What on earth do I have here? 1942 Proof Cent

FlyingAl

I recently purchased this 1942 cent on Ebay, albeit with some pretty bad pictures. I had originally purchased it with the hope it may be a zinc coated steel pattern. It arrived, and I can say that I doubt it is zinc coated steel. But I cannot rule out a pattern, right? The coin weighs 2.85 grams, which is 2x the legal tolerance underweight (minimum weight in legal standards is 2.98g, normal is 3.11g). My scale appears accurate, and weighs every other copper cent I tested within tolerance. The coin does not appear to have any visible reason as to why it is underweight, and appears to be a normal proof 1942 cent with some strange color to it. I would also think that a proof would be much less likely to be underweight.

Bad photo of the scale

Here are pictures:

Color comps:

The tenth edition of the Judd book states that pattern 1942 cents were struck with regular dies in zinc, copper and zinc, zinc coated steel, aluminum, copperweld, antimony, white metal, and lead (among other metals). Only three of these compositions are currently known.

This coin has a color that isn't anywhere close to any copper cent I currently have in my possession. I have to say that I'm stumped. I discussed it with @Eldorado9, and we both agreed that there may be something here, and that it was worth bringing up with the forums. Does anyone have any information that may aid me in figuring out what this is?

I have three possibilities that I can think of:

Normal coin
Mint error underweight cent
Pattern metal strike

DelawareDoons

XRF time. 👀

davewesen

all those 1942 funny composition patterns had a Columbian Centavo obverse

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1942_experimental_cents

it looks to me like a toned 1942 proof cent

FlyingAl

@davewesen said:
all those 1942 funny composition patterns had a Columbian Centavo obverse

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1942_experimental_cents

it looks to me like a toned 1942 proof cent

Only some. There were many struck with a normal Lincoln cent dies, such as the J-2079–2081 patterns. There are also several more compositions that were struck with normal Lincoln cent dies that are not yet discovered.

TomB

I suggest you contact forum member @oreville.

Eldorado9

@davewesen said:
all those 1942 funny composition patterns had a Columbian Centavo obverse

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1942_experimental_cents

it looks to me like a toned 1942 proof cent

I don't think that is accurate. 1) There is reference in Judd to normal 1942's in experimental metals. 2) There is a known proof aluminum 1942 that was sold by Heritage here: https://coins.ha.com/itm/patterns/1942-1c-lincoln-cent-judd-2079-r8-pr66-pcgs/a/1204-5884.s 3) If it's a toned proof 1942, then what accounts for the drastic underweight measurement?

Eldorado9

The weight tells a big part of the story for me. I just don't see how a normal proof Lincoln weighs 2.85 grams AND has really weird color. Could this be an experimental off-metal pattern made out of a combination of copper and zinc?

davewesen

is 2.85 vs 3.11 dramatic difference?

it is not aluminum nor have modified wide rim

FlyingAl

@davewesen said:
is 2.85 vs 3.11 dramatic difference?

it is not aluminum nor have modified wide rim

Yes, it’s double the legal tolerance. The lowest weight for a normal coin allowable under law is 2.98 grams.

Also, like I said, five compositions we know were struck have coins missing. It’s not a stretch to assume this could be one of those patterns with the weight difference and color IMO.

MasonG

@davewesen said:
is 2.85 vs 3.11 dramatic difference?

+/- is 0.13, so 2.98 would be within tolerances.

coinbuf

Until proven otherwise I think an underweight planchet is the most logical explanation.

lilolme

Here is a previous thread of a worn 1919 at 2.86. I make no claim that any of it is applicable here.

https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1066384/1919-wheat-cent-underweight-2-86-grams-possible-foreign-planchette

ifthevamzarockin

@FlyingAl Let me start by saying I have been impressed by your knowledge and ability to research as a YN.
I have also been impressed how well you have fit in here as a newer member.

Disclaimer:
Clearly FlyingAl has done some research on this coin and I have not.
Photos can change the look of a coin and even the best photos do not compare to having the coin in hand.
I could easily change my mind if I were to see the coin in hand.
I don't claim to be an expert on proof cents but I do have a good feel for Lincoln cents after looking at well over a million of them over the years.
I have been wrong before and I will be wrong again.

The color looks off but it appears like it may have been cleaned/dipped years ago and has retoned.
The weight issue could be a planchet that was rolled a little thin.
While it is out of tolerance there may have been different quality control checks for proof coins.
I would guess they would inspect proof planchets rather close that would leave less room for error.
I could also see where the mint may not be as worried about the weight on proofs because they won't be used for commerce or to vend.
There are business strike coins on rolled thin planchets so why can't it happen on a proof?
As mentioned above an XRF scan would be a good next step.

For now I am going with old cleaning on a rolled thin planchet.
Just my 2 cents

I look forward to hearing an update of your results.

