| Author |
 Replies: 49 / Views: 4,561 |
|
Valued Member
United States
70 Posts |
  I need someone that's real good at grading, I purchased this dime on ebay last Thursday, and just got it in. My concerns are it looks like this coin has been cleaned, the other thing is I feel it was graded too high. I paid a large part of my summer bonus for this coin and feel I was taken to the cleaners.
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2936 Posts |
I would say AG-3 with cleaning. What "grade" was it sold as?
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
70 Posts |
Good  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2936 Posts |
It might squeak out a "Good". If you have access to the PCGS website. Go to their "Resources" area and click on "Online Photograde"... It has the potential to come out a Good based on their grading photos... I assume you bought it RAW.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
721 Posts |
First of all, I'm not an expert on grading these. It looks AG3 to me, however the obverse rim looks pretty good (better than AG3). The wear is very smooth (am I stating the obvious?) and lots of hairline scratches indicate to me it was cleaned at some point.
What jumps out at me (and what I would worry about) is that the D MM is clear and doesn't have the same wear as the nearby letters. Hopefully this turns out to be nothing and you find out that the coin is genuine. I'd like to hear what the experts say.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
565 Posts |
I would think AG3 with the wear on the reverse. Just my humble thought.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1745 Posts |
I would go AG3, perhaps maybe, G4. But, if I was paying G4 money for a 1916-D, I would like a better example of G4 than this one.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
8904 Posts |
G-4 obverse, AG-3 reverse, overall AG-3.
IMO, worth around $700-730.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
14454 Posts |
I am no dime expert but I disagree with everyone else and say its G4 and I also disagree in that I see no obvious signs of cleaning as far as scratches go. The scratches I see look like honest circulation marks to me as they are not going in the same direction they are every whichaway and small. This is the G4 example on photograde website and I think yours looks similar. The TPG's seem to be pretty lenient on these key dates   |
|
Rest in Peace
United States
5375 Posts |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
70 Posts |
Well guys I paid 550 dollars for it, I wanted better...who wouldn't, but this was all I could afford. In my line of work I really don't see much money during the summer.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
6385 Posts |
The mintmark appears to be in the wrong position (too far from the branch). I'm no expert on 1916-D Mercury dimes but this looks like an added-mintmark fake. Can you get your money back? |
|
Valued Member
United States
70 Posts |
Please don't say it's fake I've been trying to get this coin for 30 years It took 1/3 of my summer bonus check to pay for it.  ..... |
|
Valued Member
United States
462 Posts |
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
9104 Posts |
I'd be a lot more concerned that it's ginuwhine than the grade. I'd call it AG3 (not even close to full rims), but I've had ANACS give G4 to similar looking coins.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
12437 Posts |
I am also quite suspicious of the mintmark placement, it looks like it is way too close to the rim. Not trying to be excessively harsh here but if you had been wanting this coin for 30 years, shouldn't you have taken the time to learn the diagnostics of a genuine 1916D before spending over $500 for a coin that may or may not be genuine? Personally, I would never spend that kind of money on a coin if I was not absolutely sure it was genuine. You could have also spent a little more money and gotten a worry-free certified example. It is also worth noting that there are probably more 1916s with an added mintmark than there are genuine examples- this is not a coin to be taking a chance on.
Edited by biokemist6
05/11/2011 10:28 am
|
| |
Replies: 49 / Views: 4,561 |
Posted 05/10/2011 9:17 pm
