The British Trade Dollar was designed by George William De Saulles and minted from 1895 for Hong Kong and the Straits Settlements. But after the Straits dollar was introduced to the Straits Settlements in 1903, it became exclusively a Hong Kong coin produced until 1935. Those with the mint mark "B" were produced at the Bombay Mint; others, marked "C", were struck in Calcutta.
This mean this coin should be under Hong Kong and Straits but as mention above, Strais had own currency so in my opinion this coins should be under Hong Kong.
So, the question is, how this is possible that this Asian coin is under European United Kingdom ?
If you want example :
France similar coins created for French Indochina.
Prussian , Russian and Asutrian coins for Partioned Poland are under Poland.
Spanish Reals are also correctly moved not under Spain but ie. Philipines, Bolivia erc.
With apologies but this trade coinage is not within my area of expertise but I believe these pieces were struck under the instruction and authority of the British government to facilitate British trade in the Orient. However, they do not appear in my 2017 edition of Spink so I am unable to confirm any of this from my preferred catalogue for British coins, although they do appear under Great Britain in Krause, upon which the Numista structure is based. I will defer to my former colleague, Mark240590, whom I know was an avid collector of these Trade Dollars (at least, until he downsized his collection) and I will forward your query on to him.
Just because you can't see it ... doesn't mean it isn't there - Anon.
My personal opinion is that this coin should be in Hong Kong, given it's status as a trade dollar in East Asia, but given how the Numista catalogue is structured vis-à-vis the Krause catalogues, which put it in the UK, I think for now it should stay there. But I strongly believe that both Krause and Numista should change this in the future.
Either way, I wouldn't really mind having the coin in either country on Numista at the moment.
Quote: "CassTaylor"I've finally seen Damian's message;
My personal opinion is that this coin should be in Hong Kong, given it's status as a trade dollar in East Asia, but given how the Numista catalogue is structured vis-à-vis the Krause catalogues, which put it in the UK, I think for now it should stay there. But I strongly believe that both Krause and Numista should change this in the future.
Either way, I wouldn't really mind having the coin in either country on Numista at the moment.
Cass if you look closer we are not vis -a vis Krause. Agree that Numista catalog was based upon Krause. In Krause there is Creek Nation as country , do we have it ? We have Burkina Faso as country does Krause have it ? . Krause is full of errors i can show more examples. You can check this coin : https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces90866.html in Krause is in unusual catalog which is wrongly placed. Full explanation of that coin u can find in comment section.
Numista community placed this one correctly.
So what about that coins :
Coins minted for French Cochinchina are under Vietnam
French Afars and Issas and French Somaliland under Djibouti
India - British under India
British Palestine under Israel
British Honduras under Belize
What about Canadian provinces - New Brunswick - Dollar (1860-1867) ? Are this under UK ? no , its under Canada - Canadian provinces. New Scotia ?
Biafra under Nigeria
@docman I completely agree some of the issuers arrangement (particularly Palestine under Israel) in the list of issuers is not ideal, but that's another problem. I meant more that the KM# of the British Trade Dollar is in Krause catalogue under the UK, not under Hong Kong, and therefore it would be confusing to have one coin listed in a country in Krause under another on Numista.
Quote: "CassTaylor"@docman I completely agree some of the issuers arrangement (particularly Palestine under Israel) in the list of issuers is not ideal, but that's another problem. I meant more that the KM# of the British Trade Dollar is in Krause catalogue under the UK, not under Hong Kong, and therefore it would be confusing to have one coin listed in a country in Krause under another on Numista.
All facts are considering that this coin should be under Russia. Coin made for Tsar by Russian mint, by Russian engraver as birthdays gift but there is nominal value as 1½ Rouble//10 Złotych Many polish books says this is polish coin. Many numismatic people with knowledge far better then mine when i asked says is polish. Why ? Because of the 10 Złotych - The double nominal at that time was issue only for Polish coins during russian partition of Poland. Why i decide to move this one to Russia? Becuase i dont keep myself strict to the catalog. No-one could explain me why this one should be under Poland. the only argument was that nominal value but this was not enough. Probably someone saw 10 Zlótych so think it must be Polish. This is very rare coin maybe that this way they placed this coin under Polish partition.
So are we gonna stay strict to the catalogs even if they provide wrong information or try to build here correct database even if we collide sometimes with catalogs ?
