Numista coin numbers [επιλυμένο]

What do you think about Numista starting its own numbering system for coins?
Numista has a lot of coins that Krause doesn’t list. Some new ones and some old ones. Numista has the largest database of coins, so it only makes sense that we have our own numbering system. We use a lot of catalog number systems, but none list all the coins.
I have a lot of coins that have no KM# on them. With our numbering system, each coin would have a number on it.

Definitely like it, imagine a world where numismatists and collectors use N#, instead of KM#!

I disagree, we are far away to be any numismatic source which is taken seriously in the numismatic world.
Some information such yes maybe can only be found here which is great, still to be taken more seriously we still have a long way to go.
Who knows, in 10-20 years maybe.

Each coin type has its number already, just look at the address of any coin page.

While I am positively inclined, Apuking is right on this one. It might work on some issuers but with others we are still miles behind.

Since I can only add regular catalogue numbering and not something special, what could be in the page corner for example, I fear this will be put on hold.

Should lack of name recognition really be a limiting factor in Numista's development? At what point would you say Numista's catalog has developed sufficiently to be "taken seriously in the numismatic world?"

What makes a catalog good/bad? Well, a lot of stuff:
- how well it covers existing items and their variants (i.e. % of coverage)
- how accurate the information is
- how well the information is organized
- what type of information is provided (description, physical characteristics, pictures, prices, etc)
- consistency of presentation
- how easy the items and their variants are to identify and look up
- how easy submitting error reports and new information is, how long processing takes, and how soon the changes show up in the catalog

One has to recognize that no catalog is perfect. Anyone who has been involved with coins more than casually will tell you that even KM is far from complete, has quite a few errors, and only offers very basic info. Yet, that doesn't stop it from being the #1 source for identifying world coins. Is it because it's "taken seriously in the numismatic world" or just because it has been around for decades and seemingly everyone knows the name?

The Problem of Krause is a much bigger Problem for us as we cover the whole lot. At the Moment we might be quite good with modern coins dated after 1800 or so but for the rest we are still miles behind.

Krause for sure is a useful tool but to have any numismatic Depth you Need the smaller books written for single places and often only for for a certain time-line.

Our catalogue for sure is improving but is still lacking in too many Areas.

The strength of Numista is that we can have the Information for everyone to see at anytime.
That it is growing with us users and it is constantly developing.
That we can list Information from all Kind of Sources, not only from one biased view.
as Numista we certainly have a meaning but I don't think it is to be a numismatic reference yet, in 10 years who knows.

I'm the Referee on the German States and I constantly add new coins to the German States catalogue. 7203 coins we have now in for the German States and yet I think we are at About 5% completion Maybe very slightly higher.
If we take medieval coins, Islamic and Antiquities they are all very vast and we are probably at less than 1% completion there.

Let's enjoy Numista, use it for what it is but also let's continue to enhance and improve it.

I agree we could have our own numbering system, #N.

It would help those like me who maintain the collection based on Numista and needs an ID to every coin.

Whether or not we get the "market" recognition now or in the future, it is a excellent feature to be added.

Απόσπασμα: "numinis"​Each coin type has its number already, just look at the address of any coin page.

​I have already been taking advantage of this for a few years now. It's actually quite helpful.

Απόσπασμα: "Cerulean"​

Απόσπασμα: "numinis"​Each coin type has its number already, just look at the address of any coin page.

​​I have already been taking advantage of this for a few years now. It's actually quite helpful.

​I also use it. Each year also has its own number.

How about trying at least with tokens and Exonumia? What harm can come out of it? There may be some lessons to be learned with such approach before moving toward regular coins.

Numista number would be great!, especially for the entries which are not listed in any other catalogs.

But to be taken seriously by the numismatic community, I think the key is to be very rigorous about referencing the information. For modern issues it is easily done with a KM# number. But for most patterns, essays, medieval varieties and ancients, there should be a clear reference to a book with page no, to a research article, or to an auction (date and lot#) from a reputable auction house.

Glad to bumped this thread becuase there has been an idea running through my head lately.

One issue, I imagine, is that once a Numista Number is assigned, it should not be changed. New coins are added all the time, and if the numbers are constantly shifted, Numista would constantly out-date itself.

So what if the various issuers were given their own edition of Numista Numbers?

Otherwise saying:

If the numbering system were implemented right now, every country would be assigned an NC I#. For some countries (hopefully many countries), that will be good enough. Like Kraków, for example: they had five coins. That country is complete. An NC I# is all that place would need.

Now, take a place like Mogadishu. They only have two coins listed, but they have had quite a few more. If new coins are listed between/before the two existing ones, they would have to all have a we-forgot-this-coin-so-we-will-just-try-to-squeeze-it-in-its-proper-place number. Let's call those... Correction Numbers. If someone comes along and completes Mogadishu, there may be a lot of Correction Numbers, which would look quite... ugly.

So then Mogadishu could apply for an NC II numbering system--all coins are assigned new numbers (with no Correction Numbers) so the ugliness just goes away.

And of course, just because Mogadishu is on NC II, Kraków can still be on NC I. Another country may be on, say... NC VII as well. The numbered prefixes are independant of the issuer.

With that being said, to still avoid out-dating, the pages would have to retain a history of all NC numbers. I imagine that, in the country in question, there would be a search-box for NC numbers, with the most modern edition set as the default. But there should also be a drop-down to chose to search in a previous edition of the Numista numbers.

And I do think there should be a way to manually add multiple Numista numbers to a page, if this system is put into place. The reason for that is for merging/deleting pages. If a page is deleted, odds are, it is because there is either a duplicate somewhere or two pages must be merged. But if one searches the number for a deleted page, a result should still be shown--preferably the page in which the number has been merged with. So one page may have two NC I#s to compensate for the deleted page.

And... yea. I think that is everything. Thank you for reading!

Numista is not yet prepared for such thing for so many reasons.

Rather than thinking of reasons why it can't/shouldn't be done, let's talk about some of the challenges the new catalog system would need to address. For example:
1. It should not require that the catalog be 100% complete, i.e. it should allow for future expansion and gaps in sequences (in case a duplicate is removed)
2. How catalog codes would be assigned/generated. Some kind of combination of data points (country/issuer/number/etc)? Sequentially assigned or just a randomly generated alphanumeric string?
3. It should provide a clear definition of how deep it goes into listing various variants/sub-types and offer a consistent naming convention for how they would be differenciated. Is it by composition/design only? A separate number for every year? Would it support die varieties? Error coins?

When it comes to abstract and hard to measure concepts like "recognition by the numismatic community", they are completely irrelevant for the purpose of this. Every numismatic catalog's author invents a new system to suit their own needs. Acceptance by the masses comes with time, as others start using and referencing the new system, either because it's more convenient, or because there is no better alternative.

Still new to Numista, but here are my thoughts:

@Houseofham all great points! In general, I think inconsistent numbering is not a problem. Krause also has it, they also sometimes use numbers from other catalogs (e.g. davenport). And anyway in an online catalog should focus on the ease of using the search box, unlike in a book, where you would physically browse pages so it can be frustrating if numbers are out of sequence.

2. A unique number for every coin, regardless of the issuer would be great. Then you just type it in the search box and the coin pops up. Otherwise if you search for N#12 you will have 200 coins showing up for all the different issuers.
So e.g. N#US16520 will take me directly to the penny I am looking for. A sequential numbering system with a 2/3 letter country code at the beginning would serve the purpose well I think

3. A digital system should be flexible to accommodate the needs of all collectors.
eg. the numbers could be N#FR1234.56.7.8
N# = Numista reference code
FR = issuer code
1234 = type #
.56 = design variation / composition #
.7 = mint mark #
.8 = die variety / error #
Then collectors who only collect by type would only use the first part of the number, but someone who collects ancients by die variety can go all the way to the last digit.

