Could we please add the Dakota Territory as a subsection to United States, Pre-Federal, or Private/Territorial in the coin catalog? This is because one of the colonizing companies, Durfee and Peck owned much land and many trading posts in the territory. As the territory lacked much US currency, Durfee and Peck issued coins to be used in daily commerce and Native American trade. Many are found very circulated with damage. To counter arguments that PCGS does not have them listed, well this is because they are very very scarce. It is similar to much other colonial coinage or territorial coinage or even the various Canadian and UK tokens.
Why are the Canadian tokens not exonumia? I say this as, many colonies had privately issued tokens in widespread circulation due to either a lack of federal currency or no federal currency at all. In US Pre-Federal the Chalmers coinage was issued privately but not in exonumia, as it was necessity money. These, Durfee and Peck tokens are unlisted not because they are exonumia, but rather they remain scarce and a hidden gem of knowledge lost to the public.
“These Indian Trade tokens were used at the business establishments in Fort Union and Fort Buford in the Dakota Territory, just after the Civil War period.”
I am not an expert on Canadian tokens, but I assume they are being treated differently because there was not yet a Federal coinage for Canada?
At the point where there is a well-established U.S. Federal coinage, and contiguous territory and infrastructure to move coins around, the bar probably should be set fairly high for tokens going into the coin catalog.
Though, this was a territory of the United States, they were not yet a state. Furthermore, it was also mentioned that these were also used with the Native Americans. The obverse designs were supposedly made so Natives who did not understand English could grasp a possible value on these pieces. These circulated amongst the settlers, traders, and Natives in and around the forts. At that time, the forts were the main areas, there were not yet wide settlements, especially in the northern region, like the Dakota territory. This later is why North and South Dakota split, as the North was so sparsely inhabited that they had different views than that of South Dakota.
From an article I shared earlier, “The monetary problems of the western and territorial colonizers were solved by them for the most part, in the same manner others had solved them before, in our eastern colonies, in our Midwest, in Canada and the world over: by the issuance of tokens and scrip. Much has been written about the private and territorial gold coinage of our early west, sometimes also classified as pioneer gold. Issued by the Mormons, assayers, trading companies, mining companies, and bankers, they are highly prized and valued by collectors. They are, however, actually tokens and one part of the numismatic history of territorial development. The others in copper, brass, nickel and other metals issued by our traders and outposts were just as important, just as interesting and rare, and just as hard to acquire.”
I understand that these tokens have considerable historic significance.
But I don't see the logic in putting a 1 dollar token with little to no precious metal content into the coin catalog at a time when there are specified precious metal contents for the United States dollar. For this reason alone, these tokens could not possibly have circulated at parity outside of the narrower trade channels that are described in the auction listings.
The private and territorial gold differs significantly in that those pieces aspired to parity (or near-parity) of gold content with federal issues.
Yes, but the Native Americans did not care about the metal content. Also this coin did not need to pass on par to the dollar as this was a territory and not a state. So, it does not matter if states would accept it. Only if the few settlements in the Dakota territory would.
The government soldiers were paid with the U.S. Dollar, resources, and/or land. However, in that time, not many cared of which coin or token they received, just that they had the resources and supplies to live. This all also impacts the split of statehood in the Dakota Territory. Northern Dakota Territory was so sparsely inhabited, many different beliefs also circulated. Southern Dakota Territory was much more populated.
Can we agree to make Dakota Territory and issuer, and for now, put it in exonumia? When I have more evidence I will create a post on the forum, but for now, I guess that it will be enough. I still feel strongly that, this is one of the closest form of currencies used with Native Americans, settlers, and traders, and with territroial status it is not compared directly to the dollar. More of a mix of federal currency, resources, and tokens were used in these untamed parts of America’s past.
It looks like the option to select United States > Pre-federal/private and territorial exists for the Exonumia catalog, so that should be sufficient for now. I dont think we have state level issuers in that part of the catalog, but let me know if I missed something and that's wrong.
Stato cambiato a Respinta(tdziemia, 11 Dic 2023, 15:19)
