Need your opinion, as you know I know nothing about REAL coins!

MadMarty · December 27, 2003 2:56AM

Opinions????

mgoodm3 · December 27, 2003 3:00AM

Those are cool if real. I don't know any diagnositics for them either.

FC57Coins · December 27, 2003 3:01AM

Those suck - send them to me and I'll send you some Ikes

Jamericon · December 27, 2003 3:01AM

Very nice, both the grade and the look. Dime appears high F/VF, SLQ maybe the same.

Only problem is they appear to have been lightly cleaned. Hairlines noticeable on the quarter and the "luster" looks wrong for these grades.

If they are true, and for the grades, they should be holdered.

MHO.

Placid · December 27, 2003 3:01AM

The slq looks wrong. The head should go into the border like this,
Large pic

What mint is the merc?

XpipedreamR · December 27, 2003 3:08AM

They both look cleaned, and both look fake

Particularly the D on the Merc.

rainbowroosie · December 27, 2003 3:25AM

Both look AU 58 to me..................

Cam40 · December 27, 2003 3:35AM

Not sure about the quarter but the Merc looks fake.
The eye looks odd, the 9 in the date looks wrong, IGWT looks like `In Cod WeTrust`. Is wetrust one word or two.

KollectorKing · December 27, 2003 3:43AM

cleaned, but I like them.

jeffnpcb · December 27, 2003 4:19AM

ACHKKKKK!! They are not AU'S!!! Very nice for those keys! Okay, take them back to the owners and thank them for the photo op!!!!

XpipedreamR · December 27, 2003 4:22AM

Those coins are about as real as Dolly Parton's breasts.

291fifth · December 27, 2003 4:29AM

I'm not a specialist in either series but I don't like the look of either of them. These need to be authenticated. I wouldn't buy them raw.

clw54 · December 27, 2003 4:34AM

I'm looking at a genuine AG03 1916-D (confirmed real by ANACS at LB) and the S in Trust doesn't look the same at all. In the picture, the top of the S is flat and the end curves up. It doesn't look that way on mine. The rest of the letters look kind of wobbly and primitive, also.

jim · December 27, 2003 5:49AM

Not sure about the slq other than the cleaning but, I have to agree with with cam40, the merc is definately fake.

ARCO · December 27, 2003 5:59AM

Not sure if they are genuine, but that SLQ looks beat to SH*T! Harshly cleaned with lousy eye appeal. Marty pull yourself together MAN!! LOL

Tyler

jdimmick · December 27, 2003 6:00AM

They both Look genuine to me from the photo's. (would definitely need to see in person to confirm.

If so, The 16 SLQ has been cleaned but grades in the Vf-25-30 range. PCGS is a little liberal on grade and cleaning of 16 SLQ's but the cleaning might be too harsh even for them on this one, again judging by a photo.

The 16-d merc looks vf-20-25 again, PCGS gradin on 16-d's is a little loose! (this coin looks holderable from the photo)

merz2 · December 27, 2003 6:00AM

You guys have to remember that it was all stamped at different times by hand.Both are obviously cleaned.I'd say they are both Fine at best.I'm not an expert on either series,but they look original to me.

relayer · December 27, 2003 6:03AM

The top one is a quarter. The bottom one is a dime.

mgoodm3 · December 27, 2003 6:04AM

I was looking at a pic of mine of a merc and the IGWT lettering is very wierd on that coin.

Unless of course they changed the lettering.

Bubblehead · December 27, 2003 6:12AM

Marty, they both look "genuine" to me. I doubt that PCGS would holder either one, tho. Too harsh a cleaning, as someone else mentioned. But, nice coins for a Dansco...

Sequitur · December 27, 2003 6:24AM

1916 from PCGS registered set:

mgoodm3 · December 27, 2003 6:27AM

Look at the wierd "split" serifs on Marty's coin on IGWT. this pic is a 16D from Heritage. Looks wierd to me. But, I'm no expert.

MadMarty · December 27, 2003 7:14AM

Well both coins belong to a customer who wants them sent to ANACS. So I guess we'll see in a few weeks.

morganbarber · December 27, 2003 7:22AM

The SLQ may very well be real. Harshly cleaned, but real. I seriously doubt the authenticity of the Merc.

Sequitur · December 27, 2003 7:55AM

The splits in the IGWT lettering is indeed strange. Also look at the position of the top of the "9" -- it sits an appreciable distance beneath each "1." Compare the lettering and the "9" with the 1916 registry picture I posted along with mgood's 1916 Merc -- the lettering is different and the top of the "9" appears flush with each "1." Could be the photo or the strike, too.

Let us know how this one turns out.

nankraut · December 27, 2003 8:46AM

I would not want either coin unless slabbed by either NGC or PCGS. My guess is that neither one will slab due to problems. (altered, cleaned, counterfeit, whatever)

nankraut

coinkat · December 27, 2003 10:04AM

I hope that your curtomer has receipts or cancelled checks... I wish I could be more encouraging.

Conder101 · December 28, 2003 12:37AM

If your going to send them in send them to ANACS. If you send them to PCGS or NGC as soon as they see them they will get bagged for the cleaning/scratches and they may not even check the diagnostics of the coin. So if they come back bagged you may still not know anything about authenticity. At ANACS they will be slabbed if they are genuine whether the are cleaned or not and then that question will be settled.

BillJones · December 28, 2003 2:00AM

For circulated coins like this ANACS is just as good as PCGS and NGC. Their grading if anything is a little tighter, and like Condor wrote, they will slab the coins if they are genuine even if they have problems.

If the '16 quarter turns out be good, but comes back whizzed or with some other problem, don't dispair. It's still worth a lot of money. There is an extreme shortage of these coins available. Collectors learn pretty fast that if they don't have an extremely fat check book, they won't own a "no problem" example. You usally can't dicker on these coins, you just pay the freight.

Need your opinion, as you know I know nothing about REAL coins!

Comments

Leave a Comment