Opinions on this coin? The coloring is strange. I am looking into buying it. It has positives but.... thoughts? 1 1

[Mike Meenderink]

[Sandon]

   The color of this coin is definitely wrong for an 1856-1864 era 88% copper 12% nickel cent. They vary in color but are usually tan, light brown or yellowish and are not brick red like this 1862. This coin is close to mint state but appears to have no luster, which is also abnormal. It has almost certainly been darkened with chemicals, possibly to hide a "cleaning".  For comparison, here are images of the obverse of an 1859 PCGS graded AU 58 (PCGS photo) and both sides of an 1860 NGC graded MS 62:

 

 

[Mike Meenderink]

@Sandon It looks like it's made of pure copper. It also looks very cleaned. I wanted to show this crazy thing. It could also be an exposure error with the pic. I agree its VERY off.

[Henri Charriere]

Notwithstanding the remarks of the previous poster with whom I am in complete agreement, I would acquire the coin for its unique novel aspect.

It looks to be made of indestructible, space-age plastic, something one would use in a child's play game.  It also sports a "2" the likes of which I do not believe I have seen before.  Nobody, neither @RWB nor @powermad5000 or @Just Bob  has apparently viwed this contribution, but I would hope they give it a little slack.

If you can use the remarks made by @Sandon as a bargaining chip -- he was thisclose to  rejecting it outright, I would definitely acquire it if it were made available at minimal cost.  At the very least, it can be used as a learning exhibit.

All in favor, say Aye!

[powermad5000]

Is it possible this was whizzed at one time? I have a half cent that was whizzed and has a very unnatural color.

Edited September 1 by powermad5000

[VKurtB]

On 9/1/2024 at 9:29 AM, Mike Meenderink said:

The obvious rim dings and the obverse gouge set me up for a “Naw”. Then the unnatural color gets me to “Aw hellz naw.”

[MarkFeld]

One way or another, the coin has been messed with, isn’t natural and should be avoided.

[RWB]

On 9/1/2024 at 12:28 PM, Henri Charriere said:

I would hope they give it a little slack.

The only "slack" is poor photography. If the photo is reasonably accurate, then it's not a coin I could ever recommend to anyone. Mark and I agree.

[VKurtB]

On 9/1/2024 at 5:12 PM, RWB said:

The only "slack" is poor photography. If the photo is reasonably accurate, then it's not a coin I could ever recommend to anyone. Mark and I agree.

#Me Too. 

[J P M]

It looks like it was painted with copper paint.  

[Mike Meenderink]

I knew you guys would find this strange. It is for sale for $45.00 on eBay. I was thinking of using it as an example of a clean fields coin that was chemically treated to attempt to improve appearance but came out with a STRANGE color. It's too bad it has been messed with because it's actually a pretty nice details coin. 

[RWB]

When the small diameter cent struck in 88% Cu and 12% Ni was adopted the Philadelphia Mint began routine testing of the alloy. This was done for two reasons. 1) The alloy was difficult to anneal and tended to blister and crack if the proportion of nickel varied more than a little. 2) Nickel was expensive compared to copper and the mint wanted to maintain the fiction that a cent contained metal worth approximately one-cent. Thus, the percentage of nickel had to be closely controlled. Here's an example of a typical assay. This was continued until bronze was adopted in 1864.

Edited September 3 by RWB

[Mike Meenderink]

                                                                       

On 9/3/2024 at 7:19 AM, RWB said:

When the small diameter cent struck in 88% Cu and 12% Ni was adopted the Philadelphia Mint began routine testing of the alloy. This was done for two reasons. 1) The alloy was difficult to anneal and tended to blister and crack if the proportion of nickel varied more than a little. 2) Nickel was expensive compared to copper and the mint wanted to maintain the fiction that a cent contained metal worth approximately one-cent. Thus, the percentage of nickel had to be closely controlled. Here's an example of a typical assay. This was continued until bronze was adopted in 1864.

                      This coin above is definitely one with a VERY low nickel content. IMO 11.2 % or lower. 

Edited September 4 by Mike Meenderink