Art1.2 Posted February 22, 2013 Report Share Posted February 22, 2013 The question has asked about Tin Farthings with copper plugs. Are they to be entered in the category for coppers because of the plug material, "other metals" because of the tin, "bi-metals" because of the mixed composition or Group 9 as specials? So now you have a chance to make your feeling known. Give us a vote and some discussion if you would. Here's an example from Omnicoin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottO Posted February 22, 2013 Report Share Posted February 22, 2013 i say bi-metals as it is know as the first bi-metallic coin (oir second if you count the Charles I rose farthings where they used other metals to fill gaps, but they dont really count imo) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art1.2 Posted February 23, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2013 Seems like most folks don't care one way or the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccg Posted February 23, 2013 Report Share Posted February 23, 2013 Personally, I'm torn. I consider plugged coins/tokens such as the aforementioned tin farthings, the St. Patrick halfpennies, and also the late 1700s US silver centre cent to be a precursors to modern bimetallics - related in the sense that they contain a visibly identifiable second metal, but which were not part of the design. The model halfpennies and pennies of the mid 1800s that showed up in England IMO was the first piece to be bimetallic, and have the bimetallism worked into the design, and IMO is the first true bimetallic, though it is technically a private issue of trial composition (like the US Feuchtwanger 1c and 3c of 1837). But tin itself is such an unusually used non-copper/brass base that it could easily be put into a category of its own. For such interesting conflicting reasons, I vote for the last option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazinta Posted February 27, 2013 Report Share Posted February 27, 2013 Is this coin in the bimetallic category (http://img.ma-shops....c/2ca30391p.jpg) Canada $20 1991. It's sterling silver with gold oval. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art1.2 Posted February 27, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2013 Is this coin in the bimetallic category (http://img.ma-shops....c/2ca30391p.jpg) Canada $20 1991. It's sterling silver with gold oval. I think that NCLT is the correct category for this coin. It is produced by the Canadian Mint but never intended for actual circulation. Thus Non-Circulating Legal Tender. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccg Posted February 27, 2013 Report Share Posted February 27, 2013 It's a silver coin with some gold plating applied after the coin was struck, so no, it would not be bimetallix but NCLT would indeed be the right place for it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trantor_3 Posted February 27, 2013 Report Share Posted February 27, 2013 I voted "Where ever the owner feels most comfortable". - Since only that small plug is copper, and the rest not, I would definitely not place it in "copper". - Bi-metal seems not appropriate to me either, as : a - the plug is so small compared to the whole coin b - the plug is not really part of the design So, basically, I'm with Kevin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottO Posted February 28, 2013 Report Share Posted February 28, 2013 the plug is a security feature i think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.