2017 needs to be deleted from year list for standard circulation coin pages for all denominations! All circulating coins for 2017 feature the commemorative design. Separate lines can remain in the standard design page for coins from uncirculated sets, and for special wrapped rolls.
Numista referee for banknotes from Canada, USA, Costa Rica, China, Macau, Singapore, & Taiwan.
Honestly, what shocked me most is the fact that there are mintages listed for each 2017 regular coin because, as you said, the commemorative ones were the circulating ones that year. As well, the mintages, which are not only different numbers than the commemorative ones, are extremely high.
Apparently, in 2017, the mint only reported how many coins were struck that year, unlike in previous years, when there was a separate table for how many coins were struck that year and how many coins were struck dated whatever year it was.
So... those large amounts of regular coins would probably either have 2016 or 2018 dates on them, yet were struck in 2017.
I will submit a request to add that information to each page, and if the referee agrees, I will delete the year-lines. And if not... well, we shall see.
Η κατάσταση άλλαξε σε Ξεκινημένο.(Sulfur, 9 Σεπ 2019, 06:34)
Not sure why this shows as resolved. For example the 2017 5 cent beaver design still shows 100 million plus mintage when it is an NIFC , the Bluenose dime shows 200 million plus.
I assume someone went back and put back in the wrong data.
This was accomplished when/how it's described in this request. Sometime later the 2017 year line was restored with the comment: Includes special wrapped rolls. Sometime later the year line comment was deleted. Different referees, different ideas of what is right.
This was accomplished when/how it's described in this request. Sometime later the 2017 year line was restored with the comment: Includes special wrapped rolls. Sometime later the year line comment was deleted. Different referees, different ideas of what is right.
Aug. 2022
Nov. 2023
But the 100 million number is wrong. By a factor of almost 200x.
The definitive designs were only released in special rolls and I believe some special sets.
There are not 100 million plus 2017 beaver nickels. Nor are there 200 million plus 2017 Bluenose dimes etc. Their comparative rarity is easily seen in the low percentage of collectors who note having it in their collection versus all the other modern years.
There is no ‘different interpretation’ here. Less than 1 million of these were struck. From memory without researching it, I believe it was 400,000.
Article on the set from the Royal Canadian Mint that expressly notes the 2017 ‘classic designs’ are NIFC
Not disagreeing with you. Just showing you some of the history. A referee can add a new year line of whatever they want with whatever they want as a mintage. Nobody double checks the changes the referee makes. Only when it gets caught like you did does it maybe get straightened out.
Not sure why this shows as resolved. For example the 2017 5 cent beaver design still shows 100 million plus mintage when it is an NIFC , the Bluenose dime shows 200 million plus.
I assume someone went back and put back in the wrong data.
This is still not fixed. Whatever was resolved and corrected in 2019 was undone afterwards. Perhaps the current Canadian referee would like to comment? @StoneTemple123
I agree with you but before I make the change I'll contact the RCM to inform them in writing and I'll see what their response is and pass it on to you.
I'm seeing this thread for the first time today and I've been unsure of what was going on with the 2017 series for years. A few years back I was surprised to get in my change a 2017 polar bear $2 because I assumed they were NIFC. But then I checked my catalogues, the Charlton (2019) and Haxby & Willey (2022), and both list this coin as if it was a regular circulating coin with large mintages. The same is true for the other denominations (5c - 10c - 25c - $1) with the “classic” designs. I have hoards of nickel 5c, 10c and 25c with plenty of all dates in the 2010s but not a single “classic” 2017.
The RCM page linked by Canadian Codhead is very clear about the Classic set:
NOT TO BE PLACED IN CIRCULATION! Yours is a limited opportunity to collect these classic designs issued in 2017, since the Royal Canadian Mint will not be placingthem into circulation.
It's clear that the 2017 “Classic” mintages are wrong or at least very misleading if they combine the coins of 2016 and/or 2018.
The main cause of this is the RCM annual report which is used by many sources just lists total coins minted by denomination within that year. In a case like 2017 that means the figures include the large number of the commemorative design and the small number of NIFC definitives.
I found it strange, that the Canadians collect by packings, color of same, rolls and what have you and not having the slightest idea about the mintage?
OK, but for circulation coins, and taking as an example the dime which has only one commem type in 2017 unlike the 25c, $1 and $2, the official figures are:
199,925,000 — 10 Cent
20,000,000 — 10 Cent - Canada 150: My Canada, My Inspiration - Wings of Peace
219,925,000 — TOTAL
These figures are from the 2017 Annual Report. They were repeated in the 2018 Report without any correction. So, clearly, something doesn't add up. We know that the Classic (Blue Nose) design didn't circulate, so what are those 199,925,000 “10 cents”?? Even the Charlton, Haxby & Willey, and Coins & Canada report them as the Classic design, but this is just impossible.
Even taking into account the sets and rolls, this represents only 1,325,000 Classic dimes. Are they part of the 199,925,000 figure (and note they both end with …25,000) or were they computed elsewhere into a numismatic coins table?
