Would the 1974-D Aluminum Cent be legal if...

ZoinsZoins Posts: 19,413 ✭✭✭✭✭
edited January 5, 2019 1:10AM in U.S. Coin Forum

it had been certified as an error?

Here's a 1971-S Aluminum Cent that was sold by Heritage in 2005.

https://coins.ha.com/itm/errors/1971-s-1c-lincoln-cent-struck-on-an-aluminum-planchet-au58-ngc/a/368-7624.s

Heritage wrote:
1971-S 1C Lincoln Cent--Struck on an Aluminum Planchet--AU58 NGC. 0.75 grams. This weighs less than one-fourth the standard for a Lincoln Cent, and it is clearly a wrong planchet/wrong metal error, struck on an unidentified planchet probably intended for a foreign coinage. At the time, the United States Mint was striking aluminum coinage for Nepal and the Philippines.

Comments

  • Timbuk3Timbuk3 Posts: 10,590 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Good question !!! :)

    Timbuk3
  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 8,137 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Absolutely NOT. An accidental striking on a wrong planchet is an error. An INTENTIONAL striking of the 1974 cents is NOT an error.

  • OldhoopsterOldhoopster Posts: 307 ✭✭✭

    If it was struck on a foreign planchet, then it wouldn’t be THE 1974 aluminum cent.

    As mentioned in the Heritage write up, the US did strike aluminum coins for Nepal and Philippines. The mint made the following aluminum coins in the late 60s and early 70’s that could fit in a cent collar

    Philippines 1 Sentimo - 95% Aluminum 5% Magnesium. 0.49 grams 15.25 mm dia. Struck in Philly (and SF in 1975 only)
    Nepal 1 Pice – 100% Al. 0.6 gms. 16.5 mm dia. Struck as proof in San Francisco
    Nepal 2 Pice – 100% Al. 0.9 gms. 18.5 mm dia. Struck as proof in San Francisco
    (From the Mint Error Coin News)

    The weight of the 1974 Aluminum Cent is 0.93 grams and I found on Wiki that the Composition is 96% Aluminum and 4% “Trace Elements” (I am assuming this is correct but sometimes wiki can have issues). So if the weight should confirm the 1 Sentimo or 1 Pice planchet and an XRD or SEM/EDS could confirm the Al content if it was the 2 Pice. But none of these coins were minted in Denver, so there wouldn’t be a 1974-D and the only one that is close to the correct size was minted in SF so it would have to be dated 1974-S

    BTW: How could the 1971-S error picture above be struck on a foreign planchet? The weight doesn’t match up with the foreign planchets used in SF at the time (Nepal Coins). I’m guessing that this coin was one of those “special” errors like the 1970-S Quarter overstruck on a 1941 Canadian quarter and not a legit error. Just my opinion.

    Member of the ANA since 1982
  • ZoinsZoins Posts: 19,413 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 5, 2019 5:38AM

    @jmlanzaf said:
    Absolutely NOT. An accidental striking on a wrong planchet is an error. An INTENTIONAL striking of the 1974 cents is NOT an error.

    But how would you know which was which? There are no records of the Denver Mint striking aluminum cents in 1974.

  • CaptHenwayCaptHenway Posts: 26,964 ✭✭✭✭✭

    To the original question: yes, but at a greatly reduced value. Foreign planchet errors are worth far less than quasi-official trial strikes.

    When SF started striking Proof sets in 1968, there were always some planchets rejected as unfit for Proofs. The cent and nickel planchets were used on site until SF stopped striking those denominations for circulation. Everything else was shipped to the Denver Mint in barrels and used there. Some 40% Ike planchets were included. Foreign planchets could plausibly have been included as well.

    Reject planchets from SMS sets may also have been included.

    Live your life in such a way that the Preacher does not have to lie when you are dead.
  • ZoinsZoins Posts: 19,413 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 5, 2019 8:08AM

    @CaptHenway said:
    To the original question: yes, but at a greatly reduced value. Foreign planchet errors are worth far less than quasi-official trial strikes.

