| Author |
 Replies: 31 / Views: 5,834 |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
593 Posts |
After LOTS of GREAT info from Sap, I have put together my first cut at an OFEC collection circa 1980, meaning coins from countries as the world existed in 1980. I used a 1980 Atlas as my guide. As much as possible I tried to get coins that would likely be circulating in 1980 in those countries. Critique welcome. There were several entities I wasn't sure about, so if you think I got something wrong I'd love to hear about it. I excluded NCLT. I used two Dansco 1-1/4" binders and 18 twelve pocket pages. I divided the world into 4 sections: 1. North and South America 2. Africa 3. Europe 4. Asia and Oceania Here are the intro pages and coins for section 1 (Americas):        Obviously I will try to get a 1962-1980 Cuba coin and a 1975-80 Paraguay coin. I have a St. Pierre & Miquelon coin on the way. Turks & Caicos is interesting because it appears that the first circulation coins weren't minted until 1981, so I will get a 1981 1/4 crown or 1/2 crown for that slot. On the last page are a coin from the obsolete British Caribbean Territory and its replacement, the East Caribbean States. The former coins would still be circulating circa 1980 since the first coin from the latter wasn't issued until 1981. Finally there is a coin from Aruba as an example of what is NOT included. Aruba was not listed in the 1980 Atlas, but it is illustrative of the problems with defining what is, and what is not, a country for purposes of such an OFEC album for a fixed year. Aruba was not listed in the 1980 Atlas, but by 1980 Aruba was well on its way to independence. Conversely, Namibia, according to a UN commission, was to gain independence December 31, 1978, and is listed as a country in the 1980 Atlas. However, independence was not actually achieved until 1990. Feel free to weigh in on the question of what should, and should not, be included. That has been the single biggest challenge. The next challenge was to make sure the coins were current in 1980, especially in light of all the reform coinages in South America and Africa. Thanks again to Sap for his invaluable advice and to anyone else that wishes to voice an opinion. Cheers! |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
3772 Posts |
Congratulation on your nice set-up. But allow me two comments: 1. You really need to get an older coin for Paraguay. And Quote:
I have a St. Pierre & Miquelon coin on the way. 2. Not sure that that coin would still have been circulating in 1980. With the change from old franc to new franc in 1960 the value of those coin became very low. Haven't been to St.Pierre & Miquelon [bucket list] but well before 1980 none of the old 1,2 or 5 Franc aluminum coins circulated in France, the larger old Franc denominations continued equal to the new Centime ones though. |
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
593 Posts |
Medieval: Quote:
1. You really need to get an older coin for Paraguay. Agreed. I mentioned ... "I will try to get a 1962-1980 Cuba coin and a 1975-80 Paraguay coin." Quote:
2. Not sure that that coin (St. Pierre & Miquelon) would still have been circulating in 1980. Interesting. I'm glad you brought that up. So the question would be whether the St. Pierre & Miquelon 1 and 2 Franc coins were circulating as 1 and 2 Centime coins in SP&Q in 1980. Very good point! Thank you so much for raising that issue! Those are the kinds of questions that need to be addressed. Cheers! Edited by larsdog
01/05/2015 02:08 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
3772 Posts |
Sorry, by focusing on St.Pierre and Miquelon I overlooked your comment re Cuba and Paraguay.
You might as well create a complete set of 1980s currency and after that add additional countries/monetary unions, say:
One additional set for countries which used other currencies in 1980 but issued coinage after 1980 for circulation (a good place for the Baltic states), then a second for countries which had currency between 1900 and 1980 but didn't fit into the previous sets (good place for St.Pierre and Miquelon if you cannot confirm that their own coinage still circulated in 1980) and having finished those sets you can go on and on and on.
