It’s not a 90%. . Be awesome if it were.
When I took it to a reputable coin shop and had it tested he said it was more than a 40% but was just under the 90% range. Again he was the one that recommended annacs.
I can only assume that whoever the grader was tested for silver content after weighing it.
Thus the conclusion of a thick clad blank. 12.54
Still seems unique
@Slish6 said:
It’s not a 90%. . Be awesome if it were. When I took it to a reputable coin shop and had it tested he said it was more than a 40% but was just under the 90% range. Again he was the one that recommended annacs.
I can only assume that whoever the grader was tested for silver content after weighing it.
Thus the conclusion of a thick clad blank. 12.54 Still seems unique
Please re-read the responses.
As already explained, I expect that the XRF machine was reading the outer layers and those are much higher than 40%, which is the net purity of the entire coin. If you melt a silver clad half into a single alloy it will be 40% silver, but if you test the outer layers of a silver clad coin, those will be much higher than 40%.
Your "reputable coin shop" should have known this. They sent you on a wild goose chase if they implied otherwise.
Strictly speaking, your coin is not "unique". All planchets punched from the same thick strip would be the same weight. How many of those coins survive is anyone's guess, but since most people don't weigh random coins, most of them remain unidentified.
@JBK said:
It has already been slabbed three times. Wouldn't the TPGs have caught something as extreme as a 90% blank? ANACS specifically confirmed that it was clad.
The OP is already in the red with this coin. Does he really need to keep throwing away money?
I certainly would. The coin weighs nearly exactly the same as a 90% silver half. And I don't see where the OP actually asked the TPGs whether the coin might actually be 90% silver.
It's true that ANACS says it's clad, but I was suggesting a second opinion. Risk vs. reward. The risk is one grading fee. The reward could be four or five figures (or more) if it turns out to be struck on a leftover 1964 blank.
If you read the whole thread, he had it tested with an XRF and it's NOT 90%
It's not 80% either, which is what the outer layer is supposed to be. If the XRF can be off by 5 percent it can also possibly be off by 15 percent.
I'm not saying that the coin is 90% silver, I'm simply saying that the coin's weight is very close to the weight of a 90% silver half, and this is enough of a coincidence to justify a second opinion on the XRF also.
@JBK said:
It has already been slabbed three times. Wouldn't the TPGs have caught something as extreme as a 90% blank? ANACS specifically confirmed that it was clad.
The OP is already in the red with this coin. Does he really need to keep throwing away money?
I certainly would. The coin weighs nearly exactly the same as a 90% silver half. And I don't see where the OP actually asked the TPGs whether the coin might actually be 90% silver.
It's true that ANACS says it's clad, but I was suggesting a second opinion. Risk vs. reward. The risk is one grading fee. The reward could be four or five figures (or more) if it turns out to be struck on a leftover 1964 blank.
If you read the whole thread, he had it tested with an XRF and it's NOT 90%
It's not 80% either, which is what the outer layer is supposed to be. If the XRF can be off by 5 percent it can also possibly be off by 15 percent.
I'm not saying that the coin is 90% silver, I'm simply saying that the coin's weight is very close to the weight of a 90% silver half, and this is enough of a coincidence to justify a second opinion on the XRF also.
Actually, that doesn't follow. Just because you have a 1 or 5% tolerance in a device doesn't mean that you automatically have no precision at all. The only time you will see variances of more than a couple percent is of you have plated material because the plate can be thin or have worn thin and then you will see varying amounts of the underlying metal.
@JBK said:
It has already been slabbed three times. Wouldn't the TPGs have caught something as extreme as a 90% blank? ANACS specifically confirmed that it was clad.
The OP is already in the red with this coin. Does he really need to keep throwing away money?
I certainly would. The coin weighs nearly exactly the same as a 90% silver half. And I don't see where the OP actually asked the TPGs whether the coin might actually be 90% silver.
It's true that ANACS says it's clad, but I was suggesting a second opinion. Risk vs. reward. The risk is one grading fee. The reward could be four or five figures (or more) if it turns out to be struck on a leftover 1964 blank.
If you read the whole thread, he had it tested with an XRF and it's NOT 90%
It's not 80% either, which is what the outer layer is supposed to be. If the XRF can be off by 5 percent it can also possibly be off by 15 percent.
