Any comments are welcome. Thanks in advance.
USA: 1/2 cent 1805, km33, dates, stems and fractions
48 posts • viewed 168 times
» Quick access to the last post
Posted:
#
Quote: "rsirian1"So the "small "5", stemless" year line now becomes "medium "5", stemless"?The comment makes no sense any more! So Out.
I don't understand the "Please forget..." comment.
Yes, the medium should appear as "Stemless".
Now, I don't know how to treat the subjective word "rare", since numista has agreed not to use that term any more, we'll maybe just say "not found often" or something similar? I don't think we have an objective equivalent like the three mintages?
Posted:
#
Look at this:
which then come into this
Is that acceptable? At least it's logical, if we beleive in the percentages in numista! I doubt them very much, but who knows better?
which then come into this
Is that acceptable? At least it's logical, if we beleive in the percentages in numista! I doubt them very much, but who knows better?
Posted:
#
I saw that too but couldn't justify those percentages when compared to this:
and this:
Try it this way:
NRI = 28 which means approx. 240 members entered one or more of these coins into the Numista database. So:
large "5", stems --> 240 X .04 = 10 members' coins
small (now medium) "5", stemless --> 240 X .11 = 26 members' coins
small "5", stems --> 240 X .03 = 7 members' coins
So out of the 814,464 coins minted we account for 43. I'd say that's way too few to trust the percentages in Numista to be representative of the entire population.
I'd prefer to not have anything in the graphic to having those percentages you used.
and this:
Try it this way:
NRI = 28 which means approx. 240 members entered one or more of these coins into the Numista database. So:
large "5", stems --> 240 X .04 = 10 members' coins
small (now medium) "5", stemless --> 240 X .11 = 26 members' coins
small "5", stems --> 240 X .03 = 7 members' coins
So out of the 814,464 coins minted we account for 43. I'd say that's way too few to trust the percentages in Numista to be representative of the entire population.
I'd prefer to not have anything in the graphic to having those percentages you used.
Posted:
#
I think you're right, numista is only a very small part of all the collectors, so better not use it!
On the other hand we could use the lowest price instead, since the price in the red book ought to reflect the 100% market?
Look at this, it's just intellectual brain spinning for the fun of it:
Either that or nothing, since rare etc are not good terms!
On the other hand we could use the lowest price instead, since the price in the red book ought to reflect the 100% market?
Look at this, it's just intellectual brain spinning for the fun of it:
Either that or nothing, since rare etc are not good terms!
Posted:
#
Quote: "rsirian1"Not quite sure what you're doing there math wise but I agree the values in Red Book reflect the relative occurrence of each of the 3 especially since the value is 12.5 times for AG-3 and 66 times for AU-50. I think it's perfectly fine to use a term like "least common" since it's relative only to the 2 others (not every other coin ever made) and the published valuations back it up. I think it's good information to include on the coin page.
The formula pattern on the top!
Posted:
#
I think they both say it's "least common"
Sjoelund
Joined: 28 Mart 2012
Posts: 15831
Posts: 15831
Posted: 28 Ekim 2021, 10:24
#
Edited: 28 Ekim 2021, 14:27
Edited: 28 Ekim 2021, 14:27
Posted:
#
Edited:
Edited:
Quote: "Sjoelund"Just a little bit nitpicking:
Since your first picture is "Stems" and your second picture is "Stemless", I also would switch the order in the description and put "Stems" there first too.
Posted:
#
Thanks, it's done
Take care
Take care
Posted:
#
Just for the fun.
We have far too many users for the extremely "least common" coins!
And we have to be extremely careful with the order of the year lines, since they sorted alphabetically as we know, but maybe we cannot really rename. It all depends after which criteria the "Frequency" is adhered to a given year line, and I don't know that at all. The pink line is such a case, since it would go down one line with our naming, I think? Anybody has an idea about that?
We have far too many users for the extremely "least common" coins!
And we have to be extremely careful with the order of the year lines, since they sorted alphabetically as we know, but maybe we cannot really rename. It all depends after which criteria the "Frequency" is adhered to a given year line, and I don't know that at all. The pink line is such a case, since it would go down one line with our naming, I think? Anybody has an idea about that?
Posted:
#
I have the same concern. I believe the frequencies are tied to the year (to the left) rather than the comments (to the right) but I'm not 100% sure. I've already taken the precaution of saving a screenshot of the before so we can check it afterwards and make any adjustments if necessary.
Posted:
#
Great minds....
Here's my markup for the year lines
Here's my markup for the year lines
Posted:
#
Quote: "rsirian1"To be honest, I don't like the "All kinds" year lines because these are in fact duplicate year lines: every coin in an "All kinds" year line can be put in one of the other year lines with the same date. Of course I understand the thought behind it, people who don't care about variants can put their coin there in stead of putting time and effort in a determination they don't care. But I'm afraid we're creating a precedent and if we're going to do that for every type with a date with variants we're going to clutter our catalog with a lot of duplicate year lines.
Posted:
#
Quote: "Essor Prof"I see your point. I think, harryg started this because it's done in the Red Book to give the mintage of all the variants, and honestly, it didn't disturb me at all.
