| Author |
 Replies: 28 / Views: 4,746 |
|
New Member
United Kingdom
32 Posts |
Hello all from sunny London..... I recently went through my old coin collection and found what appears to be a 1916 D Mercury dime in amongst some loose coins. It is a tired looking coin but it may be possible that due to its condition it went unnoticed. I am an amateur collector but from what I read about the coin could it be a type 4 1916 D Mercury dime? I hope the picture quality is all right. I took them with a macro lens on the my phone camera. All the best, I could very easily get the coin collecting bug again. I loved it as a kid growing up in the States. I would rummage through other peoples coin jars looking for treasure. Thank you for your time.     |
|
|
|
Moderator
 United States
189142 Posts |
 to the Community! |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
Would you show us a close-up of both the date and the MM, correctly oriented, please! to the CCF! |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10284 Posts |
I took the liberty of tweaking the mm I do see a triangular interior for the D But it might be too low?  Edited by TNG
03/26/2018 2:47 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
7234 Posts |
 That D sure does look too low. |
|
Rest in Peace
United States
18456 Posts |
Who in the world would try to fake this coin in that condition ? I'm rooting for a genuine 16-D Merc.  |
|
New Member
 United Kingdom
32 Posts |
Thank you, I am not all that handy with the computers. I assume that the coin has to be from 1916-1919 due to whatever little remains of the date mark.
The Mint Mark is clean but I also wondered if it was low. I appreciate your expertise.
|
|
New Member
United Kingdom
32 Posts |
Here are a couple more shots of the mystery date. Hopefully they won't all be tilted Very grateful for the help. If anyone also knows how and why the pyramids were made that would also be greatly appreciated....    |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7624 Posts |
1). The date is not clear enough to see a "6" with these tired old eyes. 2). The mint mark appears to be in the wrong position...too low. You can always send it in to ANACS for a quick TPG and remove doubt as to what it is. Good luck! |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3473 Posts |
with westernsky |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
655 Posts |
I agree. The D is too low and it's also not worn enough for a typical specimen. The D's I've seen on worn 1916-D's looked like this:  |
|
Moderator
United States
54282 Posts |
Based on date position that can be seen, this is either a 1916 or 1918, not a 1917 or 1919.
|
|
New Member
United Kingdom
32 Posts |
cheers nss-52, that narrows it down nicely. Signs are pointing towards 1918-D with the low mint mark. It doesn't appear to be tampered with but there is that chance it could be a bizarre counterfeit. Well the mystery is almost solved. I would get in graded but from here in the UK it would cost me 80 or so pounds to potentially be told what is being sussed out here ;-)
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
A close up of the date "correctly oriented" would be most helpful!
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10038 Posts |
Or... You could save yourself a bunch of money, do what the TPG "experts" would do, and compare the dates to find the numbers on a 1916-D is much closer to the bottom of the Miss Liberty effigy than on your coin. Upper left pic is yours:  Also note the top of the 6 is very prominent on the 16-D and missing from yours. The shape of the 9's loop, inside and out, more closely resembles the 1918 than the other dates. If this is not enough info, you could also look at pics of the D positioning and shape of the D on the 1916, 1918, and 1919. Fun playing Sherlock. Fun saving money. Fun learning about coins How much squash could a Sasquatch squash if a Sasquatch would squash squash? Download and read: Grading the graders Costly TPG ineptitude and No FG Kennedy halveshttps://ln5.sync.com/dl/7ca91bdd0/w...i3b-rbj9fir2Edited by Earle42
03/26/2018 6:11 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
7234 Posts |
Good deduction (deducing?) Watson, er I mean Earle - I'm saying 1918 with that evidence and the low MM
Edited by Mark1959
03/26/2018 6:30 pm
|
| |
Replies: 28 / Views: 4,746 |
Posted 03/26/2018 2:32 pm
