Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Guest

Griquatown 1/4p - First Coins Used In SA

Recommended Posts

Guest Guest

Excuse the pun but this smacks of a Mandela WtF slabbed listing to me.... "First coin used in South Africa".

Graded Coins - Look@ (1815 - 16) Griquatown 1/4p NCS Fair Details - First Coins Used In SA - ULTRA RARE @ R1 Start for sale in Johannesburg (ID:26200536)

 

Now the Griquatown token coins (which never circulated) were according to this listing the "first coins used in SA"...

 

What happened to those Dutch and VOC coins in the 1600s and 1700s? The schelling or scheepjesschelling? The doits, guilders and stivers? The Batavian guilder and daalder? The Rix dollar? The British sovereign and silver pieces? among many others....

 

At least these pieces noted above actually circulated as currency somewhere and might even have been part of an occasional isolated trade amongst the white community in Cape Town pre-1820!

 

With regards to the comments on this listing (by way of clarification):

 

Claim: These Coins were first used by the Griqua people in the Klaarwater district near Kimberley and did not circulate for more than 2 Years before being withdrawn and smelted.

 

Fact: There is not and never was a region known as the Klaarwater district between Kimberley and Griquatown and Kimberley is over 150km from Griquatown where they were supposed to be used - but they NEVER circulated - see comments below. (By way of clarification the settlement of Klaarwater (clear water) was renamed Griquatown in 1813 when Campbell first visited South Africa.)

 

Claim: The Mission Site Was Later Abandoned and most of the Griqua People moved to Mount Currie near Kokstad.

 

Fact: Griquatown still has a thriving Griqua community today. A family of Griquas under Adam Kok III moved to Nomansland in the early 1860s AFTER spending forty years at Philippolis in the Orange Free State. The Waterboer faction remained in Griquatown after the 1820s and the current Kaptyn (Nicholas Waterboer) still lives there with several thousand Griqua descendants.

 

Claim: This Series of coins was the first minted for, and used by a South African People.

 

Fact: They were issued as token coins (source London Missionary Society records) - BUT they never circulated - not one "farthing".

 

Claim: Another first is the fact that this was the first decimal series used in South Africa.

Fact: The values indicate time or labour not a decimal value (eg 10 = ten hours or one day; 1/4 = 15 minutes) nothing to do with a "decimal currency".

 

Claim: Records show that they were sent to South Africa in 1815 and 1816.

 

Fact: The London Missionary Society's mission in Griquatown requested some form of TOKEN currency in 1817 - as there was no coinage in those remote parts (ie after 1816). The failed Griquatown token coins resulted from their request. SOURCE: Karel Schoeman's book "The Mission Station at Griquatown 1801 - 1821" (It is most likely Campbell brought a bag of these tokens with him on his second trip to South Africa. In published letters by Campbell written at Griquatown in 1820 he talks about "talking to traders south of the Orange River to accept the tokens so that the Griqua would accept them". He failed. The weight of the Griquatown silver token coins did not match that of any Imperial coinage and the great majority of the coins were later sent back and melted down for their silver.)

 

PS The indicative price claimed also appears to be rich when one sees the coin's grading. Might be a good speculative deal at ZAR1 though!

 

Kind regards

 

Scott Balson

Edited by ndoa18

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Veto111

Hi Scott

 

You are making quite a lot of claims stating them as "FACTS", I therefore assume that you have evidence to back this up. I see in your last statement you do give a source, but for the others could you please indicate where you got the evidence or quote something from it. I am fascinated to hear about it and can't wait your response.

 

Thanks

Veto111

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pierre_Henri

O Boy, this is going to be a long day ...

 

FACT is, Scott is going to give you more than you expected. LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EWAAN Galleries

Hi Pierre

 

We were just quoting from Hern's book. As you know this is a long time back so we will never know he truth.

 

Scott has interests in the Strachan & Co Tokens so he will say they circulated first and Hern's says differently - we will never know the truth as it was some time ago.

