Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Guest

Reality check - videos with 2 key people confirm Griquatown tokens NEVER circulated.

Recommended Posts

Pierre_Henri
Fine with me - lets get serious about the printing press at Griquatown and the dates it could have been installed there or anywhere else ...

 

Let's start at the date 1820 and work our way date wise onwards - I think you said a press was installed post 1830 at another location...

 

(The reason I am asking you this is if you deny serious proof on this issue then there is no way forward on any other issues - then your mind is made up and it would be silly to continue discussions on any other relevant Griqua issues)

 

Pierre

 

OK, any thoughts here ...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

Janet

 

I have been down this track before with Pierre - it's called trying to have a thread locked by going off topic because I don't like what is being discussed here.. Cuan can you please have a word with Pierre Henry so we can get back to the topic of this thread?

 

Thanks

 

Scott Balson

Edited by ndoa18

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

DNW now accepting my evidence on the Griquatown tokens

 

An interesting belated admission made today by Georg reflects the fact that DNW (Dix Noonan Web) Auctions are now accepting the evidence I have presented on BoB that the Griquatown tokens arrived c1820 NOT 1815...

 

Here is a link to Georg's admission... http://forum.bidorbuy.co.za/coins-notes-numismatist/15316-unique-patterns-get-unique-prices-dnw-auction-17th-november.html#post127298

 

Kind regards

 

Scott Balson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4kids
Janet

 

I have been down this track before with Pierre - it's called trying to have a thread locked by going off topic because I don't like what is being discussed here.. Cuan can you please have a word with Pierre Henry so we can get back to the topic of this thread?

Thanks

 

Scott Balson

 

Hi Scott,

 

From an outside perspective and non Stachan nor Griqua collector but always interested, I think that this is very relevant in establishing time lines and additional information that can help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Hi Scott,

 

From an outside perspective and non Stachan nor Griqua collector but always interested, I think that this is very relevant in establishing time lines and additional information that can help.

 

Well neither I nor Dennrein, who first raised the alleged printing press, agree with you. (see his post)

 

As the debate on this thread is largely between the two of us feel free to start another thread in the community forum where it fits better. This thread is about the Griquatown tokens not whether a printing press existed or not.

 

Kind regards

 

Scott Balson

Edited by ndoa18

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cold Sea

Probably not impossible

 

Scott,

 

To quote Sherlock Holmes: "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth".

 

Applying this logic, different options are relevant. The reference field cannot be narrowed down to a few missionary quotes, drawings and publications, as the discussion can only go around in circles.

 

The topic is interesting and important, and as you are challenging the status quo, the reverse should be welcomed. As for a "tete-a-tete" thread, if you do not want any other comments, you should not post on a public forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

Lets get real

 

Scott,

 

To quote Sherlock Holmes: "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth".

 

Applying this logic, different options are relevant. The reference field cannot be narrowed down to a few missionary quotes, drawings and publications, as the discussion can only go around in circles.

 

The topic is interesting and important, and as you are challenging the status quo, the reverse should be welcomed. As for a "tete-a-tete" thread, if you do not want any other comments, you should not post on a public forum.

 

Ok Derik

 

What does a printing press have to do with a token coin?

What does ink have to do with having a bath?

What does a Sunday BBQ have to do with driving to work?

 

Come on.. lets get real... debate the legitimacy of a printing press ever existing at Griquatown but NOT ON THIS THREAD. This thread is about the Griquatown token coins.

 

This is my last response on this subject.

 

Kind regards

 

Scott Balson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
qball

Off topic

 

We all get confused at times, Pam. Some of us are confused all the time! :whistling:

 

Please restrict your posts to topic related comments.

 

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
qball

Please stick to the topic everyone.

 

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pierre_Henri

The Griqua Work Hour Token Myth

 

“The copper coin prepared and sent out by the institution are in circulation, not only in the Colony, but its neighbourhood, and the people seems pleased with it

 

Missionary register, Volume 4; By Church Missionary Society dated 1816 : page 239

 

This report does not refer to South Africa, but West Africa and the country of Sierra Leone in the year 1816.

What is interesting here is that between 1793 and up to 1805, the royal British Mint struck DECIMAL coins for their West African colony (actually run by a private company) in 1 cent, 10 cent, 20 cent and 50 cent pieces.

