My understanding is that the obverse should be the side where the issuer is. Which is the Republic of Cuba, written in text and also there is the coat-of-arms of the country. The english distinction of head or tails for the sides of a coin is misleading here. It was true for a lot of pre-modern coins where the head of the ruler and his name was the obverse, as the coin was minted in his name. But in this case, just because there is a head on one side of the coin, it doesn't make that the ‘head’ (obverse) side.
My understanding is that the obverse should be the side where the issuer is. Which is the Republic of Cuba, written in text and also there is the coat-of-arms of the country. The english distinction of head or tails for the sides of a coin is misleading here. It was true for a lot of pre-modern coins where the head of the ruler and his name was the obverse, as the coin was minted in his name. But in this case, just because there is a head on one side of the coin, it doesn't make that the ‘head’ (obverse) side.
The main indication of the denomination is usually on the reverse - it is the part that is worth less symbolically. There are not many exceptions to this in recent coins. If there is a portrait and the coat of arms, the portrait will usually be "worth more" and it is going to be on the obverse. Cuban cents aren't that simple though, but I would consider the Roman numerals inside the star to be the main indication of the denomination, and therefore the reverse. The 1980's star peso is fighting against that, because it has an identical side to the obverse of the centavos, but the other side has no denomination at all! What is the obverse or the reverse? Ofcourse there is the technical side of the actual machinery at the mint, but I'm sure that that is way too difficult from the coin collectors point of view! I am not sure if the obverse and reverse are really all that important any more, anyone can write a decent description and most of us can make an acceptable photo.
By the way, not every Cuban coin was designed by Charles E. Barber! This is a ridiculous copy-paste thing that has spread to nearly every coin of Cuba in Numista!
The majority of US coins do not meet these guidelines. I've raised the issue that if the Mint designates obverse/reverse different than the guidelines the Mint's designation should be used. I never got a reasonable answer. https://en.numista.com/forum/topic109017.html#p897386
The issue of Cuban obverse / reverse was raised in the Wold Coin Chat thread. When you look at all the early coins, you see that the side with the shield is consistent on all denominations. It woud be odd to have this as the obverse on some coins and the reverse on the remainder.
The ultimate way to know would be to look at the legislation which authorized these coins!
In the case of the USA, the side with Liberty and successor representations (mostly dead presidents) is clearly the obverse even if the country's name is on the other side because Liberty was symbolizing the Republic and meant to be substituted for the British King, considered a tyrant, i.e. the opposite of liberty.
When Lincoln became the first dead President to be depicted on coins, it would have been odd to switch obverse and reverse. One has to look at the entire series of coins (from 1c to $1) and at the historical circumstances.
In the Numista page Determining the obverse and reverse, however, the word “head” is never used except once in the expression “two-headed designs”. (For monarchies where coins do not always show the monarch, such as Russia and Portugal, head/tail or head/back would be problematic.)
EDIT — OK, they use “portrait” instead, which is pretty much the same thing…
EDIT 2 — Just two days ago I found this downloadable article by chance in our Numista library:
My point in the post I linked above was that the very first criterion for determining the obverse/reverse should be as decided by the issuing authority/mint. If unknown then the guidelines should apply. Otherwise the entire world would consider this to be correct:
but Numista following the guidelines would create the coin page as this:
Oh — you mean this link, right? I missed it when I read through the thread, but I agree entirely, and that's why there isn't any doubt in my mind which is the obverse on US coins.
In the article by Deyell I just linked, I think he's missing a fourth category to take into account, and it's the cultural-historical one. There may be national and historical reasons why one side should be the obverse, and that's what we see with the introduction of Liberty in the USA as well as elsewhere such as in Venezuela.
My point in the post I linked above was that the very first criterion for determining the obverse/reverse should be as decided by the issuing authority/mint. If unknown then the guidelines should apply. Otherwise the entire world would consider this to be correct:
but Numista following the guidelines would create the coin page as this:
For me it's a non-answer and it doesn't address the issue you raised. I entirely agree that the side that the issuing authority calls the obverse should be the obverse in any catalogue. In addition, in the case of the USA, the choice seems to have been between Liberty or Washington. Clearly this was a choice between two possible obverses.
