Pattern 1942 Cent? 2 2

[FlyingAl]

I recently purchased this 1942 cent on Ebay, albeit with some pretty bad pictures. I had originally purchased it with the hope it may be a zinc coated steel pattern. It arrived, and I can say that I doubt it is zinc coated steel. But I cannot rule out a pattern, right? The coin weighs 2.85 grams, which is 2x the legal tolerance underweight (minimum weight in legal standards is 2.98g, normal is 3.11g). My scale appears accurate, and weighs every other copper cent I tested within tolerance. The coin does not appear to have any visible reason as to why it is underweight, and appears to be a normal proof 1942 cent with some strange color to it. I would also think that a proof would be much less likely to be underweight.

Bad photo of the scale.

Here are pictures:

Color comps:

The tenth edition of the Judd book states that pattern 1942 cents were struck with regular dies in zinc, copper and zinc, zinc coated steel, aluminum, copperweld, antimony, white metal, and lead (among other metals). Only three of these compositions are currently known.

This coin has a color that isn't anywhere close to any copper cent I currently have in my possession. I have to say that I'm stumped. I discussed it with @Eldorado9, and we both agreed that there may be something here, and that it was worth bringing up with the forums. Does anyone have any information that may aid me in figuring out what this is?

I have three possibilities that I can think of:

Normal coin
Mint error underweight cent
Pattern metal strike

Update: Specific gravity of the coin is high at 10.17g/ml. A normal 1951 cent was 8.88 g/ml.

[VKurtB]

On 11/18/2022 at 1:29 PM, FlyingAl said:

I recently purchased this 1942 cent on Ebay, albeit with some pretty bad pictures. I had originally purchased it with the hope it may be a zinc coated steel pattern. It arrived, and I can say that I doubt it is zinc coated steel. But I cannot rule out a pattern, right? The coin weighs 2.85 grams, which is 2x the legal tolerance underweight (minimum weight in legal standards is 2.98g, normal is 3.11g). My scale appears accurate, and weighs every other copper cent I tested within tolerance. The coin does not appear to have any visible reason as to why it is underweight, and appears to be a normal proof 1942 cent with some strange color to it. I would also think that a proof would be much less likely to be underweight.

Bad photo of the scale.

Here are pictures:

Color comps:

The tenth edition of the Judd book states that pattern 1942 cents were struck with regular dies in zinc, copper and zinc, zinc coated steel, aluminum, copperweld, antimony, white metal, and lead (among other metals). Only three of these compositions are currently known.

This coin has a color that isn't anywhere close to any copper cent I currently have in my possession. I have to say that I'm stumped. I discussed it with @Eldorado9, and we both agreed that there may be something here, and that it was worth bringing up with the forums. Does anyone have any information that may aid me in figuring out what this is?

I have three possibilities that I can think of:

Normal coin
Mint error underweight cent
Pattern metal strike

Update: Specific gravity of the coin is high at 10.17g/ml. A normal 1951 cent was 8.88 g/ml.

You really ARE a gambler, aren’t you, Al?

[Henri Charriere]

On 11/18/2022 at 2:29 PM, FlyingAl said:

.... I had originally purchased it with the hope it may be a zinc coated steel pattern....

Here are pictures:

It was your "hope" it may be a zinc-coated steel pattern, but what exactly was it advertised as being on eBay?  And was that price in line with what you believe such a coin should command?  Is the zinc-coated steel one of the known patterns of the many kinds that exist?  🤔 

[RWB]

Cents and nickels were neither counted nor tested individually. Occasional samples were taken, but that was all. Everything was by weight of large quantities. Most likely an end of strip blank or a thin spot. Pattern cents in 1942 were all about replacing copper, not using it in coins.

[FlyingAl]

On 11/18/2022 at 4:33 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

It was your "hope" it may be a zinc-coated steel pattern, but what exactly was it advertised as being on eBay?  And was that price in line with what you believe such a coin should command?  Is the zinc-coated steel one of the known patterns of the many kinds that exist?  🤔 

It was advertised as a normal proof cent and priced as such. Zinc-coated steel patterns do exist and are known today. 

@RWB - the coin has a higher than normal density, which would indicate that it is not actually all copper. 

[VKurtB]

Yeah, when I first saw this coin, my thought was a 1942 proof. The color does not bother me. 1936-42 proof cents are in a wide variety of colors, including blues and purples, along with more expected colors. I am told that was due to the tissue paper they arrived in. Now the specific gravity? I can’t speak to that. The rims look awfully “proofy” to me. 

