Uruguay 2003 XVIII World Soccer Championship (2006) 1000 Pesos mintage 50,000 [opgelost]

Greetings,

Modified the catalog for https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces41549.html, titled 1000 Pesos Uruguayos XVIII World Soccer Championship, to update its mintage.

The BANCO CENTRAL DEL URUGUAY contracted with the Fábrica Nacional de Moneda y Timbre de España to produce 50,000 of these coins per this document https://docs.uruguay.justia.com/nacionales/leyes/ley-17739-jan-8-2004.pdf.

Even the appearance of underestimating mintage, though the mintage figure may be from a highly regarded source, damages reputations.

Attentively,

Pobjoy routinely contracts to strike a specific number, but then rarely strikes the full amount. I hope Numista lists actual mintages and not maximum allowable mintages.

Dear Oklahoman,

The Fábrica Nacional de Moneda y Timbre de España never misses its contractual obligations with member countries.

It distributes world wide complete sets of thematic coins from the Latin American countries it represents.

As a check, notice the Numista rarity index and the Ebay values for a coin.

This specific coin I bought from an Ebay seller in Germany for $19.92: https://www.ebay.com/itm/202764747990

The Numista rarity index is 77.

I know the temptation to believe a local source, however, the Royal Mint of Spain distributed tens of thousands of these FIFA coins in sets.

If the choice is between the documented 50,000 figure and the documented 900 figure, the price and availability of the coin support only the 50,000 figure, not the 900 figure.

We do not conjecture and make up mintage figures to suit our wishes.

The 900 mintage figure is not supported by the price and availability of the coin.

Best regards,

OK Mike, I see you can't accept the facts, there is no license to Spanish mint, and never was one, I gave you many documentation, and only you gave is a bad attitude.

I'm sorry, but will not continue arguing, facts are facts, and seems you made your mind and won't accept anything against it, no matter if there are solid facts and documents. When I see the documents that can vary what I have and what I know, I will review my position.

Hope you have a niece day,

Best regards,
Daniel,
Uruguay.

Dear Daniel,

No one will trust the mintages you provide for Uruguayan coins since you convey a rarity to the coins that does not exist.

Best regards,

You do know that the numista rarity only measures how many people post that they have one in their collection. Otherwise it is a meaningless data point. And certainly not a true measurement of rarity.

Dear Oklahoman,

Yes, this is just one measure of rarity.

These Uruguayan FIFA 2006 proof coins are quite common and command commensurate prices.

Best regards,

I have this coin and would like to know that this one is my lowest commemorative coin i have. Made some research and all seems that the correct mintage is up to 50.000
https://auction.catawiki.com/kavels/9488941-international-collection-of-various-coins-fifa-football-world-championship-germany-2006-30-coins-silver
https://www.ebay.ie/itm/URUGUAY-1000-Pesos-2003-FUSSBALL-WM-2006-Spieler-SILBER-925er-3/401745559365?hash=item5d89e6bf45:g:ytAAAOSwSKtaeKtf
https://www.fifa.com/search/?q=world+cup+2006+commemorative+coins
https://www.ebay.ie/itm/1000-Dollars-Uruguay-2003-Hochste-Pragequalitat-Spiegelglanz-mit-Zertifikat/273830285692?hash=item3fc18e917c:g:OtkAAOSwjXNabaAr

Citeer: "doc_man"​I have this coin and would like to know that this one is my lowest commemorative coin i have. Made some research and all seems that the correct mintage is up to 50.000
​https://auction.catawiki.com/kavels/9488941-international-collection-of-various-coins-fifa-football-world-championship-germany-2006-30-coins-silver...
​

​
Dear doc_man,

Yes, the catawiki site has an example of one of the sets I mentioned that combines the FIFA 2006 commemorative coins from various nations.

Below are images from the catawiki auction.

Thank you

Greetings,

Additional documentation for this coin is found in the Schön catalog, Weltmünzkatalog 21. Jahrhundert- 2001 - 2016 ISBN 3866461380 Pg 1514 for KM# 122:



The maximum limit for commemorative coins is an acknowledgement of the fact that it may take some time for a mint to sell its licensed inventory.

Attentively,

Your documents, including Schon, only seem to show a maximum mintage. Price and feelings can never be a consideration for a coins mintage. I have coins with extremely low mintages in the hundreds and two hundreds, they are not all that expensive. I have extremely high mintage coins in silver and base metal that have unusually high coinage prices. Do you have proof? Not just your words, low prices, or a worthless rarity number, but proof?

Citeer: "Oklahoman"​Your documents, including Schon, only seem to show a maximum mintage. Price and feelings can never be a consideration for a coins mintage...Do you have proof? Not just your words, low prices, or a worthless rarity number, but proof?

​Dear Oklahoman,

In case you missed it, my proof is in the document https://docs.uruguay.justia.com/nacionales/leyes/ley-17739-jan-8-2004.pdf.

Ley Nº 17.739 does not specify a maximum, it specifies a contract.

It is the local cataloger that provides no evidence for the claim that the production and worldwide distribution of all gold and silver commemorative coins licensed by Fábrica Nacional de Moneda y Timbre de España were limited to 900 examples each.

Going over the list of Uruguayan laws, I can find no abrogation of Ley Nº 17.739.

My only interest in this case is to not make fools of us.

Best regards,

For me as referee the most important things are hard facts. The hard facts are that we have Zertifikate from MDM - 50.000 pcs we have Schon catalog - 50.000 pcs and pdf correct me if im wrong - The Spanish mint or The Uruguayan Bank that also confirm that max mintage for this coin is 50.000. If that was under my country i would change the mintage
Krause 2019 dont say about mintage surfing via net didnt found also any information about mintage 900pcs for this coin. To be sure maybe it will be a good idea to send @ to the MDM as they have copyrights for all coins issued for World Cup coins or to FIFA.

Hope, that helps,
Damian

I think the publication of Private Messages is against ethics, Bears4Hire posted my messages without warning me, and without my authorization, and did not post all my explanations, where I showed him the facts and documents that back my position.

But, since I have nothing to hide, and as this guy have posted part of the conversation, it allows me to add the missing parts, so things are clear and don't get confusion to readers.

First word written in this thread is wrong, should be Uruguay not "Uraguay", so it shows he takes low attention to what he reads and writes.

This leaves to the only source he provided so far, that is the law Nº 17,739 from Jan. 8th., 2004.

The law, of course is written in Spanish, as is the official language of the country, so maybe he can have some difficulty to read it. Please note the document is not from an official government page, but from a private organization. Anyways the text is copied from the original document and shows no differences.

Original text is "Artículo 1º.- Autorízase al Banco Central del Uruguay a proceder a la acuñación de las monedas que integrarán el Programa Oficial de Monedas Conmemorativas del Centenario de la FIFA 2004 y el Programa Oficial de Monedas Conmemorativas de la Copa del Mundo FIFA Alemania 2006, hasta las cantidades y con las características que se determinan en los artículos siguientes, facultándose a prescindir del requisito de la licitación pública y proceder a la contratación directa con la Real Casa de la Moneda-Fábrica Nacional de Moneda y Timbre de España."; following is my translation, that may have slight variations owing to languaje variations:
Article 1.- Authorizes to Central Bank of Uruguay to proceed to the mintage of the coins that will be part of the Official Commemorative Coins Program for the Centenary of FIFA 2004 and the Official Commemorative Coins Program for FIFA World Cup Germany 2006 (Note: World Football Championship), up to the quantities and with the technical details that will be fixed in the following articles, Authorizing to avoid the requisite of public bidding, and proceed to direct contract with the Casa Real de la Moneda - Fábrica Nacional de Moneda y Timbre de España (FNMT).