Anyway, I've just sent a question to the RCM. The question is a little long because I don't want a general answer. To make it better focused, I just asked about the dime. If I get a sound answer for the dime, we will know how they worked their stats out for all denominations.
My guess is the coins struck in the calendar year 2017 are mainly 2018 dated. On average the mint makes 150 to 200 million dimes in a year. Only making 20 million Wings of Peace they would have had tons of excess production capacity. Similar for other denominations.
The one thing very clear is they aren't 2017 dated. It's just inconceivable to me that printed catalogs prepared by ‘experts’ don't recognize these are NIFC . I guess modern circulating coinage is just too boring for the catalog authors.
My guess is the coins struck in the calendar year 2017 are mainly 2018 dated. […]
The one thing very clear is they aren't 2017 dated. It's just inconceivable to me that printed catalogs prepared by ‘experts’ don't recognize these are NIFC . […]
If the mintages for 2017 include 2018 mintages, then we can't trust any RCM mintages over at least the last decade unless they publish a breakdown of their calculations. I suspect the 2017 figures are for 2017-dated coins. If we look at the 2023 figures for comparison, they are very low for all denominations because they didn't start minting them until mid- to late November. Note that the 2022 figures are much higher for the 5 cents and 10 cents respectively, while the 2024 figures are lower than 2024 2022 but much higher than 2023:
So, it's hard to know what to think of all this. The numbers for 2023 suggest that only coins dated 2023 are accounted for in this mintage year, otherwise there would be some evening out with coins struck bearing the year 2022, if any were struck at the start of 2023. In addition, they likely didn't use their 2023 dated dies much into 2024 if at all.
I'm still waiting for a reply from the RCM. I'm not very hopeful since their “Contact Us” page is geared towards customers and products (quality, price, etc.) not numismatics as such.
2023 dated are low because it represents the transition from bearing the portrait of Queen Elizabeth to that of King Charles and the final approval for the portrait came very late in the year meaning production numbers were very low in 2023.
The 2017 production year coins are not dated 2017, unless they were struck and then immediately scrapped. 2017 classic designs are NIFC, I've never seen one in circulation going on 9 years later
What seems to have gotten lost is that all these 2017 coins were changed per the original request. Then they were unchanged back to what they were. For example the $2 coin N#32192 :
Aug 2019: 24,465,000 mintage for circulating coins
Dec 2021: no mintage for circulating coins
February 2024: 24,465,000 mintage for circulating coins
Surely Numista has a change history of who did what when and why. Maybe the Admins can take a look as there is no referee to ask. Last time I asked the then referee they were going to change it back after contacting the RCM. @Jarcek ?
The 2017 production year coins are not dated 2017, unless they were struck and then immediately scrapped. 2017 classic designs are NIFC, I've never seen one in circulation going on 9 years later
I said earlier in this thread (as you had) that the classic designs were NIFC, but I also cited the RCM website as my source, so this issue was already dealt with.
Until we know how the RCM calculates yearly mintages, we can only speculate, which unfortunately leads nowhere. I am about to check a couple more possible sources: Canadian Coin News and the Canadian Numismatic Journal. I will report my findings ASAP.
rsirian1 — It's interesting how the figures changed. To me it's symptomatic of the problem we find in the major Canadian catalogues and online (coinsandcanada), that everybody assumed, wrongly, that the figures meant that classic coins with the year 2017 were issued for circulation. This is impossible by the RCM's own admission and the simple fact that we never find the Classic design in circulation, except if a set was broken (which is why I got a classic 2017 toonie in my change some years ago).
So, give me a few minutes to check whether there is some more info in the CNJ and CCN…
EDIT — Nothing in the CNJ. Will go through CCN later tonight.
Shawn Henderson, RCM director of product development, said that as circulating coins, the exact number to be struck will be based on demand, but he confirmed that mintages will be in the millions, with 12-million 25-cent coins and 10-million dollar coins expected.
[…]
While the standard coin designs will not be struck for circulation in 2017, [John] Moore [RCM vice-president of sales] said there will be Brilliant Uncirculated sets available, as well as a second BU set containing the commemorative designs. Collectors will also be able to order rolls of the commemorative designs, or collector packs containing one of each coin.
In late 2016, therefore, we have, from the Mint, expected mintages for the 25c ~ 12,000,000 and $1 ~ 10,000,000. These numbers are not far off from the final numbers in the 2017 Annual Report, p. 86: 25c = 20,000,000 and $1 = 10,000,000 (this one exactly as expected).
So, this leaves us with 110,720,000 undescribed (presumably not commemorative) 25c coins, and 15,750,000 undescribed $1 coins. Note that in the quote, above, they say that the standard (= “classic”) design would not be struck for circulation in 2017. If this is accurate, it means that they didn't strike any of any date, i.e. no 2016, no 2017, and no 2018.
I'll send a letter to CCN with this info and see if they publish it and provide an answer…
But first, I have some more CCN issues to go through. I just wanted to post the new info while I have it in front of me.
