GTG: 1945 D Mercury Dime

Oh, you monster, lol.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

This one is much closer, little easier to see the reverse.
MS67 FB

 

Ugh, me too! I went with MS66, but then again I graded that Texas Commem an AU 58 so. . . .

 

I'm at MS66FB. Real beauty!

 

Did you see coin #2?

 

Even though you said they graded the same, I would give #2 a 65. It seems somewhat "flatter" in terms of luster. It almost seems gray.

 

Before I saw coin 2, I voted 66 NoFB.

But if they're both graded the same, then I'd add the FB desi for the OP coin.

Sooooo.... final answer; MS66 FB

 

1 MS65 FB. 2 MS67 FB

 

Nope...I tend to reply to the first post on GTG threads as I don't want the opinions of others to sway me. I'd like to change my opinion to MS67FB. There is a tiny mark on the cheek that I think limits the coin.

 

Ok, here ya go. I like the luster of #1 much more. Both have clean surfaces, but once again, #1 seems slightly cleaner to me. Since they graded the same, it is a matter of personal choice.

 

Coin #1 has the booming luster of a 67, whereas I didn't see that on #2. On #2, it looks like it would've gotten the FB, but I had my doubts on coin one. So I mixed the two, and came up with the 66FB as stated above.

Nice coin!

 

I got the grade but I feel enough of the bands are there and separated so I added FB. It's a beautiful coin. It has excellent luster.

 

I think it's possible the second dime in the old holder would get FB if sent in. I'm not sure if they were designating FB when the second coin was slabbed.

 

For me, grading from those photos (first one is too shiny and reflective) is difficult, if not just a guess.
Can't tell if FB from photos, but I don't think so.

 

I agree in that the first offers greater luster. In part that is why I gave them a one grade difference. They are beautiful coins either way!

 

65 no FB coin #1 66 no FB coin # 2 I can't see either of these being a 67 without full bands. No way is coin #1 a 67, not even close. It has toning, scratches, and stains.

 

That’s coin porn!

 

I ended up buying #1. Just liked the blazing luster more than #2.

 

I think both are very nice looking coins. I suspect #1 looks better in hand than it does in the photos. Coins that drip with luster like that can be really hard to get accurate photos of.

 

I have not gotten it yet. It is in the mail. It was a very tough choice between these two as a type coin. I get the first year of issue, and last year of issue as my type coins. This one will go nicely with my 1916 P MS 65, that I have posted before.