Figuring out Russia (+splitting the Russian civil war)

Hello!

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1n8mcqIPMs0ex1_HMVU57DQfv7HCkAF6-UdwhfHq-9e4/edit?usp=sharing

So I have been working on a way to split the Russian civil war, and that progressed into modifying a lot of our Russia issuer. I will split this post into two parts to make everything more managable because there is a lot here.

Part 1) Ignoring the Russian civil war sub-issuers

To start, I will show what Russia currently looks like. Because this thread deals with both Coins and Banknotes, anything that is solely on the Banknote side will be italicized:

Russia
----- Livonia and Estonia
----- Russia - Civil war issues
----- Russia
----- Russian Caucasia
----- Russian Empire
----- Siberia
----- Soviet Union
----- Tannu Tuva
----- Taurida Governorate
----- Tatarstan

With that being said, this is how I am proposing we format Russia:

Russia
----- Russia
----- Russia (1917-1923) ***See discussion below
----- Russian civil war
----- Russian Empire
---------- Livonia and Estonia
---------- Russia, Swedish occupation of
---------- Russian America
---------- Russian Empire
---------- Siberia
---------- Taurida Oblast
----- Soviet Union
---------- Soviet Union
---------- Tannu Tuva
----- Tatarstan

The basic grouping here is that, for any areas that were under the Russian Empire, they can be moved as sub-sections to the Russian Empire; and for any areas that were under the Soviet Union, they can be moved as sub-sections to the Soviet Union.

Swedish occupation of Russia: during the Russo-Swedish War, Sweden made imitations of Russian coins to circulate in their occupied areas. These coins are currently listed under Sweden, but I think they would work under their own issuer (and because I cannot find the exact areas of their occupation, I went with a generic name to encompass everything that would have been relevant).

Russian America: this is another new issuer, solely for the walrus skin banknotes made for this area.

Taurida Oblast: this is a suggested re-naming of the Taurida Governorate. The coins listed under this issuer actually pre-date the Taurinda Governorate, so I think this naming would be more accurate.

Russian Caucasia: the only coins made by this issuer were from the City of Aramvir during the Russian civil war. Because of that, I am suggesting to modify this issuer to a sub-section of the Russian civil war (hence why it does not appear on the above list).

Tatarstan: the fact that the coins have been moved to Exonumia but the banknotes are under Banknotes confuses me, so I am not proposing anything with this issuer; I am not sure what to do with it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Part 2) The Russian civil war

Here is what I am thinking (with bolded being already-existing issuers):

----- Russian civil war
---------- Central Asia, Russian
--------------- Ashkhabad, City of
--------------- Bukharan People's Soviet Republic
--------------- Khorezm People's Soviet Republic
--------------- Semirechye Region
--------------- Transcaspian Region
--------------- Turkestan District
---------- Crimean Regional Government
---------- North Caucasus
--------------- Armavir, City of (*The coins of Russian Caucasia will specifically go here)
--------------- Black Sea Region
--------------- Grozny, City of
--------------- Kislovodsk, City of
--------------- Kuban People's Republic
--------------- Mineralnye Vody District
--------------- North Caucasian Emirate
--------------- North Caucasian Soviet Republic
--------------- Stavropol, City of
--------------- Sochi, City of
--------------- Terek Soviet Republic
--------------- Terek-Daghestan Territory
--------------- Vladikavkaz, City of
--------------- Yekaterinodar, City of
---------- Northwest Russia
--------------- Arkhangelsk, City of
--------------- Kronstadt Republic
--------------- Mitau, City of
--------------- Mogilev Region
--------------- Northern Region, Provisional Government of the
--------------- Olonets Governorate
--------------- Pskov, City of
--------------- Slutsk District
---------- Russian Far East
--------------- Amur Oblast
--------------- Barnaul, City of
--------------- Biysk, City of
--------------- Blagoveshchensk, City of
--------------- Chita, City of
--------------- Far Eastern Republic
--------------- Gorno-Altai Autonomous Oblast
--------------- Kamchatka Peninsula
--------------- Khabarovsk Region
--------------- Nikolayevsk-on-Amur, Municipality of
--------------- Pribaykalsky District
--------------- Primorskaya Oblast
--------------- Sakhalin Oblast
--------------- Siberia (Vladivostok), Provisional Government of
--------------- Siberia, Japanese occupation of (*The one banknote under Siberia will go here)
--------------- Tomsk, City of
--------------- Vladivostok, City of
--------------- Yakut Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic
---------- Siberia and Urals
--------------- Akmolinsk Oblast
--------------- Irkutsk, City of
--------------- Kama Region
--------------- Kislovodsk, City of
--------------- Krasnoyarsk, City of
--------------- Orenburg, City of
--------------- Perm, City of
--------------- Samara, City of
--------------- Siberia (Omsk), Provisional Government of
--------------- Siberia, Central Government of
--------------- Ural Cossacks Territory
--------------- Uralsk, City of
--------------- Yekaterinburg, City of
---------- South Russia
--------------- Astrakhan Oblast
--------------- Rostov-on-Don, City of
--------------- South Russia
---------- Transcaucasia, Russian
--------------- Aleksandrapol, City of
--------------- Armenia Soviet Socialist Republic
--------------- Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic
--------------- Baku, City of
--------------- Batumi, City of
--------------- Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic
--------------- Shirak Government
--------------- Transcaucasian Commissariate
--------------- Transcaucasian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic
---------- Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic
--------------- Kherson, City of
--------------- Kiev, City of
--------------- Odessa, City of
--------------- Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic
--------------- Yelisavetgrad, City of
--------------- Zhytomyr, City of

With that being said, in the above list, there are some issuers that should have no problems whatsoever, and some issuers that pose many problems. I will eliminate any irrelevant/problemless issuers from the above list, with the biggest problems being bloded:

