Mint signs on Norway coins

Hi, what's happened to mint signs in all modern norway coins?
They are all deleted. It is a mistake or a reasoned decision? In that case it was way better before.
Hope they can be readded on the catalog

Are you talking about the occacional star or the crossed hammers?

I know that Norway had the mintmark field full of non mintmarks like JJE which are the initials of Jan Erik Johansen the director's of the mint.
Maybe that's meant and no they didn't belong there and the ref was right to remove them.

As an example: N#1442

WAS:


IS:

It's still a bit cluttered. The crossed hammers is the mark for Kongsberg, but why indicate the hammers in each year line instead of only once in the Mint, like for the 1 oere 1970 (https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces1424.html)?

Mint
⚒Royal Norwegian Mint (Den Kongelige Mynt), Kongsberg, Norway (1686-date)

They did! You're absolutely right. Why they also have "crossed hammers" on every year line makes no sense.

They should probably have put the specific initials in there instead.

Verweis : "January First-of-May"​They should probably have put the specific initials in there instead.

​Sounds reasonable. If any of you want to make the CR, go ahead, since I'm busy with the Swedish 5 oere from 1898. Not to forget today I made my first dollar, heh, heh!

Verweis : "Idolenz"​I know that Norway had the mintmark field full of non mintmarks like JJE which are the initials of Jan Erik Johansen the director's of the mint.
​Maybe that's meant and no they didn't belong there and the ref was right to remove them.

​State that the director's mint initals is not a mintmark is little odd. But I don't want to discuss about the sex of the angels, they should be reported in the comment box at least

Hello,

Just closing this because there is no change needed in the database. I agree that repeating the same text in every dateline is not necessary. Guidelines cover this (3.8.5).

The example given above is clear:
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces1424.html

Verweis : "stratocaster"​Hello,
​
​Just closing this because there is no change needed in the database. I agree that repeating the same text in every dateline is not necessary. Guidelines cover this (3.8.5).
​
​The example given above is clear:
​https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces1424.html
​
​

​Better example of missing data: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces984.html
Old state (as seen in this snapshot) - mintmaster marks listed as if mintmarks, no mention of crossed hammers in the comments anywhere.
Current state as I write this: mintmaster marks not listed anywhere at all, i.e. we're forced to guessing which date had which mark.

I've relied on mintmaster/privy marks for identifying worn coins before; sometimes the mark is more legible than the date, and can help narrow the date down. Removing this information completely does not help anyone.
I agree that if the marks are the same for the entire type (as in N#1424) they should not be mentioned separately. But if they are not the same, they should be mentioned, if only in the comments. Check out N#1442 instead (the screenshots are in the thread above).

Since those mintmasters signs and abbreviations appear on the coin somewhere, they should of course be described, no doubt about that. If they don't appear, they can NOT help you.

Si fully agree with January First-of-May.

For sure, mint master's mark should be specified, but not in the mintmark field, rather in the comments:
https://en.numista.com/numisdoc/articles/catalogue_guidelines.php#mintmark

Either in the comments or in a new section dedicated to the mint master !

Shouldn't the initials be JEJ considering his name is Jan Erik Johansen, and not Jan Johansen Erik - even though the stylised way it may look like JJE?

Verweis : "ngdawa"​Shouldn't the initials be JEJ considering his name is Jan Erik Johansen, and not Jan Johansen Erik - even though the stylised way it may look like JJE?

​Of course you're right!