Guidelines for adding new banknotes [Risolto]

Hello,

I am not only new in this forum, but also to the banknote collection hobby itself, I started about 2 years ago. Slowly the collection is growing, and I have been in the search for months now for a good place to catalogue and have an inventory of my collection, as Excel is not cutting it for me anymore; add to it, the possibility to exchange, swap, buy/sell ... sounds perfect to me. I like the simplicity and responsive of the Numista website. I read that the banknote catalogue is relatively new and I feel the excitement around this "project" and am quite impressed about the interest and motivation to make it happen ... and I am willing to be part of it. As you might know, any website is as good as its content and quality of contributions, and specifically to the hobby, the accuracy of the information in it.

After reading some forum posts, and toying around with the website, I feel there is still some ground work to be done. Mainly, I cannot find any guidelines on how to enter a banknote into the catalogue, there is a really good one for coins here ... why not draft something similar for banknotes? with no clear guidelines the information and quality will not be consistent.

The main issue that should be tackled is how to structure the catalogue ... In my not so expert opinion, I believe replacements, specimens, proofs, remainders should have entries of their own, otherwise it will become a generic catalogue with not so accurate information. Furthermore, banknotes have dates of issue (and not just a year), how should I catalogue a banknote that has been printed on different years (with different signatures for example)?

I collect mostly notes from Venezuela, I tried entering a new banknote just to have a feeling about it, but had a plethora of questions when doing so. I checked entries other uses have submitted, but couldn't find answers to my questions. I will give you an example with a Venezuelan 5 Bolívares note, which had the following issues:

• 1968-09-24 : P-50a
  
• 1969-04-29 : P-50b
  
• 1969-09-30 : P-50c
  
• 1970-01-27 : P-50d
  
• 1971-06-22 : P-50e
  
• 1972-04-11 : P-50f
  
• 1973-03-13 : P-50g
  
• 1964-01-29 : P-50h
  
• 1989-09-21 : P-70a (7 digit serial)
  
• 1989-09-21 : P-70b digit serial)
  
• Plus specimens, proofs and reminders
  

Here is the current entry in Numista, and its not about pointing fingers at others, if I had to enter this myself I would of done it differently which is not necessarily the correct way either ... so:
en.numista.com/catalogue/note202704.html

Given the fields that are available (inherited from coins), I think the entry it's a really good attempt to summarise all of it in one entry, but as I see it, some of the information is lost: The year of issue has been added to the comment field: comment is a comment, which implies being optional or free format text. As you may notice with this banknote it was issued twice in the same year (1969-04-29 and 1969-09-30), using the "Varieties" section for this is not good enough. I believe the Date of Issue is is definitely missing as key information as a date type field.

Additionally, the entry indicates P#50, which its clearly not, its 50 (a-h) and 70(a-b). Granted, there should be at least two entries one for P-50 and P-70 ... but , question: should I enter each variation as an entry? otherwise I have no possibility to enter the different pick numbers.

I am aware there are ongoing discussions about planned enhancements/changes/features for supporting banknotes, and these will take time, which is very understandable. However, and in the meantime, how about defining some basic guidelines for banknotes, so that the entries which are currently being added while awaiting such new features, are at least consistent so to avoid having to correct all these in the future.

Regards,
Ildaro

Hi Ildaro,
The main reason there aren't any definitive guidelines for this banknote catalogue is because it was introduced maybe two days ago. Rules are still being set and discussions are taking place as to what those rules should be. That note is my listing- I attempted to put dates of issue in the year field but that didnt work so opted to only put individual years and then the date of issue for the 1969 ones in the comments. I am no expert with the banknotes of Venezuela so please feel free to edit the page and change it however you see fit.

Regards,
Jamie

Hi Jamie,

Ah two days ago, I thought it was a little longer than that. Two days and already 1000 notes ... wow!

