The weight is a bit off...

Not necessarily. Date digits were punched into the dies by hand. As a result of this, there are numerous date varieties.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Here is a link that displays a 2-cent specimen that is more congruent with your date position. As I said before, date digits were punched into the dies by hand.

http://www.coinfacts.com/two_cents/1864_two_cents.html

 

Checked Coinfacts and they list the tolerance as 6.2 grams which is seriously wrong. So I checked the tolerance for the one cent bronze and it is the same as the Lincoln cent bronze .13 grams. Since the two cent was in proportion weight wise to the one cent I would expect the tolerance to be .26 grams. (Same figures as what coinfacts had so that was most likely a typo.) Now Doug was right about them being VERY strict on the weight tolerances back then, but that was for gold and silver. Tolerances for the base metal coins were much looser.

What bothers me about this coin is the SIZE of the 4. The dates on these coins were punched in with a four digit logotype punch and I would expect the same punch would be used for all the dies. I do not see how that final 4 could be so much larger than normal on a genuine coin. Even if they used a different logotype punch I would expect the digits to match in size.

 

Please tell me what was used for the animation? okay to use tech terms, Thanks!

 

That's indeed what I also said above in a previous post pursuant to Breen's stated tolerance / variance. The OP's is just slightly lesser.

As per another page in coinfacts, http://www.coinfacts.com/two_cents/two_cents_by_date.html:

"Although the master hub didn’t change during most of this period (a new hub was introduced in 1871, but this did not change the legend variety) the date digits were punched into the dies by hand. As a result of this policy there are numerous date varieties to be collected including the 1865/4 and 1869/8 overdates."​

 

The specimens were rotated and sized to equal one another, and then layered in Adobe PhotoShop. The layers were then framed and time-sequenced using Adobe's snap-in ImageReady. The sequence was then saved as an animated GIF and posted to a third party webspace I have elsewhere. The posting here simply references the URL of the image file that is saved on that third party webspace. (CoinTalk seems to like to convert GIFs to JPGs upon upload, which subsequently strips the animation sequence out of the converted file)

 

The date digits were punched in by hand, but not individually, they were punched in via a four digit punch. There may be a couple of exceptions but as a rule the mint stopped using the individual date punches in 1840. They did experiment with two digit punches that year but they had swapped completely to four digit punches by 1841. Yes there were 1865/4 and 1869/8 overdates, but they were in reality 1865/1864 and 1869/1868.

 

Yet Breen explicitly distinguishes a difference in 2373: Repunched 18 (but not 64); 2374: Repunched 64 (but not 18).

In fact, he lists (and illustrates some) 10 different varieties alone for (or involving) 1864 and its punched date.