We should move Texas to USA… [solved]

Please move Texas to become a sub-issuer of USA. Thank you.

This coin: N#345860

Or USA Pre-Federal?

At the time, this place was a northern province of the Vice Royalty of New Spain.  Different monetary system than the U.S., etc.

It's another gray area which could be handled either way.  

But we have a duplicate issuer then…

Also Puerto Rico was controlled by Spain and that is under United States. Further more, Numista moved Danish West Indies, controlled by Denmark to USA. 

My understanding is that we have:

• Texas as a state in the Vice Royalty of Spain, until 1836
• Texas as a “breakaway” Republic 1836-1845 (not recognized by Spain, but behaving independently, as with for example the Dutch Republic in 1570s, or United States 1776-1783)
• Texas as a state of the United States  1845 - 

I think the pre-1836 issue should remain where it is, rather than we break apart one small piece of a large contiguous Spanish colony and stick it under U.S..  

tdziemia

My understanding is that we have:

 

• Texas as a state in the Vice Royalty of Spain, until 1836
• Texas as a “breakaway” Republic 1836-1845 (not recognized by Spain, but behaving independently, as with for example the Dutch Republic in 1570s, or United States 1776-1783)
• Texas as a state of the United States  1845 - 

 

I think the pre-1836 issue should remain where it is, rather than we break apart one small piece of a large Spanish colony and stick it under U.S..  

It is possible if we use the “same as” feature, like for Duchy of Savoy ;-)

Berkshire Collecting

Also Puerto Rico was controlled by Spain and that is under United States. Further more, Numista moved Danish West Indies, controlled by Denmark to USA. 

Yes, the Puerto Rico example is a good counter-argument.  

We are constantly looking at situations like this where the geography model of Numista clashes with the numismatic issuer history, and trying to strike the right balance.  Maybe a bit easier to decide with “discrete” issuers like islands than with a province of a large state with a long numismatic history.  

But that can lead to a semblance of inconsistency (which also happens with most other catalogs). 

Compendium

tdziemia

My understanding is that we have:

 

• Texas as a state in the Vice Royalty of Spain, until 1836
• Texas as a “breakaway” Republic 1836-1845 (not recognized by Spain, but behaving independently, as with for example the Dutch Republic in 1570s, or United States 1776-1783)
• Texas as a state of the United States  1845 - 

 

I think the pre-1836 issue should remain where it is, rather than we break apart one small piece of a large Spanish colony and stick it under U.S..  

It is possible if we use the “same as” feature, like for Duchy of Savoy ;-)

Good solution.

Compendium

tdziemia

My understanding is that we have:

 

• Texas as a state in the Vice Royalty of Spain, until 1836
• Texas as a “breakaway” Republic 1836-1845 (not recognized by Spain, but behaving independently, as with for example the Dutch Republic in 1570s, or United States 1776-1783)
• Texas as a state of the United States  1845 - 

 

I think the pre-1836 issue should remain where it is, rather than we break apart one small piece of a large Spanish colony and stick it under U.S..  

It is possible if we use the “same as” feature, like for Duchy of Savoy ;-)

I like the Duchy of Savoy option.

I tried it, you'll tell me if its OK

It is still under Mexico. I might be incorrect?

Yes because we used the same as feature like for duchy of Savoy :-)

It is made for sub-issuers who were successively part of 2 different main issuers