A monstrous doubt assails me...

92 posts

» Quick access to the last post

Hello everyone.

Since a long time I have a doubt, which still remains unsolvable today. What's your opinion ?
There are millions of coins never circulating, often in silver, which are only for collection, for commemorative events, which we buy for their beauty. How much will they be worth in the future? I tend to say, nothing.
During the night, I dream beautiful coins which are dancing, later...a coin with the face of a shark bites my bed. Sometimes, when I'm alone at home, I listen to ethereal whispers telling me: we'll lose all the value!
1-commemorative coins are too many and continuous;
2-according to my point of view, they are equal to medals, if not circulating, they are without history, so they are not coins;
3-if gold, they are worth as an investment. If silver, they remain in the collection, at home;
4-the nominal value does not even cover the metallic value, so, if they are created to avoid purchases, they are not true coins, correct?
What future can they have?
Thank you.
I'am the same opinion, there is no real difference between a non-circulating commemorative coin and a medal/bullion coin for me. For example African mints just stamp a value on every piece of silver/gold they get and try to make money by selling it to collectors. And then there are tons of commemoratives about Disney cartoons and stuff like that which in my opinion removes any seriousness from the mint that made it.
Most of those coins will never bring you more than their material value when you try to sell them, and I wouldn't even buy them for the material except you would sell them much under its material value.
+1.

Do I need to say more?

Well, yes:
  1. This topic has been raised quite regularly on Numista.
  2. A coin in a plastic capsule is not meant for circulation either.
  3. To take an example of how little such coins are worth over time, the 1976 Canadian nickel dollar in capsule is worth about the same in 2018 (about $4-$5) as if you had deposited a dollar in the bank in 1976 and let interests take care of the rest (and of course you paid more than a dollar for it in 1976).
  4. Santa Claus, Bee Gees, Star Trek, Mickey Mouse, Bugs Bunny, marijuana, etc. "coins" are not meant primarily for real coin collectors but to expand the mints' revenues by appealing to a market of non-collectors, especially baby-boomers who are now wealthy for many of them and have money to spend on nostalgia for the good old days. When the baby boomers are gone, the next generation will not have the same attachment to those nostalgic items because they will have nostalgic items of their own.
  5. Stamps have more value as currency than such coins you and I have mentioned. This tells you a lot.
  6. In Canada and elsewhere, those pseudo-coins are "non-circulating legal tender", a non-sense since that means that the banks are not legally obliged to accept them in payment, even at face value. I posted a number of links about that over the past months.
₱o$₮ag€ $₮am₱$ a₹€ mo₹€ £€₲i₮ima₮€ a$ a ƒo₹m oƒ ¢u₹₹€nc¥ ₮ha₦ ₮h€ €₦₮i₹€ "¢oi₦" ₱₹odu¢₮io₦ oƒ ₦au₹u o₹ ₦iu€. ••• £€$ ₮im฿₹€$-₱o$₮€ $o₦₮ ₱£u$ £é₲i₮im€$ €₦ ₮a₦t qu'o฿j€₮$ mo₦é₮ai₹€$ qu€ £a ₱₹odu¢₮io₦ €₦₮iè₹€ d€ «mo₦₦ai€$» d€ ₦au₹u ou d€ ₦iu€.
The Royal Mint are really milking the Beatrix Potter series.
As for silver coins the Disney characters are probably not going to yield large return.
          'We make a living by what we get, we make a life by what we give.'
                                                      Sir Winston Churchill
Quote: "Anticogentleman"

​During the night, I dream beautiful coins which are dancing, later...a coin with the face of a shark bites my bed. Sometimes, when I'm alone at home, I listen to ethereal whispers telling me: we'll lose all the value!


​I'm not trying to mock you or anything, but that part right there is pretty poetic :)
I mostly collect coins from circulation, but I do have a good number of NCLTs (commemorative and bullion) as well. To me, the whole argument about whether or not the latter are coins is rather pointless.

1. The argument that they are not coins because they come in a capsule, do not circulate, and are only struck to make a profit is flawed since the same thing could be said about any proof coin or mint set in general.
2. Saying commemorative NCLTs are without history is not entirely true. They are called commemorative for a reason. I do have to agree, though, that mints abuse this far too often by commemorating things of little to no importance/relevance.
3. Even circulating coins are put out there to make a profit. Mints are well aware that a good number of coins released into circulation will be permanently removed from circulation by collectors. This is why the mints have been releasing massive numbers of circulating commemoratives, the 50-state quarters series being a prime example.
4. The argument that NCLTs are not coins because the nominal value does not cover the metal value is also flawed. A coin's collectable value is not determined by its nominal value.
5. People collect whatever interests them - it makes absolutely no difference what you or I choose to call it. If it doesn't interest you, don't buy it. If you try to tell other people they shouldn't buy/collect it because it's not really a coin... I think you know what's going to happen.
HoH
I find your 1 and 4 flawed.
Proof coins do not circulate but they are with the POWER to circulate.
-nominal value determines the power to purchase, 'collectable value'
is out of this logic, just a different matter.
Quote: "Anticogentleman"​I find your 1 and 4 flawed.
​Proof coins do not circulate but they are with the POWER to circulate.
​-nominal value determines the power to purchase, 'collectable value'
​is out of this logic, just a different matter.
By your logic, coins that no longer circulate are not coins.
Collectable value is what matters. I don't know anyone who collects coins based on their buying power.
HoH
Quote: "Houseofham"
Quote: "Anticogentleman"​​
​By your logic, coins that no longer circulate are not coins.
​Collectable value is what matters. I don't know anyone who collects coins based on their buying power.
​+1
Except for the last two, who did not understand the logic and my words (they are sellers of non-circulating coins ...)
Even if these coins are about important commemorations, like the 25th anniversary of the back pain of the
Queen, or 500 years of our theater, year of the rat, year of the monkey, dog-year, year
of the ass, you cannot buy those coins, because it makes no sense (as shown by other users examples above). Nevertheless the International community
continues to coin them, Burundi, Gambia, Canada included (mint of admirable visionaries) ... Why? Only business?
It's a nice thing that there are this many ways to collect coins but who of you really would call this a coin?:
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces136974.html
I have bought a couple of dozen different Finnish silver commems lately as their prices are near face and/or spot price. For older markka bu issues I have paid maybe 1-2 of euros over spot max. It is possible to get these under spot price too, but it requires more time and effort to find.

For Finnish euro commems I look for proof quality and have paid 2-5 euros over face/spot. Issuing price has been about €38 for €10 face value coin so I'm happy. In Finland artistic quality is high and themes are "clever" so I have seen these as a good numismatic investment (as good as it can never be in at least financial point of view...).

In future I don't expect any rise in numismatic value but silver spot may rise in some point. So I'm not investor in the hardest meaning of the word but I wouldn't buy these coins if prices were higher. After all I see these commems as a beautiful set and a nice side project.
As there are so many coins I just decided to stick to common circulation coins only. I have some sympathy for commonly circulating commemoratives but even those are hardly found in my collection.

I rather spend 10 Euro for a nice quality 19th century coin than a modern silver commemorative. Just a choice.
I have an interesting point of view on this.
given that:
- the coin and its design has always been an object of propaganda for the state,
When,
- The design, object, event being commemorated stopped being one of national pride,
Then,
- The commemorative coin lost its purpose and became a money grabber for collectors, a "collectible"
Therefore,
- I don't include them in my collection.
I collect anything: If it's Italian or Italian states i collect it even more!
Quote: "alfonz"​It's a nice thing that there are this many ways to collect coins but who of you really would call this a coin?:
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces136974.html
​I would.

Obviously definitions are quite subjective, but for me it's a coin with a face value and issued by a sovereign state, albeit an unorthodox one on a necklace.

Then again, these are considered coins as well: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces50157.html
Quote: "jokinen"​As there are so many coins I just decided to stick to common circulation coins only. I have some sympathy for commonly circulating commemoratives but even those are hardly found in my collection.

​I rather spend 10 Euro for a nice quality 19th century coin than a modern silver commemorative. Just a choice.
​+1!

I don't ever actually buy modern commemoratives unless one happens to end up in my hands somehow. I would actually love to have them in my collection, but I feel there are other coins I prefer to spend my limited budget on. (like jokinen, 19th/early 20th century coins).

About commemorative coins, I can sympathise with the opinion that they're mainly flashy money grabs by mints without moaning about how some people would spend their money on them. Live and let live, n'est ce pas?

That being said this matter is very subjective, and I'm willing to bet that some collectors in the 1920s saw the US mint or Weimar era Germany churning out an abnormally large amount of commemoratives for collectors about things of little relevance (e.g. this 1927 coin about Vermont's sesquicentennial) the same way we see the Royal Mint and their A-Z series.
Quote: "CassTaylor"
Quote: "alfonz"​It's a nice thing that there are this many ways to collect coins but who of you really would call this a coin?:
​​https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces136974.html
​​I would.

​Obviously definitions are quite subjective, but for me it's a coin with a face value and issued by a sovereign state, albeit an unorthodox one on a necklace.

