Didn't take him long to go on another one of his rants did it?
How about answering some of the charges regarding Australia.
Of course I will go on a rant when people start insulting my country and its territories.
I mean you go on a rant when someone attacks Australia (Usually be deflecting or gaslighting).
Sargon, not really but Brismike does. I get accussed of ranting because I am left wing and most people here are right wing and have “traditional” views on non Europeans.
I love coins. Especially silver, gold and anything really old.
Member of the Royal Numismatic Society of New Zealand and the Auckland Numismatic Society
Please, let's stay focused on the topic of this thread: Niue's NCLT outpouring, and by extension all NCLT issues and whether they are anything more than a money-making scheme.
While our primary focus is on Niue, with over two new types per day (!!), I have been very critical of the Royal Canadian Mint and other mints and countries in this thread and elsewhere — almost from the day I joined Numista.
And yet, as I have stressed earlier in this thread, Canadian NCLT, however much I dislike it, displays subjects that are at least loosely connected with Canada. This is simply not the case with Niue.
Many non-circulating Canadian coins are of the same specifications as circulating coins so that they would be indistinguishable from other coins in a roll. Absolutely none of the coins of Niue — none — is of the same specifictions as their circulating currency (i.e. the $NZ).
Didn't take him long to go on another one of his rants did it?
How about answering some of the charges regarding Australia.
Of course I will go on a rant when people start insulting my country and its territories.
I mean you go on a rant when someone attacks Australia (Usually be deflecting or gaslighting).
Sargon, not really but Brismike does. I get accussed of ranting because I am left wing and most people here are right wing and have “traditional” views on non Europeans.
With all due respect, I don't think this reply helps your case. It does help me understand why you “ranted”, but I don't think it makes it sensible.
If you'll allow me to play armchair psychologist for a moment, I think you have something of an unhealthy “us vs. them” mindset, demonstrated by how you immediately assumed malicious intent based on a rather nebulous and ill-defined pair of political labels and what you interpret in the people here (which may not even be true, I can't imagine there's ever been a numista survey asking members their political affiliation). I was often guilty of the same sort of thinking when I was younger, so I can, to an extent, see where you're coming from, but that doesn't make it any less of a flawed position.
I've been watching and occasionally posting in this thread since it first went up, and not once did I ever see anything that seemed to indicate any ill will towards Niue or the Niuean people, or towards New Zealand for that matter. The object of criticism is the coins, and more specifically their designs, which, with a handful of exceptions, doesn't have anything to do with Niue as a country, and the few designs that do have barely been mentioned and haven't really been subject to any criticism, since those coins are going to be perfectly fine in the eyes of most people and not really too relevant to the overall conversation.
The reason why Niue is zeroed in on throughout is because it started off the conversation by racking up a massive KM count with these novelty coins in a few decades that surpasses more than four centuries of mintage from Austria that's almost entirely regular circulation coins; as well as the fact that unlike other countries with this issue like Canada, Niue is something of the “poster child” for this issue due to the sheer volume of these coins that are irrelevant to the country while Canada still at least keeps to mostly Canadian themes even with it's weirder output.
I think you may be reading too deeply into this, at the end of the day we aren't really talking about the countries themselves, but pieces of metal they attach their names to. I don't think criticism of what's ultimately a very minor decision by a few people in a country's government and an unrelated private minting company in a different country from a perspective that's pretty much all about aesthetics amounts to an insult against an entire country and its people, and I think it's a pretty extreme leap in logic to make.
Didn't take him long to go on another one of his rants did it?
How about answering some of the charges regarding Australia.
Of course I will go on a rant when people start insulting my country and its territories.
I mean you go on a rant when someone attacks Australia (Usually be deflecting or gaslighting).
Sargon, not really but Brismike does. I get accussed of ranting because I am left wing and most people here are right wing and have “traditional” views on non Europeans.
Didn't take him long to go on another one of his rants did it?
How about answering some of the charges regarding Australia.
Of course I will go on a rant when people start insulting my country and its territories.
I mean you go on a rant when someone attacks Australia (Usually be deflecting or gaslighting).
Sargon, not really but Brismike does. I get accussed of ranting because I am left wing and most people here are right wing and have “traditional” views on non Europeans.
Race = Race of people criticising Niuean coins = White
Race of people making, designing and selling Niuean coins = White
Race of Niuean people taking the flack for issuing these coins = Brown
Hence Brown people in a Brown country get blamed for the behaviour of greedy white people selling to fellow whites.
Same with Francophone Africa and West Indies, white people designing and sell coins, white people buying them, yet Black people and other people of colour get the blame and ridiculed.
That's racism and white supremacy in my book.
I love coins. Especially silver, gold and anything really old.
Member of the Royal Numismatic Society of New Zealand and the Auckland Numismatic Society
If you'll allow me to play armchair psychologist for a moment,
Remain in your armchair and rule Akkad and Ugarit peacefully.
I love coins. Especially silver, gold and anything really old.
Member of the Royal Numismatic Society of New Zealand and the Auckland Numismatic Society
Race = Race of people criticising Niuean coins = White
Race of people making, designing and selling Niuean coins = White
Race of Niuean people taking the flack for issuing these coins = Brown
Hence Brown people in a Brown country get blamed for the behaviour of greedy white people selling to fellow whites.
Same with Francophone Africa and West Indies, white people designing and sell coins, white people buying them, yet Black people and other people of colour get the blame and ridiculed.
That's racism and white supremacy in my book.
Hello Moneytane,
Will you allow me to reply respectfully to this? I just want to show you in what way I believe your argument is flawed. In order to do this I'll take myself as an example of the many collectors here on Numista and elsewhere who also criticize NCLTs. I'm sure others from other countries like Australia or the UK could do the same.
Is that OK with you?
Here we go. So, you have provided a line of argument in three parts which goes like this:
Race of people criticising Niuean coins = White
Race of people making, designing and selling Niuean coins = White
Race of Niuean people taking the flack for issuing these coins = Brown
As I said, I'll take my own experience to show you, I hope, where the argument is flawed. I belong to the race in the first and second lines of your argument, and I have criticized Niue's NCLTs in this thread, so I checkmark these two boxes — I'm granting you that. But I don't grant you the third line. I don't criticize the Niueans as such but rather their government decision-makers, and without consideration for their racial attributes. I criticize the profit-making scheme in which they take part. What's more, I have been a lot more critical of Power Coin and other such private profit-making mints — and those count as White in your argument (rightly so, though this could be nuanced). Not only that, I have been critical of Numista in this thread for being so complacent with this numismatic incontinence. I believe these are two counts (private mints + Numista) of criticism of “White” folks by your own standards, but if I'm wrong, please let me know.
To push the argument further, I'll now substitute “Canadian” for “Niuean” since I have been over the years a fierce critic of the RCM's toy-coins such as gold pennies, $3 square coins, Bugs Bunny coins, etc.:
Race of people criticising Canadian coins = White
Race of people making, designing and selling Canadian coins = White
Race of Canadian people taking the flack for issuing these coins = White
The reality is actually more nuanced than this, of course, but my point is to use the same criteria as you have done. Beside the Niuean/Canadian switch, only one other word changed: "White" instead of “Brown” on the right of the “=” sign on the third line. What does this mean? It means that the argument as you have it is flawed, because I criticize both Niue and Canada for their NCLTs, whether the race that is “taking the flack”, according to your termnology, is white or brown. My problem with NCLT incontinence is not about race but about an obvious marketing scheme that has nothing to do with Numismatics, yet pollutes almost every numismatic website — and many catalogues; likewise, numismatic publications such as Canadian Coin News, though most of the information remains centered on real coins and banknotes.
You have yourself often criticized what you call “bubblegum coins” and I entirely agree — I had never seen this term before you used it, but could understand right away what you meant! But my agreement with you has nothing to do with our respective racial identities. Rather, it has to do with the profit-making scheme —and not much else really— that these coins represent.
Now, I concede that I'm more critical of Niue than Canada, New Zealand, Australia, etc. when it comes to NCLT. This is because Niue (through Power Point and others) now produces close to 1000 NCLT issues per year. This is more than two issues per day, virtually none having anything to do with Niue's culture. This is insane and has nothing to do with Numismatics. What's more, as we saw earlier in the thread, the percentage of these revenues for Niue is well below half a percent of their total annual revenues. This is a negligible contribution to their economy. I suspect Power Point makes a lot more money out of this…
You have, over the years, displayed much knowledge, especially (but not exclusively) about coins from your part of the world and from the UK and the British Empire. To me, this is not associated with your racial identity. I do a lot of research, almost daily. Whatever the racial identity of the author I'm reading, what matters to me is whether he/she provides evidence for his/her arguments.
If you ever start a thread on Canadian NCLT, I'll probably be one of the first to reply — and certainly not to defend the RCM. I'm currently saving a lot of materials (i.e. evidence) of all sorts —academic articles, blogposts, news posts, also Numista threads— on the topic of NCLTs; I even buy coins and sets I wouldn't normally buy. That's also why this thread on Niue is quite interesting to me. For example, it gave me an incentive to look for the Niue legislation relevant to their NCLTs.
Well, I didn't expect to write this much. And again, I hope you'll take my arguments in the spirit in which they were written. If you disagree on anything, I'll be interested to know why.
Race = Race of people criticising Niuean coins = White
Race of people making, designing and selling Niuean coins = White
Race of Niuean people taking the flack for issuing these coins = Brown
Hence Brown people in a Brown country get blamed for the behaviour of greedy white people selling to fellow whites.
Same with Francophone Africa and West Indies, white people designing and sell coins, white people buying them, yet Black people and other people of colour get the blame and ridiculed.
