Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Pierre_Henri

PROOF that the GRIQUATOWN issues saw CONSIDERABLE circulation:

Recommended Posts

Pierre_Henri    14
Pierre_Henri

Firstly, I wish to apologize to Geejay (regarding his post on the Griquatown 100 pence below) for not adhering to his request to not raise the circulation issue – I missed it the second time around.

Regarding Mike Klees question about the circulation of especially the silver Griquatown issues ...

If you look at the De Bruin collection currently on auction at Dix, Noonan and Webb, you will notice that examples of the Griqua Farthing, Half Penny, Five Pence and Ten Pence are offered (lot numbers 148 to 151)

ALL OF THEM have circulatedNONE OF THEM is uncirculated.

Secondly, if you look at the NGC population reports, all four denominations have CIRCULATED Griqua issues: for the silver 10 pence it is higher than 70% (circulated vs. uncirculated)

Even more astonishing is the fact that both the Farthing and Half Penny show VF examples. As you know, the Sheldon scale (in laymen’s terms) defines wear on coins on a scale from 1 to 70 with the VF grade in the middle (VF20 to VF39).

A coin in VF is “halfway” between uncirculated and totally worn, so must have seen considerable wear (circulation) to be in that condition.

If you take, for example, a brand new R5 coin and pass it on in a row of 100 people, who each takes that coin in turn, put it in his/her pocket or purse, takes it out again and pass in on to the next person (etc.), my guess is that when it reaches the 100th person, it will still be in better than VF condition.

So for a coin to be graded VF by a respected company like NGC, it must have seen considerable circulation. And that does NOT mean that a Missionary once in a while took it out of a storage cupboard to show it to an interesting party. That DOES mean that it was handled by 100s of people and the only way that that was possible was through daily trade.

Rather than relying on sketchy reports written in days gone by, my opinion is that one must “ask the coins themselves”, and what they undeniably tell us, is that they have seen circulation.

So I would like to make a small amendment to the following facts that some of us agreed on in September last year on this forum:-

  1. The very first SA currency that circulated in SA was the Plettenberg Bank Notes of 1782

  2. The De Mist Scheepjes Guldens were the FIRST coins minted for SA that actually saw circulation in SA

  3. The Griqua Tokens were the first token or coin range minted for SA but probably saw limited circulation in geographical terms.

  4. The Strachan Tokens were the first widely accepted token-currency in SA

  5. The Burgerspond was the first SA coin (1874) with the name of SA on it but saw limited circulation

  6. The Paul Kruger Z.A.R. issues of 1892 were the first true coin range in SA that saw widespread acceptance as a national coinage.

  7. The Union of SA issue of 1923 was the first SA currency minted for the whole country that is today known as the Republic of South Africa

Regards

Pierre

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JOHNEL    10
JOHNEL

Very interesting observation !!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest   
Guest Guest

What about the PROOF?

 

Well.. well - welcome back Pierre ) .. I am pleased to see you brought your bat and ball back to the forum!

 

You obviously missed the RESEARCH based discussion on the Griquatown tokens while you were away - it is linked here.

 

If you take some time to read the posts you will discover the following:

 

1) There is absolutely no reference to the Griquatown tokens ever being used in a single trade. (ie no proof of circulation) by anyone from that time.

2) They are not coins they are tokens

3) They only arrived in Griquatown c 1819-1820 (ie NOT 1815-16)

4) A few were initially handed out to Griqua as tokens but this quickly stopped as they realised there was no place for them to trade, and they became trinkets

5) If the tokens did circulate it would have been in a gambling hall in 1800s England after they were shipped back by Helm

 

A few months ago I openly invited you, on this forum, to become involved in a public debate while I was in South Africa. You declined – for your own reasons – as did Georg.

 

A few old worn tokens does not imply circulation it certainly confirms what I have always said – a few of them were handed out as trinkets. Anything that is old and poorly stored gets worn – surely as someone who enjoys metal detecting you would be aware of this?

 

As I said before, unless a reference to a single trade in these tokens from those times can be found then they did NOT circulate. People believe in all sorts of strange things such as fairytales, the earth is flat and that these Griquatown tokens circulated (I put them all in the same category).

 

Feel free to question any of the referenced facts in the posts linked on the thread above because that is based on research and facts and not thumb-sucked conjecture as has been the practice in the past when it comes to the Griquatown tokens.

