Counting Countries

It appears that adding Crete (1901) increased my country count (I already had Greece input), but adding the Kingdom of Hawaii (1883) did not increase my count.

Have I misunderstood how countries are counted?

If I understood you correctly, then neither of those should have given you an increase in country count (assuming you already had coins from Greece and the US listed), but both should have given you an increase in issuer count.

Hawaii did not increase the count, Crete did.

Are you sure you didn't add anything else? I subtracted my Crete coin and added it back and it only changed my issuer count as it's designed to do.

A different discussion of course is whether Hawai'i, Newfoundland and Crete should be countries or issuers. And they should all be countries because they were not part of the United States, Canada and Greece respectively when their coins were made. Joining later should not influence that, but around here it does for some reason.

But to confirm if something is wrong, subtract your Crete or Hawai'i coin and see if the count changes as it's menat to and add it back to see which column changed.

I deleted Hawaii and Crete; the Country Count went down by 1; Issuer Count decreased by 2.

Re-added Hawaii; Country Count up 0; Issuer Count up 1.

Re-added Crete; both counts up 1.

Hawaii was definitely sovereign in 1883 (the king was even the guest of Queen Victoria).

How do you join the "300 Club", when the entire Numista catalog only recognizes 292 Countries??

Hawaii was a sovereign country. Not remotely disputable.

It is, of course, proper to call it part of the USA for the Maui Trade Dollars and the related exonumia and fantasy coins, but not the 1847 and 1883 coinage.

If a country has been essentially absorbed by another country that issues coins, then it is listed under the new country, like the coin issuing emirates of the United Arab Emirates. That is the way countries are generally considered in Numista. Issuing countries that no longer exist but have been split among different countries (Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Ottoman Empire, and others) remain countries. One big inconsistent treatment in Numista is the constituent countries of the Netherlands, which remain countries for some reason instead of issuers. I would argue the situation of the Netherlands is similar to Denmark and its constituent countries and France and its overseas departments. I think it could also be argued that Soviet Union could be a country separate from Russia as a current country but including Russia-Empire as an issuer. Can't satisfy everybody but Numista is about 99% consistent in its treatment of countries and issuers.

Will

How do you join the "300 Club", when the entire Numista catalog only recognizes 292 Countries??

Cita: "halfdisme"​How do you join the "300 Club", when the entire Numista catalog only recognizes 292 Countries??

​IIRC the 300 countries club went defunct ever since the country list was rearranged to be the way it is now. Before then, I remember all issuers were "countries" (e.g. Saar, French Guiana and Austrian Netherlands were all countries like Japan, Burundi and Costa Rica are).

I'm not sure whether it should be located under the USA, but yes, I can confirm that Hawai'i was 100% independent and sovereign until its annexation in 1898 (perhaps not after 1893, but that's irrelevant here).

Sounds like it is now the "300 Issuers Club", which is still an achievement for new collectors.

I am still learning the "lay of the land". It looks like German notgeld locations are separate issuers, but French "notgeld" issuers might all be counted as one issuer.

Cita: "halfdisme"​Sounds like it is now the "300 Issuers Club", which is still an achievement for new collectors.
​
​I am still learning the "lay of the land". It looks like German notgeld locations are separate issuers, but French "notgeld" issuers might all be counted as one issuer.

​I don't know if they're behind on this or if it's just another inconsistency but German, Italian, Austrian, Hungarian states and Swiss cantons etc are issuers, but Chinese provinces are not, neither are pre-federal US states or Canadian provinces

German and Italian states were sovereign entities, most at least until 1871 and 1861 respectively, so they should definitely stay the way they are; while I think the existence of the issuers Austrian and Hungarian states are really only for the sake of numismatic differentiation, so I'm less sure about those....

Chinese provinces though, should definitely not be separate issuers!

Swiss Cantons were definitely independent republics until Napoleon forced them to unify into the Helvetian Republic--they even revolted against him for forcing them to join!

