Private Coinage or Token? Where should we draw the line?

MrEureka

Think about colonials, pioneer gold, Hard Times tokens, Civil War tokens, Lesher Dollars, etc.

Zoins

Line for what?

• Minting
• Commerce
• Collecting
• Slabbing
• Legality
• Seizing by the FBI
• Posting on the CU US Coin Forum

?

Zoins

Or are you asking about what's a coin vs. token?

To me, generally a token is limited use:

• one or a limited number of merchants
• fixed time period (usually stamped on the piece)

private coinage:

• multiple, unlimited users
• no expiration

PerryHall

@Zoins said:
Or are you asking about what's a coin vs. token?

To me, generally a token is limited use:

• one or a limited number of merchants
• fixed time period (usually stamped on the piece)

private coinage:

• multiple, unlimited users
• no expiration

Agree. Also, a privately issued coin has some intrinsic value while a token has very little or no intrinsic value.

TurtleCat

To me, if it isn’t authorized by a government it’s a token. It might be an expensive token made of precious metals but it’s not an authorized legal tender.

PerryHall

Early copper US coins did not have legal tender status but were still considered to be coins rather than tokens.

ricko

I always considered tokens to be private coinage.... Usually issued by a merchant for redemption at their facilities. Public coinage is issued by the Mint. Cheers, RickO

PerryHall

I consider our current clad coinage to be US government issued tokens since they have very little intrinsic value.

Boosibri

@ricko said:
I always considered tokens to be private coinage.... Usually issued by a merchant for redemption at their facilities. Public coinage is issued by the Mint. Cheers, RickO

I think one of the defining lines is the breadth in which the issue was expected to be used within.

Pioneer / private gold was satisfying a lack of available federal coinage, or a lack of federal facilities to translate raw gold into an assayed medium which could freely circulate at an agreed standard in any form of commerce.

Colonial issues were a mix with some issues clearly intended to alleviate the small change shortage in the colonies and to broadly circulate (even if illegal) eg. Machin Mills, while others have limited evidence of any intended broad circulation.

A Good for or merchant issue had a limited use within only a specific merchant issuing. Clearly a token.

JBK

Uncle Sam will draw the line for you.

Zoins

@JBK said:
Uncle Sam will draw the line for you.

Agree. Private coinage is illegal in the US.

Tokens are not.

CaptHenway

An excellent question. Do you have any other questions?

I consider Bechtler gold to be coins even though they did not have legal tender status. They were accepted over a wide geographic area.

Much of the California gold circulated as coins, including slugs, but I am not sure how extensive their circulation was. If you took one to Los Angeles could you spend it for $50, or would you have to take it to a bullion dealer and sell it at a discount for "real money?"

I'm not sure what Brasher Doubloons are. Did they circulate, or were they novelty pieces intended to be given away to important customers to promote Brasher's jewelry business? I don't know.

fathom

As mentioned, the period in which they were issued is a key.

Crypto

@PerryHall said:

@Zoins said:
Or are you asking about what's a coin vs. token?

To me, generally a token is limited use:

• one or a limited number of merchants
• fixed time period (usually stamped on the piece)

private coinage:

• multiple, unlimited users
• no expiration

Agree. Also, a privately issued coin has some intrinsic value while a token has very little or no intrinsic value.

I agree, intent matters too. For all of these reasons is why i despise the confederate cent tokens/novelties that bring damn near 6 figures for no historical reason

CoinJunkie

@PerryHall said:
I consider our current clad coinage to be US government issued tokens since they have very little intrinsic value.

coin
noun
a flat, typically round piece of metal with an official stamp, used as money.

I don't see anything about intrinsic value in the definition of coin.

MrEureka

The coin (?) that promted my question is the Chalmers Shilling, which I had always considered a privately issued coin. Yet I just noticed that the Red Book calls it a token.

CoinJunkie

Seems like a fine semantic line. As stated in the following article:

https://coins.nd.edu/ColCoin/ColCoinIntros/Chalmers.intro.html

[Chalmers coined] on his own account, though with the consent of the government.

If the government had commissioned their production, I think calling them private coins would certainly be appropriate. As it stands, perhaps "token" is more accurate. Just thinking out loud here...

Zoins

@Crypto said:

@PerryHall said:

@Zoins said:
Or are you asking about what's a coin vs. token?

To me, generally a token is limited use:

• one or a limited number of merchants
• fixed time period (usually stamped on the piece)

private coinage:

• multiple, unlimited users
• no expiration

Agree. Also, a privately issued coin has some intrinsic value while a token has very little or no intrinsic value.

