PCGS says NO. I say maybe. Is this a 1912-S?

braddick

jacrispies

I vote yes on the S. There certainly is a mintmark there. The S and D can be differentiated by the serifs on the left side of the mintmark. A D mintmark has long serifs which this coin does not appear to have.

robec

Looks like something is below that dot.

Ringgy

I would say possibly D

ricko

Comparing it to images online... I am leaning to an S mint mark.... In hand, good lighting, maybe change my opinion... maybe not. Cheers, RickO

Goldbully

Downloaded Max Resolution from PCGS.

---

telephoto1

D mintmark deformed by wear imo.

Edit to add... after having seen the better quality images it may indeed be an S.

messydesk

Contact them for a mechanical error fix.

Shane6596

I don't think there is a MM. There should be a gap between MM and dot. Looks like it's just wear to me. Maybe an overlay would reveal more? I can't do that on my phone.

291fifth

If you have to wonder about it it is not worth bothering with.

MWallace

@Shane6596 said:
I don't think there is a MM. There should be a gap between MM and dot. Looks like it's just wear to me. Maybe an overlay would reveal more? I can't do that on my phone.

I agree.

BuffaloIronTail

If you look at the dot above where the mintmark is, notice that it is not completely round, having a flat spot where the mintmark rests.

This seems to be the case with the OP coin.

Something looks to be underneath the dot, and with the slight curve to the left of the "anomaly", it looks like an S.

Trouble is, there is not enough of anything showing to confirm it.

Pete

RLSnapper

Our hosts cannot be 100% sure what if any mintmark there is. They can be 100% sure it is a 1912...hence the designation.

TomB

I agree that there is "something" there, but I also agree that the placement of that something and the determination of that something leave more details up in the air. I'm more surprised that PCGS slabbed it as a 1912 without sending it back to you in a bag as verification unable to be determined than I am that it wasn't assigned a D or S mintmark.

braddick

When you type in the cert. number and view the oversized Trueview; it is easier to determine.
Unfortunately, when I do this and then attempt to place that oversized Trueview on the thread, it doesn't work
and converts back to the standard size.
The large Trueview makes me (almost) convinced there is a MM there.

braddick

@291fifth said:
If you have to wonder about it, it is not worth bothering.

In general, I might agree with you, yet like the 1916-D Mercury dime, where many have a super worn MM, this 1912 increases in value from a P to an S.

PeakRarities

Here is the high res rev, Imo there is a mm there. You can see that really worn dot appears to be larger than the one on the other side, presumably because of wear and metal displacement. I cant be positive which mm it is, but it looks like "something". Tough one.

Meltdown

That last photo blown up looks like a D to me.

JBK

I don't know the series, but are different MM placements a possibility?

Shane6596

Look at how much more the circled area is worn than the rest. Almost like it was intentional to maybe make a "P" coin appear to be a possible higher priced coin.

Just a thought...

Scammers have been around forever.

braddick

I wish there were slight markers for the obverse, as it is pretty well-defined.

coastaljerseyguy

@Shane6596
I was thinking the same, strange the only AG part of the coin is this small area on obv & rev. If not intentional, I still lean toward details grade like it was buffed by something.

BuffaloIronTail

Although it isn't the end-all answer, this article sheds a little more light on the 1912-S Nickel:

Pete

Jimnight

I would lean towards the S mint mark.

PerryHall

I'd be tempted to put a drop of nic-a-date on that mintmark.

braddick

@PerryHall said:
I'd be tempted to put a drop of nic-a-date on that mintmark.

Actually, at this point- not a bad idea.

mr1931S

@braddick said:

@PerryHall said:
I'd be tempted to put a drop of nic-a-date on that mintmark.

Actually, at this point- not a bad idea.

Soak the nickel in acetone before nic-a-date chemical is applied to area where mintmark would be.

braddick

I was the underbidder on this one.
I suspect the winner speculated as I did when placing his bid.

Bidder
Bid Amount Bid Time
Highest Bidderprivate listing - bidders' identities protected
$35.35
3 May 2023 at 12:46:29am PDT
peacockcoins
$34.56
2 May 2023 at 11:59:34pm PDT
private listing - bidders' identities protected
$30.30
3 May 2023 at 12:46:18am PDT
private listing - bidders' identities protected
$22.00
2 May 2023 at 8:33:54pm PDT
private listing - bidders' identities protected
$20.04
1 May 2023 at 7:32:33pm PDT
private listing - bidders' identities protected
$20.00
1 May 2023 at 7:32:24pm PDT
private listing - bidders' identities protected
$20.00
2 May 2023 at 8:33:47pm PDT
private listing - bidders' identities protected
$18.00
29 Apr 2023 at 1:12:21pm PDT
private listing - bidders' identities protected
$3.00
23 Apr 2023 at 10:22:09pm PDT
private listing - bidders' identities protected
$2.00
23 Apr 2023 at 5:54:22am PDT
private listing - bidders' identities protected
$0.01
23 Apr 2023 at 5:10:07am PDT
Starting price
$0.01
23 Apr 2023 at 1:53:39am PDT

Shane6596

You came in second? Well, now it was definitely an "S" as i look it over again.

bob48

The MM Location is at about 7 O'clock, when you flip the coin over the opposite is at about 11 O'clock Not 1 O'clock.
I just find this strange as to the heavy wear spots on the nickel.

jesbroken

This is a tough one due to wear. While there are various S MM's in different spacing from the dot, with the wear I cannot be sure as to the space, but I feel an S MM is there. If you take the last MM position spacing and add wear then quite possibly an S MM exists. JMO
Jim

TPRC

@mr1931S said:

@braddick said:

@PerryHall said:
I'd be tempted to put a drop of nic-a-date on that mintmark.

