Right now, most coins on the site are either classified as circulating, circulating commemorative, or non-circulating. This works fine for the most part, but I think we could benefit from being more precise. The problem with the “non-circulating” designation is that it includes both circulating coins that were never intended for circulation (such as post-2011 dollar coins) and coins that cannot be spent at face value (such as a silver bottlecap with “1 dollar” written on the underside). I feel that there is a significant difference between circulation-grade coins that were simply minted in smaller quantities, vs collectables minted in silver and gold that bear no resemblance to any existing currency.
For reference, here's a list of “non-circulating” coins I've either found in circulation, put into circulation, or heard reports of:
As it is, the category isn't very useful to me because it's essentially a dumping ground for any non-common coin. I think it'd be better if we were to split it into two categories, with bullion/merch coins being labeled “collectible” or something similar instead of “non-circulating”.
Hello, I understand what you mean, but I think that we should not split the different types of non-circulating coins based on their mintage or material (or any other characteristic) since, if we did this, perhaps we should also do with the circulating coins and I don't think that would be beneficial for the catalog.
For example, should these two circulating coins be put into different categories?
Hello, I understand what you mean, but I think that we should not split the different types of non-circulating coins based on their mintage or material (or any other characteristic) since, if we did this, perhaps we should also do with the circulating coins and I don't think that would be beneficial for the catalog.
For example, should these two circulating coins be put into different categories?
Nobody would suggest moving the gold dollar from Standard circulation coin to “non-circulating collectable.”
I think the differentiation should be the legal tender value vs. the bullion value at the time they were minted. Any coin with more bullion value than legal tender value would move to a new coin type “Non-circulating bullion.” Note that they would stay in the coin catalog since moving them to Exonumia got very little support.
Hello @rsirian1 , maybe I have not understood the proposed topic well. Is it being proposed that, for example, these four coins have different categories?
N#152027 (Silver coin that can be purchased at face value)
N#130580 (Silver coin that can't be purchased at face value)
I don't think there is a "one size fits all" rigid rule. Any one that is non-obvious should stay where it is. Ones such a the American Eagle or the South African Krugerrand are obviously bullion coins to most people. Would you disagree that the second list in the OP's post contains only “bullion/collectable” type coins?
Yes, I agree, obviously, that the second list is different from the first, but for me the line is too thin to create that difference.
After all, the first list is also collectible non-circulating coins, but bullion is no difference either, as there are several non-bullion coins on the second list.
Too complicated in my opinion for all the Numista catalog coins (and too subjective) For example, in which category would the coins I have mentioned from Spain be?
Coin referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Liberia and Spain
Banknote referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea and Spain
Yes, I agree, obviously, that the second list is different from the first, but for me the line is too thin to create that difference.
After all, the first list is also collectible non-circulating coins, but bullion is no difference either, as there are several non-bullion coins on the second list.
Too complicated in my opinion for all the Numista catalog coins (and too subjective) For example, in which category would the coins I have mentioned from Spain be?
For clarification, I'm not focused on the composition of the coins so much as their use. Some “non-circulating” coins frequently circulate at face value, either because they closely resemble standard circulation coins or because they were minted in large numbers and offered at face value by banks. Others literally never circulate, either because the metal value far exceeds face or because they bear no resemblance to actual currency whatsoever. Bullion coins would, of course, fall into the latter category – but this would not include silver and gold coins that circulated at the time of their mintage.
Regarding the Spanish coins you mentioned, my instinct would be to keep the 30 euro coin where it is now, but to reclassify the next three as collectables (as their metal value far exceeds face). I am not familiar with Spanish euro coins, however, so I would appreciate a second opinion.
Why not just split out the coins that are designated by Numista as NCLT into their own group. Never mind that an NCLT made it into circulation. If it did, it's probably by mistake, ignorance or indifference. That doesn't change the status of it being a “non-circulating legal tender coin”.
Why not just split out the coins that are designated by Numista as NCLT into their own group. Never mind that an NCLT made it into circulation. If it did, it's probably by mistake, ignorance or indifference. That doesn't change the status of it being a “non-circulating legal tender coin”.
NCLTs are already classified separately as “non-circulating coins”, are you proposing that we move them to an entirely different database like we did with exonumia?
