What's your opinion on Pick numbers?

I'm writing an article for Inside IBNS on the subject of Pick numbers.

I'd like to hear from actual collectors on what they think of the Pick
numbering scheme, especially if they have complaints or ideas for
improvements.

For example, how much does a note have to change to warrant a new Pick
number? Is it sufficient to have a change in the security strip, ew date of
issue, new serial number prefix, new signature variety, or do you think the
overall design must be changed.

Re pick numbers

if sig changes or Security strip
or colour change

eg pick 33 sign 1
pick33a sig 2

a new pick number only if new issue or overall design change

I just wish that all the mistakes put right and missing notes

yours


--
Michael @ www.worldwidecoins.co.uk
mirror site www.numismatic.biz
email
World Banknotes & Coins
eBay http://members.ebay.co.uk/aboutme/worldwidecoins/



"Owen Linzmayer" wrote in message
...
I'm writing an article for Inside IBNS on the subject of Pick numbers.

I'd like to hear from actual collectors on what they think of the Pick
numbering scheme, especially if they have complaints or ideas for
improvements.

For example, how much does a note have to change to warrant a new Pick
number? Is it sufficient to have a change in the security strip, ew date
of
issue, new serial number prefix, new signature variety, or do you think
the
overall design must be changed.

Owen Linzmayer wrote:
I'm writing an article for Inside IBNS on the subject of Pick numbers.

I'd like to hear from actual collectors on what they think of the Pick
numbering scheme, especially if they have complaints or ideas for
improvements.

For example, how much does a note have to change to warrant a new Pick
number? Is it sufficient to have a change in the security strip, ew date of
issue, new serial number prefix, new signature variety, or do you think the
overall design must be changed.

Pick has flaws.

I have started trialing a unique country code system on some of the
countries that I specialise collecting.

e.g. A Four Shillings note from Tonga 1933
Pick 1

Using the international two letter country code as the prefix
Then a numeral to indicate the issue starting with 1 as the first
issue.
Then a two letter denomination based on the name used by the country of
issue.

Type TO -1-FS

Followed by any initials of the signature variations on the notes.

This makes it a long code but ideal for use in the future for use in
search engines. The codes will be unique to the particular country,
issue and denomination.

A friend is using a alpha numeric system that he has been using for
some specialised issues for a book publication later this year.

On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 16:20:18 -0700, Owen Linzmayer
wrote:

I'm writing an article for Inside IBNS on the subject of Pick numbers.

I'd like to hear from actual collectors on what they think of the Pick
numbering scheme, especially if they have complaints or ideas for
improvements.

For example, how much does a note have to change to warrant a new Pick
number? Is it sufficient to have a change in the security strip, ew date of
issue, new serial number prefix, new signature variety, or do you think the
overall design must be changed.

I don't like when the number changes from one year to the next. The
numbering scheme should be able to accommodate new discoveries,
updated information, mistake corrections, etc.

The incorrect information and missing notes (some missing for several
years) is also very frustrating - so Online access with continual
updates is the right way to go.

Obviously it's annoying when numbers change seemingly without reason. I
spoke with editor George S. Cuhaj today and he explained that the wholesale
changes in the early 1990s were necessitated to reorganize the notes by
family, rather than by denomination.

As for a scheme that allowed for fixing mistakes and adding new notes, it
seems to me that the desire to have consecutive numbers has created some of
the problems. Perhaps it could be addressed by separating each new note
family by 20 digits. If new variations of notes were discovered in an old
series, 20 slots should be enough to fit them in without disturbing
surrounding numbers. Just an idea.


On 6/27/06 1:46 PM, in article ,
"Ray K" wrote:

I don't like when the number changes from one year to the next. The
numbering scheme should be able to accommodate new discoveries,
updated information, mistake corrections, etc.

The incorrect information and missing notes (some missing for several
years) is also very frustrating - so Online access with continual
updates is the right way to go.

I don't recall suggesting that the values in the book are designed to assure
profits for dealers, though I do know that charge has been leveled by some.
Then again, others have pointed out that some values are so close to or
below face value.