I agree, intent matters too. For all of these reasons is why i despise the confederate cent tokens/novelties that bring damn near 6 figures for no historical reason

At least it's not 7 figures like some nickels

For the Confederate Cent and the 1913 Liberty Head Nickel, probably not much hard evidence matters beyond they were done by Robert Lovett, Jr. and the US Mint respectively. Everything else is a story and that seems to be fine. For the nickel, I'm not even sure the story matters.

Crypto

@Zoins said:

@Crypto said:

@PerryHall said:

@Zoins said:
Or are you asking about what's a coin vs. token?

To me, generally a token is limited use:

• one or a limited number of merchants
• fixed time period (usually stamped on the piece)

private coinage:

• multiple, unlimited users
• no expiration

Agree. Also, a privately issued coin has some intrinsic value while a token has very little or no intrinsic value.

I agree, intent matters too. For all of these reasons is why i despise the confederate cent tokens/novelties that bring damn near 6 figures for no historical reason

At least it's not 7 figures like some nickels

For the Confederate Cent and the 1913 Liberty Head Nickel, probably not much hard evidence matters beyond they were done by Robert Lovett, Jr. and the US Mint respectively. Everything else is a story and that seems to be fine. For the nickel, I'm not even sure the story matters.

I am not sure why you are comparing a mint product made the year it says it was with a token made by someone not associated with the subject matter a decade after the subject matter. While both are shady, one is a coin made by the mint to profit off collectors and enrich them and the other is a themed pieced of copper made to dupe collectors and profit off them

Zoins

@Crypto said:

@Zoins said:

@Crypto said:

@PerryHall said:

@Zoins said:
Or are you asking about what's a coin vs. token?

To me, generally a token is limited use:

• one or a limited number of merchants
• fixed time period (usually stamped on the piece)

private coinage:

• multiple, unlimited users
• no expiration

Agree. Also, a privately issued coin has some intrinsic value while a token has very little or no intrinsic value.

I agree, intent matters too. For all of these reasons is why i despise the confederate cent tokens/novelties that bring damn near 6 figures for no historical reason

At least it's not 7 figures like some nickels

For the Confederate Cent and the 1913 Liberty Head Nickel, probably not much hard evidence matters beyond they were done by Robert Lovett, Jr. and the US Mint respectively. Everything else is a story and that seems to be fine. For the nickel, I'm not even sure the story matters.

I am not sure why you are comparing a mint product made the year it says it was with a token made by someone not associated with the subject matter a decade after the subject matter. While both are shady, one is a coin made by the mint to profit off collectors and enrich them and the other is a themed pieced of copper made to dupe collectors and profit off them

I haven't seen any evidence that the Confederate Cent was made to dupe collectors as you state. Is there any?

Can you prove that it was made a decade after the subject matter as you state?

My understanding is that what is undisputed is that Robert Lovett, Jr. made them. Everything beyond that about their origins is unsubstantiated speculation. If you have proof of your views, I'd love to see it.

Crypto

@Zoins said:

@Crypto said:

@Zoins said:

@Crypto said:

@PerryHall said:

@Zoins said:
Or are you asking about what's a coin vs. token?

To me, generally a token is limited use:

• one or a limited number of merchants
• fixed time period (usually stamped on the piece)

private coinage:

• multiple, unlimited users
• no expiration

Agree. Also, a privately issued coin has some intrinsic value while a token has very little or no intrinsic value.

I agree, intent matters too. For all of these reasons is why i despise the confederate cent tokens/novelties that bring damn near 6 figures for no historical reason

At least it's not 7 figures like some nickels

For the Confederate Cent and the 1913 Liberty Head Nickel, probably not much hard evidence matters beyond they were done by Robert Lovett, Jr. and the US Mint respectively. Everything else is a story and that seems to be fine. For the nickel, I'm not even sure the story matters.

I am not sure why you are comparing a mint product made the year it says it was with a token made by someone not associated with the subject matter a decade after the subject matter. While both are shady, one is a coin made by the mint to profit off collectors and enrich them and the other is a themed pieced of copper made to dupe collectors and profit off them

I haven't seen any evidence that the Confederate Cent was made to dupe collectors as you state. Is there any?

Can you prove that it was made a decade after the subject matter as you state?

My understanding is that what is undisputed is that Robert Lovett, Jr. made them. Everything beyond that about their origins is unsubstantiated speculation. If you have proof of your views, I'd love to see it.