​Then again, these are considered coins as well: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces50157.html

​No, look well: the chinese one was in poor metal. The african is , nothing as nominal value, the price to buy it and the bullion are much more...not intended to circulate.
I believe, by now, that, it is the historical factor that gives importance to the coins. So, not only a face value and a sovereign authority, but a real possibility to circulate, to buy something, a human contact, and, at the end, among the few left over the centuries, the most well preserved one. No souvenirs... real coins, in the history. And we are the history. This should be the value of collecting something.
Quote: "Anticogentleman"​Except for the last two, who did not understand the logic and my words (they are sellers of non-circulating coins ...)
​Even if these coins are about important commemorations, like the 25th anniversary of the back pain of the
​Queen, or 500 years of our theater, year of the rat, year of the monkey, dog-year, year
​of the ass, you cannot buy those coins, because it makes no sense (as shown by other users examples above). Nevertheless the International community
​continues to coin them, Burundi, Gambia, Canada included (mint of admirable visionaries) ... Why? Only business?
What a wonderful display of good manners.
HoH
Quote: "Houseofham"​I mostly collect coins from circulation, but I do have a good number of NCLTs (commemorative and bullion) as well. To me, the whole argument about whether or not the latter are coins is rather pointless.

​1. The argument that they are not coins because they come in a capsule, do not circulate, and are only struck to make a profit is flawed since the same thing could be said about any proof coin or mint set in general.
​2. Saying commemorative NCLTs are without history is not entirely true. They are called commemorative for a reason. I do have to agree, though, that mints abuse this far too often by commemorating things of little to no importance/relevance.
​3. Even circulating coins are put out there to make a profit. Mints are well aware that a good number of coins released into circulation will be permanently removed from circulation by collectors. This is why the mints have been releasing massive numbers of circulating commemoratives, the 50-state quarters series being a prime example.
​4. The argument that NCLTs are not coins because the nominal value does not cover the metal value is also flawed. A coin's collectable value is not determined by its nominal value.
​5. People collect whatever interests them - it makes absolutely no difference what you or I choose to call it. If it doesn't interest you, don't buy it. If you try to tell other people they shouldn't buy/collect it because it's not really a coin... I think you know what's going to happen.
​Please Ham...look at yours,
the way to talk, and at point 5: if you try.....tell people.....GIVING ME your own ideas, when I only ask opinions. Plus: the other words you quoted are irony for fun, I believe somebody understanding them, will appreciate...
Do you also get offended at a spellchecker when it points out your spelling errors? I've simply gone over the reasons people gave to support their opinions and explained why I did not agree with some of them. That is what's called having an intelligent discussion. If you truly want to have a conversation but find that some do not share your opinions, perhaps you should provide better support for them, rather than just dismiss anyone who does not agree with you as unintelligent.

Now, I've made no attempt to convince anyone to start buying NCLTs and I sure as hell DO NOT SELL ANY. I am a collector, not a dealer. Though, I'm sure there are plenty of members on Numista who ARE dealers and would have no problem selling NCLTs if they can make a profit doing so, whether they believe them to be coins or not. My first and last point was simply to say that regardless of whatever opinions are expressed here, I do not believe it will change anyone's collecting habits.
HoH
Whoa, what's happening?

This reminds me of the time when I simply said that that piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah...next thing I know they wanted to stone me to death!

Just trying to inject some levity, folks...

Peace,
Quote: "Jasanche"​Whoa, what's happening?

​This reminds me of the time when I simply said that that piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah...next thing I know they wanted to stone me to death!

​Just trying to inject some levity, folks...

​Peace,
​Lol that Life of Brian reference there!
Ham 'you are right'.
Now, please, do not say 'manners' to other persons you do not know well, and do not show the opposite of what you say: we both agree we say our opinion, we do not force others points of view...right?
Your opinion is also taking part inside my logic engine, even if I feel it flawed.
(please, appreciate a foreigner speaking your language too, it is not easy, we always wish other people speaking ours).
Quote: "Anticogentleman"​I believe, by now, that, it is the historical factor that gives importance to the coins. So, not only a face value and a sovereign authority, but a real possibility to circulate, to buy something, a human contact, and, at the end, among the few left over the centuries, the most well preserved one. No souvenirs... real coins, in the history. And we are the history. This should be the value of collecting something.
​Like HoH said earlier, 'the possibility to circulate' being a defining characteristic would exclude many designed not to circulate but that take the shape of an orthodox coin, e.g. a small, round disc and made of a metal.

And in 3018, some of the coins we find ridiculous now may be displayed in the museums of the future... just some food for thought.
Quote: "Anticogentleman"​Ham 'you are right'.
​Now, please, do not say 'manners' to other persons you do not know well, and do not show the opposite of what you say: we both agree we say our opinion, we do not force others points of view...right?
​Your opinion is also taking part inside my logic engine, even if I feel it flawed.
​(please, appreciate a foreigner speaking your language too, it is not easy, we always wish other people speaking ours).



I appreciate anyone speaking a foreign language. :) English is my 3rd and I wish I could remember more French, but it's been over 25 years since I took it, so it's all but gone...
HoH
Quote: "CassTaylor"
Quote: "Anticogentleman"​I believe, by now, that, it is the historical factor that gives importance to the coins. So, not only a face value and a sovereign authority, but a real possibility to circulate, to buy something, a human contact, and, at the end, among the few left over the centuries, the most well preserved one. No souvenirs... real coins, in the history. And we are the history. This should be the value of collecting something.
​​Like HoH said earlier, 'the possibility to circulate' being a defining characteristic would exclude many designed not to circulate but that take the shape of an orthodox coin, e.g. a small, round disc and made of a metal.

​And in 3018, some of the coins we find ridiculous now may be displayed in the museums of the future... just some food for thought.
​There is also the matter of coins that were meant to circulate, but never released, except by error or due to theft.
HoH
Quote: "CassTaylor"
​That being said this matter is very subjective, and I'm willing to bet that some collectors in the 1920s saw the US mint or Weimar era Germany churning out an abnormally large amount of commemoratives for collectors about things of little relevance (e.g. this 1927 coin about Vermont's sesquicentennial) the same way we see the Royal Mint and their A-Z series.



​Well I see a big difference between commemoratives of that time and those made by (for example) African countrys. Its about the topic of the coin. Those Weimar and US commemoratives show events and persons who have something to do with the country in which they were minted. Modern (for example) African commemoratives show persons and events they think collectors want to have on their coins, and in many times nothing about African history or famous Africans.
I agree with Alfoz; the same in the 'stamps' sector. Big difference, and bad custom. International experts have even drawn up a document to advise the public not to buy a list of 'misleading' stamps from some countries.
Quote: "alfonz"
Quote: "CassTaylor"
​​That being said this matter is very subjective, and I'm willing to bet that some collectors in the 1920s saw the US mint or Weimar era Germany churning out an abnormally large amount of commemoratives for collectors about things of little relevance (e.g. this 1927 coin about Vermont's sesquicentennial) the same way we see the Royal Mint and their A-Z series.
​​
​​

​​Well I see a big difference between commemoratives of that time and those made by (for example) African countrys. Its about the topic of the coin. Those Weimar and US commemoratives show events and persons who have something to do with the country in which they were minted. Modern (for example) African commemoratives show persons and events they think collectors want to have on their coins, and in many times nothing about African history or famous Africans.
​I agree somewhat, and when I was adding them to the catalogue I also thought that it was a little sad how they were minting commemorative issues mostly for people/events of other countries, but other than subjective judgement that doesn't make either better than the other; we may see a big difference but who can say how people in the future will think? The US Mint had to melt down many classic commemoratives because they weren't selling well, a fact now lamented by many US type collectors (myself included!)

And that doesn't tie into Anticogentleman's original argument that these commemorative issues aren't coins because they weren't intended to circulate, or that there's a lot of them, or that some of them have mammoth tusk/gemstones embedded or are shaped like a horseshoe or whatever. Like I've said, there were "coins" like cowry shells and spade/knife money that circulated, and coins like this which look a lot more like the coins we are used to seeing but weren't actually intended to circulate.
No, please, I did not say, never, 'the strange shape makes not those coins real'.
I said, those are not real coins because not able to circulate on the everyday market.
What you have said about the US mint can be positive in my argumentation (only business interest to sell NCLT).
Quote: "Camerinvs"​+1.

​Do I need to say more?

​Well, yes:

  1. This topic has been raised quite regularly on Numista.

  2. A coin in a plastic capsule is not meant for circulation either.

  3. To take an example of how little such coins are worth over time, the 1976 Canadian nickel dollar in capsule is worth about the same in 2018 (about $4-$5) as if you had deposited a dollar in the bank in 1976 and let interests take care of the rest (and of course you paid more than a dollar for it in 1976).

  4. Santa Claus, Bee Gees, Star Trek, Mickey Mouse, Bugs Bunny, marijuana, etc. "coins" are not meant primarily for real coin collectors but to expand the mints' revenues by appealing to a market of non-collectors, especially baby-boomers who are now wealthy for many of them and have money to spend on nostalgia for the good old days. When the baby boomers are gone, the next generation will not have the same attachment to those nostalgic items because they will have nostalgic items of their own.

  5. Stamps have more value as currency than such coins you and I have mentioned. This tells you a lot.

  6. In Canada and elsewhere, those pseudo-coins are "non-circulating legal tender", a non-sense since that means that the banks are not legally obliged to accept them in payment, even at face value. I posted a number of links about that over the past months.

