Source: Am full-time professional coin dealer (who is NOT fly by night!) and have to deal with the repercussions of people getting hosed by these roadshows all the time :(
Do these coins get smelted down or something?
I'm speaking from the perspective of US coins because that's what I specialize in but this generally applies to coins all over the world as well:
Prior to (and including) 1964, US 10c, 25c, 50c, (and when they were made, $1) coins were made of 90% silver. We made A LOT of these, so in terms of outright rarity, most are not rare. Today they're referred to as "junk silver" because in terms of collectibility, they're junk, but the 90% silver content means there's some inherent precious metal value (as of this moment on Jan 30, 2026, they have ~approximately~ 60x their face value in silver content, eg $6, $15, $30, and $60 in silver respectively.)
So that's their basal value that fluctuates with the silver market. But the next layer is actual rarity / collectibility -- if a given coin is desirable enough that it surpasses its metal content, you get a different set of values.
Now to your actual question: Do they get smelted/melted down? The answer is...sometimes. They trade somewhat like financial instruments, based on the assumption that you could melt them down (and there's a cost to doing so), so that's how people value the various silver coins. In reality, there's usually enough demand from people who want to hold physical silver in various forms that they don't actually need to be melted down.
There's obviously a lot more to it, but that's the 5c version ;)
The reason is that silver itself is traded on the various international commodity exchanges and those traders are not the same supply & demand sources as the little guy(s) who likes keeping some old silver coins in their garage. So as those supply/demand curves shift, the premium over/under spot price changes as well.
In my case I buy old French 20 francs coins as they are quite "cheap": 1% above spot price of their gold content (they are 90% gold).
Other more recent coins, like Chinese or Canadian ones, sell at a much higher premium (17%, 20%) so I always wonder a bit who they are for. It's unlikely they can be resold for that much of a premium. At least the shops I use just buy them for their price in gold.
I don't know the details because I don't really care about gold as an investment, but everything I find says variations of "the 3g Gold Pandas have a face value of 50 Yuan and are legal tender in China.". It would be subject to VAT in Belgium anyway if it was not considered to have legal tender.
And that's the smallest one, I seriously doubt many people buy a 4000 € (30g) coin as a tourist gift.
Huh, none of these coins are in general use in any country because it would make no sense (their facial value is always largely below their metal value, which is basically constantly appreciating). As a French person I have never seen 20 francs coins in circulation either, and I wouldn't by my baguette with one, but they are still obviously not a "scam", even if their actual value doesn't match their face value. I mean, I should know since I actually buy them, manipulate them, and use them for their gold content.
The page you linked is quite unlikely to be a scam (except that it sells the coin for quite a premium, compared to what I can get at home like say https://www.argentorshop.be/en/gold-coin-chinese-panda-30-gr... in Belgium).
I think you don't understand how these gold coins work, honestly I don't claim I really understand why central banks produce them either, but they do exist and they seem like a convenient way to invest in real gold (and here comes my initial remark: but why choose the ones that sell for a premium as compared to the ones that sell just for their weight in gold, that I don't understand).
You can get more information on the Chinese Gold Panda coins on Wikipedia if you like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Gold_Panda
"Legal tender" doesn't mean what you think it means.
It has nothing to do with what coins/notes are in circulation or commonly accepted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_tender
Bullion coins are typically marked as 'legal tender' (of a nominal value relative to the precious metal content) as doing so exempts them from sales tax in most jurisdictions..... because they are technically "legal tender" (coins) and not bullion.
e.g. British sovereigns are still produced and have a "legal tender" value of £1. Though the gold content of one is currently about £800 last I looked.
So you can smelt any silver coins minted by the US except for the WW2 silver nickel.
Is that 5¢ copper or zinc?
The face value of a coin may be driven down, based on the exchange value of the currency itself. A coin with a nominal value of 10 but, say, a specie value of 11, is literally worth more melted down than in exchange. This is the dynamic of the Law of Oresme, Copernicus, and Gresham (usually referenced simply as "Gresham's Law").
