Author Topic: Mint marks on coins  (Read 5190 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Pabitra

  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2 490
Re: Mint marks on coins
« Reply #15 on: August 24, 2015, 10:33:48 AM »
Maltese €2 commemorative coins from BU set have mint mark(s), but the loose unc €2 CCs don't have any mint mark(s).

Malta does not have its own mint.
Their coins were made by Royal Dutch Mint and unc. sets has mint marks but not general circulation.

Dutch coins have mint marks on both sides and privy mark ( mint masters ) on one side.

To the best of my knowledge, Bombay or Mumbai is the only mint which has two different mint marks, depending on nature of coin. They changed from B to M in 1996.
The commem coin which came in to circulation with proof mint mark has been recorded in SCWC.

Offline Pabitra

  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2 490
Re: Mint marks on coins
« Reply #16 on: August 24, 2015, 10:47:18 AM »
In other words, even if KM knew, they might choose not to include the information that the mintmark is used only on proofs.

Such information does get included in SCWC, depending on who is the contributor and if it makes difference in the price.
Under George, SCWC was very much dealer driven database since they constituted largest group of information provider as well as buyers. Even in Belgium, SCWC is a preferred source over WMK since it gives detailed pricing every year.

Online Figleaf

  • Administrator
  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32 344
Re: Mint marks on coins
« Reply #17 on: August 24, 2015, 11:21:04 AM »
Dutch coins have mint marks on both sides and privy mark ( mint masters ) on one side.

Not sure what you mean here, but the sentence gives the wrong impression. On coins of the kingdom of the Netherlands, mintmark (usually caduceus) and mintmaster mark are on the same side. On earlier coins, mint marks (usually present) and any mintmaster marks may be on any side. There is also the question of the last letters of the legend. I can argue that after 1672, these should be seen as mintmarks on federal coinage, not distinguishing the coins of a separate provinces, as before 1672.

Peter
An unidentified coin is a piece of metal. An identified coin is a piece of history.

Online Figleaf

  • Administrator
  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32 344
Re: Mint marks on coins
« Reply #18 on: August 24, 2015, 11:31:48 AM »
Such information does get included in SCWC, depending on who is the contributor and if it makes difference in the price.

It is logically impossible that a mark, used consistently, (whether on all coins or on all proofs or even on all coins of a single type) can have an influence on price. I am not prepared to wade through KM to see if the info was added always, never or sometimes. I'll take your word for it that it depends on the whim of the contributor, except that pseudo-coin minters have a vested interest in noting such detail, so I suppose they saw to it that, where their stuff was concerned, it was most extensively reported on.

Peter
An unidentified coin is a piece of metal. An identified coin is a piece of history.

Offline Pabitra

  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2 490
Re: Mint marks on coins
« Reply #19 on: August 24, 2015, 12:26:02 PM »
What is "L L" with overlap indicates?

Online Figleaf

  • Administrator
  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32 344
Re: Mint marks on coins
« Reply #20 on: August 24, 2015, 12:41:32 PM »
I am sure you know the answer. On euro coins, it is the "signature" of the designer of the common side, Luc Luycks. I am sure you also know that it is neither a mintmark, nor a mintmaster mark.

Peter
An unidentified coin is a piece of metal. An identified coin is a piece of history.

Offline Pabitra

  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2 490
Re: Mint marks on coins
« Reply #21 on: August 24, 2015, 01:46:15 PM »
This does not appear on euro coins of all the countries so I though that only some mints are supposed to or forced to put it, more as a mint mark than as a trad mark.

In other words, what would you call it when it appears.

and, what would you ascribe it to, when it does not appear on the coins, circulation or commemorative.

Offline Pabitra

  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2 490
Re: Mint marks on coins
« Reply #22 on: August 24, 2015, 02:03:10 PM »
It is logically impossible that a mark, used consistently, (whether on all coins or on all proofs or even on all coins of a single type) can have an influence on price.

It is inconsistency of the mints that give rise to Mules, errors and die variations as well as errors of whole variety.
One of our forum members, Globetrotter, specialises in study of such mistakes, involuntary or otherwise.
when the numbers are conspicuous, SCWC will not hesitate in listing them and even assigning as separate KM#.
I have already enclosed a listing earlier and more can be listed but I also think that one example is enough.
Those who need to work on the subject, can always seek further directions from Globetrotter.

Offline Pabitra

  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2 490
Re: Mint marks on coins
« Reply #23 on: August 24, 2015, 02:05:20 PM »
I can argue that after 1672, these should be seen as mintmarks on federal coinage, not distinguishing the coins of a separate provinces, as before 1672.

