Isn't Ober Ost exactly this? German Territories could mean many places, even in Africa.
Ober Ost was the German military administration established during World War I to govern the occupied territories on the Eastern Front formerly part of the Russian Empire.
Sorry this should be in the “Numista coin catalog” section of theforum, but as I asked in the direct page of the coin, this was automatically created here.
Anyway, I noticed Ober Ost still continues in the other languages, like in portuguese, of course because was translated before the change. That makes me think how this impact the catalog.
Ober Ost, is the abbreviation of Gebiet des Oberbefehlshaber Ost, of the German Besetzte Gebiete (German occupied Territories) , of which there were 9 through the years. Like @Geison says, this could mean any one of them, but these coins were currency in that area only, they couldn’t be used in Poland or East Africa.
Either we have them all under German Occupied Territories as Sub sections; Neuguinea, Ostafrika, Kiaufschou, Belgien, Ober Ost, Königreich & Generalgouvernement Polen, Böhmen und Mähren, & Danzig.
Or under the countries, so in this case under Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Russian Republic. Of simply back as Ober Ost !
„If your reply or post in the Forum stinks of AI, I will call you out! Knowledge comes from experience, the I in AI stands for incompetence.“
Topic moved to "Numista coin catalog"(ZacUK, 27 Kas 2025, 21:50)
What a fascinating read! It now seems that members from other countries can decide to influence referees into changing named categories of coins on a simple whim because to them it makes more sense. These members all live in places like the UK and Canada and are completely ignoring the fact that these coins have been designated as Ober Ost in every German coin catalogue ever produced. What’s more no one from Germany was involved in the original conversation.
We shouldn’t be trying to merge coins and banknotes under unified categories, catalogues have kept these separate since the dawn of coin and banknote catalogues. So just because notes were issued by another entity but circulated in the same place doesnt mean everything should be grouped together under a different category name.
There is the old saying, “if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it“
„If your reply or post in the Forum stinks of AI, I will call you out! Knowledge comes from experience, the I in AI stands for incompetence.“
That topic includes feedback by Polish site member. I also suspect that Numista admin who made the change has sprinkle of red and white on his star spangled banner.
I can give examples of local referees abusing Numista rules to drive own nationalist views too.
I don’t understand why it was changed, @tdziemia gave perfectly reasoned response as to why if wouldn’t be changed, then it went to the Admins will discuss it, to @Jarcek changing it.
„If your reply or post in the Forum stinks of AI, I will call you out! Knowledge comes from experience, the I in AI stands for incompetence.“
I'm glad to see that this change has finally been implemented. Ober Ost was never more than a nickname applied to part of the German occupied territories during WWI. This grouping of coins and notes allows all of the issues in Kopecken and Rubel to be listed together. Ober Ost did not allow this, as the notes were issued by the Ostbank für Handel und Gewerbe, Darlehnskasse Ost. We now need to also put the WWII coins and notes into this section. To head off claims that this section should also include German East Africa, etc., the difference is between regions occupied solely during the war and those which were subject to colonization. If different languages require more specific terminology to make this distinction clear, please suggest this.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
I'm glad to see that this change has finally been implemented. Ober Ost was never more than a nickname applied to part of the German occupied territories during WWI. This grouping of coins and notes allows all of the issues in Kopecken and Rubel to be listed together. Ober Ost did not allow this, as the notes were issued by the Ostbank für Handel und Gewerbe, Darlehnskasse Ost. We now need to also put the WWII coins and notes into this section. To head off claims that this section should also include German East Africa, etc., the difference is between regions occupied solely during the war and those which were subject to colonization. If different languages require more specific terminology to make this distinction clear, please suggest this.
No numismatic catalogue has ever tried to combine the historical categories of coins with notes as far as I’m aware (I am not a collector of notes, so have no note catalogues), so why should Numista?
Gebiet des Oberbefehlshaber Ost or simply Ober Ost, is the name of the area controlled by the Germans at the time (and more importantly given by the Germans at the time). It was, like many understand, a complicated area which overlapped many countries in and around the Baltics - so when coin catalogues first appeared the complicated geographical issue was solved by placing them under Ober Ost. Why should you or Numista change that?
You are also suggesting that Belgium coins during German occupation in WWII be moved from Belgium to German Occupied Territories?
