The 1/3 farthing has written down in it that it was only legal tender in Malta, but the coin is listed in the UK section, my question is; why not in the Malta section?
Numista is following the Standard Catalog of World Coins and other catalogues is classifying these coins as "homeland types" of the UK rather than listing them where they were used. It's a clear anomaly but I fear too many collectors of British coins are simply so used to these coins being considered British rather than Maltese that any attempt to move them will founder. I hope I'm wrong.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
All ought to go to their respective colonies. The only exception is the Victorian ½ farthing, which needs splitting into two since the design change was due to it being introduced to the UK, so only the 1839 moves to Ceylon. There are also the 1½d, Victoria 2d, William IV 3d and 1888 4d that should be moved since they weren't issued in the UK. I know it's a big change but I've never considered these to be UK coins.
Now comes the interesting part. The 1½d were issued in two colonies, Jamaica and Ceylon. How do we deal with those?
We ought to involve the UK referee, radrick007, in this, otherwise nothing we say will matter.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
To me this is exactly the same as the Netherlands' 1 cent coin where some dates was only issued for Curaçao or Suriname. Seems weird to have Maltese, Jamaican and Ceylon coins in the UK catalogue.
Cita: "ngdawa"To me this is exactly the same as the Netherlands' 1 cent coin where some dates was only issued for Curaçao or Suriname. Seems weird to have Maltese, Jamaican and Ceylon coins in the UK catalogue.
Well a solution can also be adding a Legal tender in or Also used in button. For example this can also be done with Euro coins by adding that they were legal tender in the whole EU
Cita: "jelle"Well a solution can also be adding a Legal tender in or Also used in button. For example this can also be done with Euro coins by adding that they were legal tender in the whole EU
That would be a useful feature but it isn't relevant here as the 1/3 farthings were never used in the UK, only in Malta.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Cita: "jelle"
Well a solution can also be adding a Legal tender in or Also used in button. For example this can also be done with Euro coins by adding that they were legal tender in the whole EU
good idea! This is the best solution in my opinion.
I think types used only in colonies should all be moved in their respective area. It is what was done for french colonial coinage for instance: no coins are if I'm not wrong under “France”
It requires also to copy proper currencies and ruling authorities ofc
The can of worms will be opened, what about the sovereigns made for India, Canada and South Africa? We need a way of denoting they were from the motherland, if not used in the motherland. I know as long as the mint field is used this will be partially acknowledged.
The can of worms will be opened, what about the sovereigns made for India, Canada and South Africa? We need a way of denoting they were from the motherland, if not used in the motherland. I know as long as the mint field is used this will be partially acknowledged.
The Sovereigns with mintmarks are part of the coinages of Australia, Canada, India, & South Africa, not the U.K..
As for the fractional Farthings & the 1½ Pence coins, they should be listed under the U.K. - but with a note that they circulated in the colonies.
The problem is that you would make the KM-references meaningless (I know these would not be the first ones).
There should also be multiple older threads about colonial issues were the topic was discussed extensively for further input.
This is a really important point that needs dealing with whether we move these particular pieces or not. Ideally, we'd have the option to add an issuer after the KM# (or P#) to indicate where the piece can be found in that catalogue.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Bear in mind, though, that Malta is not written anywhere on the coin, but the coin is clearly British, so for me, it's logic to look for it in the UK part of any catalog. If not, we would have to seek through all the British dependencies to find it, which is not an easy task.
Bear in mind, though, that Malta is not written anywhere on the coin, but the coin is clearly British, so for me, it's logic to look for it in the UK part of any catalog. If not, we would have to seek through all the British dependencies to find it, which is not an easy task.
That's very true. We could have the same coin appear in both the UK and Malta, partly because of the lack of identification on the coin and partly because these coins form part of the British Imperial coinage but were only issued in one place. This is one of those complicated situations where a perfect solution probably doesn't exist.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Would the coin then be counted in both countries? Carefull with that!
Are you worried about the total number of coins in a member's collection? I hadn't considered that to be an issue but, if you think it will lead to complaints, we'll have to come up with an answer. Counting each entry as ½ a coin will work if the system will allow it.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Yes. I think it would be easier to leave the coin under UK with all the necessary notes and comments. Ok it would be counted as a UK coin, but to count it 0.5 for the UK and 0.5 for Malta would be next to impossible I reckon?
