bert137 » 28-November-2004 7:43pm

Also here my curious question about the seal-mark, because I have not learned to read them.
the yellow dot paint on one of the tallies you see more often; I believe it is a sign of cancellation.

charm » 28-November-2004 9:10pm

Cancellation was made also by red paint.
Do you mean that there is one seal-mark, which consists of two parts (you specially placed two tallies together)?

bert137 » 28-November-2004 9:24pm

Like some other tallies, you should put the two tallies together to get the right, total mark. (See also Yu Yan Tang's book).

bert137 » 28-November-2004 9:58pm

I just putted on two tallies like that: see: nr. 9188

charm » 28-November-2004 10:09pm

Thank you.
BTW, the bottom character on this combined seal is 訖 qi = finish; conclude, stop; exhaust. Now I'm trying to decipher upper character.

charm » 28-November-2004 11:05pm

Dear Bert, do you have another examples of this seal? It can help to find upper character.

XIE » 29-November-2004 8:28am

I think the bottom character on this combined seal is not 訖 Qi but 記 Ji – mark, to make record, notes, write down

charm » 29-November-2004 10:25am

Yes, it is, I'm agree!

bert137 » 30-January-2005 10:50pm

By coincidence I came upon the first seal-character: fu (福): blessing, happiness.
Studying some tallies of this type that I recieved learned me that that are two different sealstamps for the first character. The book of Yu Yan Tang gives the 福-character. The sealstamp on the tallies here above is the other variety.

Istinpolin » 31-January-2005 12:33am

If I am allowed a question. What is the history of such tallies. How did they pay with them? What are these exactlty? Is this currency and what were the values of such tallies, I mean what were people able to buy with them back in the day? I would be happy if you could explain this. Sorry to have interrupted the discussion.

bert137 » 31-January-2005 2:06am

bcebeci,
when you send me your mailadress, I will send you article about the tallies.
bertlijnema@hotmail.com

Markteo » 31-January-2005 6:04am

I want the article too. These bamboo tallies which u have frequently posted puzzles me a lot. my email is markt1985@hotmail.com

conder289 » 31-January-2005 6:13am

I want the article too please conder289@comcast.net

SS » 29-March-2010 10:31pm

Dear bert137, would you be so kind to explain what exactly you have mean with this translation: shi wen chuan qian erbai wen [200 pieces tied together (payable) in pieces to ten] ?

SS » 30-March-2010 1:25am

A very interesting question arised here.
The phrase 十文串 is a grammatical modifier to 錢, not to 貳佰文 (200 wen), so there are not "200 pieces tied together". The phrase should be understood as "200 wen payable in 十文串錢". Now is the question what exactly 十文串錢 means ?
串錢 - chuanqian - could be translated as "tied (or strung) together cash coins", but it has very little sense here, because there is no need to strung them together by making a payment. It is most probable that the discussion here just deals with the "value 10" coins, so 十文串錢 would be similar to 《當十文》錢.
So in my Opinion, the denomination should be translated as: "200 wen payable in "value-10" cash coins", i.e. 20 coins. But the problem is that these coins are quite rare, so I started to search for more info and then I have found the followed tally: #83722, dated 1928AD~early 1929AD.
The denomination reads as: 十文串錢壹仟文.
1928-1929 is a little bit too late to use cast cash coins, so the discussion here unambiguously deals with the struck coins and the inscription must be translated as: "1000 wen payable in 10 wen struck coins".
In the confirmation of this guess I found in the Internet the following phrase:
此外，施荣富还收藏了一套共17枚清朝“光山庄”钱号的代币竹签，上书“十文串钱壹仟文”字样，十文串钱即一个铜板，壹仟文即1个银圆，相当于100个铜板。
"In addition, Shi Rongfu has also collected a set of altogether 17 bamboo money tallies dated back to the Qing Dynasty, issued by Guangshan Zhuang (光山庄). The inscription is “十文串钱壹仟文”. 十文串钱 is a copper (copper coin, tong ban) 铜板, 1000 wen its a 1 silver dollar, it is equal to 100 coppers (铜板, tong ban). "
Numismatic dictionary (钱币学词汇简释) says, that 铜板 is similar to 铜元, common name for coppers. So, here deals with the struck 10-cash coins.
But #9185 was issued not later than February 12, 1896. According to Krause catalog (thanks to Charm for providing me with this info), first issue of the struck 10-cash coins in Jiangsu was in 1898AD.
Should the above info means that the struck coins were issued earlier, already in 1895-1896 ???
Any Opinions are welcomed.

charm » 30-March-2010 2:55am

That means that mentioned struck coins were still in circulation

SS » 30-March-2010 3:23am

Sorry, what you mean ??
Either in 1928-1929 cast cash coins still were in circulation, or in 1895-1896 the struck coins already were in circulation.

mbriac » 30-March-2010 10:04am

Like the first silver doller have been mented around 1837 (see http://www.zeno.ru/showphoto.php?photo=33800 ) I think than the second possibility is the best.

