Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Oldhoopster, post: 3038254, member: 84179&quot;]First of all, this thread is almost 3 years old and the OP hasn’t been on this site since the day after his original post, so I don’t think he will see your comments.</p><p><br /></p><p>[USER=74386]@girldly[/USER] Regarding your coin: I have no doubt that the analysis of your coin was correct when they said it was 96% nickel, plus zinc and some other trace elements.</p><p><br /></p><p>If you go back and look at the thread you referenced, you’ll see an explanation of why the analysis is consistent with a NICKEL PLATED coin <a href="https://www.cointalk.com/threads/variety-error-coins.291975/page-2#post-2847961" class="internalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.cointalk.com/threads/variety-error-coins.291975/page-2#post-2847961">https://www.cointalk.com/threads/variety-error-coins.291975/page-2#post-2847961</a> .&nbsp; SEM only penetrates a few microns deep, so your results only tell you what’s on the surface, in this case the nickel plating.&nbsp; No matter how much you WANT your coin to be an experimental planchet, it’s just a plating experiment.&nbsp; Plating cents in school chemistry classes has been done since the 50’s and is a great teaching tool.&nbsp; People are constantly posting examples on Coin Talk.</p><p><br /></p><p>I want to make sure that anybody who may come across this thread during an internet search in the future does not make an expensive mistake and send their plated coin for the analysis you recommend.&nbsp; It won’t answer their question.[/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