1965 Quarter 0

[Abigail1964]

I have a 1965 quarter that weighs more than other quarters. My scales is not great but it did show the 1965 quarters as more weight than the common quarters that are of current times  I'm not sure on the exact weight. But it also has copper showing on the edge of the quarter. What could this be? A silver coin with some copper as well? Please advise. 

[l.cutler]

Welcome to the forum.  If copper is showing then it is a normal clad quarter.  You would need an accurate scale to determine if it is overweight and by how much.  It is perfectly normal for coins to be slightly under or overweight. The planchet stock used can sometimes be a little thin or a little thick affecting the weight of the coins.

Edited January 29, 2023 by l.cutler

[Greenstang]

Welcome to the forum

You really need a scale accurate to two decimal points if you are going to weigh coins. Anything else is not much help.

Also the weight of a clad quarter is 5.67g with a +- of .19g so a weight between 5.48 and 5.86 is acceptable.

Edited January 29, 2023 by Greenstang

[Abigail1964]

Thank you for the information. I will take it to the local coun store and see how much it weighs. 

[JKK]

On 1/29/2023 at 4:54 AM, Greenstang said:

Welcome to the forum

You really need a scale accurate to two decimal points if you are going to weigh coins. Anything else is not much help.

Also the weight of a clad quarter is 5.67g with a +- of 1.9g so a weight between 5.48 and 5.86 is acceptable.

Psst, Greenstang--sure you don't mean 0.19g?

[Greenstang]

Your right JKK, typo on my part, I should have proof read it. I will change it to avoid confusion.

Thanks for catching it.

[J P M]

On 1/29/2023 at 11:30 AM, Abigail1964 said:

Thank you for the information. I will take it to the local coun store and see how much it weighs. 

Welcome Abigail ....I would not bother to take it to a coin store. If you are going to start collecting coins you will need a scale anyway. Just order one that has at least two decimal points for starters and maybe a Red Book and a loupe to look at coins.  

[Coinbuf]

On 1/29/2023 at 3:37 PM, J P M said:

Welcome Abigail ....I would not bother to take it to a coin store. If you are going to start collecting coins you will need a scale anyway. Just order one that has at least two decimal points for starters and maybe a Red Book and a loupe to look at coins.  

Really, I've been collecting coins for over 40 years and never owned a scale or needed to weigh a coin once.   I do agree with the Red Book and loupe, those are essentials.

[Sandon]

On 1/29/2023 at 10:41 PM, Coinbuf said:

I've been collecting coins for over 40 years and never owned a scale or needed to weigh a coin once. 

  It's been about 52 years for me, and I've never owned a scale either.  One generally makes a preliminary determination about the authenticity of a coin or whether it is a significant error or variety by looking at it carefully and understanding what it's supposed to look like.  One obtains this understanding by examining many coins, by reading good numismatic references, and by speaking with experienced collectors and dealers.  I also understand that many of the more inexpensive scales often aren't very accurate and that they all require frequent calibration.  

   This is not to say that determining the exact weight of a coin with good equipment isn't important to the professional authentication process for frequently counterfeited or questionable coins.  I have no idea, however, what @Abigail1964 believes to be unusual about this seemingly ordinary looking (despite the blurry photos) 1965 quarter.  The copper on the rim indicates that it is of the usual copper-nickel clad composition, worth face value as a circulated coin.

[EagleRJO]

On 1/29/2023 at 7:54 AM, Greenstang said:

Also the weight of a clad quarter is 5.67g with a +- of .19g so a weight between 5.48 and 5.86 is acceptable.

I'm just curious about the source for the tolerance?  I have two US mint spec tables (one from ANA and one from Coin World Almanac) which does have the 5.67g weight, but they both list the tolerance as +/- 0.227g for the 1965 Cu-Ni quarter, which would give an acceptable weight range of 5.44g to 5.90g.

[Note the 0.19g tolerance is given for 1947 thru 1964 Ag quarters]

On 1/29/2023 at 10:41 PM, Coinbuf said:

Really, I've been collecting coins for over 40 years and never owned a scale or needed to weigh a coin once.   I do agree with the Red Book and loupe, those are essentials.

Perhaps you measure diameter and thickness in lieu of weights to check if older raw coins are legit?  I not only check weights, but I accurately measure diameter and thickness for older raw coins, and also use that info to check density.  Plus, if anything isn't adding up I might also do a specific gravity test.  It's probably overkill, but I tend to be very cautious with raw coins I purchase.

