Mercury Dime 1926s altered mint mark identification 0

[Livio Eleven]

In the process of learning how to spot altered coins, I sent this in to NGC - it came back body bagged for an altered mint mark. Based on these photos, can anyone tell me what I should have been looking for to identify the altered mint mark? Is there a difference between a damaged mint mark and an altered mint mark?

 

[GBrad]

I took this straight from our host's "Coin Grading" section.  Damage (often referred to as Details) and alterations are two different things. It is hard to see your mint mark on the coin even by zooming in, at least it is for me anyway.  I can however, see some type of discrepancy in the upper curve of the S, but that's about all.  

From NGC:  

"Coins that have been damaged or display excessive surface hairlines or other detrimental surface conditions must have their surface impairments properly described. This is done using NGC Details Grading, a service performed automatically when applicable. Coins with detrimental surface conditions are described using Details Grades that accord to the level of wear and descriptions of their impairments. They are then encapsulated using a distinctive purple NGC Details Grading label.

There are other coins that cannot be encapsulated by NGC at the determination of NGC coin graders. These include coins that are not genuine or have altered dates or mintmarks".

Edited May 11, 2022 by GBrad

[Alex in PA.]

I agree with @GBrad  There is something off about your S.  I do not know what NGC meant by altered.  Possible changed or enhanced in some way.  Maybe try ATS and get a second opinion??

[GBrad]

On 5/11/2022 at 3:07 PM, Alex in PA. said:

I agree with @GBrad  There is something off about your S.  I do not know what NGC meant by altered.  Possible changed or enhanced in some way.  Maybe try ATS and get a second opinion??

I can only suspect, with common sense as my backup, that when you get into the category that this FB Mercury (The upper bands are iffy but I think there is still enough separation IMHO) would potentially fall into, TPG's really have to scrutinize every minute detail.  The inside top of the S mm looks like it has been pushed slightly sideways and created an unnatural angle of sorts. I don't know, it's just what I can see after copying the pooh and then zooming in. Not sure how that would happen on an otherwise fairly flawless coin. That would be one incredibly unlucky "hit" right there inside the mm if that is the case.  I agree with Alex about maybe getting a second opinion. 

[Alex in PA.]

On 5/11/2022 at 3:30 PM, GBrad said:

the S mm looks like it has been pushed slightly sideways and created an unnatural angle of sorts

I agree and that's what I thought I was seeing.  Very strange.

[Livio Eleven]

I agree that the top of the S seems off. Thing is, it's clearly not been added and seems more like it might have a ding on the S. It does have the appearance of having been cleaned perhaps, but even under magnification, it appears to be a genuine S mint mark. I feel like it might deserve a details grade but I don't know enough about altered mint marks to be confident....

[RWB]

Here are four sample 1926-S mintmark positions. Notice also the mintmark font.

Here is the OP's mintmark to the same scale:

Edited May 11, 2022 by RWB

[RWB]

The location does not seem to match other S mintmarks. Irregularities suggest possible alteration of a D to an S, but higher resolution images are necessary for a clearer determination.

[Woods020]

I’m not aware of tell tale markers on a 26-s like the keys. Never heard of a counterfeit one. But it makes sense if you are a counterfeiter to find a better date worth your time but with less scrutiny potentially. 
 

That S does look wrong by the way as everyone has said. 

[VKurtB]

On 5/11/2022 at 12:07 PM, Livio Eleven said:

In the process of learning how to spot altered coins, I sent this in to NGC - it came back body bagged for an altered mint mark. Based on these photos, can anyone tell me what I should have been looking for to identify the altered mint mark? Is there a difference between a damaged mint mark and an altered mint mark?

 

What was the lighting here? The whole coin looks “off”.

[Woods020]

On 5/11/2022 at 7:08 PM, VKurtB said:

What was the lighting here? The whole coin looks “off”.

Yeah I was thinking the same thing. It almost looks like a vector versus a true coin. Something is over processed. 

[GBrad]

On 5/11/2022 at 8:10 PM, Woods020 said:

Yeah I was thinking the same thing. It almost looks like a vector versus a true coin. Something is over processed. 

