I'm proposing separate ruling authorities for the following: [Malaysia › Malaya], [Myanmar › Union of Burma], [Indonesia › Netherlands East Indies], [Philippines › Commonwealth of the Philippines], and [Papua New Guinea]
I recommend keeping them under the same currencies as the ones they were intended to supplant.
Numista referee for banknotes from Canada, USA, Costa Rica, China, Macau, Singapore, & Taiwan.
Japanese Occupation notes should be listed separately from the countries where they were imposed on their populations by the Japanese from 1941 to 1945.
I agree with titus17 here, the Japanese occupation should be added as a ruling authority to Malaya, Netherlands Indies, Philippines and Burma if it hasn't already been. Listing them as separate currencies may be appropriate, depending on whether or not they circulated with earlier issues.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Quote: "ceh2019"I agree with titus17 here, the Japanese occupation should be added as a ruling authority to Malaya, Netherlands Indies, Philippines and Burma if it hasn't already been. Listing them as separate currencies may be appropriate, depending on whether or not they circulated with earlier issues.
JIM- not "Japanese Occupation Notes" & seldom sought after by most currency collectors I know. They can still be bought in bricks (1000 UNC) &/or bundles (100) & can be compared to the realm of "hyperinflation" currencies before WW2.
Quote: "Serial_Number_8"Japanes Invasion Money
JIM- not "Japanese Occupation Notes" & seldom sought after by most currency collectors I know. They can still be bought in bricks (1000 UNC) &/or bundles (100) & can be compared to the realm of "hyperinflation" currencies before WW2.
- a subcategory is an excellent idea.
Just because something is common doesn't mean it's of no interest. The notes circulated during the occupations, so they are no less a part of numismatics than any other common notes, including other hyperinflated currencies that can also be bought in bundles. To place them in a separate category is to imply that they weren't normal money. Would we do the same with the various Allied occupation notes?
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
"The notes circulated during the occupations, so they are no less a part of numismatics than any other common notes, including other hyperinflated currencies that can also be bought in bundles."
- you are correct in that their commonality doesn't disqualify them from being "collectible." They definitely have a niche inside numismatics & I did not mean to imply that they (nor that hyperinflated currencies) were not part of the collectors' domains.
But this thread is about categorizing & cataloguing & "JIM" (nor any other occupation banknotes) should NOT be lumped into the same domainas national currency. JIM should not be under "Japan" either since the currency was never intended to be used at home (or in Japan) either.
"To place them in a separate category is to imply that they weren't normal money"
I don't think placing them in a separate category implies anything of the sort & yet they were NOT normal money! They were used as "money" by the invaders but wouldn't have been considered valid by those disposed of power (nor the rest of the world). But that's all beside the point. The fact still remains that they were NOT issued by the ruling government/central bank & in that regard- they're not typical nor conventional currency.
"Would we do the same with the various Allied occupation notes?"
-Military currency should have a separate category as well. MPC are not the national currency used by everyday citizens.
Quote: "Serial_Number_8""To place them in a separate category is to imply that they weren't normal money"
I don't think placing them in a separate category implies anything of the sort. But they were NOT normal money! They were used as "money" by the invaders but wouldn't have been considered valid by those disposed of power (nor the rest of the world). The fact still remains that they were NOT issued by the ruling government/central bank & in that regard- they're not typical nor conventional currency.
In what way were they not normal money? They certainly were issued by the ruling government sicnce, at that time, Japan was the ruling government. That this changed after a few years is no reason to put them in a separate category or "country".
Let's be clear that "military notes" come in two types: those issued by the military for general use and those issued by the military for use solely within military establishments. The former are real currency, the latter are vouchers. The so-called JIM come under the first type.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
"In what way were they not normal money?"
- I don't want to get bogged down in semantics of what's "normal" because that's not a decent qualifier (& not the subject of this thread). Occupation notes simply were not issued by the country that was invaded. In that regard, they're unconventional. So that is why most catalogues struggle to give them a proper "home."
IMO: catalogues have typically lumped such "pesky" subcategories under the country that was invaded. The "Banknote Museum" categorized JIM intended for the Philippines under Philippines:
but I don't agree with that (just because the currency was used there). Note "JIM" is not present under Japan:
but their own MPC is & US "Allied Military Currency" are there (probably b/c that's where it was used).
However, under France (the currency created for French citizens) gets its own category:
Again, I feel Numista has a chance to put all of these wartime currencies (which were intended for conquered nations) under a separate category. That makes the most sense to me.
Quote: "Serial_Number_8""In what way were they not normal money?"
- I don't want to get bogged down in semantics of what's "normal" because that's not a decent qualifier (& not the subject of this thread). Occupation notes simply were not issued by the country that was invaded. In that regard, they're unconventional. So that is why most catalogues struggle to give them a proper "home."
Of course they weren't issued by the country that was invaded. When one country conquers another, they take over the running of that country and, among many other things, they issue money. All the colonial powers did this when they conquered their colonies. Some introduced their own coins and notes, others issued distinct currencies. What the "JIM" represent are the first stages of colonial currencies that were cut short when Japan was defeated. If we follow your logic, the issues of all colonies would be separated from those of the independent states which they became because they were issued for conquered nations. That introduces discontinuities that seem wholey unjustified.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Quote: "BCNumismatics"Occupation banknotes should NOT be listed under either the conquered country or under the conquering country - but in sections of their own.
Aidan.
Why?
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
