Dont understand. Send you certificate that this coin is a coin minted by British Royal Mint and you want to placed under Exonumia ??? This is sick. I dont know where to placed this coin so ask. As British Trade Dollar is under UK so i assume that should be placed under UK but im not sure that , that is why i'm asking.
I think its not my job to find catalogue reference but a referee who admin the country.
Regards,
Damian
Quote: "doc_man"Dont understand. Send you certificate that this coin is a coin minted by British Royal Mint and you want to placed under Exonumia ??? This is sick. I dont know where to placed this coin so ask. As British Trade Dollar is under UK so i assume that should be placed under UK but im not sure that , that is why i'm asking.
I think its not my job to find catalogue reference but a referee who admin the country.
Regards,
Damian
Damian, I think CassTaylor is right at one thing. It may not even have a catalogue reference, therefore it cannot be in Hong Kong or even UK as a non-circulating coin. That´s why Exonumia (the coin being most probably permanently placed in) is a safe bet for it.
For starters, they have no legal tender status anywhere. It's not even a NCLT. I think you're basing your claims off of assumption rather than the evidence you gave, sorry to say. The certificate stating it comes from the Royal Mint means a lot less than you seem to think it does; theseareallexamplesof exonumia minted by the Royal Mint.
This piece of exonumia isn't even a British Trade Dollar, or a commemorative variant of one minted 62 years after the last date of issue (1935) like you seem to think (by your reasoning that it should be in the UK catalogue with it). It's simply a piece of exonumia with the same design. Would you like this to be in the USA catalogue next to the Morgan Dollar?
I'm sorry if I was a little derisive before, Damian, but this belongs in Exonumia and nowhere else. If you wish to make the claim it should be in the UK, the burden of proof is on you to find a catalogue reference showing it listed alongside the British issues.
I don't know much about this coins as i don't collect them as well im not a referee for this countries so dont know. Saw this coins in some coin shops via net some saying its Hong Kong others UK so created the post.
For me more important is COA then catalog reference. Of course perfect situation is to have them both. I saw many coins from Polish mint that don't have any catalog reference but do have a COA. Read some time ago a great article about forgeries and there were information that responsibility lies on central banks & mints. They should provide detailed information about each coin so thanks to that we will know what is and what is not a legal tender coin. At the beginning of the year i have contacted Nauru government and they did a wonderful job providing all details. http://www.naurugov.nr/government/departments/department-of-finance/nauru%27s-commemorative-coins.aspx
Unfortunately most central banks have more important things to do than provide information about their money-grabbing commemoratives to numismatists.... SAD!
Some countries like Singapore do keep very detailed records at the MAS website, but for some of the others like Albania and Côte d'Ivoire, really it's up to common sense to decide at the end of the day. Trouble with a lot of the more modern commemorative issues is that usually Krause hasn't gotten around to cataloguing them, so we're lucky if a coin even has U# or a mention.
Strictly speaking, these are not restrikes since there never was a coin previously with this combination of obverse and reverse. Whilst the obverse is trying to look like the original trade dollars (and I quite like the look of it, for that) the two separate reverse designs have been newly created for the collectors' market and so in my opinion, they are more Fantasy issue than they are Token restrike.
Just because you can't see it ... doesn't mean it isn't there - Anon.
Not Hong Kong, definitely. I have a proof set of a token from the Japan Mint, and, despite being a part of the set and being a coin, it serves no actual legal tender use and thus is categorised under Tokens. Same case probably with this coin.
We haven't even heard of these coins in Hong Kong. Not in Hong Kong; sorry!
Please don't get me wrong. Many people saying many things including myself. Many people are wrong what is and what is not a coin. I can't rely on person who say this is a coin or not I need a strong proof. Here we have great example. We have no data in catalogs but we have a COA (fabricated). The wise man said: If you want to find the source, you have to go up the stream. So I go and find the answer.