Ideally, we'd have the option to add an issuer after the KM# (or P#) to indicate where the piece can be found in that catalogue.
This qualifier is already needed for KM and for other catalogs, and would be useful for many catalogs.
I don't have specific examples for places where it is ambiguous (although I've run into several and in some cases added comments in Numista), but the Schön and Schön DM catalogs are examples of where it is useful: The country names in Schön are in German so the alphabetical order of countries are often significantly different from the English / French / Spanish order in Numista.
Attaching multiple issuers to same entry is currently not technically possible but would solve many issues indeed
A standard numismatic terminology is Joint Coinage. For example, N#67277 is described in the title as Joint Coinage but the listing doesn't say it is a coinage issued for Anhalt-Bernburg, Anhalt-Köthen, and Anhalt-Dessau. It would be nice to have a three-way joint issuer for that coinage (and also have it show up when the members of the joint issuer are searched).
But two issues have been touched upon in this thread: 1) Who is the issuer, and 2) Where is it used (as an official currency, not informal use). In my view coins can only be issued by one issuer (although it might be a joint issuing authority), but they can be formally used in several locations.
For the coins issued for Malta from 1814-1936, my belief is that they are issued by the monarch of the United Kingdom for use in Malta. In my personal collection coins used in one country/region/colony are organized under that country/region/colony. But Numista says it organizes coins by issuer (see the heading “Browse the catalogue by issuer” on the main page for coin listings).
Does anyone have an argument that the ⅓ Farthing coins were issued by Malta?
The ⅓ Farthing coins were struck for circulation in Malta along with the other British imperial coins.
They are listed in the Spink catalogues as British coins - but a note saying that they circulated in Malta as a replacement for the Order of Malta's copper 1 Grano should be added to the listings to indicate this fact.
I hadn't though of the term “issuer” in quite the way bjherbison suggests. If we did interpret it like that, most of the coins of the British Empire would be listed under the UK, since they were issued by the British for use in their colonies. The problem with these ⅓ farthings is that, unlike this 4 pence, they don't show where they were intended to circulate. If they did, we'd all be happy with them in Malta.
Ultimately, this comes down to a clash between the two central concepts of accuracy and accessibility. It is accurate to put them in Malta, since that's the only place they circulated. It's arguably more accessible to leave them in the UK but make it clear in the title they were only used in Malta. Sadly, if these coins were listed under Malta by KM, we'd again be unlikely to be having this conversation.
One possible solution would be to have a section under the UK for all the coins issued only for colonial use without any distinguishing marks. We have such a section for the French colonies, which includes coins actually having COLONIES FRANÇAISES on them. There are similar coins issued by the British which circulated in more than one colony, so they could be included. One advantage of this section would be that the 1½d coins could be put in a single place despite circulating in two different colonies.
If this is an appealing solution, I'll start a new thread to attract the attention of any interested members.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
The ⅓ farthing was issued for Malta, so it should go there. It doesn't make sense that if you search for the issuer ‘Malta’, it doesn't show up, but it does for the United Kingdom where it wasn't used at all. That's just confusing and not correct. Even tagging it ‘Colonial Issue’ doesn't seem right, when it isn't a British coin. Other British colonial coinage has a separate issuer e.g. British West Africa.
It doesn't matter that it doesn't say Malta on it - none of the coins issued for the United Kingdom say ‘United Kingdom’ on them. It would not be hard to find on Numista. If people search for ‘third farthing’ it will come up - under Malta.
I'm not sure it should matter that a catalogue with incorrect information isn't used (KM). It's incorrect. A note can be made on the page. I collect James I farthings and it's a constant irritation that the English farthings are duplicated under Ireland (the exact same coins) because of the way they were once (erroneously) listed in Spink. Spink's latest editions for England label them English, but auction houses, dealers and even Numista continue to perpetuate the error. It makes it difficult to collect them, as some auction houses put them in the wrong section, under Ireland. (It has to be said that Spink also lists the Irish versions in the England book, with a note that they were for Ireland. That would also cause confusion if the Spink numbers are different in the Irish reference).
The ⅓ farthing was issued for Malta, so it should go there. It doesn't make sense that if you search for the issuer ‘Malta’, it doesn't show up, but it does for the United Kingdom where it wasn't used at all. That's just confusing and not correct. Even tagging it ‘Colonial Issue’ doesn't seem right, when it isn't a British coin. Other British colonial coinage has a separate issuer e.g. British West Africa.
