EBay roll hunting.

Here is the first order. I see nothing special. I placed the ones with the most detail on the bottom row. The 1921 on the top row is not a D. I also notice the best obverses have less desirable reverses.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Although there are 50 the weight comes in at almost 2 dimes short.

 

normal, that is from wear

 

Yes, a 4% weight loss isn't surprising. And a 1921-P is nothing to sneeze at, even if it's a details coin due to reverse scratches. Definitely worth a positive feedback, IMHO.

Don't forget to check any 1942-D dimes for the 1942/1-D overdate.

 

Thx 4 the tips Jeff!

 

D Mint 28 or 29?

 

He has to wait for the last batch he "sold" to be returned

 

4% loss seems excessive, since .715/.7234 is only about 1.2%.

90% silver US coins contain .7234 ounces of actual silver weight per $1 face value. They are treated as .715 ounces of actual silver weight per $1 face value due to expected wear. This makes me wonder why your Mercuries have more than triple the expected weight loss.

 

I don't understand

 

This was my formula 2.5g(mint weight) x 50 = 125 - 120.4(actual weight)= 4.6 g. loss... 4.6g x .0321g(troy oz conversion)=0.14766(total loss in troy)x.0723(content in troy)=0.010676(silver loss in troy)-3.617(expected troy oz per 50 mercs.)=3.606 Troy oz. of silver

 

Why would he have to wait for a return? because he has no more?

 

I've seen worse. Heck, I've got worse in an album or two.

It's one of my limits as a collector: I'll never pay up for a nice problem-free example if I can get the same date with problems near melt. I'm not proud about it, but I'm also not in a rush to change.

 

Your such a positive guy Jeff. I'll give it a home. Thanks

 

Second seller came through ...

 

Nice...

 

not bad

 

pretty good

 

1929D, ODV-010...the date extends further past the bust than 1928D (ODV-009), and it's a lazy 9.

Refer to Mr. Wiles' ODV listings.

 

thanks!