Well, it is quite interesting that you should post this new thread since there was a recent thread on this very forum asking a very similar question https://en.numista.com/forum/topic19665.html
You mentioned in particular the modern Queen Elizabeth II 'I' mintmark sovereigns struck under license in Delhi. These istings have in fact just recently been updated on Numista to include images of some of the Royal Mint packaging https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces69009.html
If you look in the comment section at the last image of the Royal Mint CoA, it clearly states that the issuing authority is the UK and that is one of the reasons for them being listed in the UK catalogue.
Also, the modern Delhi sovereigns and the original 1918 Bombay sovereign are both listed under the UK in the recognised Standard Catalogue of British Coins from Spink.
The above information forms the case for the prosecution; what do you have to say in your defence?
Just because you can't see it ... doesn't mean it isn't there - Anon.
Cita: "BCNumismatics"All those coins actually belong to the coinage series of these countries.
Aidan.
I’d have to disagree, these coins were struck under the crown of England as English colonies so they are English coins therefore they are correctly catalogued. The sovereigns also say that they are From Britain, such as this one
this coin was struck in Melbourne, Australia but the obverse says Britt, for Great Britain
Cita: "BCNumismatics"All those coins actually belong to the coinage series of these countries.
Aidan.
I’d have to disagree, these coins were struck under the crown of England as English colonies so they are English coins therefore they are correctly catalogued. The sovereigns also say that they are From Britain, such as this one
this coin was struck in Melvin, Australia but the obverse says Britt, for Great Britain
I agree with you, but the example you gave was not a good one- post-1910 Australian coins have "BRITT" in the monarch's titles up until decimalisation in 1966, but they are hardly British coins!
That being said I don't think the 2013 sovereign was an Indian coin either.....
Cita: "BCNumismatics"All those coins actually belong to the coinage series of these countries.
Aidan.
I’d have to disagree, these coins were struck under the crown of England as English colonies so they are English coins therefore they are correctly catalogued. The sovereigns also say that they are From Britain, such as this one
this coin was struck in Melvin, Australia but the obverse says Britt, for Great Britain
I think you mean Melbourne .. there is no such place as Melvin.
Master Referee - See my profile for what I collect.
Cita: "BCNumismatics"All those coins actually belong to the coinage series of these countries.
Aidan.
I’d have to disagree, these coins were struck under the crown of England as English colonies so they are English coins therefore they are correctly catalogued. The sovereigns also say that they are From Britain, such as this one
this coin was struck in Melvin, Australia but the obverse says Britt, for Great Britain
I think you mean Melbourne .. there is no such place as Melvin.
The Royal Mint, among many others, have produced coins under licence for a multitude of countries and the practice continues to the present day. Some smaller nations don't even have a mint. To be consistent such a ruling would mean entire countries would have 100% of their coins removed and placed under The United Kingdom. A coin's country of origin is surely defined by where it was intended to be used, not by where it was struck. Imagine the chaos if all those thousands of junk Liberian commemoratives were to be transferred to the United States because that's where the Franklin Mint is located?
There is actually a bit of an inconsistency in the above argument though. The 1950 and 1951 UK Pennies were intended to be used in the West Indies (which is why the mintage figures are so low) and several minor silver coins were for Colonial use only. However as they are in all respects identical to those coins intended for domestic use they have always been considered to be "British". This is I believe the most sensible approach. It's inconceivable that a 1950s London shopkeeper would refuse one, every album I've ever seen has spaces for them, no major catalog lists them as anything other than British and I've never met a collector who excludes them.
Some years ago I bought a couple of YH Sovereigns from AMPEX which were described as "British" but on receipt I was somewhat disappointed to receive two with the M mint mark. Clearly these were intended to circulate in Australia and were struck in Melbourne. While I might wish to convince myself that they should be British, I have to agree with the OP that they are 100% Australian.
In short I guess the best approach is to catalog coins with no distinctive marks under the parent country and for those which do have mint marks, under the country they were intended to circulate in.
Non illegitimis carborundum est. Excellent advice for all coins.
Make Numismatics Great Again!
To catalog them in any other country will create recurring work for the catalog admins, who will have to process many "please move this coin to UK" requests.
The question is not where it was struck but who is the issuing authority (and eventually the country where the coin is legal tender and circulates).
A coin can be issued by Peru or Germany but struck in Angola or Malaysia, it stays a Peruvian or a German coin.
Sapientiae plerumque stultitia est comes.
Si c'est un grand plaisir d'être reconnu par ses amis, c'est peut-être encore plus flatteur d'être reconnu par ses adversaires.
Be yourself; everyone else is already taken.
Sorry to resurrect this topic, but we have some inconsistencies on how these coins are listed in the catalogue. The Australia and South African mint marked coins are listed under the respective countries however Canada and India are listed under the UK.
Now we know that there are arguments for both sides as above. However do we think that in this instance there should be 2 issuing authorities, because we now allow multiple ruling authorities why not 2 issuing authorities. As reading the history of the sovereign it appears that Australia and others had to make a request to Great Britain to be allowed to strike sovereigns. Whereas India was at the bequest of GB to start minting for the year.
We also know that in the UK people accepted sovereign regardless whether they were M, S, P, I, SA or C.
Do we see a difference between issuing authority and striking country? Would it be better to list under UK but put the Mint as the respective country?
The aim must be to create consistency across the catalogue.
The Indian sovereigns were struck in India for circulation in India. They were a temporary measure (along with the gold 15 rupee coins), as supplies from Australia were interrupted due to WWI. They should therefore be listed under India.
The same can be said for the Canadian sovereigns and they should be listed under Canada. The sovereign was legal tender in Canada (at the rather awkward $4.8666), so the argument that the Canadian sovereigns weren't for use in Canada simply doesn't make sense.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Cita: "ceh2019"The Indian sovereigns were struck in India for circulation in India. They were a temporary measure (along with the gold 15 rupee coins), as supplies from Australia were interrupted due to WWI. They should therefore be listed under India.
The same can be said for the Canadian sovereigns and they should be listed under Canada. The sovereign was legal tender in Canada (at the rather awkward $4.8666), so the argument that the Canadian sovereigns weren't for use in Canada simply doesn't make sense.
Definitely should be listed under the country where they were struck, given the fact that Canadian Sovereigns are listed in Canadian catalogues as Canadian coins.
