Circulating Commemorative Coin

 I think this coin should be a circulating commemorative coin and not a standard circulating coin. Because it commemorates the Jamuna Multipurpose Bridge. 

If so, maybe you should request to change it?

Yep, done already. Thanks.

👍

In what way does it ‘commemorate’ the bridge beyond featuring it in the design? By that logic, nearly every coin that features a place or thing is a commemorative.

As per Numista, it is a Commemorative issue 

I disagree!

I believe that not all FAO coins, coins minted for a specific occasion, or coins depicting a president, prime minister, or bridge are necessarily commemorative coins. Now it turns out that Bangladesh, for example, didn't have a standard circulation coin because it was issued with a bridge. To me, these coins were issued as standard circulation coins. In my opinion, this coin was minted for everyday use, not to commemorate anything. In your opinion, all banknotes should be commemorative because they feature kings, presidents, monuments, animals, etc.

pawel75

I disagree!

I believe that not all FAO coins, coins minted for a specific occasion, or coins depicting a president, prime minister, or bridge are necessarily commemorative coins. Now it turns out that Bangladesh, for example, didn't have a standard circulation coin because it was issued with a bridge. To me, these coins were issued as standard circulation coins. In my opinion, this coin was minted for everyday use, not to commemorate anything. In your opinion, all banknotes should be commemorative because they feature kings, presidents, monuments, animals, etc.

I agree with your disagreement, but contrary to what is on the coin, I think it is important to understand this coin in conjunction with other 5 Taka denominations.

Bangladesh issued both 5 Taka coins and Notes simultaneously. If the Banknotes are the standard, it could make all 5 Taka coins commemorative? 
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/index.php?e=bangladesh&r=&st=1-2-3-79-80&cat=y&im1=&im2=&ru=&ie=&no=&v=5&cu=&a=&dg=&i=&b=&m=&f=&t=&t2=&w=&mt=&u=&g=&c=&wi=&sw=

This coin was issued in 1994, replacing the FAO coins, which had been circulating in two variants since 1974 (both these coins are marked as Commemorative), then after the 2 years of this bridge coin, a further bridge coin was issued 10 years later (which is recorded as a Standard coin). None of these coins, the FAO or the Bridge coins ran along side a Standard Circulating 5 Taka coin, so how can any of them be Commemorative circulating coins? Sure they might „commemorate“ something but they are the only 5 Taka coins in circulation so must be Standard Circulating? Unless the 5 Taka Banknote is considered the Standard denomination and the Coins are Commemorative.

I can‘t find the Numista definition of Standard or Commemorative Circulating Coins, but I am a bit surprised at how quickly this coin was changed just because the OP wanted it to be. After all I see no evidence in this thread, and I thought the job of a referee was to make sure the coins were listed as correct issue from official records (trustworthy catalogues, National Bank documentation or Government records), not just decide one way or the other based on what members say. 

Because either way (and I have no insight) it was or is now incorrect.

There is no referee for this country. The change was probably made by one of the Admins or Master Referees.

Circulating commemorative coins:
Coins intended for circulation and issued during one year or very few years for commemorative purpose.

Wow… this thing is blowing up isn't it? In my personal opinion, I think it should go into a Circulating Commemorative section.

rsirian1

There is no referee for this country. The change was probably made by one of the Admins or Master Referees.

 

Circulating commemorative coins:
Coins intended for circulation and issued during one year or very few years for commemorative purpose.

So the fact that they (Bangladesh) have re-issued a second same Bridge coin with a slightly different design, adding another 3 years of minting, plus the 2 years of the original coin means it doesn’t even conform to Numista definition.

Jamuna Bridge (1994 & 1996)

Jamuna Bridge (2005,2006 & 2008)

DEFENDER27

Wow… this thing is blowing up isn't it? In my personal opinion, I think it should go into a Circulating Commemorative section.

I like blowing things up 😉 but seriously, we (Numista members and referees) shouldn’t decide, I am sure the Government  / Bank released the coin as one or the other, and that this will have been documented. They are the ones who should decide not us, previously when Numismatic Catalogues came out I am sure that they would have had each coin sourced, we just seem to be making it up as we go along from one day to the next.

