Options
Should mint marks be used when only 1 mint is striking the coins?
Zoins
Posts: 34,489 ✭✭✭✭✭
There are a number of coins which are only struck at 1 branch mint but they still carry mint marks which clutter the fields and seems unnecessary.
If a coin is struck at a single mint, do you think the mint mark should be present or not?
If a coin is struck at a single mint, do you think the mint mark should be present or not?
0
Comments
The purpose of the Mint Mark is to identify the mint where the coin was produced.
The name is LEE!
Yes.
The purpose of the Mint Mark is to identify the mint where the coin was produced.
But you already know the mint producing them since there's only one
I can see it if an alternate purpose of the mint mark is for marketing to collectors. We know the Mint has done this, but it's done at the expense of cluttering the field.
Yes, the mintmark should be used for any branch mint coin so that fact is known without having to look it up.
Lance.
Yes.
The purpose of the Mint Mark is to identify the mint where the coin was produced.
But you already know the mint producing them since there's only one
I can see it if an alternate purpose of the mint mark is for marketing to collectors. We know the Mint has done this, but it's done at the expense of cluttering the field.
Only the primary mint is allowed to NOT put a mint mark on circulating coinage. The branch mints are required to identify the products they produce.
Presumably, in identifying circulation needs.
The name is LEE!
I think this is similar to using a mint mark when there's only a single mint striking the coin. It has benefits for influencing collector behavior. For example, I want this coin struck only at West Point (with a mint mark) but not this other coin struck at West Point (without a mint mark).
But at the time they are making the coins, do they know in advance that one mint or another will DEFINITELY NOT be making a certain coin at a particular mint for the current year? They might have an idea, or desire....but when needs become apparent, and maybe they are required to mint a coin they didn't intend to, you can't retroactively put marks on coins that have already been made and released in order to differentiate the mints!
Plus, I think following the same protocol for every year creates a whole lot less confusion. It could be confusing if you had to have a reference book handy to determine which mint created a coin in that year.
(And really, is the mintmark really all that distracting? I don't think so.....)
For modern coins, I think mint marks are getting more distracting because they are crowded on to the field with 2 sets of initials, the designers initials and the engravers initials. So, the question is why have it if it doesn't provide any additional information.
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
I wish they would have used mint marks in 1965, 1966, and 1967. All three mint made coins without mint marks. Further, I think the coins should be marked even if only one mint. I believe production (circulating) coins are made at West Point (at least I know they used to); these coins should of been mint marked.
I think the concern with all of these is that the coins would not have met their circulation requirements if they had mint marks and collectors pulled all of them out of circulation. I think this is a concern with the ASE bullion coins as well in that people may want the lower mintage W bullion coins instead of the higher priced, and possibly larger mintage, proof coins. So which coins get and don't get mint marks are determined somewhat by collector behavior.
But if we determine that mintmarks should stay, (either as collectors, or as production quality control engineers, or as historians set in our ways), then the logical way would be to use them the same way every year, with established rules and norms.
The WestPoint anomalies are an exception to the well established rules....(or at least a variance without really good reason). Not sure they help in changing the rules overall.
I don't know how many here know this but there was another much lesser known U.S. Mint in a town called The Dalles, Oregon, that never produced a coin. I wonder if the mint mark would've been a "T". The building is still there & houses a winery.
Very cool. I didn't know that. Here's the Wikipedia page for The Dalles Mint.
Yes.
The purpose of the Mint Mark is to identify the mint where the coin was produced.
This. I don't agree that the mintmark clutters up the design to any great extent.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
I think the mint mark adds to many coins, particularly old gold from Georgia and North Carolina. And think of all the coins like micro o and micro s that collectors love.
Excellent point. Mintmarks matter a lot to coin collectors. Everyone else is probably unaware that they even exist.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
There are a number of coins which are only struck at 1 branch mint but they still carry mint marks which clutter the fields and seems unnecessary.
If a coin is struck at a single mint, do you think the mint mark should be present or not?
The short answer is, "yes." Any coin should bear the mint mark of the mint from which it was produced. The classic exception was the Philadelphia mint prior to the modern era. Coins produced there did not have a mint mark, except the war nickels which bore one for a different purpose. At the time it was government policy not to place a mint mark on the products from the head office.
