A Pretty High Tech Coin Plating ring...

Following debates in Congress in 1981, the decision was made to change the composition of the penny from 95% copper and 5% zinc to 97.5% zinc and 2.5% copper in 1982. More precisely, the new pennies would be made from a nearly pure (99.2%) zinc core with an outer layer of pure copper. Production of the new zinc pennies was phased in throughout 1982, and by 1983 (except the 1983D) all pennies were supposed to be made from the new composition. So I have 5 of these un-plated, re-plated cents from the d mint that weigh 3.1 or 2.5 each. Start with a weight of 2.5 grams total for a copper plated zinc cent, then take the official composition of 97.5% zinc, 2.5% copper and figure from there? All of that 2.5% copper is plating, so 2.5 grams times 2.5% equals 0.0625 grams of copper plating per cent. How did the silver weight (clad?) come out so precise? Also with the 1982D thats a tight tolerance to follow. These were tested using conductivity testing. Results were "silver no copper". Could a homemade specific gravity test help me debunk this oddity?
The Specific Gravity Test
These next 4 tests are highly accurate in determining real vs. fake. The specific gravity test of silver is basically a ratio of densities and due to its chemical & composition makeup should equal ~ 10.49, given by the formula below:

This test will weed out those silver-plated or clad coins if they have a composition of some other base metal. You cannot change the density of metal and pure silver will always give a reading close to 10.49. To calculate this perform the steps below:

1. Obtain dry weight of the silver coin or bar with an accurate scale to .01g
2. Use a cup of water enough to fully submerge the silver into and measure its weight or reset the scale with it on.
3. Tie some string around the coin and setup an apparatus to hold the coin
4. Submerge the silver into the water and record the submerged weight minus the weight of the water & cup.
5. Divide the dry weight by the submerged weight to obtain the specific gravity of silver

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Ummm... what? Not only does what you just said not make sense, because if something is un-plated, then the first plating to be added to it would simply be "plating" and a second plating added to it would be "re-plating". Also, a plated copper 1982 cent that weighs 3.1g is still within tolerance of copper weights. What you have there are copper coins with some sort of plating on them. I don't know what's going on here, but it sounds like you think you have 5 ultra rare coins...

 

F W said un-coated then re plated with Ag. All 5 tested Ag no copper in a conductivity test. Simple questions

 

Still not following. What do you think you have?

Also, what are you saying about 1983D cents?

 

It's not unheard of for planchets to escape the plating process and be made into coins with just the zinc core. There's half a dozen certified examples for sale on fleaBay...



Beyond that, tl;dr - try using punctuation, paragraphs, and editing for clarity - I'm lost.

 

@Burton Strauss III Let me apologize for the confusing layout. This will bring some clarity I hope. F Wei. thinks these are de-plated then re-plated. My jeweler used a conductivity test and all 6 came back Silver No Copper....thus my questions about a shopmade specific gravity test to "see" whats inside shy of taking a sawall to one!lol I'm a lifetime Texan folks were from Herford then Weatherford. Don't have anything special but my curiosity. Thx for help

 

Who is F. Wei? Why does this person think the coin has been de-plated? Have you considered that a conductivity test might not work through metals that are conductive? Do you have access to an XRF scanner? Why do you even think a specific gravity test will provide you anything useful for understanding the coin?

 

I'm lost.

 

@Oldhoopster I thought it was long lost wives tale until I read this. Get your ears tuned for the drop test...https://auctions.stacksbowers.com/l...n-cent-struck-on-a-bronze-planchet-au-55-pcgs

 

Mr.Fred Weinberg, here bring yourself up to date https://www.cointalk.com/threads/missing-copper-coating.339601/#post-3540312

 

part deux https://www.cointalk.com/threads/missing-copper-coating.339601/#post-3540312

 

This is the well known transition error cent.

In your OP, You made it sound like there was some official reason Denver struck something other than zinc plated cents. Just want to clarify that is not the case.

 

First of all, we don't call the gentleman F Wei, his name is Fred, or Fred Weinberg.

Secondly, unless he sent you a PM, he didn't say anything of the sort about them being de-plated and re-plated. He said they most certainly are not un-plated.


Lastly, you've got a bunch of damaged coins that are worth face value and nothing more. There's no conspiracy or need to involve the secret service. I don't even know what you're doing, or what you think you're going to accomplish, but I hope you're having fun.

 

Manufacturing the blanks and planchets is a large industrial process and certainly has errors, which get to the mint, are struck and released.

There are acids that preferentially eat copper vs. zinc. It is, therefore, possible to remove the plating and create a faked "unplated" cent. One cent in raw materials, a few cents of acid to process and poof...

An expert (I'm not one) can tell, which is why you see $600 certified examples for sale and $12 uncertified examples for sale. If those $12 examples were real, it's worth spending $50 to have it certified and sell for $600...

It's possible to plate a copper cent with a variety of metals, chrome, silver, platinum, gold, etc. - the surface will show the plating to an XRF gun, the scale will show copper vs. zinc host.

And sure, specific gravity would show different values for solid silver vs. plating. Why bother - it would be obvious from the scale alone.

I don't get the rest of the nonsense - at 3.1g it's silver-plated copper cent at 2.5g it's silver-plated zinc/copper cent. Either way, it's damaged and worth 1c.

Whether they removed the copperplating on the zinc host to plate it with silver? Who gives a bleep??

Not I. I'm out.

 

what "debates in Congress in 1981" ?

If you read the same article you linked to you would read "In January, the Copper and Brass Fabricators Council - whose 23 members include the major alloy strip producers - sued the Treasury on the ground that it could not alter the one-cent piece so extensively without Congressional approval."

