Masonic Stamped 1916 d dime

It does look like a D in post #19.
While it is damaged, if it is genuine and not counterfeit (still to be determined, something looks wrong) it would still have value as it is the key date to the set. If it was an S, it would not. (Melt or Masonic collector).
As the S is not as rare and the coin is destroyed.
I'm not convinced this coin is genuine. No one would do that to a genuine 1916-D. China copy I think.
Would you take a thousand dollar bill and light your pipe with it?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

If a D and if genuine then it will hold value. The counterstamp is considered damaged but a collector of counterstamped coins may be interested as this would be a key date.

It looks like an S in the blurry photos but a D in post #19, however the mintmark looks damaged. It could be an altered S.

 

Finally got a better camera (not my phone) for a clear pic. Best I can do I think. I really appreciate the conversation here. Again, I am not an expert or anything other than a novice who has this coin and hoping to find out more about it as it does seem to have the right date to be an interesting coin of value. But like some have said, it may be and d or could be s. Also know its damaged, but still find it intriguing. I find the wearing on the stamped area also interesting as it appears to be pretty aged indicating it could have been stamped a while back. No ideas on who and when though. Again...thanks to all for the conversation.

 

It’s clearly a 16 d in the last pic. Too bad about the counterstamp as it would be a much more valuable coin without. But still a valuable and interesting coin for a niche collector. As to why they would do it mint marks weren’t collected at first and so a 16-d dime was just another 1916 dime. They circulated heavily. Think about how many low grade 16-d dimes you see and you have your answer. To most people they were worth ten cents. And I have zero questions about it being real

 

Just something about it doesn't look right to me. What does it weigh?

 

Do you know if your dad was a Mason?

 

Yes Sir that is correct.

 

The clearer the photos get the more I feel something is all wrong about this coin. Can't put my finger on it though.

 

The coin looks legit to me and with the better photo of the MM, it is a D. As to why someone would counter stamp a collectible coin, the Masons have been around for a very long time and that could have been a new coin, which was just worth a dime at the time it was stamped. The wear on the symbol seems to point in that direction.

 

The portrait and lettering does not look right to me. IGWT seems sloppy.
There is wear and yet the date is not affected, which is not the case with Mercury dimes.

Still curious about the weight, and I would get it graded so they can certify it as genuine. (Not convinced here yet.)

 

an authentic Merc in this condition (VF?) is a $2500+ coin - with the masonic symbol added, it becomes a 1916-DG (doggone shame)

 

Neither am I. I'm troubled by the amount of wear to Liberty, the worn Masons stamp but a lack of wear to the edge, lettering and date on this coin. The color of the field looks off compared to the rest of the coin.

Send it in to ANACS and convince me.

 

Looked to me like clear Ds in the two pictures. You need to have it certified by either ANACS, NGC, or PCGS if you're interested in selling it.

 

In a commodity market, yeah. In a history market, who cares.

I really hate this “coins are a commodity” mindset...

It’s only a good coin if an authority says it’s a good coin? I can’t enjoy any of my coins unless they are in perfect condition?

Sure, a “purist” would avoid this coin like the plague, but it was quite literally the only example that I can afford. It is extremely rare (just a few dozen or so known), was minted in a city with a fascinating monetary history, and it is genuine. An intact specimen would cost me $5k. I love it just as much as the intact coin below a “purist” would love.

 

As for the merc, this should help.

 

I'm not a Mason nor Shriner nor belong to any society of that kind, but I would pony up for that 16-D. The counterstamp is extremely interesting to me. For the sake of the OP I hope the coin is genuine.

Steve

 

Coloring/patina looks wrong. I am not even convinced it is silver.
Still waiting for the weight.

 

I would love to own it.

 

I got a chance to study the mintmark. The coin is genuine, but the mintmark is added. The position is wrong

 

thanks for the reply. Not sure I kn ow what I am lookin g for as to the mint mark being wrong. What do you see about the position that is not right?