| Conteúdo do artigo |
- From joecoin@verizon.net Sat Jun 09 05:10:58 2007
Return-Path: <joecoin@verizon.net>
X-Sender: joecoin@verizon.net
X-Apparently-To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
Received: (qmail 46753 invoked from network); 9 Jun 2007 12:10:57 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.71)
by m41.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 9 Jun 2007 12:10:57 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO n29c.bullet.sp1.yahoo.com) (209.131.38.251)
by mta13.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 9 Jun 2007 12:10:57 -0000
Received: from [216.252.122.218] by n29.bullet.sp1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 09 Jun 2007 12:10:51 -0000
Received: from [66.218.69.5] by t3.bullet.sp1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 09 Jun 2007 12:10:51 -0000
Received: from [66.218.66.75] by t5.bullet.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 09 Jun 2007 12:10:51 -0000
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2007 12:10:50 -0000
To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
Message-ID: <f4e5ca+n39i@eGroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <46698E0F.CA82DE66@Comcast.net>
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: 209.131.38.251
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=9ms4ePZExuAMMJmlIVPzWZi5M8dxCrxmLp0BDvyNwZ3vkg
X-Yahoo-Profile: joecoin
Jim,
I'm not sure about Oliver, but I know I don't understand the taxonomy
of the word Colonial. Could you explain it for me please?
Joe
--- In colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com, JCSpilman/iMAC/HOME <CNLF@...>
wrote:
>
> Oliver obviously does not understand the taxonomy of the word
> colonial. Jim/CNLF
>=20
> John Louis wrote:
>=20
> > I thought the Vikings settled in Minnesota!jwl
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Oliver D. Hoover
> > To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
> > 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
> > made for the Vineland settlement as a medieval
> > colonial experiment,
> > but I don't know what the status of Vineland was
> > vis-a-vis the
> > Scandinavian kings. There is nothing colonial about
> > the Asian
> > migrations into North America in the Prehistoric
> > period.
> >
> > David, No mints, but I think that there was supposed
> > to have been a
> > Viking coin find from Vineland. I could be mistaken
> > though.
> >
> > Oliver
> >
> > On 7-Jun-07, at 10:48 PM, palmers4@... wrote:
> >
> > > It must be because we have no evidence of a mint
> > being set up by
> > > 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'
> > > used to
> > > refer to any activity in North America earlier than
> > 1492 (but I
> > > haven't
> > > read much about the Viking invasion). I was also
> > under the
> > > impression that
> > > crossing the Bering strait was probably a long
> > enough and difficult
> > > enough
> > > journey that those doing it were leaving behind
> > their old land, not
> > > 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
> > >>> 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
> > >>> 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
> > >>> Columbia . .
> > >>> . and the Mint also after July 18, 1792 when the
> > government
> > >>> 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
> > >>> 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,
> > >>> medals
> > >>> and paper money issued from 1776 until 1793, as a
> > new and
> > >>> 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
> > >>> 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)
> > >>>>
> > >
|
|---|
