| 文章內容 |
- From johnwlouis@comcast.net Fri Jun 08 09:15:39 2007
Return-Path: <johnwlouis@comcast.net>
X-Sender: johnwlouis@comcast.net
X-Apparently-To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
Received: (qmail 75989 invoked from network); 8 Jun 2007 16:14:13 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.67.34)
by m44.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 8 Jun 2007 16:14:13 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO sccrmhc13.comcast.net) (204.127.200.83)
by mta8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Jun 2007 16:14:13 -0000
Received: from jwlouis (c-71-225-199-42.hsd1.nj.comcast.net[71.225.199.42])
by comcast.net (sccrmhc13) with SMTP
id <2007060816072401300iujgte>; Fri, 8 Jun 2007 16:07:24 +0000
Message-ID: <001501c7a9e7$137eb900$6602a8c0@JWLouis>
To: <colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com>
References: <380-2200765824818380@M2W040.mail2web.com> <1BD99E93-87A8-4ADE-8F8B-240081710A7B@sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 12:07:12 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0012_01C7A9C5.8C14E6E0"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028
X-Originating-IP: 204.127.200.83
X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:0:0:0
From: "John Louis" <johnwlouis@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: [Colonial Numismatics] Re: What is a Colonial Coin?
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=251832052; y=WxkaZp_7-u9SGBiKnVjxiBbiLODp17PtDYmScj_7h9LCZGqs
X-Yahoo-Profile: j33digger
------=_NextPart_000_0012_01C7A9C5.8C14E6E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I thought the Vikings settled in Minnesota!
jwl
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Oliver D. Hoover=20
To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com=20
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 10:13 AM
Subject: Re: [Colonial Numismatics] Re: What is a Colonial Coin?
Dan and David,
I had forgotten about the Vikings. I suppose some argument could be=20
made for the Vineland settlement as a medieval colonial experiment,=20
but I don't know what the status of Vineland was vis-a-vis the=20
Scandinavian kings. There is nothing colonial about the Asian=20
migrations into North America in the Prehistoric period.
David, No mints, but I think that there was supposed to have been a=20
Viking coin find from Vineland. I could be mistaken though.
Oliver
On 7-Jun-07, at 10:48 PM, palmers4@erols.com wrote:
> It must be because we have no evidence of a mint being set up by=20
> either the
> Asian invasion, or the Vikings. David
>
> Original Message:
> -----------------
> From: Freidus, Daniel freidus@umich.edu
> Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 22:35:59 -0400
> To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [Colonial Numismatics] Re: What is a Colonial Coin?
>
>
> Yes, Oliver, I don't recall ever having seen the term 'colonial'=20
> used to
> refer to any activity in North America earlier than 1492 (but I=20
> haven't
> read much about the Viking invasion). I was also under the=20
> impression that
> crossing the Bering strait was probably a long enough and difficult=20
> enough
> journey that those doing it were leaving behind their old land, not=20
> staying
> in touch.
>
> Dan
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Oliver D. Hoover
> Sent: Thu 6/7/2007 9:05 PM
> To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Colonial Numismatics] Re: What is a Colonial Coin?
>
> Jim,
>
> I would be interested to know who uses the term "Colonial" to refer
> to the migrants from the Asian continent to North America in the
> Prehistoric period who later became the Native peoples of the
> Americas. This seems like quite a stretch as the prehistoric peoples
> who crossed the Bering Strait are not likely to have maintained
> political and economic ties with their Asian homeland. Is not
> dependence on the Mother Country a colonial requirement by definition?
>
> Oliver
>
> On 7-Jun-07, at 2:17 PM, JCSpilman/iMAC/HOME wrote:
>
>> Dan --
>> The categorization of time spans and terminology is neatly spelled
>> out in Dr. Jordan's Notre Dame "Colonial" (Early American)
>> website. I find nothing in his systemization to object to. Draw
>> this categorization as an organization chart and you will find that
>> it is, generally, all inclusive,
>>
>> 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 continent (from Asia).
>> Colonial is a very broad categorization indicating only a Colony of
>> some remote Mother Country, it may, or may not, extend to several
>> intervals of time, as well as changes between one Mother Country
>> 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've seen many historians use dates other than 1776 to divide
>>> eras. It's not uncommon to see 1764-1783 or 1789 listed as the
>>> Revolutionary period. Do we put Continental currency from 1775 in
>>> a different category than that from 1776 (which still said "United
>>> Colonies") or that from, say, 1778 (by which time it said "United
>>> States")?For most purposes, historians use either 1783 or 1789 as
>>> the beginning of the next phase for our nation <Well, most of
>>> ours, Oliver ;) >. I generally prefer 1789 because I see the
>>> ratification as the end of the process of declaring independence
>>> (the Bill of Rights was tweaking, even if they are quite
>>> important). For coinage, I think pre-1764, 1764-1789, and
>>> post-1789 work quite well. For paper money and many fiscal issues
>>> you could argue that the Revolutionary period goes on a bit beyond
>>> 1789 but I don't think that diminishes the usefulness of seeing
>>> early American numismatics as 3 eras: Colonial, Revolutionary, and
>>> Federal.
