Curaçao or Suriname

26 posts

» Quick access to the last post

Hello! :`

This is something I would like to gather some opinions on:

From 1941 to 1943, Dutch-like coins struck in Philadelphia were issued for both Suriname and Curaçao. On Numista, most of these coins are listed under Curaçao; however, I would like to propose to move them all under Suriname. Let's take a look at the mintages first:

25 Cents
----- 1941 P
----------- 500'000 Curaçao
----------- 600'000 Suriname (half struck in 1942)
----- 1943P (including 1943/1)
----------- 500'000 Curaçao
----------- 2'000'000 Suriname

In total, 1'000'000 were struck for Curaçao and 2'600'000 were struck for Suriname, and yet this coin is listed under Curaçao: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces148547.html.

10 Cents
----- 1941P
----------- 300'000 Curaçao
----------- 500'000 Suriname
----- 1942P
----------- 0 Curaçao
----------- 1'500'000 Suriname
----- 1943P
----------- 500'000 Curaçao
----------- 4'000'000 Suriname

In total, 800'000 were struck for Curaçao and 6'000'000 were struck for Suriname. One page is listed under Curaçao (which includes all years): https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces21088.html.
And one page is listed under Suriname (which also includes all years): https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces16118.html.

5 Cents
----- 1943 (P)
----------- 2'000'000 Curaçao (1'500'000 struck in 1944)
----------- 6'595'000 Suriname (all struck in 1944)

With there being only one date, it is obvious more were struck for Suriname, and yet the page is located under Curaçao: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces5046.html.

1 Cent
----- 1942 P
----------- 500'000 Curaçao
----------- 2'000'000 Suriname

This page is currently located under the Netherlands, which will need to be corrected, but it was originally located under Curaçao: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces5782.html.

(And all this information can be found here, by the by: https://coins.www.collectors-society.com/registry/coins/SetGallery.aspx?PeopleSetID=179664.)

-----

Now, while these coins were struck for both places, I think it would be best to pick one to list them all under (otherwise, there would be a lot of duplicates). So, looking at the mintages, there were more coins struck in Suriname each year, and yet, most coins can be found under Curaçao. And Numista is probably that way because that is how Krause lists them. With most coins being struck for Suriname, I think we should not follow Krause here, and instead place all under Suriname. That makes the most sense to me, at least. So... does anyone have any thoughts on this? :)

Also, with the 10 cent piece, if all these coins were all placed under Suriname, all years can be on one page. However, if these coins end up staying under Curaçao, the 1942 year would have to have its own page under Suriname. So no matter what gets decided, the 10 cent pages will need some edits. ;)

And... thank you for reading! :D
Hi Sulfur,

thank you for addressing this problem and your work in making a clear summary. I have been struggling with this issue on and off. I follow your way of thinking. I agree that these coins should be placed under one 'flag' to avoid duplicates, which only makes it disputable and confusing. But, which flag?
I have another look on the matter though and would suggest a different approach actually.

I think that these coins should be placed under 'the Netherlands'. I have three reasons for that:
  1. The coins were issued under Dutch authority. Even though they were produced in the United States and shipped to Suriname and Curaçao. I do not know if they even touched the ground of the European side of the Netherlands at all.
  2. Further, the coins are hardly recognizable as coins for/from Suriname or Curaçao, but for the small palm tree mark. The far bigger lettering says 'Queen of the Netherlands' so the coins are probably first recognized as Dutch coins by the 'layman'.
  3. The 'Muntalmanak' (the main catalog of coins of Dutch coins and former overseas territories) places these coins under the Netherlands section, probably also to avoid doubles. Not a reason necessarily, but a way to show that it is not unthinkable.

I know, all of these arguments are reprehensible by themselves, but combined they might stand for something.

To comment on your suggestion to place them under Suriname, Sulfur. I can live with that suggestion, but I think that these coins are harder to find in that way. Second, the placement there wouldn't do justice to Curaçao... if that is an argument. Arguably, the same goes for my suggestion for placing it under the Netherlands.

And... thank you for reading as well! :D
markyourcoin.weebly.com
Hello you two,

My own opinion is that it doesn't really matter which issuer it goes under; Suriname or Curaçao, but the Netherlands is not in the running for me! Not to denigrate Chilian's proposal, but the first two reasons made could also apply to this coin from the Dutch East Indies; it too was issued under Dutch authority in the USA, and it too is hardly recognisable as being from the colony it was intended for save for some mintmark differences.

