Has anyone else had a challenge trying to attribute types during transitional periods or rapid changes in government (as with WWI/WWII)? How did you resolve it? How do you attribute a type that was struck by multiple governments, especially across a break? Do you simply attribute the type to the first government, or attribute it to multiple governments with different dates? Here's an example of what I'm talking about: During WWI, Hungary (under the Austro-Hungarian Empire) issued iron 10 and 20 fillér coins from 1916 (some dated 1914 and 1915 using older dies) through 1918. Post WWI, the First Hungarian Republic (1918-1919) did not issue any coins. The following government was even shorter lived, the Hungarian Soviet Republic (1919). They intended to mint coins and created many drafts, but ultimately did not issue any coins either. The government after that was the Horthy Regency, and they didn't do much with coinage until 1926 when they created the Pengő system, but from 1920-1922 they resumed minting the iron 10 (1920 only) and 20 fillér (1920-1922) coins and some other patterns in 1922. Krause lists each of these coins as one type attributed to the Austro-Hungarian Empire, though the Empire did not exist after 1918: 10 fillér KM496 (1915-1920) 20 fillér KM498 (1916-1922) I tend to think of them like this, however: Austro-Hungarian Empire WWI issues: 10 fillér (1916-1918) (some dated 1914-1915) 20 fillér (1916-1918) Kingdom of Hungary, Horthy Regency issues: 10 fillér (1920) 20 fillér (1920-1922) The post-WWI Horthy Regency issues are significantly easier to come by than the WWI issues. How do you collect in this type of scenario? Do you consider only the type, or do you collect an example of the type from each issuing government?
For what it's worth... I consider each government change that produced a different coinage to be a different animal, and thus I try for an example of each. If a ruler/king/whatever changes and the coinage changes, I go after one of each too. I feel the same way about German States, Swiss Cantons, Italian States, etc. If the government stays the same but the coinage changes (as with reform coinages) I go for an example of those too. Hey, I'm just doing it to amuse myself anyway, and it gives me more to shoot for! (I hope my answer doesn't get lost in the onslaught of responses you've received...)
But in the case I'm talking about, do you consider the coinage to be different? I'm talking about the same type (the only difference being the date), where one government stops producing the type and another government resumes it. How do you attribute that? Is it one type belonging to the earlier government, or is it two types that just look identical?
Just my personal thing, but I tend to follow the Krause divisions for the most part. (With some exceptions as I become aware of them -- such as the Central African Republic, 1978, KM#8) Of course, if I were specializing in a single country, and were more aware of the nuances of the government variations of that country, I'd probably go along with what you are saying wholeheartedly.
Well, what did it for me in this case was the gap. The type was struck in iron due to WWI and at the end of the war the type was finished. Two new governments came to power and fell and neither struck the coin. A third government 2 years later decided to restrike the type as a stopgap before minting new denominations. To me, I guess it's the same "type" but it also isn't. Similar things happened post WWII. For example, I put together a complete set of coinage for the Second Hungarian Republic (1946-1949). One of the types was only struck in 1948, however, the succeeding Soviet government, the Hungarian People's Republic (1949-1989) restruck the type in 1951. I only have an example of the type dated 1951, however, I can't bring myself to count it as an example of the type for the Second Hungarian Republic coinage set, since they didn't strike the coin. Likewise it becomes awkward to include the type in the Hungarian People's Republic set without splitting the type.
It seems you have your answer. If I had specific interest in the goings-on of a country such as you describe, there would be no doubt I would get the same coin with later date, just so I would be able to tell that story.
Interesting perspective. I suppose if one is putting together a world coin catalog and knows nothing of the specifics of the country, one simply lumps everything together by the apparent coin type, with sub-types for subsequent planchet changes. But this is a coin-centric view. A collector isn't typically just collecting a bunch of individual coins, they are collecting sets, and so the cohesive grouping of coins becomes significant. To understand how to group coins, and to understand the coins themselves, one has to understand the history of when the coin was struck, and the historical and cultural significance of the iconography and legends on the coin. To understand the coins in my sets, I mapped each type out on a timeline where the years they were struck (not necessarily dated) are highlighted. By correlating this information along with planchet composition changes, sets naturally emerge, typically along boundaries with wars and major political or governmental changes. For types with date gaps, sometimes it becomes apparent (like in the examples I gave above) that while the coins are of the same type, the coins on one side of the gap are a part of a different set than the coins on the other side of the gap.
You're preaching to the choir, I agree with you 100%. But I wonder, when you say the above "a collector....", what percentage of collectors you think this this applies to? It sounds like you think that is relevant for the majority of collectors, whereas I would guess (yes just a guess from reading posts on forums) that it is far less than a majority of collectors who are involved in understanding the history and significance behind the coins they collect. Unfortunately.
