Pet Peeve Rant - Patterns Clogging Up The Regular Catalogue Listings

I am normally quite calm and laid back and if something bothers me, I just keep it to myself and get over it. However, I am becoming more and more disgruntled with scrolling through the main section of the catalogue for a given country and having to sift through a whole load of 'pattern' or 'trial strike' listings, often without photos, references or data. Also, I am a type collector, so when I am closing in on completing a particular run or type set, I want to see a string of green ticks all in a row and not broken up by these (often) faceless and meaningless listings. I fully appreciate that just because I don't collect them or have any real interest in them doesn't mean that other collectors can't enjoy collecting them but let us follow the format used by Krause and keep them all together in their own section, generally at the end of the regular strike section to which they relate. A case in point, and the latest one I came across which tipped me over the edge, is the Pakistan catalogue and a perfect example of how to ruin what was a good looking set of regular strike listings. Anyone else agree or am I ranting on my own here?

One solution would be to hide the patterns. If you click the "Coin type" tab and un-check Patterns, all pattern coins will disappear. Looking at Pakistan specifically, un-checking the Pattern option drops that country's total coin count from 128 to 83.

I think it's ok, but they should try to add pics also.

Citeer: "kommodore"​I think it's ok, but they should try to add pics also.

​Usually a big problem is that pattern coins are so rare that the only sources with pictures are some auction company that refuses to let Numista use their photos....


That being said, as another type collector I can confirm the satisfaction of seeing a row of green tick marks, but like Sulfur said a simple solution would be to hide the pattern coins via the search options.

'No photo available' is the bane of the Numista catalogue....

But I agree with you; patterns in their own section sounds like a far neater idea.

Since patterns and trial strikes are not real currency, it would seem to me they are nothing more than tokens ..

Here is an example already listed as a token ...

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces56517.html

@Sulfur, agreed that is a possible solution and would remove the patterns from my view but it is also a little like using a plaster/band-aid to cover up an unsightly wound - it does not cure the condition.

@kommodore, thank you for your opinion, one of the reasons for posting this was to canvass other members' viewpoints and I agree that pictures would be preferable but let's at least have some weight and diameter information, that is the least we would expect.

@CassTaylor, for an example of patterns in their own section, one can view the patterns of the UK pre-decimal issues here, which leaves them all available to view but away from the regular coinage strikes.

@derf, that is a similar issue but with one main difference and that is the catalogue reference number. The example you provided had an X# number suggesting it resides in the Unusual World Coins catalogue whereas the ones I was thinking of have a KM#Pn number which would suggest to me that they were produced by the main mint or possibly by the regular coinage engravers as part of a trial for new currencies and as such, some would argue that they belong in the main catalogue.

Citeer: "radrick007"​@derf, that is a similar issue but with one main difference and that is the catalogue reference number. The example you provided had an X# number suggesting it resides in the Unusual World Coins catalogue whereas the ones I was thinking of have a KM#Pn number which would suggest to me that they were produced by the main mint or possibly by the regular coinage engravers as part of a trial for new currencies and as such, some would argue that they belong in the main catalogue.

​With this explanation, may I ask why this one is placed in ** Exonumia **

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces69810.html

Citeer: "derf"​

Citeer: "radrick007"​@derf, that is a similar issue but with one main difference and that is the catalogue reference number. The example you provided had an X# number suggesting it resides in the Unusual World Coins catalogue whereas the ones I was thinking of have a KM#Pn number which would suggest to me that they were produced by the main mint or possibly by the regular coinage engravers as part of a trial for new currencies and as such, some would argue that they belong in the main catalogue.

​​With this explanation, may I ask why this one is placed in ** Exonumia **
​
​https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces69810.html

​You can ask but I don't know what the answer is Just a little joke but I'm not sure what you are getting at? This second example is also an X# reference which suggests it comes from Unusual World Coins, a mixture of tokens & Exonumia which do not belong in the regular catalogue?

Citeer: "radrick007"​
​
​@CassTaylor, for an example of patterns in their own section, one can view the patterns of the UK pre-decimal issues here, which leaves them all available to view but away from the regular coinage strikes.
​

Yes, I know about that.
I'm considering adopting a similar style with French Indochina, Hong Kong, and the Straits Settlements.​

Citeer: "CassTaylor"​

Citeer: "radrick007"​
​​
​​@CassTaylor, for an example of patterns in their own section, one can view the patterns of the UK pre-decimal issues here, which leaves them all available to view but away from the regular coinage strikes.
​​
​
​
​

​Yes, I know about that.
​I'm considering adopting a similar style with French Indochina, Hong Kong, and the Straits Settlements.​

​That's good to hear, I think it works well in Krause, particularly if you are looking for a specific pattern then you can go straight to that section so I think it would be good if we could start adopting that format on Numista.

C'est fait!
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/hong_kong-1.html#devise7375
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/straits-1.html#devise7376

Tell me if I didn't do it right.

Citeer: "CassTaylor"​C'est fait!
​https://en.numista.com/catalogue/hong_kong-1.html#devise7375
​https://en.numista.com/catalogue/straits-1.html#devise7376
​
​Tell me if I didn't do it right.

