@NeophyteNumismatist said:
The legislation did not pass to make this a commemorative, and it is not a coin.
It is a coin. It was issued by the U.S. government. It has a face value. It is legal to spend for that face value. Whether it is a commemorative is irrelevant. Whether it was intended for circulation is irrelevant. Many commemoratives (such as Columbian half dollars) that were not intended for circulation were legally spent and remained in circulation for a considerable time. The metallic composition is irrelevant. Many 40% silver Eisenhower dollars were legally spent, even though none were intended for circulation. If modern Morgan/Peace dollars are not coins, what coinage attributes do they lack?
Difference is that the Columbian half was created with the same specifications as the then current circulating coinage. Modern Morgan/Peace dollars aren't.
The coin vs bullion debate is answered with U.S. Mint terminology - they are Bullion coins. The three major categories as defined by the U.S. Mint for production figures make sense:
"Circulating coins (as obtained in banks and retail establishments)"
"Bullion coins (Platinum, Gold, and Silver)"
"Numismatic coins (Proof and Uncirculated finishes)"
"Historical Commemorative coins" can include all.
Robert Scot: Engraving Liberty - biography of US Mint's first chief engraver
@NeophyteNumismatist said:
The legislation did not pass to make this a commemorative, and it is not a coin.
It is a coin. It was issued by the U.S. government. It has a face value. It is legal to spend for that face value. Whether it is a commemorative is irrelevant. Whether it was intended for circulation is irrelevant. Many commemoratives (such as Columbian half dollars) that were not intended for circulation were legally spent and remained in circulation for a considerable time. The metallic composition is irrelevant. Many 40% silver Eisenhower dollars were legally spent, even though none were intended for circulation. If modern Morgan/Peace dollars are not coins, what coinage attributes do they lack?
Difference is that the Columbian half was created with the same specifications as the then current circulating coinage. Modern Morgan/Peace dollars aren't.
Neither are 40% silver Ikes, but they are still coins. I'll ask again, If modern Morgan/Peace dollars are not coins, what coinage attributes do they lack?
@NeophyteNumismatist said:
The legislation did not pass to make this a commemorative, and it is not a coin.
It is a coin. It was issued by the U.S. government. It has a face value. It is legal to spend for that face value. Whether it is a commemorative is irrelevant. Whether it was intended for circulation is irrelevant. Many commemoratives (such as Columbian half dollars) that were not intended for circulation were legally spent and remained in circulation for a considerable time. The metallic composition is irrelevant. Many 40% silver Eisenhower dollars were legally spent, even though none were intended for circulation. If modern Morgan/Peace dollars are not coins, what coinage attributes do they lack?
Difference is that the Columbian half was created with the same specifications as the then current circulating coinage. Modern Morgan/Peace dollars aren't.
Neither are 40% silver Ikes, but they are still coins. I'll ask again, If modern Morgan/Peace dollars are not coins, what coinage attributes do they lack?
40% Ikes are legal tender which may or may not be the same as "coin". I answered your question, the Morgans/Peace dollars aren't made to the specifications of contemporary circulating coinage which is the reason many people don't consider them "coins". That is the attribute they lack.
@NeophyteNumismatist said:
The legislation did not pass to make this a commemorative, and it is not a coin.
It is a coin. It was issued by the U.S. government. It has a face value. It is legal to spend for that face value. Whether it is a commemorative is irrelevant. Whether it was intended for circulation is irrelevant. Many commemoratives (such as Columbian half dollars) that were not intended for circulation were legally spent and remained in circulation for a considerable time. The metallic composition is irrelevant. Many 40% silver Eisenhower dollars were legally spent, even though none were intended for circulation. If modern Morgan/Peace dollars are not coins, what coinage attributes do they lack?
Difference is that the Columbian half was created with the same specifications as the then current circulating coinage. Modern Morgan/Peace dollars aren't.
Neither are 40% silver Ikes, but they are still coins. I'll ask again, If modern Morgan/Peace dollars are not coins, what coinage attributes do they lack?
40% Ikes are legal tender which may or may not be the same as "coin". I answered your question, the Morgans/Peace dollars aren't made to the specifications of contemporary circulating coinage which is the reason many people don't consider them "coins". That is the attribute they lack.
Many people not considering them "coins" is not the same as them being or not being coins. White elephant issues like the 2000 Library of Congress bimetallic (Au+Pt) $10 commemorative have no historic connection to any coin composition, yet they are coins and de jure commemoratives. Since metallic composition stopped having anything to do with the face value of a coin long ago, it's really nonsense to make that a condition of calling something a coin. In 1893, a half dollar was required to be of specific weight and fineness of silver, while today the metal content is arbitrary.
@NeophyteNumismatist said:
The legislation did not pass to make this a commemorative, and it is not a coin.
It is a coin. It was issued by the U.S. government. It has a face value. It is legal to spend for that face value. Whether it is a commemorative is irrelevant. Whether it was intended for circulation is irrelevant. Many commemoratives (such as Columbian half dollars) that were not intended for circulation were legally spent and remained in circulation for a considerable time. The metallic composition is irrelevant. Many 40% silver Eisenhower dollars were legally spent, even though none were intended for circulation. If modern Morgan/Peace dollars are not coins, what coinage attributes do they lack?
Difference is that the Columbian half was created with the same specifications as the then current circulating coinage. Modern Morgan/Peace dollars aren't.
Neither are 40% silver Ikes, but they are still coins. I'll ask again, If modern Morgan/Peace dollars are not coins, what coinage attributes do they lack?
40% Ikes are legal tender which may or may not be the same as "coin". I answered your question, the Morgans/Peace dollars aren't made to the specifications of contemporary circulating coinage which is the reason many people don't consider them "coins". That is the attribute they lack.
