Definition of what is a coin.

This is true, but they are very reluctant to take them back. It took me two weeks to dispose of my 2004 £5 coin.

One PO tell said i could only return it, if i was buying something with it, otherwise it was non swappable.

When i went back the next week to post a package off to the US i used it as part payment. One PO had already refused to take it as payment, the bank also refused. The bigger PO took it in payment but the guy was very unsure about it and examined it very carefully and then said. 'Yeah why not?'

Getting them is one thing, getting shut of them is near impossible.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Of the definitions I've seen, I think the one in Webster, Second Edition, makes the most sense: "A piece of metal (or, rarely, of some other material) certified by a mark or marks upon it to be of a definite exchange value and issued by governmental authority to be used as money."

The argument that you need a book-length definition makes about as much sense as you need this kind of definition for any object. Definitions, by definition (!), are capsulations of meaning, not encyclopedic treatises.

The above definition covers many different angles: difference between coins and precoin bullion; differences between coins, medals, and tokens; and so on. Nothing in it says that coins have to be made of precious metal, in which the intrinsic value of the metal approximates the face value, which is just common sense given the state of coinage in the world today.

 

That is pretty much the difinition that I use. (Also note that it doesn't say anything about it aving to be legal tender.) And by that definition most of the NCLT garbage that all these counties are putting out are NOT coins because they fail the last part of the definition "to be used as money". Possibly they CAN be used as money, but they are not INTENDED to be used as money and are theefor not coins..

 

Sylvester,what event does the 2004 5 Quid coin commemorate?

 

Coins are legal tender in Canada, the law says, but only to limited amounts. For $1, $25 face (1 roll) per day-transaction.

Currency Act
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/c-52/46306.html

 

Those limitations would effectively prevent a bank from sending 10,000 Loonies in an attempt to buy 5,000 Twonies from the RCM. That is exactly what the banks wanted to do, to trade Loonies for Twonies, and the RCM declined the opportunity.
I note that the citation above does come with a warning that it is not the official version, even though this is the Department of Justice Canada website. You never know whom to trust...

Anyway, thanks, again.

 

Many dictionaries are called "Webster's" or "Webster" in America. It is the publisher that identifies the dictionary. Saying "Webster, Second Edition" might refer to the 1841 (second) edition of Noah Webster's An American Dictionary of the English Language published in 1828. When the brothers George and Charles Mirriam bought the unsold copies of Webster's 1841 edition of his dictionary, they acquired true title to the name "Webster's Dictionary." However, like "scotch tape" and "xerox" the name "Webster" has passed into the common language. That is why it is important to cite the publisher and the year when quoting a dictionary.
(See, for reference, http://www.m-w.com/info/noah.htm)

In this case, the question is not academic. We are numismatists, here on this forum. Each of us has more or less background or experience than the others, but all of us are interested in the subject matter. Our special interests supersede the common understanding of even dictionary editors.

The example definition cited above requires that to be a "coin" an object must be "certified by a mark or marks upon it to be of a definite exchange value" -- by which defnition the U.K. gold sovereign is not a coin.

In fact, most coins in most times and places had no such marks of value on them. Marks of value only became common in the 1600s and forward.

One exception is the X on Roman silver denarii, but, then, again, only relatively few issues of all denarii actually carried the X. Similarly, small silver coins of Colophon had TH (in ligature) on the reverse, we believe that this meant "fourth" perhaps 1/4 obol. In any event, it was just an exception. Historically, coins carried no "marks of value."

Where, for instance, is the "mark of definite exchange value" on a US $10 gold coin, issued 1795-1804? I believe that the denomination did not appear until 1838. So, were these not coins?

 

The second half that definition also fails because it rests on the definition of "governmental authority." Among the many counter-examples are the coins of the Confederate States of America. The American colonial period saw many non-governmental "coins."

That is why I say that no simple "dictionary definition" can meet all cases. This is not unique. What is "art"? For most people, an easy "dictionary definition" is close enough, but for an artist (or art historian), more information is required. So, too, with numismatics. As specialists, we have a different view of the problem.

 

You've misunderstool the definition. It doesn't say that to be a coin a piece has to spell out the exchange value on it. It just says that the coin has to have marks on it certifying it to have a definite exchange value. This is a big difference.

This doesn't make sense either. The Confederate States of America quite definitely was a recognized governmental authority, with a president and so on. That it wasn't recognized by the North doesn't mean the southern states didn't recognize its government or regard the coins of its government as bona fide money.

 

I am not as versed as some of the posters here in regards to coinage however it seems to me that a coin needs to be accepted outside of it's borders for trade/money exchange inorder to be accepted as a real form of currency and therefore a coin.
Now that may not be in any texts on the matter but it seems to me that is one of the purposes of having coinage in the old days, for trade inside and more important outside of one's borders.

