Jump to content

When You Find A Really Nice Greenie...


Recommended Posts

36 minutes ago, schoolofhardNox said:

Wheat cents are 95% copper 5% zinc (no tin).

I'm going to disagree on this one.  With the exception of 1943 (steel) and 1944-46 (95% shell case copper and 5% zinc), all small cents from mid-1864 (when they switched from the 12% nickel composition) until 1962 are specified 95% copper, 5% tin and zinc by the US Mint.  From sometime in 1962 through mid-1982 (when they switched over to the dreaded Zincoln composition) there was no tin, so, yes the full 5% was zinc during that time.

This info can be found in both the Red Book and Bowers's A Guide Book of Lincoln Cents.

What is confusing and maybe left intentionally vague by the mint is what exactly is meant by "5% tin and zinc".  My speculation/hypothesis (which I've yet to confirm from research) is that since the mint didn't manufacture the sheet metal for coins but rather bought from suppliers, they let those suppliers adjust that 5% as they saw fit to facilitate their own manufacturing methods (and or account for differences in metals prices).  Does that vagueness lead to variations that we detectorists can discern?  Quite possibly.

Once again, a good X-Ray Fluorescence analylisis would help.  I just wish the devices that measure that didn't cost many thousands of dollars....

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


58 minutes ago, GB_Amateur said:

I'm going to disagree on this one.  With the exception of 1943 (steel) and 1944-46 (95% shell case copper and 5% zinc), all small cents from mid-1864 (when they switched from the 12% nickel composition) until 1962 are specified 95% copper, 5% tin and zinc by the US Mint.  From sometime in 1962 through mid-1982 (when they switched over to the dreaded Zincoln composition) there was no tin, so, yes the full 5% was zinc during that time.

This info can be found in both the Red Book and Bowers's A Guide Book of Lincoln Cents.

What is confusing and maybe left intentionally vague by the mint is what exactly is meant by "5% tin and zinc".  My speculation/hypothesis (which I've yet to confirm from research) is that since the mint didn't manufacture the sheet metal for coins but rather bought from suppliers, they let those suppliers adjust that 5% as they saw fit to facilitate their own manufacturing methods (and or account for differences in metals prices).  Does that vagueness lead to variations that we detectorists can discern?  Quite possibly.

Once again, a good X-Ray Fluorescence analylisis would help.  I just wish the devices that measure that didn't cost many thousands of dollars....

You're correct. I read the wrong part of the write up in Breens.  Although Breen has only 1944-45  listed as the ones with no tin in them. So maybe the Redbook revised that to include 1946 .The only thing that could be different is the % between the tin and zinc

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice save Rod !!!  That's one of the cleanest 2 centers I've seen in a while. The closest I ever came to one of those is when my buddy dug 4 out of one hole ten feet from me. Just not my day but glad it was yours. Just a quick question though, Was that soil black in color? Most of my well preserved coppers come out of really dark rich black soil. Clay where I'm at murder the coppers. Great job.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, dogodog said:

Nice save Rod !!!  That's one of the cleanest 2 centers I've seen in a while. The closest I ever came to one of those is when my buddy dug 4 out of one hole ten feet from me. Just not my day but glad it was yours. Just a quick question though, Was that soil black in color? Most of my well preserved coppers come out of really dark rich black soil. Clay where I'm at murder the coppers. Great job.

yeah...i hate clay, which dominates lots of my area as well.  this soil is pretty mineralized, but not like a black peat or anything. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, schoolofhardNox said:

Although Breen has only 1944-45  listed as the ones with no tin in them. So maybe the Redbook revised that to include 1946 .The only thing that could be different is the % between the tin and zinc

Here's what it says in Bowers's 2008 A Guide Book of Lincoln Cents on page 206: 

In 1947 the alloy was modified slightly to add 1% tin to 95% copper and 4% tin.  This combination was used through 1961, after which zinc was not used until the entirely different cent stock of 1982.

This is the first I recall the fractions of tin and zinc called out when both were used.  I need to dig a bit more and see if I can find out anything earlier.  But even the great Q. David Bowers erred here, saying the 5% from 1962-82 had no zinc.  In fact it was the opposite and he says that later (p. 229) referring to the 1962 mintages:

The alloy was changed this year from 95% copper, 5% tin and zinc (as it had been since 1946) to 95% copper, 5% zinc.

