1964 Quarter on nickel planchet
Walmann
Posts: 2,806 ✭
Are the 1964 quarters struck on nickel, but the planchet is the size of a quarter considered error pieces or trial pieces?
0
Comments
-Paul
or
Cu-Ni planchette?
Either of them is wrong for 1964, but a Cu-Ni 1964 would indicate either they were testing striking issues OR (more likely) that the clad planchette found it's way to the 1964 press (which was being used well into 1965 and I think into 66)
At any rate, it should be clad not solid nickel
<< <i>Was it a nickel planchette
or
Cu-Ni planchette?
Either of them is wrong for 1964, but a Cu-Ni 1964 would indicate either they were testing striking issues OR (more likely) that the clad planchette found it's way to the 1964 press (which was being used well into 1965 and I think into 66)
At any rate, it should be clad not solid nickel >>
As late as Feb of '66 silver was used but dated 64.
Is not a Cu-NI but just nickel.
The coin is in a PCGS holder but noted as nickel planchet.
<< <i>
<< <i>Was it a nickel planchette
or
Cu-Ni planchette?
Either of them is wrong for 1964, but a Cu-Ni 1964 would indicate either they were testing striking issues OR (more likely) that the clad planchette found it's way to the 1964 press (which was being used well into 1965 and I think into 66)
At any rate, it should be clad not solid nickel >>
As late as Feb of '66 silver was used but dated 64.
Is not a Cu-NI but just nickel.
The coin is in a PCGS holder but noted as nickel planchet. >>
???
If the question is in regards to the nickel/ Cu-Ni statement.
My assumption, which may well be very incorrect, is that the metal struck is not the standard copper nickel composition of the five cent piece, but a purer nickel alloy.
Its clear from the strike that the die had trouble dealing with the hardness of the nickel.
They did some Martha Washington design pieces on at least one, if not more, copper-nickel composition planchet.
Most of the metalurgical experiments were conducted privately by the International Nickel Company, who wanted the Mint to adopt a mostly nickel composition. They had their own trial dies showing company official Paul D. Merica.
TD
than off-planchett error
wuarter struck on nickel planchet that got squeezed to the size of a quarter
The weight of the coin and holder are 35.55g.
Compared to Jefferson five cent (non war years) that are also PCGS ceritifed, this 1964 quarter on the "nickel planchet" is more than .5g lighter than the Jefferson.
This is somewhat odd considering the quarter is of quarter size, hence if it was a matter of a five cent planchet being "squeezed" into quarter size the weight should still be equivalent to that of the five cent peices.
Now I would believe PCGS holders themselves may vary in weight and I weighed a number of holders that appear to be from the same period and where as there were slight variations it was overall consistant that the silver quarters were 1.g plus heavier than the Jefferson pieces and the clad quarters weighing more than .5g than the Jefferons.
None of the quarters silver or clad that are in PCGS' holders weighed less than the holdered Jefferson nickels.
Why then would the 1964 Washington quarter on nickel planchet weigh less but be of a greater diameter than the Jefferson nickels?
The only explanations are metal was loss in the striking (difficult to envision considering the size and reeding on the coin), the holder is much lighter than normal, or the metal compostion is not the standard .750 copper .25 nickel.
You indicate a weight of 2.30 grams, which is less than half the weight of a nickel. It could be an "orphan" off-metal error, i.e. a planchet that doesn't correspond to any foreign coins the mint was striking (and the mint wasn't striking any foreign coins in 1964).
It's also possible you simply have a quarter struck on a split planchet or one punched out of rolled-thin stock.
Any weakness in the strike would undoubtedly be due to the thinness of the planchet. But how about a picture?
and then we can continue the discussion.
I think alot of us here are a little confused
as to what is actually in the holder, and what
the tag says.
This indicates it it standard 75/25 composition, but if you still don't believe it, get a very strong magnet and try errormaven's test.
Will post a picutre over the weekend once I get time to photograph.
Magnet test will be done this evening.
that's what it is, as they are weighed as part
of the determination of what planchet it's on.
I think the confusion is that the coin 'appears'
to be full quarter size, but that's probably an
illusion due to both the insert covering part of
the planchet, and the striking pressure of the
quarter expanding the diameter of the nickel
planchet.
It may look like it's a full sized quarter, but it's not.
that's what it is, as they are weighed as part
of the determination of what planchet it's on."
The weight does not appear to correspond to that of the 5C piece.
Labels have been known to be correct for a number of reasons.
If Fred says it's a quarter struck on a nickel planchet, then it's a near certainty that that's what it is. As Fred said, a nickel planchet will expand to nearly the size of a quarter when it is struck.
<< <i>"OK, if it says "Struck on a 5C Planchet", then
that's what it is, as they are weighed as part
of the determination of what planchet it's on."
The weight does not appear to correspond to that of the 5C piece.
Labels have been known to be correct for a number of reasons. >>
Well, I would HOPE that they are correct.......