| Author |
 Replies: 38 / Views: 5,039 |
|
Valued Member
United States
60 Posts |
Hello all, I'm new to this site, as well as coin collecting, so please bear with me. While going through some Mercury dimes, I found one from 43 I believe, the date is a lil smudged. Because I had been handling them, this one felt odd. I put it on a scale and it weighs 2.1... Does anyone know what this is? It's a decent strike and its not worn around the edges like some I've seen. I'll try to get some pics up when I figure out how. THANKS! |
|
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
4078 Posts |
Newkoin3,  Pictures needed. Should be 2.50 grams. And let me add, "Boston Strong" |
|
Valued Member
 United States
60 Posts |
I'm sorry I'm having some trouble uploading pics.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
60 Posts |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
60 Posts |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
60 Posts |
Sorry bout the quality but hope these help!  |
|
Valued Member
United States
60 Posts |
UPDATE.. I also found a Merc from 1917 that weighs 2.1.
Does anyone know what these are?
They're both non magnetic.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4409 Posts |
Coins gradually lose some of their weight as they circulate.
Yours has gone from 2.5 grams(when it fell off the press) down to 2.1 which by my calculation equals a 0.4 gram loss which seems like normal wear.
-MV
|
|
Valued Member
United States
60 Posts |
Thanks for the input :)
It's just a strange thing because the ones from the early 1900's (some I can't even read the date) the rim of the coin is completely worn on both sides; they still weigh 2.5. I only found one or 2 the weight was off from wear. The 2 in question are nice business strikes with really no wear... strange. So pretty much I'm losing money if I choose to sell lol.. thought I might of had some kind of planchet error.
|
|
Moderator
 United States
23522 Posts |
Tough call. A scale which only resolves to 0.1g isn't sufficiently accurate for weighing coins, but 0.4g off a Merc is a *huge* red flag. That's almost 20%. There should be no detail left on the coin at that weight; the overwhelming majority of the weight of a coin is in the planchet under the devices. If the weight is accurate I have to doubt the authenticity of the coin.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
60 Posts |
Thank you very much.
Wow so maybe counterfeit? What would my next step be, I'm guessing take to a professional? Is there any way I could tell a fake myself? Also they are reeded, with the 1917 having the more pronounced ridges. It's actually in great shape considering the age, if not better then the pics already posted of the 1943. I will post more pics. This really is a mystery, I just used that title to be a cornball!
|
|
Valued Member
United States
60 Posts |
I know the scale isn't the best, but a half gram off seemed strange to me too. Hesitant to deal with pros, due to the cons; pun totally intended.
|
|
New Member
United States
48 Posts |
that is just from cirulation wear.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
6370 Posts |
I don't like the way the reverse lettering is shaped and mushed. It looks like a contemporary counterfeit to me.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
60 Posts |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
60 Posts |
Pictured above is the 1917. I appreciate everyone's input, but what I don't understand is out of 2 rolls of Mercs, I find these 2. Like I said there were a few that almost looked like blanks they were so worn, even those were up to weight. Then there's these 2 that weigh almost half a gram off... I just can't see where the wear is. Counterfeit however I can handle, even though everyone wants to hear they found something rare (and maybe worth something). I do appreciate all input.
|
| |
Replies: 38 / Views: 5,039 |
Posted 05/02/2014 5:49 pm