The DECIMAL 10 cent piece – like the Griqua DECIMAL 10 pence piece, was ALSO struck in silver, ALSO struck in ENGLAND, and circulated up to the early part of the 1800s “with success” in Africa.

 

Mention have been made that the Griqua decimal issues could actually be work hour tokens, but as we see here with very similar issues in terms of their date, denomination, decimalization, metal content, origin etc. etc. that is simply not true.-

Pierre

Edited by Pierre_Henri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dennrein

Back to the roots

 

First of all: interesting input from Pierre Henri. It is probable that the Sierra Leone coins (1791) were inspired by the decimal US Dollar (1787), having the same name and similar denominations. The problem with the Griqua coins remains that they have no reference to a currency on them, as opposed to the Sierra Leone tokens, neither cents, nor stuivers, nor pence. This is what opens it up to speculation. They could be based on English or Dutch currency or on work hours or be some novel currency. As far as I know Boyne 1866 was the first to assume it to be British currency and Parsons 1927 agreed. As Scott Balson has pointed out, most subsequent catalogues were based on Parsons article. I myself can't help but wonder if it would really make sense introducing coinage in pence in a community in the 1810's, where even in 1852 the Griquas were still expressing fines to be paid in "1 rixdollar, 5 shillings, 2 stuivers" (Schoeman 1996: p. 8). This is why I assumed the tokens to be based on Dutch small change, which was decimalised in 1816. I agree that it is highly unlikely that the values are meant to be work hours, as Scott Balson has suggested.

 

On the issue of the printing press, let me explain why I regard it as relevant for the Griqua coins by quoting original sources.

 

Campbell visited the Griqua in 1813 and a meeting with "all the male inhabitants in the settlement" was convened on August 7, where laws were passed, a judiciary system was decided upon and the coinage decision was made (Campbell 1815: 354):

"(…) It was likewise resolved, that as they had no circulating medium amongst them, by which they could purchase any small article, such as knives, scissars, clothing, etc. supposing a shop to be established amongst them, which they were anxious that there should be – they should apply to the Missionary Society to get silver pieces of different value coined for them in England, which the missionaries would take for their allowance from the Society, having Griqua town marked on them. It is probable that, if this were adopted, in a short time they would circulate among all the nations all about, and be a great convenience. (…)"

 

What became of this application? The next published mention of the coins that we know of is in the missionary register of 1816. But as the report says missionary Helm "having been obliged to leave (Bethesda) ... has now joined Mr. Anderson", which happened in 1815, it is obvious that the report is referring to things that happened in 1815 , including the following:

"(...) 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. Mr. Read, considering Griqua Town as a central station of great importance, is of opinion that a printing-press should be established there; a measure which the Directors highly approve. (...)”

 

The reason I became so interested in the printing press is precisely this passage and, as it turns out, the printing press is indeed mentioned in a letter, written by missionary Cupido at Makoon's Kraal near Dithakong, to John Campbell on May 23, 1817. It reads:

"The printing press sent to Griqua town is come to hand, and they have begun to print a Hymn Book. One of the missionaries has begun to compose a Dictionary and Catechism in the Bootsuana language."

 

If a printing press takes two years from order to delivery to get from England to Griquatown, why shouldn't a couple of sacks of coins manage the same, seeing as it was the same Directors who were supportive of and responsible for both. In a previous post I speculate how this might have happened.

 

Regards

dennrein

Edited by dennrein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

Lets get back to facts not hyperbole, speculation and baseless assumptions

 

Hi Dennrein

 

Once again your last post is largely a bunch of assumptions. Just like my suggestion that the Griquatown tokens are labour tokens which at least has some basis. What we do know is that the value on the tokens makes no sense and, once again, the large gap between the 1/2 and the 5 is inconsistent with normal coinage. What should be noted is that as they were token coins the "value" on them might NOT reflect a currency value. (ie there are tokens with values for labour, water, milk, coach rides you name it... )

 

Please keep the printing press off this thread - it is irrelevant - and it has its own thread now and we do not want the spammers re-entering the fray.

 

Once again I make the point that there is now enough factually based and relevant information uncovered about the circumstances relating to the Griquatown tokens to back up my statement that not even one of them was ever traded in Griquatown at any time.

 

Unless a single trade in them can be found in some document or journal from that time it's quite simple - it did not happen.

 

What we do know for a fact is that the VF Griquatown tokens - if this was indeed through circulation - then it wasn't at Griquatown among the Griqua.

