Options
American Plantation Tokens - actually American?
oldabeintx
Posts: 3,064 ✭✭✭✭✭
I see colonials discussed so rarely here I hesitate to post this. Is anyone aware of documentary evidence that these tokens/coins actually circulated in the colonies? Any written accounts or finds by detectorists? Many thanks.
0
Comments
Im thinking that this is where the private mints popped up in conjunction with the states blessing just to have some circulating change in the area. I dont see why it wouldn't circulate, jmo 😗
(Interesting topic to)
Not close. Suggest you do a little research. Google will do.
We both do
GPT
Plantation coinage (more accurately called Plantation Token) is one of the earliest forms of coin-like money associated with the English colonies in North America, but whether it's "American" depends on how you define the term.
Here's the background:
Plantation Tokens were struck in England around 1652.
They were likely intended for use in the English colonies, especially in Virginia Colony, although historians still debate exactly where and how widely they circulated.
They are made of brass, not silver or gold.
One side shows a crowned king, while the other depicts a rose, with the inscription "PLANTATION."
Are they actually American?
There are two schools of thought:
Yes, in a colonial sense. Many collectors consider them among the earliest coins or tokens made specifically for English America because they were intended for use in the colonies.
No, in a strict sense. They were manufactured in England before the United States existed, so they are not American coins in the modern national sense. They are better described as colonial tokens.
Because of this, most references classify them as colonial American numismatic items rather than U.S. coins.
Interesting topic
Successful BST:here and ATS, bumanchu, wdrob, hashtag, KeeNoooo, mikej61, Yonico, Meltdown, BAJJERFAN, Excaliber, lordmarcovan, cucamongacoin, robkool, bradyc, tonedcointrader, mumu, Windycity, astrotrain, tizofthe, overdate, rwyarmch, mkman123, Timbuk3,GBurger717, airplanenut, coinkid855 ,illini420, michaeldixon, Weiss, Morpheus, Deepcoin, Collectorcoins, AUandAG, D.Schwager, blu62vette, morgan13, torinoCobra71.
I agree... definitely an interesting topic. My understanding is the first actual coins struck in America were the "NE" tokens and Pine Tree (ect.) shillings minted in Boston from 1652 to 1662.
Successful BST transactions with: SilverEagles92; Ahrensdad; Smitty; GregHansen; Lablade; Mercury10c; copperflopper; whatsup; KISHU1; scrapman1077, crispy, canadanz, smallchange, robkool, Mission16, ranshdow, ibzman350, Fallguy, Collectorcoins, SurfinxHI, jwitten, Walkerguy21D, dsessom.
Here’s what the Red Book says, which is consistent with other sources I’ve encountered.
They were the first coins authorized by royal patent for use here, struck in 1688 and restruck in 1828 from original dies. They were originally struck in tin. They show James II on horseback. The denomination is 1/24 real (hence they were coins , although most of us think of them as tokens) the real being the most common coinage standard in the colonies at the time. Originals are very scarce, restrikes are much more attainable. All were struck in England.
I can find no evidence that they made it here and since they were made of tin, they would not have been a success nor popular (my guess) as they blacken quickly (tin pest) and are an odd denomination. I read elsewhere that they were minted solely due to the influence of tin miners in England, which further suggests that these would not have had much commercial interest, if any (except to tin miners).
My interest, in addition to colonials in general, is in foreign coins that circulated in the colonies and later as legal tender. I almost bought one of the restrikes, but the more I learn about these, the more skeptical I am that these were ever used by our colonists.
PS. The more one learns about “colonials” the more examples one finds of coins and tokens that have been collected as colonials solely because of tradition, established in the 19th century I reckon. The most absurd example is the Mott token.
Very much so! The Franklin press tokens, Kentucky tokens, many of the George Washington tokens, all come to mind. I suppose these ones are included because of the American themes even though they had little relevance in terms of circulation. Then there are the London Elephant tokens, no American provenance. Interesting topic, I never gave a great deal of thought to the plantation tokens, guess I have to change that!
How about some basic details for those of us unfamiliar with the subject.
Is this what we're talking about?
The Google search I did turned up different information that what was posted earlier in this thread - that these are from 1688 and are made of tin.
There's a lengthy article about these tokens on the PCGS Coin Facts web site.
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 don’t know how many actually made it to the colonies, but I do believe they saw use in England. Which I say because every now and then a see a small group of mostly awful pieces turn up in London auctions, and they sort of smell like detectorist finds.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Many of the colonials that are listed in the Red Book are coins that because of their dates and the “stories” attached to them, such as the North American Token, Continental Dollars, much of Washingtonia, 1776 Massachusetts copper, 1776 New Hampshire copper, Franklin tokens, etc. IMHO, they are just stuff. Nova Constellatio’s are ok as they were used as undertypes on state copper such as Vermont’s and Connecticut’s.
This is so true. For every discussion of colonials (my top interest), there are 10,000 posts about the latest "2026 Mint Set" or "Independance Quarter" or whatever. Anyone know a messageboard where they talk about colonials?
(For the record, I own one of the 1828 restrikes, which I regret now, as it isn't that much more of a stretch to get an original, though they sure look worse)
I wonder when, if ever, all the silly stuff will at least cease to be included as “colonials” in the Red Book and elsewhere. I’ve collected Conder tokens that have more historical relevance.
BTW a case can certainly be made to include the subject coins/tokens in a colonial collection whether they made it here or not. The first coins authorized by royal patent for use in
America makes them historically relevant and interesting. The 1/24 real denomination is a great link to the Spanish dollar.
It’s one thing if people want to collect for instance, Franklin or Kentucky Tokens. It’s another thing to believe that they are colonials. They are not.