----- Russian civil war
---------- Central Asia, Russian
--------------- Ashkhabad, City of
--------------- Bukharan People's Soviet Republic
--------------- Khorezm People's Soviet Republic
--------------- Semirechye Region
--------------- Transcaspian Region
--------------- Turkestan District
---------- Crimean Regional Government
---------- North Caucasus
--------------- Kuban People's Republic
--------------- North Caucasian Soviet Republic
--------------- Terek Soviet Republic
---------- Russian Far East
--------------- Yakut Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic
---------- Transcaucasia, Russian (*adding imaginary fifth-level issuers here)
--------------- Armenia Soviet Socialist Republic
-------------------- Aleksandrapol, City of
-------------------- Shirak Government
--------------- Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic
-------------------- Baku, City of
--------------- Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic
-------------------- Batumi, City of
--------------- Transcaucasian Commissariate
--------------- Transcaucasian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic
---------- Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic
--------------- Kherson, City of
--------------- Kiev, City of
--------------- Odessa, City of
--------------- Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic
--------------- Yelisavetgrad, City of
--------------- Zhytomyr, City of

So with this list, we would have periods of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Crimea, Georgia, and Ukraine under the Russian civil war. I think this would be alright because the history of these places match this issuer, the banknotes are all very relevant to the Russian civil war period, and we can connect these Soviet issuers with their modern-day counterparts so all banknotes will be appearing in the same place under the same issuer, even if there are different parents.

With that being said, I can definitely see the argument for not listing these places under the Russian civil war (and instead listing them under their modern-day counterparts as ruling authorities).

However, if we were to not list these places under the Russian civil war, Bukhara and Khorezm become a problem--the best place to list those ones would be under their Emirate counterparts (under Late Central Asia) because the change from Emirate to Soviet was just a change in ruling authorities. But if the Bukharan and Khorezm Soviets do not appear under Russian civil war... what about the rest of Russian Central Asia? Keeping two under Central Asia while keeping the rest under the Russian civil war would not be ideal, in my opinion.

The same thing can be said about the Transcaucasian issuers: these were combinations of Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia, and so the best place to list these issuers would arguably be under the Russian civil war, and yet the individual areas would be listed in different places, which would, again, not be ideal.

And then that just leaves Ukraine and Crimea, but if all others are valid under the Russian civil war (and not just the problem issuers, but also the other Soviet issuers that are still in modern-day Russia), separating only two would not be ideal either, even if they have modern-day counterparts they could technically work under (although Crimea is questionable--our first-level issuer is for the Khanate).

So... I think the best course of action would be to list everything under the Russian civil war, then connect everything with their relevant issuers. That way, everything will be listed under their most relevant parent issuers while still being listed in the same place as their modern-day counterparts.

We have not been using the connection feature much, but I think we should start using it more.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

And... yeah. That should be everything. Thoughts on this?

Where do the issues of the Kerensky Government and the RSFSR fit into this? Are you proposing they remain in the bottom-level "Russian Empire"?

Verweis : "ceh2019"​Are you proposing they remain in the bottom-level "Russian Empire"?

​I did not propose anything with those governments, no (although the RSFSR is currently under the Soviet Union and not the Russian Empire). But with this being a thread about figuring out Russia, this would be a good place to discuss those ones as well.

Yes, when it was just coins, the RSFSR issues were placed under the USSR and that was all that there was. With notes there are a lot of RSFSR issues from before the foundation of the USSR as well as the Kerensky Government notes. I'm not mad keen on it, but perhaps the best option is to rename "Russian Empire" as "Russia (pre-USSR)", then include the issues from 1917-1923 there. Modern Russia could be renamed "Russia (post-USSR)" to make things clear? Regarding the RSFSR coins (struck between 1921 and 1923), I know there's an argument for keeping them in the USSR, namely that they weren't issued until after the foundation of the USSR, but, if we have a sensible name for the earlier Russia, I suggest moving them there with a clear comment as to when they were finally issued.

If we were to re-name modern Russia, I think Russian Federation would be a better name.

Since sending my last message, I did look into the specific notes to try to get a better understanding of their history. With that being said, while grouping the Kerensky Government and the RSFSR with the Russian Empire is an interesting option, I do not think it is necessarily the best one.

To start: with the Kerensky Government, looking on Bank Note Museum, it appears there were banknotes made in early 1917 (under Lvov?), in 1918 (under the Russian Republic?), and even in 1919 (just specimens). As well, it appears there are certain banknotes that were originally issued under the Provisional Government which the RSFSR later continued to issue, with the only differences being the signatures.

With that being said, I think it would make sense to keep the Provisional Government, the Republic, and the RSFSR all together, which I will refer to as Russia (1917-1923).

This Russia (1917-1923) issuer is exactly within the period of the Russian civil war. During the civil war, there were many break-away states issuing their own banknotes, which would obviously work as separate issuers. With that being said, I think there could be an argument for listing Russia (1917-1923) as its own issuer as well, based on the period and the geography (because it seems Ukraine, Byelorussia, and Transcaucasia might not have been included in the RSFSR, but that they joined together to form the Soviet Union--please correct me if I'm wrong though).

I can also see the arguments of grouping Russia (1917-1923) with the Soviet Union because the RSFSR could be seen as a proto-Soviet Union, although I do not think the Provisional Government would work that well here as they seem more closely related to the Russian Empire (and while grouping the Provisional Government with the Empire is an option, that would mean we must split singular banknote types in two and differenciate the issues by signatures).

And I can also see the argument of grouping the Russian Empire, Russia (1917-1923), and the Soviet Union all together in one Russia (1533-1991) issuer, although with their being some major geographic changes from the Russian Empire to the Soviet Union, I think that would not necessarily be ideal.

