| Author |
 Replies: 5 / Views: 2,077 |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United Kingdom
725 Posts |
Hi
Would anyone be able to tell me the difference between British Conder and Evasion tokens (or if there is one)?
As I understand it, both were produced around the 1790s to overcome the shortage of small change, both were unofficially made by private enterprises and both were technically legal because they didn't try to exactly replicate coins.
Even so, they seem to be kept as distinct entities in anything I read online, and a design that is described as an Evasion token is rarely (if ever) described as a Conder token (or vice versa). Histories and descriptions of Evasion or Conder tokens don't even mention each other, except to say that they are not the same.
I thought perhaps Evasion tokens might be described as a little closer to counterfeits, but there are Evasion tokens with people on them other than George III, and Conder tokens featuring George III. There are even two similar Shakespeare tokens (Shakespeare on the obverse, Britannia on the back), but one is always described as a Conder and the other as Evasion.
The only difference I can find is that Conder tokens are listed in Dalton & Hamer and Evasion tokens in Atkins, but even that isn't consistent, with some listed in both. It's also not a real distinction.
Thank you!
|
|
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10284 Posts |
For Conder tokens this should explain fairly well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conder_tokenI believe Evasion tokens are generally privately minted coinage to resemble the actual regal money used at the time and were often accepted as currency. Sometimes called Non Regal or Blacksmith tokens halfpennies and pennies. |
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
5239 Posts |
As I understand, the key aspect of the evasion tokens was the intent. The evasion tokens were thinly disguised forgeries that looked vaguely like regal coinage but had garbled or incorrect legends and/or made to look worn, so there was plausible deniability for accusations of forgery.
The Conder tokens (as well as the ones issued (ca) 1811-12), were obvious tokens usually with clear inscriptions as to the redeemability and no intent to deceive.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United Kingdom
725 Posts |
Thank you. Yes if the distinction is intent, it would explain the grey areas and how some tokens are described as both Conder and Evasion - it's not always obvious what someone's intent was. But if a token is underweight and has no-one to back its value, it's likely designed to deceive, even if it's not an outright forgery.
|
|
Valued Member
United Kingdom
82 Posts |
One of the best listings of evasions was the following very weirdly named booklet:
A Journey through the Monkalokian Rain Forests in Search of the Spiney Fubbaduck, by Malachy Greensword.
The 'author' is a pen-name of Alan Judd who ran Coins of Beeston. The booklet is copyright Mullhulland Ignatious Cobwright (another of Alan Judd's pen-names) & Coins of Beeston, 1993.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United Kingdom
709 Posts |
Welcome to the forum.
oriole has it spot on. Evasions were trying to fool people into thinking they were regal issues. The majority of ordinary people were illiterate so legends only needed to look generally the right shape. Sometimes people used evasions knowingly, for lack of anything else.
There are contemporary forgeries of conder tokens. Some were mules made by token manufacturers to fool collectors. Others were altered legends or mimics of genuine tokens, made for circulation. It was known for some token manufacturers to make excess tokens above a genuine order, and/or to make a slightly altered batch, to sell on to a fraudster.
There are even generic conder tokens not linked to any particular trader. These were bought by unscrupulous people at below face value and released into general circulation. The whole situation became rather anarchic!
To add to the confusion, there are also some restrikes made later in the 19th century from original dies.
If you are interested in this topic look up Henry Morgan, ( possibly an alias, maybe after the famous pirate ), who was responsible for a significant amount of the dodgy dealing.
|
| |
Replies: 5 / Views: 2,077 |
|
Posted 01/15/2020 12:10 pm
