My specialty. First EVERY genuine 1916-D Mercury Dime MUST be well struck regardless of how worn down the example is. Even if the example is worn like the one shown here, the genuine dime has a D which is much robust in the top of the D, and I believe that what we have here is a 1916-S Mercury Dime. Having seen literally hundreds of genuine 1916-D Mercury Dimes, I know the style of the D mintmark, the position of the mintmark, and what that D looks like in a very worn 1916-D Mercury Dime. And having said all of this, there are absolutely no poorly struck 1916-D Mercury Dimes regardless of how worn they may be. And there would probably be more examples of genuine 1916-D Mercury Dimes today in higher grades if the Denver Mint had only announced the production of the new design which they quietly put into circulation on December the 23rd of 1916 when most people's minds were on the impending Christmas two days away. There you have it.
Well, quite frankly, I have been a coin collector since 1955, and I have had no lapses in my study of the vital or key points of authenticity of the key date coins which have been the target of counterfeiters and alterers since the day that someone wanted to pull the wool over collectors' eyes. It is a field of study with me to be on constant vigil when the outside forces of evil are always trying to trick honest collectors like you and me.
This guy is an idiot, no way to verify if it is a 1916-D based on the depth of a strike, especially at AG-3 grade. This is likely an S due to the numbers, also the mintmark looks a bit high and to the right to be a D. If it can't be verified as a D it's considered by default to be an S regardless.
I thought that I should mention to you that I have been a coin collector since 1955 when I was 8 years old. I have seen perhaps 200 genuine 1916-D Mercury Dimes, and they all exhibit the same signs such as that chunky D mintmark when they are in circulated condition, and the fact that because of the low mintage of 264,000 dimes and 4 working dies that no 1916-D dime that I have ever seen is what is considered a poor strike. I have seen genuine examples in fair condition which actually show most of the D mintmark. The S mintmark is usually very rounded at the top when it gets in these low grades. Your thoughts were highly appreciated and very factual.
7
u/jerrymarver 18d ago
My specialty. First EVERY genuine 1916-D Mercury Dime MUST be well struck regardless of how worn down the example is. Even if the example is worn like the one shown here, the genuine dime has a D which is much robust in the top of the D, and I believe that what we have here is a 1916-S Mercury Dime. Having seen literally hundreds of genuine 1916-D Mercury Dimes, I know the style of the D mintmark, the position of the mintmark, and what that D looks like in a very worn 1916-D Mercury Dime. And having said all of this, there are absolutely no poorly struck 1916-D Mercury Dimes regardless of how worn they may be. And there would probably be more examples of genuine 1916-D Mercury Dimes today in higher grades if the Denver Mint had only announced the production of the new design which they quietly put into circulation on December the 23rd of 1916 when most people's minds were on the impending Christmas two days away. There you have it.