Two Banners

 

I was just wondering what everbody thinks about having Two Banners one for coins and one for Artifacts(Relics) perhaps one on top of the outher

What do you think?


SS

I like it. Nice suggestion. Don't know how they would do that though, with the space I mean.

I think your just being greedy

Personally I don't see the need for 2 banners or multiple banners when the current banner shows multiple types of finds now. Seen Gold and Silver coins, Nickels, copper Penny's, gold rings, arrowheads, bottles, jugs, swords, iron, artifacts of multiple wars, copper artifacts, fossils and more on it now.

If Marc adds one for coins, another type of hunters will feel cited and want one for their speciality as well....... Just more work and more headaches for Marc which he doesn't need.......

One we have now is working great in my opinion..........

 

There would only be two...and can only be two, in the UK on data bases there are two catagories, one for Coins and one for Artifacts.

Artifacts cover everthing dug, none Coinage...simple

SS

There would only be two...and can only be two, in the UK on data bases there are two catagories, one for Coins and one for Artifacts.

Artifacts cover everthing dug, none Coinage...simple

SS

I like the idea. There is only one problem.....T-Net is not in the UK.

 

I know you say only two, but who is to say other hunters wouldn't feel cited and want a seperate banner for their style.

Current one covers all the catagories, and which already includes coinage.....  

Silver, no need to get offended, you asked what others thought. I just personally dont see the need since the current one covers all catogories, including coinage.

Silver, no need to get offended, you asked what others thought. I just personally dont see the need since the current one covers all catogories, including coinage.

At this current time, I can see 16 pictures on the Banner, on my screen,  10 of them are Coins, I just thought it might give the Relic hunters more chance of making the Banner.

SS

Silver, no need to get offended, you asked what others thought. I just personally dont see the need since the current one covers all catogories, including coinage.

At this current time, I can see 16 pictures on the Banner, on my screen,  10 of them are Coins, I just thought it might give the Relic hunters more chance of making the Banner.

SS

I made the banner 3 times with 2 coins and a relic. So I guess I'm satisfied with the way it is. Sorry Searcher.......I've changed my mind, as the majority seems to rule. I did think it was a good suggestion though.

There have been 2 gold coins found this week, 1 got on the banner and the other hasn't, but should have...I think

Maybe this would be a good idea for these situations

If you click on the "Recent Discoveries By Our Members!" at the top of the banner, you can see every item listed on the banner for the last 3 years.

I think SS has a valid point. Many historically significant artifacts have been posted that have not made the banner.

I know that most people would rather see coins, that is probably why.

I don't think any historically significant artifacts have missed being posted on the banner because of coins posted. There is a button on the side for members to vote if they feel a find is worthy of banner. I have seen many finds I thought were nice finds, but I did not click banner because I personally didn't feel it was worthy of the banner.

I see more historical significance in an old coin then in a rusted trigger guard or piece to a flintlock. The entire flintlock for sure, but a tiny piece to me not so much. I am not even a coin shooter, I prefer hunting jewelry at the beach so it's not like I favor coins either..

I see no need for a separate banner for coins, and still feel it would cause some to feel cited. Nice jewelry finds are not artifacts, yet would be left with the artifact banner. Why should coins have a separate banner and not jewelry, Indian artifacts, civil war artifacts and so on. One banner for all fits better in my opinion.....

I think too many people see the banner as a status symbol, it should be about the find, not about getting your name on the banner.

If I see someone campaining for their find to be placed on the banner or asking if it is a banner find, that automatically turns me off of clicking the banner button,to me it tells me they are more interested in seeing their name there then the find................

I quess I should have worded it a little different. There are people who wouldn't realize an important artifact if it bit them in the a$$. Thus would never get a banner vote.

I like it.  Two is always better than one, except maybe kicks in the .....behind.  Monty

I don't think any historically significant artifacts have missed being posted on the banner because of coins posted. There is a button on the side for members to vote if they feel a find is worthy of banner. I have seen many finds I thought were nice finds, but I did not click banner because I personally didn't feel it was worthy of the banner.

I see more historical significance in an old coin then in a rusted trigger guard or piece to a flintlock. The entire flintlock for sure, but a tiny piece to me not so much. I am not even a coin shooter, I prefer hunting jewelry at the beach so it's not like I favor coins either..

I see no need for a separate banner for coins, and still feel it would cause some to feel cited. Nice jewelry finds are not artifacts, yet would be left with the artifact banner. Why should coins have a separate banner and not jewelry, Indian artifacts, civil war artifacts and so on. One banner for all fits better in my opinion.....
 
I think too many people see the banner as a status symbol, it should be about the find, not about getting your name on the banner.

