1942 / 41 D 1 1

[Stagecoach_Rider]

Can anyone tell me if this is a 1942 over 41 D mercury dime, and why or why not ?

Thanks

 

[cobymordet]

On 4/9/2024 at 2:13 PM, Stagecoach_Rider said:

Can anyone tell me if this is a 1942 over 41 D mercury dime, and why or why not ?

Thanks

 

Hi, I think it is close to the (CONECA: DDO-001).  The 1 is a bit hard to see, but the top of the 1 can be seen popping up over the 2.

More opinions will soon appear, hopefully you will have a consensus.  If possible, please provide a cropped and clear photo of both  the Obverse and Reverse.  It helps to identify the coin better.

Below is the photo on the NGC Variety Plus site):

[Greenstang]

There are two types of 42/41 dime varieties. Yours is the the D mint variety

As mentioned, always supply a complete photo of both sides along with your closeup.

Edited April 9 by Greenstang

[Sandon]

   Based on the photo, this coin does appear to be a 1942-D, 2 over 1, "Mercury" dime, but I would also appreciate seeing photos of each full side of the coin. 

   Both the 1942, 2 over 1 variety and the less obvious 1942-D, 2 over 1 variety were presumably created accidentally at the Philadelphia mint late in 1941 when dies for both years were being prepared, and obverse dies that had received blows from a 1941 dated hub then received blows from a 1942 dated hub.  The "4" on the 1942 dated hub was had a slightly different shape with a longer upright and appears doubled on both coins. These varieties have been classified as doubled dies as well as overdates, although a doubled die typically results from blows to create a die by the same hub in different positions.

[Stagecoach_Rider]

Thank you for all the responses. My apologies for not including full coin images. I am including them with this reply. I submitted this coin for grading as a 42/41 D and it came back as a 42 D. I just wanted to see if my eyes were playing tricks on me or what, and to decide if I should spend more money to have it regraded. I have included the NGC image as well. Perhaps I submitted them incorrectly as Mercury 10c 1942 / 41 mint error ..... Is this incorrect ?

 

Thanks Everyone

[Sandon]

   An overdate (or a doubled die) is categorized as a die variety, not as a mint error, so you should have checked "VarietyPlus" on the submission form, not "Mint Error". See Variety vs. Mint Error | NGC (ngccoin.com). You should always check "VarietyPlus", which lists all of the known varieties that NGC will attribute, before submitting, and note the variety on the submission form. 

   I think it was unfair for NGC not to attribute this coin just because the wrong box was checked (if that is what happened), as you paid the same $18 fee.  I recommend contacting NGC customer service to see if any accommodation can be made. You should be able to resubmit the coin in its current holder and at least not have to pay the grading fee again.

   Edit: Per VarietyPlus, there is no fee required to attribute the 1942-D, 2 over 1 "Mercury" dime, so you should be able to argue that the coin should have been attributed as part of the grading process and the label should be corrected without charge. See Mercury Dimes (1916-1945) | VarietyPlus® | NGC (ngccoin.com).  

   In the future, please crop your photos so they give us a better view of the coin and show as little as possible of the surrounding surface, like these photos of an example of the (Philadelphia) 1942, 2 over 1.

Edited April 10 by Sandon

[Stagecoach_Rider]

Thanks Sandon, your input is greatly appreciated. I now know the WHY it was graded as a 42-D and not a 42/41-D. My lone 74 year old brain cell needs to vibrate a bit faster, Ha Ha ! Hopefully these images are more appropriate.

 

Thanks

 

[powermad5000]

Thank you for the images.

As soon as you said you submitted this as a mint error, I knew why it came back graded the way it did. It is not a mint error, but a variety as noted by @Sandon. What I have learned in my years of submissions, you have really got to be on top of your submission paperwork, as once it is received by NGC, they are not allowed to make subsequent "changes" to it. I understand fully that you spent the additional $18, but I think what needs to be understood here is once a submission is received with the Mint Error box checked, the coin goes to either a different grading table or a different grading room than would be if it were to go through the Variety Plus route. So, once at the Mint Error table, they took a quick look at it and well, it doesn't have a mint error so the coin got graded as a plain 1942 D. Long ago, this coin would have come back with the slab in a separate plastic bag with a sticker on it that would have said "Not a mint error". Nowadays, you don't get that or an explanation.