 

PS I was not among the number who agreed to you seven point layout....

 

Kind regards

 

Scott Balson

Edited by ndoa18

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest   
Guest Guest

100 transactions = better than VF on a coin? I don't think so!!

 

Pierre says...

If you take, for example, a brand new R5 coin and pass it on in a row of 100 people, who each takes that coin in turn, put it in his/her pocket or purse, takes it out again and pass in on to the next person (etc.), my guess is that when it reaches the 100th person, it will still be in better than VF condition.

 

If that was a bank note and you added a few hundred transactions I would agree.. but a coin come on.. let's get serious!

 

A coin lasts for many years with regular daily use (many thousands of transactions) before it gets to VF... I suggest your operative word is "guess" ... maybe??? That word applies to so much of the Griquatown token claims...

 

anyone want to challenge me on this?

 

PS the US mint should know.. H.I.P. Pocket Change™ Web Site - 10 Facts Coin Kids Should Know. A coin in REGULAR use lasts 25 years... excuse the caption but its what is on the page title of the US MInt.

Just thinking out aloud here... a VF Griquatown token, according to the US Mint, would have had to be in daily use for at least ten years to get to that condition.. damn am i missing something here?

 

So how does this fit Pierre? Your number three on your list in your opening post

The Griqua Tokens were the first token or coin range minted for SA but probably saw limited circulation in geographical terms.

 

Kind regards

 

Scott Balson

Edited by ndoa18

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pierre_Henri    14
Pierre_Henri

Hello fellow coin collectors -

 

You have heard both sides of the argument ...

 

Now please vote in the poll Algreco started (for coin collectors) on if the Griqua issues circulated or not.

 

I have voted and rest my case now.

 

Kind regards and enjoy your summer holidays!

 

Pierre

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Miss Muffet    20
Little Miss Muffet

With all due respect to Scott and his research on these coins, I still cannot understand what this debate is all about

Whether these coins circulated or not makes no differance. They clearly existed and are of value.

An UNC coin is worth more than a circulated coin but it seems the argument here would make them less valuable if they did not circulate.

If this thread on the Griqua coins was published in a book it would be the waste of a tree proving nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest   
Guest Guest
Hello fellow coin collectors -

 

You have heard both sides of the argument ...

 

Now please vote in the poll Algreco started (for coin collectors) on if the Griqua issues circulated or not.

 

I have voted and rest my case now.

 

Kind regards and enjoy your summer holidays!

 

Pierre

 

Pierre

 

With due respect voting means diddly-squat.

 

Unless you can counter the facts and research I have posted here any number of your "mates" polling for your point of view does nothing to change the reality. (For the record I won't be polling because on a forum like this it is so open to being rigged). I stand on the integrity of my research - and that does not include a few mates taking up your cause.

 

I would suggest your refusal to debate me while I was in South Africa says it all.

 

PS I would love to hear how you refute what the US Mint have to say.

 

I am waiting for an explanation.. as I always answer your challenges surely you can answer this one which is targeted at kids?

 

Kind regards

 

Scott Balson

Edited by ndoa18

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest   
Guest Guest

Relevance of the debate...

 

With all due respect to Scott and his research on these coins, I still cannot understand what this debate is all about

Whether these coins circulated or not makes no differance. They clearly existed and are of value.

An UNC coin is worth more than a circulated coin but it seems the argument here would make them less valuable if they did not circulate.

If this thread on the Griqua coins was published in a book it would be the waste of a tree proving nothing.

 

Hi Geewhizz

 

The fundamental reason numismatists collect coins is the history. When it comes to the issue that the Griquatown tokens failed and never circulated that impacts dramaticaly on their collectability. The prime reason a few collectors here are so antagonistic towards my research.

 

As a numismatist I believe my primary role is to release the research I have taken years to put together which exposes great fallacy. And it is great.

 

Previously it was believed that the Griquatown tokens circulated widely (see Pierre's opening post) which has now been shown to be false - you will note Pierre now talks about "geographical terms" .. a very interesting shift from what many books on South African coins would have you believe.

 

The issue is not condition it is RELEVANCE.

