| Author |
 Replies: 13 / Views: 1,284 |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2480 Posts |
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Sweden
729 Posts |
I think I see what you are looking at, and if it is part of the MM, it would be a D...question is, would a TPG authenticate it based on that? |
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
2480 Posts |
I don't know if they would, but if there is a chance that it's a D I will send it in with a batch of other coins soon. Making a piles for PCGS, some for NCG, and some for ANACS.
|
|
Moderator
 United States
23522 Posts |
OK, I see what you're seeing. Here's the problem: Only one of the 4 known mint mark locations has the top serif of the D that close to the leaf, Die 1. With Die 1, the serif is very much closer to the fattest part of the leaf than what you've pictured here; at least a third of the mint mark should show in your image. Like so:  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2480 Posts |
I tried to tell myself it was from wear but if anything, the wear/spreading metal would probably make the D appear even higher, wouldn't it?
|
|
Moderator
United States
23522 Posts |
Here's an AG-3 Die 1 which, like the last image, has been shamelessly ripped from Heritage Auctions' archives:  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3283 Posts |
snicker,snicker  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
814 Posts |
 Rooting for you! |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2480 Posts |
Thanks for the good vibes, Golden Chest, but it's clear now that this is not a 16-D. Whatever the cause of that mark, it's a half millimeter too low to be the real deal.
Also, even in this very worn state, there should be more thickness (depth) of the proximal D remaining. The D wouldn't be so faint at the top since the adjacent device is not worn flat.
Looking forward to finishing my inspection of these Mercs... it's starting to get tedious since there just aren't that many varieties to find yet I can't not look at each coin. Wish we had some AU or MS specimens for me to keep but there are very few that are even EF.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3486 Posts |
ThisIsFun,
We have all been in your shoes at some time in the past so do not fret.
Edited by matthewvincent
02/25/2013 09:59 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3453 Posts |
 and we all hope members here score. Keep up the good work  ! |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5832 Posts |
I normally look at my piles twice, in case I misses the first time. And it does happen because I browse through it the first time faster than I should of with larger selections.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2480 Posts |
I'm on the home stretch of examining, would really like to finish today (my day off) but I have other things to do. I've found some mis-sorted dates/MMs so it's good that I'm giving things another look. Still to examine (first pass) are 1945-P, 1941-P, 1939-P, 1937-P, just another couple hundred or so to go. When it comes to looking for various incredibly subtle DDOs and DDRs, I'm starting to not care. For me it's almost impossible to even pick up the variety in the pictures... trying to see it on coins with any wear seems like a losing proposition. "Extra thickness/widening of the device"? Yeah, well... these are circulated coins, the devices are all pancaked and therefore widened to some degree. [getting a little tired of the Merc sorting, can you tell?] There's probably little to no difference in value amongst most of these coins, so I'm starting to question my sanity regarding the degree of examination. But I just. can't. stop. now. *May* have just found a 1936 DDO though... will take pictures and post for opinions some other time. |
|
Moderator
United States
23522 Posts |
Quote:
But I just. can't. stop. now. Don't you just hate that? I feel you. |
| |
Replies: 13 / Views: 1,284 |
|
Posted 02/24/2013 4:05 pm