Edited November 19, 2022 by VKurtB

[FlyingAl]

On 11/18/2022 at 6:59 PM, VKurtB said:

Yeah, when I first saw this coin, my thought was a 1942 proof. The color does not bother me. 1936-42 proof cents are in a wide variety of colors, including blues and purples, along with more expected colors. I am told that was due to the tissue paper they arrived in. Now the specific gravity? I can’t speak to that. The rims look awfully “proofy” to me. 

It is a proof.

[Henri Charriere]

@FlyingAl:

Looks to me like you took a shot at it being what you reasonably expected it might be.  Perfectly understandable.  I have purchased coins basically sight unseen solely on the strength of the grade accorded it by a TPGS, so I am certainly not going to be the one to cast the first stone.  

@VKurtB:

This may seem highly irregular, but should you cross paths with the gentleman who boasts a collection of orphaned proofs (from split-up sets in violation of Q.A.'s inviolate Rule #3) please see to it the OP's quandary is brought to his attention. 😉 

Edited November 19, 2022 by Quintus Arrius
Die polishing: correct misspelling.

[VKurtB]

On 11/18/2022 at 8:40 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

@FlyingAl:

Looks to me like you took a shot at it being what you reasonably expected it might be.  Perfectly understandable.  I have purchased coins basically sight unseen solely on the strength of the grade accorded it by a TPGS, so I am certainly not going to be the one to cast the first stone.  

@VKurtB:

This may seem highly irregular, but should you cross paths with the gentleman who boasts a collection of orphaned proofs (from split-up sets in violation of Q.A.'s inviolate Rule #3) please see to it the OP's quandary is brought to his attention. 😉 

QA, it wasn’t until 1950 that proofs had to be bought as a set. Prior to that, they could be ordered coin by coin. 

[Henri Charriere]

On 11/18/2022 at 10:19 PM, VKurtB said:

QA, it wasn’t until 1950 that proofs had to be bought as a set. Prior to that, they could be ordered coin by coin. 

But, but,... the Red Book gave the onset of "sets" as beginning in 1936.  Yes, there are "sets" going back into the 19th century, but I thought I distinctly recall a member addressing this matter. Please do not tell me the 1940 set one member crowed about proudly on this Forum was an amalgam. What was the exact date of the very First Proof Set?

[VKurtB]

On 11/18/2022 at 9:36 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

But, but,... the Red Book gave the onset of "sets" as beginning in 1936.  Yes, there are "sets" going back into the 19th century, but I thought I distinctly recall a member addressing this matter. Please do not tell me the 1940 set one member crowed about proudly on this Forum was an amalgam. What was the exact date of the very First Proof Set?

They go way back IF the collector wanted all of them. Not all collectors did. Look at the Red Book. While mintage numbers were fairly close among the 5 denominations / 6 coins in 1942, they were NOT identical. That only begins in 1950. 

[VKurtB]

On 11/18/2022 at 9:36 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

But, but,... the Red Book gave the onset of "sets" as beginning in 1936.  Yes, there are "sets" going back into the 19th century, but I thought I distinctly recall a member addressing this matter. Please do not tell me the 1940 set one member crowed about proudly on this Forum was an amalgam. What was the exact date of the very First Proof Set?

Could have been a kept together set, or also could be an amalgam. In 1940, both were done. Regardless, almost ALL registry proof sets are amalgams, put together from several sources. 

Edited November 19, 2022 by VKurtB

[Henri Charriere]

On 11/18/2022 at 11:14 PM, VKurtB said:

Could have been a kept together set, or also could be an amalgam. In 1940, both were done. Regardless, almost ALL registry proof sets are amalgams, put together from several sources. 

Just goes to show you... I wasn't even aware "sets" were on Registry "Sets." 

I am still trying to figure out a good approach to addressing the OP's quandary.  I, too, would like to locate an interesting "variety" known to exist (but unofficially acknowledged by all but members on chat boards) which is an interesting anomaly in the Rooster series: the switch in edge mottos between the originals and restrikes. But I would have to resort to what the OP has done, and take a calculated risk. I do not know what 1942 proof pattern cents go for but we'd be talking roughly $350. in my area of concentration.  It's either that, or waiting an interminable interval for one to show up----and paying the handsome price it would no doubt command, particularly if it were among the compositions not previously found to exist.

