Thanks for updating it. I will definitely view your set!
Experimental 1942 Cents are a fascinating part of our Mint’s history.
Here is another interesting experimental 1942 Cent. It was zinc coated and sold in Heritage Auctions.
mikebyers.com Dealer in Major Mint Errors, Die Trials & Patterns - Author of NLG Best World Coin Book World's Greatest Mint Errors - Publisher & Editor of minterrornews.com.
@oreville said:
Zioins: my collecting those 1942 patterns is to make up for my Mom losing my grandpa’s letter which he saved for me!
Byers: it still hurts not finding that letter!
Zoins: My grandfather was a well known Chemist operating a very successful surplus Chemical Corporation in New York City called Barclay Chemical Corporation back in 1942 and got the attention of the US Mint. No, he never responded to US Mint letter or submitted
I have not acquired more than just a couple of new pieces since 2014. This is an excerpt from the other thread in which I updated to allow you to view my set.
It is remotely possible that the U.S. Mint might have the carbon copy of that letter. Ask Roger about accessing archived correspondence.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
I am not aware of the 1944 collection, but here’s more information for matching things up. NGC authenticated and certified a 13 piece set of 1943 Cent test pieces including one in Antimony.
mikebyers.com Dealer in Major Mint Errors, Die Trials & Patterns - Author of NLG Best World Coin Book World's Greatest Mint Errors - Publisher & Editor of minterrornews.com.
@Broadstruck said:
Is the Philadelphia Collection the Philadelphia Mint exhibit collection of errors which was sold in 1944?
This is very interesting. Can you point to any information on the Philadelphia Mint exhibit collection? It would be nice to attempt to match them up.
@Byers said:
I am not aware of the 1944 collection, but here’s more information for matching things up. NGC authenticated and certified a 13 piece set of 1943 Cent test pieces including one in Antimony.
Nice information in that article Mike. Good quotes from David Camire and Roger Burdette:
Mint Error News wrote:
The 1943 Judd-2085 Lincoln cent is part of a 5-piece NGC certified set and was authenticated and certified AU58. The accompanying envelope is annotated: “Experimental Zinc & Antimony on steel. Dec. 1942.” According to David Camire, an NGC consultant, this pattern for the 1943 cent was “subjected to nondestructive, X-ray fluorescence.” Camire continued that “the testing determined the composition to be 90 percent zinc, 4 percent antimony, 6 percent iron plating” according to the Coin World article.
The USPatterns.com website reports that “It differs from the regular zinc coated steel cent of this year in that the plating includes antimony and iron. According to researcher Roger Burdette, it is probable that the antimony was added to make the coin darker in color in order to make it less likely to be confused with a dime which, apparently happened often.”
@MrEureka USPatterns.com still says Judd-2085 is unique but this Mike @Byers specimen looks to be a second one. Should the list be updated to reflect the two specimens, Geyer and Byers?
"Varieties/errors are not guaranteed under 3rd party certification fine print...
Third Party Information and Attributions. Information listed on a label that originates from a third party (including, without limitation, any information from the US Mint) and any attributions (including variety attributions, reference attributions and pedigree attributions) are NOT guaranteed. NGC will attribute those varieties that it deems, in its sole reasonably exercised opinion, to be major varieties that are widely collected and accepted as legitimate varieties by the relevant collecting community at the time the Coin is graded. New information may cause NGC to no longer recognize an attribution that was previously assigned, which, again, is not covered by this Guarantee. It is not guaranteed that a particular variety or designation will always be recognized, and attribution policies are subject to change without notice. Further, Guarantor's calculation of a Coin's Fair Market Value will be based on a generic example of the Coin at the original grade without any variety, reference or pedigree attribution."
“ Information listed on a label that originates from a third party (including, without limitation, any information from the US Mint) and any attributions (including variety attributions, reference attributions and pedigree attributions) are NOT guaranteed”.
Does PCGS’ fine print have a similiar disclosure/ warning?
mikebyers.com Dealer in Major Mint Errors, Die Trials & Patterns - Author of NLG Best World Coin Book World's Greatest Mint Errors - Publisher & Editor of minterrornews.com.
PCGS does guarantee this, but reserves the right to change/void the guarantee under some circumstances:
mikebyers.com Dealer in Major Mint Errors, Die Trials & Patterns - Author of NLG Best World Coin Book World's Greatest Mint Errors - Publisher & Editor of minterrornews.com.
NGC and PCGS both guarantee what they have described the mint error as…
What NGC does not guarantee is third party attributions.
PCGS guarantees third party attributions but states it can void or change this designation later.
mikebyers.com Dealer in Major Mint Errors, Die Trials & Patterns - Author of NLG Best World Coin Book World's Greatest Mint Errors - Publisher & Editor of minterrornews.com.
Mr. Fred Weinberg has rejected every effort I have made for the last 5 years!
He wants nothing to do with this rare and unexplained Lincoln Cent?
This is a bunch of horse crap!
