For the sake of consistency, I would like to propose a merger between Democratic Republic of the Congo (as main issuer) and Belgian Congo, Rwanda and Urundi. I feel all of those issuers are part of the history of Democratic Republic of the Congo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo also connects them as periods in the history of DR Congo.
So you would put everything currently within Belgian Congo under the DRC? The only clear problem would be the issues from Rwanda-Burundi, since those two countries aren't part of the DRC but do follow on from Belgian Congo, Rwanda and Urundi. This is a tricky one and we should be asking ourselves where would users expect to find these places. Of course, if we had the option to view all issuers alphabetically, the problem would be less severe but that option doesn't currently exist. On balance, I think the current arrangement is best (within the present system) but I'm open to other suggestions.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Well, as far as I can see, Ruanda-Urundi was never part of Belgian Congo. It was indeed governed by Belgium, but it was separate from Belgian Congo. Before it was governed by Belgium, it was part of German East Africa. The fact that they had coins with Belgian Congo and Ruanda-Urundi on it is in my eyes the same as the Eurozone where multiple countries use the same currency, or like the CFA Franc. As Ruanda-Urundi was later split in Rwanda and Burundi, it would make more sense to me to add them to either one of those countries.
I agree that this poses some problems, but the current structure does not make sense. Congo Free State and Belgian Congo should definitely be under DRC.
Yes, I agree that, with the current hierarchy of issuers, Congo Free State and Belgian Congo would be best alongside the DRC. Your comparison with the CFA franc is a good one. However, if we follow that line, we would have Congo Free State, Belgian Congo, DRC 1, Zaïre and DRC 2 all together but we would have to put "Belgian Congo and Ruanda-Urundi"and “Rwanda-Burundi” on their own, as they are distinct multi-national currency zones. Maybe that is the best solution but I'd welcome other thoughts or suggestions.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
At the time that the coins with Belgisch Congo Belge - Ruanda-Urundi were struck, Ruanda-Urundi was de-facto a U.N. Trust Territory. Therefore, I see no reason to keep it linked with Belgian Congo. Perhaps Ruanda-Urundi can be an issuer on itself? Structure would then be:
Congo, Democratic Republic of
Congo Free State (1885-1908)
Belgian Congo (1908-1960)
Republic of the Congo (Léopoldville) (1960-1971)
Zaire (1971-1997)
Democratic Republic of the Congo (1997-date)
Ruanda-Urundi
Ruanda-Urundi (1924-1960)
Rwanda-Burundi (1960-1962)
Edit: Making Ruanda-Urundi a separate issuer is not unthinkable. Look at Czechoslovakia, Czech Republic and Slovakia. That sort of is the same structure, although they never shared a currency.
I see where you're going with this but a few adjustments are required.
Congo, Democratic Republic of
Congo Free State (1885-1908)
Belgian Congo (1908-1952)
Republic of Congo (Léopoldville) (1960-1964)
Katanga (1960-1963)
Democratic Republic of Congo (1964-1971)
Zaïre (1971-1997)
Democratic Republic of Congo (1997-date)
Belgian Congo Ruanda-Urundi (1952-1960)
Rwanda-Burundi (1960-1962)
This represents the numismatic history of the region but not the political history. The Belgians linked Ruanda-Urundi to Belgian Congo from from 1926 (see here) but this only appeared on the coins in 1952. I'm not aware of any issues for Ruanda-Urundi before 1952.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Ruanda-Urundi was administered as a province of the Belgian Congo until 1960. Since there was a split of territory (similar to Czechoslovakia), we decided to have one issuer for the territory before the split (Belgian Congo) and two issuers for the result of the split (Rwanda-Burundi and Democratic Republic of the Congo).
There is also one more issuer for the transitional coinage in the name of “Belgian Congo and Ruanda-Urundi”. These coins were intended for the same territory as coins previously labelled just “Belgian Congo”, so we grouped them under a common section “Belgian Congo, Rwanda and Urundi”.
The structure for Belgian Congo and DRC was already changed multiple times in the past (last updates were in January and October 2023). I'm happy to discuss to improve further.