The addition of a mint mark adds little or no expense to the cost of producing a die, and it provides an anchor and a source of attraction for many collectors. It also provides information for new collectors and non collectors who might not be familiar with when and where a given coin was made. A mint mark prevents confusion for these less informed people.
Think of what it would have been like if the mint mark had been left off of ALL of the 1922 Lincoln Cents. In that most unusual year, the Philadelphia mint did not produce any cents for only the second time its long history. The marking of that event would have been muted if the "D" had been left off of the cents that year. I know that some 1922-D cents don't have a mint mark, but that is of course another issue.
If you look BACK at coin production, you might make a case that the mintmark wasn't required in some instances.
But at the time they are making the coins, do they know in advance that one mint or another will DEFINITELY NOT be making a certain coin at a particular mint for the current year? They might have an idea, or desire....but when needs become apparent, and maybe they are required to mint a coin they didn't intend to, you can't retroactively put marks on coins that have already been made and released in order to differentiate the mints!
Plus, I think following the same protocol for every year creates a whole lot less confusion. It could be confusing if you had to have a reference book handy to determine which mint created a coin in that year.
(And really, is the mintmark really all that distracting? I don't think so.....)
+1
Since mintmarks were originally put there to help identify coins of inferior quality....and precious metal content!....you could claim that with modern coining methods, and absence of any precious metals, then mintmarks really aren't required anymore at all.
But if we determine that mintmarks should stay, (either as collectors, or as production quality control engineers, or as historians set in our ways), then the logical way would be to use them the same way every year, with established rules and norms.
The WestPoint anomalies are an exception to the well established rules....(or at least a variance without really good reason). Not sure they help in changing the rules overall.
In the past, with precious metals, I think mintmarks were important for production purposes, however, I agree that they may not be useful for that purpose for modern coins. In that sense, mintmarks may have jumped the shark in that their ability to drive collector behavior trumps their usefulness for production purposes.
I can accept that as collectors we continue to like mintmarks on modern coins because that's how classic coins are collected, and it seems the Mint can accept that as well as they choose which circulation and NCLT coins to have and not have mintmarks in a way that seems driven by collector, not production, behavior.
Given the way some government agency operate these days, it is not too far fetched to see one or more of the mints putting an inferior product. The evidence was certainly there for the Denver Mint in the early 1960s. The reason why Franklin Half Dollars in high grade are so hard to find from the mint during that period was not because the coins saw a lot of use. It was because they were only MS-60 or 61 coins from the day they left the mint. Mint marks provide a check if government officials are willing to use it. Otherwise you would need an investigative reporter ripping open some mint bags to announce, "We just found some more juck coins issued by the North Podunk Mint!" ... Like that's going to happen.
That's a good example Bill. However, that was half a century ago, and before collectors started taking coins out of circulation in the mid-1960s. Are there examples of this in the 21st century?
How many 1838-O Half Dollars were made and when?
http://webcache.googleusercont...=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
BST transactions: dbldie55, jayPem, 78saen, UltraHighRelief, nibanny, liefgold, FallGuy, lkeigwin, mbogoman, Sandman70gt, keets, joeykoins, ianrussell (@GC), EagleEye, ThePennyLady, GRANDAM, Ilikecolor, Gluggo, okiedude, Voyageur, LJenkins11, fastfreddie, ms70, pursuitofliberty, ZoidMeister,Coin Finder, GotTheBug, edwardjulio, Coinnmore, Nickpatton, Namvet69,...
Yes, since you won't know if the branch mints will produce coins at anythime of the year. Denver may be in a production hold for the first half of the year for some unforseen maintenace upkeep and churn some out in the last three quarters of the year.
How many 1838-O Half Dollars were made and when?
http://webcache.googleusercont...=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
I agree that mintmarks were useful a long time ago, before collectors started taking coins out of circulation in the 1960s. That example is from almost 180 years ago. Is there anything like this in this century?
