1985 P dime 0

[Tridmn]

Curious about the date especially since it's so hard to see. Only used my phone for pics, so times 8 max. Then edit lol. Anyway what are your thoughts on this dime? Please be sure to look at full coin obverse, and reverse? The "5" is way off. 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 20, 2021 by Tridmn
Truth

[GBrad]

On 11/20/2021 at 1:48 AM, Tridmn said:

Curious about the date especially since it's so hard to see. Only used my phone for pics, so times 8 max. Then edit lol. Anyway what are your thoughts on this dime? Please be sure to look at full coin obverse, and reverse? The "5" is way off. 

"So hard to see" is an understatement. Not sure what that little bright dot is in your pic. If that is your coin then even my 20X loupe is useless.

[Tridmn]

On 11/20/2021 at 12:56 AM, GBrad said:

"So hard to see" is an understatement. Not sure what that little bright dot is in your pic. If that is your coin then even my 20X loupe is useless.

Put in wrong pics. That is my bad.

[Tridmn]

[Tridmn]

[Tridmn]

On 11/20/2021 at 1:03 AM, Tridmn said:

 

[Tridmn]

[Tridmn]

Pics weren't showing up. So sorry. Internet issues

[Greenstang]

If your referring to the 5 in the date, that is just damage. Likely from a coin counting , wrapping machine. 
You can see where it has also affected the IGWT.

[Oldhoopster]

The date IS NOT punched into individual dies.  It is added upstream in the die making process ( I think it was the master die step in 1985, but don't quote me).  This means it's not possible for an individual die to be have a number or letter from the wrong punch.

[Mohawk]

I'm with Greenstang.  It's just damaged.

[GBrad]

No doubt this is just a damaged number in the date as previously mentioned.  IMHO, I don't think it is a 5.  It looks like the damaged number resembles a 9 more so than a 5.  Either way, it is just damage and not an error.  

[Just Bob]

On 11/20/2021 at 10:53 PM, GBrad said:

No doubt this is just a damaged number in the date as previously mentioned.  IMHO, I don't think it is a 5.  It looks like the damaged number resembles a 9 more so than a 5.  Either way, it is just damage and not an error.  

I had that same thought at first, but that appears to be Obverse 14, which was used from 1981-86. The pictures below show the differences for the obverse.( Pictures courtesy of Variety Vista) The first is RDV-14; the second is RDV-15, which was the one used in 1989. Compare the "G" to the OP's pics.

The reverse is too blurry to tell for sure, but it looks like the one used during that same period - Reverse 3, used from 1981-85. The usual reverse design marker is the torch flame, but the pictures are too blurry to make that distinction. The fat, mushy lettering on E PLURIBUS UNUM is typical for a dime from the mid 80s, though.

Edited November 21, 2021 by Just Bob
Moved a sentence to make the thoughts flow more smoothly

[GBrad]

On 11/21/2021 at 8:43 AM, Just Bob said:

I had that same thought at first, but that appears to be Obverse 14, which was used from 1981-86. The pictures below show the differences for the obverse.( Pictures courtesy of Variety Vista) The first is RDV-14; the second is RDV-15, which was the one used in 1989. Compare the "G" to the OP's pics.

The reverse is too blurry to tell for sure, but it looks like the one used during that same period - Reverse 3, used from 1981-85. The usual reverse design marker is the torch flame, but the pictures are too blurry to make that distinction. The fat, mushy lettering on E PLURIBUS UNUM is typical for a dime from the mid 80s, though.

That is one great observation @Just Bob.  I would have never thought about this, very interesting and informative. Thank you for bringing that to attention here.  I do know that a lot of the dimes I look at do have that very mushy rounded look to a lot of their letters but never equated it to different dies, learn something new everyday.  Any chance the op's coin is just a result of a slap worn out die thus causing the extra thickness and fatness on IGWT?