Let's analyze: said Law authorizes Central Bank to mint the coins, and specifies it is about 2 different groups of coins; the first for FIFA Centenary on 2004, and the second for FIFA World Cup (World Football Championship) to be held at Germany on 2006. And also specifies will be UP TO quantities to be fixed in next articles. Additionally it allows to Central Bank to contract directly with FNMT, without need to ask for prices (public bidding), since FIFA already had selected the minthouse. AGAIN: contract is to mint the coins, not to allow FMNT to mint and sell on their behavior.

Let's continue: original text: "Artículo 2º.- La acuñación autorizada se efectuará por las siguientes cantidades, peso, valor y denominación que en cada caso se expresará:
A.- Monedas de plata.
Hasta 25.000 piezas para el Programa Oficial de Monedas Conmemorativas del Centenario de la FIFA 2004
y hasta 50.000 piezas el Programa Oficial de Monedas Conmemorativas de la Copa del Mundo FIFA Alemania 2006, peso 27 gramos, diámetro 40 mm, plata 925/1000 y cuyo valor facial será $ 1.000 (pesos uruguayos mil)."
Translation:
Article 2.- The authorized mintage will be mad on the following quantities, weight, face value and name, that will be expressed in each case:
A.- Silver coins.
Up to 25,000 pieces for the Official Commemorative Coins Program for the Centenary of FIFA 2004 and up to 50,000 pieces for the Official Commemorative Coins Program for FIFA World Cup Germany 2006, weight 27g, diameter 40mm, silver 925/100 (Note: Silver .925), and its face value will be $ 1,000 (UYU 1,000).

About this: in both cases it says "up to", means is not mandatory to mint the total quantity.
The first group (Centenary) ended being the KM# 125, and all 25,000 coins were minted; 24,100 were sent to FIFA for their program, and the remaining 900 were distributed by BCU, where still have stock.
The second group became 3 different coins: KM# 122, dated 2003, that is the coin mentioned here; KM# 123, dated 2004 and KM # 124, dated 2005. In the hypothetical case 50,000 coins were minted of KM# 122, adding the others, total would be over the maximum quantity allowed, so is clear less coins were minted than 50,000 (16,666 x 3= 49,998).

Other relevant article: "Artículo 6º.- Facúltase al Banco Central del Uruguay a vender al exterior las monedas que se autorizan por la presente ley, disponer su desmonetización, así como enajenar las piezas desmonetizadas."
Translation:
Article 6.- Central Bank of Uruguay is allowed to sell out of the country the coins authorized in this law, proceed to demonetization and sell the demonetized coins.

This means the BCU was able to sell the coins outside the country, and also to demonetize them and sell them as numismatic material (or bullion, ouch!). Yes, the coins were circulating commemoratives, if you think about it, in the law it says they were legal tender.

I will not add the rest of text of the law, nor translate here, cause is irrelevant for this theme.

Conclusion: Nowhere in the law it says ALL coins had to be minted, instead, as is usual in coin creating laws, at least in our country, a maximum is allowed, and then BCU decides how much will be minted; in case of commemoratives or circulating commemoratives, usually are minted less than total allowed, and in case of common circulating, only a part of them are minted, and when needed more coins, BCU orders more in following years, till maximum reached, or new design is created.

My sources:
Numismatic Division manager at Central Bank of Uruguay: I know him personally, cause I am collector and buy all new coins there, cause I'm referee for Uruguay at Numista, and cause I am secretary of the Instituto Uruguayo de Numismática (IUN= our national numismatists association). Sadly all information is given by word, owing to Bank regulations.
Monedas Uruguay website: the owner is a known Uruguayan numismatist (I also know him personally, and have collaborated with him on the page creation), and he also is part of the Adviser Commission about Coins and Banknotes to BCU, of course he has direct access to documentation of the Bank.
Marcos Silvera Antúnez: One of the main numismatists in Uruguay, with huge amount of books created, mainly on Uruguayan coins theme, and also editor of the Uruguayan coins catalog, that started on 1991, and updates every few years, currently last edition is # 9, from 2018, from which I sent image of the page showing details of this coin to Mr. Bears, but seems he forgot to add to this thread. Silvera is the creator of SA# code that we have in Numista reference #s. Also he was president of the IUN for 12 years. (any chance I can tell him he is wrong?).

Finally, we have so in mind this coin cause of this issue on KM# 122:
These coins were circulating commemorative. A few time after released those coins, a man reached to Central Bank, and asked to exchange a big bulk of coins he had for foreign currency (I was told over 100 coins, at that moment would be nearly 5,000 USD). As is not usual to exchange commemorative coins, specially in such quantity, the cash guy went to ask to managers, and then they noticed adding the coins he wanted to exchange plus remaining in bank were more then the 900 minted. When returned to cash, the man has gone. On the same day, someone (obviously the same man), went to the other official bank (Bank of Republic), and exchanged the coins. The coins were inspected, but could not find any clue of being fake. Never found explanation to the fact. Cause of the Bank regulations (Bankers' Secret, etc.) no report was given to public. Owing to this anecdote is we remember these coins were minted in low quantities, and also after this, most of silver and gold coins are created as circulating commemorative and demonetized on the moment or before releasing them.

About comments of doc_man, in the links he sent, shows a set including this coin, sadly I can't read German, but in COA I can see it talks about max mintage, not total, and the same for all coins. As for the logos, I think the set is not from FIFA, but from Cup organizer. The comment on FIFA website does not mention amount of coins to be minted, and is dated 2 years before the date of coin was created, so nothing shows mintage. And the other 2 links give eBay publications, on one shows the same COA as on previous set, and the other says about mintage, but how accurate can it be? I don't think eBay publications can be taken to determine mintage.

Citeer: "adanieluy"— Data is wrong, as explained in PMs, and source provided does not back said data.

​
Greetings,

The moderator has decided to reject this modification in favor of a local catalog.

Attentively,

Greetings,

Resubmitted a catalog modification request citing both the Schön catalog and the Certificate of Authenticity.

Attentively,



Hat tip to doc_man

Marking this thread as Solved.

Maximum mintage is not actual mintage, so the 900 stays. But because the Maximum mintage is still relevant, a comment about it was added to the comments section.

Citeer: "adanieluy"​I think the publication of Private Messages is against ethics, Bears4Hire posted my messages without warning me, and without my authorization, and did not post all my explanations, where I showed him the facts and documents that back my position...

​Dear Daniel,

I apologize for the misspelling in the title and I would hope that such a mistake would not affect your judgement in this case.

The contract is a standard one whereby the Spanish mint pays to license production and worldwide distribution of these coins, as I explained in our private dialog. The Spanish mint is motivated to sell all of the coins it licensed because it has already paid the contracted price. There is no motivation for the Spanish mint to under-produce. The only interest Uruguay has in oversight of this contract is ensuring that the Spanish mint does not over produce its quota.

I find it incredible that the commemorative coins produced by the Spanish mint, all have a mintage of 900 listed in your local catalog, every last one of them save one whose mintage is listed as 350 rather than 10,000.

This dialogue was respectful, not at all as you describe.

Best regards,

Citeer: "Sulfur"​Marking this thread as Solved.
​
​Maximum mintage is not actual mintage, so the 900 stays. But because the Maximum mintage is still relevant, a comment about it was added to the comments section.

