The important anniversary of existence of a sovereign territory happened during communist power in Bulgaria. For it became 1300 year it issued for celebration the circulation commemoratives from 1 stoninka till 1 lev.
“this coin in Bulgaria is worth nothing, the expensive coin on the back should say People's Republic of Bulgaria from the same year and the same denomination.”
I can not understand this statement. It seems to me, that the mule the collector mentions costs exactly 23 eurocents, so on contrary it can not be expensive.
But 1 & 2 stotinka 1981 that says “хиляда и тристо години” are relatively common. And I am sure in Bulgaria they are indeed very common and are not hard to get.
And 1 & 2 stotinka 1981 that says “народна республика" are extremely rare and hard/impossible to obtain with such a low mintage under 200.
Thank you for your reply. Can you point where to see the coin you mentioned? For the discussion is about 2 stotinkas 1981, is it possible to see the coin you has just described?
Looks like the first image in the last post is wrong. But, the author did not give the source, though most probably it is from Numista catalog, which is well known for counterfeits made by its team (see for example https://en.numista.com/forum/topic51669.html where one counterfeit was described after another just as an example, but in such quantities, that Xavier had to close it). Is it possible to see a coin similar to the one in the first post but with mule?
Looks like the first image in the last post is wrong. But, the author did not give the source, though most probably it is from Numista catalog, which is well known for counterfeits made by its team (see for example https://en.numista.com/forum/topic51669.html where one counterfeit was described after another just as an example, but in such quantities, that Xavier had to close it). Is it possible to see a coin similar to the one in the first post but with mule?
From Numista obviously, I'm sorry you don't know how to use the catalog. Stop using words you don't know the meaning of, like counterfeit! I would also appreciate you make your own catalog and send your complaints to yourself😆
Thank you for your reply. Can you point where to see the coin you mentioned? For the discussion is about 2 stotinkas 1981, is it possible to see the coin you has just described?
This commemorative coin from 1981 is common, it is cited and sold on multiple internet sales sites including your store on Delcampe. You're usually serious, so what's the point?
First of all thank you for the presented image of the mule, it confirms that catalogs are right. That is why I do not understand the last question.
The answer already was presented. Yes, the mule exists, it was shown. And it indicates clearly
that
1. Numista catalog counterfeits the data: it describes fantasy, which does not exist.
2. Most probably the Antwerp collector statement is based on similar second hand so called “catalogs” where a fake was described, so they were sure about it. If they keep in hands a real mule, or at least saw it, the will not write this error.
Let us use a printscreen of an anonymous catalog presented in a post above here.
We see that the coin 1974 indeed described correctly. The coin 1979
is correctly presented up to the mintage.
The same with the coin 1980
It is shown right. Obviously nothing bad with the coin 1988
It was easily seen in circulation in Bulgaria and abroad. Note that 50 years did not pass yet and according to the standard top secret practice in communism realm (they have enough enemies around and should protect themselves) the mintage of 1974 and 1988 is not revealed by the governments yet.
Though the line about 1981
is in obvious contradiction with the coin, link to images of which is politely given above by iiruig. As we see, this anonymous catalog presents fantasy. For it is catalog, this is not a mistake, it is intentional action to mislead a reader, thus is a standard fake.
Do not know why you took all that time to upload and modify so many pictures in order to say exactly nothing.
Then, for 1981, what do you mean?
Though the line about 1981 is in obvious contradiction with the coin - which coin? It is exactly this coin, as you realised with link to images of which is politely given above by iiruig. - https://www.bgnumismatica.com/sell_coin.php?coinid=134
As we see, this anonymous catalog This is Numista catalogue and you know it.
presents fantasy. What fantasy? Coins exists, with exactly this mintage.
For it is catalog, this is not a mistake, This is actually true.
it is intentional action to mislead a reader, thus is a standard fake. Again, as coin exists, this mintage is not a mistake as you said in line above and coin exists as you pointed out by mentioning pictures above.
To sum it up:
You think that Numista is anonymous catalogue, while you know that the catalogue you said is anonymous is Numista.
You think that the yearline on Numista contradicts the coin page, but you aknowledge its existence.
You think Numista presents some fantasy, and yet you say it is not a mistake, since Numista is catalogue.
You also think that someone intentionally mislead you by adding a correct yearline years ago.
Let us use a printscreen of an anonymous catalog presented in a post above here.
We see that the coin 1974 indeed described correctly. The coin 1979
is correctly presented up to the mintage.
The same with the coin 1980
It is shown right. Obviously nothing bad with the coin 1988
It was easily seen in circulation in Bulgaria and abroad. Note that 50 years did not pass yet and according to the standard top secret practice in communism realm (they have enough enemies around and should protect themselves) the mintage of 1974 and 1988 is not revealed by the governments yet.
Though the line about 1981
is in obvious contradiction with the coin, link to images of which is politely given above by iiruig. As we see, this anonymous catalog presents fantasy. For it is catalog, this is not a mistake, it is intentional action to mislead a reader, thus is a standard fake.
I didn't understand you before, but now I'm completely lost. Go and meditate in a quiet place for some years and clean your “brain” paths.
That fact that a person did not keep a coin in hands does not mean that the coin does not exist.
Though still it does not mean, that a description of fantasy is the description of reality.
Do you understand that every person in this thread thinks that you are insane?
You contradict yourself in every post. Nobody understands what you mean, or what you are even arguing/talking about. Or what your question is even about. You use the words “counterfeit”, “mule”, and “fantasy”, but nobody understands what you mean by them and what you are trying to say here.
I will try to explain again what everybody is trying to explain to you.
Coins with “хиляда и тристо години” are relatively common and are worth a few $ at most.
