| 文章內容 |
- From CNLF@Comcast.net Thu Jun 07 12:01:29 2007
Return-Path: <jcspilman1@comcast.net>
X-Sender: jcspilman1@comcast.net
X-Apparently-To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
Received: (qmail 26868 invoked from network); 7 Jun 2007 19:01:18 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.67.36)
by m44.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 7 Jun 2007 19:01:18 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO alnrmhc14.comcast.net) (204.127.225.94)
by mta10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Jun 2007 19:01:17 -0000
Received: from [192.168.1.103] (c-68-62-208-189.hsd1.al.comcast.net[68.62.208.189])
by comcast.net (alnrmhc14) with SMTP
id <20070607185834b14003vlkke>; Thu, 7 Jun 2007 18:58:34 +0000
In-Reply-To: <46684BA4.2D334FB@Comcast.net>
References: <18cd01c7a914$f7eb46e0$f2fea8c0@DIANEJ33YVI95P> <f49avc+in55@eGroups.com> <6B3EB9083A87C2498417028A5A46BC560134689A@ECLUST2-VS4.adsroot.itcs.umich.edu> <46684BA4.2D334FB@Comcast.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-5-1072049556
Message-Id: <E3C651C4-D9CB-41EE-B286-BD8762852711@comcast.net>
Cc: cnlf@comcast.net
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 13:58:32 -0500
To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3)
X-Originating-IP: 204.127.225.94
X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:0:0:0
X-eGroups-From: James Spilman <jcspilman1@comcast.net>
From: James Spilman <CNLF@Comcast.net>
Subject: Re: [Colonial Numismatics] Re: What is a Colonial Coin?
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=166193415; y=zkzibtwKIfU_loomAEtpsPi-j9VrTxW4T0fCLp1l6Q_cigG3j7g
X-Yahoo-Profile: shamus12017
--Apple-Mail-5-1072049556
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=UTF-8;
delsp=yes;
format=flowed
Dan, et al --
The specific listings at the Notre Dame website will be found at:
http://www.coins.nd.edu/ColCoin/ColCoinContents/Contents12.html
Jim/CNLF
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
On Jun 7, 2007, at 1:17 PM, JCSpilman/iMAC/HOME wrote:
> Dan --
> The categorization of time spans and terminology is neatly spelled=20=20
> out in Dr. Jordan's Notre Dame "Colonial" (Early American)=20=20
> website. I find nothing in his systemization to object to. Draw=20=20
> this categorization as an organization chart and you will find that=20=20
> it is, generally, all inclusive,
>
> The misnomer "colonial" has long been recognized as an "era" prior=20=20
> to the Paris Treaty of 1783 and even extends back in time to man's=20=20
> first entry into the North American continent (from Asia).=20=20=20
> Colonial is a very broad categorization indicating only a Colony of=20=20
> some remote Mother Country, it may, or may not, extend to several=20=20
> intervals of time, as well as changes between one Mother Country=20=20
> and some other.
>
> Remember the political phrase "Keep it simple, stupid" <bg>
>
> Jim/CNLF
>
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D
>
> "Freidus, Daniel" wrote:
>> I=E2=80=99ve seen many historians use dates other than 1776 to divide =
=20
>> eras. It=E2=80=99s not uncommon to see 1764-1783 or 1789 listed as the =
=20
>> Revolutionary period. Do we put Continental currency from 1775 in=20=20
>> a different category than that from 1776 (which still said=20=20
>> =E2=80=9CUnited Colonies=E2=80=9D) or that from, say, 1778 (by which tim=
e it=20=20
>> said =E2=80=9CUnited States=E2=80=9D)?For most purposes, historians use =
either=20=20
>> 1783 or 1789 as the beginning of the next phase for our nation=20=20
>> <Well, most of ours, Oliver ;) >. I generally prefer 1789 because=20=20
>> I see the ratification as the end of the process of declaring=20=20
>> independence (the Bill of Rights was tweaking, even if they are=20=20
>> quite important). For coinage, I think pre-1764, 1764-1789, and=20=20
>> post-1789 work quite well. For paper money and many fiscal issues=20=20
>> you could argue that the Revolutionary period goes on a bit beyond=20=20
>> 1789 but I don=E2=80=99t think that diminishes the usefulness of seeing =
=20
>> early American numismatics as 3 eras: Colonial, Revolutionary, and=20=20
>> Federal.
>> Just because Fugios were made for the federal government doesn=E2=80=99t=
=20=20
>> put them in the Federal era. They were an experiment by a=20=20
>> government still being formed. Large cents are different (and=20=20
>> that=E2=80=99s why I no longer collect them=E2=80=A6).