When speaking to editor George S. Cuhaj today, he explained that the catalog
is put together with the help of over 100 specialists who provide pricing
data. Further, he tracks prices from all the major auction catalogs and
dealer price lists.

George also indicated that he would like to see the catalog information
online, so perhaps that will become a reality some day.


On 6/27/06 3:54 AM, in article
, "Bill"
wrote:

Unfortunately Pick have dropped the ball on their catalogue with all the
mistakes it is no longer feasible.I for one have stopped buying the
catalogue. Also the pricing as pointed out in this group previously( I think
by you Owen) is also geared towards the dealer making profits
On line is surely the way to go so it can be "Live" perhaps specialist
authors who once produced books on specific countries should start the ball
rolling.

Editor George S. Cuhaj explained to me that the logic behind the assignment
of Pick numbers depends upon the collector community for a particular
country's notes.

For example, collectors of US notes are into signature combinations, so
changes in signatures get new variety letters, whereas in other countries
the printed dates of issue are what collectors are after.

Also, if different dates/signatures don't differ in their values, Cuhaj may
decide that it's not necessary to differentiate between them.

As for fixing mistakes, I certainly would love to see a rock-solid catalog
that's free of errors. I was surprised to learn that this book of 1,000+
pages is produced using a combination of databases with electronic images as
well as old fashioned cut and paste of legacy data. Knowing that, it's not
hard to understand how errors are introduced and perpetuated.

On 6/27/06 1:56 AM, in article
, "www.numismatic.biz /
www.worldwidecoins.co.uk" michael@NOspamnumismaticdotbiz wrote:

Re pick numbers

if sig changes or Security strip
or colour change

eg pick 33 sign 1
pick33a sig 2

a new pick number only if new issue or overall design change

I just wish that all the mistakes put right and missing notes

Hi Owen,

Interesting subject! My two cents: No numbering system is perfect,
clearly, and Pick is no exception. At this point, though, changing to
anything else would be horrendously confusing and most likely rejected.
For example, take Egyptian notes (which I collect). As you may know,
an excellent guide to Egyptian notes was recently published by Magdy
Hanafy. Hanafy has provided what may very well be the definitive guide
on Egypt. On the one hand, it lays bare a key problem with Pick: even
when types don't change -- and I think there's a consensus that Pick
numbers should only be assigned to type/denomination changes alone --
there can be a lot of variation within types, including (in the case of
Egypt) dates, signatures, security devices, typeface, watermarks, etc.
Pick numbers just can't handle this level of detail without becoming
cumbersome. On the other hand, Hanafy's attempt to come up with a
comprehensive numbering system for Egypt is pretty opaque, confusing,
and of little utility to other countries. I guess what I'm saying is
that Pick ain't great, but it's what we've got. It's the only way I
know to communicate with dealers worldwide and be clear about what
mean.

So how much does a note have to change to warrant a new Pick number?

First, I'm realistic. The Pick guides are not meant for the
superspecialist in a given area/country, nor should they try to be.
Putting all informaiton in one guide would make the thing 10 times as
big as it already is. Restricting Pick numbers to new
types/denominations is fine. Where signature varieties (or other
varations) have dramatically different values, they should be
sublistings (e.g., 21a, 21b, etc.). This raises obvious difficulties
when signature varieties and other variations overlap (e.g., 3
signature varieties with 2 security device possibilities and 2 date
formats), but they are not insurmountable.

Second, there's no way to make this process foolproof. After "state of
the art" knowledge is published, new information will come to light
that may change the way we classify notes. It's likely impossible to
know ahead of time how to structure a numbering system that can easily
incorporate all potential changes. My vote, however, would be to avoid
renumbering. Period. Bahrain notes underwent some renumbering between
the last few editions for reasons I can't figure out. It seems as if
anticipated new issues were assigned numbers, but when they came out,
there were changes here and there that messed up the numbering. I
would simply not assign Pick numbers until the notes have been
released, even if this causes delays.

