With all the recent disputes about countries being split or new coins created I think we should have a discussion about some possible guidelines about what constitutes a country. Of course this discussion would be moot if we don't get the Numista team on board, but if we can present what we think are reasonable guidelines then perhaps we can get some action and clean up the country divisions which are becoming more convoluted and messy by the day. Here is what I believe should happen:
All countries with no circulating coins moved into the tokens section (i.e. Niue, Nauru, Palau to name a few)
All countries of the same name grouped into one country with sub-headings (i.e. Spain and Spanish civil war shouldn't be separate countries, France, France feudal and French Kingdom should not be separate countries)
Countries with an unofficial currency should be moved to tokens (i.e. Lundy, French Cities, Gold Coast, etc)
All occupied coinage should be listed as a sub-heading under the country that is occupied.
1) discovering Tristan da Cunha, Ascension island, Niue etc... is also a pleasure for the collector.
And by the way that wouldn't remove Hutt-River with its circulating coins
2) France Feudal includes English ruled duchies, there is no reason to gather them to France kingdom.
The best way is to follow the SCWC.
And not gathering Spanish civil war and Spain.
3) French cities coins were official currency with submultiples of Franc. These coins were circulating in the 20's.
we'd rather create the "German notgeld" country
4) Do you mean that british colonies were not occupied ?
And as a major fact, each countries list modification causes major disputes. So I think that each modification should be documented and appouved by a comittee in order to calm things down and avoid extremism.
I have a different view that would lead to many more countries in the catalog. Here is an explanation of the system that I already use to sort the 3,000+ personal coin images that are saved on my hard drive:
A major political upheaval that affects the system of government and coinage of a country is reason enough to separate. For instance, I would want to see separate listings for monarchist Romania, communist Romania, and modern Romania. As for France, it would explode into probably a dozen listings. (However, political changes that have no effect on the coinage don't count, i.e. the revolutions experienced by many African states within currency unions.)
A change of name that affects the coinage of a country is reason enough to separate. For instance, British Honduras and Belize are two separate listings, despite their otherwise-identical coin designs. As a counter-example, Cabo Verde's change of name in 2012 (it used to be called Cape Verde, at least according to the U.N.) would not necessitate a separate listing because this recent change did not affect the country's coinage at all.
Territories that have made the poor decision to sell their coin-issuing rights to foreign countries should stay in the catalog, because although we love to look down on all that crap from the Oceanic dependencies, those dependencies made the choice to debase their good names by issuing NIFC junk, and it's their decision. The only concern we should have is whether or not a legitimately construed government ordered the coins or not - for instance, coins from "Easter Island" are total fantasies, because that island has very little autonomy. If this means that we have to get into contact with various local heads of government to find out whether or not coins struck in their name have been duly authorized, then hand me the phone.
Please don't make the Tokens section any worse than it already is. The Tokens section is not your garbage can. Verify that "coins" are absolutely, totally illegitimate before putting them into that section... and if you do not organize those listings properly because they're not "real" listings, I will find you.
These rules should create hundreds of new countries. Basically, we must keep creating listings until there are none left to create, totally destroying the current status quo that so many people take issue with. After that, we can begin picking up the pieces properly. Is there a way to group similar listings together without putting them in the same listing? Is it time for an interface overhaul? These decisions rest with the site's administration. But I believe that for a legitimate process of renewal to begin, the catalog must be reduced to the smallest pieces possible. If we do not take decisive action, then this state of low-intensity bitching that has dogged the forum for weeks now will continue indefinitely, to the detriment of all.
Cita: "Frenchlover"And as a major fact, each countries list modification causes major disputes. So I think that each modification should be documented and appouved by a comittee in order to calm things down and avoid extremism.
This is EXACTY why I am proposing that we set up a list of formal guidelines. If there are a set of rules for the creation, splitting or amalgamation of countries then there would be no basis for people to argue and no need for a committee to decide.
As for French cities...it's in the name for me French CITIES. Did each city have its own government? Also it's not the 1920s that the coins are from, have a look what's in there, there's plenty of euro coins from the 2000s. My acid test would be ask someone living there what nationality they are. If you asked someone from Paris in the 1920s what country they lived in would they say Paris or France? If you asked someone from Spain during the civil war what country they lived in what would they say? My guess is Spain.
In my mind a colony is very different from an occupied country, which is why I didn't suggest doing away with French Polynesia, German New Guinea, Dutch West Indies etc
Cita: "neilithic"
Also it's not the 1920s that the coins are from, have a look what's in there, there's plenty of euro coins from the 2000s.
I already requested without success to qualify as token all French cities coins that are not issued in the 20's.
For me this emergency coinage is not token.
And I think there is no sense to maintain "French cities" without creating the "German notgeld" country and other "emergency coinage" countries as this Valpelline, Aosta Valley coin in Italy
Once, as I remmber( probably 2 months ago)we had a topic with voting how catalog must be built.
one result of that voting, which i mostly liked was that Chambre de Commerce tokens went to coins section. Im not too close with Frech cities, but I know 100% that in Algeria they were used as money and, I guess, nobody thought in those times that they were tokens ( probably Im wrong...) . As referee for Algeria, I had quite frequent requests to add those tokens ( already existing in catalog), because people couldnot find them in section where they used to find them in Krause Book.
regarding non-circulation coins, - I want to copy my comment from Abkhazian topic. I think Senegal, Niger, Tchad etc first coins shouldnot be listed in tokens. But all " AFRICA"-type coins - yes. Because coins of Senegal, Niger, Tchad etc of 1960-ies were legal tender, and even had a weight and sizes their denominations ( 10, 50, 150 francs, and not 1 kilo silver coin with denomination 10 centimes ). Dont know about Palau and Niue - too far from their monetary politics...
Occupied territories of existing states since creation of League of Nations - under mainc states - yes, agree. Also, I agree to list all self-proclaimed and non-recognized territories since creation of League of Nations apartly from others, but all ofthem must have their official status, becasue all must to know it ( ex: Katanga, - s/p & n/r territory within Congo DR. Abkhazia - s/p and p/r territoryand so on ).
Krause Book isnot Holy Bible. We can build catalog following it in many branches, because 99% of people use this book for decades, and their eyes adjusted to see Russia in the same section as USSR. but actually, Russia and USSR are two different countries. And if people here use catalog easier with separated two countries ( which was Russia` referee`s idea ) , so, I think there must be no problem with it.Because it is actually easier. SOviet Union coinage is not a sequel of coinage of Russian Empire. Also, soiet Union was not only Russia. It was officially a commonwelth of 15 republics, which had a ful rights to leave this commonwealth ( :) not actully, but at least on paper).
Something logical must be listed in same section. Maybe for many people Russian Empire is also not same as Russia. And, of course, they are not same political structures ( Monarchy VS Federation is quite enough) . But its very logic , as well as Ottoman Egypt - Egyptian Kingdom - "First Egypt" - Egypt in UAR - "Second Egypt ". For a few times, we had UAR as separate "country" which made a great problems, - I was receiving a lot of egypt request of "new" coins :) , and people couldnot find UAR -period coinage under Egypt, and they couldnot imagine if UAR born as new country.
