Is This A Coin? Really?

spruett001 said...


I wonder if you did find a roll if the end coin would have a line of damage that follows the coastline all the way around, just inside the rim, from the crimping jaws on the wrapping machine.

One definition:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coin

The mint is calling it a coin, as I assume that this improves sales. Also, everyone expects the mint to make coins!

Like any word definition, it is defined by general usage. There is no authority or global standard. Definitions change if enough people use them. So if you think that coin is a poor word, use something else and it may eventually catch on. I would support you.

NCLT is a much better word.

However, I am not sure that it makes a whole lot of difference for the real collector. Nobody is required to collect according to what the mint says or what a definition is.

Does't really work for me - Tasmania is an island state.

Exonumia.
To my way of thinking a coin to be collectible has to be made with the intention of placing it into circulation.
Yes, yes, yes, I do have a few patterns, major and very obvious errors and proofs, so I am not true to my own way of thinking.

But I don't collect exonumia - others may.

If the mint makes them, and people buy them, then they will keep making them.

@sel_69l - I think even coins not intended for circulation are OK if they are no different in weight/size to coins already in circulation which is why they sometimes turn up while noodling.

Just so this thread still makes sense when the ebay item expires, the coin in question is one of these: Perth Mint redback spider map-of-australia-shaped 1 ounce silver coin 2015.

To qualify as a "coin", a numismatic item must:
- be issued by, for or in the name of an internationally recognized government;
- have a denomination either implicit or explicit;
- be (or have been in the past) legal tender (or whatever the local equivalent of "legal tender" is).

If it does not have all three of those properties, it is not a "coin". But a coin does not have to be:
- actually used as money;
- round;
- made of certain metals or alloys, or even made of metal at all.

So under this definition, the object in question fits the definition:
- It was issued in the name of Australia (with Perth Mint "coins", you do have to check which country it is "from"; when Perth Mint's marketing department invents a new coin, they sometimes use a flag-of-convenience country like Tuvalu if it can't convince the Australian government to issue it.)
- The denomination is 1 dollar. Yes, you'd be a fool to try to spend a 1 ounce silver coin for $1, especially if you paid 4x the bullion price for it. But legally, you can do it.
- It has been gazetted as an officially authorized $1 coin by the Australian government.

Yes, it's gimmicky. Yes, it's aimed at collectors. Yes, it's a shameless money-grab by a mint that made a hugely popular coin (the 2006 Tuvalu red-back spider dollar) and sought, with this object, to try to replicate that popularity. But even given all that, it is, still, a "coin".

Now, just because it's a coin, doesn't mean that you, a coin collector, must like it, or buy it, or consider it a part of the series of coins that you collect. The Perth Mint certainly does not expect that you, an average coin collector, will feel compelled to buy an example of one of every coin that they ever make. They presume that the "gotta collect one of every Australian coin" collector went extinct, long ago. PM's modus operandi is simple: They make it, they market it, and people who like it (for whatever reason) will buy it. Given the coin is listed on the PM website as "sold out", at least 6000 people must have wanted one, for the asking price. That ebay seller in the OP's link is asking AU$99. Given that the coins originally sold for AU$87.20, they're not making a huge profit.

According to the Perth Mint, this is an uncirculating coin, and they define it as follows:


Circulating coinage on the other hand, is minted in Australia by the Royal Australian Mint.

As for myself, I recognize the difficulty of formulating an absolutely universal definition of what should be called "coin" and what should be called something else. Surely, most definitions I read cover the vast majority of numismatic items, but for many definitions out there I can think of historical exceptions escaping the rule.

In this case I agree with calling them non-circulating legal tender coins. No problem with that. And I also think they have a completely different purpose than that of circulating coinage, making them essentially different.