You can find it in SCWPM as 16 different entries with their own different P. I know the signatures are the main differences and some say we should combine similar entries on the same page. But I find this to be too much. Also there is no way of finding that banknote using search by reference.
Hi! I have been adding many different US banknotes and the Federal Reserve bank they were printed at determines the difference between other banknotes and the difference between values. We should definitely not add every 1957 1 dollar bill on one line for example as they all go for different values. Their Federal Reserve bank letter is their main distinguishing feature other than the year and they should not all be smushed together on one line. As for the different signatures and P#'s I have been spending a lot of time adding them t existing pages. Here is what my end goal looks like:
I also applied to be the referee for US banknotes about a week ago and if I am accepted I will organize US banknotes by years, P#'s, signatures, distinguishing Mark's, and Federal Reserve bank letters.
I understand that you cannot search by the P# of many US banknote pages as they are many different varieties listed on one page. I do not think we should cut back on the amount of listings on one page if they are all different. To address this issue we should add more slots for P#'s on a banknote listing. Or we could add a slot after every listing's comments(or before them)where you could enter in the P#.
The small size Federal Reserve Notes in almost all denominations need to be broken down further to individual pages for each Series (and thus P#). I realize in the 70's, 80's, 90's the US stopped the standard practice of changing the series number only with a substantive design change (more than a signature change) and this creates additional P#s sometimes just for a signature change. (which has always frustrated me in my small size collection, but its how they were done.)
Pick simply followed suite by assigning a new number each time a new Series was introduced as had been the way they were always cataloged.
By following an objective, recognized standard, we have a road map as to where to go and what is commonly recognized in the collecting community. Varying too far from this and we have a catalog that fits one or two collectors vision of how things should be and will inevitably turn away others seeking a place to store their collections, but want to catalog them the way the recognized sources do.
I am happy to help create any pages that are needed. I haven't started to make new pages, because frankly I don't know where to start or what others are doing.
I think breaking each page down into one series would create too many pages. Also I thought that the rules were to keep every listing on the same page except if there is a significant difference?
I agree on too many pages if you were going to give each Federal Reserve Bank of each series a page, this would be a nightmare, but US FRN notes are a widely collected area of numismatics and to spare a few pages doesn't seem like a good idea. The first 50 or so years when there was a Series year change there was a major change in notes, so to avoid a new page between say 1934 and 1950 or 1963 would be avoiding new pages just for the sake of not creating pages. It would be like not creating a new page for the 1965 dime and just saying in the year line that its now clad and not silver as the earlier ones are. They certainly look alike to a guy in the street and don't have near the distinction as from a Mercury to Roosevelt dime, which a laymen would immediately distinguish. It's not until you hit the 70's that some of the Series year changes were only for signature changes. I can understand the logic of combining these into multiple P# pages, but think for the objectivity of how things are cataloged wouldn't just to have 7-10 pages of FRN 5 dollar bills versus 10-13.
This doesn't even touch how to handle the areas of Broken/Obsolete notes. This also needs to be well thought out before we have a "token" like situation. (large groups of material just lumped together with very little organization)
Some said keep the listing on the same page some don't agree, there are no clear rules. Anyway I agree with worth and I think every series should have their page.
引用する: "allexis"Some said keep the listing on the same page some don't agree, there are no clear rules. Anyway I agree with worth and I think every series should have their page.
So do you think something like this should be separated into 26 pages instead?
The main changes are when new signatures were added. I dont see a problem with combining them when it is just a signature change. I do like to see a new page when either the front or back have a different design.. but new pages for signs and dates doesnt seem worth it. But I do support an orderly way that lets folks find their notes.
We shouldnt be married to Pick. But I wonder, how does Frieburg organize the listings?
Library Media Specialist, columnist, collector, and gardener...
引用する: "allexis"Some said keep the listing on the same page some don't agree, there are no clear rules. Anyway I agree with worth and I think every series should have their page.
So do you think something like this should be separated into 26 pages instead?
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces43.html
The amount of pages on Numista could quadruple--if not more--if we separated pages by series.
is P- 443, P- 449, P-455, P-462, P-468, P-474, P-480, P-490, P-496, P-504, P-509, P-515, P-523, P-530, P-537 and 2017 Series with no P yet.
Not quite the same thing.
Colnect https://colnect.com/en/banknotes/series/country/225-United_States_of_America
Separate listing for each Series, with pictures of each series and sub-series (Not sure if they wanted to create listings for each Fed District and just haven't made it, but do have a separate listing for each series regardless)
World Bank Note Gallery http://worldbanknotegallery.com/countries/page.php?pg_code=KM
an older site that doesn't appear to be updated, but still a listing for each series and sub-series with picture (if available) of each note (this site is not completed and doesn't appear to be as current as the others) Also of interest they do not seem to have a way to catalog Federal District.
引用する: "CGeorge"I think breaking each page down into one series would create too many pages. Also I thought that the rules were to keep every listing on the same page except if there is a significant difference?
Yes. We no not separate pages based on dates or signatures (minor changes), or based on external references (things unrelated to the actual physical note). Same applies for series if the only thing that differenciates one series from another is the date or signature.
Sure, one page may contain 16 different Pick numbers, but... blame Pick for assigning so many numbers to one type (one type by Numista's standards).
The United States is a large issuer, and right now, we only have room for five references. That is a limitation that will hopefully be correct... eventually. But for now, I think the pages are great the way they currently are.
But I can't belive that in 50+ years the notes are the same. Wasn't there at least a security strip added at some point? Wouldn't be the best reason for a split but a relatively easy one to spot.
引用する: "Idolenz"But I can't belive that in 50+ years the notes are the same.
To be honest, consudering what country we're talking about, I'm actually amazed that there are changes at all. Look at this 1923 notes and this 2013 notes. It's amazing to see how they've changed!
引用する: "Idolenz"But I can't belive that in 50+ years the notes are the same. Wasn't there at least a security strip added at some point? Wouldn't be the best reason for a split but a relatively easy one to spot.
It's funny that when I created a page with 2 P because of the wmk I've been told "two P, two pages" by a referee. Not you guys, but still... And at least write P numbers in the line of each year.
引用する: "allexis"It's funny that when I created a page with 2 P because of the wmk I've been told "two P, two pages" by a referee. Not you guys, but still... And at least write P numbers in the line of each year.
I agree. Mostly everything I have added for U.S. banknotes have their individual P#'s in the comment of each year listing.