Many people not considering them "coins" is not the same as them being or not being coins. White elephant issues like the 2000 Library of Congress bimetallic (Au+Pt) $10 commemorative have no historic connection to any coin composition, yet they are coins and de jure commemoratives. Since metallic composition stopped having anything to do with the face value of a coin long ago, it's really nonsense to make that a condition of calling something a coin. In 1893, a half dollar was required to be of specific weight and fineness of silver, while today the metal content is arbitrary.
I don’t disagree with your take on this. However, I think there is a major difference between intention when made and/or what metal or composition they are made. My understanding is that by law all items made by the US Mint must have a face value denomination. I mean, nobody is selling a $50 gold strike for $50, but they must put a face value on the item. The terminology to me is less important on mint made items prior to the mint supplementing income with clearly items made only for collectors and not for economic/commerce reasons.
Prior to the more modern items (say going back to when they only made proof sets and before) a proof was a coin for a collector, and UNC was a coin for circulation (I know this is not a fully accurate blanket statement, just trying to keep it simple). But proof coins and modern Morgan’s are all COINS as they have a face value and are made by US Mint. From the other side of things, a Chinese replica has a denomination on it, but was not an authorized piece, only made to fool collectors and not commerce, and are not made to a value standard with materials. However a Henning nickel was produced specifically to enter commerce, so my mind tells me that a Henning nickel must have a title to differentiate from say a Chinese replica of a Henning nickel!
New England Rarities...Dealer In Colonial Coinage and Americana
@Manifest_Destiny said:
40% Ikes are legal tender which may or may not be the same as "coin".
There is no "may or may not be". Either 40% silver Ike dollars are coins or they aren't. The U.S. Mint described 40% Ikes as coins during the time they were on sale to the general public. They are metallic discs issued by a government with a stated monetary value as defined by that government. These are the core defining attributes of coins. Silver Ikes are coins, and so are 21st century Morgan and Peace dollars.
@Manifest_Destiny said:
40% Ikes are legal tender which may or may not be the same as "coin".
There is no "may or may not be". Either 40% silver Ike dollars are coins or they aren't. The U.S. Mint described 40% Ikes as coins during the time they were on sale to the general public. They are metallic discs issued by a government with a stated monetary value as defined by that government. These are the core defining attributes of coins. Silver Ikes are coins, and so are 21st century Morgan and Peace dollars.
Totally agree with this! All of these items fall under the descriptive term of “coin”. A round metal disc with a denomination on it is a coin. This covers everything but say a token which does not necessarily have a true denomination. The question becomes, inside of the umbrella of “coins” what now category is an item. Commemorative, counterfeit, copy, replica, fantasy, etc. all of those terms are “coins” in a general sense, but now we break down similar I think that calculus and geometry are both “math” but fall into different “studies”.
No intent here to make things complicated, more so trying to show we have so many items available with different levels of interest amongst each individual collector. What may be confusing to many is what exactly is the collector collecting! It may in fact be that the definition is and always will be different to each individual, but for growth in certain areas of collecting that can be extremely fulfilling, terminology across the whole area of numismatics may need a “refresher”!
New England Rarities...Dealer In Colonial Coinage and Americana
@NeophyteNumismatist said:
The legislation did not pass to make this a commemorative, and it is not a coin.
It is a coin. It was issued by the U.S. government. It has a face value. It is legal to spend for that face value. Whether it is a commemorative is irrelevant. Whether it was intended for circulation is irrelevant. Many commemoratives (such as Columbian half dollars) that were not intended for circulation were legally spent and remained in circulation for a considerable time. The metallic composition is irrelevant. Many 40% silver Eisenhower dollars were legally spent, even though none were intended for circulation. If modern Morgan/Peace dollars are not coins, what coinage attributes do they lack?
Difference is that the Columbian half was created with the same specifications as the then current circulating coinage. Modern Morgan/Peace dollars aren't.
Neither are 40% silver Ikes, but they are still coins. I'll ask again, If modern Morgan/Peace dollars are not coins, what coinage attributes do they lack?
40% Ikes are legal tender which may or may not be the same as "coin". I answered your question, the Morgans/Peace dollars aren't made to the specifications of contemporary circulating coinage which is the reason many people don't consider them "coins". That is the attribute they lack.
Many people not considering them "coins" is not the same as them being or not being coins. White elephant issues like the 2000 Library of Congress bimetallic (Au+Pt) $10 commemorative have no historic connection to any coin composition, yet they are coins and de jure commemoratives. Since metallic composition stopped having anything to do with the face value of a coin long ago, it's really nonsense to make that a condition of calling something a coin. In 1893, a half dollar was required to be of specific weight and fineness of silver, while today the metal content is arbitrary.
I kinda think that’s the point. If they were struck on Sacagawea/Innovation planchets, then they would be a circulating issue. These are bullion commemoratives. I love them, but they aren’t regular series coins.
@messydesk said:
Modern commems. They were started by commemorating the old series and they're going to keep doing that until the well runs dry.
Kinda like the Oregon Trail Commem?
And Texas, Boone, BTW, WC, Arkansas.
And yet none of these were re-created to continue a previously circulating coin.
Another good point there, however is the mint really continuing making a previously circulated coin to re-enter circulation, or did they make an item commemorating the 100 year anniversary of the Morgan Dollar (one of the most popular coin designs in the USA in terms of collectors). Now, if the mint was producing them every year and went back to a trusted design for a new dollar coinage, I most certainly would say, type III and continuing series of coinage. The reason minted US coins of the past are as collectable as they are is their relative rarity from a standpoint of condition and survival rate. For example, the mint could strike many coins from the 1800-1900s as the dies probably remain for some in a capacity somewhere. But, that would be a problem for collectors today who have searched hard and paid up for a condition rarity of any given coin.
There are plenty of exceptions here, 1804 dollar comes right to mind. But, I’m just not sure how a modern mint product Morgan or Peace made for collectors and only come in top condition because they are not intended for circulation, can be included as the exact same as items that historically no more are being made (or ever will as an authorized circulating coin) and we have a market based on survival population and condition rarity. I don’t see an easy way to combine those two items under the same umbrella. But, again, maybe that’s just me.
