| Author |
 Replies: 23 / Views: 3,069 |
Page 2 of 2
|
|
|
|
Moderator
 United States
189502 Posts |
No, the definition of a coin is "fuzzy," that is, varied or subjective.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
20753 Posts |
What ever it is if you can't put it in a vending machine, just not a coin.  |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
17884 Posts |
By Carl's definition Bust, Seated, Morgan,Peace,and Ike dollars are not coins. SBA's Sac,NA and President dollars are coins, sometimes.  Personally I agree with n9jig's definition. If it wasn't INTENDED to circulate as money and issued by a government of some kind,it is not a coin. |
|
Valued Member
United States
217 Posts |
So where does the intent have to originate? Some us pieces are produced only for collectors sets and thus not intended to circulate and thus not be considered coins under such a definition. You can get around that by saying when they were designed the intent was for them to circulate. Going back to a traditional definition of coin it need to have a value (to distinguish it from medals) and issued by a government (to distinguish it from tokens). One might want to go further and say that it has to be made out of metal (to distinguish it from other forms of money although that could be debatable.) One might also bring in how it was produced.
Bottom line, I agree it is fuzzy!
|
|
Moderator
Australia
16855 Posts |
Quote:
Personally I agree with n9jig's definition. If it wasn't INTENDED to circulate as money and issued by a government of some kind,it is not a coin. I'm thinking that's too narrow. By that definition, every single commemorative coin ever issued by the United States except for the 1976 coins and some of the modern cents and nickels, is "not a coin", since they were not intended to circulate and for the most part have not and do not circulate. The traditional definition is as Wiggam007 stated above: to qualify as a "coin", an object needs two things: official issue or sanction by a government (and one can debate about the legitimacy of certain "coins" owing to the legitimacy of the "government" that issued them) and the allocation or denotation of potential monetary use by a denomination or face value. If a coin-like metallic object has monetary use but no government sanction then it's a "token"; if it has no monetary use then it's a "medal", whether issued by a government or not. The problem comes about when we have modern "gimmicky" "coins" like the one in the OP, and like those "geometric solids" "coins" mentioned in the other threads, which do not resemble more traditional coins simply due to their shape. I am reluctant to call them "medals" or "rounds" for the same reason folks are reluctant to call them "coins": their odd shape. So I have a suggestion as to how to perhaps think of them; you might find it helpful. Many cultures and societies have, in the past, used various forms of "primitive-money" - objects made specifically for use as money, but are not coin-like in shape or form. They vary wildly, from the knives and spades of ancient China and the katanga crosses and kissi pennies of West Africa to the feather-coil money of the Solomon Islands and the wampum of eastern North America. Some of these objects were issued by governments - such as the "bullet money" of Thailand and the "tiger tongues" from elsewhere in Southeast Asia. Many numismatists consider primitive-money to be perfectly collectable, and some even make it into the Krause catalogues. So I suggest, for those reluctant to classify a ten-ounce cylinder of solid silver a "coin", that they call it "modern primitive-money" instead. For myself, I stick to the mantra, "if it doesn't fit in a 2x2, I don't really want it". This allows me to disqualify primitive-money, both early and modern. Don't say "infinitely" when you mean "very"; otherwise, you'll have no word left when you want to talk about something really infinite. - C. S. Lewis
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
8904 Posts |
Quote:
What is Fuzzy's definition?  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
999 Posts |
Perhaps a separation of definitions is needed. How about "Circulation Coins" for those coins intended and issued for everyday circulation; and "Non-Circulation Coins" for those such as proofs, bullion, commemorative, and collector coins.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
Australia
21788 Posts |
Although I am forced accept a wide definition for a 'coin', I only collect coins that conform to a very narrow definition for what almost everybody would regard as a 'coin'.
If I was to propose very wide definition of what a 'coin' is, I would have to expect that there would be many and varied opinions as to what should be included and what should be excluded in that definition.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
17884 Posts |
Quote:
I'm thinking that's too narrow. By that definition, every single commemorative coin ever issued by the United States except for the 1976 coins and some of the modern cents and nickels, is "not a coin", since they were not intended to circulate and for the most part have not and do not circulate. That is true, and I do not consider them to be coins. They are denominated commemorative metal disks intended to be sold for fund raising purposes. I also do not consider proofs, ASE, AGE, gold buffalos etc to be coins either. And if you do accept a lot of these things as coins then why not the piece from the OP. A typical coin today is a round cylinder with two faces and an edge typically a couple mm thick. But there have been thicker coins in the past. There was a copper Russian Ruble that would make that thing look tiny. Why reject it as a coin just because it is thicker and they used that space for additional images? |
|
Moderator
United States
189502 Posts |
It is a coin if someone can directly use it, as legal tender, to settle a debt. Commemorative coins, bullion eagles, and proofs are all legal tender; they can be spent. We may not like it (bullion eagles being coins rubs me a little), but they are all coins by definition.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
17884 Posts |
Quote:
It is a coin if someone can directly use it, as legal tender, to settle a debt. Half Cents were not legal tender until 1933. Were they coins or not before then? |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5862 Posts |
Heh. I was wondering if this topic was going to be about the Fortuna Redux when I saw the title, and I was right! I actually bought one of these last year and it is a joy to behold. Is it really a coin, though? I'd say as much as any item produced by any mint specifically for collectors with only a nominal face value. That would include all the "coins with crap on them" (hologram stickers, embedded glass jewels, etc.) as well as any modern bullion coins that have a face value far less than their actual worth, including the American Silver Eagles and American Gold Eagles. It would also include the 5-ounce ATB pucks as well as the 1-10 kilo dinner plates that the Perth Mint puts out as part of the lunar series. Which is to say that it's probably not "really" a coin, but then again neither is much of what the various mints are churning out these days unless specifically meant to be circulated and spent at face value. As I said, though, I really do like my Fortuna Redux. It's not just another coin with something stuck to it but was the result of a wholly unique minting process. Plus, it's just truly amazing to behold. |
|
Moderator
United States
189502 Posts |
Quote:
Half cents were not legal tender until 1933. Were they coins or not before then? I just knew if anyone could find a flaw in my argument, it would be you!  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
999 Posts |
The intricacies of Legal Tender don't make or break the status of whether it is a coin or not. Legal tender really only applies to settling a debt, whether a tender is acceptable for payment of a purchase (as opposed to a debt) is up to the parties involved. For these reasons, legal tender cannot be used to determine whether something is truly a coin or just a disk with a face value. The Half Cents mentioned above are coins because they were produced by a competent authority for the purpose of being used as money in commerce. Whether they were legal tender or not is immaterial. Edited by n9jig
02/28/2014 8:35 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5862 Posts |
I agree that legal tender status should not be determinative. I'm gonna stick with "meant to be used as currency at face value at the time it was minted," although I would probably include proof coins in that since they are essentially the same as the regular versions except with a special finish (and, of course, they do get spent at face value every now and then).
|
|
Page 2 of 2
|
Replies: 23 / Views: 3,069 |
Page 2 of 2
|
First Page
Posted 02/26/2014 12:06 pm
