The referee argued that he read it in a PDF file where says the Polisario front, who claims the Western Sahaara, have not seen these coins in circulation.
The PDF written by Anton Andreev (who is also a referee but seems not active in this matter in the forum) can be found here:
Arguments in favor to move the coins for the main catalog (Not-exonumia):
1 - Krause, lists as coins, we believe Krause made its own research for that:
2 - The Numista catalog already lists coins from unrecognized entities, that means we agree some not-recognized subjects can be part of the main catalog.
3- Low Numista Rarity Index (NRI 9): That means lots of users have that coin and obviously would want them in the catalog also it means a huge amount of those coins were minted, that is an expressive number to be just a simple fantasy.
6 - Wikipedia, of course not reliable (as we can say from the PDF in question) but they are listed there, also we could assume some study was been done. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahrawi_peseta
19 - Not recorded Polisario anonymous member: “Anything that praises the recognition of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic will be encouraged!”
20 - Cointalk mentions as “questionable countries”, not proof of anything but worth a visit, also it show us the coin are broaded sought by coin collectors.
21 - World of coins mentions: “Non-commemorative coins are supposedly designated for circulation. They are minted by the Polisario Front, and made from cupronickel. The denominations are: 1, 2, 5 and 50 pesetas” Source: http://www.worldofcoins.eu/forum/index.php?topic=16995.0
22 - many more ad infinitum.
CONCLUSION:
The weight of the decision in the numismatic scale must be equal, only one source cannot prevail above other.
The words of just one person cannot carry such great weight without more sources being consulted. And as it is an unrecognized country, in doubt, by the overwhelming majority, it should remain as a coin in the main catalog. (or token or non-circulating, but not as a simply fantasy private issue)
The voice of this speech is not beligerent or hostile, this is a request in the name of many coin collectors, if this appeal will not be accepted, there is nothing more we can do, but sadly give up.
I agree, as do 80% of the people voting in this thread so far. But there are a lot of catalog changes that 80% of people disagree with and they happen anyway.
On this Saharan topic like in many other places, I let experts discuss here, but wanted to share the fact we feel the core of the frustration come from too deep separation in the website between coins/banknotes and Exonumia.
Its in the tech long term roadmap to revamp Numista interface in a way allowing collectors to see all items linked with an issuer, probably with some optional filters which will encompass the current Exonumia categories.
Waiting for that, we think its better to keep categories allowing to distinguish legal tenders from those multiple other types (confinment tokens, company tokens, fantasy currencies etc).
I personnally consider that collectors currencies should be classified in coins only when issued by entities which issue also legal tenders. It they issue only those collectors currencies, they are currently classified as Exonumia
We want Sahaara coins, subject of this thread, treated not as exonumia.
Should be in the catalog like Abkhazia, Artsakh, Somaliland, South Ossetia, Taiwan, Transnistria, Seborga, Hutt River, etc… following Krause.
That is what this thread is about.
“Issuer collectors” knows the limited recognition, but also we know there is a huge difference between a basement token production from a much more recognized issue.
The response to this change seems to stem from a misunderstanding of what belongs in the coin catalog. The main question for whether an item belongs in the coin or exonumia catalog is whether it was ever used in circulation or exchangeable for usable currency. One can presumably exchange this coin in Niue and receive a two-dollar coin (although I am more doubtful of this fact for more poor/unstable countries, such as the Central African Republic). One would be foolish for doing so, as the numismatic and/or metal value is generally greater than face value.
However, simply because a coin is an official issue does not mean it belongs in the coin catalog. In 2002, 2006, and 2016, Montenegro released a series of coins with the same designs as the early 20th-century circulating series. However, these “coins” cannot be redeemed for Euro, the currency of Montenegro. Therefore we have placed them in exonumia as “Official collector currency.”
Through original research done by Anton Andreev, we have determined that none of these Western Sahara pieces were ever used in general circulation and most were never redeemable by the SADR government. The coins that are redeemable will remain in the coin catalog and those that are not have been moved to exonumia.
Master Coin Referee
Coin referee for CRI, GTM, HND, NIC, PAN, and SLV.
Revisor principal de monedas
Revisor de Numista para monedas de CRI, GTM, HND, NIC, PAN y SLV.
