Are 2010 Lincoln Cent Proofs struck on unusually thick blanks??

2manycoins2fewfunds · March 21, 2011 3:40PM

I ask because they are clearly thicker than regular uncirculated cents and if you try to load a tube of 50 coins they overfill tube by 1/2".

Not finned rims just simply fat coins.............

Is this normal for recent proof cents??

ProofArtworkonCircs · March 21, 2011 4:02PM

<<I ask because they are clearly thicker than regular uncirculated cents and if you try to load a tube of 50 coins they overfill tube by 1/2".

Not finned rims just simply fat coins.............

Is this normal for recent proof cents?? >>

Strangly enough, this is true for 1994-2008 cents, but for probably a different reason. Proof coins of these years were the old wide AM (of AMERICA) version which were in a slightly higher relief. Circulation strike cent rolls of cents dated 1993 and later are shorter than the earlier dates.

I now wonder if there is also something special about the 2010 cent proofs.

ProofArtworkonCircs · March 21, 2011 4:23PM

A related question I should be asking is:

Is a roll of circulation strike shield cents longer than recent memorial cent rolls? I don't have enough to make a roll yet.

Tdec1000 · March 21, 2011 4:51PM

So does that mean that the coin tube companies need to expand their tubes?

MsMorrisine · March 21, 2011 4:54PM

<< <i>A related question I should be asking is:

Is a roll of circulation strike shield cents longer than recent memorial cent rolls? I don't have enough to make a roll yet. >>

proof or circulation or both?

19Lyds · March 21, 2011 5:04PM

<< <i><<I ask because they are clearly thicker than regular uncirculated cents and if you try to load a tube of 50 coins they overfill tube by 1/2".

Not finned rims just simply fat coins.............

Is this normal for recent proof cents?? >>

Strangly enough, this is true for 1994-2008 cents, but for probably a different reason. Proof coins of these years were the old wide AM (of AMERICA) version which were in a slightly higher relief. Circulation strike cent rolls of cents dated 1993 and later are shorter than the earlier dates.

I now wonder if there is also something special about the 2010 cent proofs. >>

I expect the answer to the question lies in the equal thickness of the Proof coin Edges due to the manufacturing process involved. All nearly identical in height. Circulated coins do not have equal width edges but sometimes vary to the point of not having any edge at all.

2manycoins2fewfunds · March 21, 2011 10:44PM

At what point does thickness of edge become an error?

Based on stacking in tube and overfill of coin tube I'd guess these are at least 10% taller.

I'll try to take some pictures this PM.................

ProofArtworkonCircs · March 22, 2011 2:11AM

<<<< A related question I should be asking is:

Is a roll of circulation strike shield cents longer than recent memorial cent rolls? I don't have enough to make a roll yet. >>

proof or circulation or both?>>

I will consider all evidence, but we already have evidence on proof coins from the original poster. It might be interesting to know how Memorial proofs fit in that tube. Lee has identified a possible cause.

If somebody does the compirasion against circulation strike Memorial cents, please note the dates. Post 92 are shorter than pre 93.

Are 2010 Lincoln Cent Proofs struck on unusually thick blanks??

Comments

Leave a Comment