Author Topic: Variations in New Zealand's mint sets  (Read 486 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

translateltd

  • Guest
Variations in New Zealand's mint sets
« on: March 14, 2012, 06:33:18 AM »
Not sure if these have been mentioned in this thread and I've just overlooked them, but what about the NZ mint sets (BU and Proof) of 2010, 2011 and 2012?  The coins *look* the same as the circulating coins but are not - the circulating denominations (10c - $2) are made of different alloys and are of different weights to those actually struck for circulation.  There are also minor differences of design detail for the two series in these years, as per the following paragraph:

You could make a case for the mint sets of 1971 and almost every year from 1980 onwards, in fact, as most have been struck at different mints to the circulation strikes, and therefore use different dies, with design differences ranging from the minor to the quite major, depending on the year.



Moderator's note: this topic was originally part of One-off sets from countries with circulation coins.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2016, 09:06:37 PM by <k> »

Offline <k>

  • Moderator
  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20 819
Re: Variations in New Zealand's mint sets
« Reply #1 on: March 14, 2012, 01:24:34 PM »
Not sure if these have been mentioned in this thread and I've just overlooked them, but what about the NZ mint sets (BU and Proof) of 2010, 2011 and 2012?  The coins *look* the same as the circulating coins but are not - the circulating denominations (10c - $2) are made of different alloys and are of different weights to those actually struck for circulation.  There are also minor differences of design detail for the two series in these years, as per the following paragraph:

Interesting to know, Martin, but I really was looking for significant changes, by which I mean easily visible differences. Highly subjective, of course. As you have pointed out, there are so many differences between BU, proof, and uncirculated issues every year that they are becoming a cataloguers' nightmare. It would be interesting to see the minor differences of design detail, though, so maybe you could post them up or else just give us a link.  ;)
« Last Edit: March 14, 2012, 09:17:53 PM by coffeetime »

translateltd

  • Guest
Re: Variations in New Zealand's mint sets
« Reply #2 on: March 14, 2012, 08:23:04 PM »
OK, some examples.  This is probably the most dramatic, and I have finally managed to get it noted in SCWC as a sub-type: in 1984-85, the circulating coins were struck in Canada using re-cut dies that gave the Queen's effigy a more two-dimensional look, as well as stronger serifs on the letters and different-shaped numbers.  The mint-set coins, struck elsewhere, retained the more rounded effigy that had been used since 1967.  My apologies for the somewhat blurred images - I'm just pulling old pics from my hard drive:


translateltd

  • Guest
Re: Variations in New Zealand's mint sets
« Reply #3 on: March 14, 2012, 08:26:28 PM »
Date area on 1983 20c coins (typical of whole series that year): rounded 3 is the circ series; flat-topped 3 the mint set series:


translateltd

  • Guest
Re: Variations in New Zealand's mint sets
« Reply #4 on: March 14, 2012, 08:30:02 PM »
2009 50c, circ (top) vs set (bottom): note position of lettering and date digits in relation to the royal effigy, also shape and position of designer's initials:


translateltd

  • Guest
Re: Variations in New Zealand's mint sets
« Reply #5 on: March 14, 2012, 08:36:38 PM »
And one last one to show some reverse details too: the 2007 10c.  The "set" coin is the one in the plastic window in each case.  Note smaller design details altogether (carving + designer's initials) on the reverse, leaving something of an empty space at the bottom which isn't as evident on the circulation coin, also size and position of designer's initials in relation to the date on the obv, position of lettering in relation to royal effigy (nose points to E vs gap between B and E), etc.

Offline <k>

  • Moderator
  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20 819
Re: Variations in New Zealand's mint sets
« Reply #6 on: March 14, 2012, 09:20:35 PM »


Thanks for those, Martin. The Queen really looks ill on the left hand portrait, doesn't she?

I think Paul Baker (and a few others besides) will enjoy these images.

Offline Figleaf

  • Administrator
  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30 199
Re: Variations in New Zealand's mint sets
« Reply #7 on: March 14, 2012, 09:46:30 PM »
Utterly convincing, Martin, but in my mind, this opens up a new question. The sets cannot circulate, since they are sold above face. I understand that these sets were issued by either a different or a private organisation, undoubtedly with the approval of the issuers of the circulation coins. However, either the letter or the spirit of the approval must be that the coins in the set are the same as the circulation coins. Therefore, you may wonder if they were issued with the approval of the authorities. What does that make them? They are not circulation coins, they are not fantasies, they are not tokens, they are not pseudo coins, it's easy to say what they are not, but what are they?

Peter
« Last Edit: March 14, 2012, 10:23:08 PM by Figleaf »
An unidentified coin is a piece of metal. An identified coin is a piece of history.

translateltd

  • Guest
Re: Variations in New Zealand's mint sets
« Reply #8 on: March 15, 2012, 03:58:52 AM »
Utterly convincing, Martin, but in my mind, this opens up a new question. The sets cannot circulate, since they are sold above face. I understand that these sets were issued by either a different or a private organisation, undoubtedly with the approval of the issuers of the circulation coins. However, either the letter or the spirit of the approval must be that the coins in the set are the same as the circulation coins. Therefore, you may wonder if they were issued with the approval of the authorities. What does that make them? They are not circulation coins, they are not fantasies, they are not tokens, they are not pseudo coins, it's easy to say what they are not, but what are they?

Peter

They're produced on behalf of the official issuing authorities, so they are still "legal tender" in the letter of the law.  I queried the matter of legal tender status when the 2010 mint sets came out (as noted above, same basic design but different weight and metal composition, which is a radical departure), and found our Currency Act is vague enough to cover such issues with no need for any amendment.  Our coins aren't individually "proclaimed" as they are in Britain.

Somewhere along the way, our issuing authorities have lost sight of the fact that mint sets are meant to be a way of obtaining perfect examples of a given year's coins, not a parallel series in themselves.

Collectors by date need at least to be familiar with the existence of these sub-types, as occasionally they turn up in circulation (or otherwise detached from their sets) - I've found a few "non-existent" (i.e. set-only) years for 20c and 50c coins in change, so they must have come from broken-up BU sets at some stage.  Whether dealers cracked them to make up date sets or if it was done by thieves just to spend them, who knows.

« Last Edit: March 15, 2012, 05:07:57 AM by translateltd »