Alright, this has been bothering me for a while. Why is it that South Africa has been divided into two separate countries?
If you look at the KM numbering we have South Africa Boer republic going from KM#1-KM#11, then South Africa, supposedly a different country starting at KM#12 and carrying on from there. If Krause doesn't view them as separate countries, why do we?
Can we please put them back as sub-sections of the same country like they were before. My guess is someone wanted to increase the number of countries in their collection.
The Boer Republics had their own independent governments. Personally I believe Krause is wrong to see it is one country. It may cover the same geolocal area, but the Boer Republics were very independent from the British colony.
It's a thumbs up from me. It's well known that the Boer Republics wanted nothing to do with the British, hence the Great Trek, but ultimately those Republics did form part of the Union and ultimately the Republic of South Africa. Should be under the same country but a separate section within that country.
Just because you can't see it ... doesn't mean it isn't there - Anon.
Spookie, The German empire is very different form of government from Nazi Germany and yet they are in the same country together, just listed as separate sections.
In my mind, they use the same currency, they just replaced who was on the back of the coins.
The German Federal Republic (West Germany) is listed separately from the German Democratic Republic (East Germany). So by following your argument, these two should be united into one country with seperately sub sections? Same for Malay Peninsula, Malaya and Malaysia, all currently listed seperately.
Yes, I personally think they should be, but it's not going to happen.
But South Africa is different, because SA and Boer Republic used to be one country in the Numista catalogue, Krause has them as one country, and their KM#s are contiguous, therefore they should be joined.
I prefer them split. Even keeping the British colonial currency,, they started emitting coins after they were first granted independance in 1852 (1 Pond 1874). All remaining coinage were made after the London Convention giving ZAR full independance. Other Boer Republics existed, even having a more peaceful history like Orange Free State (with his patterns still unregistered here).
Administrateur du catalogue, référent de nombreuses nations antiques et de la Lorraine.
Catalogue administrator, numerous Antique nations and Lorraine referee.
Just because Krause puts them as one country does not mean Krause is correct. The thing I love about coin collecting is the history connected to the coins. By keeping the independent Boer Republics separate from South Africa (Which never co-existed with the Boer Republics), we keep that history of the fight for independence from the British.
The ZAR or Transvaal was a separate country annexed by the British in 1902 following a dirty war with scorched earth tactics and concentration camps where lots of Boer children starved to death. Giving it its own place makes sense historically, and it helps to raise awareness on this painful part of history.
Of course the further history of Boers in South Africa was pretty painful and dark too, but knowing this background maybe helps to understand the nuances better.
Map of the region in 1878. The Transvaal had its own place on the map and used its own currency. The Cape Colony used British Pounds only.
The consensus on that thread was that it should remain as part of South Africa until Krause changes. There was one comment from Radrick "Indeed, the South African publication Hern's Handbook of South African Coins & Patterns lists all the numismatic issues under the one book, although clearly separated into sections."
So what changed? Why did we decide we should split them up?
It changed because a group of Nunista users was prepared to diverge from Krause in the case of historical inconsistencies. Tibet is its own country in the catalogue as well, so why not Transvaal.
Obviously others advocate to stick as close to Krause as possible just because it's by far the most used reference internationally, even if it's in some cases historically inconsistent, allegedly caused by their Anglo-American centrism. Also fine with me, but then we need to move Newfoundland to where it was too.
I personally prefer Numista to take the Pepsi challege with Krause and make different choices in some aspects of cataloguing coins on the basis of the knowledge of its international member base. Provided with clear documentation and historical evidence it can become a 'feast of discovery' for every coin collector.
Numista is NOT an official catalog used by hundred of thousands of collectors! (numista claims 70.000)!
SCWC is an official catalog used worldwide by hundred of thousands of collectors, the total number is not known, since the catalogs are also available in public libraries all over the world!!!
I can NOT agree to numista making their own rules or country separations NOT used in SCWC. If SCWC changes then numista MUST change as well. If numista changes, then SCWC will just ignore it. The same will happen if numista decides to make the KM# more logical (which might be a good idea on the paper), but SCWC will NOT follow that either.
Do NOT forget that numista is fed by the Numismaster database (SCWC) and when it changes, then the numista catalog ALSO changes!
SCWC is the father and numista is only a step son, and numista should learn to live with that.
This is of course just my opinion, but I don't believe numista should think they can change a lot in SCWC, only the SCWC contributors can do that and even.... in numista the moderators can change TOO MUCH, just look at the coin names for Arabic countries, what a horrible mess!!
My advice is: stick to the existing definitions and try to influence SCWC by strong arguments, I'm not sure Xavier is a contributor to SCWC, so who would represent NUMISTA in front of SCWC? Just forget it, since it cannot and should NOT be done by ONE SINGLE person, even Xavier!
SCWC is run by a private company and is STILL THE BEST WE HAVE, even if it could be better, more accurate, more up to date, etc!
