These pieces are ni-bu han gold issued in the early years of the Japanese Empire at the beginning of Emperor Meiji’s reign. The term ni-bu denotes a value equivalent to one half of a koban (one ryō), while han refers to a precisely shaped ingot bearing either an ink inscription or an official punch-mark (kokuin) that certifies its weight and fineness.

The obverses of such pieces carries the characters “光次” (Mitsutsugu), the kaō of Gotō Shōzaburō Mitsutsugu, the hereditary Gokin-kae-yaku (Director of the Edo Gold Mint), whose seal was adopted by successive heads of the Gotō family and continued in use under the Meiji government’s Mint Office established in AD 1868.

The reverses of such pieces bear the Gotō family crest, composed of a stylised fan and a kiri (paulownia) emblem. The kiri has traditionally been one of the symbols of the Japanese Emperor and was at times granted by the Emperor as a mark of favour. The Gotō family’s right to use the kiri crest is thought to derive from an imperial grant to the Ashikaga shogunate, which subsequently bestowed it upon the Gotō lineage. The coin is framed by a border of raised dots, and the central inscription “二分” indicates its face value. The punch-marks of the Meiji-period han pieces are identical to those used for the preceding Man’en series. According to one view, pieces in which the second stroke of the character “分” ends with a downward taper are considered “closing-stroke” varieties struck in the Meiji period, whereas those whose second stroke ends with an upward flick are deemed “rising-stroke” varieties; of these, examples where a V-shaped stroke appears at the junction between the kiri crest and the lower end of the fan are attributed to Meiji minting, while the others are regarded as belonging to the Man’en period. These attributions, however, remain debated.

On the eve of the Meiji Restoration, Japan’s monetary system had already been thrown into severe disequilibrium by foreign trade. Following the Ansei Treaties, foreign silver was allowed to enter Japan freely, and the Japanese side agreed to exchange one foreign silver coin for three domestic ichibu-gin. Foreign merchants could therefore acquire large quantities of ichibu-gin with imported silver and then convert them into koban or ichibu-kin at Japan’s fixed gold–silver ratio, obtaining a profit structure in which “four pieces of foreign silver could be exchanged for three ryō of gold”. In terms of intrinsic metal content, the gold–silver ratio of the Tenpō and Ansei gold pieces stood at approximately 1:4.8 or 1:6, whereas the international ratio was around 1:15 to 16, meaning that domestic silver was overvalued by almost threefold. This caused Japanese gold coins to be exported in large quantities after AD 1859. The shogunate, lacking an adequate understanding of international monetary conditions and having failed to scrutinise the treaty clauses technically, created what is widely regarded in monetary history as a major policy blunder. On the repeated advice of Townsend Harris, the American Consul-General, the shogunate implemented a reform in Man’en 1 (AD 1860), debasing only gold but not silver, and issued low-fineness Man’en ōban, koban and ichibu-kin, producing pieces of unprecedentedly poor quality. Simultaneously, it attempted to adjust the effective gold–silver ratio by issuing new denominations of silver such as the Ansei nishū-gin, but these were withdrawn within a short period after Britain and the United States protested that such measures violated treaty obligations. As a result, old and new gold and silver circulated concurrently, and the confusion in gold–silver valuation continued until the fall of the shogunate.

After the Meiji Restoration began, domestic transactions still relied upon the Edo-period accounting system of ryō, bu and shu. Meanwhile, the consequences of late-Tokugawa gold outflow persisted, leaving the country with an acute shortage of gold currency, even as the Boshin War and the establishment of new government institutions created an urgent need for reliable media of payment. Although Daijōkan-satsu (government notes) were issued from AD 1868 onwards and were declared receivable at face value for tax payments, their actual market value was frequently expressed in terms of the ratio “100 ryō in ni-bu han = X ryō in Daijōkan-satsu”, revealing that the public continued to regard the ni-bu han as the standard metallic currency against which paper money and prices were judged. Under such fiscal and monetary pressure, the Meiji government adopted transitional measures, directing the Mint Office to continue striking Man’en ni-bu han (alongside additional issues of Ansei ichibu-gin and Kaei isshū-gin) to maintain circulation, support small-scale transactions, and ensure the minimum viability of official payments such as salaries and military stipends. These reissued pieces are nearly indistinguishable from their Man’en predecessors, and modern scholarship can only hypothesise their date of manufacture from minute differences in the character “分” and in the kiri motifs. In sum, the continued minting of the Man’en ni-bu han was not a mere extension of the old coinage but a temporary state measure undertaken in conditions of severely distorted gold–silver ratios, disadvantageous treaty-imposed trading terms, and a fragile fiscal base. It served to bridge the gap between the collapse of the old monetary order and the establishment of the new, and to prepare for the adoption of the gold-based monetary system introduced under the New Currency Ordinance of AD 1871.

