These two aren't seriously out of tolerance,But they are over the .194 that the mint uses for their nickels. I also seen somewhere that the Henning nickels for this year had a small anomaly above Monticello on the left. It appears that both do have an anomaly in that location. Most likely they aren't Hennings. I would like your thoughts! Thanks for your time.
Things to consider: the mint value of weight is for an uncirculated coin, the coin weight tends to go up on circulated coins a very small amounts due to corrosion, dirt and grime~~ or down a certain amount due to wear in circulation. If a weighing is critical , even with a .001 balance such as you show, use a set of fresh batteries and also use the calibration weight to do a calibration first. It is still too small of a change for any value IMO, Jim
Thanks, I was just curious about them. I cropped the calibration weight out of the pics, I always set that on the scale first to make sure I get an accurate weight.
5.2 is heavy and while I don't see the dot marker in the first photo in the highlight photo it looks correct. At first I didn't think so as the Henning details are usually more mushy, but if 1947 is a Henning year, now I am unsure and these should be checked out.
