19th Century Poland - Additional Suggestions [Risolto]

Recently the name of the Duchy of Warsaw was edited to make it more easy to find:  Duchy of Warsaw [solved] – Numista

I suggest these additional (mostly structural) changes, which will have the effect of collecting all the Polish issues under Austrian/Prussian/Russian/French authority of 1774 - 1841 under “Poland, Partitions of:”

1.  Move Duchy of Warsaw under Poland, Partitions of (rather than its current location as a sub-issuer under Poland).  The Duchy of Warsaw was carved out of the Prussian Partition by Napoleon, existed from 1807 - 1815, and then was re-apportioned between the Prussian and Russian Partitions.  We could create a fourth section, “Napoleonic Partition of Poland,” with Duchy of Warsaw as a sub-issuer.   

2.  Move 19th century issues of Danzig (currently listed under "Danzig, Free City of")  under Partitions.  

a.  Danzig was taken by Prussia in the second partition of 1793:

In the Second Partition of Poland in 1793, the Kingdom of Prussia annexed Gdańsk (Danzig) and Toruń (Thorn), part of the Crown of Poland since 1457.   Prussian Partition - Wikipedia

The 1801 issue would fit under the Prussian Partition.  1 Schilling - Friedrich Wilhelm III - Free city of Danzig – Numista

b.  For the 1808 - 1812 Danzig issues, we could create a second sub-issuer in “Napoleonic Partition of Poland,” called City of Danzig.

1 Schilling - Marshal Lefebvre (French Occupation) - Free city of Danzig – Numista

This would leave only the 20th century Danzig issues in Danzig Free City, which in my opinion is a more tidy approach..

3. Change the sub-issuer name “Posen” in the Prussian Partition to its correct name,  “Grand Duchy of Posen, (as was done for DUchy of Warsaw, and as it appears on the coins of this place), and correct the date range to 1815 - 1848.  Grand Duchy of Posen - Wikipedia

4.  Move the Free City of Krakow under Poland, Partitions, of (rather than its current location as a sub-issuer under Poland). This entity was controlled by Austria , Prussia and Russia until 1846 when it was re-absorbed into the Austrian Partition.  

…the Free City of Cracow,^[c] and the Republic of Cracow,^[d] was a city republic created by the Congress of Vienna in 1815, which included the Polish city of Cracow and its surrounding areas.

It was jointly controlled by its three neighbours (Russia, Prussia and Austria)

Free City of Cracow - Wikipedia

To summarize, if these suggestions are implemented, “Poland, Partitions of” would look like this (new or changed pieces in bold):

• Austrian Partition of Poland  (no changes)
• Prussian Partition
  • City of Danzig (1793 - 1807)  (Move 1 coin from Danzig, Free City of)
  • South Prussia (1793 - 1807)
  • Zamość (1813) 
  • Grand Duchy of Posen (1815-1848)
• Russian Partition  (no changes)
  • Congress Poland (1815 - 1841)
  • Revolutionary Coinage (November Uprising) 
• Napoleonic Partition
  • City of Danzig (1807 - 1815)  (Move 7 coins from Danzig, Free City of)
  • Duchy of Warsaw (1807 - 1815) (Move section from being sub-issuer under Poland)
• Krakow, Free City of (1815 - 1846) (Move section from being sub-issuer under Poland)

Whist this probably is an improvement, can I make a different suggestion, that we get rid of all the partitions and simply list the different parts of Poland in the main Polish list? Unless you know quite a bit about Polish history, finding a given section isn't easy. This is particularly true for the “Congress Kingdom”, which was the only state carrying the name Poland for about a century but is hidden from view inside the Russian partition. Since the notes from this period are now in the main Polish section, I would suggest moving the coins there too and getting rid of the “Congress Kingdom” section all together. I understand why the sections were created but it's more complex than we really need.

Yes, this would remove some of the layers in sub-issuers, which I agree could be helpful.

An alternative could be to remove the layer with Austrian / Prussian / Russian / Napoleonic , and just keep all the sub-issuers (see below). This grouping  is often called “Nineteenth Century" by the Polish auction houses, and I think this term would guide someone who has a coin from 1810 or 1840 to the right area.  