>>
>> Dan
>>
>> From:colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com [mailto:colonial-=20
>> coins@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John N. Lupia
>>
>> Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 12:16 PM
>> To:colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
>> Subject: [Colonial Numismatics] Re: What is a Colonial Coin?
>> Hi Ray:
>> I think you misread me. I agree the name C4 is here to stay. The
>> distinction I am making is a more precise definition of the scope of
>> the subject matter of colonial numismatics under the banner of C4.
>>
>> To continue keeping Early Federal Coinage minted 1776-1792 under the
>> C4 banner will continue the confusion, lack of clarity, and the
>> perception of the whole as a jumbled mess.
>>
>> I realize your affections for Early Federal coinages, especially New
>> Jersey cents, wants you to keep them as C4 subject matter. But for=20=20
>> the
>> sake of the subject matter as well as for the good of the larger
>> collecting community, the American community at large, newcomers to
>> the field, students, and so on, to put them under the proper=20=20
>> banner is
>> for a greater good than could ever be accomplished by keeping the
>> status quo.
>>
>> Most of us already are members of more than one numismatic society or
>> association, so here is one more for us to join.
>>
>> EAC wont take the subject matter back as we all suspect since they
>> have specialized so intensely on Early US cents and half cents
>> 1793-1857 showing signs of no other interest.
>>
>> But, I think my purpose goes way beyond the things mentioned here.
>> These Early Federal coinages we all love and have such a fascination
>> and interest in are not properly focused as Federal coinages and
>> obviously they cannot be Pre-Mint.
>>
>> We need to shatter the myth that the US Mint at Philadelphia=20=20
>> completed
>> by September 7, 1792 is the only real authentic mint of record as
>> defined by Frank Stewart in 1924. It appears not even to have been=20=20
>> the
>> first built with US government funds and operated by US government
>> staff. Robert Morris seems to have been the one under the=20=20
>> direction of
>> Congress to have done that.
>>
>> The early government wasted no time making plates to print paper=20=20
>> money
>> and strike coinages even in 1776, also having set up a US=20=20
>> treasury, US
>> Federal Reserve Depositories (Boston being one of the first), The
>> Nnational Bank system, and state charters for banks.
>>
>> A decade before the Philadelphia Mint, Robert Morris set up the first
>> bureau of engraving and mint in 1782, that has now since disappeared
>> without a trace, also probably located in NJ or in or near PA.
>>
>> But, after Morris' Mint dissolved (for reasons yet unclear to me) the
>> US Mint became itinerant just as the US Congress was itinerant until
>> it settled down in a physical building in the District of=20=20
>> Columbia . .
>> . and the Mint also after July 18, 1792 when the government purchased
>> lot 37 and 39 North Seventh Street and 631 Filbert Street,=20=20
>> Philadelphia.
>>
>> It seems as though the early nascent government saw a more practical
>> application in being itinerant at that time, not only with Congress
>> but with the branch of the US Treasury outsourcing US Mints and
>> coiners, probably explaining why they dissolved what Morris had
>> started for Congress in 1782.
>>
>> As you well know the US Mint formed by private contractors was very
>> functional in Rahway and Morristown, NJ, 15 years before David
>> Rittenhouse ran the new one at Philadelphia. In fact the old Rahway
>> coin press was sold to the new plant by the old coiner's widow.
>>
>> The other Early Federal Mints coined in New York, also, an outside
>> contractor at Vermont, etc. These were all necessarily US Federal
>> Mints, albeit though outsourced under contract coiners who used their
>> own equipment and physical plants. Since the executive government had
>> already empowered Congress with the exclusive right to coin, ipso
>> facto, all the post 1776 American minted coins are Early Federal
>> issues, just as the paper money was too.
>>
>> New Jersey coppers are US coinage struck at the Early Federal
>> outsourced Mints located in Rahway and Morristown, NJ. They were
>> private contractors, coiners hired by the state legislature acting
>> under the direction and guidance of the US Congress -- who alone had
>> exclusive executive authority to order coinage with supreme control
>> over it.
>>
>> Keeping this under the banner of C4 is not only clouding the issues
>> but keeping it out of focus and not doing the subject matter the
>> justice it rightly deserves.
>>
>> American History textbooks do not even have it straight. The Red Book
>> is so messed up it contributes to the chaos and status quo.
>>
>> I would like to either be on the board of editors to revamp the Red
>> Book or else find a publisher willing to make a new US Coin Guide
>> Book, or else beyond that, find others willing to start-up a new
>> company and produce it ourselves.
