|
This page may contain links that result in small commissions to keep this free site up and running.
Welcome Guest! Registering and/or logging in will remove the anchor (bottom) ads. It's Free!
To participate in the forum you must log in or register. | Author |
 Replies: 8 / Views: 2,485 |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
593 Posts |
I'm working on an OFEC for countries that existed in 1980. I'm not concerned with the actual date on the coin, just whether the country existed then. (I know I have to deal with issues like New Hebrides becoming Vanuatu in 1980, but I think I have that covered). One country puzzles me, though: Tokelau. From all I can find they are using New Zealand currency. Are the 92.5% silver dollars issued since 1978 the only coins considered NCLT, or are the Cu-Ni coins also NCLT? In other words, are there Cu-Ni Tokelau dollars circulating on Tokelau?
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Moderator
 Australia
16829 Posts |
Tokelau, Niue and the Cook Islands are politically the same: dependencies of New Zealand. They all officially use the New Zealand dollar, but the New Zealand government has granted them all permission to issue their own stamps and coinages for fundraising purposes. Of the three, the Cook Islands is the largest in population and only the Cook Islands has issued its own circulating currency, on par with the NZ dollar. If you go to the Cook Islands, you'll find a mixture of Cook Islands and NZ coins in change.
All coins issued in the names of Niue and Tokelau are NCLT; none were intended for circulation. I doubt any of the NCLT coins could actually be found in quantity in the countries they were ostensibly named for, since the coins were marketed and sold to foreign collectors.
Please note that, as has happened at certain other Pacific Island nations that issued way too many NCLT coins, some of the Cook Islands coins have had their "legal tender" status retrospectively revoked. Apparently, some people were buying up huge quantities of cheap bulk NCLT coins and notes for far less than face value, taking them to the Cook islands, and spending them - earning themselves enough profit to more than pay for the trip and leaving the Cook Islands government holding the bag full of expensive, unusable, un-resellable junk.
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
593 Posts |
Sap,
Thank you so much for the clarification and education! That helps a lot and I'm glad to learn a fascinating story in the process. I'm encountering a few other similar quandries, but I want to do my research as best I can by myself first before posting.
Cheers!
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
593 Posts |
Sap,
I have done my research as best I can and I have a few more questions, if you don't mind.
1) Most, if not all, of the countries using East Caribbean States Currency in 1970 had a $4 FAO issue that shows up in the catalog with values for used. Everything else these countries did was strictly NCLT. Why the used $4 FAOs?
2) Turks & Caicos - were the 1/4 crown, 1/2 crown and the earliest crowns (KM#1 and KM#5) issued for circulation? KM#5 edge lettering says: "REDEEMABLE AT TURKS AND CAICOS FOR US CURRENCY".
3) St. Helena & Ascension - the coins from the individual entities appear to be strictly NCLT, but what about all those fractional coins issued by the two together? Were those issued for currency on par with british pound?
4) Tristan da Cunha - is everything NCLT, or is there some fractional stuff for circulation like St. Helena
5) Gibraltar - KM#4 is the only thing to show used values. Are all those fractional coins NCLT? That seems like a lot!
6) Bangladesh - Am I correct to assume that most of those FAO coins ended up in circulation and that, in fact, FAO pretty much provided the start-up coinage for that fledgling country?
7) Kiribati - The quantities for KM#1 through KM#7 seem a bit low for circulation, but they all show up used. NCLT or circulation coins?
8) Tokelau - Looks like NCLT, but for a population of 2000 the mint quantities are high enough for circulation. Did many of those "Tahi Tala" coins end up in circulation?
Thanks a lot for all the help. Your first answer cleared up a lot for me and gave me some much needed info to investigate many of the follow-up questions I had and answer them on my own.
Cheers!
|
|
Moderator
Australia
16829 Posts |
1. Just because the catalogues give less-than-Unc values for coins, does not necessarily mean they were issued for circulation, or even that they actually circulated to any great extent. Some NCLT coins were issued in poor quality packaging, or no packaging at all, and have received "wear" just from collector and dealer buying and selling. These $4 coins were not issued for circulation.