Edited to add: Once again, just for 100% clarity, I find the new mint products, especially the Morgan’s/Peace (amongst others) to be very good for the growth of numismatics and most certainly are fun and deserving pieces to be in many collections. If I collected Morgan’s or Peace, or frankly any dollar coins, I would want them in my collection as well, but I would consider them to be “association” pieces, and not a continuation of the series itself. In the pre-1793 dated collector world, which is my specialty, I equate this as being a Fugio copper collector, I would want a New Haven “restrike” but would not consider it a continuation of the series, more a collectable fantasy item that has broad appeal.
New England Rarities...Dealer In Colonial Coinage and Americana
@Manifest_Destiny said:
40% Ikes are legal tender which may or may not be the same as "coin".
There is no "may or may not be". Either 40% silver Ike dollars are coins or they aren't. The U.S. Mint described 40% Ikes as coins during the time they were on sale to the general public. They are metallic discs issued by a government with a stated monetary value as defined by that government. These are the core defining attributes of coins. Silver Ikes are coins, and so are 21st century Morgan and Peace dollars.
I think we're arguing two different issues here. I'm just explaining why modern Morgans aren't the same as the original Morgans. They both may be "coins" but they aren't the same.
By your definition, this is also a "coin". Maybe it technically is, but I think most people realize it's really just a collectible. I think NCLT is a better way to describe issues like this and modern Morgans.
I think we're arguing two different issues here. I'm just explaining why modern Morgans aren't the same as the original Morgans. They both may be "coins" but they aren't the same.
By your definition, this is also a "coin". Maybe it technically is, but I think most people realize it's really just a collectible. I think NCLT is a better way to describe issues like this and modern Morgans.
NCLT (non-circulating legal tender) and coins are not mutually exclusive categories - NCLT is a sub-category of the category "coin". And it's not my definition. According to Wikipedia, "Non-circulating legal tender (NCLT) refers to coins that are theoretically legal tender and could circulate but do not because their issue price, and/or their melt value at the time of issue is significantly above the arbitrary legal tender value placed thereon. They are sold to collectors and investors with no intention that they be used as money."
If NCLT are not coins, then the contents of annual mint sets are not coins, and neither are most Kennedy halves dated 2002 and later.
@NeophyteNumismatist said:
The legislation did not pass to make this a commemorative, and it is not a coin.
It is a coin. It was issued by the U.S. government. It has a face value. It is legal to spend for that face value. Whether it is a commemorative is irrelevant. Whether it was intended for circulation is irrelevant. Many commemoratives (such as Columbian half dollars) that were not intended for circulation were legally spent and remained in circulation for a considerable time. The metallic composition is irrelevant. Many 40% silver Eisenhower dollars were legally spent, even though none were intended for circulation. If modern Morgan/Peace dollars are not coins, what coinage attributes do they lack?
Difference is that the Columbian half was created with the same specifications as the then current circulating coinage. Modern Morgan/Peace dollars aren't.
That would make all Mint Commemoratives "not coins". I'm not sure why "commemorative coin" isn't still a coin.
So, your position is that if I buy a 2023 proof set, I'm getting a set of coins. If I buy a 2023 silver proof set, I'm NOT getting a set of coins, just a couple coins and some silver crap????
@Manifest_Destiny said:
40% Ikes are legal tender which may or may not be the same as "coin".
There is no "may or may not be". Either 40% silver Ike dollars are coins or they aren't. The U.S. Mint described 40% Ikes as coins during the time they were on sale to the general public. They are metallic discs issued by a government with a stated monetary value as defined by that government. These are the core defining attributes of coins. Silver Ikes are coins, and so are 21st century Morgan and Peace dollars.
I think we're arguing two different issues here. I'm just explaining why modern Morgans aren't the same as the original Morgans. They both may be "coins" but they aren't the same.
By your definition, this is also a "coin". Maybe it technically is, but I think most people realize it's really just a collectible. I think NCLT is a better way to describe issues like this and modern Morgans.
So, then, Roosevelt dimes? They aren't the same as the originals either. War nickels aren't Jefferson nickels? Post-1982 Lincoln cents are no longer original Lincoln cents? Composition changes are pretty common in series going all the way back to the 19th century.
Sheesh people, I'm not saying none of these aren't "coins". Anything issued by a governing authority with a denomination is a "coin".
I'm trying to explain why many people, including myself, differentiate the modern Morgans from the classic Morgans and don't consider them the same thing.
We all get to define things they way we prefer to collect. I collect seated quarters and I don't consider the 1873-cc part of the regular series because although they were coined as circulation strikes, I don't believe they were ever released into circulation, so it's not a "coin" I need in my set any more than the 1842 small date proof is a "coin" I need.
I'll give you another example from the card hobby that is exactly analogous to the Morgan issue. In the early 1950's, Topps issued their card sets and skipped some numbers for various reasons. 50 years later, Topps printed special collector cards of the missing numbers in the same format as the originals. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone in the card hobby who thinks the special issued cards are part of the original set.
@Manifest_Destiny said:
I'll give you another example from the card hobby that is exactly analogous to the Morgan issue. In the early 1950's, Topps issued their card sets and skipped some numbers for various reasons. 50 years later, Topps printed special collector cards of the missing numbers in the same format as the originals. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone in the card hobby who thinks the special issued cards are part of the original set.
>
Not exactly analogous. An exact analogy would be striking and selling Morgans dated 1905 to 1920, and Peace dollars dated 1929 to 1933. Filling in the missing numbers (dates).
I collect seated quarters and I don't consider the 1873-cc part of the regular series because although they were coined as circulation strikes, I don't believe they were ever released into circulation, so it's not a "coin" I need in my set any more than the 1842 small date proof is a "coin" I need.
>
The same criteria applies to the CC Morgans that were sold by the government at a premium in the 1970's. They were coined as circulation strikes, but never released into circulation. Yet they are considered a part of the regular series, even though a vast majority of, for instance, the uncirculated 1884-CC dollars available today were part of that government hoard.
