Hey, it seems like the Ottawa Mint Sovereign is listed as non-circulating, whereas it should be circulating as they were issued and used in Canada and the Empire at large.
I agree. However, we need evidence if we're going to change this. Can you provide some? I've tried and not been able to find an authoritative source. The best I can come up with is the fact that Canada declared the sovereign legal tender (see pages 23 and 33 of this document from the Bank of Canada). The question is, were these specific sovereigns put into circulation in Canada?
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
I agree. However, we need evidence if we're going to change this. Can you provide some? I've tried and not been able to find an authoritative source. The best I can come up with is the fact that Canada declared the sovereign legal tender (see pages 23 and 33 of this document from the Bank of Canada). The question is, were these specific sovereigns put into circulation in Canada?
I don't to be honest. Don't have Sovereigns but I thought it was simply known by everyone. It is there in the Charlton Guide apparently, but I don not have one right now. Anyways, weren't all sovereigns struck in this time period for circulation?
I found a key reference in the Charlton Standard Catalogue for Canadian coins, noting that the Ottawa branch began striking sovereigns for circulation in 1909 (the 1908 strikes were limited, and intended to establish the series). Based on that information, I've requested a change in the “c” sovereigns from non-circulating, to standard circulation coins.
I agree the “c” sovereigns should be listed under Canada, based on the fact that a place was included for sovereigns in Canadian mint sets produced in 1911 (in addition to spots for the silver coins, the copper penny, and 5 and 10 gold coins).
The Royal Canadian Mint issued a gold coin in 2019, commemorating a century since the last “c” sovereign was struck in Ottawa. So it appears that the RCM considers “c” sovereigns to be a part of Canadian numismatic history.
I feel it's because some national catalogues do consider those mints as roots of their own numismatic history they do reference the coins in their numbering system, but by our guidelines they really should be gathered within the British empire area
I feel it's because some national catalogues do consider those mints as roots of their own numismatic history they do reference the coins in their numbering system, but by our guidelines they really should be gathered within the British empire area
We don't have a “British empire area” at the moment. All we have is the UK, which is where these sovereigns are currently placed. If these coins were struck in Canada for circulation in Canada, which guideline says we should put them in another country? Bear in mind that the Australian and South African sovereigns are listed under those countries.
If you're suggesting we separate the Imperial coinage (as refered to in the Royal Mint's Annual Reports) from the earlier and later coinage of the UK, we can have that discussion but I suspect we'll find that solution very difficult to implement.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
My own feeling is that as these sovereigns were legal tender in the UK and, apart from the mint mark, are the same as those minted in the UK they should be listed under the UK.
I assume they weren't exclusively for use in the countries in which they were minted were they? They would have been used in Britain as well presumably. At that time British coins were used in many other countries.
The only difference with these coins is where they were minted. This is not normally a deciding factor, is it?
I know it will be controversial but perhaps the Australian and South African minted ones should also be listed under the UK?
I'm sure our Australian and South African collectors perhaps won't agree though!
Incidentally the sovereigns of all the mints, UK and others, all appear in Spink's Catalogue of British coins.
My own feeling is that as these sovereigns were legal tender in the UK and, apart from the mint mark, are the same as those minted in the UK they should be listed under the UK.
I assume they weren't exclusively for use in the countries in which they were minted were they? They would have been used in Britain as well presumably. At that time British coins were used in many other countries.
The only difference with these coins is where they were minted. This is not normally a deciding factor, is it?
I know it will be controversial but perhaps the Australian and South African minted ones should also be listed under the UK?
I'm sure our Australian and South African collectors perhaps won't agree though!
Incidentally the sovereigns of all the mints, UK and others, all appear in Spink's Catalogue of British coins.
Don't shoot me! Just my opinion.
With Respect
Lee
It's not that they weren't British per se, but also that they were made in these regions partially to address local needs and with the local areas in mind. The same way that so many ex-Spanish colonies had local coinage that is now considered to be a part of the coinage of the region rather than simply Spanish coinage. In Australia as an example, Sovereigns were made to facilitate the flow of locally mined gold and were used extensively, similar to South Africa. In India, the local 1918 Sovereigns flowed freely with other gold coins and were made specifically for the purpose of meeting local demand for coinage due to the war. In Canada, they were made for the purpose of coining gold from the Yukon and making trade easier between the colonies.
