War Nickle Vdi's

[Jackpine]

Mostl read 14 on the X-Terra 18.75 kHz (don't have the 800 yet), the worn ones drop down to 12 and one outlier a 1945-P  that's a solid 8

[steveg]

4 hours ago, GB_Amateur said:

Pretty sure all Warnicks are of the same composition.  All have a large mintmask {P,D,S} above the dome.  There were 1942 five cent pieces made of the standard copper+nickel composition but those don't have the large mintmarks.

Very unlikely, and if this were a common occurrence the coin collecting world would have figured it out long ago. There might be a few off-metal examples out there, but what I'm reading here is that this is a common occurence.

Alloys can be tricky.  The arrangement of the atoms (and thus their electrons) can lead to higher or lower conductivity than the constituent pure metals.  There probably are some alloys out there with 65-35 copper silver ratio.  But without testing I would not assume they are up there with either near pure silver or near pure copper.  Steve has talked about this may times with respect to gold alloys.

This strikes me as an hypothesis with a chance of being right.  In the ground there could be physical and/or chemical reactions which affect the arrangement of atoms, possibly leach out manganese, or even pull in some other chemical (oxygen being the obvious culprit).  I don't think that action would be uniform throughout but it could be enough affect on the surface to change the response (conductivity reading) in a metal detector.  Don't we see this with the dreaded Zincolns?  (I don't mean the ones that lose material, but the ones that are all there but crusted really badly.)  Still, going all the way from standard nickel up to standard copper penny with a surface modification?

Mystery still to be solved....

GB_Amateur -- some good/interesting points.

A few counterpoints...

As for the "collecting world figuring it out," I am not sure.  Yes, you could be right, but...on the other hand, I think it's possible they don't.  Without any obvious difference in appearance, and without being "tipped off" by any records from the U.S. Mint, how would they know?  Why would they "suspect" this?  What would even tell them to "look" for such a thing (a few minted with no manganese), and how would they have discovered, or tested it (without sophisticated equipment)?  Seems to me that our detectors may be telling us something, clueing us in to something that may not be widely -- if at all -- known.  I can say this -- these really high-reading nickels are RARE.  I have never dug a war nickel that read anywhere except very close to nickel.  SURE, I have missed many that read just a BIT off -- just above, or just below nickel, as I generally try to avoid tabs and beaver tails, etc. and target only OBVIOUS nickel signals.  BUT -- I DO dig high conductors, and I've never dug a war nickel anywhere near the "penny" range.  With thousands of pennies and other similar targets dug, I should have dug some of these high-reading war nickels -- and so should everyone else have done so.  In other words, IF there were many out there, more would be dug "by accident," by myself, and others.  Instead, I have only heard of this EXTREMELY "rarely" (these ones that read WAY high), so just "extrapolating," there would seem to have been relatively few of them minted (if it is indeed a "composition" thing).  My GUESS would be maybe a small PORTION of one "minting year?"  Along those lines, it would be interesting to see if all of the high-reading ones come from one particular year...

As for alloys being tricky, I agree (chemically speaking).  BUT -- it's hard for me to imagine that ANY silver-copper alloy would not read "high" on a machine.  After all, all of our silver coins ARE a silver/copper alloy (90/10), and other countries have minted "less pure" silver coins (more copper content, or whatever), and as I understand they are also relatively "high conductors" (presuming similar size).  

Now, gold alloys are totally different.  Gold is a relatively POOR conductor, and it is frequently alloyed with any number of other metals -- including copper (common in 14K).  This contributes to why an 18K or higher men's band reads MUCH lower than a 14K men's band (which often has a good bit of copper in it).  This "gold alloy comparison" with respect to silver/copper alloys seems to maybe be a bit of an "apples to oranges" comparison (mixing a low conductor with a high one, in the case of lower-carat gold, versus a copper/silver alloy coin which would be a mix of two high conductors).

