Die Skandinavische Münz-Union 1873 - 1924

[Mynter]

Besten Dank für die Erweiterung meines Horizonts. Die geschichtlichen Hintergründe kannte ich noch nicht, sie haben mich sehr bereichert.
Dass hauptsächlich die Münzen des eigenen Landes gesammelt werden, kann man wohl verallgemeinern. Was für Norwegen gilt, ist auch in den Ländern, die ich näher kenne, ebenso.
Aber wie Klaupo schon sagt, stelle ich auch fest, dass die norwegischen Münzen in Deutschland viel schlechter zu finden sind, als die dänischen oder schwedischen. Zwar ist Norwegen mit 5,1Mio. Einwohnern bevölkerungsmässig kleiner als Dänenmark (5,6Mio) oder Schweden (9,6Mio), aber die Münzen sind unterproportional weniger anzutreffen. Ich habe vor 2 Monaten angefangen, die 5-Öre/Øre-Stücke der 3 Länder von 1874-1945 jahrgangsmässig zu sammeln und habe erst 2 Norweger, aber 8 Dänen und 18 Schweden gefunden.
Schweden war im Krieg nicht besetzt und ausgeplündert worden (auch was Kupfermünzen angeht), aber man trifft viel mehr dänische als norwegische Münzen an. Wie ist die Knappheit der norwegischen Münzen zu erklären
Sigi

.

Eine gute Antwort habe ich auch nicht, aber vielleicht liegt es daran, dass Norwegen weiter entfernt ist, als Dänemark und Schweden ?

[villa66]

Any idea why Norway jettisoned its 2-kroner coin (1918) so much earlier than either Denmark (1960) or Sweden (1972)?

v.

[reining]

Was bei skandinavischen Ländern besonders auffällig ist, die Gedenkmünzen sind alle relativ einfach und preiswert in guter Erhaltung zu bekommen, die silbernen Umlaufmünzen (1 und 2 Kronen) sieht man sehr selten in vz oder besser und wenn, dann sind sie sehr teuer (Ausnahmen sind die Dänen von 1915/16)

Dafür gibt es bestimmt eine Erklärung, aber welche?

[Mynter]

Was bei skandinavischen Ländern besonders auffällig ist, die Gedenkmünzen sind alle relativ einfach und preiswert in guter Erhaltung zu bekommen, die silbernen Umlaufmünzen (1 und 2 Kronen) sieht man sehr selten in vz oder besser und wenn, dann sind sie sehr teuer (Ausnahmen sind die Dänen von 1915/16)

Dafür gibt es bestimmt eine Erklärung, aber welche?

Die SMU- Silbermünzen hatten fast alle eine mehr oder weninger lange Umlaufzeit. Dänische und norwegische Silberkursmünzen kursierten von 1874 bis 1917, schwedische bis 1967. Die Kursmünzen wurden mehr oder weniger im Umlauf verbraucht, die Sondermünzen hingegen aufbewahrt, so dass von diesen heute relativ betrachtet weit mehr exemplare erhalten sind.
Norwegen zog seine Silberkursmünzen 1920 ein, erwa 80 % der geprägten Auflagen wurden 1925 eingeschmolzen, doch sicher sind noch mehr verschwunden. Von Dänmark und Schweden liegen mir diesbezüglich keine Quellen vor, doch ich nehme an, dass auch hier ausser Kurs gesetzte Münzen vernichtet wurden.

Die relative Häufigkeit der dänischen 1 und 2 Kronenstücken von 1915 und 1916 erkläre ich mir durch Hamsterei, vergleichbar den deutschen 1/2 und 1 Markstücken ab 1914, die ebenfalls in guter Erhaltung sehr häufig sind.

Any idea why Norway jettisoned its 2-kroner coin (1918) so much earlier than either Denmark (1960) or Sweden (1972)?

v.

