We discovered recently RCM/MCR product codes were listed as a reference catalog. This results in listing many references for the same coin, most of which are not a unique reference for the coin. A typical "worst case" is this listing N#353896, where all the many RCM numbers for the same coin have occupied the entire Reference field, and the KM# is only listed in the comments section.
I tried to find the thread where this “catalogue” was requested in the first place but wasn't able to do so. I found this thread from last year where some users complained about it already, so it is not something which was recently introduced…
In my opinion, these are different marketed products, not at all different coins. I suggest we respect our guidelines and delete this false reference catalogue which does not bring any numismatic enrichment; I wanted to take inputs from community first :-)
I believe the RCM/MCR product codes belong in the Comments section (and even then, I do not like seeing the flowery marketing descriptions of the products, but we do this in lots of places in our catalog). We should reserve the Reference field for accepted numismatics references which have a taxonomic approach, like KM, or specialty Canada catalogs.
My guess is that this practice was introduced because of the large number of issues each year from RCM, and the time it takes for KM to “catch up” and give them numbers.
Perhaps also because the RCM product literature contains all the information we need to compile a good listing: composition, weight, size, design details, etc. We need to continue to take advantage of this feature, while leaving the product numbers behind.
I do not like seeing the flowery marketing descriptions of the products.
Me neither! I often ask a rewriting of those marketing descriptions when I process one :-) Numista descriptions and comments should be concise, precise and neutral.
Charlton, witch in my view is THE reference book for Canada, is also using the RCM/MRC reference numbers in their reference books. They only issue a Ch number when there is no RCM/MRC number (usually for circulation or bullions coins). So I guess it's a big down vote for me.
Since Numista has no solutions for sets, sets reference numbers (with the mintage info) should be kept only into the comment section. Until then, can the info be recopied in the comment section, so we don't loose this valuable information ? Edit : As already agreed on in the past.
Céline F.
(Anciennement référente pour billets du Canada / Former referee for Canada's banknotes)
Charlton, witch in my view is THE reference book for Canada, is also using the RCM/MRC reference numbers in their reference books. They only issue a Ch number when there is no RCM/MRC number (usually for circulation or bullions coins).
So as we already have this Charlton catalogue, we need even less the false catalogue RCM/MRC, right?
Since Numista has no solutions for sets, sets reference numbers (with the mintage info) should be kept only into the comment section. Until then, can the info be recopied in the comment section, so we don't loose this valuable information ?
Sets are another issue; we do not reference sets (for now), any workaround is detrimental as will lead to major rework later; I suggest to just not reference your rolls and sets on Numista, as we don't have the feature allowing it :-)
Anyway, the fact Charlton refers to it does not make it a reference catalogue; can you share a photo of a Charlton page, to see how they display and reference those multiple long commercial codes?
I'm over ninty years old and don't own a cell phone to take a picture. Maybe someone else can.
The reference book you are refering to has not really been in usage here so far.
RCM/MRC numbers are publicly available on the RCM web site. You don't need to wait a year (or more) and invest in a book to use them. Access to complete and fresh info is really made easy. A great advantage for starting collectors and collectors around the world if you ask me.
For these reasons and as asked in the first message of this thread, it's a big DOWN VOTE for me so we can continue using the RCM/MRC numbers on Numista.
Céline F.
(Anciennement référente pour billets du Canada / Former referee for Canada's banknotes)
I am confused. I just read where the (ex)referee finished spending 1700 hours updating the Canada catalog. I assume many of those hours were for adding the RCM/MCR references because I don't remember seeing them previously (or at least not many of them). Now you're suggesting to remove them?
I am confused. I just read where the (ex)referee finished spending 1700 hours updating the Canada catalog. I assume many of those hours were for adding the RCM/MCR references because I don't remember seeing them previously (or at least not many of them). Now you're suggesting to remove them?
I understand but If it took long time, he should probably have asked before if it was a good idea… I didn't find any thread debating if we should or not use a false catalogue in our list of references.
The engagement bias is not a good argument to me anyway; we all felt already I think how unpleasant it is to lose dozens of hours of work, after introduction of a new feature or after a new rule is published, precising the best way to organize the catalogue.
There are over 2200 coin pages with RCM as the primary reference. How was this done in a vacuum and not be noticed by the admins/master referees before it was completed and stopped? Seems like just another example of the internal civil war in the Numista team we've seen lately. Something needs to change.
He, the Canadian referee, could not add a reference catalog by himself. It was done by a catalog administrator. It was probably discussed between the administrators before you were appointed. Wrong usage for SETS does not justify the removal of the references all togheter in the entire catalog.