Anyway, I think we should just do a coin toss (see what I did there? (8) and choose one of the two issuers to put it under; it's not like we'll have a mob of angry Curaçaoans/Surinamese marching in and demanding the coins be put under their issuer! ;)
What about a new entry on the Country List for Suriname & Curaçao or as a sub category under Suriname or Curaçao.
Suriname.

Under few conditions.

First, coins shall have comments to mark this phenomenon.

Secondly, we have to set up holy order against Curaçaoan purists. There are 160 000 of them. Half of them are children and elderly, that leaves us with 80000. Out of that, top 10 percent are too rich to care and are likely to dodge military service by emigration. That leaves us with 72000. We have to discount cripples, pregnant, mothers with underage kids and disabled. Then lets discount pacifists, Surinamese fifth column, all kind of internationalists. Also psychically ill should be discounted. And finally, we should discount those not interested in Numista. Out of my hometown, of 300 000 people, there are only two people present on Numista. So I guess our holy order should be able to handle ONE Curaçaoan purist.

I volunteer to become Supreme Chancellor of the order. I still need admiral, since threat is naval, few sailors, chaplain since our order is Holy, couple of priests and executioner.
Catalogue administrator
Status changed to Accepted (Jarcek, 20-Jan-2019, 00:11)
If we have enough members, maybe we can rename into Holy order against joined Curaçaoan and Surinamese purists and place them into Netherlands.
Catalogue administrator
Or we can side with an absolute outsider and place them under Curaçao. That would be holiest goal of all times.
Catalogue administrator
Oh wow, different opinions everywhere! Let's see:
  • Only Suriname.
  • Netherlands.
  • Not Netherlands.
  • Suriname and Curaçao (under a unified issuer).
  • Suriname and Curaçao (as separate issuers).

(What I am not seeing here is only Curaçao. ;))

Putting them under the Netherlands... I am not so sure. While it would keep these coins under one flag, and while that flag is the one that would make the most sense due to these coins being issued under Dutch authority, the coins still did not have much to do with the Netherlands geographically. So that makes me lean more towards the "Not Netherlands" one. :)

As an original solution, I was thinking to create a unified Suriname and Curaçao issuer; however, with that not being a historical place, I am not sure if that would be plausible. I think it would be the most accurate for the coins, but would not necessarily be historically accurate. On the other hand, there is keeping these coins under both issuers, and explaining the situation in the comments (I received that suggestion through PM). While that would make sense and also be historically accurate, that would still make duplicate listings.

The best solution I have been able to think of is to implement something along the lines of a "blank listing" (or whatever a better name would be). So, all these coins can have their pages listed under Suriname, but there can be equivalent "blank listings" under Curaçao. Those listings would show up in the coin list, but if someone tries to open them, they will be redirected to the equivalent page under Suriname. That would allow both places to show these coins, while still avoiding duplicate listings.

I am not sure how possible that would be to implement (or if it even makes sense), but for now, I will submit some requests to move these coins under Suriname (and to add some information explaining the situation). Of course, this discussion can still continue--these coins can always be re-moved if something is otherwise agreed upon. :`
And I may not have any admiral-ing experience, but I do know how to work a canoe, if that'll help! (;0

(Gotta use all our resources here. ;))
Status changed to Started (Sulfur, 20-Jan-2019, 05:43)
My stand would be to list them under the Netherlands.

There are more coins in the catalogue listed under the former colonial power which were minted for use in colonies, e.g.:
In reply to CassTaylor:
I do not feel denigrated. It is a fair discussion, where there is no true right answer in my opinion. Although I do not agree with you :D I do agree with you about the Dutch East Indies coin. I think it should be placed under the Netherlands. Just like it is in the aforementioned 'Muntalmanak'. I'm not too worried about an angry mob, although I know Curaçaoans are a very proud people :)

I am not to fond of an extra 'country' which combines the two. They didn't really form a monetary union or something. But maybe that wasn't an issue anywhere else in the catalog.

Although, I usually respect Jarceks view and appreciate his humorous approach, it lacks argumentation.

Sulfur: about the geography. The distance between Curaçao and Suriname is about 1700 kilometers as the crow flies. I agree it is still closer by than the Netherlands (unfortunately), but I think both peoples don't feel really geographically connected.
The "blank listing" as you call them, I am afraid that it would only result in confusion and debate. People might want to place them under Curaçao and end up linking to Suriname. I always hate it when website deside for me where I want to go... in addition, might not be technically possible.
I received your requests and wait to take care of them until a decision has been made.
markyourcoin.weebly.com
My answers were aimed at futility of such discussion, and I was quite tired at the time. :°

Maybe, we should held a vote. We already did that once on the main page, when we asked members what they would like to use Smooth or Plain.