But, I think, if UAR should have same coins in all states, like Rouble / kopek in USSR , UAR should be a full right to be as separate "country" .
Probably same with austrian coinage.
and, finally, I want to ask again, - where Sultanate of Harar must be listed? as separate country or under something, which I couldnot find?
Instead of creating a country for Notgelds, why not go the other way and instead move the French cities into the French section? The Chambres de Commerce coins are already included there, so why should French Cities be seen as a separate country to France? If it is from French cities then surely it should go in the French section.
If you create a separate country for them then you should create a new country for Conder tokens as "British cities", a new country for Australian merchant tokens as "Australian cities", a new country for New Zealand merchant tokens as "New Zealand cities" a new country for USA merchant tokens as "USA cities" They are part of the coinage of France not a separate country, therefore they go in the French section.
I hope the Token section does not become a "catch-all" and I feel sorry for the Referee that would TRY to keep even a single "region" up-to-date.
I recently finished my Canadian 1 Cent by date and decided to work my way backwards in history. I have 4 pre-confederation Tokens and the 1st one I was to add to Numista catalog, KM#Tn3, shows a picture of KM#Tn3.1 (Gibraltar Real).
I would consider it a lifes work to catalog Canadian Colonial Tokens for Numista. My Charleton Catalog has a 10 page cross reference to Courteau#, LeRoux #, McLachlan#, and Willey#!!!!!!!!
And check out this Canadian Merchant Token......
Yup, that's our 1st Prime Minister (the really cool George W).
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure, that just ain't so. Mark Twain
Cita: "neilithic"Instead of creating a country for Notgelds, why not go the other way and instead move the French cities into the French section? The Chambres de Commerce coins are already included there, so why should French Cities be seen as a separate country to France? If it is from French cities then surely it should go in the French section.
If you create a separate country for them then you should create a new country for Conder tokens as "British cities", a new country for Australian merchant tokens as "Australian cities", a new country for New Zealand merchant tokens as "New Zealand cities" a new country for USA merchant tokens as "USA cities" They are part of the coinage of France not a separate country, therefore they go in the French section.
This make the most since to me, but if there was a way to have it also in a sub category this might help.
"for a legitimate process of renewal to begin, the catalog must be reduced to the smallest pieces possible."
This makes since, but sounds daunting? although I wouldn't know because I am of no use working in the catalog.
Taking a break from swapping for a while, but still interested in pre 1799 Spanish coins, I will make time for that!
I think we need to move away from the word country for this conversation to make sense. It should probably be something like issuing authority or what ever. Some have made the argument that a government has to issue a coin for it to be valid, but then they refuse to count municipal issues as coins in the catalog.
An other issue is that we have a large number of countries that get grouped into other countries or areas. Look at the Mayasian pennisula, or Central Asia.
Sorry to post like this but my phone doesn't like the forum.
We also need a better break down for countries, and a way to designate status for them. The token are also needs an over haul so it can be useful. Right now we have items of real numismatic value next to generic craptastic maverick tokens. I have added a trade token that sells for over $150 into the catalog, but it gets an entry into the tokens area, next to chuck e cheeses tokens.
Cita: "jadejackal"Sorry to post like this but my phone doesn't like the forum.
We also need a better break down for countries, and a way to designate status for them. The token are also needs an over haul so it can be useful. Right now we have items of real numismatic value next to generic craptastic maverick tokens. I have added a trade token that sells for over $150 into the catalog, but it gets an entry into the tokens area, next to chuck e cheeses tokens.
This has been discussed before in many threads, my thread "how should exonumia be handled on this site" was one such thread. But as with most things on this site, absolutely nothing was done about it.
There isn't a single, easy answer which will satisfy everyone. If there was it would have already been implemented a long time ago. Trying to define a country is like trying to nail jelly to the ceiling. We can come up with elegant solutions but none of them really work. It's been tried by generations of numismatists and by far better minds than mine and yet here we still are. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try but let's be realistic, trying to solve the same problem using tired old strategies isn't going to work.
So, I'm going to offer a different approach which for reasons of personal vanity I will call "The Nightingale Method". It's kinda like an Occam's Razor for coins. What I'm proposing will be familiar to anyone who has experience of time and motion workflow charting. Breaking down a problem into it's component parts, resolving each in turn then applying the solution to the whole. Does this sound familiar my dear Imreh? This is simply a bastardised version applied to Numismatics. For those not called Imreh or who don't have an MI background, don't worry it's much less complicated than it sounds. Trust me.
The problem can be broken down into four parts (five* actually but the 5th is beyond the current scope) with two desired outcomes. Let's deal with the outcomes we seek first. These are- to be able to correctly identify a coin or token and toeasily and accurately catalog the same. If we can satisfy both of these aims then our model is a success, we don't need to set up trade agreements with these "countries", just understand how best to organize our collections. We can all agree on this I hope? Good, let's get to the fun stuff.
So, here's the framework, laid out in it's most basic form, afterwards we can run a few examples through it and see how it works.
1. Identify as many universally accepted markers as to what defines a country as possible. Pretty much what Neil and the wise Mr. Chomp are already making some progress with. It doesn't have to be a one size fits all solution though so please don't get sidetracked by "Ah, but what about XYZ...." type distractions. Just positives please! We can deal with the exceptions later, see below. Let's agree on a few key definitions and build on the great start these folks have got going. My contribution? Does it have a diplomatic presence, Embassies, UN representation, that type of thing. Does it have a government and head of state? Does it have agreed borders? I think we all intuitively understand what makes a country even if we are not quite able to explain it. Between all 50,000 of us it should be easy.
2. Identify what is not a country. Much easier to do and surprisingly overlooked in the general debate until it arises as a specific case. My thoughts..... A company which is set up to produce fantasy coinage using a legally hired name of some banana republic is not a country. A fictitious territory** created wholly or in part to publish fantasy coins. A disputed territory which issues real or imaginary "coins" as a propaganda move which may not even exist and if they do, will never circulate. Places which have more coin types than citizens. I'm sure this short list can be added to.
3. Define a coin. By including this into the mix it should help in deciding what makes a country. Almost every example is going to be a clear cut yes. We already know what a coin is - we love, cherish and collect them! So let's keep it short and sweet. It should circulate, or have the possibility of doing so. Hence a proof version of a business strike is a coin, a proof only issue with no corresponding "real" counterpart is much less clear cut. So we need a few more definitions. Let's consider intentions, is the "coin" intended to met the needs of commerce or collectors? Tough call but I'm going to say include it if it's the product of an otherwise legitimate authority. Substitute currencies issued to fill a real gap such as Conders, Chamber of Commerce, Canadian bank tokens, Bank of England Token, Trade Dollars, Civil War tokens, Notgeld are to be considered as coins because they circulated and were accepted as such and should be included under the parent country.
