Very, Very Scarce Jefferson Nickel Error and a Nice Brass Lincoln Cent Error

According to Fred Weinberg, this Nickel stamped on 25c Clad stock is 1 of only about 8-9 known to exist and are very, very scarce. It is not minted on a quarter-size planchet, but a proper nickel-size planchet mistakenly cut from quarter (clad) stock. PCGS graded AU53.



And also a cool, rare brass 1941-P Lincoln cent (86% Copper, 11% zinc, 3% tin). NGC AU58.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I've never heard of this planchet composition. There must have been an entire roll, or more, made like this unless there was one spot on the entire roll that was improperly mixed. Are there more known examples?

 

Would like to see the the labels on the slabs.

 

Apparently there are several examples, so they are rare, but not "scarce." I have seen about a dozen slabbed and they all weigh about .2 to .4 grams more than normal (mine is 3.3 grams instead of 3.1) though it's still within the tolerance level. I haven't seen any 1941 dates myself that were graded MS, but Heritage had a couple that auctioned off with later dates at mid-MS range for between $1,300 - $1,900. The TPG slab labels will sometimes state "brass planchet", "struck on brass", or sometimes "improper alloy" or will just denote the percentages. But "improper alloy" for cents doesn't always necessarily mean it is "brass"; it depends on the amount of copper and zinc.

I have seen ranges on mixtures from 84% copper to 89% copper, whereas they are supposed to be 95% copper up to 1982 for some and zinc-coated for others; then only copper-plated zinc since 1983.

Most of the genuine brass cents also have small orange blotches in spots from the ones I have seen (Abe is staring at one on mine) and will look very "streaky" throughout on both sides. Of course, they have a more noticeably different yellowish tint, and at the risk of sounding too simplistic, many actually "look" like brass. However, I also learned that just because a cent has a yellowish tint and has streaks, that doesn't automatically mean it is brass.

From everything I have read, how this composition came to be is a mystery to Mint officials and nationally-known error experts.

 

This person on eBay has one for sale. The dramatic description appears to be a little over the top, and there are dozens and dozens of genuine examples; not "20" as stated. And I did not even pay $400 for mine despite being far nicer and 2 grades higher.

But, hey...to each his own in our free-market society.

 

Very interesting!

 

I'm glad you pointed this out ! Thank You ! I've often wondered why eBay allows sellers to rake the public, most especially those who do not investigate the actual-true-cost of their desires ! I spend so much of valuable time researching for the items before I even consider purchasing or bidding them ! UGH!

 

Further proof that the Mint has copied many other businesses - get rid of experience in exchange for minimum wage.

 

The one on EBay just says it is heavy 3.4 grams.
Yours with the composition written on the slab is far more interesting.
Plus yours is a woody and AU-58 Brown. The other one is a dull AU-53.

 

How can they determine composition? What non-destructive testing is there? Also, what clues did they have to suspect something was amiss?

 

X-ray flourescence technology has been available for many years. It can determine the elemental composition of coins and many other materials.

 

Because if eBay hired people to authenticate the claims of every auction on their platform, they would have to raise their listing fees to something like $20 per item. Oops, forgot the personnel to handle appeals from sellers and buyers who disagree with the assessment -- make that $100 per item.

 

C’mon they produce millions of coins and there are only a very limited number of error coins. Although the designs are getting worse in most western countries, the quality control/assurance is certainly good enough.

 

I agree, except that that specific kind of "mistake" is inexcusable. Of course, as they say, that's my opinion (& I'm sticking to it!).

 

Disagree. Per year, billions produced and millions of errors created, sticking a pin in the QC/QA fallacy balloon. Just last year Lincoln Denver cents had close to 90% with a die crack on either side. Going back further to 2012, Shield cents have garnered a huge track record for die problems. And you only have to look at the output of 2015 Philadelphia products to point to other denominations ending up as garbage.

And, I don't think the nickel on quarter stock was accidental. The mystery of the composition of the '41 may never be solved, isn't that too convenient. It is to me.

I don't buy it. No, really...I would not buy either of these coins. Something "fishy" with both of them.

Spark

 

There have been plenty of examples where the only logical explanation for certain errors, and impossible combinations of errors on a single coin, is intentional interference by Mint employees or their contractors. Even U.S. Mint and Treasury officials admit some must have been purposely done.

However, you can't ignore the fact that these types of errors, regardless if stamped by human error innocently or strategically done for selfish profit by an employee with direct access, or done by someone out of sheer boredom, do now exist. They are considered legal tender, and are either rare, scarce, or unique.

What should be done with them? Why is not appropriate to collect them if you're lucky enough to come across one at a good price?

A good example of 99% likely intentional mischief is the "Del Monte" note.
http://www.delmontenote.com

 

You are a buffalo ny person right

 

From the Falls originally.