PCGS Knows All.... Apparently

I posted above but I guess it bears repeating that the 1916 Mercury Dime was a "high relief" coin that was struck on a different planchet, causing depth or fins that are distinctive from the rest of the series. The planchet may have been thicker and heavier than the planchets used in the rest of the series. I assume this is easy to test, or see, by comparing a 1916 Mercury to another year in the series. I've been meaning to do this simple test myself since I saw this thread but I have kept putting it off. I also plan to join the Procrastinator's Club, someday. If I were to join, I understand I would be the Club's first member.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I'm a lurker. I keep putting off (officially) joining myself..

 

No, my POINT is this: None of us can be 100% sure of anything - except death. Therefore, I consider folks who use absolutes such as "none exist" to be, ah...

 

I have a 1961 and I believe a 1964 redbook. The price difference of the 1903 O in the two books is almost comical.

 

I am curious as to what definition of a coin you are referring to? Your's or an official one? I can buy into your argument about blank planchets and waffled errors not being coins. The first has never been struck and contains no design elements of an official coin and the latter was struck but then officially cancelled. The item in the OP in my eye's is considered a coin as it was officially struck by the US Mint on an official planchet. Now an error did occur in that the entire design was not struck into the planchet. There is enough of the design elements to identify the issue a Mercury Dime. The coin was not cancelled and was released into circulation, so how is that not a coin? I'm curious.

 

It's a coin. It's a minting error (error coin). There is a glaring mistake on the label.

 

Bull. There would have been somewhere around 160 different obv die pairs used in 1916 for the mercury dimes, not to mention the 6,000+ other die pairs used through the rest of the series in order to determine the date on a WAY off center dime. And even then it has to be a die pair that has a die marker in that tiny area that happens to be struck on the planchet. Looking at low balls is a completely different thing because they are pretty much immediately identifiable at a glance and all they have to do is grade them.

 

You left out paying taxes. It's a 100% sure thing..

 

There’s nothing bull about the fact they would check visible area for indentification which you implied they wouldn’t.

 

OK, sure. There is a finite probability that a bank bag existed and contained this error coin. I think this would have made the news, but perhaps it's being parsed out slowly to make maximum profit. But I am still 100% sure that a bank roll did not exist, since dimes were not distributed from banks or the mint in rolls in 1916, and of course this coin (as has been pointed out earlier) would not fit into a roll anyway.

 

Yes they will look to see if it has a date and mintmarks showing.

 

And if it can be identified otherwise they wouldn't do many 1916 quarters as one example. Whether or not they can find a marker for a coin with no date is another story but they check just like the others do as well

 

How can anyone who doesn't have anything to do with PCGS say definitively about what they do as far as procedures? Do you know someone from PCGS that tells you these things?

 

So I guess they’ve never identified dateless coins huh? You guys are out of your minds if you don’t think graders take a check for identification at any of the services. How exactly do you think they authenticate?

 

So do you agree with PCGS that this is a true 1916 ? I'm just curious how they authenticated this one.

 

Who were the idiots who graded the nail in the coin?

 

I'll guess it's a 1943, struck on steel.

 

Thank you Dave..........I thought it was those guys, just couldn't quite remember. Don't ever get 'old' friend.........

 

I don’t pay a lot of attention to Merck’s it may or may not be. I was speaking more in general terms at this point

That would be @Fred Weinberg but most would disagree with the idiot part