Oh no, Peter, I deal with current coins only.
Any coin before 2001 is antique for me.

Offline brandm24

  • BR & M
  • Moderator
  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1 826
Re: Mint marks on coins
« Reply #24 on: December 18, 2020, 01:46:33 AM »
The West Point, New York mint was built in 1937 and used initially as a silver bullion depository. It started miniting small denomination coins in limited quantities in the early 1970's but didn'tbecome an official branch mint until 1988. Today it strikes the American Eagle series of coins, American Buffalo Gold Bullion coins and various commemorative issues as authorized by Congress.

This gold $100 issue commemorates the 225th anniversity of American Liberty. The West Point mint mark (W) appears on the reverse below the eagle's right wing.

Bruce
Always Faithful

Online Figleaf

  • Administrator
  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32 344
Re: Mint marks on coins
« Reply #25 on: December 18, 2020, 10:54:48 AM »
Wow! A jeweller would make a better diadem, but otherwise, I think this is a really most excellent design. It ought to be used on a circulating coin to show another dimension of E pluribus unum.

Peter
An unidentified coin is a piece of metal. An identified coin is a piece of history.

Offline brandm24

  • BR & M
  • Moderator
  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1 826
Re: Mint marks on coins
« Reply #26 on: December 19, 2020, 12:49:14 AM »
I agree, it's a beautiful coin but the diadem is awkward. Your eye is drawn to it, while the beautiful portrait should be the main focus. As you probably expected, the portrait is an emblamatic representation of Liberty and not modeled after a real person...I think it resembles Halle Berry though. ;D

Bruce
« Last Edit: December 19, 2020, 11:23:12 AM by brandm24 »
Always Faithful

Offline brandm24

  • BR & M
  • Moderator
  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1 826
Re: Mint marks on coins
« Reply #27 on: December 19, 2020, 11:45:34 AM »
The first US mint was established in 1792 in Philadelphia but didn't begin minting operations until March, 1793.

While all branch mints used mint marks, Philadelphia didn't until 1942 and then for only four years and only on nickel coins. The reason was the change in the alloy used to strike the "war nickels." Because of the strategic importance of nickel in the war effort, the content was reduce from 75% to 56%.  When the war ended in 1945 the use of the old alloy resumed but not until 1946. The use of the "P" mintmark was also discontinued..

 "P" mintmarks were finally added to all coins minted in Philadelphia starting in 1980, with the exception of the cent coin. They started marking cents beginning only in 2017.

Bruce
Always Faithful

Offline brandm24

  • BR & M
  • Moderator
  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1 826
Re: Mint marks on coins
« Reply #28 on: December 20, 2020, 01:40:29 PM »
The short lived branch mint in Dahlonega, Lumpkin Co., Georgia was built in response to the so-called "Georgia Gold Rush". Gold was discovered on the Georgia end of what's known as the Appalachian Gold Belt in 1828. To help miners assay and mint their gold without having to travel to Philadelphia the Dahlonega Mint was established in 1838. Only gold coins in denominations of $1, $2.50, $3, and $5 were minted there. No copper or silver coins were ever struck at Dahlonega. In 1861 at the start of the Civil War, the mint was taken over by the Confederacy. After the war ended in1865 the government decided not to reopen it and it was abandoned. The building was destroyed by fire in 1878.

The "D" mint mark appears on the obverse of the coin just above the date. The "5.D" on the reverse stands for 5 Dollars and isn't related to the mint's identification.

Bruce
Always Faithful

Offline brandm24

  • BR & M
  • Moderator
  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1 826
Re: Mint marks on coins
« Reply #29 on: December 21, 2020, 08:27:59 PM »
The Appalachian Gold Belt stretched northward through South Carolina and was the site of another branch mint in Charlotte. The Charlotte mint was established under very similar circumstances as the Dahlonega, Georgia mint was. It was the northernmost reaches of gold discovered in the Appalachians to date and needed a facility to assay and mint miner's gold.

The earliest discovery of gold in South Carolina took place in 1799, but it wasn't until much later that the significance of it was understood. Finally in 1835 the US Government authorized the establishment of a minting facility in the region and selected Charlotte for its location. The facility started striking coins in July, 1837. As in Dahlonega, they struck only gold coins and in denominations of $1, $2 1/2, and $5. The mint used "C" as their mint mark which appears on the reverse under the eagle. In total they produced only 1.2 million coins so all Charlotte issues are rare.

When South Carolina seceeded from the Union at the start of the civil war in 1861, the Confederacy seized the facility and converted it into a hospital. After the war the building became an assay office until 1913.

Bruce
Always Faithful