How about patterns, trial strikes, piedforts, proofs, specimens, essais, bullion non-circulating coins etc? Maybe there could be an indication in the code of the type of coin.

@Sulfur, although I think non-sequential numbering is not a problem, I think it would still be nice to have it. Maybe for more conservative collectors who prefer print-outs, for physical archives etc.
Your system sounds neat, this is an alternative:
Let’s say there are 12 coins for an issuer initially:
#10
#20
#30
…
#120
When later a missing coin should go between #20 and #30:
...
#20
#25 ⬅
#30
...
Later, if another coin needs to go between #20 and #25:
...
#20
#22 ⬅
#25
…
It’s a matter of including enough redundant zeros to accommodate for the missing coins. If you anticipate 100 missing entries between any two consecutive coins:
100
200
300
...
Then later add:
...
200
250 ⬅
300
…
Then:
...
200
225 ⬅
250
…
Always add it in the middle, like in divide et impera recursive algorithms. I see some advantages and disadvantages in both systems, this one is sorted, but with gaps and not very compact.

Regards

Hello,

I believe it's really time to have Numista numbers to reference coins, banknotes and exonumia.

I'm not convinced by any solution involving a meaningful number. Even if we leave space between numbers, we will inevitably run into some cases where we will lack space for unforeseen coins and we will need to either renumber or give up on the logical order.
Also, changes on the country list occur quite often on Numista, and it would mess up the numbers each time.

Having a non-meaningful number still fits the main purpose of having a reference number: be able to uniquely identify a type of coin, for instance to take note on a coin holder, for a numismatic study, or when selling a coin.

In the coming weeks, I'll start displaying the ID (as seen in the URL) on the pages of each coin, banknote and piece of exonumia.
For example, this uncertain Merovingian denier will be listed with the number N# 194033.

Απόσπασμα: "Xavier"​Hello,
​
​I believe it's really time to have Numista numbers to reference coins, banknotes and exonumia.
​
​I'm not convinced by any solution involving a meaningful number. Even if we leave space between numbers, we will inevitably run into some cases where we will lack space for unforeseen coins and we will need to either renumber or give up on the logical order.
​Also, changes on the country list occur quite often on Numista, and it would mess up the numbers each time.
​
​Having a non-meaningful number still fits the main purpose of having a reference number: be able to uniquely identify a type of coin, for instance to take note on a coin holder, for a numismatic study, or when selling a coin.
​
​In the coming weeks, I'll start displaying the ID (as seen in the URL) on the pages of each coin, banknote and piece of exonumia.
​For example, this uncertain Merovingian denier will be listed with the number N# 194033.

​Man this will be some work for a lot of us to update our collections but I really look forward to it and definitely think its a step in the right direction.

Matt

Απόσπασμα: "Xavier"​I'm not convinced by any solution involving a meaningful number. Even if we leave space between numbers, we will inevitably run into some cases where we will lack space for unforeseen coins and we will need to either renumber or give up on the logical order.
​Also, changes on the country list occur quite often on Numista, and it would mess up the numbers each time.
​
​Having a non-meaningful number still fits the main purpose of having a reference number: be able to uniquely identify a type of coin, for instance to take note on a coin holder, for a numismatic study, or when selling a coin.

I understand how difficult creating a numbering system would be, but while non-meangingful numbers may be the easiest solution, I do not think it is the best solution.

I imagine that, whatever system we have, it would be best to give different numbers for the different sections (NC#, NB#, and NE#, or something like that). However, if we were to go with a non-meaningful system, all numbers would be mixed, with the first banknote being #201000. And if we were to have Numista numbers, I imagine it should be made to help people catalogue their collection, but non-meaningful numbers kind of defeats the purpose of cataloguing (systematically listing items).

With that being said, while non-meaningful numbers would not help with cataloguing, they could help with referencing; however, if someone wanted to do that, they could just take the number from the URL without us calling that number a Numista number (like what I have seen auction houses do with Zeno.ru pages). So... I do not see much benefit there either. Anyone can take a number to reference us by, but a system we create should be to catalogue.

Honestly, if we were to make a non-meaningful system out of the URL numbers, I would actually prefer no numbering system at all. Implementing a numbering system would be a very big thing, but if it is just the URL numbers, I really do not see the point.

-----

Also, because the catalogue constantly changes, I do not think a system that allows renumbering would be a bad thing (assuming every number does not need to be manually redone, at least). As mentioned in my above post, I still think allowing the 'Numista number edition' to vary by country (like being on NC I# in one country but on NC III# in another) would be the best solution here.

And while country splitting/combining would definitely be a problem, this would be a problem in any meaningful numbering system. If we got a meaningful system, we could implement it slowly, applying it only to countries that are probably done being split/combined (and there are quite a few of those).

Απόσπασμα: "Xavier"​I'm not convinced by any solution involving a meaningful number. Even if we leave space between numbers, we will inevitably run into some cases where we will lack space for unforeseen coins and we will need to either renumber or give up on the logical order.
​Also, changes on the country list occur quite often on Numista, and it would mess up the numbers each time.
​
​Having a non-meaningful number still fits the main purpose of having a reference number: be able to uniquely identify a type of coin, for instance to take note on a coin holder, for a numismatic study, or when selling a coin.
​
​In the coming weeks, I'll start displaying the ID (as seen in the URL) on the pages of each coin, banknote and piece of exonumia.
​For example, this uncertain Merovingian denier will be listed with the number N# 194033.

​This is great to hear! many months have passed since I made that proposal, and now I'm actually of the opinion that the ID is the way to go.

Items are even moved between coins, banknotes and exonumia, so I think anything else on top of the ID will complicate things.

Just something I might have mentioned before: if we expect these to be stable reference numbers, there should be a redirecting mechanism for deleted coin IDs. Maybe when master referees delete a coin they have to put in the redirection ID, and only Xavier can delete without redirecting.

The whole discussion about an own Numista reference numbering system started mostly because of the bankruptcy of the publisher of the Krause catalogs and therefore the absence of new KM# numbers. But NumisMaster, the database behind the Krause catalogs is still (or again) alive. There are already even new KM# numbers for a few 2021 coins:
- Macau, 20 Patacas 2021, Year of the Ox, KM# 188 (https://numismaster.com/?id=1853989)
- Macau, 100 Patacas 2021, Year of the Ox, KM# 189 (https://numismaster.com/?id=1853990)
- Macau, 500 Patacas 2021, Year of the Ox, KM# 190 (https://numismaster.com/?id=1853991)

I don't know if this also means we can expect new editions of the Krause catalogs, but at least it means the Krause reference numbering system isn't dead yet.

This is an onld post, so it's way before banknotes were added and exonumia were separated, so the codes should probably be changed since NE# would fit better for Exonumia. But here goes:

Απόσπασμα: "ngdawa, Posted: 1-Jun-2019, 11:19PM"​Honestly, I had totally forgot about all this, but somehow a thought crossed my mind today and I remembered this thread.
​
​I took some 3 hours tonight to make a proposal for the Numista numbers. I mean, I just have 3 exams on Monday, so I got some time to spend on this........
​
​Anyway, I made a standard NC# (= Numista Coin Number), so that NB# (=Numista Banknote Number) can be created later on.
​I also have NT# (Numista Token Number), NE# (=Numista Essais Number), and NP# (=Numista Pattern Number). There are also some smaller additions, which probably will explain themselves, but I will make a note for clarification.
​
​I chose Algeria because......I don't know why, I just did.
​
​Anyway, I just realised I didn't include the KM#, but I'm waaaay too lazy to do it now, but they are in chronological order, so you can easily follow from SCWC 1601-1700 to SCWC 2001-date to find the coins.
​
​So here we go - and please let me know what you think.
​
​Algeria
​Mehmed III
​NC# 1 Mangir, 1595
​NC# 2 Sultani, 1595
​NC# 3 Debased dinar, 1595
​
​Ahmed I
​NC# 1:a Mangir, 1603
​NC# 2:a Sultani, 1603-1609
​NC# 2:b Sultani, 1603
​NC# 2:c Sultani, 1617
​NC# 3:a Denased dinar, 1603
​
​Mustafa I
​NC# 2:d Sultani, 1622
​
​Murad IV
​NC# 2:e Sultani, 1623-1636
​
​Ibrahim
​NC# 2:f Sultani, 1640-1642
​
​Mehmed IV
​NC# 2:g Sultani, 1648
​NC# 2:h Sultani, 1648-1681
​
​Mustafa II
​NC# 2:i Sultani, 1698
​
​Local coinage (NL# = Numista Local Coin(age) Number)
​Philip II
​NLC# 1 2 Maravedis, 1618T
​NLC# 2 4 Maravedis, 1618T
​NLC# 3 8 Maravedis, 1618T
​
​Carlos II
​NL# 2:a 4 Maravedis, 1691
​NL# 3:a 8 Maravedis, 1691
​
​Ahmed III
​NC# 4 ½ Sultani, 1730-1731
​NC# 5 Sultani, 1712-1728
​NC# 5:a Sultani 1723-1734
​
​Mahmud I
​NC# 6 ¼ Sultani, 1731-1757
​NC# 4:a ½ Sultani 1730-1754
​NC# 5:b Sultani 1730-1754
​
​Osman III
​NC# 6:a ¼ Sultani, 1754-1757
​NC# 4:b ½ Sultani, 1754-1757
​NC# 5:c Sultani, 1754-1758
​
​Mustafa III
​NC# 7 1/8 Budju (3 Mazuna), 1759-1769
​NC# 7:a 1/8 Budju (3 Mazuna), 1760-1777
​NC# 8 ¼ Budju, 1758-1759
​NC# 8:a ¼ Budju, 1759-1774
​NC# 6:b ¼ Sultani, 1757-1773
​NC# 4:c ½ Sultani, 1758
​NC# 5:d Sultani, 1757-1771
​NC# 9 ½ Zeri mahbub, 1762
​
​Abdul Hamid I
​NC# 7:b 1/8 Budju (3 Mazuna), 1774-1788
​NC# 8:b ¼ Budju, 1774-1788
​NC# 6:c ¼ Sultani, 1778-1780
​NC# 4:d ½ Sultani, 1782
​NC# 5:e Sultani, 1773-1788
​
​Selim III
​NC# 10 Fels, 1791
​NC# 7:c 1/8 Budju (3 Mazuna), 1785-1800
​NC# 8:c ¼ Budju, 1789-1800
​NC# 11 ½ Budju, 1791-1800
​NC# 6:d ¼ Sultani, 1794-1799
​NC# 4:e ½ Sultani, 1800
​NC# 5:f Sultani, 1788-1800
​NC# 10:a Fels, 181x
​NC# 7:d 1/8 Budju (3 Mazuna), 1800-1805
​NC# 7:e 1/8 Budju (3 Mazuna), 1806-1807
​NC# 8:d ¼ Budju, 1800-1805
​NC# 8:e ¼ Budju, 1806-1808
​NC# 11:a ½ Budju, 1800-1805
​NC# 6:e ¼ Sultani, 1802-1807
​NC# 6:f ¼ Sultani, 1806-1807
​NC# 4:f ½ Sultani, 1800-1805
​NC# 4:g ½ Sultani, 1806-1807
​NC# 5:g Sultani, 1800-1807
​NC# 5:h Sultani, 1806-1807
​
​Mustafa IV
​NC# 7:e 1/8 Budju (3 Mazuna), 1807-1808
​NC# 8:e ¼ Budju, 1807-1808
​NC# 6:f ¼ Sultani, 1807-1808
​NC# 4:g ½ Sultani, 1807-1808
​NC# 5:h Sultani, 1807-1808
​
​Mahmud II
​NC# 12 2 Asper, 1821-1828
​NC# 12:a 2 Asper, 1831-1834
​NC# 13 5 Asper, 1821-1828
​NC# 14 10 Asper, 1821
​NC# 15 Kharub, 1821-1826
​NC# 15:a Kharub, 1829-1836
​NC# 7:f 1/8 Budju (Suman Budju), 1808-1809
​NC# 7:g 1/8 Budju (Suman Budju), 1810-1819
​NC# 7:h 1/8 Budju (Suman Budju), 1813-1829
​NC# 16 1/6 Budju (Tugrali-ness-flik), 1829
​NC# 16:a 1/6 Budju (Tugrali-ness-flik), 1831-1836
​NC# 8:f ¼ Budju (6 Mazuna), 1813-1830
​NC# 8:g ¼ Budju (6 Mazuna), 1830
​NC# 8:h ¼ Budju (6 Mazuna), 1830
​NC# 17 1/3 Budju (Tugrali-batlaka), 1808-1813
​NC# 17:a 1/3 Budju (Tugrali-batlaka), 1811-1819
​NC# 17:b 1/3 Budju (Tugrali-batlaka), 1829
​NC# 18 ½ Budju, 1808/09
​NC# 18:a ½ Budju, 1808/09
​NC# 18:b ½ Budju, 1830
​NC# 19 Budju, 1820-1829
​NC# 19:a Budju (Tugrali-rial), 1831-1837
​NC# 20 2 Budju (Zudj Budju), 1820-1828
​NC# 6:g ¼ Sultani, 1809-1827
​NC# 6:h ¼ Sultani, 1830
​NC# 4:h ½ Sultani, 1814-1824
​NC# 5:i Sultani, 1808-1234
​NC# 5:j Sultani, 1819-1829
​NC# 5:k Sultani, 1830
​
​French Colonial
​Abdel Kader
​NC# 13:a 5 Asper/Kharuba, 1834-1841
​NC# 13:b Kharuba, 1838-1842
​NC# 13:c Kharub, 1838
​NC# 16:b 1/6 Budju (3 Mazuna-Nasfia), 1838-1839
​NC# 18:c ½ Budju, 1840
​NC# 19:b Budju (Tugrali-rial), 1840
​
​Pattern
​NP# 1 ½ Budju, 1807
​NP# 2 ½ Sultani White Metal, 1807
​NP# 3 2 Sultani White Metal, 1807
​
​French Occupation
​NC# 21 20 Francs, 1949-1956
​NC# 22 50 Francs, 1949
​NC# 23 100 Francs, 1950-1952
​
​Token Coinage
​NT# 1 5 Centimes, 1916-1921
​NT# 1:a 5 Centimes, 1916
​NT# 1:b 5 Centimes, 1917-1919
​NT# 1:c 5 Centimes, 1921
​NT# 2 10 Centimes 1916-1921
​NT# 2:a 10 Centimes, 1916
​NT# 2:b 10 Centimes, 1917-1919
​NT# 2:c 10 Centimes, 1919-1921
​
​Bone (NTb# = Numista Token bone Number)
​NTb# 1 5 Centimes, 1915
​NTb# 1:a 5 Centimes, 1915
​NTb# 2 10 Centimes, 1915
​NTb# 2:a 10 Centimes, 1915
​NTb# 3 50 Centimes, 1915
​NTb# 3:a 50 Centimes, 1915
​NTb# 4 1 Franc, 1915
​NTb# 4:a 1 Franc, 1915
​NTb# 4:b 1 Franc, 1915
​
​Bougie, Chamber of Commerce (B stands for Bougie)
​NT# B1 5 Centimes, 1915
​NT# B2 10 Centimes, 1915
​NT# B2:a 10 Centimes, 1915
​NT# B2:b 10 Centimes, 1915
​
​Constantine, Chamber of Commerce (C stands for Constantine)
​NT# C1 5 Centimes, 1922
​NT# C2 10 Centimes, 1922
​
​Oran, Chamber of Commerce (O stands for Oran)
​NT# O1 5 Centimes, 1921
​NT# O2 10 Centimes, 1921
​NT# O2:a 10 Centimes, 1921
​NT# O3 25 Centimes, 1921
​NT# O3:a 25 Centimes, 1921
​NT# O3:b 25 Centimes, 1922
​
​Republic
​NC# 24 1 Centime, 1964
​NC# 25 2 Centimes, 1964
​NC# 26 5 Centimes, 1964
​NC# 26:a 5 Centimes, 1970
​NC# 26:b 5 Centimes, 1974
​NC# 26:c 5 Centimes, 1980
​NC# 26:d 5 Centimes, 1989
​NC# 27 10 Centimes, 1964
​NC# 27:a 10 Centimes, 1984-1989
​NC# 28 20 Centimes, 1964
​NC# 28:a 20 Centimes, 1972
​NC# 28:b 20 Centimes, 1975
​NC# 28:c 20 Centimes, 1975
​NC# 28:d 20 Centimes, 1987
​NC# 29 50 Centimes, 1964
​NC# 29:a 50 Centimes, 1971-1973
​NC# 29:b 50 Centimes, 1975
​NC# 29:c 50 Centimes, 1980
​NC# 29:d 50 Centimes, 1988
​NC# 30 1 Dinar, 1964
​NC# 30:a 1 Dinar, 1972
​NC# 30:b 1 Dinar, 1972
​NC# 30:c 1 Dinar, 1983
​NC# 30:d 1 Dinar, 1987
​NC# A30 1 Dinar, 1991 (Gold)
​NC# 30:e 1 Dinar, 1992-2010
​NC# 31 ¼ Dinar, 1992-2003
​NC# 32 ½ Dinar, 1992
​NC# 34 2 Dinars, 1992-2010
​NC# A34 2 Dinars, 1991 (Gold)
​NC# A34:1 2 Dinars, 1996 (Gold)
​NC# 35 5 Dinars, 1972
​NC# 35:a 5 Dinars, 1972
​NC# 35:b 5 Dinars, 1972
​NC# 35:c 5 Dinars, 1974
​NC# 35:d 5 Dinars, 1984
​NC# 35:e 5 Dinars, 1992-2013
​NC# A35 5 Dinars, 1991 (Gold)
​NC# 36 10 Dinars, 1979-1981
​NC# 36:a 10 Dinars, 1979
​NC# A36 10 Dinars, 1979 (Gold)
​NC# 36:b 10 Dinars, 1992-2013
​NC# 36:c 10 Dinars, 1994
​NC# 36:d 10 Dinars, 1994
​NC# 37 20 Dinars, 1992-2013
​NC# 38 50 Dinars, 1992-2013
​NC# 38:a 50 Dinars, 1994
​NC# 38:b 50 Dinars, 2004-2013
​NC# 39 100 Dinars, 1992-2013
​NC# 39:b 100 Dinars, 2002
​
​Essais
​NE# 1 20 Dinars, 1949
​NE# 2 50 Dinars, 1949
​NE# 3 100 Dinars, 1950
​NE# 4 5 Dinars, 1972
​NE# 4:a 5 Dinars, 1972
​NE# 4:b 5 Dinars, 1974
​NE# 5 10 Dinars, 1981
​
​Piedfort with Essais (NPE# = Numista Piedfort Essais Number)
​NPE# 1 20 Dinars, 1949
​NPE# 2 50 Dinars, 1949
​NPE# 3 100 Dinars, 1950
​
​Patterns
​NP# 4 100 Francs, 1950
​
​The last coin in SCWC 2001-date (12th edition) has KM# 137, here it has NC# 39:b.
​The Gold issues got an capital A before the number, to distinguish them from regular coins. I didn't give the silver editions any special letters, but I thought about to give them a capital What do you think? Or should they have their own number?

