All pre-1707 coin listings in the United Kingdom section,plus Conder currency tokens need to be transferred.

All pre-1707 coin listings in the United Kingdom section need to be transferred into the new section under 'England',as are the Conder currency tokens from cities & towns in England.

Aidan.

Ask Xavier about it! He might add a flag symbol for the list. So we might have it for UK / England like we already have it for France (with Kingdom).

Who is responsible for transferring the photos of the English hammered coins back into the 'United Kingdom' section of the catalogue?

This is totally incorrect,as both England & Scotland remained separate kingdoms,albeit,united under a personal union from 1603 until 1707,when the Act of Union came into effect.

Have a read here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Union .

Aidan.

 "responsible" is someone of the team. As we are very busy to verify and sort things here.
I don't know who did it - but unless we're finished with our main "problem candidates"
UK and especially France there shouldn't be many more subdivisions. I think that was the reason why.
Thanks for all your help - but please be a bit more patient here.
I personally like the idea of having UK and England / Scotland separated (similar to France (Kingdom)
already is from France) - but this will take some time.

Umm... read the catalogue.

In fact, it's not listed "United Kingdom" either. It's named "Great Britain." We can't do this anymore. There can't be so many divisions of countries, just because they went through some crap. Xavier tells us that we do what Krause Mishler has assigned, and it stays.

Scotland deserves a separate page; the catalogue has assigned one. But when we think "UK," we think "England."

I once decided to change "Vietnam" to "North Vietnam" and "South Vietnam," also "Annam." But Xavier decided to change it back.

We'll keep it UK for now, maybe forever. I prefer forever.

The Krause catalogues are so error-ridden,it isn't funny.

Trying to get Krause Publications to correct their mistakes,including updating their listings to include new issues,is like trying to get blood out of a stone,as it were.

I,& many other collectors,along with dealers,have enough trouble trying to get Krause Publications to correct & update their listings for their 'Standard Catalog of World Paper Money'.

Have a look here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Union_1707 ,which explains the background into uniting the Kingdom of England with the Kingdom of Scotland to form the United Kingdom of Great Britain.

This is more reason why all-pre-1707 coins listed incorrectly under 'Great Britain' needs to be transferred to the listing under 'England'.This includes the historic pre-Union coinage dated 1707,which has distinctive reverses for the coins of 6 Pence & higher.

Aidan.

Listen, dear, listen.

We simply can't do that. We can't split up countries again and again. I told you about my Vietnam to Annam story, yes? Xavier hated this. He said, "The WC catalogue has North/South Vietnam listed as Vietnam, and we must do whatever the catalogue says."

I prefer to have England in United Kingdom, Union Act or not. It's cleaner this way. France-Kingdom should be in France, personally.

I wouldn't mind seeing hammered coins away from the more modern coins, as an administrator. You know, because they aren't really coins.

We can't do it man, sorry. Scotland's ok, though.

England is a constituent country of the U.K.,as is Scotland,but since 1999,Scotland has had its own local Parliament & government.

It makes ABSOLUTELY NO sense to have the coins of England under 'Great Britain',as Great Britain has been in existence only since 1707.

In the case of the Kingdom of France,it makes perfect sense to have that under 'France',as it is taking France's constitutional status into account at that time.

Xavier's 'We must do what the catalogue says' approach is nonsensical - the Krause catalogues ARE error-ridden & that IS a fact!

We may use the 'KM','KMX',& 'KMTn' catalogue numbers for reference,but we need to evolve from Krause Publications' stuck in the mud way of cataloguing.

Aidan.

Verweis : BCNumismaticsXavier's 'We must do what the catalogue says' approach is nonsensical - the Krause catalogues ARE error-ridden & that IS a fact!

We may use the 'KM','KMX',& 'KMTn' catalogue numbers for reference,but we need to evolve from Krause Publications' stuck in the mud way of cataloguing.

I'm with Aidan on this.  Numista can be better than Krause.

Verweis : CeruleanI'm with Aidan on this.  Numista can be better than Krause.

Thanks.

At least Sorin on http://www.allnumis.com has not gone down the Krause route of listing.

We can make Numista as good as Allnumis.

Hopefully,we can get some collaboration between both projects.

It's a shame that banknotes are not going to be listed here though.

Aidan.

Ok people - calm down a bit.
As I told you: whatever happens with UK will happen in the future to come - not now.
We have a lot of things to do first - that is verifying the catalog as it is.
A little bit more patience here, please. As though I understand your matters it is not our decision.
It is Xavier's. And he's got a lot of things on his plan first
Besides I agree with Cerluean and Aidan on this. Krause has a lot of errors. But:

1st thing to do for us: verify the present database and enter/add information by use of widely acknowledged
literature - Krause!
2nd thing to do for us: add and enter all information and corrections by request of users or check of second source literature - because Krause HAS lots of errors and missing data
3rd thing to do for us: check for additional sources of information and compare with 1) and 2)
4th thing: wait and see
and this procedure applies for about 7000 coins left for verification. As far as I am concerned
a missing entry for England apart from UK is very low on priority - while having correct data and help
from all users has a high one. So I would - once again - ask you to stick to the standards for the
catalog and thus helping us because we save a lot of work then. thanks
And I mean especially giving titles like "Country xyz - 5 Dollars - small; very rare!!!", with all
data followed by a ".". forgodssake! please help us and stop that. please !!!

and: don't bother! we find a solution that suits us all. But maybe not so fast.

Hello,

I agree about having England, Scotland and the Kingdom of Ireland in the country list. I've already transferred some coins from UK to England.

However, starting with James I coins, the king or queen of England was also the king or queen of Scotland. The coins bear both symbols of England and Scotland (with also the symbols of Ireland and France). In which section should these coins be?
Moreover, it seems to me that the coinage didn't change after 1707. The lettering is exactly the same on this 1702 coin and this 1711 coin.
I'm not an expert in English numismatics, but it seems that these coins were struck for both England and Scotland. If so, I wonder if the "United Kingdom" section shouldn't also list this kind of coins.

Xavier,
  The 1702 coin is most definitely an English coin,& the 1711 coin is a British coin.

There were 2 distinctive issues in 1707 with different reverses on the 6 Pence & higher.

The pre-Union reverse has the English & Scots shields separately,whereas,the post-Union reverse has the English & Scots shields being placed jointly,half & half on 2 of the shields.

The post-Union coins with 'E' mintmark (1707-09) are of historic interest,especially in Scotland will be placed under 'Scotland',as the coins circulated mainly in Scotland,having been struck at the Royal Scots Mint in Edinburgh.

Aidan.

Hello,
Thank you Aidan, I didn't notice the different shields between 1702 and 1711.
I have another question: Before 1707, was there a difference between the coins which circulated in England and those which circulated in Scotland?
And can you please tell me more about the "E" mintmark?
Thank you.

Verweis : XavierHello,
Thank you Aidan, I didn't notice the different shields between 1702 and 1711.
I have another question: Before 1707, was there a difference between the coins which circulated in England and those which circulated in Scotland?
And can you please tell me more about the "E" mintmark?
Thank you.

Xavier,
  The currency systems of both England & Scotland were totally different,even though both England & Scotland were united in a personal union under the same monarch - while retaining distinctive constitutional & legal arrangements.There was a rating system in which 12 Scots Pounds was equal to 1 English Pound.

The 'E' mintmark on the British-type coins of 1707-09 is that of the Royal Scots Mint in Edinburgh.For this reason,they can be classed as Scots coins.There are coins with an 'E*' mintmark as well,but they are far scarcer than the ones with the 'E' mintmark.

Aidan.