1942/1-D Dime

[BIGTEE44]

Is this one of them?

[WoodenJefferson]

yes

[yonico]

Yep, looks like it to me..

[JIM F.]

sure

[BIGTEE44]

Best $1.60 I've ever spent!

[yonico]

Best $1.60 I've ever spent!

 

 

[Kurtdog]

Best $1.60 I've ever spent!

I don't understand that. You paid just over melt for it. What are you seeing that makes you think it should retail for more? This doesn't look anything like the 2/1s I've seen.

[MarkFeld]

Best $1.60 I've ever spent!

I don't understand that. You paid just over melt for it. What are you seeing that makes you think it should retail for more? This doesn't look anything like the 2/1s I've seen.

 

I think you might be confusing the 1942/1 P mint (with an obvious 1 under the 2 in the date) and the 1942/1 D mint (which does not display the 1 under the 2 in the date). The coin posted looks like the real thing to me.

[ldhair]

Nice find bigtee.

[Kurtdog]

Best $1.60 I've ever spent!

I don't understand that. You paid just over melt for it. What are you seeing that makes you think it should retail for more? This doesn't look anything like the 2/1s I've seen.

I think you might be confusing the 1942/1 P mint (with an obvious 1 under the 2 in the date) and the 1942/1 D mint (which does not display the 1 under the 2 in the date). The coin posted looks like the real thing to me.

Ah. So the 2/1-D is the 2/1-P with most of the 1 tooled-out on the die.

 

EDIT: Well, now that I think about it, not exactly that, but it's a worked die.

 

EDIT: I think I used to know the answer to this. Were all these dates and mint marks affixed at the P mint?

[RWB]

It was simply random selection that paired this obv with a "D" mint reverse. All dies were made at the Philadelphia Mint, then shipped in numbered pairs to the other mints.

[BillJones]

The 1942/1-D dime is not as clear or spectacular as the Philadelphia dime overdate, but it is scarcer. Oddly enough the added scarcity offsets the lack of definition on the overdate, and the two coins sell for about the same price.

[CaptHenway]

Best $1.60 I've ever spent!

I don't understand that. You paid just over melt for it. What are you seeing that makes you think it should retail for more? This doesn't look anything like the 2/1s I've seen.

I think you might be confusing the 1942/1 P mint (with an obvious 1 under the 2 in the date) and the 1942/1 D mint (which does not display the 1 under the 2 in the date). The coin posted looks like the real thing to me.

Ah. So the 2/1-D is the 2/1-P with most of the 1 tooled-out on the die.

 

EDIT: Well, now that I think about it, not exactly that, but it's a worked die.

 

EDIT: I think I used to know the answer to this. Were all these dates and mint marks affixed at the P mint?

 

Back then all dies were hubbed and mint marked (if appropriate) at the Philadelphia Mint.

 

The D mint overdate has a much weaker 1 under the 2 that the P mint coin. There is some uncertainty as to why this is so, since the bottom of the 41 hubbing can be seen under the 42. There may have been some tooling done to the die, but that does not disqualify the die as being an overdate.

 

And yes, the coin shown is a genuine 1942/41-D dime.

 

TD

TD

[Kevin J Flynn]

These are photos of a genuine BU specimen,

 

Can you see doubling on the 9, IN GOD WE TRUST, and the D mm RPM?

[johnny9434]

looks like ya did pretty good from here. congrats

[BIGTEE44]

Front and Back of the entire coin.

 

[/img]

[Kurtdog]

TD and RWB, thanks for those explanations. Kevin, thanks for that BU specimen, it shows off the variety well.

[Kevin J Flynn]

I thought about the 42/1-D, not sure why the middle of the 1 is missing.

 

The center of the 1 is missing, the metal is the same height as the field, obviously it was filled in. The top serif and base of the 1 is visible, therefore the center of the 1 should have been part of the initial hubbing.

 

Theory/speculation. working die was first hubbed with a 1941 working hub. 1 is clearly there, incused into the working die, but shallower than normal. Die is rehubbed with the 1942 working hub. As the raised elements of the working hub are being pressed into the working die, isn't it possible that the metal of where the 2 is being pressed into, it going down and outward, filling in parts of the 1?

 

Kevin

[Kurtdog]

Yes, I think so. Another thing I think this 2/1-D has going for it is we know there's a clear example of a 2/1-P, from this same "manufacturing," if you will, mint. I think that makes it easier to accept this 2/1-D was just worked over somewhat.

[Kevin J Flynn]

It is believed to the serif of a 1 from the left side of the top of the 2. There is believed to be the base of a 1 below the bottom of the left side of the 2.

 

There is a blob of metal inside the top of the 2.

 

When I was looking at this, this morning, I looked for other photos, Lange has a full date shot (page 199), borrowed from Stanton which shows the blob and serif. On the right is a close up photo from ANAAB, the 4 is doubled in the exact same location as a genuine specimen, and on the 2, there is no blob of metal in the top of the 2. It appears there is also no serif on the left side of the 2. If in my photos provided, you look at the close up, at the blob of metal in the center, extend to the left, it would appear as if it would encompass the left serif.

 

If this is true, this would be an early die state that exists without the serif (from what appears in the photo).

 

I can also see and match the die scratch in the top left of the photo to one in my photo which can also be used to verify this.

 

But, this is absolutely the remnants of an underlying 1941 date punch. How you can tell is that the vertical base of the 4 on the 1941 date is 1/3 longer than that on the 1942 date punch for the Mercury dimes. As seen in the photos, the base of the vertical bar of the 4 is much longer than that of the final digit to the right.

 

Kevin

 

[KeyMan64]

I cherrypicked one of these off of eBay about 5 years ago. It ended up grading F-15.