It came to my attention that some coins that I would expect to find under German States are listed on the Polish pages. I will list some of the entities below and give a brief historical context to stir up the discussion.
Don't forget that I don't care about taking sides in German-Polish historical relations. Even though Finns have often been allied to Prussians this is not the issue here. I like both countries a lot. I just like the catalog to be consistent and easily searchable.
East Prussia (1807-1815)
There is a bit of misconception here in the catalog. To many people East Prussia was a province around Königsberg (present-day Kaliningrad). In this particular case, the term 'East Prussia' is confusing. Before Napoleon the Prussian King Frederick the Great had annexed vast lands in Western Germany. Prussia spanned from the Dutch border to the Baltic. Napoleon conquered his way all through annexing all the western provinces for France and leaving the remaining eastern part of Prussia (Brandenburg, Berlin, Pomerania, Silezia and East Prussia) as a vassal state that was nominally independent but not allowed to have its own army. Where the Prussian territories annexed by France started minting their own Franc coins, the autonomous eastern part of Prussia continued to mint their own. It is these coins, minted in Berlin with mintmark 'A' that ended up in the Polish part of the catalog, which is in my opinion wrong. These should be listed under Prussia within German States. It was just the 'amputated' continuation of Prussia proper. After Napoleon's defeat the annexed western territories were restored to Prussian rule.
In orange the Eastern Prussian territories still using their own coins (1807-1815). In Blue to the east the Duchy of Warsaw. Coloured areas in the west are Prussian territories annexed by France.
Southern Prussia
This was an area conquered by Prussia during the Second Polish Partition in 1793 and included cities like Poznan (Posen), Wroclaw (Breslau) and Warszawa (Warschau). Most of these areas had a Polish majority, although some cities had sizable German communities, especially in Silezia. Here Polish currency was continued with legends stating 'Southern Prussia' in Latin. Formally ruled by Prussia from Berlin, one could argue that this was part of German States. However, one can also view it as occcupied Polish territory and hence part of the Polish part of the catalog. Napoleon ended the situation by reducing Prussian territory considerably and turning South Prussia into a French client state named 'Duchy of Warsaw'.
Duchy of Posen
After Napoleon was defeated the Vienna Congress of 1815 decided on the new borders in Europe. The Duchy of Warsaw was split into the Duchy of Posen (awarded to Prussia) and Congress Poland (awarded to Russia). Both entities produced their own coins until the 1840's when it was integrated into the ruling country's currencies. Also here there are arguments for listing this under the state it was part of or listing it as part of occupied Polish territory.
Free City of Krakow
This was a leftover of the Polish partition that was not immediately annexed by Austria. One could even consider this a separate country, a bit analogous to Saarland or Danzig for example.
Maybe it is an idea to put all 19th Century Polish coins in a separate country listing, except for Eastern Prussian coins that in my opinion should just be part of German States. The name for the new 'country' can then be 'Poland - Partition territories' and include South Prussia, Duchy of Warsaw, Congress Poland and Duchy of Posen.
Cita: "deft"I don't know anything about this but I just wanted to say thank you for the history lesson :)
Also, is this coin misplaced? https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces63782.html It says it's minted 1759-1762 but it's listed under "Poland - East Prussia - Thaler (1804-1811)"
Well, if you look on the map you'll see that East Prussia's terrotry is in modern Poland. So geographically it's correct, but I guess they were more "German" than "Polish". But I'm in the same boat as you, I have too little knowledge about this.
What a great example of how to present an argument, well done.
It's a horribly complicated problem with no right answer. The Danzig Corridor question couldn't be resolved by the combined brains of the League of Nations in time to avert WWII so it's unlikely that a bunch of coin collectors can come up with a solution.
I have to say that I have always considered the East Prussia of 1918-1945 to be the same as the historical one of the early 19th century, minus the Danzig Corridor. Thank you for correcting my mistaken assumptions. Whoever said "You can't teach an old dog new tricks" was clearly not a coin collector.
