New Exonumia issuer: Canadian local issues?

Hello!

Canada has many places that issued Local administration tokens. I compiled a Sheet that should cover everything on Numista, as well as a dozens that are off Numista (which I will populate whenever the issuers are created). While the following list is likely missing some issuers, there are well over 300 here, and all major ones should be covered:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TbqC0lriPSJBNiYOAfjqxUbYFBkgSibeTLpc8aekX10/edit?usp=sharing

-----

With that being said, I have two comments.

1. What is a good name for these types of issuers? I was originally thinking something along the lines of "Canadian cities"; however, many of these issuers are not legally cities, so I do not think that will work. Based on the Spanish Notgeld discussion, I heard the term "Local issues", which might be most appropriate.

Something to keep in mind is that, whatever we call this issuer, it will likely only appear under Exonumia. And Canada will not be the only country with this kind of issuer--I imagine we could have one under every country, with whatever they might be called, and all will likely only appear under Exonumia.

2. There are a few Canadian cities named after cities located somewhere else in the world--for example: there is the City of London in Ontario. With that being said, we do not have a City of London issuer under the United Kingdom (not yet, at least--with Exonumia, that might change), so I am not sure if we should call this issuer London, City of or London (Ontario), City of. I went with the former, but either one works for me.

In the above Sheet, there are a few cities that I specified the province for, but only because there are identical issuers from different provinces (For example, Windsor in Ontario and and Windsor in Nova Scotia).

-----

And... that should be everything. Thank you for your time.

Gonna give this a bump, as mentioned here:

https://en.numista.com/forum/topic11283.html

 

Firstly: if a moderator could move this to the Numista Coin Catalogue forum (so everyone in that thread can see it), that would be appreciated!

 

Secondly: this thread was rejected a couple years ago during my long absense from Numista. I know a few of my threads were rejected because of my absense (I wasn't there to help complete them, so that was that), but I am no longer absent, so if this could be set to not rejected, that would also be appreciated!

 

Thirdly: this thread was made back when Coins/Banknotes/Exonumia all had their own sections. Back then, the related trade tokens were under Exonumia, so the language in the original post reflected that. Obviously, all the sections have been combined since then, so that part is not as relevant. Currently, these are classified on Numista as Local Coins. 

 

And fourthly: I made that Google Sheet back when I didn't know where to locate the wikidata items. I know where they are now, so if this is something which will be implemented, I will go through the Sheet and replace all those wiki links with their wikidata items. Of course, if this is something which will not be implemented, I would like to not waste my time doing that, soooo… I'll wait for further instructions before modifying the Sheet.  :)

⚠️ I would keep this topic in the forum of referees.

 

In Spain we are restructuring the notgeld section, maybe this could help you (also to other countries with local issues). We have topic in the referee forum https://en.numista.com/forum/topic161250.html where we discuss it. 

 

Until now, the Spanish notgeld section had only objects issues during the Spanish Civil War (and this was the name of the section). There was two levels of issuers (province, to group cities; and city, the actual issuer). The most of the objects of the Civil War were issued by the cities.

 

• Notgeld (Spanish Civil War)
  • Province 1
    • City 1,1
    • City 1,2
  • Province 2
    • City 2,1
    • City 2,2

 

Now we want move to the Spanish notgeld section all local issues (objects issued by the cities or regions in age of wars, rebellions, or similars).

 

At the beginning the idea was to create a parent (or children) issuer for each war (but this structure implied to repeat the cities for each war, or repeat the war for each object). https://es.numista.com/forum/topic136262.html#p1140980 (we have 6 wars and more than 1700 cities!)

 

Now Numista allows two ruling authorities in an objects, so we are applying the idea https://en.numista.com/forum/topic164367.html

1st ruling authority: the ruler or king
2nd ruling authority: the war

and the issuers tree is
 

• Notgeld
  • Province 1
    • City 1,1
    • City 1,2
  • Province 2
    • City 2,1
    • City 2,2
       

On the other side, the Spanish Civil War has emergency objects issued by the cities and others by the country, I think there are normal objects issued by the cities and others by the country, and Numista has the emergency coin/banknote types. So there are not sense have an issuer “notgeld”. Our idea is to use the old norgeld issuer as local issues:

 

• Spain – issues of Spain (normal or emergency)
• Spanish states – issues of ancien Spanish states (normal or emergency)
  • Spanish state 1
  • Spanish state 2
• Spain - Local – local issues of cities (normal or emergency)
  • Province 1
    • City 1,1
    • City 1,2
  • Province 2
    • City 2,1
    • City 2,2

davidhs

⚠️ I would keep this topic in the forum of referees.