​At n. 3, a real example. I would like to see more to confirm my point...
One of the problems we have, friends, is that "coin" can mean several different things. Here are two:
.
  1. If you look at the method of production, anything that is struck between two dies is a "coin", including medals and tokens, but that leaves out cast coins.
  2. If you define a "coin" as "an object, usually metallic, meant to facilitate economic transactions and, consequently, the storage of wealth", then that leaves out all the encapsulated mint products and anything that is sold above face value. To the historian, that's pretty much the best way to categorize it. Anything that is above MS-60 pretty much falls out of this category, including proofs and mint sets. Bread tokens in the depression era of the 1930s are much more significant economically than encapsulated and proof coins are now.
    We can make an exception for things such as Roman and Ottoman gold "multiples" which were presentation pieces, i.e. gifts to kings and emperors rather than meant for circulation.
.
So there is a lot of grey areas and it's up to each one to decide what his/her "boundaries" are.
₱o$₮ag€ $₮am₱$ a₹€ mo₹€ £€₲i₮ima₮€ a$ a ƒo₹m oƒ ¢u₹₹€nc¥ ₮ha₦ ₮h€ €₦₮i₹€ "¢oi₦" ₱₹odu¢₮io₦ oƒ ₦au₹u o₹ ₦iu€. ••• £€$ ₮im฿₹€$-₱o$₮€ $o₦₮ ₱£u$ £é₲i₮im€$ €₦ ₮a₦t qu'o฿j€₮$ mo₦é₮ai₹€$ qu€ £a ₱₹odu¢₮io₦ €₦₮iè₹€ d€ «mo₦₦ai€$» d€ ₦au₹u ou d€ ₦iu€.
Quote: "Anticogentleman"
Quote: "Camerinvs"3. To take an example of how little such coins are worth over time, the 1976 Canadian nickel dollar in capsule is worth about the same in 2018 (about $4-$5) as if you had deposited a dollar in the bank in 1976 and let interests take care of the rest (and of course you paid more than a dollar for it in 1976).
​​
​​At n. 3, a real example. I would like to see more to confirm my point...
​I think most Canadian NCLTs have gone down in value. That includes the gold coins, from the 1976 Olympics and on, except that the price of gold went up by so much that their gain in value is not due to the numismatic value of the coin (which went down because the Mint sold them at artificially high prices) but because of the metal content.

Not long ago we had a discussion about the $20 for $20 coin program. That included the Bugs Bunny (insert *face palm*) coins. When the price of silver went down, people went to the banks to exchange them for real money, but the banks turned them down because they don't want to get stuck with those coins that they don't know what to do with. The important fact is that no-one is legally required to accept those products, except the Mint which is legally required to reimburse the customers if they wish to return them.
₱o$₮ag€ $₮am₱$ a₹€ mo₹€ £€₲i₮ima₮€ a$ a ƒo₹m oƒ ¢u₹₹€nc¥ ₮ha₦ ₮h€ €₦₮i₹€ "¢oi₦" ₱₹odu¢₮io₦ oƒ ₦au₹u o₹ ₦iu€. ••• £€$ ₮im฿₹€$-₱o$₮€ $o₦₮ ₱£u$ £é₲i₮im€$ €₦ ₮a₦t qu'o฿j€₮$ mo₦é₮ai₹€$ qu€ £a ₱₹odu¢₮io₦ €₦₮iè₹€ d€ «mo₦₦ai€$» d€ ₦au₹u ou d€ ₦iu€.
Quote: "Anticogentleman"​No, please, I did not say, never, 'the strange shape makes not those coins real'.
​I said, those are not real coins because not able to circulate on the everyday market.
​What you have said about the US mint can be positive in my argumentation (only business interest to sell NCLT).
Ok, you didn't, so I guess that's more of a response for alfonz asking who would call that weirdly shaped coin a "coin".

Weird dimensions aside, would you call this a coin? It doesn't circulate in the everyday market, so your answer should be "no". But it looks like what most of us would first think of on the prompt "coin", though.

As for commemorative coins being issued for an event/person of another country, that may be the case more for developing countries but is far from being unique to them:
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces22300.html
- An example (theoretical, just an advice) -

COMPARISON BETWEEN A COMMON COIN AND A NCLT (ALSO CALLED PSEUDO-COIN OR SOUVENIR).
We imagine these two coins in the laps of a century (just an idea) to understand if they can both attract the interest of collectors. (approximate population of Argentina: 44000000)
1: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces8208.html Argentina 1 cent 1999
versus
2: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces27796.html Argentina 1 peso 1999

1: pro Con
- Historical interest - great deterioration due to the daily use
-famous and very used - very low rarity, mintage 70000000
by the whole population
- substituted only several years later
APPROXIMATE ESTIMATE A CENTURY LATER
- after the withdrawal could consist of 7000000 (10%?) eliminated the worn pieces: 800000? - selling price € 5?


2: pro Con
- noble metal - the population does not know it (maximum 20000 people?)
- new and - there are many other pseudo-coins in its epoch
in perfect conditions that lower the interest in collecting this one
- high rarity, mintage 5000
APPROXIMATE ESTIMATE A CENTURY LATER
4900 samples - sale price 10 euros?

I imagine the NCLT in great loss of interest, consequently, lowering the price. Coin 1, on the other hand, gets a big increase in the market price thanks to the 'historical factor' (it would be much higher for a more important, rarer common coin!)
Your opinion? (let's just take it as an intellectual pastime)
Here's a great one for both sides of the debate to consider..... Maundy Money. They are not intended to circulate and for quite some time they have had no "legit" coin of the realm equivalent. They absolutely do fall outside of the definition of a coin which most of us purists accept, yet I'd be very surprised to find someone who didn't consider them genuine coins. The centerpiece of my entire collection, my pride and joy, is an Edward VII Maundy set in it's original case. Complicated isn't it?
Non illegitimis carborundum est.  Excellent advice for all coins.
Make Numismatics Great Again!  
Quote: "pnightingale"​Here's a great one for both sides of the debate to consider..... Maundy Money. They are not intended to circulate and for quite some time they have had no "legit" coin of the realm equivalent. They absolutely do fall outside of the definition of a coin which most of us purists accept, yet I'd be very surprised to find someone who didn't consider them genuine coins. The centerpiece of my entire collection, my pride and joy, is an Edward VII Maundy set in it's original case. Complicated isn't it?

​Maundy money, very interesting... maybe because it has no events to remind and its content is formally the same as other UK coins?
It is indeed a very complecated issue; I collect African circulation coins by year, but I am really proud on my
Rhodesian 1966 gold-coins, who are definitly not mend to circulate, the same story for the Ghana 10 shillings
from 1957...
...you can run,  but you can't hide...
Yes, Maundy money is a special case, one which falls in some grey area. It is different from modern non-circulating coins because it belonged to a royal tradition of distribution to the poor. Unlike NCLTs, it was not a product of the mint intended for profit -- at least not originally. But when British coins were my main area of collecting, Maundy money was not my thing, precisely because they were not intended for circulation.

There are other ambiguous British coins, such as some 19th-century divisions of the farthing which were made to look like the rest of British circulating coinages, but were intended only for Ceylon and other British colonies. Should a collector of British coins, but not colonial coins, include them in his/her collection? That's up to each one to determine.
₱o$₮ag€ $₮am₱$ a₹€ mo₹€ £€₲i₮ima₮€ a$ a ƒo₹m oƒ ¢u₹₹€nc¥ ₮ha₦ ₮h€ €₦₮i₹€ "¢oi₦" ₱₹odu¢₮io₦ oƒ ₦au₹u o₹ ₦iu€. ••• £€$ ₮im฿₹€$-₱o$₮€ $o₦₮ ₱£u$ £é₲i₮im€$ €₦ ₮a₦t qu'o฿j€₮$ mo₦é₮ai₹€$ qu€ £a ₱₹odu¢₮io₦ €₦₮iè₹€ d€ «mo₦₦ai€$» d€ ₦au₹u ou d€ ₦iu€.
Ok here maybe another thought: Who of you would buy this coin: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces55416.html instead of an original 2-5 Mark coin from Wilhelm II? And do you really think those coins will be preferred by future collectors?
They used to cut various silver coins into smaller pieces to serve as lower denominations. I'm curious, do you consider such pieces to be coins themselves?
HoH
Quote: "alfonz"​Ok here maybe another thought: Who of you would buy this coin: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces55416.html instead of an original 2-5 Mark coin from Wilhelm II? And do you really think those coins will be preferred by future collectors?
​Who can really speak for future collectors? You tell me.

Given my collection's focus I myself would prefer to receive the older coin, but there's no doubt that Palau piece fits cleanly into my definition of what is a 'coin'. Isn't that what we're debating here, rather than trying to prove a point about which coin is or is not subjectively "good enough to be a coin in my opinion"?
Quote: "Anticogentleman"
​I imagine the NCLT in great loss of interest, consequently, lowering the price. Coin 1, on the other hand, gets a big increase in the market price thanks to the 'historical factor' (it would be much higher for a more important, rarer common coin!)
​Your opinion? (let's just take it as an intellectual pastime)


​There seems to be a paradox in your reasoning, you say that a 'common coin' is going to increase in value while the NCLT with a low mintage of 5000 would have it's value lowered?

I see Victorian pennies selling for under £1 in the UK regularly, not much more than their 1900 purchasing power, while a NCLT with a mintage of just 5000 from 1918 would probably be in a NGC holder at an auction company.

What do some of the factors you listed (e.g. "used by many people") have to do with what a collector will pay for it a century later? Collectors today would pay much more for a Hawaiian half dollar than a Walking Liberty half from the same year (1928); both coins have increased in value this time but the NCLT far more.

Another factor listed as a reason for why NCLTs would decline in value in the future is that there are many that exist in perfect condition due to their non-circulation. Why would this mean less interest in it from collectors?
Take the Italian 50 and 100 Lire coins minted in the 1930s; they have low mintages, exist today in good conditions, and did not circulate in the general public, smack in the middle of your definition of psuedo-coin.