 

Just depends which book the collector wants to follow -

 

Balson's or Hern's??????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vertigo

Hi , All

 

Seems like the guy has quoted "fact" based on Herns Book.

Anyways , no big deal.

willing buyer , willing seller , based on " fact" from herns book which is widely recognised

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ZARBOY

Hi all

 

I take Hern's Book with a pinch of salt. A great reference book, with quite a few errors in it. Just on the ZAR:

 

1. 1892 penny double the price in UNC than 1894 - I think he got them the wrong way round.

2. Only 1 know rimmless blank penny - Suppose to be part of the late Dr. FK Mitchells' collection, definately not there ....

 

But is it wrong stating the Hern's UNC price for the 92 penny? NO

But then it must be wrong saying the 94 in UNC is more scarce than the 92?NO

 

I'm 100% sure that Scott has got facts to back almost everything regarding the qriqua token, he is an expert in his field.

 

I'm 100% sure there is nothing wrong in Ewaan's auction stating "so called facts" from Herns, hey, I would of done the same, not knowing better.

 

Scott, submit your facts to Brian for a change in his new catologue, if there is a new one coming???

 

Regards,

 

Thomas van der Spuy

ZARBOY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vertigo

Hi Thomas ,

 

I always wondered why the herns value on the 94 Penny is so low , also the 95 pond in UNC, however the values are just an indication in a market that today seems to create it's own values as we have seen in the latest george V spike in top end coins , nevertheless this "inconsistency" is not based on numismatic values which is plain consumerism , this is based on historical "facts" being , who used what first.

 

I had a problem on this forum when I listed a finest known 1956 pound stating "lower mintage than the veldpond" , i was obviously stating fact from herns book , however fellow numismatists felt it a marketing ploy , so i subsequently changed the listing to " lowest mintage of the series".

Thinking back , that was done in the interest of numismatics as a whole.

 

Herns book is widely used in South Africa , and the mere fact the seller quoted from the book is not a crime.

 

Don't kill the messenger

 

I personally feel that the seller quoted with the best of intentions.

I agree with Thomas that Mr Hern should be contacted to find out where he recieved his source on the topic.

 

warm regards

Imraan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

The Facts - Read Them And Be Informed!

 

I have lost count of the number of times I have said this on BoB forums before, but here goes again.

 

THE FACTS:

 

There are fifty bulleted research-based facts on my website supporting my opening post (ie I make NO assumptions).

 

They can be seen at this link: "The Griquas of South Africa and their money"

It is a fact that I have been studying the Griqua - with a special emphasis on their coinage for over thirty years. I myself, in the 1980s, had accepted what Parsons claimed in his booklet written for Spink but while researching for my book on the Griqua, "Children of the Mist", I came across irrefutable evidence that he was completely wrong. He only uses three references (books by Campbell, Livingstone and Moffat) in his "research" - completely ignoring key books by Burchell (who visited Klaarwater/Griquatown in 1812) and others. (Livingstone and Moffat came to Griquatown post 1820 and NEITHER refer to the Griquatown coins at ay time in any of their books.) The only reference relevant to the tokens is in Campbell's book on his first trip to South Africa (1813) - where he talks about having coins minted after a meeting with the Griqua. If your read Parsons research you will see that EVERYTHING is assumed - there is NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE and the only relevant reference to the coins is the one mentioned above from Campbell's book. (See my separate post below being a complete scan of Parsons research on the Griquatown coins).

 

Hern and many other writers of coin books base their comments in their books on Parsons' flawed claims. I wrote to Hern over five years ago providing him with a summary of the facts proving that Parsons was wrong - he chose to ignore them and suggested in an email that I was ignorant - see the link below where I transcribe Hern's email to me.

 

I have a web page which specifically addresses and challenges Hern's claims. The page has been online since March 2008 and has never been questioned: Challenging the claims by Brian Hern in his 2008 S African coin catalogue.

 

This web page was posted because Hern refused to even consider the supported FACTS I had presented him with and continued to publish what Parsons claimed. If you are serious about the integrity of our hobby how can you simply look the other way and ignore facts sourced from documents and books written by the people living with the Griqua at that time?

