I have two Italian 1 lira coins from 1926. There were only 500 minted. A few weeks ago a fellow collector took an interest in them, but then brushed off the idea of buying one of them, stating that they were not legal tender, since they had been minted specifically for collectors. This doesn’t seem to be the case from my understanding, even though they were minted for collectors, they were still legal tender, if a collector would have wanted to use it as such. Many mints produce coins and dispatch them directly to collector lists while still remaining legal tender. In this statement he made, he appeared to be saying that this was not a real coin for him. The only thing I can fathom is that he, like me actually, doesn’t like to buy mint sets, or coins sold by the mints for collectors. In some way, he doesn’t feel it’s a real coin since it never entered circulation or even was intended for circulation. A kind of vanity coin collecting, when a coin is released directly to collectors without any intention of its public use. Would it be fair to say that he felt this is not a real coin? – in his definition. Please share your view on this matter. Thanks!
"Legal tender" does not necessarily mean "meant for circulation," of course, but as far as collecting goes, it's all a matter of preference. I prefer collecting coins that played a role in day-to-day commerce, even if they're uncirculated. But I do have some medals and commems. Do I consider them coins? Yes, but I have no snobbery about it one way or another. I think of collector coins as sculpture, and plenty of people collect sculpture without any stigma attached to it.
His problem, not yours or mine. Of course there are lots of coins out there that were/are made for collectors only. However, that does not have anything to do with the concept of legal tender. On the other hand it is perfectly legitimate for a collector to say "I am only interested in pieces that actually circulated". That would of course leave every surcharged proof or BU coin out, including those commemorative or collector coins that can only be had surcharged. But why not collect that way ... Christian
hu, interesting. i have one of these from 1922, i guess that year is legal tender. yours is just as pretty, but worth more.
If it was issued by a government entity that had the authority to issue coinage, with a denomination knowable, its a coin. Now, someone is perfectly able to wish to only collect coins intended for circulation, I have that preference, but that does not make commemorative coins any less of a coin. Some of those guitar shaped, enameled POS issued by places like the Soloman islands, Liberia, and other countries sure STRAIN this definition, but I think even those pieces of garbage are technically still coins.
Looks like an early 20th century example of what the hobby terminology now calls NCLT, non-circulating legal tender coinage. And a very fine example, if I may add.
Actually that type was a regular circulation coin. It's just that this year, and a few others, are rare. The "oddball" variety is the one issued in 2000. They used the original design (with the 1922 date) as he central part of a silver coin. Around that you see "Repubblica Italiana" on the side with the seated Italia, and "2000"/"L. 1" on the other side. Christian
When I see a coin in Krause with a mintage of 500, I always wonder who owns these. I'm curious how you got two of them?
Hi there and thank you all for your comments. I agree that in the end everyone has a right to collect and see things the way they want. I just felt the way he said it, that he considered it a sub species of coins - that's going a bit far. If he was referring to the Solomon Island coins then his tone perhaps would have been more appropriate and I would have agreed with him. I'm a little conservative and personally I'm not even too fond of coloured coins. I happen to have these and also a 20 Centesimi from 1926 because I inherited it from my father's collection. He particularly liked low mintage coins.
