1958D silver Penny!???

Was working today and found a 1958D Silver penny. Its hard to explain so here are some pics.







I know in the 3rd picture it looks copper on the inside of that fold out. But its not. Its also silver inside.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

It looks like the coin is in a bezel. Is that correct? If so the coin was used as a piece of jewelry and may have been plated with silver. If the coin has been plated it has no numismatic value.

 

It does not look plated tho. besides that one fold out, its all smoothy connected.

 

Actually it does look plated. And it looks as though it's is a bezel. Probably off of a key chain.

 

Actually, if I may, hold the phone a minute there. I too have recently come across a coin demonstrating this same sort of defect, and I can say with reasonable certainty that what you have there is neither plated nor in a bezel. And interestingly enough, nor is it silver.

Since coming across this particular coin, I have begun scouring the forums for similar specimens. I have come across four so far, with mine bringing the total to 5. Mine is from '56, and I will be creating a new thread with pics as soon as I am done updating existing discussions.

The following details should be noted about this and other similar coins before an accurate conclusion can be drawn:
First, these coins are Cu/Ni, not silver. Or at least mine is. Luster and hue are consistent with modern nickels but not with other silver coins I own from that time period. Due to the raised edges that envelop most of the coin's wear points, these coins are likely to exhibit very little wear, even after several decades. The resulting luster is quite easily mistaken for silver, as Cu/Ni purports to mimic many of silver's observable qualities. Furthermore, a simple ring test will handily debunk the silver hypothesis. When struck on marble, the coin exhibits a dull thud like that of a nickel rather than the deep, bell-like resonance of silver coinage.

Secondly, the ring surrounding the edge of the coin is not attached to the coin at the inner lip. Rather, the metal surrounding the face the coin is curled inward. Below I have included a (crude) diagram of what the cross-section of the coin would look like if one were able to look more closely. This seems to contradict the bezel theory, as said bezel would not be well-designed if it were to adehere only to the edge of the coin, allowing dirt and corrosives to become trapped around the coin's inside edge.

Thirdly, and perhaps most supportive of the off-metal strike argument, all 5 coins have something else in common: the presence of a tool mark. Each of these coins exhibits some sort of prying damage to the rim. It is generally visible primarily from the tails side, and is always located slightly off-center at the bottom of the rim, i.e. between the two wheat stems or directly above Lincoln's head if you turn the coin over. This would seem to suggest the possibility that there had been a ring or clasp that had been pried or had fallen off. However, if such were the case, some jagged edge or weld/solder mark would likely still remain, and this does not appear to be the case in any incidence. In fact, the "ring" around the coin bears no indications of metal work whatsoever, such as seams or soldering points.

And finally, perhaps significanly, perhaps not, all of the coins appear to have been minted between the years of 1955 and 1960, supporting the theory of a possible flaw in the one-cent dies from around that time that allowed oversize planchets to be processed. With all of this said, here's my theory:
I believe these coins to be off-metal strikes produced when a nickel planchet made its way into a penny die. Due to the size difference between said coinage, the die strike caused displacement of the excess metal, which, when pressed against the retaining collar, had nowhere to go but to "ooze" out from the edges of the rim and around the dies. When the dies separated, one side was pulled quickly away (typically the "heads" side), causing the surrounding edge to curl inward (think gift ribbon being dragged along the blade of a scissor to create curls). Meanwhile, the "tails" face remained firmly affixed to the die, such that it had to be pried away manually, causing the tool mark.

While certainly not as valuable as silver dime-planchet pennies, it is likely that errors of this type are somewhat more rare, as any coin that had to be removed from the machinery by hand would have generally gone straight back into the furnace before ever leaving the mint, whereas a silver penny would have fallen right in with all the rest. There's a good chance what you have is a $500+ item. I really do hope you still have it, as unless I miss my guess, a real expert, able to observe the coin in person, should be able to authenticate that what you have is a highly rare mint error.

