Hmmm.. exponential decay function with variable decay constant?
Oxymoron?
😀 I resemble that remark!
Yeah, coming from the physical sciences, it would be an oxymoron if applied to a real physical process (like radioactive decay or a chemical reaction).
But for describing the shape of a curve absent any underlying physical process, maybe “varying exponent" would be more acceptable.
As soon as you register your coin onto the page it is likely to drop to 97. I wonder how many members we need for it to just drop to 99 for only one person with that coin (a small glitch I suspect ???).
There is no 99 or 98 it's because of the equation that computes the NRI.
Assuming that this figure is partially based on membership, that is exactly my point . With the number of members we have (???), surely it should have moved to 98 by now. I'm sure the mathematical geniuses amongst us can prove that too, or at least tell us the point (in terms of numbers of members) that this number will change from 97 to 98. Or, maybe it's already at 98 and heading for 99, but has not been updated yet.
They have nothing to do with the total number of Numista accounts just the number of accounts claiming to own a coin type and some modifiers for coins offered for swap. The only change would be that we might see NRI of 1, in the past the smallest was 2 for the most ubiquitous coins.
Am I the only one who has added the coin to my collection
So, not sure why that is. All of my new additions (admittedly, mostly Exonumia) go straight to 97 when I add my items onto a newly formed page. Maybe it's different for coins because of the larger number of entries involved, although we are now all lumped under one heading for our ‘My Collection’ totals (???).
They have nothing to do with the total number of Numista accounts just the number of accounts claiming to own a coin type and some modifiers for coins offered for swap. The only change would be that we might see NRI of 1, in the past the smallest was 2 for the most ubiquitous coins.
Is that then truly representative of the numbers/percentage of members owning such an item - which is what the figure seems to represent?
They have nothing to do with the total number of Numista accounts just the number of accounts claiming to own a coin type and some modifiers for coins offered for swap. The only change would be that we might see NRI of 1, in the past the smallest was 2 for the most ubiquitous coins.
Is that then truly representative of the numbers/percentage of members owning such an item - which is what the figure seems to represent?
Yes and no. The number is representative of the number of members having that coin in their collection. It is not representative of the percentage of members as you've already alluded to. A fixed curves of NRI vs. #members have been published in the forum (by Idolenz and Xavier) and haven't changed as the # of members have increased.
They have nothing to do with the total number of Numista accounts just the number of accounts claiming to own a coin type and some modifiers for coins offered for swap. The only change would be that we might see NRI of 1, in the past the smallest was 2 for the most ubiquitous coins.
Is that then truly representative of the numbers/percentage of members owning such an item - which is what the figure seems to represent?
Yes and no. The number is representative of the number of members having that coin in their collection. It is not representative of the percentage of members as you've already alluded to. A fixed curves of NRI vs. #members have been published in the forum (by Idolenz and Xavier) and haven't changed as the # of members have increased.
From earlier submissions to this thread, why 97 and not 99 or 98? My point being, with 272999 members, a score of 97 has no relevance.
Incredibly my 13th century Henry 3 pennies and 1356 groat barely make it into the 70s and 80s!
The Maori gold coin is my only 97, meaning its just me - N#351334
The £5 Gold sovereign of 1989 is only at 90 - N#14390
I love coins. Especially silver, gold and anything really old.
Member of the Royal Numismatic Society of New Zealand and the Auckland Numismatic Society
From earlier submissions to this thread, why 97 and not 99 or 98? My point being, with 272999 members, a score of 97 has no relevance.
It definitely has a relevance. It means one and only one member has it in their collection. As for why not 99 or 98, I have no reason. I'm explaining what is, not what should be.
Tokens are known for traders in wholesale markets across the UK. They were usually used in connection with deposits paid for returnable packages. During the nineteenth century the great majority of fruit and vegetables were received from farms in baskets, sacks or wooden boxes. To ensure these were returned a deposit was charged and tokens issued to the buyer for an equivalent value. When the containers were returned with the token the money was refunded. The use of tokens was phased out in the 1950s and 1960s. Some markets (for example Billingsgate) also used tokens to record how many loads a porter had carried. There were two markets in Tower Hamlets that used tokens: Columbia and Spitalfields (see example below). The tokens themselves were in use from about 1850 to 1960 and could be made of brass, copper, zinc or cupronickel. Denominations ranged from 2d to £10. During the nineteenth century 6d and one shilling tokens predominated but gradually, higher denominations were introduced. London manufacturers predominate with the firm of R. Neal and its successors being by far the most prolific. https://www.mernick.org.uk/thn/tokens/19th/market_tokens.htm
Get this item
No member from this site currently wants to exchange it.
chavezr26jHola, @tengo curiosidad por saber qué moneda de su colección tiene el índice de rareza Numista más alto. @@La mía es una ficha de máquina expendedora de Coca Cola con un índice de rareza Numista de 90: @N#70616.@Quiero ver qué monedas/fichas son las más raras en este sitio. @@¡Gracias!
Hola
Mi moneda con el índice de rareza más alto es una ficha telefónica de Brasil. Tiene el índice 93
Thanks, I only have pictures of two though, the danish one is roughly in the same condition as the one shown on the page.
The didrachm is in pretty bad condition, still cool though.
The denier is in alright condition, i got it for a really low price so I’m quite happy with it.
Same thing with the penning, got it for under 5€ so quite cheap. It’s what is called a ”borgarkrigsmynt” or roughly ”castle war coin” because denmark was pretty unstable at the time and was turning into a feudalist society. Here is the wikipedia article about it in swedish and danish. https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borgarkrigsmynt
From earlier submissions to this thread, why 97 and not 99 or 98? My point being, with 272999 members, a score of 97 has no relevance.
It definitely has a relevance. It means one and only one member has it in their collection. As for why not 99 or 98, I have no reason. I'm explaining what is, not what should be.
Of course you could still own your unique coin and not mention you own it on Numista, and then it remains 100.
I love coins. Especially silver, gold and anything really old.
Member of the Royal Numismatic Society of New Zealand and the Auckland Numismatic Society
Numista should have a system where you can sort for your coins, by rarity indexes.
I love coins. Especially silver, gold and anything really old.
Member of the Royal Numismatic Society of New Zealand and the Auckland Numismatic Society
From earlier submissions to this thread, why 97 and not 99 or 98? My point being, with 272999 members, a score of 97 has no relevance.
It definitely has a relevance. It means one and only one member has it in their collection. As for why not 99 or 98, I have no reason. I'm explaining what is, not what should be.
Of course you could still own your unique coin and not mention you own it on Numista, and then it remains 100.
Thanks for raising this again, as my original question still hasn't really been answered. Surely by now, if only one member owns a specific coin, with the numbers of members now on Numista, statistically that should register as 99 not 97 (or maybe even 0.099).
From earlier submissions to this thread, why 97 and not 99 or 98? My point being, with 272999 members, a score of 97 has no relevance.
It definitely has a relevance. It means one and only one member has it in their collection. As for why not 99 or 98, I have no reason. I'm explaining what is, not what should be.
Of course you could still own your unique coin and not mention you own it on Numista, and then it remains 100.
Thanks for raising this again, as my original question still hasn't really been answered. Surely by now, if only one member owns a specific coin, with the numbers of members now on Numista, statistically that should register as 99 not 97 (or maybe even 0.099).
You're assuming the NRI vs. Count of owners curve is dependent on total number of members and should change as the number of members increases. I don't believe the total number of members enters into the equations that define the NRI curve. That's why 1 member is 97 and will be 97 forever or until Xavier creates a new method to generate the NRI curve. It's not really a matter of statistics at all.