 

You see the fact that there is not one reference to the Griquatown tokens circulating (despite numerous letters, reports and testimonials from the Griquatown missionaries at that time) clearly spells out that they were a dismal failure. And, quite honestly, without somewhere for them to trade them in this extremely remote part of South Africa makes perfect logical sense.

 

Until now everyone has simply accepted the 1927 report by Parson which uses three completely irrelevant references to support a number of assumptions which have absolutely no basis. What you have on this thread is a number of collectors who swear by Hern and Engelbrecht as the experts in all things despite the fact they simply parrot Parsons.

 

For the record Engelbrecht contacted me for the image he used on the Strachan tokens on page 28 of his book "Money in South Africa" and his comments on page 129, 130 (on the Strachan tokens) were from me. There was no independent research - sorry Georg.

 

It is always a cat fight to challenge the establishment view on a particular coin.. and I have copped a lot of flack from collectors over the years over this issue. I stand resolute because to me (someone who has studied the Griqua for over 30 years) the suggestion that they used these tokens as "money" in Griquatown c1820 has less credibility than the tokoloshe... It is quite enlightening when you consider that NOT ONE "expert" (including everyone on this forum) has taken up my simple challenge to debate them on this issue in a public forum for over five years.

 

The fact is that when collectors realise that Parsons report was complete hocus-pocus the Griquatown tokens will, for serious collectors, become as about relevant to their hobby as an interesting but worthless 1800 medallion. And, of course, as a result their value will become little more than the metal content NOT their condition.

 

That is the issue.

 

Kind regards

 

Scott Balson

Edited by ndoa18

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bellcoin    10
Bellcoin

I have been reading these endless threads for a while. There are really such simple answers to this whole saga. Answers are on " both sides of the coin" so to speak.

 

Everyone has a valid point and really should be accepted as such.

 

1) The intention was to circulate

2) The intention was misguided and failed.

3) Some ended up to be "circulated" ("handed out to Griqua's") AGAIN intention to circulate.

4) Not all were return and used in gambling dens

5) They were not used as currency (attempted currency,yes)

6) There is no solid and concrete proof either way

 

The FACT of the matter is there is research on the one side and the GQT on the other, both have a story to tell which might differ greatly from what we say and think. How do we decide what the FACT is - impossible to tell 100%, 90% is not 100% therefore leaves a margin of error.

 

Research gives a great indication of what possibly happened and does not cover ALL the bases the GQT itself holds its own answers as well.

Edited by Bellcoin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest   
Guest Guest
I have been reading these endless threads for a while. There are really such simple answers to this whole saga. Answers are on " both sides of the coin" so to speak.

 

Everyone has a valid point and really should be accepted as such.

 

1) The intention was to circulate

2) The intention was misguided and failed.

3) Some ended up to be "circulated" ("handed out to Griqua's") AGAIN intention to circulate.

4) Not all were return and used in gambling dens

5) They were not used as currency (attempted currency,yes)

6) There is no solid and concrete proof either way

 

The FACT of the matter is there is research on the one side and the GQT on the other, both have a story to tell which might differ greatly from what we say and think. How do we decide what the FACT is - impossible to tell 100%, 90% is not 100% therefore leaves a margin of error.

 

Research gives a great indication of what possibly happened and does not cover ALL the bases the GQT itself holds its own answers as well.

 

Yes..

 

Gentlemen, someone who actually follows the posts on this subject :smile:

 

Just one point of clarification:

 

4) Not all were return and used in gambling dens

 

Its not that they were returned.. Helm asks the London Missionary Society in 1820 what he should do with the "great majority" of the tokens.. and THEY were returned.

 

Otherwise your summary cannot be faulted - except if they had circulated the missionaries would certainly have made much of it!

 

PS When I first started debating this a few years ago I was treated as a man who had leprosy. I feel like I am starting to get somewhere in the BEST interests of the integrity of my hobby.

 

Now maybe we can get Hern to rectify the location of these failed tokens (listed into his token coin book) and remove his previously unsupported assumptions listed in his books on South African coins as fact.. ie get rid of the baseless claims. Sadly I doubt it.

 

Kind regards

 

Scott Balson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike Klee    10
Mike Klee

Hi Geewhiz,

 

Your comment " If this thread on the Griqua coins was published in a book it would be the waste of a tree proving nothing" is really uncalled for and should be brought to the attention of Cuan.