Check out the others:
http://www.coincommunity.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=73671
http://www.cointalk.com/t13458-2/
http://www.cointalk.com/t194886/

 

i have one that is like that, it is silver plated and put into a bezel

 

6! i have one just like it that i found in a roll. mine is 1958, i will post a pic soon

 

This is what you have:

http://koinpro.tripod.com/Articles/SilverPennies.htm

 

+1

 

That might be true, if the coin were actually silver plated. However, as I have mentioned, luster and hue are consistent with Cu/Ni and not silver. Personally, I believe that during a brief period in the late 50's, there was a design flaw in the wheat cent dies that made it possible for nickel planchets to get into the press, most likely directly above or below the retaining collar. The resulting strike would have caused the collar to clip out a penny-sized section of the planchet like a cookie cutter. I believe what we are witnessing is a form of broadstrike error that occurred when the thick nickel planchet was pressed to the thickness of a penny and the excess metal "squished" outward when pressed against the retaining collar. I understand that there are most likely several thousand late 50's wheat cents that have been plated and placed into bezels, and, if I'm right about this, maybe only a few dozen of these error coins, so the bezel theory is far more plausable in a vacuum. However, I ask you: is the scenario I have described at least feasable? And if not, perhaps you can offer some type of proof.

 

I should also note that, in the pics of coins in bezels that I have seen, any time a chip or chink exists around the edge, the rim of the coin is visible and distinct from the rim of the bezel. Look very carefully at what Mile5 described as the "fold out" and compare it to the bezeled coins in the link. If Mile5's coin is in a bezel with a chink cut out, where is that coin's rim?

 

Nickel planchets will not fit. There's your proof. Try and put a nickel into a plastic tube made for Cents. Same concept.

 

it's plated. plain and simple. nothing more nothing less. :thumb:

 

No, it's not possible. The proof is in the minting process, and your scenario borders on the ridiculous.

 

I may not be educated to the finer points of coin production, but there's really no call for insults or condescension. If you wouldn't mind, perhaps you can link me to some good videos about coin production that might explain the process better so that I might be able to construct a more educated theory.

Forgive my naivite, but what aspects, specifically, are so outlandish? Are you certain that the process you describe is the same as it was in the late 50's? Could even a single flawed or damaged die allow nickel planchets to get trapped beneath the retaining collar? Why or why not?

As compelling an argument as "It is plated. Summary follow-up remark," is, I still believe that, at very least, the matter warrants further investigation. My intent is to draw a fully educated conclusion with as much evidence as I can muster from both sides. If you can help to provide such evidence, or can suggest ways of proving or disproving either side, welcome to the discussion. If all you care to do is naysay, I have heard your opinion, value your input, and would humbly request that you simply find another thread and save yourself the frustration of dealing with a hardheaded newbie like me.

 

looks mercury coated...easy to do when mercury wasn't considered so poisonous

 

Good theory. However, amalgam will fade over time. Mile5, if you're still around perhaps you can let us know if the tone of your coin has changed in the few months since your original post.

jlogan, was it in a penny roll or a nickel roll? And how long ago did you discover it?

 

i think what you are failing to understand is that lot of the people on this forum are well versed in coins. when they say to you it is plated you don't want to except that answer. sometimes it's just that easy. they have seen tons of coins like that. a lot of new people have joined this site lately have done the same thing. so it's got to the point were people are getting fed up with it. :thumb:

 

Consider that the die pressure has to be set at a higher level by the mint to coin Cu-Ni coins. If I have followed your scenario, the impression should be extremely light on such a metal. So I do not accept that portion. As to plating, the common way to make a silver appearing cent is to chemical treat it with zinc. It is a common high school chemistry experiment. So compare its color and lusture to a BU 1943 cent which is also has zinc plate. A zinc plated cent will also produce a discordant sound very unlike that of either a silver coin or a bronze cent, but won't affect the weight of the coin out of tolerance.