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 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[Argentium]

I too think PCGS for this one ! At least it will be definitive , hopefully struck on a 90 planchet ! Great Save !!! It's way too heavy for a plate job , and if plated the fine details would lose some sharpness .

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[Scott (Mich)]

If you have access to a metal detector, see how it rings up number wise. I have never compared 40%ers to 90's with my detector, but if I think about it when I get home tonight then I will. I do know that I can tell the difference in zinc versus copper cents and in clad versus silver for other coins, so I would bet that possibly a 40% half would ring up a little differently than a 90% half. On my detector, which is a Whites V3i, I get a number readout when I hit a coin. Zinc cents are in the 50's (and weirdly - so are Indian cents), pre-zinc copper cents read over 60 on the scale but I cannot remember their number range, clad quarters read at 81-82, silver quarters at about 84, and so forth. So it may be worth a shot to see what a detector, that you can get a hold of, would read for them.

Also I remember reading that the US mint struck 1964 dated halves well into 1966, even though the other dates were being struck too. Silver coins were disappearing and the mint kept producing 1964 dated coins right along with the clad, all to make it look like there was plenty of silver. So it's possible some blanks could have gotten mixed up. The mint at the time blamed collectors, never realizing that the average person would hoard silver too. So in addition to minting the silver to keep pace with the hoarders, they stopped proof coinage and gave us "special mint sets" and took the mint marks off some coins for a few years. All to discourage "collectors" from hoarding the silver, and as history shows us, it didn't work because it wasn't all the collectors doing it in the first place.

So I posted this and I see on your signature that you have a couple of detector brands listed - run some of your 40's under each of your detectors, then some 90's, then see how the mystery coin comes up on the scale. It's possible that the 40's are too close to get an accurate difference, but who knows.

 

[Argentium]

Just curious as to any follow up on this thread - I think you have an exciting find !

 

[Ben Cartwright SASS]

Will be sending it to ANACS haven't done it yet, it is sitting on my shelf over my computer, been busy with the holidays

 

[Argentium]

Cheers ! I'm very interested in hearing what this is !

 

[1235CE]

I don't like the green spot on the obverse.....I have found MANY 40% with green on them but NEVER any 90% with green on them.......good luck and please update when possible.....

HH all!

Greg

 

[Ben Cartwright SASS]

Not to be snarky but I am not going to toss it in my 40% junk bucket based on a green spot, I only seem to see it in the picture could be my lighting. Anyhow I sent it off to ANACS, for $17 I have to get it checked out for peace of mind.
Most likely it is an out of spec planchet, weighing the same as a 90% planchet, being 1 gram heavier. I have never found a 40% that was over 11.9 grams, this is 12.55

 

[Styfflin]

Alright, one step closer to an answer!