I'm not saying that the coin is 90% silver, I'm simply saying that the coin's weight is very close to the weight of a 90% silver half, and this is enough of a coincidence to justify a second opinion on the XRF also.
Actually, that doesn't follow. Just because you have a 1 or 5% tolerance in a device doesn't mean that you automatically have no precision at all. The only time you will see variances of more than a couple percent is of you have plated material because the plate can be thin or have worn thin and then you will see varying amounts of the underlying metal.
Although, his second response (a couple posts up) makes it seem less likely that he actually had XRF done and more likely that he used a Sigma or something less precise.
Being new to the game. Not sure what devises were used to determine the silver content. Again I would think the graders are the pros.
As far as the reason for the weight discovery. I read that weighing 1965 Kennedy for the possibility of a 90% couldn’t hurt. I had a bunch of 1965-1969 so I just started weighing them all. That’s where I found it. Another thing I noticed on the annacs chart was that there was a 1965 thin planchet Kennedy. 18 had been graded. How were those discovered if not by weighing them?
To me this coin is still unique even if it’s supposed that people have them but don’t know it.
If there’s a thin version there is a place for thick overweight version. None have been discovered so far.
By any chance did you examine the edge of the coin before submitting it to the TPGs? If the edge was darker than the rest of the coin (similar to the other Kennedys you examined), that would indicate that it's likely a 40% planchet. If the edge was similar in color to the rest of the coin, that would indicate a possible 90% planchet instead.
@Slish6 said:
I did. And the coin shops I went to did.
Didn’t look like the other 40%
So the coin weighs about what a 90 percent silver half would weigh.
And the edge doesn't match the typical 40 percent silver half.
To me, those would be reasons enough to resubmit to a major TPG and ask them specifically to test for whether the coin is in fact a 90 percent silver half.
Again, risk vs. reward. The risk is one grading fee. The reward could be four or five figures (or more) if it turns out to be struck on a leftover 1964 blank.
The core is approx. 21% silver and 79% copper. I remember when they came out new you could barely see any color on the edge, if at all, but as they aged the core metal toned, even on Uncirculated coins in a plastic tube.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
I'd lean towards the thick planchet theory but isn't this out of tolerance error scarcer than has been indicated here? Yes, wrong planchet is more significant (and valuable) but how common is this type of error? I'm aware of clad quarters struck on planchets cut from dime stock but this wouldn't be a "punched from wrong strip stock" error as, I believe, the half dollar was the thickest coin being produced by the US mint at the time.
Collector and dealer in obsolete currency. Always buying all obsolete bank notes and scrip.
@sellitstore said:
I'd lean towards the thick planchet theory but isn't this out of tolerance error scarcer than has been indicated here? Yes, wrong planchet is more significant (and valuable) but how common is this type of error? I'm aware of clad quarters struck on planchets cut from dime stock but this wouldn't be a "punched from wrong strip stock" error as, I believe, the half dollar was the thickest coin being produced by the US mint at the time.
It's not common but also not generally in high demand. Because of the low demand, I'm not sure people actively look for them which would generally require weighing everything.
@sellitstore said:
I'd lean towards the thick planchet theory but isn't this out of tolerance error scarcer than has been indicated here? Yes, wrong planchet is more significant (and valuable) but how common is this type of error? I'm aware of clad quarters struck on planchets cut from dime stock but this wouldn't be a "punched from wrong strip stock" error as, I believe, the half dollar was the thickest coin being produced by the US mint at the time.
It's not common but also not generally in high demand. Because of the low demand, I'm not sure people actively look for them which would generally require weighing everything.
I think the lack of interest in a 'thick planchet' coin is as it is not visible to the untrained eye. And, once housed in a slab, not seen at all.
@sellitstore said:
I'd lean towards the thick planchet theory but isn't this out of tolerance error scarcer than has been indicated here? Yes, wrong planchet is more significant (and valuable) but how common is this type of error? I'm aware of clad quarters struck on planchets cut from dime stock but this wouldn't be a "punched from wrong strip stock" error as, I believe, the half dollar was the thickest coin being produced by the US mint at the time.
It's not common but also not generally in high demand. Because of the low demand, I'm not sure people actively look for them which would generally require weighing everything.
