1937 Proof Mercury Dime - You Vs PCGS

Proof Mercury dimes usually have fairly clear mirrored fields and light frost on the devices. Cameo contrast is usually weak or completely absent. This dime doesn't have many contact marks or other surface defects and there are no obvious signs of cleaning. As expected there is no cameo contrast.

The fields look very dull and hazy. As a result eye appeal seems well below normal. I'll throw out PR-64.

I'm gonna agree with a PF64 - not a very attractive example.

Never got into Merc. dimes (shame on me)
Wondering is that a scratch on the holder or coin (obverse)? Not seeing any hits, So If the luster isn't coming through with the photos I'll say 65

I've got to jump in early here since no one is even close. Either my pics aren't very good or we have wildly different ideas of what makes a nice coin. . I've looked at a lot of Mercury proofs and many have nasty white milk spots or a very "hazed" over look, this one doesn't.


This is a pr66+. I found the eye appeal to be good as the toning indicates original skin. There some light rainbow toning near "in God we trust" on the obverse. There also a bit of rainbow above "E pluribus unum" on the reverse.

Here's a few more pics. The "scratch" on the obverse is on the holder. Coin surfaces are very clean.





Here's an example of a "bad" 1937. Here's an example in a green ogh pcgs pr65. Huge difference IMO.



This one's a ngc pr65



And another pcgs 65..




Perhaps you all are applying modern proof grading standards to the 1937? These simply aren't going to look like a modern proof. Go out on ebay and look at other 1937 proofs for sale, I think you may change your opinion on this one.

I also agree the eye appeal just isn't there. Highly doubt this would green bean.