The Optimum Mercury Dime Type Coin Year/MM

I was reading through David Lange's, ASSEMBLING THE IDEAL 20TH-CENTURY TYPE SET tonight and was astonished to find that he recommends the 1920-P as the optimum year/mm for the Mercury Dime type coin. While I understand his desire for a well struck example from the modified 1918 obverse hub & 1917 reverse hub, I couldn't help but think how many gorgeous 1939-D Mercury Dimes there are in existence.

I have done some more research and narrowed down the field to 4 date/mm that would be optimum choices for a Mercury Dime Type Coin. Your job is to vote for which date/mm you think should get the job. The four contestants are:

1916 Mercury Dime MS68 FB

The 1916 is the first year of issue and these coins were widely hoarded by the general public. The coins were very well struck and the appearance of full bands is common. In addition, the 1916 dimes all had slightly textured fields which give them a unique satin appearance. The draw back to this date is that the wing lacks the detail of the revised 1917 & 1918 hubs. The population of the 1916-P MS68FB is 22/0 with a Numismedia Wholesale value of $2,950





1920 Mercury Dime MS68 FB

The date/mm recommended by David Lange for having the best strike based on the recent hub modifications of 1918 (Obverse) and 1917 (Reverse). A large mintage of 59 million accounts for the many surviving examples in premium gem full band status. The coin has a population of 2/0 in MS68FB and a Numismedia Wholesale price tag of $5,175.





1939-D Mercury Dime MS69 FB

The 1939-D is among the most common Mercury Dimes in the uncirculated grades. In fact, one could say that this issue is even common in MS69. Of the most spectacularly toned Mercury Dimes I have ever seen offered in auction, at least half have been MS69 1939-D's. For whatever reason, this date/mm cornered the market not only on surface preservation but eye appeal as well. The total population in MS69 FB is 17/0 and has a Numismedia Wholesale value of $7,350.




1944-D Mercury Dime MS68 FB

Lange's comment in his COMPLETE GUIDE TO MERCURY DIMES is that the 1944-D is among the most available issues in the entire series, as the population reports indicate. Anyone who has ever collected Mercury Dimes knows this to be true. These coins can be found toned or blast white and most all have incredible luster. The population in MS68FB is a whopping 100/0 resulting in a very affordable Numismedia Wholesale price of $750. For overall value, this date/mm is tough to beat. The drawback is that it does not have any of the superlatives of the previous choices related to the elements of grading.



Please vote for your choice as the Optimum Mercury Dime Type Coin date/mm. All photos in this thread are courtesy of Heritage Auctions.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

The ideal? Hmm...I suppose it depends on what your intent is. I enjoy collecting business strike date and mint mark sets. I don't do varieties, overdates, or errors. Essentially, I want one of every coin in a series that was intended to be released for circulation.

So out of that what is the ideal mercury dime? I suppose it would be the 1916-d, since it only took me 25 years to be able to afford one Btw, it's en route to my house now...I haven't seen it in person yet but I'm all excited

I didn't vote in your poll for that reason.

 

I agree, wish we could find out what exactly they were doing in Denver that year, I think its gotten to the point where the grading companies grade that year differently now. there are a lot of MS68FB that have the same eye appeal as the MS69FB for example
http://www.lsrarecoins.com/coindetail.aspx?coid=523

 

Congratulations but key dates are the worst selection for a type coin unless you are completing a key date type set.

 

This is an interesting question, and one I've raised with the catalogers here on occasion -- not so much about Mercury Dimes, but about type coins in general. The ideal coin is something that's available and comes nice. For some series, the choice is easy -- 1938-D Buffalo Nickels, for example. 1881-S Morgans (the 1880-S is as well produced or even more so, but not quite as common). 1857-S, 1904, and 1923-D double eagles.

For Mercury Dimes, I go for the 1939-D. They're available, relatively speaking, in MS69FB, even more common in MS68FB than the 1944-D, and probably a shade less expensive. If I wanted to stick to MS67FB, I might consider the 1944-D, as it becomes more common than the 1939-D at that point. However, Mercury Dimes are a dime a dozen (sorry :devil in that grade.

 

Glad to see someone thinks this is an interesting topic. Thank you Stewart. IMO, a type coin needs to be a superlative example that displays all of the intended design of the series. This places a special importance on the strike of the coin since you need a full strike in order to show all intended detail.

