Explanations on overprinted bank notes.

At Latin America on 19th and early 20th. centuries was common to find overprinted banknotes. This was caused for the long delay to receive new batches of notes, that usually were printed at Europe or the USA, when were urgently needed, maybe for going out of stock, currency reform, etc.

In many cases, I use to add explanations about overprints, like shown in picture, to make it more clear to users.

I think the adding of indications of details ("(overprinted)", “(deleted by overprint)”) may help users to find and understand  them. And also I followed my mind “what is not forbidden, is permitted”, cause there is no mention in guidelines to avoid these explanations (is not the same as “… Do not use placeholders such as “[date]”…").

But, I have received some requests to delete the explanations, so my question is if it is fine to keep them or I really must delete. I think the more we can explain to users, the more useful will be the catalog.

Comments are welcome, and if admins have a clear opinion, it will be followed.

They don't belong in lettering because every language version of Numista uses the same lettering. If you want to keep the information you can add it in the description or comment section.

The guidelines are clear to me. Read the first line of the Lettering guidelines for banknotes:

The lettering field is a faithful transcript of all the lettering on each side.

The banknotes don't have the text “(deleted by overprint)”, so adding that text means the field doesn't contain a faithful transcription.

Exactly, comments in any forms are banned from lettering fields :-)

I would suggest putting these comments in the translation section:

…

One Peso [deleted by overprint]

TWENTY CENTS [Added by overprint]

Idolenz

They don't belong in lettering because every language version of Numista uses the same lettering. If you want to keep the information you can add it in the description or comment section.

That is a good explanation why explanations should not be placed in lettering. Anyways, I think it should be marked in any way, so user can notice what part of lettering is from the host note, and what is overprinted (specially when the overprint is meant to clearly differentiate from host note).

Hibernia 

I would suggest putting these comments in the translation section:

…

One Peso [deleted by overprint]

TWENTY CENTS [Added by overprint]

I think it looks like a good idea, but if we apply strictly the guidelines, then putting in translation section will be wrong: “The translation field contains the translation to English of the lettering field.” If the comment does not show on lettering, then should not be present in translation cause is not a translation.

So, I think if explanation is added on Comments section, most of people would stop reading before reaching comments, when using the catalog to identify their note. My mind is based on the fact I had to reject (or many times to redirect) modification requests about (user thought have found a) new variant, but data or picture really was from other variant or type.

I don't like too much, but I bet the best place for it would be the description.

If someone would ask to delete some misplaced comments, please work a bit more, and place it in the correct section. 

adanieluy

I don't like too much, but I bet the best place for it would be the description.

Well reasoned out – I agree with you on that. 

Hibernia

adanieluy

I don't like too much, but I bet the best place for it would be the description.

Well reasoned out – I agree with you on that. 

 

+1

I enjoy reading any additional info (or pertinent political, economic contextual info) on the reason behind overprints.