Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Publius2, post: 4938572, member: 105571&quot;]The OPs coin is 4.3% lighter than the standard weight as minted.&nbsp; According to pages 132-134 of [USER=19165]@physics-fan3.14[/USER] book, his experiment with Lincoln wheat cents showed a 4% difference from UNC to well-worn.&nbsp; He also quotes a 1902 mint report that showed about a 5% difference in weight between redeemed coins for melting and new issues.</p><p><br /></p><p>So, the OP&#039;s coin would be at least in the neighborhood of anticipated correct weight although I think it&#039;s a little light given that there isn&#039;t a lot of metal lost on this coin.&nbsp; Let&#039;s stipulate that the coin&#039;s weight is OK.&nbsp; So, if it is cast, it is less dense than a struck coin.&nbsp; The OP states that the dimensions are correct so I assume the OD was measured but what about the thickness?&nbsp; We would expect a cast coin with the right weight and OD to be a little thicker than a struck coin for the same weight.</p><p><br /></p><p>OP states that ring test showed the coin to be struck.&nbsp; A cast coin is less dense so it has a different tone.&nbsp; So, this would indicate a struck coin, not a casting.</p><p><br /></p><p>I am more concerned about the pitting.&nbsp; While it certainly has the appearance of environmental damage, it also has the appearance of too much entrained air in the melt mix.&nbsp; I do aluminum casting as part of my machinist hobby and I see this type of pattern fairly often when I haven&#039;t done everything right, sometimes even when I do.&nbsp; Also, if a casting, the pits and bubbles could result from failure to remove the air bubbles from the investment casting surface where they tend to cling due to surface tension (assuming a lost wax method) was used.&nbsp; I see some evidence that this might be the case around some details and I also see some lumps that could arise from this cause.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>The edge ornaments are there but it would beneficial to see some tight photos of the entire rim to see if there is any indication of file marks where sprues were removed or other evidence.</p><p><br /></p><p>I am also a bit concerned about the vertical stripe in the shield on the reverse.&nbsp; These have been melded and do not appear to be wear, soft strike or die wear.&nbsp; They appear to me to be more in the line of insufficient force to move the molten metal into the mold cavities.&nbsp; Also look at the feathers of the arrows.</p><p><br /></p><p>My conclusion on the evidence to date is that this is probably a cast counterfeit.&nbsp; I am open to a change of view with more evidence.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in