 

Let me remind you again baseless assumptions about the tokens count for nought. Lets get back on track and back to relevant facts please.

 

Kind regards

 

Scott Balson

Edited by ndoa18

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dennrein

Circles

 

We've been down this road a couple of times and it does get a bit tiresome having to repeat oneself. You are right, I am speculating. So are you. There is no hard proof of either assumption, that the tokens circulated or not. There is only one piece of evidence that is clear cut: the letter from Helm in 1821. We agree the letter says that the lesser part of the coins had been dispersed by 1820 (missionary Anderson had dispersed them and he had left the mission in the first half of 1820 - this is why it is impossible that Campbell brought the coins with him in the second half of 1820, they must have arrived there earlier - incidentally: when do you think the coins arrived in Griquatown and who brought them there?). We disagree on whether they would have been distributed like lollies in a classroom or rather traded for something in return. I have told you my reasons for assuming they weren't distributed for free and, as far as my definition goes, trading coins for goods or labour equals circulation of currency.

 

Regards

dennrein

Edited by dennrein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pierre_Henri

When were they procured - in 1815 or 1817?

 

In my view Parsons document (on the Griqua coinage written in 1927) is a complete fraud - making all the references to the GQT in which publishers use Parsons since no better UNLESS they can support their claims with evidence of facts claimed. The basic errors in the Parsons document has always been the basis of and remains my argument.

 

Scott Balson 21 10.2011

According to Balson, Parsons lists only three references in his book being Campbell, Moffat and Livingstone and two of them have absolutely no relevance to the coins, and the third, Campbell can also not (always) be trusted.

On his website, Balson shows what he describes as assumptions made by Parsons to get around the fact that there are no LMS records showing the coins being minted in 1815/16

Balson then uses Karel Schoeman’s research to show that the London Missionary Society was talking about having silver tokens issued two years later in 1817.

But the Missionary Register extract of 1816 provided by denreinn (Seeley 1816: 316): shows that when the missionaries mention ... the Directors are now procuring for them (the Griquas) acoinage of silver tokens ...” ...they are actually talking about the year 1815 – the same date that Parsons is quoting Campbell in his book on the Griqua coinage that Balson says is so fraudulent that it has always served as the basis of his (Balson’s) argument.

 

But now a contemporary document, written in the year 1816 and referring to 1815 shows that Parsons was actually correct when he refers to this date.

So here is the possiblet time line:-

7 August 1813 – the Griquasand Campbell decides to procure coinage for the Griquas.

13 February 1814, Campbell sails from Cape Town back to London

Sometime during 1814 Campbell places his order for the coins from Thomas Halliday

A year later, in 1815, the first consignment of coins is send to South Africa.

The dates are very important here and an independent and contemporary source, being the Missionary report of 1816 that refers to the previous year (1815) backs up the fact that the coins were procured then – just as Parsons said they were and not the date 1817 as Balson quotes other sources that he would rather believe.

 

The same Parsons whose work Balson sees as so fraudulent and erroneous - that it has always served as the basis for his (Balson’s) argument.

Go figure ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

Pierre when you know what you are talking about I will debate you... now let me get back to the debate with Dennrein

 

Scott Balson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

Facts

 

We've been down this road a couple of times and it does get a bit tiresome having to repeat oneself. You are right, I am speculating. So are you. There is no hard proof of either assumption, that the tokens circulated or not. There is only one piece of evidence that is clear cut: the letter from Helm in 1821. We agree the letter says that the lesser part of the coins had been dispersed by 1820 (missionary Anderson had dispersed them and he had left the mission in the first half of 1820 - this is why it is impossible that Campbell brought the coins with him in the second half of 1820, they must have arrived there earlier - incidentally: when do you think the coins arrived in Griquatown and who brought them there?). We disagree on whether they would have been distributed like lollies in a classroom or rather traded for something in return. I have told you my reasons for assuming they weren't distributed for free and, as far as my definition goes, trading coins for goods or labour equals circulation of currency.

