When You Find A Really Nice Greenie...

[schoolofhardNox]

6 hours ago, rod-pa said:

schoolofhardNox, i agree on the green tone.  I was just looking back at pictures, and the last really nice green IHC I dug was 1865, too.  Must have been a good year for copper content at the Philly mint.

I just looked at Breen's book and those two coins used "French Bronze" 95% copper 5% tin and zinc Wheat cents are 95% copper 5% zinc (no tin). So I'm going to assume that the lack of tin had something to do with it? But I have also found old Wheats that had that green, IDK. Soil probably has the most to do with it, but I still find a lot of 2 cent coins that have that green look vs wheat cents.

[GB_Amateur]

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....

[schoolofhardNox]

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

[dogodog]

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.

[rod-pa]

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. 

[NCtoad]

That’s the nicest 2 cent piece I’ve ever seen!   Congrats! 

[NCtoad]

That’s the nicest 2 cent piece I’ve ever seen!   Congrats! 

[GB_Amateur]

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.)

 

 

[GB_Amateur]

@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!