As a general rule we should always be looking at the world as it was when the coins were issued, not as it might be today. In 1944/1945 there was a massive westward shift of ethnic Germans, either fleeing the Red Army or due to ethnic cleansing by the victors. What may have once been German is no more. No matter what the map looks like today, I would intuitively look for Prussian coins under German States and I suspect so would most other collectors. So that ought to be the the obvious choice unless there is a very strong case to be made for cataloging it under Poland.
Apart from East Prussia, everything else ought to be considered Polish. I find the Southern Prussia title to be contrived and counter intuitive. Strict historical accuracy should always take second place to ease of use.
Non illegitimis carborundum est. Excellent advice for all coins.
Make Numismatics Great Again!
Yes I would intuitively look for Prussian coins under Germany as Prussia was the driver of German unification itself. I think Phil makes a valid point that the coins should be listed under the country it was a part of when the coin was issued (at least in this case). Prussian coinage is certainly Germany and not Polish.
I did some searching in German and found the coin. It's a 6 Groschen from East Prussia during the Russian occupation from 1759 to 1762 as part of the Seven Year's War. This war saw Prussia allied with England fighting a coalition of Austrians, Russians and French. The English booked some territorial gains in the New World and Prussia established itself as a new local power.
Elizabeth was the Russian Czarina during those years.
Now where do we put this coin? I suggest under German States, sub-section East Prussia - Russian occupation (1759-1962).
they need some changes according to the interpretation of Polish numismatists
POLAND:
1. Coins of first Piast 980 - 1173
2. Medieval coins of Polish lands (1174 - 1304)
- princes of Wielkopolska
- princes of Krakow
- princes of Kujawy
- princes of Pomorze Wschodnie
- princes of Mazowsze
- coins of palatines
- bishops and abbots coins
3. Coins of the Kingdom of Poland 1305 - 1572 (by kings)
- Władysław Łokietek 1306/1320 - 1333
- Kaziemierz Wielki 1333 - 1370
- Ludwig Węgierski 1370 - 1382
- Jadwiga 1384 - 1399
- Władysław Jagiełło 1386 - 1434
- Władysław Warnenczyk 1434 - 1444
- Kaziemierz Jagielończyk 1446 - 1492
- Jan Olbracht 1492 - 1501
- Aleksander Jagiellończyk 1501 - 1506
- Zygmunt I stary 1506 - 1548
- Zygmunt II August 1548 - 1572
4. Coins of lands of the Kingdom of Poland
- Ruthenian land 1351 - 1414
- Prussian land 1454 - 1585
- Livonia land 1572 - 1573
6. The Austrian Partition
6 a. Oswiecimsko - zatorskie coins 1774 - 1777
6 b. Galicia-Lodoméria coins (The Kościuszko Uprising) 1794
7. The Prussia Partition
7 a. South Prussia coins 1796 - 1798 7 b. Danzig coins 1801
7 c. The Grand Duchy of Posen 1816 - 1817
8. The Duchy of Warsaw 1810 - 1814
9. Coins issued during the siege of fortress Zamosc 1813
10. Congres Kingdom of Poland and under Russian occupation 1815 - 1850
11. Coins of The November Uprising 1831
12. Coins of the Republic of Krakow 1835
13. Coins minted in the Warsaw mint in 1842 - 1864
14. German Occupation coinage
14 a. German Military Commander of the East 1916
14 b. German-Austrian Regency (Kingdom of Poland) 1917 - 1918
14 c. German occupation World War II 1939 - 1945
14 d. Ghetto Lodz 1942 - 1943
15. Free City Danzig coins 15 a. Coins of Danzig Free City (French influence) 1808 - 1815
15 b. Tokens 1920
15 c. Coins of Danzig Free City (Third Reich influence) 1923 - 1935
16. Second Republic of Poland 1923 - 1939
17. Polish People's Republic 1949 - 1990
18. Third Republic of Poland
18 a. Before denomination 1990 - 1994
18 b. After denomination 1990 - ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and for POLISH - LITHUANIAN:
1 Henryk Walezy, 1573–1575
2 Stefan Batory, 1576–1586
3 Zygmunt III Waza, 1587-1632
4 Wladyslaw IV Waza, 1633-1648
5 Jan II Kazimierz Waza, 1649-1668
6 Michal Korybut Wisniowiecki, 1669-1673
7 Jan III Sobieski, 1674-1696
8 August II Mocny Wettin, 1697-1733
9 August III, 1733-1763
10 Stanislaus Augustus Poniatowski, 1764-1795
11 Bromberg coins
12 Danzig coins
13 Elbing coins
14 Fraustadt coins
15 Gnesen coins
16 Krakow coins
17 Lobsenz coins
18 Posen coins
19 Thorn coins
20 Swedish occupation
21 Trade coinage (gold)
Hi Geralt, this division makes a lot of sense. I would see Danzig (1921-1939) as a separate state though. Especially because Danzig was mostly German speaking in that part of history.