-----

Regarding the coins being issued later than they were minted: this is interesting, although I do not think this should change what is done with the issuers because, looking at just how many banknotes there were, I imagine the banknotes were not in the same situation as the coins (otherwise saying: they were issued as they were printed).

The coins still pose a problem, of course. We could list them under the Soviet Union with an explaination as to why (and change the dates to ND ones that match the Soviet Union in the process), or we could keep them under the RSFSR because that was the original intention, even if the coins were released years after they were minted (like the Belariusian coins of 2009/2016). Considering how these were part of a currency started post-RSFSR (the Third Ruble), I think the first option might be better, although getting more opinions on that would be nice.

Yes, "Russia (1917-1923)" is definitely an option. I considered "Russian Federation" for the modern state but decided not to suggest it due to the fact that the F in RSFSR stands for Federative, a little too close to Federation?

Having Federative in the name should not be an issue--that would be like avoiding the name "Republic of China" because Republic appears in "People's Republic of China". It is important to consider the full titles, and in regards to Russia, the full titles are different.

That's fine, I just thought putting "post-USSR" was clearer, especially if RSFSR is going to be hidden within a date range. Let's go with this and get the currencies sorted, then we can make this section a lot better.

I added Russia (1917-1923) to my above List/Sheet.

Let's continue here. I added several issuer which can now have their items moved.

 

Newly added:

• South Russia
• Grozny city
• Kuban People's Republic
• Vladikavkaz, City of
• Yekaterinodar, City of
• Arkhangelsk, City of
• Far Eastern Republic
• Don Republic
• Rostov-on-Don, City of

I completely forgot about this thread.  x)

 

You should have full access to the Sheet now. I'll start moving some items to the proper issuers:)

Ok, thank you!

 

I just added another batch:

• Biysk, City of
• Barnaul, City of
• Amur Oblast
• Northern Region, Provinsional Government of the
• Terek-Daghestan Territory
• Sochi, City of
• North Caucasian Soviet Republic
• North Caucasian Emirate
• Mineralnye Vody District
• Black Sea Region

Requests should all be sent for those ones:)

Wow, you are fast. Hats off, I need to match your enthusiasm!

 

I added next bunch just now:

• Olonets Governorate
• Blagoveshchensk, City of
• Chita, City of
• Gorno-Altai Autonomous Oblast
• Kamchatka Oblast
• Khabarovsk Region
• Nikolayevsk-on-Amur, Municipality of
• Pribaykalsky District
• Primorskaya Oblast
• Sakhalin Oblast
• Siberia (Vladivostok), Provisional Government of
• Siberia, Japanese occupation of
• Vladivostok, City of
• Yakut Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic
• Siberia, Central Government of
• Astrakhan Oblast

Just had a lot of free time today. All those having pending requests as well:)

The creation of a category for Ukrainian Notgeld has been suggested also.

https://en.numista.com/forum/topic162781.html

 

Depending on the parameters, a few of the banknotes currently in Polish notgeld might fit into the category were it to be created.

My first aim is to create issuers and put items in them. Rest will come later.

 

I added another batch:

• Akmolinsk Oblast
• Mitau, City of
• Mogilev Region
• Slutsk District
• Semirechye Region
• Transcaspian Region
• Turkestan District
• Ashkhabad, City of
• Bukharan People's Soviet Republic

I was unaware of that Ukrainian Notgeld thread. I imagine everything relevant to it is under my “Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic” parent issuer. I do believe these would classify as notgelds; however, if that is the case, I think the entirety of the Russian Civil War issuer could classify as that as well. I still think it would be best to keep this area of numismatics together (for the reasons stated in the initial post), but that's only my opinion. First step is creating individual issuers, as Jarcek said.

 

With that being said, if someone would like to move this thread to the coin catalogue forum so non-referees can have access to it, feel free to do that--you have my permission. It is a very old thread, and more opinions could be helpful. :)

 

Also: I sent the requests for the newest batch. :)

 

Also also: apparently there is now some duplication. We have the City of Mitau under Russian Civil War and City of Jelgava (Mitau) under Latvian Notgeld. I still requested the notes of the Russian Civil War to be moved under Mitau (movement still pending); however, three of the notes are already duplicated under Jelgava (they have "West Russian Volunteer Army" in their titles). Mitau has other notgelds unrelated to the Russian Civil War, but these particular notes are indeed related to the war (hence why they've been duplicated, I imagine). This will need to be solved eventually, but I will still mention it here so it is not forgotten about.

Yes, we need to review that in next steps.

 

I added last batch:

• Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic
• Yelisavetgrad, City of
• Zhytomyr, City of
• Kherson, City of
• Kiev, City of
• Aleksandrapol, City of
• Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic
• Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic
• Baku, City of
• Batumi, City of
• Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic
• Shirak Government
• Transcaucasian Commissariat
• Transcaucasian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic
• Ural Cossacks Territory
• Uralsk, City of
• Yekaterinburg, City of
• Perm, City of
• Samara, City of
• Siberia (Omsk), Provisional Government of
• Irkutsk, City of
• Kama Region
• Krasnoyarsk, City of

Perhaps these changes ought to be considered within the whole area of how Notgeld should be treated .

 

For example, areas of Germanic notgeld, notes printed entirely in German and issued in what was Germany at their time of issue - cities such as Allenstein, now Olstyn in north east Poland, are currently under German notgeld and collected by many people as German notgeld, but also as Polish notgeld by some collectors. 

Under the current guidelines they may need moving to Poland.

All the newest ones should have pending requests now.

 

In the Google Sheet, I marked two issuers in orange that need a little more attention.

 

The Crimean Regional Government was missed, likely because this would be the only third-level issuer without any sub-issuers. There are still quite a few notes from that one which need to be moved.

