A question about Kermadec islands

11 posts

» Quick access to the last post

I saw 2 coins of those islands catalogued as 'exonumia fantasy'.
They have a value and an authority (The British Queen, not New Zealand) which is free to put a name of a smaller part of territory (Kermadec) instead of the whole (New Zealand).
Why not with the coins of New Zealand?
The coins themselves are not made by any authority; thus they are fantasies, and therefore exonumia is their place.
If there is the Queen, there is a Government. Cannot be unofficial use of the Queen ensign, I presume.
Quote: "Anticogentleman"​If there is the Queen, there is a Government. Cannot be unofficial use of the Queen ensign, I presume.
​That's where you're wrong; unofficial and unauthorised use of royal portraits (ensign means flag, by the way) on tokens dates back at least hundreds of years (British Condor tokens come to mind).

By your logic this coin would be listed under Scotland; but it is a fantasy, therefore it is in Exonumia - Scotland instead.
When someone supports something he should give logical proof and explain why, besides, he needs legal knowledge about this, what , I notice, you do not have (nor education, to dare to teach words). Based on what you claim that a currency with the sovereign of U.K. is fantasy?
If you have evidences, tell us. If it is unofficial use, it is a crime, so it is even out of 'fantasy' section.
( conder tokens by the way, and I did not see written Queen or King...)
.....
Nevermind.
No, please, give me evidence, why it is unofficial, so I learn something new. But I can trust only about evidences. I just made the normal logical law process.
The other way around here: do these coins are legal tender? No proof for the moment = fantasy coinage.
Sapientiae plerumque stultitia est comes.
Si c'est un grand plaisir d'être reconnu par ses amis, c'est peut-être encore plus flatteur d'être reconnu par ses adversaires.
Be yourself; everyone else is already taken.
The logic exists, however, can we postulate a priori (as antecedent) the evidence of the inexistence of legal tender, not the opposite?
Never ending debate: why postulate one way and not the other? Or the other way around? ;)

Numista basis: a coin has to be legal tender to be added to the main catalog.
If there is any doubt, which is the case here, you (i.e. anybody) have to give evidences that this coin is legal tender, and under which authority (New Zealand vs. Kermadec itself).

For now, more a fantasy issue than an official one (no evidence these are legal tender; of the 2 coins you mention, one is unusual - rectangular one; no catalog reference; uninhabited location). If you have any evidence, feel free to share so it can be corrected if need be.
Sapientiae plerumque stultitia est comes.
Si c'est un grand plaisir d'être reconnu par ses amis, c'est peut-être encore plus flatteur d'être reconnu par ses adversaires.
Be yourself; everyone else is already taken.
Quote: "pejounet"​Never ending debate: why postulate one way and not the other? Or the other way around? ;)

​Numista basis: a coin has to be legal tender to be added to the main catalog.
​If there is any doubt, which is the case here, you (i.e. anybody) have to give evidences that this coin is legal tender, and under which authority (New Zealand vs. Kermadec itself).



​Agreed; if you're making a positive claim, it is up to you to provide the evidence for your claim.

» Forum policy

Used time zone is UTC+1:00.
Current time is 23:14.