Technically it’s a piece which has a stated value in a legitimate country’s money. Therefore if a legitimate country placed their value on it, it’s a coin.
Yes, technically, it is. But I also agree with the OP's point that it's definitely stretching the definition. Sort of like this Fijian NCLT does.
Truly it should be named a trade item, monies, or some similar term, but that does not catch the ear of coin collectors to which these types of items are marketed for.
A statue of a goat on a silver hill made out of 3 ounces of silver works for me. It's funny and I like goats, especially the little ones. Go Rwanda!!! Also - how is this for a coin? $2 - I wonder if you can buy a coke for $2 in the Cook Islands? Be fun to check the change drawer at the local Cook Islands 7/11! It's so thick it has to be double thick slabbed by PCGS and it has a little chip of the meteorite found in the impact crater the coin represents embedded in the coin. I love meteorites!
I think shape also should be part of the definition of “coin”. One characteristic of a coin is that it is, within approximate limits, a cylinder (including elliptical and hollow) or right polyhedron. The object must have a width significantly greater than height. Statuary doesn’t qualify even if a government stamps a value on it. Cal
For me it has to be issued with the intent of being used as money. Having a denomination, or being "legal tender" isn't good enough. If it isn't actually intended to be used in commerce it is just a "collectible" intended to separate a collector from his money. And being intended to be used as money would also mean it was issued at its face value.