(Graded by both PCGS and NGC with metallurgical analysis)
Mr. Fred Weinberg has rejected every effort I have made for the last 5 years!
He wants nothing to do with this rare and unexplained Lincoln Cent?
This is a bunch of horse crap!
(Graded by both PCGS and NGC with metallurgical analysis)
@Deannalea1976 you seem to be complaining about something but I don't know what. You have a cent struck in normal composition that was rolled a little thin. The slab label agrees with that. Rolled-thin errors are rare. However, hardly anyone collects them so they have very little value even so.
@BuffaloIronTail said:
There was a whole lot of experimentation about changing alloys because of the war needs. That is borne out by this thread alone.
I can't see that coin being struck in San Francisco for all the reasons previously mentioned.
All coinage dies were produced at Philadelphia back then. Could be that the closest die for the test happened to be a "borrowed" obverse die with an S mint mark destined for San Francisco. After all, the specimen was never meant to leave the Mint. I don't know otherwise.
Pete
Weren't the Mint Marks still hand punched in 1942? If so, then only a MM punch would have been needed and not a complete die. Yes or no?
Jim
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
Thanks to all for sharing this post.
A lot of info contained here.
The '42 P aluminum Lincoln is an outstanding looking coin.
A coin ahead of its time.
Wayne
Mr. Fred Weinberg has rejected every effort I have made for the last 5 years!
He wants nothing to do with this rare and unexplained Lincoln Cent?
This is a bunch of horse crap!
(Graded by both PCGS and NGC with metallurgical analysis)
======================================
What exactly is your concern?
The handheld XRF results are what would be expected from normal cent with a nominal composition of 95%Cu 5%Zn/Sn. Handheld units typically have more variation than Lab units, so the small variation in Cu and Zn isn't likely to be significant. The slab seems to be marked correctly as an underweight planchet
Based on the data and pics provided, I see nothing rare or unexplained. Perhaps you should get it tested along with some control samples at a Test Lab such as IMR (have used them frequently for work and they do an excellent job) or University with a good chem, metallurgy, and/or materials science dept
@BuffaloIronTail said:
There was a whole lot of experimentation about changing alloys because of the war needs. That is borne out by this thread alone.
I can't see that coin being struck in San Francisco for all the reasons previously mentioned.
All coinage dies were produced at Philadelphia back then. Could be that the closest die for the test happened to be a "borrowed" obverse die with an S mint mark destined for San Francisco. After all, the specimen was never meant to leave the Mint. I don't know otherwise.
Pete
Weren't the Mint Marks still hand punched in 1942? If so, then only a MM punch would have been needed and not a complete die. Yes or no?
Jim
Mint marks were still hand punched into working dies in the 1940's, but in Philadelphia, before the dies were hardened and shipped. A branch mint would not have an exact copy of the mint mark punch used back in Philadelphia, and it is very difficult to punch something into an already hardened die.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@WAYNEAS said:
Thanks to all for sharing this post.
A lot of info contained here.
The '42 S aluminum Lincoln is an outstanding looking coin.
A coin ahead of its time.
Wayne
What 1942-S aluminum cent?
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Mr. Fred Weinberg has rejected every effort I have made for the last 5 years!
He wants nothing to do with this rare and unexplained Lincoln Cent?
This is a bunch of horse crap!
(Graded by both PCGS and NGC with metallurgical analysis)
This is a very minor error properly attributed and labeled by NGC. What do you want him to do?
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Thanks for the heads up. I corrected the S to P.
I was talking about the Trail piece 42 P J-2079 Lincoln Aluminum
Wayne
That is a gorgeous piece!
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
So it’s normal for a 1948 D Lincoln Cent to weigh 2.7g and have the variety of metals/alloys at those percentages?
What’s the big deal about the 1942 S -
What about the shell case pennies?
I just love it how this community is so quick to poo poo a new find?
I’m not expecting mine to be the next trillion dollar cent - but jeeeeze!
Why won’t Fred Weinberg even look at mine, but he can authenticate every other off metal error???
@Deannalea1976 said:
So it’s normal for a 1948 D Lincoln Cent to weigh 2.7g
.
no - which is why it is in the holder it is. a victory, no?
.
and have the variety of metals/alloys at those percentages?
.
yes - the MINOR amount of difference from reported specs in this case is negligible.
.
it is in a properly designated holder. what precisely is the problem?
.
NOT that this is the thread for your ranting. it bears no connection to the discussion at hand?
Comments
@oreville
Thanks for updating it. I will definitely view your set!
Experimental 1942 Cents are a fascinating part of our Mint’s history.
Here is another interesting experimental 1942 Cent. It was zinc coated and sold in Heritage Auctions.
It is remotely possible that the U.S. Mint might have the carbon copy of that letter. Ask Roger about accessing archived correspondence.
Is the Philadelphia Collection the Philadelphia Mint exhibit collection of errors which was sold in 1944?
