Timeline for Was breaking apart coins for change ever a common custom?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 15, 2019 at 16:10 | comment | added | Daniel R. Collins | To be clear, I'm unable to select this as the answer because it doesn't address the core issue of whether coins were (and were designed to be) broken up at point-of-sale for change in a transaction. | |
| Mar 30, 2019 at 16:01 | comment | added | Daniel R. Collins | @DavePhD: Thanks for that. Maybe this answer would be improved if that was addressed explicitly; the "for change" in the title, question, etc. is pretty key. | |
| Mar 29, 2019 at 12:53 | comment | added | DavePhD | @DanielR.Collins I don't know of any evidence that the cutting occurred at the point of sale. Definitely not in the second reference, and I only have snippet view of the first reference. | |
| Mar 29, 2019 at 10:37 | history | edited | LangLаngС | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
pictures with text are even more convincing if the detail is high and text readable
|
| Mar 29, 2019 at 9:37 | history | edited | Oddthinking♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Include pictures, which I feel are the most persuasive evidence
|
| Mar 29, 2019 at 0:58 | comment | added | Daniel R. Collins | @DavePhD: Thank you. So, regarding in the OP, "to pay for a purchase with a coin and have the coin broken apart, with part of it returned as change", it sounds like maybe there's no evidence for that claim? | |
| Mar 27, 2019 at 12:08 | comment | added | DavePhD | @DanielR.Collins The first reference is not the whole book, it is the specific article by Robert D. Leonard Jr. that starts on page 363. For the second reference, start at the beginning of the article on page 337 (according to original numbering). It says "for the purpose of providing pieces of small denominations". So these cut coins were island-government authorized cutting to have small denominations. | |
| Mar 27, 2019 at 0:42 | comment | added | Daniel R. Collins | And the second reference (like images referenced in the OP) seems pretty hazy, e.g., "Some cataloguers attribute these to the English occupation, others to a period under the Dutch, and assign varying values to them." So it would be great if we had more clarity: Cut by merchant to make change in transaction? Cut and re-stamped by government for new circulation? Etc. | |
| Mar 27, 2019 at 0:41 | comment | added | Daniel R. Collins | Hmmm. Your first reference is to a whole 348-page book (in French), yes? Can you narrow it down more to specific article/page or something? | |
| Mar 26, 2019 at 18:07 | comment | added | DavePhD | @Laurel The ones in the photos and catalog of the second reference were meant to be used, as they were given new marks, like the letter "c" or a number, after they were cut. And they were cut in equal pie-slices, like quarter-pies. | |
| Mar 26, 2019 at 17:52 | comment | added | Laurel | Is there any evidence that the coins were cut to make change specifically? I know that in some places, coins were cut in order to prevent them from being used. | |
| Mar 26, 2019 at 15:44 | history | edited | DavePhD | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 149 characters in body
|
| Mar 26, 2019 at 14:28 | history | edited | DavePhD | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 358 characters in body
|
| Mar 26, 2019 at 14:22 | history | answered | DavePhD | CC BY-SA 4.0 |