Is it really necessary to add 2 extra lines for every date/signature? I know everybody collects in a different way, but it is impossible to add lines for every collection need … soon we'll have all prefixes added.
Please make a nice list of the prefixes and add them to the comment section, if you collect these specific prefixes, just add it as a personal comment next to your note …
Just call me Bram
No new swaps for the moment, still too many half-ongoing swaps to clean up!
A lot of bank notes from all over the world have there first and last prefixes listed as different date lines, including a lot of other Australian notes.
it is necessary to keep consistency across the numista catalog and keep it relevant as the first and last prefixes are worth significantly more then a general prefix note.
A lot of bank notes from all over the world have there first and last prefixes listed as different date lines, including a lot of other Australian notes.
it is necessary to keep consistency across the numista catalog and keep it relevant as the first and last prefixes are worth significantly more then a general prefix note.
That is why I was asking other referees to chime in. In the different catalogues I'm most familiar with (Pick, Belgian, Estonian) this kind of differentiation within a year (or signature) is not made. These first and last prefixes might indeed fetch a higher price, but so do radar numbers, low serial numbers (000000-0000010, 000011-0000100, …), first prefixes (eg. AA) or other oddities and I would not like all those to be added either as they would clutter the overal catalogue.
Just call me Bram
No new swaps for the moment, still too many half-ongoing swaps to clean up!
What a mess adding the prefix creates… Not to mention the fact that there is no explanation on the note page, what a first, last and general prefix means
Have a look at the other Australian Decimal types of which the majority already have first, Last and general prefixes in them especially the moderns. Just trying to bring this type in line with the others.
Adding the prefixes also brings this type in line with the listing provided in the major Australian Catalogues.
“First’ and ‘Last’ prefixes have for a long time been a significant factor in collecting banknotes of some countries, especially those where the banknotes do not have dates of issue. My experience with 'firsts' and 'lasts' is in collecting Bank of England banknotes.
‘Firsts’ in particular can have a value far in excess of the value for a middle prefix, and are highly sought-after.
If they are relevant to collecting banknotes of a particular country, then I think they ought to be included in the numista listings.
In such cases where they are added, I would think that a sufficient explanation as to their relevance should be added as a matter of course in the comments section.
I feel that specific prefixes should only be catalogued separately if they aren't a full run of notes. Such is often the instance with signature changeovers, but can also be the case at the end of a series. For full-run prefixes, specifying the prefix range(s) for each year (e.g. BA02→EA02) conveys sufficient information.
Titus
Numista referee for banknotes from Canada, USA, Costa Rica, China, Macau, Singapore, & Taiwan.
Status changed to Rejected(Compendium, 9 Kas 2024, 00:28)
