CWT - What kind of metal is this?

[wdrob]

 

This has good original luster, ugly as hell, but there is something about the metal that I can't figure out. Is this possibly Copper-Nickel?

 

The weight of this token is 3.1 grams.

 

 

 

 

[WoodenJefferson]

All the searches bring up copper examples weighing less than your 3.1 estimate.

 

google search

 

Could it perhaps be plated?

[wdrob]

2.32 gram - that is quite a bit less than my example of 3.1g.

 

Yes there are many possibilities and silver plated or zinc plated are some of the metal combinations used on various CWT's

 

In the CWT book I have it lists this one as having two very rare alternatives. One is a Copper-Nickel overstrike of another coin (do) and then Lead (g).

 

I searched through some of the 1862-1863 US coins and did not see one that weighed 3.1g .... However the book does not say that the copper-nickel overstrike on error coin is an American coin. That particular strike is supposed to be Unique (R-10) though.

 

I wonder if a lead struck coin could exhibit mint luster? The lead ones are not quite as rare It lists lead as being an R-9 which is 2 to 4 known.

 

I bought this CWT only because it looked different from all the other 136/397 struck R-1 CWT that I have seen. Once I got it in hand I could definitely tell it was different.

 

Why ..... I just don't know. I would like to find out though.

 

 

Also I will attach links to HUGE original pictures I took of this token.

 

Obverse

 

Reverse

 

 

 

 

 

[RWB]

Tin?

[wdrob]

Tin?

 

Was that a serious suggestion or just being facetious?

 

If it was serious then I doubt it is tin as it would probably weight less than copper, white metal, copper-nickel, lead, etc..

 

It is the standard 18mm but 3.1 grams - 3.2 grams in weight and it is not magnetic, nor does it exhibit any silver characteristics.

 

I was thinking it could be a standard copper piece that was dipped to the point that the token turned silverish in color, however in order for that to have been possible then it would seem that there would be no luster remaining. There is very nice cartwheel luster to it.

 

I started from the link Woody provided and have been researching for over 5 hours and I just can not find very much useful information. The lead version as well as the Copper-Nickel overstrike are so rare that I can't find a single specification for these pieces.

 

I am LOST!

 

I am hoping that someone can identify the environmental effects that this token exhibits and can readily associate that with the type of metal composition based on their experience with different types of metals.

 

 

[wheat'swheats]

Pewter ? Never seen one in that metal but the color and weight is there

[wdrob]

 

It may have very well been some kind of plating. I searched and searched and found either very little information or none at all (when it comes to the overstrike and the lead versions that are rare) so I tested a few different chemical compounds to see what reaction I would get.

 

So far it is looking more and more like copper in color so I have it soaking in some Verdi-Care right now and we will see what it looks like tomorrow. When I get finished I will compare pictures. Probably just a fluke.

 

Thanks.

 

 

[Coindude]

PM Bill Jones on this. I think he's probably your best bet.

[RWB]

"Was that a serious suggestion or just being facetious?"

 

Yeah -- just a guess. It's probably something commonplace. The surface resembles some polished zinc plating I've seen.

 

If you could measure the specific gravity, it would help a lot.

[wdrob]

 

PM Bill Jones on this. I think he's probably your best bet.

 

 

Your right .... but I only have a few consulting coupons remaining with Bill and I don't want to waste one on this trivial piece.

 

 

If you could measure the specific gravity, it would help a lot.

 

Well that is not going to happen.

 

I don't even own a caliper. If I wish to measure the diameter of a unknown coin, I place it next to a known coin and guess from there.

 

You are probably right on the zinc or something else coating it. I have it bathing in acetone right now and will leave it there for a few days to see if I can get some of those spotted places to look better. Regardless of the outcome, I didn't pay much to take a gamble, and Las Vegas would have cost me so much more.

 

 

[RWB]

Pocket your winnings and smile!

