Should Conder Tokens really be classified as coins?

[Zoins]

I recently asked if Conder Tokens should really be classified as coins in the US Coins forum as part of a thread on US pioneer gold. The general responses were that Conder Tokens, Hard Times Tokens, Civil War Tokens and US Pioneer Gold should all be considered private "coins." Based on all the responses I'm thinking that I will start using "Conder Coins" instead of Conder Tokens.

 

What do world coin collectors think of classifying metal rounds that were used at many venues and accepted at face value but issued by private organizations such as Conder Tokens. Are these better classified as coins, albeit private coins, or tokens? Read the thread to get a number of thoughts on this issue.

[satootoko]

By definition a coin is issued by a govenmental authority, and a token is issued by a private enterprise.

 

A coin is issued for general use as money in all types of transaction, and a token is usually issued for limited use - subway tokens to pay subway fares, telephone tokens to pay telephone charges, etc.

 

Bottom line IMHO is that Conders, Hard Times, Civil War and other tokens are collectible tokens, not coins.

 

The fact that many people call them "coins" brings to mind the story told of Abe Lincoln, the lawyer: Reputedly he asked "If you call the tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have." When someone answered "five" he responded that "Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg - the dog still has only four."

 

(A very wise man, our 16th President.)

[Zoins]

By definition a coin is issued by a govenmental authority, and a token is issued by a private enterprise.

Which definition are you referring to? Wikipedia says coins are "most often issued by a government" which indicates that occasionally they are not. Yes, I know Wikipedia may not be considered an authoritative source all the time. If it remains an issue, calling these items "private(ly-issued) coins" would probably get around any definition requiring coins to be issued by a governmental authority if there is an authoritative definition for this.

A coin is issued for general use as money in all types of transaction, and a token is usually issued for limited use - subway tokens to pay subway fares, telephone tokens to pay telephone charges, etc.

This is the argument used in the other thread to categorize Conders, Hard Times and Civil War metal rounds as coins because those were issued for general use and not just for a specific, limited purpose. Were Conders only recognized for use in a specific situation, e.g. transportation fares? I was under the impression that Conders were issued and used as general money in all types of transactions due to their weight and composition. Is this incorrect?

[DC Dawg]

By definition a coin is issued by a govenmental authority, and a token is issued by a private enterprise.

Which definition are you referring to? Wikipedia says coins are "most often issued by a government" which indicates that occasionally they are not. Yes, I know Wikipedia may not be considered an authoritative source all the time. If it remains an issue, calling these items "private(ly-issued) coins" would probably get around any definition requiring coins to be issued by a governmental authority if there is an authoritative definition for this.

What muddies the waters on this are the private mints that strikes coins on behalf of countries. For example, the Pobjoy Mint is a private corporation but they mint cost for the Isle of Man, British Virgin Islands, Sierra Leone, Liberia, and others I can't remember at the moment. Then again, they do this under the authority of those governments.

 

OTOH, then there are those two famous corporations of the British crown: the British Royal Mint and the Royal Canadian Mint. Technically, they are not government entities nor are they truely authorized by the government. But they are authorized by the crown to produce money for these members of the Commonwealth Realm. But this goes to the strangeness of constitutional monarchies that wreaks havoc with conventional definitions.

 

A coin is issued for general use as money in all types of transaction, and a token is usually issued for limited use - subway tokens to pay subway fares, telephone tokens to pay telephone charges, etc.

This is the argument used in the other thread to categorize Conders, Hard Times and Civil War metal rounds as coins because those were issued for general use and not just for a specific, limited purpose. Were Conders only recognized for use in a specific situation, e.g. transportation fares? I was under the impression that Conders were issued and used as general money in all types of transactions due to their weight and composition. Is this incorrect?

According to this article Conder tokens were originally issued for general circulatation in the areas of the Parys Mining Company in Whales since almost no royal money was found in that area. They were supposed to be redeemable for regal currency, but b]rarely were. Conders, like Hard Times and Civil War tokens, were issued to fill a need for something to circulate in commerce. So maybe the limited issue was not for a specific function but for a specific area, municipality or province?

 

BTW: Municipal tokens are still a popular way to promote commerce within cities and towns in Canada. They may be issued by the local business authority (a non-government organization) such as a Chamber of Commerce or a business district association. They can also be issued by a local government. However, since they are not a coining authority, these issues are considered tokens. Their usage is limited to those areas and the merchants who will accept them as payment.

 

I hope this helps.

 

Scott

[Zoins]

So maybe the limited issue was not for a specific function but for a specific area, municipality or province?

But aren't government-issued/authorized coins also for a specific area, a country in this case?

 

In the old days, a coin was a coin because of the metals content. These days, debased coins are similar to paper currency in that you have to rely on the issuing authority whether it is a Chamber of Commerce or a Country. Wikipedia's Coins page says:

To distinguish between these two types of coins, as well as from other forms of tokens which have been used as money, some monetary scholars have attempted to define by three criteria that an object must meet to be a "true coin".[citation needed] These criteria are:

 

1. It must be made of a valuable material, and trade for close to the market value of that material.

2. It must be of a standardized weight and purity.

3. It must be marked to identify the authority that guarantees the content.

Using the above, it seems that modern debased coins may be better classified as tokens because they don't satisfy requirement #1

BTW: Municipal tokens are still a popular way to promote commerce within cities and towns in Canada. They may be issued by the local business authority (a non-government organization) such as a Chamber of Commerce or a business district association. They can also be issued by a local government. However, since they are not a coining authority, these issues are considered tokens. Their usage is limited to those areas and the merchants who will accept them as payment.