That's racism and white supremacy in my book.
Mr. Tane, no one mentioned race (a concept that doesn't even really make sense, Niueans are Polynesians, not a vague “brown” category that would include thousands of distinct peoples across the world. Humans are not crayons.) at any point in this thread except you. I don't think anyone here cares about the skin color of whoever's making, buying, selling, or authorizing these coins. (and for that matter, we can't really generalize that every person involved in this has the same ethnic background. Unless you have seen every single person involved in production of these coins.)
We've only been talking about coins. It's as simple as that. Again, no one is talking poorly on Niue as a country or Niueans as a people. This is a coin website, not a website about politics or something. If I criticize the design of an Italian coin, it's not an indication of a deep loathing for Italians. If I criticize the design of a Ghanaian coin, it doesn't mean I have any ill will towards the good people of Ghana. The accusation here is especially outlandish since the designs in question have nothing at all to do with Niue, making them even more disconnected to the country.
If anything, this reflects poorly on you, because you're assuming malicious intent on people based on their (assumed) skin color (I don't think you know the ethnic background of everyone in this thread, and I think it would be absolutely out of line to assume a person is inherently prejudiced based on something as inconsequential as that.) rather than anything with substance.
I stand by my statements in the previous post, and I urge you to reflect on yourself and your worldview, because this really is a very psychologically unhealthy way to interact with the world. Camerinvs also makes great points you really should think on.
With the general decline of physical coinage (and a general decline in collectors, at least, anecdotally), I do understand why the national mints have to broaden their scope of production from a purely business perspective. And I do understand why some, typically poorer, nations sell those rights out. Even if it only adds a small amount of money into the coffers, it's money nonetheless. Some of us will see it in a hardline “selling out” perspective and some will see it as positive “savvy business” perspective, and everything in between.
Being able to create “coins” is certainly a unique selling point. Taking the Royal Mint's Star Wars series as a recent example.
If they were simply produced as non-coin tokens or fantasy currency, they probably wouldn't sell as well. The idea that it is a 50p coin, somehow, does make it more special. I guess because anyone could make a token, but only a licensed mint can make currency.
I'll freely admit I'm “elitist” about it, and no-one will ever convince me that any of the Star Wars issues are coins. To me, it's just a token masquerading as a coin.
I guess it comes down to the definition of a coin. A token with an agreed face value regardless of intrinsic composition is probably the simplest one, but then you get all the NCLTs which make it difficult to get to the actual circulation coins in a catalogue. As Niue, and a great many other nations, show the production of NCLTs outpaces “legitimate” coinage by orders of magnitude.
=====
And just my two pence on the “discrimination of Niue": I think it simply a case of they are probably the most prolific of the NCLT distributors but also allow incredibly obvious “not coin" shapes. You've got statuettes, 3D sculptures, character/object silhouettes and so on.
At least the Star Wars 50p are in the traditional 50p shape. As I said earlier, I still hold the belief they aren't real coins but at least they're attempting to retain a veneer of looking like normal coins.
Niue let that veneer ship sail a long time ago.
I don't believe the argument is against Niue directly, it's more they're one if the most obvious “offenders”, for lack of words. The poster child, the most well-known, a prime example. If a total new collector looked at the catalogue, they'd quickly understand this thread's overall discussion.
It could've easily been many nations, and it seems most people apply their rules/definitions reasonably equally. I'm just as happy to bash the Royal Mint as I am Niue's mint(s). I might not have as much to complain about with the RM (because of the veneer effect), but I'll still complain about them nonetheless.
Race = Race of people criticising Niuean coins = White
Race of people making, designing and selling Niuean coins = White
Race of Niuean people taking the flack for issuing these coins = Brown
Hence Brown people in a Brown country get blamed for the behaviour of greedy white people selling to fellow whites.
Same with Francophone Africa and West Indies, white people designing and sell coins, white people buying them, yet Black people and other people of colour get the blame and ridiculed.
That's racism and white supremacy in my book.
Moneytane, I am not white. I am Brown and still freely critiquing what is an obvious moneygrab scheme that hurts the hobby as the rest of us are. Race was not a factor in this conversation at all, and I do not let this affect my view of the people of the region, the same way I do not let the NCLT African Francs colour my views of the people of the region, or the abysmal overpriced issues often brought about by the Royal or Royal Canadian Mint - them being white nations - colour my views of the people of those realms. None of us are trying to express hate of a Polynesian people based off their government's greed.
Race = Race of people criticising Niuean coins = White
Race of people making, designing and selling Niuean coins = White
Race of Niuean people taking the flack for issuing these coins = Brown
Hence Brown people in a Brown country get blamed for the behaviour of greedy white people selling to fellow whites.
Same with Francophone Africa and West Indies, white people designing and sell coins, white people buying them, yet Black people and other people of colour get the blame and ridiculed.
That's racism and white supremacy in my book.
Moneytane, I am not white. I am Brown and still freely critiquing what is an obvious moneygrab scheme that hurts the hobby as the rest of us are. Race was not a factor in this conversation at all, and I do not let this affect my view of the people of the region, the same way I do not let the NCLT African Francs colour my views of the people of the region, or the abysmal overpriced issues often brought about by the Royal or Royal Canadian Mint - them being white nations - colour my views of the people of those realms. None of us are trying to express hate of a Polynesian people based off their government's greed.
Lets leave politics out of coins . It is a hassle collecting multiple “Mickey Mouse ” issues whichever country issues such coins. Even Government Mints are overtly making money by minting such cartoon coins - UK, Australia, Canada, are examples For others - its private mints which go haywire - like in case of Jersey, GUernsey , In African countries even the sanction to mint coins from the respective government is dubious as I investigated in case of Somalia and Burkina Faso-, All coins minted by the private “Africa mint ” are fantasies ( I fell in their trap inn the early years of the millennium till another collector showed me the background) , even in case of Niue not sure if the local government actually authorises these coins)… Its up to the cataloger to see if the respective government consent to private mint is genuine -if so such coins are NCLT and if the consent to mint is fake then the coins are fantasy issues . I collect only circulating commemoratives and circulation coins except 1 each from countries which do not issue circulation coins like Niger etc . Its a major cataloging challenge classifying coins as circulation commemoratives or NCLT or fantasy (especially between circulation comms and NCLT and a lot of research is needed) . Even in numista -catalog many NCLTs get classified as circulating commemoratives even when the photo shows the coins is sold packaged or above face value.
Its a major cataloging challenge classifying coins as circulation commemoratives or NCLT or fantasy (especially between circulation comms and NCLT and a lot of research is needed).Even in numista -catalog many NCLTs get classified as circulating commemoratives even when the photo shows the coins is sold packaged or above face value.
Here is an interesting example of an Australian coin that is both Circulating Commemorative and NCLT.
This is the NCLT packaged version that was sold at a premium price of AU$15. These now sell on Ebay for AU$150 or more!
Only 30,891 of these were minted.
This was the packaging that the premium priced coin was sold in.
This is the same coin that was released into Circulation at face value. You can still pick them up from Circulation at face value.
3.4 Million of these were issued into Circulation.
Can you see any difference between the 2 versions? It is very minor but quite significant considering the price differential.
Because the coins share the same Numista page it is listed as a Circulating Commemorative. I have shown the Circulating version as an Example at the bottom of the N# 140105 Coin page mentioned above.
You are right, Cataloging Coins on Numista is a major Challenge, but we do have a good team of Referees and Catalogue Admins to make sure this is the best coin Website on Earth. 😁
Mike
Master Referee - See my profile for what I collect.
Race = Race of people criticising Niuean coins = White
Race of people making, designing and selling Niuean coins = White
Race of Niuean people taking the flack for issuing these coins = Brown
Hence Brown people in a Brown country get blamed for the behaviour of greedy white people selling to fellow whites.
Same with Francophone Africa and West Indies, white people designing and sell coins, white people buying them, yet Black people and other people of colour get the blame and ridiculed.
That's racism and white supremacy in my book.
To quote an old scouse saying ”what a load of bollox” collectors like me do not buy novelty issues because they are pure and simply junk. This can be qualified by my refusal to buy the Westminster junk issues for the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man even though it has ruined my date run of coins from those places. Niue, Palau, Somalia, and to a lesser extent Canada and Australia produce some garbage in the guise of coins. Bugger all to do with race mate
This is the NCLT packaged version that was sold at a premium price of AU$15. These now sell on Ebay for AU$150 or more!
Only 30,891 of these were minted.
This was the packaging that the premium priced coin was sold in.
This is the same coin that was released into Circulation at face value. You can still pick them up from Circulation at face value.
3.4 Million of these were issued into Circulation.
Can you see any difference between the 2 versions? It is very minor but quite significant considering the price differential.
Because the coins share the same Numista page it is listed as a Circulating Commemorative. I have shown the Circulating version as an Example at the bottom of the N# 140105 Coin page mentioned above.
Yes, it's an interesting example. We have the same situation in Canada where some non-circulating coins are identical with circulating coins in their specifications except for higher quality finish and, sometimes, for a mintmark (e.g. “W” normally never seen in circulation). Here, I suspect the only difference between the two coins is the finish.
Now, are these AU $2 considered NCLT? It depends on how one defines “NCLT” and I couldn't find this term on the RAM site when I checked a few months ago. If the non-circulating coin was mistakenly released into circulation, it would become a circulating coin. No-one would turn it down like they would be entitled to turn down an oddly shaped chicken-wing clown-coin. It will be accepted by a vending machine and “melt in” with her $2 sisters and brothers in a roll (assuming the roll contains some Charles “brother” coins).