>>
>> C4 is here to stay, Ray. Nobody wants to see C4 do anything but
>> flourish -- but focused on its proper subject matter, not that which
>> is not part of it at all.
>>
>> In order for our understanding and appreciation of Early Federal
>> history, financing, banking, and so on to advance in our minds and
>> hearts C4 is surely big enough to let it go off on its own; like a
>> mature parent who sees its child grown big enough to go out into the
>> world and make it independently.
>>
>> For the good of US Economic History I propose that a new Society of
>> Early American Numismatics (SEAN) focuses on research of coins,=20=20
>> medals
>> and paper money issued from 1776 until 1793, as a new and independent
>> organization to advance the science of Early American Federal=20=20
>> Numismatics.
>>
>> Keep smiling,
>> John
>>
>> --- In colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com, Ray Williams <njraywms@...>=20=20
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > That was well thought out John. I believe the C4 name is here to
>> stay, even if it may be technically inaccurate in many instances. I
>> think that "Pre-Federal" or "Pre-Mint" more accurately describes what
>> we collect and the areas in which we specialize. There are some coins
>> that we include out of tradition, that don't fit the parameters of
>> "Pre-Federal" or "Pre-Mint", but that's okay. Some even call thos
>> Canadian things made by Blacksmiths as "Colonial"! <BG> But they
>> were colonial for Canada... just not 18th Century products. This is
>> always an interesting topic, especially when I can get David Palmer
>> involved somehow... <s>
>> > Ray
>> >
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: John Lupia
>> > To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
>> > Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 8:40 AM
>> > Subject: Re: [Colonial Numismatics] Re: What is a Colonial Coin?
>> >
>> >
>> > The 14 year experiment break from EAC with the
>> > emergence of the independent C-4 has done a fantastic
>> > job in perpetuating (unknowingly) Very Advanced EAC
>> > studies, and Very Advanced Colonial Numismatic
>> > Studies. C-4 deserves a round of applause for the
>> > enormous task of tackling the bulk of research the
>> > Large Cent people were not interested in pursuing.
>> >
>> > The grassroots EAC material of the earliest Federal
>> > Coinages has been the work of C4 members and the bulk
>> > of what has appeared in the CNL and C4 Newsletter.
>> > Kudos to all who did that work.
>> >
>> > Time has come to label the material properly
>> > classifying and categorizing them correctly as Early
>> > Federal Coinages, and separating them from what truly
>> > is Colonial Numismatics.
>> >
>> > The question is asked what is a colonial coin . .
>> > what I think is meant is what qualifies any coin to be
>> > properly classified as a colonial coin? Just about
>> > everyone on this list really knows this answer very
>> > well. All American minted coins minted prior to 1776
>> > and all coinages circulating in America as currency up
>> > to 1776. After 1776 all American minted coins are
>> > Early Federal Coinages and all other non American
>> > minted coinages circulating are now legally foreign
>> > currency with US Congress setting the value equal to
>> > USA value. Also, US colonial minted coins, i.e., coins
>> > minted in America prior to 1776 are the authentic US
>> > colonial coins that still circulated regularly up to
>> > about 1857. So we have Foreign Colonial Coins
>> > circulating in American, and American US Colonial
>> > coins. Now, this does not include the Republic of
>> > Vermont which was an independent nation from 1775 to
>> > 1791. Legally organized and renamed Vermont from
>> > January 15-June 8,1777. All Vermont colonials remain
>> > American colonial coins. Vermont became the 14th state
>> > in 1791.
>> >
>> > Now for some more good news the economic status of all
>> > Early Federal coin and currency issues will go soaring
>> > through the glass ceiling once public perception sees
>> > clarity out of the confusion.
>> >
>> > Up until now colonial numismatics including currency
>> > has attracted few comparatively as a market share
>> > within all of American numismatics. Why? People find
>> > the genre confusing, blurry, a jumbled mess, and fear
>> > to go there since it comes off too complicated not
>> > clear or understood what it really is and reluctance
>> > to invest money into something they do not properly
>> > understand.
>> >
>> > Once the clarity rings into public perception what
>> > state coinages really are -- the earliest Federal
>> > coinages issued by US Congress and ratified through
>> > each state legislature -- where the Congress was being
>> > held in that state that year -- simultaneously
>> > together with paper currency of issue-- pouring
>> > coinage and paper money into each state treasury and
>> > into the National Bank of North America, . . .
>> > collectors and dealers will see values triple, and
>> > then, finally reach the point of being untouchable.
