Citeer: "ArtsakhRespublik"I support this, another alternative would be having a gif with alternating flags like we have for Germany(1871-1948) and Swiss cantons.
Colony of Hong Kong needs to be kept as a separate listing, not merged in with the Hong Kong S.A.R. listings.
Aidan.
Topic verplaatst naar "Numista banknote catalog"(ZacUK, 6-mei-2020, 14:32)
I would argue that we should keep HKSAR and Colony of HK in the same issuer, since banknote designs really didn't change after the handover. Notes and coins that were issued in 1993 were still being issued after the handover unchanged, so it would be confusing to create two separate issuers.
I think we should do a gif thing with HK flag flashing between the current one and colony of HK one, possibly for coins as well. There are 4 colonial flags of HK, we could flash only the most recent one (in use at the handover) or flash all 4 of them. Whatever.
光復香港 時代革命
五大訴求 缺一不可
Liberate Hong Kong, Revolution of our times
Citeer: "HongKongCoinCollector"I would argue that we should keep HKSAR and Colony of HK in the same issuer, since banknote designs really didn't change after the handover. Notes and coins that were issued in 1993 were still being issued after the handover unchanged, so it would be confusing to create two separate issuers.
I think we should do a gif thing with HK flag flashing between the current one and colony of HK one, possibly for coins as well. There are 4 colonial flags of HK, we could flash only the most recent one (in use at the handover) or flash all 4 of them. Whatever.
I don't agree, as the last banknotes of the Colony of Hong Kong are dated 1 January 1997.
Any note from Hong Kong dated 1 July 1997 & later is outside the scope of British Commonwealth numismatics.
Citeer: "BCNumismatics"
I don't agree, as the last banknotes of the Colony of Hong Kong are dated 1 January 1997.
Any note from Hong Kong dated 1 July 1997 & later is outside the scope of British Commonwealth numismatics.
Aidan.
However, the banknote designs didn't change after the handover: for example, this banknote from the catalog. It was issued in 1993 before the handover, through 1997 and afterwards.
The same design was issued by both the Colony of HK and the HKSAR. Which issuer does this banknote belong in?
It would be simpler to have one issuer, Hong Kong, encompassing both Colony of HK and HKSAR with the gif flashing flags.
光復香港 時代革命
五大訴求 缺一不可
Liberate Hong Kong, Revolution of our times
Citeer: "BCNumismatics"Clearly, that 1993 100 Dollars belongs under 'Colony of Hong Kong'.
Aidan.
1993-2002. Should it be separated into to pages, one 1993-1997 and one 1998-2002? After all, it is the same pick.
Yes, it should be separated - especially to distinguish the Colonial issue notes from those issued 1 July 1997 & later.
The same Pick number can be used - like when some note types were issued for both Ceylon & Sri Lanka.
Aidan.
I don't agree, since it will be very confusing to have the same note twice - without any change.
When it comes to Ceylon and Sri Lanka, at least there was a change. The English text changed name from Ceylon to Sri Lanka.
But I let the majority decide. I like the idea to split HK into Colony and SAR, but when identical notes are issued both before and after, it'll just get confusing. Therefore I like the idea of a gif flashing flags.
Citeer: "BCNumismatics"Clearly, that 1993 100 Dollars belongs under 'Colony of Hong Kong'.
Aidan.
1993-2002. Should it be separated into to pages, one 1993-1997 and one 1998-2002? After all, it is the same pick.
Yes, it should be separated - especially to distinguish the Colonial issue notes from those issued 1 July 1997 & later.
The same Pick number can be used - like when some note types were issued for both Ceylon & Sri Lanka.
Aidan.
I don't agree, since it will be very confusing to have the same note twice - without any change.
When it comes to Ceylon and Sri Lanka, at least there was a change. The English text changed name from Ceylon to Sri Lanka.
But I let the majority decide. I like the idea to split HK into Colony and SAR, but when identical notes are issued both before and after, it'll just get confusing. Therefore I like the idea of a gif flashing flags.