@Overdate said:
>
The same criteria applies to the CC Morgans that were sold by the government at a premium in the 1970's. They were coined as circulation strikes, but never released into circulation. Yet they are considered a part of the regular series, even though a vast majority of, for instance, the uncirculated 1884-CC dollars available today were part of that government hoard.
I'm pretty sure at least some of each CC date were released into circulation. It's possible some 73-cc NA quarters were released into circulation, but it's much less likely.
@Manifest_Destiny said:
Sheesh people, I'm not saying none of these aren't "coins". Anything issued by a governing authority with a denomination is a "coin".
I'm trying to explain why many people, including myself, differentiate the modern Morgans from the classic Morgans and don't consider them the same thing.
We all get to define things they way we prefer to collect. I collect seated quarters and I don't consider the 1873-cc part of the regular series because although they were coined as circulation strikes, I don't believe they were ever released into circulation, so it's not a "coin" I need in my set any more than the 1842 small date proof is a "coin" I need.
I'll give you another example from the card hobby that is exactly analogous to the Morgan issue. In the early 1950's, Topps issued their card sets and skipped some numbers for various reasons. 50 years later, Topps printed special collector cards of the missing numbers in the same format as the originals. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone in the card hobby who thinks the special issued cards are part of the original set.
It was your exact word: "coin". You didn't originally say "but part of the series".
@Manifest_Destiny said:
Sheesh people, I'm not saying none of these aren't "coins". Anything issued by a governing authority with a denomination is a "coin".
I'm trying to explain why many people, including myself, differentiate the modern Morgans from the classic Morgans and don't consider them the same thing.
We all get to define things they way we prefer to collect. I collect seated quarters and I don't consider the 1873-cc part of the regular series because although they were coined as circulation strikes, I don't believe they were ever released into circulation, so it's not a "coin" I need in my set any more than the 1842 small date proof is a "coin" I need.
I'll give you another example from the card hobby that is exactly analogous to the Morgan issue. In the early 1950's, Topps issued their card sets and skipped some numbers for various reasons. 50 years later, Topps printed special collector cards of the missing numbers in the same format as the originals. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone in the card hobby who thinks the special issued cards are part of the original set.
It was your exact word: "coin". You didn't originally say "but part of the series".
Right. "Coin" in parenthesis. Is the Barbados 5oz above a coin? Is Wampum a coin? Is Yap stone money a coin? Is the Half Union pattern a coin? Is the 1795 Jefferson head cent a coin? Not rhetorical, you can answer if you like.
Again, I think some of you are arguing a point I'm not making. I'm explaining why some people wouldn't include them in their "coin" collection. Coin, currency, legal tender, all have different meanings. Sometimes the meanings overlap. Sometimes people define them differently.
People can choose to add the 2021-2023 Morgans to their Morgan set because they view them as a "coin" and need them for the set. Others can view them as NCLT completely unrelated to the original 1878-1921 series, since they are .999 fine, never released into circulation, and made specifically for the collectible market. Those distinctions aren't "irrelevant" to many people, which is the only point I'm trying to make.
I bought one of each to have examples of the designs in the “perfect format,” especially for the Peace design. That’s it for me. They are kind of like medals with a value, “ONE DOLLAR” marked on them which makes them into “coins.” That’s all they are. They are not part of the old series.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
@Manifest_Destiny said:
Sheesh people, I'm not saying none of these aren't "coins". Anything issued by a governing authority with a denomination is a "coin".
I'm trying to explain why many people, including myself, differentiate the modern Morgans from the classic Morgans and don't consider them the same thing.
We all get to define things they way we prefer to collect. I collect seated quarters and I don't consider the 1873-cc part of the regular series because although they were coined as circulation strikes, I don't believe they were ever released into circulation, so it's not a "coin" I need in my set any more than the 1842 small date proof is a "coin" I need.
I'll give you another example from the card hobby that is exactly analogous to the Morgan issue. In the early 1950's, Topps issued their card sets and skipped some numbers for various reasons. 50 years later, Topps printed special collector cards of the missing numbers in the same format as the originals. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone in the card hobby who thinks the special issued cards are part of the original set.
It was your exact word: "coin". You didn't originally say "but part of the series".
Right. "Coin" in parenthesis. Is the Barbados 5oz above a coin? Is Wampum a coin? Is Yap stone money a coin? Is the Half Union pattern a coin? Is the 1795 Jefferson head cent a coin? Not rhetorical, you can answer if you like.
Some people don't collect proof coins as part of the series. Very few people would argue they aren't coins.
Barbados 5 oz = coin
Wampum = medium of exchange
Yap = medium of exchange
Pattern coins are generally unmonetized coins
You keep saying that we're mischaracterizing your position, but you keep repeating the same position.
2023 Morgan dollars are coins. You can collect them, or not. You can consider them a continuation of the original series, or not. But they are coins, even if NCLT coins.
@Manifest_Destiny said:
Sheesh people, I'm not saying none of these aren't "coins". Anything issued by a governing authority with a denomination is a "coin".
I'm trying to explain why many people, including myself, differentiate the modern Morgans from the classic Morgans and don't consider them the same thing.
We all get to define things they way we prefer to collect. I collect seated quarters and I don't consider the 1873-cc part of the regular series because although they were coined as circulation strikes, I don't believe they were ever released into circulation, so it's not a "coin" I need in my set any more than the 1842 small date proof is a "coin" I need.
I'll give you another example from the card hobby that is exactly analogous to the Morgan issue. In the early 1950's, Topps issued their card sets and skipped some numbers for various reasons. 50 years later, Topps printed special collector cards of the missing numbers in the same format as the originals. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone in the card hobby who thinks the special issued cards are part of the original set.
It was your exact word: "coin". You didn't originally say "but part of the series".