I used the Venezuelan note as example, but like those there are gazillion! Surely I can edit the entry, but into what? Should I create a separate note per date? then the question about the issue date remains, where do I enter it? I could write it in the title, .e.g. 5 Bolivates 1964-01-29 ... but that doesn't sound right to me ... would you (or anyone) have any other/better suggestions?

Thanks and regards,
Ildaro

At the moment i don't think it's permitted to put the date of issue in the title or do variants of a note as separate listings, I've only been putting the date in the comments and the variant/year comments. As time goes on the template for adding notes should be updated and improved. I have listed a more modern bolivar note which is currently pending- is it a bit closer to how you think things should look variant wise?


Regards,
Jamie

That could be a solution !

In this particular case, all notes have the same pick number (P-89), which I guess is what should go in the "Reference" field in the "Overall Information" section? Logically speaking, it would imply having a separate page for each Pick number, i.e. in my example of the 5 Bolivares, there should be two pages, one for pick P-50 and another for P-70 ... how does that sound for you?

There is one caveat though, when adding banknotes to ones own collection how would that work? Could you specify which if the "Years" you actually have ?

Forget the following,
There is one caveat though, when adding banknotes to ones own collection how would that work? Could you specify which if the "Years" you actually have ?

Just tested it, and its is possible to add an specific year to my collection

Having two separate pages sounds alright to me but I'm not sure if it's allowed considering how similar p50 and p70 are (they are practically the same note) so you would have to ask a Numista team member or referee.

Regards, Jamie

Hello Ildro
I have been Collecting Coins and Bank Notes for over 60 Years now and have over 760 Notes from 96 Countries so good luck they are as fascinating as Coins
Please look at United Kingdom £1 C Series Green I Uploaded the Data last Evening it took Quite a while as I wanted to list all Issues Including Replacement Notes as they are still Series C Green the only Difference being they are Replacement its just the Serial Number I have listed all Replacement Notes as Such though there are still a few details that need editing i.e. I put the incorrect Date or Cashier so I will have to correct .


Please Enjoy Your Collecting
Regards.
Ian.

If you have a note that is a P# 50g for example, you should look for a page P# 50, and then look for your variety g under that main designation. Any note that is a 50 will be found under the main entry for 50, like 50a, 50d, 50s,50r, etc.

If you have a hard copy catalog for Pick or TBB, you would look for the main number, and then find your variety within the main number entry.

DevonCollector is using the format I use when I am creating listings. Anything written in a comment on the dateline that differentiates the sub type from the main listing is good. Having 20 different pages with the same main catalog number seems clunky and would only work if we had to use search to find our notes.

Much easier to browse the listings, find the one, and then find the 20 sub variations on the one page. I really like they way DevonCollecter is creating his pages. They look like the worldwide banknote catalogs. And they also look like a Numista entry.


Dates are tough. Some collectors of individual nations collect in a more specific way than others. So the year in the year line can be as specific as that ref needs it to be by using the comments.

I am wondering how things will look with notes that are denominated in 2 or more ways...

Rules will need developing. But the coin rules are not necessarily specifically the banknote rules...

Cita: "DevonCollector"​

​Why use so many words so it even becomes two lines? Isn't it enuch to just write "Replacement, Prefix Z"? Of course it's the prefix of the serial number, what other prefixes are there? Personally I like short but direct comments.

Short and direct is ideal. Yes.

Cita: "ngdawa"​

Cita: "DevonCollector"​
​
​
​
​

​​Why use so many words so it even becomes two lines? Isn't it enuch to just write "Replacement, Prefix Z"? Of course it's the prefix of the serial number, what other prefixes are there? Personally I like short but direct comments.

​You're very welcome to edit it, im no expert with notes so i wasnt sure whether it was best to shorten it or type it as i found it on the colnect website

en.numista.com/catalogue/note202704.html

In my opinion I think you should add separate lines for every prefix. For example:

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/note201837.html

(I haven't finished adding separate lines for 2017 A)

Thank you all for the input. I have been adding new notes following the suggestions received