Author Topic: 1966 article on the proliferation of NCLT issues  (Read 2174 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

translateltd

  • Guest
1966 article on the proliferation of NCLT issues
« on: December 24, 2008, 06:16:18 AM »
Despite its age, well worth a read - and the age of NCLT (non-circulating legal tender) was only just beginning!

The article is scanned and OCR'd from the original (probably gestetnered) copy, with the permission of the Editor of "Mintmark", the monthly publication of the Numismatic Society of Auckland, New Zealand, where the article originally appeared.  If anyone spots any proofreading errors, pse let me know and I'll fix them up in due course.  (I know the author wrote "Ruanda" ...)

http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~translate/itse_to_bitse.doc

(Word document, read-only)


translateltd

  • Guest
Re: 1966 article on the proliferation of NCLT issues
« Reply #1 on: December 24, 2008, 09:35:33 PM »
Ho ho, I noticed yesterday that Julian even "coined" the term 'coin-medals' ...


Online Figleaf

  • Administrator
  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27 257
Re: 1966 article on the proliferation of NCLT issues
« Reply #2 on: December 25, 2008, 02:09:36 AM »
I wrote similar articles in the past and likewise I don't think anyone ever cared. Truth is, the dealers have a vested interest in keeping pseudo-coin issues alive, because they generate good margins. Through their advertising, they influence the numismatic press into complacency or collaboration. Consider the "Coin of the Year" bash sponsored by "World Coin News". When it was started, I wrote a letter to the editor about how real coins didn't even qualify. They were nice enough to publish, probably knowing fully well that nobody would give a dirty nickel.

One collector wrote me in my early days that my definition of pseudo coins would include his beloved maundy coins. That remark put me on the trail of my present conviction that you cannot tell someone else what to collect. If they wish to splurge on silly pseudo coins that aren't money, aren't coins and often have artistic demerit, you may find them stupid, shortsighted, misled and gullible, but who are you to say so? When the suckers who buy these things for coins believing them to be great investments find out they sell only for scrap that is a blow against real numismatics, but the most you can do is making them aware of the status of these phonies. Once they have been warned, if they want to persist in their folly, that is not your business.

Moreover, there may be people who buy them for their non-numismatic interest. If someone is fascinated by Edward VIII, why not include the funny non-coins in their collection? If someone has an urge to support the Knights of Malta, why should they not do it by buying the pseudo-coins, as long as they realize they're neither coins, nor a good investment. Even thematic coin collectors may find that they enjoy including pseudo-issues in their collection. There's not a word to say against it, as long as they realize they buy a metallic picture at a considerable cost, not a coin.

I once considered that collector Darwinism would weed out the purchasers of the malodorous, which would rob the purveyors of same of their profit margin. This may have happened to the pioneer of numismatic evil, Franklin Mint. However, for every dropout, there seem to be three new (often young) collectors eager to be led by the nose.

All of this is quite apart from the restrikes and fillers mentioned. They are deceitful. However, when you cannot distinguish them from the originals, there's no defense against them, except for just not buying either the orignal or the copy. That would be difficult. They are everywhere and not just in Eastern Europe, as the article seems to suggest. Germany, Russia and India come to mind immediately.

My bottom line: don't collect what you don't like, tell people what you know and withdraw. You win nothing by not buying things you like, you win nothing with an argument, but you have done your duty.

Peter
« Last Edit: December 25, 2008, 02:11:16 AM by Figleaf »
An unidentified coin is a piece of metal. An identified coin is a piece of history.

translateltd

  • Guest
Re: 1966 article on the proliferation of NCLT issues
« Reply #3 on: December 25, 2008, 02:59:59 AM »
One thing I find interesting is that the writer mentions San Marino as being one of the guilty parties - yet SM didn't start its post-war coinage till 1972, so the author was rather prescient in writing this six years ahead of time!


Offline chrisild

  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8 085
  • NW DE EU
Re: 1966 article on the proliferation of NCLT issues
« Reply #4 on: December 25, 2008, 09:47:33 AM »
What's wrong with "Ruanda"? That is the perfekt German spelling. :)  Now Lichtenstein (sic) is a different story ...

As for San Marino, the issues before WW2 were pretty much NCLT too. But at least they did not design an entirely new set every year, as they did between 1972 and 2001.

I do like those "denominations of One Debacle and 50 Fiascos" mentioned somewhere in the article. But other parts of the text ... what would, for example, the "Italian branch of the European Economic Community" be?

Christian

translateltd

  • Guest
Re: 1966 article on the proliferation of NCLT issues
« Reply #5 on: December 25, 2008, 10:32:05 AM »
But other parts of the text ... what would, for example, the "Italian branch of the European Economic Community" be?

Christian

I take it as a fancy and somewhat sarcastic way of saying "someone in Italy pretending to represent the EEC and issuing pseudo-coins in its name" :-)


Offline <k>

  • Moderator
  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18 579
Re: 1966 article on the proliferation of NCLT issues
« Reply #6 on: August 08, 2018, 01:01:08 AM »
Here's another interesting old topic. From the 1970s onward, the Isle of Man was notorious for its many collector-only issues. Gibraltar eventually joined in from 1988. Such behaviour was not expected of large countries, though, but the rot set in, in the 1990s, with a lot of rubbishy issues from Canada. It was not long before Australia and New Zealand followed suit. Nowadays, even the UK issues more special coins that it did stamps in any one year of the 1960s.

Online Figleaf

  • Administrator
  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27 257
Re: 1966 article on the proliferation of NCLT issues
« Reply #7 on: August 08, 2018, 10:41:25 AM »
No inclination to research this, but instinctively, I think there has been a shift. In those days, the field was dominated by commercial private parties in it for an attractive margin and milking small, often poor countries (e.g. Franklin mint, Italcambio and Pobjoy) and ham-handed, desperate attempts to bring in laughingly small quantities of foreign currency (any communist regime). Today, these issues are more likely to come from venerable (quasi) state minting enterprises trying to survive an attitude from the political right that they have to pay there own way (as if efficient payment facilities are not a very useful public good). Thou shalt harvest what thou has sown.

Peter
An unidentified coin is a piece of metal. An identified coin is a piece of history.