Retread: 1984 FM Trinidad and Tobago 50c Uncirculated Back from PCGS

This coin is one of my all time finds on eBay - unknown and uncatalogued. I have not seen any other since issue in 1984 and cost a princely $3.59 including shipping. This just came back from grading at PCGS, GTG if you'd like.
It doesn't really matter as it is likely very rare (if you care). Although I can not prove it, it does not appear to be a mint set type coin and somewhat supports the idea that even late Franklin Mint issues did get issued to Central Banks; paid out? Maybe...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I'm not sure I understand what you are speaking of. I have a few of these coins somewhere in a bag and from everything I have read there is nothing particularly interesting about it. Please explain what you mean.

 

It is cataloged KM#54 , copper-nickel, proof 65 worth $2.00

 

It IS NOT A PROOF! Actually, even the proofs are quite scarce. So wrong on both counts. Please try to even find a proof right now on the internet & you will see only one entire set for sale.
The date and mint mark FM, and type of 1984 are not common at all.
This is an uncirculated coin however, and NOT proof.
This is the proof copper-nickel and there is the sterling silver variety also.

So the 1984 FM 50c in proof are:

KM-54 Copper Nickel
KM-54a Sterling Silver

NO UNCIRCULATED 1984FM coins are catalogued or are known. The 1983FM coin of the previous year from specimen sets (VERY RARE) is also under the KM-54 type; this by the way is erroneously listed as (M) for matte when in fact it is of the (U) or proof like type.


Not sure where you are getting off being so nasty there "spirityoda". Please come correct first, your disposition is your own yolk and your nomen rather ironic. I was trying to pick up a point of interest - really that is nastiness not called for.
Absolutely not to beat my own chest but I have been for many years a contributor to Krause and their late beloved catalog.

 

I read @spirityoda post to you and I see nothing nasty about it. Why did you get offended so easy? He just stated his opinion.

By the way.. That's one ugly coin you have. I don't care what it is.

 

I guess controverting my statement with ignorance and without a modicum of civility is a problem. Sorry I did have to blow the ignorance out of the water.

And thanks for your input, paddyman, perhaps you would grace us with one of yours. As you may or may not have noticed, I never made claims as to beauty but rather the fact that it is a rare coin and does speak something to the coin operations at the Franklin Mint as it was about to fade away.

 

I think the best thing to do at this point is to show us the PCGS slab with the grade. Seems like nobody else is interested.

 

I like it! Never seen the calypso drums celebrated before...

 

Yes, well the number is really secondary - however it is PCGS 63PL.

 

Okay, I'm completely unfamiliar with this series, so these may be dumb questions, but you've aroused my curiosity.

It sounds like this was previously believed to be a proof-only issue. In the previous year, there were non-proof specimen strikes, but none are known for this year, right?

This one is designated uncirculated, but proof-like. Is the implication that it was struck from previously unknown non-proof dies, or from proof dies on a non-proof planchet, or something else?

Or... is it possible that this is just another example of a "mechanical error" (cough), like this recent one from NGC?

Discovering a non-proof strike for an issue that's supposed to be proof-only is a big deal. But given the proof-vs-MS bungling by both NGC and PCGS that we've seen over the last few years, it's gotten to the point where I do feel like we need to second-guess them...

 

It’s an interesting find; congrats!
It does raise questions about how something like this happened. Could it have been some test piece that just wasn’t documented?

@-jeffB I believe this coin looks quite different from the proofs struck for the date and so it’s not a mechanical error (it’s just hard to fully tell from the photo).

 

Even if it is KM#54 it is only worth $2.00 and the KM#54a proof silver is only worth $12.00. The only difference is the weight of the coin. Copper -nickel weight:7 grams and sterling silver weight:7.25 grams Did you get the weight of this coin ? Why have you not shown us the picture of the PCGS slab yet ?

 

He is saying that it isn’t either of those. The coin is not a proof and not in Krause at all.

 

Then he needs to show us the PCGS slab photo. We need proof of it otherwise it is all hearsay. I will agree that it might be rare. I myself have wanted the 1984 silver proof set for the 5 cents butterfly coin alone for my "coins with insects" collection. They have the silver 1984 proof set on Ebay now for $699.00 yes not cheap at all and very rare. I have never seen the 5 cents butterfly coin by itself being for sale.



I am sorry if I came off nasty. That was not my intent at all. Sorry.

 

Here is the PCGS cert page where they graded it as PL (as opposed to PR).

What that means with PCGS is subject to interpretation as I’ve seen them use PL and PR for various Franklin Mint items.

https://www.pcgs.com/cert/37247762

 

Show us the slab photo. I want to see the label.

 

@7Jags wrote this earlier:
“NO UNCIRCULATED 1984FM coins are catalogued or are known. The 1983FM coin of the previous year from specimen sets (VERY RARE) is also under the KM-54 type; this by the way is erroneously listed as (M) for matte when in fact it is of the (U) or proof like type.”

So I’m guessing his coin is proof-like as opposed to matte (or proof).

 

This is why we all want to see the slabs label. In my mind I am still thinking it's the copper-nickel proof version.

 

I will take a picture this evening as I am at work.

Some more information:

The Franklin Mint made money on striking proof sets for many countries, esp. the Caribbean (but others as well). They then also struck uncirculated specimen sets, and they struck uncirculated coins for circulation; these to supposedly "legitimize" the proof sets. Some countries such as T&T and Belize made proof sets that were all sterling silver and others that were all, or mostly circulation quality metal such as copper nickel or aluminum. So there was the 1984 T&T sterling set and the 1984 T&T bronze, copper nickel with the $10 coin still sterling silver even in this set.

Some have said that currency type coins did not circulate, but I have seen some Jamaica coins and MANY Belize coins that did circulate up to the 50c size. I have not seen the larger coins $1, $5, $10 to circulate.

The FM struck uncirculated coins in matte (M) finish only through 1974. After that all sets were struck in proof-like format (U) through 1984. The last T&T specimen set known to have been struck is the 1983, with (U) coins as would be expected. None are known to my knowledge to have been struck for 1984, but it certainly is possible.

Coins released to the Central Banks for purported circulation were as follows:

- (M) matte coins struck through 1977.
- (U) proof like coins struck 1977 through 1984

These come individually and are quite scarce except for Jamaica 1984 (U) coins struck in 20c - 50c as these are known from the Franklin Mint "Coins of the World" cardboard sets.

I have published the Barbados 1984 (U) $10 coin, and someone else found one; I have the Jamaica 1984 (U) $10 coin as well, and these are similar to this T&T 50c piece in that it looks like they were treated as intended for circulation and not broken up mint set survivors.

This coin is Proof Like (U) because it was struck by specific dies on copper nickel circulation quality planchets.

 

Thanks! It's always nice to increase my knowledge of a series, especially when I'm starting from zero.