"non-circulating" coins?

I wonder why some coins, minted in millions, are still defined as "non-circulating". Doesn't seem logical.
Just an example:
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces12427.html

Even if they are technically not circulating if you can get a coin for face value at a bank, post office or other official source Numista classes them as circulating. That's what I used to choose the type of such coins.

My coin is XF, and certainly came from circulation.....

This is an interesting problem.

I see that all these 25 Schillings are non-circulating and of rather high mintage ─between 1.5 and 5 million─ in the 1950s when they start and beyond.

I wonder if it has to do with the legislation. Perhaps they were made to be circulating but not legal tender? Meaning that someone could turn down such a coin as payment (which one can't do with legal tender). EDIT ─ That would make sense since the 25 Schilling denomination was never struck as regular circulation coinage anyway.

I write this (which of course would need to be verified) with the US large cent in mind (e.g. "Matron Head") which wasn't legal tender, and disliked by many but meant to be circulating and indeed used anyway.

Another interesting case is the "Columbian Exposition halves". I see that in the catalogue they're now considered a "circulating commemorative coin" but I think they used to be listed as non-circulating. If I'm not mistaken, technically they were issued as non-circulating commems in 1892-1893, but they were so plentiful that very many ─in fact most of them─ ended up in circulation. I don't think any other commem halves got into circulation like this.

EDIT ─ In Canada the post 2002 50¢ is an interesting problem. Technically, I believe it is a circulating (and legal tender) coin, but it is now sold only in rolls and above face value by the RCM. Yet, and this is an important point, it is accounted for in the Mint's Annual Reports in the section on circulating coins. So I suspect that legally they are circulating and legal tender.

From even the few replies until now, I see the definition is quite arbitrary, not based on firm, definite criteria.
The way I see it, any coin minted in hundreds of thousands was - one way or another - meant for circulation and should be designated as such in the catalogue.
NCLTs, on the other hand, are rarely minted in more than a few tens of thousands pieces range.

Απόσπασμα: "Dejan"​​The way I see it, any coin minted in hundreds of thousands was - one way or another - meant for circulation and should be designated as such in the catalogue.

​Where does that leave bullion coins? If I'm not mistaken, they're definitely not intended for circulation despite their often humongous mintage volumes.

Don't you pay VAT on bouillon coins? So you don't get them for face value.

A coin "acquired" for face value is potentially always legal tender and thus can be used in circulation, I assume, but really I'm not sure about that.
Look at this French 100 Francs silver coin (https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces33.html) , which you could acquire for face value. Mintage was less than 5.000.000, but in numista it's called a circulating commemorative coin, which was/is correct. I've picked 2 up in a supermarket in Paris years ago and paid them with a 100 Franc note each.

I am mostly interested in the complex Canadian situation, which admittedly is only one piece in the puzzle. Yet, each country has its own currency laws, so ultimately the only useful approach is at the national level. Canada has pretty much all the legislation available on-line and I'm sure many other countries likewise.

Here is a couple of excerpts from the latest (August 2020) version of the Royal Canadian Mint Act.

First, an interesting oddity:



Note that this chapter was first inserted in the 2016 version of the Act while the coins were struck in 1999-2006. I suppose some owner of such coins tried to use them or deposit them at the bank but was turned down on account of the fact that they are NCLTs. Did a lawyer submit, in a federal court, the argument that they represent a considerable loss if they can't be used? If so, the judge may have ordered the government to change the legal status of those particular coins. I know I'm speculating here, but I don't see why else the government changed the status only of the $350 coins while they have many other high denominations that are not affected by this article. Yet, as I'm writing this, I realize that it could also be because the $350 denomination had not been specified among the NC denominations at the time of their issue (finding the 1999-2006 versions of the Act would clear that up). If so, the coins were in an ambiguous legal status. I will try to investigate further.

Next, the 50¢ coin. If you read the Schedule at the end of the document, Part 1 lists all the NC denominations. Part 2 is much more detailed as it lists and describes the circulating denominations. Here is the 50¢:



So legally the 50¢ coin 2003 and beyond remains a legal tender circulating coin, even though it is virtually never seen in circulation and, actually, only sold in rolls at a premium, and in collectors' sets.

I found all this as I hoped to find info about the 1973-1976 Olympic $5 and $10 coins which had their own special law, especially the first set (1973), part of which was released at face value through the banks. Interestingly, nothing is said in the RCM Act (at least the latest version) about this. There was no demonetization, so the first set should still be circulating legal tender.

EDIT ─ Here is the Act in PDF from the Government of Canada's website.

Some time ago, I reported here on Numista stories in the news about people who tried to change their $20/$20 coins (cartoon coins and the rest of this stuff) at the banks, and be turned down because these coins are an annoyance to the banks. They can legally turn them down, but not 50¢ coins, even though they are also an annoyance from the banks' point of view.

The $20/$20 coins were sold at face value because they contained an amount of silver below face value at the time they were issued by the Mint. So, Sjoelund, this is an example (for Canada at least) that a coin purchased at face value can be turned down by a bank or other such institutions.

Here again on Numista I mentioned some time ago that British NCLTs can't be turned down as payment only in the case of someone who has been condemned to pay a debt in a court of law. Otherwise, no-one can force you to accept NCLTs,

Απόσπασμα: "Sjoelund"​Don't you pay VAT on bouillon coins? So you don't get them for face value.

There is no VAT in the US, but sure they cost a premium and a lot more than their face value in general. But I was mostly musing about bullion and trade coinage from the 19th century.

