Bahamas 1 cent coin 1970 mint question

This question concerns this coin:

1 Cent - Elizabeth II - The Bahamas – Numista

The Numista page on this coin says “Franklin Mint” under the “mint” section, but right under that section, there is a comment that says, "Struck by Royal Mint. The BE copies are struck in special brass which looks like bronze." It isn't clear to me what is meant by “BE” in this context - does that mean “proof quality?"

The valuation table for this particular coin (which has only one date, but is divided into proof and non-proof lines) does not have “FM” after the date for either the proof or non-proof versions of the coin. Thus it is unclear which version was minted by the Franklin Mint and which was minted by the Royal Mint (presumably, the one in London, UK, although that isn't specified).

I have a proof example of this coin which does not have a Franklin Mint mintmark (the “F” over the “m”) and has a distinctly reddish color (similar to how a new U.S. cent coin looks). The color is just a bit more yellowish than my uncirculated, 1990 dated example of the KM-59a/Numista #941 Bahamas one cent coin (which is described as being made from “copper plated zinc.” So, I am thinking the proof version of this coin was made by the Royal Mint because of the lack of the “FM” mintmark on my proof example.

 However, the coin pictured at the top of the Numista page has a distinctly yellowish color and does not appear to be a proof coin. It also appears to lack a mintmark, so presumably, it would also be a Royal Mint product? As previously pointed out, the valuation table for this coin does not have “FM” after the date for either the proof or non-proof versions of 1970 coin, so, did the Franklin Mint make any of the Bahamas 1970 one cent coins - but without their mintmark? Or, were both qualities of the 1970 dated coin made by the Royal mint in the UK (without a mintmark)?

The Franklin Mint made coins for proof and mint sets, all of these coins have no mint mark (this also holds true for 1970 Jamaican coins minted by FM). The Royal Mint also made coins for circulation. The FM mint set coins will be very high quality, with the typical matte finish and few marks, while I believe the Royal Mint circulation coins will have a more normal finish and more bag marks. If you look at photos on ucoin, I'm pretty sure the coin posted by npk in 2018 is a Royal Mint coin. I have yet to find one of the circulation coins despite actively searching for them.

thoram2

It isn't clear to me what is meant by “BE” in this context - does that mean “proof quality?"

It's an automatic translation from French, so yes it means proof.

thoram2

 

The BE copies are struck in special brass which looks like bronze." It isn't clear to me what is meant by “BE” in this context - does that mean “proof quality?"

Yes, BE is French for “Proof”.

As you can see there's a symbol after that line. That symbol means that line is an automatic translation from the French side, unfortunately it's a bad translation since they didn't translate BE into Proof.

TheGame

 

If you look at photos on ucoin, I'm pretty sure the coin posted by npk in 2018 is a Royal Mint coin.

Strange, since I'm pretty sure all the Bahamas 1 cent 1970 coins (both regular and proof) are struck at Franklin Mint:

Schön also says the 1 cent 1970 is struck at Franklin Mint.

Essor Prof

TheGame

 

If you look at photos on ucoin, I'm pretty sure the coin posted by npk in 2018 is a Royal Mint coin.

Strange, since I'm pretty sure all the Bahamas 1 cent 1970 coins (both regular and proof) are struck at Franklin Mint:

 

Schön also says the 1 cent 1970 is struck at Franklin Mint.

I've checked the Royal Mint annual reports for 1970, 71 & 72 and they didn't strike any 1970-dated Bahamas coins.

Interesting, thanks for that. That would explain why I hadn't found a Royal Mint coin. I do wonder what happened to the coin I mentioned though, it's well below the FM's usual quality, even for 1970.

Thanks to everyone who responded to my question. Based upon the responses, I think the path forward is clear:

I suggest the Numista page for this coin be modified as follows:

The “Mint” section should be revised to indicate that all N-8112/KM# 15 coins dated 1970 were produced at the Franklin Mint (without a mintmark).

In the “Comments" section:

“Struck by the Royal Mint” should be deleted.

A line should be added as follows: "The UNC quality coins are struck in nickel brass and look yellowish"

The existing line that addresses proof quality coins should be modified to read: “The proof quality coins were struck in special brass which looks like bronze”

The above suggestions would clarify where the all of the 1970 dated 1-cent coins were minted, and also explain why no circulation quality examples if this coin exist - because only collector quality pieces (UNC or Proof) were minted (hence the low overall mintage for this coin).

The circulated coin mentioned in the discussion would then be an UNC-quality coin (if yellowish) or a proof quality coin (if bronze colored)  that somehow got into circulation.

thoram2

 

The circulated coin mentioned in the discussion would then be an UNC-quality coin (if yellowish) or a proof quality coin (if bronze colored)  that somehow got into circulation.

Your terminology is not correct. Every newly struck coin is UNC no matter what finish. UNC is a grade, proof is a finish, these are two different things. I have proofs that are VF at best.

Essor Professor,

Of course, you are correct. I apologize if my terminology confused anyone.

I was just trying to differentiate between the two coin groupings in the valuation table. One (with a listed mintage of 22,827) has been designated as proof. The other (with a listed mintage of 125,469) doesn't have a designation. I wasn't sure if that group should be designated as “circulation strikes” because there still seems to be a question as to whether or not any of the 1970 dated cents were released into circulation. Some could have gotten into circulation over the years by various means, but it isn't clear if the Bahamas government placed all 125,469 into circulation. If these coins were not circulation strikes and were not made as proofs, how should we refer to them?

I do think we need to have a note that the two groups have different colorations - that the coins made as proofs have a bronze color and the coins that were not made as proof have a yellowish color, and that they are both Franklin Mint products.