I would also like to mention that Krause is not always accurate. These obvious fantasy pieces “from” Benin are listed on Numismaster, the official website of Krause. Many sources (NGC, Ucoin, Chiefa coins, etc.) simply parrot what Krause says without determining whether they're true.
Master Coin Referee
Coin referee for CRI, GTM, HND, NIC, PAN, and SLV.
Revisor principal de monedas
Revisor de Numista para monedas de CRI, GTM, HND, NIC, PAN y SLV.
The referees are happy with their decisions, which is what is important for them, clapping their own shoulders in appreciation of their work (I know better, hence I do what I believe is the best for everyone)?
At least M. Andreev Anton did research about it. As far as I know, Krause does not even question the circulation criterium, which is important in Numista catalogue. There is no explanation from Krause about referencing it, right? Hard to contradict anything in this context.
Lets please all keep in mind all items are still here, searchable, collectable, etc. I truly fail to understand why putting such pride against a simple differentiation of coins from fantasy coins (fantasy meaning simply we lack proof of any legal tender and circulation)
Would you buy a fantasy car and treat as a normal car?
Well, from my perspective it is certainly not Numista's role to back lucrative emission of fantasy coins by giving it an unproved label of officiality.
Nor backing nor fighting, just sorting as correctly as possible.
Would you buy a fantasy car and treat as a normal car?
Well, from my perspective it is certainly not Numista's role to back lucrative emission of fantasy coins by giving it an unproved label of officiality.
Nor backing nor fighting, just sorting as correctly as possible.
Indeed, and tottally agree, I will be the first one the point out a JL as fantasy token (made to fool collectors, IMO). Like that ones from “difficult issuers”, like Darfur, Greenland, etc… Numista must leave that as Fantasy to cheat collectors.
But as the first post says, the matter here is just Sahaara coins, and just that 3 coin set. And it is the world x “someone told me that someone told that do not know that coins”.
Also, not here to sound aggressive, I just think in dubio, pro collectors.
But as the first post says, the matter here is just Sahaara coins, and just that 3 coin set. And it is the world x “someone told me that someone told that do not know that coins”.
I personnally dont see Krause as authoritative source as you when it comes to know if a coin is a legal tender or not.
I trust the master referees and Admins who took the decision, until new findings or elements.
But as the first post says, the matter here is just Sahaara coins, and just that 3 coin set. And it is the world x “someone told me that someone told that do not know that coins”.
I personnally dont see Krause as authoritative source as you when it comes to know if a coin is a legal tender or not.
I trust the master referees and Admins who took the decision, until new findings or elements.
Not claiming was legal tender, just wanted as not-exonumia.
I personnally dont see Anton friend as authoritative source as you when it comes to know if a coin of an unrecognized state is valid or not.
Not claiming was legal tender, just wanted as not-exonumia.
This raises the question: if a country officially releases a coin, but does not allow its redemption, should it be listed under coins or exonumia? (This also assumes that the SADR authorized these pieces in the first place.)
Master Coin Referee
Coin referee for CRI, GTM, HND, NIC, PAN, and SLV.
Revisor principal de monedas
Revisor de Numista para monedas de CRI, GTM, HND, NIC, PAN y SLV.
Not claiming was legal tender, just wanted as not-exonumia.
This raises the question: if a country officially releases a coin, but does not allow its redemption, should it be listed under coins or exonumia? (This also assumes that the SADR authorized these pieces in the first place.)
My bad, I meaned “not claiming they were circulating coins”.
Anyway, the remaining SADR coins in the main catalog can be considered legal tender?
If this are moved to Exonumia how are Lundy, Seborga and others still in the coin catalogue? Those are really made up countries.
Yes, but they minted those objects by themselves, those are authorised by them. Lundy is great example, as original coins minted for Lundy are in main caralogue, while unauthorized coinage is in exonumia.
But the topic is not about authorization, is about sources of that information.
Has been decided one voice is more authoritative then 10-15 catalogues, one of them publishing catalogs since 50 years. I don't know if the coins are fantasy or authorized items, but the lack of official statement from SADR should make think twice before to change a well-established situation. No one from Polisario has ever contested the alleged officiality of these coins.