Numista now has 3 coins categorised from Ober Ost under German Occupied Territories, completely against the grain of every other coin catalogue, website or instructions. Why?
„If your reply or post in the Forum stinks of AI, I will call you out! Knowledge comes from experience, the I in AI stands for incompetence.“
I still am 100% in support of changing the name of this issuer back to Ober Ost. My full opinion on that had already been given in the other thread (I will try to refrain from bringing that entire discussion over here though--just read that thread).
What that other thread came down to was select members wanting to have the coins/notes from WWI and WWII occupied areas under the same issuer, which I still fail to understand as those are different notes from different times with different circulation areas. However, dispite the name change taking place around six months ago, the WWII issues still have not been moved to that issuer, hence why the issues used in the occupied territory Ober Ost are the only ones appearing under this vaguely-named issuer.
We would still need a separate issuer for the WWII occupied areas, of course, but that is still unrelated to Ober Ost.
I still am 100% in support of changing the name of this issuer back to Ober Ost. My full opinion on that had already been given in the other thread (I will try to refrain from bringing that entire discussion over here though--just read that thread).
What that other thread came down to was select members wanting to have the coins/notes from WWI and WWII occupied areas under the same issuer, which I still fail to understand as those are different notes from different times with different circulation areas. However, dispite the name change taking place around six months ago, the WWII issues still have not been moved to that issuer, hence why the issues used in the occupied territory Ober Ost are the only ones appearing under this vaguely-named issuer.
We would still need a separate issuer for the WWII occupied areas, of course, but that is still unrelated to Ober Ost.
So who are the catalogue referees or administrators who have decided that this change should have taken place? I know @Jarcek made the actual change, but who made the ultimate decision?
„If your reply or post in the Forum stinks of AI, I will call you out! Knowledge comes from experience, the I in AI stands for incompetence.“
I agree with the issuer change from Ober Ost to German Occupied Territories in . The later is a better English language name for the issuer.
But I disagree with removing Ober Ost from the page for two somewhat interrelated reasons.
1) Ober Ost is a term in the language of the issuer. My view is that item pages should always show the significant names (locations, rulers, issuers, currencies, denominations, values) in the language used by the issuer in addition to the translated version. I want to understand items in the context of the issuer and the original language terms help that, with the understanding often made easier by having translations.
2) Ober Ost is used by other references and by sellers. Including the name used in other reference can help collectors who previously used those names, help collectors who try to get more information about an item in other reference sources, and help people trying to purchase items.
For an example on purchasing: I just looked at eBay and found listings under “German Occupied Territories” that aren't found by a “Ober Ost” search, and listings in “Ober Ost” search results that a “German Occupied Territories” search doesn't find.
Ober Ost was “state like” in many aspects, even though it lacked legality in modern sense of countries.
I believe there are no plans to move anything else to the issuer, and the name is misleading. German term Ober Ost is used for the territorry administered by German military command of the same name in English as well.
Ober Ost was “state like” in many aspects, even though it lacked legality in modern sense of countries.
I believe there are no plans to move anything else to the issuer, and the name is misleading. German term Ober Ost is used for the territorry administered by German military command of the same name in English as well.
So I changed it back to Ober Ost now.
Really? We finally get this right and then revert as soon as a couple of people complain? We now have notes listed under “Ober Ost” that had nothing to do with the Oberbefehlshaber Ost. What was wrong with the term “German Occupied Territories”? The fact that German catalogues use a nickname for the coins shouldn't influence us in any way. It should go without saying that “Ober Ost” remains searchable for the coins given the use in German catalogues but that's as far as we should go.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Ober Ost was “state like” in many aspects, even though it lacked legality in modern sense of countries.
I believe there are no plans to move anything else to the issuer, and the name is misleading. German term Ober Ost is used for the territorry administered by German military command of the same name in English as well.
So I changed it back to Ober Ost now.
Really? We finally get this right and then revert as soon as a couple of people complain? We now have notes listed under “Ober Ost” that had nothing to do with the Oberbefehlshaber Ost. What was wrong with the term “German Occupied Territories”? The fact that German catalogues use a nickname for the coins shouldn't influence us in any way. It should go without saying that “Ober Ost” remains searchable for the coins given the use in German catalogues but that's as far as we should go.
