| Author |
 Replies: 35 / Views: 4,182 |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
946 Posts |
Had someone give me this as they thought it was fake. Gave him 20$ for it so if it isn't real no big deal. But if it is! I already elimated the 2 over MM varieties. Has to be only two left. The back MM looks alright The fuzzy areas in between the olive branches and the holes worry me a bit.   |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
946 Posts |
The overall weakness by "one" and then how sharp the MM is has me concerned.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
Canada
10743 Posts |
Yes.. I agree, the reverse of the coin has quite a bit of wear and the mint mark looks almost new, I say it has been added.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
946 Posts |
I agree..the more I look at the seriffs as well they almost seem too prolonged and extruded at the ends. I typed in on Google 1916-d die markers, genuine MM position and got sporadic results actually and nothing really solid.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
Australia
21788 Posts |
?: Does it ring the same as a standard dime with the same amount of wear?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7390 Posts |
Not knowing the series well it dosent scream fake to me. The "fuzzyness" looks like Die Deterioration and I've seen PMD "holes" on other coins that look similar. Heck, we had a morgan posted a few months ago with a forked U similar to your U that was determined to be a hit. Too me it looks legit without knowing the series well or specific die markers etc...  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3210 Posts |
Mint mark looks off to me, it probably is a real 1916 just not a 16d, probably has been altered.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
946 Posts |
Sounds real.weighs 2.4 grams...think this one might have to be sent in for verification.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
5828 Posts |
Why is this is TPG plastic? The plastic looks tampered with to me. Not a 1916 D. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
946 Posts |
I use the inserts to hold coins for pictures.
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
17900 Posts |
Is it in a TPG holder? The photos make it look like it. Also note, as someone mentioned, that the protrusions that hold the coin look like they've been played with. If it is in a TPG, what does it say on the label? |
|
Moderator
 United States
23522 Posts |
Quote:
I use the inserts to hold coins for pictures.
That just caused me to nearly go off on NGC in public. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
946 Posts |
Sorry should have noted that about the inserts. Its not in plastic. I just bought a bunch of cheap graded coins with the intent of cracking them out of the slabs for their inserts for use in pictures. Best setup I can do without buying a whole new setup.
Anyway consensus thinks altered MM. I brought it to a dealer on Saturday and he says he's not sure. Most likely a genuine 1916 as mentioned and a added MM.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4416 Posts |
Quote:
I brought it to a dealer on Saturday and he says he's not sure. Most likely a genuine 1916 as mentioned and a added MM. It never ceases to amaze me how many "coin dealers" remain unschooled in the business. Recently, I was offered the "opportunity" to purchase a 1909-S VDB. To me, it was an obvious fake, but the seller, known to me as an honorable man, told me that an area coin dealer offered him $500 for it. IMHO, the OP's 16-D definitely has an added D mintmark. The obvious diagnostic is the shape of the D, lacking the telltale interior triangle, in particular. After the D was added, the surfaces were severely buffed to mask the work. Note the more excessive "wear" in the region of the mintmark. Suspicious surfaces are often the first road sign to look for. The OP's coin may well have been altered back in the 1960's. I can recall hearing about coin tubes back then, housing fifty amputated S/D mintmarks. The buyer could attach them as needed. I don't recall the price. That news told me, a then young collector, to buy with caution. Edited by ExoGuy
08/03/2015 8:15 pm
|
|
Valued Member
United States
177 Posts |
From the PCGS Web site: Quote:
Here is what to look for on an authentic 1916-D dime. The genuine mintmark is boxy and squared-off, and was made from the same punch that was used for the 1914-D cent. The inside of the "D" is triangular in shape, and the serifs are not pointed. The mintmark stands tall and is crisp and well-defined. Of the four reverse dies that were used, two show repunching on the mintmark, leaving a notched effect in the upper left serif. The non-repunched mintmarks do not display the notched effect. I'm no expert in detecting 1916-D counterfeits, but my thought is that this is a counterfeit. In addition to seemingly being too sharp for the amount of wear on the reverse, the mintmark seems to have the wrong shape. You've eliminated the repunches, so the position suggests Die #4, which is supposed to look like this:  You can make out the "triangular" shape of the inside, which really means a point facing the curve of the D. Yours doesn't seem to have that. Also, on the real one, the bottom right outside of the D is thick and angular, whereas yours is thin and smooth. And the serifs on yours seem too long. Anyway, that's my thought. YMMV |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7621 Posts |
Most likely the coin is real but the MM isn't.
People do not give away 1000$ coins because they "think" they aren't real. They KNOW they aren't real!
|
| |
Replies: 35 / Views: 4,182 |
Posted 08/03/2015 06:49 am