And yes, I agree that it might be a little overkill to start over, but as it is now, and as is commented above, it would be weird to just list random numbers, right? We'll need a system.

Have a nice day.

The system needs to be created and started. Expecting the return of KM is, in my opinion, praying to nothing-the reason is money ( and you can't make money without money )

The new system must somehow KM -accept the number used so far, and take into account other catalogs. Determining a number range using pages is absolute nonsense -because pages change and move-

I designed a system that continues in the,, KM ,,number series , under the designation,, N,, and at the same time better specifies the country and state using internationally recognized national designations ( DNK- Denmark, MDG- Madagaskar ) Use two-digit to mark banknotes , for coins three-digit code , and for exonumia numeric code.

everything that has been marked ,,KM,, so far -we will change and,, N,, as a numist +we add the country code +and a krause number -that it is Kraus is given by the symbol ,, # ,, example: N/DNK #781


if it is a new coin there will be no symbol ,, - ,, example: N/DNK -... now it's up to us if it will be a serial number+year+or page number

other catalogs can add it N/DNK /xxx...

N/FRA You will always know that this is a coin from France N/FRA #781 ( is the number taken with KM)
N/FRA-21-05-2 ( is the second coin in May this year) -how it will be is up to us
https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-1

numerical codes of the countries to give for the exonumii France has the number 250
N/250-21-05-10 ( a tenth coin is added in exonumia)

You can recognize the banknote by its two-digit code N/FR..... , N/DK....


It's my logic -Country codes know their own and neighboring states, they are on food bags, toys ,etc.
when I look at the coin number and see the country it comes from is easier than now that I don't know the KM# numbers -from which state is 15.

The preset code is on every list, Google and all mail and phone books.
I wrote it once and asked to move it -it did not happen.
it's just a suggestion to think about and finding a loosely connected one and the continuation of the number series from,, KM,,
It's at the beginning you need to look for a simple solution so here is a suggestion.

Ivan

Απόσπασμα: "MIMAEL"​everything that has been marked ,,KM,, so far -we will change and,, N,, as a numist +we add the country code +and a krause number -that it is Kraus is given by the symbol ,, # ,, example: N/DNK #781

​So, basically we are still using KM numbers, but putting an N infront of it? Then, what's the point? You can't just take soneone's work, add an extra letter and call it yours, thst's called plagiarism.

Απόσπασμα: "ngdawa"​

Απόσπασμα: "MIMAEL"​everything that has been marked ,,KM,, so far -we will change and,, N,, as a numist +we add the country code +and a krause number -that it is Kraus is given by the symbol ,, # ,, example: N/DNK #781

​​So, basically we are still using KM numbers, but putting an N infront of it? Then, what's the point? You can't just take soneone's work, add an extra letter and call it yours, thst's called plagiarism.

​Hi have a nice day.
It's not plagiarism, KM number series starts in each country from 1 to infinity. they are numbers every time you write a number it's a plagiat
because it was already somewhere and someone had marked something with it.

As for this number series, the creator of the catalog himself I think would be thrilled that his work continues , That he was not forgotten, because whether you want it or not a new system will be created anyway and it will be completely perhaps to despise and discredit what has already been created by skilled people.
Let's not look at how it doesn't work, let's look at how to make it easy to work, so yes, the legal aspect is also important.

Yes, the law must begin-must be observed law.
However, this is an internal written forward message that the coin refers to the old system and books The symbol states in advance that it is a monument ,, # ,, to this phenomenon of the 20th century.
However, we go on and do not know what awaits us.
Ivan

I add why it's not plagiarism-but a link
Here is an example of the use of other catalogs:

1 rupee from Afghanistan ( it is the first country in ISO countries)

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces228824.html

designation according to the design: N/AFG#124/A-3100 ( and are links to two catalogs) A-3100-is plagiarism too? etc.

Let's find out how we can follow up -and deal sensibly.
Ivan

When it's a link, it's not plagiarism, every time you link and publish that it is a link so it is not stated that you are committing to the creator ,who published this before you.

