Collecting 1/100 of base currency (lets call them ‘cents’) is a valid theme, why not? We have one collector who collects ‘whole’ units, like 1 dollar, 1 dinar, 1 real, and his collection is quite impressive.
Joining your collections of cents and whole units looks even more interesting to me. Collecting cents is a cheaper option, anyway.
I myself am fascinated by cents who have so little intrinsic value that one wonders why they are still there, like the current Russian 1 kopecks.
One problem with cents is indeed related to their place at the low end of the value scale: sometimes, countries stop producing cents, and then 2 or 5 cents become the lowest values, and in a next phase 5 or 10 cents, and when even these become worthless, 25 or 50 cents, untill eventually there are no cents coins left. Have you thought about how to combine this with your theme of cents?
I wish you good luck with your collecting theme, and do show pictures of your collection if you feel like sharing.
Regards, Arno
(BTW: be careful with exposing your real full name and address on public internet pages, it's better to remove them)
Collecting 1/100 of base currency (lets call them ‘cents’) is a valid theme, why not? We have one collector who collects ‘whole’ units, like 1 dollar, 1 dinar, 1 real, and his collection is quite impressive.
Joining your collections of cents and whole units looks even more interesting to me. Collecting cents is a cheaper option, anyway.
I myself am fascinated by cents who have so little intrinsic value that one wonders why they are still there, like the current Russian 1 kopecks.
One problem with cents is indeed related to their place at the low end of the value scale: sometimes, countries stop producing cents, and then 2 or 5 cents become the lowest values, and in a next phase 5 or 10 cents, and when even these become worthless, 25 or 50 cents, untill eventually there are no cents coins left. Have you thought about how to combine this with your theme of cents?
I wish you good luck with your collecting theme, and do show pictures of your collection if you feel like sharing.
Regards, Arno
(BTW: be careful with exposing your real full name and address on public internet pages, it's better to remove them)
Thanks for the address tip. I already changed.
About the "end" of the penny, I really haven't thought about what to do.
But at first I want to try to collect the greatest possible number of different km's, in my catalog so far there are more than 390 (standard circulation), and a little more (commemorative circulation), there are still collection ones (at first these are very hard to get.
By the way, if anyone can help me, I would be very grateful.
As soon as I organize my entire collection (small for now) I will post pictures.
I started collecting UK Pennies and Half Pennies by date when I was a child and managed to get my penny collection back to 1860 by the time I was a teenager. The biggest problem I found was that I ended up with more ‘other’ coins than the ones I was trying to collect, so progressively ended up with a whole country collection anyway.
Also, beware of the obvious errors in your process - the 1/100 option may not always have been the lowest denomination (see half pennies and half cents when you get a bit further back in date order) or, in the case of UK coins, it may not have always been 1/100 (a UK Penny was actually 1/12 of a shilling up to 1970).
My point is, 1/100 is a good place to start, but don'don't let it become more of a hindrance than an oportunity to find out about the wonderful world of numismatics as a whole.
The other thread is not about 1/100 coins since it covers British pennies and their subdivisions, which were not decimalized.
1/100 is a narrower collection.
So I will repeat a comment I made over there, that if you want the collection to go farther back in time, there are some interesting options like the 1 baiocco coins of Papal States (1 baiocco = 1/100 scudo). This can take you back to the early 1700s, as it was the earliest decimalized currency (I think).
Whilst still on the broader theme of small value coinage, I found this over the weekend…
1901 Queen Victoria Penny. It looked like a really good find, until I saw the edge. Clearly a combination of two coins stuck together. You can even feel its a bit thicker than an un-tampered with coin
Also, you never know what you'll find in your loose change….
1920, 29, 32 Canada 1 cent, plus the find of the visit, a 1942 Newfoundland 1 cent.
These are from a ttrip to California quite a few years ago, curtesy of the small bank on the Pesidio in San Francisco. Also, they got me a Eisenhower Dollar - very nice people !!!
I'm even doing a survey of all currencies in the ratio 1/100, or 10/1000 (in some countries). My survey at first is to survey all Kms. And also by year and variants, etc.