 

"That's why most countries throughout history issued trade coinage".

You know, I always liked the exchange of free thought for it inspires thought itself. I remember Barber's "Seated Liberty Dollar" and looked up why it was called a trade dollar and got the China connection and or course more. Now I know the rest of that story.

I also remember a fiat discussion almost a year ago in regards to internal coinage. But we won't go there....

 

This is why governments should not mint coins, for the same reasons that they should not operate steel mills.

By defnition, a government has a monopoly on force within a geographic area. (Yes, there are exceptions, such as the Roman Catholic Church and the Masons, if not Physicians Without Borders, all of which operate across, over and through political territories, and which also have attributes of government-ness. In the main, however, the easy definition can stand for now.) As long as a government is the most powerful armed force in an area, it is only a matter of time until their money starts to slip. However, their control does not extend beyond some limit and therefore "international" commerce forces them to maintain a higher standard. Even when gold was nominally removed from the American dollar for Americans (1933-1974), it was still convertible into gold by foreign governments.

Also, if we agree that "true" coins are "true" coins only when they circulate beyond the borders of the government that issued them, we have a lot of problems in identifying "coins" from "non-coins." In fact, it is historically one of the goals of a government to find some level of purity that is high enough for local acceptance but low enough to prevent export. So, again, the requirement that a "real" coin leaves its realm has problems.

For these and other reasons, I prefer to look at a definition that does not require "government." Would we define "doctor" as a medical worker who is licensed by a government to practice medicine? Would we define "horse" or "table" or "sunlight" the same way?

 

1. The mark of value does not need to be understandable? Any mark of any type can be taken as a mark of value? How does anyone know what mark is a mark of value if it is not spelled out? What makes a Silver Dollar different from A Military Medal of Honor, aside from the ribbon? There are differences between a "coin" and a "medal." Those differences are important, but complicated and not easy to spell out in a one-line "dictionary definition."

2. If a "mark of value" is required for a coin, then, historically, most coins fail that standard. They do carry marks. Those marks are recognized, but those are not "marks of value." The name of the king is easy to read. If the coin has no stated value, then it has no stated value. By British Law for many years, silver coins were accepted for taxes by count. However, gold coins were weighed. This means that by law, the lawful gold coins of the king himself were not "coins" by the "dictionary definition." This applies to the British Gold Sovereign which even today carries no mark of value.

The so-called "dictionary definition" might be fine for the average person in average circumstances. The question "What is a coin?" is being asked among numismatists.

What makes a government is that it is recognized by other governments. The CSA had no more reality than Sealand or Hutt River Principality. No other governments recognized the CSA. I agree 100% that all of them are governments. The Confederacy, Biafra, Katanga, Seborgia, Christiania, Patagonia, North Korea, South VietNam, Deseret, they are all governments.

Not everyone else agrees -- in fact most people do not. Our own federal government via the Federal Trade Commission prosecuted a dealer for selling as "coins" the coins of the HRP on the grounds that HRP was not a "real" government since no other government recognized it. Again, that is only half the problem. The fact that to be a "government" you must be recognized by other "governments" should have nothing to do with the "coin-ness" of a coin.

Consider the other side of the coin. The colonial governments were corporations. Therefore, corporations have the right to issue coins. Therefore the coins of General Motors, Walt Disney Corporation, etc., etc., are all coins. A corporation is an artificial individual. It can have no more rights than a real individual. Therefore, if corporations can issue coins, then other individuals can as well. Consequently, to be a coin, a coin does not need to be issued by a government. Any entity -- individual; corporation; co-operative; government; community club -- can issue a coin. The "coin-ness" of a coin is independent of who issues it.

 

"Consider the other side of the coin. The colonial governments were corporations. Therefore, corporations have the right to issue coins".

Mike but were not the colonial governments, e.g Dutch West Indian Company, given a grant of permission or charter by nation states and therefore were the proxy of those national governments and backed by the military might of those nations.

Example: Dutch West India Company, trading and colonizing company, chartered by the States-General of the Dutch republic in 1621 and organized in 1623. Through its agency New Netherland was founded.

New Netherland, territory included in a commercial grant by the government of Holland to the Dutch West India Company in 1621. Colonists were settled along the Hudson River region; in 1624 the first permanent settlement was established at Fort Orange (now Albany, N.Y.). The principal settlement in the tract after 1625 was New Amsterdam (later New York City) at the southern end of Manhattan island,

Which if the case, then the coins were supported by the military might and reliability of a recognized government and those companys were more of an extension of a nation state rather then a private entity.
By the way, I find this subject stimulating for all that it encompasses.

