I'm just over a year into both coin and currency interest / enthusiasm. Silver appreciation lured me into the hobby, and I have managed to develop a pretty thorough understanding of the basics (both currency and coin) . My local "coin guy" is down to earth and, from the git go, instilled in me a numismatic mentality to approach the hobby objectively. I manage a restaurant and have a great advantage , as I have the opportunity to examine every coin and bill that goes in and out my store . That said , I choose to be "quick to dismiss " and error coin or inconsistency I come across, and have yet to find myself baffled as I am with this 1968 dime (d). Discovered in circulation, this coin is one gram underweight and has a rough, grainy looking obverse & reverse. These effects can easily be attributed to wear, but what has me scratching my head is the reeding on the coin. there is consistent reeding all around the coin as there should be, but the reeding is submerged between the clad surfaces . The diameter of the coin is correct (compared to many other 68 dimes). The reeding , however , cannot be contacted for touch like any other dime I've ever come across in my life time. Nonetheless, without even magnification, the reeding clearly exists to the naked eye, but the position / placement of the reeded edge is clearly beneath both clad surfaces . My coin guy told me to get a 2nd opinion at a coin show that will be in town about a month from now... Any input in the mean time would be greatly appreciated . I've cross referenced this dime with all forms of post mint damage / manipulation available on line.... And I'm just not finding reasonable explanations ....additionally, I've researched much info about changes made to clad coins right around the time this coin was produced.... I've excluded all scenarios that negate logical explanation.... I am by no means experienced enuf to apply a concept that fits, but I can't dismiss the possibility of an annealing error , and or pre strike split planchet error . Tho both theories have their inconsistencies , It is my understanding that there is a small chance these 2 errors can coincide with one another, although very rare . Any input is very much appreciated Thanks
Extended soak in acid. The acid attacks the copper core more rapidly than the coppernickel clad layers. That is why the they extend out beyond the copper core. But the acid also attacks the hich and low areas of the reeding evenly which is why the copper core still shows the reeding, even though it does not extend all the way out to the edge of the coin. We see these fairly frequently.
AppreciAte it conder101. Is there any rhyme or reason to the characteristics of a coin that's had an extended acid bath . I understand that the natural wear of A coin PRiOR to an acid bath would (seemingly) yield variations in weight n dimension. Why though, is there generally a synonymity with acid bath coins and "missing clad" coins. Assuming that the "after mAth" of these altered coins pertains greatly to the amount of time that the coin is in the acid, why ( in the case of my dime shown) is there no copper visible on either face of the coin. I understand that the copper portion of the coin is the first to "react" to the acid , thus depleting/ reducing the exposed copper core portion of the reeding, but my question is ....if this was an extensive acid bath, shouldn't at least a portion of the outer layer of copper nickel worn away, thus clearly exposing copper ? I'm certainly not disputing what you said ... I'm just trying to make sense of the process...thanks for your time
It looks as it has either been in acid or buried in the ground and dug up. It isn't an error. I've run across quite a few of these while CRHing dimes.
I wish I understood that better myself. I've got a pretty good background in chemistry, but this gets into metallurgy, and a lot of stuff that I don't understand very well at all. (For example, chemistry alone doesn't explain why acid can raise dates on nickels -- it has to do with the crystallographic structure of the metal and how it flows during striking.) The effect you see here is especially confusing, because nickel is actually more chemically active than copper, and as a naive chemistry geek I would expect the nickel to go away faster than the copper. That's not what happens, though. Nickel seems to be especially good at "passivating" -- forming a protective skin that prevents further corrosion -- but that depends heavily on what's attacking it. One of our members, @BadThad, is a metallurgist and chemist, and may be able to explain better how this happens.
I found a penny that had been acid soaked so it would be dime size for vending machines: https://www.cointalk.com/threads/mistaken-for-errors.249467/
Thanks much for your input jeffB. Your perspective certainly shed some light on a subject that's pretty foggy to me. Kind of frustrating after one takes it all in. Outside the practice of chemistry, any scenario involving the subjugation of a coin with acid/chemicals/ toxins is a bit perplexing to me. More so confusing when you take Into account the dynamics of A) coin composition , B) Application of deteriorant, C) Intentions of the individual defacing the coin, D) outcome of the "experiment" . Given the magnitude of collector' appreciation for error varieties , the sky seems to be the limit with regards to deception . Certainly this isn't news to collectors lol.... It's just still fresh in my mind that my dime was likely tampered with . Nonetheless, I havnt convinced myself entirely that this dime is tampered with and or acid soaked. This isn't merely blind optimism and I'm not in denial about what the evidence indicates. The reason I'm not sold on acid Soaking is because I believe the damage N these pictures I provided is misleading , not intentionally so, but because I believe you have to have 100 % tangibility and all 360 degrees of visibility in order to apply your best judgement. Magnification (in addition to tangibility and vision) also enables a Better understanding of this coin and where I'm coming from when I stated initially in this thread that I suspect a possible split planchet or annealing error ... , and or annealing error mis struck on an all clad planchet . Any way....my local coin guy ... Who applies his knowledge and experience very conservatively .... Opted not to attAch an "identity" regarding the inconsistencies of this dime... He just Told me That I had a really nice Coin and to take it to a local coin show that will be in mine and his Hometown In about a Month . He told me to fish out the big wig booths and error specialists , and gauge a reaction from All the various vendors .... I will know for sure then and will gladly be quick to update even if or when they say its acid soaked Thanks for all yA'lls input I will b glad to take more pics For clarification's sake Lastly.... Anyone with pics of acid soaked or acid bath clad coins that are even vaguely similar to the physical characteristics of my 68 dime ..... It would b greatly appreciated and helpful if you could post them. Much appreciation
Such as this I assume? This was taken from circulation about 10 years ago. The center core is obviously missing. This coin has been in the hands of what we call experts in the error\variety field. It is in fact an acid treated coin, what kind of acid is unknown since I wasnt there when it was played with. I still have this coin around somewhere but where is a secret.. Even to me these days..