It doesn't matter that it doesn't say Malta on it - none of the coins issued for the United Kingdom say ‘United Kingdom’ on them. It would not be hard to find on Numista. If people search for ‘third farthing’ it will come up - under Malta.
I'm not sure it should matter that a catalogue with incorrect information isn't used (KM). It's incorrect. A note can be made on the page. I collect James I farthings and it's a constant irritation that the English farthings are duplicated under Ireland (the exact same coins) because of the way they were once (erroneously) listed in Spink. Spink's latest editions for England label them English, but auction houses, dealers and even Numista continue to perpetuate the error. It makes it difficult to collect them, as some auction houses put them in the wrong section, under Ireland. (It has to be said that Spink also lists the Irish versions in the England book, with a note that they were for Ireland. That would also cause confusion if the Spink numbers are different in the Irish reference).
The ⅓ farthing was issued for Malta, so it should go there. It doesn't make sense that if you search for the issuer ‘Malta’, it doesn't show up, but it does for the United Kingdom where it wasn't used at all. That's just confusing and not correct. Even tagging it ‘Colonial Issue’ doesn't seem right, when it isn't a British coin. Other British colonial coinage has a separate issuer e.g. British West Africa.
It doesn't matter that it doesn't say Malta on it - none of the coins issued for the United Kingdom say ‘United Kingdom’ on them. It would not be hard to find on Numista. If people search for ‘third farthing’ it will come up - under Malta.
I'm not sure it should matter that a catalogue with incorrect information isn't used (KM). It's incorrect. A note can be made on the page. I collect James I farthings and it's a constant irritation that the English farthings are duplicated under Ireland (the exact same coins) because of the way they were once (erroneously) listed in Spink. Spink's latest editions for England label them English, but auction houses, dealers and even Numista continue to perpetuate the error. It makes it difficult to collect them, as some auction houses put them in the wrong section, under Ireland. (It has to be said that Spink also lists the Irish versions in the England book, with a note that they were for Ireland. That would also cause confusion if the Spink numbers are different in the Irish reference).
Of course, it matters, so it should not be under Malta, but where it is right now.
Everyone who knows what it is would look under Malta. And if they don't, they can search for ‘third farthing’ and easily find it, just as they would any other coin they don't know.
Coins from the UK don't say ‘United Kingdom’ on them e.g. N#1392. But they still go under the UK.
Everyone who knows what it is would look under Malta. And if they don't, they can search for ‘third farthing’ and easily find it, just as they would any other coin they don't know.
Coins from the UK don't say ‘United Kingdom’ on them e.g. N#1392. But they still go under the UK.
Bad argument, a newbie wouldn't know that, he would just say “A coin from the UK” and search there! You're right that the UK is not written on the coins either, but you would try UK because of the obverse anyway?
A newbie doesn't need to know that. They can search the database for ‘Third Farthing’, which is what you do if you're trying to ID a coin, rather than filtering down by guessing the country. Victoria was queen in quite a lot of countries.
You're certainly not helping them by listing Maltese coins under the UK just because you think people can find it more easily. That's just very confusing.
It would if Numista was meant to be ‘Spink online’. But it doesn’t work in the same way. Spink lists the same coins in multiple references with different numbers. Numista is a single database. Otherwise you’d have to list your coins twice.
It would if Numista was meant to be ‘Spink online’. But it doesn’t work in the same way. Spink lists the same coins in multiple references with different numbers. Numista is a single database. Otherwise you’d have to list your coins twice.
Yes, that's the exact issue. Numista is not Kause, Spink or any other catalogue digital version. It is its own reference. It may seem unatural to collectors used to a specific reference, but it is necessary to follow our own rules in order not to have endless attributions debates. If at some point some numismat publishes a catalogue of Maltese coins (maybe already exist?) I guess those coins will be listed in it. UK dominion should be a ruling authority in maltese issuer, as for any other colonial coinage.
If you see a coin with queen Victoria you wouldn't look under Malta first of all. Especially as it doesn't say Malta on it. It should be listed under both jurisdictions with the master referee being UK as the empirical ruler. All colonial coins should be treated this way.