If I see someone campaining for their find to be placed on the banner or asking if it is a banner find, that automatically turns me off of clicking the banner button,to me it tells me they are more interested in seeing their name there then the find................

I don't think a relic has to be Historically signifigant, to make the Banner, coins don't having two Banners just means we would see more great finds at the top of the page

SS

I don't think any historically significant artifacts have missed being posted on the banner because of coins posted. There is a button on the side for members to vote if they feel a find is worthy of banner. I have seen many finds I thought were nice finds, but I did not click banner because I personally didn't feel it was worthy of the banner.

I see more historical significance in an old coin then in a rusted trigger guard or piece to a flintlock. The entire flintlock for sure, but a tiny piece to me not so much. I am not even a coin shooter, I prefer hunting jewelry at the beach so it's not like I favor coins either..

I see no need for a separate banner for coins, and still feel it would cause some to feel cited. Nice jewelry finds are not artifacts, yet would be left with the artifact banner. Why should coins have a separate banner and not jewelry, Indian artifacts, civil war artifacts and so on. One banner for all fits better in my opinion.....
 
I think too many people see the banner as a status symbol, it should be about the find, not about getting your name on the banner.

If I see someone campaining for their find to be placed on the banner or asking if it is a banner find, that automatically turns me off of clicking the banner button,to me it tells me they are more interested in seeing their name there then the find................

I don't think a relic has to be Historically signifigant, to make the Banner, coins don't having two Banners just means we would see more great finds at the top of the page

SS

No reason to single out just coins then, a banner just for jewelry, one just for indian artifacts, one just for bottles, and one just for iron would only be fair.... 5 or 6 banners just means that many more finds at the top of the page.....

Make the additional banners for charter members only and part of their profile setup so members can pick which banners they see and how many banners they see at the top of their screen.

 

Coins, Tokens and Jettons, they would fit into the Coin category. All the outhers you mentined would fit into the relics category anyway...so only two needed.

I respect your opinion Treasure Hunter, but if it's not your cup of tea, no matter

SS 

SS,

I do not understand your reason for dedicating a banner just for coins. How does say a diamond ring made in 2008, and found on a beach in 2009 fall under a banner for relics?

What is the purpose for just a banner for coins, and grouping all the others together?

SS,

I do not understand your reason for dedicating a banner just for coins. How does say a diamond ring made in 2008, and found on a beach in 2009 fall under a banner for relics?

What is the purpose for just a banner for coins, and grouping all the others together?

It's fairly obvious you don't like the idea fair enough, as for modern finds, I personely don't think they belong on the Banner I would hardly class them as Treasure expensive jewelry they may be.....but Treasure no, I know people won't agree, but to me a relic should be something over 100 years old. So as to answer that part of your question ..no it doesn't.

SS 

It's fairly obvious you don't like the idea fair enough, as for modern finds, I personely don't think they belong on the Banner I would hardly class them as Treasure expensive jewelry they may be.....but Treasure no, I know people won't agree, but to me a relic should be something over 100 years old. So as to answer that part of your question ..no it doesn't.
SS 

Yes I am against establishing a separate banner for just coins, which singles coins out over other treasures found by members as being more worthy, hence its own separate banner. TN banner reads "Recent Discoveries by Treasure Members"; it isn't titled "Relics".

That is where we disagree, a very nice ring found by a member of Treasure Net, is just as worthy for being on the banner as a batch of silver coins found by CRH, and so on. How is a $2000 value ring found with metal detector hunting in the water or land less of a "treasure" then a $100 value coin that was in the ground for 100 years?

How is it that a valuable piece of jewelry that is found by a member is not a treasure when it fits the definition of treasure. ………….
1. Accumulated or stored wealth in the form of money, jewels, or other valuables.
2. Valuable or precious possessions of any kind.

Oh heck, just leave it alone.  It's great the way it is.  Most of us aren't here to for praise anyway......I don't think?  Monty

Oh heck, just leave it alone.  It's great the way it is.  Most of us aren't here to for praise anyway......I don't think?  Monty

Your right Monty wish I hadn't started this thread but some people like to make a mountain out of a mole hill

SS

Oh heck, just leave it alone.  It's great the way it is.  Most of us aren't here to for praise anyway......I don't think?  Monty

Your right Monty wish I hadn't started this thread but some people like to make a mountain out of a mole hill

SS

SS, not sure why you feel my disagreeing with you means I am making "a mountain out of a molehill" since all I did was counter your reasons for the coin banner with my reasons against it. I am simply against singling out one type of find over another as being more worthy of its own seperate banner, which a coin banner would do.

No offense was ever meant to be directed at you........