Mint marks on coins

[<k>]

Occasionally you see strange symbols on coins that look meaningless. Sometimes they are the artist's initials, sometime they are batch marks, but often they are mint marks.

[<k>]

Look at this $25 collector coin of 1987 from Bermuda.

Just above the sea, at bottom left, you can see some letters.

Our forum member Niels tells me that it is the Singapore Mint mark.

However, it is used only on their proof coins.

[<k>]

This Cayman Islands 10 dollar coin of 1982 shows a symbol just above the "R" of "YEAR" (bottom right).

Apparently it is mint mark showing that the coin was minted at the Tower Hill premises, in London, of the Royal Mint.

Later, all coins were produced at the Llantrisant site in Wales.

[dheer]

Could you clarify the theme a bit more ... is it unusual mint marks?, i.e. rarely used ones ... or mint marks that more like blend into the design, or mint mark at unusual places?

"symbol just above the "R" of "YEAR" ... this one is there on quite a few Indian coins as well ... in its usual position.

[Pabitra]

Look at this $25 collector coin of 1987 from Bermuda. Just above the sea, at bottom left, you can see some letters. Our forum member Niels tells me that it is the Singapore Mint mark. However, it is used only on their proof coins.

SCWC 2015 edition 2001 to date fails to confirm this assertion.
It is the only mint mark they have but the restrictive clause is not mentioned.

[<k>]

Could you clarify the theme a bit more ... is it unusual mint marks?, i.e. rarely used ones ... or mint marks that more like blend into the design, or mint mark at unusual places?

"symbol just above the "R" of "YEAR" ... this one is there on quite a few Indian coins as well ... in its usual position.

It can be anything you choose - mint marks in general. The first one, above, puzzled me - I thought it showed an artist's initials - but then Niels explained that it was a mint mark.

[Figleaf]

SCWC 2015 edition 2001 to date fails to confirm this assertion.
It is the only mint mark they have but the restrictive clause is not mentioned.

Niels' research is excellent, often direct from the source, while KM's research depends on the contributor and whether KM listens to the contributor. In case of doubt, I would give clear preference to Niels' research.

Apart from the quality difference, there is a target group preference. KM is a general catalogue, aimed at the beginning and moderately advanced collector. Its information is almost by definition restricted. Niels is an advanced and specialised collector who likely needs more information than KM provides. In other words, even if KM knew, they might choose not to include the information that the mintmark is used only on proofs.

I wonder if the SM mintmark is also used on non-coin objects, such as medals...

Peter

[Figleaf]

There are more books on mintmarks. Mine is in Dutch*. It lists over 1700 different marks and I think it is fairly incomplete. However, it includes a good number of non-mintmarks, such as marks of mint directors and mintmasters. One thread (several are used by more than one mint) on half of those marks in my book would be enough for a whole new board. It would be an interesting board, but know what you are getting into...

Peter


* Muntmerken, by Jindřich Marco, ISBN 9789060171455

[onecenter]

Nonetheless, The Standard Catalog of World Coins does distinguish between Singapore's own coins as either having or not having the Singapore mintmark, and in most cases, if not all, Singapore's proof coins are the issues with their mintmark while the circulating, bullion or base metal coins, do not.

[Pabitra]

, and in most cases, if not all,

That is exactly where the numismatists, looking for exception to the rule, love to work.
I remember that nearly 8 to 10 years ago, a dealer offered me a circulating commemorative coin of India at nearly 10 times the normal price, saying that the mint mark used on the coin was supposed to be meant for proof sets only. It was then that I came to know that many times , mints have separate mint marks for general coins and proof coins. If some one is interested, I could look  in to my records and attempt to locate it.

[Bimat]

I remember that nearly 8 to 10 years ago, a dealer offered me a circulating commemorative coin of India at nearly 10 times the normal price, saying that the mint mark used on the coin was supposed to be meant for proof sets only. It was then that I came to know that many times , mints have separate mint marks for general coins and proof coins. If some one is interested, I could look  in to my records and attempt to locate it.

Doesn't Mumbai mint still use different mint mark for proof coins ('M') and unc coins (A diamond above date)? Or has this practice been stopped now?

Aditya

[Pabitra]

It does but diamond is below date for circulating coins, including commemoratives.
This case was a coin which was circulating commemorative with M mint mark.
How many of about 60 mints which strike proof sets, have a distinctive mint mark for proof sets?
Of 4 Indian mints, how many strike proof sets?

[Bimat]

How many of about 60 mints which strike proof sets, have a distinctive mint mark for proof sets?

Interesting question. None, apart from Mumbai mint IMO (see below). Kolkata mint also strikes proof sets but not with distinctive mint mark, Hyderabad issues only single coins in proof (and probably Noida too) but again, no distinctive mint mark.

Maltese €2 commemorative coins from BU set have mint mark(s), but the loose unc €2 CCs don't have any mint mark(s).

Aditya

[dheer]

Hyderabad issues only single coins in proof (and probably Noida too) but again, no distinctive mint mark.

Hyderabad issues UNC, both Single coins as well as 2 coin sets.

[dheer]

Doesn't Mumbai mint still use different mint mark for proof coins ('M') and unc coins (A diamond above date)? Or has this practice been stopped now?

Mumbai mint used "B" when it was called Bombay, and changed to "M" when Bombay got renamed to Mumbai. It also used "U" on a lone UNC strike of Nehru in 1989.