Don't mix two topics, SETS and RCM/MRC reference numbers.
About deleting info for sets now, I would like to quote Compendium in this thread back in july, 9th of this year :
Please everyone calm down a bit. I never said anyone would delete all errors now. This thread was about one specific case, on which admins were asked about guidelines. We answered.
No one can delete all that in one click btw, as it will be enormous work as everyone know… which is exactly the issue!
Again, a lot of people here are making the case that these sets/rolls are highly valued collectibles, but no one disagrees with that
Just, Numista does not have a way to support it correctly as yearlines. You can keep all infos in comments anyway, just yearlines are not meant for rolls/sets or else.
Creating an engagement bias is no good argument : any referee could add hundreds of stamps entries in Numista, we would still say it is not admitted.
So in a nutshell:
- please from nowon put these infos in comments, not in yearlines
- admins wont delete anything, it will be up to referees and contributors to clean the catalogue little by little
- if and when rolls/sets pages are created on Numista, all these infos can be used in them (huge rework anyway)
Céline F.
(Anciennement référente pour billets du Canada / Former referee for Canada's banknotes)
He, the Canadian referee, could not add a reference catalog by himself. It was done by a catalog administrator. It was probably discussed between the administrators before you were appointed. Wrong usage for SETS does not justify the removal of the references all togheter in the entire catalog.
Don't mix two topics, SETS and RCM/MRC reference numbers.
About deleting info for sets now, I would like to quote Compendium in this thread back in july, 9th of this year :
Please everyone calm down a bit. I never said anyone would delete all errors now. This thread was about one specific case, on which admins were asked about guidelines. We answered.
No one can delete all that in one click btw, as it will be enormous work as everyone know… which is exactly the issue!
Again, a lot of people here are making the case that these sets/rolls are highly valued collectibles, but no one disagrees with that
Just, Numista does not have a way to support it correctly as yearlines. You can keep all infos in comments anyway, just yearlines are not meant for rolls/sets or else.
Creating an engagement bias is no good argument : any referee could add hundreds of stamps entries in Numista, we would still say it is not admitted.
So in a nutshell:
- please from nowon put these infos in comments, not in yearlines
- admins wont delete anything, it will be up to referees and contributors to clean the catalogue little by little
- if and when rolls/sets pages are created on Numista, all these infos can be used in them (huge rework anyway)
Thanks it's exactly why I wrote above in this thread “Sets are another issue; we do not reference sets (for now), any workaround is detrimental as will lead to major rework later; I suggest to just not reference your rolls and sets on Numista, as we don't have the feature allowing it" :-)
For the record, I don't think all the RCM/MCR references should be listed. My concern is the apparent lack of communication/coordination/control between the Numista Administrators/Master Referees/Referees that allowed this problem to exist.
Seems like just another example of the internal civil war in the Numista team we've seen lately. Something needs to change.
Sure do… and the former referee Québécois is banned from participating in the forums so he can't reply to any of this. Bravo for your excellent timing as you did last summer while he was on vacation 😒
Céline F.
(Anciennement référente pour billets du Canada / Former referee for Canada's banknotes)
For the record, I don't think all the RCM/MCR references should be listed. My concern is the apparent lack of communication/coordination/control between the Numista Administrators/Master Referees/Referees that allowed this problem to exist.
Indeed RCM must have been added by an Admin at some point; it's why I asked in parallel to other Admins what happened with this one.
But reading the threads you linked do not allow to understand that RCM is not an actual catalogue, and will lead to list up to a dozen of RCM codes for the same type… I feel most readers of those threads thought everything was fine, because it was just another catalogue mentionned here. Whereas it is a brochure listing product codes for all versions of the same coin, depending on how it's packaged and distributed.
It would also be easy to ask an Admin to create a catalogue without him understanding the nature of the book itself; I personnally trust the people who send me requests, I don't investigate each request.
I totally agree there is a lack of communication between Admins, Referees, users etc; But Numista is not a company, we don't have regular meetings etc etc; everything is built on the guidelines (that we updated and finally translated recently) and on the forum.
It's why I personally spend so much time on the forum, to be aware of the maximum of info helping me doing my job. Let's remind everyone referees are trusted with a very great power, as no one validate their changes. It would not be the first time we discover an “original workaround” only after one of them changed manually hundreds or more of entries, creating at the same time a huge engagement bias… We had this issue with local names in entry titles for instance, or with denominations, etc.
Seems like just another example of the internal civil war in the Numista team we've seen lately. Something needs to change.