4. What isn't a coin. Again, much easier, especially if applied with a little common sense. Truck shop coins, miner's scrip pseudo Hutt River type issues, and Casino tokens are not coins as they are not accepted as such outside of a narrow market. As a general principle we can say that if it isn't issued by a country as defined in step #1 then it can't be a coin. We should however recognize that not all tokens are created equal. I propose we create a new category "Exonumia" as a destination for those items which have many of the characteristics of a coin without actually being one. While those widely agreed exceptions such as the Conder issues belong with the parent country we need to distinguish between Big Bob's Car Wash 25c token and those issues which many people collect as "coins".
All of the above depends entirely on the assumption that the reader has more brain cells than fingers. Common sense should be applied. Yeah, yeah.... you can demonstrate your awesome intellect by making trite exceptions and nonsensical objections. We know that you can apply many of the above definitions to a banknote but do we really have to specify that a coin should be made of metal?
So let's try a few examples and see if it works. If not, we can make adjustments. Imagine if you will a nicely designed flowchart. I'm far too lazy to create on but if anyone wishes to help out by doing so please feel free. It might prove useful when presenting the proposal to Dear Leader.
Belgium "Bon Pour" 1 Franc - Is it a country? Yes. Is it a coin? Yes
Hutt River $30 Commemorating the marriage of Len and Shirley*** - Is it a country No. (no need to worry about the coin part then)
Upper Canada Bank Token - Is it a country? No (exception applied) Is it a coin? Yes
Try it for yourself and see if it works for you and your collecting interests.
*Item #5 refers to the appointment of referees who are inadequate to their tasks or lack the experience needed to understand the issues. These appointments shift an even greater workload onto the already overstretched competent members leading to their disappearance. We need a vetting process. No referee at all is better than an incompetent one. It's beyond the scope of the current discussion but there is no point in making a working system if it's going to be managed by a kiddie who just wants the title to help steal coins.
** If you ever find yourself with a little time to kill check out the "Middle Earth" currency. Although they are of course not real coins somebody with knowledge of numismatics has put a lot of thought into this series. I think these would be a great thing for a Tolkien devotee.
*** Yeah really, Princess "Shirl".
Non illegitimis carborundum est. Excellent advice for all coins.
Make Numismatics Great Again!
Sure, - that problems will happen here as well, but its too simple to separate countries from- noncountries, coins from tokens and exonumias/ fantasies.
Also, Phil`s classification dont solve a problems , like existing "Austrian crisis" .
and yes, we need exonumia section.
As astute as always Phil. I like that classification system, and that would get rid of some of those countries who do nothing but pump out commemoratives.
Have you had a meander back through the Exonumia thread I linked to? One thing I noticed when having a refresher read through it was where I had posed the question "Should rules be set to determine what constitutes a coin and what constitutes a token?" Your reply was "Yes indeed. It would go a long way to solving the "what constitutes a country" question at the same time." (that and the first cropping up of the topic of the consumption of goats )
That really shows that we've been having these discussions about the validity of some countries for quite a while now, it's not just a recent event (That thread is about 2 years old)
Cita: "pnightingale" What I'm proposing will be familiar to anyone who has experience of time and motion workflow charting. Breaking down a problem into it's component parts, resolving each in turn then applying the solution to the whole. Does this sound familiar my dear Imreh?
Yes, it does!
Three quick remarks for now, as I am in the run:
1) Totally workable process.
2) As very politely suggested, we need a process rather than a bunch of ideas and examples, and when agreed to that process. Stick to it for God's sake!
3) I am very seriously challenging the current competence available to execute the process.
I just noticed this thread, and I have to say I am impressed with some of the ideas suggested.
First of all, the Nightingale Method seems workable to me. However, I have suggestions to make.
I really think we need four, rather than two, categories for types of coins and "coins": coins (Lincoln cents, Chinese cash, and British shillings, ect), token coinage (Condor tokens, notgeld, "Bon Pour" tokens, ect.), exonumia (Bob's Car Wash tokens, coronation medals, French maritime insurance medallions, ect.), and fantasies (Sealand "coins", Middle Earth "coins, Seborga "coins").
Finally, the debate about what is a country. A country set up partially or exclusively to produce "fantasies" is a country, but it should be classified as a "fantasy country" or something like that. Now, what about splitting up countries? I personally believe in condensing as many countries as possible, BUT, using "dynasties", like Mexico, to split up political periods. That being said, the current Numista system treats dynasties and regions as the same thing. We need to create two new fields, "Region" and "Political Division". More comments to come!
I think this topic is going in the wrong direction because we are not answering the correct question. The question is not "What constitutes a country?" but "Which sections should appear in the catalogue?" If the answer is that the sections should be the countries, then the original question is valid. But I don't think it's the case, for 2 reasons:
- Coins from micronations and non-UN countries (Seborgao, Hutt River, Nagorno Karabagh) are interesting for some of us, so they need to be listed somewhere.
- The definition of a country varied over the time, and it will be very difficult to agree on a definition that is applicable for "countries" 2000 years ago, 500 years ago and now.
Still we need to progress on the topic. Let's start with modern countries. The guideline up until now was to accept as a catalogue section any government (no matter if it is self-proclaimed or not, or whether it is internationally recognized or not) who issues coins. This includes micro-nations and contested nations, but excludes coins issued by random coin dealers who issued coins for a country or region without any link with their government, e.g. Joseph E. Lang's coins for Darfur, Greenland, Lundy, etc. The latter only deserve to be listed in the trash section (aka * Tokens * section).
The question gets more difficult for older times, when there was a plenty of small local authorities dependent of larger kingdoms or empires. Should each government issuing coins have its own section, or should we group under larger entities?
Handling political and border changes is also a difficult question. Should old coins be listed in the same section as modern coins? For instance, I don't think that the ancient Roman coins should be listed together with Italy. But what about Venetian coins? And should Roman coins issued for the Egypt province be listed in Rome or in Egypt?
The question also applies to country merging (e.g. Canadian provinces) or split (USSR), not mentioning more complex cases like partial or temporary merging or splitting (Austria-Hungary, UAR, eurozone, Vietnam, Germany).
The choice that has been made so far is to list individually each historical country, even if they are now merged. On the other hand, the states that belong to the same entity are grouped together (e.g. Swiss cantons). For ancient coins, the grouping is based on issuing authority rather than geography.
Lastly, sections can be splitted if there were a major political and coinage change and that there are an enough coins. This last rule is probably the less easy to apply and the most controversial.
So far rules have always been exposed on the forum. As soon as we agree on these rules or on new rules, we need to publish them on Numisdoc and enforce them. This way we can focus on the general rules and avoid epic debates about specific cases.
Cita: "neilithic"Here is what I believe should happen:
All countries with no circulating coins moved into the tokens section (i.e. Niue, Nauru, Palau to name a few)
All countries of the same name grouped into one country with sub-headings (i.e. Spain and Spanish civil war shouldn't be separate countries, France, France feudal and French Kingdom should not be separate countries)
Countries with an unofficial currency should be moved to tokens (i.e. Lundy, French Cities, Gold Coast, etc)
All occupied coinage should be listed as a sub-heading under the country that is occupied.
