| Author |
 Replies: 1,992 / Views: 285,494 |
|
|
|
Moderator
 United States
189556 Posts |
Quote:
I was just wondering if the "rules" said anything else. The OP stated that "it must be dated." However, I will make a ruling that says dated refers to the act of dating a coin based on what it is and not the need for having a date stamped on it.  1503.  |
|
Pillar of the Community
Russian Federation
5177 Posts |
Maybe we should do a 16th-century run like that 18th-century one we did back when we were waiting for an 1716?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
1888 Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
I was just wondering if the "rules" said anything else. Quote:
The OP stated that "it must be dated." However, I will make a ruling that says dated refers to the act of dating a coin based on what it is and not the need for having a date stamped on it.
1503. What bothers me is the non-appearance of that OP for sooo many pages and now when clarity is needed, continued absence provides no guidance.  To my mind, "must be dated" means just that. Interpolated dates don't count. There are lots of coins from this era and earlier that can be dated within a short range of years based on the portraits or other notable features. But try to pin one specific year on a specimen and the exercise becomes problematic and loses sight of the coda of the thread. If *anyone* can pop in and re-interpret the rules, moderator or otherwise, then my vote is for clearly DATED coins that do not rely on historical esoterica to determine the actual year they first appeared. (Transposing numeric symbols from one language to another is ok.) That is my take on the theme of the thread, one voice in the wilderness of lost guidance, perhaps. |
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
9866 Posts |
Quote:
However, I will make a ruling that says dated refers to the act of dating a coin based on what it is and not the need for having a date stamped on it. Does that mean someone can post a coin like this 30 times? Doesn't seem right somehow. With such leaps and bounds we could have reached 1503 at least a year ago. "Dipping" is not considered cleaning...
-from PCGS website
Edited by DBM
06/10/2013 9:18 pm
|
|
Valued Member
Sweden
347 Posts |
I reckon we should allow all kinds of dating (christian, muslim, indian, etc. etc.). As long as one can determine the exactly year of issue. Even if a coin in undated, but one can determine the exact year it should be accepted, but not like the coin you show above, DBM. Then we have missed the whole point.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Russian Federation
5177 Posts |
As far as dating goes, well the OP guidance way back just said "as long as it had a date".
I personally think there's no problem with Arabic/Russian/French Revolutionary/regnal/whatever dating; but as we get to single-year types (of pretty much any kind) it becomes a bit more complicated.
Still, let's think that way: say we were at 1913, and someone posted a type-1 dateless buffalo. Would we count that or not?
There's actually a problem like that with my own "1599" Russian coin... the last "digit" of the date didn't actually show up. However, since the "1599" was the only date known for that mint (Pskov) under that ruler (Boris), and the die was visibly the same, I decided that my coin was also an 1599. Would something like that count?
I think I can say my actual personal opinion now: 1) the rules said the coin had to have a date, but never said in what calendar, so Arabic/Muslim dating is applicable as long as we ignore the slight incongruence between year locations*; and 2) I personally think single-year types of any kind are fine as well, but it's not evident from the rules. Multiple-year types are out though (unless, as occasionally but very rarely happens, there's a way to determine the date anyway - in which case I'd say it counts).
*) then again, the AD calendar was never all that congruent in terms of where exactly the years started and ended either; the Irish "gun money" dated February and March 1689 were made in the year we would've called 1690 - so what would it be supposed to count as?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Norway
510 Posts |
I'd like to see the date on the coin for this thread. If it's another calendar, fine, but I'd like to see it, not have to accept it from auxiliary information. That's how we've done it so far.
|
|
Moderator
United States
189556 Posts |
The OP has not been here since November. As moderators, we have the duty to intervene.
So, let me be clear with what I mean...
If one can determine the exact year a coin was minted without the year being explicitly shown on the coin, it counts. Common sense says we should not post a single coin thirty times to cover the thirty year range it was minted (without an explicit date).
This thread follows the common era dating for sequencing, but using Arabic, Hebrew, and other calendars count, as long as single common era year can be determined. Again, no ranges.
|
|
Moderator
United States
189556 Posts |
To add, since the OP has not been here, I had to say something before we had thirty pages of discussion. Regarding the non-dated (but exact year determinable) coins, if the majority agrees with mysilveryears and does not favour them, then do not use them. I can overrule my ruling.  If you choose to accept them and someone posts something that is out of sequence or really bending the rules (like the example from DBM), then call them on it and let the counter stand until someone makes a proper post. |
|
Valued Member
Sweden
347 Posts |
I agree! Visible dates, no matter which calendar!  |
|
Moderator
United States
189556 Posts |
So that is two for visible dates. Anyone else? I might have to rescind my executive order.  Okay, we should just stick with the coins that have a date, but one using any calendar system that can be correlated to the CE date needed. If we get stuck, someone can offer to post a dateless (but year determinable) coin and let the participants allow it or not. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1888 Posts |
Sounds like a clear and workable guideline to me. It's still going to be a backward slog though. I have -nothing- to offer other than that 1400's restrike I mentioned earlier. That would never *count* according to proper rules, but it would be a nice piece to show. IF we make it back that far. Thanks, jbuck, for stepping in as Honorable Chairman of the Thread Rescue Patrol.  |
|
Moderator
United States
189556 Posts |
No problem. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
814 Posts |
It may b to late but I feel that if you can determine the exact year a coin was minted in the common era since of the word year, then it should be allowed. No ranges though. Just my 2ยข.
Still trying to find this "run" that was spoke of.. lota of pages to go through lol.
|
|
Valued Member
Sweden
347 Posts |
Yes of course, if a specific coins only was minted during one year (or with a certain detail), then I reckon it should be allowed, but not else. Well, at least that's what I think.
Don't know what this "run" is you are talking about.
Still looking for 1503..
|
| |
Replies: 1,992 / Views: 285,494 |
First Page
Previous Page
Posted 06/10/2013 3:26 pm
