<< <i>What is funny to me is the belief that we have to define them as coins, either they are or they aren't. Well to me that is like shading every shade of red is just red which of course it is and isn't, we know there are different shades. These are bullion coins because they weren't minted for circulation and their primary value depends upon the underlying metal and to some extent collector interest and we all know that. They are more of a metal commodity than anything else, so if you want an accurate description they are bullion coins.
Again I will ask why does anyone care? If you enjoy collecting them then do so. Is this just another I got to win the argument thread? >>
It's not like I disagree but I think it would be easy to paint oneself into a corner with definitions. Sure, these are different types of coins than a zinc cent or bust dollar but that doesn't make them "unred".
No one seems to have any trouble calling the 1804 dollar or an 1826 half dollar a "coin" despite that the former lacks many of the defining characteristics of "coin" and the latter was used largely as backing for paper currency.
It probably does make some difference. To paraphase Shakespeare " 'a "red" by any other name would smell as sweet''; tax tokens are truly "coins" by any definition but attract so little attention that they wholesale at a few cents each.
Perhaps we coin collectors might simply add another defining charac- teristic to "coin' as any object which has a "numismatic premium" or that some similar items have such a premium. This won't affect tax "tokens" really but it certainly makes all "coins" made by the US mint coins.
How many times does this have to come up....seriously. Does it really matter? Would it change the fact that you collect them or not? Not all definitions of the word "coin" are the same, so you are going to end up with some confusion. The items you are describing are "coined" in one sense, but they are not "coins" in the sense that they are used for commerce. If you like the definition that means it is a coin...fantastic. By that definition transit tokens, phone tokens, counterstamps, and even those funny tokens that you see at coin shows with dealer information on the reverse....well they are all coins too.
I really thing you are just trying to get people all riled up...since half the people here agree with you and the others don't...and it seems that this topic always strikes a nerve with both camps of thought.
<< <i>The simple fact is...once a government monetizes a metal disk, it instantly becomes a coin, period. Circulating status has zero to do with the argument, otherwise no proof ever made could be call a coin since they werent "intended for commerce". Monetization is the key element in this debate. >>
For me proof issues and NCLT are not coins because they were not intended for circulation. That is my definition. I feel the same about business strikes that only appear in mint sets. These just aren't coins to me, be they monetized or not. I understand your argument and you are technically correct but for me personally the "intended for commerce" part makes all the difference.
I have made exceptions to this rule in my collection but they are very rare.
<< <i>The simple fact is...once a government monetizes a metal disk, it instantly becomes a coin, period. Circulating status has zero to do with the argument, otherwise no proof ever made could be call a coin since they werent "intended for commerce". Monetization is the key element in this debate. >>
For me proof issues and NCLT are not coins because they were not intended for circulation. That is my definition. I feel the same about business strikes that only appear in mint sets. These just aren't coins to me, be they monetized or not. I understand your argument and you are technically correct but for me personally the "intended for commerce" part makes all the difference.
I have made exceptions to this rule in my collection but they are very rare. >>
Is there anything we can do to convince you otherwise?
<< <i>The simple fact is...once a government monetizes a metal disk, it instantly becomes a coin, period. Circulating status has zero to do with the argument, otherwise no proof ever made could be call a coin since they werent "intended for commerce". Monetization is the key element in this debate. >>
For me proof issues and NCLT are not coins because they were not intended for circulation. That is my definition. I feel the same about business strikes that only appear in mint sets. These just aren't coins to me, be they monetized or not. I understand your argument and you are technically correct but for me personally the "intended for commerce" part makes all the difference.
I have made exceptions to this rule in my collection but they are very rare. >>
Is there anything we can do to convince you otherwise? >>
Just don't tell him the 1856 FE cent is a token.
Nor, for that matter, were any of the early small cents.
I find the disjuncture between what is legally monetized by a state and what actually circulates in an economy to be fascinating. What especially interests me about coins is that people believe them to be coins with an exchange value. Legally, the UHRs are coins but it would be tough to go and buy a pint of beer with one. Sure, maybe someone would glady receive it and give you your 46.00 in change but imagine the stir it would cause. The UHR and other NCLT are simply not recognized in the general economy as money. What is it that makes people think some things are money and some are not?
Failed coins are just as interesting to me as the widely circulated ones. The 20-cent piece, the small dollars, etc are really interesting to me because they were rejected by most people. What is it that clicks in people's heads that tells them, "this is worth something" and "this is not?"
This is the reason that NCLT doesn't speak to me because these questions don't really arise. Now, I know that there are coins that started as NCLT and then went into circulation. Once that happens, they become numismaticly interesting to me, but not before, or not much.
<< <i>The simple fact is...once a government monetizes a metal disk, it instantly becomes a coin, period. Circulating status has zero to do with the argument, otherwise no proof ever made could be call a coin since they werent "intended for commerce". Monetization is the key element in this debate. >>
For me proof issues and NCLT are not coins because they were not intended for circulation. That is my definition. I feel the same about business strikes that only appear in mint sets. These just aren't coins to me, be they monetized or not. I understand your argument and you are technically correct but for me personally the "intended for commerce" part makes all the difference.