Based on your proposal, I agree that sub-heading could be created. It could be the good way to group sections like Spain and Spanish civil war. It could also be used to list for micro-nations and non-recognized countries, which could be listed under the recognized country who officially owns the territory. Only countries recognized by the UN (or by some members of the UN?) could be listed.
It would also help organizing group-sections like Swiss cantons.
Of course it doesn't solve all the questions, especially how we want to catalogue medieval or ancient coins and how to handle countries merging and splitting.
Xavier, firstly, congratulations to your award winning careful and long answer. (this is not a cynical statement).
I would guide everything back to the process of Phil, or any similar, indeed. On a case basis there is no solution, on a principle basis, there is a solution!
We need principles and processes, not excusses and exemptions!
BUT, Mr. Xavier,
I would also highlight - which you might not be aware of, or you feel probably very uncomfortable to admit - Mr. Xavier, YOU are now the most influential person in numismatics to acknowledge what is a country and what is not. what is a coin and what is not.
I know that you have not planned it this way, but face the f...ng fact, your site is the most popular, influential numismatic place. Yes, folks, Krause is behind!
So, Xavier, what are you going to do with this heavy burden of responsibility?
I do understand that this is a very heavy weight.
p.s. you might choose not to acknowledge, but that would be even more disastrous
Cita: "Eerovisser"Not really on topic, but sort of. Can we delete duplicate countries on the country list? Great Britian / United Kingdom, Burma / Myanmar
These aren't duplicate countries, UK is the actual catalogue. Great Britain is merely a link to the UK section because that is what some people will be searching for. I haven't looked but I'm guessing Burma/Myanmar is the same.
Yes, I agree with his method, I've already stated that I think it is the way to go....but the question arises what do we do once we've decided what is a country and what isn't? Say you decide that Nauru shouldn't be in the country listings because with Phil's method, although they are a recognized country, they don't have any coins. What then? Do we delete them altogether? Move them to the tokens? I was suggesting that we can create a separate section for fantasy coinage. The other divisions I suggested are to take out some of the animosity when a new country division is set up.
This is a post I made on the referee's forum from months ago that should be shared:
After debate on the other post regarding countries which are repeated on the country list, I made a post which should be the deciding factor, in response to Zegeri to find the definition of a country on Numista. It should work similarly to the Tokens page, in which every member makes a vote. Please write the number of the question, followed by a vote (A, B, or C). More than one vote can be made, but should be done sparingly. Please leave your reason why you chose this answer.
1) WHEN A COUNTRY CHANGES ITS NAME (not political):
Both names are listed, but link to the same country
Both names are listed as separate countries
Only one name is listed
2) WHEN A KINGDOM OR EMPIRE UNDERGOES A SIGNIFICANT REVOLUTION:
List as a separate country (ex. France and France - Kingdom, Russia and Russia - Empire)
List under the current geographic/political country
3) WHEN AN EMPIRE UNDERGOES DYNASTIES:
List dynasties together
List dynasties separately
4) WHEN A COUNTRY CHANGES RULING POWER:
List coins of ruling powers separately under respective powers
List coins under both powers together as separate country
List coins separately under separate countries
5) WHEN COINS ARE ISSUED BEFORE INDEPENDENCE:
List under current country, unless geographic changes exist (ex. British East Africa, colonial US)
List separately
6) WHEN COINS ARE ISSUED AS PROVINCES OR STATES:
List all separately (emirates of UAE)
List together under one country, except those with significant influence (Canadian provinces and Newfoundland)
List all together under one separate country (Spanish states)
7) WHEN COINS ARE ISSUED UNDER A RULING POWER:
List under its current geographic borders (ex. Mexico under Spain, Roman Syria)
List alongside other occupations under one country
List as their own country
8) WHEN COINS ARE ISSUED UNDER A FANTASY GOVERNMENT:
List as fantasies under *Tokens*
List only if they are officially recognized by other official governments
List all, whether or not they are recognized
9) WHEN COINS ARE ISSUED DURING TWO COMPETING STATES (Yemen, Vietnam):
List separately and list winning government with predecessor government (North Vietnam and Vietnam)
List separately
List together
10) WHEN TOKENS ARE ISSUED FOR TEMPORARY USE (LOCAL TOKENS):
List under *Tokens* under their own category
List as coins
The rules that Numista uses so far:
1) A & B
2) A & B
3) A (probably unanimously decided)
4) A B & C (most debated)
5) B
6) C (although UAE states are listed separately)
7) A & B (also very debated)
8) A & B
9) A & B (except Yemen)
10) B (also unanimously decided)
Kenny
- Verifying your Asian and British-territorial coins everyday with the best quality photos and the best information.
It is true that the slightest change in the catalog causes excessive reactions. Such collector slams the door when we remove the TAAF, another screams to death when we want to consolidate Ceylon and Sri Lanka !
And isn't it normal? Freud doesn't he link the collecting mania to the anal stage? Amassing, gathering, and someone just take my toy. oh dad! ... But let us leave these psychological considerations.
It's time to edict rules, within a small group, for changes in the catalog, and get them approved by a vote of the referees. After consideration, the vote of each referee for each change seems superfluous, especially for contentious cases that require special knowledge of the subject.
To edict rules we already get the catalog administrators and some other influential members as pnightingale, neilithic who can bring their ideas, and possibly other members of other cultures.
By editing simple rules and not wanting to upset everything, if every modification is documented and approved by the majority of the 15th catalog administrators, then the argumentation of change published in the "Numista Catalog forum", it should calm things down.
Another point to address concerns tokens and exonumia.
But this is another story. Let's deal with the problem of the country first.
As a side note, it is interesting to see how different people use and navigate the site.
For myself, I hardly ever browse a section looking for a coin, or even browse through a country. I mostly use the search feature to find my coins. The only exception is when I have a coin that is rather difficult for me to identify, such as a hammered coin or dump coin that doesn't have any letters or numbers for me to search for. Then I will browse an area that I think it might be from.
I had assumed that is how most everyone else uses the site, but from the comments I guess that is not how it is done.
Cita: "ALLRED1950" I think we should do all like Erdvilla did for Mexico. All of Germany in one place and divided in the catalog page like Mexico. KEEP IT SIMPLE.
What Erdvilla is doing and all like is to use the "currency" field to divide Mexico into subsections. In terms of database management, it is weird.
We need sub-sections as someone proposed earlier in this post !And only Xavier can do that.
Quand l'Histoire et la Géographie se croisent sur nos pièces de monnaie ...
Cita: "jadejackal"As a side note, it is interesting to see how different people use and navigate the site.
For myself, I hardly ever browse a section looking for a coin, or even browse through a country. I mostly use the search feature to find my coins. The only exception is when I have a coin that is rather difficult for me to identify, such as a hammered coin or dump coin that doesn't have any letters or numbers for me to search for. Then I will browse an area that I think it might be from.
I had assumed that is how most everyone else uses the site, but from the comments I guess that is not how it is done.
Great comment but not at the right place. Maybe jadejackal, ask to move that in a visible spot of the forum !