Personally - I think we should follow catalogues, as Numista (as already explained) is not universal. However, we should not follow those catalogues blindly - so I would not agree that Numista MUST do something, when catalogue changes. For a big changes, big consensus is needed, and when that is missing, we should let it go.
We can link parts of the catalogue together by links in the "See also", or go around and think out of a box and somehow (which is still not sure how) rework the country list - making some umbrella sortings would solve a lot of problems. (Example - Germany umbrella - German States, Empire, East G., West G. without opposing catalogues, same could be done here for South Africa) This way, we could make our own rules, without deviating from some "Standards"
Citeer: "Sjoelund"Numista is NOT an official catalog used by hundred of thousands of collectors! (numista claims 70.000)!
SCWC is an official catalog used worldwide by hundred of thousands of collectors, the total number is not known, since the catalogs are also available in public libraries all over the world!!!
I can NOT agree to numista making their own rules or country separations NOT used in SCWC. If SCWC changes then numista MUST change as well. If numista changes, then SCWC will just ignore it. The same will happen if numista decides to make the KM# more logical (which might be a good idea on the paper), but SCWC will NOT follow that either.
Do NOT forget that numista is fed by the Numismaster database (SCWC) and when it changes, then the numista catalog ALSO changes!
SCWC is the father and numista is only a step son, and numista should learn to live with that.
This is of course just my opinion, but I don't believe numista should think they can change a lot in SCWC, only the SCWC contributors can do that and even.... in numista the moderators can change TOO MUCH, just look at the coin names for Arabic countries, what a horrible mess!!
My advice is: stick to the existing definitions and try to influence SCWC by strong arguments, I'm not sure Xavier is a contributor to SCWC, so who would represent NUMISTA in front of SCWC? Just forget it, since it cannot and should NOT be done by ONE SINGLE person, even Xavier!
SCWC is run by a private company and is STILL THE BEST WE HAVE, even if it could be better, more accurate, more up to date, etc!
Enough
Amen, brother! I couldn't have put it better
Just because you can't see it ... doesn't mean it isn't there - Anon.
We can argue this all day long. Whatever example one gives, there is a counter example, e.g. Bohemia under Austria Empire, Latvia under USSR. World history is a very complex history. Many territories were part of one country at one point in time and part of another at another point in time.
We have bigger things that needs fixing in the catalogue. We can't even keep up with verifications.
I agree that there are more pressing matters. While I think this should be put "on ice", maybe countries could show up multiple times under different umbrellas, as they could be part of more sections - e.g. - already mentioned Bohemia, that would be rightly placed under both Austria and Czech pottential umbrellas.
But, as it was already said, we could argue all day long.
Citeer: "Sjoelund"Do NOT forget that numista is fed by the Numismaster database (SCWC) and when it changes, then the numista catalog ALSO changes!
Blind copying like that sounds like a good way to get slapped with a copyright lawsuit. Comments like that make it rather difficult to prove numista is not just an electronic copy of the Krause catalog that wasn't licensed.
Legal issues are a 1st trouble, and history logic is another. We're trying to differenciate countries according to historical facts & monetary realities.
My own country is an excellent example of anti-SCWC classify as SCWC says Duchy of Lorraine is a German state. But Lorraine became independant de jure for 2-3 centuries, making it eligible as a country. I may take KM# references when available, however I'd precise the SCWC naming not always correct, as not corresponding to European available data. I would take more considerations for Dominique Flon and his catalogue of Lorraine coins, which is one of the most complete catalog in terms of naming and local knowledge, than SCWC.
As I said, and Jarcek said it himself too, do not follow blindly a single catalog.
Administrateur du catalogue, référent de nombreuses nations antiques et de la Lorraine.
Catalogue administrator, numerous Antique nations and Lorraine referee.
Citeer: "Jarcek"I agree that there are more pressing matters. While I think this should be put "on ice", maybe countries could show up multiple times under different umbrellas, as they could be part of more sections - e.g. - already mentioned Bohemia, that would be rightly placed under both Austria and Czech pottential umbrellas.
I quite like that idea. This will also nicely capture the historical side for the territory.
Citeer: "Carlos55"Let's have all Europe under the Roman Empire and be done with it...
Oh wait... Roman Empire was not only European but also African, Asian (all around the Mediterranean Sea aka. Mare Nostrum), and Danube Celtics resusted the Roman invasions as well...
Why did Krause retrogradate Orange Free State as eXonumia? Now there will remain only ZAR as a minting Boer Republic...
PS: were the BEIC-countermarked ones also retrogradated, as the countermark legalized them?
Administrateur du catalogue, référent de nombreuses nations antiques et de la Lorraine.
Catalogue administrator, numerous Antique nations and Lorraine referee.
And what about countermarked patterns? These ones did circulate as the countermarks were intended to "erase" the essay lettering
Administrateur du catalogue, référent de nombreuses nations antiques et de la Lorraine.
Catalogue administrator, numerous Antique nations and Lorraine referee.