Like I said before, I am not a bank note collector, however one simple google search confirms that the Darhlenkasse Ost (and thus the bank notes you say have „nothing to do with Ober Ost“) was the bank set up to produce bank notes for The Oberbefehlshaber Ost occupation in this area! I didn’t even have to get out any of my many German catalogues or reference books to find this information. As you are such an expert on German currencies, I assume you speak good enough German to read the webpage yourself, thus I will not bother translating it for you.
Well done @Jarcek for righting the wrong of a whim, well done @Geison for bringing up the subject, and @tokul for referencing the post that started this.
„If your reply or post in the Forum stinks of AI, I will call you out! Knowledge comes from experience, the I in AI stands for incompetence.“
Unfortunately, that site is incorrect, since the Ostbank für Handel und Gewerbe was founded in 1857 and adopted that name in 1898. See here for more details. My German is good enough, thanks, but other might appreciate a translation if you have one. As you can see, this wasn't a whim but a carefully considered and evidenced proposal.
This discussion gets to the heart of an important problem. We have coin collectors trying to impose a coin-only approach to what has been, since 2020, a coin and banknote catalogue. If you are unhappy with this combination, then I'm afraid Numista may not be the place for you. However, I would hope that you can embrace a broader view of numismatics and recognize that we all can learn from those whose expertise lies beyond the bounds of our own.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Unfortunately, that site is incorrect, since the Ostbank für Handel und Gewerbe was founded in 1857 and adopted that name in 1898. See here for more details. My German is good enough, thanks, but other might appreciate a translation if you have one. As you can see, this wasn't a whim but a carefully considered and evidenced proposal.
This discussion gets to the heart of an important problem. We have coin collectors trying to impose a coin-only approach to what has been, since 2020, a coin and banknote catalogue. If you are unhappy with this combination, then I'm afraid Numista may not be the place for you. However, I would hope that you can embrace a broader view of numismatics and recognize that we all can learn from those whose expertise lies beyond the bounds of our own.
That page also says that Ober Ost commander asked a bank to create notes for occupied territories - aka Ober Ost.
That page also says that Ober Ost commander asked a bank to create notes for occupied territories - aka Ober Ost.
To be precise, it says that the Oberbefehlshaber Ost empowered (ermächtigte) the bank to issue Rubel-denominated notes. That's quite different from the Oberbefehlshaber Ost issuing the notes. It doesn't imply any involvement by the Oberbefehlshaber Ost in the later issue of Mark-denominated notes and says that the notes circulated in both north Poland and the Baltic states, i.e., beyond the region controlled by the Oberbefehlshaber Ost.
If we feel that “German Occupied Territories” is too broad a term, we could clearly narrow it down to "German Occupied Territories, WWI East" or similar.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Unfortunately, that site is incorrect, since the Ostbank für Handel und Gewerbe was founded in 1857 and adopted that name in 1898. See here for more details. My German is good enough, thanks, but other might appreciate a translation if you have one. As you can see, this wasn't a whim but a carefully considered and evidenced proposal.
This discussion gets to the heart of an important problem. We have coin collectors trying to impose a coin-only approach to what has been, since 2020, a coin and banknote catalogue. If you are unhappy with this combination, then I'm afraid Numista may not be the place for you. However, I would hope that you can embrace a broader view of numismatics and recognize that we all can learn from those whose expertise lies beyond the bounds of our own.
So the Ostbank für Handel was set up before, so what, it explains in your provided link that they then had to produce bank notes and came under the Darlehnskasse Ost. So to sum up; All the Bank notes now under Ober Ost (Numista catalogue) are from Darlehnskasse Ost - sws for the Ober Ost
just from 1916 & 1918, with no others notes from the Handels u. Gewerbe Bank - so if there are more of these notes they aren’t under Ober Ost. So what are you complaining about? „We now have notes listed under “Ober Ost” that had nothing to do with the Oberbefehlshaber Ost“? The link I provided was for Darlehnskasse Ost and is correct, so why say the site is incorrect!? You have absolutely no proof that it is incorrect and the link you provided simply proves you are incorrect about the link I provided being incorrect. All things considered you are now providing very good evidence that the name Ober Ost shouldn’t be changed.
