Canadian 50 Cent Coins 2017-2023 - New Krause number and Uncirculated? [solved]

There was another post that questioned the 50 cent coins from 2017 to 2022 being under a different Krause number, but I wanted to make a further point with the current listing which might mean that they are not only a different Krause number but probably uncirculated for those years too.

Message from other post:

I was looking into adding the last few years worth of Canadian circulated coins into my collection, and I see a bunch that include the 50 cent coins and some sets that don't.
Looking at the Royal Canadian Mint page for the 50 cents (https://www.mint.ca/en/discover/canadian-circulation/50-cents) the mintage figures finish at 2016 for this coin. I thought, perhaps they just haven't updated, but checking out the other denominations (5 cent for example: https://www.mint.ca/en/discover/canadian-circulation/5-cents), they all have mintages up to 2020, a few years behind the present day, but going off the topic above that Krause changes the KM number for the 50 cent coin from 2017 onwards, that to me means the coin has changed between 2016 and 2017, and even made the 50 cents from 2017 as uncirculated.

Do we need to make the split happen so for KM#494 they go up to 2016 and 2017 to 2022 is removed from N#5809 and put into KM#2304 only as uncirculated?

Also, and I think this has been mentioned in another post, the ‘In The Name of Elizabeth II’ coins are under circulating commemorative, despite no actual line for a circulating coin, so should these be switched to uncirculated too?

Any further info on the above is appreciated.

Thanks,

Andy

I don't know but Coins and Canada call the 2017-2022 coins Business strikes circulated with the following mintages consistent with the prior years:

2017 875,000

2018 750,000

2019 750,000

2020 750,000

2021 375,000

2022 375,000

Splitting the coin page only because of Krause assigning a new number shouldn't be done unless the coins are different physically.  Many coin pages in Numista combine years with circulating coins and years with proof/specimen/etc. only coins.

After 2002, no 50-cent coin was issued for circulation, though technically and legally they are circulating. That's why at the unveiling of the new Charles III portrait in November 2023, the 50 cents was included along with the other circulating denominations.

The coin is now sold mostly in sets or in rolls. The rolls are sold by the Mint above their face value, so they are meant for collectors. And yet, if a debtor wanted to pay his debt with these coins, the debtee, even if annoyed, would probably be unable to refuse them.

If I'm not mistaken, the rolls contain coins with a circulation finish, i.e. they are business strikes, though not intended for circulation. I don't think the 50 cents is ever sold at face value and in the latest Annual Report (2023) on page 96, that denomination is not included among circulating coins, though if I remember correctly, it used to be included for some years after 2002.

Now the 2023 Elizabeth 1952-2022 50 cents were not intended for circulation. This is true as well for all the denominations: 5 cents, 10 cents, 25 cents, $1, $2, except for some commems (like this one), so the Numista catalogue is wrong on this.

As for why the Krause catalogue assigns a new number from 2017, I don't know.

EDIT — 

This is from the FAQ page on the RCM website:

RCM FAQ page

Is the 50-cent coin still legal tender?

 

The 50-cent coin is legal tender in Canada. In recent decades the 50-cent coin is no longer requested by financial institutions and consumers for day-to-day transactions, therefore it is now issued in limited quantities and packaged in special wrap rolls for collectors.

Agreed but back to the original question: Should the coin page be split just because it went from one Numista type object to another Numista type object without any actual change to the coin? If so, there are many similar coins that were released as circulating coins, then released only in sets or as specimen/proofs/etc. that would need to be split into different Numista pages.  The same logic would dictate that all Proofs need to have their own page separate from the circulating coin page.

Given that, in Numista, circulation types actually issued for circulation are always listed along with non-circulating issues provided they are of the same type and specifications (diameter, metal, etc., but different finishes OK), then IMO there is no reason to create a new page.

Also, according to this principle, New Zealand circulation types would need to be entirely reorganized since many years of circulating types are only released for collectors. For example the standard kiwi dollar in 1999–2020, with those years with only collectors issues underlined. The years in bold were issued for circulation but also (of course) for collectors:

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2013 2015 2019 2020

None were issued in the missing years. I don't think any was issued after 2020.

Now imagine, for the sake of argument, that the dollar under Charles III is issued for circulation in 2025. Then it's not issued in 2026, nor in 2027… What do we do? Do we wait a number of years and reassign them to a new page and number? Oh! But then, the 2028 year is issued for circulation… Do we move 2026 and 2027 back?? This doesn't make much sense.

If anything could be changed, it's that “proof-like” (i.e. NBU) be given their own page, likewise proofs and specimens. I made myself a checklist for US cents from the Fugio to now which includes only circulation coins, so, for example, none of the “S” cents in the past several decades belongs to the list.

In the case of the Canadian 50 cents, no change happened to the coin since 2003 when the 4th portraitr was introduced. It's also at that time that the Mint stopped selling them at face value for circulation.

However, I think I know what happened… The 2016 Annual Report still listed the 50c along with circulating coins (p. 86), while it was removed from the same table in 2017 (also p. 86) and 2018 (p. 97). In 2003– 2016, I think the only reason to list it there was because it was a circulation strike, though sold only to collectors. I suspect the expert who contributed to the Krause relied on the RCM reports and noticed the change, i.e. that the 50c was removed from the stats for circulation coins, but IMO it's not reflective of any change in the legal status of the 50 cents. My view is confirmed by the fact that the 50c is still listed among circulation coins in the authorization for the new Charles III circulation coinage. It's a legal technicality, and I have found no legislation in 2016–2017 that changed the status of the 50c.

So, the 50c in 2025 remains technically a circulation denomination, but it is never issued as such; it's always issued above face value in rolls and sets to coin collectors. One day the Mint may ask the government to pass legislation to remove the 50c from the list of circulating coins, which would mean a revision of the schedule appended to the RCM Act. However, those people know that in the case the “nickel” is discontinued, the 25c will have to go as well, and a 10c / 20c / 50c / $1 / $2 system would make sense.

Thanks for the great and detailed response Camerinvs!

So it sounds like some line edits need to be made for the 50 cents to signify that some of the year lines without a comment need to have ‘Business Strike issue’ applied to them so we know they were not made for general circulation, although it is possible that the odd one could pop up in someone's change.

That was certainly the answer I was looking for. As with the new Krause number/page, I was merely using it as possible proof that 2017 onwards were not for circulation despite the blank comment lines for each year suggesting they might have been.

Cheers!

“Business Strike issue” is the general term for “meant for circulation.” I think “not meant for circulation” is what you mean.

Yes. They are business strikes in terms of the quality of the finish, not issue —and that's why they were kept for so long in the circulating coin tables in the Annual Reports— but none was issued for circulation. So “circulation finish” (business strike) doesn't equate with “coin intended for circulation”.

I wished the Canadian and other governments did what the EU did from 2010: If it's a collector coin, it cannot be in the circulating denominations, i.e. 1 / 2 / 5 / 10 / 20 / 50 €cents and 1€ and 2€. Denominations such as 1.5€ and 8€ are clearly not intended for circulation, at least since 2010 when the legislation was revised.