 

Whilst I and many others might disagree with Scott re the circulation or otherwise of the GQT coins, he does present solid, well-researched arguments to forward his views; Dennrein from Germany has been a welcome participant in the discussion with a remarkably deep knowledge of insightful source references re the matter; Pierre Henri came back to the forum and provided a reference - Beasts, banknotes and the colour of money in colonial South Africa, by Jean Comaroff and John L. Comaroff, (Archaeological Dialogues) - which gives a highly informative and very complex assessment of trading conditions amongst the peoples of the GQT area in the early 1800's (I am still trying to digest this!).

 

The point is: this is a numismatic forum and the GQT coinage is very much a numismatic matter. The fact that there are now 4 threads currently active on this forum relating to the GQT coinage shows the level of interest in this matter, so your comment is really inappropriate and disappointing.

 

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest   
Guest Guest

Who gives a whizz?

 

Hi Geewhiz,

 

Your comment " If this thread on the Griqua coins was published in a book it would be the waste of a tree proving nothing" is really uncalled for and should be brought to the attention of Cuan.

 

Whilst I and many others might disagree with Scott re the circulation or otherwise of the GQT coins, he does present solid, well-researched arguments to forward his views; Dennrein from Germany has been a welcome participant in the discussion with a remarkably deep knowledge of insightful source references re the matter; Pierre Henri came back to the forum and provided a reference -Beasts, banknotes and the colour of money in colonial South Africa, by Jean Comaroff and John L. Comaroff, (Archaeological Dialogues) - which gives a highly informative and very complex assessment of trading conditions amongst the peoples of the GQT area in the early 1800's (I am still trying to digest this!).

 

The point is: this is a numismatic forum and the GQT coinage is very much a numismatic matter. The fact that there are now 4 threads currently active on this forum relating to the GQT coinage shows the level of interest in this matter, so your comment is really inappropriate and disappointing.

 

Mike

 

Hi Mike

 

I love debating this subject with you because you actually do the research. That is what numismatics is all about - not reading from a coin book.

 

I have to say that I am quite okay with Geewhizz's comment. Let's not get distracted from the debate!

 

PS I can't wait to hearing and debating the sources of this new book "Beasts, banknotes and the colour of money in colonial South Africa" relating to the Griquatown Token Coins.. because I already know them.. all roads lead to Parsons (Rome)! Invite the authors of that book here to debate me .. I don't care.. no one who has apparently written a book on this subject has taken up the cudgel so far!!

 

PPS For the record I have been locked out of even looking at the "poll".. when I try to go to it I am redirected to the main forum page - I rest my case about its credibility. (I have contacted a couple of members here who can access it without a problem).

 

Kind regards

 

Scott Balson

Edited by ndoa18

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike Klee    10
Mike Klee

Hi Scott

 

I thought I would Google the authors of the paper Pierre Henri referred to above and, from Wikepedia, came up with:

"John L. Comaroff (born January 1, 1945)[1] is a Harold H. Swift Distinguished Service professor of Anthropology and Social Sciences at the University of Chicago. He is also Research Professor at the American Bar Foundation.

Comaroff was born in Cape Town in 1945 and received his BA at the University of Cape Town in 1968. After college he and his wife left South Africa for the United Kingdom, where he received his Ph.D. from the London School of Economics in 1973. His field research focus is on the Tswana people of Southern Africa. He researches and publishes independently and in collaboration with his wife, Jean Comaroff, who is also a distinguished service professor at U of C"

 

This paper is well worth reading, with snippets such as:

"By the early 19th century mass produced beads were serving as media of

transaction that articulated local and global economies, linking the worlds

of cattle and money (cf. Graeber 1996). Along with buttons, which were put

to a similar purpose, they were portable tokens that, for a time, epitomized

foreign exchange value beyond the colonial frontier. Beads were ‘the only

circulating medium or money in the interior’, Campbell noted (1822, i, 246),

adding that every ‘nation’ through which they passed made a profit on them."

 

and

 

"Among southern Tswana the increasing velocity of trade did render some

media of exchange – first beads, then money – ever more interchangeable."

 

and

 

"The bottom soon fell out of the frontier bead market, however (although

not so further north; see Chapman 1971 (1868), 127). That market seems to

have been sustained by the dearth of fractions of the rixdollar, the currency

at the Cape in the early 1800s (Arndt 1928, 44–46)."