The same would be true, I suppose, for any years of NZ circulation coins that were released only as non-circulating in small quantity. Few people would know that the 2017 NZ 50¢ was never released for circulation if they got one in their change (all other years 2014–2020 were released as circulating). This situation is much less frequent in Canada but in 1997–1998 no 25¢ coin was issued for circulation. No-one is aware of this except some collectors. No-one would be intrigued if they got a 1997 caribou quarter in their change except some collectors.
As I'm writing this, I see rsirian1's post about the US going full NCLT… I don't know the US policy about NCLT, but every state should adopt something like the EU's policy (you're aware of it if you've checked the “Recent Additions” thread this month). If your Euro coin is a 2€, it is a circulation coin. If it's a 1.5€ or a 10€, it is not a circulation coin. Note these policies about Collector Coins:
Face value different from coins intended for circulation
Technical specifications should significantly differ from those of the circulation coins for at least two of the following three characteristics: colour, diameter and weight
I suppose NZ wouldn't allow Niue or any other states in the NZ$ zone to create NCLT that is identical to circulating NZ coins since Niue has relinquished the authority to issue circulating coins. If so, this should be in the NZ legislation somewhere.
The new series will feature nine iconic superheroes depicted on 24-karat gold coins, .999 fine silver medals, and non-precious metal (clad) medals. Debuting in summer 2025 with Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman, the three-year series will include six additional DC characters—three each in 2026 and 2027.
So coins (NCLTs) will be gold and non-coins (medals) won't be gold. I haven't found anything yet about the denomination(s) of the coins.
If I was a mint marketing person, I would argue for “double eagle, eagle, half- and quarter-eagle” with the corresponding face values ($20→$2.50). This would create a connection with the past.
But if I was a collector of US gold coins, which I'm not (I only have an 1851 gold dollar), then that's the last thing I would want because it degrades the historical value of that terminology.
This one on the left is the NCLT packaged version that was sold at a premium price of AU$15.
The one on the right is the same coin that was released into Circulation at face value. You can still pick them up from Circulation at face value.
Can you see any difference between the 2 versions? It is very minor but quite significant considering the price differential.
Because the coins share the same Numista page it is listed as a Circulating Commemorative.
Yes, it's an interesting example. We have the same situation in Canada where some non-circulating coins are identical with circulating coins in their specifications except for higher quality finish and, sometimes, for a mintmark (e.g. “W” normally never seen in circulation). Here, I suspect the only difference between the two coins is the finish.
Now, are these AU $2 considered NCLT? It depends on how one defines “NCLT” and I couldn't find this term on the RAM site when I checked a few months ago. If the non-circulating coin was mistakenly released into circulation, it would become a circulating coin.
Looks like you didn't spot the difference between them. The left one has a letter “C” at the top left of the coin on the reverse side. It is the Canberra Mintmark. The “C” Mintmarked coin is definitely NCLT. It is issued as a Non Circulating coin in special packaging but it is Legal Tender. You could spend it in a shop or vending machine. It would be possible to find one in circulation but you would have more chance winning the lottery. 🤪
The other one is a Circulating coin easily picked up at a bank, in a roll or in general change. But apart from that tiny letter “C” they are identical. So they go on the same Numista Page and the coin gets classed as a Circulating one.
Mike
Master Referee - See my profile for what I collect.
Race = Race of people criticising Niuean coins = White
Race of people making, designing and selling Niuean coins = White
Race of Niuean people taking the flack for issuing these coins = Brown
Hence Brown people in a Brown country get blamed for the behaviour of greedy white people selling to fellow whites.
Same with Francophone Africa and West Indies, white people designing and sell coins, white people buying them, yet Black people and other people of colour get the blame and ridiculed.
That's racism and white supremacy in my book.
To quote an old scouse saying ”what a load of bollox” collectors like me do not buy novelty issues because they are pure and simply junk. This can be qualified by my refusal to buy the Westminster junk issues for the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man even though it has ruined my date run of coins from those places. Niue, Palau, Somalia, and to a lesser extent Canada and Australia produce some garbage in the guise of coins. Bugger all to do with race mate
The biggest issue in westminister junk issue is the Isle of Man as under HOuse of Keys regulation 0.05% of the fancy coins are put in circulation via banks (though only select dealers get hold of them) , That makes the coins circulating commemoratives forcing me to collect them and spending huge sums in buying them and customs duty as they usually come packaged. Guernsey and Jersey come under NCLT so I can safely not collect them.
Looks like you didn't spot the difference between them. The left one has a letter “C” at the top left of the coin on the reverse side. It is the Canberra Mintmark. The “C” Mintmarked coin is definitely NCLT. It is issued as a Non Circulating coin in special packaging but it is Legal Tender. You could spend it in a shop or vending machine. It would be possible to find one in circulation but you would have more chance winning the lottery. 🤪
The other one is a Circulating coin easily picked up at a bank, in a roll or in general change. But apart from that tiny letter “C” they are identical. So they go on the same Numista Page and the coin gets classed as a Circulating one.
I can't believe I missed that! I was on a small screen, though, and I assumed that the lack of light reflection on the left-hand coin was just because of the photo…
It's very similar to our “W” coins. For a few years, the Winnipeg Mint struck some collector sets beside the circulation coins. Since collector coins were normally struck in the old Ottawa Mint, they added a “W” to distinguish them from the Ottawa issues (which have no mintmarks).
Now, this multiplication of circulation and collector finishes and mintmarks makes it hard to get things straight. Look at these five lines in the catalogue for the Canadian $1 coin ("loonie") 1990–2003:
No 2000-dated loonie was issued for circulation (though I got my 2000W in my change). We have here three different finishes: “Brilliant Uncirculated” , “Prooflike”, and “Proof” but I think it's wrong. Prooflike is not an official designation for Canadian coins. When one says “prooflike” the Mint says “brilliant uncirculated”. I'm pretty sure the two “Prooflike” lines should be removed and the data transferred to “Brilliant uncirculated”. Now, I said “I'm pretty sure”, so I'm not 100% sure. Do I feel now like doing the research to disprove a negative, i.e. that “prooflike” is a ghost and doesnt' exist? Well… no… at least not right now.
EDIT — I don't have my most recent Charlton catalogue at hand, but in the 2010 there are four categories of grade: MS-63 to 65 (circulating), MS-65 to 67 (non-circ), SP-66 and 67, and PR-67 and 68 (UHC, whatever that means). As you can see, no prooflike. The 2000 W loonie is also N.I.I. = not issued individually. The lowest grade for it is MS-65 NC.
EDIT 2 — UHC = Ultra Heavy Cameo.
shamikb
The biggest issue in Westminister junk issue is the Isle of Man as under House of Keys regulation 0.05% of the fancy coins are put in circulation via banks (though only select dealers get hold of them). That makes the coins circulating commemoratives, forcing me to collect them and spending huge sums in buying them and customs duty as they usually come packaged.
That's quite interesting and very similar to the first issue of Montreal Olympic $5 and $10 silver coins in 1973. Some of them were distributed free of any packaging and at face value through the banks (all the rest were in indivudual capsules or in sets of four coins in capsules). For this reason they are considered circulating in the Charlton catalogue, but all subsequent issues until 1976 are considered non-circulating. Interestingly, they don't fall under the RCM Act; they are regulated by the Olympic Act 1976.
Its true, Australian coin collectors go in for privy marks on what looks like a circulating commemorative. Even the rarest of all the coloured $2 coins, the 2012 red poppy is now $400 in circulation state and $900 or more with the carded version, which had the small C privy mark.
Australian coins also can have P and M mintmarks as well on them and often the packaging can be released and reprinted for coin fairs in each state. The Renniks catalogues have pages devoted to privy marks on Australian coins.
I still agree, New Zealand itself could issue more affordable commemoratives and not just overpriced stuff that sells a few hundred as nearly no one can be bothered. I think Australia has always been more commercial and capitalist with coins than New Zealand, which is really a lazy and socialistic response of “money for the peoples” only.
Sadly the word “lazy” sums up New Zealand well, things move slowly here, its too laid back “Anymore and we would be in a coma” and that is why the world has taken us by. I mean Xmas holidays here drag on into February,
I love coins. Especially silver, gold and anything really old.
Member of the Royal Numismatic Society of New Zealand and the Auckland Numismatic Society
Its true, Australian coin collectors go in for privy marks on what looks like a circulating commemorative. Even the rarest of all the coloured $2 coins, the 2012 red poppy is now $400 in circulation state and $900 or more with the carded version, which had the small C privy mark.
Australian coins also can have P and M mintmarks as well on them and often the packaging can be released and reprinted for coin fairs in each state. The Renniks catalogues have pages devoted to privy marks on Australian coins.
I still agree, New Zealand itself could issue more affordable commemoratives and not just overpriced stuff that sells a few hundred as nearly no one can be bothered. I think Australia has always been more commercial and capitalist with coins than New Zealand, which is really a lazy and socialistic response of “money for the peoples” only.
Sadly the word “lazy” sums up New Zealand well, things move slowly here, its too laid back “Anymore and we would be in a coma” and that is why the world has taken us by. I mean Xmas holidays here drag on into February,
I do not agree that New Zealanders are lazy- taking cricket and rugby into account!
Its true, Australian coin collectors go in for privy marks on what looks like a circulating commemorative. Even the rarest of all the coloured $2 coins, the 2012 red poppy is now $400 in circulation state and $900 or more with the carded version, which had the small C privy mark.
Australian coins also can have P and M mintmarks as well on them and often the packaging can be released and reprinted for coin fairs in each state. The Renniks catalogues have pages devoted to privy marks on Australian coins.