 

Please change the name of the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic to the City of Erivan. It seems all notes that were meant for this state were actually specifically for the city. The Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic can still be a parent for Erivan, Shirak, and Aleksandrapol, of course.  :)

 

Other than that, all remaining notes in the Russian Civil War issuer should be exonumia pieces, which I'm not quite sure how to deal with yet.

Erivan was redone and The Crimean Regional Government was just added.

Alrighty. All the Crimean ones have pending requests. That just leaves the few exonumia items.

 

I added the individual cities to the Sheet (in orange). Seems there are only five on Numista, currently. I am not quite sure if there are different guidelines here, but they are there in case these issuers should also be added.

SulfurHello!

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1n8mcqIPMs0ex1_HMVU57DQfv7HCkAF6-UdwhfHq-9e4/edit?usp=sharing

So I have been working on a way to split the Russian civil war, and that progressed into modifying a lot of our Russia issuer. I will split this post into two parts to make everything more managable because there is a lot here.

Part 1) Ignoring the Russian civil war sub-issuers

To start, I will show what Russia currently looks like. Because this thread deals with both Coins and Banknotes, anything that is solely on the Banknote side will be italicized:

Russia
----- Livonia and Estonia
----- Russia - Civil war issues
----- Russia
----- Russian Caucasia
----- Russian Empire
----- Siberia
----- Soviet Union
----- Tannu Tuva
----- Taurida Governorate
----- Tatarstan

With that being said, this is how I am proposing we format Russia:

Russia
----- Russia
----- Russia (1917-1923) ***See discussion below
----- Russian civil war
----- Russian Empire
---------- Livonia and Estonia
---------- Russia, Swedish occupation of
---------- Russian America
---------- Russian Empire
---------- Siberia
---------- Taurida Oblast
----- Soviet Union
---------- Soviet Union
---------- Tannu Tuva
----- Tatarstan

The basic grouping here is that, for any areas that were under the Russian Empire, they can be moved as sub-sections to the Russian Empire; and for any areas that were under the Soviet Union, they can be moved as sub-sections to the Soviet Union.

Swedish occupation of Russia: during the Russo-Swedish War, Sweden made imitations of Russian coins to circulate in their occupied areas. These coins are currently listed under Sweden, but I think they would work under their own issuer (and because I cannot find the exact areas of their occupation, I went with a generic name to encompass everything that would have been relevant).

Russian America: this is another new issuer, solely for the walrus skin banknotes made for this area.

Taurida Oblast: this is a suggested re-naming of the Taurida Governorate. The coins listed under this issuer actually pre-date the Taurinda Governorate, so I think this naming would be more accurate.

Russian Caucasia: the only coins made by this issuer were from the City of Aramvir during the Russian civil war. Because of that, I am suggesting to modify this issuer to a sub-section of the Russian civil war (hence why it does not appear on the above list).

Tatarstan: the fact that the coins have been moved to Exonumia but the banknotes are under Banknotes confuses me, so I am not proposing anything with this issuer; I am not sure what to do with it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Part 2) The Russian civil war

Here is what I am thinking (with bolded being already-existing issuers):

----- Russian civil war
---------- Central Asia, Russian
--------------- Ashkhabad, City of
--------------- Bukharan People's Soviet Republic
--------------- Khorezm People's Soviet Republic
--------------- Semirechye Region
--------------- Transcaspian Region
--------------- Turkestan District
---------- Crimean Regional Government
---------- North Caucasus
--------------- Armavir, City of (*The coins of Russian Caucasia will specifically go here)
--------------- Black Sea Region
--------------- Grozny, City of
--------------- Kislovodsk, City of
--------------- Kuban People's Republic
--------------- Mineralnye Vody District
--------------- North Caucasian Emirate
--------------- North Caucasian Soviet Republic
--------------- Stavropol, City of
--------------- Sochi, City of
--------------- Terek Soviet Republic
--------------- Terek-Daghestan Territory
--------------- Vladikavkaz, City of
--------------- Yekaterinodar, City of
---------- Northwest Russia
--------------- Arkhangelsk, City of
--------------- Kronstadt Republic
--------------- Mitau, City of
--------------- Mogilev Region
--------------- Northern Region, Provisional Government of the
--------------- Olonets Governorate
--------------- Pskov, City of
--------------- Slutsk District
---------- Russian Far East
--------------- Amur Oblast
--------------- Barnaul, City of
--------------- Biysk, City of
--------------- Blagoveshchensk, City of
--------------- Chita, City of
--------------- Far Eastern Republic
--------------- Gorno-Altai Autonomous Oblast
--------------- Kamchatka Peninsula
--------------- Khabarovsk Region
--------------- Nikolayevsk-on-Amur, Municipality of
--------------- Pribaykalsky District
--------------- Primorskaya Oblast
--------------- Sakhalin Oblast
--------------- Siberia (Vladivostok), Provisional Government of
--------------- Siberia, Japanese occupation of (*The one banknote under Siberia will go here)
--------------- Tomsk, City of
--------------- Vladivostok, City of
--------------- Yakut Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic
---------- Siberia and Urals
--------------- Akmolinsk Oblast
--------------- Irkutsk, City of
--------------- Kama Region
--------------- Kislovodsk, City of
--------------- Krasnoyarsk, City of
--------------- Orenburg, City of
--------------- Perm, City of
--------------- Samara, City of
--------------- Siberia (Omsk), Provisional Government of
--------------- Siberia, Central Government of
--------------- Ural Cossacks Territory
--------------- Uralsk, City of
--------------- Yekaterinburg, City of
---------- South Russia
--------------- Astrakhan Oblast
--------------- Rostov-on-Don, City of
--------------- South Russia
---------- Transcaucasia, Russian
--------------- Aleksandrapol, City of
--------------- Armenia Soviet Socialist Republic
--------------- Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic
--------------- Baku, City of
--------------- Batumi, City of
--------------- Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic
--------------- Shirak Government
--------------- Transcaucasian Commissariate
--------------- Transcaucasian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic
---------- Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic
--------------- Kherson, City of
--------------- Kiev, City of
--------------- Odessa, City of
--------------- Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic
--------------- Yelisavetgrad, City of
--------------- Zhytomyr, City of