 

The support I have that matters:

 

Jeremy Cheek from Spink has endorsed my research saying that Parsons was wrong - Parsons wrote his work for Spink in the 1920s.

 

The Griqua National Council (GNC), who represent the scattered Griqua communities across South Africa, have not only endorsed the accuracy of my book "Children of the Mist" on their history but quote from it on their official website (see link below). The book factually exposes the Griquatown coin fallacy. Since 2007 my book has been used at the Griqua's main settlement at Kranshoek (Plettenburg Bay) to educate the children on their important past. It is also used at all other major Griqua centres for the same purpose - including Kokstad, Griquatown, Campbell, Bergmanshoogte (Philippolis), Bloemfontein and Daniels Kuil. In just the last few days I have emailed a PDF version of my book to the GNC (at their request). This will soon be sold online from the same website linked below.

 

See the GNC website history summarised here: http://www.winddancersa.com/Webs/AbouttheGriquas.htm

The unanswered challenge:

 

I have on several occasions (since 2006), as many of you would know, challenged anyone of note in the South African numismatic community to debate me in a public forum on this subject. No one has stepped up to the plate.

 

The challenge to YOU as a coin collector:

 

The challenge is now for YOU to read the evidence that has been on my web page for years and then make your own informed decisions. Feel free to discuss any point you feel requires clarification. I will support any claim I have made with evidence.

 

Karel Schoeman's important work (see my separate post below linking a scan of Parsons original flawed research used by Hern):

 

Importantly the key FACTS relating to date and type of coin (ie tokens) are dealt with specifically from London Missionary Society (LMS) documents sourced by Karel Schoeman in his book "The Mission Station at Griquatown 1801 - 1821". (Schoeman was given complete access to the original LMS documents in London - resulting in this book. I have never met Schoeman and had no communication with him - he is a well respected South African historian with many books under his belt. I believe he now lives in Bloemfontein.)

 

These documents are accurately transcribed at this link: The Mission at Griquatown 1801-1821 - Karel Schoeman

 

The challenge is now for YOU to get Schoeman's book and read for yourself why Parsons was so wrong on all the key issues he claimed. It is Parsons flawed research which has resulted in the comments carried in Hern's book - even today despite earlier being presented with the facts by me. (Parsons research scanned in post below).

 

I believe my suggestion that the values on the tokens relate to (labour) time worked make far more sense. (ie silver 10 = day token or ten hours; silver 5 = half day token; bronze 1/2 = 30 minutes and bronze 1/4 = fifteen minutes time worked for the missionaries).

 

As a numismatist I have done my own research on my own specialised area of interest - the Griqua and their money. Much of this work has been groundbreaking, tedious but rewarding because it gets the facts right. I have spent years sourcing nearly 300 books many of which help paint a picture of just how things were in central South Africa in the early 1800s. How can that be bad for our hobby? It is when people in positions of influence deride and refuse to consider this research that I think I have a very good case or feeling just a little bit peeved.

 

The so-called Griqua "decimal coinage" reflects how extreme the assumptions have become!

 

PS The furphy about the Griquatown coins being the FIRST DECIMAL COINAGE was not suggested by Parsons (see my post below) but assumed many years later by another writer - since then this assumption somehow became fact. Prior to this books such as that written by Wm D Simpson "Muntstukkie, Waar Kom Jy Vandaan" (1951) suggested that the values of "Five" and "Ten" on the Griquatown tokens were tied up with counting the fingers on our hand. (A scan of Parsons original work is linked in the post below).

 

The Strachan coins

 

It is coincidental that the Strachan and Co are, by default, the first circulating indigenous coinage in South Africa. There is no hidden agenda as suggested by EWAAN. Let the facts speak for themselves.

 

As the role of the Griquatown token coins is an important issue in South African numismatics and I do not sell any coins on my website I trust that BoB will allow the links shown above to remain.

 

The challenge remains

 

As I have said many times before I would happily debate Hern or anyone else of note over this subject in a public forum.

