Are All 1985-D Dimes Broadstruck?

Both sides! Got it! Thanks! Yes, they are slightly larger.

Oh... That helpled me for sure!

Thanks for all of the info! The link to the other thread was very interesting. Much appreciated!

As Ken said, Denver-minted dimes with this appearance are extremely abundant in 1985. I attribute it to a combination of excessive die convexity (a design flaw) and inadequate upset (a planchet preparation flaw).

That's really interesting! Thanks for all of the info! It seems I also find a good number of 1984's that look like this as well. Coop, you're right. These still have reeding. Although, it's kind of smoothed out in the area of that looks flat. Can't tell if it's from wear or otherwise.

How does all of this explain the weak strike, grease, blur on the reverse? Always in that same spot over the "DIME"?

SsDd,
The basin is formed during hubbing. I think the problem (if there was one with the basining dies) would have been in Philadelphia since they made the dies - not Denver. However, since this issue only affected a small - though significant number of the dies in Denver and none of the dies in Philadelphia, and none of the dies in the previous or following year, I have to wonder if it may have had something to do with improper heat treat of some of the dies and these dies all going to Denver.

These coins appear to be late die state or suffering from premature die fatigue which could occur if the dies were improperly heat treated.

It is known that just two years earlier a significant number of Jefferson nickel dies were improperly heat treated resulting in premature die fatigue on many of the coins struck in that year.

Conder101,

At first I thought planchets may have been a factor because as you point out, the supply is different for Denver than Philadelphia. However, after remembering that the US Mint identified the upset on planchets are the cause for excessive die wear and ridges around the periphery on the copper plated zinc cents, (getting worse the more the planchets are upset), I've backed away from that explanation. It seems like an upset would cause more of a ridge (as seen on other coins besides cents) rather than a flat rim. With that said, this is just a guess on my part based on known effects to cents. My feeling may run counter to what the Mint told me about the 1985-D dimes back in 1985 (or so). I just don't remember what is contained in that letter or if I was in agreement with their assessment.

There's a nice discussion of the process on page 480 of the Encyclopedia of Morgan and Peace dollars which completely disagrees with you. That's where I learned about the basining process, and why it was such an art. Too little, and the periphery wouldn't strike up properly; too much, and the resulting coins wouldn't stack because the centers were too high. It had to be evolved to a new level of intricacy for Morgans given their complex peripheral detail and vast mintage. In fact (previous ref, page 86), it was the refinement of the basining process which helped delay the initial shipment of Morgan dies to San Francisco and New Orleans in 1878 - they were considered incapable of basining according to the complex 3-step process which William Barber had worked out to be necessary for the new coin.

Intuition tells one that given the speed of the strike @ 150+ per minute, metal/design flow would be barely finished by the time the hammer die was already on its' way back upward. This is a poor time for the edges of the dies to be farther apart (basined convex) than closer together (basined concave).