I am looking for pictures for KM#28.2 10 Centimes. I am splitting THIS file into KM#28.1 and .2. The currency file is being turned into .1, and I made a new file for .2. The link to it is new file is HERE, but it hasn't been validated yet. Please PM me your pictures, or send me the link to an approved sources website that has it, and I will add them when the file has been validated.
The only difference is a mintmark (B), but I already talked to the referee about it and he agreed. I believe that all KM# differences should have there own page. It is up to the referee in each case, and he said it was okay to split.
Cita: "nthn"The only difference is a mintmark (B), but I already talked to the referee about it and he agreed. I believe that all KM# differences should have there own page. It is up to the referee in each case, and he said it was okay to split.
Yes, I did- and I thought it over, before deciding that this particular case could warrant it's 'independence', given the separate KM number and all.
Cita: "nthn"The only difference is a mintmark (B), but I already talked to the referee about it and he agreed. I believe that all KM# differences should have there own page. It is up to the referee in each case, and he said it was okay to split.
I'm not supporting the idea that the referee of country can decide to split KM sub numbers into different listings.
A general rule on Numista is that .1 - .2 - .x are listed on one page. It is like that for almost al countries, including France, which is also gross owner of coins with or without B/C mintmarks. Exceptions where .x coins have separate listing are rare, and usually well motivated.
I'd prefer to treat the listings of French colonial coins exactly like France, so no separate listings for sub-numbers emerging from absence or presence of the B/C mintmark.
Did you talk with Xavier about it, and with other referees? I'm not happy with this development.
In German States I have to split sometimes the KM# .1 and KM# .2 as they are sometimes totally different coins with great differences.
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.
Agreed. Should not be split if the only difference is a letter for mint mark.
But, as Apuking mentions, it is sometimes worth splitting (I do it often for Habsburg coinage). Just don't follow the WC blindly. The x.1 2 3 in Krause are not always logical.
Quand l'Histoire et la Géographie se croisent sur nos pièces de monnaie ...
Cita: "ArnoV"... Exceptions where .x coins have separate listing are rare, and usually well motivated.
I'm not categorically against splitting up, but only if there is a good reason. And different mint marks are no valid reason, in my opinion.
In addition, I would find it a serious deterioration of the catalogue if countries which have the same system of mint marks (like France and all of its former colonies) would be treated differently.
nthn, CassTaylor: Please reconsider your decision, or try to convince us why this is actually necessary.
Again, it is the referees decision, his/her opinion, as much as it is yours that you don't want it. And as long as it doesn't go against any rules, (which this doesn't) it is perfectly okay to do this. This does not require a public poll to do.
It is true that this lies on the referee entirely.
However, mintmark is not usually cause for a split. If you do split, it is best to have usable pictures on hand.
Also, I can agree that we should not follow Krause blindly. Do not ever do that - half of Bohemian gold ducats would be catalogued as Silver, if I did that.
A member has already submitted a picture for the new page, it is waiting to be validated now. I agree that the only instance when I would split a coin page is when I have pictures for all of the pages I am making.
To my opinion, because our catalogue mainly developed/ built based on Krause & Mishler SCWC (especially coin part), we still need to follow their structure - so anyone can cross-check when there is something unclear.
I know that there are a lot of mistake on KM in compare with local/national catalogues or personal discovery. In such case, we could put a notice on relevant part of our Numista catalogue AND ask for revision from KM editors.
I propose to create a new sheet for each date too.
Sometimes there are many différences between dates !
See, between 1999 and 2000, all digits are changing amazing !
If it only a mint mark why? You open that door the US 1 cent coin, 1909 to date, could end up with around 25 pages. I am sorry does not make any sense.
It does affect other people. I'm not saying the decision should be made by public poll, but the voices of others should be considered. I, like many people here I assume, collect by type. In practice this means "by Numista page", because of the way the listings appear here and how it works in the swapping engine. So when coin types get split up into two or more pages, I end up keeping a coin for each page. I would rather not do so for something so trivial as a mint mark, if I'm collecting by type rather than by year/mint (which I do only for modern US coins).
It seems to me that Numista has a rational policy of using a different page for each KM integer number, with subtypes (.1, .2, .3, etc.) included on the same page. Why break with that tradition?
Cita: "pnightingale"The referees for Germany - Third Reich and Federal Republic have probably just died from apoplexy.
So True with so many mint letters. I remember first collecting them and had no end of the same year but with a multitude of letters, needless to say I ran out of room to store them pretty quick and barely hit half a decade!
It should be up to the referee but community input should at least be considered as well.
Restoration addict : Verdigris Removal : Zinc White spot removal : Iron Rust Removal : Silver brooch/necklace mount Removal
Though it may be a referee decision, I think the general guidelines should come from the catalogue admin (or future catalogue QA).
Honestly, we shouldn't follow KM blindly:
On one hand, creating a new form for a different mintmark is a waste of time
On the other hand, I have examples where KM has the same number for coins with the same obverse / reverse but different metal or thickness. There, we shall have 2 different forms (just to be able to use efficiently the "search a coin by characteristics" feature), both having the same KM number.
In terms of data model, the KM number is not a unique key. Thus, we aren't obliged to stick to its numbering.
Cita: "pnightingale"The referees for Germany - Third Reich and Federal Republic have probably just died from apoplexy.
So True with so many mint letters. I remember first collecting them and had no end of the same year but with a multitude of letters, needless to say I ran out of room to store them pretty quick and barely hit half a decade!
It should be up to the referee but community input should at least be considered as well.
France and France - Kingdom would be worse as shown by Frenchlover.
Administrateur du catalogue, référent de nombreuses nations antiques et de la Lorraine.
Catalogue administrator, numerous Antique nations and Lorraine referee.
Cita: "nthn"Again, it is the referees decision, his/her opinion, as much as it is yours that you don't want it. And as long as it doesn't go against any rules, (which this doesn't) it is perfectly okay to do this. This does not require a public poll to do.
And what about consistency? In my opinion consistency should be a very important part of our catalogue. It's a good thing referees have a a certain degree of rights to change things but for identical cases ALL the referees should follow the same guidelines. It's not a good thing for our catalogue when referees make different decisions on their own for exactly the same cases.
amazing ! 
I remember first collecting them and had no end of the same year but with a multitude of letters, needless to say I ran out of room to store them pretty quick and barely hit half a decade!