​So in that case i should change all UP TO mintages from Poland coins to unknown ?
https://www.nbp.pl/homen.aspx?f=/en/banknoty/kolekcjonerskie/schedule.html

Citeer: "adanieluy"​I think the publication of Private Messages is against ethics, Bears4Hire posted my messages without warning me, and without my authorization, and did not post all my explanations, where I showed him the facts and documents that back my position.
​
​But, since I have nothing to hide, and as this guy have posted part of the conversation, it allows me to add the missing parts, so things are clear and don't get confusion to readers.
​
​First word written in this thread is wrong, should be Uruguay not "Uraguay", so it shows he takes low attention to what he reads and writes.
​
​This leaves to the only source he provided so far, that is the law Nº 17,739 from Jan. 8th., 2004.
​
​The law, of course is written in Spanish, as is the official language of the country, so maybe he can have some difficulty to read it. Please note the document is not from an official government page, but from a private organization. Anyways the text is copied from the original document and shows no differences.
​
​Original text is "Artículo 1º.- Autorízase al Banco Central del Uruguay a proceder a la acuñación de las monedas que integrarán el Programa Oficial de Monedas Conmemorativas del Centenario de la FIFA 2004 y el Programa Oficial de Monedas Conmemorativas de la Copa del Mundo FIFA Alemania 2006, hasta las cantidades y con las características que se determinan en los artículos siguientes, facultándose a prescindir del requisito de la licitación pública y proceder a la contratación directa con la Real Casa de la Moneda-Fábrica Nacional de Moneda y Timbre de España."; following is my translation, that may have slight variations owing to languaje variations:
​Article 1.- Authorizes to Central Bank of Uruguay to proceed to the mintage of the coins that will be part of the Official Commemorative Coins Program for the Centenary of FIFA 2004 and the Official Commemorative Coins Program for FIFA World Cup Germany 2006 (Note: World Football Championship), up to the quantities and with the technical details that will be fixed in the following articles, Authorizing to avoid the requisite of public bidding, and proceed to direct contract with the Casa Real de la Moneda - Fábrica Nacional de Moneda y Timbre de España (FNMT).
​
​Let's analyze: said Law authorizes Central Bank to mint the coins, and specifies it is about 2 different groups of coins; the first for FIFA Centenary on 2004, and the second for FIFA World Cup (World Football Championship) to be held at Germany on 2006. And also specifies will be UP TO quantities to be fixed in next articles. Additionally it allows to Central Bank to contract directly with FNMT, without need to ask for prices (public bidding), since FIFA already had selected the minthouse. AGAIN: contract is to mint the coins, not to allow FMNT to mint and sell on their behavior.
​
​Let's continue: original text: "Artículo 2º.- La acuñación autorizada se efectuará por las siguientes cantidades, peso, valor y denominación que en cada caso se expresará:
​A.- Monedas de plata.
​Hasta 25.000 piezas para el Programa Oficial de Monedas Conmemorativas del Centenario de la FIFA 2004
​y hasta 50.000 piezas el Programa Oficial de Monedas Conmemorativas de la Copa del Mundo FIFA Alemania 2006, peso 27 gramos, diámetro 40 mm, plata 925/1000 y cuyo valor facial será $ 1.000 (pesos uruguayos mil)."
​Translation:
​Article 2.- The authorized mintage will be mad on the following quantities, weight, face value and name, that will be expressed in each case:
​A.- Silver coins.
​Up to 25,000 pieces for the Official Commemorative Coins Program for the Centenary of FIFA 2004 and up to 50,000 pieces for the Official Commemorative Coins Program for FIFA World Cup Germany 2006, weight 27g, diameter 40mm, silver 925/100 (Note: Silver .925), and its face value will be $ 1,000 (UYU 1,000).
​
​About this: in both cases it says "up to", means is not mandatory to mint the total quantity.
​The first group (Centenary) ended being the KM# 125, and all 25,000 coins were minted; 24,100 were sent to FIFA for their program, and the remaining 900 were distributed by BCU, where still have stock.
​The second group became 3 different coins: KM# 122, dated 2003, that is the coin mentioned here; KM# 123, dated 2004 and KM # 124, dated 2005. In the hypothetical case 50,000 coins were minted of KM# 122, adding the others, total would be over the maximum quantity allowed, so is clear less coins were minted than 50,000 (16,666 x 3= 49,998).
​
​Other relevant article: "Artículo 6º.- Facúltase al Banco Central del Uruguay a vender al exterior las monedas que se autorizan por la presente ley, disponer su desmonetización, así como enajenar las piezas desmonetizadas."
​Translation:
​Article 6.- Central Bank of Uruguay is allowed to sell out of the country the coins authorized in this law, proceed to demonetization and sell the demonetized coins.
​
​This means the BCU was able to sell the coins outside the country, and also to demonetize them and sell them as numismatic material (or bullion, ouch!). Yes, the coins were circulating commemoratives, if you think about it, in the law it says they were legal tender.
​
​I will not add the rest of text of the law, nor translate here, cause is irrelevant for this theme.
​
​Conclusion: Nowhere in the law it says ALL coins had to be minted, instead, as is usual in coin creating laws, at least in our country, a maximum is allowed, and then BCU decides how much will be minted; in case of commemoratives or circulating commemoratives, usually are minted less than total allowed, and in case of common circulating, only a part of them are minted, and when needed more coins, BCU orders more in following years, till maximum reached, or new design is created.
​
​My sources:
​Numismatic Division manager at Central Bank of Uruguay: I know him personally, cause I am collector and buy all new coins there, cause I'm referee for Uruguay at Numista, and cause I am secretary of the Instituto Uruguayo de Numismática (IUN= our national numismatists association). Sadly all information is given by word, owing to Bank regulations.
​Monedas Uruguay website: the owner is a known Uruguayan numismatist (I also know him personally, and have collaborated with him on the page creation), and he also is part of the Adviser Commission about Coins and Banknotes to BCU, of course he has direct access to documentation of the Bank.
​Marcos Silvera Antúnez: One of the main numismatists in Uruguay, with huge amount of books created, mainly on Uruguayan coins theme, and also editor of the Uruguayan coins catalog, that started on 1991, and updates every few years, currently last edition is # 9, from 2018, from which I sent image of the page showing details of this coin to Mr. Bears, but seems he forgot to add to this thread. Silvera is the creator of SA# code that we have in Numista reference #s. Also he was president of the IUN for 12 years. (any chance I can tell him he is wrong?).
​
​Finally, we have so in mind this coin cause of this issue on KM# 122:
​These coins were circulating commemorative. A few time after released those coins, a man reached to Central Bank, and asked to exchange a big bulk of coins he had for foreign currency (I was told over 100 coins, at that moment would be nearly 5,000 USD). As is not usual to exchange commemorative coins, specially in such quantity, the cash guy went to ask to managers, and then they noticed adding the coins he wanted to exchange plus remaining in bank were more then the 900 minted. When returned to cash, the man has gone. On the same day, someone (obviously the same man), went to the other official bank (Bank of Republic), and exchanged the coins. The coins were inspected, but could not find any clue of being fake. Never found explanation to the fact. Cause of the Bank regulations (Bankers' Secret, etc.) no report was given to public. Owing to this anecdote is we remember these coins were minted in low quantities, and also after this, most of silver and gold coins are created as circulating commemorative and demonetized on the moment or before releasing them.
​
​About comments of doc_man, in the links he sent, shows a set including this coin, sadly I can't read German, but in COA I can see it talks about max mintage, not total, and the same for all coins. As for the logos, I think the set is not from FIFA, but from Cup organizer. The comment on FIFA website does not mention amount of coins to be minted, and is dated 2 years before the date of coin was created, so nothing shows mintage. And the other 2 links give eBay publications, on one shows the same COA as on previous set, and the other says about mintage, but how accurate can it be? I don't think eBay publications can be taken to determine mintage.

