What is a Coin?
Mike Marotta
| THE THIRD SIDE OF THE COIN |
| (c) Copyright 2009 by Michael E. Marotta |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
WHAT IS A "COIN"? (Part 1) by Michael E. Marotta
[This has been discussed on rec.collecting.coins since before the
newsgroup was formally launched, back when it was a maillist from
co...@cobra.uni.edu. You can find those discussions under these
headers:
Newsgroups: rec.collecting.coins
From: merc...@well.sf.ca.us (Michael Edward Marotta)
Date: 3 Sep 1994 06:40:28 -0500
Subject: SOCRATES VS THE FTC (2)
Subject: SOCRATES VERSUS THE U.S. MINT <more>
from: merc...@well.sf.ca.us <Michael E. Marotta>
to: c...@cobra.uni.edu
Newsgroups: rec.collecting.coins
From: merc...@well.com (Michael Edward Marotta)
Date: 2000/07/18
Subject: What is a Coin?]
The old joke says that I cannot define art, but I know it when I see
it. So it is with coins. No definition of the word includes all of
the cases. The question is not merely academic. People have been
prosecuted by the federal government for claiming that objects are
coins.
In 1994, the Federal Trade Commission brought charges against
Dahlonega Mint, Inc.,d/b/a Chattanooga Coin Co., and its president,
Lewis Revels for selling the coins of Hutt River Principality. "The
ads allegedly described the tokens as having been issued or authorized
by the Hutt River Province, representing to consumers that they were
worth at least their face value.The FTC complaint detailing the
charges states that, although the owner of the Hutt River Province
announced in 1970 that he had seceded from Australia, the province
remains a private property within that country. Thus, the privately-
minted coins have no legally-established monetary value, the FTC
charged."
In Numismatic News for July 5, 1994, Alan Herbert claimed that the US
Mint "... holds legal title to the word 'coin.'" He said: "The term
'coin' has been legally and professionally banned for used in the
hobby to prevent applying it to medals, tokens and other similar
pieces. A coin is defined as a piece that has been issued and is
assigned a specific value by a legal body entitled to issue money."
On June 19, 1995, the US Postal Service vacated a complaint against
Foothills Coins -- the firm complied with certain conditions and the
USPS was satisfied that justice was done. Their complaint was
initiated over two years earlier, on April 14, 1993. Testifying on
behalf of the government was Kenmeth Bressett. "Kenneth Bressett, a
numismatic consultant called by Complainant as an expert witness (Tr.
24), defined the term legal tender a follows: 'It refers to an item or
even a commodity that some sovereign state has designated to be their
official money'(Tr. 37). Mr. Bressett added that legal tender 'has to
be issued by a sovereign state and acceptable as money[,]...that is to
say, one can pay debts with it in more than a single place' (Tr.
45). ... Mr. Bressett explained that coin collectors consider it to be
important that the item actually is legal tender, 'because they want
to collect coins' and '[t]hings that are not legal tender are not
considered coins' (Tr. 38). The expert witness went on to explain (Tr.
38-39): [C]oins, by their very nature, are intended to be used[,] to
be circulated, to be used up, in fact and worn out."
Since then, the numismatic hobby periodicals have sold advertising
only to firms selling objects meeting the Herbert Definition.
Certainly, Hutt River Principality has been excluded. Other objects
have been rebranded, most often as medals, occasionally as tokens.
All of that fences in some problems. Consider the Bressett
Definition. Commemorative coins and proof issues are not intended to
be circulated and worn out. They are nonetheless "coins." Many of
these are "non-circulating legal tender" which is an apparent
contradiction by Bressett's words. Moreover, we know that Canada and
other nations demonetized their NCLT commemoratives when the bullion
value fell below their face value and people attempted to spend them.
It is valid to consider that the value of money depends on the number
of markets that accept it. However, the coins of the Vatican City,
San Marino, and Hong Kong, were always coins regardless of their
limited geographic ranges.
Based on the accepted definitions the British gold sovereign is not a
coin because it has no specific value, neither are its weight and
fineness stated on the coin. In point of fact, the early gold coins
of the United States of America did not state a specific value.
That definition (and most others commonly offered) include some
reference to a government. Herbert calls it "a legal body entitled to
issue money." These words are also meaningless. WHO "entitles" a
"legal body"? Bascially, any legal body is one that declares itself
to be a legal body. In the context of American history, Pine Tree
Shillings were struck without the authority of the King of England.
(In a brilliant essay on the subject Michael J. Hodder shows that the
government of Massachusetts issued coins and invaded Maine in 1652
because they viewed themselves as an independent nation.) Of course,
in our history, we have the Confederate States of America. Also, in
our time, for many years, the United Nations refused to admit the two
Germanies, the two Koreas and the two Viet Nams on the grounds that
they were not separate countries but different occupied areas of the
same country. For about a decade, Yemen was divided into two nations
that since reunited. Israel lacks diplomatic recognition from its
nearest neighbors, among others. The case of The Palestinian Authority
is an ironic reflection of that. The status of Taiwan has become
problematic, yet it issues coins... at least without protest from the
official representatives of the American numismatic community.
The "Red Book" (A Guide Book of United States Coins by Yeoman and
Bressett) has entries for tokens: Civil War Tokens, Mott Tokens,
Northwest Company Tokens. However, it apparently considers as coins
the issues of the Mormons, Baldwin & Company, and, of course, the
Confederate States of America.
The American colonies began as corporations. In our day, most cities
and many other local governments are also incorporated entities.
Obviously, then, a corporation can issue "coins." If an incorporated
city can issue a coin, why cannot an incorporated automobile
manufacturer? And if so, then, why must the company be organized as
a corporation instead of a partnership or proprietorship? Why must a
person be a partner or a proprietor in order to issue coins? Why not
strike COINS in your own name as a sovereign individual and call them
COINS?
A recent book pinpoints the problem. THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IN
PRACTICE by Hugh G. Gauch, Jr. (Cambridge, 2003) explains that in
science two kinds of definition support each other: conceptual and
operational. Gauch points out that conceptually an acid produces free
hydrogen ions in water. Operationally, acids turn litmus paper red
and register below 7 on a pH meter. In numismatics, we have broad
operational definitions that satisfy most cases. THE STANDARD CATALOG
OF WORLD COINS by Krause and Mishler, and A GUIDE BOOK OF UNITED
STATES COINS by Yeoman and Bressett offer cases of workable
determinations, though no explicit operational defintions. Moreover,
Krause and Brace also provide us with UNUSUAL COINS OF THE WORLD, a
compendium of near examples, marginal cases, and interesting
exceptions, all of which test that easy middle of the road.
Numismatics has no conceptual definition of "coin."
Again, the matter is not merely academic. In a world of total laissez
faire capitalism -- or, oddly, pure communism -- it would not matter.
The works of Karl Marx and Ludwig von Mises provide a startling
consonance of opinion on commodities in trade that evolve into money.
In our world it matters because the seller (though not the buyer) of a
non-coin can face federal prosecution.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Money rests on the axiom that every man is | Michael E.
Marotta
the owner of his mind and his effort." Ayn Rand. |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Galikanokus
>
> +---------------------------------------------------------------+
> | THE THIRD SIDE OF THE COIN |
> | (c) Copyright 2009 by Michael E. Marotta |
> +---------------------------------------------------------------+
>
> WHAT IS A "COIN"?
A medium of exchange.
JAM
Dave Allured
Erk. That is much to vague to be a proper definition.
--Dave