Ah, that's interesting! I assumed they used local gold but thought it was more because of this that they were minted in these countries, rather than them needing sovereigns locally.
It does seem odd though that they didn't use a totally different design. Much like the earlier Australian ones.
Regardless. Due to them being the same design etc. I feel they should be listed with the other British coins.
I think a few assumptions are being made that may not be entirely valid. Why should we think that coins struck in Canada, which were legal tender in Canada (see the 1910 Currency Act on page 173 of the Royal Mint Annual Report), were struck for use in the UK? They could have been used in the UK but that doesn't imply that they were solely intended to do so. The Canadian sovereigns were not all shipped accross the Atlantic after they were struck.
We have to remember that the coinages of the dominions generally evolved out of that of the UK. When it came to the sovereign, this was the cornerstone of sterling, so using the same design made sense in order to ensure acceptance.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
I think a few assumptions are being made that may not be entirely valid. Why should we think that coins struck in Canada, which were legal tender in Canada (see the 1910 Currency Act on page 173 of the Royal Mint Annual Report), were struck for use in the UK? They could have been used in the UK but that doesn't imply that they were solely intended to do so. The Canadian sovereigns were not all shipped accross the Atlantic after they were struck.
We have to remember that the coinages of the dominions generally evolved out of that of the UK. When it came to the sovereign, this was the cornerstone of sterling, so using the same design made sense in order to ensure acceptance.
They were used locally, but were also meant for trade. What was found in Canada was that American (and Newfie) gold was pretty popular, with both of these being decently scarcer than what large merchants and Banks would have liked. When this happened, and in the long term, uniquely Canadian Gold pieces denominated in dollars were introduced but before that, the minting of sovereigns (which were legal tender) was considered to be one way that the government could alleviate the stress of gold requirements.
I feel it's because some national catalogues do consider those mints as roots of their own numismatic history they do reference the coins in their numbering system, but by our guidelines they really should be gathered within the British empire area
I would vote for a British Empire issuer or allow coins to have multiple countries.
Further to the discussion on how to classify “C” sovereigns (British or Canadian), there's an interesting article in a recent edition of “Canadian Coin News” (Vol. 63, No. 25, March 10-23, 2026) highlighting the top 10 sales of Canadian coins in 2025. Three of the top 10 coins are “C” sovereigns. The article notes “collectors increasingly treat Canadian-issue sovereigns not as minor offshoots of the British series, but as national key pieces in their own right.” Regardless of how Numista classifies "C" sovereigns, within the Canadian numismatic community these coins are generally viewed as being Canadian.
As for Canadian collectors who want to argue that these are Canadian, it's more wishful thinking than fact. Back then, it was part of the mandate of the Ottawa Branch of the Royal Mint (the predecessor of the RCM) to strike sovereigns if they were so asked.
The sovereign was (I believe) legal tender here, but so was the much more common US gold.
The Ottawa Branch struck coins for Jamaica with the mintmark “C” (for example pennies 1918–1919). Should these be considered Canadian?
Note also that the effigies of both Edward and George are of the bare head type used in the UK but not on any Canadian denominations, which are decimal unlike the UK pound/sovereign.
So the coin pages as they stand are right: these are circulating issues for the UK. Here they are for reference:
EDIT — I agree with @Compendium that “All those Sovereigns should be gathered in one single Numista page per our guidelines, where mint letter alone does not qualify for distinct subtype.”
As for Canadian collectors who want to argue that these are Canadian, it's more wishful thinking than fact. Back then, it was part of the mandate of the Ottawa Branch of the Royal Mint (the predecessor of the RCM) to strike sovereigns if they were so asked.
The sovereign was (I believe) legal tender here, but so was the much more common US gold.
The Ottawa Branch struck coins for Jamaica with the mintmark “C” (for example pennies 1918–1919). Should these be considered Canadian?
Note also that the effigies of both Edward and George are of the bare head type used in the UK but not on any Canadian denominations, which are decimal unlike the UK pound/sovereign.
