Pseudo coins

[<k>]

because they represent uselessly small amounts of money.

Which reminds me of:

In fact, there are three freely convertible currencies in the universe, but the Altairian Dollar has recently collapsed, the Flainian Pobble Bead is only exchangeable for other Flainian Pobble Beads, and the Triganic Pu doesn't really count as money. Its exchange rate of six Ningis to one Pu is simple, but since a Ningi is a triangular rubber coin six thousand, eight hundred miles long each side, no one has ever collected enough to own one Pu. Ningis are not negotiable currency because the Galactic Banks refuse to deal in fiddling small change. From this Basic premise it's very simple to prove that the Galactic Banks are also the products of a deranged imagination.

From Douglas Adams' The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

[UK Decimal +]

I didn't know that these are not legal tenders in India until recently when Mr. Kansal started the topic. So now, for me at-least, the Indian unc/proof sets (or even the coin cards) are NCNLT now. Or as I said, NCNLT issued by a Legal Indian authority. (That sounds better )

I anyway don't collect them so I need not worry. And after reading what Mr. Kansal said, I will never collect them in future..

Aditya

Yes, with the - I'll call them "specials" for the want of a suitable term - coming out in Britain, such as the "special" £1 London/Cardiff/Edinburgh/Belfast issues, which seem unlikely to enter circulation, I am also thinking of restricting my collection to circulation-type coins.

On your suggestion of NCNLT for "certain products from the mints of India", I do not agree with you.   The word "tender" in the sense of "offer" as in, on a bus, "Please tender the correct fare as the driver does not carry change", suggests that you can offer them for payment.   In this case NCNLT is misleading as implying that they are money, which we are told that they are not (legal or otherwise).   Put simply, they are very expensive "play-money".   Can anyone suggest a suitable abberviation?   "Pseudo-coin" would seem to apply, but this could have many other interpretations and includes the word "coin" which they're not.

Bill.

[<k>]

As <k> notes above, all except the Irish coin are pseudo coins.

All except the Irish coin are collector coins. Google "pseudo coins", and you will find nothing useful. 

[chrisild]

These days the term "collector coin" is in official use (euro area for example) and fairly widely accepted elsewhere. But of course there are those who argue that, say, BU or proof versions of other coins are "collector issues" as well. Anyway, here is another one - see the Bach coin here: http://www.worldofcoins.eu/forum/index.php/topic,47250.0.html

That is one of many collector coins without a raised rim issued by the German Democratic Republic (East G.) between 1966 and 1990. Several other GDR coins do have a raised rim.

Christian

[FosseWay]

As <k> notes above, all except the Irish coin are pseudo coins.

I don't know about the Israeli or Cypriot pieces, but the UK £2 I would not characterise as a pseudo-coin. It was available loose at face value from banks and, while I've never encountered that specific issue in circulation, I did receive a couple of the 1986 issue (same specs) in change in the years before 1998. Collector coin is a reasonable description; I would restrict "pseudo-coin" to series issued with (next to) no involvement of the stated issuing authority and/or (next to) no availability in the stated country of issue and/or not available at face value.

[<k>]

I would restrict "pseudo-coin" to series issued with (next to) no involvement of the stated issuing authority and/or (next to) no availability in the stated country of issue and/or not available at face value.

If the official issuing authority had absolutely no involvement, then the piece would be a mere fantasy and not a coin of any sort. In the case of the nickel-brass 2 pound coins, we have a case of coins that were never intended to circulate but occasionally did. As Yogi Berra said, 'In theory, theory and practice are the same, but in practice they're not'. 

[FosseWay]

If the official issuing authority had absolutely no involvement, then the piece would be a mere fantasy and not a coin of any sort. In the case of the nickel-brass 2 pound coins, we have a case of coins that were never intended to circulate but occasionally did. As Yogi Berra said, 'In theory, theory and practice are the same, but in practice they're not'. 

I presume (but don't know for sure) that the pseudo-coins issued in e.g. Liberia's and Somalia's names have some form of permission from those countries to use their name, and it was these I meant rather than the kinds of fantasy you mention. For me the clincher for the "middle" category between "circulation" and "pseudo-coin" is that the piece is available for face value loose from banks in the stated country of issue, but that its main purpose is not for circulation.

[brandm24]

Here's my overly simplistic answer to considering the merits and definition of a pseudo-coin. It has three parts.

1) Call them "tokens"
2) Turn out the lights
3)  Go to bed.



Bruce

[<k>]

For me the clincher for the "middle" category between "circulation" and "pseudo-coin" is that the piece is available for face value loose from banks in the stated country of issue, but that its main purpose is not for circulation.

So now you are making up your own categories. You could have been burnt at the stake for that, once upon a time. I doubt even 'pseudo-coin' Figleaf would agree with your categories.

My only two main categories are 1] circulation coins and 2] collector coins. Somali coins and gold sovereigns both come in category 2: one you'd like as a gift, the other you wouldn't - that's down to intrinsic value, of course.

Maybe there should be a Monty Python scale of silliness for collector coins. Or maybe you, FosseWay, could invent one yourself. Commemorating other countries' events could be number one on the scale: Coins of the Modern Chinese Empire.

Then there are the collector trinkets in funny shapes (Eiffel Tower, guitars, etc.): The most ridiculous collector coins.

How many others can you analyse or categorise, FosseWay? Your original sub-categories are really about availability, distribution, authority (official coins or not). I suppose we're talking 'purpose' with regard to the aspects that I have mentioned.

[FosseWay]

The reason I personally think of a middle category alongside obviously circulation issues and obviously collector-only coins is that it isn't always obvious if a given coin is a "circulation issue". In some cases they're not intended to circulate but do anyway (like the monometallic UK £2s, but also examples like the 1982 and 1983 10p coins that I have, both picked up in change), and in other cases they are intended to circulate but rarely actually do (various 50ps). I've received more 1986 £2 coins in change than I have Kew Gardens 50ps, for example.

Personally, if a coin fulfils one or more of the following criteria, I'm happy to regard it as a genuine coin for the purposes of my collection:

- there is widespread evidence that it is used in practice (ideally my own personal experience, but that's obviously limited to countries where I happen to go for long enough to be able to find them)
- it is of substantially the same specifications as a coin that is demonstrably used in practice (such as the abovementioned 1982 10p)
- it is available at face value and loose from some form of outlet, whether a bank, post office or the mint
- it has a known and understood denomination that fits into the currency structure and denominational range of the country in question (this excludes peculiar issues like modern sixpences, French coins denominated as 6.5597 francs or whatever the euro rate was, or bullion coins, although I suspect that most such coinoids probably fail on several other criteria as well).

But ultimately it's just a matter of personal taste. In no way am I trying to impose categories or descriptions on anyone! 

[<k>]

- it has a known and understood denomination that fits into the currency structure and denominational range of the country in question

Yes, it does annoy me when I see France and Portugal (who else?) issuing 'special' euro coins with fractional values, in this age of decimalisation.