I think the lack of interest in a 'thick planchet' coin is as it is not visible to the untrained eye. And, once housed in a slab, not seen at all.
@7Jaguars said:
Hello?
Specific gravity testing calling…..
He'd have to break it out.
XRF would be easier and definitive. It would help to know if that's what the coin shop did.
With all due respect XRF is NOT definitive and gives essentially a read of the surface metal composition.
Given that it - SG testing - WOULD be the definitive test then that is what should be done since destructive testing would not be an option. Forget the back and forth.
Love that Milled British (1830-1960) Well, just Love coins, period.
@7Jaguars said:
Hello?
Specific gravity testing calling…..
He'd have to break it out.
XRF would be easier and definitive. It would help to know if that's what the coin shop did.
With all due respect XRF is NOT definitive and gives essentially a read of the surface metal composition.
Given that it - SG testing - WOULD be the definitive test then that is what should be done since destructive testing would not be an option. Forget the back and forth.
I performed dozens of XRFs of chopmarked contemporary counterfeit coins for a friend. The results varied widely between sides of the same coin, depending on if the chops gave the machine better access to the non-silver core and/or if plating wore off (in some cases where the coins were plated rather than just debased).
I agree that XRF, while a very useful tool, is not definitive.
It is probably just regular 40% silver clad stock rolled too thick. The Mints were very busy in the 1964-1970 period first trying to strike enough 90% silver dimes, quarters and halves to maintain a circulating coin supply, and then trying to strike enough copper-nickel clad dimes and quarters and 40% silver clad halves to replace all of the 90% silver coins within just a few years. Somebody got sloppy.
Some thin 40% clad halves were also struck, but I cannot remember the years on them. I do remember that a popular error coin guide in the 1970's by authors Steiner and Zimpher had a chart of known wrong stock error coins, and they listed a 40% silver half from the 1965-1970 era as having been struck on quarter dollar stock, until I pointed out to them that quarter dollar stock would have bee copper-nickel clad, not 40% silver clad. Again, just a rolling error.
TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@7Jaguars said:
Hello?
Specific gravity testing calling…..
He'd have to break it out.
XRF would be easier and definitive. It would help to know if that's what the coin shop did.
With all due respect XRF is NOT definitive and gives essentially a read of the surface metal composition.
Given that it - SG testing - WOULD be the definitive test then that is what should be done since destructive testing would not be an option. Forget the back and forth.
@7Jaguars said:
Hello?
Specific gravity testing calling…..
He'd have to break it out.
XRF would be easier and definitive. It would help to know if that's what the coin shop did.
With all due respect XRF is NOT definitive and gives essentially a read of the surface metal composition.
Given that it - SG testing - WOULD be the definitive test then that is what should be done since destructive testing would not be an option. Forget the back and forth.
I performed dozens of XRFs of chopmarked contemporary counterfeit coins for a friend. The results varied widely between sides of the same coin, depending on if the chops gave the machine better access to the non-silver core and/or if plating wore off (in some cases where the coins were plated rather than just debased).
I agree that XRF, while a very useful tool, is not definitive.
XRF will not penetrate the surface and is not useful for plated material. There is also known to be some surface silver enrichment in alloys which will result in 91 or 92% readings on some 90% coins. However, you can test multiple areas of the surface and you're trying to make the decriminalized between 80% and 90% which XRF can do quite definitely WITHOUT needing to break the coin out of the slab which was a key component of what i said. Please note my first sentence.
Specific gravity is no better. It would be definitive between a binary choice: standard 40% or standard 90% blank. It will tell you nothing about other options: foreign blanks, etc. I also don't know, maybe you do, what the SG of an extra thick planchet might be. Is the core to clad ratio the same or would it be different??? I really don't know.
SG will not be dependent on planchet thickness or localized changes in alloy, be it to the surface metal or deeper submerged level - rather it will give an average for the whole coin or item to be measured.
Love that Milled British (1830-1960) Well, just Love coins, period.
As far as I know, the rolling of any clad stock does not change the proportions of the three layers.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@7Jaguars said:
SG will not be dependent on planchet thickness or localized changes in alloy, be it to the surface metal or deeper submerged level - rather it will give an average for the whole coin or item to be measured.