I still agree, New Zealand itself could issue more affordable commemoratives and not just overpriced stuff that sells a few hundred as nearly no one can be bothered. I think Australia has always been more commercial and capitalist with coins than New Zealand, which is really a lazy and socialistic response of “money for the peoples” only.
Sadly the word “lazy” sums up New Zealand well, things move slowly here, its too laid back “Anymore and we would be in a coma” and that is why the world has taken us by. I mean Xmas holidays here drag on into February,
I do not agree that New Zealanders are lazy- taking cricket and rugby into account!
Cricket and rugby don't take much effort.
Planning an effective coin issuing department does. Having our colonies run rings around us in the junk issuing department is humiliating as the NZ govt has no hand and no influence in these superfluous coin issues in Niue, the Cook Islands and our other colony of Tokelau. The coin programmes are handled by foreign bad actors (I suspect Americans or some continental Europeans are).
They call it “Free Association”, but in reality its colonialism as the natives all speak English and can live here rather than their home island. Plus even with the UN forcing us to make the countries independent, referendums always see the place siding with us, mainly as they would go broke without our money and subsidy and we even let them run off to foreign bad actors for producing non circulating coins and stamps (Philatelic collector, an odious New York led agency produces wallpaper stamps for the Cooks).
All of these places use our currency for their own needs, NZ banknotes circulate in all 3 colonies (Niue, Cooks, Tokelau), and coins also, but the Cooks have their own coins too - still NZ ones circulate as well. Part of the reason most tourists there come from NZ, is there is no foreign exchange, the money in your wallet is usable there and usually wanted as there is usually a shortage of currency. After all they are not as digital with money as we are.
It would be better if our country, had its own mint which produced our circulation coinage and notes, along with coins for colonial territories and all commemorative coins for all our colonia.
I love coins. Especially silver, gold and anything really old.
Member of the Royal Numismatic Society of New Zealand and the Auckland Numismatic Society
Thanks for bringing up these very interesting interviews! We would need a concrete definition of what “pseudo-coins” are though. The interviews show that there are different point of view on this topic. Not all NCLTs are made equal.
Thanks for bringing up these very interesting interviews! We would need a concrete definition of what “pseudo-coins” are though. The interviews show that there are different point of view on this topic. Not all NCLTs are made equal.
Thanks for taking an interest! I did find later the WoC “official” definition (not much help I'm afraid):
Pseudo coin Also: Non-circulating legal tender - NCLT, denomination-bearing medal or medal coin. Medal with a nominal value, very often legal tender, that cannot be used as money. Pseudo coins are generally issued at a price over their nominal value or their denomination is higher (or the same) as a circulating banknote. Pseudo coins are normally marketed, while circulation coins are never marketed (but sometimes explained to the public). German: Pseudomünze Dutch: pseudomunt, Russian: псевдомонета.
I think we can do better but the phrase “that cannot be used as money” is promising. I expect @Camerinvs will be weighing in soon.
rsirian1 sent me via DM this page of definitions at World of Coins. Here is “pseudo coin” (I would prefer the hyphenated spelling “pseudo-coin”):
Pseudo coin Also: Non-circulating legal tender - NCLT, denomination-bearing medal or medal coin. Medal with a nominal value, very often legal tender, that cannot be used as money. Pseudo coins are generally issued at a price over their nominal value or their denomination is higher (or the same) as a circulating banknote. Pseudo coins are normally marketed, while circulation coins are never marketed (but sometimes explained to the public). German: Pseudomünze Dutch: pseudomunt, Russian: псевдомонета.
We both agree that this definition is rather confused and disappointing. I'm sure Numista could build on this and come up with something better.
EDIT — “weighing in soon” (rsirian1) — so soon that our messages criss crossed…
That's not far from our current definition of “Non-circulating coins”.
Coins issued by a government with collection or investment purpose, including non-circulating legal tender coins (NCLT). They were not intended for circulation. The coins are denominated in a currency which has some circulating coins or banknotes.
Coins issued by a government with collection or investment purpose, including non-circulating legal tender coins (NCLT). They were not intended for circulation. The coins are denominated in a currency which has some circulating coins or banknotes.
Coins issued by a government for collection or investment purpose. They were not intended for circulation. The coins are denominated in a currency which doesn’t have circulating coins or banknotes.
To take the polity I know best, Canada since Confederation, there are currently no “Collector Coins” in the catalogue, though we have a plethora of face values that do not circulate in any shape or form, from 3 cents (perhaps even 2 cents??) to $15 and $350 to $1,000,000 and many, many more in between…
So, it's either that the coins in those face values should be transferred to being of the “Collector Coins” type, or else that the distinction between the two is artificial.
Arguing for this last possibility is a pseudo-coin such as this gold-plated silver “penny” (smh). It's a cent, therefore in a face value that actually circulated in the recent past, until 2013 (which is still legal tender up to 25 cents). In addition, the Queen's fourth portrait and the maple twig are readily recognizable. It is, however, in a precious metal and huge in diameter: 65.25 mm (real penny = 19.05 mm). I see also that it was released by Power Coin?? So, where this fits is unclear according to the current definitions.
In other threads I noticed that the European Commission has a very sensible policy, i.e. that Collector Coins cannot be in a circulating face value, but this leaves sets of circulating coins in numismatic finish (e.g. proof) for collectors, in the category (I think) of circulating coins. The Numista definition seems in line with this distinction.
Now take New Zealand. Circulating coins are released only in certain years. For the other years they issue only sets, but this distinction is not currently possible (or at least not obvious) in searching the catalogue. These PL or Proof coins, I suppose, would fall in the “Non-Circulating” category, if I'm not mistaken.
I believe there are two conditions that set this type of coin “from” Niue and other similar countries apart from other NCLTs are:
1. They cannot be used as money in the country whose name is on the coin. I'm not talking about bartering silver for bubble gum but actually being able to use them as currency.
2. The country whose name is on the coin has virtually no input into the design, production, distribution and profit (except for a small fee).
I believe there are two conditions that set this type of coin “from” Niue and other similar countries apart from other NCLTs are:
1. They cannot be used as money in the country whose name is on the coin. I'm not talking about bartering silver for bubble gum but actually being able to use them as currency.
2. The country whose name is on the coin has virtually no input into the design, production, distribution and profit (except for a small fee).
I agree that these characteristics are typical for similar coins. Following the second point, I would also add that they are usually not offered to collectors by any official entity within the “issuing” country (like the national bank, mint shop, or some shop which acts as an official seller for the national bank) and they can only be obtained outside its territory. Or the other way, most countries distribute their own NCLTs through such official channels, at least in Europe. Don't know about the situation in the Americas, Australia or Asia though.
I agree that these characteristics are typical for similar coins. Following the second point, I would also add that they are usually not offered to collectors by any official entity within the “issuing” country (like the national bank, mint shop, or some shop which acts as an official seller for the national bank) and they can only be obtained outside its territory. Or the other way, most countries distribute their own NCLTs through such official channels, at least in Europe. Don't know about the situation in the Americas, Australia or Asia though.
Yes, excellent points. Thank you. The US mints designs and makes all US NCLT's and all are offered for sale by the Mint. I believe Australia and Canada are the same. Would have to look at the Asian countries to confirm.
It might be difficult to rely on these non-intrinsic factors (degree of involvement of national institutions, distribution channels) to categorize coins on Numista, as such information is rarely readily available.
Also, I would not rely only on the distinction between national mints and private mints. Coins such as N#332619 should also be considered as pseudo coins in my opinion.
I like the idea of the interviewer on the WOC page that pseudo coins are actually medals with a denomination on them because modern collectors are more inclined to buy coins than medals.
A proposal suggested previously on the forum was to distinguish NCLTs that have the same physical characteristics (shape, size, weight, composition) as circulating coins from NLCTs that have different characteristics.
If we follow this suggestion, we could change our categories as follows:
Standard circulation coins Coins intended for circulation.
Circulating commemorative coins Coins intended for circulation and issued during one year or very few years for commemorative purpose.
Non-circulating coins Coins issued by a government for collection or investment purpose, featuring the same physical characteristics (shape, size, weight, composition) as circulating coins.
Pseudo coins Coins issued by a government for collection or investment purposes, featuring physical characteristics that differ from those of circulating coins.
With these new definitions, all current “collector coins” would be categorized as “pseudo coins” and many current “non-circulating coins” would be re-categorized as “pseudo coins”, including probably all coins from Niue. The category “non-circulating coins” would probably become quite small.
My only concern would be that many coin types have some year lines for circulation coins and some year lines that are non-circulating, mainly because the coins are issued in proof finish or because some years are issued only in mint sets. The new definition of the “non-circulating coins” category would somehow conflict with our approach to group all year lines on a single page per coin type.
That's a good start. I suppose the categories can be refined or expanded (hopefully as little as possible) as no doubt there will be coins that don't fit the model. For example:
Many countries such as Canada have silver or gold versions of circulating coins. Under the proposed categorization, they would be pseudo coins. I'm not sure I entirely agree with placing them in the same category as the Niuean chicken wing or fez-sporting turkey [holy *** — I wrote this before seeing Xavier's link in his second message…].
The Canadian 1967 gold S20… Here again I don't know that “pseudo coin” is really the best way to describe it.
Where a series includes both Circulating and Non-Circulating (e.g. the 2009 issue on this NZ page), then we would have to re-categorize such pages as Circulating & Non-circulating, and then tag each line accordingly.
Niuean chicken wing or fez-sporting turkey [holy *** — I wrote this before seeing Xavier's link in his second message…].
