Weird 1967 Quarter Found.

[Sirius]

22 minutes ago, GB_Amateur said:

2/3 of the thickness is copper core.  1/6 thickness for each of the 75%Cu 25% Ni layer.  You'd have to make a very deep scratch to get down to the core.

Since you've decided scratching it is OK, just take a file to the edge, perpendicular to the face, cutting a notch.  I would think the original orange color of the core would show up then.

I just scratched it to do an acid test on the rim. But my question is why would it be such a thin layer of copper. These things were made with 75% copper 25% nickel clad in mind, as shown with the other coin of the same year. It's curious so i'm still asking around about what it could be.

[Chase Goldman]

31 minutes ago, Sirius said:

I just scratched it to do an acid test on the rim. But my question is why would it be such a thin layer of copper. These things were made with 75% copper 25% nickel clad in mind, as shown with the other coin of the same year. It's curious so i'm still asking around about what it could be.

Not sure what you are asking here (“thin layer of copper”).  The two outer clad layers are 75/25 Cu/Ni alloy which has a silver/nickel appearance. There is no thin layer of copper.  The core is pure copper.  

[Sirius]

38 minutes ago, Chase Goldman said:

Not sure what you are asking here (“thin layer of copper”).  The two outer clad layers are 75/25 Cu/Ni alloy which has a silver/nickel appearance. There is no thin layer of copper.  The core is pure copper.  

I was responding to GB. Basically why would I need to scratch deeply when the core is so close to the surface. I  took a not so tarnished clad quarter and scratched the rim on a brick and it instantly exposed the copper core, whereas the coin I found yesterday didn't show any signs of having a copper core after scratching the rim on a test surface. 
My question now is: could this be a counterfeit quarter?

[Chase Goldman]

3 hours ago, Sirius said:

I was responding to GB. Basically why would I need to scratch deeply when the core is so close to the surface. I  took a not so tarnished clad quarter and scratched the rim on a brick and it instantly exposed the copper core, whereas the coin I found yesterday didn't show any signs of having a copper core after scratching the rim on a test surface. 
My question now is: could this be a counterfeit quarter?

It really makes no financial sense to go through the effort to counterfeit a clad quarter.  

What it looks like to me is that the copper core of your quarter has circumferentially receded from the edge of the coin whose diameter is now defined soly by the Cupronickel surface clad layers.  This can be explained by the fact that the pure copper is more susceptible to saltwater induced corrosion than the Cu/Ni clad layers, so there is more pure Cu metal lost.  The net effect of that is that when you scratch the edge you are deforming the silver-toned Cu/Ni metal into the circumfrential void created from the receding copper core.  If you instead took a file and scratched off some of the clad surface layer off the face of the coin, you might then better expose the copper core layer than scratching the edge.

[Sirius]

22 minutes ago, Chase Goldman said:

It really makes no financial sense to go through the effort to counterfeit a clad quarter.  

What it looks like to me is that the copper core of your quarter has circumferentially receded from the edge of the coin whose diameter is now defined soly by the Cupronickel surface clad layers.  This can be explained by the fact that the pure copper is more susceptible to saltwater induced corrosion than the Cu/Ni clad layers, so there is more pure Cu metal lost.  The net effect of that is that when you scratch the edge you are deforming the silver-toned Cu/Ni metal into the circumfrential void created from the receding copper core.  If you instead took a file and scratched off some of the clad surface layer off the face of the coin, you might then better expose the copper core layer than scratching the edge.

There is very little void, at some points the core is even with the nickel clad on the edge. This is also the one and only example i've seen of a coin with a missing copper core from all the clad quarters i've dug. If there was indeed corrosion then why don't I see the usual suspect of green oxidized copper leeching out of the coin or even the copper itself? I'm not gonna scratch up the coin to go searching for something that's likely not there.

[Chase Goldman]

Well ok then.  Suit yourself.

Strange you sought and then decided to basically brush off the input of a coin dealer as well as multiple experienced forum members who took the time to respond regarding the potential nature of your find.  But that is certainly your prerogative.  It is your find, after all.

If you feel so inclined, look up Occam's Razor. 

The simple version of that is summed up in the saying:

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

Who knows, maybe there is a small possibility we're all wrong and you have something unusual there.  But if you are basing it on the few hundred clad quarters you've personally seen in various corroded states since you took up detecting a few months ago, then that is a pretty weak position to consider conclusive considering all the variables and the probable millions of clad quarters that are out there exposed to the elements.  If you've seen the pics of Beach Find clad here, there are no "usual suspects" regarding corrosion states and appearances regarding green copper and copper leaching.  It's all over the map.

If you just want affirmation of an "out there" hypothesis, versus usable input, that's fine, I guess.  But forum members like to share honest advice from their experiences not just tell you what you want to hear.  It's also reassuring to get confirmation your feedback is given serious consideration.  I can't speak for the others who chimed in here, but from my perspective, at least, it was just a tad frustrating reading the same counter argument multiple times.  ? 

Something to think about if you plan to use the forum to get input on your next inquiry. 

Oh, BTW, nice pocket watch you have there that made several guest appearances throughout thread.

Cheers...and happy hunting.

[Gold Seeker]

I think that quarter was simply exposed to some other different condition/elements than all the other quarters you've found and thus the different color/corrosion your seeing, but if t floats your boat then it's whatever you think it is.

[Chase Goldman]

 

35 minutes ago, Gold Seeker said:

but if t floats your boat then it's whatever you think it is.

Reminds me of when I was first getting into relic detecting.  I recovered a highly corroded ferrous target at a farm site.  It was a hook or something.  It was non-descript in terms of being able to tell whether it was CW period iron or modern farm junk.  I asked my detecting buddy if he thought it was a CW period relic. Knowing that 1) it had no distinguishing features that could conclusively date the item and 2) it had basically no collectable value either way - he replied, "It is if you want it to be."  Never forgot that and it injected some reality into my idealistic sense of what relic and treasure detecting is all about and the very small potential that any given unidentifiable target I pull out of the ground is some unique relic treasure. FWIW.

[longbow62]

Not long ago I found a 1965 Washington about 2 inches deep. It had about the same wear as the suspect quarter. It was not even corroded as badly. It looks to me like it's a somewhat fresh drop with little corrosion. Plus it has way more corrosion than what is normal for silver. Almost every silver I dig has no visible corrosion on it. When they do have corrosion it's almost always a little black staining. I'm not even sure the black staining would even be considered corrosion.