Page 2 of 2

Re: WHICH CODING SHOULD WE USE?

Posted: Thu Sep 26, 2013 10:29 am
by ChFalkensteiner
Taniwha wrote: Er, doesn't Christian F. actually use Mack's coding system on his website?! :?
That is correct, as far as Lesney-based models are concerned. That has always seemed logical, as all my cataloguing efforts were initially based on Charlie's works, which were the most comprehensive publicly available anywhere.

However, I have learned that several participants here frown upon anything created by Charlie, so I have adapted and see nothing wrong with using UK codes (as conceived by Geoffrey Leake and promoted by Ray Bush et al.) here instead. This goes along well with the fact that this site is run from the UK.

The two main differences between UK codes and Mack codes are that UK codes continue the suffix letters on from the regular wheel era whereas Charlie started over again with "A" for the first Superfast models, and that UK codes are based on the models' worldwide (or specifically European) issue numbers whereas Charlie's codes are quite naturally based on US issue numbers.

Side note: up until 1977 there was no difference between worldwide and US issue numbers; from 1978 onward differences began to emerge, as several older models were re-issued in the USA in that year and were given new numbers (initially Roman).

Re: WHICH CODING SHOULD WE USE?

Posted: Fri Sep 27, 2013 10:29 am
by Taniwha
Thanks Christian,

My first guide when I started collecting was Schiffer, which has similar coding to Leake, which I only acquired a couple of years ago. Therefore I've always catalogued my collection that way rather than Mack, with a suffix 'S' for SF transitional versions of existing RW castings e.g 33cS for the SF Miura.

Incidentally, I still find Mack a useful variation guide for SF, as it remains the most comprehensive one I have access to other than Christian's website!

Cheers,
Gavin

Re: WHICH CODING SHOULD WE USE?

Posted: Sat Sep 28, 2013 12:16 pm
by Johnny Pimp
I first catalogued my collection using Charlie Mack's big blue book. It was only when I joined here that I decided use Nick's code tables instead (I'm such a conformist).

Although change can be a good thing, I'm firmly in the 'keep things as they are' camp.

Incidentally, with regard to the Superfast codes, would it be possible when adding new variations, to use a suffix to shoehorn into the timeline, rather than simply shuffle the numbers down? I've noticed recently that a number of my models have had their variation codes changed and I don't fancy having to keep on top of searching for and dealing with updates. If the field isn't alpha-numeric, I'd be grateful if new finds were added to the end of the variation numbers instead.

Re: WHICH CODING SHOULD WE USE?

Posted: Mon Sep 30, 2013 12:16 am
by shockwavediecast
Up to 1982. I think we should use the English codes. It was after all, an English company til then.

Re: WHICH CODING SHOULD WE USE?

Posted: Tue Oct 01, 2013 1:35 am
by Tinman
Johnny Pimp wrote: I've noticed recently that a number of my models have had their variation codes changed and I don't fancy having to keep on top of searching for and dealing with updates. If the field isn't alpha-numeric, I'd be grateful if new finds were added to the end of the variation numbers instead.
That's the only real complaint I hear about Nick's variation guide. I too would prefer new finds added to be at the end instead of fitting them in and causing already coded models to be constantly recoded.

Re: WHICH CODING SHOULD WE USE?

Posted: Sun Dec 29, 2013 10:55 pm
by GHOSTHUNTER
Not being a general Matchbox collector, I use neither code, I don't have access to Charlie Mack's material, but I do have access to Nick's material, it's right here under my nose (or should that be under my models!), so while I am on this forum, it is logical to adopt the coding system devised by Nick and when possible, I try and match my models up with the nearest code on his listing.

Any guests viewing this forum may want to do the same, they go hand-in-hand, if you have Charlie Mack's material then fine, use it to double-check with other material you may have, including the Nick Code, to build up a the bigger picture for your models, but I really think we should stay with Nick's and help him 'fine-tune' it.

GHOSTHUNTER.

Re: WHICH CODING SHOULD WE USE?

Posted: Sun Dec 29, 2013 11:10 pm
by motorman
GHOSTHUNTER wrote:Not being a general Matchbox collector, I use neither code, I don't have access to Charlie Mack's material, but I do have access to Nick's material, it's right here under my nose (or should that be under my models!), so while I am on this forum, it is logical to adopt the coding system devised by Nick and when possible, I try and match my models up with the nearest code on his listing.

Any guests viewing this forum may want to do the same, they go hand-in-hand, if you have Charlie Mack's material then fine, use it to double-check with other material you may have, including the Nick Code, to build up a the bigger picture for your models, but I really think we should stay with Nick's and help him 'fine-tune' it.

GHOSTHUNTER.
I used Charlie Macks coding until very recently, i am now however a fully converted "Nickolic" and will be using Nicks coding for my Matchbox collection and any postings on the forum. Nicks coding is far more relevant to this forum and also more accurate and up to date IMHO.

God, i feel so liberated now i have "COME OUT" ;)

Re: WHICH CODING SHOULD WE USE?

Posted: Mon Dec 30, 2013 12:36 am
by GHOSTHUNTER
Thank's Motorman, "relevant to this forum", is a consideration any Matchbox collector should have while assesing their models while using this forum and the accompanying variations listing (the Nick Code), as good or as bad as other reference material may be, it is still usefull at times to refere to them, but as Motorman says, the Nick Code, should be more up to date and if its not, we can update it easier than with printed media like books etc.

GHOSTHUNTER.

Re: WHICH CODING SHOULD WE USE?

Posted: Mon Dec 30, 2013 9:23 pm
by SMS88
motorman wrote:
I used Charlie Macks coding until very recently, i am now however a fully converted "Nickolic" and will be using Nicks coding for my Matchbox collection and any postings on the forum. Nicks coding is far more relevant to this forum and also more accurate and up to date IMHO.

God, i feel so liberated now i have "COME OUT" ;)
Damn straight , Nick´s codes are !

Re: WHICH CODING SHOULD WE USE?

Posted: Mon Dec 30, 2013 10:43 pm
by motorman
SMS88 wrote:
motorman wrote:
I used Charlie Macks coding until very recently, i am now however a fully converted "Nickolic" and will be using Nicks coding for my Matchbox collection and any postings on the forum. Nicks coding is far more relevant to this forum and also more accurate and up to date IMHO.

God, i feel so liberated now i have "COME OUT" ;)
Damn straight , Nick´s codes are !
:lol: :lol: