| Author |
Replies: 8 / Views: 7,603 |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1391 Posts |
So, I picked up a coin the other day for under the spot price of silver. Looks really nice and all so I took it over to my friends house so he could help me with it.
The coin is from Papua New Guinea but according to the world coin book he had it is minted at the Franklin Mint. Now I don't know much about coins yet but all I have heard is that you should avoid the Franklin Mint at all costs.
Now, is this legitimate coinage for Papua New Guinea? Is it a real coin? Or should I just count myself blessed for getting some silver below spot?
I am not sure what to think about this. Can a more seasoned coin collector chime in with some advice please?
To further complicate things it looks like a lot of the coins that I would be interested in (i.e. from different island nations like, Papua New Guinea, Tonga, Fiji, etc) had their coins printed at private mints like the Franklin Mint. I am begining to have second thoughts about coins from these countries...
Thanks for any help.
|
|
|
|
Moderator
 Australia
16817 Posts |
The Franklin Mint effectively did not make circulation coinage; all their "products" were aimed at collectors. That being said, their PNG coins up to 1 kina are identical in design to the ones struck elsewhere for circulation. Coins with face value 5 kina and above are purely Franklim Mint products. Is your coin a "legitimate" PNG coin? Yes, in the sense that the government of PNG authorized its issue and hopefully received some profit from its sale. No, in the sense that few if any such coins were ever actually physically located in PNG, having been shipped directly from the Franklin Mint to an overseas collector, and I doubt if any bank or store in the country would have accepted it in change. It's known as "NCLT" - Non-Circulating Legal Tender. Whether you consider NCLT to be "legitimate" coinage is entirely up to you. I should also point out that it's now been several decades since the Franklin Mint single-handedly killed the world coin market with its overproduction of cheap proof coins in shoddy packaging, and the stigma of the Franklin Mint is finally starting to wear off. Provided the coins have not been damaged by the abominable packaging, they should be worth more than bullion value nowadays. Quote: To further complicate things it looks like a lot of the coins that I would be interested in (i.e. from different island nations like, Papua New Guinea, Tonga, Fiji, etc) had their coins printed at private mints like the Franklin Mint. I am begining to have second thoughts about coins from these countries... Being struck at a private mint does not necessarily mean that the coins are not an official legal tender issue of that country. All of the Pacific island countries (even New Zealand) are way too small to have their own mint, so they have to outsource their coins, both circulation and NCLT, from somewhere. They'll typically go for the lowest bidder, which in the 1970s was the Franklin Mint. These days the Royal Canadian Mint wins most of the contracts from these countries for circulation coins, while Perth Mint and others typically do the NCLT. When it comes to the "legitimacy" of NCLT, I personally tend to focus on the meaningfulness of the object or event depicted on the coin to the country that "issued" the coin. In that sense, Franklin Mint coins are usually pretty good, compared to the "products" from modern mass-producers like Pobjoy and Perth. A Western Samoan coin that commemorates Captain Cook has clear and unambiguous local significance; a Tuvaluan coin that commemorates the new Transformers movie does not. The first coin was probably commissioned by the Samoan government itself and probably would have been sold in Samoa as well as elsewhere. The second coin was dreamed up by Perth Mint's marketing department for whom Tuvalu is merely a flag of convenience.
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
1391 Posts |
Thank for the longer explanation Sap. Much more detailed than I was expecting. I am more comfortable knowing that there is at least a term for some of the coins I am looking at now. I searched some of your other posts and found that you had referenced the bad packaging before. Was the plastic thin? Was it non-archive quality? I have a Jamacia coin from the mint that is still in the packaging, should I remove it to another holder? I know the general rule is never remove things until you know. But I did repackage one of the smaller coins because it was falling out of the original mint packaging and I was worried it would get damaged. I was suprised it hadn't yet. However, as it could fall out with out me doing anything I wasn't to concerned about protecting it. Yeah, I clicked on the link for the Perth Mint and my wife happened to look at the screen when I got up to get some food. She just started laughing because the Transformers coins were scrolling across the page. She thought they were pretty dumb. I commented that I agreed with her but she countered that we will probably all be sorry for not buying them because a new generation of transformers nerds will think they are cool in 20 years.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United Kingdom
2873 Posts |
Quote: we will probably all be sorry for not buying them because a new generation of transformers nerds will think they are cool in 20 years.