[FlyingAl]

On 11/18/2022 at 8:36 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

But, but,... the Red Book gave the onset of "sets" as beginning in 1936.  Yes, there are "sets" going back into the 19th century, but I thought I distinctly recall a member addressing this matter. Please do not tell me the 1940 set one member crowed about proudly on this Forum was an amalgam. What was the exact date of the very First Proof Set?

That proof set was simply ordered by ordering one of each coin from the mint. Not a set. VKurt is correct, sets started in 1950, anything before is simply put together after the coins left the mint, and all sets are equal. A “ original set” from the pre 1950 era simply means one of each coin, kept together from when they were ordered.

[pigeonman333rd]

I hope this helps I purchased a 1942 proof cent as well but I think mine might just be a circulation strike purchased as a proof but it might just be a whizzed coin. However it is a 1942 cent it clearly has a VDB under Lincolns bust does your coin have that diagnostic? Here are a few pictures of what is possibly a 1942 proof cent because that is what it was advertised as on ebay. I hope you didn't pay to much for it I got mine for 4.95 free shipping. What do you think about this coin is it a proof? And does your coin have vdb under the bust? Here's some photos with the weight of my coin and a close up of the vdb. My guess is you have a thin cent which Old hoopster knows more about he helped me when I had a question about the validation of a certified thin cent. You could message him directly he might help you where as he avoids me now. Good luck on validating you coin. 

[Henri Charriere]

On 11/19/2022 at 4:02 PM, pigeonman333rd said:

....I purchased a 1942 proof cent.... might just be a circulation strike purchased as a proof but...might just be a whizzed coin....What do you think about this coin is it a proof?.... Old hoopster.... he avoids me now.... 

"Proof... might be a circulated... might just be a whizzed"???  Huh?  

"Is it a proof?"  Isn't it a bit too late to ask?  

Re:  Ol'hoop. Nothing personal. It's not just you. It's an entire Forum. (And it's all my fault.)  

[pigeonman333rd]

Relax I just posted those pics of the counterfeits he requested all though my reputation with him may be ruined maybe he will help FlyingAl

[pigeonman333rd]

All I'm concerned with is some validation of the coin at hand gloved hand no doubt. Is it really a proof cent and does Flyingal's coin have vdb under the bust??I'm just curious!  

[Sandon]

@pigeonman333rd--All Lincoln cents dated 1918 and thereafter are supposed to have the designer's initials "V.D.B." under Lincoln's bust!  It's in the "Redbook", which I've encouraged you to read. I can't tell from your dark and distant photos whether your coin is a proof or a polished, plated, or buffed circulation strike, which would be worth a few cents at most.  However, it's most unlikely that anyone would sell you a genuine proof for $4.95, as even a lower-end MS63RB lists $40, and a much nicer 65 RD lists $150 at current Coin World retail prices. "There is no Santa Claus in numismatics."

@FlyingAl--I've noticed quite a few occasions in the several months I've been active on the forums when members have formed a belief that they have an "off-metal" or other error coin or pattern based on readings on a digital scale that are outside the legal weight tolerance. I question the accuracy of these scales.  The scale should usually weigh unworn bronze or brass small cents (1864-1982) at exactly or very close to their 3.11 gram official weight. If it doesn't, I would suspect it's faulty. (Do you have a certified weight with which you could test it?)  If the scale proves accurate, you might have a coin that's worth submitting for testing by professionals.

   

[FlyingAl]

On 11/19/2022 at 2:45 PM, Sandon said:

@pigeonman333rd--All Lincoln cents dated 1918 and thereafter are supposed to have the designer's initials "V.D.B." under Lincoln's bust!  It's in the "Redbook", which I've encouraged you to read. I can't tell from your dark and distant photos whether your coin is a proof or a polished, plated, or buffed circulation strike, which would be worth a few cents at most.  However, it's most unlikely that anyone would sell you a genuine proof for $4.95, as even a lower-end MS63RB lists $40, and a much nicer 65 RD lists $150 at current Coin World retail prices. "There is no Santa Claus in numismatics."

@FlyingAl--I've noticed quite a few occasions in the several months I've been active on the forums when members have formed a belief that they have an "off-metal" or other error coin or pattern based on readings on a digital scale that are outside the legal weight tolerance. I question the accuracy of these scales.  The scale should usually weigh unworn bronze or brass small cents (1864-1982) at exactly or very close to their 3.11 gram official weight. If it doesn't, I would suspect it's faulty. (Do you have a certified weight with which you could test it?)  If the scale proves accurate, you might have a coin that's worth submitting for testing by professionals.