This is a general statement and can be valued for other examples, like Order of Malta. Some coins where moved to exonumia because “they are not circulating or legal tender anywhere”, but i suppose no one went to their headquarters in Rome and tried to pay something with 10 grani.
In my opinion the change of a well-established situation needs sufficiently convincing proofs; a well-established situation doesn't need proofs to be as it is.
So if I write down that a Polisario representative said to me the coins are oh yes, very official and save as a PDF and upload online, then it is a great source of information? Because it actually is what it is.
Or there is something political motivation going on?
Has been decided one voice is more authoritative then 10-15 catalogues, one of them publishing catalogs since 50 years.
I think none of those catalogues actually published any proof about those coins not being fantasy; meaning maybe its not even their concern to differentiate real coins from fantasy? (as soon as a country name is written on it, in a so messy geopolitical situation that no one actually seems to care about endorsing them…)
I don't know if the coins are fantasy or authorized items, but the lack of official statement from SADR should make think twice before to change a well-established situation. No one from Polisario has ever contested the alleged officiality of these coins.
The article was published one year ago.
I dont think many officials wouldnt have yet publicly contradicted a researcher who had published an article stating coins alledgedly issued in their names were in fact private fantasy issues.
Cristal clear position of the collectors in the poll result.
Its very rare to have so many votes in so short time in this forum. Thanks for sharing the thread!
So much gymnastics and effort just to not put the coins as coins again.
No gymnastics, seems quite straightforward to me, as a matter of fact. But what I see from you is a lot of effort to back a complaint driven partly if not mainly by fearing about your items' value.
Total silence of Anton, who is a Numista Referee.
Maybe you can send the link of this thread to him too? I know I didnt, so probably he is not even aware of it.
There is something blurry going on.
Not that I know, quite the opposite in fact: what we do is apply brain effort on a blurry items to understand their nature.
If the only proof is what you decide is a proof, unfortunelly there is absolutely nothing anyone can do.
I do not decide what is a proof, I simply differentiate:
- proofs about those coins being officially issued or not
- elements about why Numista should or not take those proofs into account when sorting items between coins and exonumia section; saying other catalogues dont use this criterion is not at all a proof that those items are official, simply a proof that not everyone use this very criterion
For you its a no brainer, fine; whatever Xavier decides in the end, can you understand its not the same question?
Its very rare to have so many votes in so short time in this forum. Thanks for sharing the thread!
As I stated, I speak for many.
I don't get why the amount of voters makes the request less valid. Actually quite the contrary.
Its perfectly fine for me to nudge a community to vote. This has nothing to do though with the editorial choice of considering or not fantasy coins like classic coins.
1 - Krause, lists as coins, we believe Krause made its own research for that:
Krause is so full of mistakes that I bring into question whether any research was ever made. They list American native tribes among coins. That should be enough. They sell catalogues to collectors. Collectors wants to collect this or that, they catalogue it. See how they named their Fantasy issues catalog: “Unusual coins”. Not even dare to say those are just pieces of metal.
2 - The Numista catalog already lists coins from unrecognized entities, that means we agree some not-recognized subjects can be part of the main catalog.
Definition by circle. If you see any other examples, let us know. From what I have seen below, some authorities like Seborga, Hutt River, Abkhazia etc. were mentioned. At least those minted those objects on their own. They are some Abkhazian fantasies or Lundy fantasies in exonumia.
3- Low Numista Rarity Index (NRI 9): That means lots of users have that coin and obviously would want them in the catalog also it means a huge amount of those coins were minted, that is an expressive number to be just a simple fantasy.
This is redundant. Lot of people were fooled I would say.
This is redundant. Mints mint what their customers want them to make.
6 - Wikipedia, of course not reliable (as we can say from the PDF in question) but they are listed there, also we could assume some study was been done. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahrawi_peseta
These guys? They cannot even live without stealing pictures all over. :D
19 - Not recorded Polisario anonymous member: “Anything that praises the recognition of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic will be encouraged!”
This is not a source.
20 - Cointalk mentions as “questionable countries”, not proof of anything but worth a visit, also it show us the coin are broaded sought by coin collectors.
There is a link missing.
