How Do You Define A Circulating Coin?

I would tend to agree, if the coins were issued/sold at face value, and minted by the government mint then this should be considered circulating coinage.

Yes you would expect the 2016 Rio coins in particular to be be listed on their website by now.

Maybe the RAM doesn't consider these as circulating coins because I just had a look at their last two annual reports and there is no mention of either coin under their 'Circulating Coin Production' figures?

https://www.ramint.gov.au/sites/def...cPDF_web.pdf (p.96)
https://www.ramint.gov.au/sites/def...l_report.pdf (p.98)

When it comes to the 'Possum Magic Coins', I have BOTH the carded coins that could be purchased at the Woolworth stores AND have found them in circulation.

That means that they are circulating coins, either by accident or deliberate intention.

It does NOT necessarily mean that they were legally intended for circulation.

That is the theory.

In actual practice, it seems as if the Commonwealth Government of Australia couldn't care less if they were legally intended for circulation or not, either by Act of Parliament or Government Regulation.

The Authorities have made no public announcement on their legal status, at least of anything that I am not aware of.

These coins were issued by the Royal Australian Mint:

A into circulation as legal tender?
or
B as non circulating legal tender? (NCLT)
or
C both?

Is it A, B, or C ?

Does the Mint really care?

Arhh! She'll be right mate !
- Probably best said with a slow, Southern Queensland drawl.

I think that was the Mint's philosophical approach was, as far as the legal status of the Possum Magic coins is concerned.

My attitude in answer to that was to take them from circulation, (I have three x Two Dollarses), as well as to buy a carded set from Woollies.

A circulating coin is one that can be obtained by any means other than a packaged coin or packaged set only....therefore I would classify this as a circulating coin as it was released in a means that was meant for it to go into circulation

Because people hoard it does not make it NCLT

IMO

The issue here is, how do you clasify it if a coin is "sold" for face value?

Take the 1988 $5 Parliament House coin. They were "sold" in 1988 for $5 each from the Commonwealth Bank. Would you call them "circulation"? They were not given out in change, are rarely accepted for face value because most stores have never seen or heard of them before, and when they are deposited with the banks, they include them in the NCLT coin withdrawl process (returning them to the Mint for melting), rather than re-issue them as $5 coins.

Like the 1988 $5, these $2 coins aren't "issued" in the usual way that circulating commemorative coins are issued, they are "sold", by an agent granted a monopoly to sell them (The Commonwealth Bank in 1988, Woolworths Supermarkets today). The agent in both cases has chosen to sell them for face value.

Still, I would include these coloured $2 coins as "circulating commemoratives", but would not include the 1988 $5. The difference between the 1988 $5 and these $2 coins is, there are no other "normal" circulating $5 coins to compare them with. So perhaps nealeffendi's rule-of-thumb needs to be modified to include a "and is similar in specifications to a regular circulating coin" clause.

How "similar" is similar? I would suggest "the vending machine test". If the coin is issued/sold for face value and is accepted by a properly calibrated vending machine, then it's a "circulating commemorative". If the only way to get one is to pay more than face value, or if a vending machine won't take it, then it's NCLT. I'm pretty sure these colourized $2 coins pass the vending machine test.