Finally, on the "environmental" causes (chemical changes to the surface of the coin in the ground, causing different capability for the coin to generate eddy currents) -- I do think that is very possible, and I personally believe that it does happen.  HOWEVER, I would be more willing to accept that as the cause of SMALL changes in coin ID, not large ones (i.e. a zinc penny reading a few digits low, for example).  FURTHER, I'd be more willing to accept that hypothesis as a cause of our war nickel dilemma if war nickels were reading at least somewhat consistently at ALL ID numbers between the nickel range and the penny range.  HOWEVER, it seems, from what I can tell, to be a case of where the vast majority of the war nickels read at "nickel," or very close to it (a few digits either way), and then a very few MAJOR outliers that read as "penny-type" targets...which to me, suggests more of a "different coin composition" issue, than a "ground causing chemical changes" issue.  NOT definitive, of course; it still COULD be effects from the ground in very specific circumstances I guess, but I'm willing to say "not likely" with respect to the penny-reading war nickels...

Definitely a mystery...good stuff!

Steve

 

 

[GB_Amateur]

32 minutes ago, steveg said:

A few counterpoints...

Interesting ideas.  If the composition is off it might show up in weight measurements.  Those would likely have to be done with pretty high precision and with coins with very little wear, since wear reduces weight.  Thus using weight for metal detected coins probably won't yield any info.  XRF spectral analysis should, but you gotta have access to one of those devices and they aren't cheap.  I know of a place in California (advertised in ICMJ) that will run and XRF spectrum for $25.  I've read here that some coin shops have those devices and will do it for free.  (Nice to have those kinda people around!)

Hard core coin collectors are a different breed (kinda like metal dectorists ).  But it's certainly possible something like this could have slipped past them, especially if it were a rare anomaly.  Some of the overdates, for example, were not detected for many years.  The 1942/41 Mercury dime from the Denver mint is a case-in-point.  The Philly overmint was known much earlier.  I have a handful of Redbooks -- 1959 version has Philly listed but not Denver; 1965 version, ditto.  1975 version has both listed.  PCGS website (https://www.pcgs.com/prices/) has the survival estimates similar (3500 for the plain and 3000 for the -D) which makes me think there were similar numbers minted, so relative rarity doesn't explain it.

Glad to see we can 'discuss' this without getting contentious.  We're all hear working together, looking for answers and knowledge.  On many sites this would already be a flame war.  Keep up the sleuthing and I look forward to more evidence.  An enticing mystery for sure.

 

[steveg]

1 hour ago, GB_Amateur said:

Interesting ideas.  If the composition is off it might show up in weight measurements.  Those would likely have to be done with pretty high precision and with coins with very little wear, since wear reduces weight.  Thus using weight for metal detected coins probably won't yield any info.  XRF spectral analysis should, but you gotta have access to one of those devices and they aren't cheap.  I know of a place in California (advertised in ICMJ) that will run and XRF spectrum for $25.  I've read here that some coin shops have those devices and will do it for free.  (Nice to have those kinda people around!)

Hard core coin collectors are a different breed (kinda like metal dectorists ).  But it's certainly possible something like this could have slipped past them, especially if it were a rare anomaly.  Some of the overdates, for example, were not detected for many years.  The 1942/41 Mercury dime from the Denver mint is a case-in-point.  The Philly overmint was known much earlier.  I have a handful of Redbooks -- 1959 version has Philly listed but not Denver; 1965 version, ditto.  1975 version has both listed.  PCGS website (https://www.pcgs.com/prices/) has the survival estimates similar (3500 for the plain and 3000 for the -D) which makes me think there were similar numbers minted, so relative rarity doesn't explain it.

Glad to see we can 'discuss' this without getting contentious.  We're all hear working together, looking for answers and knowledge.  On many sites this would already be a flame war.  Keep up the sleuthing and I look forward to more evidence.  An enticing mystery for sure.

 

For Heaven's sake, isn't THAT the truth (the part of your post I bolded, above).  So many people just can't deal with/won't tolerate this kind of discussion, nowadays.  To me, it's the old "iron sharpens iron" thing.  Take an idea, and let's tear it apart together...debate -- even vigorously.  But tear apart the IDEAS, not the participants in the discussion.  This is how learning/discovery takes place -- logical exchange of ideas -- but this is becoming nearly extinct in our culture today.  You can't debate someone with logic -- it immediately becomes personal, and usually devolves to name calling/ad hominem attacks as soon as you "challenge" someone's idea or statement.

I could not possibly agree more with what you said, and how you said it, GB.  

Oh, and the rest of your post was informative, as well! 

Thanks for "getting" the "spirit" with which I was discussing your ideas...

Steve

[Tiftaaft]

Amen to that SteveG and GB.