Topic: PAPERBACK - Encyclopedia of Physical Bitcoins and Crypto-Currencies - page 15. (Read 27083 times)

Any new Sneak peek?

It took a little longer then anticipated. Now the correct format is set, and it looks MUCH better and sharper.

This task will be completed for Tuesday, as per latest update I recived. Final version can begin to be put together at that time and the final page count will be known soon after.

Once my 2oz coins arrive next week I will see if I can capture hi-res photos of all the different NastyFans Minted Seats for you.  Hoping to get a look at the final draft as well.   

I can take more Lealana if needed, and I have all the major varieties.  All my Casascius are in slabs, so those wouldn't be good subjects to photograph.

Update:

The guide was originally designed in 100 PPI (pixels per inch) and an 6x8 aspect ratio. The standard for high quality printing is 300 PPI and the aspect ratio should be 6x9. I have hired a freelance graphic designer to re-format the entire guide to fit these specifications.

An issue here is that some photos which were previously 'good' may actually not be of a high enough quality. I will be addressing these issues as soon as re reformatted version is ready for me in about 5 days. I may specifically be needing some photos of Casascius and Lealana coins.

That said, everything is well on track for February delivery!

Please send info or PM with coins in question.
I may be able to help.

Thanks

Yes, 10% discount applies, and it applies to the whole order. That means that anyone who has already purchased a copy, can effectively get a 2nd copy for 20% off!

Sent you a PM.

Are you still offering a 10% discount if you order two or more? If so, add one more to my order and PM me the remaining BTC balance to be paid. Thanks.

January 2nd update:

About a week behind schedule (I went on vacation   ), but progressing well.

Current status:
- Only one more major producer to add. Need to add text to about 6-8 pages of more obscure producers. maybe 15 total pages need some significant work
- Casascius Section ALMOST DONE
- Final edits being made on Matthew's academic section today
- Cover still needs to be done, and the other things below that in the above list^.

Latest page estimates:
Academic section: ~16 pages
Encyclopedia section (coins and mint bios): ~200-205
Other sections include Glossary, Special Thanks, Counterfeits & Imitations, Citations / References, Author Bios, and more
It's fair to say we will come out in the ~240 page range

There are some rather obscure coins that have almost no data available for them. In these few cases, I might leave them out as to avoid writing something of very low quality, along with low quality photos. Thoughts?

I have opened up additional numbers for reservations.

TEASER: There will be some new, never-before-seen images of the Casascius 1,000 BTC gold coin!

I went through all the websites and maker' s Bitcointalk forum coin announcements again to use the naming that each maker used.   I also reviewed all the specs for the coins again and took the rest of the photos today.  Sending this over to elianite so we can review it all.  

We are categorizing those as "Rounds".  Nice coin BTW. 

Don't forget to add JPF - Just Plain Fun (No cash value, but the coolness value is pretty darn high.): Bitcoin Penny™ commemorative coins.

Regards,
Christopher

It's a little tempting, but I wouldn't want to compromise the professionalism of the work .

I have made great progress with Bithalo, and I am sure that the final names will not cause too much disappointment to anyone

Careful, it could stick ... 

In my research, I tried to refer to the maker's announcement or selling threads / website and used whatever they called it.  I also looked for their own explanation of metals, sizes, weights, mintages, etc.  

My preference is to use the naming convention of what each coin is officially called by their maker.

So for example, I may suggest something like the mint name, name of coin, denomination, material if it differentiates vs other coins offered:

Ravenbit Series 2.3 Node Bronze  - I earlier had the word 'Antique'...my mistake
Cryptolator Unchained 1BTC Silver
Crypto Imperator 10,000 Doge

then after, add other properties (type of physical, year, funding type) as needed, if desired.

I'll probably need to do another once-over to ensure I've got the naming correct.

Coming up with your own names for coins will likely only further confuse the issue. I understand the urge to "standardize" and "categorize", but it may be difficult given every manufacturer has their own way of doing things.



There is a simple solution: list the composition of the coin separately (not in the name). Listing Antique Bronze as the metal is actually incorrect; it is a brass (85% copper; 15% zinc) coin with an "antique bronze" finish. Bronze is typically copper and tin.

The series is 2.3; the website has not been updated, but the bitcointalk reference page in my signature is pretty much up to date.


Ok then don't use it in your book; it's your book after all (I mean you can refer to a coin as Shittyhead fuckface Version 1 if you want! It's your book!) However, the fact of the matter is my reference page and website will be the official reference for all of my coins. I've put together a large amount of info on the thread and website and will be expanding/cleaning it up after the release of my newest design.

I'm not sure I have explained this before, but I use series as an alternate name for the coin. For example the "Node Bronze AT" Series 2.3.1 is broken down as follows:

2 represents the design (the first design "satoshi" is "1" and my next design will be "3")
3 represents the metal/finish
1 represents any special variations (in this case the artifical toning; or in the case of the Node L.E. the special serialized numbers)

The numbers are sequential based on release date.

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..

Ravenbit was one of the first to offer a full DIY kit (I checked some old posts and I think Serpcoin beat me out by 1 week - There may have been a couple of small one-off DIY coins before that) See my Satoshi coin released in 2013, as well as my Node Brass, Node Copper and Node Silver released in 2014.

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.