Grade these Mercury Dimes

Picked up some raw Merc dimes, looking for rough grades. The decending order is obverse/reverse

1941
1942
1943D
1944S
1945D

Thanks!!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

the rest

 

Nice Mercs Harry. AU-58 on the '44. AU-50 on the '45. AU-50 on the '41. AU-55 on the '42 and '43. Now lets see how I compare to the real experts out there (LOL). On that '43, is the number orientation unusual? Looks a little strange to me but then again, I'm no expert.

Love to be the first poster in these grading challanges. Not influenced by others...lets see how much I learn today.

 

All look UNC to me. Probably all fall between MS62-64. The 43 looks like FB. The 42 and 41 could be questionable FB. 44 and 45 defintely not FB. Nice mercs.

 

The 43-D is no-questions a FSB, but I dunno about the rest

 

AU-55, AU-55, AU-50, AU-58 and AU-50. Just my opinion. great coins.

 

Choice BU all except the 43-D, GEM FSB

Nice

 

Wow... that '43 is strange. The orientation of the 4 & the 3 are different from others I've seen.

 

I wouldn't give a SB to any except the '44-D , and like others said the 43 looks funny but havent compared it to any other 43s , I'll go check heratige .
rzage

 

You mean FSB on the '43-D, right?

 

You didn't make this easy...

 

I'm not sure how you came to this determination. I don't see wear on these coins. the 41 is very nice with almost not significant hits. The rim on the obverse is nearly perfect with a small surface dit on the left and perhaps a a more significant hit on the neck where the risen molding projects forward. You have better eyes than I do, but I see no wear. There are dark spots which is god knows what, some gook, or tar, likely insignificant. The 41 seems to be a weak strike, not unusual IMO.

On the reverse it is nearly full split bands, and this are some very minor hits on stems. The axe appears sharp and the rim is perfect to my eye.

I see no reason why this doesn't qualify as an MS 62, baring the fact that I can't really see the luster that well.

 

On to the 42...

I don't particularly like this coin. Their are hits on the cheek which to me look like bag marks, or whatever the equivalent is in dimes. Either this is a very week strike or there is significant wear, enough to keep it from MS grade. I'd need to see the luster really. It looks like there are real breaks in the luster on the cheek and in the field of the coin. On the reverse aside from the marks on it, the leaf and the straps seem to mess together, another likely indication of wear. I was going to rate this an MS 61 but on further reflection, I probably agree with you that it is an AU 55

 

OK I get it the coin on the top is the reverse of the '43 , FSB . It would have thought it went with the '44 the way the pics are set up .
rzage

 

the 43-D - genuinely impressive IMO.

I saw a lot of nice Mercs today at Stanford. I don't know exactly what is going on with this coin? Is that toning on the front because it almost looks to me as if the front and back don't match. It looks like it is a weak strike on the front and the back is FSB? And something is weird with the 43 date. The observe has the smallest of nicks at about 10 O'Clock. The reverse is exceptional but a puzzle. Forgetting the real hit that the coin has on the lower part of the reads, it clearly seems to have full split bands unless the light is playing with the bottom. And yet, look how weak the reads are. They even seem to mesh together. You give this a MS-64. I think that is generous or the photo is lieing to me. The dent on the lower read IMO would keep it an MS63 or even a 62, bands or no bands

 

44 -S

This coin is very clean but is a typical mushy strike of a business strike Merc. It has great luster, maybe the best of the group. Does this coin have wear? Somebody show it to me please because I'm missing it. It does have two jareing pot marks on the reverse that look like arrows. I can't envision that as bag marks and that would make this coin an AU. But why could I not be wrong? There is some typical sliding like marks on the long reeds on the reverse, but the front is VERY clean. Is that wear on the crown of the head of the coin or is that just more soft strike? If it is wear that clinches it as an AU, but it so clean on the face its almost a pity.

AU 58? but I wouldn't be surprised at all for this coin to be a routine MS 63.

 

The 45 is not really worth tearing into. Its an AU 50 for all the obvious reasons.

Ruben

 

it seems to have a pretty beat up obverse for it to be gem, IMO

 

Fooled around with my camera and light source, here's another shot of the 43