It could give a look like this under Poland:

Poland, Kingdom of (this is all pre-1572)

> See Subsections (as currently exists)

Poland, Nineteenth Century 

> See Subsections (proposed revision)

• Austrian Partition (1772-1815)
• Danzig, City of (1793-1815)
• South Prussia (1793-1807)
• Duchy of Warsaw (1807-1815)
• Zamość (1813) 
• Congress Poland (1815-1841)
• Grand DUchy of Posen (1815-1844)
• Revolutionary Coinage (November, 1830 Uprising)
• Krakow, Free City of (1831-1846)

Poland, Republic (1918- )  as currently exists, but edit name

Danzig, Free City of (1923-1939)

Polish Notgeld

I don't see the need for any subsection here, just put all of these in the main Poland section and merge “Congress Poland (1815-1841)” and “Revolutionary Coinage (November, 1830 Uprising)” with “Poland”. It's already happened for the notes.

I think the banknote situation is simpler because (a) it only starts from 1790s, and (b) there are fewer issuers in the 19th century than there are for coins.  

When I look at recent catalogs of a few of the big Polish auction houses, the structure of the banknotes section for 19th century is simple, as in our catalog, and as you point out:

Koszciusko Insurrection 1794

Grand Duchy of Warsaw 1807-1815

Kingdom of Poland 1824 -1866

- November Uprising 1830-1831

- SIlver Rouble 1841-1864

Aukcja 19 - zimowa '23 | Kingdom of Poland 1824-1866 | Gabinet Numizmatyczny D. Marciniak (one.bid) 

For coins, there were many more issuers in the 19th century, and we already have the hierarchy “See Sub-sections” under Poland, Kingdom of (where there are 12 medieval sub-issuers).   The auction houses tend to have a section called either “Partitions of Poland 1772-1864” (Marciniak) or “Nineteenth Century” (WCN), with the subsections I have listed.  

Aukcja 19 - zimowa '23 | Partitions of Poland 1772-1864 | Gabinet Numizmatyczny D. Marciniak (one.bid)

In any event, we could at least make these editorial changes in coins

- change Poland > Poland, Partitions of - Posen to Grand Duchy of Posen

- change Poland > Poland, Partitions of > Russian Partition > Congress Poland to Kingdom of (Congress) Poland (consistency with banknotes)

- change Poland > Poland to Poland > Poland, Republic of 

From my understanding, to keep consistency with other issuers structure, couldnt we simply have:

- Poland section

— Poland

— Polish States

------ Duchy…

------ City…

------ Partition…

------ etc

— Notgeld

What do you think?

As I said before, I see no reason for the “Partitions” section. The whole of the "Russian Partition" should be moved to the modern Poland section (the notes are already there) whilst the three parts of the "Prussian Partition" (Posen, South Prussia and Zamość) together with Galicia (the proper name for the “Austrian Partition”) can be moved to the main list along with Danzig, Kraków and Warsaw. This would produce:

Poland, Kingdom of
- See sub-sections

Poland

Danzig, Free city of
Kraków, Free city of
Warsaw, Duchy of 

Posen, Grand Duchy of

South Prussia

Zamość

Galicia
Polish notgeld
If that's too long a list, then Danzig, Kraków, Warsaw, Posen, South Prussia, Zamość and Galicia could be put in a subsection but we'd need to think carefully about the name.

Yes it iswhy I suggest to gayher yhe kingdom sub sections and all those root sub sections into a “Polish States” group like we did for Germany

1. I think either approach can work fine, however I would  not put the Russian partition under modern Poland, as it was contemporaneous with all the other “states” which we have agreed to list separately.  This  entity is referred to as both Poland, Kingdom and Congress Poland so a name combining them would probably be the most helpful to collectors.  

2. If we wind up with such a section for the 19th century states (rather than just listing them  as ceh recommends), I think names like “Poland, Partitions” or “Poland, 19th Century” would be understood by collectors, and not seem offensive since they are being used by large Polish auction houses.  