Edited January 30, 2023 by EagleRJO

[Just Bob]

It's nice to know that I am not the only collector who has never felt it necessary to buy a scale.

[Coinbuf]

On 1/29/2023 at 9:07 PM, EagleRJO said:

Perhaps you measure diameter and thickness in lieu of weights to check if older raw coins are legit?  I not only check weights, but I also accurately measure diameter and thickness for older raw coins, and also use that info to check density.  Also, if anything isn't adding up I might also do a specific gravity test.  It's probably overkill, but I tend to be very cautious with raw coins I purchase.

When I buy a raw coin I use the many years of experience to guide myself on what to purchase.   I never just impulse buy, if I'm looking at a raw coin I have done the research and know what to look for.   I could care less about errors or varieties from a collecting standpoint, they are fun to research and learn about, but I have zero interest in owning many.   The few that I do own were bought either for a specific reason or set.

I did when younger make a few mistake purchases, but (as everyone should) I learned from those mistakes and now I stay away from coins that I have not researched or understand what I should look for.   I suppose if I were only interested in get rich quick coins (you know the kind that get hyped but cannot be found in the wild) then having a scale to weigh hundreds of thousands of Lincoln cents in the search for a unicorn might be useful.

[EagleRJO]

On 1/29/2023 at 11:04 PM, Sandon said:

I also understand that many of the more inexpensive scales often aren't very accurate and that they all require frequent calibration.

Very true.  I had a really cheap pocket scale when I switched from roll hunting to more serious collecting about a year ago which gave me results sometimes that made me scratch my head, and needed to be recalibrated frequently.  There are also people who have posted questionable weight results on the board from using the cheap/pocket scales, which usually turns out to be incorrect weights.

So I threw the cheap one out and spent a little more on a small laboratory grade scale.  It has a 3 decimal place or 0.001g accuracy, and came with multiple calibration weights to do a very precise sequential calibration.  It also has a slightly depressed area where you place the coin that's larger than any standard coin, so there is no way for the coin to accidently slide off the scale.

It's probably also overkill, but the results from the cheap one left me with a bad taste, and it was under $50.  I have never had results from the new scale that made me scratch my head, and even though its spot on and has not needed recalibration so far, I still quickly check accuracy with the smallest calibration weight before I weigh a coin.

On 1/29/2023 at 11:04 PM, Sandon said:

It's been about 52 years for me, and I've never owned a scale either. One generally makes a preliminary determination ... by looking at it carefully and understanding what it's supposed to look like.

This is not to say that determining the exact weight of a coin with good equipment isn't important to the professional authentication process for frequently counterfeited or questionable coins.

I also look at every raw coin carefully, do a quick check to see if it there might be counterfeits, and compare it to known legit coins.  I just don't feel comfortable yet with only examining a coin, so I take the extra steps of measuring weight and dimensions, as well as figuring an approximate density from those measurements if something doesn't look right.  Maybe after I have decades of experience like you and Coinbuf I wont feel the need to take those extra steps for raw coins, other than for frequently counterfeited or questionable coins.

Edited January 31, 2023 by EagleRJO

[EagleRJO]

On 1/29/2023 at 2:43 AM, Abigail1964 said:

I have a 1965 quarter that weighs more than other quarters. My scales is not great but it did show the 1965 quarters as more weight than the common quarters that are of current times  I'm not sure on the exact weight. But it also has copper showing on the edge of the quarter. What could this be? A silver coin with some copper as well? Please advise.

@Abigail1964I am curious about what led you to measure the weight of that 1965 quarter in the first place.  Perhaps you are weighing all the 1965 quarters you get hoping to find a rare mint error of that coin being mistakenly struck on a 1964 90% pure silver planchet?  I understand there were a handful of those error coins struck at the beginning of 1965 that are worth a good amount, but very rare ... like Powerball odds rare.

Note that you do not need to weigh every 1965 quarter looking for that error.  Just look at the edge of the coin.  The core of the normal Cu-Ni coins is pure copper (with a little bit of the lighter colored 25% nickel and 75% copper thin outer cladding showing on the edge near each face), which it sounds like that quarter has.  So it's not the rare error of being struck on a heavier silver planchet from the prior year.

You probably just have an inaccurate scale which is showing a different weight.  Also, there have been a few topics lately about coins possibly being struck on the wrong planchet with pictures which may help in your search for that unicorn quarter.  And welcome to the forum.

Edited January 31, 2023 by EagleRJO

[JKK]

On 1/29/2023 at 8:22 PM, Just Bob said:

It's nice to know that I am not the only collector who has never felt it necessary to buy a scale.

