Options
1943 copper?-just when you think it has all been found?
razzle
Posts: 998 ✭✭✭
I'm guessing this already appeared here and I missed the discussion. The war years sure provided some interesting numismatic material.
link from PCGS
link from PCGS
Markets (governments) can remain irrational longer than an investor can remain solvent.
0
Comments
bob
3 off-metal lincolns, including the coin posted about in the OP from this auction with these lots
coin from OP
another 1943 P on a bronze flan
1944 on a steel flan
.
edited to add. would be nice if someone could post the cert numbers. pleeeze
.
Lance.
<< <i>Yes, this was posted earlier. Tradedollar challenged Stewart to go after it because it was graded red...his requirement.
Lance. >>
ty. i knew i remembered seeing it here somewhere.
<< <i>Nasty looking thing >>
Looks like somebody had a bad cold, and sneezed on it right after it was struck...
<< <i>Nasty looking thing. >>
yes and with a good price tag as well
<< <i>Certainly not blemish free, but I wish I had found it.....
...please, ricko, you wouldn't dip it, would you?....................
<< <i>Nasty looking thing. >>
Thus the grade.
The coin is ugly,................ but I still would enjoy finding it in the wild.
2003-2026 SELF BANNED
THIS IS WHAT YOU ALL WANT YOU GOT
https://photos.app.goo.gl/L9SnmX627RgkHUTu5
https://photos.app.goo.gl/N7c12eDHZ4zrDWi99
Because of the wartime conditions it is possible that the Mints had gotten a bit sloppy with their alloying. After all, these were just cent coins, not precious metal coins.
The coins should be ordinary BU's from different sources, i.e., all of the P's should not come from the same roll, etc. Also, to test the effect of surface contamination on the results (it often showed up when we did X-ray testing at ANACS, at least on circulated coins), if any of the test coins shows any significant variance, that coin should be filed down on the edge and the exposed metal there retested.
TD
While the date makes this coin especially desirable, one should understand that "orphan" off-metal errors appear in many other years, coins whose composition do not match anything the Mint was producing at the time (or often at any other time).
Orphan off-metal errors of relatively recent vintage often sell for a few hundred dollars, and sometimes considerably less.
Look up "tin mining" on Wikipedia and you can see that in modern centuries one of the major tin mining regions extended from China down through the Malay Peninsula into Indonesia. Much of this region had fallen to the Imperial Japanese Government by 1942, cutting off the supply of tin from that region. The loss of that supply is the reason why the "shell-case" cents of 1944-46 were specifically exempted from requiring tin in their alloy.
Without digging into Mint records, I can only guess that the Mint was running out of tin during 1942 and at some point quietly stopped using it. If they didn't have it, they couldn't use it. That would have raised the percentage of zinc from 4 to 5 percent.
Within cent melts you can get areas that have localized concentrations of alloying material. The classic example of this is the woodgrain finish common to S-mint cents of 1908-on, wherein concentrations of alloying material left streaks of brass within the bronze as the ingot was rolled out and elongated.
On the coin in question, I would not be terribly surprised if a localized concentration of zinc raised the percentage of zinc at the testing spot (or spots, if an average was used) from my hypothetical 5% to 7.5%. I do hope that at least three readings were taken of the coin.
Can anybody at PCGS provide this information, specifically how many readings were taken, and if more than one what were the readings at each site??
As to the reading of 0.8% silver, that is the mystery. Was it a localized contamination caused by a stray speck of silver in the melting furnace, the casting ingot or the rolling mill, or was it (grasping at straws here) a deliberate but quiet move by the Mint to replace the missing tin with something it had tons of.
I personally suspect the localized contamination theory, but would like to know if the coin was tested in more than one place and on both sides before saying that was the cause. I would also like to know if any silver is found in any of the normal coins that I suggested above be tested.
TD
"Tom,
Re: your post about the 1943 cent and assay, the Annual Assay Commission tested only gold and silver, never other coins. The mint assay dept. verified minor coin alloy."
So, in other words, the Mint could be a bit off on the alloying material and still be within their working tolerance.
I remember reading somewhere that when the Mint first started striking 75% copper/ 25% nickel three cents pieces in 1865, the tolerance on the 25% nickel was anywhere from 20% to 30%.
Im my humble opinion the 7.5% zinc content is not significant, and not proof of any "experimental alloy." The 0.8% silver content remains unexplained, but I still want to know if it was found on other parts of the surface, and/or if trace amounts of silver are found in any 1942 cents.
TD
TD
60 years into this hobby and I'm still working on my Lincoln set!
<< <i>I'm curious as to the purpose of adding 0.8% silver to the alloy mix? >>
Was it deliberately added? Or was it an accidental inclusion in a melting, or a small bit of contamination on the rollers, or?
Remember, in 1942 silver was being used to make minor coins, specifically warnickels. I do not know if minor coins were made in one part of the Mint and precious metal coins in another, but silver was in use where the nickels were being made.
TD
Has the authenticity been reverified?
TD