error coin denomination?

[fishtaco]

So ok a $200 denomination was minted on a $1 denomination coin

http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/2001-Aus...eries-Error-/321868942901?hash=item4af0e24e35

My question is, would the $200 denomination be valid if cashed in for denomination value?

 

[trew]

don't know but you would never get one of these for less than $200 anyway

$7k is steep but I saw one of these once at at Downies auction and it sold somewhere around $2k I think

 

[Golden ChipMunk]

Which would you pick? An error $7K VS $200 FV

$7K is cheap

 

[Golden ChipMunk]

This unusual error occurred in 2001 when the normal reverse of the one ounce silver proof Kookaburra coin was accidentally muled, or mixed up, with the two ounce proof gold or platinum observe. Originally around 100 were thought to have escaped from the Perth Mint but following a letter to collectors, some 80 coins were returned for replacement. The resulting mintage could be as low as 20 coins. In February 2005, another example sold by Downies (sale 287, lot 692) for $5500, plus commission.

 

[fishtaco]

Which would you pick? An error $7K VS $200 FV

$7K is cheap

That wasn't the question! this coin is legal tender so if somebody "stupid reason" tried to cash it in on its face value would they only be entitled by law to only $1 even though the coin is minted as a $200 denomination.

The story is that most of these miss mints were returned to the mint by dealers and collectors in exchange for the proper $1 denomination coin, ist that stupid enough for you? Or were they bound by law to return them?

 

[Golden ChipMunk]

Which would you pick? An error $7K VS $200 FV

$7K is cheap

That wasn't the question! this coin is legal tender so if somebody "stupid reason" tried to cash it in on its face value would they only be entitled by law to only $1 even though the coin is minted as a $200 denomination.

The story is that most of these miss mints were returned to the mint by dealers and collectors in exchange for the proper $1 denomination coin, ist that stupid enough for you? Or were they bound by law to return them?

Look like you already found the answer to your own Question....

Why bother having a discussion???

.......

 

[fishtaco]

Which would you pick? An error $7K VS $200 FV

$7K is cheap

That wasn't the question! this coin is legal tender so if somebody "stupid reason" tried to cash it in on its face value would they only be entitled by law to only $1 even though the coin is minted as a $200 denomination.

The story is that most of these miss mints were returned to the mint by dealers and collectors in exchange for the proper $1 denomination coin, ist that stupid enough for you? Or were they bound by law to return them?

Look like you already found the answer to your own Question....

Why bother having a discussion???

.......

Please highlight where I found the answer to my own question! you cant answer the question so become a smart arse about it instead?

 

[thatguy]

Around one hundred were thought to have escaped the Perth Mint and, following a letter to collectors, some eighty coins were returned for replacement leaving possibly up to twenty in circulation.

lol how to flush $$ down the toilet

 

[hiho]

Like Ireland's Euro parliament vote , well keep having a vote until we get the correct answer :lol:

 

[Big A.D.]

Which would you pick? An error $7K VS $200 FV

$7K is cheap

That wasn't the question! this coin is legal tender so if somebody "stupid reason" tried to cash it in on its face value would they only be entitled by law to only $1 even though the coin is minted as a $200 denomination.

The story is that most of these miss mints were returned to the mint by dealers and collectors in exchange for the proper $1 denomination coin, ist that stupid enough for you? Or were they bound by law to return them?

There is an argument that the coin isn't legal tender because it's production wasn't authorized.

In practice, you wouldn't really want to enforce that because then you'd put the mint in the position of them having sold counterfeit currency. Either it's a $200 coin that wasn't part of their planned release schedule, or it's a lump of metal with "$200" and the Queen's head on it which isn't legal tender.

I'd say nobody is particularly keen to find out one way or the other which is probably why the mint politely asked that they be returned and also why nobody who deals in those coins will get busted for passing counterfeit currency.

"Where did you get this counterfeit coin?"

"I got it from the mint, officer."

Not a good look.

 

[fishtaco]

Which would you pick? An error $7K VS $200 FV

$7K is cheap

That wasn't the question! this coin is legal tender so if somebody "stupid reason" tried to cash it in on its face value would they only be entitled by law to only $1 even though the coin is minted as a $200 denomination.

The story is that most of these miss mints were returned to the mint by dealers and collectors in exchange for the proper $1 denomination coin, ist that stupid enough for you? Or were they bound by law to return them?

There is an argument that the coin isn't legal tender because it's production wasn't authorized.

In practice, you wouldn't really want to enforce that because then you'd put the mint in the position of them having sold counterfeit currency. Either it's a $200 coin that wasn't part of their planned release schedule, or it's a lump of metal with "$200" and the Queen's head on it which isn't legal tender.

I'd say nobody is particularly keen to find out one way or the other which is probably why the mint politely asked that they be returned and also why nobody who deals in those coins will get busted for passing counterfeit currency.

"Where did you get this counterfeit coin?"

"I got it from the mint, officer."

Not a good look.

So in essence the mint or government could seize this coin from the holder any time they want because its an in error legal tender coin and never intended for sale or circulation in this form.

I am sure the 80 coins returned to the mint were requested back with hints of legal action if they were not returned or why would so many have been sent back?

 

[Big A.D.]

So in essence the mint or government could seize this coin from the holder any time they want because its an in error legal tender coin and never intended for sale or circulation in this form.

The mint couldn't force the owner to do anything. Theoretically the AFP could seize them if they considered them counterfeit currency, but they won't because it would destroy the mint's reputation e.g. "Don't buy anything from the mint, 'cause if they make a mistake with something the federal police will come kick your door down to clean up their mess." If you can't have confidence that any given coin the mint makes is actually a real legal tender coin, you can't really have a market for coins.

They know (roughly) how many are out there and that there aren't any more being manufactured so...Oops, an error coin.

I am sure the 80 coins returned to the mint were requested back with hints of legal action if they were not returned or why would so many have been sent back?

I haven't seen the letter, but lots of people will do what you want if you ask them nicely.