21 - World of coins mentions: “Non-commemorative coins are supposedly designated for circulation. They are minted by the Polisario Front, and made from cupronickel. The denominations are: 1, 2, 5 and 50 pesetas” Source: http://www.worldofcoins.eu/forum/index.php?topic=16995.0
Mentions old wiki page, which deleted the info about Polisario Front minting those objects in the meantime.
22 - many more ad infinitum.
I would be interested to read them.
Except for the one book, none of this is any source of any relevance.
Except wikipedia, that at least tries to source their information. Sadly, this goes only to the book in question and judging by the quote on wikipedia, one that wrote the article did not have that book either, just a free preview. German wikipedia has Numista as source, that is nice. Spanish wiki actually agrees with Anton here. https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peseta_saharaui Other wikis are just copies.
Would be great to get our hands on the book or any other reliable source.
( N'hésitez pas à cliquer sur “translate”en haut à droite de ce message pour les non-francophones: )
Je trouve ce sujet très intéressant,
Je comprend la frustration et le sentiment de voir une partie de sa collection dévaluée avec ce passage de la rubrique “pièces” vers “exonumia”, cela donne un aspect moins officiel, moins sérieux à ces objets que l'on chérit tant.
Le terme Numista de Fantaisie est peut-être à retravailler il donne un air enfantin à une collection se voulant sérieuse, néanmoins cela reste un terme que tout le monde comprend, il est clair.
En regardant sur les forums Numista EN et FR, il y a beaucoup de sujets comme celui-ci qui ont fait beaucoup parler, je repense aux écus et euros temporaires qui au moins pour la France ont eus une légitimité pendant une période donnée, et même une reconnaissance officielle pour les écus de Belgique. Il en est de même pour les pièces de l'Etat Islamique ISIS, pour les Essais de monnaies officiels et autres.
Le catalogue Numista évolue, change, bouge. Il vit. Certes pas forcément toujours dans le sens que l'on aimerait.
Je vois ici une bataille d'arguments qui ne semblent convaincre aucune des parties, ce sujet qui a le mérite d'être ouvert aidera peut-être à une prise de décision, si ce n'est pas aujourd'hui ce le sera sans doute plus tard avec l'apport de nouveaux éléments, de nouveaux spécialistes, qui pourront d'ailleurs participer en lisant ces lignes. Cela manque de différents participants pour le moment.
--------------------------------
Concernant le Sahara occidental, j'apporte ma pierre avec un œil extérieur, je ne me suis jamais penché sur le sujet avant aujourd'hui, je ne suis ni marocain, ni espagnol, ni sahraoui, ni spécialiste en histoire locale.
J'ai posé la question sur le site numismatique français sérieux CGB, leur numismate référent semble lui aussi botter en touche:
"Laurent COMPAROT
À moi
Bonjour,
La plus grande partie du Sahara Occidental était sous contrôle du Royaume du Maroc, la devise circulante doit être le Dirham Marocain. En revanche, j'ignore si la peseta du Sahara Occidental a circulé ou continue à circuler dans les zones sous contrôle sahraoui.
Ce document indique “ Dans les 80% du Sahara Occidental qui est contrôlé par le gouvernement marocain, le Dirham marocain est utilisé comme monnaie. Dans les 20% restants du Sahara occidental, les monnaies en circulation sont le dirham marocain, le dinar algérien et l'ouguiya mauritanien, aux côtés de la peseta sahraouie. Cependant, la peseta sahraouie n'est pas une monnaie officielle et les taux de change ne sont donc pas disponibles.”
Sa source est le site Xe.com , site de service de conversion de devises ainsi qu'un service de transferts de fonds en ligne.
Petit clin d'oeil à Seborga, ce site internet reconnaît le Luigino:
Let's be real, there are absolutely nothing in this world that will make you change your move, when things got religious, reason never prevail.
We just gave up.
Well, from my perspective, the “religion versus reason” argument would be the other way around… Just kidding ^^
I can simply state that on our end, we didn't gave up :-)
Indeed, we can ensure you and everyone else that we will continue to work collectively on a revamp of the main menus, allowing to reduce if not extinct all those frictions around “Exonumia” category. It's just that in the current structure of Numista, those coins should keep their current place.
I'll just copy paste my exact first answer to this thread:
Thanks for all this research!