Actually, at this point- not a bad idea.

Soak the nickel in acetone before nic-a-date chemical is applied to area where mintmark would be.

Noooooooooooo!!!!!!!

emeraldATV

D To me.
Take a step back and clearly a D.
Any filters available here. That should define it.

jdimmick

I agree, should have been returned MM not verifiable, def not a 12-P. I got a similar situation in now for a customer, 16-d or s merc. i could not tell, so worn down that just barely the tiniest portion of top of mm visible to the point you cant tell if d serif or s. Most likely will be same , unverifiable, but she wanted me to see, her late husband paid like 400 bucks from some dealer for it.

MedalCollector

@coastaljerseyguy said:
@Shane6596
I was thinking the same, strange the only AG part of the coin is this small area on obv & rev. If not intentional, I still lean toward details grade like it was buffed by something.

Or the coin was slightly bent at the top, which would account for the strange area of wear on the obverse and reverse.

coastaljerseyguy

@bob48 said:
The MM Location is at about 7 O'clock, when you flip the coin over the opposite is at about 11 O'clock Not 1 O'clock.
I just find this strange as to the heavy wear spots on the nickel.

That is true, it would be 11 not 1:00 on obverse. Not normal circulation wear. I vote D as in damaged, details grade (Good details) and maybe even deception. Net graded down to AG3 and not given the benefit of any MM.

TPRC

@mr1931S said:

@braddick said:

@PerryHall said:
I'd be tempted to put a drop of nic-a-date on that mintmark.

Actually, at this point- not a bad idea.

Soak the nickel in acetone before nic-a-date chemical is applied to area where mintmark would be.

Noooooooooooo!!!!!!!

logger7

Would a more exhaustive imaging apparatus resolve this, such as an electron microscope?

jerseyben

There is definitely a mintmark there. Can't believe they slabbed this as a 1912-P.

PerryHall

To be clear, I was joking about using nic-a-date on that coin especially considering that you would have to crack that coin out of its PCGS slab. It may be what they euphemistically call a "mechanical error" since there is obviously a mintmark there. Examination under a stereo microscope should establish if it's a D or S mintmark. I would drop it off at the PCGS table at the next major coin show where they are set up and request that they take another look at it to give them a chance to correct it.

Keshequa

@Shane6596 said:
I don't think there is a MM. There should be a gap between MM and dot. Looks like it's just wear to me. Maybe an overlay would reveal more? I can't do that on my phone.

@Shane6596 said:
I don't think there is a MM. There should be a gap between MM and dot. Looks like it's just wear to me. Maybe an overlay would reveal more? I can't do that on my phone.

BillJones

If it is a "D", the value is about the same unless there is some sort of "poorest graded known" premium. The value of the "P" and "D" 1912 nickel in Good is the same.

Shane6596

Just for my own curiosity and to learn a little more, i researched some in different states of wear. It looks like the gap can close up as metal is pushed and displaced on some. Some pics below from less to more wear.

Is there/was there a MM on OP's posted coin? Possibly. I just don't feel there is enough there for a grader to give a definite.

This thread has been a fun exercise for me and i learned a little more.

mr1931S

@TPRC said:

@mr1931S said:

@braddick said:

get @PerryHall said:
I'd be tempted to put a drop of nic-a-date on that mintmark.

Actually, at this point- not a bad idea.

Soak the nickel in acetone before nic-a-date chemical is applied to area where mintmark would be.

Noooooooooooo!!!!!!!

That's what to do to get best results from the nic-a-date chemical (Ferric Chloride) treatment.The acetone removes surface contaminants from the circulated coin, mainly oil from hands that is on the coin. Okay to rinse the coin in distilled water after acetone treatment and after treatment with nic-a-date. Pat the coin dry after rinsing with water. Ignorance, not acetone, is the boogeyman to try and avoid. I have first hand experience working with nic-a-date and I can tell you all, you WILL GET BETTER RESULTS if you soak the nickel in acetone before applying nic-a-date to area of interest on the nickel.

mr1931S

Really, the piece's only interest is as a curiousity. Acetone would dissolve the slab. I would leave it in the slab and let folks scratch their heads about it. If out of slab that puppy would get nic-a-dated if it were mine. As it stands, the slab is worth more than the coin itself even if it is a 1912-S.

PerryHall

You can't really go by the spacing between the dot and the mintmark because they will spread out under heavy wear and will appear to be closer together.

braddick

@mr1931S said:
Really, the piece's only interest is curiosity. Acetone would dissolve the slab. I would leave it in the slab and let folks scratch their heads about it. If out of the slab, that puppy would get nic-a-dated if it were mine. As it stands, the slab is worth more than the coin itself, even if it is a 1912-S.

This is curious to me.
Why would you think it is worth more in the slab than out of it as a 1912-S?
(the 12-S in FA02 is $120.00)

joeykoins

Yep, I see
Da "D"!
PCGS, what were you thinking, Duh!

PerryHall

@braddick said:

@mr1931S said:
Really, the piece's only interest is curiosity. Acetone would dissolve the slab. I would leave it in the slab and let folks scratch their heads about it. If out of the slab, that puppy would get nic-a-dated if it were mine. As it stands, the slab is worth more than the coin itself, even if it is a 1912-S.

This is curious to me.
Why would you think it is worth more in the slab than out of it as a 1912-S?
(the 12-S in FA02 is $120.00)

If you leave it in the slab, PCGS will correct their "mechanical error". If you crack it out, it's just another raw coin.

bearcave

@Jimnight said:
I would lean towards the S mint mark.

Aotearoa

Looks like a CC to me.