So the coin pages as they stand are right: these are circulating issues for the UK. Here they are for reference:
I would like to disagree here, the Ottawa mint was set up specifically to meet the needs of Canadian coinage, and the Sovereign was ordered as part of that need to better assist with financial transactions (across the Empire and in International trade) on behalf of the Canadian Government and for local use as savings and currency. While American Gold was the most common gold in Canada used when the Sovereigns were first issued, Gold Sovereigns were used as well (interesting note here, but Newfoundland Two Dollar Gold pieces were also very popular in Eastern Canada, and in parts of the American Northeast). Canada was the first Dominion and a part of the British Empire that got it's right to coin silver early, and the the only part of the Empire (apart from India) which minted circulating Gold Coinage in a system separate from the British Pound, but these gold coins (which it was originally intended to produce in 1910, but got delayed till 1912) came later. The Gold Sovereign was still the coin of the realm and popular in Canada. The coins were also minted entirely of Gold mined from Canada, at the request of the Canadian Government to monetize the Gold for Canada's aims, similarly to South Africa and Australia which are under their own respective nations.
The issue is therefore the guidelines. When they create an obvious error such as this, they need changing. Remember that this would have us move the Australian and South African sovereigns out of those countries.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
I agree they should all be under a British Empire issuer to make it simpler in trying to work out which country they should be under…
But when would you start and stop using this issuer? English then British coins were used in colonies for centuries and probably still pop up in Dependencies to this day. I assume you wouldn't include any issues that name the colony or dominion but that still moves a lot of coins whose place of circulation is clear, e.g., the Maltese third farthings. The only appeal I can see to putting the Imperial coinage all in one place is that it's easy. That doesn't make it accurate.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
- If the Canadian sovereign was authorized to be struck by the Canadian government, and they circulated in Canada to some significant extent (even if they also circulated elsewhere) it should be a Canadian coin.
- If it was authorized to be struck by the UK government using the Ottawa mint, and the the bags of coins were shipped to UK, and primarily circulated there, it goes under UK
Certainly it is an unusual case where the coins were struck without the name of the issuing entity, each of which (Canada, Australia, etc.) were at a different stage of independence.
I think the rule about mint letters not justifying new types is meant to apply within an issuer, not across issuers.
And, lastly, the coins could be linked by the Series feature.
They are in my opinion British coins. Mint mark is irrelevant, as is even more so, where they were used.
Other British coins were used in other countries/dependencies but they are still British. They shouldn't be listed under a country just because they are used there or even because they are minted there.
If they have a design, unique to that country, then they should be listed under that country. Same design (other than mint mark) then British.
To use Spink as an example, and Krause for that matter, homeland type pennies (for example 1950 & 1951) and many other coins, are all listed as British even if not issued for use in Britain. As are all of these different mint mark sovereigns.
At the same time I also understand why Canadian, Australian and other collectors would take issue with this view. But logic dictates I feel.
The assignment of the issuer in Numista is mostly about which authority issued the coin, and where it circulated.
The design is not a factor.
I think all catalogs tend to err on the side of inclusiveness, so “borderline” types where there is some ambiguity will show up in multiple catalogs (Charlton and Spink in this instance, but there are many others).
When the coin circulated in multiple places, we keep it with the place it was struck, since we cant put it in multiple places. Italian florin, Dutch ducat, etc. are other examples.
I'm interested in this debate because when I first encountered this site, I couldn't find an entry on "c" sovereigns. My various Krause guides had them listed under Canada, so it took some searching before I tried the UK section.
The way I see it, like every other Canadian denomination minted at that time,
- the sovereign was minted at the request of the Canadian - not British - government,
- the value of the sovereign was established in legislation by the Canadian - not British - Parliament,
- the sovereign was intended for use in Canada, and
- the Ottawa mint included sovereigns along with other Canadian coins in 1911 mint sets.
I agree they should all be under a British Empire issuer to make it simpler in trying to work out which country they should be under…
But when would you start and stop using this issuer? English then British coins were used in colonies for centuries and probably still pop up in Dependencies to this day. I assume you wouldn't include any issues that name the colony or dominion but that still moves a lot of coins whose place of circulation is clear, e.g., the Maltese third farthings. The only appeal I can see to putting the Imperial coinage all in one place is that it's easy. That doesn't make it accurate.
Why can't we have 2 issuers…? Both British Empire and whichever country or colony is used.