 

Regards

dennrein

 

Hi Dennrein

 

Lets look at the facts:

 

Did the Griquatown tokens circulate:

 

The main facts suggesting they did not circulate at Griquatown:

1) not one reference to them in any of the books written at that time

2) there was no trading store for them to be traded

3) Griquatown was a ghost town from 1814-1820 (when Waterboer returned)

4) they had no "value" associated with Rijksdaalder or coin of the crown

5) Helm says in June 1821 that he still holds the greater part of the tokens and asks "I should be glad if you, dear sir, would have the goodness to inform me what I am to do with them." (Parsons says they were returned to England in 1816).

6) In the same (1821) letter by Helm he says when it comes to paying Waterboer "(The Mission Station) having no money, he has for the last two years received NOTHING except 13 Rijksdaalders 4 Schillings". (ie the tokens are NOT money)

7) Campbell notes in his book in his second trip that regular trades do not exist in Griquatown

8) Burchell's drawing and comments made during his visit to Griquatown in 1812 reflect the fact that this was not a community that would readily adopt a circulating coin for trade (even if it had a store).

9) Moffatt's comments in his letter to Phillip about the state of Griquatown in 1820 reflect the fact that nothing had changed since Burchell's comments in 1812

10) In August 1820 Campbell states in a letter IF he could get traders to the south to accept the tokens then they might be accepted by the Griqua - he failed

11) The date of their arrival is clearly post-1817. The 1815-16 report would have been compiled at the end of this period and the mission station was still waiting for them to arrive. Anderson was at the mission station at this time.

12) In Anderson's journals and letters not one reference is made to the tokens during this entire period - he departs in 1820.

13) Prof Arndt states that not one "farthing" circulated. I would suggest Prof Arndt as an expert in the history of South African currency has more credibility than Parsons considering the lack of relevant references in his report on the tokens.

14) The Griqua were nomadic and traded by barter - at Griquatown the total value of items traded in a whole year (by barter and Rijksdaalder) was less than R50.

15) Campbell and other travellers who met the Griqua of Griquatown only refer to Rijksdaalder and barter being used in trades

16) There is not one mention of the tokens as an asset at the Griquatown Mission - even though Rijksdaalder and barter items like ivory are noted

17) All claims regarding the tokens in more recent coin books, as you now agree, originate from Parsons report - making them all wrong.

 

There are many others supporting the viewpoint that they did not circulate at Griquatown.

 

The only fact suggesting they did circulate (but where?):

1) Tokens are found in a worn condition (even worse than VF) which is claimed by some to be through "circulation"

 

Show me a single fact to show that they circulated at Griquatown - show me a single reference to a trade - show me proof that counters the FACTS suggesting that they did not that I have listed above.

 

Yes we are going around in circles and getting right off the subject at times. The facts are overwhelmingly in favour of my position - which is that the Griquatown token coins arrived c1820 (probably with Campbell who was making his second trip); and that they were a complete flop. Yes, a few tokens were handed out but NO they did not circulate as there was not only confusion about their "value" but also nowhere to trade them - and that was just a start of the problems facing the ridiculous idea.

 

You know my views as to where the tokens circulated, if they did - and it was not at Griquatown.

 

The points above are facts - not speculation, not assumption. Common sense facts.

 

Kind regards

 

Scott Balson

Edited by ndoa18

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pierre_Henri

Final and Conclusive Proof

 

Pierre when you know what you aretalking about I will debate you

 

Scott Balson

 

I will publish the final and conclusive proof that the griqua issues circulatedat Griquatown tomorrow 24 November here on the forum, but under a new title as the one used here is incorrect.

Pierre

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dennrein

Mission report

 

First of all, responding to Pierre Henri on when the coins could have arrived in Griquatown, I think the important question is how to interpret „now procuring“ in the mission report.

 

“Now”, we can infer from the context, is 1815. “Procuring” can mean anything from planning to contact a die manufacturer (probably Halliday) and mint, to having contacted them and waiting for results, to having received the coins and planning to send them, to having sent them but the coins not having arrived yet. All of this would be part and parcel of “procuring”, i.e. organizing the coins to get produced and then transported to Griquatown. I think the report would have said “The Directors have procured…” if they had received notice that the coins had already arrived in Griquatown at that point in time. Then again, letters back in those days could take ages to get from South African missions to England and vice versa. There is an example from Kat River in the Eastern Cape where a letter took over nine months to arrive there from England (compare Caldwell 1818: 65). So there is no way of knowing if the coins might not already have arrived by then, because it would have taken months before confirmation of having received the coins would have arrived in London from Griquatown. It is also a question of how long one thinks it would take to get the coins produced in England. Could they have been produced in about a year's time? I am not familiar with the production cycles of English die manufacturers and mints (e.g. in Birmingham) at the time.