    Definitely agree with this. The coin above sold for $8K while they were estimating $250,000 to $2M for the 1974-D. I think the press around the pattern status, the value estimate and the story of how it passed from a Mint employee attracted the US Mint. So it could have been legal but not nearly as notable. Now we have a very notable coin but one that isn’t legal to own. From a history perspective, the latter is certainly far more interesting.

  • CaptHenwayCaptHenway Posts: 26,964 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Yep!

    BTW, SF did strike the Nepal 2 Pice in 1974.

    Live your life in such a way that the Preacher does not have to lie when you are dead.
  • BroadstruckBroadstruck Posts: 28,873 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Oddly I was glancing at that 1971 cent in HA's archives less than an hour before opening this thread :p

    To Err Is Human.... To Collect Err's Is Just Too Much Darn Tootin Fun!
  • ZoinsZoins Posts: 19,413 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Broadstruck said:
    Oddly I was glancing at that 1971 cent in HA's archives less than an hour before opening this thread :p

    It does have Make Offer enabled! :)

  • PTVETTERPTVETTER Posts: 5,185 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I have heard of one …..
    for sale?????

    Pat Vetter,Mercury Dime registry set,1938 Proof set registry,Pat & BJ Coins:724-325-7211


  • CaptHenwayCaptHenway Posts: 26,964 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Oldhoopster said:
    If it was struck on a foreign planchet, then it wouldn’t be THE 1974 aluminum cent.

    As mentioned in the Heritage write up, the US did strike aluminum coins for Nepal and Philippines. The mint made the following aluminum coins in the late 60s and early 70’s that could fit in a cent collar

    Philippines 1 Sentimo - 95% Aluminum 5% Magnesium. 0.49 grams 15.25 mm dia. Struck in Philly (and SF in 1975 only)
    Nepal 1 Pice – 100% Al. 0.6 gms. 16.5 mm dia. Struck as proof in San Francisco
    Nepal 2 Pice – 100% Al. 0.9 gms. 18.5 mm dia. Struck as proof in San Francisco
    (From the Mint Error Coin News)

    The weight of the 1974 Aluminum Cent is 0.93 grams and I found on Wiki that the Composition is 96% Aluminum and 4% “Trace Elements” (I am assuming this is correct but sometimes wiki can have issues). So if the weight should confirm the 1 Sentimo or 1 Pice planchet and an XRD or SEM/EDS could confirm the Al content if it was the 2 Pice. But none of these coins were minted in Denver, so there wouldn’t be a 1974-D and the only one that is close to the correct size was minted in SF so it would have to be dated 1974-S

    BTW: How could the 1971-S error picture above be struck on a foreign planchet? The weight doesn’t match up with the foreign planchets used in SF at the time (Nepal Coins). I’m guessing that this coin was one of those “special” errors like the 1970-S Quarter overstruck on a 1941 Canadian quarter and not a legit error. Just my opinion.

    I wonder how closely NGC weighed that 1971-S piece.

    I also wonder what the official weight tolerance was for that Nepal 2 Pice (or 2 Paisa as sometimes spelled). At the time the weight tolerance on a Lincoln cent was just under 0.13 grams.

    And it could have been a 2 Pice planchet rejected for being underweight and thrown in the wrong barrel.

    Live your life in such a way that the Preacher does not have to lie when you are dead.
  • OldhoopsterOldhoopster Posts: 307 ✭✭✭
    edited January 5, 2019 6:44PM

    @CaptHenway said:

    @Oldhoopster said:
    If it was struck on a foreign planchet, then it wouldn’t be THE 1974 aluminum cent.

