We have a number coins and notes from issuers whose names have been changed so that they no longer match what is shown in the catalogues whose numbers we quote. Some of these changes are due to the diligent efforts of Numista members to identify where the catalogues have got things wrong. This class includes this banknote, which we have determined should be listed under the Netherlands Indies but which has the catalogue number P#31 for Indonesia. There is a P#31 for the Netherlands Indies but it's a very early note that we don't yet have in our list. Others are due to the obstinant actions of admins persuing adherance to badly written guidelines. This class includes these two coins: A and B, both of which we list as Vanuatu KM#4 following the "merger" of New Hebrides into Vanuatu.
Obviously it is to be hoped that the mergers causing the second class will be reversed but the problem will still persist where we have identified and corrected catalogue errors. The question is, what are we to do in these cases? Should we modify the catalogue number to indicate that it is to be found under a different country to the one we list, i.e., change "31" to "31 (Indonesia)" for the example above? Alternatively, do we need an extra field to indicate when a catalogue number refers to a different issuer?
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Yes. A modification with a qualification ['p51 (Indonesia)' in your example above] would be a clear and uncomplicated way of doing it. SCWPM would give it a new number in Netherlands Indies after moving the entry - p136 would seem to me to be a logical choice (after a quick look at scwpm).
Cita: "ngdawa"New Hebrides should be a sub-category under Vanuatu, right?
Yes it should be but, for the time being, it has been hidden within the Vanuatu listing, hence the presence of repeated catalogue numbers for different pieces.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Cita: "ngdawa"New Hebrides should be a sub-category under Vanuatu, right?
Yes it should be but, for the time being, it has been hidden within the Vanuatu listing, hence the presence of repeated catalogue numbers for different pieces.
If I remember correctly New Hevrides actually was a sub-category before. What happened there?
I've asked stratocaster this question many times without receiving any coherent answer. The closest I ever got was a claim that mergers like this were "more accurate".
Sadly, I doubt very much that stratocaster will be first in the queue to change the catalogue numbers of the countries they've fouled up.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Cita: "ceh2019"I've asked stratocaster this question many times without receiving any coherent answer. The closest I ever got was a claim that mergers like this were "more accurate".
Sadly, I doubt very much that stratocaster will be first in the queue to change the catalogue numbers of the countries they've fouled up.
Just so I get this straight:
They make every country searchable by its own native name just so people can find theit coins just by writing what it says on the coin, but New Hebrides gets hidden in the Vanuatu catalogue because it's "more accurate"? More accurate than what?
The classic example - long predating the addition of banknotes, never mind the merger of New Hebrides and Vanuatu - is the island issues of Tristan da Cunha, which Numista had always (AFAIK) listed under the Tristan da Cunha issuer, but Krause lists them separately for each island, so there's a KM#1 for Gough and a KM#1 for Stoltenhoff, along with a much older KM#1 for Tristan da Cunha itself, all under the same issuer.
(Note that Stoltenhoff Island is uninhabited, and Gough Island only has a small research station, so it makes no sense for them to issue their own currency. There is also a series for the similarly-uninhabited Nightingale Island, but as far as I can tell it doesn't have KM numbers.)
There's been a sporadic debate over whether Gough and/or Stoltenhoff should be their own issuers, as opposed to sub-series under Tristan da Cunha; the fact that the islands are effectively uninhabited points towards the latter. In any case, they are currently under Tristan da Cunha, so there's three different KM#1 coins listed for Tristan da Cunha, and I do agree that they should be disambiguated in some way.
Cita: "January First-of-May"There's been a sporadic debate over whether Gough and/or Stoltenhoff should be their own issuers, as opposed to sub-series under Tristan da Cunha; the fact that the islands are effectively uninhabited points towards the latter. In any case, they are currently under Tristan da Cunha, so there's three different KM#1 coins listed for Tristan da Cunha, and I do agree that they should be disambiguated in some way.
It sounds to me that the Gough Island and Stoltenhoff should be moved to Exonumia, since they are, in fact, fantasy currencies.
