This is a debate that started on another forum but due to the complex nature i thought it might be useful and intriguing to bring it up on this forum too.

What date do you consider to be the cut-off point between old and modern coins?

I saw the other postings as well. I think it has to do with your own age and frame of reference. Personally, I think the Modern era starts with the Lincoln cents, Mercs, SL quarters, WL halves. I would put the Barber series, Morgans, and Liberty gold in the Pre-Modern area. Others think
clad coinage is modern, silver coinage as old. Still others think it has to be pre 1900. It`s all a matter of your own frame of reference.

When I think modern, I think of the current base metal/clad coinage era. That pretty much goes for any country. I do not think that is the 'accepted' definition, though, especially among older or long time collecters.

Alot of collectors that say 1950. Which is not too unrealistic considering that archaeologists and people in forensic sciences, particularly the field of radio carbon dating consider 1950 as 'Modern', hence why objects when radio carbon dated are dated going back with 1950 as the baseline. Not unfeesible to say that 1950 is therefore the beginning of all that is modern.


Although some US collectors might say 1964 is when coinage turned modern.

Some have argued 1933 (the year the US went off of the gold standard as the first shift towards a modern currency, modern meaning a fiat currency).

German collectors might argue modern as being 1948.


The date invariably differs from place to place and from denomination to denomination.* I did say on a different forum that modern could arguably be the year 1500, since this is the year that most historians in Europe consider to be the change from medieval Europe to Early Modern Europe, Early maybe but modern none the less.



*The denomination argument.

Take British coins for this example;

Copper collectors will argue that modern coinage begins in either 1797 (steam presses) or 1860 (the switch to bronze).

Bronze collectors might argue for 1900 (more properly 1901 as this is the first year of the 20th century), 1902 (Edward VII starts) or 1936 (End of George V).

Silver collectors might argue 1901, 1902, 1920 (silver reduced from .925 to .500) or 1946 (base metals)

Gold Collectors might argue 1901, 1917 (end of London mint gold coins, except for the one off 1925 issue) or 1932 (end of gold standard).


Others might argue it to be 1662 (the beginning of modern milled coinage and the end of hammered), 1816 (the new milled coins from steam driven presses). 1968 (the first decimal coins) or even 1971 (full scale decimalisation).


All those dates come from just one country, and many of you are familiar with all the alternatives from the US that collectors will regard as modern or not.


Quite a fluid term me thinks.

William IV onwards, so around 1840ish. I'd consider uber-modern as George VI onwards.

Bang there's another different date. Beginning of William IV (1831 issue) or end of (1837 issue)?

Liz II must be post-modern.


My own personal preference is following;

US coins - 1934 (first year without gold) Although i accept the case for 1950.

UK coins - 1816 (for milled), 1500 (for hammered).

France - End of Louis XVI in 1792.

Germany - debatable but i'd say 1948.

In my thinking anything 20th Century and beyond is modern, regardless of the materials or manufacturing processes used.

I think that modern US coins are the coins with the presidents on them. In 1909, when Lincoln took over the penny, it led the way for more coins to switch from the, then modern, to the now modern.

That's another school of though i like. Do you include Benjamin Franklin in modern or not? Personally i would.

Modernity began for each county, numismatically speaking, when they accepted decimalization for their coinage and currency.

Although he was never a president, he was a founding father. He managed to get a coin, and a bill, so yes, I would include him.

Me too.

Hum... a pretty difficult question really... I mean, you have to keep in mind that each country first minted coins in different time frames. I mean, you can go as far back to Roman coins in Europe, but there weren't any coins for other countries at that time. Eventually the whole world got used to the idea of using coins as a mean of payment. Of course, the whole world originally did not use circular coins, or even metallic metals as a mean of payment, which you can probably call it primiative "coins".

I guess you can call currency reforms to tell the difference between modern and "old" coins, but that is absolutely absurd, as there are still countries that still produce completely new coins, such as Romania and Turkey this year.

I guess my opinion would be that modern in my opinion strongly is reflected in the striking methods. Most certainly Britain, France and Germany were one of the first few earliest countries that had excellent minting techniques deployed in the early 1800's to differentiate the difference between crude and machine striked coins.

But, would such a factor determine the difference between modern and "old" coins?

One has to remember that the mints took a serious view on how coins had to be properly minted, as in, they cannot mint one coin a lot heavier than the other, and yet call it the same value, i.e. weight control issues. I am edging more towards the defination of modern coinage when politics had a serious view on how coins played a role in the economy, and when serious tests were conducted to make sure that coins were made so that they were not too different from each other, in terms of weight, size and alloy content.

