Probably some dark group of dictators with their devilish guidelines 🤣
More seriously : I took the decision based on guidelines, thread arguments above, past discussions with fellow admins, votes (2 times more in favor).
The pros were :
- guidelines about issuers are respected
- malta collectors are respected
The cons were :
- KM code loses its full value; well, this is already the case for many other entries (everytime Numista issuers' structure differs from Krause) and its not a valid argument to me as Numista is not KM
- Malta is not written on the coin: but it never was a rule to see the issuers' name on it to sort correctly Numista items
- KM code loses its full value; well, this is already the case for many other entries (everytime Numista issuers' structure differs from Krause) and its not a valid argument to me as Numista is not KM
- Malta is not written on the coin: but it never was a rule to see the issuers' name on it to sort correctly Numista items
I support this move. However, I think we need to do better to deal with the first con listed above. Numista is not KM but, if we quote a KM number, we must do so accurately, otherwise it is meaningless. Therefore, when the country name in Numista does not match the country name in KM, we should indicate the country name KM uses with the number. I don't see the second con as any impedement at all, since so many coins don't name the issuer.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
- KM code loses its full value; well, this is already the case for many other entries (everytime Numista issuers' structure differs from Krause) and its not a valid argument to me as Numista is not KM
- Malta is not written on the coin: but it never was a rule to see the issuers' name on it to sort correctly Numista items
I support this move. However, I think we need to do better to deal with the first con listed above. Numista is not KM but, if we quote a KM number, we must do so accurately, otherwise it is meaningless. Therefore, when the country name in Numista does not match the country name in KM, we should indicate the country name KM uses with the number. I don't see the second con as any impedement at all, since so many coins don't name the issuer.
Agreed! Ref codes in general need a revamp, as there are so many specificities which each catalogue (sometimes using tables, pages, issuer names etc as starting point for their numbering)
Well advertised so only a few people know how to use it!
Good point. How would you advertise it better?
This list is very odd and also Malta isn't on it.
Also when you click a country on that list it should go to that period of coinage. As some are very hard to work out whether they were British Colonies.
In addition, British Protectorates should also be on this list.
Because it needs a nightly refresh. I added it only earlier
Also when you click a country on that list it should go to that period of coinage. As some are very hard to work out whether they were British Colonies.
I agree, but it is not easy to do techniccally speaking…
In addition, British Protectorates should also be on this list.
Yeah sorry its what I meant by “comparing with Numista DB”: we need a list of links to existing issuers which are not tagged as british empire whereas they should.
Copy pasting Chat GPT is only a tiny part of the work needed :-)
My thoughts on this might be biased because I am from Malta, but, if you're a Maltese collector, living in Malta, you'll realise this coin is truly classified as our own by us. So many Maltese collectors own ⅓ farthings in their collections. In museums we have these whole sections related to its history, and every collector wants to own them, even do date runs. Why? because they are part and parcel related to our own history, they were a replacement coin for the grano of the KOM, yes it was issued by the UK, but they were answering a call from the governor of Malta at the time. The only relation this coin has with the UK, is that it was minted there, that's it. Still I understand your arguments aswell as to why it is put under the UK. However, a compromise must surely by made to put this coin under Malta, or at least under both countries if possible. I am tired of seeing the UK highlighted on the map on my ‘Malta’ coin collection, just becuase I put my ⅓ farthings in this same collection. From the various replies I have seen, there seems to be alot of stubbornness from people, that maybe don't properly understand it's history and what it means to the numismatic collectors from the small island nation of Malta.
Sincerely,
LaMaltese
They are now transferred :-)
Fantastic news. I only just realized ! Thankyou so much for this :)
