The raw bay bridge is not NT. I'm not seeing anything wrong with the mercury though. The twenty cent you returned doesnt look right though, I agree with that.
Everything you said I am in agreement with except the Mercury Dime. I would have to see it in person before knowing for certain though.
Your comments are thoughtful and deserve consideration. One possibility that should be examined is that the coin is fine but my photos stink. There are a lot of photographic variables left unexplored, even though this animation combines nine different light angles. The lights for this shoot were axial (or close to it), shining down right into the tiny striations that create luster. This shot may be more clinical that what I see in hand. The surface texture would be emphasized at the expense of seeing luster. I have tried altering the angle by moving the lights further out from the coin. I am trying to simulate the angle where I hold the coin to see it cartwheel. Again, nine images are joined, but the light angle is closer to 30 degrees from vertical. I have not tried it at an even shallower angle but I could if there is interest in that. Unfortunately I think this will break the thread onto a new page, so scrolling up and down to see the images won't be possible. But two browser windows could be opened to view the image in post #24096 and this one side-by-side.
Yep this is one I would want for my collection. Curious, how does this one grade? I'm guessing AU-58.
A few of Saturday's finds, not including a few dozen wheat pennies. A 2002 colored Mississippi clad quarter, a 2003 clad proof, a nice 1956 D quarter and a 1948 dime.
Not many for me lately as long as the picture is good. Lots of cleaned coins in the marketplace, I like to see a little original toning. A dull bright seems to be a giveaway to my admittedly untrained eye.