>> >
>> > So EAC and C4 need to reevaluate and perhaps form a
>> > third organization of Early Federal Numismatics that
>> > deals with coin and currency that historically we
>> > received from the 19th century numismatists who passed
>> > it onto us through their literature as colonials. I
>> > suggest naming it the Society of Early American
>> > Numismatics (SEAN)
>> >
>> > Historical chronology of each group's specialty in
>> > subject matter
>> >
>> > Colonial Numismatics (C4)
>> > Early Federal Numismatics (SEAN)
>> > Early American Standard Issues (EAC)
>> >
>> > John
>> >
>> > --- Joe Schell <joecoin@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Here's a good definition of "Colonial":
>> > >
>> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial
>> > >
>> > > If you are attempting to determine what coins should
>> > > be included in a
>> > > North American Colonial type set, then I would say
>> > > any locally
>> > > circulating coin issued by a nation or entity that
>> > > did not have the
>> > > North American land that it controlled directly
>> > > incorporated into its
>> > > homeland should be included.
>> > >
>> > > Canadian tokens, bungtowns, store cards etc.
>> > >
>> > > Joe
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --- In colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff Lipsky"
>> > > <jhlipsky@> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > I have changed the subject line to continue this
>> > > discussion John Lupia
>> > > > and others have begun. I have an expansive view of
>> > > what I consider
>> > > > Colonial related. That is, I start with every
>> > > thing in the Red Book
>> > > > section then go to foreign coins circulating in
>> > > the colonies. I collect
>> > > > British from George the third back, French of the
>> > > period, Spanish
>> > > > Colonial, and any thing else with a remote chance
>> > > to have circulated.
>> > > > From there I collect Hawaiian coinage and I even
>> > > have a set of
>> > > > Alaskan "Bingles." The Red Book says "These tokens
>> > > were issued by the
>> > > > U.S. Government for for the use of the colonists
>> > > of the Matanuska
>> > > > Valley Colonization Project" that's close enough
>> > > to Colonial for me.
>> > > > -Jeff Lipsky
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> > John N. Lupia, III
>> > Beachwood, New Jersey08722USA;Beirut, Lebanon
>> > Fax: (732) 349-3910
>> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Roman-Catholic-News/
>> > God Bless Everyone
>> >
>> > __________________________________________________________
>> > Don't pick lemons.
>> > See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.
>> > http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html
>> >
>>
>>=20
>
--Apple-Mail-5-1072049556
Content-Type: multipart/related;
type="text/html";
boundary=Apple-Mail-6-1072049557
--Apple-Mail-6-1072049557
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=WINDOWS-1252
<HTML><BODY style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space; -khtml=
-line-break: after-white-space; "><DIV>Dan, et al --</DIV><DIV><BR class=3D=
"khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>The specific listings at the Notre Dam=
e website will be found at:</DIV><DIV><BR class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder"=
></DIV><DIV>=A0 =A0<A href=3D"http://www.coins.nd.edu/ColCoin/ColCoinConten=
ts/Contents12.html">http://www.coins.nd.edu/ColCoin/ColCoinContents/Content=
s12.html</A></DIV><DIV><BR class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>Jim=
/CNLF</DIV><DIV><BR class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D</DIV><DIV><BR class=3D"=
khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><BR><DIV><DIV>On Jun 7, 2007, at 1:17 PM, JC=
Spilman/iMAC/HOME wrote:</DIV><BR class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><BLOC=
KQUOTE type=3D"cite"><SPAN class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"border-colla=
pse: separate; border-spacing: 0px 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: H=
elvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-w=
eight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: aut=
o; -khtml-text-decorations-in-effect: none; text-indent: 0px; -apple-text-s=
ize-adjust: auto; text-transform: none; orphans: 2; white-space: normal; wi=
dows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; ">Dan --<P style=3D"font-family: Times New Roma=
n; font-size: 16px; "><SPAN class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"font-family=
: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; ">The categorization of time spans and =
terminology is neatly spelled out in Dr. Jordan's Notre Dame "Colonial" (Ea=
rly American) website.=A0 I find nothing in his systemization to object to.=
=A0 Draw this categorization as an organization chart and you will find tha=
t it is, generally, all inclusive,</SPAN></P><P style=3D"font-family: Times=
New Roman; font-size: 16px; "><SPAN class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"fo=
nt-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; ">The misnomer "colonial" has =
long been recognized as an "era" prior to the Paris Treaty of 1783 and even=
extends back in time to man's first entry into the North American continen=
t (from Asia).=A0 Colonial is a very broad categorization indicating only a=