Quote: "ngdawa"To me this is exactly the same as the Netherlands' 1 cent coin where some dates was only issued for Curaçao or Suriname. Seems weird to have Maltese, Jamaican and Ceylon coins in the UK catalogue.
Well a solution can also be adding a Legal tender in or Also used in button. For example this can also be done with Euro coins by adding that they were legal tender in the whole EU
I like this idea. It could help specify where these coins and other “homeland issued” coins were actually used.
At the time Malta did not have it's own territorial currency, instead mainland coinage was used. These third Farthings were minted under British government authority. Therefore they are British coins and not Maltese coins.
At the time Malta did not have it's own territorial currency, instead mainland coinage was used. These third Farthings were minted under British government authority. Therefore they are British coins and not Maltese coins.
At the time Malta did not have it's own territorial currency, instead mainland coinage was used. These third Farthings were minted under British government authority. Therefore they are British coins and not Maltese coins.
At the time Malta did not have it's own territorial currency, instead mainland coinage was used. These third Farthings were minted under British government authority. Therefore they are British coins and not Maltese coins.
How is it different from any other colonial coinage we reference currently under the current country instead of under the former imperial country?
At the time Malta did not have it's own territorial currency, instead mainland coinage was used. These third Farthings were minted under British government authority. Therefore they are British coins and not Maltese coins.
How is it different from any other colonial coinage we reference currently under the current country instead of under the former imperial country?
Malta was not under home rule at the time of the issue of these third farthing coins but they were under direct British rule. They were minted under the direct authority of the British crown and government rather than through an intermediary like an elected local government. We consider these coins an anomalous coinage but still of British mainland authoritative origin, very similar to some of the 1940s silver three pence issues and the 1946 brass three pence. I am sure there are other examples of this but I am not at home right now with my references.
At the time Malta did not have it's own territorial currency, instead mainland coinage was used. These third Farthings were minted under British government authority. Therefore they are British coins and not Maltese coins.
How is it different from any other colonial coinage we reference currently under the current country instead of under the former imperial country?
Did you ever ask if the community agreed? Surely, you didn't?
At the time Malta did not have it's own territorial currency, instead mainland coinage was used. These third Farthings were minted under British government authority. Therefore they are British coins and not Maltese coins.
How is it different from any other colonial coinage we reference currently under the current country instead of under the former imperial country?
Malta was not under home rule at the time of the issue of these third farthing coins but they were under direct British rule. They were minted under the direct authority of the British crown and government rather than through an intermediary like an elected local government. We consider these coins an anomalous coinage but still of British mainland authoritative origin, very similar to some of the 1940s silver three pence issues and the 1946 brass three pence. I am sure there are other examples of this but I am not at home right now with my references.
The three-half pence comes to mind.
All you say here is true except the ascertion that this makes the third farthings British. The third farthing was requested by the Maltese authorities (as shown on page 10 of the 1876 Royal Mint Report). No one would claim these authorities were democratic but neither were most governments at the time. No other part of the British Empire used the third farthing, so Malta is the correct place for them. If SCWC had put them there, we wouldn't even be discussing this.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
That way lies madness. There are so many coins that don't say where they were issued. We can't use that as the basis for a catalogue. We know these were issued exclusively in Malta and never in the UK.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
That way lies madness. There are so many coins that don't say where they were issued. We can't use that as the basis for a catalogue. We know these were issued exclusively in Malta and never in the UK.
Just your way of imagining a flat world. Listen to practical solutions from the normal collectors, please don't be more catholic than the pope.
All you say here is true except the ascertion that this makes the third farthings British. The third farthing was requested by the Maltese authorities (as shown on page 10 of the 1876 Royal Mint Report). No one would claim these authorities were democratic but neither were most governments at the time. No other part of the British Empire used the third farthing, so Malta is the correct place for them. If SCWC had put them there, we wouldn't even be discussing this
It has been for so long logically accepted as British coinage for factual information to be changed on the whim of a few people who just don't understand, it would be detrimental to this websites integrity.
I feel indeed the only reason we have this discussion is because some catalogues made the choice to sort this coinage under UK, whereas it seems obviously Malta for a comprehensive and global catalogue like ours. It is simply impossible for Numista to follow blindly national choices often contradictory made by different numismatic catalogues. It is why we look for consistent logic. You can consider its too complicated if you like, but i fail to see any other good solution (again, any other good solution for everyone).