​Thank you for full explanations ! I think that all central banks should take more responsibility for the coins they issue and for collectors - they make money on them. The perfect example of such responsibility is Nauru Central Bank. I contact them to ask about unauthorized coins. What they did ? Provide full details about all legal tender coins issued under Nauru. So collector have a clear information and no issues. Im a referee for some african countries and acquire information from this banks is compared with miracle. About FIFA links there were a link to more information about coins issued for FIFA World Cup 2006 Germany but not work anymore. If you look for coins issued for next World Cup in South Africa or Russia you can find more details so they get conclusion to respect collectors. I agree that ebay is not a perfect place of validation but as central banks dont care much for theirs customers it must be enough.The 2nd most important source of mintage after banks/mints are catalogs but as many are catalogs there could be different mintage. Maybe someone know someone from Schon and he could confirm the mintage ? From where he got this number ? The UK mints (dont remind the name now) use the term unlimited mintage.The mintage is still open, which means that there will be as many coins as much will be demand for them. When i asked about specific coin minted so far they couldn't provide exact number as this was bank secret but told me only that didnt mint this coin for years.

Everyone can print COA this one from the links i provide saw hundreds for different coins that is why i rely on this. To be sure that information is true (in this case the mintage) there should be at least 3 different proofs
i provided 1 ebay 2 catawiki and 3 schon catalog.

( Maybe WE as collectors should united and demand from banks to provide more details ? They make money on us so we should have demands)
Regards,
Damian

Greetings,

Modified the comments section of https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces41549.html for the following:

• to identify the name of the authorized mint, Fábrica Nacional de Moneda y Timbre - Real Casa de la Moneda of Spain,
  
• to distinguish the coinages authorized by Krause Mishler catalog number, and
  
• to list the corresponding coinages claimed by Marcos Silvera Antúnez of the Cátalogo de Monedas del Uruguay.
  

The new text reads: "
.
.
.
The Central Bank of Uruguay contracted with the Fábrica Nacional de Moneda y Timbre - Real Casa de la Moneda of Spain to mint and distribute the following coins:

• KM# 122 (2003 Ag) for up to 50,000 pieces,
  
• KM# 123 (2004 Ag) for up to 25,000 pieces,
  
• KM# 124 (2004 Au) for up to 10,000 pieces,
  
• KM# 125 (2004 Ag) for up to 25,000 pieces,
  
• KM# 126 (2004 Au) for up to 10,000 pieces, and
  
• KM# 127 (2004 Au) for up to 10,000 pieces.
  

The Cátalogo de Monedas del Uruguay by Marcos Silvera Antúnez claims that only exactly 900 pieces were minted for the first five of these coins, KM# 122 through KM# 126, and 350 pieces for KM# 127."

Attentively,

Citeer: "doc_man"​
​​Thank you for full explanations ! I think that all central banks should take more responsibility for the coins they issue and for collectors - they make money on them...

​
Dear doc_man,

The Uruguayan Central Bank does not take responsibility, in this case. The author of Cátalogo de Monedas del Uruguay makes the coinage claims.

Daniel's anecdote supports a local coinage of 900 pieces, not an international one.

Best regards,

Citeer: "adanieluy"Rejected by adanieluy on September 3, 2019, 11:09PM
Comment: Data is wrong, Monedas del uruguay Catalog online is not from Marcos Silvera, BCU did on contract with FNMT to distribute coins, only to mint them, Some of the figures you mention are not matching the law text, text in comments is correct, no need to add more irrelevant details.

Dear Daniel,

This catalog, Cátalogo de Monedas del Uruguay by Marcos Silvera Antúnez, is the very same catalog you use to support your 900 coinage claim.

In addition to a coin's SA catalog number, the Cátalogo de Monedas del Uruguay online catalog lists the Krause Mishler catalog number, the authorized coinage ( or "Emisión Autorizada" ) and the domestic? coinage (or "Cantidad Acuñada" ).

For example, this is a picture of the page corresponding to this coin:

On this page is the copyrighted graphics perhaps you borrowed to populate the https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces41549.html comments section.

Nevertheless, I will accede to your insistance that the commemorative coins were NOT intended for international distribution, and amend the text at the end of the comments section as follows:"
.
.
.
The Central Bank of Uruguay contracted with the Fábrica Nacional de Moneda y Timbre - Real Casa de la Moneda of Spain to mint the following coins:

• SA E.25 (2003 Ag) for up to 50,000 pieces,
  
• SA E.26 (2004 Ag) for up to 25,000 pieces,
  
• SA E.27 (2004 Au) for up to 10,000 pieces,
  
• SA E.28 (2004 Ag) for up to 25,000 pieces,
  
• SA E.29 (2004 Au) for up to 10,000 pieces, and
  
• SA E.30 (2004 Au) for up to 10,000 pieces.
  

The Cátalogo de Monedas del Uruguay by Marcos Silvera Antúnez asserts that exactly 900 pieces were minted for five of these coins, SA E.25 SA E.26, SA E.27, SA E.28, and SA E.30, and 350 pieces for SA E.29."

Now, if it were not for those FIFA sets...

Best regards,

Citeer: "doc_man"​​​So in that case i should change all UP TO mintages from Poland coins to unknown ?
​https://www.nbp.pl/homen.aspx?f=/en/banknoty/kolekcjonerskie/schedule.html

​If the actual mintages are known, I would say to change all maximum mintages to the actual ones, and add the maximum mintage to the comments. If the actual mintages are not known, then I would think to leave the mintage as the maximum one, but include a comment on the year-line that says it is a maximum mintage.

With that being said, as far as I am aware, there are no guidelines for situations like these, but that is what I would do.

Citeer: "Sulfur"​
​​If the actual mintages are known, I would say to change all maximum mintages to the actual ones, and add the maximum mintage to the comments...

​Dear Sulfur,

I concur, except that the SA catalog appears to only have local currency, and should not be applied to coinage distributed internationally.

Since adanieluy denies any international distribution, such exclusion should not pose a circumstance.

Best regards,

Citeer: "Bears4Hire"​​​Dear Sulfur,
​
​I concur, except that the SA catalog appears to only have local currency, and should not be applied to coinage distributed internationally.
​
​Since adanieluy denies any international distribution, such exclusion should not pose a circumstance.
​
​Best regards,

​So you want to discount the catalogue's listing solely because it is a local catalogue?

In my opinion, local catalogues are a rather great resource. Local catalgoues always specialize whereas non-local ones (like Krause and Schön) tend to generalize. There is, of course, nothing wrong with generalizing; however, because of how many countries those catalogues cover, they cannot possibly be as comprehensive as some local catalogues. They tend to skip varieties, sometimes miss dates, etcetera.

And please keep in mind: just because it is a local catalogue, it does not mean they report 'local mintages'. It would be unfair to assume one based on the other.

With all that being said, the information about the maximum mintage is not excluded, as it is still relevant. You can now find the information in the comments section. And if any additional evidence appears that says otherwise, the information can always be altered. However, with all evidence so far, the way the known information is currently displayed should suffice.

Citeer: "Sulfur"​
​​So you want to discount the catalogue's listing solely because it is a local catalogue?
​
​In my opinion, local catalogues are a rather great resource. Local catalgoues always specialize whereas non-local ones (like Krause and Schön) tend to generalize. There is, of course, nothing wrong with generalizing; however, because of how many countries those catalogues cover, they cannot possibly be as comprehensive as some local catalogues. They tend to skip varieties, sometimes miss dates, etcetera.
​
​And please keep in mind: just because it is a local catalogue, it does not mean they report 'local mintages'. It would be unfair to assume one based on the other...