Conclusion
It may be harder for us to imagine some modern NCLTs being classic commemoratives of the future but if there are people collecting them now there will still be in 2118, more of them if anything (see my analogy with US classic commemoratives). Your prediction of the numismatic market in a century seems to be based mainly on your personal collecting interests circa 2018.

If you think this could never possibly become the classic commemorative of future collectors, just remember opera was the punk rock of it's day, and Manet was banned from the Paris Salon once.
Quote: "Houseofham"​They used to cut various silver coins into smaller pieces to serve as lower denominations. I'm curious, do you consider such pieces to be coins themselves?
​Of course! They are coins when they were officially cut and/or countermarked by the authorities. They are currency tokens when they were privately cut and/or countermarked and generally accepted in the local economy.

There are lots of both types in the Caribbean, as I'm sure you know.
₱o$₮ag€ $₮am₱$ a₹€ mo₹€ £€₲i₮ima₮€ a$ a ƒo₹m oƒ ¢u₹₹€nc¥ ₮ha₦ ₮h€ €₦₮i₹€ "¢oi₦" ₱₹odu¢₮io₦ oƒ ₦au₹u o₹ ₦iu€. ••• £€$ ₮im฿₹€$-₱o$₮€ $o₦₮ ₱£u$ £é₲i₮im€$ €₦ ₮a₦t qu'o฿j€₮$ mo₦é₮ai₹€$ qu€ £a ₱₹odu¢₮io₦ €₦₮iè₹€ d€ «mo₦₦ai€$» d€ ₦au₹u ou d€ ₦iu€.
Iam not sure if this has been brought up yet. But the US 50 cent coin has been non-circulating from 2002. Only made for collectors. No longer a common coin. In the US catalog you have circulating coin and non- circulating coins on the same page. And don't forget the US dollar coins too.
It is, what it is, or is it.
Quote: "ALLRED1950"​ Iam not sure if this has been brought up yet. But the US 50 cent coin has been non-circulating from 2002. Only made for collectors. No longer a common coin. In the US catalog you have circulating coin and non- circulating coins on the same page. And don't forget the US dollar coins too.
​Ah, yes. That's another ambiguous case... In Canada, the 50¢ from about the same time (early 2000s) are still, technically, circulating coins even if not distributed to the banks for public release. Here I'm dealing with the nickel 50¢ with circulation finish (not the proof-like and silver NCLTs). The Mint's reports list them among circulating coins, and I don't think the banks can turn them down like they do for the Mickey Mouse coins. I had it changed in the catalogue from non-circulating to circulating, but someone changed it back.
₱o$₮ag€ $₮am₱$ a₹€ mo₹€ £€₲i₮ima₮€ a$ a ƒo₹m oƒ ¢u₹₹€nc¥ ₮ha₦ ₮h€ €₦₮i₹€ "¢oi₦" ₱₹odu¢₮io₦ oƒ ₦au₹u o₹ ₦iu€. ••• £€$ ₮im฿₹€$-₱o$₮€ $o₦₮ ₱£u$ £é₲i₮im€$ €₦ ₮a₦t qu'o฿j€₮$ mo₦é₮ai₹€$ qu€ £a ₱₹odu¢₮io₦ €₦₮iè₹€ d€ «mo₦₦ai€$» d€ ₦au₹u ou d€ ₦iu€.
Quote: "pnightingale"​Here's a great one for both sides of the debate to consider..... Maundy Money. They are not intended to circulate and for quite some time they have had no "legit" coin of the realm equivalent. They absolutely do fall outside of the definition of a coin which most of us purists accept, yet I'd be very surprised to find someone who didn't consider them genuine coins. The centerpiece of my entire collection, my pride and joy, is an Edward VII Maundy set in it's original case. Complicated isn't it?

​Another example: Spanish Cincuentines. They were prestige pieces, measuring 76 mm in diameter and 171.5g in weight, produced by order of the King for nobility or to commemorate special events, being the most famous one the 1623 Cincuentín minted to commemorate the visit of the Prince of Wales to Madrid. By all definitions, they would be NCLTs. Very old ones and with some historical value, but NCLTs nonetheless. Yet, don't ever tell a collector of Spanish coins that they are not real coins. And Kunker sold one two years ago for 50000 euros.
Referee for Burundian and Estonian coins.
Just a small comment: Anyone is free to collect what they want. I do not like some kind of coins, but I respect those who like them.
Quote: "zimpeto"​Just a small comment: Anyone is free to collect what they want. I do not like some kind of coins, but I respect those who like them.
Very well said.​
          'We make a living by what we get, we make a life by what we give.'
                                                      Sir Winston Churchill
I reckon the obvious conclusion from all this is that there's no check list of features which you can tick off to decide if a coin is actually a coin. Some of the new issues do seem to be stretching the limits though and exploiting the confusion.

The monstrosity referenced by our freind Alfonz above is a perfect example. If you were to hold that up before an audience of 1,000 people and ask them to describe it with a single word you would probably get an even split between "pendant" and "necklace" but I very much doubt you would get a single "coin". It's about as much a coin as Bruce Jenner is a female.

It's very nice to tell each other that it's OK to call a glow in the dark, elephant shaped chocolate bar a coin if we "feel" it is, but it doesn't change reality.

Why do I care? Because a hobby which can't even define itself is going nowhere. Stamp collecting was widely enjoyed only 50 years ago. Every kid I grew up with had a stamp album. Now it's not just a dying hobby, it's a clinnically dead one and stamp collections with substantial value only a few years ago are now virtually worthless. I do actually collect stamps (ironically because they are now so cheap) but I'm very much a novice so when those with some experience speak to me I listen. And what they tell me, almost in unison, is that stamp collecting was killed by the cynical overproduction of meaningless commemoratives.

I would prefer it if Numismatics didn't follow the dire path of Philately.
Non illegitimis carborundum est.  Excellent advice for all coins.
Make Numismatics Great Again!  
I was writing this as Phil posted is latest comment, and I think there are some points where I reach the same conclusion about killing the hobby, but through a different path.

Every one is free to collect what they like and what they want to collect. Yet, many new coin collectors, at least here in Royal Canadian Mintdom, quickly become overwhelmed with the tsunami of new collectors' issues. If they learn that the Mint creates new issues to appeal primarily to non-collectors, and thus expand their market, then they learn that they should be careful before they start spending their money on everything that the Mint puts out. If they aim at collecting everything, they become disappointed with the hobby, and understandably so.

My own suggestion is that if you're interested in the role of coinage in history, invest your money in circulating coins, of the highest grade as possible, and ignore all the collectors' issues (including the commemorative issues) which have no value when considering the history of coinage and currency. A 1919 "fish scale" (small silver 5¢, replaced in 1922 with larger nickels) has much more historical value than a Superman coin. I know most of my relatives and friends would be impressed with a coin that their ancestors might have used more than with an encapsulated colored coin, but may be your relatives are different from mine.
₱o$₮ag€ $₮am₱$ a₹€ mo₹€ £€₲i₮ima₮€ a$ a ƒo₹m oƒ ¢u₹₹€nc¥ ₮ha₦ ₮h€ €₦₮i₹€ "¢oi₦" ₱₹odu¢₮io₦ oƒ ₦au₹u o₹ ₦iu€. ••• £€$ ₮im฿₹€$-₱o$₮€ $o₦₮ ₱£u$ £é₲i₮im€$ €₦ ₮a₦t qu'o฿j€₮$ mo₦é₮ai₹€$ qu€ £a ₱₹odu¢₮io₦ €₦₮iè₹€ d€ «mo₦₦ai€$» d€ ₦au₹u ou d€ ₦iu€.
I fully agree with the last two collectors :wiz:
Quote: "zimpeto"​Just a small comment: Anyone is free to collect what they want. I do not like some kind of coins, but I respect those who like them.
​Bravo! +1

@phil I agree quite a lot with your first paragraph, but would it be too much to request you leave the "redpilling" on Reddit or Facebook or wherever it's currently fashionable to denigrate minorities? I was just beginning to like you too, don't disappoint now.
A lifelong habit I'm afraid but I'll try, if you'll show the same consideration for the majority of Americans by not repeatedly disrespecting our President. I think you would agree that describing a sitting President as "the Mango Mussolini" is far more egregious and inaccurate than calling an actual biological man.... a man?

Honestly, I'm not trying to offend you or disappoint you, I'd like very much for us to cease hostilities and get along. However, I write in the same lighthearted and conversational tone in which I speak. The world is filled with people who have different opinions, if they're not trying to steal from you or kill you then don't worry about them. You'll live longer and be much happier.

Well crap, now you've made me sound like Joel ******* Osteen.

To return briefly to coin definitions, you've just given a Youtube style +1 to a complete straw man argument. Despite this particular red herring cropping up in every discussion of the subject, nobody has ever called for criminilisation of such coins. I'd be firmly behind legislation which restricted the government from devaluing the role of it's official mint by participating, but I'd be a very poor kind of Libertarian if I were to suggest extending the controls to private companies or individuals.

Of course everyone is free to collect stamps, match books, tea bags or the toenail clippings of celebrities. I'm equally at liberty to tell you that they are not coins and whatever you may accumulate during these endeavors is not a coin collection.

