Options
Lincoln Cent weight discrepancies - please add info
AskRaq
Posts: 2,303
I know the standard weight for a Wheat/Lincoln Copper Cent is 3.11 grams & the two things that cause weight discrepancies (post-mint) are wear/damage (minus) & plating/lacquering (plus).
So, just how much discrepancy would you expect (up or down) in an XF or AU Wheat Cent?
Another question - I was checking the weights on different years to see it there was any substantial change (I checked about a dozen years from '09 through '66 and found that the '43 steel cent is +/- 2.7 grams along with the '53 wheat being +/- 3.1 grams.... why the +/- on these? And does anyone have any idea as to +/- how much?? (I didn't check for other +/- ones to see if these were the only ones.)
Is there a standard variance in weight that is acceptable before a copper Lincoln/Wheat cent should be checked more closely - and what is the min/max?
So, just how much discrepancy would you expect (up or down) in an XF or AU Wheat Cent?
Another question - I was checking the weights on different years to see it there was any substantial change (I checked about a dozen years from '09 through '66 and found that the '43 steel cent is +/- 2.7 grams along with the '53 wheat being +/- 3.1 grams.... why the +/- on these? And does anyone have any idea as to +/- how much?? (I didn't check for other +/- ones to see if these were the only ones.)
Is there a standard variance in weight that is acceptable before a copper Lincoln/Wheat cent should be checked more closely - and what is the min/max?
0
Comments
TD
A coin worn all the way down to AG could go much, much lower with 2.6g easily possible.
<< <i>The 1943 steel cent was struck to two different weights. >>
That's interesting ProofArt, I didn't know that.... were the '53's also struck to two different weights? And are the two different weights known? Thanks!
That's interesting ProofArt, I didn't know that.... were the '53's also struck to two different weights? And are the two different weights known? Thanks!>>
The original weight of the 1943 cent was 41.5 grains +/- 3.0 grains (2.689 grams +/- .194 grams)
On May 15, 1943 this was changed to 42.5 grains +/- 3.5 grains. (2.754 grams +/- .227 grams)
Combining the two, an original 1943 cent could range from 2.459 grams to 2.981 grams and still meet specs.
I used the 1962 Mint Report to extract thes figures. I think any mint report would verify these 1943 numbers.
What happened in 1953?
<< <i>
<< <i>The 1943 steel cent was struck to two different weights. >>
That's interesting ProofArt, I didn't know that.... were the '53's also struck to two different weights? And are the two different weights known? Thanks! >>
No change in specs in 1953.
<< <i>
What happened in 1953? >>
I don't know... that's why I was asking? I just noticed when I was checking on PCGS/CoinFacts for these years that 1953 was also listed as +/- (just like the 1943)... was wondering why myself - thought someone here may know??
I couldn't find that section of Coin Facts. I wonder if they were indicating nominal weight and pointing out there was a tolerance involved. That would apply to every year though.
<< <i><<I don't know... that's why I was asking? I just noticed when I was checking on PCGS/CoinFacts for these years that 1953 was also listed as +/- (just like the 1943)... was wondering why myself - thought someone here may know?? >>
I couldn't find that section of Coin Facts. I wonder if they were indicating nominal weight and pointing out there was a tolerance involved. That would apply to every year though. >>
Exactly. As I said earlier, the weight tolerance was two grains out of 48, or slightly over 4%. When the weight dropped in 1943, the tolerance was close to 5%. That was close enough for government work.
TD
It was worse than that. The original 1943 tolerance was 7.23% and on May 15, 1943 it was increased to 8.24%
(3.5 grains tolerance versus 42.5 grain weight).
