So I weight all my 1983 cents . I had a few that weighed slightly over 2.5 so I had them tested at my shop for the material compositions, 2 had 65 percent copper and 1 had 91 percent copper. So I checked a pre 82 cent it was 95 percent copper. Is this 1983 cent an error? Should I have it graded?
There have been a few 1983 transitional errors found. But 98% Copper! Here is one selling for $17,500 Not my coin
We make medical grade devices where I work and all of our measuring instruments are calibrated on a regular cycle
Wow 17K really.I guess I should put prices on my holder's.So when I pass away my kids won't get ripped off.I wonder what a MS 65 would be worth?
Problem with an XRF scanner is how deeply it penetrates. Not deeply enough and it mainly just reads the pure copper plating and you get a reading that makes it look like a mostly copper coin. The deeper it penetrates the lower the copper reading becomes and the higher the zinc reading gets. It penetrated deeper when you shot the reverse. A homogeneous alloy like a copper cent should be, should give near ly identical reading on both sides. The 2.64 gram weight confirms it is a copper plated zinc coin. Standard weight for a Zincoln is 2.5 grams +/- .13 grams. So a withing tolerance Zincoln can weigh as high as 2.63 grams. A copper 1983 cent would weigh 3.1 grams +/- .13 grams so the lowest a copper cent would weigh is 2.97 grams, well above the weight of your coin.
Could a thicker copper coating account for the extra weight, and the incorrect metal percentage diagnosis?
Slight differences in the distance of the XF scanner from the coin might make a difference as well. Slightly closer and it penetrates deeper and reads mostly zinc. The plating is only .0002 of an inch thick. Scanner placement could be critical. Might be an interesting study. Shoot the same object from ever increasing distances and see if the readings change.