 

The report also shows us the Directors of the LMS in London were organizing the coins, not the missionaries of Griquatown or John Campbell by himself. This contradicts Parsons assumption that Campbell organized the coins single-handedly.

 

Regarding the post from Scott Balson, it would take days to discuss each and every point you make. Most of them are sufficient to explain why the coins saw limited circulation, but none of them proves they weren't circulated. And some of them are simply wrong (e.g. total value of items traded by the Griqua in one year less than 50 rand; Philip 1828, p69 on the Beaufort fair of 1819: "At the first fair, the business done by that people (the Griquas) amounted to twenty-seven thousand rix-dollars"). Of course you are right in saying there is also no hard proof that they did circulate, either. Helm's letter proves that the lesser part of the coins was dispersed by 1820. Let me ask you two things: Do you honestly believe that the "lesser" part of the coins were given to the Griquas as gifts? And what is your take on when the coins arrived and who brought them there?

 

Regards

dennrein

Edited by dennrein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dennrein

British coin production

 

I’ve done some more research and stumbled across an interesting detail concerning British coin manufacture. In 1817 the “Act of Suppression” made private coinage illegal in the United Kingdom (Sargent/Velde 2003: 303). I compared the Griqua coins to private coinage in a previous post because this is exactly what they were modelled on, as a substitute for lacking small change in either British pence or Dutch cents/stuivers, intended to circulate “amongst all the nations” around Griqualand. This kind of tender was prohibited from manufacture in 1817. The Birmingham and Sheffield tokens were, however, exempted from the law (Selgin 2008: xii) and if Halliday (from Birmingham) manufactured the dies, they could even have been produced after 1817. The bigger problem would have been finding a mint to have them struck. In 1797 there were 27 coin manufacturers / mints in Birmingham, five of them produced private coinage by the ton (Selgin 2004: 480). But the “Act of Suppression” of course ruined their businesses and it wouldn’t have been easy to find a mint prepared to strike small scale mintages after 1817. So it seems unlikely that the Griqua coins were produced after 1817.

 

Regards

dennrein

Edited by dennrein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lilythepink

Is it not possible that in those long ago years, people also made mistakes with records?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

Please explain

 

Hi Dennrein

 

You say...

Most of them are sufficient to explain why the coins saw limited circulation, but none of them proves they weren't circulated. And some of them are simply wrong (e.g. total value of items traded by the Griqua in one year less than 50 rand; Philip 1828, p69 on the Beaufort fair of 1819: "At the first fair, the business done by that people (the Griquas) amounted to twenty-seven thousand rix-dollars").

 

1) Then how did these tokens get to this condition if it was through circulation?

 

c1820 Griquatown Ten Pence in VF fetched 3400 GBP (R51,000)

c1820 Griquatown Five Pence in VF scratched - 1650 GBP (R24,750)

c1820 Griquatown Halfpence in VF- cleaned - 700 GBP (R10,500)

c1820 Griquatown Quarter Pence in EF- 1800 GBP (R27,000)

 

My point always has been, in reply to claims by a few on this forum that these tokens have been worn through circulation, that that could have only have happened at another location - ie not Griquatown - ie probably the tokens Helm asks what he should do with - ie they were returned to England and used for some purpose there where they became worn over a long period of time through daily use. This reuse of tokens for a different purpose is not unique - it happened with the FC Larkan tokens - more at this link.

 

2) The Beaufort Fair is not Griquatown or the lands north of the Orange River. My source is Eric Rosenthal, pg 18, From Barter to Barclays.. The figure quoted is R100 not R50 (I must be getting old!) This is the extract: The entire commerce of the Griqua nation (north of the Orange River) at that time totalled R100 per year.

 

Kind regards

 

Scott Balson

Edited by ndoa18

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Hi Dennrein

 

You say...

 

 

1) Then how did these tokens get to this condition if it was through circulation?

