Colnect is not a reliable source of information

I've seen a lot of banknotes were people are using Colnect for Pick codes and other info. Try not to do that please, Colnect is a mess when it comes to banknotes, they are using made up Pick codes for every year and every signature. Something like P-11b.c12 it's not real. We can use P codes and create separate year lines for differences, with comments and clear information. If you are not sure about the codes don't write them, somebody will fill that up eventually.

Unless you have access to the true catalogue numbers, how can you be so certain the Colnect is incorrect.

I am just saying don't write information that you are not sure of. Are you ok with using those made up numbers?

I repeat my first statement. How do you know if the catalogue numbers are incorrect?
If you can show a banknote where you can prove it is wrong, then I will more likely start agreeing with you, but making rash statements without proof is not helping the situation.

I edited every wrong code that I found here and I am not going to search now to show they exist. My statement is true, Colnect uses fake Pick numbers made up by members when they add banknotes. Just have a look at their Russian banknotes, or South American and if you have a catalog you will see what I mean. It is true that most members don't have one, so maybe do a little research before adding a note no just copy/paste from there.

Cita: "COINMAN1"​I repeat my first statement. How do you know if the catalogue numbers are incorrect?
​If you can show a banknote where you can prove it is wrong, then I will more likely start agreeing with you, but making rash statements without proof is not helping the situation.
​

​Hello everyone,

Hmmm... I personally don't really understand your aggressive reaction.
But it doesn't really matter.

I also don't use "Colnect" because the shown references are often wrong.

Example (50 Rubles - 1997/2010 - Russia) :



The Pick number used on Colnect was "homemade" because the Standard Catalog of World Paper Money doesn't show all varieties The catalog shows only major varieties but if you want to get all varieties you need to get a specialized catalog from the country/region/state/...

Best regards,
Galor

PS : Yes, please don't copy/paste the references from "Colnect"

I am not being aggressive. Just asking that someone can prove that they are sure that the catalogue numbers added by members are wrong.
I agree, but a collector with no other reference, will use what they believe is correct, as listed on the internet somwhere, and in the case of banknotes, it is Colnect.
I agree with you that entering catalogue numbers that are wrong is very unhelpful and time consuming for the referees, but us amateur collectors have nothing else.
I would like then to add, that a lot of banknotes have been listed without photographs. Should this also be restricted?

I totally understand what you mean !

If I can help you all out, please use the online version "PMG World Paper Money Values", it is very close to the Standard Catalog of World Paper Money and all the Pick numbers are authentic and genuine. It is also very easy to use

Best regards,
Galor

I think it's time to seriously think about creating our own Numista Numbers. Then we can all varieties in a correct matter.

Persobally I reckon that the SCWPM is very flawed and a lot is missing. Take it for what it's worth, but I actually prefer Colnect's way to do it. Even though they misuse the Pick reference they still can add all varities.

If we create Numista Numbers (N#) we can too add all varieties - but i a correct way. Personally I prefer a 27.11d instead of having eleven 27d listed. But if we just remove the P in front of the number we're safe. And since I, personally, have Russian notes with prefixes like Ьа, КГ, мВ, and ич, I'd be very interested in listing them all.

Yeah but some people may want to add their collection according to Pick. That can be confusing, for new members too. We can add a new year line for varieties I don't see why do we need a number for each. If you take a Russian banknote like this:
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/note203934.html

and add prefixes to all the signatures types how many new lines do we need to add?

My personal opinion is that everyone can write comments in their own collection and we should't complicate the catalog too much.

Cita: "allexis"We can add a new year line for varieties I don't see why do we need a number for each.

​This is true! Just look at these Ghanian entries:
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/note206605.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/note206608.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/note205652.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/note205651.html

It's so clean! No need for "1b, 1c, 1d, ..." or "1a.1, 1a.3, 1a.2, ...." I'm thinkging I should do the same in my listings.

I think 1b, 1c, 1d are needed, sometimes the differences are important. 1b1, 1b2 etc. are not needed because most of the time they don't really exists, and the differences are confusing.

Cita: "allexis"​I think 1b, 1c, 1d

​Why are they needed? What's the difference between:
P-1
2000 Green text
2001 Green text Rising letters
2002 Green text small letters

and
P-1
P-1a; 2000 Green text
P-1b; 2001 Green text Rising letters
P-1c; 2002 Green text small letters

It really doesn't matter, I reckon.

Maybe it is the same thing, I personally like it with the sub-types that's all.

Cita: "allexis"​Maybe it is the same thing, I personally like it with the sub-types that's all.

​Me too, but then it hut me: What does it matter if it's P-5 or P-5b?
When it comes to coins there's no sub-types for every year, so why for banknotes?

Yeah but a coin may have minor differences and is getting an a, or a b, or a c. It's somehow the same thing although a different letter for every year sometimes is to much, especially when the year is the only difference. And if I am not mistaken there are some coins that have different KM just because the mint mark is different. I really think this is a personal preference, and we are debating for nothing. I really think that this is a minor thing comparing with the French or US listings.

Cita: "allexis"I really think that this is a minor thing comparing with the French or US listings.

​I totally agree with you! Those two catalogues are disasters and something really has to be done.

But ngdawa weren't you proposing to include print blocks to the year lines?
That's the same hyperspecialization route that the French catalog went down it just gave them a very weird code in addition.

Cita: "Idolenz"​But ngdawa weren't you proposing to include print blocks to the year lines?

​Print blocks?

I'm I might have confused you with someone because I couldn't find the quote in your post history.
I mean a print block of banknotes in a printrun A-Z, AA-ZZ (or any other alphabet).

Cita: "Idolenz"​I'm I might have confused you with someone because I couldn't find the quote in your post history.
​I mean a print block of banknotes in a printrun A-Z, AA-ZZ (or any other alphabet).

​Ah, no that must've been someone else. I've never really cared much for that. No worries.