Post Your Canadian Tokens

Lovely adds!

Very nice!

Here's another one of my semi-tough Hiberno-Canadian tokens, The George Ords Halfpenny, dated 1834. Going back as far as Batty, who merely noted its existence in 1877, no one has ever identified George Ords, so he's now presumed to be a fictional character. In 1904, Davis listed it without supporting evidence as a Dublin issue (D76) and surmised that the date was specious. His comment was: "Although this token is dated 1834, it has every appearance of having been struck during the token period." And of course no one has ever turned up a hint as to who might have produced it.



The George Ords token, found in both brass and copper, managed to escape Breton's notice entirely. However, it was caught by Courteau, who catalogued it in 1907 as a Bust & Harp token (BH 33-34), and now it appears in Charlton as the final entry (LC-61) in the Lower Canada section.

In their 1999 Bible for the 1811-1820 British token series I collect, Paul and Bente Withers are a bit more forthcoming in their description: "We have found no trace of Ord in any of the many directories that we have consulted. We suspect that Ord did not exist and that this is an evasion rather than a genuine token, The actual date of issue is anyone's guess." Typing this now, I just noticed that Withers goes with the name "Ord," so I guess the conclusion they've drawn is that the name "Ords," as it appears on the token, is really a possessive and the obverse legend should be taken to mean "George Ord's Token."

Withers adds as a footnote to their listing for the piece (W1830): "This token was used extensively in Canada and large numbers were found in a hoard of obsolete tokens sent to Quebec from Montreal in the weeks before the rebellion of 1837." That pretty much mirrors what Charlton tells us, but with one glaring difference: In Charlton (LC-61) the story is that "SMALL numbers of these were found..." [my bold added for emphasis].

The last exonumismatic controversy surrounding the George Ords token has to do with whether these tokens circulated heavily in Ireland and were then shipped to Canada, decrepit and forlorn as we find most of them these days, after the Regal coinage picked up again. or whether the nice full-struck versions were used in Ireland while Canada got only the evasion-style tokens.

Charlton is quite emphatic on this topic, stating in a Note: "To qualify as a Canadian token, legends should not be legible. Only weakly struck tokens from worn dies with no legends are acceptable." On the other hand, no less an authority than Doug Robins is cited in a 2018 Heritage Auction sale as follows, in the description of a pair of Ords tokens: "The early version had clear legends and date, while on the later version these features were strongly suppressed, probably deliberately. It has been said that only those pieces with obliterated legends and dates are "Canadian". Mr. Robins maintained that the strong legends/date version also circulated in Canada and they both have equal claim to being in collections of Canadian tokens."

Overall, the bottom line seems to be...more questions than answers.

Certainly more questions than answers!

Much of its supposed "Canadian" Heritage is hinged upon the sole observation by McLachlan of its presence in the Bank of Montreal Hoard. However, as correctly pointed out by Charlton, this was in small numbers: some 25 examples of 5000 examined by McLachlan. The note on the "legibility of the legends" also stems from observations made by McLachlan. I post an excerpt from McLachlan's A Hoard of Canadian Coppers (1889) below.



It would appear that its Canadian-ness has been overstated. No early cataloguer of Canadian tokens ever included this piece in their listings. Tom, Courteau actually did not include this piece in his 1907 Bust and Harp monograph. The BH-33/34 listing was done by Ingram & Marelic (2003) who included a number of varieties that, I believe, do not properly belong with the Bust & Harp series.

This token would seem to be more Irish in its origin than Canadian, but who or what "George Ords" might be or mean is anyone's guess!

Good catch, blargish! And my bad on that BH number...something in the front matter of my Charlton book led me to the erroneous citation.

I've been shopping for 1811-1820 tokens of England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, and the Channel Islands for going on 40 years now, and I'd estimate 80-90% of my purchases have originated in the U.K. What's particularly interesting about the Ords token is that I almost never see it on sale there -- in any condition or die state -- but instead the overwhelming majority are offered by Canadian and US sellers. That leads me to more theories and speculation...

...but it would be irresponsible NOT to speculate.

That's an interesting point! Do you think it's a matter of the scarcity of the token itself in the UK, or rather a lack of demand?

I guess at the end of the day McLachlan believed its presence in the hoard warranted its inclusion as a separate entry in his monograph. It's notable that apparently, all 25 pieces were the weakly struck "no legend" type. Maybe, in the setting aside the hoard, these were confused with the more notorious Bust & Harps?

As you say, it would be irresponsible not to speculate!


Gebs, nice example of the 1/4 dollar anchor!

This "Trade & Navigation" farthing is another one of those split-personality tokens that circulated on both sides of the Atlantic...but evidently not in any appreciable quantities, as it's considered quite rare in the here and now. Aside from the fact that it's a farthing -- and very few of those have emerged among the early 19th-century British or Canadian exonumia -- it's unusual because the obverse features a huge disfigurement that basically obliterates the token's denomination.

Here are the two examples in my collection, separate varieties differentiated from one another only by their die rotation. The first is the medal turn, while the second is coinage.

Breton 964; Courteau 5NL; Charlton NS-18A1; Withers 1659.

Breton 964; Courteau 5NL; Charlton NS-18A2; Withers 1659.

Over the years, what I've found particularly interesting about this piece is the number of different descriptions we've been provided by various cataloguers, several of whom, like Charlton, neglect to even mention the die "anomaly" at all. That sort of oversight makes me wonder whether those distinguished numismatists ever handled or even looked at this token before writing about it! An alternative scenario (but pretty farfetched, I suppose) would be that there are examples of this Trade & Navigation farthing out there showing an unblemished three-line denomination.

In chronological order, here are a few of the ways in which this token has been presented:

"A Heap of Copper ore." Batty 2576, in his Descriptive Catalog of the Copper Coinage, etc., 1877:

[Blames the "indistinct" denomination on the overstrike.] McLachlan, in A Descriptive Catalog of Coins, Tokens and Medals [...of Canada, etc.], 1886:

[No mention, and a miscount of only two lines for the denomination.] Atkins 256, in The Coins and Tokens of the Possessions and Colonies of the British Empire, 1889:

[No mention.] McLachlan, in Annals of the Nova Scotian Currency in "Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada," Vol. 10), 1892:

"A view of rocks." Davis, Not Local 118, in The Nineteenth Century Token Coinage, etc., 1904:

"A pile of rocks." Spink, for sale in their Numismaatic Circular, July 1906:

"View of rocks." Kent, in his Valuation of British Coins and Tokens, 1913:

[No mention.] Courteau, The Non-Local Tokens of Canada in "The Numismatist," May 1924:

"...an attempt by an apprentice to re-cut an old die." Withers 1659, in British Copper Tokens: 1811-1820, 1999:

"...a really badly recut die." Withers 1659, in The Token Book, 2010:

For the record, the Trade & Navigation farthings were overstruck on this British token:

Withers 490, Davis Somersetshire 119, issued by the Patent Sheathing Nail Manufactory of Bristol.


Please share your photos here if you've got one of these elusive tokens, and also any old catalog listings for it that I may have overlooked!

Best to all ~
Tom