gxseries Posted October 27, 2007 Report Share Posted October 27, 2007 Here are my plans of having 8 different divisions where everyone can post a maximum of 3 in each field (that means you can post up to 24 maximum) Here are my suggestions - feel free to agree or disagree if you think it's lame or it can be better: Most of the ideas are from Aetheling 1. Ancient (BC - 1500) 2. 1501-1700 3. 1701-1800 4. 1801-1900 5. 1901-1950 6. 1951-present 7. Exonumia, tokens, oddities 8. Years that end with 7, or denomination with the number 7 Anything I have left out or I should add in? I am trying to keep 8 different catagories Possible revision: 1. Ancient, Medieval (BC-1500) 2. 1501-1700 3. 1701-1800 4. 1801-1900 5. 1901-present 6. NCLT (Non-circulating legal tender), i.e. basically most of the pricy junks that mints produce these days 7. Years that have the digit 7, or denomination with the number 7 8. Exonumia, tokens, oddities Another edit: As of why I decided to put number 7, I wanted to see how far lucky 7 can be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YeOldeCollector Posted October 27, 2007 Report Share Posted October 27, 2007 Sounds fine to me, what about a hammered section between Ancient and 1600 for instance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stujoe Posted October 27, 2007 Report Share Posted October 27, 2007 I think ancient used to go to 500 and then Medieval from 500 to 1500 in some other PCIs. Only question is if you could fill up those 2 categories. I think they were always tough to get entries for. Too bad Sylvester isn't still active. He could probably tell you more than I. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YeOldeCollector Posted October 27, 2007 Report Share Posted October 27, 2007 This would be my first PCI and I plan on entering quite a few but I see your point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gxseries Posted October 28, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 28, 2007 I am well aware I am not discrimating the difference between ancients and Medieval which I apologize. If you do take a look at the past event, filling up enough holes in both the ancients and Medieval has been proven to be a challenge and therefore I decided to lump them together. However the number has raised to three instead of two in the past so hopefully there isn't much of a loss there. If people still disagree, feel feel to chirp in your thoughts and I will make a change if necessary. I'll go with the majority Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banivechi Posted October 28, 2007 Report Share Posted October 28, 2007 I think that commems must be in a separate section. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottishmoney Posted October 28, 2007 Report Share Posted October 28, 2007 I am well aware I am not discrimating the difference between ancients and Medieval which I apologize. If you do take a look at the past event, filling up enough holes in both the ancients and Medieval has been proven to be a challenge and therefore I decided to lump them together. However the number has raised to three instead of two in the past so hopefully there isn't much of a loss there. If people still disagree, feel feel to chirp in your thoughts and I will make a change if necessary. I'll go with the majority I collect them both, and don't disagree. There really are not enough collectors of them here to make a new category. Besides in past history in PCI, ancients always seemed to advance to the finals and medievals didn't. Medieval coins are interesting and historical and I like them, but do they have eye appeal like many ancients? No. Basically this is an online beauty contest. An ancient won PCI 4 or 5 back in ca. 2004 when my Athenian Tetradrachm won the overall competition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Sisu Posted October 28, 2007 Report Share Posted October 28, 2007 I think that commems must be in a separate section. Or it might be enough to just split the 1950-present into 2 categories: -1950-present :normal issues -1950-present :commems Or then commems 1900-present. I think any coin pre-20th century coin could be lumped together, whether commem or common. (Though personally I think the line could suffice at the mid-century point.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banivechi Posted October 28, 2007 Report Share Posted October 28, 2007 Or it might be enough to just split the 1950-present into 2 categories:-1950-present :normal issues -1950-present :commems Good idea! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gxseries Posted October 29, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 29, 2007 Or alternatively, I can lump the 1901-1950 and 1951-present together and make a NCLT another section. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedeadpoint Posted October 29, 2007 Report Share Posted October 29, 2007 I'm so confused! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hussulo Posted October 29, 2007 Report Share Posted October 29, 2007 What about an error section? or would they come under oddities? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gxseries Posted October 29, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 29, 2007 Hussulo, errors can pratically be in either the chronological year or the oddities group - up to you to choose. thedeadpoint - don't worry, it's not very difficult to understand. All you need to understand is that you can place up to three coins in each catagories and they will be automatically matched against other coins. And the fun beguns, where eliminations begin. Examples can be seen here: http://www.coinpeople.com/index.php?showforum=257 All you need to do is to place your coin image for voting. Nothing hard at all as I am going to do all the difficult work. You did an excellent example before in the past so it can't be too hard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gpnyc Posted October 30, 2007 Report Share Posted October 30, 2007 I like the revision better, though I would drop division 8 as I don't see what value that adds. I would also split ancient and medieval. Lumping those two is like mixing apples and oranges. I like the idea of separating hammered and milled coinage as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gxseries Posted October 31, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 31, 2007 Added another thread on the main coin forum section. Hopefully there will be more replies else I'm basing the revised edition according to last year's listing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottishmoney Posted October 31, 2007 Report Share Posted October 31, 2007 If you split ancient and medieval you're going to find it tough to fill the slots. I remember the last PCI was tough to fill in ancients. There are not many on this forum that collect ancients or medieval by comparison to modern foreign or USA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stujoe Posted November 1, 2007 Report Share Posted November 1, 2007 I kind of liked the divisions of last years, myself. But, yeah, you might have to go begging for entries. Been there, done that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.