Mrs. Newsham Conder Token • MS-64 RB

James Conder, with an 'e.' : )

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

That was a very naughty thing to do considering Lord Mansfield's 1772 ruling had declared slavery illegal in England (although not in the colonies). Not disputing it could have happened, but if she had wanted to, she could have challenged her status in a court of law, her so-called 'owners' wouldn't have had a leg to stand on and probably would have been in some serious trouble...

 

What copper coinage do you know of that was produced between 1760 and 1796?

Wow. With the government producing almost no small change in copper, that I know of, it was estimated that by the time the first Conder Tokens were struck in 1787 on Anglesey Island, up to 98% of all small change circulating was counterfeit and underweight. Some estimates said only about 75% was counterfeit, and the genuine copper coinage that existed was perhaps 30 years old in 1787.

What genuine coinage do you know of that was struck during those years from 1760-1796? I am no expert and know little about genuine British coinage. It doesn't interest me at all, except as it might relate to Conder Tokens. : )

I have read that King George III would not allow his likeness to appear on copper coinage. He 'allowed' Conders to circulate instead, as they appeared necessary in the absence of regal coinage. Other monarchs had felt the same way. I think a genuine copper coin would have been a real rarity during that 40-year period.

Matthew Boulton's major aim in applying steam power was to obtain the government contract to coin genuine regal coinage. He was apparently the only coiner to use steam power until the late 1790's. He and partner James Watt held the patent for steam engines and the only steam powered coin presses were in Boulton's Soho Mint. According to reports and books I have encountered, other coiners were still using screw presses.

 

I don't know who wrote that George III forbade his likeness from appearing on copper coinage, but they are talking nonsense (apart from anything else, despite popular American perception, George III was a constitutional monarch and wasn't in a position to stop the Government issuing coinage even if he had wanted to).
Copper coin production throughout the 18th century stopped and started according to whether there was a perceived need for it. There was a reasonably prolific issue of copper coinage (halfpennies and farthings) between 1770 and 1775, whereupon production stopped again (the RM didn't produce base metal coins in-house again until 1821). Following this, Britain was almost constantly at war with various people, and the government had other priorities, like trying to subdue the American colonies whilst also fending off the French, Spanish and Dutch. The only coins that were struck on a regular basis at this time were gold ones.
It also has to be remembered that at this time, the Royal Mint was only allowed to strike coins containing the legally required weight of metal bought at a fixed price, and once the market rose above this, making coin production unprofitable, the RM simply stopped making coins, and waited for a cheap supply of metal to come in (sometimes from bullion captured by privateers) to allow it to resume production.
For this reason, lower-denomination coin production, especially silver coinage, was often sporadic throughout the 18th century, not just during George III's reign. But for various reasons, the problem started to come to a head in the late 1780s...

Yes, I think perhaps another reason was that because coin production was so sporadic in the 18th century, the Royal Mint's ability to produce coins degraded through inactivity (loss of skilled workers, use of decrepit machinery etc), and it became more difficult for them to produce adequate quantaties of coins without making a loss. Because of efficiency savings through the use of steam power, Boulton was able to produce those impressive cartwheel issues at a lower cost than the Royal Mint despite the fact that Boulton was striking coins with a copper content very close to their intrinsic worth....

 

Wow, you have some beautiful Conder pieces here, and thanks for all the info. I'm just learning about these very interesting tokens, and have begun gathering some at the last few shows. Plus I got a few more at the Goldberg auction. They are truly stunning pieces of art in my opinion! Here are a few of mine....












Todd is currently photographing the Conders I won at the Goldberg auction, so I'll be posting those soon! But here's one of my favorites that I won from this auction: http://www.mkjassociates.com/cgi-bin/ilgvulot.pl?site=1&sale=57&lot=2

 

Spectacular coins

 

I'm not really much of a fan of tokens myself, but I do like the token pictured in this informative, if terribly misspelt article here:

http://www.24carat.co.uk/Britishtokencoins.html

I think this must be one of those produced specifically for collectors inspired by James Cond(e)r*

*Thanks for that LM....

 

Those are some spectacular examples in high grades, Penny Lady. You have quite a collection started. : )

I read the linked article, Prestoninanus, and I thank you for providing the link.

In the article, you probably noticed the reference to nobility holding base metal coinage in disdain. I can assure you that I did not make it up, and although I see your point, I have read in many articles that George III felt similarly. Of course, he was crazy. LOL

I'll be firing off an email to Chard tomorrow about the proper spelling of Conder.

 

Charmy - lovely tokens! You should tell Todd that he has the reverse picture upside down on your Warwickshire Birmingham 20. The cypher is "J K" ("K" being for Kempson). Also, you should blast NGC for leaving off the "H" in "D & H" on the label! NGC always screws these descriptions up.

 

Dan, thanks, I forgot Todd had already fixed that but I just hadn't gotten around to changing the one from my website. I edited my post to include the correct photo. And you are very observant about the NGC label!!! There are lots more Conders on my website, with many more to come. Aside from the ones I won in the Goldberg auction, I bought several more in Long Beach. Since my Indian set is almost complete, I have begun to focus my attention on Conders - I just love these tokens and can't get enough of them!

 

I know this is a very old thread, but my D&H descriptions of Midd-315 contradict your definition of milled right vs. left. In my experience, ///// milling is much more common than \\\\\ milling -- and the more common is called "milled left". I always presumed it was called "milled left" because in writing it, from top to bottom of the slashes, you make the motions either "to the left" or "to the right".

@Conder101 care to clarify for me? Thanks.

--------------------------------------

Direct quote from my D&H below:

Midd 315.
O: A deformed dwarf. SIR JEFFERY DUNSTAN MAYOR OF GARRAT.
R: The same as last.
E: Milled to left /////

Midd 315a. E: Milled to right \\\\\\
Midd 315b. E: PAYABLE IN LANCASTER LONDON OR LIVERPOOL.
Midd 315c. E: Plain (not in collar).

 

This thread can't get old...
Do you see those pictures