Hello. I am unsure as to post this in errors, but either way I know you all can assist. This Mercury dime has been in a booklet my late Grandfather gave me, along with many other coins I have questions on. If you look at the date mark, there are curiosity's. I only know it is not normal date mark, but was hoping you all could give insight as to what, if any, errors this coin is. I really appreciate it!
Are you referencing to what looks like a doubled die, most clear on the 4? I'm stepping out on a limb here, but it that's what you're wondering about it appears to be machine doubling.
Yes, and then if you click and look at the close up, there is an oddity on the "2" of the date. The lower left corner of the 2. So your thoughts are MD?
Yes, but i'm not a very experienced collector, so don't take my word for it. Machine doubling can look like a doubled die coin, but you can tell it's MD if the "doubling" appears to be flat and shelf like.
That is absolutely great advice, and if I had a Cherrypickers guide I would do so. I should probably do so and get one immediately. My Grandfather had put (on the dime booklet) that he thought it was 42/1, but his eyes were ancient and I just don't know. So out of two responses: 1. Machine doubling. 2. Possible 42/1. Wow. Even more confusing, but I thank you all for your help...(and I am learning).
Appears to be MD. The bottom of the 2 seems to be machine doubled, and the 42/41 D did not have that as it was a 2/1. Machine doubling on the 42 and 43 era dimes are very common from my searchings. A nice close up of the date would resolve any doubts. Jim
It's really hard to tell from your pics, but here is a link to info on diagnostics of a genuine 42/41 D http://blog.davidlawrence.com/index.php/mercury-dimes-ch-6-194241-d/
When I first took a glance at the picture in the upper left, I thought that I was a 2 over 1. As I am looking at the larger, bottom picture, I am not so sure. The 2 over 1 that I found has a more pronounced vertical line that decends a few millimeters below the bottom of the 2. This one doesn't appear to line up correctly.