Yes, except the core is not the same alloy as the surface. So it matters, if you will, whether the Oreo is single stuff or double stuff. How are the layers assembled? Are they rolled after they are assembled or rolled as they are assembled? It is possible that an extra thick planchet does not have the same ratio of core to surface. It's also possible that it does. Does anyone know?
Here is a video of one manufactures process (minute and a half, no sound). Don't know how this relates to the coin clad process.
Going one step further and hopefully not dragging away from the subject. I had previously for something else looked into what happens to clad coins during the minting of a coin. Noting that, at the devices the coin is thicker (and particularly for opposing devices), than it is at the fields (and again more so for opposing fields). I did not find a reliable answer as some source(s) indicate the metal flow was in the clad layer and other(s) indicating it was throughout (I like more). What is going on at the layers boundary? One thing, a clad coin remains clad after striking but how the relative thicknesses change I didn't find a reliable answer. Also having seen some missing clad layers, the base metal can have a weaker impression of the coin features and the inner side of the clad layer similar but opposite in relief (if that is correct wording). I guess if one could find a missing clad layer and measure the clad thickness ( ) at varying points that might give some indication.
Let us assume for the sake of argument that the making of the raw 40% silver clad ingot consisted of taking a long, strip of one inch thick 80% silver, laying an equally long strip of the approximately 21% silver core atop that, and then laying another equally long strip of 80% silver atop that. Then bond them together using whatever technology they used back then. I have heard that explosive bonding was used for some clad strip, and I have heard that they just rough scoured the surfaces to be bonded together and started rolling them thinner. The rough surfaces interlocked under pressure or something. Not relevant to this conversation.
The proportions given in the example above are wild guesses, mimicking the 1-4-1 ration of Copper-Nickel clad Dimes, Quarters, Halves 1971-on and Ike Dollars. SBA Dollars are 1-2-1. I could calculate it mathematically for 80% + 21% + 80%/ x = 40% but I don't feel like it.
As you roll that ingot (however thick it was to start; I don't know or care) the 1-4-1 proportions should remain constant.The only reason why it could vary was if one of the three layers had a thin or a thick spot and the ratio was affected through that region, OR if one of the three layers had a void in it. In that latter case the metal in the adjacent layer or layers would flow into that void and you could have an area with more 80% silver or more 21% silver. That could affect the net weight slightly.
Or, using Occam's Razor (i.e., the simplest answer is usually the correct answer) the guy on the rolling mill was hung over a bit and did not set the thickness of the final pass through the rolling mill correctly.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Agree. When the clad is first attached to the core (as shown in video or another method) and then rolled (processed) the proportions between the layers should remain constant (within some tolerance). When the material is rolled and thinned, the thinned material then gets longer or stretched. If a layer(s) is thinning more than another layer(s), then at the end of the roll the layer that thinned more (and stretched more) would be longer than the other (also there would be a mismatched strain between the layers). So they would need to thin proportionately (within some tolerance).
I still wonder what happens with the layers when the coin is struck and resulting in definite variances in the coin thickness.
Well done on theorizing the possibilities. Gotta admit. way beyond we’re I’m at in understanding how’s it’s all done. But definitely interested in learning.
@7Jaguars said:
SG will not be dependent on planchet thickness or localized changes in alloy, be it to the surface metal or deeper submerged level - rather it will give an average for the whole coin or item to be measured.
Yes, except the core is not the same alloy as the surface. So it matters, if you will, whether the Oreo is single stuff or double stuff. How are the layers assembled? Are they rolled after they are assembled or rolled as they are assembled? It is possible that an extra thick planchet does not have the same ratio of core to surface. It's also possible that it does. Does anyone know?
Perhaps you have not followed what I was saying. Who cares the relative thickness of the layers. SH will give an average of the whole planchet.
If it reads out as 40% average then it is as expected. If it comes out 60 or 80% it points to an obviously higher silver alloy content and therefore significant.
Who is going to pony up for a coin with 42.5% alloy?
Love that Milled British (1830-1960) Well, just Love coins, period.
@CaptHenway said:
Or, using Occam's Razor (i.e., the simplest answer is usually the correct answer) the guy on the rolling mill was hung over a bit and did not set the thickness of the final pass through the rolling mill correctly.