It underlines the need for good descriptions, filling the fields etc. Hundreds of empty sheets with pictures but no info are great for people who scroll down the catalogue but not those who, as jadejackal (and me and others), use the search engine. Both are necessary. Search engines are the key of modern databases, and with no info, they are dead.
Call to referees and those who ask for addition: DO FILL THE EMPTY FIELDS ! and in both languages. I get upset when people put "copper" and not "cuivre", or reverse. Not really difficult.
I'll repeat that somewhere else for sure.
Regards, André
Quand l'Histoire et la Géographie se croisent sur nos pièces de monnaie ...
You are right Phil and Imre, we won't progress by looking at each subcase. We do need a general definition which will then guide the specific cases. Let's try the Nightingale Method.
1. Identify as many universally accepted markers as to what defines a country as possible.
From a numismatic point of view, I would say that a country is a territory governed by an authority who issues coins.
UN representation is not a valid marker of a country for me, as far as coins are concerned.
2. Identify what is not a country
If there is no government, there is no country.
I also like the definition "Places which have more coin types than citizens", although it's penalizing long-lasting issuers who keep issuing new types for several years.
3. Define a coin
I pretty much agree with Phil. No need to say more.
Tokens can be considered as coins if they meet the need of commerce. Conder tokens are coins.
4. What isn't a coin
Items that can't be used to pay in at least a wide part of a country.
Casino tokens and car wash tokens are not coins although they have a fixed trade value, because they can be used only in a very limited scope, not in a wide part of the country.
As for examples, I don't fully agree with Hutt River. It's probably on the limit between the definition of a country and not a country. In my definition, it's a government having some authority on a territory and it issues coins, so yes it is a country. On the other hand, according to Wikipedia it has 60 citizens and according to Numista it has 57 coins, so it will soon reach the limit to not be considered as a country.
First let's skip this example and focus on the definition.
Forgive me for having disappeared midstream, I've been catching up on some sleep. Very encouraging progress so far, so let's nail this issue once and for all while we have everyone's attention.
Let me make a few clarifications and comments.
Xavier, I think we are on the same page as far as defining what is a country or a territory purely from a numismatic standpoint, we just used different terms to express it.
The proposed method is intended to be as simple and intuitive as possible and will ultimately rely on good judgment by the user. I really don't think it's possible to provide a solution for every conceivable situation and by trying to do so we will inevitably end up with an unworkable, over complex mess. What's needed is a framework, onto which we can add or subtract definitions as the world changes.
So if it can be safely assumed that the basic four element framework is acceptable to most of us, let's move on to agreeing some of the (loose) definitions. Again, these don't need to be all encompassing, just offering enough of a path to allow users to know where to enter or search for a particular coin. I'll follow the lead you have already provided and others can contribute where they see fit.
1. Countries / Territories
I'm onboard with the notion of including "government" as one of the key markers. I've been trying to think of a few examples where it might exclude legitimate coins. Biafra is the first to spring to mind but I think that it had enough of a government to pass the test. On reflection UN recognition / representation is not a good choice. It would exclude a lot of countries such as post UDI Rhodesia which undoubtedly issued real coins.
I'm not familiar enough with events in the Arabian Peninsula and Horn of Africa to be able to say whether the various version of Yemen and Sudan are truly countries and if the "coins" have enough legitimacy to be given a place in the non-token section. Perhaps somebody who has more knowledge could offer their thoughts.
2. Non Countries
I think the best way to proceed here is to simply give examples of what we agree makes a non-country. Trying to pin down a set of specifics is going to be impossible due to everyone having their own prejudices. Once we have a substantial number of good examples then any new considerations can be measured against the current population. This seems to be the easiest approach. There will be a few borderline cases which will need some careful thought.
3. Coins
I think we have this one wrapped up. The issue of proof coins remains. Cleary these are not intended for commerce but they are otherwise identical to those issues which are. I think they ought to be included as coins despite this but perhaps we could separate them from the business strikes at the denomination level? This has already been proposed elsewhere so let's just accept what's decided there.
4. Non Coins
It might go some way towards making collectors of pseudo coins a little happier at their removal from the main catalog if we spare them the indignity of being put next to Chucky Cheese tokens. Call it what you will, Exonumia, Fantasy Coins, Pseudo Nations...... whatever is acceptable to those collectors. Keep the "Tokens" section as a dumping ground and restrict the new sub section to those issues which have at least some of the characteristics of "real" coins, otherwise it will be simply flooded with new entries and we will have to resort to moving the "almost coins" back into the main catalog
Non illegitimis carborundum est. Excellent advice for all coins.
Make Numismatics Great Again!
My one problem is with 3. Coins. You mention that there is a debate as to whether or not proof strikes should be counted as coins. Does that imply that NCLTs are not coins? You can go down this route but it will make Numista unusable for people who collect them as well as regular coins!
Nice find Dan with some useful definitions. I found this to be interesting and a great indication of why we need to nail this down before it outgrows our grasp - ".......the SCWC catalog of the XXI century reached the thickness of the catalog of the XX century already in 2015."
I have thought of two other coin definitions.
A} It should be of a broadly functional shape and practical construction. Mostly round, perhaps square, triangular or even oval but no spheres, cubes or pyramids. Definitely no guitar shaped coins made from chocolate!
B} With the exception of pattern strikes and legitimate proofs, the coin should have been released to the public at face value.
Item A would remove a lot of the ridiculous entries like coins the size of car tyres and coins with such absurd shapes they were clearly never intended to circulate much less fit in anyone's pocket
Item B I particular like as it would in a single stroke remove all the junk commemoratives to the Exonumia Section or whatever is to be created to hold the "nearly coins" separate from the "Tokens" wilderness. It seems such an obvious solution I'm quite surprised to not find any earlier reference to it although a more thorough search might find some.
I'm going to be a busy feller over the weekend so if somebody would be kind enough to put together a list of proposals made so far for both coin and country definitions perhaps we can wrap this up and start putting the ideas into practice. If nobody objects, let's put a deadline of Saturday midnight EST for proposals to be included which would leave Sunday free for anyone to make their objections known. Does that seem long enough to you folks, or is it too soon?
It's important now to move it along while we have a good amount of participation and impetus.
Oh yeah..... could somebody bilingual let those Frenchies know what's going on so they don't feel excluded.
Non illegitimis carborundum est. Excellent advice for all coins.
Make Numismatics Great Again!
Just one clarification, which I have shared on earlier posts: Mr. Nightingale writes: It should circulate, or have the possibility of doing so.
I have understood this statement in line with proof issues and commemoratives: the possibility of doing so, I think this part of the statement is extremely important: Me or you or any other soul always have the possibility to - purposely or accidentaly - put a proof/commemorative coin into circulation, so theoritically it places all of these issue into circulation coinage.
That brings the issue of what is a legal tender, and what is not: If I feel like on a lonesome night I could get a proof commemorative issue of 20 EUROs into circulation in a pub, the bartender has to accept it as a legal tender. I am stupid to do so, but still...it clarifies what a proof coin is: a coin.