I would argue that Numista, even though it's a French website, is largely wrong even about the classification obverse / reverse on French post-revolutionary coins. On the page already linked about identifying obv./rev., nowhere is there any allusion to historical continuity, which IMHO is a mistake.
In the case of the 2026 dime, the obverse is that with the representation of Liberty, whatever else is inscribed there.
Why argue, the thing is we're bound to follow the definitions laid out by SCWC, that's all. I can live with that, but I can NOT live with some new, contradicting definitions done by numista, what would be the point?
Why argue, the thing is we're bound to follow the definitions laid out by SCWC, that's all. I can live with that, but I can NOT live with some new, contradicting definitions done by numista, what would be the point?
Why argue, the thing is we're bound to follow the definitions laid out by SCWC, that's all. I can live with that, but I can NOT live with some new, contradicting definitions done by numista, what would be the point?
But does the SCWC provide any definition? I just checked three of them and there's no definition of obv./rev. anywhere in the Introduction.
Also, SCWC is wrong on so many points of detail, I wouldn't be surprised if some coins are shown in the wrong order.
Why argue, the thing is we're bound to follow the definitions laid out by SCWC, that's all. I can live with that, but I can NOT live with some new, contradicting definitions done by numista, what would be the point?
But does the SCWC provide any definition? I just checked three of them and there's no definition of obv./rev. anywhere in the Introduction.
Also, SCWC is wrong on so many points of detail, I wouldn't be surprised if some coins are shown in the wrong order.
They don't provide any definition, I went through the editions from 1601 to now.
I just read this post that was cited as contributing to the Numista guidelines in the answer to my post. There are some interesting quotes in it.
The mint says what is what (or the law concerning the issue of the coin).
Generally, the side of a coin with the larger-scale image will be called the obverse.
In my world the side with the date is the obverse.
**Technically, obverse is the side where you can identify the country it is from. Even though most mints and catalogues would say otherwise.
The one thing that I've always figured was a sure way to tell was if there was a person on one side. That side is the obverse side.
The obverse side is often called "heads", because it often has a portrait on it (a head).
**Since obverse side should be the one with "clear country identificator", as it should technically be done on all coins, so foreigners can see what country is this or that coin from, but also on Numista, where this is rule that should be consistently applied.
In the case of the Morgan dollar, mentioned above, you could argue that the obverse is the side with the country's name, but by the same principle, you will have to go against two centuries of American numismatics and switch all the obverse sides into the reverse.
The ones with ** are from the same person and agree with the guidelines.
My thinking of this theme is that the issuer (country, city, region, etc.) is the first data we all use to classify coins, notes, medals, and everything we collect. Now, country name, flag, shield, portrait of monarch, ruler, etc. define (or let you identify) the issuer.
Some issuers (governments, rulers, etc.) will design as obverse the theme of the coin, cause in this case there is no point on start sorting by country, as all coins are from the same country. Same as many times happened with music records; the producers designed side A and side B but people preferred them in inverse order; many famous songs are on side B…
And finally, for procedure reasons, it is better to set a rule for all the same; this was done in Numista. The fact it does not match with other catalogs or governments does not mean they are wrong; only means they use other rules, that are correct on their point of view.
Now, do you want to use the governments rule in your collection?, not a problem; you want to order by face value?, not a problem; you want to use your own rule?, not a problem. Your collection is yours, so you manage it as you prefer. A friend of mine only collect coin by different design on face value side, so he classifies by denomination order... He is happy with that, I find it funny, but I don't mind.
In my collection, I focus in certain countries, the one I prefer is Cuba, but most of coins have on obverse the same old design of coat of arms, designed on end of 19th Century by Charles Edward Barber. So, in my collection a set as obverse the other side; but still agree the classification on Numista style is very useful.
Just 10 options: you understand binary, or you don't.
Catalog Referee Coins, Banknotes & Exonumia: Uruguay, Cuba, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Peru, Paraguay, Costa Rica, Venezuela, Panama, Ecuador, Zamunda, Parva Domus and more.
Should all coins in the Numista catalog be revised as needed to conform to the Numista guidelines? And for new coin added to Numista? Follow Numista guidelines? Follow the Mint designation of obverse/reverse? Follow similar coins from the same country?
Куба • 10 Pesos (José Martí)