Shall we organize an “Ig-Nobel” equivalent for the Coin of The Year? It could be fun to vote for the worst coins of the year in different categories 🤣. I guess the turkey would have a chance to win!
I believe that the current distinction between “Non circulating” and “Collector” is sufficient for the catalog. If these Niuean issues are legally not money, but are still officially issued by the government, then they should just be classified as “Collector.” I believe that adding “Pseudo-coins” would simply confuse users for no real benefit.
Master Coin Referee
Coin referee for CRI, GTM, HND, NIC, PAN, and SLV.
Revisor principal de monedas
Revisor de Numista para monedas de CRI, GTM, HND, NIC, PAN y SLV.
I believe that the current distinction between “Non circulating” and “Collector” is sufficient for the catalog. If these Niuean issues are legally not money, but are still officially issued by the government, then they should just be classified as “Collector.” I believe that adding “Pseudo-coins” would simply confuse users for no real benefit.
I've already proposed exactly that. The current definition precludes including them (at least that was what I was told).
The coins are denominated in a currency which doesn’t have circulating coins or banknotes.
Non-circulating coins Coins issued by a government with collection or investment purpose, including non-circulating legal tender coins (NCLT). They were not intended for circulation, but can be deposited at private financial institutions, redeemed for their face value by the issuing government, or used to pay public debts.
Collector coins Coins issued by a government for collection or investment purpose. They were not intended for circulation. The coins cannot be redeemed or used at any financial institution or by the issuing government.
Master Coin Referee
Coin referee for CRI, GTM, HND, NIC, PAN, and SLV.
Revisor principal de monedas
Revisor de Numista para monedas de CRI, GTM, HND, NIC, PAN y SLV.
Niuean chicken wing or fez-sporting turkey [holy *** — I wrote this before seeing Xavier's link in his second message…].
Shall we organize an “Ig-Nobel” equivalent for the Coin of The Year? It could be fun to vote for the worst coins of the year in different categories 🤣. I guess the turkey would have a chance to win!
Yes!! — We just have to remind everyone it's for fun and no-one should feel attacked or offended if their country is a contender. This has unfortunately happened in the past, but I'm telling you right now if some RCM pseudo-numismatic regurgitation is on the list, I'll be OK with it!
I agree I like Pseudo coin as a descriptor for these type of issues. But I like Bubblegum coins too, especially for cheaper NCLT like Australian $1 and $2 coins.
You know with a name like “Power coin” its sole purpose is overpriced collectibles that have no relevance to country of issue (Flyspeck Caribbean or Pacific Island or banana republic in Africa, poor parts of Asia or Latin America).
The stamp equivalent is “Wallpaper stamps” - these are stamps of a country that has no relevance or use for them, like stamps of Donald Trump for Liberia and Sarah Leone. Or the numerous tide of Elvis Presley, Madelyn Munroe, Mickey Mouse and Diama stamps for places like Tuvalu, Grenadines of St Vincent, St Kitts and Nevis, Guinea, Chad (Although English speaking countries are preferred as most collectors of thematic stamps and coins are overrich and not very bright Americans and Brits, you still get Francophone ones and inscriptions like “Gitare d Elvis” and “L eme 20th sicele de Marilyn Monroe premiere starre d moviques Americain”) from Chad and Republique du Togo. They are published by American agencies like IGPC (Run by American investors) and Stamperija - all the cheap drawn stuff from Lithuania. Stamperija do really poor countries like Solomon Islands and Guinea Bissau, and have some tasteless topics on their wallpaper stamps like Nazi war dogs, Zika babies smiling, Porno stars with Gorillas and Covid celebartion sheets. They also issue illegal stamps along with notorious Russian company Topnimarka which issues pro communist themes for 3rd world countries like Papua New Guinea and Mozambique.
Quality Stamperija products - coming soon to Pseudo coins near you. They are so bad I have had to censor some of the art.
So Pseudo coin makers use countries like Fiji and Niue to issue rubbish as they are small and poor and always have their currency made by larger powers.
I love coins. Especially silver, gold and anything really old.
Member of the Royal Numismatic Society of New Zealand and the Auckland Numismatic Society
Non-circulating coins Coins issued by a government with collection or investment purpose, including non-circulating legal tender coins (NCLT). They were not intended for circulation, but can be deposited at private financial institutions, redeemed for their face value by the issuing government, or used to pay public debts.
Collector coins Coins issued by a government for collection or investment purpose. They were not intended for circulation. The coins cannot be redeemed or used at any financial institution or by the issuing government.
I (obviously) think coins like the Niue ones should not be in the same type as NCLTs put out by countries like the US, Australia, Canada, etc. but the difficulty is defining a type that separates them. Your collector coin definition is on the right track but as we learned earlier under certain circumstances Niue coins can be redeemed for real money.
As judges used to say about pornographic films when sentencing distributors of pornography, “I can't define it but I know it when I see it.”
What was not addressed in that article was why so much of Numismaster's resources are spent on registering every Niue coin with a KM number but are still playing catch up on many countries standard circulation coins from previous years. 850 new coins with images to the website for the first month, with roughly half of that amount coming from Niue So Niue 425 and the rest of the world 425? Isn't the reason obvious?
What was not addressed in that article was why so much of Numismaster's resources are spent on registering every Niue coin with a KM number but are still playing catch up on many countries standard circulation coins from previous years. 850 new coins with images to the website for the first month, with roughly half of that amount coming from Niue So Niue 425 and the rest of the world 425? Isn't the reason obvious?
The private mint would be informing AIM regularly to update Niue on Numismaster while other updates depends on contributors
What was not addressed in that article was why so much of Numismaster's resources are spent on registering every Niue coin with a KM number but are still playing catch up on many countries standard circulation coins from previous years. 850 new coins with images to the website for the first month, with roughly half of that amount coming from Niue So Niue 425 and the rest of the world 425? Isn't the reason obvious?
The private mint would be informing AIM regularly to update Niue on Numismaster while other updates depends on contributors
Thanks. Is that your guess or do you know that for a fact? Niue coins are made by 5 to 10 different mints.
When I was briefly an admin for Fiji, I remembered that I got many requests from 2 or 3 vociferous members demanding I add every new Pseudo coin fast (Fiji issues a lot of crap too, not as much as Niue, but a lot) and it seemed they thought their pseudo crap was more important that regular currency. That is why I resigned as a referee as one member (An American) got pushy to the point of harassment.
Perhaps if referees were allowed to place Pseudo coins and NCLT coins at bottom of priority before more important and worthy coins, we would not have that issue.
Better yet, we refuse to list excessive rubbish coins after a certain date, or if we feel the coin is not used or known enough to have its own page. Stamp Catalogues do this with “Appendix Issues” like a range of 1970s “Sand Dunes” stamps which were cheaply printed wallpaper stamps from places like Khor Fukhan, Dhufar, Ajman and Manama (Now all UAE) that were never there and other scams like the 1980s Leader of the World series for various Tuvaluan Islets and Grenadines of Grenada.
It helps when “Stamps of the world” was one volume of 800 pages in 1970, but now is 8 volumes of similar size due to wallpaper from Caribbean flyspeck Islands, Guyana, Ghana, Tuvalu, Guinea etc on Marilyn Monroe, Elvis, Obama, Mickey Mouse and Trump.
We could have appendix coins, where the name and value of coin is listed along with year and nothing else, unless the owner of such a coin writes the page themselves.
PS: I mention the Stanley Gibbons catalogues - which are for the British world not American Scotts which list all the crap apparently.
Everything I write and mention reflects my proud status as a British subject and thus different from the American orbit. I am very much a Redcoat and always will be.
I love coins. Especially silver, gold and anything really old.
Member of the Royal Numismatic Society of New Zealand and the Auckland Numismatic Society
Everytime you think Niue has hit rock bottom, someone throws them a shovel.
That “coin” is beyond comment, the 1990s Chinese Year thing just needs to end.
I love coins. Especially silver, gold and anything really old.
Member of the Royal Numismatic Society of New Zealand and the Auckland Numismatic Society
Everytime you think Niue has hit rock bottom, someone throws them a shovel.
That “coin” is beyond comment, the 1990s Chinese Year thing just needs to end.
And once they hit the bedrock, China steps in with a Diamond pickax.
Numismaster is aware of the issue. They will evaluating all the coins seriously, Had a word .
Please tell us more. You told them to stop assigning KM numbers to Niue coins and they said, OK?
I did not refer to Niue alone as I referred to several countries and unauthorised private mint issues. They said they are aware and evaluating this . Obviously they will not go by my inputs alone but consult other contributors /experts before taking any decision
Well then, thanks!!! Unfortunately I think they were just being polite as I can't imagine them adding 1,600 KM numbers for one country in 2 years doesn't somehow help with them staying out of bankruptcy. But we can hope.
I still think Numista needs to take the lead and reclassify these items regardless of KM number or not.
BTW, in one way or the other Niue has authorized these private companies to produce these items so “unauthorized” does not really apply here.
I still think Numista needs to take the lead and reclassify these items regardless of KM number or not.
Indeed — “take the lead”. The lack of a bold response by other major players is, I would argue, a golden opportunity for Numista to show the way ahead, to take the lead.
What lead are you expecting? We won't stop assigning N# number for Niue coins. We want to catalogue every numismatic item. Whether I personally like these coins or not is not relevant. Each person is free to contribute to the part of the catalogue they like.
I'm happy to hear proposals about how to reclassify them. The production of NCLT coins exploded in the recent years, but it's nothing new. Niue is just the new Isle of Man on a bigger scale. Making a new category based on criteria such as how much the sovereign country was involved, or whether the coin is minted by a foreign private mint, won't give meaningful results in my opinion.