>
An equally simple answer, considering the actual weight of the coin, is that it was struck on a leftover 90% silver blank. I still think it's worth obtaining a definitive answer as to whether this theory is true or false.
What grading company.?
I don’t trust annacs. The first send they were supposed to analyze why it weighed 12.50. They Sent it back with a grade of ms65. No discription Called them and asked why they didn’t address the weight issue. No explanation. Said send it back. They Asked if I wouldn’t mind meeting one of there graders at local coin show that was in town and send it from there. Of coarse I did. Wasn’t impressed with the guy. Not only was he not informative. he seemed annoyed at having do it.
Then it took over 5 months to get it back. Got a description but they lowered the grade to ms 63.
Makes you wonder what’ up!!!
@Slish6 said:
What grading company.? I don’t trust annacs. The first send they were supposed to analyze why it weighed 12.50. They Sent it back with a grade of ms65. No discription Called them and asked why they didn’t address the weight issue. No explanation. Said send it back. They Asked if I wouldn’t mind meeting one of there graders at local coin show that was in town and send it from there. Of coarse I did. Wasn’t impressed with the guy. Not only was he not informative. he seemed annoyed at having do it.
Then it took over 5 months to get it back. Got a description but they lowered the grade to ms 63.
Makes you wonder what’ up!!!
Comments
It’s not a 90%. . Be awesome if it were.
When I took it to a reputable coin shop and had it tested he said it was more than a 40% but was just under the 90% range. Again he was the one that recommended annacs.
I can only assume that whoever the grader was tested for silver content after weighing it.
Thus the conclusion of a thick clad blank. 12.54
Still seems unique
Please re-read the responses.
As already explained, I expect that the XRF machine was reading the outer layers and those are much higher than 40%, which is the net purity of the entire coin. If you melt a silver clad half into a single alloy it will be 40% silver, but if you test the outer layers of a silver clad coin, those will be much higher than 40%.
Your "reputable coin shop" should have known this. They sent you on a wild goose chase if they implied otherwise.
Strictly speaking, your coin is not "unique". All planchets punched from the same thick strip would be the same weight. How many of those coins survive is anyone's guess, but since most people don't weigh random coins, most of them remain unidentified.
It's not 80% either, which is what the outer layer is supposed to be. If the XRF can be off by 5 percent it can also possibly be off by 15 percent.
I'm not saying that the coin is 90% silver, I'm simply saying that the coin's weight is very close to the weight of a 90% silver half, and this is enough of a coincidence to justify a second opinion on the XRF also.
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
Actually, that doesn't follow. Just because you have a 1 or 5% tolerance in a device doesn't mean that you automatically have no precision at all. The only time you will see variances of more than a couple percent is of you have plated material because the plate can be thin or have worn thin and then you will see varying amounts of the underlying metal.
Although, his second response (a couple posts up) makes it seem less likely that he actually had XRF done and more likely that he used a Sigma or something less precise.
Being new to the game. Not sure what devises were used to determine the silver content. Again I would think the graders are the pros.
As far as the reason for the weight discovery. I read that weighing 1965 Kennedy for the possibility of a 90% couldn’t hurt. I had a bunch of 1965-1969 so I just started weighing them all. That’s where I found it. Another thing I noticed on the annacs chart was that there was a 1965 thin planchet Kennedy. 18 had been graded. How were those discovered if not by weighing them?
To me this coin is still unique even if it’s supposed that people have them but don’t know it.
If there’s a thin version there is a place for thick overweight version. None have been discovered so far.
1967 thin planchet Kennedy meant say
By any chance did you examine the edge of the coin before submitting it to the TPGs? If the edge was darker than the rest of the coin (similar to the other Kennedys you examined), that would indicate that it's likely a 40% planchet. If the edge was similar in color to the rest of the coin, that would indicate a possible 90% planchet instead.
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
I did. And the coin shops I went to did.
Didn’t look like the other 40%
Did it look solid or did have any sandwich effect
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
So the coin weighs about what a 90 percent silver half would weigh.
And the edge doesn't match the typical 40 percent silver half.
To me, those would be reasons enough to resubmit to a major TPG and ask them specifically to test for whether the coin is in fact a 90 percent silver half.
Again, risk vs. reward. The risk is one grading fee. The reward could be four or five figures (or more) if it turns out to be struck on a leftover 1964 blank.