​
Dear Sulfur,

Yes, this is a good compromise, however, in the comments section you generalize three coins.

These three coins, though, have a total mintage of up to 100,000 pieces, not 50,000:

• KM# 122/SA E.25 (2003 Ag) for up to 50,000 pieces,
  
• KM# 123/SA E.28 (2004 Ag) for up to 25,000 pieces, and
  
• KM# 124/SA E.30 (2005 Ag) for up to 25,000 pieces.
  

Additionally, fact of international distribution should be mentioned by at least naming the mint, Fábrica Nacional de Moneda y Timbre - Real Casa de la Moneda de Espania.

A revised comments section would then read:"
.
.
.
The Central Bank of Uruguay contracted with the Fábrica Nacional de Moneda y Timbre - Real Casa de la Moneda of Spain to mint the following coins:

• KM# 122/SA E.25 (2003 Ag) for up to 50,000 pieces,
  
• KM# 123/SA E.28 (2004 Ag) for up to 25,000 pieces, and
  
• KM# 124/SA E.30 (2005 Ag) for up to 25,000 pieces.
  

The Cátalogo de Monedas del Uruguay by Marcos Silvera Antúnez asserts that 900 pieces were minted for each of these coins."

By compromise, I mean the solution is less than optimal.

The audience of the local catalogs is historically intended to be the national public, so that little emphasis is given to maintaining the accuracy of the licensed coinage for international distribution.

A central bank is loath to admit that the licenses were sold and the production not purchased by the central bank.

The question is whether you are numismatists or mere opportunists.

Best regards,

Greetings,

Made corrections to last message and resubmitted modification form to reflect data as noted.

Attentively,

Citeer: "adanieluy"— Current comments is enough, no need to add irrelevant and incorrect data. If at any moment you can give a correct source, your request will be considered.

Dear Daniel,

The catalog number for https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces41549.html is incorrect.

My modification would have supplied the correct value, SA E.25.

In addition, the comments section modified by Sulfur is incorrect.

The total mintage is up to 100,000 for the three coins, not 50,000.

The proposed comments allow greater transparency by identifying the mint that produced the coins and the cataloger responsible for the coinage figures.

Best regards,

Citeer: "adanieluy"— Current comments is enough, no need to add irrelevant and incorrect data. If at any moment you can give a correct source, your request will be considered.

Dear Daniel,

These are the web pages referred to in the source for the modification.



Can you cite a specific complaint about these sources that support your mintage anecdote?

Best regards,

Citeer: "Bears4Hire"​

Citeer: "adanieluy"— Current comments is enough, no need to add irrelevant and incorrect data. If at any moment you can give a correct source, your request will be considered.

​
​Dear Daniel,
​
​These are the web pages referred to in the source for the modification.
​
​
​
​Can you cite a specific complaint about the sources that support your mintage anecdote?
​
​Best regards,

​Can you see on top right the law #? it is 17.739, the same for all of them, that you also mentioned in your requests. The three coins are part of the Program for World Championship. Obviously, if the law does not details different max for each of them, the max is for the sum of all three. The said law does fix a max amount for the coin to celebrate the Centenary of FIFA, mentioned separately.

I just noticed the discrepancy, and I already mailed the manager of the webpage asking about it.

About the mintage anecdote, you already know cause of Bank politics and Bankers Secret laws (Privacy of Bank data), the info can't be published; I already told it to you when I message you, so you know the answer. I don't base my position on it, but is a good sign, if they knew more coins would be minted and sent outside the country, why they would investigate about the authenticy of the coins? At last they should have laugh at the man, exchanging coins for a lower value than he should have paid if got the coins legally.

Now I ask: can you cite a specific source for your claims of a contract with FNMT? Can you show a real source of your claim of sets made by FIFA for World Championship 2006? Can you cite a serious source of your claims of FMNT got a license to sell coins minted for Uruguay?

When you can cite those sources, give us them, and your requests will be processed in the best way. In the meanwhile, please avoid accusing people and being rude, I specifically refer to your phrases:
"We do not conjecture and make up mintage figures to suit our wishes."
"My only interest in this case is to not make fools of us."
"The question is whether you are numismatists or mere opportunists.", between others.

We don't think being rude and accusing people are good sources to back a request and prove requests.

Citeer: "adanieluy"​​​Can you see on top right the law #? it is 17.739, the same for all of them, that you also mentioned in your requests. The three coins are part of the Program for World Championship. Obviously, if the law does not details different max for each of them, the max is for the sum of all three. The said law does fix a max amount for the coin to celebrate the Centenary of FIFA, mentioned separately...

​Dear Daniel,

Law Nº 17.739 at https://docs.uruguay.justia.com/nacionales/leyes/ley-17739-jan-8-2004.pdf specifies the 2003 and 2004 gold and silver coins.

There is no law published online that specifies the 2005 gold and silver coins.

There is no law published online that abrogates the coinage quantities.

Artículo 1º of the law specifies a contract with the Real Casa de la Moneda-Fábrica Nacional de Moneda y Timbre de España for production of the coins. It specifies that the contract be limited to the coinages specified and that the requirements for public coinage be waived.

Artículo 2º of the law states that the authorized minting will be carried out for the following quantities, weight, value and denomination that in each case will be expressed:

A.- Monedas de plata.
Up to 25,000 pieces for the Programa Oficial de Monedas Conmemorativas del Centenario de la FIFA 2004 and up to 50,000 piecas for the Programa Oficial de Monedas Conmemorativas de la Copa del Mundo FIFA Alemania 2006 [2003], weight 27 grams, diameter 40 mm, silver 925/1000 and a face value of $1,000 (one thousand Uruguayan pesos).

B.- Monedas de oro.
Up to 10,000 pieces for the Official FIFA Centennial Commemorative Coins Program 2004 and up to 25,000 pieces for the Official Commemorative Coins Program of the FIFA World Cup Germany 2006 [2003], weight 6.75 grams, diameter 23 mm, 925/1000 gold and whose face value will be $ 5,000 (five thousand Uruguayan pesos).

Artículo 3º of the law states that silver and gold pieces will have full cancellation power for all kinds of obligations public and private, with no amount limit.

Artículo 4º of the law states that the Central Bank of Uruguay will determine the ornamental elements of the coins, which will refer to the sport of football.

Artículo 5º specifies coin tolerances.

Artículo 6º of the law states that the Central Bank of Uruguay is authorized to sell abroad the currencies authorized by the present law, arrange its demonetization, as well as dispose of demonetized pieces.

It's no secret that the local mintage figure is defined by the catalog entry for the 2003 silver football coin, SA E.25 (not SA E27). The SA catalog is defined in the Reference catalogs listed in Numisdoc as the Cátalogo de Monedas del Uruguay by Marcos Silvera Antúnez. This description also appears on the coin modification page https://en.numista.com/catalogue/contributions/modifier.php?id=41549

The Cátalogo de Monedas del Uruguay web page for the 2003 silver football coin is http://monedasuruguay.com/mon/2000/160.htm.

It is of interest to note that commemorative coins such as this one do not have a "Costo de Producción" because licensing of the coins represents revenue to the Uruguayan state treasury, not a cost.

This is an example of one of the COPA international proof coin sets:


That "We do not conjecture and make up mintage figures to suit our wishes," and that "My only interest in this case is to not make fools of us," are statements of obvious, irreducible fact, not accusations.

"The question is whether you are numismatists or mere opportunists" is still open.