On this Saharan topic like in many other places, I let experts discuss here, but wanted to share the fact we feel the core of the frustration come from too deep separation in the website between coins/banknotes and Exonumia.
Its in the tech long term roadmap to revamp Numista interface in a way allowing collectors to see all items linked with an issuer, probably with some optional filters which will encompass the current Exonumia categories.
Waiting for that, we think its better to keep categories allowing to distinguish legal tenders from those multiple other types (confinment tokens, company tokens, fantasy currencies etc).
What else did you take into consideration to this giant move besides your fellow referee words “they said he didn't saw those coins in circulation”.
Probably the fact there is absolutely no source about those coins being official ? Even after a researcher publicly denied their legality, which should have logiccally led any public authorities to make a statement against this assertion.
Also, who you think paid the Cuba mint to produce millions of those coins?
The RNI is not calculated in any logical way and is not representative of anything. You can't use it for any propet statistical purposes. Just search for it in the forae…
We see the pattern, and basic math tell us they were minted in the millions.
Probably you will say: We cannot trust the NRI.
Of course not, but the range will be around millions anyway, can you find a fantasy rarity 9?
So, again, I question you, who paid for the minting of millions of coins?
What is your best guess?
Rarity index, whatever quality it has, is mostly about relative rarity. It means it depends on offer and demand, and is highly biased by Numista registered collections. You can have a very low rarity index for coins minted in little quantity, as soon as many people (many at Numista scale) actually have this coin (or declare they have it).
Your comparison with actual coins mintage is just non sense, and believing seriously that millions of those fantasy issues were actually minted makes me realize how disconnected you may be from reality. Until you prove differently of course ^^
Your comparison with actual coins mintage is just non sense, and believing seriously that millions of those fantasy issues were actually minted makes me realize how disconnected you may be from reality. Until you prove differently of course ^^
How can you, as a numista team member, write something like this? Aren't you there to guide members? Calm down a bit, please.
Your comparison with actual coins mintage is just non sense, and believing seriously that millions of those fantasy issues were actually minted makes me realize how disconnected you may be from reality. Until you prove differently of course ^^
Dear Fantasy Referee, NRI is away from any real statistic, but it is at least something to consider, and it is one more data to analyse. If it is a tottally absolute useless crap, shouldn't even be created.
But we know you have the information of how many Numista collectors have that coins in their collections, would you share that?
Trying not to dodge, who you guess paid the minting of “so many” coins then?
I personnally dont see Krause as authoritative source as you when it comes to know if a coin is a legal tender or not.
I trust the master referees and Admins who took the decision, until new findings or elements.
Hello,
If the argument to move these items to Exonumia was is they were or not legal tender, why Andorra Diners are still in the coin catalog when they are collectors official coins but not legal tender.
Not referee for fantasy, only for some medieval coinage :-)
NRI is away from any real statistic, but it is at least something to consider, and it is one more data to analyse. If it is a tottally absolute useless crap, shouldn't even be created.
Who said it was crap? I simply said using it to say two entries with same NRI have probably same mintage was pure non sense.
But we know you have the information of how many Numista collectors have that coins in their collections, would you share that?
About 1500 people declared having each of the 3 coins you linked on top (i have no way to know if 4500 people own 1 type only or if 1500 people own 3 types)
Trying not to dodge, who you guess paid the minting of “so many” coins then?
Like for any other coin minted for collectors, my best guess would be that the company which ordered their production paid for it, then sold it to shop owners and, hopefully did earn money in between :-)
Your comparison with actual coins mintage is just non sense, and believing seriously that millions of those fantasy issues were actually minted makes me realize how disconnected you may be from reality. Until you prove differently of course ^^
How can you, as a numista team member, write something like this?
I'm sorry, I probably missed the part where you explain what shocked you in this pretty basic post?
Aren't you there to guide members?
I am part of a team of people who administrate a catalogue, I'm not sure about “guiding” anything or anyone ;-)
But I hope everyone knows indeed (if not experienced already) that I'm always available to help adding or fixing anything on the catalogue, through forum requests, entry change requests and DMs.
Calm down a bit, please.
I'm calm, but thanks for caring :-)
I take in this (long) thread all the time needed to answer questions, to remove bluriness, to explain technicalities like how NRI works, to underline rationale on which the catalogue is built, to tease about future website evolutions serving collectors' wishes, etc.