I don't really have a dawg in this fight as I don't collect coins from any of the countries currently under discussion. I was mildly concerned when the 3rd Reich issues were rolled up into "Germany 1871-1945" but I've learned to live with it and actually it makes some sense as there is a considerable grey area around where exactly coins cease to be "Wiemar" and become "3rd Reich". Perhaps there is an even better solution waiting to be proposed. There was a recent topic by apuking (?) making a very strong case for some further changes which appears to have fizzled out.
I'm very much drawn to the idea of sticking with K&M in general, much as proposed by Sjoelund, simply on the grounds that every departure from the accepted norm makes Numista more of a niche website and less relevant to the majority of collectors. I like it, I really do but......
What is the purpose of Numista? Is it merely to provide a more comprehensive and user friendly version of the NGC online offering? If so then our work here is done, we just need a yearly update of new releases and an occasional tweak of the data. No my friends, Numista can be so much more than this!
By staying in the "K&M comfort zone" we fail to make use of the many talents of the Numista user base. Now don't misunderstand me, I'm not advocating any wholesale departures from the K&M framework that in general meets the needs of the non specialist collector. We have all recently endured the "Gunyah" farce which resulted from a single ill informed person making widespread charges without consultation. Let's not go down that road again please.
But where we can make changes which either simplify the catalog or shape it to our needs we should at least consider their merits. We need to strike two balances, first between accuracy and ease of use. These are often regrettably mutually exclusive. Every step towards pinpoint precision makes it harder for the non specialist to find the basic information he needs and vice versa. This problem can be resolved by a more thoughtful design, keeping the main coin page concise and free of clutter but having as much extra information as possible accessible by "see more" type links. This appears to be where Dear Leader is heading with all the recent changes so this isn't something we need to be concerned about.*
The more pressing problem is the lack of consultation being undertaken before major changes are made. This is a very poor way to manage a collaborative website. If you have a great idea on how to divide countries then let's hear it! If it's as great as you think it is then it will surely have overwhelming support. But please don't take it upon yourself to make the decision in splendid isolation. There are in excess of 50,000 other users who might have a different opinion! The recent split of Austria is a great example of what I'm talking about. It was a well thought out change which was most eloquently explained..... but only after the changes took place! As a result there was a lot of opposition to it. Had it been proposed, discussed and implemented only after an broad agreement had been reached then I would suggest that much of the controversy could have been avoided.
So to conclude, I have no issue with departures from K&M as long as they are valid and not just done on some ill considered whim. If wholesale and often destructive changes are to continue being made (see recent Notgeld issue) by unknown users then I would favor simply locking the "country" field and leaving it to mirror K&M.
* Am I the only one who is finding the addition of lot's of minor varieties confusing? These should most certainly be in a "see also" type tab and not in the main catalog.
Non illegitimis carborundum est. Excellent advice for all coins.
Make Numismatics Great Again!
Citeer: "Carlos55"Let's have all Europe under the Roman Empire and be done with it...
LOL...or just the umbrella heading of earth. I still think if a new kid to the hobby wants to look up his coin from Bohemia that the kid should be able to go to the country list and find his coin by clicking on Bohemia. How unhelpful for the collector that he is punished because we hid knowledge from a new one.
Library Media Specialist, columnist, collector, and gardener...
Citeer: "Sjoelund"Numista is NOT an official catalog used by hundred of thousands of collectors! (numista claims 70.000)!
SCWC is an official catalog used worldwide by hundred of thousands of collectors, the total number is not known, since the catalogs are also available in public libraries all over the world!!!
I can NOT agree to numista making their own rules or country separations NOT used in SCWC. If SCWC changes then numista MUST change as well. If numista changes, then SCWC will just ignore it. The same will happen if numista decides to make the KM# more logical (which might be a good idea on the paper), but SCWC will NOT follow that either.
Do NOT forget that numista is fed by the Numismaster database (SCWC) and when it changes, then the numista catalog ALSO changes!
SCWC is the father and numista is only a step son, and numista should learn to live with that.
This is of course just my opinion, but I don't believe numista should think they can change a lot in SCWC, only the SCWC contributors can do that and even.... in numista the moderators can change TOO MUCH, just look at the coin names for Arabic countries, what a horrible mess!!
My advice is: stick to the existing definitions and try to influence SCWC by strong arguments, I'm not sure Xavier is a contributor to SCWC, so who would represent NUMISTA in front of SCWC? Just forget it, since it cannot and should NOT be done by ONE SINGLE person, even Xavier!
SCWC is run by a private company and is STILL THE BEST WE HAVE, even if it could be better, more accurate, more up to date, etc!
Enough
very wise and thoughtful...
Library Media Specialist, columnist, collector, and gardener...
Citeer: "chomp-master"And what about countermarked patterns? These ones did circulate as the countermarks were intended to "erase" the essay lettering
But they weren't countermarked by the Free State. Those are British East Africa Company countermarks, which means that if they circulated at all (which is by no means certain), they would fit best into Kenya.
Now there will remain only ZAR as a minting Boer Republic...