Would you be in favour of adjusting our definition of “collector coins”, so that Niue coins become “collector coins” instead of “non-circulating coins”? I guess it could be done, but I don't see what problem we are solving with that.
My comment was, “I still think Numista needs to take the lead and reclassify these items regardless of KM number or not.” I previously proposed the Pseudo Coin Classification putting them out of Non-circulating coins and into Collector Coins. That's the lead I was suggesting. No one suggested not adding these objects to the Numista catalog.
Coins issued by a government for collection or investment purpose and not intended for circulation. The value of the material used to make the coin at the time of minting far exceeds the denomination of the coin. The coins are denominated in a currency which has some circulating coins or banknotes.
It would be a non-circulating coin. I agree with that. So there would be 109 non-circulating coins and 6,997 pseudo coins from Niue in the Numista catalog.
Do you have evidence about what is the currency of the Niue coins? The currency ‘Niue dollar’ is mentioned sometimes, as well as ‘New Zealand dollar’. If it's indeed Niue dollar, we don't even need to change our definition to classify them as ‘Collector coins’, since there is no circulating coin or banknote denominated in Niue dollar.
It would be a non-circulating coin. I agree with that. So there would be 109 non-circulating coins and 6,997 pseudo coins from Niue in the Numista catalog.
I find weird that you would restrict the category ‘pseudo coins’ to silver, gold and platinum coins only.
I had the understanding (from others input in this post) that the New Zealand dollar was the currency of all the Niue coins. That was the sticking point calling them Legal Tender.
Restricting them to precious metal was a compromise for me. There needs to be a rigid definition. It's not like in the US in the late 20th century when Judges would sentence people for making pornographic material. When asked to define pornography the reply would be, “I can't define it but I know it when I see it.”
I really didn't want to put the US ASE in the Pseudo Coin category but nobody is going to spend one as a dollar.
I did find 3 with “Niue Dollars” but they still have Dollar of New Zealand as the currency. I think the mint just misread the directions when they made the coin.
Niue officially uses both the New Zealand dollar and the Niue dollar. The Niue dollar is an interesting example of Niue exerting its sovereignty for a clear economic benefit. Niue mints several series of coins that feature popular characters, such as those from Star Wars and Disney on one side and the Queen on the other.971 Though technically legal tender, the coins are noncirculating and frequently made of precious metals.972 Except perhaps as a tourist novelty, these coins would never actually be used for transactions in Niue. They are minted strictly as legal tender because commemorative coins that are legal tender are generally valued more highly by collectors.
Niue, a sovereign state in free association with New Zealand, uses two official legal tender currencies. The New Zealand Dollar is the circulation currency for daily transactions, while the government also authorises legal tender coins in the Niue Dollar currency for collector's purposes.
The Niue dollar, pegged with the New Zealand dollar at par, is also official legal tender, although is mainly used for issuing collector's coins and does not circulate widely.
That's the case for 90% of non-circulating coins. They are all sold by the mints at a higher price than their face value.
rsirian1
I did find 3 with “Niue Dollars” but they still have Dollar of New Zealand as the currency. I think the mint just misread the directions when they made the coin.
If these coins are really Niue Dollar currency then they can all be reclassified as Collector Coins. I'm going to have to leave it to members such as @Camerinvs to address that issue. From this post https://en.numista.com/forum/topic146084.html#p1160495 I was under the assumption that there was no official Niue Dollar currency. It certainly doesn't exist as an option in Numista. But, I don't want to just pick on Niue. There are other nations putting out Pseudo Coins disguised as NCLT's.
I don't think what the mint sell them for has any bearing on the definition I proposed if their intrinsic value does not far exceed their denomination.
Instead of “take a lead and do something for Niue” we need “make a definition of the change we are proposing and have a look what other consequences it might have for the rest of the catalogue”.
There is so much to say I don't know where to start… and it's getting late here so I'll just make a few points for now.
I think the best way to categorize Collector Coins (or Pseudo Coins) is that their physical specifications make them different from circulating coins in one or several respects: shape &/or diameter &/or thickness &/or composition. The face value is also a possible criterion when it doesn't correspond to any of the currently circulating coins. The clearest laws I've seen so far on this are those devised by the European Commission and discussed in this and other threads. From this angle, all Niue coins are Collector Pseudo Coins — even the earlier ones from the 1980s which are in NZ cents (5-10-20-50 cents) since they're larger than the NZ coins of the same denominations.
The advantage of such a category as Collector Coin (or Pseudo Coin) with theses criteria is that one can just tick off the box when doing a search and none of this material will show up in the results.
As you can see, I struck Collector Coin and went instead with Pseudo Coin. This is explained further on…
But first, the Niue dollar… Does this even exist? I think this is a fiction. If I had been on the defence committee for the MA thesis linked by Xavier, I would have pointed out to the author that he did not provide any evidence of this currency. In his footnote 971 he links to a newspaper post which actually says that the Star War coins are in NZ currency, which is right for all Niue coins so far as I know. But the post then claims that the coins could be used like any other for daily purchases, which is of course false:
Coins with embossed Star Wars characters like Darth Vader, Yoda and Princess Leia have become legal tender. Shops on the small Polynesian island of Niue — 1,500 miles off the coast of New Zealand — will now accept the cash for everything from food to clothing.
In addition, I found nothing in the Niue legislation already quoted that the concept of a Niue dollar, distinct from the NZ dollar, even exists. When people say or write “Niue dollar” I think they actually mean a Niue coin with a face value in the NZ dollar.
You may argue that Niue and many other countries categorize such coins as NCLT, so why not use this term? I believe we should refrain from using it because it plays on legal technicalities, and the definition varies from country to country. It is also too broad to categorize non-circulating coins in a relevant way from the numismatic point of view. States are interested in the legal point of view first and foremost.
As I'm writing this, therefore, I think we need two terms: Collector Coins and Pseudo Coins.
All Niue coins would be Pseudo Coins, as well as many Canadian, Australian, etc. coins whose specifications make them different from circulating coins (in Canada: square 3 cents, gold pennies, and fake face values such as $8, $15, $20, $350, etc. etc.).
Collector Coins would be such coins that correspond in shape and diameter to regular circulating coins with the same face values, but usually sold in special packaging (e.g. capsule) &/or sets, usually with a higher finish (NBU, Proof, Proof + Cameo, etc.) and possibly in silver or precious metals, but not necessarily. So, prooflike year sets, encapsulated specimen coins, etc. Coins which are identical to circulating coins but issued for collectors in years that no circulating coin is issued (NZ, some Canadian issues, etc.) also count as Collector Coins.
A NZ 2017 50-cent coin is non-circulating, but undistinguishable from 2018 or 2020 circulating 50-cent coins. This is a very different kind of coin compared to the Niue chicken wing, for example. Yet they are both NCLTs which goes to show that this is too broad a category.
There is so much to say I don't know where to start… and it's getting late here so I'll just make a few points for now.
I think the best way to categorize Collector Coins (or Pseudo Coins) is that their physical specifications make them different from circulating coins in one or several respects: shape &/or diameter &/or thickness &/or composition. The face value is also a possible criterion when it doesn't correspond to any of the currently circulating coins. The clearest laws I've seen so far on this are those devised by the European Commission and discussed in this and other threads. From this angle, all Niue coins are Collector Pseudo Coins — even the earlier ones from the 1980s which are in NZ cents (5-10-20-50 cents) since they're larger than the NZ coins of the same denominations.
The advantage of such a category as Collector Coin (or Pseudo Coin) with theses criteria is that one can just tick off the box when doing a search and none of this material will show up in the results.
As you can see, I struck Collector Coin and went instead with Pseudo Coin. This is explained further on…
But first, the Niue dollar… Does this even exist? I think this is a fiction. If I had been on the defence committee for the MA thesis linked by Xavier, I would have pointed out to the author that he did not provide any evidence of this currency. In his footnote 971 he links to a newspaper post which actually says that the Star War coins are in NZ currency, which is right for all Niue coins so far as I know. But the post then claims that the coins could be used like any other for daily purchases, which is of course false:
Coins with embossed Star Wars characters like Darth Vader, Yoda and Princess Leia have become legal tender. Shops on the small Polynesian island of Niue — 1,500 miles off the coast of New Zealand — will now accept the cash for everything from food to clothing.
In addition, I found nothing in the Niue legislation already quoted that the concept of a Niue dollar, distinct from the NZ dollar, even exists. When people say or write “Niue dollar” I think they actually mean a Niue coin with a face value in the NZ dollar.
You may argue that Niue and many other countries categorize such coins as NCLT, so why not use this term? I believe we should refrain from using it because it plays on legal technicalities, and the definition varies from country to country. It is also too broad to categorize non-circulating coins in a relevant way from the numismatic point of view. States are interested in the legal point of view first and foremost.
As I'm writing this, therefore, I think we need two terms: Collector Coins and Pseudo Coins.
All Niue coins would be Pseudo Coins, as well as many Canadian, Australian, etc. coins whose specifications make them different from circulating coins (in Canada: square 3 cents, gold pennies, and fake face values such as $8, $15, $20, $350, etc. etc.).
Collector Coins would be such coins that correspond in shape and diameter to regular circulating coins with the same face values, but usually sold in special packaging (e.g. capsule) &/or sets, usually with a higher finish (NBU, Proof, Proof + Cameo, etc.) and possibly in silver or precious metals, but not necessarily. So, prooflike year sets, encapsulated specimen coins, etc. Coins which are identical to circulating coins but issued for collectors in years that no circulating coin is issued (NZ, some Canadian issues, etc.) also count as Collector Coins.