Hello,

I still believe that having a "meaningful" number is quite useless. Knowing that my coin is "NC# 35:b" or "N/250-21-05-10" doesn't bring much more information than a random number from the URL "N# 156813". In both cases you would need to check on Numista for more details about the coin.
On the contrary, I see several drawbacks, including a big effort to manually assign the numbers (more or less effort depending on how meaningful we want to be) and a higher risk that we need to change numbers (or keep the numbers but lose the logic).

More specifically about MIMAEL's idea to include the country code in the number, Numista and KM differ about the list of countries. Should we then add the code of the KM country or the Numista country? Also, this would work only for modern countries. For anything else than a modern country, including notgeld issuers or fantasy issuers, we would need to make up a country code, so it would not help to understand where the coin comes from.

For me, the KM-like numbers are adapted to paper catalogues, which have a fixed order and don't update too often. For an online catalogue like Numista which evolves constantly and where every user can choose a different order, a random number will work just as good and without most of the issues of a KM-like number.

Απόσπασμα: "MIMAEL"​designation according to the design: N/AFG#124/A-3100

Wow. ​N/AFG#124/A-3100 is soooooo much better than KM# 124.

Απόσπασμα: "Essor Prof"​

Απόσπασμα: "MIMAEL"​designation according to the design: N/AFG#124/A-3100
​
​

​Wow. ​N/AFG#124/A-3100 is soooooo much better than if you give only KM # 124

​Yes, at least I know the coin is from Afghanistan, if you give only KM # 124 I don't know which state it is from.

N/AVG-2105-5 I know where to look and the numista added a coin

-that the link is long? it depends on us what everything and which catalogs we refer to already published
-all exonumian coins are now issued in the earth that is on the planet
-and there is no problem re-designating old or unrecognized territories in short

I understand the horror, I only urge to seek continuity and immutability. It's all about finding simplicity and clarity.

If I introduce KM now ....KM# 589 -So you definitely know which country he is in and where to look?

Ivan

Απόσπασμα: "Xavier"​For me, the KM-like numbers are adapted to paper catalogues, which have a fixed order and don't update too often. For an online catalogue like Numista which evolves constantly and where every user can choose a different order, a random number will work just as good and without most of the issues of a KM-like number.

​Here I agree completely. The differrnce between my proposal, which, like most catalogues, starts with number 1, is that the references number is easy(er) to remember.

For instance French Algeria 100 Francs, KM# 93, I have called NC# 23. Here we kniw it's a Numista number (B), and that it's a coin (C). The number 23 is short, and easy to remember. Sure, a country code could be added, but you rarely just drop a catalogue number without any references. To have a longer number, for this example N# 1755, will be troublesome in the long run. Like Danzig 5 Gulden 1923, KM# 158 would with this system be N# 28356.

I originally thought that the Numista catalog number would not completely replace the number of everything on the catalogue but as on side if any coins, notes and tokens haven’t been assigned to a number.
But I’m in favour of there being a in-house Numista catalog numbering system.

The only sort of negative that I see is when the number gets too long and later on after the catalog has been completed there would be coins were they would need to be squeezed in with A,B and so on. Plus most of the catalog system also exists in paper form so either the Numista catalog system would exist digitally on a different page or we need to print a official Numista catalog which is a thing within itself.

If it would exist digitally let’s say that we pick a coin from the 1990s that’s assigns NC#UK17 (Numista United Kingdom 17 coin that’s just a random number for an example) then it has a link to the exact coin place in a digital in-house catalogue located on a speedster part of Numista where either click the link to the exact coin and the option to type it in manually into the database.


This may sound big but maybe it could be set out like this

Categories

• Coins
  
• Banknotes
  
• Exonumia
  
• Others (uncategorised)
  

And within that the manual search options or go through the numbering system form different eras such as,

• Ancient
  
• Early Modern
  
• 1500-1599
  
• 1600-1699
  
• 1700-1799
  
• 1800-1899
  
• 1900-1999
  
• 2000-now
  

Countries in the catalogue code for example
AL (Albania)
BG (Belgium)
MON (Monaco N to stop it being confused with Morocco)
NK (North Korea DPRK)
UR (Uruguay)
UK (United Kingdom)
Y (Yugoslavia)
ZIMB (Zimbabwe)

Finally the number in order and when you click the coin, note you want it displays it with the brief information about it (this can be all bypassed if you have the Numista catalogue number).

Απόσπασμα: "Worldwide collection"​​But I’m in favour of there being a in-house Numista catalog numbering system.

​Yes! We just need to find a good sysgem that doesn't involve a 5-6 digit reference number.

Απόσπασμα: "ngdawa"​

Απόσπασμα: "Worldwide collection"​​But I’m in favour of there being a in-house Numista catalog numbering system.
​
​

​​Yes! We just need to find a good sysgem that doesn't involve a 5-6 digit reference number.

​I think first it should coexist with the current numbers fixed with most of the things on Numista and when I receive good response then it should slowly replace the current numbering system that require external evidence.

Απόσπασμα: "Worldwide collection"

Απόσπασμα: "ngdawa"

Απόσπασμα: "Worldwide collection"​​But I’m in favour of there being a in-house Numista catalog numbering system.​​

​​​Yes! We just need to find a good sysgem that doesn't involve a 5-6 digit reference number.

​​I think first it should coexist with the current numbers fixed with most of the things on Numista and when I receive good response then it should slowly replace the current numbering system that require external evidence.

​This will take time, and yet no system is perfect. We might combine some ideas to find a good pattern, but at least the URL numbers is a start, but not good in the long run.

Απόσπασμα: "MIMAEL"​​If I introduce KM now ....KM# 589 -So you definitely know which country he is in and where to look?

​When do you ever have a conversation and talking about a certain KM# number without having any further information (except in your last post here)? Like, hey, I bought a new coin, it's KM# 589 and I've added it to the catalog? In all the years I'm collecting I've NEVER read or heard someone talking about a certain KM# number without any other context.
I also wonder how you're going to abbreviate the different German States in three letters in a way everybody will immediately know about which German State you're talking?

Hi colleagues.
I'm just asking for a search and opportunities for us collectors -I think that the,, numista,, is a successor and determining the direction of history. I just found a few questions in search of a solution.

labeling issues , for example, we know who added the country number to the referee -because the request determines the arbitrator and there is also a month and a year- and it can be fixed ,and trace.

-You have country codes on everyone -product or goods -for which you pay money

United States of America - US USA 840
banknotes coin exonumia


United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - GB GBR 826

etc. banknotes coin exonumia


perhaps the system should also help us in simplicity
and you have it with flags

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-1

perhaps we are talking about adding new coins , and it is not a problem to connect it with old systems. Let's look for possibilities and logic.
I wish my colleagues good luck, because at least we are moving forward and we are looking for options.

The goal is to be timeless and original ,, N ,,

Ivan

So, at the same time I suggest we try to keep the numbers short, you sugest this:

Απόσπασμα: "MIMAEL"​United States of America - US USA 840

This means that the Theodore Roosevelt National Park, North Dakota quarter (KM# 638) would then, with your suggestion, have the Numista number N# USA-840-83834. To me, this is as inconvenient as can be.

Απόσπασμα: "Essor Prof"​

Απόσπασμα: "MIMAEL"​​If I introduce KM now ....KM# 589 -So you definitely know which country he is in and where to look?

​​When do you ever have a conversation and talking about a certain KM# number without having any further information (except in your last post here)? Like, hey, I bought a new coin, it's KM# 589 and I've added it to the catalog? In all the years I'm collecting I've NEVER read or heard someone talking about a certain KM# number without any other context.
​I also wonder how you're going to abbreviate the different German States in three letters in a way everybody will immediately know about which German State you're talking?

