Numista's 19th-century Canadian coin collection is in disarray !

Hello,

@Camerinvs  warn me about a problem with coins issued both during the United Province of Canada period (1841-1867) and Canada (1867→)

How does the SCWC organize the different issues of the Canada section in the 19th century?

Confederation (1841→)

• Lower Canada
• British Colombia
• Magdalen Island
• New Brunswick
• Newfounfland
• Nova Scotia
• Prince Edward Island
• Upper Canada

And for Numista : 

Canada (section)

• Canada (1867→)
• Canadian  Provinces (section)
  • British Columbia
  • United Province of Canada (1841-1867)
  • Canadian Colonies
  • Lower Canada
  • New Brunswick
  • New France
  • Newfoundland
  • Nova Scotia
  • Prince Edward Island
  • Upper Canada

There are some differences :

Magdalen Island has been incorporated in Lower Canada even though Lower Canada never issued this coin.

But the main difference is that Numista created an issuer United Provinces of Canada (1841-1867).

And that’s what creates problems !

There is no difference of frontiers between United Provinces of Canada before 1867 and Canada after 1867

All coins issued under the reign of Victoria bear the same word Canada and are similar before and after 1867.

And the unexpected result is that in the catalog of the issuer Canada, you find for example:

Victoria (1867-1901) - 5 Cents (1858-1901)

N#420

with coins issued during the United Provinces of Canada.

Same problem for other denominations.

So to put all this in order, the only solution is to transfer

the issuer United Province of Canada

to a ruling authority (Period) of the issuer Canada (1841→).

The example above will become : 

Victoria (1841-1901) - 5 Cents (1858-1901) ruling authorities United Province of Canada (1841-1867), Canada (1867→)

Thanks.

Thanks for this, @Frenchlover — 

Just a little correction: the Province of Canada (1841–1867) was composed only of Lower and Upper Canada, i.e. Canada East and Canada West that eventually became Quebec and Ontario. The Confederation (1867–present) also included Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, with other provinces joining later (Manitoba and British Columbia 1870–1871; PEI 1873; etc.).

I asked yesterday for the 20 cents and 1 cent to be fixed and @SouthViking did so already — thx!

The SCWC is definitely wrong about there periodization. I suppose they just went for simplicity over historical accuracy, but Numista doesn't need to follow them slavishly.

Magdalen Islands was part of Lower Canada when the token was issued. I suppose it could stay there just as Montreal or Quebec City tokens do.

So, the main issue is to make sure that the 5 cents and 10 cents are also listed under United Province of Canada. Once this is done, the entire 1858–59 coinage will be at the right place, cuddled together…

Hi, for now i can split the 5 cents and 10 cents pages into 1858 and the other years separately, with 1858 being attached to the united province. The other suggested changes are above my paygrade i think… 😁

That's already an improvement. 

We could add a link to the 1870–1901 issues, and vice versa from there to the 1858 issue.

SouthViking

Hi, for now i can split the 5 cents and 10 cents pages into 1858 and the other years separately, with 1858 being attached to the united province. The other suggested changes are above my paygrade i think… 😁

In this case you would create an artificial duplicate of a KM# reference.

Creating such a facticious duplicate just to make it easier for Numista to classify is not correct.

Then I'll wait for further discussion and agreement on the way forward.

As we get an historian on site, we may get advise @Jarcek 🧐

I would in no way place myself as authority on Canadian history. I studied early medieval Russia and Mongols :D

Happy Monday, everyone,

I am myself a historian, though mostly of much earlier periods (but also of the 19th century in very limited ways for now). A few years back I asked for the anachronistic term “Canadian Provinces” to be replaced with “British North America” for the pre-1867 British colonies north of the USA. The 1867 Confederation Act is actually called the British North America Act, 1867. Well, I was told (by whom on the Numista board I fortunately can't remember) that this term could not be used because the Caribbeans were also part of British North America. In other words, someone was telling me that he knew better and that the Britons didn't know what they were talking about when they named it the BNA Act. By the early to mid-19th century, “BNA” was used for what became Canada, but there was no point in arguing from so far down at the bottom of the barrel so I let it go.

