1937 Mercury Dime Double Die Obverse -- PCGS Should Attribute These

fcloud

Here is an image of the 1937 (Philadelphia) Mercury Dime. PCGS says too minor to be able to attribute for the Mercury Dime Variety sets. After reviewing this coin I am confused as to why they say too minor. It is much stronger than many of the DDO or DDR coins they attribute in this and other series. Please add your support and see if we can encourage our hosts to reconsider this DDO.

crypto79

I am all for you adding to your set what you want but I agree with PCGS that it is kind of minor, I can't even see it honestly. Besides there are hundreds of naked eye varieties that they don't attribute on just about every series. I am sure they don't want to dive down into the depths which only increases their liability.

Racine? I am headed to a White Castle off 94 as I speak. I am visiting inlaws by Milwaukee. Any good coin shops?

fcloud

PM sent

fcloud

For comparison the 1939 DDO FS101 is a coin they attribute, and I believe it is harder to see than the 1937 doubling.

fcloud

Or how about the 1941-D DDO/DDR. Again, the 1937 has more detail.

gonzer

The '37 has much more defined separation, especially the '7'.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

fcloud

<< <i>I understand what you are saying and showing, if they show the count the other minors why not this on. From my perspective I don't think any are major enough. But what do I know from these, it is just to my eyes I can't see anything that is major enough to attribute on any of the high grade close-ups that is shown. There has got to be a more consistent and selective way of handling the series otherwise it seems like it is hit and miss or politics or money ruling the decision making. >>



I think part of it is how someone feels on a certain day. I remember when they decided to not include the 1941-S DDR. It was required for the set and it took me about two years to find one. Only after I sent it in for attribution did they decide to remove it, and PCGS' CS couldn't understand why I was upset with them. It should have never been listed as required if they were going to dump after the fact.

In this case I think the authors of the CPG made a mistake by only showing the designer's initials when they should have shown the date.

If the other two are acceptable the 1937 should be, too.

bolivarshagnasty

Below is another example of the variety. As fcloud and other Mercury enthusiasts know, I was caught up in the "too minor" decision after investing in this variety. Compared to
other varieties in this and other series, it is in my opinion that this variety should be recognized by PCGS.

MsMorrisine

How many ddo do they currently recognize?

fcloud

<< <i>How many ddo do they currently recognize? >>



This is the current list. The 1945 can almost be seen with a microscope. There is stronger 1945, but they don't recognize that one either.

1929-S
1931-D
1931-S
1936
1937-S
1939
1940-S DDO/DDR
1941
1941-D DDO/DDR
1942/41
1942/41-D
1945

MsMorrisine

Not a "slim" number.

Lobbying with pictures may get it, may get some removed.

Do you have any other set collectors with you?

fcloud

<< <i>Not a "slim" number.

Lobbying with pictures may get it, may get some removed.

Do you have any other set collectors with you? >>



I think they are boycotting me because of my thoughts on a certain variety.

crypto79

<< <i>

<< <i>Not a "slim" number.

Lobbying with pictures may get it, may get some removed.

Do you have any other set collectors with you? >>



I think they are boycotting me because of my thoughts on a certain variety. >>



And I thought trade dollar guys were mean!

copperhunter

I agree that the '37 DDO attribution should be recognized here. I think that this goes on in other series, and these are pegged to the CP publication. As an example of many, there are many other lincoln varieties ('70 s/s #1, 55 d/d #2, '72-D DDO being just a few) that are not in CP that are quite significant in comparison to some of the published ones. So it would be nice to know the rhyme and reason behind the selection/inclusion of these in the CP, if there is any.

bolivarshagnasty

BTW, This is what a slab would look like should they attribute them. Of course the cert. # would be a valid one.

19Lyds

<< <i>Here is an image of the 1937 (Philadelphia) Mercury Dime. PCGS says too minor to be able to attribute for the Mercury Dime Variety sets. After reviewing this coin I am confused as to why they say too minor. It is much stronger than many of the DDO or DDR coins they attribute in this and other series. Please add your support and see if we can encourage our hosts to reconsider this DDO.

>>

What makes you think they won't attribute it? Its in the CPG which from what I understand, is the only qualification to get a variety coin attributed. Maybe if Ken Potter would have included a photograph of the doubling, then PCGS would be more receptive since they DO rely upon the CPG photographs for variety attribution. Showing only a photograph of the designers initials was a bit irresponsible.

As for getting it included in the Mercury Dime Variety Sets? That's all together different.

