I just got a bunch of old game tokens in the mail that I ordered and one of them I cannot for the life of me find mentioned anywhere, not on here, not on Google and sadly I do not have a camera of any quality enough to put a decent picture up here for you all to look at, but I will try to describe it at least:
The reverse of the token looks almost exactly like the side of N#138276 that says “Spillemærke” and the other side looks similar to the above link but on the top it says “Købmand”, the dots separating the two words on the linked token are instead Stars, (also the “25” is still there in the middle) and the bottom text says “Olsvig” and under it there is the text “Meka” (or “Mexa”) in VERY tiny letters.
Anyone have any ideas on what kind of useless treasure Ive just uncovered, haha.
If anyone does know, can they please add that information to the page please so that anyone else searching for these tokens will know a bit more about what they're looking at. In my humble opinion, sparcely populated pages like this (those with virtually no information about the coin or note on them) should be discouraged by our referees.
If anyone does know, can they please add that information to the page please so that anyone else searching for these tokens will know a bit more about what they're looking at. In my humble opinion, sparcely populated pages like this (those with virtually no information about the coin or note on them) should be discouraged by our referees.
In general, yea. I also specifically did not create a new entry for mine because I literally only know about my token as far as what I can read on it, haha.
If anyone does know, can they please add that information to the page please so that anyone else searching for these tokens will know a bit more about what they're looking at. In my humble opinion, sparcely populated pages like this (those with virtually no information about the coin or note on them) should be discouraged by our referees.
Very little information is available on most Exonumia of this type. Most references that cover a particular area that an item is in even has very little information.
Plus, based on the duties of a referee stated in guidelines and in the forums it would not allow a referee to not approve that page.
If anyone does know, can they please add that information to the page please so that anyone else searching for these tokens will know a bit more about what they're looking at. In my humble opinion, sparcely populated pages like this (those with virtually no information about the coin or note on them) should be discouraged by our referees.
Very little information is available on most Exonumia of this type. Most references that cover a particular area that an item is in even has very little information.
Plus, based on the duties of a referee stated in guidelines and in the forums it would not allow a referee to not approve that page.
I certainly appreciate that it would be counter productive to refuse to publish any new pages. But, should referees be asking or encouraging people who submit new pages to add in any additional information during the process of approving their submission? It can't be a bad thing to at least ask.
I certainly try to add in as much additional information as possible to a new page, as you well know (and many, many thanks for all the work that you do to keep our Exonumia pages up to date). However, some of the pages I've found have barely anything on them other than the photos and basic measurements of the item. It seems a shame that we don't try to get as much information as possible written down when a new page is submitted.
LDC63 I certainly appreciate that it would be counter productive to refuse to publish any new pages. But, should referees be asking or encouraging people who submit new pages to add in any additional information during the process of approving their submission? It can't be a bad thing to at least ask.
How are you able to determine a referee did not ask questions on a given page?
I certainly try to add in as much additional information as possible to a new page, as you well know (and many, many thanks for all the work that you do to keep our Exonumia pages up to date). However, some of the pages I've found have barely anything on them other than the photos and basic measurements of the item. It seems a shame that we don't try to get as much information as possible written down when a new page is submitted.
Again, based on the guidelines the referees are given. There are no grounds to refuse a page with that limited information. If you read the links I shared, even the photos are not required.
If a referee believes that some information could be provided on top of this list of mandatory requirements, they should accept the addition and they can still ask for additional details or add remarks as a comment to the approved addition request. Xavier
I'm not sure this is done very often, which may be why we have a lack of info on some of our pages. All the same, I really value and appreciate all the hard work you and your Numista colleagues put into this site. Thank you.
LDC63 I certainly appreciate that it would be counter productive to refuse to publish any new pages. But, should referees be asking or encouraging people who submit new pages to add in any additional information during the process of approving their submission? It can't be a bad thing to at least ask.
How are you able to determine a referee did not ask questions on a given page?
I certainly try to add in as much additional information as possible to a new page, as you well know (and many, many thanks for all the work that you do to keep our Exonumia pages up to date). However, some of the pages I've found have barely anything on them other than the photos and basic measurements of the item. It seems a shame that we don't try to get as much information as possible written down when a new page is submitted.
Again, based on the guidelines the referees are given. There are no grounds to refuse a page with that limited information. If you read the links I shared, even the photos are not required.
At this point I do feel a little bit like you two are mostly arguing the words used rather than what is said, since neither statement seem to automatically exclude the other, but as for myself, I could see the point of being able to add something with just the bare minimum, since that might be all that is available, maybe ever, but on the other hand it should not be used as an excuse to be lazy, and it is of great help to everyone if able to find out more about the object being added (and thus being able to add more information from the get go).
So not technically mandatory, but probably good personal practice in general.
I quickly made this first drawing, and how close is it, apart from omitted
‘under it there is the text “Meka” (or “Mexa”) in VERY tiny letters’.
I am actually in the middle of putting some banknotes into albums and then it is bed for me so I cannot be bothered to have a look at my physical token right now (my home is a bit of a mess as I am organizing and buying things to organize in, so to speak, so it I kind of have to navigate around my workspace very much, if that makes sense), but apart from the stars being much smaller I think it is probably really good, extremely good for a first draft even.
Just so members know what to look for. I tried and found nothing -
though did see some that had that same Spillemærke side -
but with different reverse lettering.
I am sorry, but this is literally the best potat quality I can do at the moment XD
Also: Hm..the stars are bigger than I remembered, haha.
Also2: I realize I should have taken more of the Köbmand/Olsvig side, that being the unique side (and the ‘V’ and ‘I’ in ‘Olsvig’ having gotten completely eaten by the potat quality of the photo.) but I am tired and I just put everything away again >_<
EDIT: Also, considering the name MEKA shows up a few times for the other tokens, Im pretty sure that is the case here too, but I cannot say that for absolute certain.
