Listing sub-numbers for Pick in year lists

I have had a few modifications I submitted rejected by the referee for South Korea for reasons that seem at odds with all the other country pages I have seen. I would like to know if (to me) such drastic differences by referees are to be considered proper.

Examples: "P# 54a, issued note", "P# 54s, specimen" rejected because only P#54 is on page and Pick sub-numbers not needed.
P# 38a rejected although P38A, P38s already added (P#38, P# 38A on one page). P# 38s needed addition because it has same features as P# 38a (specified as "P# 38s, specimen, as a" in Pick) due to a color difference between P# 38a and P# 38A. Instead of stating "as a" referee asks that color of text be specified in comment.

Throughout the Numista catalogue I have seen or submitted examples of the Pick sub-numbers even if only "P# ---a", issued note and "P# ---s, specimen". Do we want only a few countries done differently based on a referee's philosophy? Have I and all other contributors who have submitted sub-numbers and referees who have approved them been wasting their time? If so, please tell me and I can find more appreciated ways to spend my time.

Will

Personally I don't add "issued note" because in my mind it is implied unless otherwise stated in the comments.
But if you just wanted to add P#54a and P#54s in the year line comments I don't understand it either.

I can see where it can be difficult, if multiple catalogs with different systems are used and the year lines can't be well differentiated between them but your first example only uses two lines and one catalog.

There are cases where a Pick sub-number can't be listed for a note because it does not exist but other sub-numbers in the same main number do or where there is a single Pick that includes multiple signature varieties or multiple dates, some with sub-numbers of their own, some subsumed in a single sub-number. My philosophy is that if Pick uses a sub-number, we should indicate it. For instance, hypothetically there can be "P# ---a" for 1984, "P# ---b" for 1986, P# ---b" for 1989; I would say it would be useful to have the sub-numbers listed because a single sub-number refers to multiple notes as we generally list them in year list. Same where multiple signature varieties have a single sub-number. It seems easier to me to have a guideline to list the Pick sub-number whenever it exists instead of adding on a selective basis. But if that is not the philosophy of Numista, I can stop and include the Pick sub-number as a personal comment, considering it a "minor" variety.

I am glad to see Transnistria now includes Pick numbers. Some time ago when I submitted such modification requests, I was told by the referee that collectors used TBB and it was too much trouble to go back and add Pick numbers to every note. So there can be changes in philosophy.

Will

I am for the addition of the sub-numbers in the comments (my wording was kind of fuzzy).

Sub-numbers should be added in the year lines. That is a reference from a reputable catalog, why ignore it? Also P#38 should be split, that is an important difference. Maybe the referee for South Korea should be focusing on other stuff like adding photos without his watermark and orange frame... You can do what I did mate if you see your requests are refused by certain referees with stupid reasons, don't make any modifications requests for those countries. I only do it for countries without a referee now and I am sure they are accepted by the master referees.

Thank you allexis. I don't really care if the "issued note" comments get added (although they are nice to have) but I think the sub-numbers are important.

Will

Greetings, I approve every edit that requests the addition of a catalog number. I disagree with the Tajikistan Ref in this regard. As far as the South Korean concern, I agree that there is inconsistancey from ref to ref. For example, I approve the addition of any dateline that includes a P# with an s, a,b,c etc. And I see no harm in identifying why it is an s, a,b,c in the comments on the date line.

Unlike coins, the banknotes can be a wild wild west, as expectations are being codified.

Please contact the ref of the nation you have issues with, and if you have no satisfaction, contact either myself, Oklahoman, or Sulfur. If we can assist, explain, or correct, or leave alone, we will try to help out.

We do appreciate the edits and creations that come our way. In a short period of time, we have developed and are continuing to enhance the numista banknote pages, and a lot of that is thanks to you.

Thanks,
Oklahoman

G'day mate, and thank you for contacting me in your confusion. It's much easier to answer directly to your questions insterad of randomly find your confusion on the forum - a few months afterwards.
Anyway, let me address you one at a time, since I'm so late in the game. Sorry for that, but I just found this post by chance.

Citeer: "Coinman48"​Examples: "P# 54a, issued note", "P# 54s, specimen" rejected because only P#54 is on page and Pick sub-numbers not needed.

I really see no reason to add "Issued note", when all notes are issued. Those which are note, and also stated "Unissued", "Not released", or "Specimen". So what state the obvious? Should it also say "Banknote", so people don't conduse it with a coin of same denomination? This is the reason I rejected this requests. There are two lines in the year list: One without any comments (that's the normal, issued, note), and the other with the comment "Specimen" (that it the specimen version). I reckon that it enough. The page is for Pick 54, so no need to write that all over the place. I hope this explains why it was rejected.

Citeer: "Coinman48"​Examples: "Instead of stating "as a" referee asks that color of text be specified in comment..

This is kind of the truth. To me it's always important to also state what the difference is. Not say say "P# 38a" and "P# 38A", but also how they differ. This was addded in November though, so I see no point to still bear a grudge against this - 8 months later.

Citeer: "Coinman48"Throughout the Numista catalogue I have seen or submitted examples of the Pick sub-numbers even if only "P# ---a", issued note and "P# ---s, specimen". Do we want only a few countries done differently based on a referee's philosophy? Have I and all other contributors who have submitted sub-numbers and referees who have approved them been wasting their time? If so, please tell me and I can find more appreciated ways to spend my time.