Even that statement seems contradictory (the 'since 1946' part) as that makes it sound like the 1946 cents had tin in their composition.  I just confirmed in the 2022 Redbook that 1946 was still (along with 1944-45) 5% zinc with no tin.  (BTW, Bowers is the Research Editor for the 2022 Redbook.)

No wonder it's hard to figure this out, if the expert's expert gets things mixed up.  I also have the Flying Eagle and Indian Head Cents book in the series so I'll look closer at that (as well as the Lincoln cent book I've been quoting) to see if the 5% non-copper is broken down for any other years besides 1944-1982.

(Postscript:  I've found more pertinent information which I put in a post later in this thread.)

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@rod-paSorry to hijack your thread.  That coin was in great condition when dropped and still shows most of its detail, which is surprising.  My 1864 didn't fare nearly as well in the ground.  I've mentioned this before but worth reapeating(?) -- almost 80% of all the USA 2 Cent pieces were minted in the first two years of 1864 and 1865.  Your 1865 has a bit lower mintange (13.64 million vs. 19.85 million) compared to the 1864.  Nice find!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, GB_Amateur said:

@rod-paSorry to hijack your thread.  That coin was in great condition when dropped and still shows most of its detail, which is surprising.  My 1864 didn't fare nearly as well in the ground.  I've mentioned this before but worth reapeating(?) -- almost 80% of all the USA 2 Cent pieces were minted in the first two years of 1864 and 1865.  Your 1865 has a bit lower mintange (13.64 million vs. 19.85 million) compared to the 1864.  Nice find!

lol, no worries!  information transfer is always good...and it is a relevant topic, to boot.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, GB_Amateur said:

This is the first I recall the fractions of tin and zinc called out when both were used.  I need to dig a bit more and see if I can find out anything earlier.

Good news.  On looking through the Bowers book on Lincoln Cents I did find the breakdown of tin and zinc for the early Wheats!  On pages 18-19:

...On July 14, Secretary of the Treasury Franklin MacVeigh officially approved the design.  Standards remained the same as for the Indiana Head cent:  diameter:  0.75 inch (with a tolerance of plus or minus 0.0025 inch), weight 48 grains (with a tolerance of plus or minus 2 grains), bronze alloy of 95% copper, and now, specifically, a slight alloy change to 3% tin and 2% zinc.  The administratively approved thickness of a finished coin was 0.062 inch.  In practice, it varied due to the height of the rim.  (emphasis mine)

I also thumbed through Richard Snow's A guide book of Flying Eagle and Indian Head Cents but could not find any indication fo the breakdown of the 5% tin+zinc.  (Note, I have the 2006 edition and it's been revised twice.  Maybe later editions have the info we're seeking?)  It's tantalizing that Bowers above said "...and now, specifically, a slight alloy change..." implying that it was different previously.  Was he referring to the IHP composition or maybe just patterns for the production Lincoln cent??

Here's a summary of the latest(?) breakdown secondary metal content of USA 95% copper small cents:

Indian Head Cents from late 1864 through 1909:  tin+zinc (still unknown)

Lincolns 1909-1941:  3% tin, 2% zinc.

Lincolns 1944-46:  5% zinc.

Lincolns 1947-61:  1% tin, 4% zinc.

Lincolns 1962- early 1982:  5% zinc.

And now for some exceptions or at least cloudy info.  I left out 1943 because these were zinc coated steel.  However, what about 1942?  Bowers says (maybe I should use 'hints' -- on bottom of p. 229) that at least some of the 1942's were also 5% zinc, not the previous composition.

Now for the most unreliable info of this post.  I vaguely recall seeing data (possibly XRF data) that not all of the 1962 cents were of the (then new) 5% zinc but rather some of the previous composition (1% tin, 4% zinc) were still minted.  If I find that detail and reference I will post later.

I'm now more interested than ever to see if I can notice a difference in VDI for the different eras of small cent production -- specifically for the 95% copper years.  That will have to be done with coins that weren't in the ground to dispel any concern that the chemicals in the ground have had a permanent effect.  I'll move that task to near the top of my ToDo list.  😁

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...