On November 9, 1920, in the implementation of the provisions of Art. 104. Treaty of Versailles, there was signed convention between Poland and Danzig, popularly known as the "Paris Convention". In accordance with the provisions of the Convention, Poland was responsible for: the conduct of foreign affairs and protection of the interests of citizens Free City of Danzig abroad,signing international agreements on behalf of the Free City, credit control of Free City and a register of vessels flying the flag of Gdansk.
The Free City belonged to the customs territory of the Republic of Poland and customs control was carried out by Polish customs officers, both on the Free City with Germany, and on the sea border. Poland was granted: the right to directly export and import of goods through the port of Gdansk, having your own postal service, telephone and telegraph, was the owner of rail in the Free City (with the exception of tram lines).
Established a joint Polish-Gdansk Council Port and Waterways Gdansk (the parity of both parties - to five representatives for each of them and the president appointed jointly by the Government and the authorities of the Free City of Danzig) with the privileges of the board of port facilities for port and freedom of navigation on the Vistula .
The conclusion of the convention was a condition of the proclamation of the Free City of Danzig (which took place November 15, 1920) and the entry into force of the Constitution of the Free City (17 November 1920) - given the remit of Polish defined by the Convention.
....and thats why I am opposed to the claim that we should put Danzing as a "state".
More "semi state" ; )
as "danzing" state coins is reaaaaaalllly big mistake. On coin we see: SIGIS I REX POLO and SIGIS:III : D:G : REX : PO - so King of Poland, no... "king of Danzing"
I agree for the 2 silver coins from Polish Danzig, but I disagree for the "free state" (which was, in real, not named a free state - Freie Staat in German - but a free city - Freie Stadt, despite it was in fact a city-state).
Administrateur du catalogue, référent de nombreuses nations antiques et de la Lorraine.
Catalogue administrator, numerous Antique nations and Lorraine referee.
I agree with chomp here. I believe that all those provisions from the Treaty of Versailles was an important reason for the population of Danzig to be extremely pro-German in those days. It gave the nazis a tailwind in bringing their message across, as they often cited the Danzig situation to stir up German nationalism.
Of course Gdansk was a Polish city centuries before. It was the tragedy of that region that Germans dominated city populations and Poles dominated the lands surrounding them. For centuries cooperation went well. Polish nobility took care of the lands and defense, and Germans (including Jews) manufactured and traded.
Just look at Copernicus. His real name was Koppernigk as his father was a copper smith of German heritage. He's from Geralt's town Torun. During Copernicus' time Torun was a Polish city with sizable German population. This is why Copernicus is now seen as a Polish scientist, but there is a bit more to that story.
I hope Jokinen that You are not sugestiing now that Kopernik was German. During second war it was really often, that on the monuments of Copernicus, German Nazis placed the inscription "Dem Grossen Deutschen Astronomen". They tried to destroy us in every way, also in the field of historical.
He was born in the Polish land and fight for the Polish King ("Olsztyn was successfully defended by the Poles under the command of Nicolaus Copernicus" - from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Teutonic_War_%281519%E2%80%9321%29 ). All his life he was conected with Poland and it is the fact which can not be ignored.