    As mentioned in the Heritage write up, the US did strike aluminum coins for Nepal and Philippines. The mint made the following aluminum coins in the late 60s and early 70’s that could fit in a cent collar

    Philippines 1 Sentimo - 95% Aluminum 5% Magnesium. 0.49 grams 15.25 mm dia. Struck in Philly (and SF in 1975 only)
    Nepal 1 Pice – 100% Al. 0.6 gms. 16.5 mm dia. Struck as proof in San Francisco
    Nepal 2 Pice – 100% Al. 0.9 gms. 18.5 mm dia. Struck as proof in San Francisco
    (From the Mint Error Coin News)

    The weight of the 1974 Aluminum Cent is 0.93 grams and I found on Wiki that the Composition is 96% Aluminum and 4% “Trace Elements” (I am assuming this is correct but sometimes wiki can have issues). So if the weight should confirm the 1 Sentimo or 1 Pice planchet and an XRD or SEM/EDS could confirm the Al content if it was the 2 Pice. But none of these coins were minted in Denver, so there wouldn’t be a 1974-D and the only one that is close to the correct size was minted in SF so it would have to be dated 1974-S

    BTW: How could the 1971-S error picture above be struck on a foreign planchet? The weight doesn’t match up with the foreign planchets used in SF at the time (Nepal Coins). I’m guessing that this coin was one of those “special” errors like the 1970-S Quarter overstruck on a 1941 Canadian quarter and not a legit error. Just my opinion.

    I wonder how closely NGC weighed that 1971-S piece.

    I also wonder what the official weight tolerance was for that Nepal 2 Pice (or 2 Paisa as sometimes spelled). At the time the weight tolerance on a Lincoln cent was just under 0.13 grams.

    And it could have been a 2 Pice planchet rejected for being underweight and thrown in the wrong barrel.

    Good points on the 71-S coin referenced by the OP.

    However, I'm still leaning towards the error getting some help from a mint employee working some "overtime" and not a planchet for a Nepalese coin. I think Heritage was hedging their bets when they described it as being struck on an "unidentified planchet". If I could quickly find data on foreign coins struck at the mint, I'm sure their research stuff had access to that info and may have questioned it too (but it was already authenticated by NGC)

    I would hope that a TPG wouldn't make a careless weighing error when authenticating something as unusual as this coin. And according to the Mint Error News, the mint reported that only 2,186 Nepal 2 Pice/Paise Proof coins were made in 1970 (and none in 1971) so there wouldn't be many planchets floating around with the opportunity to be misplaced and end up getting into the cent hoppers.

    I suppose it could be struck on a planchet intended for a foreign coin, but assuming that the data from The Mint Error News is correct, I think it would be a stretch. Just my opinion.

    Member of the ANA since 1982
  • CaptHenwayCaptHenway Posts: 26,964 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 5, 2019 11:16PM

    I wrote up the first two 1974-D dollars struck on 40% silver planchets for Coin World. The Mint told me that the reject blanks accumulated in barrels for months until SF had enough full barrels to fill one semi trailer which was then driven to Denver. The barrels might then sit for a while until the planchets were used. This explains why some 1977-D dollars are known on 40% planchets last used in SF in 1976

    Live your life in such a way that the Preacher does not have to lie when you are dead.
  • cameonut2011cameonut2011 Posts: 6,223 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 5, 2019 9:10PM

    @jmlanzaf said:
    Absolutely NOT. An accidental striking on a wrong planchet is an error. An INTENTIONAL striking of the 1974 cents is NOT an error.

    Intent is irrelevant if the coins are otherwise indistinguishable. How do we determine the coiner's intent?

  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 8,137 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @cameonut2011 said:

    @jmlanzaf said:
    Absolutely NOT. An accidental striking on a wrong planchet is an error. An INTENTIONAL striking of the 1974 cents is NOT an error.

    Intent is irrelevant if the coins are otherwise indistinguishable. How do we determine the coiner's intent?

    It's pretty simple really: any coin authorized to be struck is intentional. Any planchet variations or otherwise that are not specifically authorized are errors. [Although, we can speculate on the number of intentional errors made by wayward Mint employees.]

  • cameonut2011cameonut2011 Posts: 6,223 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @cameonut2011 said:

    @jmlanzaf said:
    Absolutely NOT. An accidental striking on a wrong planchet is an error. An INTENTIONAL striking of the 1974 cents is NOT an error.

    Intent is irrelevant if the coins are otherwise indistinguishable. How do we determine the coiner's intent?