As far as it goes, I don't think you will be able to recover the $18 fee. You can plead your case to NGC on this but I think you are going to hear that no matter what, you should have checked the proper box for the condition on your coin, and the $18 fee will have to be charged again because the graders upon regrading this coin will have to do the work necessary to confirm that it is of the variety you are claiming it to be. I hate to be the Debbie Downer of this thread, but I have gone my occasional rounds with NGC over the many years of submissions I have made, and I have never gotten an error on my part "overturned" in my favor.

One thing you can be happy about is that it straight graded, and didn't return as Details graded for some type of issue such as cleaning, scratches, etc. I am always happy when my coins return straight graded.

Edited April 11 by powermad5000

[Stagecoach_Rider]

Thanks Powermad5000,

I have learned a valuable lesson with this submission. I just wish it didn't cost me so much, but Knowledge rarely comes cheap AND I am learning to be more diligent in my research / paperwork.

Thanks again !

[Henri Charriere]

On 4/10/2024 at 11:21 PM, powermad5000 said:

 .....and the $18 fee will have to be charged again because the graders upon regrading this coin will have to do the work necessary to confirm that it is of the variety you are claiming it to be....

Q.A.:   I have taken the liberty of emphasizing the above words not only because I find them offensive (yes, viewers, ME, Q.A.) but because I am irate! WHAT PART OF PROFESSIONAL COURTESY DOES NGC FAIL TO UNDERSTAND? Examples abound. True, it is discretionary and not obligatory, but that is why police officers do not summons fellow MOF. It is why fire folks dampen their sirens a few dozen decibels when transiting neighborhoods in the wee hours of the morning. And, it is why bloodthirsty sharks do not devour lawyers should they fall overboard on a cruise ship. 🤣  Professional courtesy goes a long way toward promoting good will and should be indispensable.

Elsewhere, the indomitable one whose biography unabashedly states his [gluteous maximus] resides in the Heart of Dixie, noted credibly (based on hard statistics) that the average time a grader spends on a coin is mere seconds!  If this assessment be true, how much extra work is required to treat newer members with old-fashioned southern hospitality?  Lawyers do not type labels; that's what secretaries are for. Likewise, Graders farm their work out to summer interns (typists). And if they don't, they ought to.

To the OP: Kindly update us on your request for reconsideration.  Fair is fair, and if it isn't, it ought to be. Ricky, Aye? or Nay?

🐓 : AYE!!!

Q.A.:  Good. Then that settles it.

 

[Stagecoach_Rider]

Hi Everyone,

Sadly my request for reconsideration was declined, and I will have to resubmit with the proper selection on the paperwork; at full expense. I'm told that the only note was that "it's not a mint error", and therefor was not eligible for regrading.Oh well, Lesson Learned.

Again, Thanks to everyone ! I appreciate your assistance

[Sandon]

On 4/10/2024 at 11:21 PM, powermad5000 said:

the $18 fee will have to be charged again because the graders upon regrading this coin will have to do the work necessary to confirm that it is of the variety you are claiming it to be.

   As per VarietyPlus the 1942-D 2 over 1 dime is a "no fee" variety, an argument can be made that the failure to attribute this coin was a "mechanical error", although the overdate should have been noted under the "date" column of the submission form.  I wrote this before the latest update but believe that this coin shouldn't require a full resubmission.  Did you inform NGC that you believe this coin is a "no fee" variety?

[powermad5000]

Mea culpa. I thought this one was a charged fee.

On 4/11/2024 at 2:34 PM, Henri Charriere said:

Q.A.:   I have taken the liberty of emphasizing the above words not only because I find them offensive (yes, viewers, ME, Q.A.) but because I am irate!