​Elles sont belles! You should rightfully be proud of these catalogue pages. Each listing has good quality images and each of the pattern pages (barring a couple of minor exceptions) has a KM#Pn reference. The only thing I would do differently is the reverse the order of the 'currencies' so the regular coinage strikes appear first, as they do in Krause (I believe the catalogue admin can help you with this). Other than that I would say "Brava!"

Thanks! And yeah, I've already contacted an admin to do just that ASAP!

You have no idea how many hours I've spent trawling through the depths of the internet for some of those images. I take great pride in maintaining top notch quality presentation for the countries I referee for, and you know you're dedicated/slightly insane when you go back across a few dozen pages just to make sure the descriptions and lettering are all uniform.

Citeer: "derf"​

Citeer: "radrick007"​@derf, that is a similar issue but with one main difference and that is the catalogue reference number. The example you provided had an X# number suggesting it resides in the Unusual World Coins catalogue whereas the ones I was thinking of have a KM#Pn number which would suggest to me that they were produced by the main mint or possibly by the regular coinage engravers as part of a trial for new currencies and as such, some would argue that they belong in the main catalogue.

​​With this explanation, may I ask why this one is placed in ** Exonumia **
​
​https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces69810.html

​That is not a pattern but just a medal that was minted for the 80th birthday of Paul von Hindenburg

Thought I would revive this thread since the problem appears to have got worse, not better. Is there anyone else out there who thinks Patterns should have their own currency section within their country catalogue and can we get enough like minds together to make a change or am I just p***ing in the wind here?!

I agree that patterns (particularly those privately issued) should be put in a separate section. What also irks me is when medals are listed as "tokens", such as in Iceland. I can exclude patterns from my view but not tokens, as some "bank tokens" were normal circulating coins.

Sorry, I beg to differ

What is wrong with Sulfur's suggestion? This is how the database is set up: we can specify if a coin is a pattern in the coin type field. And we reserve the currency field to the currency. "Pattern strike" is not a currency. the currency is pound, franc, dollar etc.

Also, we should not make up new currencies for coin series. We have a separate field for specifying the series. The currency for the "Queen's Beasts series" was still the pound sterling.

Currency should be reserved strictly to monetary reforms.

Otherwise, redundancies like specifying "pattern" twice just make the database difficult to manage and create long term problems.

Regards

@Stratocaster: theoretically you are right, the pattern coins aren't a different currency. But at least as important as political correctness is usability. So I'm 100 % agreed with radrick007. Rick, you're talking about the Pakistan catalogue, but take a look at the France catalogue: 598 patterns crisscross the catalogue, that's about 20 % of the total amount of coins for France in our catalogue! Any idea how much extra you have to scroll (and click when again you are at the end of a page)? And almost all for nothing because most of these patterns are rare and expensive and you probably never will have them, even if you collect them. That's also a reason why Sulfur's suggestion is not a solution. Of course it helps, but it's just a a cloth for bleeding (I don't know if this expression exists in English), it doesn't solve the problem. Because I also collect essais so I can't hide the patterns. I collect them and it's already bothering and annoying me so I can easily understand people who don't collect them are more bothered and annoyed.

If the only opposition is because it's not a currency, maybe we should just rename "currency" in "category" or "currency/category" and then it fits perfectly.

I am with Essor Prof on this. It is helpful to have all of the patterns, essais together. By using the field for currency, we can have all of them indexed in one place, and it is easier to maneuver within the category, or to avoid it altogether...

Thumbs up on Essor Prof proposal...

Hello,

As mentioned by Stratocaster, the currency field should be used only for the currency and not a a way to customize the order. There are other ways to change the order of the results.

I understand that showing the patterns in the middle of the other coins makes the list of results heavy and difficult to follow. A possible solution would be to automatically sort the patterns at the end. Still I initially thought that showing the patterns next to the equivalent circulation coins would make most sense.
Could you please advise why disabling the display of patterns (by unchecking patterns in the list of searched coin types) doesn't work for your use case?

I believe the point raised by @Essor Prof was that they collect Patterns so don't want them to disappear from the results, they just don't want to see them mixed up with the regular coinage, rather in a separate section so that they are all grouped together, on their own.

I had an idea a while ago for a different reason, but it could help here too:


There could be a new category of Display Options: "Group by"

Them coins could be grouped by type (circulating, commemoratives, patterns) and then sorted by another criterion. Or they can be grouped by ruler, and within each group sorted by type for example.

Also, I proposed grouping by series. Might be especially useful for commemoratives and banknotes.

I also suggest the option to sort/group by mint. Only specifically useful for some issuers (e.g. Byzantine, Ottoman, Roman Empire, etc). Conventionally, in a catalog, coins would be grouped by Emperor, then by mint, and finally sorted by denomination.

This would already give much more flexibility. For full customisation, I think something like this would be needed:

Where multiple sorting criteria can be selected in a particular order. E.g. Byzantine coins could be grouped by Emperor, then sorted by mint, denomination, and date in this specific order.

Best