Quote from: mrbrt on December 09, 2015, 04:21:57 PM

Quote from: elianite on December 03, 2015, 11:24:09 PM

Quote from: minerjones on December 03, 2015, 01:00:29 PM

Quote from: elianite on December 03, 2015, 05:33:48 AM

Sneak Peek!

Looks great!! Cheesy

Will there be page numbers??

Also, all except the Satoshi coin from Ravenbit are called "Node xxx" https://ravenbit.com/coins/ This link also has release dates, not just the year!!!

Thanks

Page numbers will be inserted before the final copy goes to print. Right now it's just 180 individual pages grouped together by mint, with Matthew having an additional ~20 pages of text that will compose the more academic portion. I have another 30-40 pages to put together, and revamp the Casascius section.
End result will likely be ~250 pages.

One difficulty is the naming. I have taken to naming the coins in a rather generic way, such as '1BTC Brass Coin, 2015', tied to the manufacturer. If multiple coins that would have the same name are made by the same manufacturer in the same year, I've used 'v1, v2' to differentiate. I have also used 'names' of the coins (nicknames or given by manufacturers) in quotation marks after the more 'formal' categorization name.
Perhaps this one will look like this:

Ravenbit
Antique Bronze Coin, 2014 'Node 2.4'

Elianite - Good job - book looks nice.

The coin in question is the "Node Bronze", Series 2.3

The date on the coin is 2014, but it was not released until 2015.

To be quite honest the naming and years are among the most difficult, especially determining between the year on the coin and the 'release' date. Ideally the 'year' of a coin should always be listed as the release date, regardless of what the coin itself says. It is quite likely that there will be some errors in that area.

Naming is the second question I haven't quite finalized. I will be working with Bithalo to formulate 'official' names (a sort of naming convention according to which all coins can be accurately named) for all coins according to a standardized format. This will likely put 'manufacturer-assigned names' or 'nicknames' is quotes at the end of the assigned name that is meant for categorization purposes.

take the below example:

Ravenbit
Antique Bronze Coin, 2014 (UF) 'Node 2.4'

Cryptolator
1 BTC Silver Coin, 2014 (PF, UF, DIY)

Crypto Imperator
10,000 DOGE Coin, 2014 (PF, DIY)

-Should 'metal' be specified in the name? Should it be specified always, sometimes, or never? what if metal is unckown? I need to decide this.
- Putting 'Node Bronze, Series 2.1' at the end is too much
- Using the word 'bronze' is repetitive, as the metal is already specified n the name
- Frankly, I find the use of the 'series' concept to be extremely confusing, as not all manufacturers designate series. sometimes multiple 'series' are released at the same time. Is it designated based on hologram or production order or design? What about 'grey areas'? That said I do use the concept of 'series' in some descriptions in a more casual way, but want to avoid using them in formal categorization..