Sorry, no idea. I allways wondered myself. According to a newspaper article from 1925 plans for issuing a cupronickel 2 - kroner with a center hole, wich supposingly would have matched the 1 krone were said to have excisted, but the numismatist literature does not mention such a plan. So perhaps the press got it wrong ? In the 1930s there where even plans for a 2 kroner commomorative coin, but they never reached even the drawing table.
It is really striking that the Bank of Norway did not see the need for a denomination filling the gap between the 1 krone coin and the 5 kroner banknote. During both wars the bank issued banknotes og 1 and 2 kroner , but both after WWI and after WWII they where withdrawn without substitute for the 2 kroners note. It was not until 1963 that a coin with a higher denomination than 1 krone was issued, now replacing the banknote of 5 kroner,leaving the 10 kroner note the lowest denomination.

[villa66]

@Mynter

Thanks much for the quick answer on the 2-kroner lifetimes. I thought maybe there was a Norwegian predilection for paper over big (or even medium-sized) coins like we have historically seen here in the U.S., or something similar.

I’ve taken note of your comments on the relative ease in acquiring 2-kroner/krona commemoratives compared to circulation coins and will remember it. It’s a familiar idea to me because much the same thing obtains in the U.S. but as to grade; where simple availability—regardless of grade—is the question 1892-1946, the American circulation coins are much easier to find than the commemoratives.

(Of the coins you’ve posted, your 1908 2-kroner causes me the most envy. Really a beauty, on several different levels. A first-year coin—after an important change—so I guess it had a somewhat better chance at survival for souvenir purposes than others of its type, but as you’ve indicated, circulating Norwegian silver of all [SMU] kinds was decimated by official recycling. Nice!)

The 1914 “Mother Norway” 2-kroner. Fun to know, both about the nickname and about how quickly it became current. Some things just come naturally. I’ve already stuck the nickname in my notebook.

(And here I ask a couple of questions based on what I know about my country’s commemoratives…)

I note that mintages of the Scandinavian commemoratives seems very high, comparatively. Did these coins actually get soaked up by the public, or—generally speaking, of course—were many of them melted because they went unsold?

If quantities of the various commemorative coins went unsold, instead of being melted, were any of these issues released directly into circulation—without the usual buyer’s premium?

During the Great Depression, many U.S. commemoratives entered circulation because times were hard and a half-dollar (the usual denomination) was too significant an amount of money to remain unused. Did Scandinavian commems enter circulation in the same way? And if so—again, generally speaking—what kind of reception did they meet? (I guess Norge would have been a special case here, since the 2-kroner coins had departed circulation already.)

I was reading about Danish coins last night. I saw a picture of something the online translator called “milk capsules” being recycled for metal to be used in the aluminum minor coins of the early ‘40s. “Milk capsules?” I’ll go look, later, for the original Danish.

Finally, I read where Denmark’s iron 1-, 2-, and 5-ore of WWI vintage weren’t worth melting, so the recovered coins were added to the concrete of a new mint building then under construction. I’m sure you’ve heard that already, but it was completely new to me.

v.

[Mynter]

Hello,

I believe the high minting figures really met a true demand. In both Norway, Sweden and Denmark people still today are quit fond of their royal families and a rather conservatice issuing policy does not lead to the impression that any unimportant matter will be honoured with a coin.
As for the norwegian commemoratives of 1906 and 1907 it is established that the latter had to be struck because the 1906 issue could not satisfy the demand of the public.
The only pre WWII - commemoratice issue wich I know for certain was not received well was the swedish 5 kronor of 1935. That particular issue was struck in a hugh mintage because the Bank og Sweden wanted to see if the 5 kronor would start to circulate and perhaps replace the 5 kronor banknote wich one had wanted to get rid of since the 1880s

Regarding the US- coms from between 1892 and 1946, are they not struck in very low mintages ? I did not know they would circulate, apart from the Laffayete- Dollar wich I oftewn have seen in vf to xf, truly indicating a life outside the coincabinets.

I did not know that the new mint of Copenhagen was practocly built on iron øre coins. Thank you for sharing that one. What a great story !

Could you post the link to the " Milk capsules " ? I believe that term is refering to the aluminum capsules wich milk bottles where sealed with before they got a plastic capsule.
Perhaps " capsule " is not the correct english term for a round device made of aluminium or plastic designed to seal the bottle ? In danish or norwegian this is called " kapsel " , in geman you would say " Verschluss ".