First of all, back in the 15th century it was hard to speak of nationalities. However, it is likely that Copernicus' native language was German. But, as you already pointed out, he was loyal to the Polish king as in those days the Hanseatic cities enjoyed relative freedom in cooperation with the Polish nobility. It was the Teutonic Knights who threatened that freedom and for this reason many German-speaking people from Polish towns supported the Polish king against the Teutonic Knights.
Politically Copernicus was aligned with Poland and therefore he's Polish. But linguistically and ethnically he had very strong German roots.
This should not be an issue. The greatest Finn of all time, Carl Gustav Emil Mannerheim was ethnically not a Finn. He descended from either German or Dutch nobility and his native language was Swedish. Not an issue in Finland as his legacy for Finland is very respected.
The founding father of The Netherlands, William of Orange, was German. Still he's considered Dutch. But in the Dutch anthem it says he's of German descent.
Cita: "Jarcek"It is somehow common. Greatest Czech king was from Luxembourg.
PS: I think that coins should be placed under state which had authority over their mintage. Only exemption would be occupation coinage.
Agree here. I was definitely not suggesting to move Torun coinage to German States :-) It should be with Polish cities coinage just like Geralt mentioned.
I just wish to make people aware of the legacy of Germans living in Central Europe, as well as the role that Poles played in European history, often defending the continent against Mongol hordes or Ottoman armies.
Poland was severely disrespected by the victors causing the Polish Partition, which threatened the existence of Polish identity in the 19th century. Very soon after independence in 1918, the Polish had to defend their new state against Bolshevist invaders in a war that is hardly known in other parts of Europe. In 1939 Poland was the victim of two expansionist states. In 1945 the Western Allies betrayed the Polish by extraditing them to the Soviets. I can definitely understand why Polish are sometimes quite defensive on their legacy.
"First of all, back in the 15th century it was hard to speak of nationalities." --- thats why I wrote: "I hope that You are not sugestiing...". For sure he is not German , and...
...I think Lavrenty should remove this two silver coins from Danzig page.
Cita: "pnightingale"Apart from East Prussia, everything else ought to be considered Polish.
The Grand Duchy of Posen was also a part of Prussia, a German state, so I think this coin should be listed in the same category as the other Prussian coins https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces29562.html
Why would a coin with the insignia of Friedrich Wilhelm III be considered Polish?
I'm not sure about the South Prussia coins, they say "Zloty", but also "Friedrich Wilhelm". On the coins is only "Grossus" (and Fridericus Wilhelm Borus Rex), so they were surely issued under Prussian rule, but why "Zloty" then? https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces32306.html
Cita: "pnightingale"Apart from East Prussia, everything else ought to be considered Polish.
The Grand Duchy of Posen was also a part of Prussia, a German state, so I think this coin should be listed in the same category as the other Prussian coins
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces29562.html
Why would a coin with the insignia of Friedrich Wilhelm III be considered Polish?
I'm not sure about the South Prussia coins, they say "Zloty", but also "Friedrich Wilhelm". On the coins is only "Grossus" (and Fridericus Wilhelm Borus Rex), so they were surely issued under Prussian rule, but why "Zloty" then?
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces32306.html
- Duchy of Posen can also be seen as Poland under Prussian occupation. Usually occupation coinage is catalogued with the occupied territory.
- South Prussia the same story.
- Zloty means the same as Gulden. The Polish Zloty was known in Germany as Polnische Gulden.
Do you propose to treat Silesian coinage the same way as South Prussia ?
I see in the post some remarks about Friedrich Wilhelm, but none about the Habsburg period.
Somehow it has always bothered me a bit to see those coins in German Sates. Friedrich may have been german, not the Habsburg rulers from Ferdinand II to Karl VI.
Your thoughts ?
Quand l'Histoire et la Géographie se croisent sur nos pièces de monnaie ...
