Talk:Conder token

Numismatics: British currency Mid‑importance

	Numismatics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Numismatics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of numismatics and currencies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NumismaticsWikipedia:WikiProject NumismaticsTemplate:WikiProject Numismaticsnumismatic articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the British currency task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Untitled[edit]

The following page contains links that I visit often and find extremely useful for price and sometimes rarity reference (the archived auctions more than the online collections). I do think that the page would be helpful to anyone interested in the Conder branch of numismatics especially newbs who are more likely to be looking at a wiki page on Conders than a veteran collector of the series. Nonetheless, Experienced collectors may occasionally reference many of these archived auctions as well, to check for info on provenance and for the above mentioned reasons. Thus, I do feel that the link has a valid and useful purpose on the 'conder token' page. It is functional and accessible to the user and relevant to the article's content. Let me know what you think. http://www.condertokens.net/tokenimages.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Condertokens (talk • contribs) 23:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A look at the homepage quickly and obviously reveals the site's main purpose is to sell coins and promote affiliate marketing. This does not comply with guidelines for external links. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. Bobby ^{I'm Here, Are You There?} 00:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments[edit]

I read the Selgin book recently and was very impressed by it. In fact, I've been meaning to update the Boulton article. I would press forward with at least a brief chronological description of how the coin crisis continued, the issuance of Boulton's 1797 cartwheels and the later regal issues he struck, the second wave of tokens in around 1812, and their eventual replacement by the new issues of British coins starting in 1816. Your own judgment on how detailed to get.

Remember that this is a British-themed article and accordingly all dates should be day month year, even in the references. Also use British spellings and usages. I'll have a look through every so often while you're working and comment and even tweak it where called for.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few more:

~~I would expand the lede somewhat. Three or four paragraph ledes are standard fare. Trace the history. It does not have to be cited as long as it is cited in the article~~.

Expanded to 3 brief paragraphs. --BrandonBigheart (TALK) 14:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A mention that the copper Royal Mint coins were not a legal tender, and as a practical matter were only available in London, with much of the rest of the country often forced to do without, would not be a bad idea in my view.
~~It should be mentioned, I think, that the 1797 and 1799 issues were struck at Soho.~~

Added mention of Soho --BrandonBigheart (TALK) 14:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~"trading the small-run of "rare" tokens" Huh?~~

Clarified --BrandonBigheart (TALK) 14:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~The term "cabinet" for coin collection may be unfamiliar to today's readers. Suggest substitute "collection".~~

Removed the two references to cabinet --BrandonBigheart (TALK) 00:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to show, for the size comparison, a typical Conder token next to, say, a UK decimal coin and a US, let's say quarter (the US is less important_?

It may be better than comparison with pre-decimal coins which changed size a three or four times over the years. And it may give you the opportunity to illustrate another cool token.

It may be worthwhile to mention, perhaps in the Topics subsection, that these tokens were struck at a number of private mints, not just Soho.
~~"A few counties issued denominations …" well, not the counties, but rather businesses in the county. I assume we are talking about silver pieces, and it might be wise to say so.~~ --Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the wording in this section. Regarding the metal, these odd denominations were usually still struck in copper, not silver. Silver pieces were almost always proof or specimen examples. The odd denominations are almost always copper (excepting those in Dublin struck in lead and all extremely rare). --BrandonBigheart (TALK) 16:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to use this list as a "to-do list" for me. I hope that's okay. I'm adding "strikethrough" mark-up to the list above as I work through them. Just wondering, do you think I should get rid of the size comparison illustration all together, or to simply add another photograph with a size comparison with a US/UK modern coin? Unfortunately, I don't own any modern decimal UK coins. Thanks for the suggestions Wehwalt. I'll be working on this as time permits. --BrandonBigheart (TALK) 14:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency / Direct contradictions[edit]

The article states under the heading 1.1 Coin shortage, "The Royal Mint struck no copper coins for 48 years, from 1773 until 1821," but then under 1.2 Matthew Boulton and The Soho Mint and 1.3 The return of government coinage, it provides numerous examples of mint coinage during those years. This needs to be explained or the exceptions noted in 1.1. --Zeamays (talk) 19:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]