Here's a final though for you and one which I don't think has been explored before...... The harmful confusion over what constitutes a coin doesn't originate from actual collectors or even dealers, it's a bastard child birthed of cynical and exploitative suits seeking to make a fast buck. The pendant / coin discussed earlier becomes a "coin" only by virtue of being described as such by the people peddling it. Think about it...... it has not one single coinlike quality yet we have to pretend it's legitimate simply because someone with absolutely no care for our mutual hobby so describes it to the end of making money. These are vulture capitalists of the worst kind, are you really comfortable with such bedfellows?

Recommended further reading re. pseudo coins on which I'd value your thoughts......

The US mint's actions in creating restrikes of Gobrecht Dollars.

Bashlow / Haseltine CSA restrikes

Daniel Carr restikes

Three very different products from three very different sources. They share many of the qualities of modern junk fantasies yet each of them are considered to be perfectly acceptable. I'm not sure how familiar you are with each of these but here's a quite remarkable factoid to whet your interest - Daniel Carr made his reputation by restriking real coins into fantasy pieces, most notably the 1964 Peace Dollar. The restrikes are perfectly legal to own, however you would face some real jail time if you were found in possession of one of the US mint produced originals. Isn't that the oddest thing?

Perhaps the topic has outgrown it's original intent and a new one should be started. I'll be absent for the rest of the day so if anyone would care to do so, please feel free.
Non illegitimis carborundum est.  Excellent advice for all coins.
Make Numismatics Great Again!  
I don't care how much modern coins would cost in the future and I don't care what anyone thinks about my collection. First of all I buy coins which I LIKE and find their design nice and interesting. Of course I prefer old coins, but still I possess some modern commemoratives which I bought because considered them eye appealing. I don't expect them to be more expensive or anything - they're just aesthetic for me.

One should though understand the difference between modern crap like Canadian mint, all those Burkina Faso's and Palau's (yes, I'm the referee of the last one and my eyes were bleeding numerous times while adding those coins to the catalogue) and modern commemoratives which do make sense. I like modern commemorative silver coins from Ukraine, Austria and San Marino, for example. I find them eye appealing and I buy the ones which I really like (I don't care about the price if I really like the coin).

The most important thing - we can collect anything we want and should respect the right to do so. Even if someone collects Superman series minted by RCM (I feel sorry for that person, but still it's his/her choice). I don't judge people who doesn't share the same vision of numismatics. We should respect that right but cultivate the new generation of collectors by introducing them to both new and old coinage, so that they won't get lost between modern Togo and Chad and would know all the possibilities.
ROMAE AETERNAE
I suppose I am somewhat of a purest (yes, like many of us, I have a few "non-circulating" coins(?)). So when in doubt, I reference a dictionary (old school, I know). Here's Merriam-Webster's definition....

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/numismatic

And currency is defined as ".....in the most specific use of the word, refers to money in any form when in actual use or circulation as a medium of exchange, especially circulating banknotes and coins." (Wikipedia).

Also, this link gives the word origin history of the word numismatic: https://www.google.ca/search?q=numismatic+definition&rlz=1C1CHMO_en-GBCA581CA581&oq=numismat&aqs=chrome.4.69i57j0l2j69i61j0l2.8611j1j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Seems ancient Greece felt that "use currently" and "current coin" were appropriate during simpler times. Works for me.

In short, a recent RCM Superman coin(?) 2016 1 Oz Silver GREEN KRYPTON SUPERMAN Coin WITH BOX AND COA. sold on Ebay for almost $150 including shipping. Take this to your local bank, gas station, super market, etc. and they will not give you the $5 face value (unless they're one of us). Take in a roll of circulating Commemorative RCM quarters to those same places and you have yourself $10 in goods and/or services.

And here's a question. When is the RCM going to start the same program with banknotes? YIKES!!!!! (Hey Phil, "Hillary bikini" 5 dollar banknote sells for $85) :O
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble.  It's what you know for sure, that just ain't so.  Mark Twain
Quote: "pnightingale"
​A lifelong habit I'm afraid but I'll try, if you'll show the same consideration for the majority of Americans by not repeatedly disrespecting our President. I think you would agree that describing a sitting President as "the Mango Mussolini" is far more egregious and inaccurate than calling an actual biological man.... a man?


:O

I disagree wholeheartedly with that statement , but that other bit sounds like a fair deal. So long as you act your age and hold your tongue here with regards to the Breitbart content, "original interpretations" of history and fifth grade biology I'll do likewise. (Did you know when I made that particular jab way back I had your own style in mind? No point in playing the blame game, but just a shoutout to my muse that day. :` I wasn't aware you cared so much about respecting sitting US Presidents anyhow.)

The +1 was to a statement I agreed with and +1'd with no further context, not a "strawman argument" in a non-existent debate about whether we should disavow collecting such coins. I could post "Kittens are cute" on this thread and you could +1 it without seeing a strawman argument where only coins that feature felines are worth collecting. No one's brought that draconian proposal up, nor was that what anyone was debating, so you seem to be a little confused about that.

My own opinion on the subject of the debate (the definition of what consitutes a coin, in case anyone else is unsure), is that the definition itself is fluid and subjective to personal standards. Whether you're a purist who cuts off even Maundy coins and NCLTs, or allow coloured, glow in the dark cross-shaped commemoratives issued by an island nation somewhere, there's no "right" answer to this question, or a definitive border everyone can agree on.

As for your final thoughts I don't believe it's cash strapped mints looking to make a quick buck that sparked the debate about what items outside of small round metal discs constitute a "coin". I've already mentioned how that fight can be traced all the way back to Chinese spade and knife money, or even Indian cowry shells. No, that debate was not born in the early 2000s. Collectors since collecting began have included them in "coin" collections, yet some continue to doubt whether they should be coins (myself included) or even included on Numista; & there was no capitalist agenda looking to deliberately profit from their inclusion in numismatics à la the Royal Canadian Mint's recent minting spree.

I agree this thread seems to have taken too many turns; if you'd like to start a cordial discussion on the 1964 Peace Dollar (honestly a fascinating topic) I'd love to participate in that.
Quote: "Peter M. Graham"​And here's a question. When is the RCM going to start the same program with banknotes? YIKES!!!!!
​I suspect the Bank of Canada doesn't have the legal authority to produce NCLT banknotes, which I hope will never happen anyway! But now that I think about it, is there any NCLT banknotes anywhere in the world? No example comes to my mind.
₱o$₮ag€ $₮am₱$ a₹€ mo₹€ £€₲i₮ima₮€ a$ a ƒo₹m oƒ ¢u₹₹€nc¥ ₮ha₦ ₮h€ €₦₮i₹€ "¢oi₦" ₱₹odu¢₮io₦ oƒ ₦au₹u o₹ ₦iu€. ••• £€$ ₮im฿₹€$-₱o$₮€ $o₦₮ ₱£u$ £é₲i₮im€$ €₦ ₮a₦t qu'o฿j€₮$ mo₦é₮ai₹€$ qu€ £a ₱₹odu¢₮io₦ €₦₮iè₹€ d€ «mo₦₦ai€$» d€ ₦au₹u ou d€ ₦iu€.
Quote: "Camerinvs"
Quote: "Peter M. Graham"​And here's a question. When is the RCM going to start the same program with banknotes? YIKES!!!!!
​​
​​I suspect the Bank of Canada doesn't have the legal authority to produce NCLT banknotes, which I hope will never happen anyway! But now that I think about it, is there any NCLT banknotes anywhere in the world? No example comes to my mind.
​There definitely are!

I own one of these myself, issued in 1987 by Thailand:

All the sources I looked up claim they are legal tender, yet they certainly do not circulate in Thailand. (60 Baht is worth almost nothing, anyway)
Quote: "Camerinvs"
Quote: "Peter M. Graham"​And here's a question. When is the RCM going to start the same program with banknotes? YIKES!!!!!
​​
​​I suspect the Bank of Canada doesn't have the legal authority to produce NCLT banknotes, which I hope will never happen anyway! But now that I think about it, is there any NCLT banknotes anywhere in the world? No example comes to my mind.
​How would you qualify US$100,000 notes? They have never released to the public and can only be used for official Federal reserve inter-bank transactions. Moreover, under US law they cannot be legally held by a currency note collector.
HoH
Quote: "Houseofham"
Quote: "Camerinvs"
Quote: "Peter M. Graham"​And here's a question. When is the RCM going to start the same program with banknotes? YIKES!!!!!​​
​​​I suspect the Bank of Canada doesn't have the legal authority to produce NCLT banknotes, which I hope will never happen anyway! But now that I think about it, is there any NCLT banknotes anywhere in the world? No example comes to my mind.
​​How would you qualify US$100,000 notes? They have never released to the public and can only be used for official Federal reserve inter-bank transactions. Moreover, under US law they cannot be legally held by a currency note collector.
​They are not "legal tender" (for the general public at least) and therefore cannot be qualified as NCLTs. They are a very special type of notes. Canada had its own as well, as well as other countries such as Trinidad and Tobago which had $1000 notes for government-to-bank or bank-to-bank transactions. I believe some of the Canadian ones are now unknown to exist. I suppose once a note was redeemed it was in the interest of the government to destroy it.

