Should BU and circulation coins be separated?

Despite the technique for minting BU coins is slightly different (slower minting process and often struck 2 times), it is essentially impossible to tell them apart from just good circulation strikes. First strikes for example. Or from FDC coins, which are not considered a different finish. The only thing that definitely shows that coin is indeed BU is the packaging. 

Major catalogs, like SCWC and Schoen (at least the older versions of it) also do not make a distinction between the two.

Considering that essentially the only way to definitely distinguish the two is by packaging, can it be considered a different finish? Specially now since we have sets, where the fact that the content is BU can be mentioned?

I don't see a point unless the finish is obviously different, like Canada's mint sets which used proof-like coins for many years. Now that Numista has begun to catalog sets, that function can be used.

TheGame

I don't see a point unless the finish is obviously different, like Canada's mint sets which used proof-like coins for many years. Now that Numista has begun to catalog sets, that function can be used.

Yes, Switzerland also comes to mind. Swiss BU coins are better proofs than proofs of many countries:). And they mention them only as uncirculated/FDC. (Many of their business strikes are proof-like too). Those of course should be listed as proof-likes.

Croatia also comes to mind. There the question is more complex though, because while their national bank claims they are BU, SCWC (and because of it Numista too) claim they are proof.

But for the most part they look pretty much the same. Here is an example from Hungary:

The mint distinguishes these two finish. In previous case the green set is BU and the other one is “first strike” (supposedly the first 12 000 business strike coins minted that year). However the difference between the two is so minimal that without the packaging noone will be able to tell them apart.

The same is true for British and Euro coins

In the past I could see quite some difference in quality. Sharper details no scratches or dings. In the last couple years I often see so called BU coins in sets with a quality worse then some nicely struck circulation issues I get from the supermarket as change.

Idolenz

In the past I could see quite some difference in quality. Sharper details no scratches or dings. In the last couple years I often see so called BU coins in sets with a quality worse then some nicely struck circulation issues I get from the supermarket as change.

I never noticed difference in case of Euro coins. I don't know if there is for UK, as I haven't encountered them often, and only have few mint sets and some worn coins.

The Japanese sets also supposedly contain BU coins, but do not have separate yearlines. By BU do they refer to a slightly different technique, or just to a grade (like FDC)? Because some countries, like Philippines, consider BU just as a grade:

BU coins (supposedly) use dies that are polished more frequently then in the usual manufacturing process and are stamped twice instead of only once. Proof coins use specially polished dies and are stamped around 4 times.

Short answer .. Yes they should.

Mike

brismike

Short answer .. Yes they should.

 

Mike

Is there a reliable way to tell them apart?

There is certainly a reliable way to tell apart proof coins, of course unless they are heavily worn. Which is rather unlikely to happen. However, for majority of BU coins, the only reliable way to distinguish them from circulation strikes is by packaging.

At least that seems to be the case. Plus, grading companies also do not assign any special grades to them.

Maybe I'm missing something?

It also seems that the BU technique is not uniform across countries. This is the description of uncirculated and BU techniques provided by Hungarian mint:

• UNC., stempelfrisch – uncirculated (or mint state), meaning a coin that has not yet been put into circulation, free of signs of circulation. From a production point of view, it indicates the quality of circulation coins: a coin made on an automatic dispensing minting machine, not yet put into circulation, on which insignificant scratches, friction or impact marks may appear during production – removal from the machine, placing in a container, packaging – that do not affect the circulation capacity. The first-day mintings of commemorative versions of circulation coins are packaged in this quality.

• BU, Brilliant Uncirculated – a coin in excellent condition, not put into circulation, collector's edition. The relief and the field have a regular, even shine. The BU quality designation indicates a silky mint state finish: the base plane and the relief are sandblasted; with a uniform, slightly shiny surface. The planchet is not polished separately. BU coins are produced individually, handled with tweezers or gloves, and individually inspected for quality. They represent a higher quality grade than mint state.

https://penzvero.hu/accordions/alatlanos-kinyitva-2-2/?lang=en

Unlike, UK and Japanese BU coins, it seems they are struck only once. I suppose a proper name for this kind of BU should be semi-matte, since only planchets are sandblasted. (Although, I don't know what kind of polishing other mints use. If they also use sandblasting than it is not different)

However, for the most part it is virtually impossible to tell them apart, specially for those issued in the past 15-20 years. Back in the 90's and early 2000 the difference was slightly more pronounced. (The circulation coins were more reliably slightly less shiny, and the shine was slightly less uniform than BU. But still I wouldn't say they could be reliably identified even back then, because good examples of general strike coins look the same)

Short answer:

No, I don't think they should.

I personally would like them to be separated. For example, I have a few mint set (or BU as some may call them) coins from Jersey, and have added them to my collection on Numista. However, since my focus is circulation coins, I still need these dates for my main collection. If I'm doing a swap and want to filter out coins I already have, these dates would be filtered and I might miss that the person I'm swapping with has them.

That said, in the majority of cases worldwide, mint set coins aren't any different from circulation coins, besides better handling to prevent bagmarks. I can understand if the majority would prefer not to split them for this reason. Some pages, like Australian decimal coins, get a bit ridiculous with their year lines.

Re: Japanese set coins - I have both a 2023 mint set and recent coins pulled from circulation in high grade. Besides the potential for bagmarks on the circulation coins, there is no difference between them to the naked eye.

I have created a vote here:
https://en.numista.com/forum/topic177386.html