For pre-Krause it's a necessity. It was one of the first things I had to get hold of when I got into Roman bronzes.

[Hoghead515]

Ive weighed a few coins just for a little expireminting purposes. I already had a scale before I started collecting. Had to have one for reloading ammo. One time when it came in handy was when I got that quarter off my friend that was missing its clad layer on one side. They are handy when you need them but its rarely. Thats really the only time Ive ever had to have one. May never need it again though. 

[l.cutler]

Needing a scale depends on what you collect.  Colonial and pre-Federal coin collectors usually document the weight of their coins.  There are sometimes small and large planchet variations of a single variety, and it sometimes helps determine who minted the coin, or whether the coin  has been "clipped" or not.

[Just Bob]

I don't want anyone to think that I meant that I was feeling superior, or that not having a set of scales somehow made me a better collector than anyone else. I just never felt scales were necessary to what I collect. I was, however, wondering if I was missing out on something, since everyone else, including almost every newbie, seems to own a set. I sort of felt like the oddball. I find it somehow comforting to find out that there are others like me.

[J P M]

 

 

On 1/30/2023 at 8:54 AM, Just Bob said:

I don't want anyone to think that I meant that I was feeling superior, or that not having a set of scales somehow made me a better collector than anyone else. I just never felt scales were necessary to what I collect. I was, however, wondering if I was missing out on something, since everyone else, including almost every newbie, seems to own a set. I sort of felt like the oddball. I find it somehow comforting to find out that there are others like me.

I have to say most of the time I use the scales is to check 1982 cents roll hunting. The zinc cents can look like copper sometimes. Also checking the Henning's nickel without the marker helps.  

[JKK]

On 1/30/2023 at 5:54 AM, Just Bob said:

I don't want anyone to think that I meant that I was feeling superior, or that not having a set of scales somehow made me a better collector than anyone else. I just never felt scales were necessary to what I collect. I was, however, wondering if I was missing out on something, since everyone else, including almost every newbie, seems to own a set. I sort of felt like the oddball. I find it somehow comforting to find out that there are others like me.

Hope I didn't sound like I was implying that, Bob, because I definitely wasn't meaning to. I took it purely at face value. Fact is that if you don't find scales necessary, they are not. What happens with ancients is that as you've seen, they are sometimes of irregular diameter and thickness. Simply put, sometimes the guy with the hammer worked a bit harder than at other times. Weight can tell one where to start looking, and is an essential confirmation datum. Thing is, they're pretty cheap. I think mine cost $10. Compared to the lunatic sum I've spent on numismatic references, it just didn't make sense for me not to have.

It can also throw us a bit. The pic on my profile is a Roman provincial bronze of Diocletian, circa late first century CE. I could not find that thing in any of my references; I found one much like it, but that couldn't be it because that listing weighed notably more than mine and had more legend detail. Finally someone at my serious coin haunt pointed out to me that it was that coin, but heavily reduced (neatly clipped? filed? something else? no idea). That's the kind of fun you sign up for with ancients. And nah, it doesn't make us superior either. Sort of like living in Wyoming or being a member at Oakmont, it's one of those voluntary tribulations we sign up for and then enjoy laughing about how difficult it can get.

I was the same way as you on scales, but with modern phones. I hung onto my flip phone until just a couple years ago, when an imbecilic handyman dropped it in a tub of water. The world just assumed I had a modern phone and I just said 'nah, never needed one, but you do you.' I tried to explain that I didn't need a computer with a dinky teeny tiny screen not much bigger than a playing card and with 'keys' the size of chiclets if you're lucky. People just shook their heads the way most Americans shake their heads when I put Vegemite or Marmite on something and start eating it.

[Hoghead515]

On 1/30/2023 at 8:54 AM, Just Bob said:

I don't want anyone to think that I meant that I was feeling superior, or that not having a set of scales somehow made me a better collector than anyone else. I just never felt scales were necessary to what I collect. I was, however, wondering if I was missing out on something, since everyone else, including almost every newbie, seems to own a set. I sort of felt like the oddball. I find it somehow comforting to find out that there are others like me.

I probably wouldnt have a set if it werent for reloading ammo. Had to have one measuring powder. Very handy for coins also

[VKurtB]

I’ve been collecting for 60 years, got my very first scale two years ago and have used the thing maybe twice. This scale nonsense is for exactly one type of collecting - obsessing on errors, something I’ve never given a rodent’s rump about.