New Copper Lincoln's toning so quick, what's up?

New Copper Lincoln's toning so quick, what's up?

Why do you think the mint is having so much trouble with the new copper Lincoln's? It's a mystery to me they would have this kind of trouble after using copper from 1909 to 1958. I mean why now?
Do you'all think the mints supplier is the problem, the treatment after they get the planchets, packaging?? It's strange to me and why the lack of inquiry into this. None of it makes since and why no more information comming out or questions regarding this?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Actually they used the 95% copper planchets up through 1982... I too don't understand how they can all of the sudden have a toning problem on the 95% copper???

I've got plenty of pre-1982 Lincoln that are full on red w/o any toning issues, even all the way back to 1909.

Is the production of cents that much different now than it was in 1982???? Or did the Mint just forget how to make real coins???

 

That's what you get when you are talking on the phone.

That's what you get when you are talking on the phone. and trying to post things, bad Idea, my bad, sorry yes copper till 1982 but not always the same composition of course. Maybe that a portion of this """new""" problem??? The exact composition???

 

Ben , are you referring to ones directly from the mint rolls, or from bank rolls?

We tend to forget the intermediary, the armored car people, who get the coins and then store them bulk or wrapped until needed by the bank. I have never seen any articles or photos in numismatic sources about how they store them. Security I am sure.

Jim

 

I think he's talking about the ones in the uncirculated set that come with a note from the Mint saying that the coins are expected to tarnish over time.

 

Ahh, those! I think the mint is straddling 2 horses, one leg on "quality" and the other on "finance".

Jim

 

Copper, only mint and proof set issues.

Copper, only mint and proof set issues.

 

The question remains. How do we have 1909's that look like they were minted yesterday? Here's one of mine. The luster is darker but it hasn't toned:

 

I'm hoping that the US Mint can do better than the first Sacs...they turned ugly very quickly.

 

What kind of toning are we talking about here? Haze? White spots? Dark spots? Colorful toning?

BTW, those are not dark patches on the obverse. The color is uniform across the whole thing. It's just how the light is hitting it in that obverse pic.

 

No good sorry, I could drive a truck thru this.

No good sorry, I could drive a truck thru this post or in southern terms "it don't mean nothing much less addreses nothing".

First we are not talking about copper coated zinc cents! We are talking only about the returned to copper composition for 2009 Lincoln Cent mint set and proof set issued coins.

The issue is why with 3 quarters of a century worth of experience in coining all copper cents is the mint having such problems with this brief return to something they should know better than anything in the world about, ok?
We have opened proof sets sitting around from the 1950's and 60's with perfect red non-toned copper cents in them. We have rolls 40, 50, 60 years old still very red and not very toned. No, not all are still red and not toned but there is hundreds of millions if not billions are not toned! So the mint is making new coins out of that same stuff, why the problems? Why are many, many of those proof sets already (even back in June, just days after their shipping) target toned?
Why the delay and warnings regaring these new copper cents???
It don't make any sense, what's not being said or left out???

The only thing it could be is some sort of treatment the copper planchets or cents are being exposed to now that they were not before. That or some type of heating, packaging process that is different or new that was not used in the past. It is very very suspect. These things or they bought bad copper??? Did they buy them all (the planchets) and make the decision to use them before or after knowing they would not hold up well??? Maybe it's the anti-tarnish??? Did they use that on cents back in the day???

Somthings missing that's the question. Knowing how much in denial the mint (or any Govt. agency) is until thier hand is called is what I'm talking about. I mean if you don't see in this a "big somethings missing" or a "gosh, this don't make no sense", then just move on down the line because you've been had or do not care. That's okay but if your going to comment at least put some thought into your statements, questions and don't tell us what we already know.

 

I don't think the mint knows. They were so deep in the project when the problem started showing and they had little time left for testing. They had a choice of delaying all the sets they had to make or just kick them out knowing there was a problem. I guess we know what choice they made.

 

Because they DON'T have three quarters of a century of experience. It has been over a quarter century since they have struck 95% copper cents and almost half a century since they have used this particular alloy. I'm sure there is no one at the mint today with a clue as to how they cleaned and processed the cents back in the 50's and early 60's. The cleaning and burnishing solutions they use to remove the scale and oxides from the cent planchets after annealing have a large effect on how readily the coins will tone. Small changes in the alloy may also have a large effect (the removal of Tin in 1962) I'm sure the mint does not have the same cleaning and burnishing solutions that they had back then, they may not even be available anymore. This means a lot of experimenting to find solutions available that DO work and provide tarnish protection for this alloy. The satin finish on the mint set coins may also render them much more likely to form tarnish because of the greatly increased number of potential reaction sites on the surface.

 

Your right but I wanted some more thought is all.

Your right but I wanted some more thought is all and I do not know that's why I asked members on CoinTalk.
I've talked with Potter and he is as perplexed as we are.
I (and others) knew what they (the mint) said but it still don't make sence.
The mint was planning this well in adavance and had great success with pure copper for decades.
It just seemed like they would know what they are doing coining copper is all - it's not rocket science you know.
It just one of those things that says to me, "what's being left out" of this problem. This is 2009 and they do not know how to mint copper without it toning within 1 month??? It just don't add up is all.

 

Good answer but it's not that complicated an activity plus,

Good answer and some good points but it's just not that complicated an activity plus, there are many people who are still alive today there are even people minting private issues and tokens from BU red copper that do not have such a problem so why the U.S. mint???
Whenever there is a problem that begs the question. "what's being left out here"? I gotta ask??
If my company minted BU red copper from 1909 to 1982 that stayed red for decades and was asked to do it again and I had plenty of time to gear up for that and plan for that why so much trouble as soon as they started?? That don't add up to me anyway!