Sumatra vs. Netherlands East Indies

When I look at numismaster.com and in Numista, NEI types KM# 279-291 are identified as being issues of Sumatra. Is there a reason they shouldn't instead be considered issues of Netherlands East Indies?

In the SCWC there is a break before those issues saying "Kingdom of the Netherlands". numismaster.com and Numista seem to consider this a minor break, but I think it should be a major break.

Looking at Craig, the issues seem to be considered from NEI.

The first set of coins in this section say INDIAE BATAV, and Batavia (now Jakarta) is on Java, not Sumatra. Later issues say NEDERL INDIE.

The higher denomination coins (listed separately in SCWC) are already considered NEI coins.

Technically, Numista does have it under NEI but, I agree it is a "murky" issue.

Indonesia ---> Netherlands East Indies - Sumatra - Guilder (1814-1841)

I recently picked up a Singapore Merchant Token which has yet to be verified in our catalog. https://en.numista.com/forum/topic67673.html

It seems that the SCWC has the originals listed under NEI (can you verify? - I don't have the catalogue) even though the the obverse clearly has the coat-of arms of the British East India Company. That would be some terrible Dutch marketing.

Perhaps you could contact the author of the blog post in my post, Saran Singh.

Good luck.

PS. On a side note, I have nothing but respect for the Numista referee that has to navigate these "murky" waters

The English indeed owned some parts of Sumatra until 1810 or so. It was eventually swapped against Malacca, which was Dutch, on the Malayan peninsula so that Sumatra became entirely part of NEI and Malacca part of the British East Indies.

The coins described are EIC coins that should not be under NEI.

The coins I described (KM 279 and later) are issued 1814 and later and have the arms of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, so I don't believe they should be IEC coins. I believe they should be NEI coins, and the Sumatra designation should be removed.