Sure do… and the former referee Québécois is banned from participating in the forums so he can't reply to any of this. Bravo for your excellent timing as you did last summer while he was on vacation 😒
Please do not push such accusations without proof. Considering we drew a conspiracy against one fellow member is not very cool thing to read… But you're right, the only reason we went aware of this issue is that for a week now we process ourselves the Canadian change and creation requests, which led us to see this issue.
The way things are evolving and decided here, I advise all collectors of Canadian coins, interested in keeping the RCM/MRC reference number about their coins, to make an immediate Export/Copy of them BEFORE someone delete the information you maybe find very usefull in the catalog.
We never know…! 😒
Céline F.
(Anciennement référente pour billets du Canada / Former referee for Canada's banknotes)
The way things are evolving and decided here, I advise all collectors of Canadian coins, interested in keeping the RCM/MRC reference number about their coins, to make an immediate Export/Copy of them BEFORE someone delete the information you might find very usefull in the catalog.
We never know…! 😒
If it can reassure you, Numista does full backups of the databases every month ^^
Charlton, witch in my view is THE reference book for Canada, is also using the RCM/MRC reference numbers in their reference books. They only issue a Ch number when there is no RCM/MRC number (usually for circulation or bullions coins). So I guess it's a big down vote for me.
…..
I find the comment “…when there is no RCM/MRC number (usually for circulation or bullion coins)… ” very interesting but also baffling.
So RCM does not bother to assign a number to the coins that are most of their production??? 😖
Let's be clear that nobody is suggesting to remove the RCM/MRC reference numbers entirely from the listing. Is is only said that these are not appropriate to use in the reference field because they are often not unique. In some cases the same RCM/MRC reference can apply to six different coins, which I do not feel is a sound practice for any numismatic catalog.
Let's be clear that nobody is suggesting to remove the RCM/MRC reference numbers entirely from the listing. Is is only said that these are not appropriate to use in the reference field because they are often not unique. In some cases the same RCM/MRC reference can apply to six different coins, which I do not feel is a sound practice for any numismatic catalog.
+1 Leave this “reference” in the comments
Master Coin Referee
Coin referee for CRI, GTM, HND, NIC, PAN, and SLV.
Revisor principal de monedas
Revisor de Numista para monedas de CRI, GTM, HND, NIC, PAN y SLV.
Let's be clear that nobody is suggesting to remove the RCM/MRC reference numbers entirely from the listing. Is is only said that these are not appropriate to use in the reference field because they are often not unique. In some cases the same RCM/MRC reference can apply to six different coins, which I do not feel is a sound practice for any numismatic catalog.
You are wrong. They are unique. The multiple numbers you see in the first exemple given by Compendium are for different SETS. True, you can find the circulation 2023 5 Cents coin in all these SETS. The error, in my opinion, is to enter the refrence numbers for these SETS in the reference field. While, on the opposite, it make sense for individual coins and this is true what ever reference catalog you wish to use. If Krause would issue numbers to sets, we would not add them in this field either… but we would continue to enter them for individual coins as we do today.
It was, back in july, already agreed on to leave the info about SETS in the comment field. There is a cleanup to do (in the reference field and year lines) in the waiting of a permanent solution for SETS.
If you look at this coin, added less than 3 days ago, you will see that even the Numista Team Admins accept sets reference numbers in the year lines even if a clear description of the set was provided. Good thing for everyone, the requester did not add the reference number in the reference field also. Referees, like Admins, are humans and humans do errors. But this shows also that members are using these references numbers and we should accept them… but only in the comment section for SETS and in the reference field for individual coins.
Céline F.
(Anciennement référente pour billets du Canada / Former referee for Canada's banknotes)
You are wrong. They are unique. The multiple numbers you see in the first exemple given by Compendium are for different SETS. t field. There is a cleanup to do (in the reference field and year lines) in the waiting of a permanent solution for SETS.
Why will someone attribute the number of a complete set to a single coin? Krause also have set numbers and they are never used on single coin pages.
1. First of all, I would like to congratulate Quebecois for their work as referee of Canada. Their dedication has been incredible and the result is a homogeneous and high-quality catalog section. My most sincere congratulations.
2. Regarding the Topic in question, my idea of a catalog is very clear: Numista is a numismatic, non-commercial catalog, so a coin must have one and not several year lines (unless there is a Proof, Specimen or, perhaps, BU version).
3. Taking this into account, having all these commercial codes in the reference section (the only difference between them is the packaging in which the coin is commercially presented) does not make sense. The coin is only one, the same for all different RCM/MRC codes.