Απόσπασμα: "Camerinvs"They can legally turn them down, but not 50¢ coins, even though they are also an annoyance from the banks' point of view.
​

​Interesting. Whenever I ask a Teller if they have any "foreign" coins, the answer is either "No" or here are some Canadian 50 cent pieces. To which I say "No".

Απόσπασμα: "Peter M. Graham"​

Απόσπασμα: "Camerinvs"They can legally turn them down, but not 50¢ coins, even though they are also an annoyance from the banks' point of view.

​​Interesting. Whenever I ask a Teller if they have any "foreign" coins, the answer is either "No" or here are some Canadian 50 cent pieces. To which I say "No".

​I never think of asking for foreign coins. I know some people also get a lot of old notes at the bank but I've never asked.

I was thinking, too, that the RCM Act doesn't describe any of the older silver coins (pre-1968) nor the pre-1987 nickel dollars. I suppose they're so uncommon in circulation now that it would just be burdening the text of the Act to keep them in.

And I found out that the $350 coins are gold and have a bullion value of just over $3000. It would be crazy to spend them at face value.

In February 2019 I posted a 2000 W "loonie" which I got in my change. These are non-circulating, like all coins with the W (Winnipeg) mintmark.

I reply to myself just to bump this post and show you something which, IMHO, is quite interesting.

So, we have this oddity that I mentioned above of the gold $350 coins 1999-2006 which are non-circulating but current and legal tender. Well, if you look at earlier versions of the Royal Canadian Mint Act, you see a change between the 2005-12-12 version (in force until 2006-01-19) and the 2006-01-20 version, and you probably already guessed that the $350 denomination was missing from Part 1 of the Schedule (denominations of non-circulating coins) and was added to that same Part 1 in the January 20th 2006 version. This means indeed that the $350 denomination had not formally been legally defined as non-circulating until this date, so all 2006 and earlier $350 coins were in an in limbo legal status and I suppose the law was amended to give the best legal currency status to owners. Of course, this is largely theoretical since I suppose the price of gold was already well above the face value by 2016. I'm not sure why it took so much time to update the law in this respect (the clause was introduced in the 2016-12-15 version and is indeed missing from the 2014-12-16 version).

Strangely, though, the 1998 gold $350 is missing from the list. This is probably just an overlook.

EDIT ─ Note Articles 6 and 6.1 of the Act:

Non-circulation Coins

6 The Governor in Council may authorize the issue of non-circulation coins of a denomination listed in Part 1 of the schedule.

6.1 The Governor in Council may, by order, amend Part 1 of the schedule by adding or deleting a denomination of a non-circulation coin.

I always thought that whether a coin is "Circulating" or "Non-Circulating" has to do with how it is distributed. Both can be legal tender, which means that they could be used in trade to purchase something at a store or deposit in a bank. A "circulating" coin is distributed from the mint to banks and people can get it when they withdraw money from the bank at face value. A non-circulating legal tender (NCLT) coin is sold above face value to the public or dealers. For example, when you buy a proof set from the mint, they are NCLT coins. If you break them open, you can spend them at face value. You then have a circulated non-circulating legal tender coin. You can pay $3,000 for a gold eagle from the US mint, and then go spend it at face value of $50.

Απόσπασμα: "karrlot"​I always thought that whether a coin is "Circulating" or "Non-Circulating" has to do with how it is distributed. Both can be legal tender, which means that they could be used in trade to purchase something at a store or deposit in a bank. A "circulating" coin is distributed from the mint to banks and people can get it when they withdraw money from the bank at face value. A non-circulating legal tender (NCLT) coin is sold above face value to the public or dealers. For example, when you buy a proof set from the mint, they are NCLT coins. If you break them open, you can spend them at face value. You then have a circulated non-circulating legal tender coin. You can pay $3,000 for a gold eagle from the US mint, and then go spend it at face value of $50.

​The distribution is more a consequence of the legal status of the coin, not the cause. If a coin is NCLT, by definition it is in some collector's or gift package ─ not sent to the banks in rolls to be distributed to the public.

In the case of circulating coinage, legal tender means that the coin can be used for payments, with the recipient not legally able to refuse this coinage. There are some restrictions as to the amount of small change you can use for a payment of, say, $1500. Most people will not be OK with receiving 200 rolls of dimes plus 250 rolls of nickels, so the legislation usually has limits to how much small change can be used for any payment. If, however, you're OK with it, then it's between the buyer and the seller/service provider. I remember many years ago a car purchased in the US with loads of bags of Lincoln pennies.

Now, legal tender, in the case of NCLT, at least here in Canada but also in many other countries, means that the coins can be used if the seller agrees to receive them in payment, but he can legally refuse to take such coins. There were stories a few years ago in Canada where people tried to deposit or get banknotes for their NCLT $20 (such as our Spiderwoman and Bugs Bunny coins), but the banks weren't going to take any of that stuff that is at odds with regular circulating coins. Here is a short CCN article on the confusing meaning of "legal tender".

EDIT ─ Here is the Olympic (1976) Act, which is basically an act governing the striking and legal status of the Olympic coins and stamps. I find it very interesting that the Olympic silver coins are legal tender for payments up to $20, while the gold $100 coins are legal tender for payments of up to $100, meaning a single coin.

This makes the 1973-1976 Olympic coins quite special, especially the first silver series which was partly distributed through the banks at face value. Those coins, too, weren't packaged or encapsulated like the rest of the series.