The best solution for just someone can be the worst for someone else. There is no such thing as a universal “normal collector”.
I feel indeed the only reason we have this discussion is because some catalogues made the choice to sort this coinage under UK, whereas it seems obviously Malta for a comprehensive and global catalogue like ours. It is simply impossible for Numista to follow blindly national choices often contradictory made by different numismatic catalogues. It is why we look for consistent logic. You can consider its too complicated if you like, but i fail to see any other goid solution (again, any other good solution for everyone).
The best solution for just someone can be the worst for someone else. There is no such thing as a universal “simple collector”.
Then I have to state, that other people (and just as qualified as you) in Numista, have other opinions. A newbie, yes, they exist, would never look for Malta, so what's left of your over the crowd argument?
But even KM accept it as British coinage which are a global catalogue. Why is Numista any different?
It's not Numista, which is different, it's just a guy with his own opinion going against the waves. He seems to be quite alone in his opinion, but continues and continues.
I feel indeed the only reason we have this discussion is because some catalogues made the choice to sort this coinage under UK, whereas it seems obviously Malta for a comprehensive and global catalogue like ours. It is simply impossible for Numista to follow blindly national choices often contradictory made by different numismatic catalogues. It is why we look for consistent logic. You can consider its too complicated if you like, but i fail to see any other good solution (again, any other good solution for everyone).
The best solution for just someone can be the worst for someone else. There is no such thing as a universal “normal collector”.
So how can you believe, you're the best placed to judge about this?
As a matter of fact, I didnt launch this thread. And I believe several people expressed their wish to see this entry fall under Malta.
anyway, as always, a technical solution will solve this. Multiple issuers is in Xavier to do list :-)
No, you didn't launch the thread. Some people think like you, right as well. What is a technical solution? A viable compromise or just “I know better” approach?
“Multiple issuers” is not the correct wording, since the only issuer is UK!
I've been looking for this on the internet. In absolutely no online catalogue, auction websites, coin sales websites, numismatic information websites... this coin is cataloged under the issuer of Malta on no website. In some the information is given "for use only in Malta", but in all cases it is listed under the United Kingdom.
Once again I have to make the comment that sometimes being different does not mean being better.
I believe that this type of coin must be in the United Kingdom with the comment "exclusive use in Malta"
Coin referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Liberia and Spain
Banknote referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea and Spain
I've been looking for this on the internet. In absolutely no online catalogue, auction websites, coin sales websites, numismatic information websites... this coin is cataloged under the issuer of Malta on no website. In some the information is given "for use only in Malta", but in all cases it is listed under the United Kingdom.
Once again I have to make the comment that sometimes being different does not mean being better.
I believe that this type of coin must be in the United Kingdom with the comment "exclusive use in Malta"
Being correct is better. When an error in other catalogues is found, we should fix it. This isn't a question of differing opinions. It's a question of fact. We discussed a broader “British Colonies” section for such pieces but that wasn't met with approval. Consequently, Malta is the only correct place avaliable. The UK simply isn't an accurate description.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Being correct is better. When an error in other catalogues is found, we should fix it. This isn't a question of differing opinions. It's a question of fact. We discussed a broader “British Colonies” section for such pieces but that wasn't met with approval. Consequently, Malta is the only correct place avaliable. The UK simply isn't an accurate description.
When an error in other catalogs is found, we should fix it.
Only your opinion and against the usage of other catalogs. Be realistic, the arguments against your idea have been clearly stated many times in this thread, so please forgive me for not repeating them again and again.
Being correct is better. When an error in other catalogues is found, we should fix it. This isn't a question of differing opinions. It's a question of fact. We discussed a broader “British Colonies” section for such pieces but that wasn't met with approval. Consequently, Malta is the only correct place avaliable. The UK simply isn't an accurate description.
When an error in other catalogs is found, we should fix it.
Only your opinion and against the usage of other catalogs. Be realistic, the arguments against your idea have been clearly stated many times in this thread, so please forgive me for not repeating them again and again.