    It's pretty simple really: any coin authorized to be struck is intentional. Any planchet variations or otherwise that are not specifically authorized are errors. [Although, we can speculate on the number of intentional errors made by wayward Mint employees.]

    You're not reading or not comprehending. How does one distinguish between an intentionally struck 1974 aluminum cent versus one that was struck, by accident, using an aluminum planchet in error. Both are made of aluminum, and both coins would have the same date and design.

  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 8,137 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @cameonut2011 said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @cameonut2011 said:

    @jmlanzaf said:
    Absolutely NOT. An accidental striking on a wrong planchet is an error. An INTENTIONAL striking of the 1974 cents is NOT an error.

    Intent is irrelevant if the coins are otherwise indistinguishable. How do we determine the coiner's intent?

    It's pretty simple really: any coin authorized to be struck is intentional. Any planchet variations or otherwise that are not specifically authorized are errors. [Although, we can speculate on the number of intentional errors made by wayward Mint employees.]

    You're not reading or not comprehending. How does one distinguish between an intentionally struck 1974 aluminum cent versus one that was struck, by accident, using an aluminum planchet in error. Both are made of aluminum, and both coins would have the same date and design.

    Don't be belligerent. That intent was not at all clear from what you wrote.

    It would be quite easy to tell the difference if they were struck using a different die pairing. But, in general, it's a somewhat silly question. How can you tell a 1982 coin that was intentionally struck on a copper planchet from one that was accidentally struck on the same planchet? It's not an error if it is the way the coin was supposed to be struck.

  • cameonut2011cameonut2011 Posts: 6,223 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 6, 2019 7:17PM

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @cameonut2011 said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @cameonut2011 said:

    @jmlanzaf said:
    Absolutely NOT. An accidental striking on a wrong planchet is an error. An INTENTIONAL striking of the 1974 cents is NOT an error.

    Intent is irrelevant if the coins are otherwise indistinguishable. How do we determine the coiner's intent?

    It's pretty simple really: any coin authorized to be struck is intentional. Any planchet variations or otherwise that are not specifically authorized are errors. [Although, we can speculate on the number of intentional errors made by wayward Mint employees.]

    You're not reading or not comprehending. How does one distinguish between an intentionally struck 1974 aluminum cent versus one that was struck, by accident, using an aluminum planchet in error. Both are made of aluminum, and both coins would have the same date and design.

    Don't be belligerent. That intent was not at all clear from what you wrote.

    It would be quite easy to tell the difference if they were struck using a different die pairing. But, in general, it's a somewhat silly question. How can you tell a 1982 coin that was intentionally struck on a copper planchet from one that was accidentally struck on the same planchet? It's not an error if it is the way the coin was supposed to be struck.

    My post wasn't snarky but meant to cause you to slow down to think through the question presented. Would an error 1974- D Lincoln cent accidentally struck on an aluminum planchet (like the error coin in this thread but dated 1974 and made in Denver) be considered illegal because of the 1974-D trial specimens that the government has declared illegal to own? If you can't tell them apart, then the coins would be treated the same as the trial specimens regardless of the coiner's intent.

    Edited: Or did I misread or misinterpret your original post?

  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 8,137 ✭✭✭✭✭

    airing. But, in general, it's a somewhat silly question. How can you tell a 1982 coin that was intentionally struck on a copper planchet from one that was accidentally struck on the same planchet? It's not an error if it is the way the coin was supposed to be struck.

    My post wasn't snarky but meant to cause you to slow down to think through the question presented. Would an error 1974- D Lincoln cent accidentally struck on an aluminum planchet (like the error coin in this thread but dated 1974 and made in Denver) be considered illegal because of the 1974-D trial specimens that the government has declared illegal to own? If you can't tell them apart, then the coins would be treated the same as the trial specimens regardless of the coiner's intent.

    Edited: Or did I misread or misinterpret your original post?

    Yes, that was my point. There can't be any error 74-D cents because there are authorized ones.

Sign In or Register to comment.