I have looked at various sites and find it interesting that most site makes no differentiation between the ZAR, SA Union, and SA Republic as separate countries.
Although I would agree with SA Union and Republic, as they have the same borders and just the government unit and currency changed, I have to disagree with lumping the ZAR into this pool. The ZAR was an independent republic that later bacame the Transvaal province and lost a portion of its land to Mozambique.
I would suggest that the ZAR is treated as a separate county all together. You would not lump coins from Hawaii with the USA, so why do it to the ZAR.
On the same note, the German Empire, Weimer Republic, Third Reich, and Federal Republic should also be seen as separate countries. East German Coins (DDR) is treated separately, why lump the others together? If borders are compared, you will find that the land area has changed significantly between them. Like looking at the USSR and Russia, separate countries even though they share a currency.
Hello Pcoetzee5, I admit that you do have a valid point about the Z.A.R. although I feel I have to pull you up on the spelling in your subject title! Yes, it is true that the make-up and boundaries of the original Boer republic are very different to the Union that followed but the structure of the Numista catalogue is based on that of the Krause & Mischler Standard Catalog of World Coins and they have grouped the two administrations under one country heading. Indeed, the South African publication Hern's Handbook of South African Coins & Patterns lists all the numismatic issues under the one book, although clearly separated into sections. It's not an ideal situation but I don't think there are any plans to change it any time soon.
Just because you can't see it ... doesn't mean it isn't there - Anon.
There is, however, one thing in common between the countries in the title - the name! They all were or are known as South Africa.
The example of East Germany is incorrect, East Germany was an entirely different country (otherwise East and West Germany could be considered the same country, which they now are, of course, but they were different)
Catalogue referee for British, English and Scottish coins.
Le référent pour des pièces britannique, anglais et écossais.
The ZAR was an independent country, like East Germany, and substantionally smaller than the later Union and Republic. Like the German Federal Republic today comprises the DDR (East Germany) and West germany, so the Union and later called the Republic of South Africa consists of the Orange Free State (independent country with its own currency), the ZAR (independent country with its own currency), Natal Colony and Cape Colony (both British Colonies without their own currency).
But since the Numis site follows the Krause Catalogues, we need to speak to them and get them to change it.
And thanks for the feedback Radrick007, and by the way the ZAR was called the Zuid-Afrikaansche Republiek (my spelling went a bit hay wire).
I have to side with Manx here it still says South Africa..
Although the boundaries were different if we split hairs like this on all countries you wouldn't be able to find anything ! It's really no different to the 1888 4d, 1950/51 pennies, 1/2, 1/3 &1/4 farthings, and the 1952 6d all of which were struck for colonial use only but they are considered the coinage of the UK by Krause and Numista. If I had it my way I would change this but I just add notes to the coins mentioning they were a colonial only use and it's good enough.
"The South African Republic (Dutch: Zuid-Afrikaansche Republiek, or ZAR), often informally known as the Transvaal Republic, was an independent Boer-ruled country in Southern Africa during the second half of the 19th century. Not to be confused with the present-day Republic of South Africa,"
Numista separate Soviet Union and Russia ... when I want to add a coin, everytime I got confused
and just think about Ottoman empire and Turkey... everything is different....
it was an empire now republic
it was using Arabic lettering now Latin alphabet
it had more than 100 mint now 1
it was about 24million km² now about 800,000 km²
and a lot more differences...
but at last I am happy with it.
I also do not agree with the current breakdown under the South African umbrella and think it would make more sense if aligned with history (Even though the borders didn't change).
Pre-Union - To remain as is from 1814 to 1902 including sub sections.
From 1902 to 1923 SA was under British rule and predominantly used British currency although we became the South African Union on 31 May 1910.
The first currency under SA Union, which should in my opinion be a separate issuer, was minted in Pretoria from 1923 to 1960. South Africa was a British territory during this time.
We then became the Republic of South Africa on 31 May 1961 with 1st decimal coinage from 1961 to 1964. From 1965 to 1990 we had the 2nd decimal coinage. Although still under the flag of Apartheid until 1994 amd we started changing to 3rd decimal series in 1989.