I'll have to think about this more...

Yorus, Aaron

Owen Linzmayer wrote:
I'm writing an article for Inside IBNS on the subject of Pick numbers.

I'd like to hear from actual collectors on what they think of the Pick
numbering scheme, especially if they have complaints or ideas for
improvements.

For example, how much does a note have to change to warrant a new Pick
number? Is it sufficient to have a change in the security strip, ew date of
issue, new serial number prefix, new signature variety, or do you think the
overall design must be changed.

Excellent comments. I agree, the present system isn't perfect, but it's
unlikely to be toppled by anything else because it is so entrenched.

As a type collector myself, I'm not interested in subtle date and signature
changes. I only want a new note if it's clearly different from the previous
issue when held at arm's length. I know there are others, however, who want
every slightly different note, and that's fine.

I interviewed George Cuhaj, whose job it is to assign the Pick numbers and
letter varieties for new notes and newly discovered notes. It's a tough job
trying to keep everyone happy, to be sure.

I also agree, Aaron, that renumbering of notes should stop. Period. It's
infuriating to have to go through a collection of a 1,000+ notes every year
to see if their numbers have changed, and it leads to confusion when some
dealers are using the old numbers while buyers are using new numbers.


On 6/29/06 9:46 AM, in article
,
" wrote:

Hi Owen,

Interesting subject! My two cents: No numbering system is perfect,
clearly, and Pick is no exception. At this point, though, changing to
anything else would be horrendously confusing and most likely rejected.
For example, take Egyptian notes (which I collect). As you may know,
an excellent guide to Egyptian notes was recently published by Magdy
Hanafy. Hanafy has provided what may very well be the definitive guide
on Egypt. On the one hand, it lays bare a key problem with Pick: even
when types don't change -- and I think there's a consensus that Pick
numbers should only be assigned to type/denomination changes alone --
there can be a lot of variation within types, including (in the case of
Egypt) dates, signatures, security devices, typeface, watermarks, etc.
Pick numbers just can't handle this level of detail without becoming
cumbersome. On the other hand, Hanafy's attempt to come up with a
comprehensive numbering system for Egypt is pretty opaque, confusing,
and of little utility to other countries. I guess what I'm saying is
that Pick ain't great, but it's what we've got. It's the only way I
know to communicate with dealers worldwide and be clear about what
mean.

So how much does a note have to change to warrant a new Pick number?

First, I'm realistic. The Pick guides are not meant for the
superspecialist in a given area/country, nor should they try to be.
Putting all informaiton in one guide would make the thing 10 times as
big as it already is. Restricting Pick numbers to new
types/denominations is fine. Where signature varieties (or other
varations) have dramatically different values, they should be
sublistings (e.g., 21a, 21b, etc.). This raises obvious difficulties
when signature varieties and other variations overlap (e.g., 3
signature varieties with 2 security device possibilities and 2 date
formats), but they are not insurmountable.

Second, there's no way to make this process foolproof. After "state of
the art" knowledge is published, new information will come to light
that may change the way we classify notes. It's likely impossible to
know ahead of time how to structure a numbering system that can easily
incorporate all potential changes. My vote, however, would be to avoid
renumbering. Period. Bahrain notes underwent some renumbering between
the last few editions for reasons I can't figure out. It seems as if
anticipated new issues were assigned numbers, but when they came out,
there were changes here and there that messed up the numbering. I
would simply not assign Pick numbers until the notes have been
released, even if this causes delays.

I'll have to think about this more...

Yorus, Aaron

Owen Linzmayer wrote:
I'm writing an article for Inside IBNS on the subject of Pick numbers.

I'd like to hear from actual collectors on what they think of the Pick
numbering scheme, especially if they have complaints or ideas for
improvements.

For example, how much does a note have to change to warrant a new Pick
number? Is it sufficient to have a change in the security strip, ew date of
issue, new serial number prefix, new signature variety, or do you think the
overall design must be changed.

