I was adding this to my collection earlier: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces19567.html and surely it should be listed under British Guiana (or Guyana as Numista likes to list under current name only! ) and west indies? However, there is no way to put a coin under 2 countries... What are people's thoughts on this?
You only listed three -- the last two links are the same.
My records also say that the 1838 token issues were for both British Guiana and the West Indies, but I'm away from my library right now and I'm not sure of the source of that information.
Because if yes, only thing we need to do is to move the coins…
PS: I added see also links to BWI to Guyana and Demerara and Essequibo.
Even today, Guyana is classed as being part of the West Indies, even though Guyana is in South America, because of its culture.
Cricket players from Guyana actually play in the West Indies cricket team.
Guyanese cuisine actually has a lot of common elements similar to the cuisines of the other Commonwealth Caribbean islands - including the use of spices.
Aidan.
Status gewijzigd naar Afgekeurd(Compendium, 21-aug-2023, 00:17)
I know that more than a year ago this topic was rejected, but with the new Numista feature I think it should be recovered and the issuers/periods British Guiana and, possibly also, British Guiana & West Indies should be created, which is how the issuer is described in some coins of this period. 😊
Coin referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Liberia and Spain
Banknote referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea and Spain
Status gewijzigd naar Geopend(Compendium, 29-okt-2023, 18:30)
Since the coins were not intended for Guiana only, I believe they should be listed with issuer Guyana.
Also, British Guiana was part of the British West Indies, so I believe it's reasonable to list the coins with issuer British West Indies.
I made a catalogue modification request accordingly.
Why is there reticence to restore British Guiana now that other deleted issuers have been restored? Let's set out what exists, then we can decide what needs to be an “issuer” and what can be a “sub-issuer”.
British Guiana
All guilder denominated coins issued in 1836 and stiver tokens dated 1838. These are currently in Guyana within the currency “British Guianan Guilder (1796-1839)” This will need changing to “Guilder (1836-1839)” within British Guiana.
British Guiana and West Indies
Fourpences issued between 1891 and 1916. The Royal Mint Report of 1891 (page 20) clearly states that British Guiana was not part of the British West Indies, so this probably needs to be a separate “(sub)-issuer” with a currency “Dollar (1891-1916)”.
British Guiana
Fourpences issued between 1917 and 1945. The Royal Mint Report of 1917 (page 12) discusses the change to issuing these coins only in British Guiana, whilst the 1938 report (pages 13-14) discusses the demonetization of the fourpences in the West Indies in 1917.
Dollar-denominated notes between 1916 and 1942.
“Dollar (1916-1950)” seems like the right currency, since British Guiana started using the BCTEG dollar in 1950.
Clearly British Guiana is a sub-issuer of Guyana, so the only question is whether we make British Guiana and West Indies another sub-issuer or a completely separate issuer, like Rhodesia and Nyasaland is separate from Zimbabwe.
I would also make a case for including the circulation twopences issued between 1838 and 1848 and the fourpences of 1888 in British Guiana and West Indies for the same reasons we moved the third farthings to Malta. However, let's get the obvious corrections done first.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Why being so vindicative about having “British Guiana” in the list of issuers. I merely tried to help with the initial request, which didn't mention British Guiana.
Your message explores several interessant options to improve the current cataloguing of these coins. I'll focus on the question of British Guiana and West Indies for the moment. We can address the rest later.
In the Royal Mint Report of 1891 (page 20), which you cited, I believe you refer to the following extract:
Representations have been received from the Governor of British Guiana, as well as of certain of the West India Islands, […]
My understanding is that it implies that there were different governors for Guiana, for Barbados, for Windward Islands, etc. for the other West India Islands. It doesn't imply that that they were not collectively part of a bigger group “British West Indies” and this term is not even mentioned.
I'm not being vindictive, just promoting accuracy.
You can find a full list of British Guiana and Guyana's political statuses here. As you can see, British Guiana was not part of any larger colonial organization. In contrast, the Leeward Islands and Windward Islands constituted Federal Colonies and were briefly part of the Federation of the West Indies which included other islands but not Guyana. To the best of my knowledge, the only time Guyana is included in the West Indies is in cricket.
I agree that we need to revisit the current British West Indies issuer and would support a straight switch to “British Colonies” for these coins. It's important to note that, at the time these coins were circulating in the West Indies, Demerary and Essequibo (the forerunner of British Guiana) had it's own currency, the guilder, so there's no link.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
You can find a full list of British Guiana and Guyana's political statuses here. As you can see, British Guiana was not part of any larger colonial organization. In contrast, the Leeward Islands and Windward Islands constituted Federal Colonies and were briefly part of the Federation of the West Indies which included other islands but not Guyana.
