Off-Alloy 1909 VDB Cent- Copper/Aluminum/Tungsten

I am truly as mystified by this coin as everyone else is.

I purchased the yellow VDB together with a large hoard of Lincolns. The collection was part of a 45-year effort of a lifelong collector.
Some of the coins - a generous supply of wheat cents and 60 or so modern errors - I passed on at cost to a colleague of mine for his four young coin collecting kids. They had a blast going through the coins, finding some VDB's, steel cents, and learning all about die cracks, chips, filled dies, etc.

What I really wanted was early Lincolns that were XF or better, and there were quite a few, although previously I had purchased two 1914-d's, three 1909-s's, a 1909-s VDB and a whole page of AU/BU early ones.

When I first came home with the coins - I drive a couple hours away for these purchases - my coin collecting son came over and bought (at my cost, as well) what interested him. I gave him the "gold plated" cent, because I thought it was a novelty item, and was not interested in it.

Later that night my son called and said it was not a gold plated cent. He said the color is off. He also said it is not plated, and not a fake. If you knew my son, you would know that this means a lot. PCGS confirmed his belief, to a point. My son has an amazing set of eyes. He has also been collecting since he was 5, and has looked at more Lincolns (and every other type of U.S. and Canadian coin!) than I can count. He has the Red Book memorized, to a point. When he was a child, he would hustle all week and on Saturday, I would take him to a local coin shop called the Coinery in Lockport, NY.

So here we are. I am mystified. I I need to rule out every possibility. I have also learned quite a bit through this search process. I know quite a bit about coins, but in many ways I am still a novice.

Maybe this is an experiment, or a die trial, or maybe it is not. A couple months ago I didn't even know what a die trial was! I have never had so much fun figuring things out! What a great hobby this is.

...and what a great forum this is!

I'm neither a chemist nor a metallurgist, so understand I claim no expertise, but I have a number of questions about what's being discussed on this thread.

1. Is there any historical record of changing the composition of the 1 cent coin around this time? Every time the mint has even thought about changing the composition of a coin there is a record of the reasons and the process. Is there anything to suggest that the mint was considering changing the cent around this time?


2. The mint doesn't "experiment" with alloys in their free time, so if they were going to search for a new cent alloy there would almost certainly have to be a reason and justification for the expense in their budgetary allocations, all of which are public record. The fact that the mint didn't change the cent from Copper until 1982 suggests there were no economic pressures (i.e. price of Copper) in 1909 to justify the experiments.

3. Ignoring all of the questions about the ability to alloy Tungsten in 1909, this is a much more complicated alloy than the one in use at the time and seems like it would be more expensive to produce than the Copper/Tin/Zinc alloy currently in use, especially since it only decreases the amount of copper by 1/3. The disadvantages of this alloy are apparent on paper, it's more complicated, produces a harder alloy and is likely as expensive or more to produce. Why go to the trouble of making it and minting coins out it?

4. Why does the XRF readout show so much Sulfur and Phosphorus? Both are non metallic elements and usually are only used in alloys in very small amounts, generally under .5% by weight. If the XRF is accurate, 6% Sulfur would account or the yellow color of the coin, but would also seem to argue against it's authenticity.

5. The coin was shot with an XRF while in mylar, or some similar product. Mylar is often coated with thin layers of polymerized metals, including Aluminum, to increase favorable characteristics.

6. Has anyone done the math to see what the coin should weigh with that alloy?

My suggestion is you find some numismatically inclined grad student at a nearby university who has access to high grade XRF technology and have the coin shot again, outside of any holder.

However, even if you get the same results, the make up of the alloy is so outside the range of metals commonly used in 1909 ( and for that matter even used today) that it strongly suggests to me a modern reproduction, possibly made of recycled material from electronics for instance.

It would be super cool if this were genuine, but I think you have an uphill slog to prove it.

Thanks to all for the great responses!

As for the viability of making such a cent in 1909, anyone's guess is as good as mine. If it were 90% Tungsten, I would think no way. For a low percentage, maybe it would be as simple as throwing a handful into the mix. I don't know.

Tungsten Steel was exhibited at the 1900 World's Fair, so Tungsten was seen as a way for making metal stronger and more durable. Aluminum was also being experimented with, and the French took out a patent on a Copper Aluminum alloy shortly thereafter.

My biggest question is, if the cent is a fake, then how? I doubt an engraver produced such a good fake, simply for the sake of producing a novelty item with junk metals. You can look at 10,000 Lincolns, and the coin will still look authentic. And why engrave a VDB and not an s?

Is there technology to produce an exact replica of a coin? If so, when did this become available?

The coin was in a Saflip, which is polyester. I wanted it scanned outside the flip, but my son's boss chose to leave it in to lessen the chance of damaging the coin.

I am actively looking for other XRF machines. Eventually I will de-holder the coin and find its specific gravity and weight.

I did read that experiments are often done when there is a change in coinage, but other than that, I have no direct knowledge of mint practices, especially in 1909.

The history of Aluminum pattern cents is very interesting, and may shed some light on the current situation.

Aluminum was once more costly than gold, and didn't come down in price substantially until an electro-chemical refining process was invented in 1886.

Yet, in 1864 Indian cents were made, experimentally, with various alloys of Copper and Aluminum. I am not sure why. The cent had changed from the large cent, to the Copper-Nickel cent, and then to the mostly Copper cent in 1864. Yet the mint experimented with various amounts of Aluminum added to Copper, and Aluminum was still in short supply.

Other patterns were made of pure Aluminum. Many of these patterns have been auctioned off on Heritage, including the Indians, if anyone is interested.

https://coins.ha.com/itm/patterns-a...ption-071515

An inquiry was just sent to NGC, asking they would be more likely to evaluate the coin if it were not in a PCGS holder. Just a hunch, but I am guessing they will not take a coin out of a holder unless they can be sure it is genuine so they will reholder it in an NGC holder.