Of course, even if you're a type collector, aren't you interested to
know whether you have a more or less scarce variety of the type?

Case in point: Recently I donated a bunch of my spare notes to a
worthwhile cause. They weren't from the Middle East (what I collect),
and having gone through Pick, none was worth much. Until, of course,
the next edition of Pick came out, and one of those "throwaway" notes
was a rare date variety of a common type, worth many times more.
That'll teach me! (Kind of an neat story, actually. If you're
interested, e-mail me off newsgroup and I'll tell you about it...)

I look forward to your article!

A : )

Owen Linzmayer wrote:
Excellent comments. I agree, the present system isn't perfect, but it's
unlikely to be toppled by anything else because it is so entrenched.

As a type collector myself, I'm not interested in subtle date and signature
changes. I only want a new note if it's clearly different from the previous
issue when held at arm's length. I know there are others, however, who want
every slightly different note, and that's fine.

I interviewed George Cuhaj, whose job it is to assign the Pick numbers and
letter varieties for new notes and newly discovered notes. It's a tough job
trying to keep everyone happy, to be sure.

I also agree, Aaron, that renumbering of notes should stop. Period. It's
infuriating to have to go through a collection of a 1,000+ notes every year
to see if their numbers have changed, and it leads to confusion when some
dealers are using the old numbers while buyers are using new numbers.


On 6/29/06 9:46 AM, in article
,
" wrote:

Hi Owen,

Interesting subject! My two cents: No numbering system is perfect,
clearly, and Pick is no exception. At this point, though, changing to
anything else would be horrendously confusing and most likely rejected.
For example, take Egyptian notes (which I collect). As you may know,
an excellent guide to Egyptian notes was recently published by Magdy
Hanafy. Hanafy has provided what may very well be the definitive guide
on Egypt. On the one hand, it lays bare a key problem with Pick: even
when types don't change -- and I think there's a consensus that Pick
numbers should only be assigned to type/denomination changes alone --
there can be a lot of variation within types, including (in the case of
Egypt) dates, signatures, security devices, typeface, watermarks, etc.
Pick numbers just can't handle this level of detail without becoming
cumbersome. On the other hand, Hanafy's attempt to come up with a
comprehensive numbering system for Egypt is pretty opaque, confusing,
and of little utility to other countries. I guess what I'm saying is
that Pick ain't great, but it's what we've got. It's the only way I
know to communicate with dealers worldwide and be clear about what
mean.

So how much does a note have to change to warrant a new Pick number?

First, I'm realistic. The Pick guides are not meant for the
superspecialist in a given area/country, nor should they try to be.
Putting all informaiton in one guide would make the thing 10 times as
big as it already is. Restricting Pick numbers to new
types/denominations is fine. Where signature varieties (or other
varations) have dramatically different values, they should be
sublistings (e.g., 21a, 21b, etc.). This raises obvious difficulties
when signature varieties and other variations overlap (e.g., 3
signature varieties with 2 security device possibilities and 2 date
formats), but they are not insurmountable.

Second, there's no way to make this process foolproof. After "state of
the art" knowledge is published, new information will come to light
that may change the way we classify notes. It's likely impossible to
know ahead of time how to structure a numbering system that can easily
incorporate all potential changes. My vote, however, would be to avoid
renumbering. Period. Bahrain notes underwent some renumbering between
the last few editions for reasons I can't figure out. It seems as if
anticipated new issues were assigned numbers, but when they came out,
there were changes here and there that messed up the numbering. I
would simply not assign Pick numbers until the notes have been
released, even if this causes delays.

I'll have to think about this more...

Yorus, Aaron

Owen Linzmayer wrote:
I'm writing an article for Inside IBNS on the subject of Pick numbers.

I'd like to hear from actual collectors on what they think of the Pick
numbering scheme, especially if they have complaints or ideas for
improvements.

For example, how much does a note have to change to warrant a new Pick
number? Is it sufficient to have a change in the security strip, ew date of
issue, new serial number prefix, new signature variety, or do you think the
overall design must be changed.