Proposal to change bullion coins to a new category in Exonumia. "Bullion Coins"

The attached discussion below leads me to propose this much needed change for consideration.

My argument in summation:

Bullion coins are investment products primarily manufactured with strategic or a precious metal commodity for their metal value, and not what monetary system they may or may not be attached to whether issued officially by government or private mint with the implied endorsement of a government. Copper, silver, gold, platinum, etc,  all commodities. They are also certainly not intended for every day commerce to purchase groceries, gas or products at the mall although technically you could with some of these products. Why then are bullion coins issued by governments as an investment product considered coins while generic commodity rounds are considered exonumia? Just one example although there are many more, the American Silver Eagle bullion coin is assigned a value of $1. I will buy all the Silver Eagles you own for $2 each on the spot or sell you two loaves bread. Absurd you say? Try taking your Bullion coins to a bank even though they may be technically legal tender. They would not know what to do with most of them even though a currency may be assigned to them. Thoughts?

https://en.numista.com/forum/topic125036.html

I agree.

The problem is that they are no different from other precious metal NCLTs. In my opinion anything issued officially should stay where it is otherwise we open up a bottomless can of worms.

Idolenz

The problem is that they are no different from other precious metal NCLTs. In my opinion anything issued officially should stay where it is otherwise we open up a bottomless can of worms.

My view is that Governments and private business have already exploited the issue and opened the bottomless can of worms with all these myriad of new issues being introduced on a yearly basis in the name of every day currency intended for commerce and a functioning and healthy economy.. They are not. They are investment products who's true value is directly related to a commodity rather a currency. You cant possibly buy an American Silver eagle for $1.

Yes, but that's nothing we can change, other than not buying the crap.

But as far as I understand you only want to move bullion coins but I see no difference to any other NCLT and this would mean case by case what is bullion what not. 

Point of fact: 

Number of NCLT's in the coin Catalog:

Silver - 34,862

Gold - 16,270

Palladium - 86

Platinum - 579

harryg

Try taking your Bullion coins to a bank even though they may be technically legal tender. They would not know what to do with most of them even though a currency may be assigned to them. Thoughts?

If they are legal tender then they are approved by the government and should not be part of Exonumia, who are we to tell wich coins are or not real coins ? Even if they have a value of x and the value of the metal is 10 times x or more it's not our decision but a government decision to mint or approve them.

Indomini16

harryg

Try taking your Bullion coins to a bank even though they may be technically legal tender. They would not know what to do with most of them even though a currency may be assigned to them. Thoughts?

If they are legal tender then they are approved by the government and should not be part of Exonumia, who are we to tell wich coins are or not real coins ? Even if they have a value of x and the value of the metal is 10 times x or more it's not our decision but a government decision to mint or approve them.

There seems to be some question that coins such as this are, in fact, approved by the government.

 No question much work will have to be done to make a change but that is not the subject. These products have made much work on the catalog anyway. NCLT? Another example attached - 2,500 produced. For who and why exaclly? Certainly not for every day commerce. Where in the catalog should these investment products be placed? That's all from me. I brought up the subject and let it fall where it may.

N#55752

My own personal view is that government backed legal tender currency is not exonumia.

That said, if a coin is a medium of exchange, an item you can't spend is not (strictly) a coin either.

At the moment you can label a coin as circulating, non-circulating etc. but not as n/c bullion. :(

I guess my own preference would be to split the coins section in two, have the main section strictly for items that circulated as money, if you can't/couldn't buy products or services with it then it doesn't belong.

With a secondary coin's section, for legal tender coins produced to sell as collectable or investment items. Items that have a government backed value, but you can't and never could spend.

As time goes by, actual money coins are going to be vastly outnumbered by collectable/investment items, and possibly just by Niue. ;)

rsirian1

There seems to be some question that coins such as this are, in fact, approved by the government.

Then this is not the same debate. I would not be surprises to see that these are approved by the government of the country. But if it’s not the case, they belong 100% to Exonumia.

Indomini16

harryg

 

If they are legal tender then they are approved by the government and should not be part of Exonumia, who are we to tell wich coins are or not real coins ? 

We are Numismatists attempting to define exactly what these “coins” are.  I hope anyway.

IMO the type (NCLT, etc.) is not a parameter here; if they are legal tender, they are coins by definition and you can technically pay with them at face value. Then, coin catalogue.

It's quite impossible to do a decision in many cases:

500 Sh, Austria 1980s, are they coins or expensive bullion articeles? Until now the nominal value is higher than bullion value.

In Germany coins of 1kg Ag (any small value) make sense to avoid taxes.

The numista database should not be split.

Bullion coins like the Silver Krugerrand belong under ‘Coins’, not under ‘Exonumia’.

Aidan.

I see this proposal doesn't have much support AND without much discussion or debate but I believe this to be a mistake and believe it should not be dismissed out of hand and without  good reason. Easier to leave it alone? Definitions? Criteria? I also believe that one day as a matter of necessity, It will have to be implemented for practical reasons such as the shear volume of these issues being produced. There are some simple criteria that could be implemented. A limited Issue of non circulated bullion coin with a fineness of say .900 or more for instance. What government issues predominately or even partial bullion coins for circulation these days?  I tried.

From a practical point of view I would very much applaud a split between real coins (those that are circulating and can be found in your wallet) and non-circulating, which are made for collectors/investors only and are only sold above  face value. That would in my opinion make a better split then the present coins/exonomia splits (f.i.: I really do not know why some German post WWI notgeld coins would be considered exonumia and so I wouldn't go looking for them in the exonumia catalog). For practical reasons it might be smart to put a time limit to this, say only post 1980 or post 1950?) as it is very much a recent problem which is quickly getting worse. 

One thought on old bullion coins: these really are coins, because they were made for trading purposes in times when banktransfers and banknotes were not an option, so they needed big value coins to pay for big value sales.  None of this applies for the bullion of the last half century though.

harryg

I see this proposal doesn't have much support AND without much discussion or debate but I believe this to be a mistake and believe it should not be dismissed out of hand and without  good reason. Easier to leave it alone? Definitions? Criteria? I also believe that one day as a matter of necessity, It will have to be implemented for practical reasons such as the shear volume of these issues being produced. There are some simple criteria that could be implemented. A limited Issue of non circulated bullion coin with a fineness of say .900 or more for instance. What government issues predominately or even partial bullion coins for circulation these days?  I tried.

Just because these are minted by a private mint doesn't separate them from other NCLT. There are plenty of circulation coins which were produced by private mints. So no, I don't agree with suggestion.

Steve27

harryg

I see this proposal doesn't have much support AND without much discussion or debate but I believe this to be a mistake and believe it should not be dismissed out of hand and without  good reason. Easier to leave it alone? Definitions? Criteria? I also believe that one day as a matter of necessity, It will have to be implemented for practical reasons such as the shear volume of these issues being produced. There are some simple criteria that could be implemented. A limited Issue of non circulated bullion coin with a fineness of say .900 or more for instance. What government issues predominately or even partial bullion coins for circulation these days?  I tried.

Just because these are minted by a private mint doesn't separate them from other NCLT. There are plenty of circulation coins which were produced by private mints. So no, I don't agree with suggestion.

PM  (Pobjoy Mint) was a private mint, but with an official contract with IOM f.ex., and those coins circulated! Do we know the same of ALL the NOCLT? In South America the countries having precious metal coins, the government had an official responsable for the fineness of all the struck coins, how did that work for private mints? I have unfortunately forgotten the name of those officials!

It came back (Assayers):