Catalog
Why register? Just to keep bots out of our catalog. Your email stays private - we will never share it or send you anything uninvited. We guarantee you that!
| Issuer | Guyana |
|---|---|
| Year | 1838 |
| Type | Emergency coin |
| Value | Log in to see details |
| Currency | Log in to see details |
| Composition | Log in to see details |
| Weight | Log in to see details |
| Diameter | Log in to see details |
| Thickness | Log in to see details |
| Shape | Log in to see details |
| Technique | Log in to see details |
| Orientation | Log in to see details |
| Engraver(s) | Log in to see details |
| In circulation to | Log in to see details |
| Reference(s) | Log in to see details |
| Obverse description | Log in to see details |
|---|---|
| Obverse script | Latin |
| Obverse lettering | Log in to see details |
| Reverse description | Within a raised circular border, the denomination ONE STIVER is inscribed in two lines across the centre of a recessed disc. The surrounding annular field bears the promotional legend PURE COPPER PREFERABLE TO PAPER, separated by a central dot, all contained within a beaded outer border. The design is entirely typographic, with no figurative imagery, emphasising the utilitarian and monetary advocacy character of this emergency issue. |
| Reverse script | Log in to see details |
| Reverse lettering | Log in to see details |
| Edge | Log in to see details |
| Mint | Log in to see details |
| Mintage | Log in to see details |
| Additional information |
British Guiana's 1838 stiver issues occupy an awkward transitional moment: the colony had just passed through the Apprenticeship period ending August 1, 1838, which itself followed emancipation under the 1833 Slavery Abolition Act. A functioning local coinage was needed for wage payments to the newly free labor force on the sugar estates. The Dutch stiver denomination was retained deliberately — the colony's monetary habits were deeply rooted in its pre-British, VOC-era past, and planters and workers alike reckoned in the old unit.
The Lyall and Prid'eaux references treat this as a token issue, which is accurate; it was not struck on Crown authority but circulated with official tolerance.