 

and

 

" Given the uncertainties of colonial currency, the evangelists did not always

entrust the introduction of money, or the dissemination of its qualities, to

the workings of the market. Occasionally they took matters into their own

hands. Thus the Rev. Campbell had, on a tour beyond the colonial frontier

in 1812–13 , decided that the Griqua merited consolidation both as a ‘nation’

and as a base for expanding London Missionary Society operations into the

interior (Parsons 1927, 198). Crucial to the venture was a proper coinage

(Campbell 1813, 256)"

 

There is lots more from Comaroff and Comaroff; well worth reading.

 

Mike

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EWAAN Galleries    10
EWAAN Galleries

Hi

 

We can never know the actual truth thats why I voted as unsure on the poll. This is too far back to know if they were in circulation or not.

 

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion on this subject.....but we all will always be in doubt!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Miss Muffet    20
Little Miss Muffet

Before Cuan bans me let me add---- If I found a griqua token today what would Scott and Pierre suggest I do with it???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lilythepink    10
lilythepink

I don't want you banned, geewhizz. You know a whole lot about coins in general. Some folk might not believe it but others of us KNOW you do!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bellcoin    10
Bellcoin

I agree with Ewaan Galleries on that.

 

That's the whole problem - uncertainty. Research has been done that honestly shows in all possibly they never circulated as a currency. That some of them show "circulated" wear does not mean they were used as a currency. There are a multitude of explanations that could be given for the wear being present.

 

Used to purchase something I think not.

 

The only true and undeniable FACT is they exist!

 

But, however - until some future discovery is made - no one can be 100% certain of the history behind the GQT.

 

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bellcoin    10
Bellcoin

I actually think this whole and entire saga is based on the word "circulated".

 

Maybe they did circulate(some), not as currency but bygone trinkets?

 

So maybe we should say GQT "trinculated" or "tokculated"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MsPlod    10
MsPlod

I actually felt slightly excited when seeing the title of this thread. I thought that new evidence might have come forward - somehow, somewhere.

 

I was very disappointed to read that it was simply a summary of some arguments for their having circulated.

 

Proof - means in the pocket - hard evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest   
Guest Guest
Before Cuan bans me let me add---- If I found a griqua token today what would Scott and Pierre suggest I do with it???

 

Sell it on BoB QUICKLY before the truth sinks in!

 

Kind regards

 

Scott Balson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pierre_Henri    14
Pierre_Henri
Pierre

 

With due respect voting means diddly-squat.

 

Unless you can counter the facts and research I have posted here any number of your "mates" polling for your point of view does nothing to change the reality.

 

Kind regards

 

Scott Balson

 

At long last we are in agreement on something Scott!

 

Kind regards

 

Pierre

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest   
Guest Guest
At long last we are in agreement on something Scott!

 

Kind regards

 

Pierre

 

Oh really?

 

Then perhaps you can tell me what the poll results are seeing that I have been locked out of it.

 

PS Pierre.. maybe you missed this request for an answer re wear on coins.. take this link.. still waiting for a response!

 

Kind regards

 

Scott Balson

Edited by ndoa18

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest   
Guest Guest
Idiom Definitions for 'Flogging a dead horse'

 


If someone is trying to convince people to do or feel something without any hope of succeeding, they're flogging a dead horse. This is used when someone is trying to raise interest in an issue that no-one supports anymore; beating a dead horse will not make it do any more work.

 

Good point.. I do wonder why Pierre started another thread on this subject. Most of us know the Griquatown tokens never circulated!

 

Kind regards

 

Scott Balson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pierre_Henri    14
Pierre_Henri
Oh really?

 

Then perhaps you can tell me what the poll results are seeing that I have been locked out of it.

 

Kind regards

 

Scott Balson

 

Scott, I am very serious, are you locked out of the polling?

 

I do not like this - if this is true they should rather lock the whole thing. If one cannot vote or see the voting results then what is the use of having a poll in the first place.

 

Who and why would lock you out? We may disagree on many things but this is damn serious and I like none of this.

 

Pierre

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
admin    0
admin
Scott, I am very serious, are you locked out of the polling?

 

 

Not from our side :wondering:

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  

×