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
The core is approx. 21% silver and 79% copper. I remember when they came out new you could barely see any color on the edge, if at all, but as they aged the core metal toned, even on Uncirculated coins in a plastic tube.
Hello?
Specific gravity testing calling…..
Well, just Love coins, period.
He'd have to break it out.
XRF would be easier and definitive. It would help to know if that's what the coin shop did.
I'd lean towards the thick planchet theory but isn't this out of tolerance error scarcer than has been indicated here? Yes, wrong planchet is more significant (and valuable) but how common is this type of error? I'm aware of clad quarters struck on planchets cut from dime stock but this wouldn't be a "punched from wrong strip stock" error as, I believe, the half dollar was the thickest coin being produced by the US mint at the time.
It's not common but also not generally in high demand. Because of the low demand, I'm not sure people actively look for them which would generally require weighing everything.
I think the lack of interest in a 'thick planchet' coin is as it is not visible to the untrained eye. And, once housed in a slab, not seen at all.
peacockcoins
I agree. It's just not a dramatic error.
With all due respect XRF is NOT definitive and gives essentially a read of the surface metal composition.
Given that it - SG testing - WOULD be the definitive test then that is what should be done since destructive testing would not be an option. Forget the back and forth.
Well, just Love coins, period.
I performed dozens of XRFs of chopmarked contemporary counterfeit coins for a friend. The results varied widely between sides of the same coin, depending on if the chops gave the machine better access to the non-silver core and/or if plating wore off (in some cases where the coins were plated rather than just debased).
I agree that XRF, while a very useful tool, is not definitive.
It is probably just regular 40% silver clad stock rolled too thick. The Mints were very busy in the 1964-1970 period first trying to strike enough 90% silver dimes, quarters and halves to maintain a circulating coin supply, and then trying to strike enough copper-nickel clad dimes and quarters and 40% silver clad halves to replace all of the 90% silver coins within just a few years. Somebody got sloppy.
Some thin 40% clad halves were also struck, but I cannot remember the years on them. I do remember that a popular error coin guide in the 1970's by authors Steiner and Zimpher had a chart of known wrong stock error coins, and they listed a 40% silver half from the 1965-1970 era as having been struck on quarter dollar stock, until I pointed out to them that quarter dollar stock would have bee copper-nickel clad, not 40% silver clad. Again, just a rolling error.
TD
XRF will not penetrate the surface and is not useful for plated material. There is also known to be some surface silver enrichment in alloys which will result in 91 or 92% readings on some 90% coins. However, you can test multiple areas of the surface and you're trying to make the decriminalized between 80% and 90% which XRF can do quite definitely WITHOUT needing to break the coin out of the slab which was a key component of what i said. Please note my first sentence.
Specific gravity is no better. It would be definitive between a binary choice: standard 40% or standard 90% blank. It will tell you nothing about other options: foreign blanks, etc. I also don't know, maybe you do, what the SG of an extra thick planchet might be. Is the core to clad ratio the same or would it be different??? I really don't know.
SG will not be dependent on planchet thickness or localized changes in alloy, be it to the surface metal or deeper submerged level - rather it will give an average for the whole coin or item to be measured.
Well, just Love coins, period.
As far as I know, the rolling of any clad stock does not change the proportions of the three layers.
Yes, except the core is not the same alloy as the surface. So it matters, if you will, whether the Oreo is single stuff or double stuff. How are the layers assembled? Are they rolled after they are assembled or rolled as they are assembled? It is possible that an extra thick planchet does not have the same ratio of core to surface. It's also possible that it does. Does anyone know?
Here is a video of one manufactures process (minute and a half, no sound). Don't know how this relates to the coin clad process.
