We use variation codes quite a lot in the various threads but, as Joe has pointed out in the BDCB 23c thread, these can lead to misunderstandings, not only in terms of which catalogue is being referred to, but especially when it comes to early versions of a given model where we have to talk about codes 1, 2 and 3.
We therefore need a shorthand way of indicating that we are talking about catalogue codes. So how about VC for variation code, prefixing it with an abbreviation indicating the relevant catalogue? So Nick's would be NJVC, AIM would be AIMVC, NAMC would be NAMCVC, Stannard would be SVC, Houghton would be HVC, Leake would be LVC, MICA would be MICAVC, U.K. Matchbox would be UKMVC, Charlie Mack would be CMVC, and so on? (Normally, we would only refer to NJVC and possibly CMVC for later Superfast.)
Variation Codes
Re: Variation Codes
Too complicated and smacks of insider jargon - its almost as quick writing AIM code 4, Nick code 1 or Stannard code 3 makes it abundantly clear even to casual visitors what is being discussed..........
Re: Variation Codes
We already use jargon: SPW, r/a, c/a, DH, FH...........SMS88 wrote:Too complicated and smacks of insider jargon - its almost as quick writing AIM code 4, Nick code 1 or Stannard code 3 makes it abundantly clear even to casual visitors what is being discussed..........
Re: Variation Codes
I know what SPW means but not the other 4!!Idris wrote:We already use jargon: SPW, r/a, c/a, DH, FH...........SMS88 wrote:Too complicated and smacks of insider jargon - its almost as quick writing AIM code 4, Nick code 1 or Stannard code 3 makes it abundantly clear even to casual visitors what is being discussed..........
Re: Variation Codes
Rivetted axles, crimped axles, dome head, flat head.SMS88 wrote:I know what SPW means but not the other 4!!Idris wrote:We already use jargon: SPW, r/a, c/a, DH, FH...........SMS88 wrote:Too complicated and smacks of insider jargon - its almost as quick writing AIM code 4, Nick code 1 or Stannard code 3 makes it abundantly clear even to casual visitors what is being discussed..........
Some time ago, I did suggest that we have a sticky somewhere in which all the abbreviations used in this Forum could be listed, but there was no support at all for the suggestion. (IIRC, there was just a deafening silence!)
Re: Variation Codes
A key to the abbreviations is sensible and well worth doing in my opinion, it may help casual and infrequent visitors and those wishing to become more serious in the hobby. A small index of images of the axles ends and main wheels types would help too. As far as codes go, if we use Nick's codes say 90% of the time (that's a complete guesstimate) could we not just use a prefix for non Nick codes?Idris wrote: Some time ago, I did suggest that we have a sticky somewhere in which all the abbreviations used in this Forum could be listed, but there was no support at all for the suggestion. (IIRC, there was just a deafening silence!)
John
There's nothing regular about wheels
There's nothing regular about wheels
Re: Variation Codes
The problem is that then leaves the potential for confusion when using the terms ‘code 1’, ‘code 2’, and ‘code 3’ (which is where we came in). How about simply using VC for Nick Jones variation codes?johnboy wrote:... could we not just use a prefix for non Nick codes?
Re: Variation Codes
Sorry, I overlooked that, VC would do the job.Idris wrote:The problem is that then leaves the potential for confusion when using the terms ‘code 1’, ‘code 2’, and ‘code 3’ (which is where we came in). How about simply using VC for Nick Jones variation codes?johnboy wrote:... could we not just use a prefix for non Nick codes?
John
There's nothing regular about wheels
There's nothing regular about wheels
Re: Variation Codes
I would rather see the complete abandonment of the newer 1,2,3 code system by all collectors. It has been abused by many to give custom models, restored models and (worst of all) faked rare models some false sense of legitimacy. I saw firsthand, collectors that were confused and proudly showed off their "code 3" model. They assumed that since the model had been assigned a code, there was some additional legitimacy assigned to the model. But, those codes are firmly embedded into the hobby with collectors of newer non-vintage items so my wish will never happen.
I would prefer that a discussion (a post) be started by fully stating that the codes being used are Stannard, Jones, etc. and from that point on within a post, the numbers could stand alone. My opinion and my experience is that creating new abbreviations and/or acronyms is also confusing.
Back in the days of the mcch, the owner had banned so many common words and names that many discussions had to rely on acronyms that where only used within the mcch. This situation lead to further confusion by casual readers and new members. I would hate to see this great forum head down any path similar to the mcch.
I do not think it's too much to ask that someone simply add a few extra key strokes and spell out Stannard, Jones, etc. Doing this will keep us from having to add another sticky post, in a growing line up of sticky posts, on another forum, that people will have to search out. It will give everyone an instant understanding of what codes are in discussion.
What started this was an email I received from a confused reader prompted me to make a clarification comment in another discussion. Simply using the full name instead of newly created acronyms will prevent more emails and question posts in the future and keep the forum less cluttered.
The advent of abbreviations and acronyms has become pervasive with those who consider "texting" and "tweeting" communicating. I would hate to see serious discussion forums denigrated by the use of abbreviations, acronyms, slang and the latest "hip" usage of words which mean something else (even if only for a nano-second) in the history of spoken language. These things make it difficult for those which English is a second language, those who use translators and the good people of Scotland (just a joking about that last part).
I would prefer that a discussion (a post) be started by fully stating that the codes being used are Stannard, Jones, etc. and from that point on within a post, the numbers could stand alone. My opinion and my experience is that creating new abbreviations and/or acronyms is also confusing.
Back in the days of the mcch, the owner had banned so many common words and names that many discussions had to rely on acronyms that where only used within the mcch. This situation lead to further confusion by casual readers and new members. I would hate to see this great forum head down any path similar to the mcch.
I do not think it's too much to ask that someone simply add a few extra key strokes and spell out Stannard, Jones, etc. Doing this will keep us from having to add another sticky post, in a growing line up of sticky posts, on another forum, that people will have to search out. It will give everyone an instant understanding of what codes are in discussion.
What started this was an email I received from a confused reader prompted me to make a clarification comment in another discussion. Simply using the full name instead of newly created acronyms will prevent more emails and question posts in the future and keep the forum less cluttered.
The advent of abbreviations and acronyms has become pervasive with those who consider "texting" and "tweeting" communicating. I would hate to see serious discussion forums denigrated by the use of abbreviations, acronyms, slang and the latest "hip" usage of words which mean something else (even if only for a nano-second) in the history of spoken language. These things make it difficult for those which English is a second language, those who use translators and the good people of Scotland (just a joking about that last part).
It might be time to start my "Bucket List."
