Currently, they are listed as “Emergency coinage › Official necessity coins”. That's not inaccurate but surely a separate type “Stamp coin” would be better?
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
That's not really the point. There are all kinds of money produced “out of necessity”. Stamp coins are very different to either metallic coins/tokens or paper notes/vouchers. Making a separate type for them would seem an obvious thing to do to help develop this part of the catalogue. Try searching at the moment for “stamp coin” and you'll see how hard it is to find them without a dedicated type.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
I think that the type of object should determine what it is used for (circulation, collector, emergency coinage...) and not its shape, material or manufacturing process, so I do not think it is ideal to create a new category in types of objects, since these items already have their category correctly assigned.
Even so, I think it would be good if, in some way, all these objects could be grouped together, since they share in common the stamp attached to a certain surface. Perhaps in techniques we could create a new one like "stamp money" or "stamp coinage"?
In fact, when I introduced all these items from Spain, I assigned the tag "stamp depiction" to indicate that there is a stamp, but I don't think that is the correct definition, since as stamp depiction I mean more of an ordinary coin with a depicted stamp, not a postage stamp directly on a surface.
STAMP DEPICTION:
STAMP COIN:
Coin referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Liberia and Spain
Banknote referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea and Spain
I suppose it really comes down to what we want the term “type” to mean. For all the discussion before the current organization was imposed, that question really wasn't asked, let alone answered. From the examples highlighted here, there are some that could be classified as a coin (since the stamp is attached to an inflexible material) and others that could be classified as a note (because the stamp is attached to a flexible material). These definitions work well elsewhere but can they be extended this far? Above all, a single means of selecting for these pieces is needed and is clearly lacking. I would agree that “stamp depiction” is wrong (though I understand why you chose it), that's really meant for pieces like this.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
They should be considered as banknotes or paper exonumia.
The composition is paper.
I would keep the technique “stamp coin” only for the first 2 bullets above. The technique for the 3rd bullet would be some printing technique.
Also, I don't think it's worth differentiating the 2 first bullets. We can explain the different variants (aluminium foil or cardboard, with or without cover, etc.) in the description of the technique.
Yes, those are clearly distinct types but I would place them within a broader category of stamp money. The key to all these is that the value is defined by the stamp. To split them between the different existing categories misses that essential common feature. I started this thread after seeing the Spanish pieces but it's clear, from the various types that have been brought up, that we need a distinct category to catch all the ways in which stamps have been used as money.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