I have made exceptions to this rule in my collection but they are very rare. >>
Is there anything we can do to convince you otherwise? >>
Well, I have been a little looser with my intended for circulation rule recently but I still find business strikes to the most interesting by far.
Comments
<< <i>What is funny to me is the belief that we have to define them as coins, either they are or they aren't. Well to me that is like shading every shade of red is just red which of course it is and isn't, we know there are different shades. These are bullion coins because they weren't minted for circulation and their primary value depends upon the underlying metal and to some extent collector interest and we all know that. They are more of a metal commodity than anything else, so if you want an accurate description they are bullion coins.
Again I will ask why does anyone care? If you enjoy collecting them then do so. Is this just another I got to win the argument thread? >>
It's not like I disagree but I think it would be easy to paint oneself into
a corner with definitions. Sure, these are different types of coins than
a zinc cent or bust dollar but that doesn't make them "unred".
No one seems to have any trouble calling the 1804 dollar or an 1826
half dollar a "coin" despite that the former lacks many of the defining
characteristics of "coin" and the latter was used largely as backing for
paper currency.
It probably does make some difference. To paraphase Shakespeare
" 'a "red" by any other name would smell as sweet''; tax tokens are
truly "coins" by any definition but attract so little attention that they
wholesale at a few cents each.
Perhaps we coin collectors might simply add another defining charac-
teristic to "coin' as any object which has a "numismatic premium" or
that some similar items have such a premium. This won't affect tax
"tokens" really but it certainly makes all "coins" made by the US mint
coins.
I really thing you are just trying to get people all riled up...since half the people here agree with you and the others don't...and it seems that this topic always strikes a nerve with both camps of thought.
<< <i>A very well respected member tried to say that a UHR is NOT a coin over in the world forum. He is dead wrong. >>
It's not a coin.
<< <i>The simple fact is...once a government monetizes a metal disk, it instantly becomes a coin, period. Circulating status has zero to do with the argument, otherwise no proof ever made could be call a coin since they werent "intended for commerce". Monetization is the key element in this debate. >>
For me proof issues and NCLT are not coins because they were not intended for circulation. That is my definition. I feel the same about business strikes that only appear in mint sets. These just aren't coins to me, be they monetized or not. I understand your argument and you are technically correct but for me personally the "intended for commerce" part makes all the difference.
I have made exceptions to this rule in my collection but they are very rare.
<< <i>
<< <i>The simple fact is...once a government monetizes a metal disk, it instantly becomes a coin, period. Circulating status has zero to do with the argument, otherwise no proof ever made could be call a coin since they werent "intended for commerce". Monetization is the key element in this debate. >>
For me proof issues and NCLT are not coins because they were not intended for circulation. That is my definition. I feel the same about business strikes that only appear in mint sets. These just aren't coins to me, be they monetized or not. I understand your argument and you are technically correct but for me personally the "intended for commerce" part makes all the difference.
I have made exceptions to this rule in my collection but they are very rare. >>
Is there anything we can do to convince you otherwise?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>The simple fact is...once a government monetizes a metal disk, it instantly becomes a coin, period. Circulating status has zero to do with the argument, otherwise no proof ever made could be call a coin since they werent "intended for commerce". Monetization is the key element in this debate. >>
For me proof issues and NCLT are not coins because they were not intended for circulation. That is my definition. I feel the same about business strikes that only appear in mint sets. These just aren't coins to me, be they monetized or not. I understand your argument and you are technically correct but for me personally the "intended for commerce" part makes all the difference.
I have made exceptions to this rule in my collection but they are very rare. >>
Is there anything we can do to convince you otherwise?
Just don't tell him the 1856 FE cent is a token.
Nor, for that matter, were any of the early small cents.
Failed coins are just as interesting to me as the widely circulated ones. The 20-cent piece, the small dollars, etc are really interesting to me because they were rejected by most people. What is it that clicks in people's heads that tells them, "this is worth something" and "this is not?"
This is the reason that NCLT doesn't speak to me because these questions don't really arise. Now, I know that there are coins that started as NCLT and then went into circulation. Once that happens, they become numismaticly interesting to me, but not before, or not much.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>The simple fact is...once a government monetizes a metal disk, it instantly becomes a coin, period. Circulating status has zero to do with the argument, otherwise no proof ever made could be call a coin since they werent "intended for commerce". Monetization is the key element in this debate. >>
For me proof issues and NCLT are not coins because they were not intended for circulation. That is my definition. I feel the same about business strikes that only appear in mint sets. These just aren't coins to me, be they monetized or not. I understand your argument and you are technically correct but for me personally the "intended for commerce" part makes all the difference.
I have made exceptions to this rule in my collection but they are very rare. >>
Is there anything we can do to convince you otherwise?
Well, I have been a little looser with my intended for circulation rule recently but I still find business strikes to the most interesting by far.