There are some coins that are either made by states or federal authorized coinage made for specific states. Can we please make the following USA coin catalogue sub-issuers? Thank you. Before downvoting just express any dissatisfaction so we can get to to best fit us all.
American states should be included as separate entities under the ‘United States’ like what has been done for the German states & Indian Princely States.
So then we will not need the Northwest Company piece in the USA. Do we list individual USA territories and states or just say for the gold “Territorial” for some and “Private” for the others? I believe individual states/territories would just be more like what Numista has done before with the German states, Italian states, Indian states, and more. Does anyone disagree with me or agree?
If I understand our structure correctly, we would only set up a state as a sub-issuer under the United States when there was an acknowledged state government (or other authority) authorizing the striking of the coin.
Otherwise, it is some kind of private issue.
If I apply this yardstick to the list in the first post (and a later additions), I wind up creating these state sub-issuers:
United States pre-Federal - New Hampshire
United States - Alaska Territory (for the Rural Rehabilitation issues)
According to my Redbook, most of the gold coins cited in the list are private issues (Templeton Reid, Bechtler, Mormon , etc.) The mention of the state name on these issues has nothing to do with state authorization; it is a reference to where the gold came from. I am assuming this means they go in Exonumia.
I may be wrong, but the Florida piece sounds like pre-Federal exonumia, privately issued.
As I understand California gold, it is all private issues, except the pieces struck at the U.S. Assay Office which was operating as a sort of provisional mint, and hence are close to a Federal issue (although we have them in exonumia: 50 Dollars - Assay Office (Provisional Branch Mint) - United States – Numista)
At least a couple of the Mormon gold issues are already in the catalog in Exonumia:
To be clear, I do NOT consider myself an expert on U.S. coins. I am just repeating here what is in the Redbook. If that reference is not considered authoritative, then other references can be brought forward.
From the research I have done on the Florida one was officially issued by the government of New Spain or Spanish Florida. It was a 4 reals special coin for the governor and other high officials.
Proclamation medals were the same size and weight as regular Real coinage and where known to circulate as well. I am not sure if they were intended to be used as currency, so I don't know where they should be placed.
Master Coin Referee
Coin referee for CRI, GTM, HND, NIC, PAN, and SLV.
Revisor principal de monedas
Revisor de Numista para monedas de CRI, GTM, HND, NIC, PAN y SLV.
So pretty much these new sub-issuers should be added and we will determine when the specific coins are created if they go in exonumia or the coin catalogue:
Alaska
Georgia
North Carolina
Colorado
Utah
Oregon
Florida
California
Rhode Island
New Hampshire
If you need currencies, dates, periods of time, or anything else please ask.
It has been a very positive discussion, but I would summarize differently.
My summary would look like this:
In United States - pre-Federal, create these sub-issuers:
1. New Hampshire (to be used in Coins for the penny that was cited)
2. Rhode Island (to be used in Exonumia for the ship tokens that were cited)
3. Florida (to be used in Exonumia for the proclamation medals… I don't see that a bronze 4 reales would be accepted like a normal silver 4 reales coin)
Edit: 4. Alaska for the Rural Rehabilitation tokens.
As for the gold:
1. They are all private issues, hence only to be used in Exonumia, as they are not authorized by any State.
2. They were all struck during the U.S. Federal period (after 1800), even if many of them were struck in territories that were not yet states.
3. The “Redbook” (Yeoman) catalog categorizes these “Private and Territorial Gold” (I have the 66th edition 2012, and they are covered on pp. 371-396). To me, if we used this nomenclature, it would help U.S. collectors who are familiar wtih this catalog.
I am not smart enough about our catalog hierarchy to say how this should fit, but I think this is a correct category for them (i.e. they should NOT be seen as state issues, because there was no state level authorization)
Finally, it might be good for the U.S. referee to have seen this proposal, since they will need to adjudicate any new entries based on what is implemented!
I disagree with you. Especially about the gold coins. If you look at canada and UK they had many tokens to be used as local currency. These areas had gold coins to be used as local currency. The Mormon gold was used by the mormons when the colonized Utah. They were not officially government watched for a time, but still had their own coinage. Also the Federal USA was for the states not for the territories, colonies, or outposts the USA had. Also the Florida one would be a non-circulating coin as it was made for special people. Finally the Rhode Island one should be in the coin catalogue as it was used as a token just as Canadians had their tokens.
I do agree this has been a better forum and I believe we will figure a way out to compromise. Also I do agree one or more USA referees would be useful. Thank you all for being patient with these ideas.
My arguments are based on the assumption that the structure under Coins / United States should be is based on sub-issuing authorities, not on geography.
- For New Hampshire, the coin in question was authorized by the New Hampshire assembly in 1776 (Yeoman, 66th ed., p.57). So, yes. We should have New Hampshire as a Pre-Federal issuing authority
- For Alaska, the Rural Rehabilitation tokens were issued with the backing of the Federal Government (Yeoman, p.412) for circulation in Alaska. So, yes again.
- For Hawaii (already existing in the catalog), it was an independent Kingdom when its coins were issued.
These are all issuing authorities.
If we look at Georgia and North Carolina gold… The United States already had a gold coinage, struck in Philadelphia since the 1790s, and Georgia and North Carolina were already states of the United States. The Mint Act of 1835 established the Charlotte (NC) and Dahlonega (GA) mints to make United States gold coins in these places, and those mints began striking coins in 1838.
To me it is very clear: The Templeton Reid (GA) and Bechtler (NC) issues are private gold (additionally, it was not struck to the Federal standard, see Yeoman p.371), and should not be listed under a state just because that is where it was struck.
