Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="quarter-back, post: 1930180, member: 47022"]Keep in mind that all calculations were made based only on mintages for the copper cents. Thus all proportions were relative to the total mintage of coins minted between 59 and 82.  Zinc cents minted after 82 did not factor into the expected values. Also the effect of copper hoarding should be proportional to the relative mintages.  You're right, though, that the story is complicated by many factors.  But there are some things that I think can be taken away from the analysis.  Among these is that there really doesn't seem to be any one year that has been withdrawn at a higher rate that might be expected.  I had thought the the first year coins might have a higher attrition rate (in the sense of being withdrawn from circulation), but that did not to be the case.  To some extent, this observation exonerates collectors, since there does not seem to be any numismatic basis for the attrition.  So we get to keep our mintmarks.  A possible second take-home message is that 5 or 6 years after mintage is a magic number of some sort.  But I'm not quite sure how to interpret the cross-over for more than expected to less than expected.  Maybe it takes that long for the coins need to be around before all make it into circulation, and thus withdrawn coins are no longer being replaced by new ones. Anyway, it gave my inner nerd something to do while my outer nerd searched through the rolls. Have fun[/QUOTE]