The days when people found counterfeiting were hung and people producing underweight coins were castrated and otherwise mutilated by having their right hand removed without anæsthetic... ah those were the good old days when money was serious business and it was generally all about protecting the intrinsic standard of the currency. Not about maximising mint profits... oh how far we have degraded ourselves.

That's what I regard as modern, too. I know that most of the dealers I frequent refer to anything milled as "modern" with earlier production techniques being broken into ancient, early and/or medieval.

Interesting comment.

I usually go with 1797, since that's kinda the beginning of when hammered "went out".

[q]When I think modern, I think of the current base metal/clad coinage era. That pretty much goes for any country. I do not think that is the 'accepted' definition, though, especially among older or long time collecters.[/q]

Older collectors often discount post 1964 coins all together. When they
use the term modern they are talking about 1934 to '65 issues.

There are really lots of different eras in coins and they vary from one
country to another. But it would seem the most dramatic change in
coins and the way collectors percieve them occurred in 1964 so this
makes a good dividing line to call the later ones "moderns".

modern.... 1965 and up

How about a real general retarded answer, that is, anything that is the 21th century is considered VERY modern, and the rest isn't

I think that's when we either get to post-modern or revisionist.

That's an easy question to me, in Portugal, both decimal and "steam struck" coins were first issued in 1836 (1835 law altough some old system coins were struck after that).

José

1982, the year of the George Washington commem half. Look it up. LOL!

Seriously, for me I would say numismatic "modern" began in 1934. In 1909, Lincoln was on the cent, but we were using Liberty nickels and Barber series coins. We were still headed toward the "golden age" of 1916. In 1932, with the Washington quarter being issued as a circulating commemorative, that was the first red flag. Then, with the decision to drop the SLQ and continue with Washington, that signalled the end. It wouldn't be long before the Buffalo nickel would be changed in favor of TJ.

After FDR's death in 1945, we lost the Merc and picked up the ugliest coin to that date. And since the government can't leave well enough alone, two years later we lost Walkers, arguably the best designed U.S. silver coin ever minted.

As a side note, I also agree with Ætheling that 1934 is also correct due to the fact that it's the first year the U.S. stopped issuing circulating gold coins.

Jerry

Trying to find a precise date that applies to most countries will be impossible. In most of Europe, for example, 1945 was an important break also in terms of coinage. (Or the year of post-war stabilization; 1948/49 has been mentioned here for Germany before.) For most African countries anything post-colonial would probably be "modern" ...

Of course what is "modern" also depends on what other categories are available. Over here, 1999/2002 surely was an important dividing line since that is when the euro came. But if everything before those dates would then simply end up in the "old" category, I would strongly suggest shifting that line ;-)

Christian

I talked to some other collectors, and some of the best arguments out from that is that anything that's considered legal tender is definately a modern issue. Most probably, the modern issues should include at least 3 sets of previous "legal tender" issued coins, i.e. 3 generations, to make them fairly modern...

For the US for me, I say 1965-- But 1900 or 1945 are good for me too. For various reasons, more historical than numismatic--it is the history minor in me I guess.

Ciao, and Hook 'em Horns,
Capt-AWACS, Did you get that memo

So British Large Size 1997 50p coins are not modern because they were replaced with smaller ones that year and were demonestised in early 1998?

And pre-euro coinage like DMs and Francs issued in the last year before the euro are also not modern?

That was indeed some of the issues that came out from the discussions. And that is why a few people suggested at least 3 generations of previous issues are to be included as the modern isses, but of course, you can vary the number of generations from countries to countries.

Of course we know that some countries actually did reform their coin values just this year, such as Turkey and Romania.

Coins are part of history, isn't? Ancient, Medieval and Modern times... so modern coins I consider all coins after Watt's steam machine...

Very solidly presented observation. When coins were an absolute standard of a country's currency value, the Pound Sterling was the world's leading currency simply because the British silver and gold coins were of a higher fineness than the coins of other countries. A banknote issued on a British bank was convertible directly into British coinage while a US note would be discounted if converted into British coinage at a standard determined by ASW or AGW of the coinage tendered in exchange for the note.

Coinage made of precious metal is different from coinage made of base metal in that no legal tender law is necessary in order to establish the value of the precious metal coin. Legal tender laws are the means by which governments arrogate to themselves ownership of the assets held by their subjects, even when those subjects flatter themselves that they are citizens rather than subjects.