You're forgiven, but you still haven't disproven the facts (not opinions) I and others have presented. Unless you can prove these coins didn't circulate in Malta but did circulate in the U.K., you must accept that the other catalogues are wrong and that this proposal is correct. The idea of leaving a note in the U.K. section leading people to the Maltese listings for the third farthings is a fine one, that will hopefully be implemented soon. Once it is, we must move these coins to Malta or accept that Numista is not a catalogue but a listing of coins according to where some people imagine them to be from, regardless of the facts. We have far too much of that already (Ceylon listed under Sri Lanka, etc., etc.) to allow this particular error to be propagated further.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Being correct is better. When an error in other catalogues is found, we should fix it. This isn't a question of differing opinions. It's a question of fact. We discussed a broader “British Colonies” section for such pieces but that wasn't met with approval. Consequently, Malta is the only correct place avaliable. The UK simply isn't an accurate description.
When an error in other catalogs is found, we should fix it.
Only your opinion and against the usage of other catalogs. Be realistic, the arguments against your idea have been clearly stated many times in this thread, so please forgive me for not repeating them again and again.
You're forgiven, but you still haven't disproven the facts (not opinions) I and others have presented. Unless you can prove these coins didn't circulate in Malta but did circulate in the U.K., you must accept that the other catalogues are wrong and that this proposal is correct. The idea of leaving a note in the U.K. section leading people to the Maltese listings for the third farthings is a fine one, that will hopefully be implemented soon. Once it is, we must move these coins to Malta or accept that Numista is not a catalogue but a listing of coins according to where some people imagine them to be from, regardless of the facts. We have far too much of that already (Ceylon listed under Sri Lanka, etc., etc.) to allow this particular error to be propagated further.
There's a word central to this discussion that I don't find in your message. If you wonder what the word is then visit the home page of the Coins section of Numista and look after the words “Browse the catalogue by”. Maybe that word should be changed – and if it is this discussion would change.
I don't believe there is a dispute over where the coins circulated or were intended to circulate.
I've been looking for this on the internet. In absolutely no online catalogue, auction websites, coin sales websites, numismatic information websites... this coin is cataloged under the issuer of Malta on no website. In some the information is given "for use only in Malta", but in all cases it is listed under the United Kingdom.
Once again I have to make the comment that sometimes being different does not mean being better.
I believe that this type of coin must be in the United Kingdom with the comment "exclusive use in Malta"
Being correct is better. When an error in other catalogues is found, we should fix it. This isn't a question of differing opinions. It's a question of fact. We discussed a broader “British Colonies” section for such pieces but that wasn't met with approval. Consequently, Malta is the only correct place avaliable. The UK simply isn't an accurate description.
I only give my opinion about it, and I respect all opinions, as I have always done, that do not coincide with mine. In the end, your opinion and mine are just that, two opinions, at least in my case, from a non-expert numismatic fan.
I would never dare to say that you, or others who think like you, are wrong since I never believe that mine is the absolute truth. You, on the other hand, have no qualms about judging opinions that do not coincide with yours as wrong. That is to say, that all (absolutely all) of the printed and online catalogs, auction houses, numismatic shops... that catalog these coins under the United Kingdom are wrong and you are not.
I repeat, I have only given my opinion as a numismatic fan, and you will never see me say that you (or another user) is wrong for thinking differently from me. All opinions deserve to be heard... and respected.
I hope and wish I have not bothered you with these words, nothing further from my intention. Having said that, I still believe that these coins should be under the United Kingdom.😉
Coin referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Liberia and Spain
Banknote referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea and Spain
There's a word central to this discussion that I don't find in your message. If you wonder what the word is then visit the home page of the Coins section of Numista and look after the words “Browse the catalogue by”. Maybe that word should be changed – and if it is this discussion would change.
I don't believe there is a dispute over where the coins circulated or were intended to circulate.
Do you mean the word “issuer”? The issuer was Malta, since these coins were requested by the Maltese authorities. I'm glad you agree that the place where they circulated is beyond doubt.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
I only give my opinion about it, and I respect all opinions, as I have always done, that do not coincide with mine. In the end, your opinion and mine are just that, two opinions, at least in my case, from a non-expert numismatic fan.
I would never dare to say that you, or others who think like you, are wrong since I never believe that mine is the absolute truth. You, on the other hand, have no qualms about judging opinions that do not coincide with yours as wrong. That is to say, that all (absolutely all) of the printed and online catalogs, auction houses, numismatic shops... that catalog these coins under the United Kingdom are wrong and you are not.
I repeat, I have only given my opinion as a numismatic fan, and you will never see me say that you (or another user) is wrong for thinking differently from me. All opinions deserve to be heard... and respected.