The second component is value/price. The idea is to balance the quality of the coin with the price of the coin. The early "S" mint Morgan Dollars are all fantastic type coin picks.

I agree that the MS67FB is just too common to make a good type coin. The MS68FB is definitely the grade for a Mercury Dime type coin. The 1939-D has a population of 117/17 in MS68FB with a Numismedia wholesale price of $735 and as dimefreak pointed out, they are also available with incredible toning.

The real purpose of this thread was to discuss the merits of 1939-D which I have always considered the quintessential Mercury Dime type coin. It came as a very big surprise to me that one of the leading experts on Mercury Dimes, David Lange, would consider the 1920 a better choice.

 

Hence my opening remark, "I suppose it depends on what your intent is." I guess I should have expanded on that idea a bit: Everyone has their own goals / motivations behind collecting. Serious investors will gravitate toward key dates in higher grades, date / mint mark hunters like me will buy one of everything, some folks buy common coins in higher grades because they are less expensive and look nice...you get the idea. We all chase whatever we want, so asking for an ideal is like asking, "Which is better, Chevy or Ford?"

 

I didn't ask for an ideal without qualification or explanation. I asked for the optimum "type coin" for the Mercury Dime series. When you say some folks buy common coins in higher grades because they are less expensive and look nice, that is a type coin collector. Nobody in their right mind would choose the 1916-D as a type coin due to it's price. It has absolutely nothing to do with personal preference. If you are not a type coin collector, I am not sure why you are even participating in this thread.

 

One explanation that I've heard for the lack of 1916-D's is because the Denver mint got the dies in very late in the year. Thus less coins. Not sure if it's real or not because it was posted on some metal detecting forum.

 

I vote for a proof merc, any date, they look like you could tip them over and pour them out!

 

I think the 44D is my choice as they have a larger pop and still a great looking coin. Plus I think that is more in line with the 81S Morgan and 38D Buffalo.

 

Stealer, he was referring to the number of exquisitely toned 1939-D Mercury Dimes in existence. Nothing to do with 1916-D's.

 

I went with the highest grade of the choices. The rainbow toning is an added bonus. TC

 

I voted for the 1916, I like having a type coin of the first year of issue, sort of how some people pay premiums for early released coins

 

Any idea how one can view that article by David Lange online or anything? It seems that it was published in January 1998, and I can't seem to find it anywhere.

 

Not a type coin collector and maybe I should not answer, but you ask for opinions and I can always come up with one of those. Of the four coins listed I am going to assume the coins posted contain typical strike characteristics for the dates and the grade. I did not consider price or population. I think the 20 shows a better strike than the other 3 coins display. I think I see more and stronger details on the obverse and reverse. Could just be the toning but I don't think so - the strike seems more crisp to me. Now having said that I don't think that means you can not find equally well struck coins in other dates(not a mercury expert). At the same time maybe the coins posted besides the 20 are great strikes from the dies they used, but I think the 20 shows the design as intended better. My opinion only and I think I eliminated the toning as part of the consideration - or otherwise I would automatically have eliminate the last two because I just don't like the toning on those two. I tried to just look at design elements and how strong they looked in the picture.

Now when I think of the optimum grade for a coin in a series - I think of it as usually meaning well struck examples are readily available in some grade for a specific date. I guess I don't usually think of them as having a population of 2. Never really thought about it a whole lot. But just my humble opinion on a sleepless night.

 

FWIW, that 39-D sold for $7475 2 years ago on Heritage. http://coins.ha.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=1114&Lot_No=146

That is one sharp looking dime!

 

We have another one at the ANA.

 

Joshua Collection example right?

 

I don't have a copy of Dave's book in front of me (I think I own one at home), but it was interesting to look at the catalog entry for the 1939-D in our ANA auction. The entry said:

'In his 2005 reference on the Mercury dime series, David Lange called the 1939-D "the quintessential type coin" and "perhaps the most consistently attractive Mercury dime in the entire series." '

I think the context here, about whether the coin is a suitable type coin, is a little different than the quote you mentioned in the original post, which was strictly about the strike of the coin. 1921 dimes were well-struck, too, but they make horrible type cons for obvious reasons.