Should private mint territorial gold pieces be labeled "Tokens"?
Ed62
Posts: 857 ✭✭
And how about the off-metal patterns of territorial gold??
Ed
0
Comments
<< <i>Should private mint territorial gold pieces be labeled "Tokens"? >>
If they were used as general mediums of exchange, they should be called coins IMO. Tokens are acceptable for items only usable at a particular merchant.
<< <i>And how about the off-metal patterns of territorial gold?? >>
Were these mostly trial strikes or something else? The word pattern covers too many things IMO
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
the tokens issued by businesses).
Territorial gold was designed for everyday commerce. They are coins. They have denominations on
them. I know some business tokens were denominated and used as well.. think about the 12 1/2 cent
tokens and such. But, once they were removed from the businesses trade area they became useless.
bob
government as legal tender. A token is issued by a private
source (individual, company, mint, what-have-you) as a substitute
for legal-tender money.
<< <i>A coin is generally understood to be issued by an official
government as legal tender. A token is issued by a private
source (individual, company, mint, what-have-you) as a substitute
for legal-tender money. >>
A privately issued coin has a significant intrinsic value so that it will be accepted in commerce as money while a token has very little intrinsic value and only has value at the merchant establishment that issued it. An example of a privately issued coin is the Wass, Molitor, and Company gold coins that actually had a slightly higher gold content than their U.S. government issued counterparts.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>. . . . a token has very little intrinsic value and only has value at the merchant establishment that issued it. >>
What about a (theoretical) Civil War token that was issued by Lewis's Hardware Store in Jonesville, Michigan, for 1 cent,
but was routinely accepted in transactions as 1 cent by Van Ness and Turner Dry Goods, Wisner Groceries, Howards
Hardware, and other local Jonesville stores?
<< <i>
<< <i>. . . . a token has very little intrinsic value and only has value at the merchant establishment that issued it. >>
What about a (theoretical) Civil War token that was issued by Lewis's Hardware Store in Jonesville, Michigan, for 1 cent,
but was routinely accepted in transactions as 1 cent by Van Ness and Turner Dry Goods, Wisner Groceries, Howards
Hardware, and other local Jonesville stores? >>
Once the Civil War ended most of these tokens were worth only their scrap metal value. I don't know the specifics but I once read that there was a big lawsuit where some street car company tried to redeem a bunch of CWT's issued by a local merchant who refused to take them back. Perhaps someone here can fill in the details for us.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>. . . . a token has very little intrinsic value and only has value at the merchant establishment that issued it. >>
What about a (theoretical) Civil War token that was issued by Lewis's Hardware Store in Jonesville, Michigan, for 1 cent,
but was routinely accepted in transactions as 1 cent by Van Ness and Turner Dry Goods, Wisner Groceries, Howards
Hardware, and other local Jonesville stores? >>
Once the Civil War ended most of these tokens were worth only their scrap metal value. I don't know the specifics but I once read that there was a big lawsuit where some street car company tried to redeem a bunch of CWT's issued by a local merchant who refused to take them back. Perhaps someone here can fill in the details for us. >>
You're thinking of the Gustavus Lindenmueller tokens of New York City. I believe the streetcar story has been
debunked (although it's true that Lindenmueller, a theater owner and brewer who was known as New York's
"Lager Beer King") did issue tokens by the hundreds of thousands.
What I'm saying is that Civil War tokens weren't valued only "at the merchant establishment that issued it."
Nor were many Hard Times tokens and other earlier tokens that circulated in the United States and colonies.
They were often valued at what amounted to par within a locality or a region. Mr. Smith would issue a token
and value it at $0.01, and Mr. Schultze down the street would take it in as $0.01 and later pay it out as $0.01.
At no time did this change it from being a token to being a coin. Coins are issued by governments
as legal tender.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>. . . . a token has very little intrinsic value and only has value at the merchant establishment that issued it. >>
What about a (theoretical) Civil War token that was issued by Lewis's Hardware Store in Jonesville, Michigan, for 1 cent,
but was routinely accepted in transactions as 1 cent by Van Ness and Turner Dry Goods, Wisner Groceries, Howards
Hardware, and other local Jonesville stores? >>
Once the Civil War ended most of these tokens were worth only their scrap metal value. I don't know the specifics but I once read that there was a big lawsuit where some street car company tried to redeem a bunch of CWT's issued by a local merchant who refused to take them back. Perhaps someone here can fill in the details for us. >>
You're thinking of the Gustavus Lindenmueller tokens of New York City. I believe the streetcar story has been
debunked (although it's true that Lindenmueller, a theater owner and brewer who was known as New York's
"Lager Beer King") did issue tokens by the hundreds of thousands.
What I'm saying is that Civil War tokens weren't valued only "at the merchant establishment that issued it."
Nor were many Hard Times tokens and other earlier tokens that circulated in the United States and colonies.
They were often valued at what amounted to par within a locality or a region. Mr. Smith would issue a token
and value it at $0.01, and Mr. Schultze down the street would take it in as $0.01 and later pay it out as $0.01.
