Territorial Gold [solved]

Greetings,

I believe Utah should be made a sub-issuer of USA. This is because they did have their own official coinage which did circulate. Utah began it‘s gold coinage when the Mormons controlled the land, so those issues were official because The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued them and they controlled the land. When Utah became a territory Brigham Young was the governor of the territory and continued the coinage. Only until 1863 did the coinage become demonetized. All in all, I believe that territorial coinage should be in the coin catalogue, but I feel Utah is a good place to start. So, please upvote this if you feel Utah should become a sub-issuer of USA and that these should be in the coin catalogue, because they were official coinage. If you disagree, before you downvote please post why you disagree so we can come to a compromise. Thank you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigham_Young

https://www.greatamericancoincompany.com/a/info/blog/us-territorial-coins-mormon-gold-1849-1860

https://www.ksl.com/article/41207623/looking-back-at-mormon-gold-coins-other-historical-utah-currencies

That's fun: A compromise would then be half-way in and half-way out? In free fall with other words?

Or we could create a sub-issuer under USA called “Territorial” and either list the coins all directly under that or create smaller sub-sections under “Territorial?”

How far will you want to go into details of the kind suggested? Be careful that numista will still be accessible by “normal collectors”.

A sub-issuer under USA called ”Territorial” should be created. Under territorial we could list individual territories that had officially issued circulated coins like “Utah”. It is not right for these territorial coins to not be listed equally. Alaska has become a sub-issuer and their coins were territorial, why can Utah and the rest not be sub-issuers? 

Or a compromise could be that we create another currency for USA  labeled “Western Dollar” and this “Western Dollar” could be used for the Utah coins and other territorial coinage that was used. This may be a good solution as it was accurate that the gold standard of western coinage was different than the federal coinage. 

I have a break through on why Utah should become a sub-issuer. This proves these coins were officially issued and why Utah is needed to be a sub-issuer and why these should be in the coin catalogue:

https://historytogo.utah.gov/coins/

Was it a coin with value or just lump of gold?

It was a coin with a value.

Berkshire Collecting

I have a break through on why Utah should become a sub-issuer. This proves these coins were officially issued and why Utah is needed to be a sub-issuer and why these should be in the coin catalogue:

 

https://historytogo.utah.gov/coins/

Why Utah? It is not state money but private minting “generally accepted for full value in Salt Lake Valley” according to this article, right?

It was used throughout other parts of the area. As Brigham Young became governor, the coins did have partial authority.

Berkshire Collecting

It was used throughout other parts of the area. As Brigham Young became governor, the coins did have partial authority.

What are the sources of that?

https://archives.utah.gov/research/guides/governor-young.html

https://www.uen.org/utah_history_encyclopedia/c/COINS_AND_CURRENCY.shtml

Any news on this?

Not an expert on such pieces but I would see these a bit like Notgeld.

Others in the USA I know of which could fit in the same category are the California and Alaska fractional gold pieces

apuking

Not an expert on such pieces but I would see these a bit like Notgeld.

 

I agree.

From R. S. Yeoman ("Red Book") 66th edition, introduction to section on “Private and Territorial Gold,” p. 371 (highlighting is mine):

The expression private gold, used with reference to coins struck outside the United STates Mint, is a general term.  In the sense that no state or territory had authority to coin money, private gold simply refers to those interesting necessity pieces … that were circulated in various areas of the United States by individuals, assayers, bankers, and so on… While the state of California properly sanctioned the ingots stamped by F. D. Kohler as state assayer, in no instance were any of the gold pieces struck by authority of any of the territorial governments.

Utah Mormon gold is listed in this section, so the Yeoman comments also apply here.  It is a bit of an odd case because some of these coins were struck in 1849 before the creation of the Utah Territory, but it doesn't exempt them from the statement in bold above.  They were private issues. 

I agree these are American versions of notgeld or monnaies de nécessités, as pointed out by Yeoman (and apuking 🙂).

So, does that mean they can be in the coin catalog?

Read this article from APMEX:

https://learn.apmex.com/coin-guide/guide-to-territorial-values/moffat-co-gold-coins-1849/

 It explains that Moffat and Co. California gold coinage are semi-official. I believe territorial  gold will be acceptable for the coin catalog up to a certain point. As, some of the fractional gold pieces were just made as jewelry. We should go through individually and determine each individual issuer’s legal status (Official, semi-official, private, or illegal). Furthermore check to see if it circulated. We should also follow the United States Pre Federal guidelines here, as some of this coinage were in the Western territories/colonies of the USA. If you all recall, in the United States Pre Federal sub-issuer of the coin catalog, there are many colony, state, or even private coinage. If the West were just American colonies in the 1800s, then they should have the same representation.

As if we follow the guidelines for Utah coinage, I would say they are official or semi-official and did circulate.

Any thoughts?

I think it was decided by a Numista Team member that yes.

Next pricess usually on the agenda will be picked to pick up this topic in a meeting with the moderators first.

after that there will be a need to collect all information of all existing issuers etc. That will take time and effort.

In discussion (my comment was just one opinion).  

We want to be sure to be consistent on how “necessity” money is handled across various contries.  

The section United States > Private and Territorial Gold has been created, with subsections for the states named (or implied) on these issues (thus far California, Colorado, Georgia, North Carolina, Oregon, Utah).

The intent is to capture issues that were “necessity” types with value similar to Federal issues, rather than types that were primarily souvenirs. .

Some types have been moved over from Exonumia to begin populating the sections. 

The reference Private Gold Coins and Patterns of the United States, Donald Kagin (1981) has also been added to the list of References (it seems to me most sales of these issues refer to a K number which I assume is Kagin).