Angels and minsters of light preserve us ...... 
|
|
Moderator
 Australia
16817 Posts |
Quote: I searched some of your other posts and found that you had referenced the bad packaging before. Was the plastic thin? Was it non-archive quality? I have a Jamacia coin from the mint that is still in the packaging, should I remove it to another holder? Franklin Mint proof sets and coins were mailed out in little clear plastic blister-pack wrappers that were intended merely as short-term holders to give added protection during shipping. Ironically, this short-term housing was quite environment-proof, and modified versions of it were later adopted by other mints such as the British Royal Mint and the Royal Australian mint. The main problem with Franklin Mint coins was in the pseudo-velvet lining of the box the coins were supposed to be placed in. The coins came with a little pair of disposable gloves and "instructions" on what to do with your coins once you received them. These instructions told you to cut open the blister pack, put the gloves on, pick up the coins and place them in the pseudo-velvet lined box. People that did what the Franklin Mint told them to do have, most likely, unwittingly ruined their coins by putting them in direct contact with the pseudo-velvet which, as it degraded, gave off acids that ate away at the coins. Like PVC damage, only worse. People who ignored their instructions and kept the coins in the blister pack probably still have intact coins, though in the wrong conditions the noxious chemicals from the degrading pseudo-velvet can seep through the blister packing. Only the coins that were removed from Franklin Mint's packaging entirely and (for example) placed straight into cardboard 2x2s are likely to still be pristine today. But since most of Franklin Mint's customers would have been newbies to coin collecting, most would have slavishly followed Franklin Mint's instructions. If your coin is no longer in a blister-pack wrapper, then it's probably been ruined. If it is, then have a look at the coin and see if it's damaged or not. Either way, I wouldn't trust the Franklin Mint packaging to last longer or work better than other, more coin-friendly means of storage.
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
1391 Posts |
"If your coin is no longer in a blister-pack wrapper, then it's probably been ruined. If it is, then have a look at the coin and see if it's damaged or not. Either way, I wouldn't trust the Franklin Mint packaging to last longer or work better than other, more coin-friendly means of storage."
Well, after much consideration I finally removed the coin from the Franklin Mint packaging and put it in a 2.5 x 2.5 coin holder inside a plastic sheet in a folder. It sure looks nice next to the other large coins. I picked up another one that is in the pseudo-velvet and am going to remove it.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
259 Posts |
After reading this, I rushed to look at my Franklin Mint 1976 Papua New Guinea proof set and 1977 Belize proof set. To my relief, the coins are situated in cardboard holder laying on top of the "pseudo velvet." I don't see any flimsy blister pack wrapper. I had forgotten how beautiful these are. The case is sturdy, so I think I'll just leave them as they are. I have seen some of these coins sold individually at coin stores. I don't know if a seller would get more money that way versus seliing the set, but IMHO, they were meant to be a set so I'd rather keep them that way.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
1391 Posts |
chasinva69, the coin I was talking about was almost falling out of the package. The package was damaged and worn. I just picked it up by itself and paid less than spot for it. I think the seller couldn't sell it and just low balled it to move inventory. In my area that happens a lot with some of the more "obscure" nations. Yesterday I found a larger commemortive coin from one of the island nations (Fiji maybe?) that was listed for $60. I thought that was low and took a pic of it and check it out. It has almost $80 in silver in it. People just are not interested in world coins in my area, and judging from what I have been reading on these forums I suspect that most areas are similar.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
259 Posts |
allranger: I think you should see that as an opportunity then. Silver is silver, ya know? And in some circles world coins are very popular especially those from harder to find countries. Sounds like you can pick them up cheaply and maybe sell/trade them for a gain.
Edited by chasinva69 06/30/2011 3:09 pm
|
| |
Replies: 8 / Views: 7,603 |
|
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.

- Cabinet Outgassed And Toned My Eisenhower And Anthony Dollars
- 1882 CC GSA $1: You Vs. CACG #2
- 1882 CC GSA $1: You Vs. CACG #1
- Japanese / Chinese Coins And Charms , ID Help - 9/9
- Japanese / Chinese Coins And Charms , ID Help - 8/9
- Japanese / Chinese Coins And Charms , ID Help - 7/9
- Japanese / Chinese Coins And Charms , ID Help - 6/9
- Japanese / Chinese Coins And Charms , ID Help - 5/9
- Japanese / Chinese Coins And Charms , ID Help - 4/9
- Japanese / Chinese Coins And Charms , ID Help - 3/9
- Japanese / Chinese Coins And Charms , ID Help - 2/9
- Japanese / Chinese Coins And Charms , ID Help - 1/9
- Ancient Syria Antioch Nero, Ad 54-68 AR Tetradrachm
- 2026-P Australia FIFA World Cup Colorized Half Dollar Commemorative, PCGS PR-69-DCAM
- Commems Collection Classic: 1938 New Rochelle, NY - 250th Anniversary / Two Edicts Of Consequence
- 1962 Cent - Double Rainbow
- Small Cent Accumulation - What's It Worth ?
- 2002-D Louisiana Quarter (They Don't Look Like Scratches)
- 2023-P Quarter, E. R. / New DDO? / Tripling Of The Eye?
- 2026 Silver Proofs Sets - Say It Isn't So,
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 0.36 seconds to rattle this change. |
 |
|