IF you actually read the resultant D.C. Court of Appeals decision it was stated
"The district court, 524 F. Supp. 945, held that while appellant's alleged economic injury was sufficient to meet the constitutional requirement of an "injury in fact," appellant was not within the "zone of interests" protected, benefited or regulated by the statute, 31 U.S.C. § 317(b), and consequently lacked standing to challenge the Treasury Department's decision. We agree. In light of our recent decision in Control Data Corp. v. Baldridge, 655 F.2d 283 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied"

also
"Our review of the relevant statutory provision, section 317(b), and its legislative history reveals no indication that Congress intended to protect, benefit or regulate appellant. Section 317(b), on its face, reveals no such purpose; rather, it clearly purports to grant the Secretary of the Treasury discretion to prescribe the copper and zinc composition "as he may deem appropriate" and as "is necessary in order to assure an adequate supply of coins to meet national needs.""

also
" Prior to the enactment of section 317(b) in 1974, the law did not provide the Secretary of the Treasury with discretion to alter the copper content of pennies; it merely prescribed that pennies would be composed of 95% copper and 5% zinc. In the face of rising copper prices and penny hoarding by the public, legislation was introduced which would vest discretion in the Treasury Department to change the copper content and substitute a less costly metal in response to the above trends."

also
"(in 1974 and before) While Congress thus took into consideration the interests of vending machine operators and children who might ingest coins in amending section 317, there is no indication that Congress intended this legislation to benefit, protect or regulate the copper industry.5 Rather, the economic interests of the copper industry appear to be directly at odds with the "national needs" compelling the enactment of section 317(b). It is clear from the legislative history of section 317(b) that, in the face of rising copper prices and the resulting hoarding of pennies by the public, Congress intended to grant the Treasury Department broad discretion to decrease the copper content of the penny "to meet national needs.""

also
"Section 317(c) gave the Secretary authority to alter the composition of the penny to "such other metallic composition as he shall determine" if the use of copper became impracticable and if certain procedural prerequisites were met. This section expired on December 31, 1977. Appellant argues that the time-limited, broad authorization in 317(c) suggests that 317(b) should be given a narrower reading. We disagree. The apparent legislative scheme evidenced by these two subsections was to permit, in subsection (c), temporary flexibility to the Treasury due to uncertainty over the technical feasibility of producing an economical copper-zinc penny which possessed the necessary manufacturing and circulation qualities. It was believed that the lowest copper content technologically possible to achieve-considering damage to the dies and the weight of the coin-was 70%. Apparently, therefore, subsection (c) permitted temporary flexibility to explore alternatives to the copper-zinc penny, provided for in subsection (b), in light of these technical and practical considerations. Appellant has presented us with no evidence to the contrary"


at what time was there debates in Congress?
none maybe ?

please link and reference accurate information.

Congress in previous legislation gave the Treasury the ability to change the content of the penny and also suggested the use of aluminum going back to 1974.
(@funnycoins you should know this from your other post about 1974 aluminum cents ==> https://www.cointalk.com/threads/1983d-brass-penny.268447/#post-3613004)
" In 1974 there was another price increase in copper, at a time when the West Point Mint began coining cents (without mintmarks, mintages lumped in with Philadelphia). An experiment was launched to strike the 1974 Lincoln cents on aluminum planchets."

The Treasury, back in 1974 would not have been able to do this without the legislative approval first. This was the reason for Congresses creation of 317(b) in 1974, distinctly to allow the Treasury to modify the cent.

Only the "Copper and Brass Fabricators Council" debated this as they were going to lose sales. Congress did not debate it in 1981.

 

quotation from Stack's and Bowers"Discovered several years ago while our consignor Jeff Young was searching through rolls of cents, this 1983-D cent struck on a bronze cent planchet remains unique, making it rarer even than the 1974 experimental aluminum cents. The Unique Example From the Denver Mint

1983-D Lincoln Cent--Struck on a Bronze Planchet--AU-55 (PCGS).

3.10 grams. This planchet error is similar in nature to the 1943 Copper cents and occurred in precisely the same manner. The 1983-D copper planchet cents are destined to remain quite rare as the change from the old tenor copper (also known as bronze or brass) planchets to the new 97.5% zinc and 2.5% copper planchets occurred in October of 1982 at the Denver Mint, at least two months before 1983-D cents were struck. Quality control was also very high at the Denver Mint in this time period, undoubtedly leaving few such errors to be discovered.

I did not quote that but hyperlinked a NYTimes story A version of this article appears in print on August 29, 1981, on Page 2002031 of the National edition with the headline: ZINC PENNY RULING IS EXPECTED SOON. I would say yes congressional debates must have gone on to carry this issue out for decades as the Copper and Brass Fabricators Council did.

 

In the days prior to digital photography, I processed my own black and white film and prints. As is known, black and white film and prints are full of silver. The developing processed removed unused silver and it end up in the chemical we called "fixer". After processing much film I could leave copper pennies in the fixer for an extended period of time and it would effectively silver plate them by molecular replacement. It made a very nice looking silver plated penny and was easy to accomplish. Making a silver-plated penny was very lo-tech.

 

The "Ruling" was for the Copper and Brass Fabricators Council lawsuit against the Treasury.

Not a Ruling from Congress.
Congress gave the Treasury the right to change coinage back in 1974 when Congress actually opinioned it be changed to Aluminum due to the increasing cost of copper.

 

What kind of conductivity test? Probing it with an ohmmeter isn't going to tell you anything useful, and all a Sigma machine is good for is testing whether a coin of known size and shape matches a known composition. (In fact, I'm not convinced Sigmas are good even for that.)

Edit: ah, I clicked through to the previous thread, which I remember. The comment from @Fred Weinberg in that thread doesn't seem to match what you claim he said...?