At no time did this change it from being a token to being a coin. Coins are issued by governments
as legal tender. >>
The circumstances were very dire during the Civil War and there was no real choice in the matter. It was either postage stamps or these tokens. Once the war was over and the mint started to flood the channels of commerce with cents, these tokens became worthless except as curiosities not unlike Confederate paper money.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>
The circumstances were very dire during the Civil War and there was no real choice in the matter. It was either postage stamps or these tokens. Once the war was over and the mint started to flood the channels of commerce with cents, these tokens became worthless except as curiosities not unlike Confederate paper money. >>
They were actively collected even while the war was still being fought, and
many hundreds of varieties were issued as "numismatic delicacies" (not for
commerce, but as collectibles).
I disagree with your assertion that a "token" is defined as "having value only
at the merchant establishment that issued it." I've never heard that definition
before but I could very easily be mistaken --- wouldn't be the first time!
but was routinely accepted in transactions as 1 cent by Van Ness and Turner Dry Goods, Wisner Groceries, Howards
Hardware, and other local Jonesville stores?
The piece still has value only because someone (Lewis's) stands behind it.
Pioneer gold pieces only had value because they contained gold.
At the time, I'd say that that was the difference between a token and a coin.
Today, things are different.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
The gold territorial pieces are not the same. They were issued by assay and mining interest some times even local government facilitated this. Most were also issued in territories not actual states as well. They are coins in my view. They were used as legal tender a DE-facto currency of sorts and backed by there content and traded as such. In my view the territorial gold are coins.
What was the legal status of the territories with respect to the us constitution? Must they abided by all federal laws despite not being an official state?
And, hmmm, there were Hawaiian coins and philippines coins. How were local currencies treated before and after?
PCGS calls this piece a territorial. Red Book says it's a private token. NGC says it's a SCD--which I disagree with. It was coined to be used in trade, and its intrinsic value is roughly what its face value is. Can I get an amen?
--Severian the Lame
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>I have heard US mint-struck pattern coins do not have legal tender status. If that is the case, should they be labeled "tokens"?? >>
not necessarily so. Some examples 1858 Pattern Indian cents were made as patterns and did circulate as well as 1882 Pattern Liberty Nickles are known in lower conditions
1916 Pattern Mercury dimes are known as well to of circulated in tiny numbers I have been told 16 pattern walkers are known in lower grades These are all mint issues as they circulated and were monetized as such. The are legal tender.
Are all patterns monetized , were the pattern / test 43 cents ever monetized they for sure were never issued in any respect for commerce , are they legal tender I would say no though I can not be sure of that.
government as legal tender. A token is issued by a private
source (individual, company, mint, what-have-you) as a substitute
for legal-tender money.>>
Oh my gosh, Dentuck. Are you saying that half cents and large cents are not coins. They were never legal tender when issued.
<<And, hmmm, there were Hawaiian coins and philippines coins. How were local currencies treated before and after?>>
For a certain period after annexion Hawaiian coins were usable and could be exchanged for US coins.
<< <i>
<< <i>I have heard US mint-struck pattern coins do not have legal tender status. If that is the case, should they be labeled "tokens"?? >>
not necessarily so. Some examples 1858 Pattern Indian cents were made as patterns and did circulate as well as 1882 Pattern Liberty Nickles are known in lower conditions
1916 Pattern Mercury dimes are known as well to of circulated in tiny numbers I have been told 16 pattern walkers are known in lower grades These are all mint issues as they circulated and were monetized as such. The are legal tender.
Are all patterns monetized , were the pattern / test 43 cents ever monetized they for sure were never issued in any respect for commerce , are they legal tender I would say no though I can not be sure of that. >>
The monetization concept didn't appear until the controversy of the 1933 DEs so coins in the 1800s were never monetized.
My belief is that pieces that were officially released into circulation should be classified as official varieties or types instead of patterns.
My guess is that off metal and other "patterns" would not be legal tender so it would be difficult to say all patterns were legal tender.
The "Brasher Token" sounds like nothing.
Kind of like the "Maltese Falcon" and the "Maltese Penguin".
The Mysterious Egyptian Magic Coin
Coins in Movies
Coins on Television
coins. They are not, however, US Coins or legal tender.
Must everything fit into a neat categorical box?
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>"labels" are so limiting.
Must everything fit into a neat categorical box? >>
Only if it's a box of 20
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
<< <i>$4 Stella's, spent on a Madam, were tokens of appreciation. >>
And those spent on working girls were tokens of affection...
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
<< <i>The only Pioneer items that have been called tokens by a major TPG are patterns. If they do not consider Pioneer Gold coins tokens, Pioneer Patterns cannot logically be designated as such. It is just another example of the obscene levels of ignorance and stupidity that rule the roost in the molehills. >>
How big of a deal is this?
<< <i>I don't know. Is any pattern officially a coin? I never considered patterns to be officially coins. I do not think that patterns were meant to circulate even though some did. >>
To me, if a piece was legal tender and circulated, it should be classified as a variety or type, not a pattern.
<< <i>
<< <i>$4 Stella's, spent on a Madam, were tokens of appreciation. >>
And those spent on working girls were tokens of affection... >>
More like tokens of infection.....
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]