Good luck with your endeavour, can't wait to see what you have prepared for the other volumes.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
593 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
3772 Posts |
If you give credence to Transnistria and Nagorno-Karabakh you also have to mention Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
2781 Posts |
nice collection and sharp presentation. I love these projects.
|
|
Moderator
 Australia
16831 Posts |
Quote:
If you give credence to Transnistria and Nagorno-Karabakh you also have to mention Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The difference is, Transnistria actually issues circulation coinage. Up until now, Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia and South Ossetia have not. There are coins that look like they might be circulation coins from Nagorno-Karabakh, but as far as I have been able to determine they are unofficial fantasy coins. All of which is a moot point for discussion of this particular collection, since all this happened long after 1980. I'd also agree with Medieval on the St Pierre coins; they would have long been out of circulation by 1980. Don't say "infinitely" when you mean "very"; otherwise, you'll have no word left when you want to talk about something really infinite. - C. S. Lewis
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
593 Posts |
Quote:
If you give credence to Transnistria and Nagorno-Karabakh you also have to mention Abkhazia and South Ossetia. That's a really good point. The only reason I mentioned Transnistria and Nagorno-Karabakh is because they issued coins at the end of the 20th Century and I wanted to explain their exclusion. (I'm using a 1901-2000 standard coin catalog dated 2008, and I went country by country to hopefully not miss anything). It may be more appropriate for me to simply list the SSR's that existed in 1980 and forget about the rest, otherwise I would have to reprint the index page every time another Xyzstan shows up. If I treat the Baltics as a special case, and eliminate Transnistria and Nagorno-Karabakh as you indicated, then I need to eliminate Tatarstan as well. Now I need to decide if I want to list the constituents with their current names or their 1980 names (White Russian S.S.R. versus Belarus). If I do that I will have to go back and rename Romania with Rumania! So far not a huge problem, though! I think I will remove St. Pierre & Miquelon unless someone convinces me those coins circulated circa 1980. I will reprint the USSR constituents. (I checked Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia for similar problems, but all those constituents were listed on my 1980 atlas). I will also change the label on Romania to Rumania. Let me know if you see any other concerns with the Americas or Europe. I left the USB key with the rest of the scans (Africa, Asia, and Oceania) at my office so I can't post them until tomorrow. Thanks again for your help! Edited by larsdog
01/05/2015 9:26 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
593 Posts |
Quote:
I'd also agree with Medieval on the St Pierre coins; they would have long been out of circulation by 1980. That seems like the final nail in the coffin for SP&M! Thanks for weighing in. I would be so lost without your initial guidance! |
|
Pillar of the Community
3772 Posts |
Quote:
rename Romania with Rumania No no no - that there are sometimes different spellings used doesn't change the name of countries using a variant of the Latin alphabet. The proper name is România (yes, coinage didn't use the 'â', but you will never see a coin spelling it with a 'u') and Romania was always one of the correct spellings in English. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
593 Posts |
Quote:
No no no - that there are sometimes different spellings used doesn't change the name of countries using a variant of the Latin alphabet. The proper name is România (yes, coinage didn't use the 'â', but you will never see a coin spelling it with a 'u') and Romania was always one of the correct spellings in English. I understand what you are saying (or in this case, typing), but I can't help wonder if going back to "Rumania" might lend a hint of nostalgia to the endeavor. After all, in the atlas I'm using, the capital of mainland China is Peking and one of the largest cities in India is Bombay. (As an aside, I have always wondered why we went to so much trouble to change to Beijing and Mumbai, but Munich never received an "update". Does Munchen (with the umlaut) sound too much like Munchkin? Couldn't we call it something like "Moon Kin"? Sorry to digress! Edited by larsdog
01/05/2015 11:36 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
3772 Posts |
There has not really been a change in how Romania was called in different languages, just that some lazy people added two additional spelling to English. Transliterations from languages using a different script are different to old names attached to Cities/Countries/etc by non-natives. Take for example Rome, the Italian spelling is like the ancient one Roma. As a by-note, Munich is called Monaco di Bavaria in Italian, which somehow reflects the origin of the name (meaning 'ad the monks' because Munich started as a settlement near a monastery).
Btw, was just thinking about something which might interest you:
As you probably know, there was specific coinage issued for the Faeroe Islands in WWII. The Faeroe Islands have a status similar to Greenland. That coinage might very well still have circulated in 1980.
