Who Would Contribute And Which Way To Go?

I'm cool with whatever you guys come up with.

i would say if someone can wedge a coin in a decade in any way (some part of the date range the coin was minted hits), then let them go for it.
just don't post the same coin twice maybe?

just a suggestion.

I basically agree. I should've thought of that reason immediately.

Problem is, we risk getting stalled in the 3rd century BC if we go forward in time, or in the 14th century AD (or so) if we go back, not reaching the bulk of most members' collection either way.
Maybe we can make two threads going both ways at the same time and see where they end up meeting? Then we can continue past the meeting, and everyone would have another opportunity to show coins that might've missed the spot previously.

I hope I don't stir up some bad feelings but I need make my thoughts known further. From the locked thread:

When you make a challenge overburdened with so many little rules and restrictions its not a challenge anymore, its just boring. The reason why they are "having fun" in the other thread is because the rules are short, clear and not endlessly debated. Yeah, ancients are a special case as most cannot be precisely dated, but its not something to pore over (and try to have others pore over as well). There needs to be more flexibility with regards to posting them. Otherwise, people will just lose interest.

Here is a simpler, similar version of a thread like this on another forum, done for ancients, medievals, and moderns:

https://www.cointalk.com/threads/yo...tury.241481/

I doubt the OP spent more than 10 minutes thinking up the rules for the thread. And it ended up going for 23 pages.

Bottom line: the thread can be challenging but it also needs to be fun and inviting at the same time. Remember, all of us are on CCF to hang out and have fun discussing and sharing coins. We want to take part in this thread of yours but not have it feel like a chore when we do.

I think I could just propose my version (inspired by the "first century" thread):

1) A coin counts for the decade it is minted in, if there is only one possibility.
2) If the minting period of a coin is 10 years or less, but covers more than one decade, it counts for the earlier. So a coin of Probus counts for the 270s, or a coin of Justin I for the 510s (if there is no sign pointing towards it being minted later; of course if there was it would come under point 1).
3) If the minting period of a coin is traditionally approximated by a decade (as in "220-210 BC"), it counts for that decade.
4) If the minting period of a coin is more than 10 years, it doesn't count for any decade at all, but can be used for any decade during the period if there is already a valid entry (by the previous three rules).

This can, of course, be revised temporarily if there's really a problem, but I highly suspect we won't hit any major problems for quite a while if we start from the 16th century.
I'm not really sure about point 3, but other than coins with actual dates on them, coins datable to a particular decade would end up hard to find for that early.