Home› U.S. Coin Forum

I just don’t see how this Mercury dime graded FB

kiyotekiyote Posts: 5,580 ✭✭✭✭✭
in U.S. Coin Forum

Or even had a date put on it?


"I'll split the atom! I am the fifth dimension! I am the eighth wonder of the world!" -Gef the talking mongoose.

Comments

  • COINS MAKE CENTSCOINS MAKE CENTS Posts: 1,829 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I agree that's nuts how did they determine either

    New inventory added daily at Coins Make Cents
    HAPPY COLLECTING


  • TommyTypeTommyType Posts: 4,586 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Must be the lighting angle? ;)

    Easily distracted Type Collector
  • toyz4geotoyz4geo Posts: 1,484 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Surprised it didn’t get details graded for questionable color.

    My War Nickels https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/nickels/jefferson-nickels-specialty-sets/jefferson-nickels-fs-basic-war-set-circulation-strikes-1942-1945/publishedset/94452

  • JimnightJimnight Posts: 10,846 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I don't understand this one.

  • AUandAGAUandAG Posts: 24,794 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The other part must be in another slab................like the slpit CC.

    nah.
    carry on,
    bob :)

    Registry: CC lowballs (boblindstrom), bobinvegas1989@yahoo.com
  • rln_14rln_14 Posts: 686 ✭✭✭✭

    Looks more like a 65 to me

  • braddickbraddick Posts: 24,152 ✭✭✭✭✭

    It's possible the second coin- the one that would then have 95% of the detail was sent in at the same time, within the same submission. It would be dated and thus, being a matching pair, would allow this coin to also be dated. The only problem with my theory is usually PCGS will designate coin '1of 2' and '2 of 2' when my scenario takes place.

  • Timbuk3Timbuk3 Posts: 11,658 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Weird !!! :s

    Timbuk3
  • TreashuntTreashunt Posts: 6,747 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Clearly Full Bands.

    Sheesh

    Frank

    BHNC #203

  • gonzergonzer Posts: 3,029 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @braddick said:
    It's possible the second coin- the one that would then have 95% of the detail was sent in at the same time, within the same submission. It would be dated and thus, being a matching pair, would allow this coin to also be dated. The only problem with my theory is usually PCGS will designate coin '1of 2' and '2 of 2' when my scenario takes place.

    To have a matched pair (second coin) this Merc would have to have a uniface strike

  • Batman23Batman23 Posts: 4,999 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Looking at the cert numbers, this one was part of a five coin error submission and it has no direct brothers to split the diagnosis with. PCGS has some awesome authenticators!

  • braddickbraddick Posts: 24,152 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @gonzer said:

    @braddick said:
    It's possible the second coin- the one that would then have 95% of the detail was sent in at the same time, within the same submission. It would be dated and thus, being a matching pair, would allow this coin to also be dated. The only problem with my theory is usually PCGS will designate coin '1of 2' and '2 of 2' when my scenario takes place.

    To have a matched pair (second coin) this Merc would have to have a uniface strike

    You're right.

  • rickoricko Posts: 98,724 ✭✭✭✭✭

    How that was identified is a mystery to me..... would love to hear an explanation... of the date and the FB designation.... got to be a mislabeled slab.... Cheers, RickO

  • johnny9434johnny9434 Posts: 28,500 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Wow

  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 34,792 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I love that slab more than the coin. LOL

  • RogerBRogerB Posts: 8,852 ✭✭✭✭✭

    From the photos, the piece seems to be nearly "as not struck." Shouldn't it be MS-69 ?
    As for the label, maybe someone was having a little fun with the database?

  • logger7logger7 Posts: 8,589 ✭✭✭✭✭

    It's the middle band you have to look at. Also I will have to get out my Oxford exhaustive dictionary to see all possible definitions of the word "split".

  • roadrunnerroadrunner Posts: 28,303 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The majority of 1916 Philly dimes seem to come well struck and with full bands. Can you prove this one didn't?

    Barbarous Relic No More, LSCC -GoldSeek--shadow stats--SafeHaven--321gold
  • AzurescensAzurescens Posts: 2,763 ✭✭✭✭✭

    It might be the 1919 ddo. Look closely at the legend and motto.

  • BuffaloIronTailBuffaloIronTail Posts: 7,482 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @ricko said:
    How that was identified is a mystery to me..... would love to hear an explanation... of the date and the FB designation.... got to be a mislabeled slab.... Cheers, RickO

    This one has me stumped. It has to be an error label on an error coin.

    Pete

    "I tell them there's no problems.....only solutions" - John Lennon
  • bolivarshagnastybolivarshagnasty Posts: 7,351 ✭✭✭✭✭

    FB = Full Bald Anything over 90% struck off centered considered fully bald.

  • Insider2Insider2 Posts: 14,452 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @braddick said:

    @gonzer said:

    @braddick said:
    It's possible the second coin- the one that would then have 95% of the detail was sent in at the same time, within the same submission. It would be dated and thus, being a matching pair, would allow this coin to also be dated. The only problem with my theory is usually PCGS will designate coin '1of 2' and '2 of 2' when my scenario takes place.

    To have a matched pair (second coin) this Merc would have to have a uniface strike

    You're right.

    SPOILER!

  • BLUEJAYWAYBLUEJAYWAY Posts: 9,429 ✭✭✭✭✭

    2 for the price of 1. Error coin and label.

    Successful transactions:Tookybandit. "Everyone is equal, some are more equal than others".

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Format
SpoilerCodeQuote
Heading 2Heading 1
Emoji
:):D:(;):/:o:s:p:'(:|B):#:*<3o:)>:)
Url
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file
Home • U.S. Coin ForumComment As ...