artstaz Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 Hello everyone, I'm new to the forum. I have a 1942 Wheat penny that is circulated and weighs 3.30 grams. The thickness when compared to another 1942 Wheat penny is the same. Although, the other 1942 penny weighs 3.07 grams. I found one example that resembles this coin: "Mint Error 1942 Lincoln Cent Struck on Thick Brass Blank Weight 3.30 Grams ANACS VF-30" This was sold on Dec 20, 2015. Note: The dark spots on the coin isn't dirt, but inside the metal itself. Please let me know what your thoughts are and thank you for your time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WoodenJefferson Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 Looking at images and guessing why this particular cent is somewhat over weight is a fools game. Back in '42 the mint rolled it's own stock and although 99% of the stock was rollled to the correct thickness, perhaps an end was sometimes a few millimeters thicker and created these 'odd ball' cents. If you feel strongly that this was a thick planchet I would get it submitted under the error service with the denoted weight and let it get examined, until then it is pure speculation, like say, improper alloy mixture, etc. Good luck either way, looking for more answers myself on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artstaz Posted February 16, 2018 Author Share Posted February 16, 2018 (edited) Thank you Wooden Jefferson! I do feel strongly about this one. I've also read; "In 1943, the US Mint used zinc-coated steel for Lincoln Cents instead of the usual bronze (or “copper”) composition in an effort to preserve copper for the war effort. A small number of bronze planchet's were nonetheless struck with these 1943-dated dies and escaped the Mint." "Numismatic Guaranty Corporation® (NGC®) has certified an extraordinary group of four 1942 and 1943 Lincoln Cents struck on the wrong planchets. Included in this group are two examples of the 1943 bronze (“copper”) cent, one of the most famous US error coins." Just maybe this could be struck on a different planchet? "I know its still speculation until proven worthy." I suspect, we will find out in time as I'm leaning towards submitting it under the error service with a denoted weight. Thanks again! Edited February 16, 2018 by artstaz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conder101 Posted February 17, 2018 Share Posted February 17, 2018 Well considering the maximum legal weight would be 3.24 grams, your coin is .06 grams too heavy. Frankly the stock was probably rolled just a hair too think. .06 grams would not be enough overweight for me to care about it. You want to get a premium for an overweight cent I think you need to be looking at about 3.7 grams or more. .6 grams over spec,not .06. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RWB Posted February 21, 2018 Share Posted February 21, 2018 Cents and nickels were/are handled by weight only - they are not individually counted or weighed. In the 1940s a specific weight was deemed equal to a certain quantity, and that was it. Although there were legal standards, they were only applied to the mean of a large sample, and that sample was used to assign the number of pieces in a specific weight. For all subsidiary coins of that era, mintages are really statistical estimates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockJacket Posted April 2, 2021 Share Posted April 2, 2021 Struck o Ecuadorian 20 centavo planchet perhaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldhoopster Posted April 2, 2021 Share Posted April 2, 2021 1 hour ago, RockJacket said: Struck o Ecuadorian 20 centavo planchet perhaps? The Ecuador 20 centavo planchet is 21mm, so it wouldn't fit into the striking chamber. It's also 4.0 grams As @Conder101 said, the coin is very slightly out of spec by 0.06 grams. Minor variations in the strip thickness isn't uncommon and a slightly thicker planchet is the cause, IMO BTW: This thread is over 3 years old Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henri Charriere Posted April 4, 2021 Share Posted April 4, 2021 On 4/2/2021 at 10:12 AM, Oldhoopster said: BTW: This thread is over 3 years old (And the concerns expressed as valid as the day they were first conceived.) 😉 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldhoopster Posted April 4, 2021 Share Posted April 4, 2021 9 hours ago, Quintus Arrius said: (And the concerns expressed as valid as the day they were first conceived.) 😉 Just wanted to provide some info that the post is old, and the OP may not be active, nor see the reply. Also, this was the first post by rock jacket, so they may not have been aware that it hadn't been active in 3 years. Just trying to help l.cutler 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henri Charriere Posted April 4, 2021 Share Posted April 4, 2021 7 hours ago, Oldhoopster said: Just wanted to provide some info that the post is old, and the OP may not be active, nor see the reply. Also, this was the first post by rock jacket, so they may not have been aware that it hadn't been active in 3 years. Just trying to help [You are quite the gentleman -- and skillful.with emojis, too, I see. ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