For a more recent example, in the 1970s, the West Point mint was tasked with minting circulation cents and quarters. Those didn't have mintmarks, likely due to the concern of collectors hoarding the coins as with the coins in the 1960s.
The issue is that now that collecting is so prevalent, putting a mintmark on a circulation coin can drive it out of circulation and thus defeating the purpose of the coinage in the first place. Putting a mintmark on a bullion coin can drive up collector demand so that it impacts demand for higher-priced proof offerings.
In the 21st century, has collector demand impacted coins so much that mintmarks are used first to influence collectors and secondarily for production purposes?
I also believe it was proved to be a silly assumption. Hoarding amounted to an insignificant percentage.
Lance.
I believe it's correct that the Mint worried about collectors hoarding coins needed for circulation. And that was the reason mintmarks were not used in those years.
I also believe it was proved to be a silly assumption. Hoarding amounted to an insignificant percentage.
Lance.
I think this started in the 1960s because that was big collecting era and it happened to coincide with events with silver and JFK. The combination of collecting, silver and JFK led to coins being taken out of circulation more than circulation needs could handle.
For the 1970s West Point circulation coins, I think it's unknown how big of an issue hoarding would have been at present. If we knew the mintages of the West Point circulation coins, we could guesstimate whether collectors would have taken them out based on mintage comparisons with other coins. Do we know what the mintages were? Call out to RWB?
been the first Kennedy half.... That old red herring has long been put to bed. There are not enough coin collectors to make a dent in circulating coins. I like the mint mark and personally
would prefer all coins be so marked by the mint that produced them. Cheers, RickO
Collector impact on circulating coinage is negligible at best....possible exception may have
been the first Kennedy half.... That old red herring has long been put to bed. There are not enough coin collectors to make a dent in circulating coins. I like the mint mark and personally
would prefer all coins be so marked by the mint that produced them. Cheers, RickO
If the desire is to have mintmarks, then it would be nice to have mintmarks on all coins going forward for consistency. There are more P mintmarked coins now, so perhaps they should all have them, including the W for West Point 2016 bullion ASEs.
But now with coins being minted outside of Philadelphia, then I think the "P" mint mark should be on the Philly coins.
When there was only one mint, it didn't matter.
But now with coins being minted outside of Philadelphia, then I think the "P" mint mark should be on the Philly coins.
There are more "P" mintmarks out there now like the following.
Given the way some government agency operate these days, it is not too far fetched to see one or more of the mints putting an inferior product. The evidence was certainly there for the Denver Mint in the early 1960s. The reason why Franklin Half Dollars in high grade are so hard to find from the mint during that period was not because the coins saw a lot of use. It was because they were only MS-60 or 61 coins from the day they left the mint. Mint marks provide a check if government officials are willing to use it. Otherwise you would need an investigative reporter ripping open some mint bags to announce, "We just found some more juck coins issued by the North Podunk Mint!" ... Like that's going to happen.
That's a good example Bill. However, that was half a century ago, and before collectors started taking coins out of circulation in the mid-1960s. Are there examples of this in the 21st century?
Denver has made crummy business strike coins since than. I remember complaints about the State Quarters, and that was from 25 to 5 years ago. I don't look at modern coins in detail except for the Proof sets I buy each year, so I don't know how good they are now.
Here's one reason why I think mint marks are also used to influence collectors, and not always for production purposes. When there are multiple mints in this case, let's not use a mint mark. I think the goal here is to influence collectors so they don't collect these any different from those from the primary Mint.
I think this is similar to using a mint mark when there's only a single mint striking the coin. It has benefits for influencing collector behavior. For example, I want this coin struck only at West Point (with a mint mark) but not this other coin struck at West Point (without a mint mark).
This particular image and what it represents, really has not 1 damned thing to do with whether or not a mint putts a privy mark on a coin as mush as it has to do with TPG's and Coin Dealers building a TPG generated collectors market.
Do you suppose that anybody really gives a damn where the coin was made? They are, after all, nothing more than MS69/70 Clones with the value being put on the plastic instead of the relevance of the coin itself.
It represents the naivete of the current generation of "slab" collectors which is a market BUILT by the TPG's in conjunction with the high volume bullion dealers.
The name is LEE!