Hello!

 

I originally posted all these issuer creation threads in the referee forum because I didn't want to spam the public forums due to just how many requests I was creating. I don't mind if any of them are moved to the public forums, and this one became relevant in a recently necromanced (public) thread, so there might be more interest in this topic in the public forum. I also linked this thread in that other one, so people there will  also only be able to see this if it gets moved.

 

Plus this thread has had no activity since its creation 4+ years ago, soooo maybe it would do better in the public forum.  :)

 

davidhs

Until now, the Spanish notgeld section had only objects issues during the Spanish Civil War (and this was the name of the section). There was two levels of issuers (province, to group cities; and city, the actual issuer). The most of the objects of the Civil War were issued by the cities.

 

• Notgeld (Spanish Civil War)
  • Province 1
    • City 1,1
    • City 1,2
  • Province 2
    • City 2,1
    • City 2,2

This is essentially the format I am proposing for this issuer. It might not be too clear in my Google Sheet, so here is a run-down:

 

Canada

----- Canada 

----- Canadian Provinces

---------- [Old issues from the Canadian Provinces--no changes here]

----- Canadian Local Issues [or however this would be named]

---------- Alberta, Province of

--------------- [70+ cities/municipalities]

---------- British Columbia, Province of

--------------- [50+ cities/municipalities]

---------- Manitoba, Province of

--------------- [17 cities/municipalities]

---------- New Brunswick, Province of

--------------- [12 cities/municipalities]

---------- Newfoundland and Labrador, Province of

--------------- [10 cities/municipalities]

---------- Northwest Territories

--------------- [3 cities/municipalities]

---------- Nova Scotia, Province of

--------------- [19 cities/municipalities]

---------- Ontario, Province of

--------------- [100+ cities/municipalities]

---------- Prince Edward Island, Province of

--------------- [2 cities/municipalities]

---------- Québec, Province of

--------------- [20+ cities/municipalities]

---------- Saskatchewan, Province of

--------------- [20+ cities/municipalities]

---------- Yukon Territory

--------------- [2 cities/municipalities]

 

With that being said, I think this won't be as complicated as the Spanish Notgeld section. There are much less issuers here, all trade tokens had essentially the same purpose, and there would only be one ruling authority for each.

 

I think the only major complication is that these would likely be considered more “token-like” than notgeld issues. But they do still fit Numista's definition of local coins, and are currently classified as such.

Also I never linked the relevant items in my original post. x)

 

If you go under Canada and toggle the search to “Coins > Local coins” only, all relevant items should be displayed. Or, alternatively, if this link actually works (no idea if it will actually change pre-set filters):

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/index.php?e=canada&r=&st=5&cat=y&im1=&im2=&ru=&ie=&ca=3&no=&v=&a=&dg=&i=&b=&m=&f=&t=&t2=&w=&mt=&u=&g=&c=&wi=&sw=

 

Much more token-like--many even have expiration dates. But they were still usable until those dates as a way to support the local economies.

Sulfur

Secondly: this thread was rejected a couple years ago during my long absense from Numista. I know a few of my threads were rejected because of my absense (I wasn't there to help complete them, so that was that), but I am no longer absent, so if this could be set to not rejected, that would also be appreciated!

Just going to give this another bump so hopefully a catalogue administrator sees this. :)

 Opened again 

I suppose this should be know by the referees of Canada: @bbybugs @titus17 

ZacUK

 Opened again 

Thank you!

 

This request might continue to sit for quite some time, but at least it won't get lost and fogotten now.  :)

First of all, I think that “Canadian provinces” should be renamed as “Canada (pre-Confederation)”. Its current sub-section “Canadian colonies” seems redundant. Perhaps the regal imitations and non-descript location tokens could be moved to the parent section? “Canadian local issues” can then be added as a separate section, possibly with sub-sections for provinces and territories. I feel that the local/city/district names should be used for issuing entities rather than issuers. Having fourth-level sub-sections for each of them seems excessive. Municipalities are “creatures of the provinces” after all.

titus17

First of all, I think that “Canadian provinces” should be renamed as “Canada (pre-Confederation)”. Its current sub-section “Canadian colonies” seems redundant. Perhaps the regal imitations and non-descript location tokens could be moved to the parent section? “Canadian local issues” can then be added as a separate section, possibly with sub-sections for provinces and territories. I feel that the local/city/district names should be used for issuing entities rather than issuers. Having fourth-level sub-sections for each of them seems excessive. Municipalities are “creatures of the provinces” after all.

Hello!

