There are many British Conder tokens listed under the U.K. page (the copper coins produced privately and used as currency during a coin shortage in the late 1700s). However, these are still tokens, and while they may have circulated extensively, they were not issued by the U.K. government. On the other hand, in "Tokens - British", they would get mixed up and lost. So why not make a special, new Tokens subcategory called something like "Tokens - British Conder"? (Unless I don't remember this correctly and these tokens were, in fact, made by the British Government...)
They were not made by the government. They were minted privately.
I've been saying the same thing about US civil war tokens. I wouldn't hold your breath on getting that changed/created any time soon.
"What we are is not as important as what we aren't"
The fact that they circulated alongside official currency, not that they were issued by private hands, is why they are listed in their respective countries.
Kenny
- Verifying your Asian and British-territorial coins everyday with the best quality photos and the best information.
In Canada, Canadian Tire Money circulates (in bill form, but we'll ignore that for now)... it is carried in wallets, it is accepted at stores that are not just Canadian Tire, and can be used to purchase gas and many goods... but it is definitely not Canadian currency. I have also read about Gettone telephone tokens being used as coins in Italy during a coin shortage, but again, they are listed under Tokens - Italy. Right now, there is a fuzzy boundary between coins and tokens, because many tokens do have a value and are commonly used and recognized in commerce.
If we go even further from our definition of "government-issued", and just end up declaring that tokens that circulate and are good for goods and services are coins, we end up running against the split between tokens and medallions (and it is impossible to find "real" coins in our country listings). If "genres" of tokens exist in certain countries, that circulated widely at certain times, these tokens are maybe more legitimate than others, but still not coins.
So, here's an example: we have U.S. colonial tokens (which are widely considered "coins" and sometimes even share books with them) and U.S. civil war tokens (which are usually separated from coins). I think the key difference is the introduction of a coinage before and after civil war tokens, while colonials have no "before": so that Civil War tokens temporarily replaced "real" money during tough conditions, but were expected to be replaced themselves at some point. Colonial tokens, though, pre-date U.S. currency, and so they are not "book-ended" by the usage of legitimate governmental currency, making them "coins".
My definition, then:
- A coin is a hard object with a value issued by a government. If no government has ever been present, then coins can also be privately issued.
- A token is a hard object with a value that is privately issued.
The U.K. did have official, governmental coins and a functioning government, before and after the reign of Conder Tokens. This is why I think that, while important and deserving of their own category, they do not belong with "legitimate" U.K. coinage.
