Finally Pictures - My 1916-D Mercury found in a dime roll recently

[SilverForBrains]

OK, I posted on here a couple of months ago that I was positive I had found a worn 1916-D merc, but of course the thread didn't get very far because I didn't post any pictures. Well, I finally got around to getting my camera up and running so I will be including pictures with all my finds from this point on (hopefully )

Here she is, please give me your opinions. This coin is VERY worn, and the D can't be seen with the naked eye. When I blow up the coin with my camera, to me it jumps out.

I have included the front and back of the coin, as well as the blown up back. I also included a heavily contrasted picture that may help the D stand out, and Also I traced the D in a separate photo so I can let you guys know what I think I'm seeing.

I hope it is the holy merc grail. Your opinions will let me know whether I should bother sending this to PCGS. I don't even care if they can give it a grade, I just want it to be positively identified. Even if it would sell for $100, that would be cool.

HH

(where I see the D, see photos below and see for yourself)

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[44_Dimes]

Man that is hard to see. Im still not sure if I see it, but I will take your word for it. Nice find

 

[Ace 250]

that so cool . it about good

 

[Easy]

Idk, but it's sweet lookin!

 

[SilverForBrains]

The high contrast image doesn't help as much as thought. The identical image of the one I traced without my D on it I think is the best one to look at

 

[SilverForBrains]

This one might help, it defines the borders of the D (at least where I see it) without covering it up

 

[SilverForBrains]

I'm going to edit the initial post to include that one

 

[Diver_Down]

I think this is more a case of wishful thinking. You might be convincing yourself of what you want to see. First and foremost, only an in-hand evaluation under magnification will truly suffice. Submitting for authentication is the only true way, but it could be a costly gamble. Knowing the serifs of mint marks, I think you are selectively ignoring the upper serif of the "S" mintmark. Submitting a 1916-S in AG for grading will be an expensive gamble. If it comes back as a 16-D, you win the lottery. If it comes back as a 16-S, then you are out the fee.

 

[SilverForBrains]

I see what you mean, it could be an S, but D is what my eye sees first. I would believe either, I just want to get as many opinions on here as possible and then I'll be able to decide whether to play gamble a PCGS submission. Of course, If I submit it with two other coins I think I can get them all for $15 apiece

 

[Okie115]

Ouch, I can't tell. If you are convinced that you see it go for it otherwise I'd sit on it and swing by a couple of LCS's for their opinion.

 

[bigscores]

Mintmark is too low to be a D, sorry boss.

 

[SilverForBrains]

Mintmark is too low to be a D, sorry boss.

I was worried about that. I referenced some good condition newer mercs and the D seems to be slightly up and to the right. Then a few weeks ago I CRH and 1920 something merc that had close to the same wear but a stronger D mintmark, and it looked to be in the same spot as this one. You're probably right, I just want to make sure

 

[bigscores]

I was worried about that. I referenced some good condition newer mercs and the D seems to be slightly up and to the right. Then a few weeks ago I CRH and 1920 something merc that had close to the same wear but a stronger D mintmark, and it looked to be in the same spot as this one. You're probably right, I just want to make sure

Mintmarks were handpunched into each die back then. They only used one reverse die in Denver in 1916... it's an easy way to spot counterfeits.

 

[SilverForBrains]

Does the hand-punching result in a lower precision of the placement of the mintmark?

 

[CoinFetcher]

hand punching means their is no precision. It means. "right about at 7 o'clock, but in from the rim a bit."

 

[SilverForBrains]

OK that makes sense, it could still be a D then

 

[CoinFetcher]

No, what that means is the S and D mint mark are not exactly in the same place for that 1916 merc.

For the year 1916, mint mark D, Dime, their was only one reverse die used. Where you see the 'Phantom of the Mint Mark' -That is not the location of the D mint mark.
That is my amature extrapolation of BigScores note.

And on a side not, your photos are hilarious. No way can you tell what letter it is.

 

[SilverForBrains]

No, what that means is the S and D mint mark are not exactly in the same place for that 1916 merc.

For the year 1916, mint mark D, Dime, their was only one reverse die used. Where you see the 'Phantom of the Mint Mark' -That is not the location of the D mint mark.
That is my amature extrapolation of BigScores note.

And on a side not, your photos are hilarious. No way can you tell what letter it is.

From your original post it made it sound like every hit of the mint mark was imprecise. So what you are saying is that the D and S are in the same place every time, but in a different place than each other? That's important information in this case

I'm glad you find humor in coin art

 

[CoinFetcher]

Well, the reverse for the coins are made at the head office

The particular mint marks are not yet on the dies, as they head to the respective mints. P, D, and S.

At D, and S, some dude take a took, and hammers in the letter.

These two dude do not hammerdown on the same exact spot. They do it close, but not exactly.

The D mint mark is at a location OTHER THAN where you phantom mark is at.

I can see the S in your blown up photos actually. But, I might be seeing smudged on my monitor, I am a messy guy.

 

[SilverForBrains]

I still don't understand what you're saying. You mention some dude takes a hammer and nails in the letter, suggesting you can't make a decision based on the exact location. Then you say the D mint mark is at a location other than where my phantom mark is at. How can you say this if it's supposedly variable? I'm sure you have a point here but for the love of god be clear in your statements