[brg5658]

Hi Bill,

 

As you already know, that particular token is listed in Fuld as 136/397. It is only listed in metal types of copper (denoted by letter "a") and in lead (denoted by letter "g"). It's hard to tell from your particular images -- because I have seen quite a few CWTs in copper but with quite non-copper-looking toning -- but based solely on the image and the spots it's possible you might have a lead striking there.

 

The copper version is listed as Rarity-1 (more than 5,000 known) -- the lead version is listed as Rarity-9 (2-4 known).

 

I hope this helps a little (though you already had all of this information). Given the R-9 lead listing, you'd likely need to have metalurgical analysis to confirm that was indeed what you had.

 

Cheers,

-Brandon

 

---------------------------------------------

PS -- This token is also known to exist struck over a copper-nickel small cent of the era, which yours is clearly not. I don't think you'll find much pursuing that avenue.

[e1cnr]

copper-nickel would be like the indian cents from 1860-1864, a lighter brown leaning toward yellow - I think I see hints of that on some high spots.

 

This leads me to wonder if it was dipped in something leaving residue on coin (like if you used EZEST on a bunch of silver coins and then this) or if someone had some liquid mercury and rubbed it on your coin.

[RWB]

FWIW - I've seen century-old tin, zinc, bismuth and rarely copper look like your photos, but not lead or antimony.

[Conder101]

The 2.3 gram quote for the copper specimen of this type has me wondering. The copper CWT's were the guide for the mints switch to copper (bronze) in 1864. Since the CWTs were typically the same diameter as the current cent but thinner, and most of the ones I've seen appear to be roughly the same thickness as the standard 1864 bronze cent, I would expect them to have roughly the same weight, about 3 - 3.1 grams. 2.3 grams seems unusually light (My guess is a typo in the referenced link and it should have read 3.2 grams). Anyone have other examples of this die pairing that they could check the weight on? I'm strongly suspecting that a normal copper example weighs around 3.1 grams. If so then a light plating on the OP coin becomes a high probability.

 

copper-nickel would be like the indian cents from 1860-1864, a lighter brown leaning toward yellow - I think I see hints of that on some high spots.

I believe most if not all of the CuNi CWT tokens were probably struck post war on CuNi indian head cents. They were struck to sell to collectors. The whole point of the CWT's was to provide a circulating medium. Striking on bronze provided that. They could have the tokens struck and circulate them for less than the face value of the tokens providing the needed coins and a profit. Striking on CuNi or over striking indian head cents would have eliminated most or all of the advantages.

 

Given the R-9 lead listing, you'd likely need to have metalurgical analysis to confirm that was indeed what you had.

Lead doesn't seem likely. If the copper version does actually weigh 2.3 grams then a lead planchet the same size would weigh 2.95 grams, well under the OP coin. If the copper version weighs 3.1 grams then a lead one would weigh 3.98 grams.

 

I think what we really need is confirmation of what the typical 136/397 weighs.

[wdrob]

Thanks for all the suggestions and information.

 

Brandon - That was my thoughts when I picked this up but it does not look as though that is even a possibility now that I have allowed it to soak in acetone for a day and a half. It is becoming more and more coppery looking.

 

e1cnr and Roger - I think a dip may have been the culprit at one time and Roger I think I would have been better off just accepting this piece as a very strange colored copper coin instead of possibly lead .... the weight is what threw me.

 

Conder - I agree with you. I believe that the weight that was listed on that one site was not correct. I searched and searched and never could find any alternative weight but I did as you, find that other CWT's in the same time frame and metal composition had weights that were consistent with the 3.1g.

 

That information you gave about the needed weight if it were lead was the crucial info needed. Now, like you say, if we could only get a confirmation of what weight a known copper 136/397 weighs it would eliminate much of the mystery, however as I had stated earlier, it has already lost that silvery looking color after bathing in acetone so now what I think I essentially have is an ugly 136/397a

 

Another day or two in acetone and I will take other pictures.

 

 

[WoodenJefferson]