Local reference catalogs?

I just saw, that Norway is using the Brekke catalog, which “nobody” not from Norway would have. The German States have been invaded by AKS references, and I suppose other countries are suffering from the introduction of well meant localisation of references.

Could numista set up a rule, where the KM# is the most important (it should be number ONE in the reference list, if existing).

I still think, that the majority of our members use the KM# for coins from 1601 and upwards in time, so why use the local numbers, nobody has those catalogs! Coins from before 1600 will use whatever existing catalogs, which is OK. Did anybody try to see the split before 1601 and after 1601 in the entered coins in numista, just to get a real idea about, what we talk about?

Do  you consider Schön a “local" catalog? It has much better information on mints than KM (from about 1950 up until they seem to have stopped publishing).

And AKS and Schön DM have information about German State coins that KM doesn't have. (Look at Brandenburg-Bayreuth KM# 247. It's actually four significantly different types.)

For Venezuela NCV has many details missing or incorrect in KM. And I expect the same is true of Brekke.

I want the KM reference code to be listed for every type where a code exists. It's still my primary catalog. But I don't want Numista hobbled by gaps and flaws in KM.

bjherbison

Do  you consider Schön a “local" catalog? It has much better information on mints than KM (from about 1950 up until they seem to have stopped publishing).

 

And AKS and Schön DM have information about German State coins that KM doesn't have. (Look at Brandenburg-Bayreuth KM# 247. It's actually four significantly different types.)

 

For Venezuela NCV has many details missing or incorrect in KM. And I expect the same is true of Brekke.

 

I want the KM reference code to be listed for every type where a code exists. It's still my primary catalog. But I don't want Numista hobbled by gaps and flaws in KM.

I think we agree, I also know (and have) the Argentinian catalog from Janson. I use, when and if I have access to those local catalogs, the information they contain as source for my variant documentation, and sometimes I even give the “local” numbers in year lines in numista, but my collection is in KM# order and it will stay that way. SCWC is still the global number number one catalog.

The Schoen catalog is OK, but not world known, because of it being in German, which is OK for me, but for most people that's a hindrance.

Current guideline (my italics and bold):

Order of references

When possible, the same sequence of references should be used for all the coin types of an issuer. Newer, more authoritative, and more exhaustive standard references should appear first.

At the very least, we can ask referees to check for and add the KM number of new listings before approving them, which is not always done.

Confirming that there is no change in the guidelines, but referees should be adding KM number where it exists.