Possible 1918 Mercury dime over a 7 in date

[wavysteps]

Sorry about the photo quality of these pictures, but both coins that I am working with are lower grade coins.

I was approached with the possibility that this was a 8 over a 7 in the date and there is a possibility of this occurring If it happened on the buffalo nickel, why not on the Mercury dime. However, I'll let you be the judge.

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f292/Wavystep2003/PA110002copy.jpg

If you will notice the slight extension on the top left side of the 8 and the straight line on the right side of the holes in the 8, all indicated with arrows. Now take a look at an overlay picture of a 1917 over a 1918. It would seem that it is possible.

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f292/Wavystep2003/7ec1_1_bcopy.jpg

Okay people, what do you think?

BJ Neff

[diamond]

An intriguing possibility. Hopefully James Wiles will poke his head in shortly to render an opinion. Obviously, a clearer photograph is mandatory. It's also the case that we've all been fooled by convincing-looking simulacra in the past, e.g. the 1980-D/S dual mintmark variety, which was debunked two or so years ago.

[wavysteps]

I'll try and post a better shot of the 1918 date.

BJ

[wavysteps]

Here is a better picture of the date.

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f292/Wavystep2003/1918.jpg

BJ Neff

[JamesWiles]

BJ: It looks like circulation damage to me. It is common to see the last digit of the date slanted, apparently from counting machines. It would take a mint state grade to get any attention. I don't think the supposed 1914/3 nickel is legit either.

[wavysteps]

James - I fully agree that there would have to be a better grade coin to start thinking that there is a 7 under that 8, however, on a chance that someone else had something similar, I thought that I would post it. Oddly enough the overlay does match up with the damage very well. But then again, we know how fooling gouges, chips, scratches and such can be.

BJ Neff