We are also fielding an increasing number of calls from customers enquiring whether these types of coins are officially mint endorsed. We have recorded recent instances of plating on Niue Turtles, along with some after market colourising of bullion silver. In all cases, our view is that any after market alteration of the product released by the Mint, nullifies its effigy approval, as this is based on the strict design we submit to the licensing authority. These are not endorsed by the Mint.
Thats nice to know, thanks for the statement. Now how about mints around the world speaking out about Chinese fakes? Tons of them floating around and not a peak from Mints about it.
Regarding the question of fake product. In the past year NZ Mint has issued two legal letters supported by similar legal support from licensing authority governments, and licensed brand owners to companies that we have identified advertising fake product. This is not just an issue in China, as we have also seen fraudulent product from a European source as well. We are always grateful for any information we get from the wider community pointing us to product suppliers that you sense are dubious, and we do follow up. I strongly suspect most other mints are equally vigilant.
This is just silly nonsense. So your stance is that if someone alters the finish of your legal tender coin then it ceases to be legal tender? Seriously? That is beyond ludicrous. That's like saying that if I put gold plating or paint on a US Quarter that it should no longer be a valid quarter. I can understand protecting your brand and wanting people to know that it is not something that your company did and is an aftermarket alteration, but to call it invalid - seriously? I would also think that your company doesn't even have the ability to declare the altered coin invalid as that would likely have to go to the issuing authority, who would probably laugh at you.
This is not really an issue of brand protection for New Zealand Mint specifically. This is a fundamental of licensing authorities giving legal tender status to coins. Any alteration to the design, however minute, during the design phase of a coin, needs to have the licensing authority give a subsequent approval. Ultimately they hold the master list of what they have approved on their effigy. If a customer goes to a licensing authority to verify whether their Ruthenium plated Flamed Maple really did have a limited mintage of only 300 (or whatever is on the certificate), then I think it is pretty clear the response would be 'We have never authorised any of these'.
Today I have a new PowerCoin.it mail for 2014 CoA of Burning Maple Leaf : Hello XXXX, I have an update for you regarding the 2014 dated certificates. This generated confusion in the market, so after the first batch of issued coins (very few), a new COA date 2015 has been printed. There should be about 20 Maple Leaf with 2014 COA around, including yours, so we can send you new certificates if you tell me which COA number you have to replace. Of course this will be at our cost. Thank you, and sorry for the inconvenience, Antonello. Issue will be soin resolve, and only 20 Burning Maple Leaf around the world are concerned !
FCC has these listed for $400 now, can it be that I finally made an investment that's actually going in the right direction?
Maybe, but remember there are still a lot that are just now getting shipped with new CoA, boxes etc, so the price may drop a bit if people start flooding eBay with them etc.