Cita: "Xavier"You are right Phil and Imre, we won't progress by looking at each subcase. We do need a general definition which will then guide the specific cases. Let's try the Nightingale Method.
1. Identify as many universally accepted markers as to what defines a country as possible.
From a numismatic point of view, I would say that a country is a territory governed by an authority who issues coins.
UN representation is not a valid marker of a country for me, as far as coins are concerned.
2. Identify what is not a country
If there is no government, there is no country.
I also like the definition "Places which have more coin types than citizens", although it's penalizing long-lasting issuers who keep issuing new types for several years.
3. Define a coin
I pretty much agree with Phil. No need to say more.
Tokens can be considered as coins if they meet the need of commerce. Conder tokens are coins.
4. What isn't a coin
Items that can't be used to pay in at least a wide part of a country.
Casino tokens and car wash tokens are not coins although they have a fixed trade value, because they can be used only in a very limited scope, not in a wide part of the country.
As for examples, I don't fully agree with Hutt River. It's probably on the limit between the definition of a country and not a country. In my definition, it's a government having some authority on a territory and it issues coins, so yes it is a country. On the other hand, according to Wikipedia it has 60 citizens and according to Numista it has 57 coins, so it will soon reach the limit to not be considered as a country.
First let's skip this example and focus on the definition.
Another issue: Vatican City, a recognized state, with very few inhabitants, but lots of issued coins between its Lira and its Euro periods, including uncirculating coinage.
Another issue about all things named before: what about countries full of ****... OOPS! Full of X# (exonumia) references, absolutely no KM or anything else, and no chance to enter normal KM references...
Administrateur du catalogue, référent de nombreuses nations antiques et de la Lorraine.
Catalogue administrator, numerous Antique nations and Lorraine referee.
Cita: "pnightingale"A} It should be of a broadly functional shape and practical construction. Mostly round, perhaps square, triangular or even oval but no spheres, cubes or pyramids. Definitely no guitar shaped coins made from chocolate!
B} With the exception of pattern strikes and legitimate proofs, the coin should have been released to the public at face value.
I'm sorry Phil I don't agree with both criteria.
A: Even if a coin is made of chocolate and guitar-shaped, I would accept it if it's issued by the US mint and sold as being legal tender.
B: You can't make a rule with such a big exception. You need to define"legitimate proof" then. You can call a "proof" anything that is sold at a price above face value.
Let's stick with our previous definition, and the very good link provided by dptashny.
In general, I think Vatican euro coins are a very good counter-example for many criteria we mentioned. We should be careful not to choose too restrictive criteria.
Any group of coins from a similar geographical entity that has a KM (because Numista uses KM) that goes throughout different types of government and currency from said entity.
Hi all,
The debate is very interesting and before issuing final rules you should test its accuracy by some examples:
- Mexico revolutionnary
- South Georgia & the South Sandwich Islands
- Coco "Keeling" island
- Hutt River
- Abkhazia
- Chechenya
- Ceylon - versus- Sri-Lanka
- India ancient
- France feudal
- British Honduras -versus- Belize
- Cape verde -versus- Cabo verde
- Muscat & Oman -versus- Oman
- French cities
- Germany notgeld
- Ruanda-Urundi -versus- Ruanda-Burundi
etc...
In france, the political regime after the second world war was the fourth republic, well known for its art of compromise and similar to the third republic of the roaring twenties in its inefficiency to solve any issue. Henri Queuille was several times the President of the Council of Ministers of the fourth republic. One of his numerous aphorisms remained in memory: "There is no problem than no decision can solve, at term."
Cita: "ZuluRaptorSpace"Any group of coins from a similar geographical entity that has a KM (because Numista uses KM) that goes throughout different types of government and currency from said entity.
Hi,
KM# is not Panacea . Thanks to KM# book, several generations count that "Azores" and "Madeira" Portuguese commemorative coins of 1980-s are coins from Azores and Madeira or at least coins minted for circulation on Azores and Madeira Islands :)
I need to dig up this topic as I found the answer to all our issues, there was a French Numisdoc article explaining what we could consider as countries.
The list of countries and territories is made in a simple numismatic view. This list doesn't give any opinion about any political status about these countries and territories.
Countries and territories
Any government, either self-proclaimed or internationally reknown, may appear in the list if it emitted coins. This explains why does Sealand appear in the list as well as Canada or Spain.
However, fantasy coins emitted by foreign numismats for a simple commercial purpose, like Easter Island tokens, are not directly shown in the country and territory list. These fantasy coins are classified inside the token section.
Former countries
During history, some countries splitted or fused. In such situation, the list contains both former and new countries. For an example, the list contains Tanganiyka, Zanzibar and Tanzania.
As an exception, when a lot of old countries unified to form a single country, the list does not refer to all these countries separately, to avoid the list to be excessively long. For an example, former provinces which formed Canada are listed under the Canadian provinces label.
For some countries in which lots of coins are registered in Numista for a very large time lapse, the country had to be splitted in various categories. The splitting choose was made according to numismatic and political changes inside the country. This is why the list mentions both France and France - Kingdom.
Multiple names
Some countries may have multiple usual names, or the country name changed over history. In that situation, Numista consider them as a single territory. To help catalog users, both names appear in the list, but are redirecting to the same catalog page. We have for example both Burma and Myanmar.
Any people able to read both French and English may check my translation to say if its highlights are well explained.
So, is this old debate still necessary this way? Or should we consider this 2014 rule as outdated?
Administrateur du catalogue, référent de nombreuses nations antiques et de la Lorraine.
Catalogue administrator, numerous Antique nations and Lorraine referee.
Let's keep the ball rolling on this topic. Surely we must set some rules although we may need to discuss some topics separately (still waiting for British Honduras and Belize to be merged). The catalog has grown large enough to not ignore this topic
Kenny
- Verifying your Asian and British-territorial coins everyday with the best quality photos and the best information.
Hey there numista people!
I have followed this subject for a while and i would like that something is done with the catalog, because as the volume of coins increases, it gets more and more difficult to navigate through the catalog.
I really liked dptashny´s proposal to split all the coins to separate categories. I have done something similar (but not as good thought probably ) to my excel spreadsheet, as i felt it was easier for me.
I could make a suggestion on how i visualize this, but don´t take it too seriously because i haven´t got a clue about website building and databases!
My suggestion would be to create different sections for coins, token coinage, exonumia and fantasies , as dptashny proposed, that could be accessed by a tabular, or something similar, menu in the country list page. So every one would be satisfied in regard to what they are collecting, while making the catalog a bit more uncluttered and clear. That would also remove the Token "country" from the country list, a thing that i see as a bit weird!
Cita: "dptashny"I really think we need four, rather than two, categories for types of coins and "coins": coins (Lincoln cents, Chinese cash, and British shillings, ect), token coinage (Condor tokens, notgeld, "Bon Pour" tokens, ect.), exonumia (Bob's Car Wash tokens, coronation medals, French maritime insurance medallions, ect.), and fantasies (Sealand "coins", Middle Earth "coins, Seborga "coins").
