Is the 1947 Wheat Cent the Rarest, Most Underrated, "Unknown" US Coin??

Will all of the hype given to the 1943 copper and 1944 steel pennies, I couldn't help but wonder - what about the 1947 cartridge case or shell case cent? If it does exist, that's got to be the most under-recognized variety out there, right? As some of you know, 1944-1946 Wheat cents were made using a different copper alloy, composed of melted down ammo / munitions casings, which had a composition of 95% copper and 5% zinc. Wheat cents previous to and after these three years, besides the steel cent, had a composition of 95% copper, 4% zinc, and 1% tin.

IIRC, there weren't enough recyclable casings to supply the entire coinage of cents. However, could it be possible that the shell case sheets or blanks were made well into 1946, and carried over for use in 1947? You'll probably need something like an XRF Analyzer to figure it out.

What do you think? Is the shell case too minute of a difference to mean much to collectors?

Thanks in advance!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Honestly? I'd rather have a '55 Doubled Die any day!

Chris

 

If one was found? I'd expect it to have quite a hype.

 

I have read many differing opinions on whether there enough shells collected. the US was having enough troubles and sending soldiers or seamen to collect them and then store during warfare, etc. is though by many to be wartime propaganda, as the US was not exactly winning at that time. Some say a number of brass from US training bases ( small arms) were collected and used for the symbolic push to conserve all copper. The photos and posters showed shells up to 16inchers being saved on battleships, but many seriously doubt it. I think the 44 cent in mass would be indistinguishable in chemical composition from the others. When you get the XR data, it would be interesting.

 

I think the rarest "unkown" wheat Cent would be more like a 1945 Steel Cent..
Now that would be really interesting!

 

It would be the same for a 1963 Copper, Zinc, Tin. 1962-1982 and 1944-1946 have the same composition. So says the Red Book.

 

No way to tell what all was being melting back in those days. Door knobs, plumbing parts, hinges, you name it. Once it was refined, I don't think the mint gave a darn. They just had to keep up with the demand for cents.
My folks told me about the scrap drives back in those days. Wish I had paid more attention.

 

I read that the shell case cents were collected from domestic gun ranges, and not battlefield spent casings from WW2.
And I don't see how that could produce enough metal to mint millions of cents.

 

But wouldn't all of those naval guns have huge spent munitions casings? Would they simply be tossed over after a battle? In the heat of battle, I can see that recycling copper was a very, very low priority. However, hasn't the military at the time been known to be very frugal? And, when and if carriers had to refuel, couldn't those spent munitions casings be transferred over to the tankers?

 

I guess we need to re watch "War in the Pacific" videos to tell us, but I doubt it. Those were desperate times in battle hearing from many relatives that were there. I suspect that if large samples of cents of the era was sampled with modern analytic devices, that the mint was not too concerned if the copper % dropped below 95% here or there. No one then even imagined that someday. someone could find to the .01% the content of the alloy proportions. They figured all the public would ever have would be the " official mint records", so why worry. A cent is a cent.

 

Ok, dummy me, my son corrected me ~he's the history man. The larger guns had no casings, the shell itself was propelled by bags of propellant. The smaller rapid fire armament had casings. Jim

 

That would be classified information of the United States Mint, @iPen, so mind what you're asking. Just think if the Russians were listening...

 

Personally, I consider any change in a series' composition to be a different type, the same as any change in design is different. So, in my type set, the 1944-46 cents with the removal of tin from their alloy have their own place, as do the 1962-82 cents with the same alloy.

 

According to Roger Burdette, the shell casing were mostly 50 cal and were from domestic training sites. HOWEVER, the figures he gives for the amount of casing delivered to the mints would only account for about 1/3 of the coinage, and he says that tons of casing were also used for the Peru coinage. Unless there were a lot more casing delivered than what he says, they had to be getting copper elsewhere as well.

As for recovering casings during wartime action, back when I joined my first coin club in 1975, several of the older members had served during WWII and at least one of them that had served in the navy did say that one of his jobs was to recover and "corral" the spent casings for recycling. He also said that during the heat of the battle they tended to get loose and in the way so instead of "corraling" them they just jettisoned them over the side. No guarantee that is accurate, just a story relayed to me by an old sailor that was there.

 

The first Estonian coins which was made in Estonia (since 1924) were made using ammo casings left over from WW1 and Independence War (and yes, the empty shells were collected after battles). Basically, pure nickel was added to the casings and the end result supposed to be 10% nickel, 70% copper and 20% zinc. Usually it was that way, but not always. The casings had different alloys because of different origins (Russian, English and Japanese ammo was used). Because of that the amount of copper and zinc was not the same all the time. For example, in one metallurgical analysis the copper amount in the end result was 66% copper and 24% zinc instead of 70 and 30. Also, there was always traces of lead and iron.

Anyway, if You calculate a bit, then the casings had to be roughly 73-77% copper and 23-27% zinc. I don't know, what is the exact alloy of US ammo casings (or even if there is any standard for that), but some extra copper was probably needed (or some zinc had to be removed) to make them to cents.

 

I think this has potential - I would note, however, that I see two issues:

1) Does the type even exist? This would involve a lot of searching for a potential coin that may not exist. I would believe that it could, as most transitional years offer this potential.

2) How would you differentiate the two? Metallurgical analysis would be extremely expensive - the equipment to do this is into the thousands of dollars. It could pay off, for sure, but... see point #1. Also, say you do find one - who's to say it's not a common occurrence? For all we know, this composition could have been used well into 1947.

 

Hi, I have the 1940,42,44,46,47,48---50,51wheats penny.

 

Yes they did have to add copper to bring the melt up to 95% copper and 5% zinc.

 

Shell case cents have a very distinctive toning pattern. Most of the ones I've seen (and own/owned) were from SF mint. I don't think I've ever seen a D-mint coin with the telltale toning, nor very many from Philadelphia. I have an original mint $20 bag of 45-S with shellcase toning! But the latest I've seen is 46-S I believe. All of the 47-S rolls I've looked through have been pretty boring, toning-wise.

Here's an example of a shellcase 46-S. I have long wanted to do XRF myself but the ones I've seen say that there is Mn in the mix. Supposedly this is a component in the primers used to fire the round.



And here is another:

 

^^^ I was going to mention the toning.
I had read that the shell case cents, actually were never made.
But I don't think that's true. Because in circulated specimens there is a wide range of colors and toning in the shell case cents (1944-1946). The alloy mix is not that different from a "normal" cent, but this often seems to be the "case".