Sure fair points. Lets talk abut the few facts that are known and remove the story

1) When is their first documented trace of their existence- 1870s during the first wave of confederate nostalgia. 1874 to be exact. Nobody actually claims any different. Only the date on the front ties them to the war period. The speech @ the 1908 ANA by John Haseltine about them where most of the story you think you know about them was first put out. These so-called facts were listed and debunked in Harold Levi and George Corell’s book The Lovett Cent, a Confederate Story. If collectors in 1910 knew they were fishy, it is disappointing to see the fog of time make modern collectors oblivious and willfully ignorant

2) Who is the attributed manufacturer- A northern bankrupt drunk with no ties to any government official save for jailers from time to time (Not the best source for an honest story)

3) Who found them and profited- A northern coin dealer known for "finding" things from the real mint during the biggest clandestine period (1870s) for the hobby and mint. If shady with real coins why wouldn't he have had tokens made

4) What did he find- All of the examples and the dies to make them! What incredible luck, it almost like he commissioned them

5) Were they accepted when they first came out- There does not appear to be strong acceptance initially and they didn't become super valuable until the 20th cen when people assumed they had more bonifidas when they made the 2nd round of strikings... once again by a coin dealer

6) Is there one fact, document, name, story, bill or really anything tying them to the south- No

If it walks like a duck, smells like a duck and tastes like a duck I have a hard time believing the bird in front of me is an extinct confederate carrier pigeon even if it makes for a better story. Our hobby is a studious one based on records, research and facts. I am disappointed at the number of people who can so easily disregard logic & research for sexy

I guess the part i struggle with is why are these assumed to be real when there is no evidence that they are, lots that they aren't and they don't even make sense. In collectibles you typically need strong evidence.

Zoins

@Crypto said:
3) Who found them and profited- A northern coin dealer known for "finding" things from the real mint during the biggest clandestine period (1870s) for the hobby and mint. If shady with real coins why wouldn't he have had tokens made

What else did Captain John W. Haseltine find?

I wouldn't be too surprised if that's the kind of person that went looking for things like this.

If it walks like a duck, smells like a duck and tastes like a duck I have a hard time believing the bird in front of me is an extinct confederate carrier pigeon even if it makes for a better story. Our hobby is a studious one based on records, research and facts. I am disappointed at the number of people who can so easily disregard logic & research for sexy

I guess the part i struggle with is why are these assumed to be real when there is no evidence that they are, lots that they aren't and they don't even make sense. In collectibles you typically need strong evidence.

I'm guessing people know the history, think they are fun, rare pieces, and have money to spend.

Kind of like the continued strong prices for Continental Dollars.

CaptHenway

@MrEureka said:
The coin (?) that promted my question is the Chalmers Shilling, which I had always considered a privately issued coin. Yet I just noticed that the Red Book calls it a token.

I think that I would call this one a token. Probably circulated in Annapolis, but try to spend one in Boston.

Crypto

@Zoins said:

@Crypto said:
3) Who found them and profited- A northern coin dealer known for "finding" things from the real mint during the biggest clandestine period (1870s) for the hobby and mint. If shady with real coins why wouldn't he have had tokens made

What else did Captain John W. Haseltine find?

I wouldn't be too surprised if that's the kind of person that went looking for things like this.

If it walks like a duck, smells like a duck and tastes like a duck I have a hard time believing the bird in front of me is an extinct confederate carrier pigeon even if it makes for a better story. Our hobby is a studious one based on records, research and facts. I am disappointed at the number of people who can so easily disregard logic & research for sexy

I guess the part i struggle with is why are these assumed to be real when there is no evidence that they are, lots that they aren't and they don't even make sense. In collectibles you typically need strong evidence.

I'm guessing people know the history, think they are fun, rare pieces, and have money to spend.

Kind of like the continued strong prices for Continental Dollars.

Your continental dollar point is a good one. Funny enough I wave always sort of wanted one of those (and a bar cent for some reason). I blame the red book and sugar drinks of my youth

Crypto

@CoinJunkie said:

@PerryHall said:
I consider our current clad coinage to be US government issued tokens since they have very little intrinsic value.

coin
noun
a flat, typically round piece of metal with an official stamp, used as money.

I don't see anything about intrinsic value in the definition of coin.

Clad has as much of a value as various precious metals. Just because it is worth less than face (true for most gold and silver coins at time of issue) doesn’t mean it is worthless. The spread of value to face might be crap too but it is better than paper

MrEureka

@btcollects said:
here's my line...

if the guy that made them is the only one taking them, it's a token

if others take them, it's a private coin

Civil War tokens circulated and could not be redeemed, but I still consider them to be tokens. Yet I still think of the Chalmers pieces as coins. Perhaps the key difference is that the Chalmers presented itself as a coin, at a time when just about anything of reasonably proper composition and weight was accepted as real money. Civil War tokens were more of a substitute for money, i.e., I don't think anyone ever thought of them as real money. But I really don't know where to draw the line, which is why I posted the question to begin with.