In any case, the category is far too broad to be useful imo. N#3606, N#5488, and N#285293 are all recognized as legal tender, and can occasionally be found in circulation despite their status as NCLTs. On the other hand, N#187445, N#290572, and N#23362 have never appeared in circulation, and would not be recognized as valid currency despite their legal tender status. I would argue that there is an important distinction to be made between normal currency that wasn't intended for circulation, and collectible items and bullion that only superficially resemble currency at best. There's a big difference between a 1 yen coin with a different year on it and a silver statue with a number printed on the bottom.
I repeat that I understand (and share) the OP's opinion, but I still see the new classification as very complicated and excessively subjective.
With the coins exposed by the OP I think that none of us would have doubts, but, for example, only with the 4 coins that I have put from Spain there would already be problems: @rsirian1 thinks that the two silver coins in one part and the 2 gold coins in another, @binarystep thinks that the first in one part and the next 3 in another and my opinion is that the 4 should be bullion/collectible coins.
I see it as too complicated to apply to an entire catalog.
Coin referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Liberia and Spain
Banknote referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea and Spain
Many more examples of such coins worldwide. Anything minted in more than tens of thousands should be moved OUT of NCLT category!
I don't understand why we have to classify a currency as commemorative circulating when it is not circulating (no matter how high the mintage is). Example, according to your proposal this coin from Spain,
should be commemorative circulating but the problem is that it is not circulating. That does sound a little strange to me, classifying a non-circulating currency as circulating.
Coin referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Liberia and Spain
Banknote referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea and Spain
The coin that I have given as an example is not bullion, but silver, but in my opinion, that is not important. If a coin is NOT circulating, it should not be classified as circulating, it does not make sense (even if it is bullion, precious metal, copper-nickel, high or low mintage...)
Coin referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Liberia and Spain
Banknote referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea and Spain
Sorry, but both you and oynbcn haven't paid attention to what I wrote: “Especially in the case of no/low precious metal content”. You both bring examples of bullion pieces!
I read it quite carefully. “Especially” does not mean “only.” But I'm glad you clarified you meant only non-bullion coins. Now, where is the cutoff between bullion and non-bullion for silver coins. Would it be a combination of silver purity and weight?
Sorry, but both you and oynbcn haven't paid attention to what I wrote: “Especially in the case of no/low precious metal content”. You both bring examples of bullion pieces!
I read it quite carefully. “Especially” does not mean “only.” But I'm glad you clarified you meant only non-bullion coins. Now, where is the cutoff between bullion and non-bullion for silver coins. Would it be a combination of silver purity and weight?
The truth is that the topic of bullion coins is not my area of expertise, that is why I have included that Spanish coin, since, according to the FNMT of Spain, the only bullion coins that have been issued in Spain are gold ones since 2021 (lynx, bull and horse), that's why I assumed that the coin I put was not a bullion, but I'm still wrong, is that right?
Coin referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Liberia and Spain
Banknote referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea and Spain
Sorry, but both you and oynbcn haven't paid attention to what I wrote: “Especially in the case of no/low precious metal content”. You both bring examples of bullion pieces!
I read it quite carefully. “Especially” does not mean “only.” But I'm glad you clarified you meant only non-bullion coins. Now, where is the cutoff between bullion and non-bullion for silver coins. Would it be a combination of silver purity and weight?
I've been told that .999 silver coins wear to much to be useful in circulation, so any modern .999 silver coin should be considered bullion. There are probably similar limits for most other metals.
I would also call a coin/item bullion if it meets these three conditions:
The issuer doesn't sell/exchange/offer the coin at face value (or there is no face value).
The metal value of the coin, when designed, is higher than the official face value (or there is no face value).
The coin isn't a proof/special strike with the same design as a current circulation coin.
You could also say that bullion coins are advertised as containing a specific weight of a metal (or metals) but I don't think that changes the set of bullion coins. (Coins are typically specified to be a certain metal weight, but you don't see the US Mint advertising the sale of a US circulation quarter based on the metal weight.)
I REALLY would like some way to differentiate BULLION coins from other non-circulating legal tender types.
Is there not some searchable box that can be added for known Bullion "Coins"?
For example the EC8 coin series produced by Scottsdale mint in the US for the various East Caribbean states. If you go to their website they are clearly noted as bullion yet no note of any sort on Numista.
As someone who does not collect Bullion but does collect 21st century OFEC this makes it tricky for places like Montserrat or Dominica that show up as having 21st century non-circulating coins but they are really only these bullion types.
Must be something that can be done.
We differentiate the relatively few "Collector Coins" from NCLT but not bullion.
