PCGS 1916-D Mercury on Ebay...Questionable Grade IMO!!

ChuckC

I'm not one to question a reputable grading service and maybe this pic was taken in a bad light, but this dime is VF-20, VF-30 at best in my opinion based on my VF specimens and Photograde which states VF must have 3/4 of feathers showing, XF has all feathers showing but with some wear at tops!

XF-45 Mercury Dime, Ebay

nwcs

I agree, it doesn't appear to be XF

sliderider

VERY questionable. The obverse looks borderline VG-F to me. The reverse looks better, perhaps VF, but there is no way this should have gotten a high XF grade. Maybe someone rich or famous submitted it and the graders knew it was his coin and gave it higher marks.

ChuckC

Here's a heritage auction shot of what I think better approximates XF-45 for a 16-D (PCGS too)...sliderunner, are you suggesting fraud!? fraud in a business?! That could never happen, esp at PCGS

1916-D, former heritage xf-45 pcgs autcion

LincolnCentMan

yah, I saw that coin earlier today.... seriously overgraded IMHO.

David

IrishMike

Not all X-45's are going to look the same, the ebay coin looks like its on the low end of the spectrum for the grade and the Heritage coin looks graded right on.

Fairlaneman

Well boys I think you should take some pictures of Mercs and just see what the light source coming from different angles will do for the details in a photo before you pass judgement on the grade of the first dime shown. The thing looks xf to me. Maybe not 45 but 40 for sure.

Ken

nccoin

I believe it looks XF. The reverse is real sharp, AU looking, obverse is rather dull, VF detail, so maybe that is how they decided on an overall XF grade.

nccoin

Are these really going for over 5,000.00 in an XF grade now??

dorkkarl

detail appears vf-35, however it does appear to have substantial remaining luster. grading by surface quality, it might well be a technical xf, just a poorly struck coin.

that said, i would still call it vf-35.

a lot of hoo-haw has been made about "rising values" of the 16-d, but i don't believe it. imo, what we're really seeing is horrible gradeflation for this particular issue. it's sickening how many vg's there are that don't have full rims in various "reputable" slabs.

K S

Coppernicus

According to my eye, the pics, and my ANA Grading Standards book, I'd say VF-30. Too much obverse wear in the hair around the face for a 40 and too much wear on the bands and diagonals on the reverse as well. Just my inexpert HO.

Mike

291fifth

This is a good example of a coin which, if offered to a dealer in a shop or at a show, would not be bought as an XF-45, regardless of what the holder says and regardless of the fact that the holder is PCGS. In my opinion, and grading is just that, an opinion, the coin is seriously overgraded.

oreville

Looks VF-35 when you grade just by the details (looks to be a real soft strike) and EF-45 or XF-45 if you look at the remaining luster on the coin.

Indeed the coin is very attractive, but the highest the should have graded it is XF/EF-40.

Must be this market grading thing where the coin was market graded XF-45 due to its attractiveness despite creating an overgraded slab based on technical merits.

mr1931S

In photography, lighting is everything. The images, as they make this coin appear, don't make it "XF 45." PCGS has done that.

Buy the coin if you like it and can afford it and then excercise the PCGS gaurantee of grade if it appears to come up short in grade on personal inspection.

ziggy29

Tough coin to grade. The reverse looks close to AU-50. The obverse, maybe VF-20. Overall, the surfaces and remaining luster hint toward the higher grade. But given the lack of detail on the obverse, I could possibly see net XF-40 here at best, but not a bit higher.

IrishMike

I've never been a good grader and I am even worse at grading a coin without it in hand. I've discovered that when I spend time with a coin in person with someone with grading experience that usually they are able to point out facets of the coin and grading that only experience can garner.

kryptonitecomics

<< <i>detail appears vf-35, however it does appear to have substantial remaining luster. grading by surface quality, it might well be a technical xf, just a poorly struck coin.

that said, i would still call it vf-35.

K S >>



I agree completely.....weak strike, not necessarily all wear causing the lack of details. I wouldn't pay XF money for the coin either!

DeepCoin

This is an example of why you should always buy "expensive" (a relative term depending on who you are) coins sight seen. I would never pay this type of money for that coin. I know Mercs have moved up for this date, but not that much.

hookooekoo

Based on Photograde, I would agree that this coin is a VF.

But I think the remaining luster is what PCGS must have decided carried the day. The only thing that makes any sence is that close inspection by PCGS (compared to just the picture we have to go by) revieled the coin to be a weak strike with some wear making it "technically" an XF. But if that is true, then the weak strike is so weak as to lower the grade to XF-40 at best. But then you take into account that they try to be a little nicer to key-dates and your back at the XF-45.

But IMHO, the coin is only worth about VF-30 to VF-35 money.

Coinerww

It looks EF to me, maybe EF-40.

ziggy29

<< <i>But then you take into account that they try to be a little nicer to key-dates and your back at the XF-45. >>

It's really funny how the TPG's seem to be very "nice" to keys that are valuable in all grades...but they are utterly *brutal* on condition rarities where one grade can triple or quadruple the price (like the thread a few days about that 1897-O Morgan that came back MS-61). I guess they're more afraid that the latter could really soak them in a review if standards change or if they erred by 1/2 point.

dorkkarl

bingo. you said it perfectly.

K S

EagleEye

I actually like the ebay example better than the Heritage piece. The ebay piece has luster and looks original, while the Heritage piece looks washed out, possibly cleaned. I think the ebay piece is XF40 on detail alone. Is originality worth the extra 5 points? Maybe.

Barry

Could be the photo, Rick. As everyone knows, Heritage's photos stink, and Ira's a superb photographer.

Also, Ira usually sells PQ for the grade coins. This one is a little out of character for him.

SethChandler

Thanks for the thread fellows. After reading this thread, its made it easier to grade to today's XF. I walked into my local coin store this morning and the owner just bought a nice 1916-D with ANACS papers from 1977. I grade it min. XF40, most likely XF45. Paid 3100.00 quite a good deal. Itsn't it funny, one day you are reading a thread about XF 16-D Mercs, the next day, you own one.

Seth

dorkkarl

WOW!!!

K S

lloydmincy

Ira Stein is a great, reputable class act Ebayer from my experience. Tells you like it is. I've purchased a MS64 blast white FB 1916-D from him 2001. Sometimes has his prices a little high, but pays a little high for some of his inventory. That 1916-D could very well be EF45, and it is a PCGS. Seems like the reverse is nicer, but hey, buy the coin, not the holder.

magikbilly

Hi All,

I think it is an XF40 or XF45 from the scan
I don't think I have to like the coin (although it is not ugly IMHO)
I think I see a nice bit of of luster
I don't think it is well struck at all
I think all considered it has neutral/reasonable eye appeal and is at least has original surfaces
I don't think I would pay XF money for it

My .02 re this .10

Best,
Billy