​Hello
I'm talking about new coins-perhaps Germany is only one after the merger -and has an internationally recognized designation.
Perhaps the old is old and is already recorded somewhere ( but it always belongs to Germany)
we refer to already published sources , old ancestors are already , we are looking for a way forward.
What's so special about it?
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces145025.html

N/DEU-Berger # 2075

I know it's long, however, even with the old ones, I can find my way around.
let's look for a way to do it and how to reconcile with the existing one .
I do not give all possibilities, it is up to all of us to look for other abbreviations

they will be here for us collectors written to explain how to orient.

And who would want the simplicity of new coins is up for consideration ,I am not able to design everything , it's up to us -community.
Ivan

Απόσπασμα: "ngdawa"​So, at the same time I suggest we try to keep the numbers short, you sugest this:
​

Απόσπασμα: "MIMAEL"​United States of America - US USA 840

​This means that the Theodore Roosevelt National Park, North Dakota quarter (KM# 638) would then, with your suggestion, have the Numista number N# USA-840-83834. To me, this is as inconvenient as can be.

​it's a misunderstanding to read

why combine official coins and exonumia , so it is either one or the other

The coin is N/USA-

It's an exonumia N/840-

So why are you connecting it? If there is only a two-digit code, it is a banknote N/US-

rather, it seems to me that no one is reading the proposal and looking for incompatible or other reasons?
Ivan

I forgot your example so here's a new label
N/USA#638

What? is it all in? there is everything and state ( national )and a link to the old system . is it long?

Rather than each member proposing their own numbering system and then debating (a nice word for arguing) the merits and drawbacks of each perhaps we should list the attributes that a new system should have. Then we'll have something to judge each system against. At the rate we're going we'll still be debating while another site will be establishing a foothold with a new system. I propose the first 3 attributes I'd want a new system to have:

1. Easy to administer - since we (probably) won't have a dedicated team to create and maintain the numbering system, it should be one where the next number assigned is unambiguous and easy to determine (or we'll have debates over every number).
   
2. Easy to use - I can search pretty much any database of coins with just a KM number. A new system should be just as easy (or easier) for the end user.
   
3. Should contain information about the coin - such as country, era, denomination, etc. (The need for this attribute is debatable since I know of no current widely used system that has this.)
   

Anything else?

Hello.
The condition of every system is to first look for possibilities and get acquainted with, mainly to think about the design and look for how to apply it.
Hard to argue when the Supreme himself publishes this „N / 250-21-05-10“ -as inappropriate and meaningless

is it necessary to put dashes there?
we need to give us a month (05)

it is not better to simplify: so let's say only a year? the judge for the country added 10 coins to the exonumii

N/250-10

and it is this year's 10 coin exonumie in France

So colleagues get acquainted with the proposal first and also try to find simplification.

So far, I have encountered only inappropriate and incomprehensible and deliberate distortions. So the search is about respecting ourselves as well, and other people, and get acquainted with each proposal, try to write the variants on a piece of paper.
my endeavor was logic and simplicity.

look at the new coin where you would look for it: N/FRA-21-7  ? ( This year's seventh coin for the numista in the country )

Ivan

I agree we need to define the purpose of such numbering. In my opinion, the only goal is to uniquely identify the type of coin in various situations: identifying a coin in a collection, buying/selling a coin, etc.

In this regards, the most important attributes are (from most important to least important):

1. Unique: Let's avoid having several N#1 and rely on external information like the country to identify the type.
   
2. Invariable: If we define that a given type is N#237, let's do our best so that this never changes in the future.
   
3. Easy to search: As you mentioned, within Numista database or other databases
   
4. Easy to administer: As you mentioned, so that we can maintain the numbering system without taking time over other improvements of the catalogue.
   
5. Easy to write and communicate
   

I don't see the purpose of having a number containing information about the coin. If it's easy to search, you can retrieve all the information you need on Numista. If we start adding information in the number, we can't guarantee that it is invariable and, depending on the information we include, it may impact the ease to search and the ease to administer. I don't wan't to explore further this option.

The ease to search, write and communicate also imply a short number, using only letters and digits (and maybe dashes).
If we take the ID of the coin as in the URL, we end with up to 6 digits. I believe this is still acceptable, but it might be a bit long to communicate orally and to remember.
An alternative could be to convert this ID to alphanumeric. For example, this aureus could be N#288487 with digits only or N#66LJ with letters and digits (this is the number already used for the "share" links: https://numis.to/66lj). However, a drawback of automatic numbers containing letters is that it could form bad words (who wants to own the coin N#SCAM?) and there might be confusions (O / 0, 1 / l / I).

Hello.

compare options : your example: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces288487.html

N/#RIC V.1 59

and now I know where to find him. and the great,, N ,, numista led me to it.

Put all the designs side by side and compare.

Ivan

Απόσπασμα: "Xavier"​In this regards, the most important attributes are (from most important to least important):
​

1. Unique: Let's avoid having several N#1 and rely on external information like the country to identify the type.
   

Yes, the numbers should be unique, and therefore I reckon that having NC# for Coins, NB# for Banknotes, and NE# for Exonumia, could be a good idea. We have three catalogues, hence three numbers that identifies each catalogue.

Απόσπασμα: "Xavier"5. Easy to write and communicate

Whuch is why we should keep it short.

Απόσπασμα: "Xavier"​I don't see the purpose of having a number containing information about the coin.

There has never been a case anyone has just dropped a catalogue reference out of the blue. To add country codes is just unnecessary.

I like the suggestion of two numbers and two letters (11AA). But more than that will make it too complicated. Don't mix orders (like AA11, AAAA, 1111, A1A1), that will just complicate things.

Απόσπασμα: "Xavier"

1. Unique: Let's avoid having several N#1 and rely on external information like the country to identify the type.
   
2. Invariable: If we define that a given type is N#237, let's do our best so that this never changes in the future.​
   
3. Easy to search: As you mentioned, within Numista database or other databases
   
4. Easy to administer: As you mentioned, so that we can maintain the numbering system without taking time over other improvements of the catalogue.​
   
5. Easy to write and communicate
   
   

​I agree with #1-5, and would add something that's somewhere in between 3 and 5, but specifically important for an online catalogue:
- easy to share and link back to

We should make it easy for others (auction houses, dealers, museums, online catalogues, etc) to link directly to Numista simply by using the ref number.

Others should be able to generate a direct link simply based on the reference number and vice-versa. So there should be a 1:1 mapping of the reference numbers to the links. With the letter encoding, or simply using the ID, this is easy. If we start adding country and other info in the number... this will require extra steps, and others might be less willing to link back to Numista.

Great points, strato!

I support Xavier's idea. As referee of Thailand and Japan, many coins are still missing from Numista. Using number in the link will work just fine for adding coins in random order.

Also I can't wait to see coins sort by N# order, as I know which ones I added myself.

HERE is a taste of how a Numista number will look like in a few years (but maybe the links will work better then there)

Απόσπασμα: "Idolenz"​HERE is a taste of how a Numista number will look like in a few years (but maybe the links will work better then there)

​.....that number is très terrible..

Hello,

I just added the N# numbers on coin, banknote and exonumia pages.
The numbers are the same as in the URL, i.e. sequential in the order they were added to Numista.



If you know a coin number, you can access it directly using the search bar at the top with the option "Number N#".

Hello.
Big congratulations.
I'm glad we're there, and we have our own numbering.

Thank you .
Ivan

Out of curiousity, can have missed it, would that mean that if (random number X) show to be the same coin as or to be marged with (random number Y) number X, will stop with existing and never will again? Or can they be "recycled"?

But really nice to have a N# numbering system! But sooo looong some of them and will only become longer as more items are added ..?

First off: Congratulations, this is a great start for something new!