I agree they should all be under a British Empire issuer to make it simpler in trying to work out which country they should be under…
But when would you start and stop using this issuer? English then British coins were used in colonies for centuries and probably still pop up in Dependencies to this day. I assume you wouldn't include any issues that name the colony or dominion but that still moves a lot of coins whose place of circulation is clear, e.g., the Maltese third farthings. The only appeal I can see to putting the Imperial coinage all in one place is that it's easy. That doesn't make it accurate.
Why can't we have 2 issuers…? Both British Empire and whichever country or colony is used.
As in, a British Empire that covers every part of the Empire and a sepearate issuer for each colony and country? Even so, it would be very difficult to split it. Do we put, say, colonial groat and two pence issues under the Uk or the British Empire? If we put it under the British Empire, how can we justify it covering both Guyana or Sri Lanka (where they were used) and then a place like East Africa or India also being under the same banner? Are we moving the British Trade Dollar there? All Colonial Sovereigns? I think it would be best to just put the sovereigns under the nations where they were minted (London mint → UK, Ottawa → Canada, Pretoria → South Africa, Bombay → British India, Perth/Melbourne/Sydney → Australia). Maybe the Trade Dollar can be considered for such an Imperial designation? I think it would remain with the United Kingdom, but nonetheless, a British Empire Issuer would be very confusing and not be properly reflected on the Map.
I agree this is an unusual example for modern coinage, where the same type is struck at mints in multiple issuers (maybe this was more common in some earlier eras?).
And I agree that we could use additional language in the section of the guidelines title “Issuer” to point out this possibility.
The same design except for the mintmarks, which tell us one was struck in Péru, the other in México. No one (thankfully) is suggesting we create a Spanish Empire issuer for such pieces but the same logic would apply.
However, help is at hand. There is a specific exception in the guidelines for “Different mints associated with significant differences”. I think that is what Compendium was hinting at. If necessary, we should add these sovereigns to the examples listed and end this discussion, I hope, once and for all with the Canadian sovereigns listed in Canada.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
I could not find a reference giving the value in Canadian dollars of the day, but using a 15:1 ratio for gold:silver, I get close to $5 (i.e. the sovereign contained 7.32 grams of gold, and based on the Canadian 50 cent piece, there were 21.6 grams silver to the Canadian dollar).
I could not find a reference giving the value in Canadian dollars of the day, but using a 15:1 ratio for gold:silver, I get close to $5 (i.e. the sovereign contained 7.32 grams of gold, and based on the Canadian 50 cent piece, there were 21.6 grams silver to the Canadian dollar).
Thank you, and does this mean that the Bombay Mint will also be moved? N#46001
I could not find a reference giving the value in Canadian dollars of the day, but using a 15:1 ratio for gold:silver, I get close to $5 (i.e. the sovereign contained 7.32 grams of gold, and based on the Canadian 50 cent piece, there were 21.6 grams silver to the Canadian dollar).
I am not sure I agree with the arbitrary movement of a coin, very little time for discussion or nuance. In addition, there should be a series for sovereigns that links them all together or the Main UK coin should be in the Link section so people can easily find the coins.
I could not find a reference giving the value in Canadian dollars of the day, but using a 15:1 ratio for gold:silver, I get close to $5 (i.e. the sovereign contained 7.32 grams of gold, and based on the Canadian 50 cent piece, there were 21.6 grams silver to the Canadian dollar).
I am not sure I agree with the arbitrary movement of a coin, very little time for discussion or nuance. In addition, there should be a series for sovereigns that links them all together or the Main UK coin should be in the Link section so people can easily find the coins.
Numista is a collaborative website.
A lot of the other sovereigns have the remainder of the George V sovereigns in the Link section. I have added it as a request.
Edward's and George's “C” sovereigns should both be under the same issuer, whether the United Kingdom or Canada.
Canadian or British? Unfortunately, this isssue is not black and white. All “C” sovereigns are de jure British, but a large quantities of them found their way into Canadian Bank vaults and never reached the UK. So, it could be argued that the “C” sovereigns are de facto Canadian.
I have just read through the relevant chapters in James Haxby's Striking Impressions published in 1984. This book is about the history of the RCM, with some chapters providing background information on colonial and early Canadian coinage (pre-1908), etc. This book is easy to find used. I have seen it a few times in used bookstores, and many inexpensive copies are available online.
Here is a basic summary of the points of interest for the issuing of “C” sovereigns.
