World of Coins

Modern European coins except the euro => Benelux => Topic started by: eurocoin on April 07, 2017, 01:41:05 PM

Title: Comments on: "Milestones in the coinage of the Netherlands"
Post by: eurocoin on April 07, 2017, 01:41:05 PM
Parent topic:  Milestones in the coinage of the Netherlands (http://www.worldofcoins.eu/forum/index.php/topic,35965.0.html)



The parent topic (above) gives an overview of the coinage of the Netherlands. Please post any comments, questions or corrections here.
Title: Re: Comments on: "Milestones in the coinage of the Netherlands"
Post by: <k> on April 07, 2017, 01:46:25 PM
(https://s25.postimg.cc/ize3cqa1b/5cnew.jpg)(https://c8.staticflickr.com/6/5650/30620390855_1d23bf1603_o.jpg)

I do like some of the older Dutch coins. From the 1980s or so, the designs became much more simplistic and minimalistic.
Title: Re: Comments on: "Milestones in the coinage of the Netherlands"
Post by: <k> on August 06, 2017, 11:07:02 PM
It's interesting to read about how long the Occupation coins still circulated in the Netherlands after the Second World War: Zinc coins of the Netherlands (http://www.worldofcoins.eu/forum/index.php/topic,3760.0.html).  Some of the posts are by forum member a3v1, a Dutchman who died in 2011.
Title: Re: Comments on: "Milestones in the coinage of the Netherlands"
Post by: Figleaf on August 06, 2017, 11:54:33 PM
I was born in 1949, but my long-term memory says I handled those coins. They may have been family leftovers, though, rather than still circulating coins. I very distinctly remember the first silver gulden and rijksdaalder pieces circulating alongside the blue and red banknotes of the same denomination.

Peter
Title: Re: Comments on: "Milestones in the coinage of the Netherlands"
Post by: <k> on August 06, 2017, 11:57:25 PM
It's quite shocking in a way that those coins were not destroyed at the first available opportunity. However, everything had to be rebuilt after the devastation of the war, and this took time and things had to be prioritised, so perhaps it's not surprising.
Title: Re: Comments on: "Milestones in the coinage of the Netherlands"
Post by: Figleaf on August 07, 2017, 12:31:13 AM
Destruction was widespread and made worse by whole polders being flooded. Silver coins, including those issued during the last phase of the war, were hoarded and did not circulate, so the whole series was up for renewal. That would have been a challenge even in normal times. The country had no use for the economic disruption that a withdrawal of the zinc coins would have been. This was so obvious that the government in exile had already announced that the zinc coins would remain valid.

Similarly, in France, Vichy and other wartime coins of 50 centimes, 1 and 2 francs were still circulating in the sixties as half, 1 and 2 centimes.

Peter
Title: Re: Comments on: "Milestones in the coinage of the Netherlands"
Post by: <k> on August 16, 2017, 10:22:07 AM
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4405/35755950734_79864ef8a5_o.jpg)



In 1954, the reverse of the 1 guilder coin was updated. The same change was made to the 2,5 guilder coin in 1959. To the left the previous design can be seen and to the right the updated reverse. The new design was made by Ludwig Oswald Wenckebach.

So what was the reason for this change? What do the new details on the design represent?
Title: Re: Comments on: "Milestones in the coinage of the Netherlands"
Post by: eurocoin on August 16, 2017, 11:29:56 AM
So what was the reason for this change? What do the new details on the design represent?

Just an update. I have been unable to find any specific reason for it. Very few attention was given to this change at the time and no detailed information is available. Other than the mintmaster mark which is different in the images, I can not see any other noteworthy design details that are different. It is just a more abstract version of the coat of arms of the Netherlands. 
Title: Re: Comments on: "Milestones in the coinage of the Netherlands"
Post by: <k> on August 16, 2017, 11:40:45 AM
I see. Mints have to find something to keep themselves busy, I suppose.
Title: Re: Comments on: "Milestones in the coinage of the Netherlands"
Post by: Figleaf on August 16, 2017, 02:08:16 PM
The reason was that it was in fact not the same coin and circumstances, as well as taste in art had changed. The old reverse designs lean heavily on the the design introduced at decimalisation, around 1815. The new design has fewer and clearer details. To see the two designs side by side clearly shows the modernisation. It's not radical, but it paved the way for the radical change of the next designs, by Ninaber van Eyben, which at last discarded the heavily worn heraldry concept.

