Catalog
Why register? Just to keep bots out of our catalog. Your email stays private - we will never share it or send you anything uninvited. We guarantee you that!
| Issuer | People's Bank of China |
|---|---|
| Year | 1994 |
| Type | Log in to see details |
| Value | Log in to see details |
| Currency | Log in to see details |
| Composition | Log in to see details |
| Weight | Log in to see details |
| Diameter | Log in to see details |
| Thickness | Log in to see details |
| Shape | Log in to see details |
| Technique | Log in to see details |
| Orientation | Log in to see details |
| Engraver(s) | Log in to see details |
| In circulation to | Log in to see details |
| Reference(s) | KM#672 |
| Obverse description | Log in to see details |
|---|---|
| Obverse script | Log in to see details |
| Obverse lettering | 中华人民共和国 1994 中国人民银行 |
| Reverse description | The reverse depicts two magpies rendered in a classical Chinese painting style, perched and in motion among flowering plum branches against a plain polished field. The composition evokes the traditional ink-wash painting aesthetic, with fine incised detail on the birds' plumage and the gnarled branches. A vertical inscription in Chinese characters appears to the upper right of the design. The denomination 100元 is inscribed in the lower field in a combination of Arabic numerals and Chinese characters. |
| Reverse script | Log in to see details |
| Reverse lettering | Log in to see details |
| Edge | Log in to see details |
| Mint | Log in to see details |
| Mintage | Log in to see details |
| Additional information |
The Magpies series occupied an odd corner of China's gold bullion program in the 1990s — positioned neither as a pure investment piece nor as a fully committed commemorative, it attracted collectors drawn to traditional ink-wash imagery at a time when the Panda series dominated international attention. The 1994 issue drew from a long pictorial tradition associating magpies with good fortune, a theme with obvious commercial appeal in export markets, particularly Hong Kong and overseas Chinese communities.
Mintage figures for this type were modest and have never been authoritatively consolidated in Western references, which partly explains the persistent gaps in KM pricing data.