This coin is really a tri metallic one?

Steel core, steel middle ring and steel outer ring...Then how do we call it a trimetal coin???

The term has been morphed with the parts of a coin, 3 parts thus tri-metallic even if the metal is all the same. Some other threads on this topic have caused disagreement in the past. But essentially bi and tri-matellic have become the terminology of the coins made of 2 or 3 parts and metallic has stuck even though it makes no sense for some coins now.

Try searching the forum for the old threads on this topic.

Besides the three may be different compositions so three different materials. But even so, as King said it doesn't make sense to say the coin is a single material. That would confuse me much more.

Maybe terminology should be slightly modified to have tri-elements or tri-parts coins instead of tri-metallic.

MMowiec

Maybe terminology should be slightly modified to have tri-elements or tri-parts coins instead of tri-metallic.

 

I don't think that's necessary. Trimetallic in Numista means three separate elements of the coin not necessarily three different materials. It's right in the input: center piece, middle ring, outer ring. The tri refers to the pieces, not the materials.  Why create nomenclature not used elsewhere?

Then again, Numista may be wrong, but that's besides the point. If we would just count the materials then this would be Bimetallic.

Yes, this coin looks like tri-elements bimetallic coin (if the middle colour is different it's another type of metal even it's also a steel, but another kind of steel).

I understand current Numista definition refers to the three parts of coin: center, middle ring and outer ring but the name ‘trimetallic’ is not the best one, as this refers to metal types, not number of part of the coins. In my opiniom it should be named in different way. This will reduce the number of questions like the one from this topic.