| Author |
 Replies: 10,134 / Views: 317,195 |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 Australia
2564 Posts |
Quote:
New rule: Whenever we have a run of AH dated coins being posted without CE coins, we will need all AH years to regress. I'm not 100% sure of your meaning, jbuck. For example 1379 CE, to substitute AH coins then you're asking for full coverage of the CE year by AH dated coins, given that may require two AH coins, and in some circumstances up to 3 coins? Is that what you mean? The Ox moves slowly, but the Earth is patient.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
7963 Posts |
 Date fraud. Is that a state crime or federal?  |
|
Pillar of the Community
Russian Federation
5178 Posts |
Quote:
Whenever we have a run of AH dated coins being posted without CE coins, we will need all AH years to regress.  but I'm not sure how it would interact with undated-but-datable coins. Also I think we might want to relax it if the conversion is clear; if an AH year only covers a small part of a CE year (and is mostly in a different CE year) it shouldn't be required unless that other CE year isn't covered either. [EDIT: for example, 2014 CE is covered by AH 1436 and AH 1435, but AH 1436 only covers a small part of it. If for some reason no 2014 CE coins are posted, but an AH 1435 coin is, and 2015 was covered by a CE dated coin, we shouldn't also need AH 1436 to regress to 2013 CE / AH 1434.] Quote:
You are only allowed one coin per year, so make it your best! I hope that helps with the pace during the first two centuries That sounds like a bad idea? A lot of people have extensive collections of specific years. But something like "wait a few hours or until someone else had posted, whichever is earlier" could work; force them to spread it out a little without making them only post the one. [You'd probably also want exceptions for matched sets in one post.] Edited by january1may
06/27/2026 08:46 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
2564 Posts |
Quote:
Whenever we have a run of AH dated coins being posted without CE coins, we will need all AH years to regress. I have my head around this now and it makes sense, but in practice does the posting person have to provide all coins, or do they just post their AH coin, and then it is up to someone else to either post a "connecting" AH coin or someone posts a CE coin, which negates the need for the other AH coin.? Does that make sense.? Quote:
but I'm not sure how it would interact with undated-but-datable coins I don't think this would be an issue. If it is dateable, then it has a date. Or do you see other issues? Quote:
Also I think we might want to relax it if the conversion is clear; if an AH year only covers a small part of a CE year (and is mostly in a different CE year) it shouldn't be required unless that other CE year isn't covered either Quote:
You are only allowed one coin per year, so make it your best! I hope that helps with the pace during the first two centuries Is this to lessen the impact of excessive data storage for CCF, and loading time for pages? Quote:
Date fraud. Is that a state crime or federal?  I think it may be a case for Interpol. Can I serve my time in AH years? There are times I wish I had let the ball go through to the catcherThe Ox moves slowly, but the Earth is patient.
Edited by ttkoo
06/28/2026 09:02 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United Kingdom
1324 Posts |
One to look at whilst we wait... Sarbadars (Iran), 6 Dirhams, Damghan Mint AH781  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7963 Posts |
Quote:
I think it may be a case for Interpol. Can I serve my time in AH years?  Makes sense to me. |
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
2564 Posts |
Quote:
Sarbadars (Iran), 6 Dirhams, Damghan Mint
AH781 Nice andyg. Can you provide the attribution, or point out the date? Then no need to wait, this should get the 8th moving again, shouldn't it jbuck? The Ox moves slowly, but the Earth is patient.
