These Mercury Dimes Fooled me on my Submission. Whats your Grade for them? Grades in 1st Post.
Fairlaneman
Posts: 10,426 ✭✭✭✭✭
Straight Graded both Dimes. I will come back with the PCGS grades after a few people have commented. Lusted is Full but Subdued on both coins.
Both coins have Very Nice Strikes and only a few hits. The Subdued Luster in my opinion would not let these go over MS63 and possibly make them MS62. To my surprise both coins went MS64FB. A Gift I think.
1916S
1918P
Ken
0
Comments
62 FB light wipe lines and impaired luster. Mottled look doesn't help. In the early days of PCGS this might have BB'd.
64 FB cloudy and dullish. I'm probably being kind though. Better luster than the 16-s.
I see them both as Uncs though.
58 on both?
Collector, occasional seller
63
64...FB on both.
I like the 1918 so it got the better grade. 63
The 16-S 58
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
AU58
AU55
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
16 s 58fb
18 63fb
Bst transactions with: dimeman, oih82w8, mercurydimeguy, dunerlaw, Lakesammman, 2ltdjorn, MattTheRiley, dpvilla, drddm, CommemKing, Relaxn, Yorkshireman, Cucamongacoin, jtlee321, greencopper, coin22lover, coinfolio, lindedad, spummybum, Leeroybrown, flackthat, BryceM, Surfinxhi, VanHalen, astrorat, robkool, Wingsrule, PennyGuy, al410, Ilikecolor, Southcounty, Namvet69, Commemdude, oreville, Leebone, Rob41281, clarkbar04, cactusjack55, Collectorcoins, sniocsu, coin finder
1916-S Cleaning/Altered Surfaces (they might have AU58 graded this coin)
1918 AU58FB
I can understand the possibility of 58, but I like them as
16-S 63FB
18 63FB
Nice original pieces. The possible die polish on the reverse of the 16-S at first had me worried . . . but it just appears from the photos to be die polish and mint made.
Drunner
a pair of MS63FB
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
It looks like we, and I, are all over the place on these 2 dimes. I will let it go a little longer then come back with the PCGS grades. I will admit I learned something about PCGS grading with these 2.
Ken
62 and 63 for what RR said
Latin American Collection
Hmmm.. I was leaning towards 62FB on the '16-S and 63FB on '18. But looking a little closer at the '16-S I think it might have went 64FB and it's skin is making it look worse that it really is.
So, I'd say 64FB on the '16-S and 63FB on the '18.
I think I am in the AU58 camp.
I think there is a luster break on the hair, but be just the photo!
63 FB on both.
If one graded these by rim luster alone, the 1916-s seems to show more of it. That could be what is giving the 1918 that dullish look. The bundle of sticks do "look" rubbed and flattened down. If that's truly the case, there should be obvious rub down Liberty's cheek, hair, and neck....which I don't see. At the same time the winged cap feathers "look" flattened down as do some of the hair curls.
58 and 55.
58 and 55
Both AU58. Looks like possible cleaning on the reverse of the 1916-S.
Did they come in higher than you originally thought?
62, 63FB
Both AU to me
From the pictures alone:
1916-S AU-58 FB
1918 MS-62 FB
My opinion could be very different than above with an in-person viewing.
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
50 shot 53
55 - Also am I seeing hazing in the fields or is that my tablet? If hazing, it could indicate a more serious issue that my guess doesn't account for.
58 and 63
AU on both, sorry.
BHNC #203
The first -64FB, the second 63FB....Cheers, RickO
I like them both, although the 1918 is better detailed -- and I don't care what the "grade" is.
Concentrating on grade detracts from appreciating the overall appearance and background.
58FB
55/3FB
well, wrong again.
BHNC #203
A gift indeed...you could always send them back for reconsideration if you feel that MS64FB is too high.
BST transactions: dbldie55, jayPem, 78saen, UltraHighRelief, nibanny, liefgold, FallGuy, lkeigwin, mbogoman, Sandman70gt, keets, joeykoins, ianrussell (@GC), EagleEye, ThePennyLady, GRANDAM, Ilikecolor, Gluggo, okiedude, Voyageur, LJenkins11, fastfreddie, ms70, pursuitofliberty, ZoidMeister,Coin Finder, GotTheBug, edwardjulio, Coinnmore, Nickpatton, Namvet69,...
Surprised the 1916 graded over 62 and the 18 looks about right.
I think I'm going to resubmit some of my AU58 CAC key date Mercs. Maybe I can get lucky on just one...it would pay for the whole lot of them
I'm surprised the 16s went that high. The only thing certain though is it can't go higher than 64. No CAC stickers for you!
Evidently "Full Bands" doesn't have any meaning - on your 1916-S the two center bands are separated but just below that the leaf and band are flat and merged. So, the coin might be called "FB" but that doesn't mean "fully detailed" or "well struck." Very discouraging.
Full or Split bands was precisely defined in the first edition of the PCGS grading guide (1997). All it means is that the center horizontal bands have at least a complete separation (could be very faint). The rest of the coin's detail is not in play....no different than FBL Franklines, FH SLQ's, etc. It is unfortunate that full strike (or nearly so) is not any part of the system. Full strike would rule out way too many coins for REG set consideration.
On that 16-s some sharp eyed buyer would likely discount somewhat in price for that diagonal band/leaf weakness. One can decide to collect fully struck Mercs. No doubt down the road such coins will command much larger premiums than they do today. No doubt there are people paying additional premiums that aren't reflected by FB sheet pricing. Those stay among the specialists/experts. The price guides can't cover every % of strike from say 85 to 100%. In same way they cannot cover every possibility of Full Red from 65% to 100%. These decisions are left between sellers and buyers.
Ahhhh...so it's just the "center cut" bologna....now I understand!
Look like a few in my Everyman set.
'16 S AU58 FB, '18 MS63 FB
Louis Armstrong
I'm right there with you. The images make it look like friction/wear on the coin and do not show full mint luster.
I've learned to never say never in this hobby. I seem to recall a thread ATS with a toned Mercury in a PCGS MS68 holder with an old scratch and CAC sticker to boot.
Well... half right.... thought the '18 was a point lower....certainly appears to be 'less there' than the '16. Cheers, RickO
I guess they are really liking Mercs these days. If these were Seated coins, they'd probably come back as XF.
I'm late to the party but let me say WOW!! What a couple of beauties.
Congratulations
Sometimes pics can be deceiving, but I'm not sure I like either of these coins in a 64 holder....unless I were the owner/submitter.
Congrats on your grades.
I see your grades and congrats, but if I sent those coins in, I know I'd get a details (hairlines) for the 1916.
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
"I only golf on days that end in 'Y'" (DE59)
I would have graded the 1918 higher from the images
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Sorry, but I think you were super fortunate to receive those lofty grades. I guess slight wear and hits in focal areas don't mean much anymore. Not even close to deserving them, IMO.
I have been seeing a lot of shotty coins for the grade in many series lately. I guess things are getting loose in the big house. Time for a submission.
Looks like a love versus hate deal going with these 2 dimes. For sure they are not junk but MS64 coins I am not really sure about. Maybe 63+ would have been a better grade for these.
Ken
I agree Ken.....they both look overgraded. Are they better in hand?
Pictures show hardly any luster. Luster is full but not booming like a 64 should have. Contact marks and such is 64 quality. I think it would be very hard to improve on the strike the 18P has. The 16S strike wise is real decent also. The muted/weak luster is what I think should make these 63 dimes.
Ken