Recommendation for new United States subcategory "Territorial"

I was reviewing a request to add a "Bechtler" gold coin to the United States category, but these are not government issues. I then checked the Standard Catalog of US Tokens 1700-1900 book, but I found only counterstamped issues there for Bechtler. Further investigation led me to the PCGS Coin Facts site, which showed them to be listed under "Territorial" along with a number of other "coins," and the Red Book shows them under "Private and Territorial Gold." Thus, I would recommend adding a "United States -Territorial" subcategory. Your thoughts?

If they can have a category called pre federal which I have not completely reconciled myself with, then they should be able to have the very logical category of territorial. But they might consider territorial as pre federal...but i hope not. Your point is valid.

Any historical background for this item?

Christopher Betchler (1782 - 1843) was a German watchmaker and goldsmith. He moved to the USA in 1829 to Philadelphia and when the gold rush started in 1830 moved to North Carolina and started to mint the first U.S. gold dollars, known as Betchler Dollars, long before the US government started to produce them in1849.
The private mint he established produced over one million gold coins in $ 1, $ 2.50 and $ 5 dollar denominations.
Betchlers mint is in Rutherford county, North Carolina and is listed in the U.S. National Register of Historic Places.

Auctionking65, thanks for providing the background for the Bechtlers material, but if it was just these, I wouldn't have made the request. There are also Tempelton Reid (Georgia/California), Norris, Gregg, & Norris (San Francisco), Moffat & Co. (San Francisco), Cincinnati Mining & Trading Co., Massachusetts and California Co., etc. Thus, there are a significant number of items which would be in this category. The alternative would be to list them as tokens, but none of them appear in the Standard Catalog of US Tokens 1700-1900.

I was thinking about this the other day, and trying to work out whether California Fractionals would be included. I did a bit of reading, then forgot to reply or couldn't correctly compile my thoughts.

There's so many issues to consider with it, I'm still not sure what I think. I certainly agree that a section needs made, but what goes in it is anybodies guess.

Some thoughts at random:

- Would California Fractionals (1st coinage) be included in this section?

- Were the coins worth anything in the absence of the underlying gold value, or was it essentially assayed gold in small enough denominations to trade, and from trustworthy enough smelters to trade it? Did they ever smelt silver/copper coins?

- Did any/many of them contravene law in establishing these mints?

- If presented in another state or even country, would it be traded favourably?

Cita: "oggy"​I was thinking about this the other day, and trying to work out whether California Fractionals would be included. I did a bit of reading, then forgot to reply or couldn't correctly compile my thoughts.
​
​There's so many issues to consider with it, I'm still not sure what I think. I certainly agree that a section needs made, but what goes in it is anybodies guess.
​
​Some thoughts at random:
​
​- Would California Fractionals (1st coinage) be included in this section?
​
​- Were the coins worth anything in the absence of the underlying gold value, or was it essentially assayed gold in small enough denominations to trade, and from trustworthy enough smelters to trade it? Did they ever smelt silver/copper coins?
​
​- Did any/many of them contravene law in establishing these mints?
​
​- If presented in another state or even country, would it be traded favourably?
​
​

​Oggy,

The answer to your questions are yes, no/yes, no, and yes. But a better answer as to their history would be to read this article: http://coinsite.com/territorial-gold-coins-california-issuers/

I've decided to add your request to the propositions made by users to be debated by the administration board. More news in 8 days.

Cita: "chomp-master"​I've decided to add your request to the propositions made by users to be debated by the administration board. More news in 8 days.

​Thank you

Sorry to talk only now. The meeting was finally delayed 2 times, and no time to talk about this topic during that meeting, so we decided an alternative aka. talks in our board system. Please note we only needed Xavier advice for now to eventually validate the new country as Jarcek and myself agreeing to the idea.

Long time we took to finally be able to decide, but you're allowed to launch a new listing named "United States - Territorial". Feel free to fill it. As he's already referee of other US mainland listings, we can also nominate Steve27 as referee if he wants to do so.

In fact we finally understood that US Territorial should be a separate listing, instead of a sublisting of USA. However if there are enough coins to list that way, a separate listing may be the best solution for now, before we implement a new tag system for coin listings.

Iam sorry iam late . But iam not sure I like Territorial for this. Being from the US. And lived and grow up in a former US territory. Arizona was a territory until 1912. A private issued coins made because the government could not keep up with the demand for coins. As nothing to do with a territory . Unless it was made with the territorial gov say so. But most territories wanted to join the US so used US coins. Private issued coins were made to fill the need for coins. Much like the French city's in the catalog. I think a sub-category Private issued is better. A sub category of the US.

@Steve27: what do you think about these tokens?
https://fr.numista.com/catalogue/pieces39314.html
https://fr.numista.com/catalogue/pieces76030.html