   

Sandon, I don't have a verifiable weight, but I have tested the scale with a few hundred other coins. None of them ever showed anything out of tolerance, let alone this far off. This coin is being sent to a professional numismatist for more precise tests and verification. Until I receive those results, this coin will remain nothing but a slightly out of weight cent (and even then, my scale could be off as you state). 

Trust me, I've seen more than my share of posts like you are referencing. I will be taking the steps to make sure that everything is accurate and checked by knowledgeable numismatists. 

[Henri Charriere]

Re:  the presence of V.D.B. on Lincoln's bust in 1918, and thereafter... I asked the same of a member recently of his 1958-D Lincoln posted on the "For the love of copper" thread, but did not receive a response.  If memory serves, another member on another thread pointed out that VDB did not always appear on Lincoln's bust in the years following 1918, but I do not recall why.

[robec1347]

On 11/19/2022 at 2:10 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

Re:  the presence of V.D.B. on Lincoln's bust in 1918, and thereafter... I asked the same of a member recently of his 1958-D Lincoln posted on the "For the love of copper" thread, but did not receive a response.  If memory serves, another member on another thread pointed out that VDB did not always appear on Lincoln's bust in the years following 1918, but I do not recall why.

I’ve never heard that. I thought the only reason VDB didn’t appear on all issues after 1918 was if some eager mint worker over polished the die in that area. 

[Henri Charriere]

On 11/19/2022 at 5:16 PM, robec1347 said:

I’ve never heard that. I thought the only reason VDB didn’t appear on all issues after 1918 was if some eager mint worker over polished the die in that area. 

Unfortunately, there are 6,850 posts to comb through on the subject of No VDB Lincoln Head cents.  Not to sound morbid, but I don't believe I have the time.

[robec1347]

On 11/19/2022 at 2:20 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

Unfortunately, there are 6,850 posts to comb through on the subject of No VDB Lincoln Head cents.  Not to sound morbid, but I don't believe I have the time.

Besides the possibility of the initials being polished off there is also the possibility of an over used die having them worn off. 

[VKurtB]

On 11/19/2022 at 3:45 PM, Sandon said:

@pigeonman333rd--All Lincoln cents dated 1918 and thereafter are supposed to have the designer's initials "V.D.B." under Lincoln's bust!  It's in the "Redbook", which I've encouraged you to read. I can't tell from your dark and distant photos whether your coin is a proof or a polished, plated, or buffed circulation strike, which would be worth a few cents at most.  However, it's most unlikely that anyone would sell you a genuine proof for $4.95, as even a lower-end MS63RB lists $40, and a much nicer 65 RD lists $150 at current Coin World retail prices. "There is no Santa Claus in numismatics."

@FlyingAl--I've noticed quite a few occasions in the several months I've been active on the forums when members have formed a belief that they have an "off-metal" or other error coin or pattern based on readings on a digital scale that are outside the legal weight tolerance. I question the accuracy of these scales.  The scale should usually weigh unworn bronze or brass small cents (1864-1982) at exactly or very close to their 3.11 gram official weight. If it doesn't, I would suspect it's faulty. (Do you have a certified weight with which you could test it?)  If the scale proves accurate, you might have a coin that's worth submitting for testing by professionals.

   

@Sandon, I also have one of these scales and keeping it calibrated well is a hobby in its own right. I don’t know how people “bulk weighing” coins manage it. Between re-zeroing it and keeping drafts off of it, it doesn’t strike me as a good choice for bulk weighing. 

[pigeonman333rd]

On 11/19/2022 at 1:45 PM, Sandon said:

@pigeonman333rd--All Lincoln cents dated 1918 and thereafter are supposed to have the designer's initials "V.D.B." under Lincoln's bust!  It's in the "Redbook", which I've encouraged you to read. I can't tell from your dark and distant photos whether your coin is a proof or a polished, plated, or buffed circulation strike, which would be worth a few cents at most.  However, it's most unlikely that anyone would sell you a genuine proof for $4.95, as even a lower-end MS63RB lists $40, and a much nicer 65 RD lists $150 at current Coin World retail prices. "There is no Santa Claus in numismatics."