 

Kind regards

 

Scott Balson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

Scan of Parsons original research used by Hern

 

As I have talked at length about Parsons - who Hern bases his claims on, I have scanned Parson's 1927 published research and placed it online with my comments so you can see for yourself how flimsy and often baseless his research actually was.

 

See: Parsons "The coinage of Griqualand"

 

Kind regards

 

Scott Balson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Veto111

Hi Scott

 

Thanks for all the information, it will be an interesting read.

 

As I think I have ticked quite a few people off by asking you to provide your evidence, I would just like to say that I am relatively NEW to this great hobby and there is lots for me still to learn. I appreciate your help Scott.

 

Thanks

Veto111

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

Alles Goed

 

Hi Veto

 

No probs..

 

Thanks to the Internet and the BoB forum I have been able to voice facts that the "establishment" refuse to accept. Read what I have written, check my references and make your own decisions.

 

PS I would love to become an overseas member of my old club the Pietermaritzburg Numismatic Society.. would someone send me a private message on this?

 

Kind regards

 

Scott Balson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
geejay50

Hi Scott,

 

Greek and Roman coins are accepted by the world as circulated without all the references you demand for the Griqua Coins.

 

Parsons was merely describing what happened at the time and his work is accepted by people like J.T.Becklake in his book From Real to Rand as well as Eric Rosenthal Van Boesmangeld tot Barclays and Engelbrecht in Money in South Africa. These are all three big names in South African Numismatic History and deserve your serious respect. Their contribution will always be accepted as objective.

 

You however have a vested interest in pushing the S&Co Tokens ahead of these humble coins and that is why we cannot accept your arguments as unquestionable facts. for example you say Griquas did not attend church - How can you prove that? - have you weekly attendance figures and so what anyway it does not give us any answers about these coins!

 

The debate you need to have is with Parsons himself and he is long gone so you can leave Brian Hern out of it.

 

All we have to go on to-day is a fair number of worn and corroded Griqua Copper Coins with very few in gradeable form. Fingers caused much of that wear and buyers will pay big money for them because they are accepted by the majority of the serious South African coin community as having circulated whatever you may say from Australia. They dont get big mention in written documents precisely because they were not worth much at the time. Why should they anyway just to prove or disprove your point.

 

Geejay

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

Klaarwater

 

The "Klaarwater" linked in the posts above by Pierre (central OFS) and Vertigo (near Durban, Natal) are specific existing localities/townships nowhere near Kimberley or Griquatown - that was my point.

 

Hern talks about the Klaarwater District near Kimberley (in the northern Cape) - a totally different description/region which does not exist.

 

Kind regards

 

Scott Balson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

How does 42 become over 2,600? Let's ask Parsons

 

Hi George

 

Parsons was merely describing what happened at the time and his work is accepted by people like J.T.Becklake in his book From Real to Rand as well as Eric Rosenthal Van Boesmangeld tot Barclays and Engelbrecht in Money in South Africa. These are all three big names in South African Numismatic History and deserve your serious respect. Their contribution will always be accepted as objective.

 

You however have a vested interest in pushing the S&Co Tokens ahead of these humble coins and that is why we cannot accept your arguments as unquestionable facts. for example you say Griquas did not attend church - How can you prove that? - have you weekly attendance figures and so what anyway it does not give us any answers about these coins!

 

The debate you need to have is with Parsons himself and he is long gone so you can leave Brian Hern out of it.

With regard to your first para above - READ THE FACTS linked from my previous post. They are all referenced and demonstrate CLEARLY that Parsons was WRONG. Happy to debate this with anyone of note - as I have said countless times before. You can put your head in the sand for as long as you like but that does not make historical inaccuracies correct. The serious names you refer to ALL used all or part of Parsons earlier claims in their works which is a common but acceptable mistake made by researchers and writers. They just don't have the time to go into the detail that I have in my specialist area of interest. Is it good for OUR hobby if their source (Parsons) was incorrect? I don't think so - regardless of when his flawed research is exposed, just because others accepted his findings and parroted them in their books DOES NOT MAKE THEM FACTUALLY CORRECT.