The Canadian Parliament was presented with the idea of a Canadian mint for the first time in 1890. This was proposed by an MP from British Columbia in order to refine and strike gold in Canada rather than send it to the US with the transportation and insurance costs involved. The price received in the US was also lower than it could have been since they paid a safe price that took into account the fact that the gold, a mix of nuggets and powder, had not been assayed.
That proposal of a mint was rejected then and in later years as well for several reasons. For one, with regard to gold, both the Government and the banks were reluctant to introduce Canadian gold coins because it would mean a loss of profit on the circulation of paper money. Holders of paper money would be able to go to the banks and easily convert their paper into Canadian gold. For another, it was more profitable to let the RM strike the silver coinage for the government since the silver content was lower than the face value, even taking into account seignorage. There were other reasons such as the cost of building the required facilities and salaries.
Eventually, someone had a brilliant idea. Instead of building a Canadian mint to strike Canadian gold coins with the gold obtained from the BC and Yukon miners, why not get the British Crown to approve the building of a branch of the Royal Mint in Canada in order to be authorized to strike sovereigns? In this way, the gold would be British and this would prevent any loss of profit from the circulation of paper money (which was of course in Canadian dollars). The British government thought the Canadians would be better off to build an independent Canadian Mint rather than obtain a branch subordinate to the RM, but they didn't fully understand the politics and economics behind the ploy.
Eventually, this proposal was approved. The road was long and arduous, but eventually the Mint was built in Ottawa (which location they kept a secret as long as possible not to anger the west).
The plan was that miners who brought their gold to Ottawa —i.e. the “depositors” as they were called in RM Reports and other documents— were to be paid in coined gold, i.e. in sovereigns, with a cheque in Canadian dollars for the remainder (i.e. whatever leftover amount that was smaller than a full sovereign). The depositors mostly preferred a cheque for the whole amount because they wanted Canadian dollars, not British pounds (i.e. sovereigns). A sovereign, according to the 1910 Annual Report, was worth C$4.86⅔ at the time when the Currency Act 1910 was passed, so it was difficult to pass it in any transaction. The Mint didn't mind writing cheques because they soon found out that the banks were happy to take the sovereigns for their gold reserves.
As you can see, these coins are British and had to be struck inside a British facility, i.e. the RM itself or a branch of the RM. The banks accepted sovereigns as part of their gold reserve just like they stacked other foreign gold, mostly of course US gold.
They definitely should be listed under the Empire. First sovereigns (excluding pre-1816 reform ones) were issued in and for Britain (N#13171), and all later ones were also issued in and for Britain (and sometimes for other places). Since this type is identical to British type (besides the mintmark), it should not be considered a different type, and all should be combined in one page under the Empire. A comment that certain mintmark stands for certain mint is more than enough.
Another example that I think would be similar: N#7393
Obviously this coin should be listed under Austria, because it was first issued in there. Even though the primary place of circulation (of restrikes) was in Horn of Africa and the Middle East; and many other countries, besides Austria, issued it, often without permission.
I could not find a reference giving the value in Canadian dollars of the day, but using a 15:1 ratio for gold:silver, I get close to $5 (i.e. the sovereign contained 7.32 grams of gold, and based on the Canadian 50 cent piece, there were 21.6 grams silver to the Canadian dollar).
Thank you, and does this mean that the Bombay Mint will also be moved? N#46001
Definitely should be under ‘British India’.
Queen Elizabeth II Sovereigns with the ‘I’ mintmark should be under ‘India’ - as they were struck in New Delhi under licence for the Indian market.
They definitely should be listed under the Empire. First sovereigns (excluding pre-1816 reform ones) were issued in and for Britain (N#13171), and all later ones were also issued in and for Britain (and sometimes for other places). Since this type is identical to British type (besides the mintmark), it should not be considered a different type, and all should be combined in one page under the Empire. A comment that certain mintmark stands for certain mint is more than enough.
Another example that I think would be similar: N#7393
Obviously this coin should be listed under Austria, because it was first issued in there. Even though the primary place of circulation (of restrikes) was in Horn of Africa and the Middle East; and many other countries, besides Austria, issued it, often without permission.
British coins were legal tender in the British colonies, except in South East Asia.
Here in New Zealand, they were legal tender until 1935 for the silver coins & until 1940 for the bronze coins.
