Home› PCGS Set Registry Forum

Heres one for you Merc guys

WWBillmanWWBillman Posts: 900
in PCGS Set Registry Forum
1916-D
Bill

The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

Comments

  • BNEBNE Posts: 772 ✭
    That's MS63? The fasces on the reverse look really flat and worn. Is this a "typical strike"? Is it just the photo. . . .?
    "The essence of sleight of hand is distraction and misdirection. If smoeone can be convinced that he has, through his own perspicacity, divined your hidden purposes, he will not look further."

    William S. Burroughs, Cities of the Red Night
  • FairlanemanFairlaneman Posts: 10,424 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Bill:

    That 16D sure reminds me of a 25D I saw acouple of years ago. The Dime was nice, say 64 quality, on the obverse but then when the reverse was viewed it was almost exactly like this 16D. Very, Very weak. That could be expected for a 25D but these sharply struck 16D's should not look like this one does.

    BNE:

    This is strange for a 1916 Issue !!

    Ken
  • PTVETTERPTVETTER Posts: 5,966 ✭✭✭✭✭
    That's one 1916-D I would have to pass onimage
    I think there are better 1916-D's out on the market
    Pat Vetter,Mercury Dime registry set,1938 Proof set registry,Pat & BJ Coins:724-325-7211


  • quattrocoinsquattrocoins Posts: 1,881
    Here's a better lookin' AU.

    Don
    FULL Heads RULE!
  • oldcameoproofsguyoldcameoproofsguy Posts: 3,174 ✭
    OK merc guys, it's time to enlighten a non-merc guy.

    Is the 16-D a usually well struck coin or not? What are the odds of findind an FB for the typical ms63 or nicer coin? The obverse of the coin pictured looks fairly well struck. I think the scan is just terrible on the reverse so that the bands aren't visible.

    What does the luster look like for a typical 16-D? This one looks satiny, is that typical or are there coins with a more polished luster?

    My Barbers
  • gripgrip Posts: 9,962 ✭✭✭✭✭
    It looks like a slider and washed out,overdipped.But could be the scan as I have been fooled before.Al
    The AU coin looks much nicer,except the price hes asking almost MS 63 money??For an AU 55??.Al
  • Steve27Steve27 Posts: 13,274 ✭✭✭
    oldcameoproofsguy,

    I'm not a Merc expert but this coin is not at all representative of MS 16-Ds I've seen, and personally, I think it's mostly a bad picture. The 16-D is usually well struck, FB coins are not uncommon, and this one has poor luster compared to most.
    "It's far easier to fight for principles, than to live up to them." Adlai Stevenson
  • gripgrip Posts: 9,962 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I emailed him and asked for a better scan
    Reply:>Sorry but that is the best scan we have. Coin is very lusterous. John
  • coinnerdcoinnerd Posts: 492 ✭✭✭
    The luster may be good, but the reverse is one of the worst I've seen on a '16. It wouldn't grade VF if it was a circ coin. Keep looking, don't buy the holder on this one.
  • DIMEMANDIMEMAN Posts: 22,403 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I saw that coin in person last Friday at the ILNA show up around Chicago. The obv is nice, well struck, and plenty of luster. I did not have John get the coin out of the case, so I can't say about the rev. I don't think a scan could be that bad. I think it is probably that weak. If it was well struck on the rev. he would have gotten a better scan somehow. The pop on 16-D in 63 is 11 nobands and 56 FB. This kind of strike is definitely not common on the 16-D. I wish I would have looked at it closer now.

    Jon
Sign In or Register to comment.