Suriname 10 cents (again)

Hi there,

So you know, I'm the referee of Suriname. An infamous topic has been the 10 cents coin and to be more precise its metal and magnetism. You can read about it on the forum and I've got some e-mails about it as well. I would like to settle this problem in a way that anybody can be happy (as we say in Dutch: polderen).

Here's the problem (as far as I can tell):
I've got three reference catalogs:

1. 1901-2000 Standard Catalog of World Coins, 43rd Edition 2016
   
2. 2001-date Standard Catalog of World Coins, 10th Edition 2016
   
3. nvmh Muntalmanak 2016, 33rd edition (the Dutch catalog concerning the Netherlands and former and related territories)
   

1&2 distinguish three types based on their metal:

• KM#13: Copper-Nickel
  
• KM#13a: Nickel plated steel
  

They differ in marks as well, but the Utrecht mark is used on both types, so it wasn't used as a differentiating property.

3 distinguishes three types (although not numbered):

• 1976-1986: Copper-Nickel
  
• 1987-1989: Copper-Nickel
  
• 2004-2014: Copper-Nickel
  

This is based on their change in mint marks. To be fair the material isn't mentioned explicitly, but in other coins, when the material does change, it is mentioned seperately. So, either they don't know or the material stays the same according to 3.

To be brief, the catalogs have a discrepancy in type of metal.

None of the coins are magnetic (as far as I can tell). Unfortunately and apparently, not all steel is magnetic. So this can't help us any further.

Further more, we know that 1&2 contain many mistakes. and I haven't found any mistakes in 3. Also, 3 is a more specific catalog (almanak) and that would make it intuitively a more reliable source, although I see the bias in that argument.

I've contacted the nvmh (editors of 3) to ask what's up with that. Unfortunately they answered that they don't know and might look into it in the future. Although I appreciate they're answering at all, not very helpfull. Makes me question their source.

Would cutting one in half help? I'm no engineer so I wouldn't know if you could see something resolving in the cut.

People have been wanting me to add terms like 'non-magnetic' for several years or even add years which would be characterized as non-magnetic. That would be rather silly in my opinion, since all of them are non-magnetic.

Solution
Here are my options (if anybody is still reading and caring):

• 1&2 are wrong, 3 is right: I change the metal for KM#13a to copper-nickel. Maybe make a note regarding this issue.
  
• Unresolved: I just make a note for KM#13a stating that even though it says that the base is steel, it's not magnetic
  
• other options are welcome.
  

Let me know!

Well summed up, I stand with you.....

Ole

Hello.
I think the same question was about 25 cents.
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces9524.html

Cyrillius: I agree

Hi Chilean, thanks for the deep dive into this issue.

I think I would opt for your second solution:
"Unresolved: I just make a note for KM#13a stating that even though it says that the base is steel, it's not magnetic"

If you hold KM#13-14 side by side with KM#13a-14a, then there is an obvious difference in metal composition. Perhaps NGC and Muntalmanak are both half in the right, and the newer ones are actually made of nickel plated copper-nickel (for those unfamiliar with 'polderen': you won't get a better example of it than this).

It will require specialist skills, like spectometry, to find out what the coins are really made of. Pity that the manufacturer or issuer of the coins are not really helpful. They would definitely know it.

That's just a mistake of the catalogs. Look at the specifications of Surinamese coins that are shown at their official mint sets: both 10 and 25 cents are made of cupronickel. Magnetic types never existed.

Good thinking "ciscoins":


Shouldn't this be the solution/evidence the Nickel plated steel coins don't exist?