Not an Indian Princely State coin.

Definitely NOT an Indian Princely State coin.

N#564711 .

It was struck a long time before Kutch became an Indian Princely State under British suzerainty.

Aidan.

This is a more widespread issue. I've suggested in an earlier post to treat the Princely States as a more loose group, as Local and Princely States as it is on Zeno. But looking at the recent issuer creation requests, there is clearly a differt direction, to basically create a duplciate issuer for the same entity as an independent issuer and then as a princely state.

The coin you've linked obviously does not belong to a princely state as it's far older that Kutch become one. I still suggest to not create a separate issuer for every and all princely states with independent coinage. That would be a mess and I'm not sure that the line can or should be drawned between those two eras, just looking at the coins. For example, Kutch came under British suzeranity in 1819, but that is not reflected in the coinage of the 1810s/20s: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/index.php?e=kutch_princely&r=&st=1-2&cat=y&im1=&im2=&ru=&ie=&ca=3&no=&v=&cu=&a=&dg=1810-1825&i=&b=&m=&f=&t=&t2=&w=&mt=&u=&g=&c=&wi=&sw=

I think that a looser group of Local and Princely States would still be a better idea and if the independent and princely state coinage can be separated, then that can be done inside the same issuer, as a new currency.

Indian Princely States coins need to be listed separately from those of the ones of those that were of entities that existed before coming under British suzerainty.

Aidan.

Ok, and what should we do with the coins that belong to both eras? For example: N#50807 This was issued between 1818-60, while Kutch became a princely state in 1819.
Falling under British suzeranity didn't change much with the coinage of most of these states.

A couple of arbitrary examples, with the dates of British suzeranity and the contemporary coins. There aren't much change in the coinage and most types are continuous:
- Baroda (1805): https://en.numista.com/catalogue/index.php?e=baroda_princely&r=&st=1-2&cat=y&im1=&im2=&ru=&ie=&ca=3&no=&v=&cu=&a=&dg=1800-1810&i=&b=&m=&f=&t=&t2=&w=&mt=&u=&g=&c=&wi=&sw=

- Gwalior (1818): https://en.numista.com/catalogue/index.php?e=gwalior_princely_state&r=&st=1-2&cat=y&im1=&im2=&ru=&ie=&ca=3&no=&v=&cu=&a=&dg=1810-1825&i=&b=&m=&f=&t=&t2=&w=&mt=&u=&g=&c=&wi=&sw=

- Hyderabad (1798): https://en.numista.com/catalogue/index.php?e=hyderabad_princely_state&r=&st=1-2&cat=y&im1=&im2=&ru=&ie=&ca=3&no=&v=&cu=&a=&dg=1790-1810&i=&b=&m=&f=&t=&t2=&w=&mt=&u=&g=&c=&wi=&sw=

- Jodhpur (1818): https://en.numista.com/catalogue/index.php?e=hyderabad_princely_state&r=&st=1-2&cat=y&im1=&im2=&ru=&ie=&ca=3&no=&v=&cu=&a=&dg=1790-1810&i=&b=&m=&f=&t=&t2=&w=&mt=&u=&g=&c=&wi=&sw=

- Travancore (1795): https://en.numista.com/catalogue/index.php?e=travancore_kingdom&r=&st=1-2&cat=y&im1=&im2=&ru=&ie=&ca=3&no=&v=&cu=&a=&dg=1790-1800&i=&b=&m=&f=&t=&t2=&w=&mt=&u=&g=&c=&wi=&sw=

SCWC doesn't distinguish between the independent and princely coinage either.

If it belongs to different issuer, please make a change on a page. If issuer needs to be changed, please open a ticket to change an issuer.

@tdziemia and @BCNumismatics  for the Indian states coinage, one solution is that if there are 15+coin s of the kingdom we can make it another issuer under Indian independent kingdoms, or else if they have less kingdom Coinage, then a period, or if most of the coins are of the kingdoms period, then we can just move the issuer to Indian independent kingdoms, regards 

@tdziemia  Even zeno.ru has a mixed approach to the ips coinage as it does provide links within issuers to other issuers for different issuing entities . I.e. Rama’s of gohad for dholpur, and links to other issuers for the contemporary Mughal puppet era.

Forgot to say:

https://en.numista.com/forum/topic172258.html 

https://en.numista.com/forum/topic172257.html 
https://en.numista.com/forum/topic166282.html -(3rd one is older semi complete thread)

In the European parts of the catalog, we use Ruling Authorities and Periods to cover different eras within the same issuer, but we keep the coins together.

If we apply this approach with the India States, we keep all the Kutch coins together, and use Princely States as a period.

Thanks, @SGreg85   for referring back to your earlier post and suggestion.  I agree that this could be a good way forward, i.e. to call the current “Princely States” sub-issuer “Local and Princely States”  and to use other sub-sections only for the polities that disappeared earlier.

I will take a look at Hyderabad and Travancore that were mentioned in the earlier post, and Kutch.  and see how this could look, if those are good examples to pursue. 

@sujit_kumar does this approach ("collecting" the India sub-issuers slightly differently as “Local and Princely States” to accomodate places that existed both as Princely States and as an earlier kingdonm or state) sound OK to you?  

tdziemia

In the European parts of the catalog, we use Ruling Authorities and Periods to cover different eras within the same issuer, but we keep the coins together.

If we apply this approach with the India States, we keep all the Kutch coins together, and use Princely States as a period.

 

Thanks, @SGreg85   for referring back to your earlier post and suggestion.  I agree that this could be a good way forward, i.e. to call the current “Princely States” sub-issuer “Local and Princely States”  and to use other sub-sections only for the polities that disappeared earlier.

 

I will take a look at Hyderabad and Travancore that were mentioned in the earlier post, and Kutch.  and see how this could look, if those are good examples to pursue. 

 

@sujit_kumar does this approach ("collecting" the India sub-issuers slightly differently as “Local and Princely States” to accomodate places that existed both as Princely States and as an earlier kingdonm or state) sound OK to you?  

 

 

 

  

Yes sounds good. 

@tdziemia Just like on zeno.ru the Indian Hindu dynasties should still be kept seperate, and not with Local & princely states, regards