Not quite sure of what to make of recent amendments to the Currency regulations yet.
When I received advice of the release of the latest Currency Determination recently I also noticed another accompanying it "Currency (Royal Australian Mint) Amendment Determination 2013 (No 3).
http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2013L01430
Usually these just amend minor errors in previous Determinations however this one amends the Currency Regulations which are here:
http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2004C00084
The Schedule in the Currency Regulations specifies the standard weight and dimensions of our currency. For example at item 26 the standard $2 is comprised of Copper, aluminium and nickel, has a standard weight of 6.6 grams, a diameter of 20.62mm, thickness of 3.00 mm and an allowable weight variance of .26gram. That applied to all the $2 coins irrespective of whether they were circulating, mint sets or proof sets.
This newest Amendment Determinations introduces new thicknesses for our $2, $1, 50 cent, 20 cent, 10 cent and 5 cent coins that provides different thicknesses for uncirculating coins and proof coins.
For example the $1 (circulating condition) has a thickness of 2.8mm. The Amendment now specifies the $1 (uncirculated condition) and the $1 (proof condition) have a standard thickness of 3.46mm. So it is .66mm thicker and of the same composition yet in both instances the weight remains the same at 9 grams.
Might take a while to get my head around this one.
I wonder how the new thickness compares with that of an unstruck planchet.
"The weight, diameter, thickness and remedy for the $2 copper, aluminium and nickel coins has been corrected to reflect the actual coin specifications achieved by the different manufacturing process used in the production of circulating, uncirculated and proof condition coins."
And so on for each denomination.
No change, really, just tidying up the paperwork.
Quote from: 'Fulvio' pid='23026' dateline='1374904067'"The weight, diameter, thickness and remedy for the $2 copper, aluminium and nickel coins has been corrected to reflect the actual coin specifications achieved by the different manufacturing process used in the production of circulating, uncirculated and proof condition coins."
And so on for each denomination.
No change, really, just tidying up the paperwork.
Not sure whether it is tidying it up or making it more onerous and still raises a number of questions.
The only things that have changed from the circulating coin for the proof and uncirculating coins are the thickness (from 2.8 to 3.46mm) and the weight variation (from .28grams to .66 grams). As Mr T asked is there a different planchet for the $1 circulating coin and the $1 coin in the mint set? I would have thought that, if anything the strike on a mint coin would be heavier than a circulating strike to ensure a better transfer so why is the resultant coin thicker? Why does there need to be greater variation in the weight than a circulating coin if they come from the same planchet?
The fact that they have increased the thickness and weight variation for the uncirculating coins suggests that there are coins out there that do do not/have not met the specification previously. It doesn't appear that they have changed them to prepare for a new manufacturing process.
Lastly isn't it going to make things much more complicated in the future. If they do a "year of dunnies" coin then don't they have to issue two lots of specifications, one for the circulating coin and one for the different specifications in the mint set.
I would have thought it much easier to just increase the allowable variance for both thickness and weight to ensure it covers both circulating and non-circulating varieties. Having said that there may be a manufacturing standard that they have to comply with and that standard wouldn't allow for such a large variance.
The coin catalogues will also need to insert another line in the coin specifications for each denomination to reflect the variance.
Back to the question firstly, why is a coin from a mint set 25% thicker than a circulating coin?
Quote from: 'Steveqld' pid='23038' dateline='1374911540'Quote from: 'Fulvio' pid='23026' dateline='1374904067'"The weight, diameter, thickness and remedy for the $2 copper, aluminium and nickel coins has been corrected to reflect the actual coin specifications achieved by the different manufacturing process used in the production of circulating, uncirculated and proof condition coins."
And so on for each denomination.
No change, really, just tidying up the paperwork.
Not sure whether it is tidying it up or making it more onerous and still raises a number of questions.
The only things that have changed from the circulating coin for the proof and uncirculating coins are the thickness (from 2.8 to 3.46mm) and the weight variation (from .28grams to .66 grams). As Mr T asked is there a different planchet for the $1 circulating coin and the $1 coin in the mint set? I would have thought that, if anything the strike on a mint coin would be heavier than a circulating strike to ensure a better transfer so why is the resultant coin thicker? Why does there need to be greater variation in the weight than a circulating coin if they come from the same planchet?
The fact that they have increased the thickness and weight variation for the uncirculating coins suggests that there are coins out there that do do not/have not met the specification previously. It doesn't appear that they have changed them to prepare for a new manufacturing process.
Lastly isn't it going to make things much more complicated in the future. If they do a "year of dunnies" coin then don't they have to issue two lots of specifications, one for the circulating coin and one for the different specifications in the mint set.
I would have thought it much easier to just increase the allowable variance for both thickness and weight to ensure it covers both circulating and non-circulating varieties. Having said that there may be a manufacturing standard that they have to comply with and that standard wouldn't allow for such a large variance.
The coin catalogues will also need to insert another line in the coin specifications for each denomination to reflect the variance.
Back to the question firstly, why is a coin from a mint set 25% thicker than a circulating coin?
My guess is that it's struck with a higher pressure leading to a higher relief of the design elements and rims.
I can't argue with that although it seems a big variance.
Quote from: 'Steveqld' pid='23059' dateline='1374921539'I can't argue with that although it seems a big variance.
PPH and I bought several 1964 3d rolls a few years back. The double rolls with 80 coins in them. And I kid you not, one of them was 60% of the length of the others. But it had 80 coins. I counted them. Twice. The difference? The coins out of that short roll were all badly struck and had almost no rim or rim beads/denticles. The coins were a lot thinner because they just hadn't been struck up.
Amazing this is interesting topic :)
Lets put it this way...
You have properly struck coins, which end up in sets.
And then you have the "business" crap strikes.
Surely we've studied enough of the latter by now to know all the many ways they don't come up to spec? All the government's done is align the paperwork with the reality of the crud that escapes into circulation. It doesn't mean (necessarily) that things are going to slide any further downhill.
No suggestion that things will go downhill.
I suppose I come from the position that historically the Regulations have nominated the specifications of the coin and the Determinations have approved the coin design. Probably naively I thought the coins they were producing already complied with those specifications although no doubt some were of a poorer quality than others as they always have.
Nothing changed except the Regulations now nominate what the specifications shall be for each, the circulating strike, uncirculated strike and proof coins. I am surprised that the uncirculated strike (not the proof) was of such a great variance from the previous specifications that new regulations were required.
Irrespective, more regulations to comply with hence more scope for error.
Will this lead to a whole new set of descriptors? In my view if the Regulations specify a distinction then any description of the coin should align with the correct terminology. One could legitimately refer to a coin as "uncirculated condition strike" but that would differ to "uncirculated condition" (assuming a coin from a mint bag is "uncirculated") and it would be insufficient just to describe a coin as "uncirculated". Will a future MYO coin taken from circulation be described as a "circulated, uncirculated condition strike"? :derisive: :derisive: :derisive:
That was a useful exercise. Whilst discussing the Amendment Determination issued on 27th July, it turns out the powers to be ceased/repealed it on the 28th July.
http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2013L01430