 

I don't think we would accomplish much by grouping these together with what is currently under the Canadian provinces. I think these are more so unrelated areas of numismatics, and there would be no overlapping of issuers between what is currently under the Canadian provinces and what would be created under this issuer (we would have the provinces/territories as headers for organizational purposes, similar to the notgeld sections, but the validity of these trade tokens was limited to the individual cities/municipalities who issued them, so members would not be able to add items to the header provinces).

 

I also don't think adding these as issuing entities would be very accurate. Yes, there are a lot of issuers here, but these were meant to circulate only within their respective cities during the times they were valid, similar to any civic issuer we currently have. The issuing entities would be whatever council/committee was behind issuing them, I would think.

 

And for the naming of the Canadian provinces issuer… I think switching to pre-confederation would cause some conflicts with what is currently there, like Newfoundland and Alberta, but that suggestion might be better in a thread of its own, so it doesn't get lost within this one.  :)

@Sulfur Pardon me for having strayed off-topic about non-municipal/colonial-era tokens. I don't think that local coins/administrative tokens should be catalogued together with official tokens of such regal beauty, as they currently are under “Coins”.

 

I appreciate your proposal for better organization of exonumia sections! However, I see an issue with naming these types of issuers as “local administration tokens”; many were issued by a chamber of commerce or non-government entity, rather than the local government itself. These so-called trade dollars are “dollars” in a nominal sense. Some are labelled as a “souvenir coin”, other “dollars” are titled with a local person or nickname. Many were also made for (and named in tandem with) an anniversary or seasonal/annual event, often with a specific timeframe for redemption. 

 

I believe the notgeld sections are generally meant for emergency coinage rather than local coins/token-like items. The former is meant to substitute or supplement regular coinage out of necessity; the latter complements existing legal tender (or attempts to supplant legal tender usage at local businesses). 

 

Cheers,

 

Titus

titus17

@Sulfur Pardon me for having strayed off-topic about non-municipal/colonial-era tokens. I don't think that local coins/administrative tokens should be catalogued together with official tokens of such regal beauty, as they currently are under “Coins”.

No problem with straying off topic a bit--discussions like these help sort out complicated issuers:)

 

Something you should keep in mind is that these Local coins/administrative tokens are currently also under “Coins”. When I originally posted this topic four years ago, they were in the Exonumia section (as reflected in the title of this thread), but a lot has changed since then, and these are indeed classified as “Coins” now (I, personally, consider them tokens, but I think they fit the bare minimum definition for a coin on Numista, hence why they are now here). 

 

With that being said, I am glad we agree to keep these two specific categories separate; however, these modern trade dollars are currently in the same section as regular circulating coins from Canada. This mixture doesn't look quite right to me, at least:

 

With my proposal, these trade dollars would be in their own distinct section under Canada, separate from those of the Canadian provinces and not mixed together with regular circulating coins meant for the entire country. And considering that their circulation areas were only their respective cities/municipalities, I think them having their own section makes perfect sense.

 

titus17

I believe the notgeld sections are generally meant for emergency coinage rather than local coins/token-like items. The former is meant to substitute or supplement regular coinage out of necessity; the latter complements existing legal tender (or attempts to supplant legal tender usage at local businesses). 

I agree!

 

These trade dollars are definitely not notgelds. But I do think this “Canadian local issues” group could be formatted similarly to how notgeld issuers are handled (Country > Province > Coin-issuing area). The notgeld section was not meant to be a comparison of the actual coins, but rather how the issuers are formatted.

 

titus17

I appreciate your proposal for better organization of exonumia sections! However, I see an issue with naming these types of issuers as “local administration tokens”; many were issued by a chamber of commerce or non-government entity, rather than the local government itself. These so-called trade dollars are “dollars” in a nominal sense. Some are labelled as a “souvenir coin”, other “dollars” are titled with a local person or nickname. Many were also made for (and named in tandem with) an anniversary or seasonal/annual event, often with a specific timeframe for redemption. 

I am not exactly sure what the best name of this issuer would be. “Canadian local issues” seems like the most encompassing term to me, but if anyone has any other suggestions, I'd love to hear them.

 

For these local trade dollars, they were only meant to circulate within their specific cities (the issuers). The Chamber of Commerce or non-government entities would work as the issuing entities, in these cases. Some of the dollars had weird names, but they were still locally used, so I don't think that disqualifies them from having their own issuers, as they were still only meant to circulate within their respective cities/municipalities.

 

Although that Bluenose Dollar is something different. It was meant to be used on a boat rather than within a city, so perhaps a business token would be more suiting. However, that one blends in well with all the others, and it would be easier to spot (and correct) those types of examples if we had a proper place to put these things in the first place, I think:)