Lincoln Cent Type Set

Not sure what you want to do with this, but it is pretty well agreed that from 1944 through 1946, tin was excluded from the mixture. It was reinstituded in 1947 but then dropped again in 1959

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I think its more about the availablity of raw materials, being available, rather than adding a small trace of tin. It has no benefits or disadvantages to coining itself. Again, zinc was added to help the coining process, otherwise it would have never been added. Again, I think traces of tin in the mix is solely based upon available recycled materials. I could be wrong, but has the mint ever given a tin percentage? From what Ive read, it says "95% copper and 5% zinc or 5% zinc and tin or 5% zinc with traces of tin"

 

And Im sure if you brought samples from each year to have it tested, there will be other traces of materials found. Aluminum is the one of the most abundant elements on earth. You can find traces in desserts to mountain peaks, so I wouldnt be shocked if it was found in coinage. Aluminum mixes very well with copper, and when you purchase high strength aluminum, it has copper in it.

 

Going from memory here, but aren't shell case cents discernable from others by their slightly different color?

 

I have seen 4% zinc and 1% tin. But, yes, it was removed to make it available to the war. If you look at those pennies/cents 1945 and 1946 you might think the purpose of the tin was to brighten the color.

BTW, do you realize that the top of the Washington monument is an Aluminum pyramid. It was a precious metal at the time it was put there. It is not that aluminum is rare, but with the 19teens and earlier it was nearly impossible to purify.

 

I didnt know that! I know purifying aluminum isnt a easy task, because welding it is an art in itself. If you dont have all your settings/technique right, it simply does not work.

And I never seen a tin percentage or a reason for adding it. But that makes sense for it to brighten up the coin. I havent seen enough red UNC examples to see a difference between pre and post war. Every set of red unc collections Ive seen, no two coins looked identical side by side.

 

Coins I added to the list:
1936 matte proof
1944 shell case (I think this coin will have a split decision on whether it should or should not make the list, but one more coin wouldnt hurt anyway)
2005 satin finish
2010 satin finish

 

That is pure guess as to the why tin, but it makes sense. I found the 1%

http://www.ngccoin.com/coin-varieties/half-cents-and-cents/lincoln-cents-vscid-21/

Welding has the same root as refining, but not the same reasoning. Refining is difficult because the O2 bond is so strong. The initial problem with welding was because aluminum is so reactive with O2 and they cannot be in contact during welding. There are other problems with welding (aluminum has an extremely high heat transfer coefficient), but oxygen was the first problem.

 

Correct.

 

Welp. I finally found this thread! I didnt realize how much of a yapper I am lol....anyways......

Im back into this collections and Im not sure if the 2015 cent should or should not be added. Tell me what you think or experienced with this.......

I started coin roll searching again with a $40 FV lot and noticed something "odd". Some 2015 cents look just like the 2010-2014 cents. They have a nice slick (visually) finish to them while others have a ever-so-slight sandblast/matte/semi-gloss finish to them. Im not sure if its the lot itself (odd plating issue) or there was a change to how the dies were treated at some point?

 

Also note, this $40 lot is from a corner store, not a bank. So its all cents coming from the community. The coins are not actually in rolls, rather than in a bucket

 

I've also noticed the Philly cents as being nice and shiny but the Denver cents showing the frosted look from these years. And the frosted look makes die cracks harder to see.

 

The explanation of what you were seeing would be easier if they were be new rolls, but what you are likely noticing is a result of die deterioration. The mint makes an absolutely ridiculous number of cents each year so they go through many dies. Though the dies are pretty well prepared and the quality of materials are about a good as they could be, the dies only produce the true proof-like coin for a small early fraction of it's life. Once the die hammers thousands of coins, everything looks sandblasted; consider the heat and punishment that the dies go through.

Early die state modern coins with minimal bag marks or other distractions should be considered as collectable and as valuable as the EDS large cents in my opinion. Maybe you think that's stretching it a bit, but just ask @cladking.

 

"Collectable" is in the eye of the beholder and "valuable" is a function of supply and demand but there's no doubt that some of these modern coins are as scarce in well made and pristine condition as some of the classics. The main reason a coin like a 1984 cent with good surfaces and well made trade for so little is that the demand for it is far lower than the demand for a cent made 150 years earlier. If the demand existed then collectors would see that the grading services are giving many coins a "pass" despite their weaknesses. Almost all '84 cents have poor surfaces so they overlook this flaw a little. Almost all 1982-P quarters are poorly struck so they overlook this.

A really nice Gem set of all the moderns will prove to be pretty tough except for the dimes and even these are not easy. Look for coins that have no major problems like worn dies, misaligned dies, poor surfaces, excessive marking, etc. The services make Gems seem far more common than they actually are by "grading on the curve".

 

I know good quality pictures is worth a thousand words in coin collecting. Even with your best intentions, representing what you are seeing is never the same as in hand. Unfortunately I do not have any really good equipment to show what Im seeing, but Im pretty sure in this case that die deterioration is not the issue here.

All surfaces are extremely even and both sides of the coin match well.

Early die stage examples with crisp transitions between the field and devices. No metal flow stretching or smudge dullness. I also check for die cracks, especially at the top of the shield.

I know heat plans a big roll on finishes, especially when the dies are being overheated through mechanical issues. With the die face being the smallest part of the die itself, the larger area helps draw heat from the face, unless the larger area is being heated more than the face, then the heat exchange is reversed and then youre relying on only radiant cooling to cool the die faces. It wont do much good that way.

I rarely see any shield cents with plating issues and the one's in question are gorgeous. It really seems to me to be a texture applied to the dies. And they are so strikingly different that I can not help but to ask about them.

 

And I agree with the modern coin statement. Plating adds a new headache to the hobby. Whether youre plating a metal from a different alloy or even if the alloys are the same, expansion rates between the two are never the same. The possibly of adding air or any contaminates is always against you, unless the metal is molten, chances are what isnt a issue today will become one down the road.

I cant express just how much I dislike 1983-1984 cents. The mint should have never struck any of them until they had the plating issues ironed out. They are sooooo ugly that I collect the ugliest of the ugliest, just so I can look at them and laugh. I have myself 3 or 4 pieces that Ive pulled from circulation that I consider ok. Yet none are anywhere near good examples. If its not a plating issue, then its the horrendous die clash polishing of 83-84. (personally, I think the mint changed coining presses in 83 which I feel would explain the sheer amount of crap die sets for that time) And if its not the die clash polishing than its the tired dies. I honestly dont have a single 83-84 that Im proud of. Finding one will be more rewarding to me than finding a 09-s vdb lol (ok, maybe not really )

 

I am now convinced that the 2015 cents I have were struck on dies that were being prepared to coin proofs. The whole coin has the matte finish like on the devices on a proof coin....

Is this even possible?

 

Yea this just gave me a head ache!!!

 

It's possible proof dies were used, but any special finish due to those dies would have quickly worn off as coins were struck. It might be that you have a few EDS coins (unless you're noticing that all your 2015 Lincolns are like this).

 

No, it's not all coins, but a good amount to notice a difference. I really hate that I don't have a good camera and I keep saying one day I'll get something but life gets in the way sometimes.