Talk:Identifying marks on euro coins

	European Union portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Numismatics Mid‑importance

	Numismatics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Numismatics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of numismatics and currencies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NumismaticsWikipedia:WikiProject NumismaticsTemplate:WikiProject Numismaticsnumismatic articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Luxembourg

I did some corrections to the article, especially what is said about coins from Luxembourg. user Theeuro (talk) simply reverted these corrections, telling me, they would "not make any sense", and I should use the discussion page to announce changes to the article. I just repeated my corrections and provided some links. And I will not pre-announce every correction to an article on its discussion page. It's a wiki. --androl (talk) 21:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I copyeditted your changes, under the assumption they are correct, which they seem to be. —Nightstallion 23:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I said on your talk page was this: 'Your comments regarding Luxembourg do not make any sense. If you have a question, the discussion page is the best place for them.', because you posed a question within the article itself- the wording of your edit is what made no sense. It is best to discuss major changes, such as those you made to the article, in the discussion page before proceeding with them because incorrect information, as in the case of your previous edits to the page, creep in. It is only a request. --Theeuro (talk) 04:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

recent edits

The information regarding Luxembourg in the Mint master marks and privy marks section is now complete and accurate.
By the same token and to further the overall goal of this article, Monaco was given its own paragraph and the process for coin production was given a more detailed explanation.
The linked notes were becoming something of a missed opportunity to further explain certain aspects of the Mint master marks and privy marks section, so a column was added to allow an immediate arena for this information. It will also serve to provide information should future changes occur.
The nature of the initial Greek coin production in the Mint marks section was a little more complicated than what was originally written, so this is now a more complete account of events.
Also, the information in the Mint marks section for Luxembourg is now complete and accurate.--Theeuro (talk) 06:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Numismatics assessment

Hey, I just looked real quick, but here are a few things for improvement: To many bolded words and phrases(only the title of the article should be bold), not enough wikilinks, lack of history(I know the euro is new, but I'm sure most of those marks started somewhere else), overlinking of engravers/designers with no articles. Joe I 09:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mh. I disagree with most of the assessment: the redlinks to notable engravers and designers are justified and necessary, the bolding of sub-headlines is not necessary -- but not a bad idea either, and I don't see a lack of wikilinks in the article... Yeah, we could probably include more info on where these marks were used before the euro, you're right there. Still, I'd say it's a "B", not a "start". What do you say? —Nightstallion 20:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus

are you sure that the Cypriot Euro coins have the mint mark F on them? as i dont see it anywhere--Melitikus (talk) 21:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, they don't. It was planned, but rejected. I forgot to remove that row.

Cheers. The € • ^T/_C 10:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luxembourg mintmark

Should there not be a mention of the 2005 & 2006 €2 CC restrikes having the French mintmark.Kevin hipwell (talk) 00:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say no because these are issued as collector coins and not as circulation coins. I think the restrike should be mentioned in the Luxembourgian euro coins page and perhaps the €2 commemorative coins page.Cheers. The € • ^T/_C 08:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have thought about adding a section on Luxembourgian euro coins and its sister articles regarding Mintmarks.

I still do not see why this information should be excluded from this article.

Under the section "Designer, sculptor and engraver initials on euro coins" Vatican City (second series) & Vatican City (third series) are included, is it not true that these are also only issued as collector coins.Kevin hipwell (talk) 13:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commemorative coins since 2008

Hi, this page is now five years out of date as the most recent entry for commemorative coins is from 2008. I have put the info on my site (www.eurocollection.co.uk - see 'Marks'), but could someone add it to this page, I'm not sure where to get the images from. Anguswalker (talk) 13:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

10 cent euro coin 2011 with a long haired girl on the back is this rare?

I'm not sure if this is rare or not it's also circled by 12 stars and a IR written on it don't know what it is. So can i get some help? 2601:4C4:380:6790:2CEF:30CF:9C0B:DAB4 (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]