(After regaining their independence, they decided that together was better!)

We tried to create country list somehow coherent and balance that with desire not to create controversy.

I would just like to say that if country is issuer, it does not mean that it was not independent or something like that.

What might be useful is fourth level issuers; so, say, there'd be a third-level listing for Württemberg, with fourth-level subsections for the County, Duchy, Electorate, and Kingdom (and maybe the hyphenated Württemberg places as well).

The actual use case I had in mind is Roman provinces > province > city; I guess another would be German notgeld > province > actual issuer. (That might well require a fifth level...)
But it might be useful for categorizing the similar German states as well.

(Looks like ancient Greece is finally getting reorganized, by the way. I should gain one or two more issuers soon...)

It appears that all the Australian colonial tokens are counted as one "issuer", and all the New Zealand colonial tokens are counted as one "issuer".

(Prior to 1900, Australia was administered as six separate colonies by the British Crown.)

It also appears that the coinage of the individual States of the United States under the Articles of Confederation are also counted, along with all the other Pre-Federal Coinage, as being one "issuer". (Each State had sovereign control of its own monetary system, until it ratified the U. S. Constitution.)

One would expect the definition of "issuer" to be applied worldwide.

Perhaps the bias toward Germanic locations in the counts has not been noticed, but that appears to be what has happened.

(It is somewhat ironic that I am even discussing this, since I repeatedly told the Everycountry Collectors Group that this was not a "numbers game", and would not disclose how many different locations I had.)

Cita: "halfdisme"​(It is somewhat ironic that I am even discussing this, since I repeatedly told the Everycountry Collectors Group that this was not a "numbers game", and would not disclose how many different locations I had.)

You don't think it is a "numbers game." I don't think "hen peck for a mint mark game."

​Everybody collects differently.

Cita: "jadejackal"​

Cita: "halfdisme"​(It is somewhat ironic that I am even discussing this, since I repeatedly told the Everycountry Collectors Group that this was not a "numbers game", and would not disclose how many different locations I had.)
​
​

​You don't think it is a "numbers game." I don't think "hen peck for a mint mark game."
​
​​Everybody collects differently.

​Who is talking about mintmarks? I am talking about sovereign States and private companies that had more unilateral control over their coin mintages than any euro member nation now has.

Of course our collections are biased--I know one collector who collects one per country with copper coins only. A worldwide, comprehensive catalog should NOT be biased.

If you treat issuers of other countries differently, do not be surprised if members do not invest the time to add their collections in those areas to your catalog, and enrich your listings in their respective areas.

Cita: "halfdisme"​

Cita: "jadejackal"​
​

Cita: "halfdisme"​(It is somewhat ironic that I am even discussing this, since I repeatedly told the Everycountry Collectors Group that this was not a "numbers game", and would not disclose how many different locations I had.)
​​
​​

​​You don't think it is a "numbers game." I don't think "hen peck for a mint mark game."
​​
​​​Everybody collects differently.

​​Who is talking about mintmarks? I am talking about sovereign States and private companies that had more unilateral control over their coin mintages than any euro member nation now has.
​
​Of course our collections are biased--I know one collector who collects one per country with copper coins only. A worldwide, comprehensive catalog should NOT be biased.
​
​If you treat issuers of other countries differently, do not be surprised if members do not invest the time to add their collections in those areas to your catalog, and enrich your listings in their respective areas.

​I think the "hen peck for a mint mark" thing is poking fun at how many (most) modern coin collectors believe that a barely visible mintmark can change the coin's value by orders of magnitude.
(Which it can, because that's how value works, but it does sound silly when stated that way.)

I actually have no idea why, say, the Argentine provinces are disunified and the Canadian provinces are not; I prefer to think of it as a reorganization in progress.
(Literally in progress right now for the Ancient Greece listings.)