I take this time voluntarily, out of respect for all members, those who initiated the thread, those who took part in the discussion, those who expressed their opinion through the poll function.
As I stated in my first post, the request was not hostile or beligerant, but I see Referees walking in a path of superb, disrespect and sarcasm, unfortunelly I don't see any progress possible. Terrains like this does not allow for a constructive path.
So I end with the conclusion of the PDF of Mr. Anton:
Unlike the authorities of some other partially recognized states, the leadership of the POLISARIO Front pays insufficient attention to official publications about commemorative coins of the SADR.
I was hoping there would be civilised discussion or we will get some more sources.
If anyone can bring up the book in question or any other source, please reopen either this thread or create a new one. Until then, these stay in exonumia.
PS: NRI is indeed very rough indicator and is heavily influenced by availlability of given coinage to collectors on this site.
PSS: Andorran Diner is at least official currency of Andorra. It was decided to keep it in coins for the time being. Here we have coins not made by the given issuer.
1º As human beings, we have a preconceived idea and our mind (and heart) tries to discredit any source that goes against it, both in one sense and another. That is normal, but we must try not to let it lead us to personal confrontations that, in the end, do not lead to anything good.
2º Numista is, mainly, a numismatics website with an initial catalog only of coins, whose users basically collect coins (now also exonumia and banknotes but surely in a much lower percentage) and, therefore, we do not like too much to see our pieces "demoted" to the Exonumia catalog.
3º Taking this into account, I have always been in favor of moving to Exonumia only those pieces whose classification as "fantasy issue" is irrefutable. Otherwise, I don't see the problem with having those pieces in the coin catalog.
4º My proposal in this case (it may come too late) would be to keep these coins in the main catalog, adding to each one where there are doubts about their official status a writing in the Comments Section similar to: "This coin is classified by some sources (cite them) as official currency and from other sources (cite them) as fantasy issue" or something similar.
Coin referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Liberia and Spain
Banknote referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea and Spain
"4º My proposal in this case (it may come too late) would be to keep these coins in the main catalog, adding to each one where there are doubts about their official status a writing in the Comments Section similar to: "This coin is classified by some sources (cite them) as official currency and from other sources (cite them) as fantasy issue" or something similar."
If there was a credible source claiming something opposite, yes, then when in doubt, we would leave them in the coin catalogue. I have yet to see such source.
Fun fact: Referee uses wikipedia to confirm Sealand but reject to confirm Sahaara.
Of course no one will find a representative Polisario from the 90s to confirm anything. And even if some country have a representative that will certify, we still unsure what will be accepted as proof. So, do not worth the work.
I advise collector friends to keep the coins they think as officials in their own collections, trying not to stick to the catalogue.
Numismatics as a hobby needs to be enjoyable and not laborious.
EDIT: removed that I said maybe there is other personal motivations, as asked to remove by the referee.
Clear personal position, maybe political, we will never know.
Such serious insinuations and accusations are really attacks ad hominem backed by nothing. Please remove.
Of course no one will find a representative Polisario from the 90s to confirm anything. And even if some country have a representative that will certify, we still unsure what will be accepted as proof. So, do not worth the work.
Of course having an official statement would constitute a relevant element contradicting the only existing source we currently rely on. Totally worth the work.
I advise collector friends to keep the coins they think as officials in their own collections, trying not to stick to the catalogue.
I find very useful information numismaticcally speaking to differentiate issuers by their nature (its why “micronations” are separated from “countries and territories”) and issues by nature (officially issued by the issuer, versus privately issued by impersonation of the issuer). You think it adds no value to this catalogue; let's agree to disagree.
Numismatics as a hobby needs to be enjoyable and not laborious.
Your comparison with actual coins mintage is just non sense, and believing seriously that millions of those fantasy issues were actually minted makes me realize how disconnected you may be from reality. Until you prove differently of course ^^
How can you, as a numista team member, write something like this?
You should have understood, that my post with the 3 links to the infamous NRI, said exactly the same, that is, the NRI can in no way be used for anything, so of course to try to use the NRI as a basis for a formula is not mathematically possible. The OP would only know that, if he had cared to read all the postings about the NRI. Hence, your idea, that the OP is “disconnected from the reality”, which is not a nice thing to say.