The design and vital statistics of the pre-war coinage was half-way between the pound and the Franc de Germinal, with traces of imperial German and Spanish coinage systems. That gulden came to an end in 1940. Post war coins were solidly Bretton Woods in nature: tokens, kept aloft by trust. In between, the old gulden was hollowed out by hyperinflation, loss of reserves and a famine that made only gold coins acceptable. It was finished by a "money-purification" drive that saw all old coins and banknotes withdrawn, accompanied by a massive loss of value of monetary holdings. Any resemblance between the new gulden and the old one was based on wilful deception and tradition.

Peter
Title: Re: Comments on: "Milestones in the coinage of the Netherlands"
Post by: <k> on August 16, 2017, 02:15:43 PM
That makes sense. I notice also, in the exergue of the earlier coin: "100 C.", so it is in effect doubly denominated.

See: Double Denominations (http://www.worldofcoins.eu/forum/index.php/topic,6808.0.html).
Title: Re: Comments on: "Milestones in the coinage of the Netherlands"
Post by: chrisild on August 16, 2017, 02:54:54 PM
Keep in mind, however, that the "100 C." was removed much earlier. The last 1 gulden coins that had this text are dated 1901 - the pieces from 1904 (and later) do not have such a double denomination. Interesting that the design change that Juliana introduced was then used as a model by Beatrix too, in the sense of "she got a new reverse, so I can get a new one as well". :)

Christian
Title: Re: Comments on: "Milestones in the coinage of the Netherlands"
Post by: <k> on August 16, 2017, 02:58:47 PM
Interesting that the design change that Juliana introduced was then used as a model by Beatrix too, in the sense of "she got a new reverse, so I can get a new one as well". :)

But Juliana ascended the throne in 1948. The new design did not occur until 1959. I'll wait until the next posts to find out the gap in the case of Beatrix.
Title: Re: Comments on: "Milestones in the coinage of the Netherlands"
Post by: chrisild on August 16, 2017, 03:18:47 PM
Right, there was a long "gap" - Juliana did not have any gulden coins minted until 1954 (1G) and 1959 (2½G). I know that they had paper money (muntbiljet) notes with these denominations and her portrait, dated 1949. But judging from what I know about the background ... yeah, let's wait. :)

Christian
Title: Re: Comments on: "Milestones in the coinage of the Netherlands"
Post by: Figleaf on August 16, 2017, 06:14:19 PM
It's a tale of silver. By around 1940, the gold standard distinguished two sorts of coins: full value coins (could theoretically be exchanged for gold bars and could freely be melted and minted) and token coins, legal tender up to a determined number of pieces only. The silver 5, 10 and 25 cent coins were token coins. The ½, 1 and 2½ Gulden were full value coins. The ½ Gulden were struck for the colonies and saw very little circulation in the home country until the sea lanes were closed by warfare.

While the units of account in international trade were coins such as the gold franc, gold pound and a few more (including the gold 10 gulden), international payments could well be made in silver. It was of great importance that when Wilhelmina fled the country (taking her cabinet along by their ears), the precious metal reserves of the Dutch central bank went with her. In addition, the staff of the Dutch mint hid their precious metal reserves for the nazis. This meant that the Gulden was no longer covered in the pre-war sense.

Wilhelmina spent a large share of the reserves on uniforms, guns and other equipment to raise a battalion of fugitive soldiers. More silver was spent on the token coins struck in the US. In fact, some of them had to be re-melted to pay our allies so that Dutch soldiers could fight along with them. It was a worthwhile investment into our independence. The net result was, that in 1945, there wasn't enough silver to resume pre-war coins on pre-war standards, all the more because the price of silver had gone high enough for the token coins to become standard coins.

The solution was, as noted above, paper money. There was a precedent. In 1914, 15, 16, 18 and 20 there had been issues of paper 1, 2½ and 5 gulden. The text on these notes made clear that they were a temporary measure. It said silver coupon. Accepted for payment by the central bank and all state offices. Can be exchanged for silver after announcement. As if that wasn't clear enough, the 1 gulden 1920 carried the same portrait as the gulden ermine mantle.

