Royal Mint attempting to Redefine "Legal Tender" for Collector Coins

L

lostwords

New Member
http://www.coinweek.com/world-mints...-mint-redefines-legal-tender-coin-collectors/

This is a horrid attempt. While it is understandable that they tried to closed a loophole for people to purchased a large amount of coins and redeem them back to the bank to get airmile or cashback, they could of do it by setting a limit and making it more difficult for people to do it. So those that purchased the earlier coin with the understanding that they could redeem at the bank can no longer do it. The worse part about this is, they were not the first one to do $x for $x. RCM did it and they could of learn that from RCM. They are just ignorant or incompetent to do proper research and analysis before releasing these face value coin. Seriously, it doesn't take much to know there are folks that would take advantage of the loop hole
 
lostwords said:
http://www.coinweek.com/world-mints...-mint-redefines-legal-tender-coin-collectors/

This is a horrid attempt. While it is understandable that they tried to closed a loophole for people to purchased a large amount of coins and redeem them back to the bank to get airmile or cashback, they could of do it by setting a limit and making it more difficult for people to do it. So those that purchased the earlier coin with the understanding that they could redeem at the bank can no longer do it. The worse part about this is, they were not the first one to do $x for $x. RCM did it and they could of learn that from RCM. They are just ignorant or incompetent to do proper research and analysis before releasing these face value coin. Seriously, it doesn't take much to know there are folks that would take advantage of the loop hole
Click to expand...
What a article to crazy for words angry hell yeh
 
article raises an imp issue that the RM has obviously not handled well, but at the end of the day isn't it the secondary market value as collector coins that matters? in other words, many of these coins, the ones that sold out quickly, have done well. I sold big ben for a nice profit for example and would never have sold for face, and I am not in the uk anyway.
 
It's a State division, regardless subject, what else than breaking promises can one expect?
 
"Legal tender has a very narrow and technical meaning in the settlement of debts. It means that a debtor cannot successfully be sued for non-payment if he pays into court in legal tender."

I think this could be challenged in court in respect of banks not having to accept the coins at face value. Sure, private businesses can accept whatever they want in payment, and that is a good thing as who wants to be forced to take paper if it is worthless, but banks I'd think have a unique position in being able to create money and link to offical fiat money so must have some obligation to accept "official" money. I think RCM and RM are just trying this on because they know no one is going to spend the money to take them to court.
 
bron.suchecki said:
Sure, private businesses can accept whatever they want in payment, and that is a good thing as who wants to be forced to take paper if it is worthless, but banks I'd think have a unique position in being able to create money and link to offical fiat money so must have some obligation to accept "official" money.
Click to expand...

It should be part of the banking license that you have to accept all legal tender.
If you don't do it, you lose your license.
 
thecoinanalyst said:
article raises an imp issue that the RM has obviously not handled well, but at the end of the day isn't it the secondary market value as collector coins that matters? in other words, many of these coins, the ones that sold out quickly, have done well. I sold big ben for a nice profit for example and would never have sold for face, and I am not in the uk anyway.
Click to expand...


They are just trying to stop scams! These credit card scams have been investigated in US for some time now with gangs using credit cards to gain discount on pm,s with promo codes and then selling them back as soon as they have received them to gain points that are used for other criminal activity including selling air tickets purchased with those points.

Not sure why a coin collector would be so worried? almost all collector coins cannot be bought for there nominated face value anyway.

There is of course the expectation of some of these coins being cashed in over the years causing them to become circulated thus making the un circulated remainder possibly more valuable but n a dream world you could buy all your latest collector coins in bulk at face value then sell them for a profit, those that dont sell you just take to the bank and get your money back! in reality the face value of a modern collector coin is irrelevant to its value.
 
fishtaco said:
Not sure why a coin collector would be so worried? almost all collector coins cannot be bought for there nominated face value anyway.
Click to expand...

Did you read the article, these are dollar-for-dollar coins where the face value is above metal value and are sold at their face value. If there is a scam it is the Mints implying to buyers that becuase they are legal tender you will always be able to sell it back at face value, ie the value of your "collectible" will never sell below what you paid for it. That is the marketing hook they are using and now they are trying to back track.
 
fishtaco said:
They are just trying to stop scams! These credit card scams have been investigated in US for some time now with gangs using credit cards to gain discount on pm,s with promo codes and then selling them back as soon as they have received them to gain points that are used for other criminal activity including selling air tickets purchased with those points.
Click to expand...

That's not a scam, that's using the terms and conditions of sale to your advantage.

If a merchant is stupid enough to sell something for $20 and pay 2% to the credit card company, knowing that they give the customer a portion of that in redeemable points, and still offer to buy the thing back for $20, that's the merchant's business.

They're trying to have their cake and eat it too.

Either the little round pieces of metal they're selling are legal tender, in which case they're money that's worth what's stamped on them, or they're trinkets that are just like any other knick-knack, fridge magnet or novelty t-shirt that you can't cash it at a bank after you've worn it to a party and spilled wine over the front.
 
A 'stop loss' is a big selling point for some coins.

Some people collect junk US coins because even if the value of silver plummets, they still have the face value of the coin. You also have this in the round 50 cents and the $10 State coins.