Coins with “народна республика" are extremely rare. It has a mintage of 20 (twenty pieces).
I provided you a link above with a picture of the 1981 “народна республика" type that I found very quickly online. You can also find it on page 86 in the catalog with a link in the previous message.
So, what is a "mule" you are talking about?
What is “counterfeit” you are talking about?
What exactly does Numista need to change in its catalog so that there are no “fantasies” in the catalog?
Thank you very much for your questions and for the additional proof of fake.
Let us start with the terminology.
Mule - a switch of dies, which should not be done. It is very desirable gem in any collection. In this particular case the Obv. dies from 1979-1980 coins were used to produce the mule. The term is widely used by the Standard Catalog of World Coins.
Counterfeit - an imitation which deceive person into believing that it is real.
Indeed you gave a link to the images of a real mule (it is the clue of the discussion and I'm sure that the whole community is grateful to you for that). As the result it became obvious that the catalog you cited on p.86
describes the mule you presented; and the image
in the yellow line is a counterfeit. And most probably it explains why collectors talk about non-existing coins. They just were deceived by counterfeits.
A mule is a coin where two different die sets with different KM# have been used, like here:
I have quite a few other examples, but just to show what a mule is, those two are certainly enough? The guy from the island will have problems to find the two km# creating his “mule”!
Thank you very much for your questions and for the additional proof of fake.
Let us start with the terminology.
Mule - a switch of dies, which should not be done. It is very desirable gem in any collection. In this particular case the Obv. dies from 1979-1980 coins were used to produce the mule. The term is widely used by the Standard Catalog of World Coins.
Counterfeit - an imitation which deceive person into believing that it is real.
Indeed you gave a link to the images of a real mule (it is the clue of the discussion and I'm sure that the whole community is grateful to you for that). As the result it became obvious that the catalog you cited on p.86
describes the mule you presented; and the image
in the yellow line is a counterfeit. And most probably it explains why collectors talk about non-existing coins. They just were deceived by counterfeits.
I was not really questioning the terminology of “mule” or “counterfeit”, I was just asking what did you mean when you you were using those words.
I understood that “mule” for you is the “народна республика” type. Ok.
But then you wrote (and please follow the logic):
- indeed I shared a link with “народна республика” type of 1981. We all agreed here.
- indeed this type is described in this catalog, we all agreed here (and I am sure in other catalogs as well)
- but then, who knows why, you wrote that the line of 1981 at Numista is “counterfeit”. Why?? Why do you think it is “an imitation which deceive person into believing that it is real”? What needs to be changed exactly in your opinion on that line? Does it need to be deleted? Does the year need to be changed? Does the mintage need to be changed? Does it need to have a comment? Does it need to be a different colour? We are not able to understand you here.
Thank you very much for your question. It is obvious of course.
The image of the catalog you cited
is in contradiction with an image of that anonymous ‘catalog.’ That is why the image
of a so called ‘catalog’ describes a counterfeit. The coin itself shows it more explicit, for there are not many letters there. The image of the coin is not at this forum topic, that is why it is not possible to point to details on it; the only real coin shown at the topic is the very first one.
Thank you very much for your question. It is obvious of course.
The image of the catalog you cited
is in contradiction with an image of that anonymous ‘catalog.’ That is why the image
of a so called ‘catalog’ describes a counterfeit. The coin itself shows it more explicit, for there are not many letters there. The image of the coin is not at this forum topic, that is why it is not possible to point to details on it; the only real coin shown at the topic is the very first one.
Ok, so since “The coin itself shows it more explicit, for there are not many letters there.” and “The image of the coin is not at this forum topic, that is why it is not possible to point to details on it; the only real coin shown at the topic is the very first one.”, then we should leave the page at the “anonymous catalog” (aka Numista) as it is right now, without any changes. Correct?
On this page you cited the view of Numista catalog is:
It is correct and describes the known coins. Just there is chance that you know when the coin was demonetized and add the data in the last line
though many people may not remember such details.
There is a certain question about the mintage. For the mule is the proof issue there is chance that they knew the quantity. From my point of view the reconstruction of event could be: the proof issue was approved and the special polished dies were prepared. The worker put all dies correctly, taking the dies of 1 and 2 stotinkas by mistake from another shelf: they were used in 1979 and 1980. By procedure the main person should check production during minting and mules creation was discovered. The process stopped and …
For they produced defects again following procedure they should withdraw them and coin correctly. At which stage it became known that 20 items survived? The 1 and 2 stotinkas are part of sets, so maybe loose coins were annulated but the sets with defects were left, for they did not wish to break them, these sets were counted and 20 were found. What did they do with these special sets? I mean in which may they left the mint? Or what else can happen?
On this page you cited the view of Numista catalog is:
It is correct and describes the known coins. Just there is chance that you know when the coin was demonetized and add the data in the last line
though many people may not remember such details.
There is a certain question about the mintage. For the mule is the proof issue there is chance that they knew the quantity. From my point of view the reconstruction of event could be: the proof issue was approved and the special polished dies were prepared. The worker put all dies correctly, taking the dies of 1 and 2 stotinkas by mistake from another shelf: they were used in 1979 and 1980. By procedure the main person should check production during minting and mules creation was discovered. The process stopped and …
For they produced defects again following procedure they should withdraw them and coin correctly. At which stage it became known that 20 items survived? The 1 and 2 stotinkas are part of sets, so maybe loose coins were annulated but the sets with defects were left, for they did not wish to break them, these sets were counted and 20 were found. What did they do with these special sets? I mean in which may they left the mint? Or what else can happen?
Actually it is possible to fantasize anything.
Ok, great, so now the Numista page is correct, the issue was with a comment description of “Proof” and there is no more “counterfeits” there.
