ND dates dosen't show full date

G'day!
I have realised that if I add a banknote with no date printed on it, it's a ND note. If the note is printe, let's say Jan 1 1900, I put "1" in month, "1" i day", and "1900" in both boxes that appeasr after checked the ND box. In the listing, the date will be shown as "(1900), and nothing more. Why doesn't the day and month show in the listing?

I suppose because we don't know the date it was printed it may lead to some confusion? Probably best to keep just the Year as we can be fairly certain that the year is correct.

Quote: "peterjhalford"​I suppose because we don't know the date it was printed it may lead to some confusion? Probably best to keep just the Year as we can be fairly certain that the year is correct.

​I mean, ND doesn't mean that the year, day and month of issue is unknown information, it simply means that the year of issue is not printed on the banknote.

I have added day/month/year on all Turkish banknptes from today back to 1960. (I'm working backwards, so I've just started with Emission V.)

For the Year/Month/Day field, this is what is printed on the note. If there is no year printed on the note, it is a ND note, and a range is used.

With that being said, do you actually have an example of a banknote that says only the Month/Day, with no reference to the year? I cannot think of any examples, and I cannot imagine why any country would list only the Month/Day with no reference to the Year; however... I guess it would be theoretically possible.

But if no examples exist, I do not see this as a problem.

If it's a ND with a date of "1971-1997", of course no month and day is added, but for single year ND notes. But that's not what I mean. What I mean is that when I fill in a date on a banknote and check the ND box, only the year is shown – even for a single year banknote.

Here's an example"
I add this:


But thIs is shown:

Yes, I understand what you are showing, and I am aware that the system automatically omits the Month/Day value if the year is a ND.

What I do not understand is why this is a problem.

Take the first line in your example: what you are saying is that, while this particular note does not have the year on it (2009), it does have 'January 1' written on it, hence why that field is filled out. But I highly doubt that is the case--why would a banknote say the Month/Day, but not the year?

Of course, if an example exists, please prove me wrong.

I think the best solution here would be that, when the ND box is selected, the system makes it impossible to type a Month/Day into the boxes (like how you cannot type a Year when the ND box is selected). But that would have to be ticketed as a suggestion for Numista.

Quote: "Sulfur"​Yes, I understand what you are showing, and I am aware that the system automatically omits the Month/Day value if the year is a ND.

​A solution would to either shiw the date at ND (1-Jan-2009) or, as you also said when the ND box is ticked, the whole line of year-month-day would be omitted.

It's not a problem per se, but since the choice is there to add a full date – even for a ND note, it feels weird that the date isn't show.

Quote: "ngdawa"​​A solution would to either shiw the date at ND (1-Jan-2009) [...]

​I was thinking you were getting at 1-Jan-ND (2009) (or something like that).

If you want everything to appear in the parenthesis, that means that, while this note has no date on it, it was printed only on one day of one month of one year (1-Jan-2009). And I also find that unlikely--if the notes are common enough, I imagine they would spread out their printing more.

Regardless, because there is nothing I can do about this thread, I will ask the moderators to move this to the Numista Website forum under the ticket 'suggesting an idea for Numista'. Even if I do not agree with the quoted option, it is still an option, so I think it would be best to move this entire thread to the correct place rather than start a new one.

Quote: "Sulfur"

Quote: "ngdawa"​​A solution would to either shiw the date at ND (1-Jan-2009) [...]

​If you want everything to appear in the parenthesis, that means that, while this note has no date on it, it was printed only on one day of one month of one year (1-Jan-2009). And I also find that unlikely--if the notes are common enough, I imagine they would spread out their printing more.

​This example is the circulating Turkish 200 Lira note, so it's not really an uncommon banknote. The same goes for all Turkish banknotes listed on Numista – full dates added, only year visible.

Quote: "ngdawa"​​This example is the circulating Turkish 200 Lira note, so it's not really an uncommon banknote. The same goes for all Turkish banknotes listed on Numista – full dates added, only year visible.