Right. "Coin" in parenthesis. Is the Barbados 5oz above a coin? Is Wampum a coin? Is Yap stone money a coin? Is the Half Union pattern a coin? Is the 1795 Jefferson head cent a coin? Not rhetorical, you can answer if you like.
Some people don't collect proof coins as part of the series. Very few people would argue they aren't coins.
Barbados 5 oz = coin
Wampum = medium of exchange
Yap = medium of exchange
Pattern coins are generally unmonetized coins
You keep saying that we're mischaracterizing your position, but you keep repeating the same position.
2023 Morgan dollars are coins. You can collect them, or not. You can consider them a continuation of the original series, or not. But they are coins, even if NCLT coins.
@NeophyteNumismatist said:
The legislation did not pass to make this a commemorative, and it is not a coin.
It is a coin. It was issued
40% Ikes are legal tender which may or may not be the same as "coin". I answered your question, the Morgans/Peace dollars aren't made to the specifications of contemporary circulating coinage which is the reason many people don't consider them "coins". That is the attribute they lack.
@NeophyteNumismatist said:
The legislation did not pass to make this a commemorative, and it is not a coin.
It is a coin. It was issued
40% Ikes are legal tender which may or may not be the same as "coin". I answered your question, the Morgans/Peace dollars aren't made to the specifications of contemporary circulating coinage which is the reason many people don't consider them "coins". That is the attribute they lack.
@NeophyteNumismatist said:
The legislation did not pass to make this a commemorative, and it is not a coin.
It is a coin. It was issued
40% Ikes are legal tender which may or may not be the same as "coin". I answered your question, the Morgans/Peace dollars aren't made to the specifications of contemporary circulating coinage which is the reason many people don't consider them "coins". That is the attribute they lack.
I see you bicker over nothing with everyone, not just me. Are you lonely?
The substantial truth doctrine is an important defense in defamation law that allows individuals to avoid liability if the gist of their statement was true.
@NeophyteNumismatist said:
The legislation did not pass to make this a commemorative, and it is not a coin.
It is a coin. It was issued
40% Ikes are legal tender which may or may not be the same as "coin". I answered your question, the Morgans/Peace dollars aren't made to the specifications of contemporary circulating coinage which is the reason many people don't consider them "coins". That is the attribute they lack.
I thought we had a thing Now I know you are out here pursuing trivial semantics with every forum user.
The substantial truth doctrine is an important defense in defamation law that allows individuals to avoid liability if the gist of their statement was true.
Collecting coins and or bullion coins/bars are personal preferences. Everyone is different and I can appreciate whatever anyone decides to collect. There’s no right or wrong about it, just have some fun.
The bitterness of "Poor Quality" is remembered long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten.
@124Spider said:
Wow, this one has veered off into lala-land, where people on the internet engage in impassioned debates over things that don't matter!
@124Spider said:
Wow, this one has veered off into lala-land, where people on the internet engage in impassioned debates over things that don't matter!
You mean that don't matter to YOU.
The whole thread was about attitudes toward these coins. All the comments are in that vein.
@DeplorableDan said:
I’m with neophyte, imo anything that comes in either MS69 or 70 can’t ever really be considered a “coin”. They share more similarities with ASEs than they do with their classic predecessors.
There are classic (pre-1921) MS 69 and PF 69 coins in the original series. Do you not consider those coins?
@124Spider said:
Wow, this one has veered off into lala-land, where people on the internet engage in impassioned debates over things that don't matter!
You mean that don't matter to YOU.
The whole thread was about attitudes toward these coins. All the comments are in that vein.
I like these coins, and have bought every one so far from the Mint (including dealing with the clusterf**k that was the crashing Mint server in 2021). Not only do I not care what attitudes others have toward these coins (positive or negative), I cannot imagine caring what attitudes others have toward these coins. It's fun to talk about them, in a pleasant way, but why anyone cares to get in dustups over the attitudes of others toward these coins escapes me.
@124Spider said:
Wow, this one has veered off into lala-land, where people on the internet engage in impassioned debates over things that don't matter!
You mean that don't matter to YOU.
The whole thread was about attitudes toward these coins. All the comments are in that vein.
I like these coins, and have bought every one so far from the Mint (including dealing with the clusterf**k that was the crashing Mint server in 2021). Not only do I not care what attitudes others have toward these coins (positive or negative), I cannot imagine caring what attitudes others have toward these coins. It's fun to talk about them, in a pleasant way, but why anyone cares to get in dustups over the attitudes of others toward these coins escapes me.
YMMV, apparently.
I totally agree. People can collect them or not. You really need no reason whatsoever. It's just the made-up justifications that I sometimes question. (It's not a coin, for example. )
@NeophyteNumismatist said:
The legislation did not pass to make this a commemorative, and it is not a coin.
It is a coin. It was issued by the U.S. government. It has a face value. It is legal to spend for that face value. Whether it is a commemorative is irrelevant. Whether it was intended for circulation is irrelevant. Many commemoratives (such as Columbian half dollars) that were not intended for circulation were legally spent and remained in circulation for a considerable time. The metallic composition is irrelevant. Many 40% silver Eisenhower dollars were legally spent, even though none were intended for circulation. If modern Morgan/Peace dollars are not coins, what coinage attributes do they lack?
Difference is that the Columbian half was created with the same specifications as the then current circulating coinage. Modern Morgan/Peace dollars aren't.
Neither are 40% silver Ikes, but they are still coins. I'll ask again, If modern Morgan/Peace dollars are not coins, what coinage attributes do they lack?
40% Ikes are legal tender which may or may not be the same as "coin". I answered your question, the Morgans/Peace dollars aren't made to the specifications of contemporary circulating coinage which is the reason many people don't consider them "coins". That is the attribute they lack.
Many people not considering them "coins" is not the same as them being or not being coins. White elephant issues like the 2000 Library of Congress bimetallic (Au+Pt) $10 commemorative have no historic connection to any coin composition, yet they are coins and de jure commemoratives. Since metallic composition stopped having anything to do with the face value of a coin long ago, it's really nonsense to make that a condition of calling something a coin. In 1893, a half dollar was required to be of specific weight and fineness of silver, while today the metal content is arbitrary.
