1923 Mercury Dime - You Vs. PCGS

VERY strong strike on reverse...they should state that on the placard. GEM BU....MS -65, conservatively. That is the best Mercury dime I have ever seen. MS-67 even.

There is a bit of a warble to the rim, but it's an irregularity in the strike or maybe the planchet, not damage.

I was thinking because it's a high mintage, less expensive date and usually has a nice strike, 1923 might be a good choice for type collectors. The hub starts showing more wear over time and you don't have near as much detail in later years (particularly the floating branches starting in 1926.)

Just to be contrary and because of you "thinking they missed it" I will say 65 fsb. If you say they came in lower or, gasp, said au58 (can they grade it that and still say full split bands?) I would be quite surprised.

Actual Grade: MS-65FB
PCGS Grade: MS-64FB

I have to wonder if PCGS, who in my opinion tends to be a wee bit conservative and "holds back" a bit and routinely grades a bit lower just to maintain their reputation as "conservative" instead of being closer to the ideal of objectivity.

I see this coin, which most here agreed is MS-65..or higher for its type...and they say its MS-64. Does PCGS also take into account the year and how strong the strikes are? Does that mean if a particular year has a weak strike, they also take THAT into account ? Isn't that being subjective? Or is it merely being more responsive to each single year's issue and its comparative strengths and weaknesses?

That's probably closest to what I paid.


Yep, that's what's on the slab.


I agree, comparing it to my other graded Mercs it's easily a MS65FB.


Going by the paucity of any significant marks, I think it compares well with any of the graded 66s I have.

The only thing I can think is that they knocked it down for the spotting on the reverse. It has other flaws, but they're all die characteristics. The luster is a bit subdued - it lacks "bling" - but that's a consequence of the die state, not haze or oxidation - I have 66 and 67 graded Mercs with similar luster. There are also die abrasion lines (not very visible in the picture) that could be mistaken for hairline scratches, but they're present on the majority of Mercury dimes, I can't imagine they'd make that mistake. The most distracting mark on the coin is a luster break between IGWT, the "L" and Liberty's chin, but it's actually die burn, not a contact mark. It's extremely difficult to find any marks at all without magnification.

Regardless of their reasoning, I'm the winner in the end. I get a solid gem for a very good price.



They definitely grade on a curve for the FB designation at least. A 1945 is so rare with full bands that the barest separation is enough to earn the FB. But if it's got a "D" on the back, it will be held to a much higher standard.

CaptainFwiffo - Do you think it's a FSB or just FB? You got a steal on this coin!

I haven't collected many of these in decades, I remember them more from the days of no slabs, I used to differentiate my inventory between FB and FSB with the FSB being the full rounded bands, I guess times have changed, I only asked because I recalled seeing both FB and FSB on slabs recently, didn't think to notate they were probably in different TPG company holders, thanks for the lesson, even an old dog can still learn something, now if it only sticks.