[sigistenz]

Perhaps " capsule " is not the correct english term for a round device made of aluminium or plastic designed to seal the bottle ? In danish or norwegian this is called " kapsel " , in geman you would say " Verschluss ".

BTW - A "Kapsel" seals bottles in German, too. And in the Dutch language "kapsel" means a female coiffure, hairdress.
Could there be any similarity?
Sigi

.

[villa66]

Just a quick reply for now, with more tomorrow…link #1 to the “milk capsules” (I just don’t know what I’m looking at), and link #2 to the iron coins and their disposition (please tell me if I haven’t understood this correctly).

http://www.danskmoent.dk/chr/c10h33.htm

http://www.danskmoent.dk/chr/c10h14.htm

v.

[Mynter]

Just a quick reply for now, with more tomorrow…link #1 to the “milk capsules” (I just don’t know what I’m looking at), and link #2 to the iron coins and their disposition (please tell me if I haven’t understood this correctly).

http://www.danskmoent.dk/chr/c10h33.htm

http://www.danskmoent.dk/chr/c10h14.htm

v.

danskmoent.dk ofcourse ! I should have thought of that.One of the greatest coinsites whatsoever !

The text leaves no doubt. " Mælkekapsler " ( melkeskapsler in norwegian ) refers to a removable aluminium top designed to seal the milkbottle and preserve the content.I enclose a picture of a norwegian milkbottle from the 50s or 60s , here with a plastic top.The plastic top is rather strong and designed to be more than single use.
Provided the idea of the danish aluminium tops of the 1940s was to be reused after cleaning I would expecct them to be rather thick,meening they should represent a certain amount of metall and in a time of crisis ,regarding them as a metall resort of some consequence definetly makes sense.

The bottom pictue on danskmoent supposingly shoes any stage of transferring the metall - tops into blanke.Cleaning the tops before melting or sorting blanks , I guess.

[villa66]

Okay...milk bottle caps, or bottle-tops. Got it now, thanks.

Really interesting because contemporary American milk bottle caps were--at least the ones I've seen--much more casual things. Alarmingly casual, I'm thinking. The ones I've seen were simple stiff cardboard discs, not made for too much reuse. (Missouri's early cardboard sales tax tokens were sometimes called "milk bottle tops." Which made some sense, since some of them were produced by a manufacturer of milk bottle tops.)

About the American commemoratives, just a quick note: there are several types that got into circulation in significant numbers, and--particularly when they were dumped wholesale into circulation at their face value, well, I've come to think of these particular pieces as circulating commems. I guess maybe, based on what you said, that the Swedish 5-kroner of 1935 is one of these. Perfect, because my example has an ugly rim nick that I've long hated--and now I've got a story to explain it away!

And I guess the WWI iron coins going into the foundation was what was written--it is indeed a great web-site.

It's late, and if I don't get to bed I'll be sorry tomorrow morning.

v.

[sigistenz]

There is an intriguing matter about Nowegian coins - the 1942 London set. In wartime occupied Norway, zinc and iron coins were struck. What did lead the faraway exile government in London to have struck millions of the 10, 25, and 50 øre coins in England in 1942? Way too many to raise funds as souvenirs. For what use then? In 1942 there was no hope of a quick return to the country (the war lasted another 3 years). As Krause-Mishler says all were melted down except for a few thousand.
The Sieg catalog gives no explanation. Why were they struck and why then were they melted down again?
Mynter should be able to explain? Thank you.
Sigi
.

[Mynter]

There is an intriguing matter about Nowegian coins - the 1942 London set. In wartime occupied Norway, zinc and iron coins were struck. What did lead the faraway exile government in London to have struck millions of the 10, 25, and 50 øre coins in England in 1942? Way too many to raise funds as souvenirs. For what use then? In 1942 there was no hope of a quick return to the country (the war lasted another 3 years). As Krause-Mishler says all were melted down except for a few thousand.
The Sieg catalog gives no explanation. Why were they struck and why then were they melted down again?
Mynter should be able to explain? Thank you.
Sigi
.