With that being said, in the above list, there are some issuers that should have no problems whatsoever, and some issuers that pose many problems. I will eliminate any irrelevant/problemless issuers from the above list, with the biggest problems being bloded:

----- Russian civil war
---------- Central Asia, Russian
--------------- Ashkhabad, City of
--------------- Bukharan People's Soviet Republic
--------------- Khorezm People's Soviet Republic
--------------- Semirechye Region
--------------- Transcaspian Region
--------------- Turkestan District
---------- Crimean Regional Government
---------- North Caucasus
--------------- Kuban People's Republic
--------------- North Caucasian Soviet Republic
--------------- Terek Soviet Republic
---------- Russian Far East
--------------- Yakut Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic
---------- Transcaucasia, Russian (*adding imaginary fifth-level issuers here)
--------------- Armenia Soviet Socialist Republic
-------------------- Aleksandrapol, City of
-------------------- Shirak Government
--------------- Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic
-------------------- Baku, City of
--------------- Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic
-------------------- Batumi, City of
--------------- Transcaucasian Commissariate
--------------- Transcaucasian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic
---------- Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic
--------------- Kherson, City of
--------------- Kiev, City of
--------------- Odessa, City of
--------------- Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic
--------------- Yelisavetgrad, City of
--------------- Zhytomyr, City of

So with this list, we would have periods of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Crimea, Georgia, and Ukraine under the Russian civil war. I think this would be alright because the history of these places match this issuer, the banknotes are all very relevant to the Russian civil war period, and we can connect these Soviet issuers with their modern-day counterparts so all banknotes will be appearing in the same place under the same issuer, even if there are different parents.

With that being said, I can definitely see the argument for not listing these places under the Russian civil war (and instead listing them under their modern-day counterparts as ruling authorities).

However, if we were to not list these places under the Russian civil war, Bukhara and Khorezm become a problem--the best place to list those ones would be under their Emirate counterparts (under Late Central Asia) because the change from Emirate to Soviet was just a change in ruling authorities. But if the Bukharan and Khorezm Soviets do not appear under Russian civil war... what about the rest of Russian Central Asia? Keeping two under Central Asia while keeping the rest under the Russian civil war would not be ideal, in my opinion.

The same thing can be said about the Transcaucasian issuers: these were combinations of Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia, and so the best place to list these issuers would arguably be under the Russian civil war, and yet the individual areas would be listed in different places, which would, again, not be ideal.

And then that just leaves Ukraine and Crimea, but if all others are valid under the Russian civil war (and not just the problem issuers, but also the other Soviet issuers that are still in modern-day Russia), separating only two would not be ideal either, even if they have modern-day counterparts they could technically work under (although Crimea is questionable--our first-level issuer is for the Khanate).

So... I think the best course of action would be to list everything under the Russian civil war, then connect everything with their relevant issuers. That way, everything will be listed under their most relevant parent issuers while still being listed in the same place as their modern-day counterparts.

We have not been using the connection feature much, but I think we should start using it more.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

And... yeah. That should be everything. Thoughts on this?

Hi, regarding the civil war, what are you using to guide yourself in the creation of issuers and arrangement of notes?

I've seen mistakes have been done, there are notes under issuers that shouldnt be
 

I've only noticed these because they are in my collection, but i think this issue might be happening with more notes. I think we should work to correct it
 

Sulfur

I was unaware of that Ukrainian Notgeld thread. I imagine everything relevant to it is under my “Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic” parent issuer. I do believe these would classify as notgelds; however, if that is the case, I think the entirety of the Russian Civil War issuer could classify as that as well. I still think it would be best to keep this area of numismatics together (for the reasons stated in the initial post), but that's only my opinion. First step is creating individual issuers, as Jarcek said.

 

With that being said, if someone would like to move this thread to the coin catalogue forum so non-referees can have access to it, feel free to do that--you have my permission. It is a very old thread, and more opinions could be helpful. :)

 

Also: I sent the requests for the newest batch. :)

 

Also also: apparently there is now some duplication. We have the City of Mitau under Russian Civil War and City of Jelgava (Mitau) under Latvian Notgeld. I still requested the notes of the Russian Civil War to be moved under Mitau (movement still pending); however, three of the notes are already duplicated under Jelgava (they have "West Russian Volunteer Army" in their titles). Mitau has other notgelds unrelated to the Russian Civil War, but these particular notes are indeed related to the war (hence why they've been duplicated, I imagine). This will need to be solved eventually, but I will still mention it here so it is not forgotten about.

Hello,

 

Thank you for mentioning the Ukrainian Notgeld thread. I agree that many of these local Ukrainian issues fit the classical definition of notgeld — short-term emergency money issued under chaotic circumstances with limited geographic use and no strong central authority.

 

However, I must respectfully disagree with the idea that, if Ukrainian local issues are classified as notgeld, then the entire Russian Civil War issuer should be treated the same way.

 

While some parts of the RCW catalogue are indeed composed of emergency local issues, many other banknotes from this period represent fully-fledged government-issued currency. These were produced under formal authorization,  and circulated widely across large territories.

 

Examples include the Siberian Provisional Government, Don Republic, South Russia, and others — their banknotes were instruments of recognized state power, not emergency substitutes.

 

Therefore, lumping all RCW banknotes together risks oversimplifying a complex monetary landscape and obscuring important historical distinctions.

 

I believe the best approach would be to create a separate category or sub-issuer for Ukrainian notgeld, clearly marked as emergency local issues.

 

Thanks for your consideration.

Polygon

Hi, regarding the civil war, what are you using to guide yourself in the creation of issuers and arrangement of notes?