I agree, and I think that is informative for any collector, though they may not be interested in it. What I was trying to say is that the typical collector is concerned with sets, and that to understand coins to the point of being able to create sets requires deeper knowledge. Defining sets is not necessarily taken on by the collector though. The vast majority of the time that task is taken on by the cataloger, and the collector simply fills the slots based on pre-made sets created by someone else. I'm in the preliminary stages of writing a book in English about Austro-Hungarian coinage, so I'm going through the process of creating sets from scratch based on a deeper understanding of Hungarian history. As such I'm hoping to be informed by any perspectives from collectors who have found their country's catalogs to be lacking in organization and who have attempted to do this themselves.
Most people don't dig into the history that much. Here or there perhaps. That's okay -- it's their thing and their enjoyment. It is nice to find someone occasionally who is intrigued and interested with the history. Quite often it comes out in how they speak about certain coins -- almost affection because of a deeper understanding of the significance and symbolism of those coins. That said... @Jaelus , do you happen to have an extra example lying around of the Hungarian transitional coinage of 1990? KM#736-740. I'm still looking for a representative piece, whereas I can only find people offering whole sets. Just a decent example, no need for perfection. After all, as I said above, I'm just doing it to amuse myself.
More than likely. I was in Hungary in the mid-90s and picked up a lot of nicer coins that were in circulation, but I don't have much of it organized. I don't like the moderns all that much, since the commemorative issues got pumped out at an insane pace. My formal type collection stops after the Revolution of 1956, save for the Artex restrikes done in the 60s. Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
I agree with you on the older stuff rather than the moderns. Occasionally an exception pops up. If you happened across one of the 1990 transitional coins and would be willing to part with it, please let me know. The one-coin-from-each-country-including-government-variations collection has been a way to coax my two boys into coin collecting, and sneak in quite a bit of history and other educational topics! My ten year-old has informed me that the transitional coinage of 1990 is a glaring, empty spot! Thank you. eBay example of a complete set: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Hungary-set...828578?hash=item2366386a22:g:RT8AAOSwud1XAArR
You raise a very interesting point and, unfortunately, I don't think there is a single answer. I think the majority of people will not be affected by this. I would not be in this particular case as I know little about the history of Hungary so I would probably follow Krause. But if I were collecting the coins to illustrate the history of a country, as you appear to be, then I think that getting one for each government entity makes perfect sense. I have to wonder just how many cases such as this have appears throughout numismatic history. I would not expect it to be a significant number percentagewise.
Likely not that many cases, since what I'm talking about is rather specific. I'm not collecting the coins to illustrate the history of the country, I'm just creating logical groupings to make sets based on an analysis of type and planchet composition changes. The sets themselves form around governmental changes, wars, and legislative events. I'm looking at Hungary 1848-1956, so during that time you had 2 revolutions, two foreign occupations, 3 kings, 1 regent, 4 short-lived republics, 2 world wars, the country's 1000th anniversary, a change to the gold standard, empire expansion, two periods of massive hyper-inflation, and three periods of legislatively mandated coinage updates. Each of these events led to sweeping changes in coinage, and thus create the boundaries of the sets and sub-sets quite clearly. Identifying those major changes is not the issue. The problem is dealing with types that overlap between two periods. Of that, I see two variations: A type that slightly overlaps into another period on either end of its run, where there are no breaks in mintage. For me this one is clear. If there is no break in mintage, I attribute it to the earlier set or sub-set. For example during the Austro-Hungarian Forint period (1867-1892) they updated the king's bust and country's coat of arms every decade, starting in 1870. While many types changed over exactly on the decade year, several types were updated one or two years early, and a couple, a year late. While these are examples of types that overflow from one logical group into another, there are no gaps in mintage years, and the types correlate cleanly with each other based on bust/arms type, so there's no confusion. A type that is discontinued in one period, and then resumed within the boundary of another period. This second variation is the one that gives me pause, and it's entirely due to the gap. One coinage period clearly ends, the coin is discontinued for several years, and then a new coinage period clearly begins and the type is produced again. The only times this happened during this period is around the world wars, with two types split between coinage periods during/after WWI, and three types split between coinage periods post-WWII. I wouldn't be surprised if this happened around the world wars for other countries in the region as well, for it was the disruption of the wars that caused the events that led to the disruption in coinage, and also for the hasty and deliberate resumption of the minting of the previous period's coinage.
And, this is why coin collecting is so much fun . In general, I follow Krause, but don't hesitate at all to deviate when appropriate. First of all Krause makes mistakes. Second, it doesn't always make sense. The registry sets at NGC follow Krause and I find myself rolling my eyes at times. If the country has it's own specific guide then I tend to follow that more...or pick my own rationale. For example, when doing my modern (1870-present) Japan type set Krause has breaks due to century, and so do the registry sets. Looking in the JNDA (Japan catalog) there is no distinction. The Japanese book also does not 'change type' due to a change in Emperor/Era. When doing my type set I did want to include the regnal era changes as 'type' as it was a major shift. The Japanese catalog is also a little inconsistent when placing transitional coins (between the Empire/post war-pre constitution/current constitution). As a collector you can take the historical aspects and include that in your collection as you deem fit. The Hungarian history is very interesting (and new to me) and with what you describe I would call it a type for each government. The fact they look the same is a mere quirk of production planning. That said, each collector can define it how they want. Cool discussion!