I hope and wish I have not bothered you with these words, nothing further from my intention. Having said that, I still believe that these coins should be under the United Kingdom.😉
Some issues do come down to opinions, others can be proven one way or the other. This falls in to the latter category.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
There's a word central to this discussion that I don't find in your message. If you wonder what the word is then visit the home page of the Coins section of Numista and look after the words “Browse the catalogue by”. Maybe that word should be changed – and if it is this discussion would change.
I don't believe there is a dispute over where the coins circulated or were intended to circulate.
Do you mean the word “issuer”? The issuer was Malta, since these coins were requested by the Maltese authorities. I'm glad you agree that the place where they circulated is beyond doubt.
What is your source for this definition of “issuer”? I looked in several online and paper sources, including all senses listed in the Oxford English Dictionary, and for every relevant definition “requested” is a good antonym of “issued”.
What is your source for this definition of “issuer”? I looked in several online and paper sources, including all senses listed in the Oxford English Dictionary, and for every relevant definition “requested” is a good antonym of “issued”.
I'm afraid you've missed the point. The Maltese authorities requested the coins, the Royal Mint made them and they were then shipped to Malta to be used. This is the same process as occurred when Malta started issuing a full coinage in 1972, and no one is claiming those coins shouldn't be listed under Malta.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
What is your source for this definition of “issuer”? I looked in several online and paper sources, including all senses listed in the Oxford English Dictionary, and for every relevant definition “requested” is a good antonym of “issued”.
I'm afraid you've missed the point. The Maltese authorities requested the coins, the Royal Mint made them and they were then shipped to Malta to be used. This is the same process as occurred when Malta started issuing a full coinage in 1972, and no one is claiming those coins shouldn't be listed under Malta.
For sure, somebody missed the point! Not us, but the people insisting, that a coin with no Malta written on it should be listed under Malta! How far can stubbornness go?
Some issues do come down to opinions, others can be proven one way or the other. This falls in to the latter category.
A lame way to argue, shame on your logic. But for sure, you have your opinions🤢
There's nothing at fault with my logic or my facts. You want to stick to the mistakes made by other catalogues. I want accuracy. In your opinion, being wrong is better than being right. That's not an opinion I can ever agree with.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
For sure, somebody missed the point! Not us, but the people insisting, that a coin with no Malta written on it should be listed under Malta! How far can stubbornness go?
Where does it say UK on this coin? It isn't about being stubborn, it's about being factually correct. The third farthings never circulated in the UK, so shouldn't be listed there. As a compromise, we should seek to have some kind of note in the UK section to lead people to the Maltese listing for these coins to mitigate the mistake of KM in wrongly listing these coins in the UK.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Your argumentation is wrong, as said by many other participants in this thread. Just look through the messages.
What's wrong? It's agreed by all that these coins were only issued and used in Malta. I've not seen a single person argue against this fact. You are arguing that they should be listed where they were produced because they don't have the name Malta on them. That simply doesn't make sense, as many coins don't carry the name of the country they are issued in and many coins are made in one country for use in another.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
I give up with you, you have such a single sided view of the subject, that further discussions are of no use.
When the facts are as clear as they are here, there is only one side. We've agreed on many other issues to do with the wrong names being used for issuers. It's a shame you aren't prepared to look beyond what KM has got wrong in this instance. If it's any consolation, it seems this change isn't going to happen until the coins can be listed in both places.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
ceh2019All ought to go to their respective colonies. The only exception is the Victorian ½ farthing, which needs splitting into two since the design change was due to it being introduced to the UK, so only the 1839 moves to Ceylon. There are also the 1½d, Victoria 2d, William IV 3d and 1888 4d that should be moved since they weren't issued in the UK. I know it's a big change but I've never considered these to be UK coins. Now comes the interesting part. The 1½d were issued in two colonies, Jamaica and Ceylon. How do we deal with those? We ought to involve the UK referee, radrick007, in this, otherwise nothing we say will matter.
Malta used British coinage right up to 1972, therefore, the ⅓ Farthing should remain listed as a British coin.
Aidan.
Nope, we sort items where they circulated
So is the text on the Coin catalog page going to be fixed? Currently it says “Browse the catalog by issuer” and should say “Browse the catalog by where coins are/were used”. Banknotes has the same issue.
