Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Eric vK, post: 984728, member: 27092&quot;]The photos of 1916-S Mercury dimes appear to be of the same magnification and the mintmarks are in essentially the same position relative to design elements. The top photo is of a coin on which the &quot;S&quot; has been worn to a blob and the rim has been worn down, virtually blending into the field. A ruler shows the mintmarks to be the same size.</p><p>The statement is made that while I was editing Collectors&#039; Clearinghouse for Coin World, I told the claimant that there was no size difference but sometime later, Clearinghouse announced a &quot;discovery&quot; of difference. A computer search of the CW archives turns up no such publication regarding 1916-S dimes.</p><p>The statement is made that these supposed mintmark varieties are now in The Cherrypickers&#039; Guide. That is not the case. Bill Fivaz, co-author of the guide, tells me that he knows of only one size of mintmark for 1916-S Mercs and that no supposed mintmark differences are included or contemplated for inclusion in the guide. He also cautioned that heavy wear of a coin with strike doubling can create an illusion of larger size. </p><p>It has always been the case with many true newly discovered varieties, from repunched mintmarks to overdates to doubled dies, that a reasonably high-grade specimen is required for verification of a difference.</p><p>David Lange, in his book on Mercury dimes, states that the &quot;norm&quot; for 1916-S is &quot;a very small mintmark&quot; tucked close to the olive branch and leaf. While he does not state categorically that there is only one size or style of mintmark, he does not note any differences, and he goes on to state that &quot;this style of mintmark&quot; is unique to 1916-S and some 1917-S mintages in the series.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in