Of course, referees of mentioned countries and people from there would have greater voting power in this matter.
Catalogue administrator
@ ArnoV,

I would actually support listing all those coins under the colonies they were struck for (although, there would obviously be people who disagree with that). :°

@ Chilian,

Fair enough. Although, I feel like any result will end in some sort of confusion and debate. (8

@ Jarek,

A vote sounds good to me! But hopefully, this time, it will be more than just a "too close to say for sure" result. ;)

Based on the discussions in this thread, these are the options I would imagine:

Curaçao.
Suriname.
Netherlands.
Suriname and Curaçao (under a unified issuer).
Suriname and Curaçao (as separate issuers).

(I do not think a 'not Netherlands' option would help much--if that was included, to be fair, there would have to be a 'not' option for all options.)
Status changed to Opened (Sulfur, 24-Jan-2019, 17:20)
Why does it matter if there is duplication in the catalogue? I think they should go under both. Let Curacao collectors add their coin into the Curacao part of the catalogue and Suriname collectors add it into the Suriname part of the catalogue.

They are listed in the Krause catalogue for both countries, and each have a different catalogue number for the respective countries. If you list them in only one country then there will be a hole in the other country's catalogue. A collector of Curacao coins might not think to look in Suriname to see which coins they need to get to complete their collection.

I did this when listing the New Zealand/Bahamas 2 cent mule. It has the reverse of a NZ 2 cent coin and the obverse of a Bahamas 2 cent coin, I listed it in both catalogues because it relates to both countries and both countries have it in their Krause catalogue with a different catalogue number.

Edit: and definitely not in the parent country. I seem to remember Mark getting steamed up a while back because a lot of the UK coins minted for use in the colonies were listed under the UK and not in the country they circulated in.
What? Me Worry
But as far as I am aware, Krause does not list the coins under both countries. I only have NGC's website to go by, but assuming they have Krause's information correct...

1 Cent: this is listed under both countries, but on the Suriname page, it says "see under Curacao" (and only gives values for the one under Curaçao).
5 Cents: this is only under Curaçao.
10 Cents: only the 1942 date is listed under Suriname, which is correct because there were no 1942 coins meant to circulate in Curaçao. However, the 1942 date is also wrongly included on Curaçao's page.
25 Cents: this is only under Curaçao.

(And of course, there is information on all pages stating these coins were struck for both countries.)

But in the end, I do not really think any of that matters--we do not have to follow Krause. And in a situation like this, I definitely do not think we should. ;)
Quote: "Sulfur"​(And of course, there is information on all pages stating these coins were struck for both countries.)


​Is that not good enough then? Have them in both countries with a note saying they were struck for both countries. If the coin was struck for use in a country then it should be included in that country.

Tidy them up so the correct years and mintage numbers are included in the listing for each country, then leave them on both. If you collect Curacao coins then you wouldn't find out these coins circulated in Curacao unless you already know it or you stumbled across the listings in Suriname.
What? Me Worry
I don't think that it is a good thing when we leave duplicates be. 'Who cares...' ? Well, I think it is messy and confusing. It also messes up statistics of the site and of the collector. Besides, if it wouldn't matter to anyone the discussion wouldn't have been started.

A voting is fine with me. As long as the arguments are reflected carefully.
markyourcoin.weebly.com
Quote: "neilithicman"​Why does it matter if there is duplication in the catalogue? I think they should go under both. Let Curacao collectors add their coin into the Curacao part of the catalogue and Suriname collectors add it into the Suriname part of the catalogue.



​Everything considered I actually think this is the best option after all- maybe "leave as they are" should be added as an option in any vote?

Adding links to each other's pages as well as an explanatory note seems satisfactory to me.
Quote: "Chilian"​I don't think that it is a good thing when we leave duplicates be. 'Who cares...' ? Well, I think it is messy and confusing. It also messes up statistics of the site and of the collector. Besides, if it wouldn't matter to anyone the discussion wouldn't have been started.
​Agreed! :D
Quote: "CassTaylor"maybe "leave as they are" should be added as an option in any vote?
I... do not think that would help much. If you take this thread as an example, leaving everything as it is now would basically be a combination of three options (the 5 Cent and 25 Cent pieces only in Curaçao, the 10 Cent piece duplicated under both Suriname and Curaçao, and the 1 Cent piece under the Netherlands). I, personally, would much prefer an option I do not support rather than a little bit of every option because the former would at least be consistent.
A country's catalogue should list ALL the coins that were minted for use in that country. If that means having to have two separate listings for a coin in two countries because those coins were minted for use in two different countries, then that is what should happen.

