| Author |
 Replies: 22 / Views: 2,923 |
Page 2 of 2
|
|
|
|
Moderator
 United States
23522 Posts |
Quote:
I think it's a 1916 obverse paired with a late date reverse.
Or this. |
|
New Member
 United States
8 Posts |
I cant get a closeup but he sent this before. He was the one offering me the lower price, I wasn't trying to scam him, I think for an ungraded coin its not worth paying someone full value. Thanks for all the advice though, I thought the mint mark looked okay and I'm not sure about the brush detail as you mentioned. I'm trying to look at a 1916s I have for comparison but I don't have any 1916 coins in that kind of condition.   |
|
New Member
United States
8 Posts |
I just got these from him too if it helps.   |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3843 Posts |
The coins in the last post don't even look to be the same coin as pictured above.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
652 Posts |
Same reverse - you can tell by the bottom of the mashed E in ONE.
Edited by mackwork
03/17/2012 2:48 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4132 Posts |
Here's an image I prepared a while back that compares a closeup of a 1916 reverse compared to a late-date reverse.  The master hub was apparently damaged after 1925, and all dimes dated 1926 and later lack this central detail. A minority prior to that date are missing it to, because the dies were polished by mint workers, but the 1916-D dies did not get used for long and never suffered this defect. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1796 Posts |
3 red flags I've noticed:
1) The missing details on the reverse that SuperDave and CaptainFwiffo have pointed out.
2) The graininess of the strike on the fasces.
3) I think I'm also seeing graininess on the obverse, too.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4132 Posts |
|
|
New Member
United States
8 Posts |
Okay thanks Captain, I thought the mint mark looked like the type 4 style since it has the same serif marks and is about the right distance from the bottom of the coin and the angle seems okay.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4132 Posts |
The mintmark on yours is larger, and the position relative to the bottom olive leaf is wrong. The inside of a 1916-D mintmark is an almost triangular slot, while yours is wider and rounder.
|
|
New Member
United States
8 Posts |
Okay, captain, last pictures, zoom in of mint mark, does the mint mark still look off? Thanks anyone who can answer.   |
|
Moderator
United States
16680 Posts |
I'm also noticing the graininess as well as the mintmark which is not correct for an authentic coin. Must buy certified, always.
I also believe it's been cleaned to throw people off plus, the seller would still get a decent profit for the coin.
swcoin.ecrater.com
Edited by vermontensium
03/17/2012 4:10 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4132 Posts |
Here's a picture of a real 1916-D mintmark from a similar-grade coin.  Look at the shape of the center. Completely different from the coin you have pictured. There are enough other problems with the coin to show it's a fake even if the mintmark was closer to correct. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3283 Posts |
The Captain is correct, the "d" is wrong.
counterfeit coin
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
20753 Posts |
If you know the person selling that coin well enough, why not just ask if you could send it to a TPGS for authenticating. If he agrees, tell him you will pay for that service and if real, you'll pay him for the coin. If not, he pays for the TPGS. This way you have nothing to loose and everything to gain.
The biggest problem with the 16D is it is one of the Worlds most counterfeited coins. Such fakes pop up everywhere. Today without being authenticated such coins are just not worth the chance spending a lot of money. I've seen so many raw ones at coin shows and they are basically ignored due to some fakes are so good, many dealers can not tell.
If you know him well enough, he should agree to having it authenticated.
|
|
Page 2 of 2
|
Replies: 22 / Views: 2,923 |
Page 2 of 2
|
First Page
Posted 03/17/2012 1:48 pm