LanceNewmanOCC

i've poked around a bit and really don't have much to offer but there is PROBABLY something in the archives along with a few other members insight/experience to get you where you need to go but setting a few things aside for later submission just to see what happens isn't a bad idea but the more esoteric something is/may be, the more verification of the experts opinions is requred. (illud est quod est, ya know?) at the very least, it may be worth the peace of mind due to the amount of peculiar actions of ours and other mints over the centuries have taken.

that being said, the cent doesn't have any look i haven't seen before on multiple occasions, including the smudging on the rev. fwiw (even on other compositions/denoms)

proof coinage surfaces can range quite a big even for just one year from matte, to PL, to semi-cameo etc. the best way i can describe the look from the coin in the OP is a UCAM/DCAM w/o the contrast/frost.

i like you are being this thorough. it is how new information/examples come to light and one needs a lot of fortitude because most are strike outs as just like in baseball, you gotta go out there and keep on swingin'!

BuffaloIronTail

I'd let Roger Burdette have a stab at it. I think he hangs out ATS. Too bad he got banned here, as he is a big wealth of information.

Pete

gumby1234

XRF should at least let you know the composition. Then go from there. Hopefully you found something valuable.

braddick

I think it is worth sending to PCGS under the error column.
You may have something there.
(There shouldn't be that much tolerance for a proof coin.)

Maywood

Why don't you make a determination on what you think it is, then find pictures of one of those and compare for some diagnostic matches. Also, get a couple images of normal 1942 proof coins and compare diagnostics. My hunch is that you'll find a match like that and the mystery and intrigue will be ended.

ricko

@FlyingAl... I would say, based on information and pictures you have provided, the coin warrants further investigation. Certainly an in hand analysis by other experts and XRF results would bring further inputs to formulate conclusions. Cheers, RickO

Treashunt

@ricko said:
@FlyingAl... I would say, based on information and pictures you have provided, the coin warrants further investigation. Certainly an in hand analysis by other experts and XRF results would bring further inputs to formulate conclusions. Cheers, RickO

ditto, and good luck

jesbroken

If possible, I would hand carry it to a coin show that PCGS et al. attend and have them look at it and slab it for protection. Might even be possible to have XRF performed there. No way to insure it with a value collectible and the concern that may occur with today's shipping. Wouldn't leave my hands. At the very least, you have an interesting and controversial object in your possession. Best of luck.
Jim

Edited to add: I would definitely contact Roger. He might know it's story.

Eldorado9

@jesbroken Makes some extremely good points about keeping that coin as safe as possible.

P0CKETCHANGE

@Eldorado9 said:
@jesbroken Makes some extremely good points about keeping that coin as safe as possible.

jesbroken

The Lincoln Cent Pattern piece J2055 was made with Manganese added, not sure if 6.5% was the amount or not. It may have made the coin more silvery, but who knows what storage container kept this item for 80 years and how it would tone, as their probably aren't any of this composition to compare to. Does the coin have any magnetic properties? Truly neat that you picked it thinking it was proof as it appears to be at least that. I like the coin and its toning. Hopefully you can gain the knowledge you wish in its regard.
Jim

1madman

I have a suspicion this coin is going to be a “tuition lesson” in the money you’re gonna dump into it. But, if it were me and I felt strongly about it, I would submit to NGC and use their Metallurgic Analysis option for $75 (in addition to the grading fees). Get the main metal components listed on the label, then cross to pcgs if you find that warranted.

I’ve struggled in getting pcgs to use the xrf in the past, and have given up using them for this grading option.

I don’t know of many dealers who have the xrf gun to help out, but Daytona Coins is one that does if you’re in florida.

lilolme

Not my area so this is just suggestion. No matter what it is, it looks discolored and particularly the reverse with all the different colorations from almost copper to dark. So could it be considered damaged/cleaned or other no matter what it is and how would that influence value? Would a density check help? If that checks at or close to copper then does that narrow the options?

jesbroken

As I am sure that value immediately crosses some people's mind, the coin's condition, obtainment method and the fact only one or so were made 80 years ago as a trial piece only would be all the reward I would need, so spending some funds to verify it's manufacture, even if it were a thin plancet proof would be money well spent, in my opinion.
Jim

2windy2fish

@FlyingAl just for fun message the seller and ask them the origin of the coin…especially if they are not a coin seller…i have had some interesting answers!

telephoto1

First glance I thought normal 1942 proof cent, only toned...but the underweight and the weird color make me wonder if the pattern theory is right. What were we striking for other countries in 1942? Any chance this is a foreign planchet?

CaptHenway

@DelawareDoons said:
XRF time. 👀

Or if that is not an option, a really good specific gravity test.

Edited to add: Be sure to get all your testing done before the coin is slabbed.

FlyingAl

Alright.

@CaptHenway
I ran a specific gravity test. A regular 1951-D cent ran 8.88g/ml, the 1942 cent ran 10.17g/ml.

The coin has no magnetic properties.

@MrEureka, can you weigh in on the possibility of a pattern/foreign planchet?

