Morocco 1924?

I am totally confused and need clarification about this example. Am I correct in assuming 1924/ Poissy mint? Where is the assayers mark assuming it is the 1924? Thanks in advance.

N#1708

If this is correct and you want to add these pictures to the appropriate line or even the entire page obverse / reverse  photo, please do.

There are 3 km# to take into account for the 25 centime coins 1921-1924

a. Paris y#34.1 (no marks of any kind)

b. Poissy y#34.2 (thunderbolt)

c. Poissy y#34.3 (thunderbolt AND torch)

I'll incorporate the 3 y# in the documentation now, so it'll look like this:

And the note about no privy mark? It shows the torch on the line but there is no torch on the coin.

Is this easier to understand?

The graphic is now very clear as to mint marks. What is still confusing is this variety (1924) has no privy mark at all. That is still not accounted for either on the graphic or on the year lines.

The coin page is using “privy mark" as ”mint mark."  Replace “privy” with “mint” and it makes sense.

This is really over explaining, isn't it?

Maybe.  But when I think of “privy mark” on this page I think of the torch especially when the Y34.2 year line shows a torch.  I can understand the confusion since Y34.2 has a mint mark but no privy mark.  Sometimes you have to over explain to fix the confusion that already exists.  Anyway, I think that if the other text I redlined is changed you can leave it with this one:

The year lines:

Yes and add the lightning mint mark to .2 and .3 and delete the torch from .2. And change this text in Reverse description to match:

or better yet, delete it from the Reverse description since it doesn't really belong there and is covered elsewhere. 

NOTE: 1921 has neither a mint mark nor a privy mark and is minted in Paris.
1924 is always minted in Poissy and can have a sole central mint mark (lightning bolt) or the mint mark (lightning bolt) to the left and the privy mark (torch) to the right! Please see the comments section.

Personally I find the note should be: For mint & privy marks, see the comments section

It should be this:

Coin side descriptions should not contain comments that belong in the Comment field.  Since the mint marks/privy marks are already discussed in your graphic and the (corrected) year line comments, it's not needed in the Reverse side description field.

Making it clear and not confusing is not only not too much information, it is exactly what we are trying to do here at Numista.  Otherwise what is the point?

 @rsirian1 

 Agreed - I moved it now and await referee approval. Thanks 

rsirian1

It should be this:

 

Coin side descriptions should not contain comments that belong in the Comment field.  Since the mint marks/privy marks are already discussed in your graphic and the (corrected) year line comments, it's not needed in the Reverse side description field.

Thanks, we do agree again

Thank you.