Home U.S. Coin Forum

1924-s Mercury dime PCGS MS64 fb

logger7logger7 Posts: 9,065 ✭✭✭✭✭

A dealer has this coin in his case. It looks like it sold at Stacks earlier in the year for $1320 though the PCGS guide is $4350. Is the lack of eye appeal the reason?

Comments

  • pcgsregistrycollectorpcgsregistrycollector Posts: 1,492 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Broadstrike. I would pay more IMHO.

    God comes first in everything I do. I’m dedicated to serving Him with my whole life. Coin collecting is just a hobby—but even in that, I seek to honor Him. ✝️

  • TypekatTypekat Posts: 552 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Wow!
    It is fugly, but clearly a tough coin to price.
    Would a similar &same grade nice bright 1944-d have brought more?

    • Less?

    30+ years coin shop experience (ret.) Coins, bullion, currency, scrap & interesting folks. Loved every minute!

  • davewesendavewesen Posts: 6,673 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 9, 2025 5:18PM

    @DrewU said:
    I believe it’s more a function of the coin being priced as a non-FB error coin since many broadstrikes end up with FB as a side effect of the error. Easy to find a number of 1945 broadstrikes with FB that have sold for a fraction of what they would have gone for as a regularly struck FB coin.

    I agree and also when blowing up the picture, I am not convinced the last digit is a 4

    I have no idea how that got a straight grade without error designation ....

  • pursuitoflibertypursuitofliberty Posts: 7,325 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Very interesting coin. Certainly would be one to study in hand as the last digit is pretty much obliterated.

    I think @DrewU makes a very valid point on pricing. Providing this is a '24-S, the value would be more toward date and error, and not to the FB designation. Since a 24-S in 64 is a +/- $800. coin, the price it went at Stacks seems reasonable ... maybe even a bit of a deal ... and possibly a situation where the difficulty of the date HURTS the premium of the error.


    “We are only their care-takers,” he posed, “if we take good care of them, then centuries from now they may still be here … ”

    Todd - BHNC #242
  • logger7logger7 Posts: 9,065 ✭✭✭✭✭

    This coin has a low certification number which leads me to believe that it was originally certified in the 1990s and then subsequently sent in for the Trueview and reholder. It is an open question on how PCGS would handle a "restoration" request. It must have toned a lot from the original grading.

  • Coins3675Coins3675 Posts: 378 ✭✭✭

    that is an odd coin

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file