And I agree with you that sometimes catalogues can be very wrong, but my argument isn't that we should stick to the catalogue 100% even when it's wrong; it was that we should stick to the catalogue for convenience purposes, and maybe try to get the publishers to change their information.
I would be happy to see that coin in either Hong Kong or UK, personally. :)
Ok so, For Cass as you are referee is ok to place that coin under Hong Kong. As far as i know for Rick as referee for Uk is also no problem- Rick correct me if im wrong. Regarding this link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_dollar Can i move this coin to Hong Kong ?
By 1895, the circumstances had changed to the extent that there was now a dearth of Mexican dollars and the authorities in both Hong Kong and the Straits Settlements were putting pressure on the authorities in London to take measures to have a regular supply of silver dollar coins. London eventually acquiesced and legislation was enacted in attempts to regulate the coinage. New British trade dollars were coined at the mints in Calcutta and Bombay for use in both Hong Kong and the Straits Settlements. In 1906, the Straits Settlements issued their own silver dollar coin and attached it to a gold sterling exchange standard at a fixed value of 2 shillings and 4 pence. This was the point of departure as between the Hong Kong unit and the Straits unit.
To control the money supply in French Indochina in 1885, the French introduced a new silver Piastre de commerce and associated subsidiary coinage throughout the entire Indo-Chinese colonies in order to increase monetary stability. The piastre was initially equivalent to the Mexican peso. The piastre was therefore a direct lineal descendent of the Spanish pieces of eight that had been brought to the Orient from Mexico on the Manila Galleons. It was initially on a silver standard of 1 piastre = 24.4935 grams pure silver. This was reduced to 24.3 grams in 1895. https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces4510.html
As far as I’ve always been aware these were made to facilitate trade with the Chinese when the Spanish Dollar became hard to come by. It wasn’t made specifically for Hong Kong nor the straits both of whom had their own Dollar coins which has their area they were destined for made on them.
There is no issuer on the British trade Dollar Just Britannia as a hint and hence i believe this is the only reason it remains with the British catalogue although since it was never officially released for a specific colony (not even a colony atall) where do you really propose it should go ?
there are many similar coinages out there. I suggest we take a look at the other trade coinages of America and Japan before proceeding :)
Great input; I'm personally more in favour of it going into Hong Kong at the moment, but wouldn't burst into tears if it stays in the UK. Regarding American and Japanese trade dollars, they each have respectively 'UNITED STATES OF AMERICA' and '大日本', indicating their country of origin.
And there's also that for the French trade silver crownsized coin, the Piastre de Commerce, it specifically states 'INDO-CHINE FRANÇAISE' or 'COCHINCHINE FRANÇAISE', which we cannot ignore; if that legend was not there then we would probably be having a similar debate over where it should go in the catalogue, France or Indochina. As this is the case with the British trade dollar, we have ambiguity; and therefore this issue. I think the scale tipping factor here would be the use of 'ONE DOLLAR' as the explicit denomination rather than '5 shillings' or 'Crown'.
One Dollar as in the Hong Kong dollar rather than the British £sd is what I'm hinting at
There have been some very good arguments made on all sides but I would like to put one more out there and that comes back to the issue of the K&M catalogue. Yes, we have heard that there are many errors in Krause but does that mean we should throw out the whole series of volumes? No, I believe not. When Xavier first put together the Numista model, it was based on the structure and catalogue references of the SCWC, the single-most widely accepted numismatic reference across the globe. The page listing for this Trade Dollar carries one catalogue reference number and that is KM#T5 from the Great Britain section of Krause and if someone has located their coin in the GB section of Krause then they would naturally expect that is where they would find it on Numista. If the coin was moved out of the UK catalogue then you would have to remove the KM# reference since to list it as, for example, Hong Kong KM#T5 would be incorrect and if you then removed the catalogue reference then that would be a mistake and detrimental to the catalogue. For that reason, I believe the Trade Dollar should remain in the UK but perhaps there would be an option to duplicate the listing in Hong Kong and/or Straits Settlements with a link to the main page in the UK section?
Just because you can't see it ... doesn't mean it isn't there - Anon.
I agree they’re not a british coin. I think they’ve been a problem for cataloguers a long time before now. I agree with what rich says. It’s accepted by just about every auction house too that it belongs with the UK ( I believe they are following the trend of the 1/3 & 1/4 farthings) where by for traceability it’s easier to place them in the UK catalogue with a not specifying where they were minted for.