Most of the same arguments are true of the California, Colorado, Oregon and Utah gold. There was no “authority” involved in most cases (Oregon may be semi-official, Yeoman p.388). There was already an authorized United States gold coinage. But private enterprises were started up to turn the newly mined gold into unofficial coins, because they could trade at the same rate as official issues, and there was a local scarcity of official coins.
I agree with you that all these types should be in the catalog, it is just a question of how we build out the structure under United States to accommodate them.
In Yeoman, the category of Private and Territorial Gold sits between the “official” United States issues and private tokens. To me it's a category that makes sense for collecting all these issues that were not made under any legal authority.
I decided that in order to compromise I would let go my argument in support of the Georgia and N. Carolina coinage. Second I feel that California coinage before it‘s statehood (1850) should be in the coin catalogue as they were circulating local gold coinage . Most of the coinage before 1850 is from 1849 and during that time it was being administered by the US military. So they could issue coinage. Finally, the Florida one is similar to the Texas 1817 and 1818 Jolas as they were made of copper too, but the Florida one was non-circulating. The following are the sub-issuers that I believe should be added to Numista. The following listed coinage from all of these should be in the coin catalogue and not exonumia. I hope you all feel this was a good compromise. I enjoy debating these topics with you all.
Alaska (Currency is the dollar. Period of time “Territory of Alaska” 1912-1959.)
But I thought those are on Numista? Also the broad section of United States Pre Federal are for British American coins that were not related to any individual colony or now state.
Do you agree or disagree with me about the following becoming sub-issuers of USA or USA Pre Federal and those coins listed below being in the coin catalogue? Also as we have 10 upvotes last time I checked, is it time to make this request become part of Numista?
Alaska (Currency is the dollar. Period of time “Territory of Alaska” 1912-1959.)
I think bcnumismatics is pointing out that we have these three eras for United States coinage:
- Colonial before 1776
- Pre-Federal between 1776 and 1792 (mostly coins authorized by individual states).
- Federal (coins authorized by the United States Federal government)
New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Florida should be set up within pre-Federal as best I can tell (Rhode Island is borderline).
I would place only the New Hampshire coin in Coins as it was clearly authorized by the New Hampshire State Assembly.
In my opinion, the Rhode Island ship token goes in Exonumia, but you can submit it and see what the referee decides.
While the proclamation medal was issued by a government authority (New Spain), there were coins being struck under this authority in Mexico, and everything I have seen about this item suggests exonumia. Again, you can submit it and see what the referee says.
The gold was all struck during the U.S. Federal period. I am sticking with my argument that we use set up “Private and Territorial Gold” as in the Yeoman catalog for all these issues, as none of them were struck under a legal authority.
As you say, these all circulated, so there is a good argument for listing them in the Coins section.
I am thinking that Private gold (N. Carolina, Georgia, and later California) should be in exonumia under just Private Gold or USA. However the territorial gold should be under coins, with each state that minted them being an issuer. This is because a lot of the territorial gold was before these areas were states and the federal currency system was only for the states, as the US did not have full control of these areas.
Also private gold is different than territorial gold. I am sticking to my idea of making the following sub-issuers of USA, with their coins in the coin catalogue. I believe we need more people to comment here to determine the best outcome.
Alaska (Currency is the dollar. Period of time “Territory of Alaska” 1912-1959.)
I have thought about it some more. I believe all 8 that we disscussed should become sub-issuers of either USA or in some cases USA Pre Federal. However, I have changed my thinking by now believing that only the Alaska and New Hampshire coinage should definitely be in the coin catalogue. The other 6 groups should be made as well into sub-issuers, but let the referees decide in each individual case if the coin is a coin or if it is exonumia.
Let’s just get these as sub-issuers and let the referees decide when we add the specific coin to which catalogue it goes to. I am fine with starting a different forum topic about territorial gold and private gold.
Florida (Currency is the real. Period of time “Spanish Florida” 1783-1795.)
I will begin to request the Alaska, Florida, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire coins to be added to the catalogue. When the sub-issuers are ready will put in modification requests to the issuers of the coins.
Myself and others have requested most of the changes we discussed. Can we now make official that New Hampshire, Florida, and Rhode Island become sub-issuers under US Pre Federal and that Alaska becomes a sub-issuer under USA?
Status changed to Done(Jarcek, 16 Dec 2022, 19:39)
British colonial issues should be in a separate section - totally separate from those issued under the states.
Aidan.
Why?
Because, it makes sense - & they can be put under the reigns of the British monarchs that they were struck under.
Each colony had its own local Pound currency.
Aidan.
We can have the British monarchs as ruling authorities without having the colonies as separate entities from the states. It makes no sense to split them into pre- and post-independence when their names remained the same.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
I think this is a difficult question … Certainly if the colonies are grouped together, there is the possibility to simplify the currency (and ruling authorities).
However it's also true that in French Feudal, German STates, etc., we preserve the continuity of the sub-issuers and provide sequential currencies over time as needed (denar - thaler, etc.).
Finally, as I think more about the Alaska Rural Rehabilitation Tokens, although these were issued by a government authority (U.S. ) and at a U.S> mint (Philadelphia) for use as U.S. currency, that use was rather narrow in only a small portion of Alaska. So maybe these belong in Exonumia rather than coins.
I would say they belong in coins. This is because they were issued for the Alaskan colonies and circulated there. We have Hawaii coinage in the coin catalogue and it could only circulate in Hawaii, or do not forget USA Philippines coinage are in the coin catalogue and they did not circulate in mainland USA. I support Alaska coinage to be in the coin catalogue.
