1953 D brass penny 1 1

[Rww]

I was coin  roll hunting and came across a 1953 D penny that weighed  2.7 g not of the 3.1 g. NGC tested it came back 95% copper 5% zinc I had a third party test it and  came back 95% copper 5% of zinc. Not sure where to go from here any help would be much appreciated thank you

[Coinbuf]

Why do you think there is something else to do?   You have a perfectly normal cent that is just slightly under weight.   It may have been an end of strip planchet that is slightly thin.  Not a big deal.

[Rww]

It's supposed to be copper tin and zinc which makes bronze.  copper and zinc make brass.  the one weighs 3.1 g this one weighs 2.7 g it's quite different it's not on a thin planchet

Edited November 28, 2023 by Rww
Misspelled word

[Mike Meenderink]

On 11/27/2023 at 5:25 PM, Rww said:

I was coin  roll hunting and came across a 1953 D penny that weighed  2.7 g not of the 3.1 g. NGC tested it came back 95% copper 5% zinc I had a third party test it and  came back 95% copper 5% of zinc. Not sure where to go from here any help would be much appreciated thank you

Please post your "NGC testing" results. I am suspicious as to your statement. Why? Because the only testing NGC does is when a coin is graded and encapsulated. They would post the metallurgic analysis if so requested and duly authenticated breakdown of the coin so special as this right on the holder. Oh and post your #3 parties testing results as well. Thanks. Cant wait to see this....

Edited November 28, 2023 by Mike Meenderink

[Mike Meenderink]

 

Edited November 28, 2023 by Mike Meenderink

[Just Bob]

On 11/27/2023 at 7:25 PM, Rww said:

I was coin  roll hunting and came across a 1953 D penny that weighed  2.7 g not of the 3.1 g. NGC tested it came back 95% copper 5% zinc I had a third party test it and  came back 95% copper 5% of zinc. Not sure where to go from here any help would be much appreciated thank you

Did NGC encapsulate your coin when you sent it to them? Did they provide any other information or opinion other than the metal content?

[Sandon]

On 11/27/2023 at 8:34 PM, Rww said:

It's supposed to be copper tin and zinc which makes bronze.  copper and zinc make brass. 

  The OP previously posted a topic about this same coin on June 26.  @RWB predicted that the results of a metallurgical analysis would show "a result of about 95% copper and 5% zinc with a trace of tin; that is, a normal 1953-D cent." (Emphasis added.) See 1953d underweight 2.7grams. - Newbie Coin Collecting Questions - NGC Coin Collectors Chat Boards.

 

  I recall that @RWB has research that shows that at this point in time the mint was only required to include minute traces of tin in cent planchets so that they were technically bronze until the authorization came in 1962 to entirely eliminate tin from the cent's composition. Such traces might very well not register in nondestructive metallurgical analyses.  It's also unlikely that the absence of a trace of tin would have much to do with the coin being slightly underweight. The single photo of the coin's obverse shown in the previous topic shows that the coin has Very Fine or so details, has been "cleaned", and appears to have had part of its rim filed, which could explain its being slightly underweight.

  If NGC has examined this coin and found anything worth attributing due to its weight and/or composition, such attribution would appear on the NGC holder. If so, the OP should show a photo of the coin in its holder or provide the certificate number so that we may see just what NGC's findings were. So far, I have seen nothing to indicate that there is anything special about this common date, circulated Lincoln cent.   

[Henri Charriere]

(Vastly uninformed comment on my part voluntarily withdrawn as it appears @Sandon is at the top of his game.   With but a few masterful strokes on the keyboard he continues to greatly jeopardize his Newbie status.) 🤣

[EagleRJO]

According to data from the mint compiled by Coin World a 1947-1962 "bronze" cent (95% Cu + 5% Zn + trace Tin) and a 1962-1982 brass cent (95% Cu + 5% Zn) both have a spec weight of 3.110g +/- 0.130g and virtually the same Cu/Zn content.  So a circulated 1953-D cent with a weight of 2.7g and metal analysis, probably done with XRF tests, showing 95% Cu and 5% Zn would simply indicate a worn coin with a slightly thinner than usual blank as noted, and not some type of off-metal planchet error which you seem to think.

Also, 1953 was not a transitional year for cent composition, the 1962-1982 brass cent blanks you seem convinced this coin was struck on were not even being produced in 1953, and XRF testing likely wouldn't pick up the trace amounts of tin in your "bronze" cent.

Edited November 28, 2023 by EagleRJO

[Mike Meenderink]

This is the end of the Boulevard of shattered dreams and hopes. 

[RWB]

On 11/27/2023 at 11:02 PM, Sandon said:

I recall that @RWB has research that shows that at this point in time the mint was only required to include minute traces of tin in cent planchets so that they were technically bronze until the authorization came in 1962 to entirely eliminate tin from the cent's composition. Such traces might very well not register in nondestructive metallurgical analyses.  It's also unlikely that the absence of a trace of tin would have much to do with the coin being slightly underweight. The single photo of the coin's obverse shown in the previous topic shows that the coin has Very Fine or so details, has been "cleaned", and appears to have had part of its rim filed, which could explain its being slightly underweight

Internal US Mint assays consistently showed from zero (0) to a few thousandths of tin in cents from after May 1942 to official elimination 20 years later. The only purpose of the assays was to be able to say they were complying with current law -- if Congress asked. The "trace of tin" was supplied by adding pre-1942 culls and scrap alloy to each melt, but only enough to allow tin to be measured. This meant that planchets from any individual batch only matched those from a different batch by coincidence.