The bank of England had its own as well and I remember a TV documentary where they mentioned the Nazis counterfeiting them successfully.
.
Quote: "Cass Taylor"I own one of these myself, issued in 1987 by Thailand:
https://static-numista.com/forum/images/5abaac3ec7b74.jpg
All the sources I looked up claim they are legal tender, yet they certainly do not circulate in Thailand. (60 Baht is worth almost nothing, anyway)
Ah, interesting. And you mean that they didn't circulate back then either, in 1987?
₱o$₮ag€ $₮am₱$ a₹€ mo₹€ £€₲i₮ima₮€ a$ a ƒo₹m oƒ ¢u₹₹€nc¥ ₮ha₦ ₮h€ €₦₮i₹€ "¢oi₦" ₱₹odu¢₮io₦ oƒ ₦au₹u o₹ ₦iu€. ••• £€$ ₮im฿₹€$-₱o$₮€ $o₦₮ ₱£u$ £é₲i₮im€$ €₦ ₮a₦t qu'o฿j€₮$ mo₦é₮ai₹€$ qu€ £a ₱₹odu¢₮io₦ €₦₮iè₹€ d€ «mo₦₦ai€$» d€ ₦au₹u ou d€ ₦iu€.
Quote: "Houseofham"
Quote: "Camerinvs"

Quote: "Peter M. Graham"​And here's a question. When is the RCM going to start the same program with banknotes? YIKES!!!!!
​​​
​​​I suspect the Bank of Canada doesn't have the legal authority to produce NCLT banknotes, which I hope will never happen anyway! But now that I think about it, is there any NCLT banknotes anywhere in the world? No example comes to my mind.
​​How would you qualify US$100,000 notes? They have never released to the public and can only be used for official Federal reserve inter-bank transactions. Moreover, under US law they cannot be legally held by a currency note collector.

They are currency. Printed for a specific purpose but still currency. Similar situation to the 1933 Double Eagle which cannot be legally held and was never released. Similar too to the ABC Peso, never circulated but were held in the treasury as backing for the silver certificates.
Quote: "oggy"​They are currency. Printed for a specific purpose but still currency. Similar situation to the 1933 Double Eagle which cannot be legally held and was never released. Similar too to the ABC Peso, never circulated but were held in the treasury as backing for the silver certificates.

I'm looking right now at my 2018 Charlton catalogue of Canadian Govt Paper Money. They call such notes "Bank Legals". They "were very large denomination notes, which were not issued for general circulation. ... [T]hese notes were held by the chartered banks as a convenient form for the Dominion note reserves required by the bank act in lieu of gold. They were exchanged between banks in settlement of their cash balances due to each other."

Once the Bank of Canada became the issuer of notes in 1934, the Dominion notes were withdrawn and transfers were made between the banks and government by using the bank legals. After that, they ceased to serve any purpose and were withdrawn. On them was printed: "LEGAL TENDER NOTE FOR USE BY BANKS ONLY".
₱o$₮ag€ $₮am₱$ a₹€ mo₹€ £€₲i₮ima₮€ a$ a ƒo₹m oƒ ¢u₹₹€nc¥ ₮ha₦ ₮h€ €₦₮i₹€ "¢oi₦" ₱₹odu¢₮io₦ oƒ ₦au₹u o₹ ₦iu€. ••• £€$ ₮im฿₹€$-₱o$₮€ $o₦₮ ₱£u$ £é₲i₮im€$ €₦ ₮a₦t qu'o฿j€₮$ mo₦é₮ai₹€$ qu€ £a ₱₹odu¢₮io₦ €₦₮iè₹€ d€ «mo₦₦ai€$» d€ ₦au₹u ou d€ ₦iu€.
I always find this argument a fun one. My personal preference is actually for older commemorative silver coins. In that vein I collect the commemorative issues from the German states through the Weimar Period as well as the old US Half Dollars...I love each set that I am working very very much. On the other hand I cannot stand modern stuff put out by the thousands of types from many micro nations or mints looking to make a buck. I wouldn't buy them but...I can understand that perhaps there are some who view them the way I view my babies. I try not to criticize anyones collection preferences since plenty of other people think collecting coins is dumb all on its own.
Quote: "cncote10"[...] as well as the old US Half Dollars...
​Well, since we have been mentioning ambiguous cases, we had a discussion not long ago about the US 1893 Columbian Exposition commemorative (see the comment on the coin's page) which was clearly not struck for general circulation, but the Chicago World Exhibit organizers were left with hundreds of thousands of unsold ones, and they let them go at face value (or had them sent back to the melting pot) so that they entered the market and are often found in well-worn condition. Interestingly, they were accepted back then, unlike now with the Superman pseudo-coins which the banks turn down.

Is there any other silver commemorative US half dollar which circulated? I don't think so.
₱o$₮ag€ $₮am₱$ a₹€ mo₹€ £€₲i₮ima₮€ a$ a ƒo₹m oƒ ¢u₹₹€nc¥ ₮ha₦ ₮h€ €₦₮i₹€ "¢oi₦" ₱₹odu¢₮io₦ oƒ ₦au₹u o₹ ₦iu€. ••• £€$ ₮im฿₹€$-₱o$₮€ $o₦₮ ₱£u$ £é₲i₮im€$ €₦ ₮a₦t qu'o฿j€₮$ mo₦é₮ai₹€$ qu€ £a ₱₹odu¢₮io₦ €₦₮iè₹€ d€ «mo₦₦ai€$» d€ ₦au₹u ou d€ ₦iu€.
Quote: "Camerinvs"
Quote: "cncote10"[...] as well as the old US Half Dollars...
​​Well, since we have been mentioning ambiguous cases, we had a discussion not long ago about the US 1893 Columbian Exposition commemorative (see the comment on the coin's page) which was clearly not struck for general circulation, but the Chicago World Exhibit organizers were left with hundreds of thousands of unsold ones, and they let them go at face value (or had them sent back to the melting pot) so that they entered the market and are often found in well-worn condition. Interestingly, they were accepted back then, unlike now with the Superman pseudo-coins which the banks turn down.

​Is there any other silver commemorative US half dollar which circulated? I don't think so.
​Perhaps a couple of the more common commemorative halves (e.g. Oregon Trail, Stone Mountain) slipped out into circulation every now and then? I own this very circulated 1925 Lexington-Concord half:




I don't think the wear may necessarily be from time spent in circulation but that's certainly the most believable explanation for it... On the other end of the scale as a type collector who doesn't really care about grade I find it hard to obtain new US classic commemorative types at low grades/cost for exactly that reason; most of them never did see circulation.

About the Thai note, no I don't believe it circulated in 1987 either.
Quote: "CassTaylor"
​​Perhaps a couple of the more common commemorative halves (e.g. Oregon Trail, Stone Mountain) slipped out into circulation every now and then? I own this very circulated 1925 Lexington-Concord half:




​I don't think the wear may necessarily be from time spent in circulation but that's certainly the most believable explanation for it... On the other end of the scale as a type collector who doesn't really care about grade I find it hard to obtain new US classic commemorative types at low grades/cost for exactly that reason; most of them never did see circulation.

For such pieces the most likely explanation is that they were pocket pieces. Here are examples of US Peace silver dollars:



I remember reading a story many years ago about someone who had accomplished a tour de force: an entire collection of Canadian silver dollars in About Good (AG) condition. They must all have been pocket pieces since such coins rarely circulated and would be withdrawn within hours or days by most people as an interesting artifact to keep. Here are some such pocket pieces. As you can see, they command a premium for the fact that they are so unusual for coins that are rarely found below the VF grade. And note that many were sent to a grading service!! :8D
₱o$₮ag€ $₮am₱$ a₹€ mo₹€ £€₲i₮ima₮€ a$ a ƒo₹m oƒ ¢u₹₹€nc¥ ₮ha₦ ₮h€ €₦₮i₹€ "¢oi₦" ₱₹odu¢₮io₦ oƒ ₦au₹u o₹ ₦iu€. ••• £€$ ₮im฿₹€$-₱o$₮€ $o₦₮ ₱£u$ £é₲i₮im€$ €₦ ₮a₦t qu'o฿j€₮$ mo₦é₮ai₹€$ qu€ £a ₱₹odu¢₮io₦ €₦₮iè₹€ d€ «mo₦₦ai€$» d€ ₦au₹u ou d€ ₦iu€.
Coins or no?



The previously referenced 1907 Maundy set. Pretty eh?

My view? No, not really. They look like coins, they are widely collected by coin collectors, they are struck by the Royal Mint using the same portraits found on regal issues and at one time were intended to be spent by the recipients. But by 1907 any resemblence to actual real money was purely coincidental despite the noniminal face values. They have a significant value, far more than any Liberian / RCM type crap, but coins they are not.

Yet having said all the above I consider them to be a part of my coin collection. Well, I never claimed to be Captain Consistent did I? I'd go even further and say that of all the coins I possess, some of which have a far higher value, these would be the one thing I'd part with last. I love Maundy Money and wish very much I could afford more of it. Got some to trade? Good let's talk.

I reckon the point I'm getting at is that if it makes you feel happy then collect it. I do. At some point though you are going to realise that you simply can't include everything which has been used as a coin substitute. Cigarettes are the common currency in our jails (I learned this from The Shawshank Redemption, not from personal experience, I'm far too white and far too pretty for prison). If any of you wants to include such in your collection you are welcome to trade your surplus coins for the contents of my ashtray. On the old frontier the common unit of exchange was one deer carcass, which is why we still refer to our Dollars as "bucks". I'm sure my dear Oggy would be less than thrilled if I started listing roadkill on the Swaps and Trades Forum.

In deciding what to include / exclude it might be useful to consider the definitions of both Commodity Money and Representative Money. (google it) While there's some overlap if you accept the argument that modern fiat money belongs in the first category it seems to me that as these are intended to circulate because of the very specific absence of coins, you can't very well also consider them to be coins! Could the case be made that anything falling into the category of Commodity Money can't then be termed a coin? It's certainly a though worth pursuing.
Non illegitimis carborundum est.  Excellent advice for all coins.
Make Numismatics Great Again!  
In terms of the physical specifications of each of those coins, they are coins in so far as they were coined. They were actually coined with the same kind of equipment and at the same kind of facilities as the regular British coinage which was meant for circulation. So, they are coins, but not meant to be money.