A NZ 2017 50-cent coin is non-circulating, but undistinguishable from 2018 or 2020 circulating 50-cent coins. This is a very different kind of coin compared to the Niue chicken wing, for example. Yet they are both NCLTs which goes to show that this is too broad a category.
NCLT s a standard term so individual definitions can only guide to your own collection as I considered bullion circulating coins like that issued by Uruguay as NCLT though they are officially circulating. TRash like Burkina coins minted by private mints without authorisation are fantasies (or fakes) . Regarding these cartoon coins don't pick on Niue alone as even UK does it. WHile they will categorise as NCLT do not collect them
It would be a non-circulating coin. I agree with that. So there would be 109 non-circulating coins and 6,997 pseudo coins from Niue in the Numista catalog.
I find weird that you would restrict the category ‘pseudo coins’ to silver, gold and platinum coins only.
This would be a pseudo coin N#425640 It's made from copper but 400 g of copper has a value (today) of 2,364 Francs CFA which is 26 times the face value.
Regarding these cartoon coins don't pick on Niue alone as even UK does it. WHile they will categorise as NCLT do not collect them
I know it was a long post so you probably missed the All Niue coins would be Pseudo Coins, as well as many Canadian, Australian, etc. part.
Exactly. And Niue is by far the worst offender, so they deserve my contempt. Plus, I don't know how many times I need to repeat that I have always been critical of the Royal Canadian Mint for the deluxe trash they produce year after year since the 1980s. I remember when they came up with some sort of ugly $3 square coin. I thought we had scraped the bottom of the barrel… Little did I know…
As for NCLT being a “standard term”, I don't see what difference that makes. The problem with this term is that it was created to capture the legal fiction of coins that are meant to be sold only for profit, almost always above the fictitious face value they carry. We say “NCLT” but we don't contrast that with “CLT”. In other words, if we want to use a legal term, NCLT, among our numismatic definitions, we end up comparing apples and oranges, because circulating coins are defined according to another set of criteria that is not primarily legalistic. I just suggest to leave NCLT to the lawyers on the board of directors of the various mints that produce such coins. We can make reference to it, but IMO we should not use it to define any coins from a collector's or numismatic point of view.
Can we start with the basic principle that all objects we call “coins” are legal tender? Then we have those coins that are monetary, i.e. can be used for normal transactions, and those coins that are non-monetary and could be called “pseudo coins”. Maybe this term is too negative, not neutral enough, so maybe we would need a better term. We want to describe the reality but without being judgmental. “Pseudo” is mostly used in a pejorative way, so maybe not the best term.
I know this is all technical, but since thousands of new pseudo coins are produced every year, we need to be careful in how we define things so that Numista or any other collectors' or numismatic sites don't become a mouthpiece for Power Coin, NZ Mint, and also the RM, RAM and RCM for some or much of their annual output, providing them with free publicity and, worse, a stamp of legitimacy. Imagine if just two or three other micro-nations decide to take the Niue approach with two or three new types per day…
I've been trying to come up with a neutral way of dividing coins. After following this thread for quite some time, this is what I was able to come up with as a “first draft”.
I'm sure I've missed plenty of things out, but I'd be happy to keep amending it as is the general consensus of Numista users. 🙂 Anyway, feel free to shout some ideas / changes etc out & I'll see what I can come up with.
P.s. This only really works for modern base metal coins! I know earlier circulation coins in precious metals exist but there seems to be a time gap between them leaving production & the introduction of all these collector & pseudo coins.
=====
ADDITIONAL PROPOSAL: In order for a coin to be classed as circulating, a sizeable proportion must be released into circulation.
I add this because I know the Isle of Man (and probably others!) has a habit of releasing a pathetically tiny amount via banks, then selling the rest as BU or Proof which at the moment makes them technically circulation commemoratives, even though they're not really.
For example, the UK proper released the 4th Portrait version of the WWI 100th anniversary £2 was virtually exclusively a BU / Proof release. Exactly 100 were put into circulation, but Numista still classes it (Rightly in my opinion) as non-circulation.
Whilst we're redrawing the battle lines, felt like a good time to get that defined.
Personally, I would argue at least 50% are issued into circulation but that might be too high & I'd really welcome a discussion on it. 🙂
I've been trying to come up with a neutral way of dividing coins. After following this thread for quite some time, this is what I was able to come up with as a “first draft”.
I'm sure I've missed plenty of things out, but I'd be happy to keep amending it as is the general consensus of Numista users. 🙂 Anyway, feel free to shout some ideas / changes etc out & I'll see what I can come up with.
P.s. This only really works for modern base metal coins! I know earlier circulation coins in precious metals exist but there seems to be a time gap between them leaving production & the introduction of all these collector & pseudo coins.
=====
ADDITIONAL PROPOSAL: In order for a coin to be classed as circulating, a sizeable proportion must be released into circulation.
I add this because I know the Isle of Man (and probably others!) has a habit of releasing a pathetically tiny amount via banks, then selling the rest as BU or Proof which at the moment makes them technically circulation commemoratives, even though they're not really.
For example, the UK proper released the 4th Portrait version of the WWI 100th anniversary £2 was virtually exclusively a BU / Proof release. Exactly 100 were put into circulation, but Numista still classes it (Rightly in my opinion) as non-circulation.
Whilst we're redrawing the battle lines, felt like a good time to get that defined.
Personally, I would argue at least 50% are issued into circulation but that might be too high & I'd really welcome a discussion on it. 🙂
Well, this overview is clear and concise, thanks for sharing!
Just about the definition of pseudo coins, I am not really sure if this category should apply on all coins which don't fit the above criteria. According to your draft, basically all coins with the denomination different from standard circulation pieces should be called so, which also seems to be the point of some earlier posts. On the contrary, I think that there is a difference between coins like those of Niue (and similar states) and other pieces made mainly for collectors. For instace, many NCLTs issued by European national banks (Banco de Portugal, Deutsche Bundesbank or Österreichische Nationalbank among others) are exchanged at a face value and can be later exchanged again for circulating banknotes and coins of the same value, so they really fulfil their role as a legal tender in a way. On the other hand, coins from Niue and similar states are usually both sold well above their face value and cannot be really exchanged for the face value anywhere (or only with great difficulties).
As a collector, I see quite a big difference between those types of coins. The first type really works as a legal tender of the respective territory (although not circulating) and is part of the monetary system (although a very specific one). The second type is in essence just the overpriced medal with rather symbolic face value and its legal tender status doesn’t have any practical effect when buying or selling these coins. (if I understood it correctly). Also, its only aim is usually to be sold for a profit, not to actually commemorate anything (although I know that it is difficult to precisely define the aim of the issuer). From the practical point of view, it would be quite annoying to go through hundreds of such “medals” if I just wanted to search for NCLTs from the first group in the catalogue. The way I see it, anything which has its face value guranteed by a central bank is not the pseudo coin, even though it does not circulate, and should fall under either collector or non-circulating coins.
I know it would be complicated to divide coins according to their availability for the FV/premium and according to them being redeemable at the central bank or not. I just feel that at least some posts in this discussion accept without saying that all coins differing from the standard circulation coinage in their denomination and intended only for collectors are in fact not proper coins. Maybe I am focusing too much on the European example, but there are many legitimate central banks which issue such non-circulating coins and whose aim is not just the profit. At the same time, these are central banks which issue other coins than those for collectors, unlike Niue.
To be honest, I had to go to work so kind of presented it in a hurry. I do agree that it will need some revision because I've probably just dumped a load of coins into pseudo which really don't deserve to be there (Going through my own collection, I realise the UK's £5 coins fall into this category as they don't circulate but I think would be better under “Collector coins”. - much like your European bank examples I believe).
Perhaps a few more questions before defining it as pseudo coins:
1 - Is your coin readily exchangeable at a national bank for face value?
YES = “Collector coin”
2 - Is your coin a precious metal variant of above?
YES = “Non-circulating coin”
And if NO → NO = Pseudo coin
=====
I'll not update my flow chart until there's a few more replies.
Again, thanks for your thoughts & spotting something I'd missed. 🙂
One other problem I can see are the bullion coins from national mints which aren't part of an established series.
For example, the Royal Mint is issuing a lot of (mainly) 1oz silver bullion coins which have the same nominal value as the established set (The Britannia - £2).
Following my flow chart, they're “pseudo coins". Which they kind of are and kind of aren't. They follow the same size / material spec as the established bullion coin so that makes them “coin like”. Certainly more than Cameroon's copper apple coin thing which definitely deserves to be “pseudo”.
But then how can I differentiate between them. The only difference is one is making an effort to look like a coin and one doesn't care. But just having the question “does it look coin like?” is far too vague.
I suppose I could go “Is your coin bullion AND following the dimensions of an established bullion coin from this Nation?”. But that seems confusing? And is it really fair to call them coins at all anyway? Am I being too favourably biased to national mints?
I mean the only other difference is the selling price. The RM coins are priced somewhat in line with bullion melt price + modest premium, and the other is just silly pricing. But again, how would we define “fair” and “crazy” pricing as that's personally subjective.
I mean, I'm okay with lumping them all in pseudo but I wonder if we could (and more importantly should) come up with an easy divider.
The trick is to write a concise definition of Pseudo Coin.
I thought they seemed similar too. However, the second one is the catch for precious metal versions of collector coins. The first is precious metal versions of circulation coins.
Using the Royal Mint. A silver 50p copy of the standard design would be caught by question 1.
