We're currently missing a couple of the notes issued by the RBI for circulation in the Gulf but my question is, since they specifically did not circulate in India, where should these notes be listed? They're currently in India but should they have their own section? This would be called either “Persian Gulf” or “Arabian Gulf”. The two notes we have are here, the two we're missing can be seen here and here.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
The problem is that we have the title "issuer" rather than a title such as “country” or “state”. If we followed the logic of “issuer”, we'd list most colonial issues under the colonial power rather than where they were issued. The situation of the Gulf Rupees is an unusual one but surely the fact that they never circulated in India precludes them from being listed (as they currently are) within the main Indian section. We must consider where they were issued for, not just who they were issued by.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
I agree, this is kind of special situation. It is true that if they never circulated in India, it is weird that they would be placed there….
Can seem weird (and I know nothing about this indian topic) but we maybe have comparable cases with some european issuers which issued coins intended for international trade with Islamic kingdoms ; coins were not intended to circulate on the territory but we still attach them to those emitters.
Another hard case is military money ofc, notably when the intended circulation area is not known.
All those cases could be thought as “projections” of an issuing authority outside its borders, which indeed does not fit well in a catalogue based on geographical areas of circulation.
I think if they had exclusive use in one country, such as the Maltese third farthings that were concluded to only circulate in Malta, then they belong in their country of circulation. If I understand the Gulf rupees correctly, they were issued by Bank of India but were never meant to be used in India… why list them in India? Another case that comes to mind are the Bank of Indochina notes issued for Papeete (though they are very clearly indicated). In my personal experience I have seen these notes collected among Dubai collectors.
Maybe with discussion with the referee of both areas of circulation we can come to an accurate conclusion
Kenny
- Verifying your Asian and British-territorial coins everyday with the best quality photos and the best information.
When we give the coins a description, let’s keep the issuer and add a “Circulated in“ section. So, this for example, could be for “Issuer: India” and “Circulated in: Persian Gulf”. This would help other disputes like Malta too. It is only a suggestion. What do you all think?
When we give the coins a description, let’s keep the issuer and add a “Circulated in“ section. So, this for example, could be for “Issuer: India” and “Circulated in: Persian Gulf”. This would help other disputes like Malta too. It is only a suggestion. What do you all think?
I'm not keen, to be honest. A lot of coins and notes were issued by colonial powers for specific territories under their control and implementing something like this would result in them being listed under the power not the colony. Part of the problem is the multiple meanings of “issuer”. On the one hand, we use this to refer to the place where the coins or notes were issued, even when they were supplied by a colonial power. We justify this by recognizing that the colonial authorites usually requested the issues. The other use of “issuer” is for the institution which actually produced the coins or notes. With coins, it's usually the government but, with notes, we can usually identify a bank or other entity.
I would modify your description of these notes to “Issuing institution: Government of India” (1R) and “Issuing institution: Reserve Bank of India” (5R+) and create a new “place” (for want of a better term) “Persian Gulf”. That can be done within the current structure of Numista.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
When we give the coins a description, let’s keep the issuer and add a “Circulated in“ section. So, this for example, could be for “Issuer: India” and “Circulated in: Persian Gulf”. This would help other disputes like Malta too. It is only a suggestion. What do you all think?
I'm not keen, to be honest. A lot of coins and notes were issued by colonial powers for specific territories under their control and implementing something like this would result in them being listed under the power not the colony. Part of the problem is the multiple meanings of “issuer”. On the one hand, we use this to refer to the place where the coins or notes were issued, even when they were supplied by a colonial power. We justify this by recognizing that the colonial authorites usually requested the issues. The other use of “issuer” is for the institution which actually produced the coins or notes. With coins, it's usually the government but, with notes, we can usually identify a bank or other entity.
I would modify your description of these notes to “Issuing institution: Government of India” (1R) and “Issuing institution: Reserve Bank of India” (5R+) and create a new “place” (for want of a better term) “Persian Gulf”. That can be done within the current structure of Numista.
I like the sound of the Issuing Institution idea. We could add in, “Made For use in“, so “Made for use in the Persian Gulf” and we could keep it strictly based upon colonial coinage and coinage meant to circulate in other territories. What do you think?
I've realized that “Issuing Institution” isn't as good a name as I initially thought. I was trying for something generic that hadn't been used as an actual name. Unfortunately, this has been used for a number of French colonies, the “Institut d'Émission d'Outre-Mer”. The principle works, we just need the right name. When the banknote catalogue began, I suggested "Issuing Entity" but that's now got thoroughly muddled by being used to mean different things.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
What if the way we made issuers was by doing countries and former countries? We could split those in sub-issuers too. For former countries that have a specific connection with a current country, we could just put the former under the modern as a sub-issuer. In instances where it was a larger, less defined by one single modern country, we could make it a separate issuer, like the Ottoman Empire. Tibet issued coins, but as China now controls it, it would be best to keep Tibet coins under China. Prussia did create the German Empire, but was its own country, so this would be a separate issuer. Does this make sense? Would it be a good idea?
Status changed to Rejected(Jarcek, 14 Mar 2024, 12:08)
If the fractional farthings are listed as Malta despite being issued in the UK and never circulated there, then surely the Gulf rupees should be listed where they belong
Kenny
- Verifying your Asian and British-territorial coins everyday with the best quality photos and the best information.
