The Great Numismatic Debate

[Capt-AWACS]

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

[Ætheling]

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...

 

 

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?

[gxseries]

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.

[banivechi]

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

[28Plain]

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.

 

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.

[cladking]

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.

[gxseries]

LOL @ last line.

 

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

[Sir Sisu]

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.

[28Plain]

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. ;-)

[GDJMSP]

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.

[Ætheling]

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.

[SilverDollarMan]

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

[BiggAndyy]

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.

[Ætheling]

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.

[thedeadpoint]

bump

[Arminius]

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

 

On Spanish coin discussions, in a country with much longer history than most today states, "modern coins" are defined "1500 AD. til contemporary coins".

 

So actually every coin thats out of usage and was produced since 1500 AD.

 

From the Spanish point of view the Americas have only modern and contemporary coins!

[ccg]

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...

 

British Maundy coins (1d,2d,3d,4d) and crowns (5/) remain legal tender as 1p,2p,3p,4p and 25p respectively, if I remember correctly.

[Art]

I'm still going with 20th Century + is modern and - is not. However I am also giving thought to other Countries situations. Perhaps Euro = modern in those countries.

[constanius]

I like the simple division into Ancient(to -500 AD), Medieval(500-1500) & Modern(1500+) for all the world's coinage.

 

For the USA, Colonial, Modern & Current would work, please supply your own date ranges.

 

British coinage could be Celtic, Roman, Anglo-Saxon, Medieval & Modern.

 

For China ?, ? & ?

 

 

It is a bit like 'One size fits all' just means 'Does not really fit most people' so the division & subdivision of coinage into categories needs to be adjusted for each country.

[UncleBobo]

Whenever your country switched over to pot metal coinage is when you became modern.

[Benz Gemz]

I've always arbitrarily drawn the line at 1600 or milled coins, but I would certainly feel comfortable with 1500 to the present for modern.

[ScottO]

it depends.. there were hammered coins well into the 1600's all over europe, sweden was casting coins in the 1700's

as for china.. they didnt change to milled until late 1800's

here in the UK we start at a comon base for "Modern" post 1797 when they made the cartwheel stuff, its more right as near enough the age machines were used to make mass coins

[constanius]

here in the UK we start at a comon base for "Modern" post 1797 when they made the cartwheel stuff, its more right as near enough the age machines were used to make mass coins

 

This looks modern to me, but is dated 1773.

 

[YeOldeCollector]

here in the UK we start at a comon base for "Modern" post 1797 when they made the cartwheel stuff, its more right as near enough the age machines were used to make mass coins

 

Well, I would say that we should be looking at around about 1662 onwards.

 

This looks modern to me, but is dated 1773.

 

I, personally, would consider anything Elizabeth I or later as modern, but that's just me. As a general rule, perhaps the mid 17th Century onwards?

[Finn235]

From a historical perspective, I generally consider anything post-1945 to be "modern". Not only did the world as we know it begin to emerge in 1946, but (in the US at least) if you were to travel back in time with a jar of present-day coins, you could probably spend the nickels, dimes, and quarters (possibly the pennies if your cashier was not particularly vigilant) without raising too much suspicion. Of course, that would probably only work in the US.

 

Or, how about this definition: a "modern" coin is any coin that can be expected to comprise more than 0.01 - 1% of circulating coins.

 

Memorial pennies are modern. Wheat pennies are on the fringes of modern. Indian head pennies are not modern.

 

Queen Elizabeth II coins are modern. George VI coins are on the fringe of modern. George V and Victoria coins are not modern.