How Do Your Coin Counts Match Mint Production? May Reflect Detector

[LawrencetheMDer]

In an ideal World, one would expect the type of coins found with a metal detector to fairly match US Mint production records in terms of the ratio of coins produced. For example, if the Mint produces 25% of its coins (1, 5, 10, 25c) as quarters we would expect about 25% of the coins found metal detecting to be quarters. This assumes that coins are loss independent of denomination. Some caveats, however, may be size (Quarters are bigger and easier to detect than dimes, particularly at deeper depths) and that cents are sometimes thrown away. Also one would think something big like a quarter would be harder to lose than a cent. Given these and many other apparent limitations, with motivation from Big Scoop who provided the US mint link to coin production figures, I decided to compare my coin finds metal detecting the beaches of Florida with Mint production figures. I combined 2016 and 2017 (to date) coin finds by my Excal and they totaled 2,882 coins. The below Table shows Mint production figures (2016 only, but appear representative across years) in terms of percentages of each denomination with my coin finds for 2016 and 2017.
Percentage
Coin 0.01 0.05 0.1 0.25
Mint 55 9.5 17.9 17.6
Find 49.2 10.9 22.1 17.9

Overall, I was surprised at how closely my Finds match the Mint production figures. I seem to be a little low on cents (49.2 vs 55%) and a little higher on nickels (10.9 vs 9.5%) and higher on dimes (22.1 vs 17.9%), which is fine with me. Quarters appear right-on (17.9 vs 17.6%) and suggests they're loss is equal to the proportion produced and in circulation.
When I compiled these figures, I started to wonder if the metal detector used would influence the proportion of coins discovered? I use a multi-frequency Excal; would a single VLF machine produce different ratios? These types of data may shed light on detectors that miss, for example, nickels compared to other denominations.
Would love to hear from other Detectorists, who have different machines, how their ratios compare to mine and the Mint figures.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[ron lord]

Put this in count,$186,000 in coin are loss every year.

 

[bigscoop]

What would really be interesting is the yearly gold counts VS each of these percentages. For example, did the detectorist also recover more gold in those years when he found a higher percentage of nickels or quarters, etc. But this would probably require at least a 10 year history in order to get any true measure of things.

 

[LawrencetheMDer]

Put this in count,$186,000 in coin are loss every year.

Ron, if you're talking about your coin count, the fig is probably right. In terms of USA, sounds low, but would like a source. Any info on number of gold rings lost/yr?

 

[cudamark]

In an ideal World, one would expect the type of coins found with a metal detector to fairly match US Mint production records in terms of the ratio of coins produced. For example, if the Mint produces 25% of its coins (1, 5, 10, 25c) as quarters we would expect about 25% of the coins found metal detecting to be quarters. This assumes that coins are loss independent of denomination. Some caveats, however, may be size (Quarters are bigger and easier to detect than dimes, particularly at deeper depths) and that cents are sometimes thrown away. Also one would think something big like a quarter would be harder to lose than a cent. Given these and many other apparent limitations, with motivation from Big Scoop who provided the US mint link to coin production figures, I decided to compare my coin finds metal detecting the beaches of Florida with Mint production figures. I combined 2016 and 2017 (to date) coin finds by my Excal and they totaled 2,882 coins. The below Table shows Mint production figures (2016 only, but appear representative across years) in terms of percentages of each denomination with my coin finds for 2016 and 2017.
Percentage
Coin 0.01 0.05 0.1 0.25
Mint 55 9.5 17.9 17.6
Find 49.2 10.9 22.1 17.9

Overall, I was surprised at how closely my Finds match the Mint production figures. I seem to be a little low on cents (49.2 vs 55%) and a little higher on nickels (10.9 vs 9.5%) and higher on dimes (22.1 vs 17.9%), which is fine with me. Quarters appear right-on (17.9 vs 17.6%) and suggests they're loss is equal to the proportion produced and in circulation.
When I compiled these figures, I started to wonder if the metal detector used would influence the proportion of coins discovered? I use a multi-frequency Excal; would a single VLF machine produce different ratios? These types of data may shed light on detectors that miss, for example, nickels compared to other denominations.
Would love to hear from other Detectorists, who have different machines, how their ratios compare to mine and the Mint figures.

It's an interesting ponder all right. I always figured that the easier coins to lose are the smallest coins. If you had a hole starting in your pocket, the dime would be the first to fit through the opening, then the cent, then the nickel and finally the quarter. The more lost, the more we find, all things being equal. But.....there are so many variables. The modern cent eventually dissolves if not found soon enough, so, therefor they're lost forever. Quarters are easier to spot laying on the ground, so, they get picked up by the eagle-eyed. As Lawrence mentioned, larger coins are easier to detect at depth. The production numbers varied quite a bit from year to year too. Another wrench in your finds percentages is that some detectorists I know will cherry pick certain coins, so, if you come in after them, you're not going to find as many of those targets. Beach conditions will also skew the results. Coins will get separated by their relative sink rate. You get in an area with soft mushy wet sand and all you're going to find is zinc cents and maybe a fresh drop clad dime or quarter. With so many variables, it would be hard to make a direct correlation of productions vs. finds.