Problem: The numbers are inconvenient since they're long, and coins, banknotes, and tokens are mixed. For instance, A Mexican 5 Peso coin could be N# 12345, and a Singaporean 1 Dollar banknote could be N# 12346, and then a car wash machine token could be N# 12347. But maybe I'm just old fashioned who still thinks in terms of paper/PDF catalogues.

Απόσπασμα: "Jamtrup"​Out of curiousity, can have missed it, would that mean that if (random number X) show to be the same coin as or to be marged with (random number Y) number X, will stop with existing and never will again? Or can they be "recycled"?
​
​But really nice to have a N# numbering system! But sooo looong some of them and will only become longer as more items are added ..?

​Numbers will not be recycled, as this may lead to confusions.
In your example, the number X will redirect to the number Y (still to be developed).

It took 14 years to reach the number N#291000. At the current speed (which is unusually high due to the mass addition of Roman coins), we still have 8 years ahead before we reach 7-digit numbers.

Απόσπασμα: "ngdawa"​​Problem: The numbers are inconvenient since they're long, and coins, banknotes, and tokens are mixed. For instance, A Mexican 5 Peso coin could be N# 12345, and a Singaporean 1 Dollar banknote could be N# 12346, and then a car wash machine token could be N# 12347. But maybe I'm just old fashioned who still thinks in terms of paper/PDF catalogues.

​I see that as an advantage. If in the future we decide that some items like N# 200029 should be listed under Exonumia instead of Coins, we won't have to assign a new number.

Απόσπασμα: "Xavier"

Απόσπασμα: "ngdawa"​​Problem: The numbers are inconvenient since they're long, and coins, banknotes, and tokens are mixed. For instance, A Mexican 5 Peso coin could be N# 12345, and a Singaporean 1 Dollar banknote could be N# 12346, and then a car wash machine token could be N# 12347. But maybe I'm just old fashioned who still thinks in terms of paper/PDF catalogues.

​​I see that as an advantage. If in the future we decide that some items like N# 200029 should be listed under Exonumia instead of Coins, we won't have to assign a new number.

​Fair enough.

No need for the moment, KM is back!

https://numismaster.com,

it works, but differently from before, the numbers are there though, Thanks.

As I have seen in the link there are new #KM numbers since the last krause catalog edition.

It seems the catalog is gradually being updated. We will look forward to!

Well, we now officially have Numista numbers, so maybe this thread has done its purpose?

Απόσπασμα: "Xavier"​Hello,
​
​I just added the N# numbers on coin, banknote and exonumia pages.
​The numbers are the same as in the URL, i.e. sequential in the order they were added to Numista.
​
​
​
​If you know a coin number, you can access it directly using the search bar at the top with the option "Number N#".
​
​

​Hi,


What about export it to the excel sheet also? Currently I'm using a macro to get the number, would be easier if didn't have to.
just a suggestion

Απόσπασμα: "Xavier"​

Απόσπασμα: "Jamtrup"​Out of curiousity, can have missed it, would that mean that if (random number X) show to be the same coin as or to be marged with (random number Y) number X, will stop with existing and never will again? Or can they be "recycled"?
​​
​​But really nice to have a N# numbering system! But sooo looong some of them and will only become longer as more items are added ..?

​​Numbers will not be recycled, as this may lead to confusions.
​In your example, the number X will redirect to the number Y (still to be developed).
​
​It took 14 years to reach the number N#291000. At the current speed (which is unusually high due to the mass addition of Roman coins), we still have 8 years ahead before we reach 7-digit numbers.
​

Απόσπασμα: "ngdawa"​​Problem: The numbers are inconvenient since they're long, and coins, banknotes, and tokens are mixed. For instance, A Mexican 5 Peso coin could be N# 12345, and a Singaporean 1 Dollar banknote could be N# 12346, and then a car wash machine token could be N# 12347. But maybe I'm just old fashioned who still thinks in terms of paper/PDF catalogues.

​​I see that as an advantage. If in the future we decide that some items like N# 200029 should be listed under Exonumia instead of Coins, we won't have to assign a new number.

​wouldn't if be a bit easier for you guy to manage the database with a letter also?
i.e. N#200029C ia a coin, #200030B a banknote, #200031E an exonumia...

Απόσπασμα: "Xavier"​
​
​More specifically about MIMAEL's idea to include the country code in the number, Numista and KM differ about the list of countries. Should we then add the code of the KM country or the Numista country? Also, this would work only for modern countries. For anything else than a modern country, including notgeld issuers or fantasy issuers, we would need to make up a country code, so it would not help to understand where the coin comes from.

​​For modern countries why not using the international internet country codes?
Like, N# BRXXXXXX = coins from Brazil, N#USXXXXX, from USA, N# JPXXXXXX from Japan, N# FRXXXXX from France, N# BOXXXXX Bolivia, etc...
That way each country can con from N#YY0000000001 to N#YY????????????? without the problem of having one # for a coin from a country and the next # for a banknote from another country (read my comment above about coins, banknotes & exonumias)

So for a US coin it would be N# CUSXXXXXX, for a Brazillian banknote N# BBRXXXXXXXX, for a french exonumia N# EFRXXXXXX .....

In my opinion it's worth to see, how Numismaster will develop and stay with the km# IF it's possible!

To make "intelligent" numbers, please forget it, it'll never be transparent and is far too complicated. We just need numbers to compare swap lists, don't forget that principal goal.

Απόσπασμα: "Sjoelund"​In my opinion it's worth to see, how Numismaster will develop and stay with the km# IF it's possible!
​
​To make "intelligent" numbers, please forget it, it'll never be transparent and is far too complicates. We just need numbers to compare swap lists, don't forget that principal goal.

​Agree, KM# should be the main ref# as it's the most used worldwide. Unfortunately many referees here prefer to use local catalogs #...

But, if Numista N# can be improved, why not...

IMO we need number to locate the information on a catalog, not only for swap (which btw is very hard if everyone uses a different ref# instead of a standard one)

Απόσπασμα: "juliofcampos"​

Απόσπασμα: "Sjoelund"​In my opinion it's worth to see, how Numismaster will develop and stay with the km# IF it's possible!
​​
​​To make "intelligent" numbers, please forget it, it'll never be transparent and is far too complicates. We just need numbers to compare swap lists, don't forget that principal goal.

​​Agree, KM# should be the main ref# as it's the most used worldwide. Unfortunately many referees here prefer to use local catalogs #...

​Those referees are not following the established rules in my opinion? Look at the French numbers in numista?

Each year has its own number and if a year has variants then just an extra number, I don't understand the logic, but then I'm not French either. The KM# with the year gives the same result, no?

Απόσπασμα: "Sjoelund"​

Απόσπασμα: "juliofcampos"​
​

Απόσπασμα: "Sjoelund"​In my opinion it's worth to see, how Numismaster will develop and stay with the km# IF it's possible!
​​​
​​​To make "intelligent" numbers, please forget it, it'll never be transparent and is far too complicates. We just need numbers to compare swap lists, don't forget that principal goal.

​​​Agree, KM# should be the main ref# as it's the most used worldwide. Unfortunately many referees here prefer to use local catalogs #...

​​Those referees are not following the established rules in my opinion? Look at the French numbers in numista?
​
​Each year has its own number and if a year has variants then just an extra number, I don't understand the logic, but then I'm not French either. The KM# with the year gives the same result, no?

​Do you think France is a problem, look at this, 7 different coins sharing 3 ref #:




not helpful at all using local catalog...
but the referee likes it...

Crazy, in my humble opinion, specially since I don't want 2000 catalogs at home (1 for each country, issuer and what have you). I'm just a simple collector of world coins, so the SCWC appeal to me. It doesn't mean I don't have special catalogs for my own fun, but I don't expect other people to have the same.

The common denominator is still KM, so why are the referees deviating from that?

