| Author |
 Replies: 11 / Views: 1,625 |
|
|
Valued Member
Australia
215 Posts |
|
|
|
|
Moderator
 Australia
16808 Posts |
They were made for, and issued in, the Province of Canada, a confederation of what we now call Ontario and Quebec. Don't say "infinitely" when you mean "very"; otherwise, you'll have no word left when you want to talk about something really infinite. - C. S. Lewis
|
|
Valued Member
 Australia
215 Posts |
Thanks, sap.
So Numista should actually list these coins under "Canadian Provinces"...
|
|
Moderator
Australia
16808 Posts |
Well, the "Canadian province of Canada" is somewhat tautological. Yet, these coins are the reason why all the other pre-Confederation Canadian provinces "have their own separate coinages", but Ontario and Quebec do not. But this isn't the only incident in history where a country named on a coin isn't the same as the modern day country with that same name, and catalogue treatment of such circumstances is far from consistent.
- The Napoleonic "Kingdom of Italy" comprised just the northermost third of what we now call Italy. Because there was a significant time difference between the two Italys, the Napoleonic Italy is normally lumped in with the other Italian States, rather than merged with "Italy".
- Sydney Mint sovereigns have "Australia" on them, despite no country of that name existing at the time (and Henry Parkes was lampooned by the other Australian colonies when he proposed renaming New South Wales to "Australia" in 1887); yet these coins are always filed under "Australia" in the catalogues, rather than "New South Wales".
- The Fugio Cent, the only coinage formally authorized by the American Congress under the Articles of Confederation, before the ratification of the Constitution in 1789. The country's name on the coin was the "United States" and the Federal government authorized the coins, but most American collectors and cataloguers consider them to be "colonial" rather than "federal" issues, though there is considerable and vocal debate on this topic.
From a certain point of view, one can consider the confederation and consolidation of the country we now call "Canada" to be a long drawn-out process, taking over 100 years, beginning in 1841 and not ending until 1949. Contrast this to Australia, which confederated all at once in 1901 and hasn't expanded or accepted new member-states since. From this point of view, the Province of Canada was Canada, version 1.0, Canada with just two member-provinces.
Don't say "infinitely" when you mean "very"; otherwise, you'll have no word left when you want to talk about something really infinite. - C. S. Lewis
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
5324 Posts |
Just to add another confusing fact about Canada at this time Upper Canada was Southern Ontario and Lower Canada was Quebec and parts of the maritimes
Edited by john100
01/03/2024 11:37 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1505 Posts |
Charelton seperates them out into different sections.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 Canada
9862 Posts |
Quote:
From this point of view, the Province of Canada was Canada, version 1.0, Canada with just two member-provinces. Yes, and the coins of The Province of Canada became the coins of post confederation Canada in 1867 and remain as legal tender to this day. "Dipping" is not considered cleaning...
-from PCGS website
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1770 Posts |
Hi Oz.  Numista also states that these coins were used for a standard of length and weight. Were they actually used this way to measure things?  "We are poor little lambs...who have lost our way...Baa...Baa...Baa"
In memory of those members who left us too soon...
In memory of Tootallious March 31, 1964 - April 15, 2020
In memory of crazyb0 July 27 2020. RIP.
In memory of T-BOP Oct. 12, 1949 - Jan. 19, 2024
|
|
Moderator
Australia
16808 Posts |
Quote:
Numista also states that these coins were used for a standard of length and weight. Were they actually used this way to measure things? Well, I think the theory was that they could have been. This multi-functional coinage concept follows in the footsteps of the "cartwheel" pennies and tuppence pieces, issued by Britain in 1797: 1 cartwheel penny weighted exactly 1 avoirdupois ounce. Those coins were indeed used extensively in Britain and the colonies as shopkeeper's weights. But Canadian cents... I'm not sure. How many shopkeepers needed to measure goods in hundredths of pounds? the pound was not, and is not, decimally divisible. So you'd need a hundred of the things (or at the very least 25 of them) to acquire a useful weight, and 100 small copper coins isn't really a convenient form to have sitting around the shop - you couldn't really wrap or bundle the coins into a single object, as this would increase the weight. As for using it as in inch measure, well, if you needed to cut a 1-inch-wide hole in something, I suppose it was useful. But any other measurement wold probably be simpler to carry out with a ruler or other length-measuring tool. Don't say "infinitely" when you mean "very"; otherwise, you'll have no word left when you want to talk about something really infinite. - C. S. Lewis
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1770 Posts |
Thanks Sap.
"We are poor little lambs...who have lost our way...Baa...Baa...Baa"
In memory of those members who left us too soon...
In memory of Tootallious March 31, 1964 - April 15, 2020
In memory of crazyb0 July 27 2020. RIP.
In memory of T-BOP Oct. 12, 1949 - Jan. 19, 2024
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
514 Posts |
It might be worth mentioning that the 1858/9 Canadian penny was intentionally minted at a lower weight than the British Penny - making the British coin of more value.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
60 Posts |
They're super undervalued, IMO, relative to their historical importance and collector relevance.
Every now and then, there are certain issues where you just 'know' that they're due for an upward correction on historical merit, this is one of my favorites.
1785 Bar Coppers were also like this.
|
| |
Replies: 11 / Views: 1,625 |
|
Posted 01/03/2024 10:20 pm
