Options
WWII and spent shell casing pennies.
Peace_dollar88
Posts: 1,220 ✭✭✭✭✭
It has been said that 1944-1946 pennies are struck from copper shell casings recovered from the war effort. This is very intriguing. Does anyone have any documentation that shows this? Possibly from the national archives or something?
0
Comments
I believe it was a high percentage of brass, and yes if you do a quick search here you will find some good info, as I don't recall the exact percentages.
eBay ID-bruceshort978
Successful BST:here and ATS, bumanchu, wdrob, hashtag, KeeNoooo, mikej61, Yonico, Meltdown, BAJJERFAN, Excaliber, lordmarcovan, cucamongacoin, robkool, bradyc, tonedcointrader, mumu, Windycity, astrotrain, tizofthe, overdate, rwyarmch, mkman123, Timbuk3,GBurger717, airplanenut, coinkid855 ,illini420, michaeldixon, Weiss, Morpheus, Deepcoin, Collectorcoins, AUandAG, D.Schwager.
Shell casings contained copper, however, they were not pure copper... Brass would be the proper term for the shells.....Copper, lead, zinc and iron......Cheers, RickO
In recent years, I believe that the old 1944 'shell casings' story has kinda/ mostly been relegated to the urban myth category. There is one imminent numismatist on this forum who could settle the issue in my mind, should he care to comment.
Not a myth at all. Complete details are in the 2013 book "Pattern and Experimental Pieces of WW-II." Shell casings were melted and copper added to increase the alloy to normal one-cent requirements. Recycling continued through 1947.
If that's how they did it, the new/ additional copper itself must have been considerable. But I appreciate the book reference and will try to look it up.
The more this issue is mentioned the more confused I get, as I have heard the story repeated different ways over the years.
If spent shell casings were used as a source of raw materials to make an alloy that was comparable to pre- (and post-) war specifications, then it is just interesting trivia. If, on the other hand, the shell casings were the sole source of metal used in 1944/5/6 (and 47?) then technically they are a different alloy. Also, were ALL cents minted during those years of the same alloy, or only some?
I suppose I will have to track down that book and see what it says.
The best examples I've seen were from SF Mint, and I've only seen a few examples from Denver. Has anyone seen Philadelphia coins exhibiting shell case toning? I suspect Philadelphia recused themselves from the experiment.
Unusual colorations are due not to the brass shells themselves, but to the gunpowder and especially the primer residues, which contain Mn. Apparently the Mn and other stuff from these residues did not alloy well with the bronze and brass mixture, leaving areas of higher concentrations that toned in colorful ways.
http://macrocoins.com
I think what we are not considering is this: At that time the Mint was making its own Strip using rolled out ingots that started out in a molten state. That is where the shell casings were introduced and melted. The discolored streaks and off-color cents are products of different "melt" batches and improper mixing.
I am not disputing anything you said, and it all sounds reasonable, but is this confirmed fact, or is it informed speculation?
The mint tried several ways of handling bronze shell cases. The casing alloy was commonly 85% Cu and 15% Zn. Brass did not work very well for direct recycling - it became too brittle. In later 1943 box car loads of shells came into the San Francisco Mint. In melting these, the mint found that there was too much zinc volitization, plus the mints were not set up for mass melting of this material. Eventually, the casings were sent to a Mint contractor who melted them into bars of about 1,000 oz. and 10% zinc. The mints melted these and added sufficient pure melted copper to bring the alloy to standard. This occurred through 1947 and likely later.
Archive documents refer only to use of domestic shell casings from training camps, however there is some anecdotal material indicating savage of 5-inch naval shells.
Copper-based coinage alloys are subject to a wide range of discoloration. This can be attributed to environmental factors, contamination and heat, among many.
To me, the real story is much more interesting and valuable than any imaginary concoction.
Thx for this detail. (I am not clear on the part about how they took shells made of "85% Cu and 15% Zn" and had them melted into "bars of about 1,000 oz. and 10% zinc" unless other copper was added by the refinery, but you mentioned that the additional copper was added later by the Mint, but I won't worry about that for now).
The big takeaway for me was this comment: "The mints melted these and added sufficient pure melted copper to bring the alloy to standard. This occurred through 1947 and likely later."
Based on that statement, the "shell casing" cents are not a different alloy. It is just that they (some? all?) were made with copper salvaged from shell casings rather than newly mined metal. This is the part of the story that gets inadvertently misrepresented as it is repeated over and over by different people.
AWESOME! Thanks for info @RogerB very interesting history if you ask me!
Correct - the final coin alloy was almost the same as that used in 1942 -- with the possible omission of sufficient tin to be detectable.
As for the 10% zinc....I should have mentioned that commercial smelters experienced limited zinc volitization, and the actual bars varied. The Mint assayed bars and determined how much copper to add before melting. The bars and extra copper were melted separately and as soon as the bar alloy was melted, molten copper was added, they were mixed and poured into ingots for strip rolling. This minimized volitization, but I have seen tests of WW-II cents that had less zinc, or more, than they were supposed to have. No body cared and I doubt there was any pattern to the occurrence of discrepancies.
I thank RogerB. for his efforts on this thread. I learned something today and the whole thing is much clearer to me now.
Question - if there was a severe copper shortage in 1943 resulting in the changeover to steel cents, did the shortage suddenly come to an end in early 1944 when coinage of bronze/brass cents was resumed?
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
I'm thinking the copper was diverted to the war effort and then recycled to coins after it did it's time in the military.
