1916-D Mercury Dime — Real or Fake
bmahaffey
Posts: 21 ✭
I came across this 1916-D Mercury Dime in an older gentleman's collection. I thought surely it was authentic, but PCGS said it was counterfeit. I am trying to gain some insight as to why they said that. I can accept the fact that it is fake, but can anyone tell me the major give-away?
0
Comments
My knee-jerk reaction is that the "D" is far less worn than everything else and kinda stands out like a sore thumb. I'm suspecting PCGS is thinking on the same lines, too, and believes it's a 1916 w/ an added "D".
Okay, I can certainly see the point you're making. Good eye.
The D is not oriented properly, either. It should be tilted more. Below is yours and a real one.
The shape of the D is always important to examine. It is kind of tall and boxy...not so round. The inside is triangular in shape. The serifs are never pointy. The same D punch was used on all four reverses (same used on the '14-D cent, in fact). Two of the four are repunched with the upper left corner notched.
TequilaDave's observation is very good too.
Lance.
Great question (with a good picture to answer it with), and great answers. It's the kind of education this Forum can share, and why it's great to come here.
Here's a warning parable for coin collectors...
Nicely taught lesson Lance.
Thanks @lkeigwin for the education, I can clearly see the difference on those pictures when you show them like that. So when they say counterfeit, they don't mean that the entire coin was fabricated...just the mintmark was added?
Yes.
Golden is right (as usual).
If it were a genuine 1916 that had been altered to add the D the coin should have been returned in a bodybag with an "added mintmark" notation. Something like the below.
If PCGS declares the coin "counterfeit" they're saying it didn't come from the US Mint.
Lance.
I have questions if it is even a 1916 dime. The reverse is all wrong for a well struck 1916. Look where the Olive Branches hit the bundle of sticks just right of the middle band. On 1916 dimes there should be no gap at all. Go to Coinfacts and you will see what I am talking about. Picture attached of a 41D which looks more like the OP coin on the reverse.
Another red flag regarding that coin is the wear pattern that suggests there was an attempt to "wear" the mintmark to match the coin.