(added images) Is it possible for a coin to be struck on a thick planchet...

InternetJunky

but still have the correct weight? Found a 2001-D that is, if not pretty close to being twice as thick as a regular zincoln but weighs the correct amount (2.5g). The edges are the first thing I look at when unwrapping and this one stood out like a sore thumb. No pictures, you'll just have to take my word. Maybe this is just a common thing I have no idea - but I figured I'd ask the experts.

For those interested in my other results so far ( only have 12 rolls left to look at )

1919-S
1940
1952-D (2x)
1956-D
1958-D

Also, at least one of each of the '09 designs with the Formative Years being the most common. And, (1) 2010 popped up so far (VERY surprised to see that). They must have made their way in the Chicagoland area.

Both 2001-D Lincolns (sorry for crappy images tryin to hold the dinolite and coins while hitting a F11 is quite difficult.

WoodenJefferson

I would be asking the question, is it possible for a proof planchet to end up at the Denver Mint?

ctf_error_coins

The coin probably has a high rim giving you it an appearance of being thicker than normal. The Planchet should be the same thickness if the weight is the same.

commoncents05

If it weighs the same, the answer is probably not. I think Errorsoncoins is probably right, the rims are just extra high making it look thicker. I do have a Dime struck on Quarter stock, which is thicker than a regular dime, but is also noticeably heavier as well.

-Paul

PerryHall

<< <i>The coin probably has a high rim giving you it an appearance of being thicker than normal. The Planchet should be the same thickness if the weight is the same. >>



Agree. If they weighed the same, the planchet must be the same thickness unless they are of different diameter or composition.

InternetJunky

updated with pics

Edit to add: They may be of different diameter because they don't quite line up when side by side.

WoodenJefferson

That....is a significant difference in rim thickness. Do the up-sets (from the fields leading up to the rims) look different than a normal struck 2001-D?

InternetJunky

<< <i>That....is a significant difference in rim thickness. Do the up-sets (from the fields leading up to the rims) look different than a normal struck 2001-D? >>



They look deeper (if that makes any sense?) but not by much compared to how the other coin looked when I did a comparison.

Rampage

Well, the easy way of telling whether it is a thick planchet or not is by weighing it. To answer your question, Yes, there are numerous known coins struck on thick planchets, as there are thin planchets, too.

InternetJunky

<< <i>Well, the easy way of telling whether it is a thick planchet or not is by weighing it. To answer your question, Yes, there are numerous known coins struck on thick planchets, as there are thin planchets, too. >>



Yeah, I'm pretty much sold on ErrorsOnCoins high rim opinion. It was still exciting to find thinking I had something.

Thanks for the feedback everyone.

pakasmom

It's still kinda

ProofArtworkonCircs

<<I would be asking the question, is it possible for a proof planchet to end up at the Denver Mint?>>

The answer is yes, since SF starting making proofs in 1968. Heck, we even had proof artwork dies show up at Denver.

ricko

I have seen 'thicker' rimmed cents before... although yours does seem to exceed my examples. I concluded (about mine) that it was increased rim width. Cheers, RickO