 

Church attendance or where Parsons would have you believe 42 becomes over 2,600:

 

For example, with regards to paragraph two above and your request for facts from me contradicting the large church attendance claims at Griquatown made by Parsons. (This was clearly done by Parsons to imply the wide community acceptance of the Missionaries at Griquatown - thus their token coins).

 

1) Burchell notes on page 361 of Vol 1 of his book "Travels in the interior of Southern Afica" that there were about 784 "souls" (men, women and children) in the region around Klaarwater in 1812 and just 25 huts at Klaarwater/Griquatown. (See his drawing of Griquatown in 1812). Burchell states that there was a larger indigenous population of Korana and Bushmen in the region but they had little or nothing to do with the Griqua people - and did not come into the Griqua settlements.

 

2) Campbell on page 256 on the book "Travels in South Africa" notes the population of the Griquatown region thus:

Men 291

Women 399

Boys 310

Girls 266

 

Total: 1266

Campbell goes on to say that the some Korana come into the village from time to time and estimates that their number is 1,341 - making a total of 2,607 souls in the Griquatown region.

 

In the very next paragraph Campbell says, and I quote: The church, or Christian society, consists of twenty six men and sixteen women. There have been added during the twelve months TWO men and TWO women.

 

(NOTE: While Burchell was acknowledged to be a serious and accomplished recorder of facts Campbells book on his first trip was belittled by his own peers because he always tried to paint an unrealistic and rosy picture to support the mission at Griquatown. In other words it is quite likely that the number of people quoted as attending church was inflated by Campbell). Source: The Missionaries - their experiences and published works related to the Griquas

 

Parsons serious error of fact on Church attendance

 

NOW what Parson did in his research (on page five - see link below) was to turn Campbell's TOTAL POPULATION OF THE REGION figure into a fabricated figure of 2,600 people who attended church. When Campbell himself says that JUST 42 adults attended church. By making his claim Parsons also gives the impression that the wider population in 1815-16 was much larger.

 

Here is the link referred to above: Parsons "The coinage of Griqualand"

 

So Georg, you tell me who is closer to the mark? Parsons or Campbell who was there at the time?

 

In fact if you read Engelbrecht (one of your respected three writers) on page 43 of his book "Money in South Africa" under the heading THE DOVE OF PEACE... you will see he got the figure of 42 attending church right - BUT he did use other Parsons claims on dates the Griquatown coins were sent to South Africa (ie 1815-16) - which is wrong - as per London Missionary Society documents (see Schoeman). These are facts.

 

Griquatown became a ghost town in 1814 AFTER Campbell left

 

And remember that this head count was BEFORE the Griquas left Griquatown in 1814 in disgust over Anderson's enforcement of Campbells laws and his attempts to get twenty Griqua to join in a military force for the British Colony.

 

In 1814 the Griqua population led by the three leaders - Kok, Barends and Waterboer travelled hundreds of miles away from Griquatown leaving Anderson with a ghost town in 1815-16. These are historically recorded facts. Not Parsons poor research widely accepted by others.

 

Just who has the hidden agenda Scott or Georg?

 

Georg you can continue to try to undermine my serious research by suggesting that I have "a hidden agenda" because of the Strachan coins. I will cop that underhanded remark on the chin because I know most people reading this thread know it is completely unfounded. After thirty years of passion in the best interests of South African numismatics you suggest my research is "compromised" and that I "live in Australia" as if that makes my research invalid. Well, thank you. I also lived in Ixopo (southern Natal) and worked in Umzimkhulu (East Griqualand) for many years - the catalyst behind my research. IF you took the time to read my research and check my references linked from the previous page you would see that what I am claiming is right on the money. But I doubt you ever will. I am sure other collectors who are serious about their hobby will take a few hours and check what I have written and then make informed decisions - or raise questions with me - which I said I would be happy to answer. Just like I have with Parsons claims on church attendance that you asked me to prove was incorrect. Now I have done that in this post from FACTS you can check yourself.