As the threat of war became immediate, full value silver coins were hoarded. The paper gulden 1920 was re-issued in 1938, quaintly with the same portrait, that was now no longer used on the coins. There was a new type 2½ Gulden 1938.* These were supplemented by German army money. As hoarding stopped, this occupation money could be withdrawn relatively quickly.

The railway strike and famine of the winter of 1944 effectively ended the utility of cash. However, the government-in-exile had already prepared a new currency, dated 1943, printed by the American Banknote Company. For some reason, they were found unsuitable (perhaps because they had no watermarks). They circulated only three months in the southernmost part of the country. The series dated 18th May 1945 had a somewhat longer life. They were withdrawn during the "money purification campaign". They were the last of the old gulden notes.

One by one, new denominations appeared from 1948 onwards. They included a 1 and 2½ gulden note. They are carefully named muntbiljet (coin-note), not bankbiljet (banknote). Yet, you can see the influence of Bretton Woods thinking on these notes. There is no promise to redeem them in metal. The notes just say they are issued by royal decree.

Like Germany had its Wirtschaftswunder, the Netherlands saw very fast economic growth in the fifties, kickstarted by Marshall aid. Reserves were healthy and silver had flowed back. The 1949 notes were replaced by silver coins. I remember the satisfaction of my parents that the last memory of the war had been taken out of their daily life. Nobody cared that pre-war coins had been heavier and purer. It was a gesture of luxury, not of necessity. Silver had ceased to be important for Dutch coins.

Peter

* There was also a short-lived host of local paper issues in May 1940.
Title: Re: Comments on: "Milestones in the coinage of the Netherlands"
Post by: <k> on August 16, 2017, 07:07:02 PM
So WW2 was really behind the need for fiat money?
Title: Re: Comments on: "Milestones in the coinage of the Netherlands"
Post by: Figleaf on August 16, 2017, 11:49:04 PM
That depends on how you define fiat money. Fiat coins are as old as the Chinese empire. Even in Europe, many coins were significantly underweight. However, the theory was always that the coins contained their worth in metal. In practice, that was not often the case, though.

The gold standard described above was itself derived from the silver standard and the gold/silver standard. Its lower denominations were fiat coins, but in theory, you could always exchange them for a full value coin. Therefore, the value of those coins lay not in the trust that even though lightweight, each coin contained enough metal to give some security but in the trust that the government/central bank had enough metal to redeem all money into metal.

If you grasp that evolution, you will see that Bretton Woods is but a small step further in that logic. After the second world war, the US was a dominant economic power, dwarfing all others. It made sense, then, to replace the trust in your own government by the trust that your government had enough credit with US government, which in turn had enough metal to cover their debt. The US was the holder of metal reserves of last resort for other countries. If you wanted your cash redeemed in metal, you would in theory go to your local central bank or government office, who'd pay you in dollar notes, which you could offer for payment in the US where you'd get your metal.

As the gap between the US and other countries got smaller and the Vietnam war made the amount of USD outstanding in other countries larger, the US's position became more and more difficult. It became untenable when oil prices shot through the roof, so the US cut the theoretical link between dollar notes and metal. Nothing happened.

At what point do you see a change to fiat money? Around 1700, when silver hunger led to the first experiments with paper money? Around 1816, when lower denominations had to be exchanged for full value coins? After 1944, when the ultimate responsibility for redeeming cash in metal came to lie with the US? In the seventies, when the last silver coins were demonetised? Or did we always have fiat money, but we chose not to think of it as such?

Peter
Title: Re: Comments on: "Milestones in the coinage of the Netherlands"
Post by: <k> on August 17, 2017, 12:27:17 AM
So, it's been a gradual and complex process. Just as well our resident anarchist didn't try to explain it, or he would have tied himself in knots.
Title: Re: Comments on: "Milestones in the coinage of the Netherlands"
Post by: <k> on August 20, 2017, 11:24:39 PM
On January 1, 2002 the Netherlands joined the Eurozone and so abandoned the guilder which had been its currency from the first day of its existence.

