British East India & Dutch East India - emblem ?

So I've just bought a coin for £2.00 there a decent condition "20 cash" apparently but it appears to be this..
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces22153.mobile.html

I never realised the coats of arms were the same ?

Anyone ?

The EIC and later the British govt issued coins with the same bust on the obverse and different reverses for many of their colonies - thus you will find a similar obverse on a coin from Canada and one from some other colony.
For example...

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/photos/canada/g1051.jpg - Canada

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/photos/ceylan/g138.jpg - Ceylon

Well of course they had the same monarch; they were colonies.

I think what Mark's surprised about is that Sumatra was part of the EIC, and so was the Straits Settlements until 1867. If they didn't put Victoria on Straits Settlements coinage, they'd certainly have the arms of the EIC.

I just can't understand why the east India company of Britain and holland would use the Same coat of arms but things about it being a coat of arms it's of the country not company's arms lol ! It is very strange though the further I dig into the coinage the more I unearth like why did the easy India company make coinage for the other colonies :S anyway makes it more interesting for me ! I've just got cheap Ceylon 1 & 2 stiver coins today in pretty good condition, have a west indies 1/4 anchor dollar on the way along with bikanir state Victoria 1/4 Anna's and a Mombasa 1 pice ! Dont worry though I made sure I wasn't paying over the odds for them I checked with NGC, converted to pounds and they were still below the cost valuation

Sumatra wasn't Dutch. It was British.

Maybe we should keep them separate from Netherlands East Indies?

The Bikanir coin is rather difficult to get - please post a pic, when you get a minute -  would love to look at it - thanks

Agh lol it's just when you click features it says Netherlands east indies

this is it i think now

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces30801.html

the ebay listing

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/300766962051?ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1497.l2649

I can't help but be envious of the low prices on eBay.co.uk. If it were not for the usually silly postage costs I would buy most of my coins from the UK site.

If you find anything let me know - if I have the funds I'll bid on it and forward it on at no extra cost

To address the initial question we should recall that during the 17th-early 19th centuries colonies in current Indonesia (former Dutch East Indies) and Malaysia were not yet unified by colonial powers. There were both British and Dutch possessions on Malay peninsular and on Sumatra. Only the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1824 exchanged some territories so that British were in the North and Dutch in the South. Before that the British East India Company for its colonies on Sumatra (Benkulen also known as Fort Marlborough) issued coins with company's arms and denomination (Keping) predominant in the area. In 17th-18th centuries the British East India Company also issued for Benkulen coins with its bale mark. Here is 5 cash (1/2 Dudu) coin issued in 1765-1786 for Benkulen with such a bale mark (only a part of it fits on the coin)
.

Thanks Andrey you are a fountain of knowledge !  Then really to avoid confusion in the Catalogue it should be Netherlands east indies (Sumatra)
British east India company

That's the way the Krause Catalog solved this problem. Though since the Dutch did not have anything to do with coins issued by their arch-rival the British East India Company, I'd rather list Sumatra under Indonesia as current jurisdiction over the island and provide the British East India Company as a subdivision for Sumatra listings. BEICo should probably also exist as subdivision for India and Straits Settlements.

Suggest it that would work
And be less confusing I almost didn't bother buying it ! Glad I did anyway now ! Was bought as 20 cash :S