In terms of the role of coinage as facilitator of monetary transactions (my definition #2 above, 25-Mar-2018), they would not qualify as coins, and this is my preferred definition as a coin collector.

So, a "cast coin" makes no sense if you stick to the physical characteristics of the objects we call coins, but it makes sense if you broaden it to focus on the monetary purpose of those little objects.

Likewise, a "radio show" makes no sense, yet even video didn't kill the radio show.

I didn't know the terms "commodity money" and "representative money" though of course I knew the difference. With regard to coinage, for "representative money" I would normally use the term "token coinage", which includes pretty much all modern aluminum, zinc, nickel, and cupro-nickel coinages.

Even much of the Roman bronze coinage (after the mid-Republican aes grave issues) is token money (unlike gold and silver). In the UK, all bronze after 1797, I suppose, or at least for sure from 1816, is token coinage, and even more so from 1860.

So, I suppose one could argue that collecting NCLT pseudo-coins is, technically a form of coin collecting, but it is not "money collecting" because those coins are not (and usually cannot be) used as money.

EDIT: It has reached the point where states form partnerships with multinational corporations to produce "coins" which are advertising private brands. You may have seen this example in another thread:



Insert *facepalm* here.
₱o$₮ag€ $₮am₱$ a₹€ mo₹€ £€₲i₮ima₮€ a$ a ƒo₹m oƒ ¢u₹₹€nc¥ ₮ha₦ ₮h€ €₦₮i₹€ "¢oi₦" ₱₹odu¢₮io₦ oƒ ₦au₹u o₹ ₦iu€. ••• £€$ ₮im฿₹€$-₱o$₮€ $o₦₮ ₱£u$ £é₲i₮im€$ €₦ ₮a₦t qu'o฿j€₮$ mo₦é₮ai₹€$ qu€ £a ₱₹odu¢₮io₦ €₦₮iè₹€ d€ «mo₦₦ai€$» d€ ₦au₹u ou d€ ₦iu€.
Quote: "pnightingale"​Coins or no?



​The previously referenced 1907 Maundy set. Pretty eh?

​My view? No, not really. They look like coins, they are widely collected by coin collectors, they are struck by the Royal Mint using the same portraits found on regal issues and at one time were intended to be spent by the recipients. But by 1907 any resemblence to actual real money was purely coincidental despite the noniminal face values. They have a significant value, far more than any Liberian / RCM type crap, but coins they are not.

​Yet having said all the above I consider them to be a part of my coin collection. Well, I never claimed to be Captain Consistent did I? I'd go even further and say that of all the coins I possess, some of which have a far higher value, these would be the one thing I'd part with last. I love Maundy Money and wish very much I could afford more of it. Got some to trade? Good let's talk.

​I reckon the point I'm getting at is that if it makes you feel happy then collect it. I do. At some point though you are going to realise that you simply can't include everything which has been used as a coin substitute. Cigarettes are the common currency in our jails (I learned this from The Shawshank Redemption, not from personal experience, I'm far too white and far too pretty for prison). If any of you wants to include such in your collection you are welcome to trade your surplus coins for the contents of my ashtray. On the old frontier the common unit of exchange was one deer carcass, which is why we still refer to our Dollars as "bucks". I'm sure my dear Oggy would be less than thrilled if I started listing roadkill on the Swaps and Trades Forum.

​In deciding what to include / exclude it might be useful to consider the definitions of both Commodity Money and Representative Money. (google it) While there's some overlap if you accept the argument that modern fiat money belongs in the first category it seems to me that as these are intended to circulate because of the very specific absence of coins, you can't very well also consider them to be coins! Could the case be made that anything falling into the category of Commodity Money can't then be termed a coin? It's certainly a though worth pursuing.



​But doesn’t those Maundy coins from Edward VII look nearly exactly the same as the circulating pence? I'am quite sure no one would have noticed them in circulation. https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces9537.html
Were they not meant as a 'giving money to the poor' gesture from the crown?
HoH
Quote: "Houseofham"​Were they not meant as a 'giving money to the poor' gesture from the crown?
​The Respecter of sitting Presidents up there mentioned Maundy coinage's initial status as "money intended to be used", but certainly since at least the reign of Queen Victoria Maundy coinage did not circulate. That's why most Maundy coins are in uncirculated condition today, with the exception of a few of the Maundy threepences that resemble the ones struck for everyday use that somehow made it into circulation. Speaking of which....

@alfonz
A Victorian 3d is sometimes almost indistinguishable from a Maundy coin, and while a circulated 3d (Sp#3914 for example) is most likely one of those struck for circulation, who knows if someone plucked it from a Maundy set of the same time period (Sp#3918) for whatever reason to spend on the spot. That's why the coin pages for Victoria- George V 3 pences have "incl. Maundy" in their titles. This is not true for the other Maundy denominations, however.
You know this is one question that really has no answer , not one that can be used for everyone. It kind of like asking is it warm or cold. I could go down to see Phil And to me it is warm , And to him it is cold. Like today , if Phil was here . To me it was anice day , mid 40's and no wind. I would think Phil would find the mid 40's some what cold. And not walk outside in a tee shirt. It all in what we like to collect. And really there are no rules in coin collecting. It is what ever you like. If your ideal of collecting coins is to glue your coins on your car ,so be it. So all I can say is collect what you like , and have fun with it. Me I use to think " coins " were only the ones found in pockets at the end of the day. That would make de-valued coins not coins. Lets face it we are an odd lot , we chase little round, usually , metal things all over the world. We think of them and even dream of them. And in my case hoard them. Really is there any need for me to have around 4000 UK penny's. From large to new. Being in the US. I would think most of you would think " that's nice , don't make eye contact with that one ". It just boils down to what is fun to you.
It is, what it is, or is it.
Quote: "CassTaylor"
Quote: "Houseofham"​Were they not meant as a 'giving money to the poor' gesture from the crown?
​​The Respecter of sitting Presidents up there

​You just can't help yourself can you?
Non illegitimis carborundum est.  Excellent advice for all coins.
Make Numismatics Great Again!  
Quote: "Houseofham"​Were they not meant as a 'giving money to the poor' gesture from the crown?
​Aye, it's just one of those charming British traditions whose original intent has been lost. Originally the recipients would doubtless have spent the coins on a few of life's essentials and a fine Easter dinner.

In the distant past when the civil service was centered firmly around the seat of government, the various offices would close for the morning to allow everyone to attend. Now most departments are regionally based and the vast majority of civil servants too far from Westminster Abbey to attend the ceremony, however the tradition remains. Each year's leave allocations still include the half day for Maundy Thursday but it can be taken at any time you choose.
Non illegitimis carborundum est.  Excellent advice for all coins.
Make Numismatics Great Again!  
Quote: "alfonz"
Quote: "pnightingale"​Coins or no?
​​
​​
​​
​​The previously referenced 1907 Maundy set. Pretty eh?
​​
<snip>

​​But doesn’t those Maundy coins from Edward VII look nearly exactly the same as the circulating pence? I'am quite sure no one would have noticed them in circulation. https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces9537.html
​By 1907 the silver penny was long gone and replaced by those big bronze beauties. The last 2d coin was the huge copper cartwheel issue over 100 years ago, and while the 4d or Groat was still around it wasn't in production and the recent currency issues had Britannia on the reverse.

All of which of course confuses the issue even further. The case for considering the 3d as a legitimate coin is self explanatory but what about the 4d? It's the same size as a Groat, made from the same material and has an identical obverse. I'm pretty sure a Victorian shopkeeper would accept it more readily than a fractional Farthing.

So if we give legitimacy to half of the set, does that confer the same status on the remaining two coins? Interesting question and one that I don't have an answer to.
Non illegitimis carborundum est.  Excellent advice for all coins.
Make Numismatics Great Again!  
I, admittedly, have not read every post in this thread, but I don't have much interest in the non-circulating coins.

I bought a couple of the Canadian bigfoot coins because I thought it was funny. Other than that, I want a coin that has some history. I like to think about the era it circulated in and whose hands it might have passed through. That's part of the draw for me as a collector.

I like coins that appear uncirculated, or close to it, but I like some character on the coin, too.

Just my circulated 2 cents worth. ;)
C. Scott Stewart
Charlestown, IN, USA
Quote: "pnightingale"
Quote: "CassTaylor"

​​​The Respecter of sitting Presidents up there

​​You just can't help yourself can you?

​Not when you made it so easy. You walked right into that one, bringing up respecting presidents with some of your past posts :x

Seriously though, a bit of self control from slipping politics in every other post you make would do wonders for some members' opinions of you, and I know for a fact I'm not the only one who'd like you more if you start acting your age. You're a grown adult human being for Pete's sake.

I take it as green light to make a jab of my own when I see you do it, so just be the bigger person, keep the rants on Tumblr and I'll quit insulting the "stable genius", ok? Please?
@Camerinvs Thanks for informing me about pocket pieces, I'll bet some people (especially numismatists) still carry one around; I'd do the same except I'd be terrified of losing it constantly. I read a while back that the famous Victorian Gothic Crown (1847/53) was commonly used as such a "pocket piece" for Victorian gents to keep in their breast pockets to show to their acquaintances as a sign of patriotism during the Crimean War. Strange how a worn coin that didn't circulate commands a premium in that circumstance.

