Author Topic: New Zealand's minting anomalies  (Read 3433 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Figleaf

  • Administrator
  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30 584
New Zealand's minting anomalies
« on: April 29, 2007, 12:08:33 PM »
 :o So who strikes the official coins? Llantrissant?

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

translateltd

  • Guest
Re: New Zealand's minting anomalies
« Reply #1 on: April 29, 2007, 12:45:04 PM »
Yes, or Canberra, Ottawa or Pretoria, occasionally non-Commonwealth mints such as Kongsberg.  It goes out to tender each year.  NZM isn't on the list of mints that are invited to tender, as I understand it.

One interesting aspect of NZ decimal coinage is that, in most years, the coins in the mint sets (both unc and proof) are made at a different mint to the circulating coins, and there are minor design differences between the two as a result.  The main years involved are 1971, 1980-86 and 1994 to date (there may be some others in between), I'd need to check.  Occasionally unc. sets are broken up and the contents released into circulation - generally by individuals rather than the authorities - but the "wrong" coins occasionally turn up in change.

Members of the NZ coin forum (http://nzcca.com/forum) have been discussing this recently, with some useful illustrations of the design diagnostics, and I published an article on the 1980-86 differences in the NZ Numismatic Journal a few years ago.


Offline Figleaf

  • Administrator
  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30 584
Re: New Zealand's minting anomalies
« Reply #2 on: April 29, 2007, 01:03:24 PM »
That's a bit of a conundrum, then. Do you collect the coins from the sets because they circulate, or not, because they're not available at face value? As an economist, I'd say that breaking up a set is irrational. There are enough people out there collecting packaged coins. But then, in the end I guess people are irrational. Since you did an article on the difference, I guess you collect them. What do people do in general?

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

translateltd

  • Guest
Re: New Zealand's minting anomalies
« Reply #3 on: May 25, 2007, 08:49:33 AM »
That's a bit of a conundrum, then. Do you collect the coins from the sets because they circulate, or not, because they're not available at face value? As an economist, I'd say that breaking up a set is irrational. There are enough people out there collecting packaged coins. But then, in the end I guess people are irrational. Since you did an article on the difference, I guess you collect them. What do people do in general?

Peter

I don't collect them as such, though I tend to keep one uncirculated set from each year out of habit!  I was more interested in publicising the little-known differences between mint set and circulation strike coins.

New Zealand sets have been broken up for two main reasons that I can think of:

1) Officially: In 1965 (and I think also in 1967), the authorities simply made too many uncirculated sets for the market, and many were broken up so the coins could circulate instead;
2) Unofficially by dealers: there are some "non-existent" years in the NZ series (e.g. 1968, 1992 and 1993) for which no coins at all were struck for circulation, but coins were still made for mint sets in those years; likewise, in almost every one of the past 20 years, there has been at least one denomination not struck for circulation that has nonetheless appeared in the "full" annual mint sets.  So there is a smallish market for collectors who want one coin of a given denomination for every year since 1967, and dealers break sets up to satisfy the demand for the "missing" years, often at a healthy mark-up.  The public furore over the 2004 5c and 2005 10c (which were released for circulation in extremely low numbers, if at all in the latter case) also led to sets from those two years being broken up by those who either weren't aware of the die differences between mint set and "circulation strike" coins, or simply didn't care.  In some cases, individual coins from broken sets were selling for as much as the sets themselves, which was truly bizarre.

Other sets get broken up by burglars, too, who think the coins are just better spent than left in the silly packaging ...

For the sake of completeness, for those who weren't following numismatic events in NZ last year (everybody???): the authorities issued 5000 unofficial sets (made up of uncirculated coins drawn from stocks intended for circulation rather than proper mint sets) to commemorate the withdrawal of the "large-size" decimal coins and the introduction of the new smaller coins on clad blanks.  They inadvertently used 2005-dated coins for the 10c, 20c and 50c, the bulk of which were otherwise consigned for melting without ever being released for circulation.  A reasonable number of 50c coins was released, a smaller number of 20c, but virtually no 10c that anyone has been able to verify.  The problem is, of course, that the whereabouts of 5000 otherwise rare "circulation strike" 2005 10c coins is known: they're in these unofficial packs.  So the packs first started trading at very high prices, then the 10c started getting cut out of them and trading for about the same price as the pack, or even higher in some cases.  Because there are no die differences, it's impossible to tell if a 2005 10c genuinely came from change or was sliced out of a souvenir pack.

The fact that the mintage of the uncirculated and proof sets in 2005 was even lower still didn't escape the attention of a number of collectors and dealers, and they promptly started cutting the "good" coins out of them and advertising them as an even better deal!  The market went mad for a few months, especially after the original story got onto the TV news, and everyone was checking their change before the old coins were finally withdrawn.  Many got the story wrong, of course, and thought that "all" old 10c were worth a fortune, and I'm sure a few suckers were burnt.  It's done collecting some good as a whole so far, and the numismatic societies in this country (the Royal Numismatic Society of NZ - www.RNSNZ.com - and others)  have benefited from some new members, and the community has its own free on-line non-affiliated forum now, too (http://nzcca.com/forum) - the public part doesn't contain much, but registration to access the rest of the site is free.  All in all, probably the biggest boom in NZ coin collecting since the decimal changeover in 1967 and the market spike in 1980-81.


Offline Figleaf

  • Administrator
  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30 584
Re: New Zealand's minting anomalies
« Reply #4 on: May 26, 2007, 11:25:57 AM »
the authorities issued 5000 unofficial sets

I love that phrase :D

That's quite a mess you are describing, Martin. How about those differences? Are they big enough to warrant listing the variants under different KM numbers?

