Out of tolerance enough?
Gurney266
Posts: 131 ✭✭
I'm hearing all kinds of different numbers about how many grams out of tolerance it takes to be considered an error. This 1941 nickle is 4.72 making it borderline. Any thoughts?
0
Comments
It's a "nickel" not a "nickle".
Really hard to say without seeing the back. The weight loss by itself is too much to be due to wear. But if it were at 4.9 when it started...
By law, the nickel may not vary by more than 0.194 grams.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5113
Generally, the Mint does much better than the legal limit.
If a planchet is out of tolerance for weight, any coin coin struck on that planchet would be an error. The question becomes, does anybody really care enough about a coin that is approx 0.09 grams under weight to pay a premium (Answer = No)
To further complicate things, your 80 year old coin shows a lot of wear. Maybe the original planchet was in spec on the low end and the extra loss is due to circulation? Hard to say for certain. Another reason why it's hard to get excited, especially for slightly lower weights.
If it was me, assuming the scale is calibrated and on a level surface, I'd put it in a 2x2 with the weight and keep it, but knowing that it's only worth face value. (But I wouldn't bother weighing heavily circulated coins in the first place)
Weighing every coin will turn up a lot of anomalies that are of no interest or value.
If the coin was noticeably thicker or thinner, or it did not fully strike up, a scale might help explain what happened. But your nickel looks normal.
Also gotta be sure your scale is calibrated and accurate... have you weighed a number of 'normal' nickels?
Uh, looks worn and damaged enough to me to warrant a lower weight. What are you thinking it is?
I wouldn't consider it an error,
and I doubt any of the services
would certify it as an error.
I agree.... minor weight difference... could be wear, scale calibration...Not an error. Cheers, RickO
Just a well worn nickel. No premium.