Edited by ttkoo
06/28/2026 6:59 pm
|
|
Moderator
 United States
189767 Posts |
Quote:
I'm not 100% sure of your meaning, jbuck. For example 1379 CE, to substitute AH coins then you're asking for full coverage of the CE year by AH dated coins, given that may require two AH coins, and in some circumstances up to 3 coins? Is that what you mean? No, what I want is to not have any gaps going back. If we have a run of AH coins with no CE coins posted, I do not want to skip any AH years just because how they "map" to CE "allows" it. Quote:
I have my head around this now and it makes sense, but in practice does the posting person have to provide all coins, or do they just post their AH coin, and then it is up to someone else to either post a "connecting" AH coin or someone posts a CE coin, which negates the need for the other AH coin.? Does that make sense.? We do not need one person to provide all the coins. I just do not want someone who has a "gap" coin to feel cheated because their AH coin does not map to a CE year because the AH years before and after map to the CE years before and after. |
|
Moderator
United States
189767 Posts |
Quote:
but I'm not sure how it would interact with undated-but-datable coins. Only if it is undated-but-datable to AH years, not CE years. When any CE year coin in posted, the rule is moot. This is only for when we might have three or more AH coins posted in a row. Quote:
Also I think we might want to relax it if the conversion is clear; if an AH year only covers a small part of a CE year (and is mostly in a different CE year) it shouldn't be required unless that other CE year isn't covered either. This rule is more about being complete than covering how a date is converted from one calendar to another. Look at it from this way: If the topic were going back primarily using the AH calendar, we would not skip these years then. I am applying that logic to the times when we have stretches of only AH coins. You guys seem to have them covered anyway, so I do not want them to be left out. But even if their are CE coins, I also want those gap year AH coins posted as a bonus. I guess I want to give them more importance when the run is using AH coins. If this is going to be a problem, then I can scrap that rule. I do not want to make this topic less fun. |
|
Moderator
United States
189767 Posts |
Quote:
That sounds like a bad idea? A lot of people have extensive collections of specific years. True, but then this becomes (for a moment) several pages of a topic for that person. Quote:
But something like "wait a few hours or until someone else had posted, whichever is earlier" could work; force them to spread it out a little without making them only post the one. That was the stated rule before, to try to wait. The unspoken rule was 30 minutes. The problem is when we have two or three people going around posting their coins within minutes, sometimes second of each other. People who do not live on the forum come in to several pages of new coins each day. It is a complaint I have received many times from many people over the last several editions, usually during the first century (and in this case, an email I received just after I hinted at an upcoming 9th edition). Quote:
You'd probably also want exceptions for matched sets in one post. I thought about putting something like, "If you have a set, pick one coin in it and post that."  As I said about the other one above, if this is going to kill the fun, I will scrap the rule. I will not name names or put them on Front Street, but maybe the people who have been bugging me can comment. |
|
Moderator
United States
189767 Posts |
Quote:
One to look at whilst we wait... Sarbadars (Iran), 6 Dirhams, Damghan Mint AH781 Outstanding!  Quote:
Can you provide the attribution, or point out the date?   Quote:
Then no need to wait, this should get the 8th moving again, shouldn't it jbuck? Absolutely! |
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
2564 Posts |
Quote:
Can you provide the attribution, or point out the date? I think we need more information on the Sardabar coin. Rule 4 part 3 If it is not obvious, please inform how the date is determined (links are okay).Other observers who are not used to Arabic numerals, or a date written in Arabic script will be left confused without an explanation. I do it myself sometimes when a date (to me) is very clear. A mapping of the date or writing takes away any doubt, and is a good educational tool for those new to Islamic coins. Likewise, a reference to a Zeno example, or Numista link is also helpful The Ox moves slowly, but the Earth is patient.
Edited by ttkoo
06/29/2026 11:02 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
2564 Posts |
Quote:
No, what I want is to not have any gaps going back. If we have a run of AH coins with no CE coins posted, I do not want to skip any AH years just because how they "map" to CE "allows" it. Ok, now I get it. The Ox moves slowly, but the Earth is patient.
|
|
Moderator
United States
189767 Posts |
Quote:
I think we need more information on the Sardabar coin. I agree.  Quote:
Ok, now I get it. I am glad it is clear.  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7963 Posts |
Quote:
Nice andyg. Can you provide the attribution, or point out the date? Should be in the marginal inscription around the quatrefoil reverse: https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=12010851(doesn;t help for me since I can;t read a letter of Arbic  ). |
| |
Replies: 10,134 / Views: 317,195 |
First Page
Previous Page
Posted 06/27/2026 07:25 am
