Group all Micronations in Exonumia

Hi,

Currently, we have some Micronation in coin catalog and others in Exonumia. The reason of why some are in the coin catalog and others no is not obvious and impossible to understand, at least by me, as it’s not supported by verifiable facts.

So please can we move all coins and banknotes issued by Micronation to Exonumia.

A clear split would be better than the current status.

Just clarify, I assume it's the “states” listed at the bottom of the coin and banknote lists you want to move:

Christiania
Hutt River
Lundy
Sealand 

I'm happy to see those go to exonumia.

ceh2019

Just clarify, I assume it's the “states” listed at the bottom of the coin and banknote lists you want to move:

Christiania
Hutt River
Lundy
Sealand 

I'm happy to see those go to exonumia.

Indeed, these ones and all the candidates that could be added.

Just because some communities are claiming independency, in other words just want to be left alone for various reasons and this decision collides with interests of other countries (with usually nefarious reasons), but not when such independency is beneficial to these entities, does not yet mean these micronations should be “punished” and moved to Exonumia.

By such standards we could move to Exonumia all Tax havens and other industrial level money laundering islands. Further more I dare to say, that such move from the Numista side would be a insult to these micronations.

If the standard on Numista for a valid Issuer is recognition of independency, then do we move to Exonumia also coins from Artsakh, Abkhazia, Transnistria, Western Sahara, Somaliland (not sure about Seborga)?

LP

PS: lets leave crazy politics aside.

mikimaus

Just because some communities are claiming independency, in other words just want to be left alone for various reasons and this decision collides with interests of other countries (with usually nefarious reasons), but not when such independency is beneficial to these entities, does not yet mean these micronations should be “punished” and moved to Exonumia.

By such standards we could move to Exonumia all Tax havens and other industrial level money laundering islands. Further more I dare to say, that such move from the Numista side would be a insult to these micronations.

If the standard on Numista for a valid Issuer is recognition of independency, then do we move to Exonumia also coins from Artsakh, Abkhazia, Transnistria, Western Sahara, Somaliland (not sure about Seborga)?

LP

PS: lets leave crazy politics aside.

This isn't about “punishment”, nor is it about “recognition” it's about understanding the difference between an actual political entity and an small, illegal organization trying to avoid paying taxes or following other laws and declaring “independence” to try and give themselves a legal defense. I'm more than happy to insult such people but that isn't the point.

Seborga should have been in the list I posted earlier.

ceh2019

mikimaus

Just because some communities are claiming independency, in other words just want to be left alone for various reasons and this decision collides with interests of other countries (with usually nefarious reasons), but not when such independency is beneficial to these entities, does not yet mean these micronations should be “punished” and moved to Exonumia.

By such standards we could move to Exonumia all Tax havens and other industrial level money laundering islands. Further more I dare to say, that such move from the Numista side would be a insult to these micronations.

If the standard on Numista for a valid Issuer is recognition of independency, then do we move to Exonumia also coins from Artsakh, Abkhazia, Transnistria, Western Sahara, Somaliland (not sure about Seborga)?

LP

PS: lets leave crazy politics aside.

This isn't about “punishment”, nor is it about “recognition” it's about understanding the difference between an actual political entity and an small, illegal organization trying to avoid paying taxes or following other laws and declaring “independence” to try and give themselves a legal defense. I'm more than happy to insult such people but that isn't the point.

Seborga should have been in the list I posted earlier.

Don't forget about Liechenstein.

mikimaus

Don't forget about Liechenstein.

In what way does Liechtenstein fall into the description I gave? Size isn't everything.

mikimaus

Just because some communities are claiming independency, in other words just want to be left alone for various reasons and this decision collides with interests of other countries (with usually nefarious reasons), but not when such independency is beneficial to these entities, does not yet mean these micronations should be “punished” and moved to Exonumia.

That's not my point, my point is to have them group all together, now part of them are in Exonumia and others in Coins, does it make sense ?

So my suggestion is to group them all together and as most of the micronation are in Exonumia then I suggest to move them all in Exonumia, but I will not complain if we move them all to coins as far as we keep 1 rule.

I just want to have a clear and understandable rule of where Micronation belong, not the current status of 1 in and 1 out, based on catalog administrator personal feelings…

Indomini16

I just want to have a clear and understandable rule of where Micronation belong, not the current status of 1 in and 1 out, based on catalog administrator personal feelings…

Agree!

So far, the rules were simple:

Teritorry + coins in use (circulation) = country list and micronation category. Without that, it is exonumia.

Following Andorra discussion, there is a proposal to use same reasoning for micronations, that would meant that even micronations with teritorry and collector currency only would make it to the country list.

So far, the rules were simple:

Teritorry + coins in use (circulation) = country list and micronation category. Without that, it is exonumia.

Exception made of Andorra 

So a micronation with a piece of land would belong to Coins catalog ?

Look like we’ve just open the pandora box with this exception for Andorra ;-) 

Hello, I think it is important, when classifying a coin in the Coin catalog or in Exonumia, to analyze the status of the issuer. 

In my opinion, all countries with total or limited recognition and whose Government has officially issued some coins (whether or not they are in circulation), these should be in the Coin Catalogue.

I don't think it makes much sense to compare a recognized Official State like Andorra with a Micronation, so comparing the coins that these entities have issued doesn't make much sense either.

From Wikipedia: “A micronation is a political entity whose members claim that they belong to an independent nation or sovereign state, but which lacks legal recognition by world governments or major international organizations. Micronations are classified separately from de facto states and quasi-states; they are also not considered to be autonomous nor self-governing as they lack the legal basis in international law for their existence”

Example of Micronation: Sealand

The Andorran Diner is a collector's coin, it was not used for transactions, but it has its own ISO Code (ADD) and it was issued by the Official Government of a State with full recognition, that is the big difference for me.

All catalogs (online or printed) classify the Andorran Diner as a currency, for example in Krause they have a KM reference and not X, and if we look at the rest of the catalogs the same thing happens. I don't think that in this case, pretending to be different would make us better.

Having said this, I think that in the case of Micronations, it would be good to have a single criterion and group them all in the same place, but in which one, that is no longer clear to me.

oynbcn

The Andorran Diner is a collector's coin, it was not used for transactions, but it has its own ISO Code (ADD) and it was issued by the Official Government of a State with full recognition, that is the big difference for me.

This is the first time the ISO code was mentioned in this thread. For items created after 1978 (the publication of the first edition of ISO 4217) does it make sense that an ISO currency code (or legitimate steps toward getting an ISO code) should be required to place the item in Coins or Banknotes and not Exonumia?

Of the five entities listed under Coins/Micronations only Lundy doesn't have items issued 1978 or later. There is also one Coins/Fantasy places entry and the item issue dates are after 1978.

(It seems obvious to me a “fantasy place” can't be an issuer of a legitimate coin. I see KM numbers for those items, but there are already items in Exonumia which have non-Tn KM numbers.)

oynbcn

I don't think it makes much sense to compare a recognized Official State like Andorra with a Micronation, so comparing the coins that these entities have issued doesn't make much sense either.

+1000

In my opinion, all micronations should be gathered somewhere indeed in a dedicated section. Preferably in Exonumia from my perspective, but possibly in Coins too if we want to be more original than serious ;-)

but anyway we wouldnt put Liechtenstein or Andorra in this list obviously. Trying to let people think it is not obvious “what is a micronation” is pure sophistic enterprise to me.

Wikipedia definition is clear enough imo :-)

I would agree in moving Sealand etc. To exonumia.

just hope that coins of for example Taiwan remain in the coin catalogue.