They definitely should be listed under the Empire. First sovereigns (excluding pre-1816 reform ones) were issued in and for Britain (N#13171), and all later ones were also issued in and for Britain (and sometimes for other places). Since this type is identical to British type (besides the mintmark), it should not be considered a different type, and all should be combined in one page under the Empire. A comment that certain mintmark stands for certain mint is more than enough.
Another example that I think would be similar: N#7393
Obviously this coin should be listed under Austria, because it was first issued in there. Even though the primary place of circulation (of restrikes) was in Horn of Africa and the Middle East; and many other countries, besides Austria, issued it, often without permission.
British coins were legal tender in the British colonies, except in South East Asia.
Here in New Zealand, they were legal tender until 1935 for the silver coins & until 1940 for the bronze coins.
Aidan.
Yes, and they shouldn't be listed under those colonies. Same applies to sovereigns, since they were also coins primarily for Britain. Only those shall be listed under a colony that are clearly identifiable as an issue specifically for that colony. (For example has a name of that colony, or has completely different parameters, than the coins issued for Britain)
I could not find a reference giving the value in Canadian dollars of the day, but using a 15:1 ratio for gold:silver, I get close to $5 (i.e. the sovereign contained 7.32 grams of gold, and based on the Canadian 50 cent piece, there were 21.6 grams silver to the Canadian dollar).
The sovereign's value in Canada was $4.8666. This was established by the 1854 Currency Act and confirmed by the Uniform Currency Act in 1871.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
I could not find a reference giving the value in Canadian dollars of the day, but using a 15:1 ratio for gold:silver, I get close to $5 (i.e. the sovereign contained 7.32 grams of gold, and based on the Canadian 50 cent piece, there were 21.6 grams silver to the Canadian dollar).
I am not sure I agree with the arbitrary movement of a coin, very little time for discussion or nuance. In addition, there should be a series for sovereigns that links them all together or the Main UK coin should be in the Link section so people can easily find the coins.
Numista is a collaborative website.
+1
Guidelines must be clear before changing anything.
I could not find a reference giving the value in Canadian dollars of the day, but using a 15:1 ratio for gold:silver, I get close to $5 (i.e. the sovereign contained 7.32 grams of gold, and based on the Canadian 50 cent piece, there were 21.6 grams silver to the Canadian dollar).
I am not sure I agree with the arbitrary movement of a coin, very little time for discussion or nuance. In addition, there should be a series for sovereigns that links them all together or the Main UK coin should be in the Link section so people can easily find the coins.
Numista is a collaborative website.
Fair enough. It can easily be reversed.
And I agree we should have a Sovereign Series for the Pistrucci reverse which is one of the most iconic designs of a modern coin.
I could not find a reference giving the value in Canadian dollars of the day, but using a 15:1 ratio for gold:silver, I get close to $5 (i.e. the sovereign contained 7.32 grams of gold, and based on the Canadian 50 cent piece, there were 21.6 grams silver to the Canadian dollar).
The sovereign's value in Canada was $4.8666. This was established by the 1854 Currency Act and confirmed by the Uniform Currency Act in 1871.
Good to know that the ad hoc approach was close (and perhaps was still correct for 1915), but I will modify it to that figure.
Lets say you have such a Sovereign but with mint letter not readable somehow. Where do you enter your coin?
I consider Numista should reference types, not please local collectors nationalistic views.
History is full of types which circulated mostly near their mint. Not a reason to cut as far as I'm concerned.
But as Ceh wrote above, this debate is bigger than that. We have same issues in south America or even in Austrian empire issues.
Whatever editorial choice is made it should be clear and enforced consistently @Xavier
You start with a fair question that will need answering but I don't think it's fair to suggest that this is driven by nationalistic views. We simply want the catalogue to be accurate. Part of the problem is what's written in the comments on the one page that has been moved. These state that
The Ottawa mint opened in 1908 and produced gold Sovereigns under request from the Royal Mint, London…
Where is the evidense that the London mint requested the production of sovereigns in Ottawa? The gold was supplied from Canadian sources, the Canadian government had declared the sovereign a legal tender and the Royal Mint Annual Reports list the coins as issued (alongside the bronze and silver coins), not shipped to the UK.
Another thing to be borne in mind is that Canada continued to produce sovereigns in 1918 and 1919 when the London mint had stopped production. This is one of the features that could clearly invoke the “significant differences” clause.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
I took the “significant differences” clause to mean medieval coins, where the mint name is spelled out, typically as part of a legend (not just a mint letter).