One thing that bothers me in the proposal of ceh2019 on 18-Oct is that coins from “Belgian Congo (1908-1952)” and “Belgian Congo Ruanda-Urundi (1952-1960)” are far apart in the structure whereas their coins were used in the exact same territory.
One thing that bothers me in the proposal of ceh2019 on 18-Oct is that coins from “Belgian Congo (1908-1952)” and “Belgian Congo Ruanda-Urundi (1952-1960)” are far apart in the structure whereas their coins were used in the exact same territory.
Yes, I see what you mean. The problem is that the best solution is more “two-dimensional”:
Congo Free State (1885-1908)
Belgian Congo (1908-1952)
Belgian Congo Ruanda-Urundi (1952-1960)
Republic of Congo (Léopoldville) (1960-1964) Katanga (1960-1963) Rwanda-Burundi (1960-1962)
Democratic Republic of Congo (1964-1971) Rwanda Burundi
Zaïre (1971-1997)
Democratic Republic of Congo (1997-date)
I don't think any database could deal with a structure like this and it has the major drawback of including the now separate Rwanda and Burundi. The prority for whatever we adopt is to make sure that each section can be found easily by someone new to the site.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Here is a revised version, without mixing issuers, sections and periods:
Burundi
Congo, Democratic Republic of the
Congo, Democratic Republic of the
Congo Free State (1885-1908)
Belgian Congo (1908-1952)
Belgian Congo and Ruanda-Urundi (1952-1960)
Republic of the Congo (Léopoldville) (1960-1971)
Zaïre (1971-1997)
Democratic Republic of the Congo (1997-date)
Katanga
Rwanda-Burundi
Rwanda
This solution might work. The benefit is to bring Belgian Congo and Democratic Republic of the Congo closer; the drawback is that Belgian Congo Ruanda-Urundi and Rwanda-Burundi are further apart.
From guidelines perspective, we should normally have separate issuers “when the territory of an issuer suffers a sudden, significant, and long-term change”. Your proposal implies that we consider the split out of Rwanda and Burundi as not a significant change of territory, which is debatable but acceptable.
As a reminder, here is the current structure:
Belgian Congo, Rwanda and Urundi
Belgian Congo
Congo Free State (1885-1908)
Belgian Congo (1908-1960)
Belgian Congo and Ruanda-Urundi
Rwanda-Burundi
Burundi
Congo, Democratic Republic of the
Congo, Democratic Republic of the
Republic of Congo (Léopoldville) (1960-1971)
Zaïre (1971-1997)
Democratic Republic of the Congo (1997-date)
Katanga
Rwanda
Overall, I feel that the current structure is closer to our guidelines and better highlights the history of Rwanda and Burundi, while the proposed structure better highlights the history of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
It would be good to hear other opinions before deciding.
There is no perfect solution to this. However, I wonder if we could have Belgian Congo and Ruanda-Urundi and Rwanda-Burundi as links within both Burundi and Rwanda? That way, we maximize the chances of users finding them no matter how they approach the website. Otherwise, Xavier's suggestion needs correcting, as the first DRC is missing.
Burundi
Congo, Democratic Republic of the
Congo, Democratic Republic of the
Congo Free State (1885-1908)
Belgian Congo (1908-1952)
Belgian Congo and Ruanda-Urundi (1952-1960)
Republic of the Congo (Léopoldville) (1960-1964)
Democratic Republic of the Congo (1964-1971)
Zaïre (1971-1997)
Democratic Republic of the Congo (1997-date)
Katanga
Rwanda-Burundi
Rwanda
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
You want to move Burundi and Rwanda under Congo to keep it close? That really makes no sense…
I did not say move Burundi and Rwanda under Congo, I said move Congo, Burundi, Rwanda, and others under a new top level “Congo, Ruanda and Burundi”. (if the system allow more levels!)
Wanted & swap list (euro coins & world coins, exonumia and banknotes circulated) https://goo.gl/AQjfKp - I have euro & world CC coins for swap.
Stato cambiato a Respinta(Jarcek, 16 Apr 2025, 16:20)