Quote: "rsirian1"To be honest, I don't like the "All kinds" year lines because these are in fact duplicate year lines: every coin in an "All kinds" year line can be put in one of the other year lines with the same date. Of course I understand the thought behind it, people who don't care about variants can put their coin there in stead of putting time and effort in a determination they don't care. But I'm afraid we're creating a precedent and if we're going to do that for every type with a date with variants we're going to clutter our catalog with a lot of duplicate year lines.
Maybe we should ask Xavier or Jarcek for a decision, I can live with or without the extra line. I don't know, how rsirian thinks about it?
Can you take care of coordinating that, please?
When a decision has been taken, then we can, if necesary, go back to the km14 and modify, the year lines. The km33 change requests will obviously have to wait on the decision.
Posted:
#
Modified accordingly.
Posted:
#
Quote: "rsirian1"Forgot about that. That works I guess. Maybe add "Mintages for each year includes all variants" or is that already obvious?in the general text, like this?
Posted:
#
Quote: "Sjoelund"I meant that at times mintages for variants are know like this:
Quote: "rsirian1"I think the problem with that is isn't a given that the mintage includes all variants. It's quite possible that mintages for same year variants will be known so I would interpret that to mean the mintage for that variant is known and is xxxx while the mintages for the other variants aren't known. There needs to be at least a comment somewhere explaining how they are to be interpreted.Not sure about that. If the mintages were in doubt, the Red Book would have mentioned it I suppose?
I think the Numista page should be able to stand alone and not assume that users have access to the Red Book to check what the mintages in Numista mean. The way it is now, I could think that there were 20,266 1802 Second reverses minted and an unknown number of 1802 reverse of 1800's minted.
Posted:
#
Quote: "rsirian1"We just have to assure that the mintage appears in the first year line of a group of same year lines. Up to now, I always assumed it covered the lines with empty mintages.
Quote: "Sjoelund"I meant that at times mintages for variants are know like this:
Quote: "rsirian1"I think the problem with that is isn't a given that the mintage includes all variants. It's quite possible that mintages for same year variants will be known so I would interpret that to mean the mintage for that variant is known and is xxxx while the mintages for the other variants aren't known. There needs to be at least a comment somewhere explaining how they are to be interpreted.Not sure about that. If the mintages were in doubt, the Red Book would have mentioned it I suppose?
I think the Numista page should be able to stand alone and not assume that users have access to the Red Book to check what the mintages in Numista mean. The way it is now, I could think that there were 20,266 1802 Second reverses minted and an unknown number of 1802 reverse of 1800's minted.
Posted:
#
From SCWC
From the RB
The 1833 & 34 are not the same!
From the RB
The 1833 & 34 are not the same!
Posted:
#
OK, accepted without problem.
What decision about the "All kinds" lines.
To think about. Xavier introduced a line for coins, where the year cannot be determined. Like this:
Please notice there is no mintage in that line!
But would that mean, we could introduce lines saying, "All coins of this year" and include the mintage for the whole year? As I already said, I don't really want to decide on that, since both ways are OK for me.
So what do we do?
What decision about the "All kinds" lines.
To think about. Xavier introduced a line for coins, where the year cannot be determined. Like this:
Please notice there is no mintage in that line!
But would that mean, we could introduce lines saying, "All coins of this year" and include the mintage for the whole year? As I already said, I don't really want to decide on that, since both ways are OK for me.
So what do we do?
Posted:
#
Yes there is that year line but it's the old way. The new way to do it is to have the Undetermined year line that only shows up in your collection if you've entered one.
I did a quick search of early US coins and found the following were used:
1. "All kinds" year lines https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces55103.html
2. Repeat the same mintage on each year line and the words "mintage is for all kinds" on each year line https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces24558.html
3. Same as #2 plus year lines with no mintages and no explanations https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces23468.html
4. Mintages only used on one year line variant and no explanation https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces16940.html
#2 is silly
#3 is silly
#1 makes sense (no misinterpretations)
#4 is open to misinterpretation
If we want to avoid adding an additional year line for each year with multiple variants (#1) then go with #4 plus an explanation. The explanation could be "Mintage includes all variants" in the comment of the year line with the mintage number or in a graphic (like you added).
That's how I see it.
I did a quick search of early US coins and found the following were used:
1. "All kinds" year lines https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces55103.html
2. Repeat the same mintage on each year line and the words "mintage is for all kinds" on each year line https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces24558.html
3. Same as #2 plus year lines with no mintages and no explanations https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces23468.html
4. Mintages only used on one year line variant and no explanation https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces16940.html
#2 is silly
#3 is silly
#1 makes sense (no misinterpretations)
#4 is open to misinterpretation
If we want to avoid adding an additional year line for each year with multiple variants (#1) then go with #4 plus an explanation. The explanation could be "Mintage includes all variants" in the comment of the year line with the mintage number or in a graphic (like you added).
That's how I see it.
Posted:
#
If I understand correctly then you'll be OK, if the "General" graphic
is included? We then just add the mintage as well to the first year line of a year. Do we need the designer etc, since that normally is included in numista already?
If this is what you are OK with, do you mind to make the CR for the year lines? I'll then follow with the graphics and we can start on the next batch, km41.
is included? We then just add the mintage as well to the first year line of a year. Do we need the designer etc, since that normally is included in numista already?
If this is what you are OK with, do you mind to make the CR for the year lines? I'll then follow with the graphics and we can start on the next batch, km41.
Used time zone is UTC+2:00.
Current time is 21:28.