Why does the Red Book break Colonials into "Colonial" and "Post Colonial"?

Longacre

I don't look at my Red Book very often, but I took a look at it last night. Due to my increasing interest in colonials, I took at look at the colonial section of the book. Maybe it was stated in the book and I just missed it, but why does the book break colonials into "colonial issues" and "post colonial issues"? What is the dividing line for the classifications? I know there is always a heated debate as to whether a coin is a colonial or not, but I am not sure if anyone gets their panties in a bunch over whether something is misclassified as colonial or post colonial. Does anyone know?

JZrarities

I like to think of it more as the 'Pre-States' issues and the 'States' issues.

There are a few Colonials (such as the Elephant token and the St Patrick farthing) that fit into the pre-state Classics.
As we got closer to the Revolution and after declaring Independence, many of the States issued their own coins.

ie. Pre Colonial and Post Colonial.

I think Lord Baltimore started the dividing line when he got permission from the King of England to produce Coins.
Mass. went on their own with the three types of Tree Shillings (Oak, Willow?, Pine) and dated their coins (earlier) the same 1652 to avoid getting in trouble.
The States then followed Suit. It would make a good type collection of one from each state.

The Pre Colonials, however, are getting very expensive.

Probably some factual errors in this answer as it was from Memory...

-Jeff

Edited to add: Longacre, I always enjoy your posts, Thanks. Hopefully this was a tiny give-back. Keep the insight coming...

CaptHenway

Like he says......before the Revolutionary War we were colonies. After independence, we were not.
TD

PerryHall

<< <i> Pre Colonial and Post Colonial. >>



This makes no sense. It should be "Colonial and Post Colonial". Pre Colonial would refer to the coins issued by the Indians prior to 1492.

CaptHenway

<< <i>

<< <i> Pre Colonial and Post Colonial. >>



This makes no sense. It should be "Colonial and Post Colonial". Pre Colonial would refer to the coins issued by the Indians prior to 1492. >>



The Redbook does not say "pre-colonial." It says "Colonial" and "Post-Colonial."
TD

michael

1776

is the dividing line

before 1776 colonial

after 1776 are either post colonial or pre confereration or confederation koinage

and after 1792 is federal if made in philly mint or the other usa federal mints

Longacre

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i> Pre Colonial and Post Colonial. >>



This makes no sense. It should be "Colonial and Post Colonial". Pre Colonial would refer to the coins issued by the Indians prior to 1492. >>



The Redbook does not say "pre-colonial." It says "Colonial" and "Post-Colonial."
TD >>




That's what happens when I go off of memory! I will change the title. thanks

michael

also colonials are extremely beautiful scarce undervalued sleeper historical and a venue to start collecting as there is much demand and also they have been avidly collected with a passion even before the civil war era

and it is growing with many books published on early american koinage going back to the 1870's

hows that for some tasty (road) apples

Halfsense

And, even better, colonials are usually not available in roll quanity and generally are not listed in the Grey Sheet......

-donn-

Pistareen

I say this as one of the contributors to that section of the Redbook:

Those listings are pretty well juggled up -- the Continental Dollar, dated 1776 and preceding the Constitition by over a decade, is listed as a "Federal" coin, while the Northwest Company token of 1820 is listed as a colonial. Go figure.

Someday we'll get it all straightened out, but until then I'd ignore the broad categories.

VermonAuctori

I think that the Washington tokens(most should be delisted but that is another thread) and earlier will always be known as colonials. I can't see me asking a non colonial specialist dealer at a show if he happens to have any post-colonials in stock. They already look at me funny when I ask for colonials. I think most colonial collectors know the difference anyway.

The is a club known as C-4(Colonial Coin Collectors Club). I would say that 90%of them specialize in "post-colonials!! Maybe they should rename it to the Post Colonial Coin Collectors Club, otherwise to be known as the PC4 club. Then people will confuse them with computer geeks.

Basically if it ain't broke don't fix it.

CaptHenway

<< <i>I say this as one of the contributors to that section of the Redbook:

Those listings are pretty well juggled up -- the Continental Dollar, dated 1776 and preceding the Constitition by over a decade, is listed as a "Federal" coin, while the Northwest Company token of 1820 is listed as a colonial. Go figure.