You shouldn't remove them from one country just because you think it looks messy or it upsets your OCD.

As I said, tidy it up so the correct coins and years are against the correct countries and then leave them on both countries with a note to say that they are the same coin.
What? Me Worry
Quote: "neilithicman"​A country's catalogue should list ALL the coins that were minted for use in that country. If that means having to have two separate listings for a coin in two countries because those coins were minted for use in two different countries, then that is what should happen.

​You shouldn't remove them from one country just because you think it looks messy or it upsets your OCD.

​As I said, tidy it up so the correct coins and years are against the correct countries and then leave them on both countries with a note to say that they are the same coin.
Agree 100%
All i know is, unfamiliar with this discussion before i started, i spent a lot of time trying to find my 1942 P cent KM 39 in the catalog under Curacao before i thought to look under Kingdom Netherlands. Not sure why you feel you have to re-invent the wheel here, Krause has been doing this longer than most of us have been alive, & i see no reason not to follow them here; each country (Curacao, Netherlands, Suriname) is well noted with refer to's for different issues. My coin is staying in Curacao. if you have to catalog it under the Netherlands there should at least be some sort of redirection on the Curacao page. This probably answers my request to move the 1942 P cent out of Netherlands & into Curacao, too. :) i mean really, nothing was going into the Netherlands in 1942 (there are some books about that) & by some definitions the polity of the Kingdom of the Netherlands did not even exist at that time.

thanks
john
jcornellxx@gmail.com
So many opinions!!!

On my point of view, I think like neithlic, coins should be listed under each country they circulated as legal tender, something like as happened to this coin at Argentina and Uruguay.

Is a bit different, but at end the fact is the same coin circulated on both countries.

The coin was originally minted by Buenos Ayres province; at the time it was one of the provinces of the Argentine Confederation, that later turned to be Argentina. At that time, each province issued their own coins, and they were accepted on the other provinces.

The coin was minted on 1822 and 1823, showing Buenos Ayres as issuer, and demonetized on 1827.

On 1831, Uruguay still had not its own currency, so same coins were used (on half its value) as legal tender on the new country. There is a law issuing the coin, see the comments in page listing on Uruguay side, and since they were already demonetized at Buenos Ayres, there was no need to countermark them.

In spite of Krause doesn't have it listed under Uruguay, it really was the first Uruguayan coin.

I think Curaçao/Suriname coins should be listed on both countries, and of course having it noted on comments section. Collectors can choose if they want to have it on one, the other or both countries, depending on their collecting parameters.

About including it on Netherlands, I don't agree, is the same as including Peruvian, Bolivian, Mexican, etc coins to Spain, as they were Spanish colonies when issued, under king's order, but in fact these coins did not circulate at Spain
Just 10 options: you understand binary, or you don't.
Catalog Referee Coins, Banknotes & Exonumia: Uruguay, Cuba, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Peru, Paraguay, Costa Rica, Venezuela, Panama, Ecuador, Zamunda, Parva Domus and more.
These coins say "Nederlanden" on them. If they aren't listed under Netherlands, then Numista will get recurring catalog modification requests to "add a missing year".
The solution for this and many other cases is to convert the country field to tags. A coin could belong to several countries in the catalogue.
Referee for Spain, Iberia (ancient), Suebi Kingdom and Visigothic Kingdom
Quote: "zegeri"​The solution for this and many other cases is to convert the country field to tags. A coin could belong to several countries in the catalogue.
​+1

I don't know about tags, but it is a technical issue that Xavier would have to solve. But it is the best indeed. Have only one "physical" page for the coin located nobody cares where, and make it visible in several "countries".
Such use of links exists in other parts of the catalogue and is probably the best. It is what a database catalogue allows.
Quand l'Histoire et la Géographie se croisent sur nos pièces de monnaie ...
Referee for Austria-Habsburg, Austrian Netherlands, Austrian States, Bohemia, Silesia.
Traducteur, demandez en cas de besoin ! Translator, ask if you need !

» Forum policy

Used time zone is UTC+1:00.
Current time is 08:30.