I've seen mistakes have been done, there are notes under issuers that shouldnt be

Hello!

 

Unfortunately, I do not recall most of my sources. This thread is quite old, and I was absent from Numista for most of that time. I've been moving the banknotes based on what is listed on the Numista pages directly, as well as what is listed on Bank Note Museum (their format is fairly easy to understand).

 

Chita: This one makes sense (I'm guessing Bank Note Museum specified Chita because that was this government's capital). Do you, by chance, have reference to an example from the City of Chita? We'll need something added to keep this issuer up; if not, Chita could be renamed for these banknotes.

 

Erivan: I originally thought these were from SSR Armenia, but both the Numista pages and Bank Note Museum specified Erivan (similar to the other Armenian cities). Perhaps I was wrong to request that one to be changed.

 

Priamorskaya Oblast: This one was confusing to me. Numista, obviously, states the Primorye region in the title (hence why I moved it to the corresponding issuer). Bank Note Museum mentioned both Primorye and the Far East Provisional Government. My interpretation was that the Far East Provisional Government was the issuing authority, but that they circulated in Primorye. Perhaps that is wrong?

 

Rostov-on-Don: Bank Note Museum specified Rostov-on-Don here. This one would be incorrect if these were meant for the whole Don Cossack area. Do you know if the city had any municipal banknotes, or do you believe this issuer should just be deleted entirely (assuming the banknotes get moved first, of course)?

 

Samara: From what I read, the Committee of Members of the All-Russian Constituent Assembly was based in Samara. Samara would be the issuer; the committee would be the issuing authority (none of those have been added yet, to any issuer). Unless that is incorrect?

Zolotonos

Hello,

 

Thank you for mentioning the Ukrainian Notgeld thread. I agree that many of these local Ukrainian issues fit the classical definition of notgeld — short-term emergency money issued under chaotic circumstances with limited geographic use and no strong central authority.

 

However, I must respectfully disagree with the idea that, if Ukrainian local issues are classified as notgeld, then the entire Russian Civil War issuer should be treated the same way.

 

While some parts of the RCW catalogue are indeed composed of emergency local issues, many other banknotes from this period represent fully-fledged government-issued currency. These were produced under formal authorization,  and circulated widely across large territories.

 

Examples include the Siberian Provisional Government, Don Republic, South Russia, and others — their banknotes were instruments of recognized state power, not emergency substitutes.

 

Therefore, lumping all RCW banknotes together risks oversimplifying a complex monetary landscape and obscuring important historical distinctions.

 

I believe the best approach would be to create a separate category or sub-issuer for Ukrainian notgeld, clearly marked as emergency local issues.

 

Thanks for your consideration.

Hello!

 

That is understandable. However, I do think it would get fairly messy to try to separate what could be considered “Russian Notgeld” and what would be considered non-notgeld civil war issues. Everything here does indeed fall within the “Russian civil war” header, and the Russian notgeld could be seen as a sub-variety of that. I don't know how necessary the distinction would be within Russia itself though.

 

If all the ones related to Ukraine fit the notgeld specification, I do think that is a better argument for separating them. Ideally, I think it would be best to duplicate these issuers under both the civil war and Ukaine; however, I do not know if they are still actively connecting issuers like that.

 

Regardless, I'm not going to complain either way, wherever these issuers end up. As long as they exist somewhere, I'm fine with that:)

Sulfur

Polygon

Hi, regarding the civil war, what are you using to guide yourself in the creation of issuers and arrangement of notes?

I've seen mistakes have been done, there are notes under issuers that shouldnt be

Hello!

 

Unfortunately, I do not recall most of my sources. This thread is quite old, and I was absent from Numista for most of that time. I've been moving the banknotes based on what is listed on the Numista pages directly, as well as what is listed on Bank Note Museum (their format is fairly easy to understand).

 

Chita: This one makes sense (I'm guessing Bank Note Museum specified Chita because that was this government's capital). Do you, by chance, have reference to an example from the City of Chita? We'll need something added to keep this issuer up; if not, Chita could be renamed for these banknotes.

 

Erivan: I originally thought these were from SSR Armenia, but both the Numista pages and Bank Note Museum specified Erivan (similar to the other Armenian cities). Perhaps I was wrong to request that one to be changed.

 

Priamorskaya Oblast: This one was confusing to me. Numista, obviously, states the Primorye region in the title (hence why I moved it to the corresponding issuer). Bank Note Museum mentioned both Primorye and the Far East Provisional Government. My interpretation was that the Far East Provisional Government was the issuing authority, but that they circulated in Primorye. Perhaps that is wrong?

 

Rostov-on-Don: Bank Note Museum specified Rostov-on-Don here. This one would be incorrect if these were meant for the whole Don Cossack area. Do you know if the city had any municipal banknotes, or do you believe this issuer should just be deleted entirely (assuming the banknotes get moved first, of course)?

 

Samara: From what I read, the Committee of Members of the All-Russian Constituent Assembly was based in Samara. Samara would be the issuer; the committee would be the issuing authority (none of those have been added yet, to any issuer). Unless that is incorrect?

Banknote museum is nice, but its not correct,  for this proyect id suggest catalogues or pages like foxnotes which is one of the largest catalogs (if not the largest) of Russian notes. 

Chita; there are indeed municipal/city issues of chita, see here. 
Erivan: Maybe the Bank branch that issued them was Erivan one and thats where the mistake came from, though im not sure, i jhavent read about the topic, one thing is sure though, its SSR Armenia.
Priamur: Provisional Government of the Far East/Primorsky Regional Zemstvo Administration (A.S. Medvedev) is the issuer. From what i have seen in numista issuer is the politica entity (if theres one), issuing entity is the entity different from the state (if theres one) that issues the note in their name (oftentimes a bank), and Ruling authority is the person ruling the state. So in this case itd be :

Rostov: Yes, all the Rostov Branch of the State bank from 20 kopek-5000 roubles are issues of Great Don Army/Don Cossack Republic. There are municipal issues.
Samara: That doesnt mean samara is the issuer (matter fact, by the time of issue of the note, things had moved to Ufa, leaving samara). Saying samara is the issuer of these notes would be like saying the issuer of a dollar was Philadelphia and not USA.
 

