1968 no mint mark Roosevelt Dime

Thank you so much for this! It helps a ton! Visually you can see a difference I guess but if you don't know what you're looking for, it makes it difficult to tell. So thank you for breaking down the differences for me to go along with a visual.

It seems like proofs wouldn't be found in circulation? Also, I see the difference in what makes proofs different from business strikes but WHY are proofs made? I don't know really hOw to ask that question lol.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

It looks like In God We Trust is touching the rim of the coin on the proof, while on the business strike it's farther away from the rim. Would this be another way to tell a proof from a business strike?

 

Proof coins are specially struck for sale to collectors and not made for circulation. The blanks are specially prepared, cleaned and polished. They are then struck at least twice with dies especially prepared for proof coinage, then packaged for sale to collectors.

 

'Cutler beat me to it........proof coins are made exclusively for collectors.

Not usually, but they do sometimes find there way into circulation due to folks cutting up proof sets for cameo coins and discarding (spending) the unworthy examples.

 

What a lovely coin. I am hooked on the Morgan Silver Dollars...Love the artwork.
Girldly

 

Hello.. Im a little intimidated by this forum, you guys are brutile..
I also have one of those dimes.. 1968 no mint mark.. Look i think its a business mint or i think thats what its called. However i took it to a coin shop and the guy there told me irs just a dime worth 5cents.. Be that as it may he tried to trade me another dime portraying he felt bad that i wasted my time saying that the one he would give me is worth 100 dollars or better. Right!! That just makes no dang sence sooooo .... I respectfully declined his offer and here i am looking to know if thete are really people out there like that or if i was a victim of being dooped? Ill leave it at that. Ty.

 

Any dealer that tells you your dime is worth five cents is a crook......Welcome to the forum, and we don't bite. Grumpy? yes.

 

I agree. @Mistylea , some here just get tired answering uninformed questions. The dime in question was a proof that was supposed to have an S mintmark, and like a dozen were made without by mistake. However, its still a proof and made with very high pressure on special dies. However, the same year regular dimes in the hundreds of millions were made without a mintmark, so they are not worth anything.

The chances of finding a proof no mintmark 1968 dime is about a trillion to one, it nearly cannot happen. If you want to find one, you are better off going to coin shows and looking at 1968 proof sets for sale. Still unlikely, but more probable.

 

I kind of like 'brutile'! If it isn't already a word it should be!
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Brutile.

 

Well with that definition it fits the chances of someone finding a no S proof dime of any date the mistake was made in circulation.

 

If it is the dime in your avatar, it is a regular dime and worth 10 cents, at least that is better than 5! Why the dealer would want to trade another dime, who knows. Maybe he was just being a wise guy and it was another dime worth 10 cents. There is no way a dealer who knew anything would trade a $100 dollar coin for it.

 

A single coin truly worth and would actually sell for $100? Probably not, but that doesn't mean giving more moderately valuable coins away free to promote the hobby (and possibly future business) doesn't happen, even to someone new such as yourself. Doing so is certainly no guarantee of future benefit, but it's not (or at least wasn't at one time) terribly uncommon for a dealer to gift lesser material when he sees a "spark" in someone's eyes.

 

Is it not possible for a proof to get into circulation and look like a business strike?

 

I still new but there are alot ot people on here with knowledgeable answers. Post in errors maybe. You get answers

 

It will still look proof even after it has quite advanced wear. The first ones will start looking like business strikes in low end Good (G-) but most will be in AG or less before they look like business strikes. The rim will give it away because it looks so different (square in cross section). Once the rims are worn on both sides all the way around it can appear to be a business strike.

Back in the late '90's I got a very good '68-S quarter in circulation. It was obviously a proof. Most quarters and clads just aren't struck well. Proofs look "hammered" even after years of circulation.

 

Hi, I'm kind of afraid to ask my question, but I really would like to know the answer. I've read through this entire thread (as well as several others including the topic of the 1968 no "s" dime), and have not found an answer. So here goes: Can someone tell me why, in my 1968 10-Coin MINT set (not proof set), the five coins contained in the blue cellophane (which I assume is from Philadelphia) consist of the following: 1968 Quarter with the "s" mint mark, 1968 Nickel with the "s" mint mark, one 1968 Lincoln penny with no mint mark (as it should be from Philadelphia); another 1968 Lincoln penny with the "s" mint mark and a 1968 Roosevelt dime with no mint mark (obverse or reverse)? More specifically, why does the dime have no mint mark and the nickel and quarter have an "s." I apologize in advance if I've asked a question that has an "obvious" or already answered answer. I haven't located that answer and I'm quite new to the hobby. Thanks.

 

I think what you have is a "mint set" someone put together. I do not think the US mint made them in 1968.

 

Title of this said 1968 US Mint Set

This 1968 United States Mint set is the 10th year of issue. It includes 10 coins, consisting of the nickel, dime, quarter struck at the Philadelphia and Denver Mints, the cent was struck at San Francisco, Philadelphia and Denver Mints with the half dollar struck only at the Denver Mint.

The 1968 set ranks #36 in mintage, with 2,105,128 struck.

 

Can you post a photo of your mint set? these coins are not supposed to have mint marks.

 

That's not what it says in the 1968 mint set description.