1948 wheat cent. Info needed 2.7 g wrong planchet 0

[Brian Hagedorn]

Good day all. I have come across a 1948 wheat cent that I can't find any info on. I'll post some pics but please keep in mind that I know it's corroded, I know it's not worth much of anything, I am not interested in the value of the coin monetarily. I need info about it, the coin, not it's value. With that being said. It's not magnetic, it has much more of a higher pitch sound than copper when dropped and it appears rusty but with some copperish colored specks shining through. Any ideas what this is struck on?

[J P M]

A old cent could loose some copper over the years and weigh a bit less. Does your scale go to two decimal points ?

[Brian Hagedorn]

Yes it does. It's actually 2.73. But would that make it sound so much more different than another 1948? I mean it's a very different sound when dropped compared to another wheat cent of same year. Also, the rust has me thrown. Does Cooper rust?

[Brian Hagedorn]

Also, thanks for replying JPM.

[Brian Hagedorn]

Also, here's one for you guys to look at. I really think this is the result of a misplaced broken mint mark punch. Also there is worth it a doubt a horizontal misplaced s at the top of the 4 the way I'm looking at it. What's anyone else think. 

[l.cutler]

Please post pictures, but it sounds like you have a normal corroded cent.  Corrosion reduces the weight and also would cause a different sound.

[Brian Hagedorn]

On 3/5/2023 at 12:10 PM, Brian Hagedorn said:

Also, here's one for you guys to look at. I really think this is the result of a misplaced broken mint mark punch. Also there is worth it a doubt a horizontal misplaced s at the top of the 4 the way I'm looking at it. What's anyone else think. 

I thought I had posted pics. They uploaded and everything???

[Brian Hagedorn]

This is the other one I was talking about. Sorry about that.

[Coinbuf]

Just damaged.

[Brian Hagedorn]

Thanks. It's weird how it looks in the picture and it may be damage but I don't know how damage would cause raised metal in the coin unless it were damaged all the way through from the back. I know it looks like it's indented but it's raised just like the date. 

[J P M]

On 3/5/2023 at 12:27 PM, Brian Hagedorn said:

Thanks. It's weird how it looks in the picture and it may be damage but I don't know how damage would cause raised metal in the coin unless it were damaged all the way through from the back. I know it looks like it's indented but it's raised just like the date. 

Copper is a soft metal and can get pushed around and raised. Both cents you posted look normal for there age.

[Brian Hagedorn]

Thanks. It's weird how it looks in the picture and it may be damage but I don't know how damage would cause raised metal in the coin unless it were damaged all the way through from the back. I know it looks like it's indented but it's raised just like the date. 

[Sandon]

Welcome to the NGC chat board.   

   We would need to see clear, cropped photos of each side of the coin before we could even attempt to offer any informed opinion. They should have accompanied your initial post. It's still going to be difficult, if not impossible, for us to determine the coin's composition.

     If, as you say, the coin is corroded, the weight loss is likely attributable to the corrosion process. A 1948 cent is supposed to be composed of 95% copper, 5% zinc and tin (bronze). These are highly reactive metals that cause various chemical compounds (copper sulfate, to name one) to form if the coin is buried in the ground or exposed to various substances. Some of these compounds are powdery and flake off the coin, reducing its weight. Wear also reduces the weight. A weight loss of 0.38 gram from the official weight of 3.11 grams is still pretty small.  (The photo you subsequently posted of the 1948 cent while I was writing isn't adequate, but the coin appears to be within the normal color range and otherwise normal looking. In my entire 52 years as a collector, I would never have thought of weighing it!) 

   If you still think the 1948 cent was struck on an off metal planchet, I suggest you do the following:

   1. Research what coins the U.S. Mint struck for foreign governments in 1948, whether any would have been struck on a planchet the same size as a U.S. cent, and what the weight and composition of that planchet would have been.

  2. Have your coin's composition determined by non-destructive means. This can be done by NGC or others, but it's going to cost you something. Is it really worth it? Given the coin's condition, it's unlikely to be worth much.

    In response to what you posted about another coin (1946 cent) while I was writing this, it is preferable to post one coin per topic.

  The 1946 cent shows a nick that has deformed the "1" in the date. It's not an error. The hit that caused the damage displaced the metal. The coin is circulated and was chemically recolored to boot.

 

Edited March 5, 2023 by Sandon

[Brian Hagedorn]

Thank you for the feedback everyone. I didn't think copper could rust. I really thought it was stuck on something else or like missing a layer metal like I've seen missing clad layer dimes before. Also from the way it sounded so different and the way it's evenly corroded/rusted on the entire coin. That why I came here with it. 