Απόσπασμα

Απόσπασμα: "juliofcampos"​​​​For modern countries why not using the international internet country codes?
​Like, N# BRXXXXXX = coins from Brazil, N#USXXXXX, from USA, N# JPXXXXXX from Japan, N# FRXXXXX from France, N# BOXXXXX Bolivia, etc...
​That way each country can con from N#YY0000000001 to N#YY????????????? without the problem of having one # for a coin from a country and the next # for a banknote from another country (read my comment above about coins, banknotes & exonumias)
​
​So for a US coin it would be N# CUSXXXXXX, for a Brazillian banknote N# BBRXXXXXXXX, for a french exonumia N# EFRXXXXXX .....

​Because it is much better to have one solution for all cases. If we take this rule for some coins, another rule for others there will be much confusion. I like the N# like it is now. It's a simple solution that prevents confusion. I hate it when in catalogs the numbers are changed.

And the other catalog numbers didn't disappear; those who use KM# for their collection will find this information on the coin sheet, those who use a special local catalog will find this number as well. When there are new KM numbers - fine. If not - we still have the N#.

Απόσπασμα: "DonChori"​

Απόσπασμα: "juliofcampos"​​​​For modern countries why not using the international internet country codes?
​​Like, N# BRXXXXXX = coins from Brazil, N#USXXXXX, from USA, N# JPXXXXXX from Japan, N# FRXXXXX from France, N# BOXXXXX Bolivia, etc...
​​That way each country can con from N#YY0000000001 to N#YY????????????? without the problem of having one # for a coin from a country and the next # for a banknote from another country (read my comment above about coins, banknotes & exonumias)
​​
​​So for a US coin it would be N# CUSXXXXXX, for a Brazillian banknote N# BBRXXXXXXXX, for a french exonumia N# EFRXXXXXX .....
​
​

​​Because it is much better to have one solution for all cases. If we take this rule for some coins, another rule for others there will be much confusion. I like the N# like it is now. It's a simple solution that prevents confusion. I hate it when in catalogs the numbers are changed.
​
​And the other catalog numbers didn't disappear; those who use KM# for their collection will find this information on the coin sheet, those who use a special local catalog will find this number as well. When there are new KM numbers - fine. If not - we still have the N#.

​I know that the reference numbers stay in the numista base, in my view, the KM# should (if present) always be in first position, and the country specific in a lower position. I suppose that's also how the swap procedure functions, KM# versus KM#? All is said by that.

The numbering system is working perfect, I had put the numbers of the URLS in the back of my holders since long time, its just super easy to find the coins in the website this way.

I might agree that the Xavier numbers works for main type collectors, but please explain how Xavier's numbers will work for the the year 1979 in this example, where there are two sub-types for that year? I can't see any logic in it, since the Xavier number is N# 2438, which means all the years are covered by that number. Or first you use the 2438 and then you rely on the km# as usual, so where is the advantage, except, where no km# is available?





Just curious

If you would like to find the sub-numbers directly, you can't with Xavier's number, since you cannot do like scwc:



Have fun

Απόσπασμα: "Sjoelund"​​I know that the reference numbers stay in the numista base, in my view, the KM# should (if present) always be in first position, and the country specific in a lower position. I suppose that's also how the swap procedure functions, KM# versus KM#? All is said by that.

​Agreed.

Απόσπασμα: "Sjoelund"​If you would like to find the sub-numbers directly, you can't with Xavier's number, since you cannot do like scwc

​The reverse is also true: many coin types with different N#, have the same KM#:

KM28:
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces97101.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces242722.html

KM90:
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces242715.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces242714.html

KM105:
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces242717.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces242716.html

Απόσπασμα: "stratocaster"​

Απόσπασμα: "Sjoelund"​If you would like to find the sub-numbers directly, you can't with Xavier's number, since you cannot do like scwc
​
​

​​The reverse is also true: many coin types with different N#, have the same KM#:
​
​KM28:
​https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces97101.html
​https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces242722.html
​
​KM90:
​https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces242715.html
​https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces242714.html
​
​KM105:
​https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces242717.html
​https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces242716.html
​

​not quite the same as km# is related to a specific country, so the same KM# returns completely different coins from different countries, meanwhile the same N# can returning different variants of a same coin.

If numista decides that a variant (not accepted or known by scwc) inside a established km# is different enough to get a new page in numista and thus another n#, it's possible. Looks like the examples show that! It's just that I thought numista would never dream of doing that, but as such numista can do what numista wants

Απόσπασμα: "juliofcampos"​
​​not quite the same as km# is related to a specific country, so the same KM# returns completely different coins from different countries, meanwhile the same N# can returning different variants of a same coin.

​
The examples I gave are all from the same "country".

I must admit. I have truly changed my opinion about the N#.

I like it!

If we all start to combine KM# and N#, like "KM# 124 & N# 228824", we will all get more used to it, and it will be more spread and in time even acknowledged.

I LOVE IT!  I use this app CONSTANTLY and i feel there should be some sort of UNIVERSAL SYSTEM. Since not everyone has access to the different books, their updates, ECT…. This should be the Univ System that's used for the future. It even includes Exonumia items. And the NRI…. I know that's only among members…i wish it were for all…meaning that for that item…. There are X amount of that item made…. And there are only X number of that item still in circulation…. Based on those numbers it's rarity is ___. And then that number would mean more. But as far as Numista designing it's own number system… KUDOS NUMISTA!!!

Did you notice that swap lists are sorted, more or less like in the SCWC, even when no KM# is given?

 

Can you imagine any list sorted by the N#? I can't.

Hello

The info you get with Numista is great but collecting coins for more then 60 Years I can absolutely not agre on these numbering makes no sense 2 coins issued within a month (Peru) has numbers with thousend in difference Bullshit.

Wolfgang Schian

Wolfgang21

Hello

The info you get with Numista is great but collecting coins for more then 60 Years I can absolutely not agre on these numbering makes no sense 2 coins issued within a month (Peru) has numbers with thousend in difference Bullshit.

Wolfgang Schian

Tell us how you really feel. 
 

Where was your input when the topic of N numbers was being discussed?

Way back, BEFORE Numista numbers came to existence, I suggested numbering system similar to ISBN, based on a number of main characteristics of a coin: starting with issuing entity, first year of issue, denomination, variant… add anything of interest. Final result should be a number with a fixed number of digits. Sorting would then be ordered in a most logical way and no two coins could have the same # (like today in ALL the existing catalogues).

Wolfgang21

Hello

The info you get with Numista is great but collecting coins for more then 60 Years I can absolutely not agre on these numbering makes no sense 2 coins issued within a month (Peru) has numbers with thousend in difference Bullshit.

Wolfgang Schian

You can still using Krause numbering system.

 

 

The Numista number is perfect if an issuer is created, changed, merged or anything, eternally fixed.

Dejan

Way back, BEFORE Numista numbers came to existence, I suggested numbering system similar to ISBN, based on a number of main characteristics of a coin: starting with issuing entity, first year of issue, denomination, variant… add anything of interest. Final result should be a number with a fixed number of digits. Sorting would then be ordered in a most logical way and no two coins could have the same # (like today in ALL the existing catalogues).

Entities are inclined to changes on Numista, so this would be a nightmare once data already added (no need to open extra debate on this - all explained and debated on forum already). I really don't see any meaning in consequential numbering system with regard to Issuer, Denomination, Variant, etc, except of being a “nice thing” (while there is a search option “in/out” My collection). Simple unique ID perfectly does the trick when identifying a needle in a ocean of hay. Just imagine if unique #N ID gradually becomes some kind of a global ID coin/token+medal+plaquette/note marker and the possibilities it carries. This can blow your mind away. There is also no need to follow #N ID, you may set up your collection as you like, you may follow Krause (or any other system) if you want to have a "nice thing".

LP