I recently bought this 1916-D dime. I personally find the 1916-D difficult to authenticate. According to an old article in the Numismatist and some books & Websites on counterfeit detection, there were four reverse dies used to make genuine 1916-D dimes. The trick is to examine the unknown coin and confirm that the placement of the D mint mark is in the correct location. If you know any other techniques of authenticating a 1916-D, then please post them here. Here is my new dime Of course, my worn example looks a little different than the high grade coin images used for authentication. This photo depicts the placement & style of my coin’s mint mark: Now you can compare the mint mark to those depicted in the following photos of die 1, 2, 3, and 4. Which one do you think most closely matches my new coin? Can you find an exact match indicating whether or not my new coin is genuine? Die 1 has the mint mark quite high & tilting right. It is a little closer to the leaf than to the branch. Die 2 has the mint mark more vertical & double punched. It is also positioned pretty close to the leaf and the top of the D is in line with the bottom of the top bar of the letter E. Die 3 is medium high with the D double punched and different than #2 Die 4 has the D punched lower than all the others and is just slightly closer to the leaf than to the stem. The top of the D is said to be in line with the middle of the space between the top & middle bars of the letter E. You may have already noticed that my coin made it into an NGC holder so the graders at NGC believe it is genuine. My assessment is that the coin’s reverse is from die #2. Die #2 includes a double punched mint mark which is very close to the leaf. The top of the D should line up with an imaginary line if drawn from the bottom of the upper bar in the E. (I have a little trouble seeing that alignment in my coin). My coin also has remnants of the die crack which is depicted at the bottom of the stem on die 2. Please post your 1916-D dimes. I appreciate your letting me share here & I certainly would like to hear your comments & grade opinions about my new 1916-D. I think this example is healthy & will fit in nicely with my Mercury dime set. Very best regards, collect89
Thanks for posting. I rarely go to the books to authenticate a 1916-D dime, but I've bought a few of them without issue. I agree that authenticating one of the known varieties of mintmark placement is an excellent idea. The best description I've ever heard of the mintmark on a genuine coin is "boxy." That's what I like to think of when I'm looking at one. Mintmark #2 is probably the coin that I'd reject most often, without reference materials in hand. The others all have the classic look. I have only one right now, and I'll post pics later if I get a chance. It's an AG-3.
Yours is most like the second picture, assuming that the "D" was put on by a die. I say that because the bottom edge of the top line (serrif) of your D almost lines up with the bottom of the olive sprig, but is a touch lower. That elimates two right there. And of the two remaining, the D is definitely closer to the olive sprig than the other version where it is far away. Further, if you look at the middle horizontal section/line of the "E", you can see that die 3 and 4 are kind of pointy in the corners of that line. Then when you compare the ratio of the length of the top line of the E with the middle line of the E, you can see that the top line is much longer in comparison to the middle line on both Die 2 and yours. And, the pocket made between the upper and lower horizontal lines on the E is rounded like yours in Die 2. So yours is definitely Die 2. Unless a fake was made to look like Die #2, I'd say yours is genuine from these two pieces of info. Steve
It looks like Die 2 from those pictures. But I thought it was a fake. I did not know that there was a d/d in 1916.
I have a 1916 d dime just sent to NGC it was passed down in the family. Dont know if it is real or not but I will post pictures,Whatever becomes of it when I get it back.
Much appreciation Collect89!! :thumb::thumb:Great way to share education on coins and mint marks! I find it hard to believe that crooks would take the time and energy to take a "D" mint mark from one dime and place it onto a 1916 to make it a 1916-D but I've been told that it happens with a 1916-D more than any other coin. I don't know if the process mentioned above happens all the time but I do know that the 1916-D is the most counterfeited coin of all time and for that reason alone I have decided to take my time on getting one. Great thread! Now let's see some pics!!
Yes, it is a little surprising to see that two of the four reverse dies show an RPM. I believe that CONECA lists die #2 as RPM-001 at this link: http://www.conecaonline.org/content/mercuryrpms.html#_1916-D CONECA notes the die crack from the left fasces to the rim. My coin has evidence of that die crack. My coin is not for sale but do you think that having the RPM variety listed on the holder might make the coin more marketable?
I too find the 1916-D dimes tough to attribute, but this is good info even if it has been available for a good while. There are LOTS of bogus '16-D Mercury dimes around. IMHO since so many of them do show the RPM, I don't think it would increase demand significantly for something that is already a key issue. Nice coin and info, thanks for sharing!
Thank you Steve. Your comment allowed me to look at the authentication photos with a different perspective.
As others have said this is a really great thread and super pictures to help. Definately a keeper for reference.
Hello everyone, I posted this coin in http://www.cointalk.com/t102034/#post857282 and was directed to this thread. Hope this helps. This is of an AG-3. Regards, Stan
Thanks for posting. It has got to be difficult to determine which reverse die was used when the coin is AG. If you ever have a picture of the mint mark, then please post it.