2. I don't know about the earlier crowns, but apparently the 1/4 and 1/2 crowns were indeed issued for circulation. At least, I have found 1/4 crown coins in coin dealer scratchtrays that are not just circulated, but heavily circulated, to the point of qualifying as "worn".
3. The fractional coinages for "Saint Helena and Ascension" are indeed intended to circulate, and do circulate on the islands in question, just like the coinages for Jersey, Guernsey, Isle of Man, Gibraltar and the Falklands.
4. Although Tristan da Cunha is technically part of the same Saint Helena and Ascension territory, it uses regular British coinage instead of SH&A coins. All the coins issued in the name of Tristan da Cunha are NCLT. It's also possible to find "coins" in the name of several uninhabited barren rocks nearby that belong to Tristan da Cunha, such as Gough Island and the Nightingale Islands. I'm pretty sure such objects aren't even legal tender coins, but rather unofficial issues.
5. Gibraltar, likewise, uses all the fractional denominations. It is even not uncommon to find coins of Gibraltar etc. in change in Britain itself; my Dad brought me back a Gibraltar twopence from a trip to Britain back in the 1990s. They aren't technically legal tender in Britain, but they circulate there anyway.
6. Just because coins are FAO-themed does not mean they were not intended for circulation. The Bangladesh coins all circulated.
7. Kiribati is a tiny country, and does not need much in the way of coinage. In fact, the Kiribati dollar is on par with the Australian dollar and Australian coins circulate side-by-side with whatever of the local coinage hasn't yet been souvenired by tourists, with Australian coins by far the most common. One exception is the 1 and 2 cent coins from the 1990s. These were issued because Australia withdrew their 1 and 2 cent coins in 1989, but the Kiribati government believed these small denominations were still necessary for local use. So they issued some of their own to fill the perceived need.
8. I do not think enough of the Tokelau coins actually made it to the islands to contribute much to the circulating money supply. They certainly were not issued with intent to circulate; if any did, it was because tourists brought them with them to spend, long after they were issued.
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
593 Posts |
Thank you very much, Sap!
When I have something put together with images to share I will start a new thread.
You have cleared up many mysteries for me!
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
593 Posts |
Sap,
Sorry to trouble you, but I have one more ...
The Cu-Ni mintages for Azores (1980, 1986, 1991, 1995) seem too high for NCLT. Is it safe to assume that the 1980 Azores 25 escudos Cu-Ni coin (mintage = 770,000) was at least partially intended for circulation?
Thanks again for all your help!
|
|
Moderator
Australia
16829 Posts |
The Azores does not and did not have its own currency after the overthrow of the monarchy in 1911. The coins listed in Krause for "Azores" after 1911 are actually regular Portuguese coins, that just happen to have an Azorean theme. In that sense, they aren't really any different to the Territory quarters of the USA or the "Greenland crown" issued by Denmark; Krause lists that coin under "Denmark", but for whatever reason has chosen to file these coins separately under "Azores". If these coins were circulating commemoratives, then they circulated throughout Portugal, not just on the Azores. And at 770,000 mintage, the 1980 coin has a mintage figure not that much smaller than other circulating commemorative Portuguese 25 escudo coins of the 1980s so they almost certainly were intended to circulate. 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
593 Posts |
Wow! That's an interesting wrinkle! So Azores uses Portuguese coins and Portugal issued a coin commemorating the Independence of Azores in 1980, but that coin wasn't issued specifically for Azores any more than the Nevada State Quarter was intended for just one state. Thank you so much for the info! |
| |
Replies: 8 / Views: 2,485 |
|
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.
Disclaimer: While a tremendous amount of effort goes into ensuring the accuracy of the information contained in this site, Coin Community assumes no liability for errors. Copyright 2005 - 2026 Coin Community Family- all rights reserved worldwide. Use of any images or content on this website without prior written permission of Coin Community or the original lender is strictly prohibited.
Contact Us | Advertise Here | Privacy Policy / Terms of Use
|
| Coin Community Forum |
© 2005 - 2026 Coin Community Forums |
| It took 0.32 seconds to rattle this change. |
 |
|
| |
| |
Posted 12/03/2014 10:57 pm
