Mycoins, wrong attributions?

Poland

Germany

What's Germany 1871- 1948 doing in Poland?

How can we be sure that Numista is correct according to Countries, Issures or whatever you call it now? I'm even more worried than before.

Ever heard of East Brandenburg, Pomerania, Silesia, Posen, Memellland, West- and East Prussia?

Yes, but never that Germany was part of poland......

Cita: "Sjoelund"​Poland
​
​Germany
​
​What's Germany 1871- 1948 doing in Poland?
​
​How can we be sure that Numista is correct according to Countries, Issures or whatever you call it now? I'm even more worried than before.

​Until 1945 the today west part of poland belongs to germany. After WWII the parts of germany eastern the Oder-Neiße line are added to Poland.

That doesn't really mean that the German coins should also come under Poland!

I agree with Sjoelund here.

I think two entities should be listed together in Numista maps if:

• current is a subset of the former (e.g. Tajikistan vs USSR, Serbia vs Yugoslavia)
  
• current is a superset of the former (e.g. Germany vs Bavaria, Nigeria vs Biafra)
  
• current is territorially identical/similar to the former (e.g. Congo DR vs Zaire, Zimbabwe vs Rhodesia)
  

Germany is not related in any of these ways with Poland, they just share a minor overlap. In fact, Germany and Poland existed as separate currency-issuing entities back then, and keep existing as separate entities now.

We shouldn't imply a relation between France and Germany because of Alsace-Lorraine.

Hi
This can slowly move to a political point of view, which is not good. I would there for propose a split in list of the countries the cloud, first part based on today's boundaries and second as a historical part of. Currently all states are intermixed. I believe this would take away the heat from this matter.
LP

Just for the fun take Denmark and it's historical relations. I cannot really see the coins from Germany (Schleswig-Holstein), UK-Ireland (Danelaw), Norway (Union), Sweden (Kalmar), India (Danish), Iceland, Faeroe Islands, Danish West Indies, Groenland etc entering in the present Danish coin tally?

Here another funny thing. I know the Romans went to England and all that, but why do I find Roman coins here?

The logic is difficult to find, isn't it?

Cita: "Sjoelund"​Here another funny thing. I know the Romans went to England and all that, but why do I find Roman coins here?
​
​The logic is difficult to find, isn't it?

​I dont think so. you find the coins from an (old) country in the area of the old country.

It would be fine if the map would be interactive to go back in timeline to see borders to time before.
So if you go back to year 0 you see a mpa with border of tribes from this period.
For me it is interesting to follow a place back in history and see changes of countries this place governed.

I see, what you mean, but England never issued Roman coins..... to my knowledge, which is very poor concerning Roman coins!

You have time line maps, but of course they are not linked to coins!

Here is one of the Romans https://roman-empire.net/maps/animated-timeline/

Europe since 1900 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gj2Z9bkJSDU

Europe since 3000 BC to 2013 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l53bmKYXliA

Carabean https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUoypQ0ykwI

I stop here, but there's plenty of more: https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video;_ylt=AwrEzetZNBJiB1wAWKZXNyoA;_ylu=Y29sbwNiZjEEcG9zAzEEdnRpZAMEc2VjA3Nj?p=animated+map+timeline+europe&fr=ymyy-t

Have fun

Cita: "Sjoelund"​I see, what you mean, but England never issued Roman coins.....
​
​

​there was a roman mint in Londinium :)

Thanks, but I doubt they minted my 4 coins
RCV388
RCV8675
ric109
ric16
but of course I'm not sure

I believe Finland should not have Russian Empire coins but Finland could include coins minted in Turku which are under Sweden at the moment. We include them on our own catalogs because they are minted in Turku Finland and some of them are made only for Finland.

How many maps would you need to represent each era?

A big part of the problem is that, when it comes to countries that no longer exist, they don't actually exist on our modern map--to include these places on the map, we must super-impose their territory on our modern countries. While the borders will, of course, not be perfect, this is the best we can do without including multiple maps over various times (which would definitely be interesting to see, however difficult it may be to implement).

And so, on Numista, here is Rome:


For extinct countries, we tend to use the map of their territory at its greatest extent (because this is the maximum territory which its coins could have circulated, at some point). This is why Germany (1871-1948) is shown in Poland and the Russian Empire is shown in Finland.

For modern countries, we just use how they appear in modern times because they do already exist on our modern map. This is why Sweden is not shown in Finland.

Again: it is not perfect. But to make it perfect, we would need a new map for every year, and that would take a lot of work. With that being said, here are some relevant threads discussing that very type of suggestion:
https://en.numista.com/forum/topic49599.html
https://en.numista.com/forum/topic58463.html
https://en.numista.com/forum/topic63420.html

Oh boy, you make it complicated with "could have circulated".