Going one step further and hopefully not dragging away from the subject. I had previously for something else looked into what happens to clad coins during the minting of a coin. Noting that, at the devices the coin is thicker (and particularly for opposing devices), than it is at the fields (and again more so for opposing fields). I did not find a reliable answer as some source(s) indicate the metal flow was in the clad layer and other(s) indicating it was throughout (I like more). What is going on at the layers boundary? One thing, a clad coin remains clad after striking but how the relative thicknesses change I didn't find a reliable answer. Also having seen some missing clad layers, the base metal can have a weaker impression of the coin features and the inner side of the clad layer similar but opposite in relief (if that is correct wording). I guess if one could find a missing clad layer and measure the clad thickness (
) at varying points that might give some indication.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=_KWVk0XeB9o - Ruby Starr (from 'Go Jim Dandy') Piece Of My Heart
.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=D0FPxuQv2ns - Ruby Starr (from 'Go Jim Dandy') Maybe I'm Amazed
RLJ 1958 - 2023
Let us assume for the sake of argument that the making of the raw 40% silver clad ingot consisted of taking a long, strip of one inch thick 80% silver, laying an equally long strip of the approximately 21% silver core atop that, and then laying another equally long strip of 80% silver atop that. Then bond them together using whatever technology they used back then. I have heard that explosive bonding was used for some clad strip, and I have heard that they just rough scoured the surfaces to be bonded together and started rolling them thinner. The rough surfaces interlocked under pressure or something. Not relevant to this conversation.
The proportions given in the example above are wild guesses, mimicking the 1-4-1 ration of Copper-Nickel clad Dimes, Quarters, Halves 1971-on and Ike Dollars. SBA Dollars are 1-2-1. I could calculate it mathematically for 80% + 21% + 80%/ x = 40% but I don't feel like it.
As you roll that ingot (however thick it was to start; I don't know or care) the 1-4-1 proportions should remain constant.The only reason why it could vary was if one of the three layers had a thin or a thick spot and the ratio was affected through that region, OR if one of the three layers had a void in it. In that latter case the metal in the adjacent layer or layers would flow into that void and you could have an area with more 80% silver or more 21% silver. That could affect the net weight slightly.
Or, using Occam's Razor (i.e., the simplest answer is usually the correct answer) the guy on the rolling mill was hung over a bit and did not set the thickness of the final pass through the rolling mill correctly.
Agree. When the clad is first attached to the core (as shown in video or another method) and then rolled (processed) the proportions between the layers should remain constant (within some tolerance). When the material is rolled and thinned, the thinned material then gets longer or stretched. If a layer(s) is thinning more than another layer(s), then at the end of the roll the layer that thinned more (and stretched more) would be longer than the other (also there would be a mismatched strain between the layers). So they would need to thin proportionately (within some tolerance).
I still wonder what happens with the layers when the coin is struck and resulting in definite variances in the coin thickness.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=_KWVk0XeB9o - Ruby Starr (from 'Go Jim Dandy') Piece Of My Heart
.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=D0FPxuQv2ns - Ruby Starr (from 'Go Jim Dandy') Maybe I'm Amazed
RLJ 1958 - 2023
Well done on theorizing the possibilities. Gotta admit. way beyond we’re I’m at in understanding how’s it’s all done. But definitely interested in learning.
Perhaps you have not followed what I was saying. Who cares the relative thickness of the layers. SH will give an average of the whole planchet.
If it reads out as 40% average then it is as expected. If it comes out 60 or 80% it points to an obviously higher silver alloy content and therefore significant.
Who is going to pony up for a coin with 42.5% alloy?
Well, just Love coins, period.
Aw yes. Sorry did miss that point.
Certainly suggest possibly a new type of discovery coin that no knew to look for.
>
An equally simple answer, considering the actual weight of the coin, is that it was struck on a leftover 90% silver blank. I still think it's worth obtaining a definitive answer as to whether this theory is true or false.
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
That is why I made my suggestion. A crack out would do the coin no harm and if it came back with SG of 90% silver then the TPGs arm would be forced.
Well, just Love coins, period.
What grading company.?
I don’t trust annacs. The first send they were supposed to analyze why it weighed 12.50. They Sent it back with a grade of ms65. No discription Called them and asked why they didn’t address the weight issue. No explanation. Said send it back. They Asked if I wouldn’t mind meeting one of there graders at local coin show that was in town and send it from there. Of coarse I did. Wasn’t impressed with the guy. Not only was he not informative. he seemed annoyed at having do it.
Then it took over 5 months to get it back. Got a description but they lowered the grade to ms 63.
Makes you wonder what’ up!!!
>
I would suggest PCGS. Or possibly find an alternative means of measuring the specific gravity of the coin.
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
Did you pay for error attribution?
No. They agreed to do for no cost