>>> Just because Fugios were made for the federal government doesn't
>>> put them in the Federal era. They were an experiment by a
>>> government still being formed. Large cents are different (and
>>> that's why I no longer collect them.).
>>>
>>> Dan
>>>
>>> From:colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com [mailto:colonial-
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> 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=20
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> the
>>> first built with US government funds and operated by US government
>>> staff. Robert Morris seems to have been the one under the
>>> direction of
>>> Congress to have done that.
>>>
>>> The early government wasted no time making plates to print paper
>>> money
>>> and strike coinages even in 1776, also having set up a US
>>> 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=20
>>> 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)=20
>>> the
>>> US Mint became itinerant just as the US Congress was itinerant until
>>> it settled down in a physical building in the District of
>>> Columbia . .
>>> . and the Mint also after July 18, 1792 when the government=20
>>> purchased
>>> lot 37 and 39 North Seventh Street and 631 Filbert Street,
>>> 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=20
>>> their
>>> own equipment and physical plants. Since the executive government=20
>>> 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=20
>>> 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,
>>> medals
>>> and paper money issued from 1776 until 1793, as a new and=20
>>> independent
>>> organization to advance the science of Early American Federal
>>> Numismatics.
>>>
>>> Keep smiling,
>>> John
>>>
>>> --- In colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com, Ray Williams <njraywms@...>
>>> 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=20
>>> what
>>> we collect and the areas in which we specialize. There are some=20
>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
=20=20=20
------=_NextPart_000_0012_01C7A9C5.8C14E6E0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.=
w3c.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/loose.dtd">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1"=
><!-- Network content -->
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.3086" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><STRONG>I thought the Vikings settled in=20
Minnesota!</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><STRONG>jwl</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LE=
FT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>Fro=
m:</B>=20
<A title=3Doliver.hoover@sympatico.ca=20
href=3D"mailto:oliver.hoover@sympatico.ca">Oliver D. Hoover</A> </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A=20
title=3Dcolonial-coins@yahoogroups.com=20
href=3D"mailto:colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com">colonial-coins@yahoogroups=
.com</A>=20
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, June 08, 2007 10:13=
=20
AM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Colonial Numismatics=
] Re:=20
What is a Colonial Coin?</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV id=3Dygrp-text>
<P>Dan and David,<BR><BR>I had forgotten about the Vikings. I suppose som=
e=20
argument could be <BR>made for the Vineland settlement as a medieval colo=
nial=20
experiment, <BR>but I don't know what the status of Vineland was vis-a-vi=
s the=20
<BR>Scandinavian kings. There is nothing colonial about the Asian=20
<BR>migrations into North America in the Prehistoric period.<BR><BR>David=
, No=20
mints, but I think that there was supposed to have been a <BR>Viking coin=
find=20
from Vineland. I could be mistaken though.<BR><BR>Oliver<BR><BR>On 7-Jun-=
07,=20
at 10:48 PM, <A href=3D"mailto:palmers4%40erols.com">palmers4@erols.<WBR>=
com</A>=20
wrote:<BR><BR>> It must be because we have no evidence of a mint being=
set=20
up by <BR>> either the<BR>> Asian invasion, or the Vikings.=20
David<BR>><BR>> Original Message:<BR>> ------------<WBR>-----<BR=
>>=20
From: Freidus, Daniel <A=20
href=3D"mailto:freidus%40umich.edu">freidus@umich.<WBR>edu</A><BR>> Da=
te:=20
Thu, 7 Jun 2007 22:35:59 -0400<BR>> To: <A=20
href=3D"mailto:colonial-coins%40yahoogroups.com">colonial-coins@<WBR>yaho=
ogroups.<WBR>com</A><BR>>=20
Subject: RE: [Colonial Numismatics] Re: What is a Colonial=20
Coin?<BR>><BR>><BR>> Yes, Oliver, I don't recall ever having see=
n the=20
term 'colonial' <BR>> used to<BR>> refer to any activity in North=20
America earlier than 1492 (but I <BR>> haven't<BR>> read much about=
the=20
Viking invasion). I was also under the <BR>> impression that<BR>>=20
crossing the Bering strait was probably a long enough and difficult <BR>&=
gt;=20
|
|---|