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

translateltd

  • Guest
Re: New Zealand's minting anomalies
« Reply #5 on: May 27, 2007, 07:55:03 AM »
the authorities issued 5000 unofficial sets

I love that phrase :D

That's quite a mess you are describing, Martin. How about those differences? Are they big enough to warrant listing the variants under different KM numbers?

Peter

The authorities ... yes, a difficult one to explain in a small number of words.  New Zealand Post has the franchise from the Reserve Bank to commission new coin issues (though with the RBNZ's approval), and "official" unc. and proof sets are commissioned from the various mints who do the whole job from striking through to packaging.  What happened last year was that NZ Post and the Reserve Bank dug into the bags of "circulation strike" coins that had already been struck and delivered to make up these "non-mint" sets, hence my rather curious use of the term "unofficial" above!  The sets were also mixed-date, for that reason ("old-style" 5c 2003, 10c, 20c, 50c 2005; "new-style" 10c, 20c, 50c 2006).

The mint differences are sometimes quite small (shape of a digit in the date or a letter in the legend, for instance) and sometimes more significant (e.g. placement of date vs. designer's initials and royal effigy, particularly on 2004-5 coins - check the comparative scans I posted at www.RNSNZ.com for a rough idea.  There are more detailed images of "lettering style" differences for various years in the members' area at nzcca.com/forum). 

The major differences that warrant a separate listing are for the 1984-85 "circulation strike" coins that were made in Canada - the entire obverse dies were recut in a very flat relief and with strong serifs on all the letters.  The "mint set" coins that were made either in Llantrisant or Canberra (I'd have to check) still had the nice full rounded relief of the usual Machin obverses, and the difference is quite startling when you look at the two side by side.  I've been pushing KM to list these as separate sub-types for years, and finally put in a detailed submission recently for the 2008 20th century catalogue - let's see if they follow my recommendations (or are able to read my handwriting!) this year ...

Martin
NZ


Offline Figleaf

  • Administrator
  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30 584
Re: New Zealand's minting anomalies
« Reply #6 on: May 27, 2007, 08:59:44 AM »
Thanks for the link. I can see how the fives are different, but the other differences escape me on the pics.

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

translateltd

  • Guest
Re: New Zealand's minting anomalies
« Reply #7 on: May 27, 2007, 10:32:23 AM »
Thanks for the link. I can see how the fives are different, but the other differences escape me on the pics.

Peter

You'd really need to check out the more detailed images at the nzcca.com/forum site.  A major difference on the 2005-dated coins in particular is the placement of the designer's initials ("IRB") in relation to the date digits and truncation.

BC Numismatics

  • Guest
Re: New Zealand's minting anomalies
« Reply #8 on: June 19, 2007, 03:19:09 AM »
Martin,you will be very surprised that the 2006 old coins are priced in grades below Unc. in Krause.Someone should report to Krause that they weren't issued for circulation.

Aidan.

translateltd

  • Guest
Re: New Zealand's minting anomalies
« Reply #9 on: June 26, 2007, 08:52:10 PM »
Martin,you will be very surprised that the 2006 old coins are priced in grades below Unc. in Krause.Someone should report to Krause that they weren't issued for circulation.

Aidan.

Be my guest ...

Offline AussieBoy

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Re: New Zealand's minting anomalies
« Reply #10 on: January 26, 2008, 06:24:51 PM »
Nice to see Martin has explained the complexity of New Zealand decimal issues. The Mint of origin differences I find quite fasinating and have done considerable research and comparison as Martin also knows. One can usually find differences on both the obverse and the reverse between Mints for a particular year.

Between 2002 and 2007, the Royal Australian Mint in Canberra struck the Mint Unc Sets and Proof sets while the Royal Mint in Llantrisant struck the circulation coins from 2002 to 2005 and then the Royal Canadian Mint in Winnipeg struck the small 10c, 20c & 50c coins in 2006 and it would appear a 2007 10c (yet to be released).

One of the key differences apart from the placement of the date under the Queen on the obverse between 2002 and 2005 (except 2004) was the obverse text. A different font style was used. The RAM issues have flat top A in the text while the RM have a pointed top A. For some reason in 2004 both issues had flat top A text.

We can also see differences between the dies used by RCM in 2006 and those used by RAM in 2007 with the smaller coins so we can hope this will be apparent when the 2007 10c is released in to circulation.

2008 will be interesting as the Royal Mint in Llantrisant are producing the Mint and Proof sets.

As for Mints used to produce NZ decimal coinage, we have a new one to add to the list. The Japan Mint has struck a commemorative large silver dollar.

A list of Mints for decimal coinage (circulation and non-circulation)

Royal Mint London
Royal Australian Mint
Royal Canadian Mint Ottawa - NCLT only
Royal Canadian Mint Winnipeg
Royal Mint Llantrisant
Royal Norwegian Mint
South African Mint
Valcambi Mint (Switzerland) - NCLT only
The Perth Mint (Australia) - NCLT only
Meyer's Mint (Germany) - NCLT only
Japan Mint - NCLT only

Wayne

BC Numismatics

  • Guest
Re: New Zealand's minting anomalies
« Reply #11 on: January 26, 2008, 06:58:22 PM »
I have been informed that the 2008 $1 coin is coming into circulation very soon,but the only 2007 coin that will be issued as a currency coin will be the 20c. coin,but it won't be released until just before Christmas 2008.

Aidan.

Offline AussieBoy

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Re: New Zealand's minting anomalies
« Reply #12 on: January 26, 2008, 07:10:40 PM »
Thanks Aidan, I couldn't remember if it was the 10c or 20c and picked the wrong one. Glad you corrected it for me.

Wayne