At first, I thought you were irate with me for my comment. But I read your rant and see it is directed elsewhere. While I agree, we all know the TPG's are a business and as such charge $$ to perform a service. I am sure you and I would keep in touch with that courteous side of doing business and that treating customers more like "friends" would be something we would do. We would listen to the issue and determine that money was already paid, and rather than charge more to fix it, we would know that it would be of our better interest to make a single situation right, resulting in a happy customer, which would result in more future business with said customer. And after all, anyone who submits their coins to a TPG is a customer.

What I have noted of most businesses, when they start to get too big, they lose this basic empathy with their customers.

On 4/11/2024 at 3:38 PM, Stagecoach_Rider said:

Sadly my request for reconsideration was declined, and I will have to resubmit with the proper selection on the paperwork; at full expense.

I was afraid this would be the outcome, but at least as duly noted, at least it is a no fee Variety Plus.

[J P M]

On 4/11/2024 at 10:54 PM, powermad5000 said:

On 4/11/2024 at 4:38 PM, Stagecoach_Rider said:

Sadly my request for reconsideration was declined, and I will have to resubmit with the proper selection on the paperwork; at full expense.

I was afraid this would be the outcome, but at least as duly noted, at least it is a no fee Variety Plus.

I am sorry to see NGC is not willing to fix this if it was an honest mistake. It sounds like it does not matter if it is a free attribution the price is the price. 

[VKurtB]

Maybe it’s just me, but I never have seen the OP’s coin as a 42/41D.  Really I don’t. 

[J P M]

The date does look a lot like this one . 1942-D DDO-001 (varietyvista.com) Yes Kirt it does not look like the common one 1942 P I agree. I had to look twice. Maybe it is missing markers for proof ?

Edited April 12 by J P M

[VKurtB]

On 4/12/2024 at 11:50 AM, J P M said:

The date does look a lot like this one . 1942-D DDO-001 (varietyvista.com) Yes Kirt it does not look like the common one 1942 P I agree. I had to look twice. Maybe it is missing markers for proof ?

I don’t see any raised anything from the 1 inside the 2 on the OP’s coin. All the diagnostic pictures show it CLEARLY and UNAMBIGUOUSLY. Of course it’s not like the Philly overdate, but nobody ever said it was. Does anyone really see the OP’s picture as the same variety as in @cobymordet’s picture right below the OP’s. Damn! I sure don’t.

Edited April 12 by VKurtB

[powermad5000]

I think it is. The OP's coin is worn down to VF and the photo provided by @cobymordet I believe is from NCG Variety Plus and is of a basically pristine example, not worn to VF like the OP's coin. To me, on the OP's coin, the left side of the 1 is showing the same marker. The 9 is worn and is not showing what would on a pristine example. The 4 has the tail of the other 4 matching that same marker as in the pristine example. As for the 2, even in the pristine example, the metal of the 1 at the left edge of the 2 is faint so on a VF it could just blend in. Also, the lighting in the OP's photo might be hiding that faint metal of the 1 in the shadows. I think it has enough similarities that would not be found on a plain 1942 D. Just my opinion.

[Stagecoach_Rider]

Perhaps these images, with different lighting might help. These are taken through the encasement and there is some glare.

Thanks everyone !

[VKurtB]

On 4/13/2024 at 1:36 PM, Stagecoach_Rider said:

Perhaps these images, with different lighting might help. These are taken through the encasement and there is some glare.

Thanks everyone !

Yes, that lighting angle does help, a lot.

[Mike Meenderink]

On 4/12/2024 at 8:32 AM, VKurtB said:

Maybe it’s just me, but I never have seen the OP’s coin as a 42/41D.  Really I don’t

It is Kurt

Edited April 16 by Mike Meenderink

[Stagecoach_Rider]

Thanks to EVERYONE for your valuable comments, and what a great job of outlining on the date Mike !

I am resubmitting this coin as a Variety Plus (CONECA DDO-001 [ FS-101 ]) 1942/41 D Mercury Dime

[Greenstang]

Let us know how you made out.   
Post the results  on the end of this forum.