Eldorado9

The mystery continues. 1) It's a 1942, underweight, and not made out of copper (given the odd specific gravity measurement) 2) Its a proof coin 3) It's real, not a fake 4) And it has odd color characteristics, unlike a normal copper cent.

jmlanzaf

@telephoto1 said:
First glance I thought normal 1942 proof cent, only toned...but the underweight and the weird color make me wonder if the pattern theory is right. What were we striking for other countries in 1942? Any chance this is a foreign planchet?

Numerous. Some as light as 2.5 grams.

ThreeCentSilverFL

Interesting. Flagged to follow.

lilolme

@FlyingAl said:
Alright.

@CaptHenway
I ran a specific gravity test. A regular 1951-D cent ran 8.88g/ml, the 1942 cent ran 10.17g/ml.

The coin has no magnetic properties.

@MrEureka, can you weigh in on the possibility of a pattern/foreign planchet?

It is lighter and more dense. If I multiplied correctly, then it is about 80% of the nominal volume.

Another double check would be to ask (without me looking it up) what a normal copper cent should be compared to the measured 8.88. Kind of a check of the measurement.

LanceNewmanOCC

@lilolme said:

.
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1044049/usa-coin-specs-thread-weight-diameter-composition

FlyingAl

@lilolme

I think its fairly close. I did re-run the tests a few minutes ago in a different manner that would eliminate some error, and got a 9.8g/ml value. I will state that my method is probably rather imprecise (probably +/- 0.4g/ml, though I have no idea), and I am using it to see if there is reason to send it off for an XRF test. What I really mean to say is that it's unlikely that we could find out what the metal is from my test.

However, what I can be sure about is that it's not measuring the same as a normal copper cent when the same tests are done.

Eldorado9

Normal copper cent specific gravity should be 8.84. So @FlyingAl measurement of 8.88 is pretty darn close. The fact that the 1942 proof cent in question measured at 10.17 strongly suggests this coin ain't copper.

lilolme

@LanceNewmanOCC said:

@lilolme said:

.
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1044049/usa-coin-specs-thread-weight-diameter-composition

Thanks. That indicates 8.84 which agrees with the measured 8.88.

So would go back to it is lighter 2.85 / 3.11 = .916
But is more dense 8.84 / 10.17 = .869
So about 80% of the nominal volume (.916 * .869)

or
nominal 3.11 / 8.84 = .352
1942.... 2.85 / 10.17 = .280 (80% of nominal)

Is it thinner?

FlyingAl

@lilolme

It appears to be a normal thickness for a proof cent but I don’t have another raw one to compare it with side by side so I’m going off of comparison to coins in slabs.

AUandAG

SG shows silver? Wow. Interesting for sure. Weirdo puzzle!

bob

CaptHenway

A 1942-P Netherlands East Indies 1/4 Guilder is .720 fine silver which has a theoretical S.G. of 10.05. Diameter 19 mm.
However, weight is 49.075 grains, or 3.18 grams. In color they look like a dingy Unc. War nickel, definitely silverish.
This would have to be a lightweight foreign planchet that was given a light copper wash. The wash could happen during planchet preparation, OR if the coin was over dipped in used Jewelluster previously used to dip a lot of copper coins.

CaptHenway

You need a precise S.G. I can do it for you if you pay the postage.

DelawareDoons

@CaptHenway said:
You need a precise S.G. I can do it for you if you pay the postage.

Take him up on this OP.

FlyingAl

@DelawareDoons said:

@CaptHenway said:
You need a precise S.G. I can do it for you if you pay the postage.

Take him up on this OP.

I will. PM to be sent.

FlyingAl

Quick update:

The coin was sent to @CaptHenway for a specific gravity test, and he came up with 8.64g/ml, which is effectively normal (though a bit low). My test was probably conducted incorrectly, which led to the incorrect figures in my earlier posts.

However, the weight of 2.85 was confirmed, so the coin is still struck on an underweight planchet. Still a somewhat interesting coin!

TomB

It's still a cool example to own!

LanceNewmanOCC

@FlyingAl said:
Quick update:

The coin was sent to @CaptHenway for a specific gravity test, and he came up with 8.64g/ml, which is effectively normal (though a bit low). My test was probably conducted incorrectly, which led to the incorrect figures in my earlier posts.

However, the weight of 2.85 was confirmed, so the coin is still struck on an underweight planchet. Still a somewhat interesting coin!

almost any reason to work with some of our esteemed board members is indeed a good reason!

OAKSTAR

@LanceNewmanOCC said:

@FlyingAl said:
Quick update:

The coin was sent to @CaptHenway for a specific gravity test, and he came up with 8.64g/ml, which is effectively normal (though a bit low). My test was probably conducted incorrectly, which led to the incorrect figures in my earlier posts.

However, the weight of 2.85 was confirmed, so the coin is still struck on an underweight planchet. Still a somewhat interesting coin!

almost any reason to work with some of our esteemed board members is indeed a good reason!

I'll second that!! 👍🏻 👍🏻

tincup

Might not have turned out as you wanted... but interesting post!