What Vdi Are Your Buffs & V Nics Coming In At?

[Happa54]

Thanx everyone for chiming in on this subject for me.

Thank goodness there are very little changes to the VDI's with the nickels. One bump on the #'s either way is manageable. So, I may have to dig a little more but that's okay. Time will tell. The number of nics I dig will set the bar for me. I don't want to miss that V, Shield or Buff. 

Re the War nics...I remember the first one I dug about a year ago, was a high CO signal. Upon retrieval, I thought to myself, "Oh, a nick in the hole with a dime or maybe some silver". But I couldn't find anything else. So I passed the nic across my coil and there it was...a high CO signal. That was when I realized I had a War nic that I've heard so much about. The other War nics I've recovered were consistent at 14 on my ML Safari. 

A while back, my Etrac buddy asked, "Did you get that high tone or mid tone on those?" Obviously he had the same experience. 

So now with the Nox, where will the VDI be on a high tone War nic? I'm thinking they will be somewhere between zinc and dime.

I guess so my next question in the future will be...."What was the VDI on your high tone War nic with your Nox?" Oh boy!!!!

 

 

 

[steveg]

Yep, Happa.  We've had a few discussions lately about those "high-toning" war nickels.  They are relatively "rare," but they DO exist.  I can find no published documentation, thus far, from the U.S. Mint, or elsewhere, that might shed some light on possible differences in metal composition on some of those war nickels.  MOST read at, or just above, regular nickels, as we all know.  But there is this distinct "breed" of them that reads up into the penny/dime range, and that HAS to almost CERTAINLY imply different metal composition.  My theory is, they had a few batches minted which contained ONLY the silver and copper portions of the mix, but somehow forgot (or purposely left out) the manganese.  A silver/copper mix makes sense with a "penny" type of ID; otherwise, I know of no reason for these extreme "outliers," as the silver/copper/manganese ones clearly read down in the nickel range.  

I plan to continue trying to follow up on this; I'm almost CERTAIN that it's a "metals composition" issue, but -- like I said -- I've found no documentation to support this, and there SHOULD be something from an official source, somewhere...

Steve

[steveg]

OK --

I found this...(with apologies up front for a bit of a "threadjack.")

With the entry of the United States into World War II, nickel became a critical war material, and the Mint sought to reduce its use of the metal. On March 27, 1942, Congress authorized a nickel made of 50% copper and 50% silver, but gave the Mint the authority to vary the proportions, or add other metals, in the public interest. The Mint's greatest concern was in finding an alloy which would use no nickel, but still satisfy counterfeit detectors in vending machines. An alloy of 56% copper, 35% silver and 9% manganese proved suitable, and this alloy began to be coined into nickels from October 1942.

So -- Congress initially authorized a 50/50 silver/copper coin, initially?  THAT would certainly confirm my "missing manganese" theory, and would explain the "penny" type readings on some war nickels.  But, it never says if that mix was ever actually minted, and it further says that by October 1942, the silver/copper/manganese mix was being used.  The problem is, I know for a fact that in the last couple of months, my friend has dug two of the "high-reading" (12-43 on a CTX, i.e. penny range) war nickels, and both are dated 1943.  SO, even if some were minted through the first half of 1942 with the 50/50 silver/copper alloy (prior to a switch to silver/copper/manganese in the fall of 1942), then why the 1943 coins that read in the penny range?  

More questions...I'll keep looking for answers...

Steve

 

[GB_Amateur]

 (Don't know why I didn't look here before now; thanks for the reminder, Steveg.)  From Modern Mint Mistakes by Phillip Steiner and Michael Zimpfer, Whispering Pines Printing, Wanatah, Indiana, 1974, p. 99:

Errors of improper alloys are detected more easily in cents and nickels because of the coins' coloration versus metallic content.  The error occurs when the metal used for making blank planchets is not properly mixed and upon cooling results in a streky appearance or abnormal coloration.  Both of thees errors are more prevalent on the Lincoln cent and the silver war nickel, as differences in color can be seen easily.  (and later) Two types of these errors are known.  The first is the above streaked error due to improper mixing.  the other is an improper coloration error due to mixing the metals uniformly but in incorrect proportions.  These errors are more off color than normally struck coins of the same type and may be over or underweight depending on the density of the resulting metallic mixture.

[steveg]

VERY interesting, GB_Amateur.  I sure would like to hear more about the "incorrect proportions..."

If "incorrect proportions" could mean "forgot the manganese," then this could make sense...

Steve

[Happa54]

Great research GB and Steve. Find this hard to believe that "Congress gave the Mint the authority to vary the proportions, or add other metals, in the interest of the public". One would think that mint standards would be the same across the board. Very, very interesting.

On the left, a 1943 S and on the right a 1944 D. The '43-S signal is 23 - 25 on the Nox, but seems to like 24 the most. The '44-D is a solid 13 with no wavering at all. 

[GB_Amateur]

Been doing a bit more thinking, but all of this is speculation (hoping at to be least 'educated' guessing).  But based upon what we've found so far, here are some conditions and possible explanations:

1) The war caught the mint off guard.  They had to act pretty quickly to find a solution.  They had to use metals which weren't required elsewhere (war effort).  Although the mint doesn't make their own sheet stock, both they and the suppliers were likely short on staff, working long hours, and dealing with inexperienced fill-in labor.  Things like quality control could have suffered.

2) The eventual solution (silver, copper, manganese) may not have been reached initially.

3) Given the first time ever use of manganese in US coinage, it's possible the sheet stock supplier didn't have a reliable manganese source.  Possibly (with or without the mint's permission...) they went ahead with a different alloy when the manganese wasn't available.

Some things I wonder about:

a) assuming what is being experienced is change-in-alloy, intended or not, how widespread was the occurrence?

b) was it just certain batches which subsequently were distributed locally as opposed to 'globally' (i.e, widespread throughout the US)?

Interesting that we detectorists have a role in solving this mystery -- possibly the first to really notice it.  (Well, the book I quoted noticed it, but that may as far as they or their informants went.)  Certainly XRF analysis could help a lot but without that technique there is still solid evidence which can be collected by detectorists to lead to solid conclusions.

 

[Happa54]

Good analogy GB and this war nic thing is getting interesting for me because I dug one. Now I'm curious to know how many were minted at this possible 50/50 mix. I'll have to search this one out. Please post if you find the same. Thank you

[Happa54]

Wow... I spoke too soon. High mintage numbers on the '43-S

 

 

Year	Mintage	Numismatic Value Range
1942 P	57,873,000	$1.00 – $95.00
1942 S	32,900,000	$1.00 – $150.00
1943 P	271,165,000	$0.90 – $120.00
1943 D	15,294,000	$1.25 – $1,100.00
1943 S	104,060,000	$1.00 – $200.00
1943/2 P	unknown	$30.00 – $1,265.00
1944 P	119,150,000	$1.00 – $500.00
1944 D	32,309,000	$1.00 – $300.00
1944 S	21,640,000	$1.25 – $900.00
1945 P	119,408,100	$0.80 – $300.00
1945 D	37,158,000	$1.00 – $500.00
1945 S	58,939,000	$1.00 – $400.00