Now you're just victimising yourself. What I really would like to know, is why I need to state "This is the issued, and only, banknote of the pick 54"? Why would I treat my surrounding as idiots? Don't you think they already understood that when they entered the listing of Pich 54? If there are more varieties, then yes, of course they should be listed - and also explained how they differ from each other. Is it different signature titles, different colours in the bank name (and if so, what are the colours), but if there's just one cariety of the note, then why should I add that that is the issued one?
But if you are spending always add the comment "Issued note" and "Issued coin", when there's only just one variety, then yes, then you are just wasting yours, and the referees' time.

Citeer: "Coinman48"I am glad to see Transnistria now includes Pick numbers. Some time ago when I submitted such modification requests, I was told by the referee that collectors used TBB and it was too much trouble to go back and add Pick numbers to every note. So there can be changes in philosophy.

I'm not gonna pretend I remember my wording here, but the thing is that I have certain projects, and in this case it might be that I was about to clean up the Transnistrian catalogue, and instead of just adding a few Picks, it's easier to add them all altogether - just to keep track of what is done, and what is not. I find it hard to believe that I told you Transnistria only used TBB, since I don't use it myself. But a main reason might be that I was about to start cleaning up and fixing the Transnistria catalogue.


I hope this clears up a little of the confusion. And next time, please drop me a message and I'm sure we can sort things out.

Happy collecting!

Citeer: "allexis"​Maybe the referee for South Korea should be focusing on other stuff like adding photos without his watermark and orange frame...

I have so many questions here.
1) Why are you provoked?
2) Why does my pictures bother you?
3) What makes you think I can't handle refereeing a few countries and add a few pictures?

Citeer: "allexis"You can do what I did mate if you see your requests are refused by certain referees with stupid reasons, don't make any modifications requests for those countries.

This sounds like a good idea.

Take care, mate!

Citeer: "Oklahoman"​Greetings, I approve every edit that requests the addition of a catalog number. I disagree with the Tajikistan Ref in this regard. As far as the South Korean concern, I agree that there is inconsistancey from ref to ref. For example, I approve the addition of any dateline that includes a P# with an s, a,b,c etc. And I see no harm in identifying why it is an s, a,b,c in the comments on the date line.
​
​Unlike coins, the banknotes can be a wild wild west, as expectations are being codified.
​
​Please contact the ref of the nation you have issues with, and if you have no satisfaction, contact either myself, Oklahoman, or Sulfur. If we can assist, explain, or correct, or leave alone, we will try to help out.
​
​We do appreciate the edits and creations that come our way. In a short period of time, we have developed and are continuing to enhance the numista banknote pages, and a lot of that is thanks to you.
​
​Thanks,
​Oklahoman​

At lerast you are a civilised man, Ben, and even though we not always agree, we can always talk about it and see each other points of view.
The biggest problem with Numista is, and always has been, is the lack of consistency. There are no references like "This is how a coin page should look like", and "This is how a banknote page should look like". There are recommendations, and a few details that must be in a certain way, e.g. translations in lower case lettering, no line breaks, etc.

I always list the varieties, and do list a's and b's numbers when needed - e.g. a note of 1999 and 2000 has two varieties of signatures each, I of course list them as P# XXa.1, P# XXa.a2, P# XXb.1, P# XXb.2, etc. If not, it's easy to just couns "a, b, c" if interested. The problem with sibnumbers is that they can change between different issues of paper catalogues, and instead of keeping up with which one is the most popular, I recon it's easier to just check it up yourself.

Here's an example where I list all sub-numbers, because 32i has two different signatures. If I then don't specify what is what, it will be really confusing.
Here's one example where no sub-numbers are needed. It's clear what is was: Different prefix = different year.

The sub-numbers give you nothing if you are using a different book than SCWPM, hence, less is more.

ngdawa, I was merely making a case for my point of view. I found your point of view clearly expressed and I disagreed. So I was not at this time trying to resolve any problem and just wanted to see what point of view others had. I understood you so I did not need to discuss anything. I found my solution in using personal comments for the Pick sub-numbers. I still think it is not a matter of whether the sub-number is necessary but a matter of listing the exact Pick number as it is used by Pick.

This reminds me of one reason I gave up stamp collecting. The Scott catalogs are the main catalog of stamps in the US. I found wrong information given for 5 or 6 stamps and wrote to the editor, thinking they would be glad to correct the information. Instead I received a letter that the catalog was not meant to give accurate information but just information necessary to distinguish stamps. That to me was a kick in the teeth since I depended on the catalogs to allow me to collect on the basis of the information given so I could see if a stamp belonged in my topical collection.

I appreciate the work you have done and continue to do and I do understand your point of view. I have found my way to disagree and simply stopped submitting Pick numbers in year comment lines. In that way neither of us wastes time. I don't need approval and you don't need to reject modifications.

Will

G'day Will!
You have fair points, and I totally agree with your thoughts. I will revalue my thoughts about sub-numbers, even though I in general don't think they are needed – I do see their value when it come to varieties.

I really hope you don't feel discouraged, mate.