We can imagine any number of hypotheticals. Maybe somebody rolled out some silver-clad copper stock, punched some disks out of it, and contrived to slip them in among the clad planchets in 1996. Maybe it's not silver, but plutonium! But it's a fact that clad coins can tone in many different ways, and some of those look a lot like worn silver. There's no reason to believe your coin contains actual silver; in fact, by showing its edge and checking its weight, you've produced solid evidence that it is an ordinary clad coin. Feel free to do an acid test or take it to a shop with a scanner. Someone might have silver-plated it, but I haven't yet seen a silver-plating job that looked that much like a normal clad coin.
Once again, I don't think that my coin is silver clad, never said that, either. What I do wonder, though is why only the few years after 64 seem to have coins with these silver-like appearances. Have you seen any from the 70s, 80s, or 90s? They all have 75% cu 25% ni outer layers. Why are only those from the years right after the change from coin silver found with these visual characteristics?
You must have missed me saying, "It's weight pretty much disproves any possibility of it being clad in silver."
No, not at all, except where you said: ...and... Now, no, you technically didn't say that you thought your coin was silver clad -- just that it looked like it, and that we can't prove that it isn't. We addressed those points at some length. I think it's because those are the only ones you've noticed. It's probably also more likely with age, which would naturally mean that the oldest clad coins are most likely to display it.
OK, You think that I think or want you to think that my coin has silver in it. Fair enough. You, being just you, JeffB, or is the other Frank also of that opinion? I said looks, rather than is so that my impression would be understood. Anyway, your theory of the oldest ones being most likely to exhibit a silverish look has some merit, as with wear the coin's surface gets closer to it's copper core where the clad layer has bonded to it and a different patina might be expected to develop there. You're a pretty smart guy!
Mike, you have to understand that on a weekly basis, someone joins the site, then claims/hopes they found some numismatic rarity that will make them rich and starts a thread. When they get feedback opposite their beliefs, they typically don't take it well or take no for an answer. Understanding this, you can see why you received some of the responses you did after some very experienced members told you why your coin was not a 90% silver clad coin from the U.S. Mint. Hope you stick around and participate on the site.
At least I didn't hypothesize it being made from plutonium Thanks and Jeff sorry to ruffle your feathers. Just having a bit of fun and at least I didn't hypothesize it being made from plutonium.
I have personally found 3 coins that had flaws extremely similar to yours. You have what is called a "flawed coin". It's an error that occurs when stamping coins. These coins are FAR more valuable than a silver 1965 quarter. My 3 coins were flawed wheat pennies and I received $80 cash from a coin shop for my pennies. I knew I could get more if I put in the effort to sell to collectors. But how I found my flawed pennies was the same way you did. I just happen to look at a penny I swept up from the floor. It looked odd to me and I couldn't tell why. Until I looked up "flawed coins" on the net. They told me to get a magnifying glass and look at the lettering closely. But for YOUR coin, it sounds like your flaws are very obvious. It is my opinion that your coin would be worth far more than my pennies. The more obvious the flaws, the more valuable it is. I'm not joking. Look up "flawed coin 1965 quarters' and start reading. Just make sure you research the sale price of other coins like yours, before you attempt to sell it to ANYONE. Good luck