A silver 50p of the Wallace & Gromit coin (a collector only coin; not released into circulation) would caught by question 2.
That being said, I could put the middle question above, and then combine the two similar ones to cover both preciois metal collector & circulation coins in one go. Might be better, but unsure. 🤔
=====
Having a definition of pseudo coin would be great, but it needs to be neutral. We can't just say “Screw you Niue!” (as tempting as it may be! 😛).
I've been trying to come up with a neutral way of dividing coins. After following this thread for quite some time, this is what I was able to come up with as a “first draft”.
I'm sure I've missed plenty of things out, but I'd be happy to keep amending it as is the general consensus of Numista users. 🙂 Anyway, feel free to shout some ideas / changes etc out & I'll see what I can come up with.
P.s. This only really works for modern base metal coins! I know earlier circulation coins in precious metals exist but there seems to be a time gap between them leaving production & the introduction of all these collector & pseudo coins.
=====
ADDITIONAL PROPOSAL: In order for a coin to be classed as circulating, a sizeable proportion must be released into circulation.
I add this because I know the Isle of Man (and probably others!) has a habit of releasing a pathetically tiny amount via banks, then selling the rest as BU or Proof which at the moment makes them technically circulation commemoratives, even though they're not really.
For example, the UK proper released the 4th Portrait version of the WWI 100th anniversary £2 was virtually exclusively a BU / Proof release. Exactly 100 were put into circulation, but Numista still classes it (Rightly in my opinion) as non-circulation.
Whilst we're redrawing the battle lines, felt like a good time to get that defined.
Personally, I would argue at least 50% are issued into circulation but that might be too high & I'd really welcome a discussion on it. 🙂
Hi
Every collector needs to have his own definitions. I decided to stop collecting bullion coins which circulate and NCLT coins even of 2 Pounds, 50p and2 Euros as the load became too high.I decided not to collect NCLTs except a few sample coins from countries which issue only NCLTs.
Unfortunately countries like the ISle of Man create a problem for collectors like myself as they become circulating coins technically but every collector needs to have his own system of what actually is circulaing rather then define a standard unless it becomes a worldwide standard.. Example recent issues of modern commemorative Pakistan coins over last 2-3 I noted were listed as NCLT. However these coins are actually minted and put into circulation by State Bank O fPakistan however the cashiers sell them all to coin dealers and give a chit to any collector to buy from them. So what to do about these? The Pakistan country referee has classified them as NCLT but I feel they should be circulation as they were meant to circulate. Even Indian commemorative coins issued between 2007 and 2018 were all sold to dealers and few few ended up in circulation. In fact some NCLT coins landed up in circulation too! Gibraltar 5 Pounds and 20 pound sare struck as commemorative circulation but in truth do not circulate especially the silver 20 pounds. However my Gibraltar friend ( and numista member) has a actually seen 5 pounds and even X Mas coins in circulation. He feels some kid may have spent his dads treasure trove without asking. X Mas coins are issued by the Gibraltar treasury itself at a premium (this year I was in the queue) . NO idea why the Republique du Burkina FAso coins are classified as coins as they are fakes. No country called Republique du Burkina FAso never existed as FAso itself means Republic and these are unauthorised private mint issues. I have checked with the Finance minister when I had change to meet him in a forum. He answer was Non to each coin. Have asked Numismaster to remove them . Similarly one guy on ebay , with a dubious history of selling coins at heavy premiums,is selling the 5 Francs 2017 of Comoros which is classified as circulating. But is it circulating? Not in the central Bank site and verbally they denied circulating these coins and said the ebay coins are not from their stock hence fake.. but they have not given it in writing despite requests. But can we treat 5 francs 2017 of Comoros as circulating when It is unknown in circulation there? So this is a big debate . Once we get a resolution I will be happy as I am tired of buying expensive circulation coins.
Burkina Faso means something like “land of the proud and honest people”. I do not know where this misconception came from. Some sources even show People's Republic of Burkina Faso as official name.
Burkina Faso means something like “land of the proud and honest people”. I do not know where this misconception came from. Some sources even show People's Republic of Burkina Faso as official name.
It does not mean Land of the proud and Honest people.. it means land of incorruptible (Honest) people. Not Proud. Kindly do some research. Call up the Burkina embassy or see the CIA factbook ( https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/burkina-faso/#government ) or check the Burkina constitution. There is no and never was any People's Republic of Burkina Faso or People's Democratic Republic of Burkina Faso as some other fake sources say. Its only Burkina Faso as per the Constitution and as per the official name on any official source and this have clarified personally with the finance minister. Faso means homeland… or republic. You will also find this mentioned even if you do some google or offline research. Also the official name is only Burkina Faso . Its like calling USA the Federal Republic of USA when its only USA officially . Its a sure way to say the coin is fake. Any more doubts ask the private mints to show a letter of authorization from the Burkna government with names and designations clearly mentioned and an official stamp as some [private mints have fake letters with a sign but no names or designations or stamps (like the mint which made the last Somalia animal issues).
Every collector needs to have his own definitions.
So are you advocating that the Numista catalog should go from this:
to this?
I am advocating we follow the standard system as in SCCW - NCLT, Circulating commemoratives, patterns, fantaises (exo) etc . I find too many labels like collector's coins, pseudo- coins etc too confusing and tough to detect coins I am searching for
Shamikb - whilst I do genuinely understand your desire not to over-fragment the catalogue (I've always believed simplicity is best), I think we're basically at a point where we have to.
Using Numista's current criteria, all four of the pictured items above are coins. One is standard circulating, one is commemorative circulating, and two are non-circulating coins.
Now even without any knowledge of the coins, surely you can see that something is amiss. Three follow a very similar standard look, and of those three, two are circulating. It seems fair to consider the third one as a “collector coin”.
Without any knowledge of which is which, you can see the third “collector coin” could very easily & reasonably circulate freely with the others and you would never know it was never intended to (unless you looked it up).
However, the other (I hope obvious) “coin” would fall into the same category in the catalogue. And that just seems to be making a mockery of the catalogue. Imagine searching “non-circulating coins” and you find that. It's not even pretending to look like a coin.
And I think that is why we're having the discussion.
“Non-circulating” seems to be moving towards precious metal proof variants of circulation (and maybe collector) coins, “collector” for base metal coins which look like coins, and “pseudo” for the clearly outlandish designs which, by legal technicality, have a face value but would never be mistaken for a coin.
I would even get rid of the coin part and call them numismatic products 😅
Your first box (like anything in life) is more complicated then it seems. What is understood by released into circulation.
Do you only acknowledge coins from banks, or do you also acknowledge post offices (or banks) where you can get a coin that has the same specs as the normal circulation coins (or not) at face value?
That's the old definition I followed on Numista if you don't pay a premium it's not a numismatic product (yes, it has flaws with modern coin schemes like the 20 for 20 irredeemables).
Maybe Ucoin has the right approach. There's Circulation Coins, Commemorative Coins (which circulate) and there's Collector Coins (everything else).
That's not far from what we have. We just have the last category named “Non-circulating coins” instead of “Collector coins”.
We also have a category named “Collector coins”, but that's for a very specific case (1000 coins), for items that fall in-between “coins” and “fantasy coins”.
Time and again, Numista reminds new users that it will not deal with philately.
Since these new “coins” (chicken wings, donuts, apples…) are as close to being coins as they are to being stamps, let's define them as stamps and get rid of them here!
Personally I think the best way to handle stuff like the Niue chicken wing is a specific “novelty” designation with a “you know it when you see it” criteria.
Using strictly defined categories based on circulating status and like the works fine for most coins, but these are not like most coins. As A Collector pointed out with his 50 pence example, the current categories end up placing novelty coins in the exact same categorization as more conventional “coin-y” coins, which, though technically accurate, also just feels very incongruous because it’s plain to see these are two very, very different objects.
To pull out a metaphor from biology, by cladistic analysis, a canary is technically a fish, but that doesn’t mean you would put a a canary in an aquarium like you would a “fishy fish”
The chicken wing is technically a coin, but if you tried to buy something with it the cashier is gonna look at you like you have a second head growing out of your neck.
Due to the variety of forms that these novelty items take, there’s no way to create a set of attributes that only these have and no “coin-y” coins have, and it should just be left to the discretion of moderators where the novelty line lies, since in my opinion, it’s hard to define, but easy to see.
Maybe Ucoin has the right approach. There's Circulation Coins, Commemorative Coins (which circulate) and there's Collector Coins (everything else).
That's not far from what we have. We just have the last category named “Non-circulating coins” instead of “Collector coins”.
We also have a category named “Collector coins”, but that's for a very specific case (1000 coins), for items that fall in-between “coins” and “fantasy coins”.
Frankly I get confused between a) NCLT and Collector coins and b) between Pseudo coins and Fantasies
Hence wanted categories in a) to be clubbed as NCLT as if they are not legal tender then they become tokens and b) to be clubbed together as I assume they are same.
I would even get rid of the coin part and call them numismatic products 😅
Your first box (like anything in life) is more complicated then it seems. What is understood by released into circulation.
Do you only acknowledge coins from banks, or do you also acknowledge post offices (or banks) where you can get a coin that has the same specs as the normal circulation coins (or not) at face value?
That's the old definition I followed on Numista if you don't pay a premium it's not a numismatic product (yes, it has flaws with modern coin schemes like the 20 for 20 irredeemables).
Numismatic Products is the colnect approach. Technically if you do not pay a premium its a circulating commemorative though it may not circulate like the coloured bullion coins Uruguay. Gibraltar calls its twenty pounds as circulating commemorative coins but the treasury charges a 5 pound premium .
