1966 Dime-Core Only-Missing Copper-Nickel Layers!

Mike,
Thanks for your input, I see what appears to be what you are saying, but how would that explain the weight difference, the diameter size,the thickness being less than half the size it should be and if a corrosive liquid attacked this coin, how would the relief be so clear and not attacked, at least with coin in hand it is clearly not affected ( the relief ) by any damage that could possibly of occurred, thanks again for your input, Mike...

Thank you....

They probably used sulfric acid in Chemistry class. That is usually where this occurs the most. Back in the 50 & 60's a Cent was acid soaked to make a dime out of it. They would take that thin cent and buy a soda for a cent instead of a dime. That is why you find more pre 60's cents burned that way.

Wait a minute. I'm no expert at coin errors or collecting at all. But, let me pose this question. Everyone is saying acid was used to disolve the nickel plating off the copper? I find that hard to believe. I've dug tons of clad coinage out of salt water and the first to go in that environment is the copper not the nickel. So I dont see how something would be that abrasive to the nickel but not the copper. WOLF

The reduced thickness and weight plus, an etched surface appearance is a tell tale sign of acid or chemical exposure.

I have a rudimentary understanding of chemistry. It's hard for me to grasp that nickel dissolved faster than copper and that if that dime were attacked with acid, how the obverse is still in VF condition.

I used to have a michigan Statehood Quarter that was missing a clad layer. The front looked normal, the back was copper colored. I took it to a coin dealer and he told me it was junk, then asked if I wanted to just leave it with him. Nice try. I held onto it for a few years and sold it on the bay for a little over $600. This dime looks like it could be a clad error, but I also see how it could be eaten by acid. Just one of those mysteries.

Understood. All I can say is that all acids are not the same. My thoughts are that certain acids will react differently with metals, and they will "attack" different metals more aggressively depending on the chemical properties when they meet.

Sulfuric acid is a strong acid, but there are much stronger out there that people have access to. Sulfuric is just probably the most common name out there. Hydrocloric, Hydrobromic, Nitric are all strong acids, and they all have different chemicals in them that may react differently than others. It's been a long time since chem classes, but hopefully you get my point. I think as you go right and down on the periodic table the acids increase in strength. At least for the strong acids. Biochemist should be able to straighten me out if I'm wrong here.

Keep in mind there are also very corrosive acids that are not considered strong acids that can probably do some damage as well. I think hydroflouric was one that would actually dissolve glass.