As for your point about this site now being for notes and coins, yes I fully understand that, and like I previously stated I am not a note collector and have no knowledge of the subject, but as a coin collector I didn’t push for the categorisation of these notes to be changed, someone pushed for the categorisation of the Ober Ost coins to be changed to fall in line with the notes, this sounds slightly hypocritical considering of how these coins have been categorised in COIN CATALOGUES.
„If your reply or post in the Forum stinks of AI, I will call you out! Knowledge comes from experience, the I in AI stands for incompetence.“
Where stuff ends up in the end and how internet people want to call stuff is of secondary importance to me I just wanted to input how the “bible” of German banknotes lists their table of contents.
6. Deutsche Militär- und Besatzungsausgaben sowie Getto- und Gefängnisgeld 6.1. Besatzungsausgaben des Ersten Weltkriegs 1914 – 1918 (EWK) […] 6.1.3. Russland 6.1.3.1. Generalgouvernement Warschau 6.1.3.1.1. Polnische Landesdarlehenskasse 1917 1. Ausgabe (Zarzad jeneral-gubernatorstwa und Biletów Kasy Pozyczkowej) 2. Ausgabe (Zarzad General-Gubernatorstwa und Biletów Kasy Pozyczkowej) 3. Ausgabe (Zarzad General-Gubernatorstwa und biletów Polskiej Krajowej) 6.1.3.2. Gebiet des Oberbefehlshabers Ost 1916 – 1918 6.1.3.2.1 Ostbank für Handel und Gewerbe, Darlehnskasse Ost, Posen (Rubel) 1916 6.1.3.2.2 Darlehnskasse Ost, Kowno (Mark) 1918
That page also says that Ober Ost commander asked a bank to create notes for occupied territories - aka Ober Ost.
To be precise, it says that the Oberbefehlshaber Ost empowered (ermächtigte) the bank to issue Rubel-denominated notes. That's quite different from the Oberbefehlshaber Ost issuing the notes. It doesn't imply any involvement by the Oberbefehlshaber Ost in the later issue of Mark-denominated notes and says that the notes circulated in both north Poland and the Baltic states, i.e., beyond the region controlled by the Oberbefehlshaber Ost.
If we feel that “German Occupied Territories” is too broad a term, we could clearly narrow it down to "German Occupied Territories, WWI East" or similar.
Oberbefehlshaber Ost was the 3 Baltic countries, parts of Poland and Belarus (then under Russian federation) if I recall correctly.
German Occupied Territories, WWI East or similar, how about Ober Ost? Numista is just one website, everyone else categorises them under Ober Ost… Stop trying to change something that doesn’t need changing just to pull them in line with the Bank notes which may or may not have been previously categorised under German Occupied Territories in bank note catalogues. Just accept that some awkward historical currencies are not going to align easily because of political stupidity or geographical boarders, and that coins and notes from the same time and geographical location might be called something different. There is no case to reclassify Ober Ost coins and your arguments are not adding value to that opinion. Just please stop.
„If your reply or post in the Forum stinks of AI, I will call you out! Knowledge comes from experience, the I in AI stands for incompetence.“
Where stuff ends up in the end and how internet people want to call stuff is of secondary importance to me I just wanted to input how the “bible” of German banknotes lists their table of contents.
6. Deutsche Militär- und Besatzungsausgaben sowie Getto- und Gefängnisgeld 6.1. Besatzungsausgaben des Ersten Weltkriegs 1914 – 1918 (EWK) […] 6.1.3. Russland 6.1.3.1. Generalgouvernement Warschau 6.1.3.1.1. Polnische Landesdarlehenskasse 1917 1. Ausgabe (Zarzad jeneral-gubernatorstwa und Biletów Kasy Pozyczkowej) 2. Ausgabe (Zarzad General-Gubernatorstwa und Biletów Kasy Pozyczkowej) 3. Ausgabe (Zarzad General-Gubernatorstwa und biletów Polskiej Krajowej) 6.1.3.2. Gebiet des Oberbefehlshabers Ost 1916 – 1918 6.1.3.2.1 Ostbank für Handel und Gewerbe, Darlehnskasse Ost, Posen (Rubel) 1916 6.1.3.2.2 Darlehnskasse Ost, Kowno (Mark) 1918
6.1.3.2 Gebiet des Oberbefehlshabers Ost 1916 - 1918, with 2 subsections Darlehenskasse Ost .1 Posen and .2 Kowno
🙏 🙏 🙏 hallelujah
„If your reply or post in the Forum stinks of AI, I will call you out! Knowledge comes from experience, the I in AI stands for incompetence.“
So the Ostbank für Handel was set up before, so what, it explains in your provided link that they then had to produce bank notes and came under the Darlehnskasse Ost. So to sum up; All the Bank notes now under Ober Ost are from Darlehnskasse Ost - sws for the Ober Ost
just from 1916 & 1918, with no others notes from the Handels u. Gewerbe Bank - so if there are more of these notes they aren’t under Ober Ost. So what are you complaining about? „We now have notes listed under “Ober Ost” that had nothing to do with the Oberbefehlshaber Ost“?