But as I said, I think either approach can work, and I agree my original suggestion added layers that are unnecessary. 

Generally, following the lead of the main Polish auction houses would make the most sense to me.

I do think that banknote headings should mirror those of the coins.

tdziemia

1. I think either approach can work fine, however I would  not put the Russian partition under modern Poland, as it was contemporaneous with all the other “states” which we have agreed to list separately.  This  entity is referred to as both Poland, Kingdom and Congress Poland so a name combining them would probably be the most helpful to collectors.  

 

2. If we wind up with such a section for the 19th century states (rather than just listing them  as ceh recommends), I think names like “Poland, Partitions” or “Poland, 19th Century” would be understood by collectors, and not seem offensive since they are being used by large Polish auction houses.  

 

But as I said, I think either approach can work, and I agree my original suggestion added layers that are unnecessary. 

 

 

My biggest reason for putting Congress Poland in with modern Poland is that it was the only entity using the name Poland in that period and it directly lead to the modern state. The others used different names, so it isn't as if there was a “West Poland” and “East Poland” at the same time. It isn't that I find the term partition offensive, I just think it's easier to follow if we use the actual names the various states had.

Thanks. I had not thought of that point.

However, from a collector viewpoint (I collect Poland up to c. 1850), I would find it confusing to look for just the Russian partition under the Poland (modern) section, but elsewhere for all the others.  

Even if it was named Poland, it was a part of the current Poland only.

On Numista, Major territory change = separated sub issuer :-)

So my suggestion stands: gathering all sub issuers, both from kingdom then partitions, under “Polish States”. Whatever name we chose for Congress ofc

Compendium

So my suggestion stands: gathering all sub issuers, both from kingdom then partitions, under “Polish States”. Whatever name we chose for Congress ofc

Yes. And make relevant the alterations to the structure in banknotes also for consistency.

Compendium

Even if it was named Poland, it was a part of the current Poland only.

On Numista, Major territory change = separated sub issuer :-)

So my suggestion stands: gathering all sub issuers, both from kingdom then partitions, under “Polish States”. Whatever name we chose for Congress ofc

Implementing this guideline on Poland would be extremely disruptive, given the major border changes that occured in the 1940s. Please don't even consider it. Names are more important than boundary changes when it comes to writing a catalogue, which must be an accurate record of the issues, not an attempt to represent the past within a modern construct.

I tried a first gathering yesterday, should apply tomorrow :-)

Based on feedback we can ofc easily revert or continue the iteration.

Also I wonder if coins in “kingdom of Poland” shouldnt be merged with “Poland”?

In principle, yes, we could use one sub-issuer, “Poland” to cover the medieval Kingdom period (ruling authorities when Poland was a Kingdom up to 1572) and then the modern period (1918-present, mostly the modern “Republic”).  This seems a bit unusual to have such a large gap, but I understand it would be consistent with our structure. 

Then under Poland - States we would have a combination of medieval principalities (the Duchies, Abbeys, etc before 1300) and the 19th century entities we have been discussing.

A different issue, but as I look at the “Kingdom” section, I think the currencies might also need work.  

- we have Wladyslaw III Warnenczyk as a currency, but he is a ruling authority

- we have a currency of “Denar continued (1306-1528)” but perhaps this should be the grosz (Gumowski, Chapter IV “Die Groschen-Periode” starts with Wladyslaw I in 1306, and the Zloty period starts in early 1500s, as we have it)? 

Maybe there is a different reference and Gumowski is out of date?

I also wondered about the gap between 1572 and 1815. I doubt there's anything in the guidelines to cover this but, given there was a long period when Poland was within the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (which seems to have had a unified currency), I think there is an argument to have two separate sections:

Poland (992-1572)

Poland (1815-Present)

If we're insistent on separating the “Congress Kingdom” from its immediate successor (perhaps based on the lack of distinct money in the final decades?) then at least let's have

Poland (992-1572)

Poland (1815-1917)

Poland (1917-Present)

I see no way we can merge the first and third without including the second.

@Ted do you still need help here? 

Restructuring of the issuer issues is completed, so I will close.