RWB

Old copper cents and half cents were actively withdrawn by the Mint Bureau following the Civil War. Here's a sample letter describing the value of the copper recovered. An obvious question is "Why didn't the Philadelphia Mint us the copper for alloy in silver and gold coins, or to make bronze cents?" The reason is that much recovered copper contained lead and other impurities which made it useless as silver and gold alloy. The Mint bought pure copper ingots from Baltimore for alloy purposes. A secondary issue was that the Treasury had accounted for profit when large coppers were made, and now needed appropriations from Congress to keep the books balanced and cover melting costs. A. Harnickell, Broker Lead, Copper, Tin, Spelter, etc No. 22 Cliff Street, New York September 7, 1874 Superintendent, U. S. Mint, Philadelphia Sir: I bid for the 10 tons more or less of copper ingots remelted from the old cent, 19cents per pound cash, removable at my own expense, Respectfully A. Harnickell

That's the business model and they have lots of happy customers.

Nice coin, Coinbuf !

EdG_Ohio -- The manufacture of coins follows a production process analogous to the truck production line where you train workers. Truck components might get slight damage, or a ding, here and there; maybe a paint dribble - these are like bag marks on a new coin. But just like a new truck, once the coin gets out of the factory anything can happen.

EdG_Ohio ---- Maybe this illustration will help. At left is your coin; at right is an uncirculated 1876-S coin. Red arrows on your coin point to damage caused by contact with other coins (bag marks) or during circulation. It's impossible to tell what caused any of these marks. Red arrows on the coin at right point to marks from contact with other coins - much like those on your coin, but less severe. The size, location and quantity of bag marks will vary from coin to coin. Yellow arrows on your coin point to abrasion that occurred after the coin was put into circulation. This kind of fine "sanding" is not normal circulation wear, but was intentionally done for unknown reasons. This might have been done with steel wool, sandpaper, emery cloth, pencil eraser - almost anything with a hard, coarse surface. The coin at right, since it is uncirculated, has none of these abrasive marks. Does this help answer your questions?

"Grading" by TPGs is an opinion. There are no clear, empirical standards, and no organization to support such standards. (ANA abrogated this responsibility 30 years ago.) The application of numbers does not mean "greater accuracy" - only finer divisions of the same opinions. My thoughts are that TPGs' greatest values are: Authentication Separation of uncirculated from circulated Error recognition and classification Variety attribution

True. The complex on the OP's coin could be more than just copper sulfate. We'll see what happens if it gets washed in water.

Now you're ready for a snowy winter!

The overlap is in appearance, not condition. All coins begin as perfect uncirculated pieces - at least until they leave press collar. From there, stuff happens: abrasions of various kinds from non-circulation handling, and a different kind of abrasion from handling by people. Many AU coins look nicer than uncirculated ones because we have selected for quality. If one looks at 1,000 DE that had bounced around and been hand-counted, you will find most have "AU" wear, but also have lots of scrapes and marks from non-circulation handling. Identical coins without excessive non-circulation handling are the same, but more highly preferred. They "look: better." Our perceptions of "better" naturally separate "baggy" from "not baggy," and hence hand counted pieces with few marks are called "AU" and the baggy remainders are give a bogus MS-60 to 62 "grade." Much the same happens with EF coins (correctly graded, not the junk often seen) - it is our human selection bias that creates the conundrum.

How do you make a "grading guide" for something that never abrades and does not change? Maybe what you want is a reference to the universe of labels, claims, exaggerations and ephemera, with some production/sales data and sort of pricing assumptions. That would be fine for those who want such things. Just understand that it is a temporary approach and not likely to lead aficionados to anything more than shiny superficial metal bits. Similar to "collector plates" and other items. Maybe the real value is in finding a way to integrate numismatic collecting (historical) with NCLT or whatever it is that "millennials" prefer today.

Your 1853 3-cent silver is 25% copper compared to the standard US alloy of 10% copper 90% silver. It is likely the green/cyan color spots are largely copper sulfate and not PVC. I don't recall anything that will dissolve CuSO4 without damaging the coin. (Exposure to sulfuric acid is the most common cause of these green/cyan spots. The acid can come from paper and dozens of other common sources.)

The Whitman "Guide Book" series is great for basic information on different coin series. (I wrote the Peace Dollar book and helped with some others.)

Add Mercury Dimes by David W. Lange. Official ANA Grading Standards for United States Coins is especially good for showing what "grades" are supposed to be, not the inflated things seen today. PCGS and NGC counterfeit sections on their web sites are useful for older fakes and general information. [From Mine to Mint by our own Roger W Burdette aka RWB - I'd hold off until you've read Lange's US Mint and a few others. You'll get the most from the book with some basics under your belt. Every copy includes a full searchable PDF; make sure yours has one -- RWB]

How about before and after photos, at the same scale so we can see the differences?

What purpose is there to "grading" a modern NCLT? They do not circulate as money, so they have no wear. They live entirely in plastic containers. I doubt if one in 1,000 owners can separate "MS-69" from "MS-70" without the label. All the remaining stuff - labels, designations, contorted marketing blather - are ephemeral trash.

Thanks! I will take a look. Reviewed the on-line catalog. Many very nice coins. Very cumbersome to use. Every description has to be expanded, but there's no collapse button. Did not see anything permitting download of a full PDF for off-line review.

Perfectly preserved 1943 cents - fully original - might be a long-term keeper by the roll...just a thought.

Weak sulfuric acid and mild soap. Then a couple of water rinses and tumble in hardwood sawdust or ground corncob. Not a fixed or universal formula, but was the one used in Philadelphia. (See From Mine to Mint for other variations.) Nothing mentioned about gold coins. I therefore presume they were recoined if too dirty. The Mint Bureau was very touchy about gold coin appearance and recoined pieces that were marked up/abraded but of good weight. (Example. In Dec 1875 the Assistant Treasurer in New Orleans sent $339,713 in legal weight, but slightly abraded gold coins to Philadelphia for recoinage. They ended up weighing each coin, then mixing them with others at main Treasury in Washington, but that fact of shipping over $300k because it was "rough" tells us a lot about acceptance of gold coin by commercial users and banks.)

The fine lines seem to be interrupted by highest relief. This suggests polishing/abrasion after the coin left the Philadelphia Mint.

All WW-II Experimental pieces in metal were made at the Philadelphia Mint. Your coin is likely a cleaned, re-plated, and damaged 1943-D. [PS: Thanks for the quote from my book.]

Thank you, Santa! Please give the elk an extra carrot !

The coins that were cleaned had already been in circulation for a while - possibly a decade. I suspect they were roughly equivalent to 10 year old Jefferson nickels in circulation today, although possibly dirtier and more worn from intense use. Seems likely that any nickels and 3c surviving until 1990 were probably further worn and cleaning would not be identifiable by TPGs. But....since no one is presently looking for this kind of cleaning residue, maybe we have seen it but not recognized it.

I'll be pleased to help, but I'm not well "in tune" with today's new collectors - I get too wordy and detailed.

Probably won't find anything. The differences are incredibly subtle - sometimes they escape me, too.

Site looks dead from here.