Very Strange/Intriguing Observations About "War" Nickels; Looking For Info

CrazybO,

THANKS for the info on the "black beauties." VERY interesting, indeed. Fascinating stuff; I know very little, but find all coin information really fascinating. Interesting how at least some of the theory for these coins' different appearance being small amounts of other metal "impurities" possibly remaining, after the refining of the nickel used in the coins (and possibly indicative of where the nickel was originally mined from...fascinating!)

Thank you as well for the two names -- Mike Diamond and JC Stevens. These may be good resources for me to share my thoughts with. I have just begun, through metal-detecting channels, to ask for help initiating a "database" for these high-reading nickels, including date, mint mark, etc. I hope to present that additional information to whomever I contact for additional help.

Finally, yes! I realize that there may be some martyrdom of a few nice coins that have been dug, in order to reach the bottom of this... ;)

Stoneman -- no, I have never done an acid test on one, though I am aware OF "acid tests" -- but was more famililar with such tests for gold content, than silver. That is certainly something to consider doing on one of the "samples" of "unusual" War Nickels. I guess that COULD tell if the 50% silver hypothesis were correct...but wouldn't help if it's a case of 35% silver but 65% copper (i.e. simply omitting the manganese on some batches of these coins).

That is definitely something to do though, an acid test...

Thanks!

Steve

But if just one batch was an issue, that would be more interesting to coin collectors. But if it were hit and miss, then probably it would not be interesting. IMOHO

Based on the picture, we can rule out Henning nickels; that one is too sharply struck.

War Nickels very frequently (10-25%?) suffer from laminations and other surface issues; it could well be possible that the alloy was not mixed well - perhaps even one side would test higher in silver than the other. I'd echo that an XRF test is necessary. Doesn't someone on CCF own one?

A few thoughts:
1) If a certain percentage of War Nickels found in the ground are of a different composition, that should apply to all War Nickels.

2) If they are a different composition, shouldn't the weight be a bit off from 5 grams; possibly heavier if indeed struck in .500 silver?
3) If they are missing the manganese, they will not "pass" modern electronic tests. Thus, all of our CRH finds should be of the proper alloy, but coinstar rejects may be a disproportionately large source of these.

As for value/interest, sadly nickels don't typically enjoy the same esteem of cents. Along the same vein, a single 1942-S nickel was made in pre-war composition with a small S reverse (of 1941). It is unique; the only one ever found. How many have heard of it?

That said, I recall reading that someone found a 1983 cent that was "too red" but the weight checked out as a zincoln. They had it tested, and determined that it was plated in bronze, not pure copper as it was supposed to be. That one sold for a respectable amount of money, IIRC.

NM, the "drop test" a subjective, nonscientific test a best. Take two coins from same plate stock and try it, without a control group, you have no difinitive proof. The OP's anamoly here doesn't concern any other "normal " composition stock metals. Do a complete spectral analysis of those same coins you "pinged" and I'd venture a guess the composition will fall well within the tolerance ranges of mint acceptance of plate stock.

Interesting thread. If you really believe there is a small subset of War Nickels that have a different composition, why not get several rolls of circulated War Nickels and "air test" each coin? That would seem to be easier than compiling data on various dug coins from detectorists across the country.

Thanks, all, for additional great thoughts. This is good stuff. I appreciate all of the feedback/discussion.

Yes, spruett, I do have a multimeter that I could to test the coin, but what I don't have is enough knowledge to know how exactly what to conclude from the results. Reason being, most detector engineer type folks will say that eddy currents generated in a coin are largely "surface" currents, that don't extend very deeply into a metal. So, say on a zincoln for instance, it reads higher (on a detector) than it otherwise would if it were PURE zinc, because of the surface layer of copper. A good bit of the generated eddy current is occurring in the copper layer, so the "conductivity" of the coin as measured by the detector is biased rather heavily toward the conductivity of the copper plating. SO -- using that example, if I were to measure electrical resistance through a zinc penny, I think that would be a different (higher resistance) measurement (i.e. more biased by the core zinc content) than the detector-relative "resistance" to "surface eddy current" flow within the copper plating of the coin. Now, with the nickel not a "clad" coin, this specific issue would not manifest -- but my point is that I am not totally sure how I would accurately interpret results between different nickels. NOW -- if I were JUST trying to show that a "high-reading" War Nickel is more conductive (lower resistance) than a "regular" War Nickel, i.e. just a "relative" test between the two, I could certainly do that. But I think the metal detector measurement is telling us that already, almost certainly; the multimeter test would most likely just confirm what was already shown by the detector. Not a bad thing to "double check" it, though...

And YES, I am thinking that somewhere at OU, there would be an XRF analyzer, and being somewhat tied to the University myself, I could probably pull some strings and have a chance to at least talk to the right people -- IF, that is, I could find who the "right people" are. Chemistry department? Engineering Department? Probably one of those two would at least be able to help point me in the right direction...

Steve

"The wartime alloy was apparently a difficult blend to make, as lamination defects and irregular oxidation effects are not uncommon. Whether through carelessness or frugality, some 1942-P and 1943-P nickels were produced on copper-nickel blanks"
I tried to tell you guys this already. It's not uncommon and it's not a new revelation. Crazyb0, I didn't invent the ping test, it's been around for generations. I'm more than happy to explain the science behind it but, by your own admission, you wouldn't understand it. It's the harmonic frequencies that resonate in the metal and if that ain't science, I don't know what is. I'll just keep it to this, silver, copper, nickel, zinc, etc., all have a different ping or, if you prefer, harmonic frequency. You can't tell the difference in a copper alloy penny and a copper plated zinc penny? Drop a silver quarter along side a clad quarter. Drop a nickel/copper nickel along side a copper penny. I can continue, if you want? I'm sure everyone that reads this gets this. You'd need a couple control groups for comparison. My understanding was that the OP didn't have easy access to spectrum analysis. Forgive me if I misread but I've gone through the couple pages a couple times. I haven't looked deeply into it so I'm not sure if the science holds up as well as putting a kleenex on the coin... Technically, Crazy, it's ALL science.