I have resubmitted the modification request.

Best regards,

Citeer: "adanieluy"​​
​Now I ask: can you cite a specific source for your claims of a contract with FNMT? Can you show a real source of your claim of sets made by FIFA for World Championship 2006? Can you cite a serious source of your claims of FMNT got a license to sell coins minted for Uruguay?
​
​When you can cite those sources, give us them, and your requests will be processed in the best way.

There is no citation of your sources, so no reason to change things.

To me looks like as you are adding more and more non related data, and trying to change meaning of the translation.

To avoid complicate more thing, and try to reach to an end of this, let's focus on one or two items at a time, and after solved, we can advance to next.

I want we both agree things and we both understand what is the reality. If you show me something concrete that backs your words, I will accept, but "interpretations" and conclusions without basements will not be accepted, and that goes for both sides.

If you don't agree with these new rules, then I can't waste more time in this issue, and would reject every request till you give NEW data/source; old ones will be considered as enough studied and rejected.

On your 2 first statements you say things that are not written, not even implied:

Citeer: "Bears4Hire"Law Nº 17.739 at https://docs.uruguay.justia.com/nacionales/leyes/ley-17739-jan-8-2004.pdf specifies the 2003 and 2004 gold and silver coins.

Incorrect: Said law specifies the gold and silver coins to be created to commemorate FIFA Centenary and FIFA World Football Championship Germany 2006, and stats the max quantity for each group. There is no mention to years to be added, since the law also stats BCU will decide the details. In fact, the silver coins to adhere to the FIFA World Championship are KM# 122 (2003), KM# 123 (2004) and KM# 124 (2005); as at the moment of the law was created, the coins were to be minted and Krause still have not given ref #, that's why those details are not mentioned in the law.

Citeer: "Bears4Hire"There is no law published online that specifies the 2005 gold and silver coins.

Incorrect: Is the same law, 17739, or you mean KM # 124, dated 2005, is an illegal coin?

Conclusion:
To start, focus on this 2 statements, and show me why you say them, where you got your data from, prove them. If you show me my mistake I will accept, otherwise, you should accept they are wrong.

Till we clear the first 2 points, I will not continue on the rest, is clear?

By the way, your modifications request still have same mistakes, I will not accept as they are. I have some requests from other members that I need to process, is not polite to leave them waiting for this issue.

Dear Daniel,

​Law Nº 17.739 specifies that two silver commemorative coins and two gold commemorative coins are to be produced by contracting with Real Casa de la Moneda-Fábrica Nacional de Moneda y Timbre de España (Artículo 1º) and specifies world wide distribution (Artículo 6º) without regard to laws governing public coinage (Artículo 1º).

The law specifies quantities of 25,000 and 50,000 for the silver coins (Artículo 2º.A). The law specifies quantities 10,000 and 25,000 for the gold coins (Artículo 2º.B).

The design elements are to be determined by the Banco Central del Uruguay (Artículo 4º).

Using the SA catalog, I find the following the following FIFA coins:

• KM# 122 (2003 Ag) for up to 50,000 pieces at http://monedasuruguay.com/mon/2000/160.htm,
  
• KM# 123 (2004 Ag) for up to 25,000 pieces at http://monedasuruguay.com/mon/2000/164.htm,
  
• KM# 124 (2005 Ag) for up to 10,000 pieces at http://monedasuruguay.com/mon/2005/166.htm,
  
• KM# 125 (2004 Ag) for up to 25,000 pieces at http://monedasuruguay.com/mon/2000/158.htm,
  
• KM# 126 (2004 Au) for up to 10,000 pieces at http://monedasuruguay.com/mon/2000/159.htm, and
  
• KM# 127 (2004 Au) for up to 10,000 pieces at http://monedasuruguay.com/mon/2000/165.htm.
  

Given the legend of a coin, the following issues explicitly governed by the ​Law Nº 17.739 published January 19, 2004 are identified:

• KM# 122 Campeonato Mundial de Fútbol Alemania 2006 (Artículo 2º.A 2nd coin),
  
• KM# 125 Centenario de fundación de la FIFA (Artículo 2º.A 1st coin),
  
• KM# 126 Centenario de fundación de la FIFA (Artículo 2º.B 1st coin), and
  
• KM# 127 Campeonato Mundial de Fútbol Alemania 2006 (Artículo 2º.B 2nd coin).
  

Minor variances exist between the coins actually produced and the coins authorized. The year of the COPA games was 2006, not 2004.

In addition, there is variance between the maximum mintage specified for the gold coin Campeonato Mundial de Fútbol Alemania 2006 between the Schön catalog, Weltmünzkatalog 21. Jahrhundert- 2001 - 2016 ISBN 3866461380 Pg 1515 for KM# 127, and the The Cátalogo de Monedas del Uruguay for the same coin:


While I have identified all the Uruguayan coins for the COPA/FIFA 2006 event above, the coins of the modification request in question are those presented by Sulfur in the Comments section of https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces41549.html.

The current comments added by Sulfur read:
"Central Bank of Uruguay was given authorization to mint up to 50,000 pieces for this event (FIFA World Cup 2006), for which finally were minted 3 different coins: KM# 122 (2003), KM # 123 (2004) and KM# 124 (2005), being produced 900 of each."

The proposed changes to those comments identify the name of the mint and the origin of the 900 mintage figures for those coins identified by Sulfur in his comments:"
.
.
.
The Central Bank of Uruguay contracted with the Fábrica Nacional de Moneda y Timbre - Real Casa de la Moneda of Spain to mint the following coins:

• KM# 122/SA E.25 (2003 Ag) for up to 50,000 pieces,
  
• KM# 123/SA E.28 (2004 Ag) for up to 25,000 pieces, and
  
• KM# 124/SA E.30 (2005 Ag) for up to 25,000 pieces.
  

The Cátalogo de Monedas del Uruguay by Marcos Silvera Antúnez asserts that 900 pieces were minted for each of these coins."

These changes to identify the mint and the catalog provide greater transparency.

Also changed the catalog number of the coin, currently stated as "SA E27", to the correct one, "SA E.25", per the Cátalogo de Monedas del Uruguay by Marcos Silvera Antúnez, the author of the SA catalog.

The coin modification request makes no mention of international distribution of the coin in COPA sets or the release of individual coins into the European market by the mint up to the legal maximum.

Best regards,

Have you read what I wrote? Looks like not.

Where in the law it says TWO silver commemorative coins? it says coins. and don't mess with the gold ones, you are confusing things.

Can you focus on what I asked you?? If you can't, I can't continue with this. I'm doing my best, but you insist on the same things, and adding more and more irrelevant things.

Citeer: "adanieluy"​Have you read what I wrote? Looks like not.
​
​Where in the law it says TWO silver commemorative coins? it says coins. and don't mess with the gold ones, you are confusing things.
​
​Can you focus on what I asked you?? If you can't, I can't continue with this. I'm doing my best, but you insist on the same things, and adding more and more irrelevant things.

​Dear Daniel,

You asked, "Is the same law, 17739, or you mean KM # 124, dated 2005, is an illegal coin?"

I replied with the complete list of the six Uruguayan FIFA coins related to the 2006 games and to the 2004 anniversary. Then, I explained that the original law allows for four coins, and then go on to identify the four coins using the legends from the coins' own devices.

I also explained that actual implementation of the the law varies from the original law. The hundred year anniversary coins had no date specified in the law since the anniversary is known to be 2004 (the one hundredth anniversary of FIFA). The games in Germany were to take place in 2006.