My apologies for the delay--got a little busy.

 

I'm not quite sure what I'm reading with those Chita and Rostov-on-Don issues. I don't doubt they belong to those issuers; however, I am unable to efficiantly create pages for those notes (I don't know Russian, and the pages would be pictureless).

 

In my above Sheet, I changed Erivan back to SSR Armenia, modified the Priamur region (Wiki uses Regional Governement of Primorye Zemstvo as shorthand, so I think that would suffice), and added the Governemnt of the Russian East Outskirts (the Chita banknotes will be moved there when that gets created). I also requested to move all the Rostov-on-Don issues to the Don Republic.

 

So when all that is done, that should cover most of what you mentioned, although the City of Chita and the City of Rostov-on-Don will become empty issuers. If you are able to create pages for the relevant banknotes, that would be appreciated. 

 

That all just leaves Samara. I'm still not convinced that “Committee of Members of the All-Russian Constituent Assembly” would work as an issuer, as it seems like either an issuing entity or ruling authority, based off what I've read. I'm not sure how to make this one more accurate though. 

Sulfur

My apologies for the delay--got a little busy.

 

I'm not quite sure what I'm reading with those Chita and Rostov-on-Don issues. I don't doubt they belong to those issuers; however, I am unable to efficiantly create pages for those notes (I don't know Russian, and the pages would be pictureless).

 

In my above Sheet, I changed Erivan back to SSR Armenia, modified the Priamur region (Wiki uses Regional Governement of Primorye Zemstvo as shorthand, so I think that would suffice), and added the Governemnt of the Russian East Outskirts (the Chita banknotes will be moved there when that gets created). I also requested to move all the Rostov-on-Don issues to the Don Republic.

 

So when all that is done, that should cover most of what you mentioned, although the City of Chita and the City of Rostov-on-Don will become empty issuers. If you are able to create pages for the relevant banknotes, that would be appreciated. 

 

That all just leaves Samara. I'm still not convinced that “Committee of Members of the All-Russian Constituent Assembly” would work as an issuer, as it seems like either an issuing entity or ruling authority, based off what I've read. I'm not sure how to make this one more accurate though. 

Hi, I'll when i can cooperate in thw creation of pages, im still working on getting permission from the owners of the notes so we can use the scans, municipal issues such as Rostov and chita are rare ones.

 

As for samara, I'll get you back on that with more info, a well constructed argument, as i still belive leaving it as samara is wrong. 

Sulfur

Also also: apparently there is now some duplication. We have the City of Mitau under Russian Civil War and City of Jelgava (Mitau) under Latvian Notgeld. I still requested the notes of the Russian Civil War to be moved under Mitau (movement still pending); however, three of the notes are already duplicated under Jelgava (they have "West Russian Volunteer Army" in their titles). Mitau has other notgelds unrelated to the Russian Civil War, but these particular notes are indeed related to the war (hence why they've been duplicated, I imagine). This will need to be solved eventually, but I will still mention it here so it is not forgotten about.

@Sulfur , so your suggestion was to move these notes to Russia Civil-War?

I recently raised the issue here (https://en.numista.com/forum/topic168133.html#p1288469) but there was no conclusion yet.

 

These notes were issued by the Bermontians/West Russian Volunteer Army during their war with the Lithuanians, so more like period of Lithuanian Independance Wars … though always with the Russian Civil War in the background (as both German and Russian components of that army were trying to restore the old order (with Russian rule and German landlords). So not 100% sure they belong fully in Russian Civil War, but maybe you have a better overview for similar cases already listed under that issuer.

Hello!

 

My apologies for the delay; I've been a bit busy lately.

I don't think there is a practical solution for this right now. This thread has also seemingly stalled, so I am not expecting a solution anytime soon. 

I think the banknotes from the volunteer army are more related to the civil war than general notgeld; however, the creation of this civil war issuer has made a few duplicate issuers (I believe this is the only one with duplicate banknotes though). The duplicate notes definitely have to be merged, and all notes should appear in the same section. Which section is best? I honestly have no preference for now.  

Ideally, I'd like to see Mitau appear as one issuer under both Latvia and the Russian civil war (similar to how the Swedish Dominion of Pomerania is under both Sweden and the German States). I think this approach would particular work well with city issuers, as the geography seldom changes while the country/area they reside in do. That would give us one geographical issuer but under two parent countries, which would very much help us here.

But again… I don't think that will happen anytime soon. Currently, all banknotes under the civil are just banknotes related to that area of numismatics. The issuers are there for when this thread is continued (and the anomalies like Mitau are documented here too), so while we wait, I don't have a preference where everything goes quite yet.

 

For a similar situation under the civil war… probably the Soviet Central Asian issuers (Bukhara and Khorezm would benefit from duplicate issuers there too, as the soviet version were just changes in ruling authorities from their previously non-soviet versions).

 

For an example that could benfit from excessive issuer duplication… the first one that comes to my mind is the City of Cattaro under Montenegro (coins exist while it was part of Serbia, Hungary, and Venice, all while remaining in modern-day Montenegro).

Hello, I have requested a modification to the page of this 1919 1000 Rouble note:

 It is incorrectly attributed to the:

‘Don Republic’, the issuing authority was:

‘The Armed Forces of South Russia’

 

This is already a recognised Issuer on Numista, I can put (Armed Forces High Command) in the title to keep it consistent with other entries if you guys would like. 
 