On 27 April 1994 the Republic of South Africa held it's first democratic elections wherein people of all races was allowed to vote for thefirsttime. These elections brought the end of Apartheid and the start of a "Democratic" Republic of South Africa with a new flag and from 2000 a new Coat of Arms for SA coinage which we still use today.
Therefore I would recommend the following:
1. South Africa - Pre-Union (1814 - 1902)
2. South African Union (1923 - 1960)
3. Republic of South Africa - 1st Decimal series (1961 - 1964)
4. Republic of South Africa - 2nd Decimal series (1965 - 1990)
5. Republic of South Africa - 3rd Decimal series (1989 - 1994)
6. Republic of South Africa - Democratic (1994 - Current)
I think the main problem is that Numista, for some reason, still are following Krause. Isn't it time to think for ourselves? Why are we following Krause in the first place?
I agree, why do we follow krause a publication that is barely alive because of sites like this, the moderators can make thier own decisions. If Krause were to be active that might motivate more people to agree with them.
Cita: "robertcronje1"I hope someone will see this 7 years on.....
I also do not agree with the current breakdown under the South African umbrella and think it would make more sense if aligned with history (Even though the borders didn't change).
Pre-Union - To remain as is from 1814 to 1902 including sub sections.
From 1902 to 1923 SA was under British rule and predominantly used British currency although we became the South African Union on 31 May 1910.
The first currency under SA Union, which should in my opinion be a separate issuer, was minted in Pretoria from 1923 to 1960. South Africa was a British territory during this time.
We then became the Republic of South Africa on 31 May 1961 with 1st decimal coinage from 1961 to 1964. From 1965 to 1990 we had the 2nd decimal coinage. Although still under the flag of Apartheid until 1994 amd we started changing to 3rd decimal series in 1989.
On 27 April 1994 the Republic of South Africa held it's first democratic elections wherein people of all races was allowed to vote for thefirsttime. These elections brought the end of Apartheid and the start of a "Democratic" Republic of South Africa with a new flag and from 2000 a new Coat of Arms for SA coinage which we still use today.
Therefore I would recommend the following:
1. South Africa - Pre-Union (1814 - 1902)
2. South African Union (1923 - 1960)
3. Republic of South Africa - 1st Decimal series (1961 - 1964)
4. Republic of South Africa - 2nd Decimal series (1965 - 1990)
5. Republic of South Africa - 3rd Decimal series (1989 - 1994)
6. Republic of South Africa - Democratic (1994 - Current)
Please consider my request?
I agree with Robert in so far as we need to split issuers and countries.
1. South Africa Pre-Union is good, however this combines a number of issuers, or more correctly, Counties.
1.1 Griekwastad (Issuer or Country, I feel country)
1.2 ZAR
1.3 Orange Free State (Even though only patterns were issued, they were issued by an independent Country)
1.4 Cape Colony (Issuer or Country, I feel country)
These are in effect independent from each other and in my view should be regarded as Countries
2. The Union of South Africa was under British rule, and should be split from the Republic. There is a clear cut in the denominations between 1960 and 1961. The change was from Pond Sterling to Decimal.
3. The Republic of South Africa has undergone change with, in my opinion three distinct series of coins. The political change has not brought about a currency change, just an optimisation as in many countries in the size and cost of money. Hence the three series are:
3.1 First decimal series 1961-1964
3.2 Second decimal series 1965-1990
3.3 Third decimal series 1990- to now
The was an overlap between the two series in 1990 with the last available plunchets all being used up.
As the referee for South Africa I would love to see the split between the Union and Republic. And as a collector of South African coins the split in the Pre-Union coins.
We don't split other countries up according to coin series. Instead, we divide according to currency. We also don't divide most countries into separate sections due to political changes, such as the switch from a monarchy to a republic. I can't see any need to do either for South Africa. Please remember that we now have banknotes as well as coins, so we can't set up divisions within a currency that only apply to coins. Personally, I can't see anything wrong with how things currently are.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Cita: "ceh2019"We don't split other countries up according to coin series. Instead, we divide according to currency. We also don't divide most countries into separate sections due to political changes, such as the switch from a monarchy to a republic. I can't see any need to do either for South Africa. Please remember that we now have banknotes as well as coins, so we can't set up divisions within a currency that only apply to coins. Personally, I can't see anything wrong with how things currently are.