Also circulating Euro coins should be moved from individual countries to Eurozone since that is where they circulate.
So is the text on the Coin catalog page going to be fixed? Currently it says “Browse the catalog by issuer” and should say “Browse the catalog by where coins are/were used”. Banknotes has the same issue.
No need. Sorting coins where they circulated is just simple recognition that you cannot issue something independently to where it circulates. In this example, Malta was part of “UK issues” at that time. So it issued these coins made for its own territory.
Also circulating Euro coins should be moved from individual countries to Eurozone since that is where they circulate.
I agree we could argue that Eurozone should be an issuer, but compromise was made here due to national designs on items. Absolutely not comparable with this discussion though, ⅓ Farthing never circulated in UK.
Compendium Sorting coins where they circulated is just simple recognition that you cannot issue something independently to where it circulates.
According to the European Central Bank coins are issued by individual countries but circulate in the Eurozone ("euro area" is the term on that web page). I'll agree that the countries in the euro area aren't totally independent of the area itself, but they are separate distinct entities.
And then there's the issue of intended circulation and actual circulation. (I keep using Euro coins as examples as it's a well-documented current situation.) I've seen Euro coins circulate in neighbors of the euro area. And Kosovo is outside the euro area (according to the glossary on the ECB web site) but the official currency of Kosovo is the Euro (according to Wikipedia and other sources). The same applies for other areas including Akrotiri and Dhekelia which is a British overseas territory inside Cyprus.
(The main point here is that issuing vs circulating isn't an easy issue.)
And then there's the issue of intended circulation and actual circulation. (I keep using Euro coins as examples as it's a well-documented current situation.) I've seen Euro coins circulate in neighbors of the euro area. And Kosovo is outside the euro area (according to the glossary on the ECB web site) but the official currency of Kosovo is the Euro (according to Wikipedia and other sources). The same applies for other areas including Akrotiri and Dhekelia which is a British overseas territory inside Cyprus.
(The main point here is that issuing vs circulating isn't an easy issue.)
No one said it was easy :-)
All ancient and medieval coinage circulated way beyond the boundaries of thei issuers, it is obviously not what we are discussing here.
This Malta case is in fact pretty straightforward compared to all these other examples you took… bust just because UK imperial coinage was catalogued as UK, it seems to be impossible to just state the obvious?
My thoughts on this might be biased because I am from Malta, but, if you're a Maltese collector, living in Malta, you'll realise this coin is truly classified as our own by us. So many Maltese collectors own ⅓ farthings in their collections. In museums we have these whole sections related to its history, and every collector wants to own them, even do date runs. Why? because they are part and parcel related to our own history, they were a replacement coin for the grano of the KOM, yes it was issued by the UK, but they were answering a call from the governor of Malta at the time. The only relation this coin has with the UK, is that it was minted there, that's it. Still I understand your arguments aswell as to why it is put under the UK. However, a compromise must surely by made to put this coin under Malta, or at least under both countries if possible. I am tired of seeing the UK highlighted on the map on my ‘Malta’ coin collection, just becuase I put my ⅓ farthings in this same collection. From the various replies I have seen, there seems to be alot of stubbornness from people, that maybe don't properly understand it's history and what it means to the numismatic collectors from the small island nation of Malta.
Sincerely,
LaMaltese
Estado cambiado a hecho(Compendium, 14 oct 2023, 14:41)
My thoughts on this might be biased because I am from Malta, but, if you're a Maltese collector, living in Malta, you'll realise this coin is truly classified as our own by us. So many Maltese collectors own ⅓ farthings in their collections. In museums we have these whole sections related to its history, and every collector wants to own them, even do date runs. Why? because they are part and parcel related to our own history, they were a replacement coin for the grano of the KOM, yes it was issued by the UK, but they were answering a call from the governor of Malta at the time. The only relation this coin has with the UK, is that it was minted there, that's it. Still I understand your arguments aswell as to why it is put under the UK. However, a compromise must surely by made to put this coin under Malta, or at least under both countries if possible. I am tired of seeing the UK highlighted on the map on my ‘Malta’ coin collection, just becuase I put my ⅓ farthings in this same collection. From the various replies I have seen, there seems to be alot of stubbornness from people, that maybe don't properly understand it's history and what it means to the numismatic collectors from the small island nation of Malta.