The copper shortage actually began in 1940 when US & Canadian production fell behind demand. By early 1942 the US Mint had been told that copper was under severe allocation and that the mint was not on the priority list. (All of this is in the records of the War Production Board, Copper Section in the archives). Manufacturers of weapons were on top priority along with communications. Some domestic users of copper electrical wire switched to silver and the entire US Nuclear Weapons project used silver wire.
By mid-1943 it was evident to WPB that there was more copper available than anticipated and they agreed to release extra to the Mint to use in alloying melted shell casings.
Near the end of 1946 it was officially determined that the severe copper restrictions were not really necessary in 1942, but with a major war on, no body wanted to under-supply military needs.
All of this sounds great, but WHY?
I am trying to vision the logic. Copper is in shortage. The military has a boat load of shell casings. Industry is making shells everywhere. Wouldn't it make more sense to recycle shell casings into NEW shell casings?
Cartridge brass (C260) is 70% copper 30% zinc, with less than 0.05% Lead to improve machinability. An alloy of 90% copper and 10% zinc is called Abyssinian gold, very soft, golden hued material, nothing like a shell cartridge. A reference is made to 85/15, which is softer than LOW BRASS (80/20) and has a very light yellow color, but is is used in soft applications, like a flexible metal fitting (bends easily). If the shell casing is too soft, it either breaks apart when fired (not good when the bad guys are coming) or "welds" itself onto the "bore" of the weapon and cannot be extracted normally (Again, a bad thing when the bad guys are coming). One of the reasons, among others like cost, that the Russians use steel for automatic weapon cartridges.
True 95/5 brass, is called Gilding Metal,
So, if the mint received a 1000 ounce bar of C260, 30% zinc 70% copper, (300 / 1000) what would it take to make it 95 / 5? ? 5000 ounces of pure copper (300 / 6000). That does not seem very efficient, like pushing a wet rope up a sand dune.
It puzzles me WHY a material that is NOT correct for coins but CORRECT for shell casings is diverted from an industry that is producing tons of shell casings a day, and sent to the mint, whereas pure copper, later to be alloyed with 30% zinc, that easily could have been alloyed with 5% tin and zinc, is sent to the shell producers to be alloyed 30% with zinc. Also, while everything except paper work was a shortage, what about TIN? Why did it disappear.
Coins were not the only things having "issues" due to shortages:
Ration Failures
Some shortages ended up as humorous failures. In July 1942, the government proclaimed a stop to the manufacture of beauty products – but a great uproar led to the repeal four months later. Sliced bread also briefly became unavailable. On January 18, 1943, the sale of sliced bread was banned in order to conserve the metal blades. This ban lasted only until March 8. Alarm clock production stopped July 1, 1942. However, employers all over the nation lobbied to resume production to reduce chronic absenteeism. In March 1943, alarm clocks were produced again.
When I was in the Army, used shell casings, from M16 on up in size were recovered and sent for reclaim. Ones outside the US were left where they fell, but were often scooped up by the locals and made into all sorts of stuff.
You have to examine the situation from its contemporary context. Modern experiences are not relevant.
During the War, expediency was vital. The work necessary to recycle and fully prepare used shell case brass for reforming was greater than that required to make new casings. The WPB determined metal allocations, not commercial use. Tin was a restricted metal and reserved for military needs; the Mints were allocated none. They used their inventory of obsolete and mutilated cents to sweeten the 1942 and 1944 alloy.
By the latter part of 1943 the tide had shifted to the Allies and WPB was prepared to give the Mint a little more copper. Recycling the shell casings was a means to stop making the disliked zinc coated steel cents. (Even President Roosevelt complained about them.) Without this source of metal the 1943 composition would have to been continued.
In the war theaters, casings were buried. Later, local governments dug up the metal and used it.
The Mn (among other trace elements) was detected in an XRF test I saw reported. It is my presumption that Mn does not alloy well into the Bronze. Primers are a witch's brew, so other elements or compounds in the mix may also be partially at fault.
http://macrocoins.com
Thx for this additional detail. I appreciate having the technical stuff to be able to separate the facts from the popular mythology that sometimes develops over time as stories are repeated and not always fully understood or interpreted correctly.
Those trace elements are powerful evidence to help back up what we have always been told about “shell casing cents”.
This talk of trace elements reminds me of the time I was flying back from Germany with a brick in my suitcase. It was not too long after 9/11 and the luggage screening - which included screening for explosive residue - was being done at check-in in the presence of the passenger. The German security people zeroed in on the brick and scrutinized it, and they asked me what it was. I told them it was a brick. They could not argue with that so they sent me and my brick on my way. What I did not want to tell them was that the brick was one I pulled from the rubble of Hitler’s mountain house (“Der Berghof”) in the Bavarian Alps. I had been worried that trace explosive residue from all the bombing that occurred there in 1945 might still be on it and detectable, but luckily it was not.
It's not always all about the value of the coin. So much history behind these. I picked up @RogerB 's book up for christmas and had to get an example for my collection.
Curiously, no one has performed a systematic alloy analysis of Lincoln cents from 1942 through 1948. Thus, we assume certain compositions based on records and not physical analysis.
RogerB, You are always great reading, thanks for the good work that you do.
Agree! And Roger's lengthy replies increase my desire to buy his book and read more about this subject; had he simply said, "it's all in the book," my interest would have declined. I'm kinda trippy that way.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
I really enjoyed reading all of the comments. So much to learn.