1916 d - real or fake?

Hello all. I've enjoyed reading here for sometime now. I have read previous threads on this matter and don't see anything the screams fake to my untrained eye. Due to my skeptical nature, I'd like y'alls expert opinion on this. Thank you.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Well, it's a D mintmark. Welcome to CT.

 

I'd be extremely wary of any 16-D that lacks TPG certification. With that being said the mintmark just doesn't look right to me.

https://www.pcgs.com/news/1916-d-dime-attracts-coin-doctors-and-counterfeiters

 

I will agree with @Bradley Trotter. A coin with that much value and high demand needs to be certified. The coin below is a 1916-D that I own and is a contemporary counterfeit. The "D" was added and it takes a very strong loup to see the counterfeiters work. I won't say yours is counterfeit, but it needs to be scrutinized closely and entombed in TPG plastic to be sure.

 

Thank you for the responses. Here is the kicker, it's in a SEGS slab currently and the certification code registers as non valid. I have emailed them to find more info, but nothing yet. From what I've read, people have mixed views on SEGS and the code not registering isn't really uncommon. I understand it's also possible slab and coin are both fake. I can post more pictures later on today.

 

A certification code that registers as non-valid is a huge red flag. Additionally, it is believed that SEGS might have gone out of business recently, so I doubt you'll have much luck on that end.

https://www.cointalk.com/threads/is-segs-still-operating.374974/

 

I missed that thread previously, that explains some things. I'll send it in and see what comes back.

 

I had forgotten about that. You are correct.

 

I don't feel the love. The mintmarks looks suspicious, it looks like the surrounding area may have been darkened artificially (to hide some nefarious activity methinks?), and the vertical lines separating the fasces (and maybe the bottom pair) all appear to have been tooled to strengthen them, as their level of detail does not compare to the rest of the coin.

 

if its not certified that says it all the mm also doesn't look right im going with fake

 

May we see the Obverse?

 

I respectfully disagree. I'm not saying it's fake or it's real, I have a really hard time with them myself when it's circulated and there's wear and flattening. The 1916D dime was ODV-001/RVD-001, it was high relief compared to the -002s that start in 1917 through 1945. if gunk were to build up it would be more pronounced on this first design between the cracks and crevices of the devices.

top and bottom of the mintmark is parallel to each other, but I'd agree it looks suspect still also. as far as the black that's still on the coin I think a cleaning was attempted and given up on. Terminal toning and an attempted abrasive cleaning, then trying to work on the nooks and crannies of "DIME" and gave up, I think.
Although it all could be done to cover up a fake of course.

the 1916D mintmark is the same D punch used on the 1914-D cent for what it's worth and they only made 4 reverse dies for the 1916-D, two of them are RPMs.
Wexler has both of them https://www.doubleddie.com/754355.html. Ideally if you could narrow down to one of those, your done, but excluding those, there's still two more which isn't bad considering other coins and how many dies I suppose.


Anyways, I hate these things.. 1916-Ds, but I'm inclined to think it might be authentic and harshly cleaned to remove terminal toning by someone at some point. I still wouldn't buy it unless the seller sent it to a reputable TPG and you could find it on a cert look up, there's no reason NOT to, unless it's fake really. Even if it was detailed and marked genuine it would at least make it less sketchy and sell for more than without it.

Obverse pictures might help. I see nothing here that would indicate this NOT being RDV-001 though. Added Mintmark, manipulated mintmark, I don't know from these pics. the top and bottom of the D are very straight and parallel to each other as they should be, something that Randy's picture he posted doesn't have, the bottom of it curves into the D,m it's not straight with the top of it. I would suppose if it turned up in my hands somehow it would be worth at least sending to ANACS and let them tell me their opinion on it if it's genuine, the cheapest and a reputable way to get it authenticated.

 

Here's the obverse. Hopefully just a botched cleaning but I doubt it. I will send it in if there's nothing that shows it's obviously fake.

 

Yes, that coin has been very harshly cleaned. The vertical scratches very clearly indicate that. That leads me more toward a terminally toned dime that somebody was trying to improve but damaged in the process. I think if a perpetrator were to add toning in order to hide a counterfeiting operation, they wouldn't have damaged the coin in the process of removing that toning..... Long and short is that to me this lends more credence to the coin being genuine than otherwise.

 

Let me be clear, I don't like the look of the coin and it's certainly not one I would buy. But I'm not saying conclusively real or fake, based on the one closeup of the reverse I was looking at.

 

Ouch!
That obverse hurts my eyes.

 

I did some digging on the internet. finding
"For the 1916-D dime, the 4 known die pairs all come slightly rotated."
https://www.coinworld.com/news/precious-metals/a-puzzling-counterfeit.html

this link on here from ksparrow a long time ago about the specific locations of the mint mark, https://www.cointalk.com/threads/mintmarks-and-die-rotation-1916-d-dime.63817/

I think first finding the "rotation" then the die it should be, then comparing the location of the mintmark to that specific die and it's appearance, may clarify things.

ksparrow links this image: http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t277/cks2007/fakes and forensics/1916ddime4mmpositions.jpg

he says:
mm 1 is upper left picture
mm 2 is lower left picture
mm 3 is upper right picture
mm 4 is lower right picture
fake is in the center.

my note added: #2 and #3 are the RPMs.

then states:
"pretend that the fasces are aligned with the hour hand of a clock."
For mm1 the rotation is ccw to 11:45
for mm2 the rotation is cw to 1:00
for mm3 the rotation is cw 12:45
for mm4 the rotation is cw 12:15
(ccw=counterclockwise,cw=clockwise)

it's said to align the obverse correctly up and down then "coin flip" it to the reverse (fingers at noon and 6) and this will give you the rotation which you determine by the clock positions and then where the center of the Fasces point. on the coin. once you have that you know where the mm should be, and how it should look to that specific die pair, and reverse die.
can also be done if head side is aligned right in a 2x2.

I think it's an authentic 1916, but there's some work to do with the coin in hand to determine if it's authentic. Hopefully this info is helpful to figuring it out.

Edit: also, If I had to guess, the pictures in ksparrows post came from possibly the cherry pickers guide but I don't have one to look at to confirm it, it just has that black and while look I remember to those 4 pics and the coin catalogs had and footnotes under that makes me suspect it might be from CPG. no idea where that image really originates..... something else to hunt down I suppose! work is slowwwwwww. lol

 

Could we get another shot of the mint mark so we could tell where the light is playing tricks on this one? Neither am I concluded on it yet.

 

I don't always trust my old eyes but it looks to me like the "D" was made in two steps. Like a reverse C first, then a vertical line on the left side. Hard to explain in words. Hope this makes sense! LOL

 

Terminal toning or possibly been in a fire? Looking closely, it looks like someone did the curved portion of the D then added the straight bar. That bar appears to be laying on top of the curved portion. Just my view and not saying it is fake or not.