I kinda think that’s the point. If they were struck on Sacagawea/Innovation planchets, then they would be a circulating issue. These are bullion commemoratives. I love them, but they aren’t regular series coins.
Innovation Dollars aren't being circulated though.
@NeophyteNumismatist said:
The legislation did not pass to make this a commemorative, and it is not a coin.
It is a coin. It was issued by the U.S. government. It has a face value. It is legal to spend for that face value. Whether it is a commemorative is irrelevant. Whether it was intended for circulation is irrelevant. Many commemoratives (such as Columbian half dollars) that were not intended for circulation were legally spent and remained in circulation for a considerable time. The metallic composition is irrelevant. Many 40% silver Eisenhower dollars were legally spent, even though none were intended for circulation. If modern Morgan/Peace dollars are not coins, what coinage attributes do they lack?
Difference is that the Columbian half was created with the same specifications as the then current circulating coinage. Modern Morgan/Peace dollars aren't.
The law authorizing them authorizes a minimum content of .900 fine silver just like the coins in silver proof sets.
@NeophyteNumismatist said:
The legislation did not pass to make this a commemorative, and it is not a coin.
It is a coin. It was issued by the U.S. government. It has a face value. It is legal to spend for that face value. Whether it is a commemorative is irrelevant. Whether it was intended for circulation is irrelevant. Many commemoratives (such as Columbian half dollars) that were not intended for circulation were legally spent and remained in circulation for a considerable time. The metallic composition is irrelevant. Many 40% silver Eisenhower dollars were legally spent, even though none were intended for circulation. If modern Morgan/Peace dollars are not coins, what coinage attributes do they lack?
Difference is that the Columbian half was created with the same specifications as the then current circulating coinage. Modern Morgan/Peace dollars aren't.
The law authorizing them authorizes a minimum content of .900 fine silver just like the coins in silver proof sets.
@DeplorableDan said:
I’m with neophyte, imo anything that comes in either MS69 or 70 can’t ever really be considered a “coin”. They share more similarities with ASEs than they do with their classic predecessors.
There are classic (pre-1921) MS 69 and PF 69 coins in the original series. Do you not consider those coins?
See the word in bold? Meaning, they come in 69 OR 70, and that's it. The semantics of the word "coin" really don't matter to me, nor do I care to argue them . Bottom line is that I don't consider the modern Morgan and peace a continuation of the series, and I never will. I own a few of them, they're not bad to look at, but they are in the same family as ASEs, AGEs, and Gold Buffs. Sure, by definition maybe they are "coins", but only because they stick an arbitrary denomination on there that doesn't matter at all. My double eagles were worth $20 when they were coined, they were used in commerce regularly, and one could go to the bank to get them. My 2023 Morgan proof "1$" was worth $80 when it was coined, not one will ever be redeemed at face value, and you cant find one at the bank . THAT is the difference, merriam-webster be damned.
@DeplorableDan said:
I’m with neophyte, imo anything that comes in either MS69 or 70 can’t ever really be considered a “coin”. They share more similarities with ASEs than they do with their classic predecessors.
There are classic (pre-1921) MS 69 and PF 69 coins in the original series. Do you not consider those coins?
See the word in bold? Meaning, they come in 69 OR 70, and that's it. The semantics of the word "coin" really don't matter to me, nor do I care to argue them . Bottom line is that I don't consider the modern Morgan and peace a continuation of the series, and I never will. I own a few of them, they're not bad to look at, but they are in the same family as ASEs, AGEs, and Gold Buffs. Sure, by definition maybe they are "coins", but only because they stick an arbitrary denomination on there that doesn't matter at all. My double eagles were worth $20 when they were coined, they were used in commerce regularly, and one could go to the bank to get them. My 2023 Morgan proof "1$" was worth $80 when it was coined, not one will ever be redeemed at face value, and you cant find one at the bank . THAT is the difference, merriam-webster be damned.
Well said, and I agree. By agreeing 100% with this doesn’t mean (don’t want to speak for you Dan but I assume you will agree) that the 2021/2023 Morgan’s or Peace Dollars are not fun, enjoyable, collectible, etc. Just they really are not part of the Morgan series, and certainly not related say to a 1921 Morgan dollar struck for commerce. Their collectability is and should be considered a good thing though and items like this I do think bring new people into to collecting that otherwise would not have had an interest in coins!
New England Rarities...Dealer In Colonial Coinage and Americana
Can't quite put my finger on it, but placing an older Peace next to the current example the older one just has that certain something. Could be the older one has "aged" better. Kind of like most of us on this forum.
Successful transactions:Tookybandit. "Everyone is equal, some are more equal than others".
Comments
Difference is that the Columbian half was created with the same specifications as the then current circulating coinage. Modern Morgan/Peace dollars aren't.
The coin vs bullion debate is answered with U.S. Mint terminology - they are Bullion coins. The three major categories as defined by the U.S. Mint for production figures make sense:
"Circulating coins (as obtained in banks and retail establishments)"
"Bullion coins (Platinum, Gold, and Silver)"
"Numismatic coins (Proof and Uncirculated finishes)"
"Historical Commemorative coins" can include all.
Neither are 40% silver Ikes, but they are still coins. I'll ask again, If modern Morgan/Peace dollars are not coins, what coinage attributes do they lack?
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
40% Ikes are legal tender which may or may not be the same as "coin". I answered your question, the Morgans/Peace dollars aren't made to the specifications of contemporary circulating coinage which is the reason many people don't consider them "coins". That is the attribute they lack.