Thank you for bringing this up.  I did not look at the authenticity of the author's coin. I was inadvertently focused on the mint mark.

I have been away for awhile, I need to get back up to speed. Not meaning anything derogatory here for the poster of this coin. 

 

 

Edited May 12, 2022 by GBrad

[GBrad]

On 5/11/2022 at 7:44 PM, RWB said:

Here are four sample 1926-S mintmark positions. Notice also the mintmark font.

Here is the OP's mintmark to the same scale:

Thank you Roger for those comparable pictures.  Under the magnification you supplied, with the author's coin and the other S mm's on various coins of this nature, it looks like the last pic you supplied (of another coin) appears to be very close to the poster's coin.  Just my observation here. 

[J P M]

Well if there were only a certain amount of dies made in 1926 then it would have to match one of them unless the MM was added later.  

[DWLange]

Rev 

On 5/12/2022 at 5:58 AM, J P Mashoke said:

Well if there were only a certain amount of dies made in 1926 then it would have to match one of them unless the MM was added later.  

Being undated, reverse dies were used as long as they were suitable, so 1926-S dimes may have been struck using reverse dies shipped that year or a year or two earlier. A good example is found with the 1917-S dimes, some of which used the tiny mintmark typical of 1916-S Mercury Dimes, while others used the slightly larger mintmark newly created for 1917. On coins that have obverse mintmarks, such as Lincoln Cents and Standing Liberty Quarters, this was not possible. That's why both Type 1 and Type 2 1917-S quarter all have the new style mintmark that remained in use as late as 1941 for cents through quarters and 1942 for halves. In fact, the 1942-S halves displaying the 1917-42 mintmark were almost certainly struck with reverse dies shipped for 1941's production or even earlier.

[J P M]

 

 

On 5/12/2022 at 8:06 AM, DWLange said:

Rev 

Being undated, reverse dies were used as long as they were suitable, so 1926-S dimes may have been struck using reverse dies shipped that year or a year or two earlier. A good example is found with the 1917-S dimes, some of which used the tiny mintmark typical of 1916-S Mercury Dimes, while others used the slightly larger mintmark newly created for 1917. On coins that have obverse mintmarks, such as Lincoln Cents and Standing Liberty Quarters, this was not possible. That's why both Type 1 and Type 2 1917-S quarter all have the new style mintmark that remained in use as late as 1941 for cents through quarters and 1942 for halves. In fact, the 1942-S halves displaying the 1917-42 mintmark were almost certainly struck with reverse dies shipped for 1941's production or even earlier.

Thanks for the information Mr. Lange it is always a learning experience when you post something.

So if a 1926 S Die broke it could have even been replaced with a new 1927 S die that was used and just never recorded as such. Like they do with the 38-39 Nickels. The reverse does look a lot better than the obverse on the coin photo LoL So there could be a die that does match this S Mint Mark. We may never know. I am sure the US mint did not record every little thing.

[DWLange]

As RWB can confirm the U. S. Mint did keep very detailed die record books that included the reason for each die's retirement. Dies were shipped from the Philadelphia Mint's engraving/die sinking department when requested by the other mints' superintendents, and unless there was a design change (such as addition of the motto IN GOD WE TRUST in 1866 and 1908) undated reverse dies were used until no longer suitable by reason of extreme wear or damage. In the 1920s, however, extreme die wear was somewhat overlooked as a cause for retirement, since budgets had been slashed after the end of World War I. The result was many coins revealing poor definition on one or both sides. Being undated, reverse dies were retained after the end of each calendar year and are thus more likely to be found quite worn.

[Livio Eleven]

Thanks for all the great responses! Here is an enlargement of the S on the reverse. I think it more clearly shows manipulation.

 

[Coinbuf]

On 5/13/2022 at 8:37 AM, Livio Eleven said:

Thanks for all the great responses! Here is an enlargement of the S on the reverse. I think it more clearly shows manipulation.

 

Yes in this photo you can see the top serf of a D mintmark in the upper loop.

[VKurtB]

Amazing what good photos can show. Photographing this stuff well is not easy folks. It takes real commitment to the craft. 

[J P M]

Wow Nice Shot, sorry it is a bad coin. Someone went to a lot of trouble to make it into a S