Change calender on several North Korean notes

Since the official calender of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) is the Juche calender, it also feature on their banknotes. Could @ngdawa , the referee (with the help of a master referee) change the years/calender to Juche, since the guidlines states the local calender takes precedence over the Julian/Gregorian one.

Thanks :D

Basicly all dated banknotes from after 1997, should undergo this chagne:

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/index.php?e=coree_du_nord&r=&ct=banknote&im1=&im2=&tbb=y&tbc=y&tbl=y&tbt=y&cat=y&ru=&ca=931&no=&v=&i=&b=&ie=&u=&a=1997-2024&dg=&m=&f=&t=&t2=&mt=&g=&se=&d=&c=&wi=&sw=

Source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juche_calendar

Both dates are present on the banknotes, but if this is what the majority wants, I have no problem to change it. Just let me know when.

The guideline says the local is prefered, when present on the item:

https://en.numista.com/help/calendar-179.html

But can also see what the other users say?

Put the local date in; the Gregorian is always there too. It get's only complicated when you have three calendars on one object😅.

Idolenz

Put the local date in; the Gregorian is always there too. It get's only complicated when you have three calendars on one object😅.

Three calendars? Which is the third of Gregorian and Juche?

It get's only complicated when you have three calendars on one object😅.

That was a hypothetical not applicable to this simple case. An example would be AH1311/VS1951/1895:
N#31949 

Idolenz

It get's only complicated when you have three calendars on one object😅.

That was a hypothetical not applicable to this simple case. An example would be AH1311/VS1951/1895:
N#31949 

 

Ah, sorry! I missed the “when” part. 😅

I just opened the first one and it has versions both with and without Juche date… N#203270

Jarcek

I just opened the first one and it has versions both with and without Juche date… N#203270

Yeah, and this is why I'm hesitating.

If it cannot be clearly defined (all yearlines) by Juche calendar, then it should remain as Gregorian. Where it is clear, I believe we could make a change. (I do not know the years however)

Jarcek

If it cannot be clearly defined (all yearlines) by Juche calendar, then it should remain as Gregorian. Where it is clear, I believe we could make a change. (I do not know the years however)

I think the whole catalogue should be consistent. It would be weird if some pages were in Juche date, and some Gregorian date. And since Gregorian date is amways present, I think tha should be the main date so be displayed.

Ok, lets make this an editorial choice.

Someone did change the calendar to Juche on this page after all: N#203270

But the years are the same, so now I own a time travelling banknote from Juche 1998 / AD 3909 😀.

I've only noticed it because of my collection timeline looks a bit funny:

Created a modification request to put bach the Gregorian calendar and added some comments to those date lines that shows the Juche era.

SGreg85

Someone did change the calendar to Juche on this page after all: N#203270

But the years are the same, so now I own a time travelling banknote from Juche 1998 / AD 3909 😀.

 

I've only noticed it because of my collection timeline looks a bit funny:

 

 

Created a modification request to put bach the Gregorian calendar and added some comments to those date lines that shows the Juche era.

It was my fault, but it's back to normal now. 😇

Thank you, the banknote returned from its little time travelling journey 🙂.