A retained higher inner ear after 1961 (tin 1962) ... thanks Fred W.

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I told you guys that this fool should just be ignored... @paddyman98 @Fred Weinberg @tommyc03

 

Huh I left strange photos.... anyway, how a 1963 seems “realistic” comes from how a surrogate was needed. A 1962 could not provide die depth without tin, because every other model they could use (1961 and before) contained tin. So you create a penny a year early and use that lack of tin to create a die for 1962.
That’s how I “realistically” justify that. An inner ear IS higher starting in 1962. Every 1961 compared to a 1962 so far has proven its validity. It’s easy to see examples between these two.... they’re the most common of coin sights.

 

I hope you don't drink & drive.

Chris

 

I have a feeling OP doesn't leave the house much...

 

I think the mods should start giving warnings for stupidity.

Chris

 

Well he DID say there was tin involved so....

 

Believe me! really believe me!!!ReALLY believe me.....It wouldn't help, as myself and probably every human on the forum has popped at least once or more with something they wished they didn't say or do after the next day.

Members are lucky , they do NOT have to read every post, Mods are not so fortunate,
Ignore. Jim

 

Alright now..... Mint history proves in 1962 the US mint removed tin from cents. It’s on any reference... GOOGLE IT.

 

The likeliness of a Rockwell Test is GREAT coming during a planchet and die combination for new reliefs including the 1962 removal of Tin from Lincoln Cents. Recalibration on all fronts most likely was necessary.

 

If you know why my theory is fundamentally flawed.... then we’d like to know the REAL reason a 1963 Lincoln Cent didn’t have a raised inner ear every other coin did after 1962 and why that Rockwell Test is on a 1963 Lincoln Cent instead.... with a two over the three.

 

I know I will regret this , but you said

You seem to imply that the thickness of the cent changed due to the removal of tin from the 5% tin and zinc, 95% copper. and thus the die could not strike the metal as high . What you neglected is that it wasn't 'removed', it was replaced with a corresponding amount of zinc, which are very close metals, that is why the weight didn't change as their density are very similar, so there was no difference on the height due to tin being removed and no need to create a die just for it. So there is no "realistic" justification and certainly no scientific reasoning , IMO
Jim