About Pick/BNM codes

From long ago I'm seeing catalog codes from Banknote Museum are being uued when there are not Pick codes.

There is a late discussion on this theme at https://en.numista.com/forum/topic136210.html

To organize, I think we could use the BNM numbers when there are not Pick codes, and maybe keeping the “W” prefix, so is easy to know they are provisional codes.

I did not fully understand why not to add BNM codes to reference numbers, and would like to hear the reasons, as obviously I missed that part.

On the other hand, I see there are loads of notes with added P# codes that were not assigned by Pick, not only on new note types, but also on new issues (new years) of notes with Pick code.

Obviously, if the final decision is not to use the only-BNM codes, I should (and all other referees too) erase these codes from pages. And I also think new issues should not be assigned the Pick codes, as we are not sure if they would keep the same one, or create new ones.

Will be glad to hear opinions, and decision from catalog managers.

Daniel,

Uruguay.

I stand by my opinion on sole online sources (kept up by individuals). Also they are only modified Pick numbers. The Banknote Book seems to be the only remaining large general catalog. I don't like the subscription model but maybe there are enough members that could provide the reference numbers.

I think it would be better for numista to develop its own catalogue numbering system than to start using those of other websites.

In time, I think that the scwpm may be revived when it gets itself sorted out. 

I think the BNB has disabled itself somewhat by adopting a subscription model – it's too expensive.

I think it would be better for numista to develop its own catalogue numbering system than to start using those of other websites.

I don't think this will ever going to happen other then our inventory N# numbers. Numista is also an online entity with all the problems of one (it is quite fluid and easily changed [for some things that is a positive]) albeit curated by more than one person but at the end still a one man show. 

There are a few long winded threads about this (one I could find) and it never concluded on anything. You either have a system that is accurate but so complicated and cumbersome nobody will ever use it or the easier to use ones are so simple that they are easily thrown off if changes happen and you would need to start over every couple years and you would end up with KM like situations anyway.

Hello everybody!

A good question to be debated. As it is today, the numbering used by Numista will never be used on a large scale to identify items (be they coins, banknotes, etc.). A completely random numbering, which is assigned (in ascending order) to each addition of any item here on the site, loses any sense of organization.

I understood what Daniel meant about the ordered numbering for each transmitter. The SCWPM is the guide for banknotes, for example, precisely because of its good (with some flaws, ok) organization and numbering. The Banknote Book goes in this direction and is quite ok too (it's just quite expensive to access the information); as well as many local catalogs for each country.

Perhaps, in the near future, Numista could try to start a code-numeric organization within each issuer. For me, it would be important; and I know it might not be as important to other people.

Regards, Vladimir.

My point is Pick catalog seems to be the most used globally; I noticed BankNote Museum uses the same codes, AND added what they guess would be used by Pick, when is not already listed; The BankNote Book use their own codes, but mention Pick numbers, and so does other catalogs. Cross reference is good, for those who don't have every catalog available (most if not all of us).

I feel I should erase Pick #s registered in the issuers I manage, if they were not assigned by Pick or Numismaster; but on the other hand, I think “guessed” codes are useful to keep collection order when P codes are not assigned by Pick/NM.

On this side of screen, I am in charge to organize monthly auctions of our national numismatic association, in the listings I add codes for each coin, note, medal, token, etc. whenever available; and when one variety code is missing, but there are other varieties listed, I use the codes within brackets to show they were assigned as reference. As example: N#207690  was issued on 3 years: 2015, 2020, 2021; the first one is listed on Numismaster but not 2020 nor 2021; for the 2015 I put “P# 98”; for the other two, I put “(P# 98)”. I'm not proposing to use this system, just showing there are ways to indicate the situation.

In resume: 

- I think Pick is the catalog used for more collectors, even knowing the load of mistakes and inconsistencies they make for currency and coins from outside USA (and maybe Europe). It is logic, cause of they manage an huge amount of data, and nobody can be “specialized in everything”. At least it covers a high percentage of items. 

- Pick also is commonly used cause it gives an “order” to organize notes, or at least is fairly easy to browse. Additionally, now Numismaster site can be checked for free and is somehow updated.

- BankNote Museum also is free to use, and they follow the Pick codes, AND they assign “provisional” codes for new items, while they are added to Numismaster. They add the codes using a method that seems to be following the Pick rules, even if we don't know what those rules are (maybe not even Pick have it stated in any way). This way collectors may be fairly updated, and in case final Pick code (as updated by Numismaster in due time) be different, order given would not be too bad.