I'm not at all happy with this ending. Could I have an alternative one, please?  :-X
Title: Re: Comments on: "Milestones in the coinage of the Netherlands"
Post by: <k> on August 20, 2017, 11:26:27 PM
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4420/36421762542_b866aa5f6b_o.jpg)

This doesn't look like any photo of Queen Juliana that I've seen. Where is one showing her with that contraption on her head?
Title: Re: Comments on: "Milestones in the coinage of the Netherlands"
Post by: <k> on August 20, 2017, 11:28:11 PM
Also, why is it that some countries do not like the "50" ? The Netherlands doesn't, not does the USA.
Title: Re: Comments on: "Milestones in the coinage of the Netherlands"
Post by: Figleaf on August 21, 2017, 10:17:37 AM
This doesn't look like any photo of Queen Juliana that I've seen. Where is one showing her with that contraption on her head?

There isn't such a photo on the net as far as I am aware. The "contraption" is known as the diamond hair net. Wilhelmina abhorred sitting as a model, which may have been a reason Juliana sat for the portrait Prof. Wenkebach made for the coins. Shortly after, the hair net disappeared. There is no evidence of whodunit, but the logical culprit is her husband, prince Bernhard, who was a notable philanderer. Juliana made sure he was always short of money. The net is easy to disassemble and the diamonds would have given him some financial freedom.

Peter
Title: Re: Comments on: "Milestones in the coinage of the Netherlands"
Post by: <k> on August 21, 2017, 10:21:06 AM
My, you do have a devious mind.  :o  It must have taken some talent to manage to deprive a prince of money.
Title: Re: Comments on: "Milestones in the coinage of the Netherlands"
Post by: Figleaf on August 21, 2017, 10:33:20 AM
Also, why is it that some countries do not like the "50" ? The Netherlands doesn't, not does the USA.

At least part of the answer is tradition. In pre-decimal days, the gulden was one of the benchmark silver coins. It had multiples and divisions. In UK terminology, they formed a coin family. Note that the 25 cent was called 25 cent, though it was part of the same family. However, the family was split up by the gold standard: the 2½ gulden, 1 gulden and ½ gulden were full metal value coins, while the 10 cent and 25 cent were token coins and already produced in cu-ni, when the 2½ and 1 gulden were still silverish.

The US must have had its own reasons, as they have no such tradition. The ingrown revulsion against anything having to do with the French revolution may have had a sub-conscious influence on some American political hero proposing halves and quarters for coins. The dollar's ancestor is the peso of 8 reales and the half and quarter are 4 and 2 reales. The quarter is (was?) known colloquially as two bits (a local replacement of the word reales), which would have been a more traditional name.

Peter
Title: Re: Comments on: "Milestones in the coinage of the Netherlands"
Post by: chrisild on August 21, 2017, 10:35:49 AM
I'm not at all happy with this ending. Could I have an alternative one, please?  :-X

Well, that sentence should be rephrased anyway. "On January 1, 2002 the Netherlands joined the Eurozone"?? Of course not. On January 1, 1999 the Netherlands was one of the eleven founding members of the euro area. I know that with regard to coins, most of that three-year period can be ignored, but that sentence is still wrong ...

Besides, would you be so much happier with an ending such as "The guilder will resurrect in all its glory once the European Union falls apart"? :P

Christian
Title: Re: Comments on: "Milestones in the coinage of the Netherlands"
Post by: <k> on August 21, 2017, 10:39:41 AM
"The guilder will resurrect in all its glory once the European Union falls apart"

Ach, cordon bleu schadenfreude.  >:D   Anyway, you know how conflicted I am on that issue.
Title: Re: Comments on: "Milestones in the coinage of the Netherlands"
Post by: eurocoin on August 21, 2017, 10:59:22 AM
Well, that sentence should be rephrased anyway. "On January 1, 2002 the Netherlands joined the Eurozone"?? Of course not. On January 1, 1999 the Netherlands was one of the eleven founding members of the euro area. I know that with regard to coins, most of that three-year period can be ignored, but that sentence is still wrong ...

Luckily the topic is not yet finished and has not yet been proofread.

Title: Re: Comments on: "Milestones in the coinage of the Netherlands"
Post by: Figleaf on August 21, 2017, 11:13:44 AM
In addition, the word "decimal" should be added to that sentence. The first gulden coins circulating in what is now the Netherlands were gold and from the Rhineland-Pfalz.

Peter
Title: Re: Comments on: "Milestones in the coinage of the Netherlands"
Post by: chrisild on August 21, 2017, 11:24:00 AM
These things are what the Comments topic is for after all. :)
Title: Re: Comments on: "Milestones in the coinage of the Netherlands"
Post by: Figleaf on August 01, 2018, 08:28:25 PM
The portrait was never introduced on the 2,5 guilders coin

You are right, but for the sake of completeness, the collection of the Dutch Central Bank contains a pattern for a 2½ Gulden of this type.