Many people not considering them "coins" is not the same as them being or not being coins. White elephant issues like the 2000 Library of Congress bimetallic (Au+Pt) $10 commemorative have no historic connection to any coin composition, yet they are coins and de jure commemoratives. Since metallic composition stopped having anything to do with the face value of a coin long ago, it's really nonsense to make that a condition of calling something a coin. In 1893, a half dollar was required to be of specific weight and fineness of silver, while today the metal content is arbitrary.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
I don’t disagree with your take on this. However, I think there is a major difference between intention when made and/or what metal or composition they are made. My understanding is that by law all items made by the US Mint must have a face value denomination. I mean, nobody is selling a $50 gold strike for $50, but they must put a face value on the item. The terminology to me is less important on mint made items prior to the mint supplementing income with clearly items made only for collectors and not for economic/commerce reasons.
Prior to the more modern items (say going back to when they only made proof sets and before) a proof was a coin for a collector, and UNC was a coin for circulation (I know this is not a fully accurate blanket statement, just trying to keep it simple). But proof coins and modern Morgan’s are all COINS as they have a face value and are made by US Mint. From the other side of things, a Chinese replica has a denomination on it, but was not an authorized piece, only made to fool collectors and not commerce, and are not made to a value standard with materials. However a Henning nickel was produced specifically to enter commerce, so my mind tells me that a Henning nickel must have a title to differentiate from say a Chinese replica of a Henning nickel!
There is no "may or may not be". Either 40% silver Ike dollars are coins or they aren't. The U.S. Mint described 40% Ikes as coins during the time they were on sale to the general public. They are metallic discs issued by a government with a stated monetary value as defined by that government. These are the core defining attributes of coins. Silver Ikes are coins, and so are 21st century Morgan and Peace dollars.
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
Totally agree with this! All of these items fall under the descriptive term of “coin”. A round metal disc with a denomination on it is a coin. This covers everything but say a token which does not necessarily have a true denomination. The question becomes, inside of the umbrella of “coins” what now category is an item. Commemorative, counterfeit, copy, replica, fantasy, etc. all of those terms are “coins” in a general sense, but now we break down similar I think that calculus and geometry are both “math” but fall into different “studies”.
No intent here to make things complicated, more so trying to show we have so many items available with different levels of interest amongst each individual collector. What may be confusing to many is what exactly is the collector collecting! It may in fact be that the definition is and always will be different to each individual, but for growth in certain areas of collecting that can be extremely fulfilling, terminology across the whole area of numismatics may need a “refresher”!
I kinda think that’s the point. If they were struck on Sacagawea/Innovation planchets, then they would be a circulating issue. These are bullion commemoratives. I love them, but they aren’t regular series coins.
And yet none of these were re-created to continue a previously circulating coin.
Having fun while switching things up and focusing on a next level PCGS slabbed 1950+ type set, while still looking for great examples for the 7070.
No. They were made for a cash grab, only it wasn't the Mint grabbing all the cash.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
Another good point there, however is the mint really continuing making a previously circulated coin to re-enter circulation, or did they make an item commemorating the 100 year anniversary of the Morgan Dollar (one of the most popular coin designs in the USA in terms of collectors). Now, if the mint was producing them every year and went back to a trusted design for a new dollar coinage, I most certainly would say, type III and continuing series of coinage. The reason minted US coins of the past are as collectable as they are is their relative rarity from a standpoint of condition and survival rate. For example, the mint could strike many coins from the 1800-1900s as the dies probably remain for some in a capacity somewhere. But, that would be a problem for collectors today who have searched hard and paid up for a condition rarity of any given coin.
There are plenty of exceptions here, 1804 dollar comes right to mind. But, I’m just not sure how a modern mint product Morgan or Peace made for collectors and only come in top condition because they are not intended for circulation, can be included as the exact same as items that historically no more are being made (or ever will as an authorized circulating coin) and we have a market based on survival population and condition rarity. I don’t see an easy way to combine those two items under the same umbrella. But, again, maybe that’s just me.
Edited to add: Once again, just for 100% clarity, I find the new mint products, especially the Morgan’s/Peace (amongst others) to be very good for the growth of numismatics and most certainly are fun and deserving pieces to be in many collections. If I collected Morgan’s or Peace, or frankly any dollar coins, I would want them in my collection as well, but I would consider them to be “association” pieces, and not a continuation of the series itself. In the pre-1793 dated collector world, which is my specialty, I equate this as being a Fugio copper collector, I would want a New Haven “restrike” but would not consider it a continuation of the series, more a collectable fantasy item that has broad appeal.
I think we're arguing two different issues here. I'm just explaining why modern Morgans aren't the same as the original Morgans. They both may be "coins" but they aren't the same.
By your definition, this is also a "coin". Maybe it technically is, but I think most people realize it's really just a collectible. I think NCLT is a better way to describe issues like this and modern Morgans.
NCLT (non-circulating legal tender) and coins are not mutually exclusive categories - NCLT is a sub-category of the category "coin". And it's not my definition. According to Wikipedia, "Non-circulating legal tender (NCLT) refers to coins that are theoretically legal tender and could circulate but do not because their issue price, and/or their melt value at the time of issue is significantly above the arbitrary legal tender value placed thereon. They are sold to collectors and investors with no intention that they be used as money."
If NCLT are not coins, then the contents of annual mint sets are not coins, and neither are most Kennedy halves dated 2002 and later.
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
That would make all Mint Commemoratives "not coins". I'm not sure why "commemorative coin" isn't still a coin.
So, your position is that if I buy a 2023 proof set, I'm getting a set of coins. If I buy a 2023 silver proof set, I'm NOT getting a set of coins, just a couple coins and some silver crap????
So, then, Roosevelt dimes? They aren't the same as the originals either. War nickels aren't Jefferson nickels? Post-1982 Lincoln cents are no longer original Lincoln cents? Composition changes are pretty common in series going all the way back to the 19th century.
Sheesh people, I'm not saying none of these aren't "coins". Anything issued by a governing authority with a denomination is a "coin".
I'm trying to explain why many people, including myself, differentiate the modern Morgans from the classic Morgans and don't consider them the same thing.