[EagleRJO]

On 3/5/2023 at 12:11 PM, l.cutler said:

... it sounds like you have a normal corroded cent.  Corrosion reduces the weight ...

The original blank may have been a little thin, further reducing the weight but still remaining within mint spec tolerances when it was struck.

Also, I think it very unlikely that the cent would have been struck on a wrong planchet as there would not have been any other coils of metal (used for making the blanks) or planchets at the mint with a similar color for US coins which could have been mistakenly used.  Unless the mint happen to have similar color coils or cent sized planchets used for the striking of foreign coins as Sandon noted, but I cant think of any.

Edited March 5, 2023 by EagleRJO

[Coinbuf]

On 3/5/2023 at 10:37 AM, Brian Hagedorn said:

Thank you for the feedback everyone. I didn't think copper could rust. I really thought it was stuck on something else or like missing a layer metal like I've seen missing clad layer dimes before. Also from the way it sounded so different and the way it's evenly corroded/rusted on the entire coin. That why I came here with it. 

I see no rust in your photo of the 48.

[EagleRJO]

My understanding is that coins struck on wrong planchets, except for maybe one-offs or mint mischief, are usually limited to very distinct situations.  First, where the composition of a coin is changed in a particular year and then either by mistake or intentionally the old planchets are used at the beginning of the following year, referred to as "transitional off-metal errors".

A classic example of this is the 1943 Lincoln wheat cent struck on a copper planchet, likely left over from 1942.  There have also been situations where the composition of a coin is proposed to be changed in a particular year and present year coins are struck on the following years planchets which were produced early (e.g. Anthony dollar coins struck on Sacagawea dollar planchets).

Another possibility is where the incorrect stock coil of metal, with a similar appearance, is mistakenly used to produce blanks for a particular coin, or where similarly sized planchets, with a different composition, are used to strike coins such as Sacagawea dollar coins being struck on Anthony planchets.

https://www.error-ref.com/?s=wrong+planchet

For the op's 1948 Lincoln wheat cent it should have been struck on a 95% copper bronze (trace tin) planchet with a mint spec weight of 3.11g and tolerance of 0.13g.  This planchet was used since 1947 thru 1962 when it was changed to 95% copper brass (no tin), with shell casing brass for the 2 years prior to 1947.

So it seems very unlikely that a coin in the middle of a given span of years for a particular planchet composition, and with no other similarly sized planchets or similarly colored coils, would be struck on the wrong planchet.  And of course, there is the possibility of the coin being struck on a planchet intended for a foreign con, but that also seems very unlikely.

Edited March 6, 2023 by EagleRJO

[GBrad]

On 3/5/2023 at 12:37 PM, Brian Hagedorn said:

Thank you for the feedback everyone. I didn't think copper could rust. I really thought it was stuck on something else or like missing a layer metal like I've seen missing clad layer dimes before. Also from the way it sounded so different and the way it's evenly corroded/rusted on the entire coin. That why I came here with it. 

Welcome to the forum and welcome to the endless journey of collecting.  Differentiating between real mint errors/varieties, and coins that have just had a rough life such as yours, can be confusing and frustrating at times.  If you are sincerely interested in learning about coin collecting, I respectfully suggest that you become a "sponge" and soak up as much information you can.  You can do this not only here, but you should also put in the time for research and self study that is vastly abundant on both the net and in print.  Just a few mentions below regarding your comment.

Copper does not rust, it corrodes.  

There has never been a Cent made by the U.S. Mint (to my knowledge) that was not a solid alloy (prior to 1982 when the mint transitioned to zinc cores and copper plating in '82). 

Coins that are missing clad layers are just what you called them, clad coins. 

Please come here all you want and ask good, valid, and reasonable questions.  That is what this group of expert numismatists are here for; we want to help educate those new to the hobby and see you succeed. Speaking from experience, I can definitely say that this forum and group of knowledgeable members have really helped me out over the years.  

One thing though.... if you are going to ask a question about your coin(s), as said previously although I will mention it again, you MUST supply good, clear, and cropped photos of the obverse and reverse of your coin.  As of now, after having been asked to supply these type of pictures (particularly your 1948 LWC in question), all we have seen here is one unclear photo of the obverse of your 1948.

PLEASE HELP US HELP YOU. 

Best Regards,

GBrad

Edited March 6, 2023 by GBrad