1987 Nickels 1 1

[aNoobyScavenger]

i was searching through my nickels, having become an avid coin hunter very recently. 

i did a little bit of research before looking through my nickels. but i came across one that felt different and weight .2 g less than the regular 5 g. more research on it gave me reason to believe it could be a clad error, maybe alongside a mint error with the words “Five Cents”. 

im a major noob though. i only know what i see, and i’m hoping someone could help me out to identify my coins. 

apologies for the sideways picture. the one to the left(or on top) is another 1987 coin i had in my pile. the one on the right(bottom) is the odd textured one—the “clad” nickel.

[aNoobyScavenger]

On 3/4/2024 at 1:24 AM, aNoobyScavenger said:

i was searching through my nickels, having become an avid coin hunter very recently. 

i did a little bit of research before looking through my nickels. but i came across one that felt different and weight .2 g less than the regular 5 g. more research on it gave me reason to believe it could be a clad error, maybe alongside a mint error with the words “Five Cents”. 

im a major noob though. i only know what i see, and i’m hoping someone could help me out to identify my coins. 

apologies for the sideways picture. the one to the left(or on top) is another 1987 coin i had in my pile. the one on the right(bottom) is the odd textured one—the “clad” nickel.

the front side >

[EagleRJO]

The granular and somewhat mushy appearance suggests exposure to some type of corrosive like an acid, which would also account for the slughtly lower weight.  This is just damage and not an error.

[aNoobyScavenger]

On 3/4/2024 at 3:47 AM, EagleRJO said:

The granular and somewhat mushy appearance suggests exposure to some type of corrosive like an acid, which would also account for the slughtly lower weight.  This is just damage and not an error.

i really appreciate your response. i like learning new things and finding out what corrosive damage would look like. i think i remember reading about that in my research.

i genuinely don’t expect to find any real gems. my skepticism just likes to stay hopeful. 

[Greenstang]

Also the weight tolerance on nickels is .19g so your coin is only .01g.  
underweight which could accounted for by wear.

[aNoobyScavenger]

On 3/4/2024 at 6:10 AM, Greenstang said:

Also the weight tolerance on nickels is .19g so your coin is only .01g.  
underweight which could accounted for by wear.

today i learned what weight tolerance is. i’m sure i was taught it in school but still, thank you! the term is forever engraved in my memory now.

although the “coin is only .01g” part is confusing me. 

 

recognizing that the coin was corroded down, it explains to me the lesser weight. i did not weigh the less-damaged coin though, i assumed it would be the usual 5 gram weight. i find it neat regardless, to have a corroded coin. it feels “pale” in comparison to the other coins. 

when i weighed the damaged coin, it weight around 4.8 g. i don’t recall the hundred’s decimal place..

Edited March 4 by aNoobyScavenger
adding in the last bit at the bottom

[Greenstang]

If you are going to weigh coins, you should always weigh them to a minimum of two decimals.   
One decimal is not accurate enough.

[aNoobyScavenger]

On 3/4/2024 at 7:01 AM, Greenstang said:

If you are going to weigh coins, you should always weigh them to a minimum of two decimals.   
One decimal is not accurate enough.

i weighed both nickels again

corroded one is 4.85 g

the other one is 5.05 g

 

[EagleRJO]

On 3/4/2024 at 7:37 AM, aNoobyScavenger said:

although the “coin is only .01g” part is confusing me

The specified weight for that nickel is 5.00g +/- 0.19g so it should weigh between 4.81g to 5.19g.  If the actual weight was 4.80g it would only be 0.01g below normal tolerance which is very small.

With an actual weight of 4.85g it would be within mint tolerances and could be less than the 5.00g spec due to planchet variation, wear, exposure to a corrosive, or some combination of those.