Chinasmith » 30-March-2010 1:19pm

The first machine struck 10 cash coin was made in the summer of 1900 at the Canton Mint. The first machine equipped mint in Suzhou was not opened till 1904, so the phrase "shiwen" can not refer to a machine struck coin in 1895. Moreover, the word "chuan" refers to a cash coin (with hole in the middle), not a machine struck coin. The more likely explanation is that "shiwen" refers to a cast value 10 cash coin. By the late 1860's such coins were normally only found in circulation around Peking (Beijing). Since there are no Jiangsu value 10 cash coins from the Guangxu reign, this must refer to old Xian Feng coins. There is a Jiangsu value 5 cash coin, but it was not made until 1905, according to Hartill. Cast cash coins were still in circulation in some places in the late 1920's, though they were disappearing rapidly.

SS » 30-March-2010 3:07pm

So, how you will explain the similarity in inscriptions then, if 1895/96 is too early for struck coins and 1928/29 is too late for cash coins ?
BTW, is the chinese comment which I have cited above not accurate in your Opinion ? Thanks.

Chinasmith » 31-March-2010 9:20am

The Chinese text quoted is wrong in saying that the inscription refers to machine struck coins. If the date on this piece is genuine, it can not refer to the struck 10 cash -- which had not yet been created. The other possibility is that the date is wrong -- that is, that the date was used in later times or that the tally is a forgery made after 1904. I think cash coins were still in circulation in the late 1920's but they were not in common use and were rapidly being destroyed to make the more profitable machine struck 10 cash (and higher denominations). In any event, the promise to pay in cash coins was only that -- a promise. At the same time there were many issues of paper money promising to pay in cash coins, but much of that paper money could not, in fact, be redeemed. That the struck 10 cash was first issued in 1900 (and 1904 in Jiangsu) is quite clear from newspaper accounts, customs reports, mint reports and other sources.

expat » 31-March-2010 11:28pm

here is another one, from the year 戊辰 (1928): http://www.quancang.com/dv_rss.asp?s=xhtml&boardid=451&id=33...

i agree with Chinasmith that the tally above can only possibly refer to the cast 10-cash pieces.

but why did the tally underline that money should be paid in 10-cash coins? was a 10-cash coin more (or less) valuable than ten 1-cash coins?

Chinasmith » 2-April-2010 1:50pm

Both the cast hole-in-the-middle 10 cash coin and the machine struck 10 cash coin produced a large profit for the mint. Ten individual cash coins were worth more than one 10 cash coin.

La Vansa » 8-April-2010 11:36am

In his paper « Sur les monnaies de bambou de la région de Suzhou (Jiangsu) », Bulletin de la Société Française de Numismatique, N°8, octobre 1994, 932-935, Thierry translated this formula (十文串錢貳佰文) in « 200 cash in string (payable) in ten cash coins ». Concerning the early fabrication of these tallies, Thierry quoted (in foot-note 10) a paper dated mars 1896 : « À cause de la paucité de cash dans le Kiang-sou, le gouverneur de Sou-tcheou a autorisé l’émission d’une monnaie obsidionnale consistant en des baguettes de bambou, sur lesquelles on marquera au fer chaud la quantité de cash que ces baguettes représenteront. Le Trésorier de la province a autorisé tous les changeurs de faire circuler cette monnaie de bambou. Les baguettes ont environ 2 pouces de longueur et portent naturellement le nom de la banque ou du changeur qui les met en circulation » (G. S., « Chronique-Chine », T’oung pao, VII, mars 1896, 169-170). That’s means that the authorization of circulation was earlier than the date of publication (march 1896), and that the official authorization was the legalization of a local use and practice, probably earlier than 1896.

SS » 8-April-2010 1:24pm

Dear La Vansa, thank you for your valuable comment. But the question was:
Due to the fact that the similar inscription appears on the tallies issued in 1895/96 and in 1928/29, then which coins were mentioned in the inscription ? If "value 10" Jiangsu cast coins of Guang Xu reign, then it should be taked into account that coins with this denomination were rare. May be "value 10" coins of Xian Feng reign ? But according to Chinasmith (it is pity, he again does not provide us with the name of the source he used), then these coins were circulated in around Beijing area. The chinese site (the one I have cited above) mentioned (based on the tally, issued in 1928/29), that there was "value 10" tongyuan (銅元), i.e. coppers. The date 1895/96 is too early for struck coins in Jiangsu, while the 1928/29 is a bit too late for cast coins. So, the question is: which coins does the inscription refers to ?

In my private conversation with bert137, I also wrote that the dates are possibly "frozen", because no other dates except of 1895/96 and 1928/29 are known to exist for this type. At least I have not seen any after seeing 30+ tallies of this businesshouse. That could mean, that the tallies of this businesshouse were alowed in 1895/96 for circulation (i.e., this is the date of obtaining permission (admittance) to the production of tallies for the specific sum), but it does not mean that this very tally was issued in this year. Hope, you undersand what I mean.
So, what is your opinion ? Thank you.