How Far Back Can We Go? Seventh Edition! Ended At 1380 Waiting On 1379

I hope it's tomorrow there, it certainly is here in the UK, or is it still tomorrow tommorow? To help with the confusion here is a 767,
another Tanka from Delhi, but a different type to the last one.

Looking good!

Now, for some clarification...

When one edition reaches the other, then from that point the same coins could/would be posted in the two topics every single day since they match years. Neither topic could overtake the other. They become duplicate topics, which means one has got to go! First In, First Out. (Full force, full force ahead!)

This also makes immediate room for a new edition, since I decided long ago that we will only have two HFBCWG topics running at a time. Of course, exceptions have been made for the spinoff topics in the "Ancient, Greek, Roman, and Medieval Coins" forum.

Again... Thank you, Thank you, Thank you for keeping up with this!

Thank you for the rundown.

I think it's important to consider that we are increasingly relying on AH dated coins at this point. To avoid any confusion, and to completely cover our backs, could we say that three AH dated coins are required to move us back two years when the middle AH calendar year is within the error of Julian/Gregorian calendar difference (since we can't really know what each of these different converters are using)? That would be if only AH dated coins were used. If a coin datable to a single year CE was used for one of those years, then require the in between year and the other corresponding AH date to cover the other year.

This slight tweak to jbuck's current method might make it a bit more difficult, but we would be confident in our completeness, and avoid the guilt that we might be unintentionally "cheating" the system.

Alternatively, we could designate an official converter to be used.

The two converters I've been checking are DateConverter (707 AH entry here [EDIT: direct link fails, add an extra slash when it opens]) and Habibur (707 AH entry here); I suspect that one of them is using Julian and the other is using Gregorian, but I'm not very sure.
[EDIT 2: I checked the result for 699 AH/1300 AD and I'm pretty sure Habibur is based on Julian and DateConverter is based on Gregorian.]

In practice the Julian/Gregorian difference is small enough that the in-betweener years (where it's unclear where the majority is) always end up between a year that is unambiguously mostly in X AD and a year that is unambiguously mostly in X+1 AD.
Of course one of those might not (according to one of the conversion) actually occupy the majority of the corresponding AD year, but IMHO that doesn't matter if the majority of the AH year is within that AD year. For comparison, if we had a coin dated between (say) October 1307 and May 1308, shouldn't we count it for 1308 even if that wasn't a majority in either year?

I agree that it's probably more sensible to require a coin from every AH year instead of trying to figure out where exactly the once-every-33-years gaps end up. It's going to make things messy when coins dated in other ways (e.g. by mintmaster marks, or by short reigns, or by Chinese regnal years...) show up, though.

If we're being really picky about this, the AD dates we're using don't allow for the switch from the Julian to Gregorian calendars either. For example, I have an English coin dated 1645 that was struck in what we would call 1646. It certainly doesn't allow for the fact that this switch happened in 1751 in England (when Jan-Mar did not exist) but 1918 in Russia.

Thanks jbuck, so I read it right.



Another nice example JohnConduitt