The discussion has elevated beyond my pay grade and meagre historical understanding although I've still been following with much interest as I have close personal ties to the area, especially Torun, a city I have spent many happy times in and around.
I would only add that the nationality or ethnicity of the ruler should not inform our thinking. What's important is the people who he served and how they were considered at the time the coins were issued.
If we were to be swayed by such things then the UK might be considered part of Germany and the US to be part of Kenya!
Non illegitimis carborundum est. Excellent advice for all coins.
Make Numismatics Great Again!
Good lord, I thought the Hildebeast was scary but that.......
My dearest Jarcek I've always considered Prague to be the overall best city in the world and Czech beer in a class of it's own but not even the beautiful Czech womenfolks could tempt me back with such a ruler.
Better we don't disturb this most educational topic any further so let me just say, good luck in choosing wisely your next leader.
Non illegitimis carborundum est. Excellent advice for all coins.
Make Numismatics Great Again!
The current one was mocked for being drunk in official events, right?
Administrateur du catalogue, référent de nombreuses nations antiques et de la Lorraine.
Catalogue administrator, numerous Antique nations and Lorraine referee.
Well, I did not wanted to speak about politics here, but I will answer the question.
Well, big bold underlined YES and he still is. Pretty much of the population hates him.
Don't worry, I just wanted to laugh a little about, this is the only thing I know about. Even French media-themed TV shows spoke about in the beginning of his mandate, this was really funny to see.
An if there is a thing I agree with pnightingale, for having lived a few months in this country... it's about beer. However, let's speak about these in free talk section instead.
And to come back with the main topic of this thread, I always think the best thing to do is to consider the ruler de jure as origin of the coin. This matches with occupation coinage as well.
Administrateur du catalogue, référent de nombreuses nations antiques et de la Lorraine.
Catalogue administrator, numerous Antique nations and Lorraine referee.
I believe, that we should consider the historical facts. Example - Poland was occupied by Germany but regained independence. Thus Polish coins during occupation should be under Poland.
However - Prussia occupied Bavaria and Bavaria forever stayed under Prussia (Germany) - little ahistorical, but point is clear,
Thus all Bavarian coinage after it was taken should be part of Prussia (Germany.)
This is not the kind of situation I would consider, this concerns mainly pre-WWI coinage (mainly pre-Napoleon coinage), with very few applications between world wars. And never forget the exception of overseas territories, in which there is a local authority taking decisions making them enough autonomous to have their own coinage.
Australia was overseas, furthermore with a high level of autonomy (self-governing as a Dominion), this is matching.
Indochina was overseas too, that's enough.
And when I told de jure, occupied Belgium remained Belgium btw... Still matching.
Administrateur du catalogue, référent de nombreuses nations antiques et de la Lorraine.
Catalogue administrator, numerous Antique nations and Lorraine referee.
Obviously I used extreme examples but you understand the point I was trying to make - the time period doesn't make a difference. Look at this coin that I just bought (I don't want to show off but...) and tell me what country it should be listed under:
That's a great coin, Daniel! It will be most popular with Belgian collectors followed by Austrian. The Austrian Netherlands were an autonomous part of the Holy Roman Empire. I suggest to list all Holy Roman Empire coins in an umbrella section that allows for different layers of granularity.
But what to do with German/Austrian states outside the HRE? Both Prussia Proper and Bohemia were outside the Empire's borders. Bohemia is catalogued as a separate country, Prussia is not. Prussia did not unify its currency across its provinces until the early 1800s. So Prussia itself even needs sub-sections.
This topic nicely discusses the mess with cataloguing Central Europe. Especially the Deutschlandfrage (German Question) returns. Are Austrians Germans? What nationality, if any, was Mozart?
Another big theme is about the vast territories formerly populated by German majorities. Copernicus was a German-speaking Pole. Loyal to the Polish Kingdom, but in cultural heritage pretty German too. A pretty sensitive topic.