So, the same type, same issuer stuck in Antwerp versus Leuven, one coin would say MONETA ANTWERPIEN and the other woud say MONETA LOVANIE, much greater difference (compared to just a small mint letter) justifying a different type, since major differences in the legends can justify a different type.
Meanwhile, the series British Sovereign (Pistrucci design) has been created and the George V coins under discussion have been tagged (many more can be).
Lets say you have such a Sovereign but with mint letter not readable somehow. Where do you enter your coin?
I consider Numista should reference types, not please local collectors nationalistic views.
History is full of types which circulated mostly near their mint. Not a reason to cut as far as I'm concerned.
But as Ceh wrote above, this debate is bigger than that. We have same issues in south America or even in Austrian empire issues.
Whatever editorial choice is made it should be clear and enforced consistently @Xavier
If we say that Type and not Issuer is at the top of the Numista classification hierarchy, I think we have a lot of re-structuring to do.
As you say, we have South America and Austria but also the entire Low Countries and parts of France from 1400-1800, the Baltic Region (Poland-Lithuania-Livonia) 1580 - 1630 , the Ottoman era, and so on, where standardized types were used across large areas.
Today we have Links and Series to achieve cohesion of types across issuers. We have the option to apply these structures with better consistency.
It's nationalistic to me because each local collectors community want to use their catalogue, often based on local history where the ambition to build a comprehensive catalogue is absent.
I find Lazy to reproduce these national divisions here, as its prevents us from really cataloguing types and finding solutions for metadata (like multiple issuers for instance if needed).
Series are better than nothing but I still consider all exact same Sovereigns should be gathered, same for all you listed Ted and I never said otherwise (including those polish duplicates all over the catalogue).
Or should we duplicate Euro banknotes too based on where they were printed or their national prefixes?
It's nationalistic to me because each local collectors community want to use their catalogue, often based on local history where the ambition to build a comprehensive catalogue is absent.
I find Lazy to reproduce these national divisions here, as its prevents us from really cataloguing types and finding solutions for metadata (like multiple issuers for instance if needed).
Series are better than nothing but I still consider all exact same Sovereigns should be gathered, same for all you listed Ted and I never said otherwise (including those polish duplicates all over the catalogue).
Or should we duplicate Euro banknotes too based on where they were printed or their national prefixes?
I can only speak for myself here but, as a Brit, I really can't be accused of wanting to create a “local” catalogue for Canada. I do understand that concern, however, as we do see certain areas where different definitons of type are applied based on long-standing traditions in existing local catalogues.
One problem specific to the sovereigns is that they continued to be produced until 1931 outside of the UK after the London branch of the Royal Mint had stopped issuing them in 1925, so putting those later sovereigns in the UK would clearly be inaccurate.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
It's nationalistic to me because each local collectors community want to use their catalogue, often based on local history where the ambition to build a comprehensive catalogue is absent.
I find Lazy to reproduce these national divisions here, as its prevents us from really cataloguing types and finding solutions for metadata (like multiple issuers for instance if needed).
Series are better than nothing but I still consider all exact same Sovereigns should be gathered, same for all you listed Ted and I never said otherwise (including those polish duplicates all over the catalogue).
Or should we duplicate Euro banknotes too based on where they were printed or their national prefixes?
There is nothing inappropriate about wanting the coins your nation produced to be under the catalogue (and map) of your own country, and that applies for every issuer. The Euro situation is entirely different to a Canadian Gold coin minted as part of the Empire, for Canadian purposes, on Canadian soil with specifically solely Canadian Gold for Canadian Purposes. The same applies for Australian, Indian or South African Gold coins with the same criteria. If that is nationalistic, colour me as you will.
I feel it's because some national catalogues do consider those mints as roots of their own numismatic history they do reference the coins in their numbering system, but by our guidelines they really should be gathered within the British empire area
I would vote for a British Empire issuer or allow coins to have multiple countries.
This would fit with Compendium's analogy to the Eurozone banknotes, but indeed we do not yet have such an issuer.
I think EVERY cataloging approach has coins that challenge the cataloging model and things like trade coins or coins that circulate broadly and/or are struck in one country but for use in another are some of the challenges.