I was collecting the UK and Canadian 20 for 20 Coins, the Canadian because they were novel and the UK because I have money in a bank in the UK, earning very little interest so I might as well have the same face amount in silver that I held in paper.

I have now stopped collecting both series, without the stop loss there is nothing to make these rounds enticing. They are over priced for bullion silver and too small to get much detail on the coins. I am sure that the collector market will give me more than face value at the moment but it is likely that the mints will flood the market with hundreds of similar offerings making these common place.

I don't expect a shop to take these coins but I always thought I could drop them off in a bank if I needed to spend them, I only have 300 face value in these coins but I will not commit any more money unless I can get the face value back from somewhere other than the Mint.

Nice idea, poorly executed.
 
bron.suchecki said:
fishtaco said:
Not sure why a coin collector would be so worried? almost all collector coins cannot be bought for there nominated face value anyway.
Click to expand...

Did you read the article, these are dollar-for-dollar coins where the face value is above metal value and are sold at their face value. If there is a scam it is the Mints implying to buyers that becuase they are legal tender you will always be able to sell it back at face value, ie the value of your "collectible" will never sell below what you paid for it. That is the marketing hook they are using and now they are trying to back track.
Click to expand...


+1.

I have no issue if the Royal Mint or any other mint that do $x for $x that they are upfront about it at the beginning that these are collector coins and you can't get face value for it. The fact that they've advertised that the bank would take these at face value and years later changed their mind, that's just not acceptable. If they want to get rid of the scam, put a hard limit on how much once can purchase at once. Sure, that won't stop any scammer from creating various accounts to buy more, but it does built deterrent as it require a bit more effort. Please don't tell me they did not anticipate that there are people that will take advantage of these loop holes. If they are, they are really incompetent.
 
when the mint does it, ---> then its ok, but when we follow the did not approved.

their credibility is LOST, i would rather have Ruble and spent it on my vodka, at least some one can claim the kick in the cold weather. :)
 
MasterID said:
x for x is worth the metal price + $0.79 now.
My guess is the bank will readily accept the 1 face value silver.
Click to expand...

The Royal Mint was doing 20 for 20 on about 7 worth of silver (from memory, I may be wrong). I doubt they would be happy to pay 20 face value for 7 + $0.79 worth of silver.
 
Actually the $x for $x can be an easy way for dealer to hit the minimum dollar to be an official distributor. They could offload to the bank for cash flow.
 
Jislizard said:
MasterID said:
x for x is worth the metal price + $0.79 now.
My guess is the bank will readily accept the 1 face value silver.
Click to expand...

The Royal Mint was doing 20 for 20 on about 7 worth of silver (from memory, I may be wrong). I doubt they would be happy to pay 20 face value for 7 + $0.79 worth of silver.
Click to expand...
Well, they are happy to pay any amount for paper money, they should be even happier to pay for silver money.
 
Golden said:
Jislizard said:
MasterID said:
x for x is worth the metal price + $0.79 now.
My guess is the bank will readily accept the 1 face value silver.
Click to expand...

The Royal Mint was doing 20 for 20 on about 7 worth of silver (from memory, I may be wrong). I doubt they would be happy to pay 20 face value for 7 + $0.79 worth of silver.
Click to expand...
Well, they are happy to pay any amount for paper money, they should be even happier to pay for silver money.
Click to expand...

That was also my thinking when I bought them in the first place, but that was when I thought they were worth the face value of 20, now they have a face value of 0 regardless of what is minted on the coin.
 
Jislizard said:
That was also my thinking when I bought them in the first place, but that was when I thought they were worth the face value of 20, now they have a face value of 0 regardless of what is minted on the coin.
Click to expand...

That's some major Bullshit! So now they say coin from the official government mint with all proper denomination, emblem etc. is not a valid currency?
Is it a plot for the people to loose all faith in coins?! Move to digital?

Or they're just happy to charge premium on "legal tender" coin, while not allowing any private mint to do the same?

Are they going to declare next that .999 doesn't mean it's pure silver?

I personally despise all governments for a long time, now it's just becoming official.
 
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/roy...rofits-morale-star-trek-circulation-1.3998738

A silver collectible coin series so-called face value coins, including last year's silver $20 Star Trek coins was ended on Jan. 1 this year because of poor sales. "At Oct. 1, 2016, the market price of silver was significantly less than the face value of these coins," the mint said in a release Friday, explaining its weak third-quarter sales. "Effective Jan. 1, 2017, the mint is no longer selling face value coins." Droves of customers have been returning these coins for full refunds, forcing the mint to revise the way it reports such revenues to better account for the high returns. Those complex accounting revisions are part of the reason the mint was almost three months late in reporting its third-quarter results, which were due Nov. 30.

In other words, it was not recognising a liability for the fact that it had to pay face value and was taking full profit on all of them. With "droves" returning them, those returns resulted in the RCM having to book a loss. That would have resulted in the auditors saying you have been accounting for them wrong, resulting in the RCM probably not being allowed to book full profit on the coins (have to make some % allowance for returns), so they had to stop making them as not that profitable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top