One of the coins listed in the comments by Sulfur in https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces41549.html is not in the original law. I never implied the the coin was, therefore, illegal. The original law specifies two silver coins and two gold coins. His is the first of two additional silver coins that were actually struck.

Again, Sulfur lists three coins in the comments section.

For greater transparency, I seek to expand these comments by identifying the name of the mint contracted by the law and the name of the catalog that is the source of the mintage figures. A user may then consult with the listed catalogs to find additional information concerning the coins.

I also seek to correct the SA catalog number for the coin listed at https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces41549.html. The correct catalog number is SA E.25, not SA E27, according the very same catalog. See http://monedasuruguay.com/mon/2000/160.htm

Best regards,

Well, it seems you are starting to understand a bit.

The Law 17739 allowed silver and gold coins, that's correct, describing separately 2 different issues of silver coins and 2 different issues of gold, that's right.

Now, the first group of silver coins were to celebrate FIFA Centenary, and it ended being one type of coin, listed as KM# 125 dated 2004 (for now let's concentrate only on KM#s). The first group of gold coins,also to celebrate FIFA Centenary also ended being one only type of coin, also dated 2004, and listed as KM# 126.

Then, for the second group of silver coins (remember law stated max quantity of pieces to mint, not types), were minted three different types of coins, and they are KM# 122, dated 2003; KM# # 123, dated 2004 and KM# 124, dated 2005. you can see the 3 coins have the same obverse, only variation was the year. The reverse has some similar elements, all three has same legend "Campeonato Mundial de Futbol - Alemania 2006", with different distribution, and same face value, expressed in different styles. The differences are three images, showing themes of Uruguayan's Football history, the moment of shooting the goal that gave victory on World Cup 1950 (KM# 122), details of poster created for the first World Cup on 1930 (KM# 123) and Tower placed in the main Stadium of Uruguay (KM# 124). I repeat: KM#122, KM# 123 and KM# 124 are the second group of coins allowed by law 17739.

And last, for the second group of gold coins, to celebrate FIFA World Cup was minted only one type, instead of three, with similar design to KM# 123.

Also note for FIFA Centenary, face value is on obverse, and for WORLD Cup is on reverse


The two coins created to commemorate the Centenary of FIFA 1 silver (KM# 125) and 1 gold (KM# 126)-





The four coins created to commemorate World Cup 2006; 3 silver (KM# 122, KM# 123 and KM# 124) and 1 gold (KM# 127).

Please tell me that you have understood this, so we can go on with next step.

Dear Daniel,

The original law specified that two silver coins and two gold coins be minted.

I would suggest consulting with a lawyer specializing in Uruguayan law to answer any questions you may have.

In any case, the answer to this supposed dilemma does not change the value of the suggested enhancement to Sulfur's mintage addendum to the comments of the specified coin nor negate the importance of supplying the correct SA catalog index (see my prior post).

Best regards,

Citeer: "Bears4Hire"​Dear Daniel,
​
​The original law specified that two silver coins and two gold coins be minted.
​
​I would suggest consulting with a lawyer specializing in Uruguayan law to answer any questions you may have.
​
​In any case, the answer to this supposed dilemma does not change the value of the suggested enhancement to Sulfur's mintage addendum to the comments of the specified coin nor negate the importance of supplying the correct SA catalog index (see my prior post).
​
​Best regards,

​Well Mike, I gave you the chance to learn and understand how the things are, and explained extensively, but you are not able to accept the facts. Just think why there are three coins so similar, mentioning the same commemorated event; why the Monedas Uruguay webpage stats all of them were created by same law, and if you keep your position, also try to find other law where those other two coins were created. Maybe you don't believe it, but at least on Uruguay ALL coins are created by laws.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that it is much more important for you to "win" the arguing than understanding and learn how things are, cause you are not able to accept a clear explanation, and keep adding nonexistent details and non based conclusions, just to back your position.

I am an open minded person, I am old enough to accept when I'm shown my mistakes, and I'm not afraid to accept what I made something wrong. I had hope you could give me a serious source, or could think reasonably, so we may have reach to a good end, but is not the case. You mentioned a couple details that are wrong, not in the way you wanted to be, but I found little mistakes, I thank you for it. I will fix them, may be you find it at any moment, anyways, I will not accept your requests of modifications on the current status, while you keep giving same reasons and sources that are proven wrong.

Hope at any moment you can change your attitude, for your own benefit. Have a nice life.

Dear Daniel,

It's a shame that you view a modification to the coin catalog as a test of wills.

By pointing to Uruguayan law and citing photographs of an international FIFA coinage set, I have made my case that the commemorative coins have international distribution and that your anecdote would account for only domestic distribution.

I exposed as public knowledge your claim of proprietary information protected by banking secrecy laws.

You have failed to correct a catalog misattribution for the coin regarding the SA catalog index specified by Cátalogo de Monedas del Uruguay by Marcos Silvera Antúnez (with whom you denied any familiarity).

If this was a contest of wills, who has won?

Best regards,

Contest of wills?? never thought of that. That was your point? maybe it was, but never mind.

Out of contests, none won, both lost, even a few people who joined the conversation was attacked for free, they became victims for trying to help. Looks like I had not enough skills to convince you, I did my best to guide you to do a correct thinking, but was not able to, you never accepted even a little reason, no matter if they were obvious; no matter how obvious or clear they were, you always had something against it, either from unbased conclusions, or changing facts, like saying you showed an international FIFA coinage set, which had no FIFA logo, but only Germany World Cup logo., and COA signed for non-FIFA members, just for mention two out of many things.

This is the FIFA logo in their sets (can you see Urguayan arms and FIFA logo in the same document?),
,

And this is what you showed pretending to be from FIFA (as long as I know, the World Cup Organization logo, someone who can read German can understand the text included):


Of course, you will say logo changed for it is 2 years apart, or that FIFA modified logo during World Cup, or something on the style; you always will have an argument to show you know the true and the other 7 billion people in the world are wrong.

And you lost your chance to understand the real things and learn from those who know the facts and showed the serious sources. You remind me the old Greeks, when all science was based on reason, instead of observation and test, so they discovered many great things, but also made little mistakes, but when based on those small errors, kept thinking and reasoning, and ended on enormous wrong conclusions.

I know always someone is younger than me, and someone is older, someone knows more than me, someone has more money, someone is happier than me... and this can surprise you... it is possible same thing happens to you. At least I hope this is how things are. I know it and accept, and I'm happy to have known at least one person who doesn't.

I really rather hope that the Uruguayan ref exerts his authority in this situation. After all, he is the ref.

Citeer: "Oklahoman"​I really rather hope that the Uruguayan ref exerts his authority in this situation. After all, he is the ref.

A position that never should be taken for granted.

No changes have been made to the French language side.

The French comments do not include the text and image of Alcides Edgardo Ghiggia Pereira's famous 1950 goal.

Some of the 2006 commemorative coinages have derived values that are a subtraction of the global coinages and the purported domestic coinages.

We should never make up coinages.

We should accurately document coinages from all of the sources available, using the comments section if necessary.

We should not choose favorites.

Attentively,

To list maximum mintages as if they were actual mintages is just as wrong.

Citeer: "Oklahoman"​To list maximum mintages as if they were actual mintages is just as wrong.

Dear Oklahoman,

These FIFA issues are attractive and pose no problem for sale or resale.

With the Uruguay's default on international loans, it had no room to renegotiate contracts with the Spanish mint, even if for some reason this was desirable.

It's unrealistic to consider the FIFA international sets as counterfeit.