The Numista Editor asked me to post this here before my modification was approved, I have given my reasoning below. 
I am just trying to contribute to correct and thorough Russian Civil War Catalogue, get back to me when you can, thanks guys.

 

 

While there was indeed a White Russian Faction now-labelled the ‘Don Republic’

(They styled themselves as the:

‘All-Great Don Host’, Всевеликое Войско Донское), they did not issue this note.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Republic

 

The issuing authority was:

‘The Armed Forces of South Russia’

(Вооружённые силы Юга России)

Or more specifically, the:

‘Special Council under the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of South Russia’

(Особое совещание при Главнокомандующем Вооружёнными силами Юга России)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_Forces_of_South_Russia

 

Led by Anton Denikin, this White Russian Faction sought to restore the Russian Empire and its Institutions, seeing itself as a placeholder until such time came.

As such, it issued Currency through the State Bank apparatus in territory controlled by his forces.

 

The first key phrase on the note is:

“issued by the Rostov-on-Don Control of the State Bank”

The note’s issuer claims continuity with the (Imperial) State Bank, a central banking authority, not a Regional (Cossack) one.

 

The second key phrase on the note is the writing on the shield:

“Russia — Great, United and Indivisible”

This was the uncompromising slogan of Denikin’s Government. It fought for the restoration of a single Russian State, and explicitly rejected Cossack Separatism and any claims to Regional Autonomy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Denikin

 

The third key phrase on the note is:

“obligatory for acceptance by all governmental and private institutions”

This legal-language is all-Russian, not Regional.

Catdog_1993

Hello, I have requested a modification to the page of this 1919 1000 Rouble note:

 It is incorrectly attributed to the:

‘Don Republic’, the issuing authority was:

‘The Armed Forces of South Russia’

 

This is already a recognised Issuer on Numista, I can put (Armed Forces High Command) in the title to keep it consistent with other entries if you guys would like. 
 

The Numista Editor asked me to post this here before my modification was approved, I have given my reasoning below. 
I am just trying to contribute to correct and thorough Russian Civil War Catalogue, get back to me when you can, thanks guys.

 

 

While there was indeed a White Russian Faction now-labelled the ‘Don Republic’

(They styled themselves as the:

‘All-Great Don Host’, Всевеликое Войско Донское), they did not issue this note.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Republic

 

The issuing authority was:

‘The Armed Forces of South Russia’

(Вооружённые силы Юга России)

Or more specifically, the:

‘Special Council under the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of South Russia’

(Особое совещание при Главнокомандующем Вооружёнными силами Юга России)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_Forces_of_South_Russia

 

Led by Anton Denikin, this White Russian Faction sought to restore the Russian Empire and its Institutions, seeing itself as a placeholder until such time came.

As such, it issued Currency through the State Bank apparatus in territory controlled by his forces.

 

The first key phrase on the note is:

“issued by the Rostov-on-Don Control of the State Bank”

The note’s issuer claims continuity with the (Imperial) State Bank, a central banking authority, not a Regional (Cossack) one.

 

The second key phrase on the note is the writing on the shield:

“Russia — Great, United and Indivisible”

This was the uncompromising slogan of Denikin’s Government. It fought for the restoration of a single Russian State, and explicitly rejected Cossack Separatism and any claims to Regional Autonomy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Denikin

 

The third key phrase on the note is:

“obligatory for acceptance by all governmental and private institutions”

This legal-language is all-Russian, not Regional.

South russia can be a bit of a headache, Don Republic and Volunteer Army (amongs others like KUban republic) kind of sprawled simultaneously after displeased officers fled from central russia. The volunteer army depended on Don notes, they had no printing houses.

In January 1919 the attamans from Don And Kuban republics agreed that Denikin would be chief comander of all land and naval forces in the south, the volunteer army made the bulk of the now called Armed Forces Of South Russia. But this merge was only regarding military aspects, AFSR had no control over civil matters of others.

 

This 1000 note forms part of the so-called “march on moscow” series (alongside 100 and 5000r), the first note, the 100r, started being issued while the AFSR was still planning to open a printing house of their own (Rostov and Novocherkask printing houses controled by the Don Republic werent printing enough money), this new house was in Novorosiisk and opend in Sept. 1919.

The notes on these series were printed in Rostov (under don republic control) as well as Novorossiisk. And while Novorossisk was a facility of the AFSR the notes from these series were printed following a framework set up by the Don Authorities. According to stuff like serial number and watermark you can know which notes were printed where and when.

I think its better if these whole series are kept under the Don Republic since they were the ones that issued the series in Rostov and Novorosiisk, the latter technically by the AFSR, but really under Don orders. 

Additionally:

• Other notes of the don republic since 1918 read too “obligatory for acceptance by all governmental and private institutions”
• The notes of this series say in their text that they were issude by Rostov on Don state bank, so, don republic

• AFSR notes also have different signatures, while the march on moscow notes keep the same ones as previous Don issues

 

 

I started working in the don issues a while a go, stopped at the 500r one so im still missing these 3 notes haha

Thankyou for your thoughtful and well-researched reply, I appreciate it. 
 

It is such a grey-area of History, it’s easy to reason an argument without having all the evidence. 
 

Your response is well-reasoned, and I understand Numista is really about Pragmatism, thankyou for explaining the Issuer of this note in such a thoughtful manner. 

Catdog_1993

Thankyou for your thoughtful and well-researched reply, I appreciate it. 
 

It is such a grey-area of History, it’s easy to reason an argument without having all the evidence. 
 

Your response is well-reasoned, and I understand Numista is really about Pragmatism, thankyou for explaining the Issuer of this note in such a thoughtful manner. 

Youre welcome, if you are interested in the topic in pages like FoxNotes you can find good articles about this period and issues, and there are also catalogues with info like the ones by Istomin