Peter
Title: Re: Comments on: "Milestones in the coinage of the Netherlands"
Post by: Figleaf on August 02, 2018, 09:31:27 AM
On January 1, 2002 the Netherlands joined the Eurozone and so abandoned the guilder which had been its currency from the first day of its existence.

Incorrect. The Netherlands started to exist somewhere between 1568 and 1648, during its war of independence with the Spanish Habsburgs. A convenient point would be 1579, the Union of Utrecht (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Utrecht), though the act of abjuration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Abjuration) (1581) is a good candidate also.

At that point, the standard coins were the gold rose noble (VG-H 255-257), the silver daalder (VG-H 258-259) and the silver stuiver (VG-H 260). Denominations starte to proliferate after 1580, but gulden coins could still be found only among the local emergency issues.

In the course of time, the Rijksdaalder of (mostly) 60 stuivers developed as the big silver standard coin. The small silver standard was the stuiver, with the gulden (20 stuivers) being only one of the many denominations in circulation. The gulden received a more central place - though it replaced neither the stuiver nor the rijksdaalder - only with the reforms in the aftermath of the war of 1672, almost a century after Dutch independence.

One option for a correction is to replace "the Netherlands" with "the kingdom of the Netherlands"

Peter
Title: Re: Comments on: "Milestones in the coinage of the Netherlands"
Post by: eurocoin on August 02, 2018, 09:43:37 AM
You are right, but for the sake of completeness, the collection of the Dutch Central Bank contains a pattern for a 2½ Gulden of this type.

Peter

Interesting. Hopefully the piece is still in the collection. When I some time ago enquired about an extremely rare British piedfort 50p of 1973 in its collection which was at the time gifted by the Royal Mint to the directors of certain European mints and other high officials, it turned out it had magically been replaced with the standard edition. :-X

Quote
Incorrect. The Netherlands started to exist somewhere between 1568 and 1648, during its war of independence with the Spanish Habsburgs. A convenient point would be 1579, the Union of Utrecht, though the act of abjuration (1581) is a good candidate also.

At that point, the standard coins were the gold rose noble (VG-H 255-257), the silver daalder (VG-H 258-259) and the silver stuiver (VG-H 260). Denominations starte to proliferate after 1580, but gulden coins could still be found only among the local emergency issues.

In the course of time, the Rijksdaalder of (mostly) 60 stuivers developed as the big silver standard coin. The small silver standard was the stuiver, with the gulden (20 stuivers) being only one of the many denominations in circulation. The gulden received a more central place - though it replaced neither the stuiver nor the rijksdaalder - only with the reforms in the aftermath of the war of 1672, almost a century after Dutch independence.

One option for a correction is to replace "the Netherlands" with "the kingdom of the Netherlands"

Peter

Point taken.
Title: Re: Comments on: "Milestones in the coinage of the Netherlands"
Post by: chrisild on August 02, 2018, 11:58:38 AM
On January 1, 2002 the Netherlands joined the Eurozone

I think I mentioned this before, but since the part quoted above was posted again yesterday ... The Netherlands did not join the euro area on that date. The country was one of the 11 European Union member states where the euro was introduced on 1 January 1999. In late 2001, the first euro and cent coins were issued, and on 1-1-02 that cash became legal tender.

(Almost a boilerplate post, as I am used to people from outside the euro area asking why some pieces are dated 1999, 2000, etc. :) )

Christian
Title: Re: Comments on: "Milestones in the coinage of the Netherlands"
Post by: <k> on August 02, 2018, 12:41:23 PM
Introduced on 1 January 1999; in late 2001 the first euro and cent coins were issued; on 1-1-02 that cash became legal tender.

