What is my 1968 No S dime worth? Pics Included

A proof coin will have mirror like surfaces and frosty devices as well as a sharpness of detail and a high wire like edge. Even if a proof coin makes it into circulation these characteristics mentioned should still be visible.

Welcome to the forum Amanda......

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Well, THIS DATE proof would have mirror surfaces and frosted devices.

Generally, how numismatists tell a coin is a proof is the edges. Proofs have sharper edges on the rim and on where the field rises up to devices. This is due to the extra pressure the coin is struck under. Such telltale signs will still be visible even if the coin is worn or damaged.

 

Thanks for the additional info Chris.......

 

I just found a 1968 'No S' dime! It even has a another error...they accidentally stamped a 'D' on it. Woohoo!

 

Oh pfft...that's nothing, gbroke.

I have a 1968 No S dime with an S accidentally stamped on it!

 

And you can still tell this even if the coin has been groped like a cheap hooker? And then there are business strikes with proof-like properties? I have my doubts about the ability for this to be accurately ascertained, even by a team of experts, with xray fluorescence, mint die analysis, metallurgical analysis and a signed letter of authenticity from the director of the US Mint of that same year.


just saying...

 

Oh yeah, I have a 1969 S dime that's really a 1968 S dime because I got it in 1967 before 1969 even existed.

 

Well, I am aware of coins going down to a grade of Fine, and being over 100 years old, still being certified as proof pieces. Many times there may also be a die marker they can use, but many times it is simply the angle at which the edges rise up. There are PL strikes, (usually from fresh dies), but the striking pressure is less, so even PL strikes will not have the same characteristics as a true proof.

I have seen older proofs, and under magnification there is truly some recognizable differences versus business strikes. I have a XF proof from the 1890's, and I can easily see that it is a proof versus a business strike.

 

I learned a lot from you Medoraman, glad I keep up with the thread!

 

Well, most wouldn't. It wasn't until 1973 when proof coins in the U.S. had the dies routinely changed/polished to give most, if not all of the coins cameo. But before that no Mint employees paid much attention to that. Most pre 1973/post 1936 proof will not have cameo, and as a result, there is generally a premium associated with cameo proofs of this era.

 

Isn't the PCGS population on this coin basically split between cameo/non-cameo?

 

Yeah, ok you got me. I thought 1968 and the new proof series was when cameo was first started intentionally.

My bad. Thanks for the correction. I was trying to say modern proofs may be recognized by cameo finish, but earlier proofs were never intentionally cameo so that is not a good diagnostic to rely on.

 

I see the OP has taken a powder when called out on his claims.

Typical of a certain type of poster that starts with a T and ends with a double LL.

 

Eh, still a decent discussion on how to distiguish impaired proofs.

Maybe he will follow up some time in the future. If not, no harm done.

 

I must agree. Enlightening stuff, Chris! Thanks!

I'm pretty sure you can get moderated for calling someone a tetherball, BU...

 

This is true.

Maybe!

 

Highly doubtful!

 

Maybe he went back for the $5k offer?

 

Update?

 

I got excited as if there were an update on this. That's another disappointment for this evening. My fries were cold and they didn't give me a straw.