| Contenu de l'article |
- From joecoin@verizon.net Fri Jun 08 18:13:15 2007
Return-Path: <joecoin@verizon.net>
X-Sender: joecoin@verizon.net
X-Apparently-To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
Received: (qmail 38835 invoked from network); 9 Jun 2007 01:13:15 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.70)
by m46.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 9 Jun 2007 01:13:15 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO n26c.bullet.scd.yahoo.com) (66.218.67.218)
by mta12.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 9 Jun 2007 01:13:14 -0000
Received: from [66.218.69.1] by n26.bullet.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 09 Jun 2007 01:13:01 -0000
Received: from [66.218.66.86] by t1.bullet.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 09 Jun 2007 01:13:01 -0000
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2007 01:13:01 -0000
To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
Message-ID: <f4cuqt+plok@eGroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <380-22007658164817577@M2W029.mail2web.com>
User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: groups-compose
X-Originating-IP: 66.218.67.218
X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:6:0:0
X-Yahoo-Post-IP: 70.106.184.88
From: "Joe Schell" <joecoin@verizon.net>
Subject: [Colonial Numismatics] Re: What is a Colonial Coin?
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=230536022; y=yKVw3mY7CFJFR28DYCEhp_WjAU5IuzW4S5O957Ik7GN74Q
X-Yahoo-Profile: joecoin
Here's another coin to add to the list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maine_Penny
--- In colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com, "palmers4@..." <palmers4@...>
wrote:
>
> John, You are talking AFTER the Confederation! Please keep up!<S> David
>=20
> Original Message:
> -----------------
> From: John Louis johnwlouis@...
> Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 12:07:12 -0400
> To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Colonial Numismatics] Re: What is a Colonial Coin?
>=20
>=20
> I thought the Vikings settled in Minnesota!
> jwl
>=20
> ----- 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?
>=20
>=20
> Dan and David,
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> Oliver
>=20
> On 7-Jun-07, at 10:48 PM, palmers4@... wrote:
>=20
> > 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@...
> > 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
>=20=20=20=20
>=20
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web LIVE =96 Free email based on Microsoft=AE Exchange technology -
> http://link.mail2web.com/LIVE
>
|
|---|