​Alright... but for the year-line I mentioned, was that particular note only printed on 1-January-2009, and no other date?

Quote: "Sulfur"​​​Alright... but for the year-line I mentioned, was that particular note only printed on 1-January-2009, and no other date?

​The dates on banknotes are not the date they were printed (at least not normally) but are law dates that ordered the production or batch starts. Also many coins from certain countries are planned issuing dates not necessary production years.
For this reason I didn't really cared for the implementation of this full date feature and I hope we will get a start of issue box so this information can be put in the infobox or so.

Yes, I am aware of that.

There are two types of dates: written dates and printed dates. A while ago, I made a request (which is still pending) to differenciate the two as I think the printed date is important. In regards to some countries, like Belgium or Algeria, the written date is the printed date, but with the majority of countries, that is not actually the case. And so, until we get a feature that can differenciate the two, it seems there is a preference towards the written date.

However, if no date is written on the banknote, that means the banknote is a ND note, meaning we must go with the printed date. And so, if we have a ND (1-Jan-2009), that would imply the notes were only printed on one day of one month of one year, as opposed to a dated note from 1-Jan-2009, which has that date written on the note.

In regards to the note in question, I suspect it was not only printed on 1-Jan-2009, so the Month/Day field should have been left blank. Of course, it does not really matter because the system automatically omits the Month/Day, but that very automatization resulted in this suggestion, so... it matters enough.

Quote: "Sulfur"​​Alright... but for the year-line I mentioned, was that particular note only printed on 1-January-2009, and no other date?

​Ah, yes! Sorry, I misunderstood you.

Quote: "Idolenz"​​The dates on banknotes are not the date they were printed (at least not normally) but are law dates that ordered the production or batch starts.

​This true, but that year is often easy to determibe, since it would mean the modern Turkish banknote set then would've been printed in the 60's. Some people can't distinguish these two, though.

Quote: "Sulfur"​In regards to the note in question, I suspect it was not only printed on 1-Jan-2009, so the Month/Day field should have been left blank.

​It sure sounds weird they were only printed for one day. But there were 155,000,000 printed, so that's about 6,500,000 printed per hour. Maybe that's possible?

No worries--I figured there was a missunderstanding somewhere.

Quote: "ngdawa"​​It sure sounds weird they were only printed for one day. But there were 155,000,000 printed, so that's about 6,500,000 printed per hour. Maybe that's possible?

​That does not sound possible to me. 6,500,000 notes per hour is approximately 1,800 note per second. Banknotes are printed in sheets, but with a number that high, they would need dozens of machines running continually for an entire day (1-Jan-2009), only to take a break for four years and start up again on 8-Apr-2013, where they would do the same process in just one day. And that seems... unlikely.

Thinking about a specific prolific banknote issuers who has their written dates the same as their printed dates (Algeria), it seems that country typically managed to print around 75,000 notes a day.

With that in mind, between 1-Jan-2009 and 8-Apr-2012, there are approximately 1,560 days, meaning that, if Turkey was printing the entire time, they would manage approximately 100,000 notes a day, which is decently close to Algeria's rate. And I do not think that sounds unreasonable.

-----

But math aside, looking at the website of the Central Bank of Turkey, they say these particular notes were issued on January 1, 2009--not printed on that date. I imagine this would be the beginning date of their print run, with no mention of the end date (which could have very well been some time in 2013). And all that means we should not actually include the Month/Day on these particular ND year-lines, as printing likely did not take place on only that day.

Quote: "Sulfur"​But math aside, looking at the website of the Central Bank of Turkey, they say these particular notes were issued on January 1, 2009--not printed on that date. I imagine this would be the beginning date of their print run, with no mention of the end date (which could have very well been some time in 2013). And all that means we should not actually include the Month/Day on these particular ND year-lines, as printing likely did not take place on only that day.

Yes, you're right. Of course I realised that 155 million was an extreme for a single day, and the notes were probably pre-printed as well, since at least a year prior the release day.