1931-S Lincoln Cent that weighs 3.24 grams -- seeking opinions

I recently acquired a 1931-S Lincoln Cent that weighs in at 3.24 grams, which as I understand it, is just barely within tolerance.

Yes--I've calibrated my scale, which isn't a top of the line model, but seems to be relatively accurate, and does weigh to the 100th. I tested a number of other years that all weighed in right around 3.10.

All the attached pics are of the same coin. Two (white background) are using a photo scanner at 1200ppi. The remainder are with a really old HP digital camera set on the highest quality level available--some with the flash and some without (as indicated in the file name).

I've thoroughly examined the coin myself using a 12x loupe. With my limited knowledge, everything looks okay in regard to the rounded/bowlish edge just inside the rim, the date and "S" looks good, and can't find anything overtly odd with Lincoln's bust, the wheat ears, the lettering or the overall texture of the coin. There is a slight split in the rim above "IN GOD WE TR", but I've seen this in a lot of Lincoln cents, so I suppose that is a normal minting issue.

The color is weird. It's slightly glossy, which I'm guessing maybe is an improper cleaning? The partial mint luster seems odd as well; however, I've seen other Wheat years with this same kind of almost glittery, brassy coloration. I do have an ANACS certified 1931-S MS63 RB with similar coloration on the mint areas, so I'm thinking maybe that isn't too much cause for concern?

Anyway, I'm interested in opinions from anyone who would like to chime in on this.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Your coin looks 100% genuine. The double rim over IGWT is commonly seen as is the raised "artifact" thru the N on the reverse. Don't know what caused this characteristic.

 

You've done what seems to be about as much homework as can be done before even asking (I like you already ), so the most likely conclusion is you have a rather nice 1931-S which happens to be on the upper end of the weight tolerance.

 

I think it was a AU-MS coin that had some slight careless storage during the past 85 years. Thus the small spotting. I love the reverse.

 

I see nothing to make me question its authenticity. The weight is on the high end, but certainly not so far as to be impossible.

 

Thanks for the positive comments! I work in IT, so I tend to like to answer things as much as possible myself before deferring to the expertise of others. Nothing more annoying than a newbie who obviously hasn't "read the manual". ;-)

 

Looks good to me.

 

Give this guy a contract.

 

Nice looking 31S!

 

The commentary is very much appreciated. You all have convinced me that I have nothing to worry about. I obtained this coin through an eBay auction at a very favorable price compared with what all is available. When I want to acquire a particular year (I'm currently only collecting Lincoln cents), I usually watch the listings for days and even weeks before making a purchase, and this one appeared to be too good to pass up. So then when I actually received the coin, and it weighed heavy and had the odd coloration--well, obviously it made me a bit concerned.

Given the semi-glossy sheen, I do think someone along the line during the past 85 years may have been overly exuberant with a cotton cloth, but I'm glad to hear that this doesn't seem to be a huge negative as far as you all are concerned.

Thanks again for the expert advice, and if anyone else still wants to put in their two cents, please feel free to do so.

Jay

 

The pair of angled images give the impression that there's a coating of lacquer or something on it, but none of the other pairs do. I feel that more a photographic artifact than anything else.

Any sort of polishing wouldn't reach into the tighter areas of the coin, meaning you'd likely see "halos" around letters. Leaves me fairly confident (and a little bit jealous ) of the coin.

 

Great information with so many counterfeits being produced these days, I enjoy the knowledge given on posts like these, thanks one and all.

 

This was exactly my sentiment at first glance. The coin came in a 2x2 that I removed it from. I studied it extensively under bright LED lighting, viewing it from all angles, looking for any indication that the glossiness was due to some type of coating. On the one hand I'm unable to discern any evidence of this type of modification with the 12x loupe; on the other hand, I'm definitely not an expert in this regard.

Incidentally, I have what to my recollection (been a while since I looked at it) is a 1925-D that has this same kind of very weird, mint-like glossy texture. In regard to that coin, it came out of my grandfather's collection, which sat in a box, undisturbed, since the late 1960s. Not well stored (was in a basement that flooded at one point), but highly unlikely to have been tampered with by him. He only collected coins out of circulation, and it's clear that he didn't attempt to "clean" his coins. I'd estimate it's around a 99% probability that the odd colored/textured 1925-D I'm referring to came out of circulation as is.

