Okay Russ and others that have a tough time with Merc Grades.

Fairlaneman · January 18, 2004 11:39AM

Grade this coin.

This coin was put up on the forum about a year ago. Maybe some remember it. Take a shot at the grade and tell me why you placed the grade on this coin. The obverse photo is not the best as you can see.

Ken

Russ · January 18, 2004 11:45AM

It looks EF to me, but I have to conclude that since it's bright white, it must grade higher than that. What messes me up with these is the wing and hair area. It looks circulated on even the high grades so, starting there and working backward, my eye tells me EF.

BTW, I don't have a "tough" time grading them, I just flat out can't do it! These and Buffs frustrate the hell out of me.

Russ, NCNE

Fairlaneman · January 18, 2004 11:49AM

Russ if you can grade a Kennedy you can grade a Merc. By the way I believe Mercs and Buffs have some of the same traits that make them hard to grade from one year to the next.

Not close on your guess.......

Ken

fcloud · January 18, 2004 11:51AM

Ken, I am thinking AU55. What throws me off is the obverse looks weakly struck, while the reverse looks like a nice strike with FB. Comparing to the AU58 (1925) that I have, my coin blows that one away, but it wouldn't surprize me if your's winds up being MS. (I am sticking with AU55).

(That is one of the coins I am missing!)

Russ · January 18, 2004 11:51AM

Ken,

Anybody can grade a Kennedy. They're probably one of the easiest coins to learn. Mercs have to be one of the toughest.

Russ, NCNE

Fairlaneman · January 18, 2004 11:56AM

Tony you know the deal with Mercs.....Think Luster....

Also think of this date especially D and S mint marked coins.

Any more hints like this and Russ will be a pro at these.....

. Maybe the date strike differences is what really throw people on these things.

Ken

danny72170 · January 18, 2004 11:59AM

MS62

goose3 · January 18, 2004 12:00PM

I'll be the first to admit I can't grade these either but the reverse looks nice and to be FB.

The obverse looks like a weak strike and not wear.

63FB? downgraded a couple of points for strike?

JrGMan2004 · January 18, 2004 12:00PM

AU50, I think I see wear on the hair... but I'm not entirely sure... almost has a "waxy" look on some of those spots... FB if it were MS... of course... maybe it is MS and it is FB... hmmm... anyways, from the picture I would guess AU...

Fairlaneman · January 18, 2004 12:07PM

The dab of tone on her face does not help with this grade evaluation. Look right through that tone and see if you see any color change on her face which would put this coin in the AU class.

Ken

marcmoish · January 18, 2004 12:10PM

Your right - luster is important here - strike too of course - this Merc has both imho I'd say 63FB. Maybe even a notch higher if there is less chatter on obverse center........

Marc

JRocco · January 18, 2004 12:12PM

I would say a late die state coin with a weakly struck obverse. The tops of the letters in LIBERTY show the late die state, as well as the metal flow above UNITED on the reverse. Always hard to grade from a pic, but aside from the weak strike and some obverse noise I would guess MS65FB

fcloud · January 18, 2004 12:15PM

Ken,

Here is my reconsideration. Reverse Solid MS65FB. Obverse--Strike weakness is not taken into account until primo grades, so with that said. The rims look good with a possible tick at the "I" in Liberty. The neck is mark free. The face would need to be strickly a weak strike to make the grade of 65, but Mercury dimes are "Technically Graded" not market graded. So, I guess it could be either an MS64FB or MS65FB. I don't think it will go any higher.

As you know pictures are hard to grade by. If you look at my 1918 MS62FB, it looks solid MS65 with a full strike. But, we are talking a branch mint for yours.

Anyway NICE COIN!

Fairlaneman · January 18, 2004 12:21PM

I wish it was a 65 coin. I have seen MS65 coins of this date that are struck like this but the luster is much better than this coin.

Just for information all of the 1925 dimes suffered from strike problems. To find a 25 date that looks like a 1920 or 1923 would be a heck of a find.

Ken

keets · January 18, 2004 12:24PM

MS63FB.

the luster is good and judging from the appearance of the fields, any strike weakness is due to it being LDS. the slight flatness on Liberty's face is rather wierd, though.

al h.

Fairlaneman · January 18, 2004 12:35PM

Strike on these varies so much and most think a softly struck coin is AU most of the time. With Mercs luster is King then probably strike and marks to determine the correct grade. Here is a example of a coin with a very nice strike for the date but it is only a XF or AU coin because of wear and lack of luster. As far as strike even with the wear it is better than the 25D.

Ken

RELLA · January 18, 2004 4:34PM

Deciding whether a potential slider is AU-high point wear or MS-roll friction or similar gets nasty tough in real life; forget about it on a scan/photo.

In fact it's a fool's game in general but I do enjoy seeing if I can find ways to guess more accurately...

1. All about the luster. Forget high points, look at the flash in the fields...the satin is unbroken from rim to central devices both fields and both sides: MS not AU.
2. Compare obverse and reverse fields...effect seems much nicer oon reverse. Looks like a strong chance the obverse has a streaky/hazy translucent silver-gray or milky patina, but not too bad: Not 66, probably -0.5 off technicals.
3. Technicals 1: strike. Without knowing the series...central weakness on obverse doesn't bother me on a mid-20s branch mint so nothing off for that. Add weak peripheral legends on both sides...that's different, I don't want to see it on a gem. Looks FB though: MS64FB.
4. Technicals 2: surfaces. Reverse looks good but most series the reverse can't win you a grade it can only hurt you. Chatter on the obverse and a luster graze by the Y in LIBERTY...and that haze is probably cleaning things up a bit. No big problems though: MS64
5. Eye appeal. Not even going to try to add or deduct for eye appeal...and even if I did I would say it looks exactly as good as the technical grade (MS64): no adjustment.

so ((64+64)/2)-0.5-0.0: MS63FB or MS64FB...but I know nothing about the series.

RELLA

hoardmonster · January 18, 2004 5:25PM

64 FB...Then again, what the hell do I know. I'm one of the ones that find these really tough to grade.

Fairlaneman · January 18, 2004 8:41PM

Rella that is just a Excellent post.

Basically I grade Mercs from the outside in after a quick look has been taken to see if the coin is liked to begin with. Rims and fields are the key between Mint State or circulated most of the time. If the coin has wear you will see it usually at the rim or field area within this series because of the huge strike differences between the years of this series.

Peripheral weakness is something that almost has to be ignored on certain dates. A couple of years ago Mr. Kritzman sold his Mercury Dimes at auction thru Heritage. The 25D that sold was one of a very few he had ever seen with completely struck peripheral detail with the key letter being the E in one on the reverse. Just find the best you can. Another date that is tough is 26D when looking at a full strike for the coin. Usually either central detail or peripheral detail will be missing. A coin with both struck up is fairly rare indeed.

Enough rambling. The 25D shown is a MS63FB coin that probably would go 64FB if just a hair more luster was present. Strike wise it is Okay for the date and a no question FB coin.

Thanks to all for your insight and posts. I believe people have learned a little about the series with this thread.

Ken

Okay Russ and others that have a tough time with Merc Grades.

Comments

Leave a Comment