Counterfeit Detection Alert: 264,000 Minted . . . 500,000 Known to Exist!
PCGS
- January 25, 2000
Just looking at the obverse arouses no
suspicions, but the reverse can be
a snake pit of deception
The 1916-D dime is one of the most carefully scrutinized coins in the world. It's not like a Bust half-dollar that's being studied for die varieties; instead, students of numismatics are always looking for diagnostics that will answer the question of genuine versus counterfeit. Here are two Mercury dimes that were submitted for PCGS grading and authentication. Neither coin is genuine.
Here is what to look for on an authentic 1916-D dime. The genuine rnintmark is boxy and squared-off, and was made from the same punch that was used for the 1914-D cent. The inside of the "D" is triangular in shape, and the serifs are not pointed. The mintmark stands tall and is crisp and well-defined. Of the four reverse dies that were used, two show repunching on the mintmark, leaving a notched effect in the upper left serif. The non-repunched mintmarks do not display the notched effect.
If you look at photo #2, you'll see an added mintmark that is riddled with errors. The inside of the "D" is not triangular; in fact, it looks more like a floral pattern than anything else. The shape is wrong as well, being too thick, too rounded, and too blobby. In addition, the position of the mintmark is canted a little too much the wrong way. There's even evidence of adhesive adhering to the surface.
Photo #3 shows a more deceptive counterfeit. Even so, the mintmark is too large, too far from the branch, too thick, and is not sifting up proud and strong the way the genuine examples do. Also note the pointed serifs, especially at the top.
There is a gigantic collector base for the key dates of the 20th century sets, and all of them are vulnerable to alteration. Having these coins checked out by PCGS is an inexpensive and extremely important insurance policy for the future.
This alteration may appear easy to spot with this blown-up photo,
but it was deceiving enough to fool the collector who sent it in.
This alteration may appear easy to spot with this blown-up photo,
but it was deceiving enough to fool the collector who sent it in.
