Proof Collectors. Help Needed.

Options
Fairlaneman
Fairlaneman Posts: 10,428 ✭✭✭✭✭
in PCGS Set Registry Forum
I received the following Merc from a Forumn Member and after taking a good look at it I noticed it was struck like no other Circulation strike Merc I have ever seen. All Letters around the Rim have a Squared off look and the Bands going across the Facces also have this same look. I just wish there was some way to check the Edge Reeding but this is not possible without cracking the Dime out of the Slab. Proof like areas are also in the Fields.

Are the traights described consistant with Proofs in general and especially with the Mercs? Is this Coin just a Proof Like specimum or is it really a Proof in a Circulation Strike Slab? As you can see the Strike is Very, Very good for a Merc in the thirties.

Thank You.

image

image

Ken

Comments

  • keets
    keets Posts: 25,351 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Options
    most likely an early strike. about the only thing short of cracking it is sending it in for a regrade with an explanation attached. i have a 1998-D jefferson----OK, i know it's a modern----that has fields that would stand up to ANY modern proof. it was in a mint set and it looks like a 1950's brilliant proof except for some contact marks and hairlines on the portrait. i can only figure it was an early strike. they look nice they're found.

    al h.image
  • solid
    solid Posts: 2,975
    Options
    Hey Ken,

    I just pulled out my '36 PCGS PR65 dime and compared to your photo.

    If I'm seeing what you're describing in your photo properly, the "L" in
    Liberty on the obverse, and some of the letters in "STATES OF" on the
    reverse of your dime have kind of a flattish look to them.

    Not so on my proof - all letters are rounded and fully formed.

    Hope that helps!

    Ken
  • IrishMike
    IrishMike Posts: 7,737 ✭✭✭
    Options
    Ken the best way to tell is by the rims. Cut and paste a scan of another dime into the same picture and try to ge the rims right next to each other with high resolution, you should be able to compare the rims. If there is a noticeable difference, then it could be a proof. I didn this with an IHC and discovered that without a doubt it was proof, ask shylock about it, he saw the pix. BTW I know you like toning, but I'd send that one off to NCS, of course I like my mercs white.
  • michael
    michael Posts: 9,524 ✭✭✭
    Options
    to me that is not a proof coin a very well struck business strike with some great charactistics and surfaces though

    sincerely michael
  • Typetone
    Typetone Posts: 1,621 ✭✭
    Options
    Ken:

    Though I collect proof Mercs, I'm not good enough to be able to tell from the picture, though I will check around. A 36 is worth a lot of money in proof. Why not send it in to PCGS and have them make the determination. If its a proof, it will be well worth the money. If its not, oh well, but at least the bet has a positive expected value.

    Greg
  • cladking
    cladking Posts: 30,313 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Options
    No, it's not proof. A proof will have square rims from multiple strikings.
    Also the die is worn more than most all proof dies.
    tempus fugit extra philosophiam.
  • Cocoinut
    Cocoinut Posts: 2,556 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Options
    Ken,

    It doesn't appear to have the surfaces of a proof, but the'36 proofs I've seen generally aren't as flashy as the later dates. I have all but one of the dates from '37-'42 in proof, and can tell you that some elements of the design are frequently almost polished off the die. For instance, the designer's monogram is sharper on your coin than on my '37 and '38 proofs, which barely show the left stroke of the "W". Also on those two proofs, the right crossbar of the second "T" in the word "Trust" is shorter than the left side. I don't know if that's how all '36-'38 proofs are, though. Does anyone have proofs from those years that don't show those weaknesses?

    Jim
    Countdown to completion of my Mercury Set: 1 coin. My growing Lincoln Set: Finally completed!
  • solid
    solid Posts: 2,975
    Options
    Jim,

    I took a look at my proofs for the characteristics you mentioned:

    1936 strong T strong AW
    1937 weak T weak AW (just as you described)
    1938 strong T strong AW
    1939 weak T strong AW (the T is short on the right side, just like the '37)
    1940 strong T strong AW
    1941 strong T strong AW
    1942 strong T strong AW

    On a side note, I have a 1938 Proof WL 50c with the AW initials completely missing.

    Ken
  • DIMEMAN
    DIMEMAN Posts: 22,403 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Options

    Ken,

    It doesn't look like a proof to me either. Just a real nice strike and real nice surface's(sp).

    I will try to look at mine and compare. I have them all somewhere!

    Jon

Categories