Examples Of Coins "Claimed" (Cataloged) By Multiple Countries

I was on the trail of the doubloon a couple days ago. The term appears to originate in Italy, then proceeds to France to become the ecu, then to Spain as escudo. The familiar French term for 2 ecu (ca 6.7g) was "doblon", which became the doubloon of pirate fame, as well as the French gold Louis. However, in America the term was used for the 8 escudo, which is the basis for the Brasher Doubloon and New Orleans Mardi Gras novelty coins.

"Pistole" was another term for the 2 escudo, which was more universal. Its near relative was the "pistareen" 2 reales silver....which is also the basis for the American quarter.

The Dutch dukaat is another coin which descends from the ecu lineage. Today there is only one currency which still incorporates the term "doubloon". Sao Tome and Principe uses the Portugese derived "dobra".

I have a couple of such coins:
1. Genovese-Mongol asper from the city Caffa. Something similar at Numista: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces118895.html
One side is European with the city name and shield. Another is arabic with a tamga of a Golden Horde ruler (Dawlat-Berdi or Muhammad khan) and arabic inscription



2. Polish-Russian Kopiejka of Wladyslaw IV Waza as Tsar of Russia.
Numista Polish: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces96517.html
Numista Russian: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces111715.html



And one more unique example of such coin which is with flip-over double struck (both obverse and reverse are on both sides)

Duchy of Lorraine / Grand Duchy of Tuscany, Teston of Nicolas Francois in Exile, 1634-35.

In 1634 France invaded the Duchy of Lorraine, and Duke Charles IV abdicated under French pressure, in favor of his younger brother Nicolas Francois. Nicloas left Lorraine for Florence, where he ruled in exile for two years (1634-35) until abdicating the crown back to Charles.
This teston was minted in Florence to Lorraine standards. It bears Nicolas Francois' title obverse, and the Lorraine coat of arms reverse, but states that it was struck in Florence (MONETA NOVA FLORENT CVSA).
It is listed in catalogs covering Lorraine (Flon, de Saulcy) but also in catalogs covering Tuscany (MIR, CNI). Krause has it as German States/Lorraine (KM#55), but that's another story
In French auctions it is invariably listed as French/Feudal/Lorraine.
In Italian auctions it is invariably listed under Grand Duchy of Tuscany.
In German/Austrian auctions it can go either way.
Heritage has called it France, while Heritage Europe has called it Italy.

So, from a catloger's viewpoint, it's probably the most confusing coin in my collection.

3. 1506 Glogauer Groschen of Sigismund
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces45866.html (I would like to post a picture of one that I own, but I have been outbid on more examples of this coin than I care to admit)

Perhaps this is another good example of @erafjel's reference to the personal nature of authority to mint.

The Duchy of Glogau (Glogow in Polish) is one of the many small Silesian principalities that minted coins in medieval and early modern times. From early medieval times, many parts of Silesia were ruled by lords and dukes of the Polish Piast dynasty. But from 1331, Silesia became aligned with the Kingdom of Bohemia , though Polish families continued to rule in some places until their line died out.

The complicated situation in Glogau at the end of the 16th century is described here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy...%82og%C3%B3w
Sigismund Jagiello was duke of Glogau from 1499-1506. In January 1507 he would be crowned King of Poland following the death of his brother, King Alexander.

In 1506 he issued the 1 groschen coin, with an unusual combination of devices and legends. On one side is the Piast eagle, which was a common device on Silesian coins, and legend SIGISMVNDVS DVX GLOGOVIE (Sigismund, Duke of Glogau ...). On the reverse, however, he shows the mounted knight used on the Lithuanian coins of his brother Alexander, and the legend continues KAZIMIRI R POLONIE NATVS (...born of Kazimierz, King of Poland). So Sigismund seems to be reminding someone that he will eventually become King of Poland and Grand DUke of Lithuania? On this coin of Glogau?

In Numista the coin is listed under Poland/Kingdom of/Sigismund I
The coin is listed in Polish catalogs like Gumowski and Kopicki, but also in the Silesian catalog of Friedensburg.
Polish auction houses invariably list this coin under Poland/Sigismund I, but list all other Silesian coins in the category "Coins of Places Related to Poland."
German auction houses usually list this coin under German States/Silesia, or Haus Habsburg/Silesia

How about the opposite - coins that nobody wants to claim or catalogue, but coin cataloguers have to put them somewhere?

1. "Golden Triangle" bullion tael coins. Krause has flip-flopped over which country they ought to be listed under; Burma, Thailand, Laos, China (Yunnan Province) and French Indochina have been used in the past. They were used to fund the opium trade in the 1940s and 1950s. Most appear to have been struck in Hanoi during the Japanese / Vichy French period (circa 1943), thus their inclusion in French Indochina in the latest Krause revisions (with their original KM numbers revised to "X" numbers to denote their unofficial status), but modern Vietnamese catalogues do not include them.

2. British trade dollars. They are listed in Krause under "Great Britain" (and given T (for trade coinage) numbers), because it was British Imperial trade policy that saw their issue. But British coin catalogues invariably exclude them and do not regard them as "British coins", on the basis that they were struck in India for use in East and Southeast Asia, and none were ever seen in Britain during their period of issue. They were never legal tender in Britain. In comparison, other British "trade dollars" such as the Elizabethan Portcullis dollars are always included in the British catalogues, on the grounds that they were struck in England (and were failures as trade coins). The Indian and Southeast Asian catalogues likewise omit them.

@sap, those are great examples, especially in highlighting @bjherbison's earlier comment about it being clear at the time why and where these were issued, but their vexing the catalogers who came long after.