I would think you have a winner though either that has been harshly cleaned or possibly a fake? Have you googled a 42/1 dime to compare it with yours and have you weighed it?
That dark stuff around the date just screams "shenanigans" to me. It's completely different from the rest of the coin surface. Now, why would the area around the date -- the rare, highly desirable date -- be so different from the rest of the coin? It's almost as though someone had done something to that part of the coin.
If it is a doctored merc, wouldn't the weight be the same, or would it be different? How much should it weigh? Is there an expert that anyone knows of that I could get it verified through? Thanks for the help and comments guys.
That's what I was looking for. Scroll way down for the images. The OP's coin looks nothing like the real thing -- it shows no doubling at all on the 4, and the serif at the top of the 1 is completely different, too.
For this kind of doctoring, I imagine any difference in weight would be small compared to the natural coin-to-coin variation. In other words, a fake might be a few milligrams heavier than a real example -- but two real examples would likely differ by a few milligrams, too.
Compare these with the closeup here, from the PCGS CoinFacts page here. (I won't embed the images due to CoinTalk copyright policy.) Look at the prominent doubling on the 4 in the real example; yours shows none. Look at how thin the stroke is at the top of the 1; on yours, the stroke is as thick as the rest of the digit. I'm not normally especially confident about spotting counterfeits, but this one's pretty unmistakeable.
Ok cleaned some of the gunk from it, which I know in most, if not all cases shouldn't be done, but here's what it looks like now. I can see doubling in the 4 that looks like the doubling in the 4 in jeff's link, lemme know what you think, but I think I'll send it to PCGS or NCG and see if they can verify if it is or isn't. I think NCG has a conservative service that might can get to the "bottom" it.
I believe it to be an altered date. Based on images I have seen of authentic 1942/1 Dimes, there is some very clear doubling on the 4. I don't see that on this coin. So, I believe it's fake.
I think you have the "Ill-defined letters fake" listed here: http://www.ngccoin.com/news/viewarticle.aspx?NewsletterNewsArticleID=867 The IGWT is way too sloppy on your coin to be real. It's a struck counterfeit IMO.
Here is a closeup of the letters on the back. Notice that ALL of the letters appear to be in the same type of condition and the UM in UNUM is no different than the other letters, and in the case of some of the letters in PLURIBUS, the letters in UNUM are in BETTER condition. "...faint and distinct as on the UM in UNUM.." - NGC But yeah, I guess the only way to get a definitive answer is to have it verified.
Post a pic of IGWT. Particularly the RU in Trust. That is what looks the most fake to me, but a pic focused on that area would be nice.
Here it is. I do notice that the ST appears to be slightly higher than the other letters, and this may be indicative that this coin is indeed a fake, however, to be fair, I've seen other legit coins that seem to have this same flaw due to wear. I'm not saying that is the case with this coin,...just saying. In the picture at NGC's website, the U is noticeably LOWER than the R, but if you look closely, the R and U are even at the bottom here. Also, if you notice, there is also some black around part of the L in LIBERTY, and some around the T and Y in the same word as well (not visible in this photo though), and there is black around the inside of the rim as well, so it's not like the date is the only spot on the coin that has "gunk" around it. I posted a pic of a legitimate 1943 IGWT for comparison purposes. It isn't as worn, but you can see the positioning of the letters. I'm not taking a "yes it is" type of position because I don't know, that's why I made this thread to begin with. I'm just trying to debate the issue to get as accurate an assessment as possible, thanks.
It is quite possible that only a submission to PCGS or such will give the better opinion. It is difficult to really tell much from just photos. I think that the more that post, the more uncertain it may become. Jim