 

As I have said before it is coincidental that the first set of Strachan coins, as a result of my fact-based research on the Griquas and their coinage, now hold the mantle as South Africa's first circulating indigenous currency. I would have thought that most numismatists would find my research of great interest and used my references from published works dating back to the early 1800s to seek out the truth for themselves. You can only have ONE truth - so if it is there in black and white from a reputable source it is a fact. Clearly Parsons, even on my evidence in this post, cannot be counted as a reputable source. I think many have now done their own research and agree with me.

 

Facts always beat assumptions, speculation and wild inaccuracies - that is what separates Parsons so-called "research" from mine.

 

Finally, as Brian Hern continues to push Parsons flawed research as fact in his books I believe he should either respond to the factually-based claims that I make or face the fact that his refusal to do so does the credibility of his coin book no favours. It is his call and despite calling me "ignorant" in the past he refuses to present evidence that refutes what I have openly presented on the Internet for years now.

 

Kind regards

 

Scott Balson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EWAAN Galleries

NO DEMAND FOR S & Co Tokens

 

Hi All

 

We have had some Strachan & Co Tokens recently on auctions and noticed that there is no real demand for them..

 

Are they selling for higher prices anywhere else.

 

See some of the auctions below still at the starting bid of R1 - Nobody bidding on these coins compared to even the cheap Mandela Coins..

 

http://www.bidorbuy.co.za/seller/954693/EWAAN_Galleries

Edited by EWAAN Galleries

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4kids
The "Klaarwater" linked in the posts above by Pierre (central OFS) and Vertigo (near Durban, Natal) are specific existing localities/townships nowhere near Kimberley or Griquatown - that was my point.

 

Hern talks about the Klaarwater District near Kimberley (in the northern Cape) - a totally different description/region which does not exist.

 

Hi Scott.

 

I've found a flaw in this statement and this is what I've found. The "Klaarwater" district described as being "near" Kimberley in the "Northern Cape indeed exists. The Klaarwater distric is was more or less where Griqua Town and Douglas is currently located in relation to Kimberley and also Bloemfontein. In addition, the word "district" would refer to an area like around a town or a subdivision of any territory, region, etc.

 

I for argument stay in Hekpoort in the district of Krugersdorp, now named Mogale City or can make it even more confusion by saying I stay on a farm in the Hekpoort district.

 

 

58f5a71cbb5f1_532225_100918150950amp.jpg.3be71999f8faf0480dad0c6488ba748a.jpg

 

I base this finding on a factual evidence found on the web. The comprehensive map from which I've take this image cut can be found here:

 

Map of South Africa by Kiepert, Heinrich, 1818-1899

 

 

 

I hope you find this factual piece helpful.

Edited by 4kids

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4kids

Hi Scott,

 

The London Missionary Society which is now incorporated with The Council for World Mission has an extended archive which may shed some more light on many claims by different parties. Have you ever considered making use of this vast base of information that perhaps may have much more information than all the books put together?

 

There you will find incoming correspondence from missionaries, journals, reports, minutes of meetings etc etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pierre_Henri

Some Points to Ponder ...

 

Scott

 

On your website you give “Irrefutable evidence" from the London Missionary Society's own records that the Griquatown token coins never circulated by using research from Karel Schoeman’s work “The Mission at Griquatown 1801-1821

 

The Griquatown mission in their report to the London Missionary Society (LMS) say in their 1815-16 report ...

 

To remedy the inconvenience sustained by the people (who have now made considerable progress in civilization) by their want of a circulating medium, the Directors are now procuring for them a coinage of silver tokens. (Remember that was in the period 1815 / 1816)

 

On this you (Scott) commentseven the L(ondon) M(issionary) S(ociety) (who manufactured them) confirm that the (failed) coins were issued as token coins and not as "indigenous currency".

