Thin Penny, 1975 Lincoln, Opinions Wanted

[Excavator]

Hello everyone! Newbie here, new to this forum, new to treasure hunting. Thanks to Viper771 for linking me here. My first post:

This is one of my finds. After much searching, I haven't been able to find an error category for this coin. Thought I'd gotten close with the "Thin Quarter" thread, but there are some differences. I'm hoping someone can shed some light.

This is a 1975 Lincoln cent, no mint mark, and it is roughly half the thickness of normal pennies. The ridge around the edge is almost non-existent. As soon as it hits your hand, you notice the difference. The 2006 penny on the right, measures .585" thick, the 1975 penny is .325" thick. Also, the thin penny weighs 1.1 grams less than the the one on the right, by my old scales. After some reading here, I have noticed the diameter can be important, and this penny is slightly smaller in diameter. I'll get a measurement when I return to the shop.

Here it is, any thoughts at all are greatly appreciated:

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

How to Research for Treasure Hunting and Metal Detecting From Lead Generation to Vetting - Grab it through Amazon!

[gregl01]

Someone grind down the edge maybe It is kind of hard to tell from the pic. May have gotten stuck in a coin counter Interesting
Greg

 

[goldinmypan]

What does the reverse look like? Is it the normal reverse?

 

[Excavator]

Definitely not ground down at the edges, I measured with vernier calipers across the whole coin. It shows no obvious signs of abuse, just the patina you can see.

The reverse appears as the front, the rim being very faint. Although I haven't really inspected closely to see if anything is missing. Will get another pic or two up this evening if possible.

I did check the diameter: 2006 penny- .7505" The 1975 thin penny is .7130" in diameter.

Thanks for the replies, keep them coming!

 

[hollowpointred]

Definitely not ground down at the edges, I measured with vernier calipers across the whole coin. It shows no obvious signs of abuse, just the patina you can see.

The reverse appears as the front, the rim being very faint. Although I haven't really inspected closely to see if anything is missing. Will get another pic or two up this evening if possible.

I did check the diameter: 2006 penny- .7505" The 1975 thin penny is .7130" in diameter.

Thanks for the replies, keep them coming!

what do you mean "the reverse appears as the front?" are you saying that it looks like a normal reverse just that its less detailed?

 

[goldinmypan]

Cents should have a diameter of 19mm. Pre 1982 copper cent should weigh 3.11 grams. Post 82 should weigh 2.5 grams. I don't know what the thickness should be. Oh, and by the way, a 1975 dime should weigh about 2.27 grams with a diameter of 17.9 mm

 

[jeff of pa]

I think it was an off Strike

 

[Excavator]

My old scales must still be accurate then, I get 2.5 grams with a 2006 penny, this 1975 comes in at 1.4 grams.

Something I missed before: The heads side of the penny is concave, the tails side is convex.

I'll also look up "off Strike" and see how that fits.

Thanks everyone! Here are some more pics, the last one is the thin penny lying on top of a normal, 2006 penny. You can see how it doesn't really lay flat:

 

[JakePhelps]

Looks like acid ate away at it maybe.

 

[Diggincoinz]

Cool!

I don't know but I'd hang on to it.

 

[djui5]

check it next to/on top of a dime. See if it's about the same size. Might be a penny stamped onto a dime sized planchet of copper for some really weird reason...

 

[Excavator]

Actually, I was hoping to cash it in and fund a top of line detector and find the bootlegger cache in my yard.

Checked it with a dime. It's closer to a dime in diameter, dime/.7050", my penny/.7505". But in your fingers it feels the same. The penny is thinner than the dime.

Something else I've noticed: In the first pic above, you can see... The rim on the left edge is enough to catch a fingernail. On the right edge it is not. So, that would make it an off-center strike? Or just not enough material to raise an edge with the die. An off-center strike combined with the thickness error?

This thickness is what intrigues me. Is this some rare error or inferior planchet? Could it be worth much at all?