Suggestion: Discard the NRI from numista, since it's not worth all the discussions about that dead born idea.
Fun fact: Referee uses wikipedia to confirm Sealand but reject to confirm Sahaara.
Of course no one will find a representative Polisario from the 90s to confirm anything. And even if some country have a representative that will certify, we still unsure what will be accepted as proof. So, do not worth the work.
I advise collector friends to keep the coins they think as officials in their own collections, trying not to stick to the catalogue.
Numismatics as a hobby needs to be enjoyable and not laborious.
EDIT: removed that I said maybe there is other personal motivations, as asked to remove by the referee.
Not really sure why that would be funny. Wikipedia actually follows some sourcing standards, or at least tries to. In Western Sahara case, they actually removed such comment (that coins were issued by Polisario front) from their text. I rejected their source, not wiki alone. :)
Late here, but I would first like to say that I truly do not see a problem between an item being moved from Coins to Exonumia; one classification on one website should not deter someone from enjoying these pieces within their own collection. And based on the current evidence, I am perfectly fine with these pieces being listed in Exonumia. With that being said:
This would be interesting to read, sadly the preview does not show anything else than sentence above. Would be nice to see what their source is.
I actually have access to this book through my university.
Firstly, here is what the footnote says exactly:
"110: The first Saharawi pesetas were coined in 1990, with an equivalence of 1:1 with the Spanish peseta. Although the Saharawi peseta has not been officially recognized, it has been already assigned an IOS 4217 international currency code: EHP" (page 156)
And here is a screenshot of what the footnote is related to:
(The last paragraph is talking about something else; no other instances of “Shawari peseta” are found throughout the book, aside from in the above relevant paragraphs and accompanying footnote).
Considering this seems to be a report from an anthropologist (someone whose field-work involves interjecting themselves in a foreign culture (usually for years) with the purpose of gaining first-hand experience to present to the world (source: knowledge from my anthropology class)), I do think this book would be reliable. But aside from that statement, I am not going to come to any conclusions of my own, and will leave this here for others to debate. I am here for the coins; not the drama.
Just because in a discussion today someone asked me and I didn't know what the answer is:
If I create my own coutry, with all that wiki stuff and unrecognized speech babble, home page and few followers, would my country be listed in the coin catalog? And if I say that Sahaara coins are now from my country?
The question is, if a country is not even recognized as that, why bother what is exonumia or not?
But which of the five current micronations actually have territory and which coins circulated?
These are not even actual States, just something that people who wanted to evade taxes or sell coins/stamps created.
What is the difference between a Sealand “coin” and some souvenir that I can get from some tourist trap?
I understand the points the referees made about Western Sahara and honestly agree with them, but I think it's weird that you remove coinage from actual places with people living in them that identify as citizens of those countries, even though they might not be officially minted, but chose to keep souvenir tokens from fantasy countries as coins.
Only micronations that actually have territorry and manage to get coins circulate have a place within micronations category.
So if Disneyland has some disney coins made that circulate within it's territory, i.e. in the restaurants and shops, does that then make it a micronation?
SADR official helped Anton to find sources about those objects. That is quite enough.
Having read Anton's SADR catalogue he also refers to a lot of other “coins” as tokens from other countries, such as Afghanistan, Benin, Cambodia, Congo (Republic), Laos, Vietnam etc.
Most of these are currently listed under coins in Numista.
Will these be reviewed with a view to moving them to exonumia?
Many are clearly minted by the same issuer and are similar or the same as some of the Western Sahara tokens.
Many are also the only way to get a “coin” from these countries. While this may upset some of the OFEC collectors on here, for accuracy they may indeed not be coins issued by the governments of those countries. and perhaps should be moved?
SADR official helped Anton to find sources about those objects. That is quite enough.
Having read Anton's SADR catalogue he also refers to a lot of other “coins” as tokens from other countries, such as Afghanistan, Benin, Cambodia, Congo (Republic), Laos, Vietnam etc.
Most of these are currently listed under coins in Numista.
Will these be reviewed with a view to moving them to exonumia?
