By Jack D. Young, Early American Coppers (EAC), and the Dark Side Group ……
A friend and I were discussing topics for another article on counterfeits recently and he suggested the 1916-D Mercury “Merc” Dime as a possible subject. His comment was along the lines “I’m seeing lots more 1916-D dime fakes. And now we also deal with altered dates, replicas, et cetera.” I agreed, as I have a fairly lengthy file of bad examples in various states!
Just a note, NGC, which has published a large number of counterfeit articles, lists the ‘16-D as the second-most counterfeited coin in their Top 50 U.S. Coins, just behind the 1909-S V.D.B. Lincoln Wheat Cent.
So on with the article!
One of my latest articles for CoinWeek was about counterfeiters using GreatCollection’s auction labels for added credibility to their bad coins. A counterfeit 1916-D Mercury Dime in a fake PCGS holder is shown with a GC label from a genuine 1926-D dime auction. This same “coin” was the subject of the CoinWeek article so it’s a good choice to start off this one.
The original eBay listing:
A rather poor choice for the counterfeiters, as the PCGS certification number used shows a link to the genuine example sold in a past Heritage auction:
Comparison images of this listed example and a genuine penny show this as a bad miss (or mess!). You can even see the counterfeit’s stuck-on GC label (genuine specimen on the right):
It is quickly apparent that the bad slab coin is suspect, but what about the “coin” itself? I cut the reverse image from the listing and reoriented it for a better comparison view below.
As I always say when reviewing a subject coin, ATTRIBUTION is the key. With help from a few friends, I pulled this template together of the four known reverses/mintmark positions and shapes for use in evaluation of the ’16-D. I have added this example in the middle of the template for a solid comparison of “good versus bad”.
At a glance, this one is confirmed NG; eBay actually removed this listing at the time as bad, as well.
OK, so a current counterfeit coin in a current counterfeit TPG holder and a stuck-on GC label… pretty much all the bells and whistles on this one. What next?
How about an actual replica?
Sidenote: I know (and am occasionally guilty of) the word “counterfeit” is used to describe various bad coins so excuse me if I refer to this next one as “counterfeit”, as well. Language in U.S. counterfeit law speaks to the “intent” to defraud, and this one appears to have been altered (removed “OPY”) in an attempt to meet that criteria.
Maybe a little pricy for a raw example, certainly too much for this one!
I notified both the ‘Bay and the seller; can’t speak to what he was thinking. “Electron microscope”?
So, on to another “type”. While this one is a genuine coin, it is NOT a genuine 1916-D Merc. A friend purchased it knowing what it is and posted pictures in one of the Facebook groups of which I am a member.
And the last “type” for discussion: the dreaded “added mint-mark”. The eBay seller knew what he had, and in hindsight, I wish I had purchased it myself!
The seller’s images:
How does the mintmark look in my template? Kind of like a blob!
The TPG certainly didn’t like it:
And so ends another episode of Fun With Fakes. It is getting really hard to keep up with all the ways scammers and their like continue to challenge the Hobby.
Best as Always from the Dark Side Group and Fun with Fakes,
—Jack
Beyond the Fake 1916-D Mercury Dime – Other Articles on Counterfeit Coins by Jack D. Young
* * *
That was a very interesting article. I did not realize that was the first coin to have in God we trust. I am fairly new at coin collecting and enjoy learning about the old coins.