1916-D Dime... Real or Fake?

Hello all,

I recently inherited a sizable coin collection. Naturally, my heart stopped when I came across what seems to be a 1916-D Mercury. I have seen the die varieties and am having a hard time coming to a decision. I wanted to get any input I could from you guys to see if it is worth sending off to be preserved/graded. Please forgive the pictures, I am only working with a cellphone and loupe at the moment.

If fake, why do you think? If real, what grade would it get?

I have my suspicions, but since this is so often faked, I just want to be sure. Thanks for checking it out!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Might be real..
Here is an article that might help
https://coinweek.com/education/coin...is-grading-coins-1916-d-mercury-dime-ag3-vg8/

 

Looks right. The mm doesn't seem to be added.
You would have to send it in and hopefully get it verified as authentic.
For a grade it can't be higher than AG-03. It might grade FR-02. But being the key coin of the series it might get AG-03 bias.

 

I agree nothing would flag me that its a fake. Of coins like this, if you really worry I would get it authenticated just so you know for sure.

 

Thanks for the replies guys. That article definitely helped some, its nice to see there's so much out there on these.

I think this is definitely a candidate to get sent off. My only worry is I am afraid the mintmark looks too high to me, but dimes are not my primary focus.

 

Looks like a winner. Nothing makes me think it's fake and the mintmark appears to be normal.

 

"D" looks too high to me

here is photos of the 4 "D" locations

https://www.cointalk.com/threads/data-1916-d-test-your-authentication-powers.101697/

 

Nope does not look kosher to my eyes.
Especially to the East and South East around the mm the medal is a different color!
The entire area been worked on.look due SE how the medal is smooth pits and marks are underlaying.

 

I agree Snowman, which is why I was nervous about it. I have not been able to link it to any known fakes either.

 

Agree, although it is much more noticeable now that you point it out!

 

Distrust and verify.

 

The mint mark does stand out as being less worn than the overall coin - submit it to a TPG and know for sure

 

When ever a mint mark has been messed with,added, tooled, etc....medal moves.....the area once disturbed, heated ,cooled, tooled,etc...the color will be off. Dark from heat, lighten from medal being sanded. The West side the the color is natural is grey pitted , going east the texture of the surface as well the color changes too much to be correct.

 

Welcome to CT @Silversmith221. Nice find. You may want to send it into ANACS for authentication as they aren't as expensive as others and then you'll know for sure.
https://www.anacs.com/SubmissionForm.aspx

 

Good idea. I owned a raw 16-D for 40+ years before I sent it to ANACS, came back authenticated. I think it costs $19, plus insurance / shipping.

My guess is AG-03 on yours.

 

Wow, tough board. I stand by my assertion nothing looks terribly untoward on the coin. Low grade examples are numerous, having handled quite a few myself.

Please let us know what a TPG says about authenticity OP. I would agree with the ANACS suggestion. You are looking for authenticity opinion really, not grade.

 

I agree that this mint mark location does not match any of the four authentic locations. It's well done compared to a lot of them out there, but I think it's an added mint mark.

 

IMHO, the mint mark should be flattened more than it is.

 

That was what concerned me when I first saw the pictures without seeing the responses.

 

Hey Guys,

I really appreciate all of the input. Tough board indeed! I have been personally leaning towards an added MM myself. I will definitely follow up.

Thanks for the tip, I have not heard of them so I may have to send it out just for the authentication.