The tragedy has its origins in the German Ostsiedlung (East Settlement) during the Middle Ages. Germanic people (including Teutonic Knights) started to settle areas inhabited by Slavic people. The Berlin-Dresden area was the Western-most Slavic area. Germans founded cities and fortresses from Brandenburg all the way to the Baltics. The result was a Slavic aristocracy ruling the peasantry, and Germans and Jews (who were denied in normal professions and thus concentrated on banking and trading) forming majorities in urban areas. As commerce and new technology created more wealth for the cities these became more powerful. For centuries this resulted in symbiotic cooperation between Polish noblemen and German townsfolk. The evolution of a German kingdom named Prussia ended this cooperation. The German language was the language of commerce and many Slavs in the towns assimilated with the Germans. In present-day Eastern Germany and Western Poland the majority shifted from Polish/Sorbian to German. In areas more eastern, Polish and Baltic languages stayed in majority but their towns had considerable German and Yiddish speaking populations.
With the advent of Prussia as an expansionist German state it became an all or nothing and the former cooperation between Poles and Germans descended into distrust. The Polish Partition endangered Polish identity. Germans, boosted by self-esteem from their manufacturing and scientific successes (creating myths around them being superhuman) actively Germanified areas further east, sparking resistance from Poles. Against this background the Polish Republic of 1918 demanded territories that were German before. A lot of these territories had Polish majorities (Poznan, Upper Silesia, etc) but others had very sizable German communities. As the Allies were sympathetic to the Poles (or better put: revanchist to the Germans), the Polish were granted the Polish Corridor to the Baltic Sea. This made the local German population very afraid and sparked nationalism that fed the tragic events of WW2.
Cita: "dptashny"Obviously I used extreme examples but you understand the point I was trying to make - the time period doesn't make a difference. Look at this coin that I just bought (I don't want to show off but...) and tell me what country it should be listed under:
You have 60 seconds - GO!
Ah ah dptashny, a great coin ! And in relation to this topic, this crocione shows that Krause is not better than us in deciding for its suddivisions !
Those Kronentalers are in Austrian Netherlands but most of them minted in Vienna, Hungary etc. Just a few types in Brussels with the angel face mint mark. And KM decided that the Italian type with M and a little different in legend (Francisc versus Franc) deserved a special treatment and would have a specific number in the Italian States. Why ? Don't ask me. An influential Italian collector in their panel ? And because of that mess, we have in our catalogue, some coins doubled, under both Austrian Netherlands and Italian States ... (correction is being done ).
We are always back to the same questions, what to do with colonial empires ? and do we follow geographics (place where coins were minted and used) or ruler (who ordered the minting) ?
Mostly now is the first, it is more practical and more intuitive. But it is not always the case (ex. Austrian HRE where only mint mark differs, the so called uniformed coinage. Hungary from Kremnitz or Schmolnitz, Transylvania from Karlsburg, Venice, etc all under Austria).
Other reason is to follow KM because most people know it, it is a generally recognized reference (despites plenty of flaws).
I feel we could try, instead of rewriting all, solve the main obvious issues. Poland is a good one and we can already reorganize most of it with consensus, no ?
And always someone jokes about the Australian coins under the UK. But the real point is, why not having colonial sections ? Why not the British Empire section ??? The Spanish colonial coinage, etc. This is not a stupid question.
Cheers, André
Quand l'Histoire et la Géographie se croisent sur nos pièces de monnaie ...
@jokinen: Sadly for you the coin is not from Austrian Netherlands - I'm impressed that Ecapoe knew it was from Italian States.
@Ecapoe: Now you're thinking big - redefining he organization of countries in the catalog and totally deviating from Krause. That's going to be a massive change for most members and will be very confusing for new members who use KM. Krause paid their employees a lot to come up with the current system - its not perfect but I doubt a Numista system would be. Anyway, only Xavier could really approve that kind of overhaul (or a consensus of catalog admins).
I still consider myself new and I never used KM to anything. On the other hand, I totally do not understand keeping coins meant for Austrian Netherlands and of course used there in the Italian states just because they were minted in Milan or in Austra just because they were minted in Vienna. Just look at Cyprus - would say almost every coin was minted in Greece, shal we list them under Greece then? And early greek coinage should be split between UK and France then. We should not follow Krause blindly.