What about Austria with the Maria Theresien Thaler used all over the world?

What about Denmark and the Danelaw in UK, the Unions with Norway, the Kalmar union with Sweden and Norway?

You'll never get it right

Cita: "Sjoelund"​Oh boy, you make it complicated with "could have circulated".
​
​What about Austria with the Maria Theresien Thaler used all over the world?
​
​What about Denmark and the Danelaw in UK, the Unions with Norway, the Kalmar union with Sweden and Norway?
​
​You'll never get it right

​This is true!
There are many finds here in Sweden with Umayyad, Abbasid, and Sasanian coins. The Vikings were trading all over the world, and with whatever currency that was used there. They then brought the coins with them home, and they were accepted even there.
In Visby, e.g.m the merchants first decided in what currency the goods would be payed with. Local Gutnish silver, Umayyad silver, Abbasid silver, Sasanian silver, etc. I guess most people would be pretty surprised if Sweden would be marked when they add an Umayyad dirham to their collection.

Cita: "Idolenz"​Ever heard of East Brandenburg, Pomerania, Silesia, Posen, Memellland, West- and East Prussia?

​
Memel is now part of Lithuania - as Klaipeda.

Aidan.

If I understand the graphic in sjoelund's initial post correctly, is it saying that Germany 1871-1948 is being counted twice in the mapping? (once in Poland AND once in Germany ash shown by the two lists in the text boxes?).
Obviously this would be a bug to be corrected.

Certainly it is easy to understand how Danzig Free City would map onto Poland (completely in the modern boundaries), and even Duchy of Pomerania and and Silesia as a region would map onto Poland (majority of territory within the modern boundaries of Poland?), as pointed out by Idolenz.

But I do not see any rational argument for why the German Empire would have mapped to Poland, as neither the majority of its land area, nor majority of its population, nor its capital were in modern Polish territory.

Or am I completely missing the argument here?

Cita: "tdziemia"​If I understand the graphic in sjoelund's initial post correctly, is it saying that Germany 1871-1948 is being counted twice in the mapping? (once in Poland AND once in Germany ash shown by the two lists in the text boxes?).
​Obviously this would be a bug to be corrected.
​
​Certainly it is easy to understand how Danzig Free City would map onto Poland (completely in the modern boundaries), and even Duchy of Pomerania and and Silesia as a region would map onto Poland (majority of territory within the modern boundaries of Poland?), as pointed out by Idolenz.
​
​But I do not see any rational argument for why the German Empire would have mapped to Poland, as neither the majority of its land area, nor majority of its population, nor its capital were in modern Polish territory.
​
​Or am I completely missing the argument here?
​
​

​
Part of what is now Poland was actually part of the Kingdom of Prussia until 1918, then East Prussia was created when Poland was recreated, which took over some territory that was Prussian.

Aidan.

tdziemia

Unfortunately you have understood it very well

I once saw a numberplate on a car from the UK (French, Danish, Norwegian, Roman and British)
8UUI54IT or something similar!

Come back to something which is understandable, just take the example of SCWC, KISS (Keep It Simple & Stupid).

Cita: "BCNumismatics"​​
​Part of what is now Poland was actually part of the Kingdom of Prussia until 1918, then East Prussia was created when Poland was recreated, which took over some territory that was Prussian.
​
​Aidan.

​Yes, I get that.

I am not sure how "granular" the mapping process is, but that means one could only plausibly map coins of German States > Prussia, Kingdom of onto Poland (and even that makes little sense, except that the land mass now in Poland may have been more than 50% of the total land mass of the Kingdom of Prussia), but absolutely NOT coins of Germany - 1871-1948 by any kind of logic.

Here is a map that comes up for "German Empire" and I've drawn lines to identify the current Poland and France boundaries (more-or-Iess). If that led to a decision to map those coins to both Germany and Poland, I don't like the logic, but I guess I can see ...

And then I will compliment sjoelund on his enormous Polish collection which it seems he was able to assemble with not much effort

(Post edited)

Somebody programmed the joining of Poland and Germany, I mean a real person, somebody with a name (at least an avatar to hide behind), who certainly has a good reason for this union! Maybe that avatar has left numista, maybe the avatar is not anylonger so sure about the reasons for the unification, maybe he's ashamed about having made an error?

So what, we all make errors, so why not just admit it and let's go back to the logical solution, Poland and Germany, were never the same , and please don't go on splitting hairs.

@ sjoelund, I was typing an edit to my previous post at same time you posted.

I just checked my coins, and I see that my German States > Pomerania, Duchy of coins map to both Germany and Poland.

And that my Poland-Lithuania commonwealth coins map to both Poland and to Lithuiania.

So, I think there is at least consistency in the approach.

I am really having difficulty following the point of this thread...