Four links for one same source; and this source is not even mentionning if British Guiana was or not part of BWI, lets not jump on conclusions based on a simple list of events and governors.
2 sources shared by Xavier mention BG was part of BWI, why do you think they are wrong?
I provided four links to different sections of the same source, which is not just a list of governors and events but includes clear information about which islands constituted the Federation of the West Indies (Antigua [with Barbuda], Barbados, Dominica, Grenada, Jamaica [with the Cayman Islands and the Turks and Caicos], Montserrat, St. Christopher-Nevis-Anguilla, St. Lucia, St. Vincent, Trinidad and Tobago), a list which does not include British Guiana.
Xavier's two links are Wikipedia (not a primary source and notoriously unreliable) and a classroom resource, neither of which say anything about British Guiana being part of a political entity called the British West Indies, rather, they use this term as a geographical description. Indeed, the term “British West Indies” only appears once in the main text of the Wikipedia article and is separated from British Guiana in one of the references.
As I mentioned, the West Indies cricket team includes players from Guyana but that doesn't mean British Guiana was ever a part of any colonial grouping with those islands. The links I provided prove this. If British Guiana had been part of a larger colony, it would be listed there, just like Grenada's successive membership of the Windward Islands, then the Federation of the West Indies is listed.
Finally, we have the evidence of the coins themselves. If British Guiana had been part of the British West Indies, why put both names on the coins? Why not just use British West Indies?
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Ok. So the question is simple: do we consider “British West Indies” = “Federation of the West Indies” only or a larger category, maybe not political per se but geographical/cultural.
I'll let others decide on that, but want to state geographical/cultural groupings are not forbidden on Numista, we have many of them as a matter of fact.
I wouldn't quite put it like that. If I've understood Xavier correctly, he doesn't want to use “British Guiana” or “British Guiana and West Indies” as a sub-issuer of Guyana because they were part of a larger issuer “British West Indies”. The only political entity with approximately that name existed between 1958 and 1962 and excluded British Guiana. All the evidence indicates that British Guiana was a separate colony throughout its existence.
I agree that we sometimes have to use groupings that didn't correspond to political entities, such as Qatar and Dubai. When a shared currency existed, we have no choice. This is the category British Guiana and West Indies falls into. It should be noted that only some of the islands later included in the federation used these coins, namely Barbados and the Leeward and Windward Islands, excluding Jamaica and Trinidad. To me, this is all the more reason to treat this grouping as a separate sub-issuer or issuer.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
My humble opinion on this topic is very close to what ceh2019 comments on, but with some nuances.
I believe that, in the case of coins where only British Guiana is indicated, the issue is clear. I think a sub-issuer should be created under Guyana with that name. My opinion is that, regardless of whether it belongs to British West Indies or not, British Guiana simply changed its name to Guyana when it became independent and, as has been commented lately, a sub-issuer should be made under Guyana since it was a colony and had a name change.
Jamaica “also” belonged to British West Indies and, for the coins of the period in which British West Indies existed, these coins are under Jamaica issuer and not under British West Indies. It is exactly the same case but in one there is a name change (British Guiana - Guyana) and in the other there is not (Jamaica - Jamaica)
The case of the British Guiana & West Indies coins is somewhat more complex, since it belongs to two issuers at the same time. I personally would create an independent issuer called that, but this case is not so clear to me, since separating these coins from those that only say British Guiana does not seem the most logical to me either (they follow the same pattern, face value, dimensions, etc.. .)
Coin referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Liberia and Spain
Banknote referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea and Spain
The case of the British Guiana & West Indies coins is somewhat more complex, since it belongs to two issuers at the same time. I personally would create an independent issuer called that, but this case is not so clear to me, since separating these coins from those that only say British Guiana does not seem the most logical to me either (they follow the same pattern, face value, dimensions, etc.. .)
I agree, it would be nice to find a way to keep all the fourpences linked together. I think a sub-issuer within Guyana is probably the easiest solution but is it the best?
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
To bring up a topic regarding the anchor coinage of West Indies, some auction houses and catalogs have listed them under Mauritius or British colonies. Should these remain under “British West Indies” or otherwise?
Kenny
- Verifying your Asian and British-territorial coins everyday with the best quality photos and the best information.
To bring up a topic regarding the anchor coinage of West Indies, some auction houses and catalogs have listed them under Mauritius or British colonies. Should these remain under “British West Indies” or otherwise?
Considering what's on the coins and where they circulated, “British Colonies” seems the obvious place for these coins. We used to have “French Colonies” but that has now been amalgamated into French West Indies, causing more confusion given where they were issued.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
) and west indies? However, there is no way to put a coin under 2 countries... What are people's thoughts on this? 