<< <i><<I don't know... that's why I was asking? I just noticed when I was checking on PCGS/CoinFacts for these years that 1953 was also listed as +/- (just like the 1943)... was wondering why myself - thought someone here may know?? >>
I couldn't find that section of Coin Facts. I wonder if they were indicating nominal weight and pointing out there was a tolerance involved. That would apply to every year though. >>
Okay, here it is (I must have missed the rest when I was looking at a variety of years??):
Pre-1943 Weight: 48 grains (3.11 grams)
1943 Weight: ±42.0 grains (±2.7 grams)
1944-1958 Weight: ±48 grains (±3.1 grams)
1959-1982 Weight: 48 grains (3.11 grams)
<< <i><<Exactly. As I said earlier, the weight tolerance was two grains out of 48, or slightly over 4%. When the weight dropped in 1943, the tolerance was close to 5%. That was close enough for government work.>>
It was worse than that. The original 1943 tolerance was 7.23% and on May 15, 1943 it was increased to 8.24%
(3.5 grains tolerance versus 42.5 grain weight). >>
No, the tolerance was 2.0 grains vs. 41.5 or 42.5 grains.
TD
.........there were some 1953-d cents that were only 18.7mm in diameter. but they were of normal weight, and the reason for their small size is a mystery.
(3.5 grains tolerance versus 42.5 grain weight).
No, the tolerance was 2.0 grains vs. 41.5 or 42.5 grains.>>
Why does the Annual Report of the Director of the Mint Fiscal Year ended June 30,1962 page 50 show 3.0 and 3.5 grains?
Interesting. I just checked the 1963 and some other subsequent mint reports and they don't even mention tolerance.
I found a Government mintage report that stated the 1943 cent weight was 2.70 grams which matches neither 41.5 or 42.5 grains but is between those weights.
<< <i><<It was worse than that. The original 1943 tolerance was 7.23% and on May 15, 1943 it was increased to 8.24%
(3.5 grains tolerance versus 42.5 grain weight).
No, the tolerance was 2.0 grains vs. 41.5 or 42.5 grains.>>
Why does the Annual Report of the Director of the Mint Fiscal Year ended June 30,1962 page 50 show 3.0 and 3.5 grains?
Interesting. I just checked the 1963 and some other subsequent mint reports and they don't even mention tolerance.
I found a Government mintage report that stated the 1943 cent weight was 2.70 grams which matches neither 41.5 or 42.5 grains but is between those weights. >>
The government used to express certain coin weight in English measure using even numbers of grains, such as 48 grains for the small cent or 420 grains for the Trade Dollar, and other weights in even fractions of metric grams, such as 5 grams for the "nickel" or 2.5 grams, 6.25 grams and 12.5 grams for the 1873 "With Arrows" and later dimes, quarters and half dollars. The $4 "Stella" was an even 7.0 grams.
In more modern times, as part of the glacial change to the metric system in America, the Mint has been expressing its older grain weights in approximate metric equivalents. At the conversion factor I use of 15.432356 grains per gram, the 41.5 grain 1943 cents weighed 2.689155 grams. The 42.5 grain 1943 cents weighed 2.753954 grams. The Mint just uses a round number of 2.70 grams. Close enough.
TD
Pre-1943 Weight: 48 grains (3.11 grams)
1943 Weight: ±42.0 grains (±2.7 grams) - STEEL
1944-1958 Weight: ±48 grains (±3.1 grams) - ??
1959-1982 Weight: 48 grains (3.11 grams)
Would the fact that used copper shell casing were recycled into the 44-46 cents be cause for the +/- for weight in those years? If so, what then accounts for the variance for '47-'58 cents?
Sorry, I can hardly bare to look at these numbers any more.
+/- 48 grains is not proper nomenclature which has been bugging me. It implies the coin weighs between 0 and 96 grains.
48 grains +/- 2 grains means the coin weighs betwen 46 and 50 grains which is quite sensible.
3.1 instead of 3.11 means somebody dropped the second 1 or else decided to go for two significant digits instead of 3.
3.1 does not rule out 3.11. 3.10 would.
At this point I would ignore any descrepancies in Coin Facts data not repeated elsewhere, unless you want to report typos to PCGS.
"+/-" is my substitute for their one character plus minus symbol.