Again not dissimilar to the aforementioned these dollars were struck for multiple colony use so HK, Penang, Singapore and Shanghai. So which colony would you like to put them under ? Bear in mind they were happy to use the Spanish Dollar before because the Chinese Shroffs knew and trusted it. This was only introduced because they became unobtainable. And at the time any colony would have used anything so this was to cater mainly to Shanghai who were not under British control.
I agree completely regarding the catalogue number of the BTD, which is the real reason why I haven't submitted the request to move to Hong Kong already. I feel that we should try to get Krause to change that listing to Hong Kong before we here move it to Hong Kong, but I'm not sure how you would suggest edits to them...
Quote: "CassTaylor"@docman I completely agree some of the issuers arrangement (particularly Palestine under Israel) in the list of issuers is not ideal, but that's another problem. I meant more that the KM# of the British Trade Dollar is in Krause catalogue under the UK, not under Hong Kong, and therefore it would be confusing to have one coin listed in a country in Krause under another on Numista.
The big-name KM# error that I could think of is putting this and a few related types under Azores, when they actually belong under Portugal (as correctly done on Numista).
As far as I can tell, the British Trade Dollars should belong under whatever colony they were intended for; the problem is that they apparently weren't intended for any particular colony, and this means that they stay under United Kingdom by default.
I would have put the darn thing under British East Indies, but that is probably anachronistic (besides, there's no EIC monogram or shield).
Excellent example January First-of-May ! I think that example explain all in KM case.
For me case was simple this coin was issued for all UK colony that is why don't have any name on it but at the end was used only in Hong Kong. That is way my main argument was to move there.
Now i think we should do the same thing as we do with coins for french colonies in General , create a issuer : Coins from UK colonies that solved this issue. Are we 100% consistent ? https://en.numista.com/catalogue/colonies_francaises-1.html
Quote: "doc_man"Excellent example January First-of-May ! I think that example explain all in KM case.
For me case was simple this coin was issued for all UK colony that is why don't have any name on it but at the end was used only in Hong Kong. That is way my main argument was to move there.
Now i think we should do the same thing as we do with coins for french colonies in General , create a issuer : Coins from UK colonies that solved this issue. Are we 100% consistent ?
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/colonies_francaises-1.html
Regards,
Damian
Good idea, but unfortunately the key difference here is that the French colonies' issuer's coins have 'COLONIES FRANÇAISES' on them indicating clearly they were intended for use in no singular colony (as opposed to 'Guadeloupe' or 'Martinique' or 'Guyane Française' or 'Isle de Bourbon').
A British equivalent exists in the British West Indies dollar coins; they have 'COLONIAR: BRITAN: MONET:' in Latin on the them, thereby indicating they too were included for use in no single colony, (as opposed to 'Antigua', etc.) but their issuer being named 'British West Indies' is based on that they were clearly intended to circulate there.
Agree CassTaylor. For me place for this coin is under British East Indies or Hong Kong . Is there anyone who can make the decision ?
We have here a fantastic conversation !
Regards,
Damian
Quote: "doc_man"Excellent example January First-of-May ! I think that example explain all in KM case.
For me case was simple this coin was issued for all UK colony that is why don't have any name on it but at the end was used only in Hong Kong. That is way my main argument was to move there.
Now i think we should do the same thing as we do with coins for french colonies in General , create a issuer : Coins from UK colonies that solved this issue. Are we 100% consistent ?
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/colonies_francaises-1.html
Regards,
Damian
Good idea, but unfortunately the key difference here is that the French colonies' issuer's coins have 'COLONIES FRANÇAISES' on them indicating clearly they were intended for use in no singular colony (as opposed to 'Guadeloupe' or 'Martinique' or 'Guyane Française' or 'Isle de Bourbon').
A British equivalent exists in the British West Indies dollar coins; they have 'COLONIAR: BRITAN: MONET:' in Latin on the them, thereby indicating they too were included for use in no single colony, (as opposed to 'Antigua', etc.) but their issuer being named 'British West Indies' is based on that they were clearly intended to circulate there.
actually, the first issues of anchor dollars were for Mauritius (1820) then 1822 issue was for both Mauritius and the West Indies but for whatever reason they tend to be left as West Indian.