I absolutely agree! I would argue very strongly against changing the way South Africa is split at the moment. It seems completely unjustifiable to me, and would be a massive retrograde step in Numista catalogue organisation.
The "Pre Union" period should be split as the coinage was completely independent from one another.
And as for the "South African Union", the country was under British rule during this time. Hence my request to have that period as a separate issuer altogether.
From 1961 the periods should be split in line with the country's history as each section played a significant role in where South Africa is now.
The coinage had distinct changes after 1st decimal coins and again in 1989/90. And from 2000 a whole new coat of arms. This alongside the new flag is enough reason in my opinion to have the splits implemented.
Cita: "robertcronje1"I think Philip defined it better than me.
The "Pre Union" period should be split as the coinage was completely independent from one another.
And as for the "South African Union", the country was under British rule during this time. Hence my request to have that period as a separate issuer altogether.
From 1961 the periods should be split in line with the country's history as each section played a significant role in where South Africa is now.
The coinage had distinct changes after 1st decimal coins and again in 1989/90. And from 2000 a whole new coat of arms. This alongside the new flag is enough reason in my opinion to have the splits implemented.
The only point on which I agree is that Pre-Union should perhaps be split but, at the moment it follows the same pattern as the USA in that all of there Pre-Federal money is grouped into one category. I think that is OK for now.
As for the rest of it, I could not disagree more. And I also question the historical basis for your suggestion. The Union of South Africa was a self-governing Dominion of the British Empire. We were no more "under British rule" than Australia or Canada is today. We hold the same United Nations seat that we have held since the UN was founded in 1945 and our treaties with other countries are still valid irrespective of internal political changes. There was no point, historically, at which one South Africa stopped and another started again from scratch, and there is no reason for the Numista catalogue to suggest that happened.
We all have the freedom to arrange our collections as we choose. If each of us tried to make Numista match exactly how we want to arrange our coins, then we would argue all day because each of us would have a different idea about the divisions, and the catalogue would only be useful to one person at a time. The solution to that problem is to keep things as general as possible - to keep one South Africa from 1910 to the present.
Cita: "robertcronje1"The coinage had distinct changes after 1st decimal coins and again in 1989/90. And from 2000 a whole new coat of arms. This alongside the new flag is enough reason in my opinion to have the splits implemented.
To reiterate, Numista is also a banknote catalogue now, so creating sections based on changes to the coinage is simply out of the question as the banknotes could not be fitted into the same sections.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Cita: "robertcronje1"I hope someone will see this 7 years on.....
I also do not agree with the current breakdown under the South African umbrella and think it would make more sense if aligned with history (Even though the borders didn't change).
Pre-Union - To remain as is from 1814 to 1902 including sub sections.
From 1902 to 1923 SA was under British rule and predominantly used British currency although we became the South African Union on 31 May 1910.
The first currency under SA Union, which should in my opinion be a separate issuer, was minted in Pretoria from 1923 to 1960. South Africa was a British territory during this time.
We then became the Republic of South Africa on 31 May 1961 with 1st decimal coinage from 1961 to 1964. From 1965 to 1990 we had the 2nd decimal coinage. Although still under the flag of Apartheid until 1994 amd we started changing to 3rd decimal series in 1989.
On 27 April 1994 the Republic of South Africa held it's first democratic elections wherein people of all races was allowed to vote for thefirsttime. These elections brought the end of Apartheid and the start of a "Democratic" Republic of South Africa with a new flag and from 2000 a new Coat of Arms for SA coinage which we still use today.
Therefore I would recommend the following:
1. South Africa - Pre-Union (1814 - 1902)
2. South African Union (1923 - 1960)
3. Republic of South Africa - 1st Decimal series (1961 - 1964)
4. Republic of South Africa - 2nd Decimal series (1965 - 1990)
5. Republic of South Africa - 3rd Decimal series (1989 - 1994)
6. Republic of South Africa - Democratic (1994 - Current)
Please consider my request?
The Union of South Africa was actually an independent Dominion of the British Commonwealth, not a British colony.
If you demand countries by boundaries, then Hungary was at least 64 countries in the last 1100 years 