AFAICT 1704 is the traditional date for Peter's reform, which established copper kopeks and silver rubles, but 1 ruble = 100 kopeks had been the case since 1535; the problem with the 1535-1704 range is that (excluding a series in 1654-55 that might have been patterns) the ruble was effectively an accounting unit rather than an issued denomination.
(The ruble is actually older than that; the 1535 reform introduced the kopek. Prior to 1535 it was 1 ruble = 200 dengas.)
Some Chinese and IIRC some Roman coins were decimal, but I'm not sure if any were 0.01 as opposed to 100 or 1000.
(Numista lists the Viminacium sestertii as denominated 1/100, apparently because a sestertius was 1/100 of an aureus. If this qualifies for you… well those are 3rd century AD.)
Back in the 2010s I was collecting Russian kopeks by type. This obviously broke down for the wire types - I was hardly going to get all, or even a major fraction, of the 1000+ catalogued variants, and there wasn't really a good way to narrow it down (other than “by monarch”, which felt like going a bit too far in the other direction).
I photographed my set (with some extraneous coins, but mostly those are kopeks) in 2016. A horrible pic, but it does give some idea…
AFAICT 1704 is the traditional date for Peter's reform, which established copper kopeks and silver rubles, but 1 ruble = 100 kopeks had been the case since 1535; the problem with the 1535-1704 range is that (excluding a series in 1654-55 that might have been patterns) the ruble was effectively an accounting unit rather than an issued denomination.
(The ruble is actually older than that; the 1535 reform introduced the kopek. Prior to 1535 it was 1 ruble = 200 dengas.)
Some Chinese and IIRC some Roman coins were decimal, but I'm not sure if any were 0.01 as opposed to 100 or 1000.
(Numista lists the Viminacium sestertii as denominated 1/100, apparently because a sestertius was 1/100 of an aureus. If this qualifies for you… well those are 3rd century AD.)
Back in the 2010s I was collecting Russian kopeks by type. This obviously broke down for the wire types - I was hardly going to get all, or even a major fraction, of the 1000+ catalogued variants, and there wasn't really a good way to narrow it down (other than “by monarch”, which felt like going a bit too far in the other direction).
I photographed my set (with some extraneous coins, but mostly those are kopeks) in 2016. A horrible pic, but it does give some idea…
Thank you very much
I will study your information
I still haven't arrived at the Letter "R" of my research (Russia) and your information will certainly be very useful
I have family connections in The Netherlands, hence the reason I have one of these. My Father-in-Law served onboard one of the Rotterdamsche Lloyd ships during the 1960s, these being part of the Dutch Merchant Navy, so this was of particular interest to me. These were issued by the Royal Dutch East India company (the VOC) as currency in what is now known as Indonesia, but was then referred to as the Dutch East Indies.
Hope this gets you back a bit further in that part of the world.
My understanding is that this is incorrect. According to the Krause catalog (12th edition, 1986, p. 1437-1438), the duit was never a decimal portion of a guilder, coming closest between 1802-1843, when it officially exchanged at 1/96 guilder in Netherlands East Indies.
They say that it traded unofficially as a “cent” due to lack of small change.
There were other currencies that had coins valued at 1/96 (German states in the late 18th century for example), so this denomination was not as uncommon as it sounds (being a natural consequence of systems based on 12).
My understanding is that this is incorrect. According to the Krause catalog (12th edition, 1986, p. 1437-1438), the duit was never a decimal portion of a guilder, coming closest between 1802-1843, when it officially exchanged at 1/96 guilder in Netherlands East Indies.
They say that it traded unofficially as a “cent” due to lack of small change.
There were other currencies that had coins valued at 1/96 (German states in the late 18th century for example), so this denomination was not as uncommon as it sounds (being a natural consequence of systems based on 12).
Well, if 1 VOC Duit equals to ⅛ Stuiver and 1 Pitis (using cucuk/چوچق system of 500 Pitis equals to 40 duits or ⅛ Spanish Silver Dollar) equals to ⅛ Duit (because 12,5 of them equals to 1 duit), then it means 1 Pitis palembang equals to 1/100 Stuiver! which makes the pitis instead is somewhat a “cent” to stuiver.
But then it leaves out the duit itself so this calculations kinda adds nothing to the conversation other than suggesting another coin to get into the collection i suppose 😕