Also I really like your differentiation between "coin collecting" and "currency collecting".... collectors of NCLTs would fit into the former while "purists" into the latter, with a big Venn diagram-esque overlap in between for collectors of historic "classic" NCLTs and other grey area coinage (presentation pieces, knife/spade money, Maundy, etc.).

Unrelated, but here's a gem for any germaphobes out there; in Victorian Britain the poor would sometimes fish around in sewage for coins and jewellery lost by wealthier people, how many of you would expect to have such a coin in your collection without knowing it? And thinking about how a coin could have circulated... there are unlimited possibilities to fill a coin's travels with, if only they could talk... some food for thought based on css73's post ;)
Quote: "CassTaylor"​Unrelated, but here's a gem for any germaphobes out there; in Victorian Britain the poor would sometimes fish around in sewage for coins and jewellery lost by wealthier people, how many of you would expect to have such a coin in your collection without knowing it? And thinking about how a coin could have circulated... there are unlimited possibilities to fill a coin's travels with, if only they could talk... some food for thought based on css73's post ;)

I am all too aware of that kind of thing. You also have to consider drug trafficking and exotic dancers when talking about this. How much currency have we each handled that have in places that would make them undesirable to handle?

Having said that, a good UV light or alcohol wipes can address most of that, if you are so inclined.

I know a guy who has a group of coins that were used in leper colonies. I looked at them from a couple of feet away. :(
C. Scott Stewart
Charlestown, IN, USA
Quote: "css73"
​I am all too aware of that kind of thing. You also have to consider drug trafficking and exotic dancers when talking about this. How much currency have we each handled that have in places that would make them undesirable to handle?

​Having said that, a good UV light or alcohol wipes can address most of that, if you are so inclined.

​I know a guy who has a group of coins that were used in leper colonies. I looked at them from a couple of feet away. :(
​There's tons more of unsanitary places coins and currency over the years could have ended up in...

But I don't think people are worried necessarily about whether pathogens could still be present on the coins, or whether they could contract anything from being in proximity to them but it's more just like "This coin in my hands could have been in 19th century human waste, eww/cool"
Quote: "CassTaylor"
Quote: "pnightingale"

Quote: "CassTaylor"

​​​​The Respecter of sitting Presidents up there
​​
​​
​​​You just can't help yourself can you?
​​
​​
​​Not when you made it so easy. You walked right into that one, bringing up respecting presidents with some of your past posts :x

​Seriously though, a bit of self control from slipping politics in every other post you make would do wonders for some members' opinions of you, and I know for a fact I'm not the only one who'd like you more if you start acting your age. You're a grown adult human being for Pete's sake.

​I take it as green light to make a jab of my own when I see you do it, so just be the bigger person, keep the rants on Tumblr and I'll quit insulting the "stable genius", ok? Please?



​I'm not really looking for life lessons from problem children, but thanks for the offer. Now turn off your computer and enjoy the sun on your face, it might make you a happier person and less universally disliked.
Non illegitimis carborundum est.  Excellent advice for all coins.
Make Numismatics Great Again!  
Mate, you're a 50-something year old who's (quoting yourself) "probably had more posts edited or deleted than anybody." And you're the one spending their days choosing to bicker with me rather than not slip in jabs that annoy people on the forum. :(

I won't bait you on this thread any more, but if you're going to stay on your high horse, please be the adult and just quit your pedantic jabs at politics here. Otherwise taking a "problem child's" life lessons couldn't do you any worse at this point.
Quote: "CassTaylor"​Mate, you're a 50-something year old who's (quoting yourself) "probably had more posts edited or deleted than anybody." And you're the one spending their days choosing to bicker with me rather than not slip in jabs that annoy people on the forum. :(

​I won't bait you on this thread any more, but if you're going to stay on your high horse, please be the adult and just quit your pedantic jabs at politics here. Otherwise taking a "problem child's" life lessons couldn't do you any worse at this point.


​Guess what? Nobody cares about your creepy prejudices, "clumsy mating attempts" and daddy issues. I have no interest in participating in your attempts to make every single topic about you and I'm damned sure nobody else cares either. So why are you spending your precious youth attempting to pick arguments with strangers on the internet? It's really simple, if you don't like something, just scroll by. I'm quite happy to spend my time ignoring your entire sad existence, why are you so obsessed with me and what I'm doing? What kind of obsessive nutjob would spend hours combing through the over 4,000 posts I've made just to find the two references to Presidents...... again, NOBODY CARES.

If it was just me then I might take pause and reevaluate, but it's not is it? While it's impossible to get along with everybody, you can't get along with anyone! You've been asked by multiple people to quit trying to be Numista's moral police, yet here you are. People use this forum to chat about coins, keep in touch with their friends and just enjoy each other's company. Until you emerged it was generally a safe haven from the mean spirited larger forums. Why the moderators continue to allow your non stop disruptions is beyond my humble understanding.

I understand that it may be disappointing to realise that your assumed importance is entirely in you own head. Never mind chubbs, go sit in your corner with the empty Haagen Dazs cartons, wingless butterflies and cut yourself until Daddy buys you that pony. You go girl.
Non illegitimis carborundum est.  Excellent advice for all coins.
Make Numismatics Great Again!  
Both of you really appear to me like a quarreling father and daughter. It is probably quite hard to imagine for both of you but to me you two have more in common than what drifts you apart. I am just an outsider and I actually mostly enjoy both of your forum contributions as they are generally well-written, witty and informative. Hope you both will find a way to coexist one day.

Meanwhile just wait as I have almost finished my WCC topic about England, a country with a legacy loved by both of you. Enjoy the read and forget the past.
Quote: "jokinen"​Both of you really appear to me like a quarreling father and daughter. It is probably quite hard to imagine for both of you but to me you two have more in common than what drifts you apart. I am just an outsider and I actually mostly enjoy both of your forum contributions as they are generally well-written, witty and informative. Hope you both will find a way to coexist one day.

​Meanwhile just wait as I have almost finished my WCC topic about England, a country with a legacy loved by both of you. Enjoy the read and forget the past.
​Thank you, jokinen....

@Phil In the spirit of conciliation, instead of responding to a grown man's high-school-esque taunts with ones of my own, I've sent you a cordial personal message outlining our problems and solutions for the future. I hope you'll respond better to it and look forward to hearing your response. (Not on this thread, though.)
@ Cass -- Interesting, what you say about the Gothic Crown. I didn't know.

As for sewers-numismatics, ancient toilets, too, can be a great source of discoveries of coins, jewelry, etc. I remember reading a story about a medieval brooch found in the toilet of a medieval castle -- an amazing piece worth tens of thousands of dollars, if not more ...

And there are some men who don't wash their hands before they exit the bathroom... There is absolutely no doubt that some of the coins we carry in our pockets are host to microscopic traces of urine. :x That's why one should never take candy from the little bowl beside the cash register in a restaurant -- a scientific study was done that found traces of urine.

It's a fact... even if you wanted to flush that piece of knowledge down the drain.
₱o$₮ag€ $₮am₱$ a₹€ mo₹€ £€₲i₮ima₮€ a$ a ƒo₹m oƒ ¢u₹₹€nc¥ ₮ha₦ ₮h€ €₦₮i₹€ "¢oi₦" ₱₹odu¢₮io₦ oƒ ₦au₹u o₹ ₦iu€. ••• £€$ ₮im฿₹€$-₱o$₮€ $o₦₮ ₱£u$ £é₲i₮im€$ €₦ ₮a₦t qu'o฿j€₮$ mo₦é₮ai₹€$ qu€ £a ₱₹odu¢₮io₦ €₦₮iè₹€ d€ «mo₦₦ai€$» d€ ₦au₹u ou d€ ₦iu€.
If a coin is issued with a COA.
I don't want it.




I find this a surprisingly effective test.
Basically anything else is fair game for me.
I collect anything: If it's Italian or Italian states i collect it even more!
Another facepalm 8~ moment provided by the RCM:

Mint's newest coin showcases famous Falcon Lake UFO encounter in Manitoba

And even a radio interview (about 45 mn into the show):

As It Happens -- Wednesday April 4th

T.T T.T T.T T.T T.T T.T T.T T.T T.T
₱o$₮ag€ $₮am₱$ a₹€ mo₹€ £€₲i₮ima₮€ a$ a ƒo₹m oƒ ¢u₹₹€nc¥ ₮ha₦ ₮h€ €₦₮i₹€ "¢oi₦" ₱₹odu¢₮io₦ oƒ ₦au₹u o₹ ₦iu€. ••• £€$ ₮im฿₹€$-₱o$₮€ $o₦₮ ₱£u$ £é₲i₮im€$ €₦ ₮a₦t qu'o฿j€₮$ mo₦é₮ai₹€$ qu€ £a ₱₹odu¢₮io₦ €₦₮iè₹€ d€ «mo₦₦ai€$» d€ ₦au₹u ou d€ ₦iu€.
Quote: "Camerinvs"​Another facepalm 8~ moment provided by the RCM:

Mint's newest coin showcases famous Falcon Lake UFO encounter in Manitoba

​And even a radio interview (about 45 mn into the show):

As It Happens -- Wednesday April 4th

T.T T.T T.T T.T T.T T.T T.T T.T T.T
​......a beautifull flippo indeed......
...you can run,  but you can't hide...
Nice...




disquieting...


» Forum policy

Used time zone is UTC+1:00.
Current time is 14:32.