I started another forum post similar to this, but it did not gain much interest and I feel this one will be more organized. The main topic is adding all of these or some of these as new issuers under USA in the coin catalogue. I will list the new recommended sub-issuers and reasoning for them.
Alaska
We need Alaska as a sub-issuer so we can put the Alaskan Rural Rehabilitation Tokens in. As they were circulated in Alaska, they were only allowed to be used as ARRC stores, but the USA government issued them. So, I would put these in Alaska in the coin catalogue with a comment of the history.
California
We need California as a sub-issuer so we can put the territorial/fractional gold coins in. Currently they are just floating around the exonumia catalogue, even though they were widely circulated. So these should be in the coin catalogue under California.
Civil War
We need Civil War as a sub-issuer so we can put the civil war tokens in. Just like the California coinage these are sitting around exonumia just randomly. Also they were widely circulated, and even legal for a time. They were mostly circulated at the value of 1 cent. They should also be in the coin catalogue under Civil War.
Depression
We need Depression as an issuer because during this time many states made Taxation Tokens that were valued at 1 mil or 5 mills which is the equavalent of this to a USA dollar: 0.001 or 0.005. These were used as coins.
Hard Times
This has a the same idea as Civil War, but just with Hard Times Tokens.
If we do bring them into the coin section, can I suggest we consider putting them into the individual states rather than the main USA section? Then we can have a single section with all pieces issued in the same locality, rather than splitting them by historical era. It might be helpful if you could provide some links to some of these pieces so we can better assess their suitability for the coin section.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
If we want to put Depression era tax tokens here, they would go in the states that issued them, so we are headed to 48 sub-issuers, one for each state.
Maybe this is the way we need to head anyhow (so the U.S. can look like Germany and Italy!).
Part of my reasoning for suggesting separation by state is that there are a whole host of private banknotes that we'll need to find homes for. We could fill up the main USA section with these but they will swamp the Treasury and Federal Reserve issues that most people can collect. Given that we can always assign an issuer to their home state, it struck me this would be a way of keeping our listings usable, rather than having to use search to find even the commonest note.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Despite my little joke, I do agree with you that if the issuing authority was the State, then we need to set it up this way. Since the tax tokens were intended to help with payment of state sales taxes, I assume the issuing authority was at the state level.
This means we are headed to a structure where our section United States - Dollar (1785- date) will get 48 sub-issuers, one for each State.
Unless there is a compelling argument that the individual states were not authorized to issue ANYTHING denominated in U.S. dollars, no matter how small the amount.
IN this event, we would need to do something different with the structure, or just leave them where they are.
I'm not just thinking about the issues by the state governments or their agencies but also issues by others within each state, such as these notes. It stresses the more local nature of these issues, contrasted to the truly national issues by the federal government and its agencies.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Also if we make the homeland US (48 States) into subsections, we must not forget Alaska with their special coinage. If you agree with my idea, even at all, please upvote it, thank you.
Also I found some interesting Modern Native American coins that I am unsure if they would be included in the specific states or if we would make Native American sub-issuers too. What do you all think?
@Berkshire Collecting - these tokens (called so because they are privately issued) were issued because of a lack of small change (emergency money) and you were able to pay everywhere, for everything with them. In contrast, those Indian objects seem to be just a cash grab, like their casinos.
So do you all think this is a good idea? Because I do.
No, these are tokens, not coins, and should be in Exonumia.
Apologies. I agree the Native American coins were tokens, but I thought this was towards the Civil War tokens. Also to answer the tax token question, they could be used alongside the USD but were mainly to pay the tax on small items.
So in conclusion we all agree to make each state as a sub-issuer under USA and put the tax tokens, civil war tokens, hard times tokens, and Alaska Rural rehabilitation tokens in the coin catalogue under their individual state sub-issuers?
This Irish Token was a local issue. It would not have circulated outside of its area of issue, BALLYMURTAGH, a small town. As such, it is unlikely that it would have been acceptable as currency outside of its area of issue.
Many regional issues of Irish tokens and banknotes issued by small local banks were payable at an agency in Dublin and at their place of issue.
These Tax Tokens were used to pay anything that was less than a cent: tax or a low priced item. Theoretically if you gathered enough you could buy a higher priced item.
I agree with the op that these items are tokens. I absolutely disagree that all these exonumia items should clutter up the coin listings. Tokens are appropriately listen in exonumia since they are…tokens.
Library Media Specialist, columnist, collector, and gardener...
I agree with the op that these items are tokens. I absolutely disagree that all these exonumia items should clutter up the coin listings. Tokens are appropriately listen in exonumia since they are…tokens.
Token is too broadly used a term to exclude everything labelled “token” from the coin section. It may be that none of these tokens qualify as coins but we need to look at them as individual cases. That said, the exonumia section will also benefit from having the individual states as sub-sections.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
So I believe the point of this forum post has become to make each individual state a sub-issuer in both the coin and exonumia catalogues. Also, we will determine the tokens eligibility to go to the coin catalogue in a case by case basis. Does this sound good everyone? Thank you all for your help.
So I believe the point of this forum post has become to make each individual state a sub-issuer in both the coin and exonumia catalogues. Also, we will determine the tokens eligibility to go to the coin catalogue in a case by case basis. Does this sound good everyone? Thank you all for your help.
Sounds good to me.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Personally, I think they are fine under exonumia, however, they could benefit from having their own "catalogue type".
Currently they seem to be scattered between “Business Tokens”, “Advertising Tokens” and “Miscellaneous Tokens”.
I agree, there's a huge need for better organization in Exonumia. I've been trying for ages to get a section for paper military vouchers to match the section for metal tokens we already have, but I'm still waiting.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Personally, I think they are fine under exonumia, however, they could benefit from having their own "catalogue type".
Currently they seem to be scattered between “Business Tokens”, “Advertising Tokens” and “Miscellaneous Tokens”.
I agree, there does need to be more organization under exonumia. We should probably try to either put the civil war/hard times tokens in exonumia with their own ”token type” or give them their own catalogue. However, that is a topic for another forum topic. If this forum topic passes it will just be to let all states be sub-issuers under USA in Coins and exonumia. The tokens topic and which should and shouldn’t be in coins will be another forum topic. I do have to ask to those all who have downvoted this: why downvote this if all it does is add all states as sub-issuers under USA?
So I believe the point of this forum post has become to make each individual state a sub-issuer in both the coin and exonumia catalogues. Also, we will determine the tokens eligibility to go to the coin catalogue in a case by case basis. Does this sound good everyone? Thank you all for your help.
I will close this here. Alaska is already there, and I just created California - it will be used regardless of how we will clasify the items (coins or exonumia). For US notgeld, this needs bigger discussion. It won't be added in the form that is presented.
