1920-D Mercury Dime ICG Slabbed But Looks Polished

@dbrablec - should the devices look this shiny? I don't see luster on the devices, I see shiny polished devices...or is this perhaps just indicative of very early die state?

Does not appear polished to me.

Lighting can distort how the actual coin appears.

Thanks everyone. Yep, you must be right macmercury.

I agree, the photos are an issue.

The contact marks on the cheek and between EPU and DIME are the heaviest. By themselves, the contact marks shouldn't result in an UNC grade below MS-63. It's a fair question why ICG saw this as a 62. The flat appearance could suggest that it has been dipped, maybe a bit more than it should have been. I don't think it would be detailed, though. That may be what ICG was seeing.

One area to look at closely is above and below EPU. There may be some luster disruption there. IMHO, it's either AU-58 or MS-63, depending on the reverse luster. That's a huge swing in value, and you may wish to get better photos from the seller or make sure you have return privileges. Some dealers won't allow return of slabbed coins for grading disputes, so be careful.

One note. This coin has mismatched die states, which are common. The obverse is LDS, and the reverse is EMDS. Note the multiple obverse die breaks, including a heavy break from the wings to the rim, fairly large breaks from the rim through the "L" of LIBERTY and from the cheek to the hair west of the ear. Smaller breaks exist from the rim to the "I" of LIBERTY and between the last two digits of the date. The die breaks are common with the enhanced design starting in 1918. It seems to have areas of die weakness, especially between the wings and the rim.

Just some thoughts.


EDIT: you already beat me to the punch on the luster as a factor in the grade.

@fortcollins - thanks so much for your thoughts here!

This coin was offered by an online dealer that I frequently peruse. It is listed as sold, and wasn't really an issue I was particularly targeting. I'm currently targeting branch mint issues in the teens and twenties in as high AU as possible (considering each coin on strike, luster, toning, and overall original skin). The 1920 D is kind of unique as it has a relatively high mintage from Denver from this era, and it is actually lower on my "to buy" list, but I thought this specimen was worth discussion.

This coin sold for $325, which is above CPG for MS-62($206) and MS-63($306), but well below CPG MS63 full bands ($754).

I noticed this coin because it was one of the few TPG'd offerings by this seller and also one of their few high grade offerings from the 1920s. And then looking more closely, I saw what appeared to be very shiny devices, and that's just not original - I had suspected a polished coin, but dipping may very well be the culprit!

I had asked here if it was possibly a result from being an early die state, as I've read that fresh dies will often impart an almost proof-like appearance. Not sure if anyone can opine on that or not. But yes, in the absence of that explanation, dipping makes sense! It makes sense in that it could result in the shiny devices as well as the apparent loss of luster in the fields (and devices). A truly original mint state coin, with no apparent wear and seemingly flawless fields such as this (except for the few marks as you mentioned fortcollins btw EPU and DIME), should have more luster. My understanding is that dipping can certainly dampen the luster, as is seen here in much of the obverse fields. I know certain photography can limit luster altogether, such as computer scanning, but these photos should really show more luster, if it were in fact there.

I've purchased a few utterly "lackluster" AU and/or UNC mercs and I have had buyer's remorse every time. Here are a few examples: I kept the 1926-D http://goccf.com/t/336326 (pg 2 shows my photos) and returned the 1924-D http://goccf.com/t/364611

Those purchases really turned me off to "dipped out" coins. Coins that look great based on wear (impeccable strike and flawless fields) but wholly lacking luster (i.e., "lackluster" ).

MS-63+ to me