4. That said, and while the Sets section is not implemented and for collectors who collect different Sets/Rolls, I think it is good and enriches Numista to be able to have all these commercial references in the Comments section.
5. As mentioned here, it should be analyzed (not blaming anyone, something common...) why this point has been reached so that this does not happen again. Analyzing why a problem has happened can help us find a solution. 😊
Coin referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Liberia and Spain
Banknote referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea and Spain
Looking at the worst case example mentioned in the original post, N#353896 , none of the RCM/MRC references in the mintage line comments are references for the five cent piece itself. They are all references to sets containing the coin.
The mintage line comments don't say “contained in” so the information is misleading. And since no evidence is given that the coins are different it appears there should only be two mintage lines (regular and specimen). Putting the set information into the two mintage lines would make those mintage line comment fields too long, so that information should be moved to the comment field.
And the set references should be remove from the reference field since they don't identity the coin type.
I reviewed the above-mentioned forum posts saying the RCM/MRC references would be added and I agree that the references “certainly weren't added in secret”. But they were added under false pretense: The posts didn't say that references to sets would be added as coin references. I read those posts and, not being familiar with that web site, assumed that the reference numbers to be added identified specific individual coins.
If all the RCM/MRC identify coins in rolls, packages, or coin cards then all RCM/MRC references should be removed from the coin reference fields, and most of the mintage lines should be removed.
But the catalog should be kept so that sets can be mentioned in comment fields and mintage line comment fields (with the text “contained in” or something similar).
Hello I was invited to give my opinion on the subject because I am Canadian and I take part in the correction and certain new cards.
The RCM/MRC codes are official codes governed by the Canadian government and it is for this reason that the Charlton catalog uses this same code for sets, rolls or collectibles. The Haxby catalog does not transmit any code. Unfortunately, the information on the part is found in the information on the collector's roll of these parts or the set. That's why it's so important to take this information and transcribe it into the Numista files. And, Québécois have done an excellent job of passing it on to us.
The problem isn't the RCM/MCR code, it's where the code points us. Most of these codes direct us to sets and not the coin alone, as there is no code or referent for circulation, uncirculated, specimen, proof and investment coins. But collector coins all have a reference.
I agree to remove these codes from these sets as references but I suggest to keep them in the comments to find these pieces for our collections. I like to exchange with Numista people but sometimes I find it difficult to find myself with all these sets, rolls and others and I don't speak from Canada so I understand other members who say that from Canada. But please can we have a place soon for collectors of these sets, rolls and others.
One year have pass and I still think RCM/MRC and Charlton unique reference numbers for individual coins were a great (if not a must) addition to this catalog… if members use them the proper way. Meaning SETS reference numbers should not be added to the Reference number section for an individual coin. We should only add these SETS reference numbers as a complementary info in the Comments section (indicating that the coin is part of the listed SETS). As you would do for any other SETS in any reference system (Krause included).
A list of SETS (with RCM/MRC reference numbers) and mintage for each SET in the Comments section is very valuable info for coin collectors (waiting for Numista to propose a long waited for (over 7 years) solution for SETS).
Québécois
Ancienement, référent du Canada / FYI former referee for Canada
Donc, si je comprend bien, on peut continuer d'utiliser les numéros de la RCM/MRC.
Ce sujet semble avoir donner l'impression qu'il fallait cesser de les utiliser complètement. Il faut seulement les utiliser comme il est prévu sur Numista, c'est-à-dire un seul no unique par pièce dans le champ Référence. Le problème des pièces qui font partie d'ensembles sera réglé autrement plus tard, il faut utiliser optionnellement la section Commentaires pour l'instant pour documenter ces cas précis (Ensemble - Set).
Il faut que ce soit clair pour tous ceux qui ont pris la relève pour la gestion des demandes concernant les pièces du Canada car c'est un peu enrageant de se voir refuser une demande de changement et devoir la refaire à nouveau parce que tous les intervenants n'ont pas la même compréhension.
Merci.
Céline F.
(Anciennement référente pour billets du Canada / Former referee for Canada's banknotes)
If you like coins, medals and tokens with ship motives follow my new instagram account with regular updates @numisnautiker
From time to time I sell some coins on Ebay make sure to follow me @apuking on Ebay.
Stato cambiato a Fatto(Compendium, 8 Giu 2024, 08:29)
I know this topic was officially status as DONE with the understanding that RCM/MCR references would move to the comments section or at least not be the primary reference. Now that there is no longer a referee for Canada is this still happening? There are 2,371 coins with RCM/MCR references, most as the primary reference, still in the catalog.
