New countries

This topic seems to be ignored... I'm still waiting for my request about Abkhazia but nothing.

Portugese-Mozambique?

Απόσπασμα: jellePortugese-Mozambique?

I wouldn't mind seeing all applicable colonies' listings split up between Colonial and Independent (as is done in India), but it may be confusing - and many British colonies had no clear transition between the two

In my world - I make a distinction between Communist and non-Communist countries, and I make a distinction between colonies and independent countries. But this is just because they won't let me into the 300 Club

Απόσπασμα: nalaberong

Απόσπασμα: jellePortugese-Mozambique?

I wouldn't mind seeing all applicable colonies' listings split up between Colonial and Independent (as is done in India), but it may be confusing - and many British colonies had no clear transition between the two

In my world - I make a distinction between Communist and non-Communist countries, and I make a distinction between colonies and independent countries. But this is just because they won't let me into the 300 Club

45 more countries and you can join ;)

I read all the new forum posts since I am a member (two months) but it is impossible to go back in time and read all the previous posts of the last years.
So maybe this discussion is already conducted in the past.

This post is about the British Caribbean Territories. It's not logical that they don't have an entrance of their own here. Here they can be found under the entrance Eastern Caribbean. It would make much more sense if there were two entrances here: British Caribbean Territories and East Caribbean States.

There are lots of other examples who got their own entrance after a change of name:

British Honduras - Belize
Equatorial African States - Central Africa
Ceylon - Sri Lanka
Dahomey - Benin
Burma - Myanmar
Zaire - Congo
and many more.

In all those cases, only the name changed, the boundaries stay the same. And yet they all got a new entrance.
In the case of British Caribbean Territories - East Caribbean States there was more than only a change of name. Also the boundaries were different: Trinidad and Tobago and British Guiana were part of the British Caribbean Territories but were no longer part of the East Caribbean States.

So in my opinion the British Caribbean Territories also deserve their own entrance.
What do you think?

New Country that needs to be made:
Mamluk Sultanate:
Look here:
https://en.numista.com/forum/topic40393.html

Please add in South Sudan,as there will be coins put into circulation on South Sudanese Independence Day,according to this;

http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article55269 .

Aidan.

Απόσπασμα: BCNumismaticsPlease add in South Sudan,as there will be coins put into circulation on South Sudanese Independence Day,according to this;

http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article55269 .

Aidan.

It's already there for some years.

The Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (1921-23) should be listed separately from the Soviet Union (U.S.S.R.) (1924-91),as the Russian Civil War was still going on until 1922.

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

The U.S.S.R.'s first coins were struck in 1924.

Aidan.

Απόσπασμα: eitan190New Country that needs to be made:
Mamluk Sultanate:
Look here:
https://en.numista.com/forum/topic40393.html

Anybody else have any coins from the mamluks?

Απόσπασμα: Essor ProfI read all the new forum posts since I am a member (two months) but it is impossible to go back in time and read all the previous posts of the last years.
So maybe this discussion is already conducted in the past.

This post is about the British East Caribbean Territories. It's not logical that they don't have an entrance of their own here. Here they can be found under the entrance Eastern Caribbean. It would make much more sense if there were two entrances here: British East Caribbean Territories and East Caribbean States.

There are lots of other examples who got their own entrance after a change of name:

British Honduras - Belize
Equatorial African States - Central Africa
Ceylon - Sri Lanka
Dahomey - Benin
Burma - Myanmar
Zaire - Congo
and many more.

In all those cases, only the name changed, the boundaries stay the same. And yet they all got a new entrance.
In the case of British East Caribbean Territories - East Caribbean States there was more than only a change of name. Also the boundaries were different: Trinidad and Tobago and British Guiana were part of the British East Caribbean Territories but were no longer part of the East Caribbean States.

So in my opinion the British Eastern Caribbean Territories also deserve their own entrance.
What do you think?

47.000 members and nobody has an opinion about this?

Would it help if I say I have a dog's hair from the British Eastern Caribbean Territories and a beer brand from the East Caribbean States?

By the way, the same problem arises with British Guiana - Guyana. What's the difference between British Honduras - Belize, with both an entrance and British Guiana - Guyana, with only one entrance for both of them.

Απόσπασμα: Essor Prof

Απόσπασμα: Essor ProfI read all the new forum posts since I am a member (two months) but it is impossible to go back in time and read all the previous posts of the last years.
So maybe this discussion is already conducted in the past.

This post is about the British East Caribbean Territories. It's not logical that they don't have an entrance of their own here. Here they can be found under the entrance Eastern Caribbean. It would make much more sense if there were two entrances here: British East Caribbean Territories and East Caribbean States.

There are lots of other examples who got their own entrance after a change of name:

British Honduras - Belize
Equatorial African States - Central Africa
Ceylon - Sri Lanka
Dahomey - Benin
Burma - Myanmar
Zaire - Congo
and many more.

In all those cases, only the name changed, the boundaries stay the same. And yet they all got a new entrance.
In the case of British East Caribbean Territories - East Caribbean States there was more than only a change of name. Also the boundaries were different: Trinidad and Tobago and British Guiana were part of the British East Caribbean Territories but were no longer part of the East Caribbean States.

So in my opinion the British Eastern Caribbean Territories also deserve their own entrance.
What do you think?

47.000 members and nobody has an opinion about this?

Would it help if I say I have a dog's hair from the British Eastern Caribbean Territories and a beer brand from the East Caribbean States?

By the way, the same problem arises with British Guiana - Guyana. What's the difference between British Honduras - Belize, with both an entrance and British Guiana - Guyana, with only one entrance for both of them.

I agree. Also it is the same thing with german notgeld. Why is french notgeld a separate country but german notgeld isn't?

Glad to see I'm not the only one thinking about notgelds separate from the 1871-1948 section.

Here is what the coins of South Sudan will look like;



Can someone please do some listings for South Sudan?

The national emblem of South Sudan is the common obverse,along with the country name 'REPUBLIC OF SOUTH SUDAN', & the date.

Aidan.

I agree that if colonial India warrants its own listings that all other colonials deserve their own listings. Portuguese colonials come immediately to mind...