If anythin the trade dollar could be deposited into the British East Indies if it’s going to move. Doc where did you get the information from that it only circulated in HK ? I’ve read it was distributed in HK, Penang and Shanghai.
Hi, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_dollar https://www.cointalk.com/threads/british-trade-dollars.13720/ - IAN comment :
Well, a quick bit of research will show you that they aren't strictly speaking `British' coins at all. British Empire...yes, but not British by manufacture. The coinage was minted in India at Bombay and Calcutta mints from 1895 onwards, with the exception of 1925 and 1930 which were indeed minted at London. Another key differential is that unlike the US Trade Dollar which carried (and still carries) legal tender status in the US, the UK Trade Dollar never did carry `legal tender' status in the UK. It was never seen there, let alone used. Should these coins even be listed under `Great Britain' in Krause? I think it is misleading that they are....but where else to put them? (Cited from: https://www.cointalk.com/threads/british-trade-dollars.13720/)
@Mark Great info; you are right in that the BTD never circulated only in Hong Kong, but certainly after the introduction of the Straits dollar it became 'primarily' a Hong Kong coin.... much in the same way that like the British anchor coins, they were minted for use in multiple colonies, but ended up primarily circulating in and being associated with one.
Quote: "doc_man"So the question is were to placed that coin ? Mark are this coin were a legal tender in UK ?
Regards,
Damian
No it was never legal tender in the UK, like you said yourself also in your last post. Therefore I think we should put it in Hong Kong, for reasons listed previously; and I recommend suggesting the edit to move it to Krause as well.
Yes, i mention but was not 100% sure if this information was correct. If this coin was never a legal tender in UK should be moved to the country were was. As this coin were for several colonies but at the end finished only in one - Hong Kong . IMPHO Hong Kong is the best place for this coin.
Please be aware that, as UK referee, I would be against such a move for reasons already given. Please submit change request to Krause and once that change has been implemented then we can modify Numista to suit.
Just because you can't see it ... doesn't mean it isn't there - Anon.
Quote: "radrick007"Please be aware that, as UK referee, I would be against such a move for reasons already given. Please submit change request to Krause and once that change has been implemented then we can modify Numista to suit.
Rick, one simple question. Are this coin were a legal tender in UK ?
...
Correct me if im wrong but we dont ask Krasue for a permission when we moved coins from Azores under Portugal.
I understand your devotion to the catalogs. We must follow them only as a guidance not as oracle in some specific cases. In Polish catalog you can find my Rouble mention above. Ultra Rare coin that many of us will never have that coin. Polish catalog were wrong and i decide to move that coin under Russia. Were it belong. In Polish catalogs you also find i call them a sentiment coins. Coins that was minted by Polish mint when there was no Poland at all. They mint Russian Kopeck's using our machinery. They were under Poland. Now they are correctly assign to Russian Empire.
IF British Trade Dolar were not a legal tender coin in UK how can be under UK ? For sentiment ?
Quote: "radrick007"Please be aware that, as UK referee, I would be against such a move for reasons already given. Please submit change request to Krause and once that change has been implemented then we can modify Numista to suit.
I'm 'pro move', but will not do so until Krause has also been changed as well, for many of the same reasons.
So I think it would be best if we start thinking about how to contact and edit Krause.
I will contact Krause, know one person maybe he could help.
....
PS
Rick, Sophie YOU are Numista Referee's and you are decision makers here not Krause. So saying i will move or not if Krause change is is odd to me..
Ok, make a quick summary.
Rick you are a referee for UK coins. The discussion is about British Trade Dollar which now is under UK and never was a legal tender in UK. You said that this coin is not your area of expertise. Saying that i understand that this coin shouldn't be under UK. I totally agree that BTD were struck under the instruction and authority of the British government to facilitate British trade in the Orient. Coin was a legal tender in several British colonies but not in the UK and ends as legal tender in Hong Kong. As far as i know, local catalogs are more accurate then World catalogs ie. Schoen or Krause. Maybe this will change one day. I hope so, because prefer to have one catalog then each per country. The only argument i find in our whole conversation about staying this coin under UK is sentiment argument. You say in Krause says it is under UK. Ok in Krause there is also Creek Nation and we have Burkina Faso . Difference in KM ? Aye that might be a problem. We already deal with it moving Azores coins under Portugal.
What other argument will convince you of moving this coin ? Not sure if Hong Kong is the best place for this one but so far dont found any better.