Although they are considered tokens, are they better classified as coins by their usage?

[Conder101]

To distinguish between these two types of coins, as well as from other forms of tokens which have been used as money, some monetary scholars have attempted to define by three criteria that an object must meet to be a "true coin".[citation needed] These criteria are:

 

1. It must be made of a valuable material, and trade for close to the market value of that material.

2. It must be of a standardized weight and purity.

3. It must be marked to identify the authority that guarantees the content.

The first Conders were made of pure copper (a valuable material, with intrinsic value since it is useful in and of itself for many purposes.), they were usually struck to the official Tower Mint standard of 46 to the pound of copper, some were even heavier, and the early tokens were normally marked with the name of the company or merchant who issued them or where they could be redeemed. So they fulfill those three requirements (Of course later some merchants began issuing lighter weight pieces or even anonymous issues that had no place of redemption listed.)

[cladking]

So maybe the limited issue was not for a specific function but for a specific area, municipality or province?

But aren't government-issued/authorized coins also for a specific area, a country in this case?

 

In the old days, a coin was a coin because of the metals content. These days, debased coins are similar to paper currency in that you have to rely on the issuing authority whether it is a Chamber of Commerce or a Country. Wikipedia's Coins page says:

To distinguish between these two types of coins, as well as from other forms of tokens which have been used as money, some monetary scholars have attempted to define by three criteria that an object must meet to be a "true coin".[citation needed] These criteria are:

 

1. It must be made of a valuable material, and trade for close to the market value of that material.

2. It must be of a standardized weight and purity.

3. It must be marked to identify the authority that guarantees the content.

Using the above, it seems that modern debased coins may be better classified as tokens because they don't satisfy requirement #1

BTW: Municipal tokens are still a popular way to promote commerce within cities and towns in Canada. They may be issued by the local business authority (a non-government organization) such as a Chamber of Commerce or a business district association. They can also be issued by a local government. However, since they are not a coining authority, these issues are considered tokens. Their usage is limited to those areas and the merchants who will accept them as payment.

Although they are considered tokens, are they better classified as coins by their usage?

 

 

The wikipedia article is poorly written and thought out. Worse it was written by a modern basher who didn't care what contortions of the language were necessary in order to do it. Defining a coin this way though does accomplish the major objective which was to denounce every coin made since 1965. But as I stated before the rise in copper and nickel prices such a definition leads to other contortions than only ones thinking. It leads to some dates of a series being coins and others being tokens. For instance a 1932-S quarter was a token while a 2006 one cent coin (with a negative real value) is a coin. You can go back all through numismatics and find the same forces and factors affecting the coinage.

 

Initially all coinage was gold or electrum and everything since has been a debasement of that. The simple fact is that all governments eventually tax by taking it right out of the money itself. That doesn't mean it isn't money any longer. Even after they've taxed the very last pfennig or filler out of the currency the now worthless coins and paper can still have collector value. The author probably believes such coins evaporate.

[cladking]

A real definition for coin which doesn't involve mental gymnastics or stifle communication would be a currency (usually metallic) which is issued by a government as money and for circulation.

 

Of course each of the terms in this definition have a spectrum of definition. One could argue that companies have some of the attributes of government so that issues made by them that fullfill the other defining characteristics are, to that degree, coins. One could claim that issues which don't circulate, like an 1883 w/o C's US 5c piece, is not a coin since it didn't circulate freely, or at least is not a coin to the degree it didn't circulate. A good case could be made that a 2006 cent isn't a coin because of its negative value and propensity to go straight to landfill. But one can't really make a good case that a 1932-S or 1998-D quarter aren't coins unless one is quite mad.

[Zoins]

A real definition for coin which doesn't involve mental gymnastics or stifle communication would be a currency (usually metallic) which is issued by a government as money and for circulation.

 

Of course each of the terms in this definition have a spectrum of definition. One could argue that companies have some of the attributes of government so that issues made by them that fullfill the other defining characteristics are, to that degree, coins. One could claim that issues which don't circulate, like an 1883 w/o C's US 5c piece, is not a coin since it didn't circulate freely, or at least is not a coin to the degree it didn't circulate. A good case could be made that a 2006 cent isn't a coin because of its negative value and propensity to go straight to landfill. But one can't really make a good case that a 1932-S or 1998-D quarter aren't coins unless one is quite mad.

It seems that just about everyone has taken exception to the government requirement in the pioneer gold version of this thread so perhaps government should not be used in a "real definition" because it would involve mental gymnastics. I don't think the US pioneer gold issuers can be considered governments unless one is quite mad

 

Now I'm thinking the pioneer gold version of this thread should have been placed in the tangents area first. Perhaps it would be better to unify the discussions in the tangents area because some of the responses here are quite different than the responses in the other thread.