Yes, I agree, it's not up to us to decide which coin should be commemorative or standard circulation coin. There should be some legal basis for this, but at the moment, I see it's arbitrary. The differences are not only in the description on Numista, but also between portals. One indicates it's a standard circulation coin, the other a commemorative coin.

OK, I have a question. 

Should all FAO coins be commemorative coins? Bangladesh is a good example to analyze. Since I only collect standard circulation coins, I previously wrote down which coins I needed for my collection. Then I managed to buy these coins at a numismatic fair. Now I'm checking, and for example, 2 Taka 2004-2008 KM#25 is a commemorative coin. Previously, it was a standard circulation coin. It can be frustrating. The next topic is 1 Taka KM#9, 9a, 9b, 9c - commemorative issue Family planning. I understand that according to this, Bangladesh did not have a 1 Taka coin in circulation from 1975 to 2009??? Is that how we should interpret FAO? In my opinion - NO! But all coins on Numista are somehow commemorative. Does that mean that if there are fish, crops, people minted on the coin..., does that mean that such a coin was not in circulation??? In my opinion, the information should include:

1 Taka FAO

Commemorative issue FAO - family planning Automatically translated

Type - Standard circulation coins

On a question of standard and commemorative coins I agree with UCoin's database. 

Their catalog has many flaws, like featuring non-official “coins”, and often mixing obviously non-circulating (in their catalog: collector) coins into the commemoratives (which to be fair is justified by their definition). But regarding standard/commemorative they are spot on (in almost all cases, Canada is an exception).

From looking at their catalog I deducted that they use the following system:

For a coin to be considered commemorative there should be an explicit statement by the bank or by the coin itself.

For example: if the coin commemorates certain date/event, it features either a date of that event, or the name of it or “x years of…/anniversary of…”, “coronation of XY” etc. If such coin was issued for 1 or very few years, it is a commemorative. The fact that it is a commemorative is stated by the coin itself. This is specially true if there was a coin issued that year (or immediately before or after) that does not feature any event.

Same for coins that commemorate some cultural phenomena, but they will usually feature a name of the series, such as “Ancient cities”, “Folklore”, “Traditional crafts” etc. Here the name of the series might be featured implicitly though, but it is still very obvious if such coin is a commemorative or not. (Basically if you have many coins with the same denomination that feature related concepts, it is a commemorative series)

Just simply featuring a person, their name, a building, or some cultural phenomena is not enough for a coin to be considered a commemorative, because it means that almost all coins are commemorative.

So, if a coin or a bank do not explicitly state that that coin is commemorative, and there were no other coins of the same denomination that year, it should be considered as standard. Since this Bangladeshi coin does not explicitly state that (and I think bank either, but I do not speak Bengali, so I cannot check that), it should be considered standard.

I would be a commemorative if the legend was for example “opening of the bridge”

Ultimately, a coin that does not explicitly feature these could still be a commemorative if bank stated that. Conversely, if a bank states that coin is standard, despite meeting those requirements, it is standard. Here is a good example:
N#17091

Despite being an obviously a commemorative issue, the Bank of Albania considers it as standard, therefore it should be standard.

https://www.bankofalbania.org/Currency/Coins_in_circulation/

A very important exception are FAO coins. In many cases it is hard to say if one is commemorative or standard, because many countries issued only FAO coins for circulation for many years. Those should be dealt on a case by case basis. For examle, the Bangladeshi and Indonesian FAO coins should be treated as standard, because they issued only those for a long period of time. Italian FAO should be treated as commemorative, because they were only issued for 1 year, and standard coins have also been issued.

Regarding FAO or commemorative coins, I completely agree. For example, Bangladesh, I believe that all 1 Taka coins KM#9, 9a, 9b, 9c, which I mentioned above, should be described on the Numista website as standard circulation coins. There's a lot of truth in what you wrote. Unfortunately, there are significant discrepancies between Numista and UCoin when it comes to standard circulation and commemorative coins. Each website has its own classification rules, and unfortunately, there are differences. I could give many examples, but the first three are:

Liberia, 5 cents 2000, KM#474 - Numista - commemorative, UCoin - standard circulation coin.

Malaysia, 5 ringgit 1971, KM#10 - Numista - non-circulating coin, UCoin - standard circulation coin. 

Algeria, 200 dinars 2012-2019, KM#140 - Numista - commemorative, UCoin - standard circulation coin.

