@SalivateMetal
With all due respect Sal and I do mean that sincerely, I disagree with you.
Sal… the formal dictionary definition of bullion (see above) states bullion is based upon weight and purity only.
The definition also states it is understood as silver or gold “before coining”. It is a conflict in terms to call something bullion when it has already been minted into a coin.

Dictionary definition of a coin:
“a flat, typically round piece of metal with an official stamp, used as money.”
Are there exceptions? …yes. However, the exceptions are not the norm and do not over-ride the concensus of Linguists and Lexiconists who make formal definitions in dictionaries. The word to focus on in the definition of a coin is “with an official stamp”. The official stamp is almost always the governing authority declaring the fiat value.

Not considering collector value, there are 3 categories that can provide pm value: weight, purity, and the legal tender fiat stamp.
Bullion only has weight and purity of the PM to give value. Coins have weight, purity and the fiat stamp. To illustrate, if gold became so abundant that the metal was deemed worthless, the “official stamp” government declared fiat on your AGE would yield 50 USD, but the bullion round or bar would provide no real value

​@SalivateMetal
Here is my thoughtful, respectful, civil reply to you which agrees with some of your thoughts but disagrees with your main arguments.

I actually was not selective in using the definition I presented-I chose the first definition link and drilled down. I have read your comments with an open mind but am not persuaded by your arguments.
I think we agree on many things but definitely not the term “bullion-coin” and few other thoughts from your last post.

What we agree on is both bullion and gold /silver coins have value via weight and purity. I think we also agree the fiat stamp on a government coins and other sovereign assets (T-Bill, national fiat paper currency, and Government bonds) have value. I think we can also agree that there are definitions which support your understanding of “bullion-coin”, but also definitions that clearly support the definition of bullion and coins being different and in contrast to your understanding. From your last post, I also disagree with some other points because I do not think they support your argument. Although there seems to be variance in different definitions of “bullion-coin” and bullion vs. gold/silver coins that we are drawing on, I want to lean on one further definition, the OED.
The OED is the standard English dictionary in academia references and is considered a credible scholarly source when citing it. The definitions from the OED are used as references in court, academic papers, and official reports which can change laws and policies. Although different English speaking countries will draw on other dictionaries to define official understanding, the OED is a universally accepted lexicon source defining English language throughout in all English speaking countries. It is a standard dictionary academically regardless if you are in America, Canada, UK, Austalia, or English speaking India etc.
I want to point out 3 things from the OED’s definition of bullion: “Gold or silver in the lump, as distinguished from coin or manufactured articles; also applied to coined or manufactured gold or silver when considered simply with reference to its value as raw material.” 1) it is a lump of gold/silver **distinguished**from coin 2) it is applied to and in reference to coins (ie the raw material) and is not the coin itself 3) the date….. the genesis of this definition comes from French and Old English, circa 1336. BTW there is no entry in the OED with a definition of “bullion coin” suggesting it is an opaque term and not a universally accepted English term.

You said, “The key word here being OR.” I don’t really know the point you are making Sal. The “or” in the online definition provided previously refers to either silver or gold… If you want to clarify your point, please redefine in other words, thanks.

You said, “The american gold and silver eagles or and coin or bar that is manufactured are in fact bullion coins and bars because the majority of their value lies in the market price of gold and silver.” I agree their primary value is from the PM’s market value, however, market value doesn’t define or lend itself to the definition of bullion and doesn’t support your argument. Cupper and bronze are often bullion; to illustrate, currently the fiat stamp is worth more than the metal in pennies but before it was the other way around (the copper in a penny was worth more than the 1 cent value). So, the value and term bullion are not actually intrinsically connected because bullion is not universally a representation of PMs. When you look at the stock piles of different base metals, bullion could be more synonymous with terms such as ingot or lump of metal such as copper, bronze, and tin. With all due respect when you drill down, I disagree with your statement and the understanding you conveyed inferring bullion infers precious metal market value.

You said, “Adding a denomination to a gold and silver product does NOT mean it is not bullion” . Well, the definitions I posed does show adding an official government declared value (or fiat value) does differentiate bullion from coins. To further demonstrate this, look at history: “Ancient Economy”, by M.I Finley provides several references to coining but mentions nothing about “bullion coins”. The “Encyclopedia of Money”, by Larry Allen mentions much about gold coins but NOTHING of bullion-coins. These are both scholarly sources I used in university. Further illustrations proving my point, in Early Modern Times, France had 20 French francs made of 90% gold. They were never referred to as bullion-coins. They have always been referred to as French francs or gold French “coins”. Also taking this understanding into an American context, there is no difference from these French 90% gold coins with a fiat value of 20 francs vs the 50 USD American gold Eagles at 91.67% gold. The AGE are simply American $50 gold coins.
In history books I’ve read, they spoke about shipping bullion and spoke about gold coins, never “bullion-coins”.

Furthermore do consider this strong argument. The issue is about semantics. Sal, we both understand precious metal bullion is valued because of the PM type, the purity, and the weight of material (as are gold coins). When considering gold/ silver coins, these characteristics are completely understood when describing a gold or silver coin. Example, If I state to my neighbour I have a gold/silver coin, we already know the coin has value in terms of the precious metal coveted characteristics: PM type, weight, and purity. We don’t need to repeat it. In essense, It is 100% unnecessary information and redundant action to repeat these PM values and characteristics by adding the term “bullion” to the already understood coveted gold or silver coins.

My last thought to prove my point and persuade you. If space mining or deep sea mining accessed so much supply of gold that Au became a base metal making the metal value near worthless, I could still take your AGE and get 50 USD, go to a bank and exchange that bill for 50 plus CAD or ASD or GBP ect. Under the same circumstances, I could not exchange a Krug or gold Libertad, which has no fiat value, for another currency. The government fiat value attached to a gold and silver coins is the defining factor separating bullion vs a gold/silver coins.

As an aside…other thoughts I do not agree with.
You said, “Bullion can sometimes be considered legal tender”. I understand gold is a BIS tier 1 asset and can be used as collateral but that is not really relevant to our discussion differentiating bullion vs gold/silver coins. There are several assets central banks can use as cash equivalents to settle debts and pay taxes internationally and at an institutional level. However Sal, that doesn’t mean you can pay you grocery bill at Costco or buy smokes at the corner store with a gold or silver ingot like you can legal tender.

Sal, I have presented many supporting thoughts using history, the OED, and common sense scenarios by applying gold coins and bullion out of a normal context to demonstrate my point. No offense, my arguments are sound and persuasive showing “bullion-coins” is a misnomer.

Thank you for being civil and having an open mind.