Wow. I never would’ve predicted this thread would’ve yielded so many spirited responses. I love it! There’s nothing wrong with great arguments in search of consensus, or not. It seems that for almost every good point, on one side of the other, there too exists a solid counterpoint.
I’m now wondering if there doesn’t need to be an entirely new categorization for coinage that is neither a continuation of an existing series, a commemorative, a new series, or bullion? If the 7070 ever was to get updated, do these deserve a slot as an entirely different animal? Do they get grouped with the existing silver dollars? Remove the commemorative slots in place of these? My brain hurts now…..
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.
@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.
Everything is .999 now.
That doesn't mean that the law doesn't say "minimum" of 0.900 fine.
@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.
Everything is .999 now.
That doesn't mean that the law doesn't say "minimum" of 0.900 fine.
Which is different than the 1837 law specifying exactly .900 fine.
@Jacques_Loungecoque said:
I’m now wondering if there doesn’t need to be an entirely new categorization for coinage that is neither a continuation of an existing series, a commemorative, a new series, or bullion?
The Komsco bullion series would need that new category, they are more medals than coins because they have a value of "1 clay" and a clay isn't a currency. They are made by the Korean Mint and securities organization but they aren't exactly currency.
I think these Morgans are Medals like the Komsco bullion is.
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.
Comments
I'll have to fire my meme maker. LOL
Wow. I never would’ve predicted this thread would’ve yielded so many spirited responses. I love it! There’s nothing wrong with great arguments in search of consensus, or not. It seems that for almost every good point, on one side of the other, there too exists a solid counterpoint.
I’m now wondering if there doesn’t need to be an entirely new categorization for coinage that is neither a continuation of an existing series, a commemorative, a new series, or bullion? If the 7070 ever was to get updated, do these deserve a slot as an entirely different animal? Do they get grouped with the existing silver dollars? Remove the commemorative slots in place of these? My brain hurts now…..
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.
That doesn't mean that the law doesn't say "minimum" of 0.900 fine.
Which is different than the 1837 law specifying exactly .900 fine.
The Komsco bullion series would need that new category, they are more medals than coins because they have a value of "1 clay" and a clay isn't a currency. They are made by the Korean Mint and securities organization but they aren't exactly currency.
I think these Morgans are Medals like the Komsco bullion is.
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.