Mercury dime proofs showing signs of weak strikes, worn out dies or dies that have been polished?
gscoins
Posts: 299 ✭✭✭
I was looking at a proof Mercury dime today on Ebay, from 1942, and noticed that it seemed weakly struck:
Take a look at the sprig of foliage at 12:30 - 1 o'clock and the splitting of the bands on the reverse.
Here is another Mercury proof from 1942 which I randomly chose from the archives at Great Collections:
OBVERSE
REVERSE
This one seems to have a better strike, to me at least.
I am not a Mercury proof expert. Am I seeing things? Or, are there noticeable differences in the quality of strikes on these proofs?
0
Comments
Please see:
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1075515/common-misconceptions-of-1936-1942-proofs-die-polish#latest
Coin Photographer.
From the '36 to '42 era nearly all are fully struck. A medal press was used and the smaller dimes would have been the easiest to bring up full strikes. Problems occured when dies were polished by [less than fully skilled] laborers involved especially for 1936 coins. See Roger Burdette's research in his book 'United States Proof Coins 1936-1942.
Attached are Trueview photos of 1939, 1940, 1941 and 1942 dimes that were graded earlier this year and last year.
These dimes show a wide variety of looks, with some being struck from polished dies that lessened the strength of the devices.
SanctionII, these four photos demonstrate much better than mine the impact of the die polishing, especially the first photo. The polishing on the first has made Mercury's nose look almost grotesque. I hadn't noticed this earlier, but the word "UNUM" on the reverse has also been affected by the polishing.
I very much appreciate everyone's response to this posting, as it has been very educational for me.
I recall when I was looking for a really nice '42 Merc, years ago, that I was having difficulty finding a really nice one. I did, eventually, but it was quite a search - and this was late nineties, early OO's period of time. Cheers, RickO