Listed as unopened roll of '79 S Susan B Anthony's. I don't think soooooooooo (maybe unopened by the seller but highly doubt it!)
That is exactly what the seller means. "They" never opened it, and there are so many postings like this on eBay.
I collect unopened rolls of Bank of America wrapped coins and if you can't see the edge, I don't trust it.
So when you get rolls of change you either have Customer wrapped or bank wrapped. Bank wrapped are like so..... You see the tightly crimped edge which can generally only be made by a machine. (some people have these at their disposal but generally they are bank wrapped.) Especially if you see the banks name on the side of the wrappers (common in older rolled coins). If you see someone advertising for an unopened roll and you see this, you are good to go for the most part. Nobody has opened these. if you see something like this below then you know it's more than likely been gone through. The owner can look through the roll, put them back in the wrapper and then close it up just as you would with any roll. N.F. String & Son's makes a roll that has one end nicely crimped. You fill it and you close the other end. The original ebay photo I showed only has a partial shot of the edge but it's enough that you know it has already been gone through. A lot to list here and I can continue in a private conversation but there are other things to look for as well that are dead give aways as to if a roll is truly unstarched or not. Hope this helps.
Here's a good one I saw last night. 1916-D, my butt. https://www.ebay.com/itm/1916-D-Mer...426442&hash=item1a70a8be6a:g:yGsAAOSwwDJcPX0d It seems folks are trying to use clickbait on eBay too. The seller knows damn good and well it's not a 1916-D. Unless it's a DL-5 ultra rare invisible mint mark variety.......
You and I both know this is not really a '16-D, but at least give the seller the benefit of the doubt. It's likely he / she has never held a real '16-D in hand, and doesn't know that the artifact which appears like a D looks nothing like the D on a genuine example.
So saying "damn" on the forum is against the rules now? I've said it in posts before and nobody said anything about it. Never heard of anybody getting offended, considering the word "damn" is in the Bible. Wow. Edited my original post back because I think you're being unreasonable. And no, I won't give the benefit of the doubt. If you even know what a 1916-D is and selling it as such, you know there has to be a mint mark there, which there is none. This isn't a classic 16-S where somebody thinks it's a D. You claim to be a dealer, first you say it's a rare coin in another thread, which it's not, then make excuses for an obvious clickbait, then take exception to my post because it has damn in it..... Damn, that's interesting.
Getting huffy won't get you your way. I edited your post because it was reported as offensive. The fact that your language fell outside the guidelines of being suitable for 1950's television is all the reason I need to do so. The fact that I hadn't seen your prior use of that word reported is irrelevant. We can't all be watching all of the time. The artifact I referred to visually resembles a D in the photo, despite not conforming to the geometry of the mintmark you and I both know looks very different on a legitimate '16-D dime. Whether that artifact is merely toning, or if there is some raised metal there, perhaps from being a heavily worn counterfeit, matters not. What matters is that you openly criticized someone who apparently lacks your experience, rather than trying to understand what he / she was really seeing, and weighing in afterward. As for your claim that the 1916-D dime is not rare in XF45 or AU50, that is a rare coin in my mind. Why? Not only because of the sheer number of Merc Dime collectors who must forego the date in any grade, but because of all of the grades in which one could collect Merc Dimes - individual mint state grades excepted - XF is the hardest grade in which to locate the '16-D . . . and it's no close race. If you didn't already know this, I'm very surprised. I'm not making excuses for the lister of that coin, as much as I'm asking you not to assume they know exactly what they have. Should he / she have asked someone more knowledgeable about the coin before listing it? Yes. Should you have asked the seller a bit more about the coin and their knowledge of coins before lambasting him / her? Yes.
I'm not "getting huffy". I'm pointing out your flawed logic. If the Admins or Mods don't want that term to be used period, then censors should be set. I managed a forum for several years- there is a censor feature in your admin panel to automatically censor words when they are typed and submitted. As far as EF being the rarest grade to obtain the 1916-D, you're using the term "rare" when the coin clearly is not. With money, one can obtain plenty of examples of this date in any grade up to AU with no problems. There are several EF's available for sale as we speak. To state that it is "rare" is completely wrong. When there are multiple examples in any grade available at any given time, it's hard to argue it is rare. Scarce, yes, because of demand, but the coin is readily available. Not knocking 1916-D, it's my favorite coin of all time. I'm just stating facts.
Sorry, but I do not subscribe to any finite rarity scale known to mankind. The Sheldon scale, most commonly followed in our industry is quite misleading in describing all coins for which more than 1250 examples exist as being "common". A lengthier perspective on the subject of rarity may be found at https://www.pcgs.com/news/a-look-at-rarity With nearly twice as many mint state '16-D Mercs graded as XF coins, I still assert that XF coins are rare.
You want rare?! Try finding an 1809 or 1822 Dime in any decent problem free grade that hasn't been messed with. THOSE coins are truly rare.
This takes the cake. The fact it was sent to NGC makes it more ridiculous. https://www.ebay.com/itm/1970-1C-RB...397954&hash=item33d337a49b:g:TyIAAOSw3QpZbnH9
You'll get no argument from me . . . I've never bought an 1822 because I've never examined one I liked. To add to what you wrote, just as rare are the date collectors of that series who would part with fair money for those coins . . .
I'm one of those "rare" ones you mentioned, lol. I still have yet to find an 1822 that pleases my eye.
I grew up in the days when most everyone called the 16-D a rare coin. I still think of it that way. A lot of folks that have built really nice Mercury sets, look for the 16-D in XF or AU. Finding a nice one can be tough. Many including myself don't care for one in a lower grade.
I was always told it was, and it is indeed scarce. But when I began exploring and researching early U.S. Coins, I realized the definition of true rarity. Regardless. The 1916-D Mercury Dime will always be my favorite and most beloved United States Coin, hence, my handle.
I think the perceptions of rarity and scarcity have changed with the advent of the Internet. For 99+% of U.S. coins you can find an acceptable example if you must have it within an hour. I am reluctant to call most U.S. coins rare with few exceptions (mostly certain early federal issues).