I also have no idea, even within that framework, what to do with merchant tokens and the like, as there are usually too many would-be issuers to just lump them all into one list; this is why I proposed fourth-level issuers (and German Notgeld might well require a fifth level - Germany, German Notgeld, province, city, actual issuer - to distinguish between, say, this and this).

To use your own example, "James Campbell, Morpeth, NSW" is a terrible name for an issuer. The way I would structure if I could it is either Australia > Australia - Colonial > New South Wales > James Campbell - Morpeth merchant (4th level), or Australia > Australia - Colonial > New South Wales > Morpeth > James Campbell (5th level), the latter being almost certain if there was more than one token issuer in Morpeth (I have no idea whether there was).
(Or, I guess, just Australia > Australia - Colonial > New South Wales > Morpeth, ignoring the distinction between individual merchants.)

Within a three-level framework, the best option is probably either Australia > Australia - Colonial > New South Wales (and lumping all the NSW tokens there), or Australia > Australia - Colonial > Morpeth, NSW (lumping all the issuing towns into a single list).
I think the former is closer to what we do now (compare Mexico > Mexico - Revolutionary > Guerrero, without distinction between issues of, say, Atlixtac and Taxco).

It would seem that your 5-level scheme is necessary, unless you focus on location and eliminate the time element, in which case "Australia-Colonial" or "German Notgeld" is unnecessary, and you have 4 levels. In either event, it would still be appropriate to count "issuers" at the last level.

As the system now counts, posting 18 Australian Colonial currency tokens and 15 New Zealand ones, resulted in an increase of 2 "issuers".

Cita: "January First-of-May"​=1em​​I think the "hen peck for a mint mark" thing is poking fun at how many (most) modern coin collectors believe that a barely visible mintmark can change the coin's value by orders of magnitude.
​(Which it can, because that's how value works, but it does sound silly when stated that way.)
​

​On the other hand, there are instances where those mintmarks determine in what country the coin is cataloged, such as:
Roman Empire
Spanish Colonial
Great Britain gold sovereigns

Cita: "halfdisme"​

Cita: "January First-of-May"​=1em​​I think the "hen peck for a mint mark" thing is poking fun at how many (most) modern coin collectors believe that a barely visible mintmark can change the coin's value by orders of magnitude.
​​(Which it can, because that's how value works, but it does sound silly when stated that way.)
​​
​
​

​​On the other hand, there are instances where those mintmarks determine in what country the coin is cataloged, such as:
​Roman Empire
​Spanish Colonial
​Great Britain gold sovereigns

​True for (some of) the sovereigns (and this infuriated me when I realized it while looking at the Australia - Colonial listings today). Kind of true for Spanish colonial as well, I guess - never really thought of it that way. Surprisingly not true for Central African States.
(Another infuriating case is the Warsaw Mint coppers occasionally catalogued under Poland; though, IIRC, they're still under Russia - Empire on Numista right now, just in separate types from their non-Warsaw counterparts.)

Can't think of a Roman Empire example - which coins were you referring to?

For British gold sovereigns, do not forget South Africa (SA), Canada (C), and India (I) mintmarks.

As to the British gold sovereigns struck at Australian mints, prior to 1900, Australia was administered as six separate colonies. Were the gold sovereigns struck in one mint intended to be circulated in all six colonies, or primarily for use in the one in which they were struck? (Rather depends upon whether the mintages were driven by local demand, or by the local availability of the bullion.)

Roman Empire--I was thinking about the "mint mark/mint letters" for 3rd/4th century coppers, such as ANT (Antioch), LON (Londinium), etc., which would be found in catalogs for other countries, as well as under colonial coinages in the Roman catalogs. (I have not looked to see how Numista treats them.)

Of the Spanish Colonial mintmarks, my favorite is the PTS (Potosi Mint) for 1810-1820--cataloged in most catalogs as Bolivia when it is controlled by Royalist forces; changes to Argentina (Provincias del Rio de la Plata) when held by the insurgents, then goes back to Bolivia, then back to Argentina. To my knowledge, the mint building never moved!!