 

My comment: That is ludicrous: what does it matter if they (the LMS) referred to them as token coins and not indigenous currency? Then Scott, your beloved Strachan tokens were also a failure because people (also) referred to them (even today) as token coins.

 

Schoeman: Andries Waterboer has for some years assisted me in the school ... () .... Anderson made the agreement with him that he would receive for payment 60 Rijksdaalders a year from the society.

 

 

Scott’s comment: Why struggle to pay Waterboer in Rijksdaalder if the Griquatown token coins were being circulated?

 

 

My comment: I assume you know that the Rijksdaalder was never a coin (at least not in the early 1800s) but circulated ONLY as paper money. Obviously Waterboer would have been paid with this (paper money) and not with small change like pennies.

 

 

Schoeman: The greater part of the Griqua money is still in our Society’s property which Br Anderson when leaving delivered to my care. As Mr Campbell thought that Br Anderson had dispersed the silver pieces at too cheap rate, I asked him to let me know the real value of a piece of each which he promised to do, but I have as yet received no account and it is therefore still in my possession.

 

 

My comment: So Anderson DID INDEED dispersed some of the silver pieces to the Griquas, albeit at a too cheap rate. He obviously also dispersed the copper pieces (but probably at the correct rate so no mention was made of this)

 

 

In my view, this can be easily explained. It is known that the Griqua pieces were an attempt at decimal coinage so Anderson probably dispersed the silver Griqua ten pence as a Shilling (12 pence), and the silver Griqua five pence as a sixpence. (When exchanging them for coppers for example)

Whatever the reason might be, the fact is that there is irrefutable evidence that these coins/tokens were INDEED dispersed to the Griquas – but how many we will never know.

 

Now the BIG Question is WHAT did the Griqua do with the coins/tokens that they received from the missionary?

 

Scott suggests that they were “handed out as trinkets

 

My comment: Isn’t a trinket something you hang around your neck or from a chain around your wrist?

 

So then all or most of the surviving pieces would have holes in them would they not – I mean how else would they be used as trinkets?

 

HOW MANY GRIQUA TOKENS HAVE YOU SEEN WITH HOLES IN THEM?

 

The fact is that that they were NOT handed out as trinkets but as small change AND WHAT DO ONE DO WITH SMALL CHANGE?

 

You spend it and if nobody would want it, at the least the church would be grateful receiving them in their Sunday collection box to desperse out again on Monday to the same people.

 

...and that is circulation isn’t it?

 

Pierre.

Edited by Pierre_Henri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

Klaarwater - Griquatown

 

Lets start with the confusion over the name Klaarwater/Griquatown - Pierre Henry and 4Kids

 

As you know Griquatown was called Klaarwater prior to 1813 and the position of Klaarwater in the large map linked by 4Kids correctly displays the position of this settlement. There is no reference in that map to the name being a region/district. In fact the region is clearly marked Griquas. Campbell is a fraction of the size of Griquatown - yet it is shown as well. There is absolutely no question in my mind that the cartographer has used the old name for Griquatown and in no way suggests that he is refering to a region. Why would he display Campbell and not the settlement of Klaarwater/Griquatown?

 

I have plenty of old maps dating back to this time and they all refer to Griqua Town - not one post-1820 mentions Klaar Water - which shows the cartographer used Griquatown's old name. In the large map linked by 4Kids the "u" of the large letters GRIQUAS is in the approximate position that the settlement was located. This is right alongside "K" of Klaarwater. Griquatown, even today, is a tiny settlement with a just few thousand residents - very different to Krugersdorp. For example Griquatown today would easily fit into the Krugersdorp suburb of Rant-en-Dal.

 

I should mention, 4Kids, the map you have linked to appears to me to have some fairly substantial and basic errors. The most visibly obvious is the shape of the Orange Free State which (according to the map) includes the bottom half of what is Lesotho today. The borders of the OFS shown on this map were never the case. And what is the "Oranje Fluss Repub"? At a cursory glance even Bloemfontein is spelt incorrectly as Blomfontein. You get maps and maps. Just you get Prof Arndt v Parsons.