As for dividing KM numbers, it is irrelevant to me, but if Numista wants to stick to that system, no problem. Personally, in my own lists, I give a new number —on the model 100A / 100B / etc.— every time a new polity releases a coin that is the same as the previous issuing polity. Maybe it's because I organize my coins by historical periods, not by denomination which is the norm in North America (Charlton, Red Book, etc.). In fact, I want to reorganize my entire Canadian collection by year (i.e. as year sets) because it makes so much more sense historically. Unfortunately, there is no album on the market that follows this model.

Anyway, I'll leave it at that. Have a good week.

Well, what you let go may someone else pick up. I will do that this time.

What referees say about renaming? @FeeFoo and @bbybugs ?

In the meantime, I at least set British North America as alternative name for the section. If we rename, we would simply switch the terms so searchability is ensured.

Thanks Jarcek,

I see that the term currently used is not “Canadian Provinces” as I wrote, but “Canadian Colonies”, which is not really any better.

In my research into 19th-century Carribean numismatics (which is my very limited 19th-century expertise as a historian), I never see the term BNA applied to that part of the world. In some ways, the West Indies may have been connected with South more than North America because one of the larger colonies of this administrative space, Essequibo and Demerara (aka Demarary) / British Guiana, was in South America. The Colonial Bank, established in 1836/7 to serve that part of the British colonial space and no other, also followed the same principle and had two branches in Guiana. There was also much discussion in the correspondence between the Head Office in London and the local branches (especially Port of Spain's) about Venezuela and the discovery of gold there. When they write “terra firma” (firm or solid ground, i.e. not an island) they usually mean Venezuela.

To get back to our discussion and the problem of splitting in two issuers “United provinces of Canada” (1841-1867) and Canada (1867→) when coin issues don't make any split, 

I like this GIF from wiki where we see that Canada expanded territorially without any division in Numista's Canada issuer after 1867.

I do understand that 1867 is a key date for canadian but I think that 1841 is more appropriate to fix the beginning of the issuer Canada in term of numismatic.

The other solution, undoubtedly much more complicated in computer terms, would be to allow a coin page to have multiple issuers. In our example: 5 Cents 1858-1901 issuers: United Canadian province; Canada. I don't recommend this solution.

Nice GIF — I had never seen it.

1841 is more problematic in my opinion because it denies the reality that the BNA colonies were all equal administratively even though some were much smaller than others. These were: Canada (i.e. United Canada East + West), Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, PEI, and Newfoundland. In the discussions towards the BNA Act 1867, tiny PEI had, like the others, the option to join or not; they decided not to join at this point and did so only six years later. As for Newfoundland, I'm not sure whether they even participated in the discussions.

It so happens that those who signed the Act decided to adopt the name “Canada” for the whole, in 1867, but the new entity was vastly different from the United Province of the same name. It's kind of unfortunate that they kept the same design for the 5 and 10 cents after 1867. I guess it was more efficient to use the design adopted by the larger of the preious colonies. Perhaps they thought the Queen would be pleased to see her younger self on her distant subjects' coinage? But when the weight of the 1 cent was changed in 1876 and the 25 and 50 cents started to be coined in 1870, they adopted a revised, more mature portrait.

Also, until 1858 for the United Province, and 1861 for NS and NB, the coinage was mostly bank or provincial tokens, as well as the remnants of the junk private tokens still seen in circulation. The BNA colonies (including Canada until 1853) had no right to coin, hence their issues of copper are not termed “coins” but “tokens” even when officially issued by the colonial / provincial government, for example:

NOVA SCOTIA — HALFPENNY TOKEN 

Someone in the New Brunswick government probably didn't like the idea that the authorized issue of copper would be termed "token", so he went with the closest he could without categorizing it as a coin:

NEW BRUNSWICK — HALFPENNY CURRENCY 

So, if we start Canada in 1841, we would have a range of private and bank tokens that belong to the United Province so far as the issuer is concerned, while NB, NS, and PEI tokens would be catalogued elsewhere, i.e. outside Canada. 

In addition, all these colonies: Canada, NB, NS, Newfoundland, and PEI, independently from one another, gained from the Crown the power to issue their own coinage (1853 for Canada; not sure of the dates for the others).

Sorry — this is quite long. I hope it helps in the discussion. If I made any mistake, I welcome your corrections!!

EDIT — Oh! I should add that the term “Canadian Provinces” remains useful post-Confederation, especially for all kinds of tokens (milk, bread, etc.) that tend to be collected by provinces.

EDIT 2 — The GIF should be updated to include the end of the Whiskey War between Denmark and Canada and the agreement over the new land border between them…