這是一些日本帝國時期，明治天皇即位之初發行的二分判金。「二分」的意思是，價值相當於小判(一兩)的二分之一。「判」的意思是固定形制的金塊上有「墨書」或「極印」(花押)作為品質和重量的證明。

二分判金正面為漢字「光次」，為江戶時代日本江戶金座(金幣鑄造所)御金改役(金幣鑄造所所長，職位世襲)後藤庄三郎光次的花押，歷代金座當主持續沿用，包括明治元年所成立的貨幣司。

二分判金背面是後藤家家紋，由扇面與桐紋組成。桐紋傳統上是日本天皇的象徵之一，也被歷朝天皇授予臣民作為賞賜。後藤氏桐紋可能是由天皇賞賜予足利幕府，足利氏再賞賜給後藤氏的。二分判金周圍以圓點為飾。中間「二分」兩字標明了它的幣值。明治判金的極印與前代的萬延判金相同，據稱「分」字第二劃捺筆下收者為「收筆分」版，為明治時期所造，而「分」字第二劃捺筆上挑者為「挑筆分」版，其中上方桐紋與扇面下端相交接的地方有一道「V」形筆劃者為明治時期，其餘為萬延時期所造，但仍有爭議。

明治維新前夜，日本的貨幣體系已因對外通商而陷入嚴重失衡。安政條約簽訂後，洋銀得以自由輸入，日本方面又同意以「洋銀1枚兌日本一分銀3枚」的匯率進行交換，外國商人遂可先以洋銀換得大量一分銀，再依國內既定金銀比價將其兌換為小判、一分金等金貨，結果形成「洋銀4枚可換得金3兩」的套利結構；以實際含金銀量計算，天保金與安政金的金銀比價約為1：4.8或1：6，而當時國際市場金銀比價約為1：15至16，日本國內相當於「銀價高出約三倍」，使金貨對外極度低估，遂於公元1859年起引發金貨的大量外流。幕府既對國際金融情勢認識不足，又未對條約條款作充分技術性檢討，這種失衡成為貨幣史上公認的「大失策」。在美國公使湯森・哈里斯屢次進言之下，幕府於萬延元年(公元1860年)實施改鑄，只改金貨不改銀貨，鑄造低品位的萬延大判、小判與一分金，甚至出現含金量極低、被視為「史無前例的貧弱金貨」的新金幣；同時試圖藉安政二朱銀等新式銀貨調整實際比價，卻又因遭美英等國指責違反條約而被迫在短期內撤回，新舊金銀幣並存、金銀比價混亂的局面一直拖到幕府崩潰為止。進入明治維新後，國內實際交易仍倚賴江戶時代的両・分・朱計價體系；另一方面，幕末金外流的後果仍在，國內金貨存量不足，而戊辰戰爭與新政運作又急需大量可被信賴的支付貨幣。太政官札雖自明治元年起陸續發行，並被宣告可按額面用於納稅，但其實際市價常以「金二分判100兩＝太政官札若干兩」的形式折算，顯示市民仍以二分金作為衡量紙幣價值與物價的標準正貨。在此財政與貨幣雙重壓力下，明治政府只能採取過渡性措施，由貨幣司沿用萬延年間的極印續鑄萬延二分金(並同時增鑄安政一分銀、嘉永一朱銀)，以補充市面流通、維持小額交易與官俸、軍餉支付的最低秩序；這批續鑄幣與萬延原鑄在外觀上幾乎無法區分，「分」與桐花等細部差異來推測其鑄造時期。簡而言之，萬延二分金的續鑄並非單純的延用舊幣，而是國家在金銀比價嚴重扭曲、對外通商條件不利與財政基盤脆弱的條件下，為撐過舊制崩解與新制未定之間的空窗期、並為公元1871年《新貨条例》下金本位體制及近代貨幣制度的建立預作準備所採行的一項過渡性政策。