Some of the British pound coins are marked as commemorative coins but several are not. It seems to me that either they all should be considered commemoratives or none of them should. The bridge series seems like just as much a commemorative series as the "heraldic emblems" series.
I'm happy to enter the change requests to mark all these as commemoratives, but I figured I should raise the issue for discussion here first.
You can do just one and ask. Our Greatish British/United Kingdomish team are two polite gentlemans with plenty of politeness and knowledge. I am not sure they drink enough tea and eat month old puding though, but I am sure they will gladly help.
It's an interesting point and I would be very pleased to learn of others' opinions. To my mind, just because they are part of a series does not make them commemorative. To me, a commemorative is usually issued to mark (or commemorate) a particular event, such as 'the birth of x', 'the death of y' or 'the nth Anniversary of' ... etc., etc. I would actually like all these 'series' to be marked as non-commemorative with perhaps the details of the series entered into the comment section (which, to be fair, might not have been in existence when some of these coins were listed). As I said, this is only my opinion and Mark and I would be happy to amend the catalogue according to the general consensus - over to you ...
Just because you can't see it ... doesn't mean it isn't there - Anon.
My own preference would be to see all the series coins as commemoratives. I would rather have a wide definition of commemorative, meaning not only in honor of a special anniversary or occasion but also noting the significance of things, such as bridges.
My own personal feeling is that they are not commemoratives, but just a changing, rotating reverse design. It would seem to me that in order for there to be a commemorative version of a coin there should be a "normal" version. The US bicentennial quarter was a one year change from the standard eagle reverse. Even with the long running state and national park series (since 1999) it feels that once the series ends the quarter reverse would revert to the eagle.
There was never a "normal" reverse for the British pound coin, and it's hard to say exactly what the thistle or leek commemorates beyond the constituent countries of the UK.
But you know, I am not British and would defer to the general sense of the people who actually use the coins on a daily basis.
My view on this is that some are commemorative, some are not.
From 1983 to 2008, they should not be classed as commemorative, as because only 1 was produced, it should be the definitive for the year, just a different design each year.
In 2008 the Royal Shield pound was minted, that then became the definitive. Which then would make the capital cities series in 2010 and 2011, and the florals in 2013 and 2014 commemoratives.
"Commemorative" may be a bit of a misnomer in this case, as they don't actually commemorate anything.
(But then again, neither to the US's state quarters.)
If anybody collects the Royal Mint's "definitive" sets, that may shed a bit of light on what they consider definitive/commemorative.
http://www.facebook.com/NumismaticsUK
I'm not an expert in any kind of coins, but I reckon I'm good at research and will do my best to help. Feel free to tell me my identifications/valuations/gradings are wrong. It's the only way I'll learn.
To me they are a definitive series. There are many series like these, both circulating and non circulating that are within a non-commemorative series. This seems like a new function we can add.
Kenny
- Verifying your Asian and British-territorial coins everyday with the best quality photos and the best information.
Quote: "Jesse11"I guess there is no consensus on this issue at all! Should they just be left as they are, in a seeming haphazard and arbitrary arrangement?
It is unfortunate we have not received more contributions - perhaps we need to leave the thread longer to see if any more opinions are voiced? So far by my reckoning, we have 4 against and 1 in favour of commemoratives, in principal.
Just because you can't see it ... doesn't mean it isn't there - Anon.
To be honest, Iam not sure in my mind what is a series and what is a commemorative is. It goes back and forth. I would go with what the UK mint calls them. Here in the US state quarters are a series an not a commemorative coin , well to me. But the 1976 quarter , 1/2 dollar, and the 1 dollar are all commemorative. I know this is no help, but I would go with what the mint calls them.
yours daryl
Quote: "ALLRED1950" To be honest, Iam not sure in my mind what is a series and what is a commemorative is. It goes back and forth. I would go with what the UK mint calls them. Here in the US state quarters are a series an not a commemorative coin , well to me. But the 1976 quarter , 1/2 dollar, and the 1 dollar are all commemorative. I know this is no help, but I would go with what the mint calls them.
yours daryl
Thanks Daryl, I agree with your comments on the US quarters and the analogy with the UK pounds. Just like the 1976 quarters commemorated an event, we have recently seen UK pounds commemorating events, such as the 100th anniversary of the birth of Christopher Ironside. Also, just like the State quarters are a series featuring a number of different states, so the UK pounds that feature different national emblems or bridges are also series and not commemoratives. There is perhaps an argument for a new feature whereby you can indicate a particular series on a page listing but I don't think we should indicate they are commemorative when they are not, just because that is the only feature we have.
Just because you can't see it ... doesn't mean it isn't there - Anon.
For me, commemorative is everything that does remembers some person/event/anything else, by lettering/design. Even series like US quarters are meant to commemorate something. Is there a bridge instead of United Kingdom's regular design - then it commemorates the bridge. Strange, but true.
Quote: "Jarcek"For me, commemorative is everything that does remembers some person/event/anything else, by lettering/design. Even series like US quarters are meant to commemorate something. Is there a bridge instead of United Kingdom's regular design - then it commemorates the bridge. Strange, but true.
The catch is that there's no "regular design" here; it was a rotating series from day one.
Quote: "Jesse11"I guess there is no consensus on this issue at all! Should they just be left as they are, in a seeming haphazard and arbitrary arrangement?
I think this is, fittingly, the most British solution to the problem. :)
Quote: "Jesse11"I guess there is no consensus on this issue at all! Should they just be left as they are, in a seeming haphazard and arbitrary arrangement?
I think this is, fittingly, the most British solution to the problem. :)
Quote: "BizzoDoes"My view on this is that some are commemorative, some are not.
From 1983 to 2008, they should not be classed as commemorative, as because only 1 was produced, it should be the definitive for the year, just a different design each year.
In 2008 the Royal Shield pound was minted, that then became the definitive. Which then would make the capital cities series in 2010 and 2011, and the florals in 2013 and 2014 commemoratives.
"Commemorative" may be a bit of a misnomer in this case, as they don't actually commemorate anything.
(But then again, neither to the US's state quarters.)
If anybody collects the Royal Mint's "definitive" sets, that may shed a bit of light on what they consider definitive/commemorative.
I agree with this ... It makes sense to me. Up to 2007 they are varying design "Definitives". After that they are "Commemoratives".
Cheers Mike
Master Referee - See my profile for what I collect.
Would, then, the bimetallic Russian 10 rubles (the ones that do not, in fact, commemorate, i.e. the assorted "ancient cities" and "regions of Russia" series) also be considered non-commemorative? (And if so, would it suddenly change in October 2009 when the non-bimetallic "definitive" design appears?)
After all, there was no "definitive" type in that series, and the ones with the highest mintages were also the ones that were most obviously commemorative (55 years of Victory, 60 years of Victory, 40 years after Gagarin's flight).