You're describing the exact opposite of Krause so you just gave us Krause people a great argument!
On the other hand I agree that we should not follow Krause blindly, but we should do so as much as possible as long as its logical. Here is a pretty simple quote about Krause that someone sent me on Facebook (they probably don't want their name published here!):
"Krause pays people way more than a bunch of snot nose kids in france
and they have been around longer than some of those kids have been alive so obviously they are doing something right"
Seriously I'm not trying to insult anyone but Krause it pretty good for the kind of data it provides. As such I'd be very wary to deviate a lot from KM.
KM is really the only common denominator among worldwide numismatists. Yes, Krause is American-centric, but every other worldwide catalog is only used in a couple of countries (and the vast majority of catalogs are single country anyway).
Krause, while it may not be the most common worldwide catalog in each and every individual country, is the most common worldwide catalog overall. Numismatists in the US, Tunisia, China, Bulgaria, and Burkina Faso all may very well have a copy of Krause on their shelves. Can you say that about any other catalog? No.
Finally, a little food for thought not relating to Krause:
My Crocione is an example of a homeland type (many British sovereigns are homeland types as well). Perhaps homeland types should be listed under both the origin and homeland countries (not with two entries but with a single, "homeland type" entry, that Xavier can create)?
Numista has around 50,000 member. Let's say, realistically, 5,000 members actually use to catalog. I'm pretty sure Krause is used by more than 5,000 people around the world.
National catalogs may be better for one country - Numista is not a one country catalog. We need to have a consistent model that works for all countries including medieval and ancient coins (which Krause doesn't even deal with). The basic Krause model is already used and its not broken, so why fix it?
I'm all for challenges so I would be happy to work on any reorganization of countries and coins in the Numista catalog.
First coin: at the time the coin was minted, Austria was part of Germany. It did not exist at a separate entity. Hitler refused to speak of "Oesterreich", it was always "Wien". So that coin is a German coin - and Krause agrees with me.
Second coin: The rebellion was an atypical blip in the history and the coins fit the pattern of Austrian Netherlands coins. Of course, that's only because Austrian Netherlands issued coins - if it did not, these coins would be listed under Belgium or 'United Netherlands'.
You mean putting Austrian Netherlands coinage under Milan (Italian states) is not broken? We need massive overhauls, but without team members - which can do catalogue structure changes, we are doomed.
It's not Austrian Netherlands coinage it's a similar (NOT the same) type listed under the correct correct country it was used in AND originated from (Milan mint).
I believe that all of these independent states should have their own country page, regardless of what is the modern day country. Pretty much how Roman coins are not under Italy or most of Europe is not under Rome, even though the Roman empire covered it. The Roman empire was its own entity, and so was Prussia, regardless if it is Germany or Poland today.
We're only grouping some states for practical reasons. And don't forget that Prussia grew and grew to become the biggest country in Confederate Germany before the Zwittes Reich in which Prussia became the "ruling country" of Germany, under the German Empire name... Remembers me the Habsburg family in the HRE...
Administrateur du catalogue, référent de nombreuses nations antiques et de la Lorraine.
Catalogue administrator, numerous Antique nations and Lorraine referee.
Prussia could have its own page, but without coins that are placed in the catalog like Krause, or Parchimowicz, Kopicki, etc. in the section for Poland. I suggested new layout for Poland and Polish - Lithuanian, but can it be implemented?
For example where WCN (the bigest numismatic organization in Poland) puts coins from South Prussia:
).
and I never used KM to anything. On the other hand, I totally do not understand keeping coins meant for Austrian Netherlands and of course used there in the Italian states just because they were minted in Milan or in Austra just because they were minted in Vienna. Just look at Cyprus - would say almost every coin was minted in Greece, shal we list them under Greece then? And early greek coinage should be split between UK and France then. We should not follow Krause blindly. 