 

Interestingly if you read my book "Children of the Mist" you will see a chapter "Kokstad and Kimberley - two worlds apart" (starting page 249) which discusses how the Griqua who (under Adam Kok II first claimed the Kimberley region in the period circa 1820) had this land taken from them by the Voortrekkers in the 1850s. (Adam and his brother Cornelius Kok started roaming this area as bergenaars a few years after their fall out and departure from Griquatown in 1814). Once diamonds were found it was discovered that a border marker known as "David's Graf" south of the Kimberley site had apparently been moved by a Dutch farmer who wanted to (illegally) increase the size of his farm. It was the moving of this cairn of stones that resulted in the British laying claim to the Kimberley site which really did reside on the Orange Free State side of the border. The British made an enormous payment to the OFS Goverrnment in compensation - saving it from bankruptcy. Ironically the site of the big hole of Kimberley was originally a Griqua farm which fell victim to the Maitland treaty signed between the British and the fledgling OFS government.

 

Of course the other name used for Griquatown "Griekwastad" is shown on the weather/locational map linked by Pierre. I do not see any reference to Klaarwater District. There never was and never has been a region near Kimberley of that name, but keep looking! Klaarwater was the original name of the settlement - nothing more, nothing less.

 

In closing - here is a drawing done by Burchell in 1812 (the year before Campbell visited Klaarwater/Griquatown) and two years before the majority of the Griqua living there left the village in 1814: http://www.tokencoins.com/griqua/gtown.jpg

 

Hardly the best candidate for a circulating coin.

 

Kind regards

 

Scott Balson

Edited by ndoa18

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

Hi 4Kids

 

The London Missionary Society which is now incorporated with The Council for World Mission has an extended archive which may shed some more light on many claims by different parties. Have you ever considered making use of this vast base of information that perhaps may have much more information than all the books put together?

 

There you will find incoming correspondence from missionaries, journals, reports, minutes of meetings etc etc.

The book by Karel Schoeman more than adequately covers these documents - they are accurately transcribed into his book and blow away Parsons claims made over 100 years later in 1927.

 

See: The Mission at Griquatown 1801-1821 - Karel Schoeman

 

Fascinating book you should read it!

 

Kind regards

 

Scott Balson

Edited by ndoa18

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

That is what makes the S&Co so collectable for even the newest collector.

 

Hi Ewaan

 

We have had some Strachan & Co Tokens recently on auctions and noticed that there is no real demand for them..

 

Are they selling for higher prices anywhere else.

 

See some of the auctions below still at the starting bid of R1 - Nobody bidding on these coins compared to even the cheap Mandela Coins..

The advantage of the S&Co coins over the Griquatown coins is quite simple. Anyone, even the newest coin collector, can afford to purchase one of the common S&Co pieces that you are having difficulty selling.

 

I never claimed that the S&Co pieces had the same following as the Mandela coins - all I have done is recorded their history. I was originally surprised when these sort of claims come out of left field, but not anymore. I would be extremely surprised if the S&Co did gain the same following as the Mandela pieces.

 

I have to say, apart from the commonest MH (the 2/-), I don't see you listing any of the rarer MH pieces, like the 3d, or the rare set three 1/-. What the S&Co coins have is a recorded and fascinating history - the reason there is a demand for these coins is their known history and I have no doubt that in years to come they will be a great investment. Some coins are rarer than others so to simply make the carte blanche claim that you based on common S&Co pieces is non-sensical. Its rather like trying to suggest all ZAR pieces are only worth R20 because that is what collectors pay for a common one.

 

PS If I bid on your listings (which I haven't by choice for a long time) believe me the 2/- MH would not be sitting at ZAR200 right now.

 

UPDATE:

 

For the record I note that the S&Co tokens sold by EWAAN (see his post above) sold for several hundred rand each - even the common pieces and the 2/- MH for just under one thousand rand (that WAS a bargain which would not have happened if it had been another seller, believe me, because I would have been a bidder).

Kind regards

 

Scott Balson

Edited by ndoa18

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×