I understand that you are wanting Germany (1871-1948) to be removed from Poland, in regards to the map. However, considering how Numista deals with coins from every country from every time, and considering how the mapping process should be the same for all extinct issuers (to ensure consistency), let us look away from Germany for a moment, and consider a few other issuers...

(And I would like to say right now: I do not necessarily agree with the maps of all places that will follow--these are just six examples which I thought would make a decent variety to consider.)

Roman Empire


Umayyad Caliphate


Empire of China

(Map includes Macau, Hong Kong, and Taiwan--those are all small so they might be overlooked)

Ottoman Empire


French Indochina


Straits Settlements


-----

So here is my question:

• Seeing how the Numista-maps look for those six place, how would you like to see the map change for each of them? And more importantly, why?
  

("You" being the reader--anyone is free to answer these questions. )

Obviously, this thread is about changing the map for one country, but as I said before, Numista must consider every country. My hope, with these questions, is to determine what you think the new mapping guidelines should be. Because, if you want to change the map for one issuer, the maps of many other issuers should also likely be changed, in accordance to that one change.

I give up, where's the map of Denmark with dependencies during the ages? We're in the dream lands, and you'll never, ever get it right, which is not really important to me!

I only want to catalog my the coins in my collection according to the country they came from according to the "year" written on them. I don't need to know the history of each country through before Christ to now to do that.... and of course I also want to be able to look up those coins in the numista catalog without spending hours on maps to figure out what the country might be, when it's written Ceylon, I look for Ceylon, when it's written Straits Settlements, I look for that and so on.

It seems to work better again, but then we have the problem of double KM#, when you mix KM countries together.... please keep it simple, don't overthink, most people just like things to work in an understandable way.

Cita: "Sjoelund"where's the map of Denmark with dependencies during the ages?

​Modern countries are much more simple than extinct countries because we do not have to super-impose anything on our modern-map--they are already there.

This is not the case with Germany (1871-1948)--that issuer no longer exists, so it falls in the realm of "extinct issuers" (places we must super-impose on our modern map).

Cita: "Sjoelund"​I give up

​It is easy to ask for change; it is not so easy to justify it, especially when that change effects the entire catalogue.

Those above maps were genuinely meant to help members consider what new guidelines we could have for our maps on Numista--if someone would like to propose new guidelines, they could, at the very least, be considered. And that is much more effective than saying "change this one issuer without considering any others because that's what I want."

For extinct countries, our current map-guidelines are something along the lines of:

• Use the map at their greatest extent, assuming they had a significant amount of territory in that country.
  

And by "significant", I mean we can go all-or-nothing for most countries on the map--we cannot highlight half of Poland, for example. Because Germany (1871-1948) had a significant amount of territory in modern-day Poland (around half), they are therefore highlighted in Poland. Conversely, they had a small portion of territory in France, and so highlighting the entirety of France does not make much sense (if we did, it would look less like the map @tdziemia posted). This is not perfect, of course, but it is the best we can do with this method.

Other possible methods:
- Use the map of the country when it started out.
- Use the map of the country when it was near its demise.
- Only highlight countries which one particular issuer had their capitals in (I have seen this one proposed before).

Our current way of doing things is not the only way. With that being said, I like ours the best because the maps we show are closest to the maximum extent their coins were intended to have circulated, which is directly related to the purpose of this site (numismatics). But if you really want to propose a change to something like this, please consider other countries as well (like the six I mentioned above).

Cita: "Sjoelund"​I only want to catalog my the coins in my collection according to the country they came from according to the "year" written on them.

​This is what these threads are for (an amazing idea, but something very difficult to implement):
https://en.numista.com/forum/topic49599.html
https://en.numista.com/forum/topic58463.html
https://en.numista.com/forum/topic63420.html

For me, the discussion here has been enlightening about how things work here which I had not considered previously (while I look at the map of my coins distribution, I've never paid much attention to the numbers on the map).

I agree it is a challenge with no perfect solution. And now I understand the logic behind it.

(But looking again at my personal map, I wonder why Polish-Lithuania Commonwealth does not also map at least to modern Belarus and maybe even Ukraine Given the current world situation, perhaps not a good topic for further discussion).

Look at this, Isle of Man, which in my opinion is correct in our catalog for the momemnt, but here is a source putting all that into question:

"The Isle of Man had become separated from Great Britain and Ireland by 6500 BC. It appears that colonisation took place by sea sometime during the Mesolithic era (about 6500 BC).[1] The island has been visited by various raiders and trading peoples over the years. After being settled by people from Ireland in the first millennium AD, the Isle of Man was converted to Christianity and then suffered raids by Vikings from Norway. After becoming subject to Norwegian suzerainty as part of the Kingdom of Mann and the Isles, the Isle of Man later became a possession of the Scottish and then the English crowns.
Since 1866, the Isle of Man has been a Crown Dependency (UK?) and has democratic self-government."