We all get to define things they way we prefer to collect. I collect seated quarters and I don't consider the 1873-cc part of the regular series because although they were coined as circulation strikes, I don't believe they were ever released into circulation, so it's not a "coin" I need in my set any more than the 1842 small date proof is a "coin" I need.
I'll give you another example from the card hobby that is exactly analogous to the Morgan issue. In the early 1950's, Topps issued their card sets and skipped some numbers for various reasons. 50 years later, Topps printed special collector cards of the missing numbers in the same format as the originals. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone in the card hobby who thinks the special issued cards are part of the original set.
>
Not exactly analogous. An exact analogy would be striking and selling Morgans dated 1905 to 1920, and Peace dollars dated 1929 to 1933. Filling in the missing numbers (dates).
>
The same criteria applies to the CC Morgans that were sold by the government at a premium in the 1970's. They were coined as circulation strikes, but never released into circulation. Yet they are considered a part of the regular series, even though a vast majority of, for instance, the uncirculated 1884-CC dollars available today were part of that government hoard.
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
I'm pretty sure at least some of each CC date were released into circulation. It's possible some 73-cc NA quarters were released into circulation, but it's much less likely.
It was your exact word: "coin". You didn't originally say "but part of the series".
Right. "Coin" in parenthesis. Is the Barbados 5oz above a coin? Is Wampum a coin? Is Yap stone money a coin? Is the Half Union pattern a coin? Is the 1795 Jefferson head cent a coin? Not rhetorical, you can answer if you like.
Again, I think some of you are arguing a point I'm not making. I'm explaining why some people wouldn't include them in their "coin" collection. Coin, currency, legal tender, all have different meanings. Sometimes the meanings overlap. Sometimes people define them differently.
People can choose to add the 2021-2023 Morgans to their Morgan set because they view them as a "coin" and need them for the set. Others can view them as NCLT completely unrelated to the original 1878-1921 series, since they are .999 fine, never released into circulation, and made specifically for the collectible market. Those distinctions aren't "irrelevant" to many people, which is the only point I'm trying to make.
I bought one of each to have examples of the designs in the “perfect format,” especially for the Peace design. That’s it for me. They are kind of like medals with a value, “ONE DOLLAR” marked on them which makes them into “coins.” That’s all they are. They are not part of the old series.
Some people don't collect proof coins as part of the series. Very few people would argue they aren't coins.
Barbados 5 oz = coin
Wampum = medium of exchange
Yap = medium of exchange
Pattern coins are generally unmonetized coins
You keep saying that we're mischaracterizing your position, but you keep repeating the same position.
2023 Morgan dollars are coins. You can collect them, or not. You can consider them a continuation of the original series, or not. But they are coins, even if NCLT coins.
I never said modern Morgans weren't coins.
Kinda did.
One good thing,.... we don't get a lot of "guess the grade" threads on these
50/50 69 vs. 70?
I see you bicker over nothing with everyone, not just me. Are you lonely?
The substantial truth doctrine is an important defense in defamation law that allows individuals to avoid liability if the gist of their statement was true.
Are you feeling less special?
It's called a discussion.
I thought we had a thing
Now I know you are out here pursuing trivial semantics with every forum user.
The substantial truth doctrine is an important defense in defamation law that allows individuals to avoid liability if the gist of their statement was true.
Oh, we have OUR thing. It's very special to me.
Collecting coins and or bullion coins/bars are personal preferences. Everyone is different and I can appreciate whatever anyone decides to collect. There’s no right or wrong about it, just have some fun.
I don’t even like old Morgans.
Wow, this one has veered off into lala-land, where people on the internet engage in impassioned debates over things that don't matter!
No, it didn't.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
You mean that don't matter to YOU.
The whole thread was about attitudes toward these coins. All the comments are in that vein.
There are classic (pre-1921) MS 69 and PF 69 coins in the original series. Do you not consider those coins?
I like these coins, and have bought every one so far from the Mint (including dealing with the clusterf**k that was the crashing Mint server in 2021). Not only do I not care what attitudes others have toward these coins (positive or negative), I cannot imagine caring what attitudes others have toward these coins. It's fun to talk about them, in a pleasant way, but why anyone cares to get in dustups over the attitudes of others toward these coins escapes me.
YMMV, apparently.
I totally agree. People can collect them or not. You really need no reason whatsoever. It's just the made-up justifications that I sometimes question. (It's not a coin, for example. )
Innovation Dollars aren't being circulated though.
The law authorizing them authorizes a minimum content of .900 fine silver just like the coins in silver proof sets.
Everything is .999 now.
Already made up mind on that ages ago - continuation of series.
Here's my new type/ classification- "Morgan" Morgans...
See the word in bold? Meaning, they come in 69 OR 70, and that's it. The semantics of the word "coin" really don't matter to me, nor do I care to argue them . Bottom line is that I don't consider the modern Morgan and peace a continuation of the series, and I never will. I own a few of them, they're not bad to look at, but they are in the same family as ASEs, AGEs, and Gold Buffs. Sure, by definition maybe they are "coins", but only because they stick an arbitrary denomination on there that doesn't matter at all. My double eagles were worth $20 when they were coined, they were used in commerce regularly, and one could go to the bank to get them. My 2023 Morgan proof "1$" was worth $80 when it was coined, not one will ever be redeemed at face value, and you cant find one at the bank . THAT is the difference, merriam-webster be damned.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Well said, and I agree. By agreeing 100% with this doesn’t mean (don’t want to speak for you Dan but I assume you will agree) that the 2021/2023 Morgan’s or Peace Dollars are not fun, enjoyable, collectible, etc. Just they really are not part of the Morgan series, and certainly not related say to a 1921 Morgan dollar struck for commerce. Their collectability is and should be considered a good thing though and items like this I do think bring new people into to collecting that otherwise would not have had an interest in coins!
Can't quite put my finger on it, but placing an older Peace next to the current example the older one just has that certain something. Could be the older one has "aged" better. Kind of like most of us on this forum.
I can see myself getting a lot of mileage out of this picture.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution