Do you mean original 1943 steel cents re-plated with zinc to look all shiny new? They still seem to be very well struck/very little wear - why would they need to be re-plated? An extra bit of zinc plating might explain the extra 0.05g overweight that they are, though.
It is difficult to tell from the photos but they kind of had a copper look to them. I've got a few 1943's that were replated with something that was steel like and they looked quite good. I could only really tell by looking at the wheats on the back that looked a little filled in. Could someone have replated with something like the "gold plated" quarters that I've seen on HSN?
Agree Larry. I don't collect cents, but I do have some steelies. From the posted pictures, they almos look copper.
As stated, re-plated '43 cents have no luster (but they sure do shine). The OP's coins are nice original examples.
Thanks. I've been struggling with taking good pics of coins and have yet to get a picture that is even close to in-hand look. I do have another 43-S that looks like it was galvanized (i.e. no luster but shiny), but every picture I take is so bad that they aren't worth showing to anyone. Will update thread if I get more decent pictures. Thanks all.
It's all about the light. It looks like your camera is okay. Switch to a white background and do a white balance calibration on the camera. You might consider getting a cheap desk lamp. I picked this one up at Lowes for $30. It's great because it's easy to adjust on the fly - the head even rotates. I can move it around, then test how it looks on the camera - I dial it in until it's just right and snap....all freehand.