Also, i must say that the "The Nightingale Method" is almost on point on what i would consider a coin and what a token. That is why i believe that this should be the basis for further discussion on this subject and finally reach a decision for improving the catalog!
The only thing that i would add to this is that proof coinage is considered by me coins, even though i don´t collect them and it ruins the listings for the country i collect by year and i never see the listing as completed! But that is an other matter.
Regards,
Stavros
Referee for Ancient Greece, Norway and the Kingdom of Cyprus
I would like to see the exonumia from the country listed as a section under the country. It would make things a lot tidier. For example, this is currently the top of the New Zealand section
Under the "dollar (1967-date)" it would be easy to add a section for "Exonumia" and put all the exonumia into that section, perhaps with sub headings like Medals, medallions, tokens, etc
Cita: "chomp-master"https://fr.numista.com/numisdoc/quels-pays-et-territoires-apparaissent-dans-numista-162.html
The list of countries and territories is made in a simple numismatic view. This list doesn't give any opinion about any political status about these countries and territories.
Countries and territories
Any government, either self-proclaimed or internationally reknown, may appear in the list if it emitted coins. This explains why does Sealand appear in the list as well as Canada or Spain.
However, fantasy coins emitted by foreign numismats for a simple commercial purpose, like Easter Island tokens, are not directly shown in the country and territory list. These fantasy coins are classified inside the token section.
Former countries
During history, some countries splitted or fused. In such situation, the list contains both former and new countries. For an example, the list contains Tanganiyka, Zanzibar and Tanzania.
As an exception, when a lot of old countries unified to form a single country, the list does not refer to all these countries separately, to avoid the list to be excessively long. For an example, former provinces which formed Canada are listed under the Canadian provinces label.
For some countries in which lots of coins are registered in Numista for a very large time lapse, the country had to be splitted in various categories. The splitting choose was made according to numismatic and political changes inside the country. This is why the list mentions both France and France - Kingdom.
Multiple names
Some countries may have multiple usual names, or the country name changed over history. In that situation, Numista consider them as a single territory. To help catalog users, both names appear in the list, but are redirecting to the same catalog page. We have for example both Burma and Myanmar.
This Numisdoc article may induce a conflict with French side view.
Administrateur du catalogue, référent de nombreuses nations antiques et de la Lorraine.
Catalogue administrator, numerous Antique nations and Lorraine referee.
Cita: "neilithic"I would like to see the exonumia from the country listed as a section under the country. It would make things a lot tidier. For example, this is currently the top of the New Zealand section
Under the "dollar (1967-date)" it would be easy to add a section for "Exonumia" and put all the exonumia into that section, perhaps with sub headings like Medals, medallions, tokens, etc
Your suggestion will probably work for New Zealand. But for countries with a lot more coinage and tokens it can get really hard to find something in the catalog. Take for example the german notgeld. I personally find it really hard to browse through them, because all notgeld are in a single section in the Country Germany - 1871 - 1948.
That is why i suggested, if it is possible of course, to create different country lists for coins, coinage tokens and tokens, so that the catalog can be accessed easier. By that way i feel that everyone can choose how to collect and Numista will not concentrate only on coins. And on top of that, if it is deemed worthwhile, the token section can be also organised for those who collect tokens.
Referee for Ancient Greece, Norway and the Kingdom of Cyprus
Cita: "neilithic"I would like to see the exonumia from the country listed as a section under the country. It would make things a lot tidier. For example, this is currently the top of the New Zealand section
Under the "dollar (1967-date)" it would be easy to add a section for "Exonumia" and put all the exonumia into that section, perhaps with sub headings like Medals, medallions, tokens, etc
Still keeping the Trade Tokens as a separate section though right?
Incidentally, how are the sections ordered? Chronologically it seems but that does produce some very strange results in some countries. Are referees allowed to use some discretion in adjusting the order, perhaps to keep the major sections at the top where they belong?
P.S. "Your collection contains 17 coins from New Zealand"........ eh? I was quite surprised to see such a modest total.
Non illegitimis carborundum est. Excellent advice for all coins.
Make Numismatics Great Again!
Cita: "pnightingale"Still keeping the Trade Tokens as a separate section though right?
Incidentally, how are the sections ordered? Chronologically it seems but that does produce some very strange results in some countries. Are referees allowed to use some discretion in adjusting the order, perhaps to keep the major sections at the top where they belong?
P.S. "Your collection contains 17 coins from New Zealand"........ eh? I was quite surprised to see such a modest total.
Yes, trade tokens need to be kept as a separate section because they are different from regular tokens in that they were accepted and circulated like a regular currency due to a shortage of lower value coins in the country.
As to my personal New Zealand collection, I did have more coins, but when I went through listing all my lower grade coins that needed upgrading, I kept all the lower grade coins from round the world, but the New Zealand ones, since I can pick up replacements anytime, I sold or gifted them to other people....and I've never got around to upgrading them. I guess I'll get around to it....someday. Also I only collect the pre 1945 coins and one of each KM#, so that limits it to one halfpenny, one penny, two threepences, 2 sixpences, 2 shillings, 2 florins, 3 half crowns, and one crown (which I'll never get) plus the trade tokens (which I'm slowly adding to my collection)
At the moment I have 8 trade tokens and I need the penny, the two threepences, one half crown and that bloody Waitangi crown to complete the pre-decimal coins.
Cita: "chomp-master"Please do not forget what I said
Cita: "chomp-master"https://fr.numista.com/numisdoc/quels-pays-et-territoires-apparaissent-dans-numista-162.html
The list of countries and territories is made in a simple numismatic view. This list doesn't give any opinion about any political status about these countries and territories.
Countries and territories
Any government, either self-proclaimed or internationally reknown, may appear in the list if it emitted coins. This explains why does Sealand appear in the list as well as Canada or Spain.
However, fantasy coins emitted by foreign numismats for a simple commercial purpose, like Easter Island tokens, are not directly shown in the country and territory list. These fantasy coins are classified inside the token section.
Former countries
During history, some countries splitted or fused. In such situation, the list contains both former and new countries. For an example, the list contains Tanganiyka, Zanzibar and Tanzania.
As an exception, when a lot of old countries unified to form a single country, the list does not refer to all these countries separately, to avoid the list to be excessively long. For an example, former provinces which formed Canada are listed under the Canadian provinces label.
For some countries in which lots of coins are registered in Numista for a very large time lapse, the country had to be splitted in various categories. The splitting choose was made according to numismatic and political changes inside the country. This is why the list mentions both France and France - Kingdom.
Multiple names
Some countries may have multiple usual names, or the country name changed over history. In that situation, Numista consider them as a single territory. To help catalog users, both names appear in the list, but are redirecting to the same catalog page. We have for example both Burma and Myanmar.
This Numisdoc article may induce a conflict with French side view.
Surely the conflict would have started when Newfoundland was broken out from Canada? There's a lot of merit in the numisdoc but it was published in 2014 and we are still having this discussion in 2016 which would suggest to me that it hasn't settled the question.
It's very unclear and contradictory, possibly it just didn't translate well into English.
