Uniformity of terminology

Krause classification (possible) flaws and how to improve

Even though I started collecting coins many years ago, it was not until last year that I finally learnt Numista, as well as Krause catalogues. When I started entering my coins on Numista, I was a bit surprised by some terminological inconsistency (or, let’s say, non-uniformity). I started asking experienced coin collectors, and from what I understood, it was neither Numista’s nor Krause’s fault but the (inevitable) result of Krause’s origin from various sources with their own terminology.
So my message’s objective is not to criticize either Numista or Krause, but rather to outline the challenge: can Numista go ahead of Krause and possibly find ways to improve these flaws?
Or, if I am wrong, I will greatly appreciate if you point at my mistakes.

# 1: edge description.
a) milled - reeded - serrated
b) segmented reeding - interrupted serration
c) smooth - plain - smooth, without notches
d) lettering - inscription
I suppose that terms within each group are synonymous, at least judging by coins in my collection.

# 2: surface metal layer.
a) plated - clad (for example, copper-plated or copper-clad)
Same thing.

# 3: rim – inside and outside shape (a missing parameter)
This parameter is surprisingly absent both from Krause catalogs and from any numismatic sites known to me (Numista included), although it is very important for coin identification:
a) For most of the coins the rim inner curve is parallel to its outer curve, but not always. For example, the coin shape may be round, but the inner line of the rim is e.g. octagonal or scalloped.
b) Hence, it seems that we not only need a separate “rim” section in a coin description, but it should contain at least several parameters:
- Inner rim line (parallel to the edge – other options)
- Thickness (maximum – minimum)
- normal or tapered (it may be the edge parameter as well)
# 4: coin density (a missing parameter)
You may consider it a whim of a person who is used to think about things in terms of statistics, but to me it seems an important parameter, especially when we talk about counterfeits and valuable coins.
Let’s say that a coin has T thickness and D diameter, weighs W grams and is made of M metal. Another coin, also made of M, has T1 thickness, D1 diameter and weighs W1 grams. One can expect that the density of coins calculated as Pi(3.14)*T*D/W for the first and Pi*T1*D1/W1 for the second will be equal. In fact, no way, the oscillation between calculated densities of various coins made of “the same” metal will be quite ostensible. There are two reasons, one is the different percentage of alloy components, and the other is the different elevation of the lowest and the highest elements of the coin relief: for example, a coin may be 3 mm thick if measured at the edge and some 1.5 mm thick if measured at the lowest part of the relief on both sides.

# 5: discrepancies or variations? Regarding coins belonging to the same series.
I was surprised to discover variations, sometimes really minor, regarding weight of coins apparently belonging to the same series (for example Canadian commemorative 25 cent coins issued in the same year). My understanding is that it is nothing else as different precision of rounding.

I’ll appreciate any comments from experienced users, even if my questions may sound naïve.

The problem is that Numista is a user created catalogue. When individual members enter the coins they can enter whatever they want. You can see it from all the different ways that cu-ni was entered:

cu-ni, Cu-Ni, copper-nickel, cupro-nickel, etc.

Cita: "neilithic"​The problem is that Numista is a user created catalogue. When individual members enter the coins they can enter whatever they want. You can see it from all the different ways that cu-ni was entered:
​
​cu-ni, Cu-Ni, copper-nickel, cupro-nickel, etc.

​You may be right there Neil but there are set standards for such terms (the one you mention should be Copper-nickel on the English side) and it is the responsibility of the referees to ensure that those standards are adhered to in their catalogue.

Standards should be set pretty soon.

Cita: "Jarcek"​Standards should be set pretty soon.

​Problem is you have to get people to follow them

Cita: "Jarcek"​Standards should be set pretty soon.

That would be great. Would it be probably possible to provide drop-down lists instead of what we have now, and define one of the list items​ as "user-defined" (that is, allowing the user to fill the comment field of none in the drop-down list matches the criteria)?
This should also the problem of making other people follow the criteria: they won't just have any other choice.

Cita: "Mitridat1974"​

Cita: "Jarcek"​Standards should be set pretty soon.

​That would be great. Would it be probably possible to provide drop-down lists instead of what we have now, and define one of the list items​ as "user-defined" (that is, allowing the user to fill the comment field of none in the drop-down list matches the criteria)?
​This should also the problem of making other people follow the criteria: they won't just have any other choice.

​Ha! yet another person who independently has suggested what I brought up over a year ago. It would make uniformity so much easier to achieve if this was implemented

I too am highly in favor of drop down lists and have stated so before.

With all of that in mind... it is easier to suggest something and hard to do the same.
I appreciate very much the hard work of the site's team, and I don't want my topic to be perceived as just criticism.

Hello,

We achieved more uniformity about the composition last year.
Next step is to achieved the same for edges (https://en.numista.com/forum/topic73033.html) and shapes (https://en.numista.com/forum/topic55789.html).

Your remark about weight variation is very true, and even more for old or ancient coins. It is discussed here: https://en.numista.com/forum/topic89987.html

Coin density is indeed missing. However it looks difficult to measure accurately and I rarely saw it measure by anyone in the field.

The rim is also missing. I don't believe it is a priority. In the meantime, for any specific rim, you can describe in the description of either side or in the comment section.