The bracket with UK I added!

Please don't touch the Isle of Man, but you probably see, what I mean with nonsense, when you try to map one and the same territory to many all the history wise "owners"? It's nice to know, but for the normal collector, it's of no importance, so don't make life more difficult than necessary.

Cita: "Sjoelund"​Look at this, Isle of Man, which in my opinion is correct in our catalog for the momemnt, but here is a source putting all that into question:
​
​"The Isle of Man had become separated from Great Britain and Ireland by 6500 BC. It appears that colonisation took place by sea sometime during the Mesolithic era (about 6500 BC).[1] The island has been visited by various raiders and trading peoples over the years. After being settled by people from Ireland in the first millennium AD, the Isle of Man was converted to Christianity and then suffered raids by Vikings from Norway. After becoming subject to Norwegian suzerainty as part of the Kingdom of Mann and the Isles, the Isle of Man later became a possession of the Scottish and then the English crowns.
​Since 1866, the Isle of Man has been a Crown Dependency (UK?) and has democratic self-government."
​
​The bracket with UK I added!
​
​Please don't touch the Isle of Man, but you probably see, what I mean with nonsense, when you try to map one and the same territory to many all the history wise "owners"? It's nice to know, but for the normal collector, it's of no importance, so don't make life more difficult than necessary.

​

Ole,
Prior to 1765, the Isle of Man was privately owned, but came directly under the British Crown in 1765 under the terms of the Revestment Act - which made the reigning monarch automatically the Lord of Mann, with Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II being represented on the island by the Lieutenant-Governor.

Aidan.

From Wikipedia:

The Isle of Man (Manx: Mannin [ˈmanɪnʲ], also Ellan Vannin [ˈɛlʲan ˈvanɪnʲ]), also known as Mann (/mæn/), is an island nation and self-governing British Crown Dependency in the Irish Sea between Great Britain and Ireland. The head of state, Queen Elizabeth II, holds the title Lord of Mann and is represented by a Lieutenant Governor. The United Kingdom is responsible for the isle's military defence.
Humans have lived on the island since before 6500 BC. Gaelic cultural influence began in the 5th century AD, when Irish missionaries following the teaching of St. Patrick began settling the island,[8] and the Manx language, a branch of the Goidelic languages, emerged. In 627, King Edwin of Northumbria conquered the Isle of Man along with most of Mercia. In the 9th century, Norsemen established the thalassocratic Kingdom of the Isles, which included the Isle of Man. Magnus III, King of Norway from 1093 to 1103, reigned as King of Mann and the Isles between 1099 and 1103.[9]
In 1266, King Magnus VI of Norway sold his suzerainty over Mann to King Alexander III of Scotland under the Treaty of Perth.[10] After a period of alternating rule by the Kings of Scotland and England, the island came under the feudal lordship of the English Crown in 1399. The lordship revested in the British Crown in 1765, but the island did not become part of the 18th-century Kingdom of Great Britain, nor of its successors, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the present-day United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It has always retained its internal self-government.

It all depends how far back you want to go, that's why Isle of Man is good as it is. Lucky nobody has tried to make an Isle of Man time map to upset the lovely island in Numista

A few days ago I entered the first Russian Empire coin in My Coins, and was surprised to see that not only did all of the former Soviet Union become darker on my map, but also .... ALASKA (yes, I do not have any U.S. coins entered).

THAT was a little creepy.

Not surprising since Alaska was part of the Russian Empire until they sold it to the US in 1867.

That's modern Numista life. Get used to be surprised by anything.

A few days ago I entered the first Russian Empire coin in My Coins, and was surprised to see that not only did all of the former Soviet Union become darker on my map, but also .... ALASKA

I can see the logic of that.     But I can't see the logic of that and (simultaneously)  Puerto Rico not being ‘covered’ by a modern day US coin.

Not even the Puerto Rico reverse of the Washington quarter!  :)

 

Our current way of doing things is not the only way. With that being said, I like ours the best because the maps we show are closest to the maximum extent their coins were intended to have circulated, which is directly related to the purpose of this site (numismatics). But if you really want to propose a change to something like this, please consider other countries as well (like the six I mentioned above).

This was a very informative response - the current/extinct logic division explains most of what has puzzled me in the past (Puerto Rico's omission from the US aside).     

And I saw the three links you gave to past request threads for a time dimension on the map.   I get how difficult that would be and supporting a bunch of different maps poses all sorts of difficulties.

I do think, though, that since the division is binary - it be useful to have toggle to show one of:
     - the current combined map
     - the map of current countries only (presumably including only coins issued by them?)

I think a lot of people look at the globe to get a sense of what countries do I not have - and I think that question is usually about current countries.

I would however love to be able to see a snapshot the ‘country list’ at any given point in time.