Here's an example-
From the lead paragraph...... "This list doesn't give any opinion about any political status about these countries and territories." OK, that sounds reasonable enough until you read down to the penultimate paragraph which reads - "The splitting choose was made according to numismatic and political changes inside the country. This is why the list mentions both France and France - Kingdom." (emphasis added)
The decision to merge the 3rd Reich currency into Germany 1871-1945 is entirely consistent with the numisdoc theme of ignoring political change yet the separation of the USSR and Russia is 100% due to the political changes post Glasnost. (yes, it isn't exactly the same country geographically, however Russia inherited the USSR seat on the UN Security Council as well as it's assets and liabilities) You can't have it both ways.
Further, the final paragraph explaining country names is vague and incomplete. Consider South Africa which has recently adopted a rather charming habit of minting coins with the country name rendered in a multitude of tribal languages. Even though these names appear on the actual coin they are not included in the catalog. Nor does Rhodesia redirect to Zimbabwe. So it's a definition merely for the sake of having a definition and without the virtue of being accurate.
It's a francocentric solution to a much wider problem. That's understandable, Numista is a French owned website, originally published in French, hosted on French servers and featuring a catalog which was largely created by French users. However times have changed and with them comes the need for a better defined catalog structure.
Non illegitimis carborundum est. Excellent advice for all coins.
Make Numismatics Great Again!
Cita: "pnightingale"Forgive me for having disappeared midstream, I've been catching up on some sleep. Very encouraging progress so far, so let's nail this issue once and for all while we have everyone's attention.
Let me make a few clarifications and comments.
Xavier, I think we are on the same page as far as defining what is a country or a territory purely from a numismatic standpoint, we just used different terms to express it.
The proposed method is intended to be as simple and intuitive as possible and will ultimately rely on good judgment by the user. I really don't think it's possible to provide a solution for every conceivable situation and by trying to do so we will inevitably end up with an unworkable, over complex mess. What's needed is a framework, onto which we can add or subtract definitions as the world changes.
So if it can be safely assumed that the basic four element framework is acceptable to most of us, let's move on to agreeing some of the (loose) definitions. Again, these don't need to be all encompassing, just offering enough of a path to allow users to know where to enter or search for a particular coin. I'll follow the lead you have already provided and others can contribute where they see fit.
1. Countries / Territories
I'm onboard with the notion of including "government" as one of the key markers. I've been trying to think of a few examples where it might exclude legitimate coins. Biafra is the first to spring to mind but I think that it had enough of a government to pass the test. On reflection UN recognition / representation is not a good choice. It would exclude a lot of countries such as post UDI Rhodesia which undoubtedly issued real coins.
I'm not familiar enough with events in the Arabian Peninsula and Horn of Africa to be able to say whether the various version of Yemen and Sudan are truly countries and if the "coins" have enough legitimacy to be given a place in the non-token section. Perhaps somebody who has more knowledge could offer their thoughts.
2. Non Countries
I think the best way to proceed here is to simply give examples of what we agree makes a non-country. Trying to pin down a set of specifics is going to be impossible due to everyone having their own prejudices. Once we have a substantial number of good examples then any new considerations can be measured against the current population. This seems to be the easiest approach. There will be a few borderline cases which will need some careful thought.
3. Coins
I think we have this one wrapped up. The issue of proof coins remains. Cleary these are not intended for commerce but they are otherwise identical to those issues which are. I think they ought to be included as coins despite this but perhaps we could separate them from the business strikes at the denomination level? This has already been proposed elsewhere so let's just accept what's decided there.
4. Non Coins
It might go some way towards making collectors of pseudo coins a little happier at their removal from the main catalog if we spare them the indignity of being put next to Chucky Cheese tokens. Call it what you will, Exonumia, Fantasy Coins, Pseudo Nations...... whatever is acceptable to those collectors. Keep the "Tokens" section as a dumping ground and restrict the new sub section to those issues which have at least some of the characteristics of "real" coins, otherwise it will be simply flooded with new entries and we will have to resort to moving the "almost coins" back into the main catalog
This all makes perfect sense to me. I also thought about Biafra as a short lived coiuntry with enough government. The Hutt River situation is more alarming to me since there are almost as many coins as people and there is an arbitrary threshold about having more coins than people. Population does not define a country, nor does the amount of coinage they have produced. There have to be other metrics to determine if the Hutt River is a country or not.
Carlos, that's where the exception part of the process comes into play. If a territory fails to pass at the first attempt but there are solid grounds for including it's offerings into the main catalog then it can be reviewed against the above four areas of consideration to see if the case is strong enough.
As is being discussed in the parallel topic, it's important that the decision is reviewed by a committee instead of a single person or by those who shout loudest to avoid personal bias.
Non illegitimis carborundum est. Excellent advice for all coins.
Make Numismatics Great Again!
Cita: "pnightingale"Carlos, that's where the exception part of the process comes into play. If a territory fails to pass at the first attempt but there are solid grounds for including it's offerings into the main catalog then it can be reviewed against the above four areas of consideration to see if the case is strong enough.
As is being discussed in the parallel topic, it's important that the decision is reviewed by a committee instead of a single person or by those who shout loudest to avoid personal bias.
You did mention that. I guess I got lost in all of the argument.
Cita: "ngdawa"What is a country, and how many countries are there?
Well, the aswer you will find here and here!
In one way I reckon it should be better to just leave it as it is. If countries and territories are starting to disappear and being added to the hell of Numista - the token section - there will be a lot of anger, frustration and confusion.
Please watch the two videos mentioned above, it explains it all very well.
In a coin catalog, any monetary authority that is part of a legal framework of some state (whether it's a recognised one or not) that issues currency that it uses to make payments and is used as a store of value constitutes a country or territory in my opinion. The associated currency exists in physical form as cash in coins and/or banknotes (or even certificates of any form).
For example, France has the Banque de France, which issued French Francs before 1999. Salaries were paid in Francs. There were bank accounts in Francs, etc. Strictly speaking the EMU is now a 'currency country' but because the coins still have national sides they are listed with their own countries. One could also speak of a (temporary?) currency peg.
Danzig is a country because it issued its own currency, the Gulden. Though pegged to Reichsmark, salaries etc. were paid in Gulden. Same goes for Transnistria with its Ruble.
Micronesia or Northern Mariana Islands have no monetary authority of its own. The Federal Reserve exercises this right and this authority does not issue a separate currency for that region specifically. Any metal disks related to these territories are therefore not coins but tokens. More of these island nations can be booted to the tokens section in my opinion. It will save fellow coin collectors a lot of money that they can spend on real coins.
Now the Abchazia case. This is different from Transnistria as it has no independent monetary authority. Issue of currency in Abchazia is outsourced to the Bank Rossiye. This Apsar stuff is only used for political and commercial purposes, not monetary.
Cita: "jokinen"For example, France has the Banque de France, which issued French Francs before 1999.
Hmmm...
Nope.
Administrateur du catalogue, référent de nombreuses nations antiques et de la Lorraine.
Catalogue administrator, numerous Antique nations and Lorraine referee.
) 