"The Law of Oresme, Copernicus and Gresham", Thomas Willing Balch Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 47, No. 188 (Jan. - Apr., 1908), pp. 18-29 <https://www.jstor.org/stable/983793>
More generally, when a product's exchange value differs from its production or use value, paradoxical results occur. Gresham's Law, Lakoff's "Market for Lemons", arguably the Jevons Paradox, the phenomena of wine and audio kit pricing divorced from any defensible consumer capacity at discrimination, and enshittification all seem to fit this with reasonable amounts of shoehorning. Also my own "tragedy of the minimum viable user".
And that means people will buy and sell it for the specie value. The specie value is the value.
Bullion coins like silver can be worth exactly what the metal is worth, or more. Never less than what the metal is worth.
Just because a gold philharmonic coin might be minted with a €100 nominal value, doesn't mean that it is worth that. If you think so, I'll gladly buy all your gold coins for their nominal value.
When you said "a coin can never be worth less than the metal it contains", I think you meant "no matter what number is on the coin, its value is always equal to or greater than the value of the metal"; but dredmorbius misinterpreted your comment thinking you meant "the number on the coin must always be a higher value than the metal would be worth if it wasn't shaped like a coin".
AKA when carlosjobin wrote "be worth" you meant "value to sell", but dredmorbius thought you meant "value written on it".
I might be wrong, maybe it's me misunderstanding one or both of you - in which case please correct me - but I'm fairly sure you're both correctly thinking the same thing while incorrectly thinking the other person isn't.
The absolute nature of carlosjobim's claim makes it fairly trivially falsifiable, however. Since nominal value is a value, if the face value of a coin is lower than its specie value, its use as currency meets his absurdity condition, "Of course a coin can never be worth less than the metal it contains...", but that remains its legal tender face value. As money, that is, an exchange token socially recognised as having a universal value, the coin is exchanged below its commodity value.
As a commodity, that is, metal (or other material) specie, the same item may have a different and higher value, but in this case it's not one which is universally accepted within a given market, but rather is dependent on the specific local market supply and demand of that specie. The coin-as-commodity is also subject to differential valuation based on characteristics --- assayed purity, weight, etc. --- which must be assessed on an individual basis for each coin.
In practice, where specie coin was used it virtually always traded at a premium above the commodity value, known by the term seiniorage, which I interpret as the trust value imbued by the currency issuer. My (unorthodox) view is that seigniorage exists in all monies, and is efectively the total basis for value of fiat systems such as paper or credit-based financial systems. The value of such currencies is a market vote on the trust in the issuing entity (and/or the lack of viable or accessible alternatives).
But again, coin-as-money has a value equal to its notional face value. That the face value may differ from its commodity value can of course occur. My argument is that this makes the exchange one of commodity trade rather than financial trade, and that ascribing commodity value to coin or face value is a misdirection.
Some years back looking into what money is, I realised that the names for virtually all currencies can be traced to either weight (pound, peso, dinar, penny, shekel, kopek, livre, baht, etc.) or division (dime, quarter, cent); or quality (dollar, crown, royal, franc, renminbi), sometimes appears as a signifier of value, e.g., the florin, yuan, or yen. I'd classify toponymic names (e.g., afghani) as referencing quality. There are the odd exception, notably Bolivar, the Venezuelan currency named for Simón Bolívar, though that's arguably a quality signifier.
nominal: existing or being something in name or form only (Merriam-Webster)
Mind that the problem is actually the inverse of what you describe. It's not that the nominal value is greater than the intrinsic specie value which causes problems with coinage, it's where the monetary value is less than the commodity value of specie, in which case "bad money drives out good". I've already discussed that in detail.
One point worth making explicit is that the receiver of such an under-priced coin would be more than happy to receive it, it's the spender who has to weigh the loss in commodity value against the nominal transactional value, should their counterparty only agree to acknowledge the latter. This brings up the further point that in an exchange, transaction price (whether nominal or commodity) depends on the alternatives available to the parties. A spender without alternatives on price or obtaining desired goods/services might well spend a higher-commodity-valued coin at its nominal value. Should they be aware of that difference, they might well not be happy about the fact, but they'd be forced into the trade by circumstance.