- My question is if we should delete P#s registered on Numista that are not listed on Pick/NM, as they technically don't exist, or we may use them in a provisional way, but making evident they are still not assigned by Numismaster, and they may vary in future. It is not hard to do, Same as Pick assigned “S###” for specialized issues (usually local issuers), “CS###” for collectors series,  “M###” for military issues, “FX###” for Foreign Exchange Certificates… the use of “W###” would denote it was not assigned by Pick/NM, and is provisional; or we may add BNM on the codes list, so we can use them when there is no Pick# available. Yes, I know in past was said being a online catalog it is “volatile” and can disappear or change easily, but codes assigned by Numismaster, after last printed edition of Pick also are. Even N# (Numista codes) don't have a paperback version, and we  happily use them.

Last consideration is that Numista is meant to give information and data to their members and other users, so adding the BNM-assigned codes will not be a bad information, specially if we are able to inform the situation, via note in comments, or something alike.

Hope our admins will take a look on this, so they make a final decision, that will be good for all.

Made up codes should not be assigned to any item in the catalogue. Those are not official Pick numbers nobody else is using them. BNM is a great source of information but those numbers should not be used.

I completely disagree that we should ever use the fake made up Pick numbers used by the Museum.  They are actually violating copyright.  I remove all I find as I have to look at pages.  Please do not allow this to happen on your pages.  Fake numbers make Numista look fake and like we approve of Colnect who would do something like this.

Oklahoman

I completely disagree that we should ever use the fake made up Pick numbers used by the Museum.  They are actually violating copyright.  I remove all I find as I have to look at pages.  Please do not allow this to happen on your pages.  Fake numbers make Numista look fake and like we approve of Colnect who would do something like this.

I mostly agree with you, but I have a bit different perspective; BNM explicitly show the codes they add are not from Pick; anyone would notice the “W” prior to code. Different thing is when Colnect adds “.1”, ".2", etc. to end of Pick numbers to split variants not listed by Pick. BNM also add “tails” to  identify the variants they split, but again they add in into brackets “(1)”, “(2)”, etc. Who have collected notes for three months, already knows Pick doesn't use this kind of codification.

I don't say we should, I say we may use the codification that obviously fills the lags of Pick.  What we should not do is to add the missing codes in the EXACT format of Pick, but show they are not from Pick, but to fill the missing codes.

adanieluy

My point is Pick catalog seems to be the most used globally; I noticed BankNote Museum uses the same codes, AND added what they guess would be used by Pick, when is not already listed;

They are not necessarily guessing accurately.

BNM numbers should not be used, imho.

This older topic is still open, how should we proceed here?

Proceed by using proper numbers.  Fake Pick numbers are not a good thing.  Pick numbers are still being assigned.  Use the real numbers.

In spite there is still no answer from Admins, I agree with the reasons no to use BNM “W” codes, I am not accepting those codes, and have fixed all those I found wrong; but I don't have a way to mark this thread as solved.

The Pick numbering system is effectively obsolete, as Krause Publications went bankrupt a few years ago.

T.B.B. numbers should be used where they have been confirmed up on http://www.banknotenews.com .

Aidan.

BCNumismatics  is wrong in this area.  The Pick numbers are still being created and Numismaster is still being updated.  The copyright holder of the Pick numbering system is also the publisher of Numismatic News and Banknote News.

Pick numbers can be confirmed as easily as TBB numbers can be.

BCNumismatics

The Pick numbering system is effectively obsolete, as Krause Publications went bankrupt a few years ago.

 

T.B.B. numbers should be used where they have been confirmed up on http://www.banknotenews.com .

 

Aidan.

Well, not so obsolete about Pick (and KM), as the site Numismaster ( https://numismaster.com/home ) is adding catalog codes to notes and coins, as is part or Krause Publishing, or Krause is part of Numismaster, not sure which owns which. Like Krause/Pick, they are not too fast to add new issues, and information is not the most accurate, but enough to have it for new addings.

Whenever possible we are adding the TBB codes, but since they make 1 catalog for each country, and they are not free, is not easy to have them all (at least for me, as I am on charge of 17 countries). As you pointed, new codes can be found on BanknoteNews site, and those are being added, but older only into catalogs.