@Broadstruck
I am not aware of the 1944 collection, but here’s more information for matching things up. NGC authenticated and certified a 13 piece set of 1943 Cent test pieces including one in Antimony.
Here is the Mint Error News link to the article:
https://minterrornews.com/discoveries-11-20-16-unique-1943-lincoln-cent-13-piece-set.html
This is very interesting. Can you point to any information on the Philadelphia Mint exhibit collection? It would be nice to attempt to match them up.
Nice information in that article Mike. Good quotes from David Camire and Roger Burdette:
@MrEureka USPatterns.com still says Judd-2085 is unique but this Mike @Byers specimen looks to be a second one. Should the list be updated to reflect the two specimens, Geyer and Byers?
The Zinc-coated Judd-2054 is a very cool pattern!
Here's one that was TrueViewed:
I just came across this:
"Varieties/errors are not guaranteed under 3rd party certification fine print...
Third Party Information and Attributions. Information listed on a label that originates from a third party (including, without limitation, any information from the US Mint) and any attributions (including variety attributions, reference attributions and pedigree attributions) are NOT guaranteed. NGC will attribute those varieties that it deems, in its sole reasonably exercised opinion, to be major varieties that are widely collected and accepted as legitimate varieties by the relevant collecting community at the time the Coin is graded. New information may cause NGC to no longer recognize an attribution that was previously assigned, which, again, is not covered by this Guarantee. It is not guaranteed that a particular variety or designation will always be recognized, and attribution policies are subject to change without notice. Further, Guarantor's calculation of a Coin's Fair Market Value will be based on a generic example of the Coin at the original grade without any variety, reference or pedigree attribution."
@LindyS posted regarding NGC:
“ Information listed on a label that originates from a third party (including, without limitation, any information from the US Mint) and any attributions (including variety attributions, reference attributions and pedigree attributions) are NOT guaranteed”.
Does PCGS’ fine print have a similiar disclosure/ warning?
PCGS does guarantee this, but reserves the right to change/void the guarantee under some circumstances:
@LindyS
NGC and PCGS both guarantee what they have described the mint error as…
What NGC does not guarantee is third party attributions.
PCGS guarantees third party attributions but states it can void or change this designation later.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/275020648480?ssPageName=STRK:MEBIDX:IT&_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649
1948 D Lincoln Cent 2.7g
Mr. Fred Weinberg has rejected every effort I have made for the last 5 years!
He wants nothing to do with this rare and unexplained Lincoln Cent?
This is a bunch of horse crap!
(Graded by both PCGS and NGC with metallurgical analysis)
@FredWeinberg @SullivanNumismatics See above ^
@Deannalea1976 you seem to be complaining about something but I don't know what. You have a cent struck in normal composition that was rolled a little thin. The slab label agrees with that. Rolled-thin errors are rare. However, hardly anyone collects them so they have very little value even so.
Weren't the Mint Marks still hand punched in 1942? If so, then only a MM punch would have been needed and not a complete die. Yes or no?
Jim
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
Thanks to all for sharing this post.
A lot of info contained here.
The '42 P aluminum Lincoln is an outstanding looking coin.
A coin ahead of its time.
Wayne
Kennedys are my quest...
======================================
What exactly is your concern?
The handheld XRF results are what would be expected from normal cent with a nominal composition of 95%Cu 5%Zn/Sn. Handheld units typically have more variation than Lab units, so the small variation in Cu and Zn isn't likely to be significant. The slab seems to be marked correctly as an underweight planchet
Based on the data and pics provided, I see nothing rare or unexplained. Perhaps you should get it tested along with some control samples at a Test Lab such as IMR (have used them frequently for work and they do an excellent job) or University with a good chem, metallurgy, and/or materials science dept
Mint marks were still hand punched into working dies in the 1940's, but in Philadelphia, before the dies were hardened and shipped. A branch mint would not have an exact copy of the mint mark punch used back in Philadelphia, and it is very difficult to punch something into an already hardened die.
What 1942-S aluminum cent?
This is a very minor error properly attributed and labeled by NGC. What do you want him to do?
Thanks for the heads up. I corrected the S to P.
I was talking about the Trail piece 42 P J-2079 Lincoln Aluminum
Wayne
Kennedys are my quest...
Wayne
Kennedys are my quest...
That is a gorgeous piece!
😀
Wayne
Kennedys are my quest...
So it’s normal for a 1948 D Lincoln Cent to weigh 2.7g and have the variety of metals/alloys at those percentages?
What’s the big deal about the 1942 S -
What about the shell case pennies?
I just love it how this community is so quick to poo poo a new find?
I’m not expecting mine to be the next trillion dollar cent - but jeeeeze!
Why won’t Fred Weinberg even look at mine, but he can authenticate every other off metal error???
.
no - which is why it is in the holder it is. a victory, no?
.
.
yes - the MINOR amount of difference from reported specs in this case is negligible.
.
it is in a properly designated holder. what precisely is the problem?
.
NOT that this is the thread for your ranting. it bears no connection to the discussion at hand?