1916-D Merc - Real or Fake?
C0inCollect0r
Posts: 374 ✭✭
Hi folks,
I apologize guys - I went in to post an extra photo of the mintmark and somehow deleted the photo of the obverse in the process. It was there when I originally posted this last week. Sorry about that.
This 1916-D Merc is a bit banged up but looks genuine to me - I figured I'd ask on here to get some opinions from those who have seen more of these than I have. Real or Fake?
0
Comments
I'll go with real......nice!
bob
Looks good to me, good luck !!!
looks good
BHNC #203
Genuine
Looks good/genuine. Maybe a 10 to 12 with some rim damage.
Looks authentic... MM seems correct.... Cheers, RickO
Looks ok to me as well
looks ok to me.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
no arguments here with it
Can it be determined to be a 16d by just seeing the mintmark? I did not know this could be done. Is the '16 the only year that shape mintmark was used?
bob
What you show looks fine, but seeing the entire coin would help.
It is the same style "D" that was used on the 1914-D Lincoln Cent. It has a charateristic interior that is angled instead of rounded on the right.
Here is a pic of a genuine 1916-D:
I think it matches the OP coin.
Pete
Yes, I do understand the unusual shape, but was this the only year the it was used in the Mercury series?
bob
The Mintmark punch was changed in 1917. I do not know about the Dime, but the Buffalo Nickel comes with 2 different styles, the old (1913-17) and the new (1917-34).
Collectors of Buffs don't seem to care.
Pete
4 mm positions, think I have an image that may help..
From the pics it appears to be die 4.
That's what I thought