The Central Bank of Ceylon retained its name until the mid-1980's, when its name was changed to Central Bank of Sri Lanka.
Notes issued stradding the period between Ceylon & Sri Lanka are listed twice - with those issued under the Republic being listed in Pick under 'Sri Lanka', & those issued before the Republic was declared listed under 'Ceylon'.
The last notes of the Colony of Hong Kong are dated 1 January 1997.
Citeer: "BCNumismatics"Clearly, that 1993 100 Dollars belongs under 'Colony of Hong Kong'.
Aidan.
1993-2002. Should it be separated into to pages, one 1993-1997 and one 1998-2002? After all, it is the same pick.
Yes, it should be separated - especially to distinguish the Colonial issue notes from those issued 1 July 1997 & later.
The same Pick number can be used - like when some note types were issued for both Ceylon & Sri Lanka.
Aidan.
I don't agree, since it will be very confusing to have the same note twice - without any change.
When it comes to Ceylon and Sri Lanka, at least there was a change. The English text changed name from Ceylon to Sri Lanka.
But I let the majority decide. I like the idea to split HK into Colony and SAR, but when identical notes are issued both before and after, it'll just get confusing. Therefore I like the idea of a gif flashing flags.
The Central Bank of Ceylon retained its name until the mid-1980's, when its name was changed to Central Bank of Sri Lanka.
Notes issued stradding the period between Ceylon & Sri Lanka are listed twice - with those issued under the Republic being listed in Pick under 'Sri Lanka', & those issued before the Republic was declared listed under 'Ceylon'.
The last notes of the Colony of Hong Kong are dated 1 January 1997.
Aidan.
If there's no change between the Ceylon and Lankese banknotes, they have the same pick, and are seperated, then I reckon HK should be treated the same.
Citeer: "ngdawa"[Deleted a bunch of chain quotes to keep the chat tidy]
If there's no change between the Ceylon and Lankese banknotes, they have the same pick, and are seperated, then I reckon HK should be treated the same.
Shouldn't this be a problem with Ceylon and Sri Lanka, and not HKSAR and Colony of HK?
And if we want to do that, then we'll have to do that with the coins part of the catalog as well, as currently there is no distinction between HKSAR and Colony of HK in the coins catalog. Similarly, HK coins first issued in 1993 are still being issued today with no design changes.
I vote to combine all territories that do not change their note designs during a political change.
Btw: time to let the mods decide. As well as FeroxDrakenHK, the ref for both HK coins and HK banknotes.
光復香港 時代革命
五大訴求 缺一不可
Liberate Hong Kong, Revolution of our times
I do think it's important to distinguish between Colonial notes and SAR notes, how we go about that, best for the website owners to decide.
I would point out that while ruling authority has changed, denominations, monetary systems and many other things have remained the same. The tricky thing comes down to 1993, when specie design stayed the same before and after the handover/change of ruling authority, but the authority didn't.
I've thought of modifying the notes to point this out for 1993 issued specie, as not everyone is aware of Hong Kong history as people who live here and use/see the local currency often.
I'd like to hear more suggestions and I'm going to look at other countries with colonial history to see how it is handled on the rest of the website. Perhaps a solution can be emulated from there.
Actually, since the "ruling authority" doesn't really make a lot of sense as notes generally didn't change with a new monarch, we should revamp "ruling authority" to Colonial, Japanese Occupation and HKSAR and do the gif flashing flag thing.
光復香港 時代革命
五大訴求 缺一不可
Liberate Hong Kong, Revolution of our times
We discussed this topic with the other admins a while ago, and the guidelines for flags are that only the most recent flag should be used, and we should avoid .gifs because they are distracting on the main page.
.gifs should only be used when several territories with different flags that existed in parallel are listed together in one issuer (e.g. German states). But not for historical flags.
Status gewijzigd naar Afgekeurd(stratocaster, 16-mei-2021, 11:15)