There are so many differences, it's hard to understand who is right😄

pawel75

Regarding FAO or commemorative coins, I completely agree. For example, Bangladesh, I believe that all 1 Taka coins KM#9, 9a, 9b, 9c, which I mentioned above, should be described on the Numista website as standard circulation coins. There's a lot of truth in what you wrote. Unfortunately, there are significant discrepancies between Numista and UCoin when it comes to standard circulation and commemorative coins. Each website has its own classification rules, and unfortunately, there are differences. I could give many examples, but the first three are:

Liberia, 5 cents 2000, KM#474 - Numista - commemorative, UCoin - standard circulation coin.

Malaysia, 5 ringgit 1971, KM#10 - Numista - non-circulating coin, UCoin - standard circulation coin. 

Algeria, 200 dinars 2012-2019, KM#140 - Numista - commemorative, UCoin - standard circulation coin.

There are so many differences, it's hard to understand who is right😄

 

Oh, I forgot about that Liberian one😂

I even wrote to the admins once to change it to commemoratives or collector coins, but they did nothing. In the end I just hid it from showing in my table

The Algerian coin is a standard coin even by Numista's definition. 7 years is not really a short time. (The Indian 75th anniversary coins are for example already standard in Numista, despite being issued only for 4 years now and clearly stating the commemorating event. Personally, I agree, they should be standard)

The Malaysian coin is a strange case. First of all, I do not believe that it is non-circulating, considering its mintage (2 000 000). If I remember correctly, there was a discussion about it some time ago. Secondly, it is an unusual case, because all other 5 ringgit coins are clearly commemorative and non-circulating/collector, and were issued much later. Personally, I agree with UCoin here, because the coin does not explicitly states its commemorative purpose, and it seems it was also intended for circulation)

In some cases their categorization is wrong too, but overall, I think it is more consistent

Ultimately, a coin that does not explicitly feature these could still be a commemorative if bank stated that. Conversely, if a bank states that coin is standard, despite meeting those requirements, it is standard. Here is a good example:
N#17091

Despite being an obviously a commemorative issue, the Bank of Albania considers it as standard, therefore it should be standard.

https://www.bankofalbania.org/Currency/Coins_in_circulation/

 

 

Have you tried changing this on the Numista website?

Oh, I forgot about that Liberian one😂

I even wrote to the admins once to change it to commemoratives or collector coins, but they did nothing. In the end I just hid it from showing in my table

 

The Algerian coin is a standard coin even by Numista's definition. 7 years is not really a short time. (The Indian 75th anniversary coins are for example already standard in Numista, despite being issued only for 4 years now and clearly stating the commemorating event. Personally, I agree, they should be standard)

 

The Malaysian coin is a strange case. First of all, I do not believe that it is non-circulating, considering its mintage (2 000 000). If I remember correctly, there was a discussion about it some time ago. Secondly, it is an unusual case, because all other 5 ringgit coins are clearly commemorative and non-circulating/collector, and were issued much later. Personally, I agree with UCoin here, because the coin does not explicitly states its commemorative purpose, and it seems it was also intended for circulation)

 

In some cases their categorization is wrong too, but overall, I think it is more consistent

I also reported Liberia 5 Cents to admins to move this coin to commemorative, but they didn't change anything.

Algeria, 200 dinars,  if the coin is standard, Numista should change it.

Malaysia, 5 ringgit 1971, I also think the coin should be standard. I tried to change it on the Numista website, but no response.

There are many such examples/differences; it should all be standardized, but unfortunately, I see that it's not that simple.

pawel75

Ultimately, a coin that does not explicitly feature these could still be a commemorative if bank stated that. Conversely, if a bank states that coin is standard, despite meeting those requirements, it is standard. Here is a good example:
N#17091

Despite being an obviously a commemorative issue, the Bank of Albania considers it as standard, therefore it should be standard.

https://www.bankofalbania.org/Currency/Coins_in_circulation/

 

 

Have you tried changing this on the Numista website?

No point doing that. Today I change it to standard. And tomorrow someone will change it back. Just look how fast the Bangladeshi was changed. And on top of that, without any apparent reason. 

I just created my own “guidelines” for collection (which I described earlier), and follow it, irregardless of what the catalogs say