 

c1820 Griquatown Ten Pence in VF fetched 3400 GBP (R51,000)

c1820 Griquatown Five Pence in VF scratched - 1650 GBP (R24,750)

c1820 Griquatown Halfpence in VF- cleaned - 700 GBP (R10,500)

c1820 Griquatown Quarter Pence in EF- 1800 GBP (R27,000)

 

My point always has been, in reply to claims by a few on this forum that these tokens have been worn through circulation, that that could have only have happened at another location - ie not Griquatown - ie probably the tokens Helm asks what he should do with - ie they were returned to England and used for some purpose there where they became worn over a long period of time through daily use. This reuse of tokens for a different purpose is not unique - it happened with the FC Larkan tokens - more at this link.

 

2) The Beaufort Fair is not Griquatown or the lands north of the Orange River. My source is Eric Rosenthal, pg 18, From Barter to Barclays.. The figure quoted is R100 not R50 (I must be getting old!) This is the extract: The entire commerce of the Griqua nation (north of the Orange River) at that time totalled R100 per year.

 

Kind regards

 

Scott Balson

 

Dear Scott,

 

You rock! (Sorry, if I am "off the topic?") What We like about you is that your opinion is fact-founded.

What is you last name? ("Pure Batman"? Please Uniformed - look up the origin of that noun... lol.)

 

We just love your insight!

 

 

RL & EM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dennrein

Beaufort fair and VF coins

 

Here is the entire quote from LMS South Africa chief Dr. Philip (1828: 69) on the Beaufort Fair of 1819:

"The institution of this fair speaks volumes. For whom was it istituted? It was instituted for the Griquas, a people who, a few years before, were naked savages! Who were the dealers at the fair? The principal, or, I may say, the only dealers at this fair were Griquas. At the first fair, the business done by that people amounted to twenty-seven thousand rix-dollars; and on most of the goods sold to the Griquas by the colonists, the latter had a profit of from two hundred to five hundred per cent."

 

This proves that the business done by the Griquas alone amounted to twenty-seven thousand rix-dollars. You can calculate from that what kind of profit the white colonists were making.

 

As for the VF coins, Griquatown missionary Helm writes in his letter to Philip (June 21, 1821):

“Of what I have received from the Griquas for our society I shall give an account as soon as all is payed. 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. I should be glad if you, dear sir, would have the goodness to inform me what I am to do with it.”

 

It seems he is waiting for information from Philip or Campbell on the "real value" of the coins, so as to be able to sell or buy goods or services at the appropriate rate. Campbell had reprimanded Anderson for buying or selling things too cheaply with the coins (too cheap rate). It is hard to tell what happened next. If the coins remained in circulation they might have reached VF status. If they were withdrawn soon after, this is unlikely. There might be another explanation for their worn state: maybe they arrived already worn. If they were transported in sacks on ox wagons across the rugged veld, this might have even started wearing them before they went into circulation. As yet no proof has been provided, though, that they might have been worn in casinos elsewhere.

 

Regards

dennrein

Edited by dennrein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dennrein

Token look-alike

 

I was browsing the Fitzwilliam museum's 19th century private coin / token collection and I came across this coin:

 

Image Window

 

Notice anything similar to the Griqua coins? The coin is pretty worn but look at the feet and the wing and how the bird is standing. The similarities are no coincidence: this is a silver token coin designed by Thomas Halliday in 1811.

 

Here's a top quality Griqua coin obverse for comparison:

GriquaHalfpennyAU58Obverse.jpg.275c15df8aa9514fa75d6ddc9fe9f3bc.jpg

 

Regards

dennrein

Edited by dennrein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

That does not work

 

It seems he is waiting for information from Philip or Campbell on the "real value" of the coins, so as to be able to sell or buy goods or services at the appropriate rate. Campbell had reprimanded Anderson for buying or selling things too cheaply with the coins (too cheap rate). It is hard to tell what happened next. If the coins remained in circulation they might have reached VF status. If they were withdrawn soon after, this is unlikely. There might be another explanation for their worn state: maybe they arrived already worn. If they were transported in sacks on ox wagons across the rugged veld, this might have even started wearing them before they went into circulation. As yet no proof has been provided, though, that they might have been worn in casinos elsewhere.

 

Hi Dennrein

 

That does not work

 

It takes ten years of constant daily use in circulation to get to VF. The argument I have been facing from a few on this forum is that this is through "circulation" through trade. The question then is where?

 

As I have said before unless you or anyone else can provide some authentic records confirming their use at this time then the facts demonstrate just one thing - they never ever circulated as money at Griquatown, not one 1/4.

 

That is what this debate is about.

 

Kind regards

 

Scott Balson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...