Coins Lasting 30 Years?

Many of the 1965-67 quarters I get have acquired a pleasing smoothness, but even after 50 years they are not worn enough to be graded G-6. The clad coins, whether you like them or not, stand up to the test of time.
As for Lincoln Cents, they wouldn't still be around if it weren't for the zinc lobby.

Dimes and quarters are all cop-nickel composition and there are plenty 40-50 year old coins in circulation. Same with cents and nickels you can find even older no problem. I will admit that some of the original 2000 mintage year Sac's I've seen recently have been pretty beat up, but they will last 30 years no problem. I handle change every day and I see bright red cents from the late 80's all the time. Just because Zincolns are a cheap composition doesn't mean that they'll just dissolve like sugar cubes in a decade.

The only problem with the baby dollars is that they go from golden to baby vomit in short time. Otherwise, they seem quite durable.

Can I get an A-MEN!?

I agree with the dollar coins looking nasty in a short time. I have some that were new and I handled once or twice and look awful. When I get one that's been circulated I'm hesitant to even touch it. It may not be as disgusting as it looks, but they certainly don't look good after a short amount of circulation.

I don't like the coloring of the US Golden Dollars, it is too bright when new and doesn't seem to wear well for the few that get around.
I think the original Canadian style brass plated nickel Loonie looked better. I would even more prefer a true alloy coin. One in particular I liked for a similar value coin was the UK Pound coin made of a nickle-brass alloy. Good coloring and wear characteristics.

Morgans do not disintegrate.


Unfortunately we could not use that. The golden dollar is what it is so that it matches the SBA's weight and electromagnetic signature.

The OP's topic was centered around the longevity of only a 'coin'. I feel fairly certain that the intention was geared towards numismatic coins having dates even though some of the ancient coins lack dates making it even more difficult to ascertain mintage time frames.

To state the obvious the following is Webster's definition of a 'coin':

Full Definition of COIN:

1
archaic
a : corner, cornerstone, quoin
b : wedge
2
a : a usually flat piece of metal issued by governmental authority as money
b : metal money
c : something resembling a coin especially in shape
3
: something used as if it were money (as in verbal or intellectual exchange) <perhaps wisecracks . are respectable literary coin in the United States — Times Literary Supplement> <would repay him with the full coin of his mind — Ian Fleming>
4
: something having two different and usually opposing sides —usually used in the phrase the other side of the coin
5
: money <I'm in it for the coin — Sinclair Lewis>........

I put this up only to drill down upon one of the most important criteria absent from the above description that most 'accurately' denotes the scale of any coin's longevity: the date. It provides a point of reference in time.

As an example, I personally feel that the Buffalo nickel's design taught the mint the futility of arranging the placement of the date too high above the field. Even a dateless Buffalo with excellent detail is otherwise essentially worthless.

The point of my narrative is that most if not all 'numismatic' coins use a legible date to denote the durability over time.

The bottom line is that virtually any discussion within CCF about the longevity of modern and classic coins depends upon the presence of a legible date. Without it, the process and analyses are analogous to stepping upward on a downward-going escalator creating an exercise in futility etc.