Postscript:
The 'ch' in Muenchen is very difficult to pronounce for native English (including the various variants thereof) speakers.
Edited by Medieval
01/06/2015 12:01 am
|
|
Moderator
Australia
16831 Posts |
Quote:
...I have always wondered why we went to so much trouble to change to Beijing and Mumbai, but Munich never received an "update"... "We" didn't change the names; "they" did. In the case of Bombay/Mumbai, when radical Hindu nationalists were swept to power in the 1995 Maharashtra State election, they officially changed the English name of the city, to more accurately reflect the original local pronunciation, rather than the corrupted "foreign" pronunciation imposed by the colonial authorities. Anyone who uses "Bombay" in India today is considered some kind of retro-colonialist. In the case of China, the transposition of Chinese into Latin alphabets has always been problematic, ever since first contact; there have been half a dozen "Romanization systems" in use since the late 19th century. "Peking" is the name under Wade-Giles, which was the official Romanization form of the Republic of China; it was still used in Taiwan until 2008. "Beijing" is the name in Pinyin form; this form was invented by Communist China in 1958 and has now become the official standard in Taiwan and Singapore, too. If the German-speaking nations wanted to insist that the English names of their cities be changed (other cities, such as Cologne/Koln and Vienna/Wien, would also presumably be affected) they could insist upon it; in this age of Eurification, I'm sure the British government and press would comply, and it's British English usage that largely determines what names European cities are known by in English, since they have to use them far more often than the rest of us. So far, the Germans have not so insisted. The same concept will probably be encountered much more often in Africa. The official English name for the country in between Liberia and Ghana, for example, is "Côte d'Ivoire", not "Ivory Coast". It seems to be the trend that English-speakers are much more reluctant to change the name of a place if the "new" name has "funny accent marks" or "weird unpronounceable letters". I notice that Krause still files Côte d'Ivoire under "I"; I blame the circumflexed O. Don't say "infinitely" when you mean "very"; otherwise, you'll have no word left when you want to talk about something really infinite. - C. S. Lewis
|
|
Pillar of the Community
3772 Posts |
Let's just add that it not only affects German cities but cities all over Europe, not even counting places like Moscow or Athens where different scripts are used. Take the earlier example of Rome (Roma) but add Lisbon (Lisboa), Canary Islands (Islas Canarias), Brittany (Bretagne) and Bucharest (București) - just to give you one place name in the countries with Romance languages.
But the same holds true for other languages as well, take Londra (London), Parigi (Paris), Colonia (Cologne aka Koeln) in Italian etc etc etc.
|
|
Moderator
Australia
16831 Posts |
Quote:
As you probably know, there was specific coinage issued for the Faeroe Islands in WWII. The Faeroe Islands have a status similar to Greenland. That coinage might very well still have circulated in 1980. The coins listed under "Faeroe Islands" in Krause are really "homeland types", identical to Danish coinage for all practical purposes. The date is 1941 and the mintmarks indicated "London" rather than "Copenhagen", but otherwise the coins are identical to pre-war Danish coins. They are only considered "Faeroe" coins because the Faeroe Islands were the only non-autonomous piece of Denmark not occupied by the Nazis; although invaded and occupied by the British, the Faeroe Islands were ostensibly "held in trust" until Denmark could be re-liberated. Listing them under "Faeroe Islands" rather than "Denmark" is an oddity; it would be like filing 1951 British pennies under "Bermuda" or Hawaii-overprinted US banknotes under "Hawaii" instead of "United States". As for whether or not they still circulated, they would have been withdrawn when the homeland types just like them were withdrawn. You'd have been only slightly less likely to find them in Denmark itself rather than on the islands. From my own experience at sorting through a hoard of Scandinavian coins pulled from circulation in the late 1970s, the Danes were reasonably efficient at removing obsolete coins from circulation; finding 1940s coins in change would have been difficult, though not impossible. Don't say "infinitely" when you mean "very"; otherwise, you'll have no word left when you want to talk about something really infinite. - C. S. Lewis
|
| |
Replies: 31 / Views: 5,834 |
Posted 01/05/2015 02:02 am
