What are these worth?

Look at the dime on the left compared to the normal dime on the right




Notice the Letters E and 1 on each side of the face on the quarter

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

You've got 45 cents total there. Both are post mint damage.

 

+1

 

But.... I see notching on that 1! j/k

 

Nothing of value here Luciico. It's all what we call PMD (post mint damage).

Welcome to the forum and I hope ya stick around for a spell and take in the knowledge of what the community possesses. And we can be corny,quirky, tongue in cheek at times........

 

+1!

 

I can't tell what's going on with that 70s dime. It looks like acid damage or something. Too hard to tell from that pic.

 

Here is a penny (pretty mangled up). How much is this worth?

Click each image for full size view.

 

One cent.

 

Being a pre-1982 copper cent, it is worth $0.0215168 as of this moment am I writing this. That is its melt value.

 

Pre-82 cents are not Grade A copper.

 

Not sure if your comment is in response to mine, but the melt value I posted was taken from coinflation website. It calculates the value based on 95% copper and 5% zinc. Here is the breakdown: http://www.coinflation.com/coins/1909-1982-Lincoln-Cent-Penny-Value.html

 

It was meant more as an addition than an actual response, but yes. I am both familiar with and assumed that was where the information came from, but the problem is that it's misleading in that it does not take into account that the quoted copper price is for grade A, which US cents are not.

 

What grade are copper cents? What is their real melt value (for their grade)?

 

US cents are not grade A copper because of the 5% zinc in the alloy. Take out the zinc and you have grade A copper.

Coinflation, when quoting a melt value, takes those percentages into account, lumping the value of both metals together in the total. The quoted value is not the value of just the copper, it's the value of both metals in the alloy.

 

Yes, which is what I said.

Yes, but in this case, or at least how it's often perceived, 1+1 does not equal 2.

 

What is being said is that if you could legally smelt 95% copper cents, the zinc is a contaminant and the price offered for both would be less than the copper estimate alone, unless you going to make a statue or something similar. Same is true for the cupronickel coins.

 

Please don't misquote me to make it look like I agree with you. Quote the entire statement or none of it.

 

Oh, kind of like you did with this?

Gotcha, but don't flatter yourself. As with you, I quoted only what I was directly responding to; nothing less and nothing more.

It is interesting that you say "take out the zinc" as if by uttering some magic words it will be done. Unfortunately, the reality of the situation is that taking out the zinc costs money, and is the very reason why cents, in their present form, are not actually "worth" what is claimed on coinflation even if they could legally be refined.

 

Ignored.