Proof Mercury Dimes, Which One Do You Prefer?

2nd has better eye appeal. There seems to be some misconception that proof coins never tone or get spots. That's definitely not the case.

Alpha2814

Also, three things pop out to me on the 1st one:

1) I know it may be a long shot but does anyone see some slight (w/o a shelf-like appearance) notching on the bottom of the 'A' in 'STATES'? It is very possible to have both a DDR and MD on the same coin.

2) That small perpendicular line connecting to the rim under the 'E' of 'UNITED' is not normal; the same goes for the right portion of the 'D' in 'DIME'. Are they devices with metallic height, a class of crack, or simply environmental growth of some sort etc?

3) I would like to see a tighter close-up photo of the middle bands on the fasces(a word originating from the Etruscan society-just side note of interest...): especially the right portion which appears to be obscured from shadowing. A SB (split band) may exist lending itself to a more lucrative piece.

No TPG will indicate any additional advantageous feature unless 'attribution' is requested and paid for.

IMO

PS:

Some of my highest graded proof coins(higher than a PR66) appeared three times worse than this one but PCGS still gave the nod and slabbed them for latter resale with a very handsome profit.

A proof merc is only marginally more common than a 1916 D, but the for the same price you could get a shiny, high-grade proof merc or a piece of crap 1916 D dime. I say screw the crappy, low-grade key date as it will probably collapse in value as more collectors switch to type sets.

If you can find a $5 gold for the price of a PR-65/66 merc, then I'll take whatever you've got.

UPDATE: I have decided not to get either, I figure I'll hold off on that for now... I also spent some of the money that I was going to use to buy the coin with anyways (lol)
Heres what I bought if you're wondering:




Its a US M1917 A1 WW1/ early WW2 army helmet. Sellers pics, cant wait to get it in hand.