So, from 1999 to late 2001, the Dutch used a coinage that was either invisible or didn't exist. Well, the UK issued decimal coins in 1968 and 1969, but we didn't decimalise until 1971 - but at least the pre-1971 coins existed. Somebody needs to do a post (maybe it's already there) describing the 1999 to pre-2002 situation for euro zone victims. Probably you or Figleaf would be the ideal candidate.
Title: Re: Comments on: "Milestones in the coinage of the Netherlands"
Post by: chrisild on August 02, 2018, 01:18:57 PM
Yes, I am aware of the word "coinage" in the topic title. That is why I would not want to make the mistake a big issue - after all, the original topic is about Dutch coins. :) People who are interested in the euro introduction dates can look them up here (http://www.worldofcoins.eu/forum/index.php/topic,30.msg32.html#msg32) for example ...

Christian
Title: Re: Comments on: "Milestones in the coinage of the Netherlands"
Post by: <k> on November 07, 2018, 12:55:06 PM
Congratulations on finishing this topic, eurocoin. (Assuming it is finished). I see you started it back in July 2016 - or maybe sooner, because some of the topics in this series were originally briefly released and then re-released - if I remember correctly.

When I did my own "Milestones" series for my own country, the UK, back in 2011, I finished it in three months. Mind you, often I stayed up into the early morning, as it became an obsession with me. Since then, I have updated the topics to improve the presentation, and I have now reached the stage where others will take over some of the topics. Here I would like to ask why your series is taking so long? I do vaguely remember some of the reasons, involving the difficulties of categorising some coin issues, but your answers could raise some interesting questions for debate by our members, thereby improving our understanding of the subject.

Above all, I would like to congratulate you on this topic, which is so well presented. An excellent topic requires excellence in both form and content. The content is indeed superb, in my opinion, and many of the images are equally superb. My only quibble is that you have included the euro coins. The title of this section is "Modern European coins except the euro". In my opinion, you should have placed the euro coins in the euro section, with a link from this topic to a similar topic in the euro section, discussing the Dutch euro coins. However, that is a minor quibble, as I say.

This topic is of course just part of a wider series. Many people may not know the political and constitutional facts about the Kingdom of the Netherlands and its various constituents. Here they can learn about them. Not only that, they can see the most important coins. Perhaps there are Dutch sites that provide a similar high-level experience, but I suspect that this is the only one in the English language, which therefore will potentially reach a much wider audience.

My question now is, do you have any news for us about future additions to this series of topics?
Title: Re: Comments on: "Milestones in the coinage of the Netherlands"
Post by: eurocoin on November 07, 2018, 02:07:50 PM
Congratulations on finishing this topic, eurocoin. (Assuming it is finished).

How dare you to forget our Kaiser William >:( Anyway thanks for your kind message. I have yesterday checked the entire topic based on my coin catalog and have come to the conclusion that now only the Willem Alexander coinage portrait still has to be added. Furthermore some slight changes still have to be made which I expect to finish soon. But then indeed another topic has been completed.

My question now is, do you have any news for us about future additions to this series of topics?

2 topics have yet to be released. A topic about the Netherlands Indies and then an overview topic. The latter won't take too much time to make as I will then have all necessary images at hand. The Netherlands Indies topic is still proving a bit of a challenge.

Here I would like to ask why your series is taking so long? I do vaguely remember some of the reasons, involving the difficulties of categorising some coin issues, but your answers could raise some interesting questions for debate by our members, thereby improving our understanding of the subject.

Well, there are 2 things that have taken a lot of time. First of all the fact that this has been done nowhere else. Not a single coin catalog lists changes in a chronological order. It is a lot of puzzling to form a list with all significant changes in chronological order. The fact that certain (former) parts of the Kingdom hardly ever issued an entire modified series but rather spread the changes over several years and each year only a few denominations were changed makes things even more complicated.

Furthermore it is also very annoying is that it appears that the more common a coin is (and these are all circulating coins with a high mintage), the lower the value and the fewer effort sellers will do to make high quality images. Also the older the coin, the harder it is to find a high quality photo of a high quality specimen. I am glad that you are satisfied with the quality of the images in the topic. It has taken an awful lot of work to get them all together.

Lastly there are several less interesting reasons why you were finished in 3 months while I am taking years. If only because my topics begin around 1830 and yours only include coins that were minted after decimalisation in 1971. Also of course I have significantly less time on my hands then you do. 

My only quibble is that you have included the euro coins. The title of this section is "Modern European coins except the euro". In my opinion, you should have placed the euro coins in the euro section, with a link from this topic to a similar topic in the euro section, discussing the Dutch euro coins. However, that is a minor quibble, as I say.

I will take it into consideration.