EDIT — I found two relevant threads on coinsandcanada:
Numista currently shows a mintage of 170,775,000 for the 2021 (single-dated) 10-cent coin, which still seems high! None of these were issued for circulation; all of the circulation pieces have a double-date. There should be a comment to note that the single-dated listing is a non-circulation issue, just like the 2017 coins.
Numista referee for banknotes from Canada, USA, Costa Rica, China, Macau, Singapore, & Taiwan.
I will receive the latest (2026) Charlton Catalogue this week or next. Once I do, I'll finish my letter to CCN and see what happens. We know of at least three websites, including Numista, where collectors are still puzzled by the 2017 mintages. This is good evidence that nobody knows what the figures mean.
Currently, my most recent Charlton is 2019, so it was time for an update. That edition provides mintages exactly as in the 2017 Annual Report, as if the classic designs were issued for circulation in 2017.
I went through the entire catalogue and nowhere is there any hint that the 2017 classic design mintages as reported are for anything other than 2017-dated circulation classic designs.
I was the referee when this question originally came up.
At that time I tried to confirm the circulating mintage with the Royal Canadian Mint. The process was not straightforward. The Mint redirected me to another department, which in turn suggested consulting the Bank of Canada. When I contacted the Bank of Canada, they indicated that this type of information is handled by the Royal Canadian Mint.
Because of this back-and-forth, it was difficult to obtain a clear confirmation.
It is also worth noting that the Royal Canadian Mint annual reports are primarily prepared for investors rather than for numismatic documentation. Most investors are interested in the financial performance of the Mint rather than precise mintage details for circulation coins.
For that reason, small discrepancies or uncertainties in mintage figures sometimes appear and may not be a priority for them to clarify.
Indeed the RCM Annual Reports are aimed at investors (current and potential). There's very little in there that is numismatic in scope. When new commems are mentioned it's more to stress the Corporation as dynamic and innovative.
The tables of mintages are at the very end, as if they were an afterthought, and stand on their own without any significant discussion breaking down the numbers. The financial tables throughout the Reports receive a lot more discussion.
From my own experience, this is quite different from the old Royal Mint Annual Reports that provide a lot of info that is of interest to numismatists.
I received my new Charlton on Wednesday. Not surprisinly, the numbers are as they were in earlier editions, with high 2017 classic design mintages that match the 2017 Annual Report numbers. I will finish my letter to CCN and hopefully we'll get them to ask the Mint what those mintages actually mean.
I already have a sense that most of the 2017 classic mintages are of 2016 coins. I have a small hoard of nickels I went through and by far the largest mintages are for 2016 (and as expected no 2017 classic design). If classic coins needed to be released in 2017, they wouldn't have been 2018-dated; they would have been 2016-dated or maybe leftovers from 2015. I'll prepare a breakdown later for these nickels and also for dimes and quarters that I still have to sort.
I'm told that this issue has finally been solved. Please, if anyone of you receives the digital version of Canadian Coin News (which is published about three-four weeks before the print version, let us know whether there is something in there about the 2017 mintage figures.
I see that the mintage figures on the RCM website have been updated. Here they are along with the previous sets of figures as they can be retrieved via the WayBackMachine:
As you can see, the 2017 “classic” mintage figures are now “0”, and the previous 2017 classic figures have now been added to the 2016 year line, meaning that, as we hypothesized in this thread, they seem to have kept striking 2016 classic coins in 2017. This of course means that the mintages provided for 2016 and 2017 (and other years??) in the Annual Reports are not actually mintages based on the year stamped on the coins but rather the total output for that given year. So, the 2016 mintages in our standard catalogues (Charlton, Haxby & Willey, coinsandCanada) are too low by quite a bit, and the 2017 classic “circulating” mintages shoud be removed altogether. The Whitman folders also need to be corrected.
Why they just didn't strike as many “Canada 150” coins as possibe to meet the demand I just don't know. Those coins would be plentiful now and a reminder of the 2017 celebrations but, not surprisingly, they're actually rarely seen in change.
EDIT May 19th— I just sent corrections to the 2016 and 2017 lines for every circulating classic page (asking for updating the 2016 figures and removing the 2017 lines).
Sorry — it's me again. I got to read the explanation for the 2017 mintage numbers in Canadian Coin News 64.5 (June 2–15) page 31. I encourage Canadian members to get their copy at Chapters or some other such store in your community.
The explanation is by Alex Reeves who is Senior Manager of Public Affairs at the RCM. He says that
these figures [for 2017] do not represent mintages. Rather, they reflect the volume of coins produced for general circulation in a given year by denomination, regardless of the date shown on the coins.
In the rest of his explanation, he implies that this may have happened with other years as well. The case of 2017 is more extreme because there was to be no classic design coins dated 2017. That's why the figures were revised on the RCM site the way they were very recently.
I suppose the figures for other years beside 2016 and 2017 could be inaccurate as well, but probably much less so. Still, one regrets not to know what the official mintages are for each year as stamped on the coins.
