This look is totally common for that year of dime. Some years are struck better than others. That year had a lot that look just like that.
The reeding is in good shape. Ok just see the REVERSE side the lettering is also off and the steams are different. Ok its hard to know i found one on here people said error and other places. SO many different responses Thank you
@Trisia ...whoever told you it is an error is wrong. As of 18 July you have been a member for 9 months. If you read and understood the section “How dies are made” at doubleddie.com, John Wexler’s site, you would know that the wear and circulation damage on your dime could not be an error. That is 35 years of circulation wear and tear...Spark...(IMHO)
Could a few more error experienced members weigh-in? @Fred Weinberg, @paddyman98, @JCro57, others? I realize that circulation wear is going to be present, but I see a slight MAD with a possible struck through grease or severe die wear. I am focusing on the M and E in the DIME. Just my observations.
Not an error, but it might have been flattened a bit. Look at his hair, and the rims at 12:00 and to the right of the date. Many 1985 dimes have that 'flat rim' look, and I thought this one was a typical example - but I also think there might be some PMD on it. Even if there is no damage on it, as I described, it's not an error coin.
Really?? Thats some very "thought full" great advice but why am I thinking you would keep it for some reason..............
i see a mis-aligned die on obverse, and possibly struck-through grease on reverse..along with wear..also check out rim near date?