Belgian Congo, twice km#4 [επιλυμένο]

Issuer versus country makes it possible to have the same KM# for two different coins, which is bad in a catalog, right?

How is this possible?

Correct:

Another country (Ruanda-Burundi)!!!!

I searched for KM# 1 and found 428 results. KM# 4 only has 388.

KM numbers are issued for each country as identified by Krause. When Numista uses a different country organization (or even a different country name) from Krause the designation should be “KM(country)# …” instead of just “KM# …”. Otherwise the reference number doesn't allow the coin to be found in Krause catalogs.

One example is United Kingdom – if you look for United Kingdom in Krause you won't find it. (In the 1901-2001 book the country index mentioned United Kingdoms, but that's Saudia Arabia.) But there are other cases where the name is different (many in German States) – I've added comments in some places explaining the Krause KM country for the reference.

I agree KM reference number is not really useful as it is.

It should represent which volume and country is this number coming from.

We have same issue for many catalogues though, not only KM. Everytime a catalogue restarts numbering for issuers or rulers, and when Numista does not attribute coins to same issuer or ruler…

Sometimes we use “4 p. 59” for instance to tackle this issue, but it wouldnt work for a series like KM

I don't think volume would be useful for KM. There are few cases where the catalog number differ per volume if you stick to the recent printed volumes. And no conflict errors if you use numismaster.com which has the most updated numbers and no volume split.

A worse volume issue is the decision to combine Helmut Kahnt, Günter Schön; 2016. Weltmünzkatalog / 19. Jahrhundert: 1801-1900 with the Gerhard Schön catalogs. The Schön numbers haven't been added for Bolivia, but Schön 1901 # 1-6 are Kahnt/Schön# 114-120. Schön# 38 would refer to both KM# 204 and KM# 111 because Kannt and Schön are merged.

I have been a contributor to the km catalogs, so I know how the numbering system works. No country had the same km# used twice for two different coins….. Now numista is confusing issuers and countries and runs straight into such a stupid problem, which a normal collector not reorganizing his collection according to the whims of numista, will suffer from. The logic behind it's not very clear, but it's hugely annoying!

I think we need to enhance our reference system by adding 2 additional text fields - one before the number and one after the number to cover most of possible cases

Additionally we will need to re-design reference block to have 1 reference per line (and maybe show only first 3 reference and have rest of them hidden by default with expand content button)

I know it will be not easy to do taking into account current DB model. 

ArsenEverlast

I think we need to enhance our reference system by adding 2 additional text fields - one before the number and one after the number to cover most of possible cases

 

 

Additionally we will need to re-design reference block to have 1 reference per line (and maybe show only first 3 reference and have rest of them hidden by default with expand content button)

I know it will be not easy to do taking into account current DB model. 

Yeah, that would be ideal, but it will increase by a lot the volume of work to just add one new catalogue

In the meantime I think using comments is enough (it's what we do for KM different countries often now)

Actually, the second coin on the original post belongs under “Belgian Congo and Rwanda-Burundi”

Some_Nerd

Actually, the second coin on the original post belongs under “Belgian Congo and Rwanda-Burundi”

That's it, simply a mix-up in countries and issuers.

Sjoelund

Some_Nerd

Actually, the second coin on the original post belongs under “Belgian Congo and Rwanda-Burundi”

That's it, simply a mix-up in countries and issuers.

Not at all, just a coin assigned to the wrong issuer, which is now fixed :-)

Compendium

Sjoelund

Some_Nerd

Actually, the second coin on the original post belongs under “Belgian Congo and Rwanda-Burundi”

That's it, simply a mix-up in countries and issuers.

Not at all, just a coin assigned to the wrong issuer, which is now fixed :-)

I just tried, and it's not fixed, or do I have to wait for the nightly updates?

Maybe for some functions

N#6465

Anyway, Krause is dead, more few years and “km#” will be just a faint memory.

Geison

Anyway, Krause is dead, more few years and “km#” will be just a faint memory.

Searching 2023 finds 2458 coins with KM numbers on numismaster.com. And 2024 already returns 449. Some results are hits from “KM# 2023” coins, but most results were for coins dated 2023.

Sjoelund

I have been a contributor to the km catalogs, so I know how the numbering system works. No country had the same km# used twice for two different coins….. Now numista is confusing issuers and countries and runs straight into such a stupid problem, which a normal collector not reorganizing his collection according to the whims of numista, will suffer from. The logic behind it's not very clear, but it's hugely annoying!

 

 

Agree..100% correct..

Adzi

Sjoelund

I have been a contributor to the km catalogs, so I know how the numbering system works. No country had the same km# used twice for two different coins….. Now numista is confusing issuers and countries and runs straight into such a stupid problem, which a normal collector not reorganizing his collection according to the whims of numista, will suffer from. The logic behind it's not very clear, but it's hugely annoying!

 

 

Agree..100% correct..

Please give specific examples, general talk does not help to understand precise issues :-)

Compendium

Adzi

Sjoelund

I have been a contributor to the km catalogs, so I know how the numbering system works. No country had the same km# used twice for two different coins….. Now numista is confusing issuers and countries and runs straight into such a stupid problem, which a normal collector not reorganizing his collection according to the whims of numista, will suffer from. The logic behind it's not very clear, but it's hugely annoying!

 

 

Agree..100% correct..

Please give specific examples, general talk does not help to understand precise issues :-)

My first message…….

Sjoelund

Compendium

Adzi

Sjoelund

I have been a contributor to the km catalogs, so I know how the numbering system works. No country had the same km# used twice for two different coins….. Now numista is confusing issuers and countries and runs straight into such a stupid problem, which a normal collector not reorganizing his collection according to the whims of numista, will suffer from. The logic behind it's not very clear, but it's hugely annoying!

 

 

Agree..100% correct..

Please give specific examples, general talk does not help to understand precise issues :-)

My first message…….

Was soĺved by the fact one coin was in the wrong issuer I believe.

Another one?

No, I don't search for errors in numista, if I find some irregularity according to me, I report it, that's all😉

Sjoelund

No, I don't search for errors in numista, if I find some irregularity according to me, I report it, that's all😉

Ok perfect, as this one is solved, if you find other issues please create a new thread :-)

I think it would be good to take advantage of this Topic to correctly locate all the coins of this issuer. In addition to the already corrected 1 Franc, the following coins should be included in this issuer "Belgian Congo and Ruanda-Urundi". 

50 Centimes - Belgian Congo (1908-1960) – Numista

5 Francs - Belgian Congo (1908-1960) – Numista

5 Francs - Belgian Congo (1908-1960) – Numista

It would also be good to include in this issuer the Period "Administrative union (1952-1962)" and assign it to these 4 coins of the issuer. I have tried to do it myself, but since no Period is assigned to this issuer, I thought it would be better for a Catalog Administrator to do it all. 

Thank you so much