Someday we'll get it all straightened out, but until then I'd ignore the broad categories. >>



Well, British Columbia still was a "colony" of Great Britain in 1820, but the pieces circulated down in what later bacame Oregon and Washington. The U.S. did not own that land in 1820. Therefore, they are technically "colonial" issues.
TD

ColonialCoinUnion

<< <i>Well, British Columbia still was a "colony" of Great Britain in 1820, but the pieces circulated down in what later bacame Oregon and Washington. The U.S. did not own that land in 1820. Therefore, they are technically "colonial" issues.
TD >>



I agree with this, unless it is proven to be incorrect in a subsequent post.

Pistareen

<< <i>Well, British Columbia still was a "colony" of Great Britain in 1820, but the pieces circulated down in what later bacame Oregon and Washington. The U.S. did not own that land in 1820. Therefore, they are technically "colonial" issues. >>



Oh, so you want to play that way do you Tom!

By the Anglo-American Convention of 1818, the border was set at the 49" parallel to the Rockies (the current border, except for a little chunk of MN), then the area on the other side of the Rockies to the Pacific was reserved for free navigation by both the US and Britain, so it really wasn't a colony -- just twice-claimed land that was organized by neither party.

CCU -- insert class salute here.

And, further, how do you explain something like the TAL being called colonial? Or, to be technical, why aren't Vermonts separated like the Philippines and Puerto Rico? The semantics don't seem to useful in most cases, especially if people understand the history instead of caring about the labels.

(and Tom, you know I'm playing with you! See you at the Rittenhouse breakfast?)

Regulated

How political of you, Mr. Agre.

ColonialCoinUnion

I'm smart enough to know when the next guy is likely to invoke a latitude argument and cite an obscure early 19th century convention.

Regulated

Well, at least you've learned something on the boards.

ColonialCoinUnion

You're darn right I have -

I have already purchased a large supply of MS70 and several dozen rolls of MS62 BN Indian Head Cents.

CaptHenway

"54 40 or fight!!!!!!"

So there!

TD



<< <i>

<< <i>Well, British Columbia still was a "colony" of Great Britain in 1820, but the pieces circulated down in what later bacame Oregon and Washington. The U.S. did not own that land in 1820. Therefore, they are technically "colonial" issues. >>



Oh, so you want to play that way do you Tom!

By the Anglo-American Convention of 1818, the border was set at the 49" parallel to the Rockies (the current border, except for a little chunk of MN), then the area on the other side of the Rockies to the Pacific was reserved for free navigation by both the US and Britain, so it really wasn't a colony -- just twice-claimed land that was organized by neither party.

CCU -- insert class salute here.

And, further, how do you explain something like the TAL being called colonial? Or, to be technical, why aren't Vermonts separated like the Philippines and Puerto Rico? The semantics don't seem to useful in most cases, especially if people understand the history instead of caring about the labels.

(and Tom, you know I'm playing with you! See you at the Rittenhouse breakfast?) >>

Dentuck

The 1820 North West Company token is not listed as a colonial coin.

It's listed as post-colonial.

Aegis3

This must be the thread to ask when the Washington ugly head tokens were struck.

Pistareen

<< <i>This must be the thread to ask when the Washington ugly head tokens were struck. >>



Aegis -- you think I'm going to put my opinion on that topic in print? You have to buy me a beer or take my ANA Summer Seminar class to get my real opinion on that!

CCU knows what my feelings on those pieces sound like. I will say this: no one really disliked Washington all that much in 1784, at least not enough to issue a medal. 1794, yes, but not 1784. Even George III was a member of his fan club by then.

BillJones

This should have been done years ago. For many years everything that came before the U.S. mint opened its doors in 1792 got labeled as a "colonial." Clearly the colonial period ended in America with the Tready of Paris in 1782, and many people would argue that it really ended in 1776.

Calling the coins that were issued from 1782 to 1787 "Confederate issues" for the Articles of Confederation would be too confusing with the Sourthern States. Therefore "colonial" and "post colonial is a better terminolgy.

PerryHall

<< <i>Calling the coins that were issued from 1782 to 1787 "Confederate issues" for the Articles of Confederation would be too confusing with the Sourthern States. >>



Why not call them Confederation coins?