When a government can revalue a currency at will, then all the money in a country's economy is ultimately the property of the issuing authority and there is no longer any real right to property of any kind. When the money of a country is precious metal coin, the money itself is the property of the bearer, no matter what imprint it bears because that coin can be melted, refined and presented in its pure form as the commodity of which it's composed.

That basic fact is what makes precious metal coinage the enemy of government's claim on the property of its citizenry.

All money is and always has been what people think is money. When it was believed only gold was money then nothing else would substitute. If a coiner shorted the currency then people would lose confidence in the money and its value would be affected. When new sources of gold were found it would cause a revaluation in money. If people came to believe the treasury was short the money could collapse. Since gold was money and money was gold anything that damaged one damaged the other. And it happened. There were several crises which were caused by the perception of money. Gold didn't really protect anyone from government anyway since over time every single currency that ever existed was devalued by the government which issued it. Politicians love to spend money and don't always want to stop just because they run out but they still have the keys to the printing presses and the coining presses. If you want better money then vote for better politicians. The modern world will not function without factories and modern money which keeps them perating. Food no longer comes from the land and financial collapses are no longer an option.

There is no law saying that people had to start using worthless paper rather than good gold. Precious metals were removed from money in a series of steps which started a long time ago. Even in the 19th century US if everyone went down to the bank to change their paper into gold they'd have been turned away. There was probably enough gold to back all the paper which would preclude a run on it but most of it was sitting in bars locked away in government vaults. People believed the paper was good as gold so they used it as money. Today people still believe the paper is good as gold so they use it as money. Indeed much money now is little more than electrons in a computer and still people will sell their soul for it.

LOL @ last line.

"Indeed much money now is little more than electrons in a computer and still people will sell their soul for it."

As a history student, I have been inculcated to look at the past in neatly defined eras. Consequently I (rightly or wrongly) place coinage as being one aspect of modernity or pre-modernity, regardless of method. One school of thought is that 1789 marks the coming of the modern era. Of course this is debatable. And this view of course is Euro-centric. One can find milestones in different eras and locations that differ vastly in how modernity is perceived to arrive.

For me personally, I see modern coinage as milled coinage and would subdivide the issuance of base coinage (i.e. that of moderate/higher valued coinage away from intrinsic value) as a present era of coinage.

An understandable distinction if one is to view base metal coinage as collectible. For my own purposes, intrinsic value determines collectibility. I may acquire base metal coins which have appealing designs but they are always used for trades sooner or later. In those trades I acquire silver coins as a final goal. ;-)

For many years I used to consider modern as post '64. That's about the time that most of the world quit using silver in their coins. So it seemed a logical point in time to me.

But in the past few years as my collecting switched to world coinage I began to have a different outlook. I began to consider coinage since its inception 2500 + or - years ago. Given that - there are 3 basic periods. Ancient - Medieval & Modern - with Modern being post 1500. Strangely enough this is how most European numismatists view it as well.

But as with anything else, the perception of time changes with its passing. For example, in 1500 the coinage of the time WAS modern. But to many today 500 years seems an almost unimaginable length of time. But in the scheme of things as a whole in regard to coinage - it's only 20% of the elapsed time.

So it all depends on how you wish to look at it. Would you call the lightbulb or the telephone a modern invention ? How about nuclear physics or the airplane ? They all seem pretty modern to me. But they all happened before or near the turn of the century - the last century.

I think perhaps the reason that Europeans choose 1500 as a dividing time line is because it does present a new time in the world. One that co-incides with the discovery of the New World. For after that - everything changed.

Welcome back GD always nice to see you round these parts.

Like i said the terms quite fluid, but i'd generally agree in a European context that modern is 1500, or to be pedantic 1501...

Mind you 1500 is only approximate anyhow. Some countries the change begins in the 1470s, others 1520s/30s and others still plod along merrily in the medieval period for a while longer.

Hehe , U have 2 draw the line somewhere! Truthfully, it would prolly be at least 100 years but then that would leave out SLQ's....so I'm going with 1935 - 38, somewhere in there. I used 2 say" Since '64". lol

Can we include a third choice of Post-Modern coinage since almost the entire world is now on a credit based economy and fiat backed currency and coinage?

1965 for the US in the Post-Modern Numismatic World although one could argue for 1933 or 1974 equally as candidates.

1934 is my choice as first year of modern with US coins. Although 1965 and the one i'd forgotten about 1974 are equally feesible.