Best regards,

You keep claiming that the mintage of 50,000 is documented. But you show no such documentation. You show a document and a law that states what a maximum allowable mintage is. Almost every US coin of commemorative nature has an authorized mintage that far far exceeds the actual mintage! We cannot then list the final mintages of these coins as the maximum authorized mintages!

Your demands that maximum mintages be listed as final mintages is problematic. You seem to diminish the presents numbers and efforts of the ref as made up and untrustworthy, when actually that would apply to you and everything you would have done to these sports issues.

Citeer: "Oklahoman"​You keep claiming that the mintage of 50,000 is documented. But you show no such documentation.

​

Citeer: "Bears4Hire"​Greetings,
​
​Additional documentation for this coin is found in the Schön catalog, Weltmünzkatalog 21. Jahrhundert- 2001 - 2016 ISBN 3866461380 Pg 1514 for KM# 122:
​
​
​
​The maximum limit for commemorative coins is an acknowledgement of the fact that it may take some time for a mint to sell its licensed inventory.
​
​Attentively,
​

​

Citeer

Citeer: "Bears4Hire"​Greetings,
​​
​​Additional documentation for this coin is found in the Schön catalog, Weltmünzkatalog 21. Jahrhundert- 2001 - 2016 ISBN 3866461380 Pg 1514 for KM# 122:
​​
​​
​​
​​The maximum limit for commemorative coins is an acknowledgement of the fact that it may take some time for a mint to sell its licensed inventory.
​​
​​Attentively,
​​

​​

​Still waiting to see where it shows something mentioning that mythological license.... But of course, not all CIA documents can be seen ...

Dear Daniel,

The contract for the license is specified by law.

Unlike circulating issues for which the government pays for circulation, a contract for commemorative coins grants a licence.

For example, this circulating issue cost the government 160,050.00 Euros:

http://monedasuruguay.com/mon/2005/162.htm

A contract for commemorative coins, on the other hand, remit an undisclosed amount to the Uruguayan state treasury.

Best regards,

Citeer: "Bears4Hire"​Dear Daniel,
​
​The contract for the license is specified by law.
​
​Unlike circulating issues for which the government pays for circulation, a contract for commemorative coins grants a licence.
​

No, the law says nothing about license, I learnt to read Spanish about 60 years ago, and I don't see nothing in the law mentioning a license, please show me the text where you see it. And please notice this was a CIRCULATING commemorative coin. In this case, Government should pay or not?

Citeer: "Bears4Hire"​Greetings,
​​
​​Additional documentation for this coin is found in the Schön catalog, Weltmünzkatalog 21. Jahrhundert- 2001 - 2016 ISBN 3866461380 Pg 1514 for KM# 122:
​​
​​
​​
​​The maximum limit for commemorative coins is an acknowledgement of the fact that it may take some time for a mint to sell its licensed inventory.
​​
​​Attentively,
​​

​
Dear Daniel,

The Schön catalog of world coins is a recognized authority.

The catalog number for this coin is Schön# 103.

While the Cátalogo de Monedas del Uruguay by Marcos Silvera Antúnez is more obscure, I see no reason why the mintage reported in this online document should not be included.

If the discrepancy in the coinages requires further explanation, to say that the Schön documentation provides world wide coinage and that the other document provides a local coinage would be accurate.

However, to derive a coinage, such as 50,900 for global coinage or 49,100 for international coinage, assumes a level of knowledge which is not in evidence.

Best regards,

Because Daniel! A german language catalog for a local market must know more than a nations own catalog!

Mike:

As usual you don't answer a simple question:

Where you found there is a license to mint and commercialize the Uruguayan coins?

This is the main point you brought and you have nothing to back it.

Oklahoman:

Of course, everyone knows more from other countries than from own one.

It seems like all you have missed a small detail:

Max is a short for maximum, which means not more than.


If you in fact haven't missed this, then what are you arguing about?

I will say this: Tomorrow, I will kiss max 20 people.
Does this mean I actually will kiss 20 people tomorrow? There's no guarantee, right? If I end up kissing 12 people, I still have held my part of the deal. My I am not allowed to kiss more than 20 people. Unless we have the actual numbers, we simply can't say for sure.

But, I noticed these pictures being thrown out time and time again:

And if my Spanish's not too rust, Cantidad acuñada means Coining quantity, which is "proper" English would be Quantity minted. So, there you have it. What's the problem?

Perfectly explained, and I agree with that from before this started.

All this is based on Mr. Bears statements:

He says real mintage was 50,000, not 900, as two local catalogues show (I must say both catalogues are from two numismatists that are part of the Advisor Commission about coins and banknotes to Central Bank of Uruguay). Never showed where he got that data

He says that Numista Rarity Index (77= 24 owners) is a clear sign of coins minted are several thousands and not less than 1,000

He says prices on eBay are a clear sign of this is a very common coin ; he showed one announce for nearly 20USD (all we found up to now were from 35USD and over)

He says FNMT, the minthouse has a license to mint and sell these coins (not stated in the law allowing to create the coins); he never showed where he got that information.

He says FIFA have sold several thousands of sets including this coins, but only picture he showed is a set including this coin, which does not have FIFA logos, and has the logo of the organization of World Football Championship Germany 2006. Nothing shows how much sets are. Of course, he didn't show information about quantities.

He says on Numista we change mintage figures to fit our wishes, or to get benefits (So far I can't realize how I can get a benefit by change this data).

He says we trust more on local catalogs than on global catalogs, like Schön (yes, I will trust more on a serious local catalogue, where writer dedicated huge amount of time, and is a recognized numismatist; and the catalog is not just a commercial edition). I will trust more on Silvera Antunez for Uruguayan coins, Carlos Janson, Armando Cunietti and Emilio Paoletti for Argentinian coins, Arturo Pratt for Paraguayan coins, Paulo Abreu for 17th-19th Century Brazilian coins, José María Aledón and Roberto Menchaca for Cuban coins; etc., than on Krause, Yeoman and Schön. The 3 last are great on global data, but they don't dedicate the same effort to a single country as they do on "local catalogs"

If you want to waste time, you can read the thread, and can note he never brought a source of information, and every time is asked about where the info he claims can be seen, he changes the subjects, and answers other things.

No, I didn't miss the small detail, that's why mintage was not changed, but added the "max" detail on comments. I just tried to explain it in several ways, and tried to make him understand and think the available data, but so far he refuses to accept other conclusions than his ones, and does not accept the possibility he understood something wrong.

Citeer: "Oklahoman"​Because Daniel! A german language catalog for a local market must know more than a nations own catalog!

​Dear Oklahoman,

I trust the Schön catalog to report on international coinage more than I trust the national cataloger to have the vaguest idea about international coinage.

Citeer: "adanieluy"​As usual you don't answer a simple question:

Where you found there is a license to mint and commercialize the Uruguayan coins?

​Dear Daniel,

As usual, I point to ​Law Nº 17.739 that enables two silver commemorative coins and two gold commemorative coins be produced by contracting with Real Casa de la Moneda-Fábrica Nacional de Moneda y Timbre de España (Artículo 1º) and specifies world wide distribution (Artículo 6º) without regard to laws governing public coinage (Artículo 1º).

Obviously, the Law did not foresee such a lively debate over the actual number of coins authorized or the licensing details that were the substance of the contract with Real Casa de la Moneda-Fábrica Nacional de Moneda y Timbre de España.

Best regards,

Greetings all,

I would like nothing more than the international mintage to appear to the seller, and the national mintage to appear to the buyer, however, the same coinage must be presented to both the buyer and the seller to establish a well functioning and trusted market.

Best regards,

Proverbs 17:12

Citeer: "Oklahoman"​Proverbs 17:12

​Matthew ...