 

It may be stretching the point a bit, but on the matter of a "mark of value" could not the recognized design of the coin itself be the mark of value? If the design of the coin is recognized as being a genuine issue from some authority the design itself becomes its "mark of value".

 

Yes. This is true, and it's not stretching things at all. Michael, it's again not clear what it is you're arguing or why. Most ancient coins as you know don't have marks of value on them (denominational marks), but they are marked by the governmental authority who issued them, which certifies them to have a definite exchange value. Take one of thousands of possible examples, the Athenian Owl tetradrachm. It wasn't marked "tetradrachm" on it, but it was marked by the Athenian issuing authority, both pictorially and verbally, and it was thus universally recognized to be a tetradrachm, to be made of fine silver, to have a weight of about 17.2 grams, to be of definite exchange value, and to be a coin.

 

My point has always been that to be workable the definition of "coin" must be taxonomic. The physical attributes of the object are what integrates it into a class, and differentiates it from other elements belonging to the same set.

How do we classify a "coin" struck by a Roman general who never received approval by the Senate before being defeated by a rival? The general was only that, just a soldier with a lot of temporary comrades, and not a "government." Yet, his coins are still coins.

Are the Depression-era tax tokens of state governments "coins?" Mostly, we think not. We call them "tokens" because they stood for "real" money. Yet, they were issued by governments. Furthermore, if they are only "tokens" then, so, too are most bronze and even many silver coins. Of the multi-millions of U.S. silver dollars struck, only a few early issues actually contained a dollar's worth of silver. Most silver coins were only "tokens" for gold. (See Neil Carrothers' Fractional Money for a complete historical analysis of the problem and the solutions attempted.) So, if a silver 3-cent piece is not a "coin" then what is it? Again, the strongest inquiry is one along taxomonic lines.

A "dictionary definition" can never satisfy an expert. (In fact, the first dictionaries only listed the "hard" words, not the easy ones. For instance, there might be no definition for "shoe" but one for "prevaricate.") Speaking of "shoe" you can look that up in a dictionary and run right into a brick wall when trying to decide how to classify a low boot or a sandal with a full upper. Such differences matter a great deal to fashion designers and also to transportation managers in logistics who have to file tariffs with government authorities.
So, too, with "coins."

 

Thanks for the thumbnail history. I find that all very interesting. The colonial era is compelling for its lessons.

What would have happened to the Dutch West India Company's "coins" if the Netherlands had been finally re-taken by the Spanish crown or their Austrian cousins? To me, the coins of the company would be coins by their use, material substance, method of manufacture, and relative size and shape.

Looking in The Red Book, you find The Copper Company of Upper Canada, the Higley (Granby) Coppers, the gold of Templeton Reid, and many others. The editors call some "tokens" and others not.

In our time, Walt Disney Corporation issues its own money for its "territories." The corporation certainly is not a "government." Although they have many of the attributes of a government -- control of land; security forces; money -- they do not call themselves a government. Their coins are still coins; their paper is still money. I am not sure that incorporation under the laws of this or that state include the right to create your own money as a specific provision.

I refered to the colonial situation for two reasons. Clearly, as you note, many of these corporations did, indeed, have a grant to create coinage. Not all who struck coins had that grant. Massachusetts Bay Colony stands out for striking its own coins as a sign of their independence.

So, we have this case where one corporation (Massachusetts) uses coinage to announce its status as an independent government and we have another (Walt Disney) that makes no such representations. However, in both cases, their coins are still coins.

 

"What would have happened to the Dutch West India Company's "coins" if the Netherlands had been finally re-taken by the Spanish crown or their Austrian cousins?" Mike

Well in North America the Dutch fought the Native Americans, the Swedes in Delaware which in part was in effect New Sweden then, and the British, well kinda of anyway. I think one cannon ball won New Amsterdam and henceforth New Netherlands for the British. This was all proxy war, except for that British cannon ball, that used corporations as fronts to avoid as much as possible direct warfare that could and did carry over into Europe and visa versa. Every coin that was minted in the new world or for the new world was de facto a coin that represented a European nation's power over that area and therefore had the status of that nation. After all the European rulers sent out explores to claim every bit of land that they saw for the country that sponsered them and then those european rulers set up de facto extensions in the new world. Just look at the names: New Netherlands, New Sweden, and New Spain.
Now for the Massachusetts Bay Colony. They were granted a Charter by King Charles I and a land grant by "The Council of New England". Now The Bay Colony lost their royal charter in 1684 and had a Royal Govenor installed around 1688 and Great Britian made New England officially part of the Empire.
So a coin can not stand as a coin unless a nation or the power of a nation stands behind it. As for Disney Dollars, try cashing them in at Sea World.
But of course you disagree with me, which is fine and perhaps the way it should be. I just hope others are reading our discourse and perhaps could share their thoughts with us as well.