Many are clearly minted by the same issuer and are similar or the same as some of the Western Sahara tokens.
Many are also the only way to get a “coin” from these countries. While this may upset some of the OFEC collectors on here, for accuracy they may indeed not be coins issued by the governments of those countries. and perhaps should be moved?
If Anton (the numista referee who I also helped in his research of Cabinda study, so I know his research method) knew the Polisario front coins were a scam years ago, why he didn't ask the correction in the Numista catalog?
First it is better to separate 2 different questions.
What the State is and what its Government is (both in a broad sense), and what the Coin is.
My research is based on idea as follows.
The State could be recognized by other states (UN members among them), or not, but it has the Government to control the territory and the people of the State de facto, and to have enough power to provide monetary circulation within its territory and among its people.
While the Coin in this sense, both LT or just NCLT, should have the official authorization by the Government, or at least reliable information that such an authorization existed.
At the moment my research has 4 parts, and covers The SADR, Katanga, Biafra and Cabinda cases. It was published and availalble for free, while several updated editions are still available in Russian only. Each case is very curious in my opinion, and has its features.
Regarding to The SADR case, I would tell you that 3 years ago I knew just a little bit on Sahrawi coins, having kept 3 pieces of 1992 pesetas in my collection as well, treted them as coins.
But one more “Sahrawi” series appeared on the market, and it became the last straw to make me sort this issue out.
During 2 years of this research I had a pleasure to speak to lots of different people to collect more data, while there are still many questions to shed the light to.
At the moment I have reliable data upon 6 coins to be authorized by The SADR Government only. I mean thi data was confirmed by Front POLISARIO representatives, as I made my requests or talked to representatives in Russia, Cuba, Argentina and Spain.
There is no any evidence of any Sahrawi coins to circulate within the territory of The SADR ever (and within refugee camps in Algeria as well). Front POLISARIO representatives do not confirm this, and MINURSO observers do not confirm this either.
More information could be found in my article here
…have been coined in very limited numbers to commemorate certain events of recent Saharawi history. They are not used in everyday exchanges, but kept as symbolic reminders of the will to have a ‘proper’ Saharawi currency. Thus, the coins and notes that are used in everyday life are the ‘wrong’ ones.
Sir Anton, thank you for your wise words, can you confirm for the more than 1500 users of this site that bought the coins subject of this topic, that the POLISARIO authorities of all countries reject as any officiality of them and they are just fantasy issues of the Cuba mint?
As per Cuban mint issues of 1990-2001 under the name of different countries (Benin, Congo etc), I am not sure about it. One should make deeper research).
I humbly assume it was a mutually profitable business by Cuban mint and certain European dealers (Philswiss et alii) first of all.
While they could think about authorization in the second place.
Sir Anton, thank you for your wise words, can you confirm for the more than 1500 users of this site that bought the coins subject of this topic, that the POLISARIO authorities of all countries reject as any officiality of them and they are just fantasy issues of the Cuba mint?
Dear Geison,
let me show the cover of this magazine, Cronica Numismatica, №69,
and to repeat, that the representatives confirm 6 coins to be legal.
I am open to get more data upon Cuban mint issues of 1990-1999, and Metalor issues of 1997 as well.
But after 2 years of the research I have nothing to confirm they had any authorization.
So it is inconclusive until new information is provided.
Thank you for your time.
Well, if I order a mintage of coin-looking piece under the name of The SADR, it does not remain coin until The SADR Government claims that the issue was not authorized, while it does remain exonumia piece until The SADR Government claims that it was authorized.
Well, absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence (Carl Sagan)
Right?
I mean, half the catalog we do not have documentation of authorizations, but we see there is a special concern about the Polisario coins from Numista team.
But is ok, this topic should be locked to prevent our discussion.
I thought the 1992 series was the only circulating coins of the SADR. To be fair, I've always been sceptical to keep non-circulating coins in the main catalogue.
Does anyone own, or have read, the book Western Sahara: The Refugee Nation, which is given as a source in the Wikipedia article in almost every language?
If we were to blindly trust Wikipedia, the Saharawi peseta is circulating in the referee camps, but at the same time it has never been accepted as an official currency and have never been circulated. Buyt still people seem to have the coins in all grades, from F to UNC. How is this possible?
