I would like to get your opinion about adding an issuing company as a mintmark when its symbol is clearly visible.
I made this choice for the company EIC which clearly puts its symbol oncoins.
Adding the EIC mintmark to the date line clearly indicates that this coin was issued by EIC.
I therefore added to each coins concerned the mention EIC on the date line.
But I have a requet to remove this EIC mention because it is not properly a mint.
It's true, according to my honorable colleague MMowiec who always gives me great help when I submit a problem to him, and who answers me:
it's true that EIC is not a real mint. This is the private company which bought the trade mark rights for name EIC and they are rather distributor like Westminster, Jubilee Mint, Hattons of London etc. These kind of companies are organizing often almost full coin distribution process (do the research what can be sold, prepare the design, do the marketing and sell the coins) except of the real minting which needs the phisical industrial resources: special machines and some of experience of workers to do it well. This part is frequently delegated to real mint like Tower Mint, Commonwealth Mint, BH. Mayer Mint (which are not selling itself any coin directly like Royal Mint, RAM or Pobjoy do/did). So it's true that the EIC is not a mint and shoudn't be added in Mint section (it can be at the top as issuing entity).
But the true is that the EIC mark is clearly visible on the mint. I would say that this makes that this can be indicated on the yearline. The question is now: should it be mint letter or other mark field? I'm not sure… Maybe this is a good question to be posted on Referee forum and you can tag Xavier, Jarcek, Competendium or other admins to answer how it should be (if other mark - this needs to be added to the list too ).
That's why I submit the question to you: "Can I add EIC as a mintmark or not?
@Xavier , @Jarcek , @Compendium , @MMowiec , @BCNumismatics
