse and reverse) and 3.4.3. Designer (obverse and reverse). The addition of the following paragraph:

• Also include the names of artists who conceived only portions of the design, even if originally not intended to be used on a coin/banknote. The original design may be any two-dimensional representation, such as a painting, drawing, photograph, print, or animation (designers of three-dimensional objects, such as buildings or sculptures represented on coins/banknotes should not be included, but they can be specified in the description).

⸰  Rudolf Junk , Josef Seger 

     note that Rudolf Junk conceived the design of the entire banknote, and Josef Seger only authored the portrait in the rectangular frame.

⸰   Ferdinand Hodler

     note that Ferdinand Hodler did not paint The Mower (Der Mäher) specifically for the Swiss banknote.

⸰   Rembrandt van Rijn

     note that Rembrandt's painting was not originally intended to be used on a coin.

I am proposing this because the current practice is not consistent. For example, in the last example, Rembrandt is specified as the engraver, whereas he should probably be the designer.

Often, the original designers of a motif that appears on coins/banknotes are not specified. However, I think authorship is important, even if the work has entered the public domain. You've probably read about the case of a plagiarised coin design after a photograph.