@FlyingAl--I've noticed quite a few occasions in the several months I've been active on the forums when members have formed a belief that they have an "off-metal" or other error coin or pattern based on readings on a digital scale that are outside the legal weight tolerance. I question the accuracy of these scales.  The scale should usually weigh unworn bronze or brass small cents (1864-1982) at exactly or very close to their 3.11 gram official weight. If it doesn't, I would suspect it's faulty. (Do you have a certified weight with which you could test it?)  If the scale proves accurate, you might have a coin that's worth submitting for testing by professionals.

   

Who has a coin worth submitting for testing he just said it's a circulation strike and I believe my coin is within tolerance was that comment for flyingal or for me because I would gladly send my coin in its a dark spot among red unc coins in my collection. I did however get the coin on ebay through a reputable dealer of coins macendiverstein rare coins who has 100% positive feedback. I don't have any 1942 unc coins but I have a few 1945S and 1944d unc coins from searching a box of unc wheat cents from a dealer that called themselves us mint. I didn't save the seller but I wish I had they were awesome I paid 1000 dollars free shipping and I got alot of errors cracked skull die errors filled 9 errors bie marked errors and alot of fun stuff nothing of great value but all unc. Oh I was wrong I see 3 1942 unc's and one 1942 d unc my mistake. 

[FlyingAl]

On 11/19/2022 at 5:58 PM, pigeonman333rd said:

Who has a coin worth submitting for testing he just said it's a circulation strike and I believe my coin is within tolerance was that comment for flyingal or for me because I would gladly send my coin in its a dark spot among red unc coins in my collection. I did however get the coin on ebay through a reputable dealer of coins macendiverstein rare coins who has 100% positive feedback. I don't have any 1942 unc coins but I have a few 1945S and 1944d unc coins from searching a box of unc wheat cents from a dealer that called themselves us mint. I didn't save the seller but I wish I had they were awesome I paid 1000 dollars free shipping and I got alot of errors cracked skull die errors filled 9 errors bie marked errors and alot of fun stuff nothing of great value but all unc. Oh I was wrong I see 3 1942 unc's and one 1942 d unc my mistake. 

The comment was for me. Your coin appears to be a cleaned circulation strike example, but better pictures would be needed to know for sure.. 

[Hoghead515]

On 11/19/2022 at 7:58 PM, pigeonman333rd said:

Who has a coin worth submitting for testing he just said it's a circulation strike and I believe my coin is within tolerance was that comment for flyingal or for me because I would gladly send my coin in its a dark spot among red unc coins in my collection. I did however get the coin on ebay through a reputable dealer of coins macendiverstein rare coins who has 100% positive feedback. I don't have any 1942 unc coins but I have a few 1945S and 1944d unc coins from searching a box of unc wheat cents from a dealer that called themselves us mint. I didn't save the seller but I wish I had they were awesome I paid 1000 dollars free shipping and I got alot of errors cracked skull die errors filled 9 errors bie marked errors and alot of fun stuff nothing of great value but all unc. Oh I was wrong I see 3 1942 unc's and one 1942 d unc my mistake. 

Its helpful to make your own thread on this coin. It causes confusion for everyone trying to help if its posted in a thread with another coin people are helping with. If its in its own thread everyone will know which coin people are talking about. 

Edited November 20, 2022 by Hoghead515

[Henri Charriere]

On 11/19/2022 at 7:58 PM, pigeonman333rd said:

.... from a dealer that called themselves us mint.... 

The context of this comment is unimportant.  Standing alone, it is worth the price of admission as a member! I am going to forfeit a few weeks and move my renewal up early to January 1, 2023. Man, I love this place!  Pigeonman, recognizing you come from a long line of illustrious pigeonmen, you made my day!  

Edited November 20, 2022 by Quintus Arrius
Close up spacing.

[Henri Charriere]

On 11/19/2022 at 12:39 AM, FlyingAl said:

That proof set was simply ordered by ordering one of each coin from the mint. Not a set. VKurt is correct, sets started in 1950, anything before is simply put together after the coins left the mint, and all sets are equal. A “ original set” from the pre 1950 era simply means one of each coin, kept together from when they were ordered.

You've inadvertently cleared up an old mystery.  My brother (deceased) and I, born 1950 and 1951, respectively, were unable to buy proof sets for our birth years at the height of our collecting years in the early to mid-1960's and now I see why.  These earliest "sets" were novelties which were snapped up and held. That explains  e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g.