It means that the bank wasn't created by the Oberbefehlshaber Ost (as your previous link claimed) and that its issues cannot be placed under the nickname for that individual. There's still nothing to link the Mark-denominated notes to the Oberbefehlshaber Ost.
The link I provided was for Darlehnskasse Ost and is correct, so why say the site is incorrect!? You have absolutely no proof that it is incorrect and the link you provided simply proves you are incorrect about the link I provided being incorrect. All things considered you are now providing very good evidence that the name Ober Ost shouldn’t be changed.
There are a lot of negatives in that statement. However, the key point is that the notes were issued by the Darlehnskasse Ost, not the military under the control of the Oberbefehlshaber Ost.
As for your point about this site now being for notes and coins, yes I fully understand that, and like I previously stated I am not a note collector and have no knowledge of the subject, but as a coin collector I didn’t push for the categorisation of these notes to be changed, someone pushed for the categorisation of the Ober Ost coins to be changed to fall in line with the notes, this sounds slightly hypocritical considering of how these coins have been categorised in COIN CATALOGUES.
My original request was for all the issues (coins and notes) to be properly categorized together using an accurate issuer name. We had that for a brief time but we now have a nickname (Spitzname) for an individual used as if it were a place. Mistakes made by previous catalogues cannot be considered as evidence for copying their errors.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Oberbefehlshaber Ost was the 3 Baltic countries, parts of Poland and Belarus (then under Russian federation) if I recall correctly.
German Occupied Territories, WWI East or similar, how about Ober Ost? Numista is just one website, everyone else categorises them under Ober Ost… Stop trying to change something that doesn’t need changing just to pull them in line with the Bank notes which may or may not have been previously categorised under German Occupied Territories in bank note catalogues. Just accept that some awkward historical currencies are not going to align easily because of political stupidity or geographical boarders, and that coins and notes from the same time and geographical location might be called something different. There is no case to reclassify Ober Ost coins and your arguments are not adding value to that opinion. Just please stop.
According to this article, it was somewhat narrower than that. Nonetheless, this isn't about “reclassifying”, since not all catalogues used the nickname “Ober Ost”, e.g., KM. It's about using an accurate description of the place these coins and notes circulated in. "German Occupied Territories" does that, “Ober Ost” doesn't. Remember that a catalogue needs to be accessible to all users, not just those familiar with German coin catalogues.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
My original request was for all the issues (coins and notes) to be properly categorized together using an accurate issuer name. We had that for a brief time but we now have a nickname (Spitzname) for an individual used as if it were a place. Mistakes made by previous catalogues cannot be considered as evidence for copying their errors.
No, I'm just one user. The discussion was a while ago but I thought it was me that started it. Apologies to @Germanic_Collector101 if I'm stealing their thunder.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
My original request was for all the issues (coins and notes) to be properly categorized together using an accurate issuer name. We had that for a brief time but we now have a nickname (Spitzname) for an individual used as if it were a place. Mistakes made by previous catalogues cannot be considered as evidence for copying their errors.
It says that banknotes were used in Poland as well in Ober Ost.
If one thing is clear, it's that the notes had a life well beyond both the region of the Oberbefehlshaber Ost and the end of the war. We should remember that, whilst Kaunas was in the region of the Oberbefehlshaber Ost, Poznan was not.
I still see no strong evidence that ties the Ostbank für Handel und Gewerbe, Darlehnskasse Ost, to the Oberbefehlshaber Ost. All we have are two websites that fundamentally contradict one another. Even Pick (a catalogue started by a German collector) makes no mention of the military in connection with these notes.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Ober Ost • 1 Kopeck (Occupation Coinage)
