What do you consider to be the authoritative way to determine a coin's country (if it can be said that there is one)? Is it determined by where the coin was minted, the government it was minted for, the country it was intended to circulate in, or something else entirely? All of these can be grey areas. The minting location can be in a contested area or one with multiple governing bodies, the government may be in transition due to rebellion etc., and a coin may be intended to circulate in multiple countries. I've been thinking about this as of late while working on my Hungarian Franz Joseph I type set, since the authoritative Hungarian coin catalog considers a coin to be Hungarian if the mint was within Hungarian territory at the time of minting, but Krause (and the TPGs) use a different methodology. There was one controlling body for coinage for the Austro-Hungarian empire, so these distinctions are somewhat arbitrary to begin with. During the period between the Hungarian Revolution of 1848 and the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867, Hungary was ruled under an Austrian military dictatorship. Coins minted in Hungary for circulation in Hungary during this period (1851-1866) were identical to the Austrian issues except for the mint marks. Krause (and the TPGs) consider all of these coins to be Austrian, regardless of mint mark, even the 1866 transition types that bore Hungarian legends. Starting in 1867, the designs diverged between Austrian and Hungarian issues, though they were coordinated in both value and general theme. For example, the obverses of comparable denomination Austrian and Hungarian coins might be identical (save for the language) but the reverses would bear the respective coat of arms of either Austria or Hungary. Some Austrian commems minted prior to 1892 but well into the Compromise period bore Latin text with dual Austrian/Hungarian denominations. These commems were minted for both Austrian and Hungarian consumption, but they are considered to be Austrian coins by Krause. Also some regular issue Hungarian gold coins minted prior to 1892 bore dual Austrian/Hungarian denominations. These are considered to be Hungarian coins by Krause, but TPGs always slab them using the Austrian denomination, since it is listed first on the coin. Sometimes TPGs will slab Hungarian coins as Austrian, even when they are listed as Hungarian in Krause. Since country is sometimes a grey area, why aren't some coins simply considered to be multi-national?
Oh I agree, but I think the lack of consistency is interesting, and Hungarian coins (as listed in Krause) that get slabbed as Austrian are likely mistakes. I don't mean to dwell on my example, it's just one that I'm very familiar with. I'm sure there are many examples of complex nationality. Take colonial coinage for example. Spanish dollars minted in Mexico are considered to be Mexican, even the last Spanish royalist coins minted in 1821 during the War of Independence. These coins were minted and owned by the Spanish government. Wouldn't it be simpler to consider these Spanish coins? For those that collect series with complex nationality, where do you draw the line for your collections? Do you go by Krause, another catalog, or do you have your own method?
Out of your choices, I think I'd vote for "where the coins were supposed to circulate (and DID circulate there)..."
Krause says one thing, the TPG says another. It would be nice if, when somebody were to pose a polite, humble question to Krause Publications or a TPG, they could get some answers (i.e., answers that pertain to, and satisfy, a question). Doug has told me that Krause probably doesn't even know how or where they obtained the information they list in their catalog, since they probably don't have it anymore. Well, isn't that convenient? I've asked both Krause and TPGs questions in the past, and they either don't reply (Krause) or they give you a cut-and-paste boilerplate answer (TPG). If this problem were presented to me, I'd have a rule: For what geographic region did the coins circulate? Not necessarily by what authority minted them. If it's two regions, "nations", etc, then MY listing would include them both.
I'd approach this the same way I approach the "what coins go in a type set" question: pick definition, make a list of coins fitting the definition, and go find them. Anybody who wants to disagree can do so futilely in the knowledge that it's my collection, and I make the rules. Same thing with "what's a type vs a variety."
Germany is minting coins and printing money (currency) for 50+ other countries. Smaller countries simply outsource the production of coins & currency, so I would fully agree that it should be the country "where the coins are supposed to circulate". Colonial coinage would be the exception to the rule, and the given example above (coins struck in Spain for use in Mexico) is a very good one. Btw. Philippines under U.S. sovereignty... are those U.S. coins or not? What does Krause say?
After many years, and a diligent campaign, the Redbook started including Filipino coins, don't know what year. But that doesn't prove anything, although it caused prices to take off.
So then if the nationality is based on where the coins are supposed to circulate, what about the Euro? The coins are supposed to circulate anywhere in the Eurozone. The obverse is the Euro side and the reverse is the national side. The national side is considered to determine the nationality of the coin. The same holds for the Austro-Hungarian examples, most evidently for the issues in Latin with dual denominations. What about trade coinage? They were intended to circulate internationally, and many either omitted a denomination or listed one in multiple languages, but they are considered to belong to the issuing country. So then is the issuing country the standard to use? If so, why are colonial coins not considered to belong to the parent countries?
With regard to euro coins, it's quite simple. Each coin is issued by a euro area member state, but the circulation coins and the €2 commems are legal tender throughout the currency union. (Collector coins, usually silver/gold, are a different matter but they are not actually used for payments anyway.) The country specific side is considered to be the obverse by the way, but "common side" and "national side" are more frequently used terms. So the point is that (contrary to euro notes) euro coins are issued by, and can easily be assigned to, single member states. As for colonial coins, some do collect them as part of some "parent country" collection, others don't. The important difference, in my opinion, whether such colonial/territorial coins are issued for circulation in that territory only. Take Portugal - I would not have Moçambique or Macau coins in a Portugal collection, or maybe in a special section. With coins from Austria-Hungary things are a little different. Part of the problem is that catalog authors and others may be tempted to use today's categories. The "double monarchy" that ceased to exist at the end of WW1 covered several countries, not just present day Austria or Hungary ... Christian
Really great points here (and thanks for the clarification on the euro). Regarding colonial Spanish coins in the new world, it was more of a logistics issue. It just made more sense to manufacture the coins there rather than transporting mined PMs back to Spain for minting and then transporting the coins back. So they were minted there for circulation, but I don't think with the intent that they were exclusively "Mexican" coins over any other Spanish colony. The Spanish colony the coin was from is determined by the mint mark on the coin. Yet these coins are described as Mexican, Peruvian, Guatamalan, etc. and not Spanish. The country of origin for the Austro-Hungarian Empire coins were also differentiated by mint mark, yet these are all considered Austrian. And yes you are absolutely correct, the empire included several other countries other than Austria and Hungary. Hungary even included another multi-nation Kingdom (the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia). In fact, the two Hungarian mints in service during the period I collect were Körmöcbánya (Körmöc Mine), which at the time was located in Upper Hungary (now in Slovakia), and Gyulafehérvár (Gyula's White Castle) which at the time was located in Transylvania (now in Romania). So, for example, it can be said that the Hungarian GYF mint coins (previously Austrian E mint coins) were technically minted within Transylvania, within the Kingdom of Hungary, within the Austro-Hungarian empire!
In my humble opinion, the country/nation should be that one that ordered the coin to be struck and is the authority which makes the coin to be money. In my catalog I list URSS and Russia as two different countries. Then I add coins minted during the existence of every country to the proper name. In the special case of Euro I list coins according to the country which struck the coin. I added an extra field "Territory" which complements "Country" for coins minted by states or provinces inside a country.