(BTW, it was the aforementioned flood that resulted in the coin collection coming out of the basement a little over a year ago. I'm ashamed now to admit that this is where Granddad's coin collection ended up for all those years. However, on the bright side, rescuing the coins from the flood resulted in my becoming emphatically interested in numismatics.)

I really would like to post some pics of the 1925-D right now; however, I'm at work, so it will have to wait until I get home. I promise to follow up...

 

Although I don't believe it the culprit in this case, lacquering coins (using shellac) as a preservative used to be common practice in the hobby more than a century ago. It's removable with acetone, leaving no trace, and frankly if I were collecting Red copper (I don't), I'd seriously consider employing it today since I've no use for TPG slabs.

 

I have had the same concerns about several ungraded coins. I hope they are OK.

I read that they should all have cartwheel luster, yet there seem to be some coins that just lack that, and sometimes that's in combination with this glossy luster / toning. I find myself wondering whether that always means they were cleaned, which is the conclusion usually leapt to.

When I was collecting in the mid-60's, it was already a mantra to "Never Clean A Coin" and "Only touch it by the edges". So folks have been warned about cleaning for a long, long time. And someone putting aside coins like these would know that better than most.

Here's something similar. Short of having it graded, I can only hope it's acceptable. In any case, I like it, and I hope you like your 31-S, too. I do.

 

This is fine with the older soluble shellacs, but now, many if not most available ( except from restorer's supplies) are not organic as before, but now are epoxy based and seemingly impossible to remove. Some place here there is a thread, and I tried to remove a modern shellac that was epoxy based with DMSO and other epoxy solvents for a member. It took off some, but the lowest levels of the epoxy had interdigitated with the surface of the coin and wouldn't come off.

 

Yeah, I had your remarks in mind when I penned that reply. I learned from you on that one. Going forward when the occasion arises I'll be more specific.

 

I figured it had slipped through. I wish for a synthetic oil or wax, that would not decompose into organic acids nor attract insects with corrosive waste products on the coins. Jim

 

For anyone who is interested, for comparison, below is a photo set of the 1925-D Lincoln Cent I mentioned previously. When I received the 1931-S, the kind of glittery mint color and semi-glossiness of it immediately reminded me of this 1925-D.

As I said, the 1925-D came from my grandfather's collection, and he mostly put them in boxes, coin-wrapped many, and for what he apparently thought were the nicest, he put in albums. Although I'm not an expert, given the overall appearance and state of his coins, I have a high level of confidence that he didn't "clean" any of them, either improperly or using acceptable methods of restoration.

Full disclosure: many months ago the 1925-D received a bath in Dawn dish soap followed by a rinse and then padded dry. As I mentioned, the collection as a whole survived a basement flood after many years of admittedly improper storage.

In a side by side comparison, overall the 1931-S has a more coppery/red color, whereas the 1925-D has a more brassy/gold color. The most notable difference is the 1925-D has a very weak obverse. On the other hand, the reverse is quite nice. On a side note, the 1925-D weighed in at exactly 3.08 grams.

With the 1925-D, I tried to replicate as closely as possible the conditions that I used to scan and photograph the 1931-S. Strangely, I was unable to produce quality pictures of the obverse, despite multiple attempts. That weak strike just doesn't seem to catch the lighting very well. On the other hand, the photos of the well-struck reverse came out really nice with just one shot.

While I can say for certain that the 1925-D has not been treated with any type of conservation fluid, such as Verdi-care, it did cross my mind that the 1931-S may have received such a treatment. I might give it an acetone bath to see if that makes any difference. Or, I might just leave it at is. The general consensus seems to be that it's a nice coin, so maybe I should leave well enough alone, and just live with the mystery of why it has the strange appearance that it does.

 

Lincolns are difficult to extract contrast from, especially weakly-struck ones. They're too smooth to accomplish that easily. I'm more convinced than ever that the "shiny" worries can be laid at the doorstep of an inexpensive point-and-shoot; it's a phenomenon I've seen before. Heck, more dedicated equipment can come up with that "artificially shiny" look itself: