1967 40% 12.55 grams s/b 11.50

[Ben Cartwright SASS]

I am weighing up my 40%'s, did 100 of them and they are from 11.20-11.80 the majority 11.35-11.50, I did find one that is 11.10

however I found a 1967 that weighs 12.55 grams, checked it 3 times and re-calibrated the scale, still 12.55

I weighed 9 of my 90% from this year and they are 12.40 to 12.55 and one at 12.70

The fact that the 1967 is actually heavier than most of the 90%ers what is going on? Where would I get a specific gravity test or should I take a chance and send it to PCGS or ANACS to see if it is in fact a wrong planchet?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[diggummup]

Interesting. Weight tolerance is only (+/-) .4 grams for 40%er's. Have you compared it with a 90% side by side visual? How does it look?

Weight tolerances on half dollars...
1964: 0.259 grams
1965-1970: 0.400 g
1971-Date: 0.454 g
1976 Silver Collector Coins: 0.400 g
1992-Date Silver Proof: 0.400 g

 

[Ben Cartwright SASS]

Looks and sounds the same as the some of the 90% but some of the 90% are shinier, it sounds the same when dropped.

 

[Ben Cartwright SASS]

Here is it next to two '64s one look like it the other is shinier

 

[Twitch]

Take it to a coin store or a buy gold place. They can scan the surface and tell you the % silver. If it’s 80% you have a heavy planchet that might be worth a couple of dollars more than melt. If it’s 90% you have a wrong planchet error worth quite a bit. Nice one either way.

 

[Ben Cartwright SASS]

I will call around, the only place I know that has a machine like that is 90 minutes away in NH.

I never heard of an 80% planchet, wouldn't that be an error also? I took it to my local coin dealer just now and he weighed it and he gets the same weight I do 12.55 grams, heavier than many 64 Kennedy's.

I checked it with a mic and it is 2.2mm on the rims, will check with one that will do the thickness in the center not the rims, but also 3 of my 9 90% halves are the same thickness.

 

[Johncoho]

I wish you luck. Sounds like the wrong planchet.

 

[Ben Cartwright SASS]

Going to send it to PCGS, at least I will know for sure that way.

I am trying to decide whether with a 16x loupe I can see a hint of copper in a one of the reeds in the reeded edge, hard to tell but my luck it is just a heavy 40% coin

 

[Ben Cartwright SASS]

Here are some edge shots of it

 

[LooseChange]

. . . I never heard of an 80% planchet, wouldn't that be an error also? . . .

The surface of a '65-'70 Kennedy will read 80% Ag, 20% Cu (the core would read just the opposite). Shooting it with an XRF scanner will tell you surface alloy.

 

[Ben Cartwright SASS]

I will call around to some of the coin stores and see if they have an XRF scanner

 

[LooseChange]

I imagine that you've looked it over thoroughly for a retained-strike-through.
I wouldn't mind seeing a photo of the reverse.

 

[Ben Cartwright SASS]

Here is the reverse

 

[LooseChange]

Here is the reverse

View attachment 1527524

Sure don't see a retained ST. It seems unlikely that that could add 3/4g anyway.
Does the "FG" look normal in person? Photo makes it look odd.

 

[Ben Cartwright SASS]

the FG looks good.

What is an ST?

 

[LooseChange]

Sometimes when there is a strike through, the foreign object gets embedded into the coin.
A dramatic example of that was posted here (http://www.treasurenet.com/forums/coins/503408-retained-strike-through-error-staple-half-dollar.html) a while back.

 

[Styfflin]

Thanks for posting this. I'll certainly be watching this thread. I've never once considered weighing any of my coins. I really don't want another step in the process, but this might make me change my mind.

 

[mark1982]

Edge looks just like a 90. Yea I’ve found some 40% that have a nice edge but you can always tell. This one I don’t see it just looks like a 90%. Didn’t someone on here a couple years ago find a 65 that was sent out and confirmed struck on a 90%??

 

[enamel7]

A couple of thoughts here. Think outside the box. I believe it's possibly a 40%er that's been plated. That would give a heavier weight with the appearance of being 90%. I hope not but probably the culprit. Earlier in your post you mentioned "shininess". Don't go by that, I've seen many post 64 halves that looked like they were 90%ers.

 

[Ben Cartwright SASS]

Not plated or if it is it is a fantastic job. My local dealer also looked at it and it has very sharp details under magnification, up to 16x. For outside the box I would say it would have to be a die-made counterfeit for the details.

On another forum it was suggested that it might be just a thicker planchet, and with a caliper it could be a bit thicker than others.

I have to decide whether to drive to NH to a dealer who has a tester, can't find any around here ( about $25 in gas, also tolls so about $30 and a almost 2 hour trip each way) or send it to PCGS, which if it is legit then I have to do PCGS anyway.
I am leaning towards sending to PCGS to be sure.

I cannot see any hint of a sandwich, although in on part under 16x magnification where the a single reed is pushed down there may be a hint of copper about 1/100" x 1/100" more imaged than seen and only under certain light.

You may be correct that it is a very heavy thick planchet, but I would rather be sure than take the "it must be a thick sandwich" It is like a friend who goes deer hunting, he still tries and enjoys the process even if he doesn't get a deer. The $80 that it will cost me is not going to break me. And it is just thicker than normal at least I am sure and can move on.