2 Pence - George III 1800 Australian Proclamation Coin?

10 posts

» Quick access to the last post

Can someone elaborate a little more on this coin? I've never heard of such an issue and have never seen any reference to it outside of the Numista catalog.

How does it differ from the KM 618 Cartwheel Penny? The weight and diameter are identical, the portrait and legends are the same. Whoever entered this into the catalog has even used the photograph from the British issued 1d! See both entries below -

Great Britain KM 618 1d 1797

2 Pence - George III 1800 Australian Proclamation Coin

There are three coins in total listed under the heading of "Proclamation Coinage" and each of them seem somewhat contrived. When I say contrived, I don't mean to imply dishonesty, rather that the actual grounds for inclusion seem flimsy based on the evidence on view.

Apart from the penny above, the 1/- 1d coin is identical to the KM 607 1787 UK Shilling, and the One Pound One Shilling coin is a KM 609 Spade Guinea. All three coins seem to have the specifications and lettering information simply copied from the UK listing and even use the same photo. No catalog or other reference is cited for any of the coins. I guess there must be some source as the weight of the Shiling differs according to the entry by 0.02 of a gram! What is the source for this?

It seems like a spuroius entry to the Numista catalog. How is it possible to tell that you have a coin from this particular issue in the absence of any mintmarks or counter punches? Simply because a British coin was perhaps circulated in the various colonies should not, in my view, warrant a seperate entry in the catalog unless the coin can be identified as a completely seperate issue. Many colonies used the coinage of the mother country locally for extended periods or in other cases, coins struck in India. We can't simply duplicate the entire Georgian / Victorian part of the UK / Indian catalog into each of these many former colonies. Failed states such as Zimbabwe have given up producing their own currencies and use US coins, are we going to include these as seperate catalog entries?

I'm quite willing to accept that these coins were used as claimed, even though I've never heard of such, and I'm equally sure that this is an interesting piece of numismatic lore. However I can see no merit in including these coins as mere duplicates of British entries. It doesn't make good cataloging sense.

Am I wrong?
Non illegitimis carborundum est.  Excellent advice for all coins.
Make Numismatics Great Again!  
I thought this was already discussed somewhere. I do not have much time, but I believe you are not wrong.
Catalogue administrator
I agree... they should be removed. The coins were not changed in a substantial way to warrant a double listing.
Library Media Specialist, columnist, collector, and gardener...
The reason why these coins were added into the Australian catalogue is because back in 1800 a proclamation was made at the time by the Governor of New South Wales that an amount of certain British and other international coins were to be brought in to the colony and have a higher denomination than their original value. The listings found in the Australian catalog are supposed to be used by those who know that their examples were apart of this proclamation issue and therefore want to have their coin in the Australian catalogue and not another counties. If anyone can come up with a solution to fix any issues I'll be happy to hear them.
Archaeology student and coin and medal collector
Check out my Instagram account @Australian_Coin_Info
https://instagram.com/australian_coin_info/
Why not keep the Proclamation coin pages but add a comment on how they are meant to be used and stating that coins are identical with the British coins and collectors need to be aware of provenance to use page. I would make this exception only because the coins were to be treated as different denominations than the originals.

Will
Quote: "Coinman48"​Why not keep the Proclamation coin pages but add a comment on how they are meant to be used and stating that coins are identical with the British coins and collectors need to be aware of provenance to use page. I would make this exception only because the coins were to be treated as different denominations than the originals.

​Will
​If you or someone else could do this I'll validate it as soon as I see it.
Archaeology student and coin and medal collector
Check out my Instagram account @Australian_Coin_Info
https://instagram.com/australian_coin_info/
I know about the proclamation coinage but as Phil says there's no need for an additional entry. I think simply adding a tag to the home nations page is enough. As said without a countermark or research to prove that a certain date DID NOT circulate in the homeland and was for colonial use only (e.g 1827 penny, 1950 & 51 Penny & 1952 6d) then it's hard to make a credible listing.

I I do believe the coins listed in my example and many others should belong to the country which they were issued for, not their homeland. I know we have a model on Krause but as I said about the portcullis money there's no need to copy Krause let's make it better !
Mark, it's one of those issues which brings on the Schizophrenic in me. I believe the UK coins struck for use in Malta or the Caribbean should be listed with the mother country. If I was looking for a 1950 penny I'd be looking under Great Britain, not Bermuda or was it Barbados or was it The Bahamas? See the problem?

An English shopkeeper in say 1967 would have accepted a 1950 1d with a second thought, I'm not sure if his West Indian counterpart would be quite so willing. They were English regal coins intended to fill a temporary need overseas and should be listed under Great Britain with a note to that effect.

Yet the Netherlands produced coins for their overseas possessions which are listed under the receiving country, e.g. Curacao. Odd eh? I'm sure the administrators are sick of turning down requests for an additional year to be added for these coins under The Netherlands.

However the cartwheel coppers and spade guineas were most definitely not minted for overseas use so there is no numismatic case to be made for duplicate entries.

Numista is a reference tool. If someone searches for a large copper coin with the legend and specs of a 1797 English Penny they should not be getting directed to an Australian coin which doesn't exist!

This really does open up a huge can of worms. Many coins from the EIC and British circulated in many nearby countries. If we are to start including them as separate entries in the database then I'm afraid that as far as Indian coins go, the search function will be rendered useless.
Non illegitimis carborundum est.  Excellent advice for all coins.
Make Numismatics Great Again!  
Quote: "pnightingale"​An English shopkeeper in say 1967 would have accepted a 1950 1d with a second thought, I'm not sure if his West Indian counterpart would be quite so willing.
​Phil, if I may go slightly off-topic, I think you might know the answer to a question that has been vexing me.

Was the 1953 penny a circulating issue? It is a single year type, but it isn't clear to me whether it was minted for collectors only in mint sets, or if the coins were sent into circulation to celebrate the coronation. The answer to this puzzle could determine how hard I go out of my way to find a nice specimen of this type. :`
Quote: "Jesse11"
Quote: "pnightingale"​An English shopkeeper in say 1967 would have accepted a 1950 1d with a second thought, I'm not sure if his West Indian counterpart would be quite so willing.
​​Phil, if I may go slightly off-topic, I think you might know the answer to a question that has been vexing me.

​Was the 1953 penny a circulating issue? It is a single year type, but it isn't clear to me whether it was minted for collectors only in mint sets, or if the coins were sent into circulation to celebrate the coronation. The answer to this puzzle could determine how hard I go out of my way to find a nice specimen of this type. :`
​I believe it was a legitimate circulating issue Jesse, as were all the Great Britain pennys except for the proof only 1970 issues. It's a relatively low mintage coin so it commands a small premium and many of them were sealed in plastic wallets and sold as souvenirs of the Coronation. That's actually the easiest way to find one in high grade and the most cost effective. The cost of buying a single UNC 1953 penny is just about the same as you can find the entire Farthing to Half Crown set for. I bought two of them and picked out the best examples of each coin to easily complete all the 1953 issues and it gave me some nice coins to exchange with my fellow collectors.
Non illegitimis carborundum est.  Excellent advice for all coins.
Make Numismatics Great Again!  

» Forum policy

Used time zone is UTC+1:00.
Current time is 06:40.