Colony of some remote Mother Country, it may, or may not, extend to severa=
l intervals of time, as well as changes between one Mother Country and some=
other.</SPAN></P><P style=3D"font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px=
; "><SPAN class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"font-family: Times New Roman;=
font-size: 16px; ">Remember the political phrase "Keep it simple, stupid"=
=A0 <bg></SPAN></P><P style=3D"font-family: Times New Roman; font-siz=
e: 16px; "><SPAN class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"font-family: Times New=
Roman; font-size: 16px; ">Jim/CNLF</SPAN></P><P style=3D"font-family: Time=
s New Roman; font-size: 16px; "><SPAN class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"f=
ont-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; ">=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D</SPAN></P><P style=
=3D"font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; "><SPAN class=3D"Apple-s=
tyle-span" style=3D"font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; ">"Freid=
us, Daniel" wrote:</SPAN></P><BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"CITE"><O:SMARTTAGTYPE name=
spaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name=3D"PostalCode"=
><O:SMARTTAGTYPE namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags=
" name=3D"Street"><O:SMARTTAGTYPE namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com=
:office:smarttags" name=3D"country-region"><O:SMARTTAGTYPE namespaceuri=3D"=
urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name=3D"City"><O:SMARTTAGTYPE n=
amespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name=3D"address"=
><O:SMARTTAGTYPE namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags=
" name=3D"place"><O:SMARTTAGTYPE namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:=
office:smarttags" name=3D"State"><O:SMARTTAGTYPE namespaceuri=3D"urn:schema=
s-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name=3D"PersonName"><SPAN class=3D"Apple-=
style-span" style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 221); "></SPAN><SPAN class=3D"Apple-s=
tyle-span" style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 221); "></SPAN><DIV class=3D"Section1"=
><SPAN style=3D"font-size:12.0pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 221); font-size: 16px; "=
><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman"><FONT size=3D"+0"><SPAN class=3D"Apple-styl=
e-span" style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 221); font-family: Times New Roman; ">I=
=92ve seen many historians use dates other than 1776 to divide eras.=A0 It=
=92s not uncommon to see 1764-1783 or 1789 listed as the Revolutionary peri=
od. Do we put Continental currency from 1775 in a different category than t=
hat from 1776 (which still said =93United Colonies=94) or that from, say, 1=
778 (by which time it said =93</SPAN><ST1:PLACE w:st=3D"on"><ST1:COUNTRY-RE=
GION w:st=3D"on"><SPAN class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0,=
221); font-family: Times New Roman; ">United States</SPAN></ST1:COUNTRY-RE=
GION></ST1:PLACE><SPAN class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0,=
221); font-family: Times New Roman; ">=94)?</SPAN></FONT></FONT><O:P style=
=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 221); font-size: 16px; "></O:P></SPAN><SPAN style=3D"f=
ont-size:12.0pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 221); font-size: 16px; "><FONT face=3D"Ti=
mes New Roman"><FONT size=3D"+0"><SPAN class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"=
color: rgb(0, 0, 221); font-family: Times New Roman; ">For most purposes, h=
istorians use either 1783 or 1789 as the beginning of the next phase for ou=
r nation <Well, most of ours, Oliver ;) >. I generally prefer 1789 be=
cause I see the ratification as the end of the process of declaring indepen=
dence (the Bill of Rights was tweaking, even if they are quite important).=
=A0=A0 For coinage, I think pre-1764, 1764-1789, and post-1789 work quite w=
ell.=A0 For paper money and many fiscal issues you could argue that the Rev=
olutionary period goes on a bit beyond 1789 but I don=92t think that dimini=
shes the usefulness of seeing early American numismatics as 3 eras: Colonia=
l, Revolutionary, and Federal.=A0</SPAN></FONT></FONT><O:P style=3D"color: =
rgb(0, 0, 221); font-size: 16px; "></O:P></SPAN><SPAN class=3D"Apple-style-=
span" style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 221); "></SPAN><P style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0,=
221); font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; "><SPAN style=3D"font=
-size:12.0pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 221); font-family: Times New Roman; font-siz=
e: 16px; "><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman"><FONT size=3D"+0"><SPAN class=3D"=
Apple-style-span" style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 221); font-family: Times New Ro=
man; ">Just because Fugios were made for the federal government doesn=92t p=
ut them in the Federal era. They were an experiment by a government still b=
eing formed.=A0 Large cents are different (and that=92s why I no longer col=
lect them=85).</SPAN></FONT></FONT><O:P style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 221); fon=
t-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; ">
|
|---|