Damian, as I have already said, there have been many strong arguments for Krause to reclassify this particular coin, with which I can have no argument. If you have any further queries regarding, specifically, the points I have made as to why the coin should stay where it is, taking into account it's current K&M classification, then please feel free to question me some more. Otherwise, please devote your undeniable passion about this apparent mis-attribution towards the editors of Krause & Mischler Standard Catalog of World Coins.
Just because you can't see it ... doesn't mean it isn't there - Anon.
Quote: "radrick007"Damian, as I have already said, there have been many strong arguments for Krause to reclassify this particular coin, with which I can have no argument. If you have any further queries regarding, specifically, the points I have made as to why the coin should stay where it is, taking into account it's current K&M classification, then please feel free to question me some more. Otherwise, please devote your undeniable passion about this apparent mis-attribution towards the editors of Krause & Mischler Standard Catalog of World Coins.
A little bit harsh maybe, but I'm glad you said it. We should change Krause first, so to speak.
Essentially, Rick doesn't want to move it on Numista before it's status in Krause is changed, and Damian feels we should ignore Krause.
Damian you said you contacted Krause a few posts ago, how did that turn out?
I have contacted Krause already and waiting for an reply. If they every reply....Im optimist and probably they dont reply..
....
Im trying to understand why we keep a coin which never was a legal tender in UK under UK.
Saying we change when Krause change is ridiculous to me but this is only my opinion. I dont say we should ignore Krause at all cost but sometimes Krause is wrong.
With moving Azores coins under Portugal we dont worry about Krause KM so why we worry now about it ?
I hope that Numista team will share with us theirs opinion
Quote: "doc_man"Saying we change when Krause change is ridiculous to me but this is only my opinion. I dont say we should ignore Krause at all cost but sometimes Krause is wrong.
Yes we are !
...
Rick i dont want to argue with you, dont want to make a bone of hate just because of this coin. Just spotted en error in the listing. At least an error in my point of view and try to fix it.
PS
Look what i found at Krause, Poland 2 grosze with photo of 5 zlotych commemorative. Should i change it in our catalog so we will have the same error as Krause ? Reject all requests with saying i will change when Krause change ? Of course no.
Quote: "doc_man"I hope that Numista team will share with us theirs opinion
I stand by Rick decision not to move for now.
Looks like these were not only circulating in one single colony/territory then, as Mark pointed, if it were to be moved: where to move without having same question?
Basically, trade coinage is minted by a government to circulate within its colonies, but not necessarily legal tender within the minting authority country; then, I'm not shocked by a British Trade Dollar not bearing issuer naming under UK issuing authority that was legal tender in colonies but not within the UK territory itself.
Sapientiae plerumque stultitia est comes.
Si c'est un grand plaisir d'être reconnu par ses amis, c'est peut-être encore plus flatteur d'être reconnu par ses adversaires.
Be yourself; everyone else is already taken.
Yes, this is the issue were to place that coin. Rick and Sophie make theirs opinion and Numista team also. I accept all decision about this coin staying under UK but still have some doubts.
Rick as UK referee says this coin is not his area of expertise. No offense Rick, nothing personal but if referee says this coin is not under his expertise then why this coin is under UK ? and who in this case is responsible for this coin ?
Iam with Rick . To me it is only a bullion coin. Made of silver ,gold or other metal.With a known weight and fineness And should stay in the country who made or had them made. Spanish new world silver was used in the US and Canada, there not in there catalogs . Well some were counter marked by other governments. And all over the world they were used. Me I think 80% or more never stayed in the country that make them . So should they be in just about every county catalog. I see most of these coins as trade coins too. They sure were not made to stay in the new world.
Few points:
1. Final decision is with UK referee, unless Team decides to override (believe me, we do it rarely and do not want to do that)
2. It was issued for two "countries" but later used only in one of them. That makes its classification somehow hard, we cannot have the same coin on two places.
3. What makes some confusion is the name United Kingdom, all of you, please make a note that this is coin not of United Kingdom as we know it today, but rather of British Empire, something entirely different in terms of control of the colonies. If they wanted, maybe they could make it circulate in Australia as well. My point is that it is British control what matters.
4. If the Krause is obviously wrong, we should not follow it. Not this case, but take this note.
5. It would be nice to have this info - where it circulated, for whom it was destined etc.. on the page in the comment section.