After re-reading the text of the CPG, it appears as if this one will be moved to the "Appendix" due to a lack of interest by collectors. (Maybe that photograph had something to do with it??)

keets

This is the current list. The 1945 can almost be seen with a microscope. There is stronger 1945, but they don't recognize that one either.

perhaps after attributing some of the coins on your list PCGS realized the error of what they were doing and stopped?? you can always try some of the other TPG's who will place almost anything on an insert.

fcloud

<< <i>This is the current list. The 1945 can almost be seen with a microscope. There is stronger 1945, but they don't recognize that one either.

perhaps after attributing some of the coins on your list PCGS realized the error of what they were doing and stopped?? you can always try some of the other TPG's who will place almost anything on an insert. >>



I think as far as the 1937 the authors of the CPG chose the designers initials for their image which was very minor. They should have chosen the date which shows doubling equivalent to other coin varieties in the series.

Also, the newest version of the CPG says lack of interest which is code for PCGS won't certify. As far as the Mercury Dimes go with PCGS they only certify the CPG varieties (I don't know if that is true for all series or just the Mercs).

ricko

I can see the doubling on the '37....however it is minor - that being said, I know it is not minor to collectors of these errors...I use the term to differentiate between that and major doubling (such as the '55 DDO).... Still, if I found one, I would keep it and label it... Cheers, RickO

mr1931S

We need a definition of what makes a variety "minor."

My opinion is that if it takes more than 10x magnification to see the anomaly,the anomaly most likely can be considered "minor." I'm leaving some room for exceptions to this rule.Those exceptions,however,should be few and far between.

The 1937 dime that is the subject of this thread is minor variety.Grading service attributing variety like 1937 DDO FS-101 accomplishes only making the coin sound more important that it really is.More important sounding translates into more important money?

The class of doubling,or combinations of class thereof,should definitely appear on the holder with designations like "1937 DDO FS-101" if the collector is insistent on getting minor varieties like this attributed and in a TPG holder.

The real question is will the collector be willing to pay more to the grading service for attributing minor varieties like 1937 DDO FS-101 if the class of doubling were to be put on the holder?

fcloud

<< <i>We need a definition of what makes a variety "minor."

My opinion is that if it takes more than 10x magnification to see the anomaly,the anomaly most likely can be considered "minor." I'm leaving some room for exceptions to this rule.Those exceptions,however,should be few and far between.

The 1937 dime that is the subject of this thread is minor variety.Grading service attributing variety like 1937 DDO FS-101 accomplishes only making the coin sound more important that it really is.More important sounding translates into more important money?

The class of doubling,or combinations of class thereof,should definitely appear on the holder with designations like "1937 DDO FS-101" if the collector is insistent on getting minor varieties like this attributed and in a TPG holder.

The real question is will the collector be willing to pay more to the grading service for attributing minor varieties like 1937 DDO FS-101 if the class of doubling were to be put on the holder? >>



Based on your suggestion even the 1942/41-D would be considered minor, and you could throw out 95% of all varieties currently attributed by PCGS.

fcloud

One more comment. Has everyone seen what they attribute for the MN State Quarters?

mr1931S

<< We need a definition of what makes a variety "minor."

My opinion is that if it takes more than 10x magnification to see the anomaly,the anomaly most likely can be considered "minor." I'm leaving some room for exceptions to this rule.Those exceptions,however,should be few and far between.

The 1937 dime that is the subject of this thread is minor variety.Grading service attributing variety like 1937 DDO FS-101 accomplishes only making the coin sound more important that it really is.More important sounding translates into more important money?

The class of doubling,or combinations of class thereof,should definitely appear on the holder with designations like "1937 DDO FS-101" if the collector is insistent on getting minor varieties like this attributed and in a TPG holder.

The real question is will the collector be willing to pay more to the grading service for attributing minor varieties like 1937 DDO FS-101 if the class of doubling were to be put on the holder? >>

Based on your suggestion even the 1942/41-D would be considered minor, and you could throw out 95% of all varieties currently attributed by PCGS.

I'm thinking the 1942/41-D can easily be seen with 10x magnification or less.As for 95% throwing out I can't comment on that since I have no idea if you are correct about this or not.

How much magnification are you using in the image showing the date area of your 1937 dime? Would you be willing to pay more money to PCGS if they were to put one or more of the nine classes of die doubling on the holder for your 1937 DDO FS-101 dime?

fcloud

Simply. Yes. I paid a premium for the coin even though it is not attributed. The coin is a DDO all day long. As far as magnification you can see the variety with a 10x. The image through the microscope is at 20X, and the image size is 4MP. The photo size isn't relevant because it can be seen with a 10x as stated earlier. It is very easy to see at the top of the 9, 3, and 7.

Also, note these are dimes. It is not a Morgan or larger coin where the size of the coin makes it easier to see. I understand some people think it needs to be as wild as the 1955 cent, but the simple fact is many coins with lesser doubling are considered acceptable in which this coin is in the range of. If there was only doubling on the initials as they showed in the CPG 4th ed., I would be completely in agreement that this should not be allowed; however, it is the same or better than many variety coins PCGS already slabs.