I found this penny, lost it, and it found it's way back to me. It just keeps following me home.

 

[wirelessworldinc]

Maybe they used a dime.

 

[skierbob]

Looks like an abnormally thin planchet got into the bin with the regular planchets and got struck like the rest. It would have been very tough for the inspector to notice it, so it went into circulation with the rest. No idea what it's worth. My error and oddity book only goes up to 1974.

 

[djui5]

Might wanna send it to PCGS and see what they say, or have an error coin expert check it out. Could be worth a bit of cash. Might not be also

 

[Excavator]

Looks like an abnormally thin planchet got into the bin with the regular planchets and got struck like the rest. It would have been very tough for the inspector to notice it, so it went into circulation with the rest. No idea what it's worth. My error and oddity book only goes up to 1974.

I was thinking on the same lines, until I read about the aluminum pennies. (below) Have you seen an error like this in the book?

Might wanna send it to PCGS and see what they say, or have an error coin expert check it out. Could be worth a bit of cash. Might not be also

Defintely need the error expert, because I can't find anything on the internet about a thin penny. PCGS wants a memebership before they tell you much, but I was able to find this for comparison.

1975 ONE CENT
Diameter: 19 millimeters (the error coin is 18mm)
Metal content:
Copper - 95%
Tin and Zinc - 5%
Weight: 48 grains (3.11 grams) (error coin is 1.4 grams
Edge: Plain
Mintmark: None (for Philadelphia, PA) below the date
Notes:
In 1996, Coin World revealed that 66 1975 Cents had been struck in Aluminum.


Maybe this is one of the 66 aluminum pennies ? Were those pennies copper clad? Were they circulated? Hmmm... More info brings new questions.

If it's not worth much, it defintely a keeper.

Thanks again! Thoughts, Ideas, anyone?

 

[Excavator]

I found some info on the aluminum penny last night. They were minted, about a dozen were given to Congress during the approval process, not surprising that some were never returned. One was given to the Smithsonian by a committe aide, a few were confiscated by the Secret Service, and a few are known to be in private collections. Alledgedly, any that are found now, are subject to confiscation by the Secret Service as they are deemed illegal coins. The million or so that were minted in 1974 were said to be melted down. I only found the one reference to 66 alum. pennies minted in 1975.

However, I don't think this is an aluminum coin, due it's weight and thickness.

I think it's more as skierbob stated, an abnormally thin planchet that got minted and escaped inspection. And possibly, a very slight off-strike to boot.

Thanks to everyone, without your input I may not have found this info. Still open to suggestions from anyone. Keep diggin'!

 

[goldinmypan]

Try this site and see if they can give you an answer.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/errorcoininformationexchange/

 

[Postalrevnant]

Not sure about the penny, but the side by side comparison of the pennies is an excellent picture. Was it the camera that took such a good pic or a program that helped enhance the quality?

Postalrevnant

In case you are wondering my pics are really the suck. So a pic that good is pretty interesting.

 

[Excavator]

goldinmypan- Thank you for that link. After a quick search over there, I think I may have an accurate description of the coin. According to the link below, it could be called 'a 1975 cent struck on a rolled-thin planchet'. First I've heard of such a thing! I found this post:
http://tinyurl.com/y4glac

I'll probably post it over there and see what they have to say.

Postalrevnant- Those are raw photos from a digital Sony Mavica FD-75. One of the earliest in the Mavica line, it's fairly low in resolution compared to newer ones. I really miss manual focus, but the Auto-Macro mode does a fair job. I snagged it from our local trader paper for $50. I spotted a much newer one this week, priced at $150, retail was $1200 new, so I may be trading up. The thing I like most about the Sony Mavica, it uses a computer floppy disc instead of a memory card, allowing me to go from camera to computer with no wires or software.

Those pics are proof that a giant file size isn't needed to post a decent internet pic. 36kb straight from the camera. Next time, I promise to follow the rules and crop the edges before posting the pics.