Die Londonmünzen wurden an der Royal Mint 1942 - 43 auf Auftrag der Exilregierung geprägt, um im Falle einer militärischen Befreiung vom Westen her die Invasionstruppen mit norwegischem Geld ausrüsten zu können. Zu diesem Zweck wurde ebenfalls eine gesonderte Banknotenserie geschaffen. Da das Kriegsende bekanntlichermassen anders kam, bestand letztendlich weder an den Scheinen noch an den Münzen Bedarf. Die Banknoten wurden fast restlos eingstampft, so dass von ihnen, sowie auch von den Münzen nur sehr wenige Exemplare wirklich duch die Ab Mitte Mai zurückkehrenden Exilbehörden und ein Kontingent allierter Truppen in Norwegen in Umlauf gesetzt wurden.

Die Stempel für die Londonmünzen wurden von einem Stempelschneider der Royal Mint geschnitten, sie tragen kein Müzzeichen. Die Legierung ist identisch mit der der englischen Dreipencestücke aus Nickelbronze.
Die ursprünglichen Auflagen:
10 Øre 6 Millionen, 25 Øre 2,4 Millionen, 50 Øre 1,6 Millionen

Von der Royal Mint wurden 1946 an Norges Bank abgeliefert:
10 Øre 20.000, 25 Øre 30.000, 50 Øre 15.000
Die übrige Auflage wurde 1953 eingeschmolzen und erstand in Form von englischen Dreipencestücken wieder auf.

Von den nach Norwegen gelieferten Münzen wurden 1947 eingeschmolzen
10 Øre 10.003 , 25 Øre 9794, 50 Øre 4796
Die übrigen Münzen konnten bis 1970 im Satz von der norwegischen Münze bezogen werden. Der Preis für solch einen Satz betrug 1 Krone ( 85 Øre für die Münzen, 15 Øre für die Cellofantüte ), heute erbringt ein Satz in vz- st ca 1100 Euro.
Dann wurde der Verkauf eingstellt und es wurden weitere Exemplare eingeschmolzen: 10 Øre 330, 25 Øre 9880, 50 Øre 966, ohne , dass ich den Grund hierfür kenne.
Die Restauflage befindet sich weiterhin im Besitz der Notenbank.
Die " Londonsätze " tauchen regelmässg am Markt auf, wieviele Sätze verkauft wurden, weiss ich nicht, mal sehen, vielleicht kann man da was in Erfahrung bringen.

[sigistenz]

Super, vielen Dank für diese ausführliche Information! Die Frage hatte mich schon länger beschäftigt.
Sigi

.

[Mynter]

Super, vielen Dank für diese ausführliche Information! Die Frage hatte mich schon länger beschäftigt.
Sigi

.

Gern geschehen. Besonders spannend finde ich den Zusammenhang mit den Dreipencestücken. Alternativ zur Nickelbronzelegoerung hätte sich nur die Bronzelegierung der Pennies angeboten, doch davon nahm man vielleicht Abstand, da die norwegischen Vorkriegsmünzen zu 1, 2 und 5 Øre ebenfalls aus einer Bronzelegierung bestanden.
Auch find eich es interessant, dass die Münze in Kongsberg Experimente mit der Nickelbronzelegierung anstellte, aus diesem Grund wurde 1947 ein Teil der Londonmünzen eingeschmolzen. Was man erproben wollte, weiss ich nicht, Probemünzen aus dieser Metallzusammensetzung sind der hiesigen Literatur jedenfalls nicht bekannt.

[villa66]

Very fun to read. I'd taken special note when the British 3-pence alloy had been mentioned earlier, but hearing more of the story is really fascinating. I guess then, these issues can be characterized as an "aborted invasion coinage." (Something like the 1944 Allied 2-franc coined for the invasion of France--if the invasion had never occurred.)

Most interesting to me is the thought that since the coins were recycled in 1953, and the metal was reused in striking British threepences, that some of Elizabeth's coronation-year coinage contains metal formerly in the wartime Norwegian coins.

It's interesting the abstract you bet, but in more personal terms, looking at my '53 threepences may be the closest I ever come to the little Norwegian pieces!

v.