| Author |
 Replies: 19 / Views: 3,090 |
Page 2 of 2
|
|
|
|
Moderator
  United States
56855 Posts |
Thanks all. John1  |
|
Moderator
United States
188213 Posts |
Looking forward to seeing what you buy.  |
|
Rest in Peace
United States
17900 Posts |
Let us know what you find, John. At some point my type set will go beyond 64.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1374 Posts |
They are copper, but I've found some of them look like this  where it looks like they're zinc. |
|
Moderator
United States
188213 Posts |
How do those look like they are zinc?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1374 Posts |
Not all of them do, but take a look at bottom part of the top middle cent and you'll see that it is nickel colored rather than copper colored. IMHO it makes the coin look like its struck on a zinc planchet that was poorly plated with copper.
I've seen several coins like this and I'm not entirely sure what causes it. I'm guessing that the alloy composition of the planchet that this coin was struck on wasn't as homogenous as is should have been.
These planchets are 95% copper and 5% tin/zinc and this alloy mixture should result in an appearance like the other 3 coins in this set, but sometimes that 5% is showing through more than it should.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
 United States
12819 Posts |
Good discussion.
I see what you're talking about on the top coin but I think we need a different (or more detailed) explanation. Are you suggesting that there could be blobs of zinc in the alloy that got squished to the faces during minting?
|
|
Rest in Peace
10197 Posts |
All are shadows of reflected portions of the cameo,like facets of a diamond.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
11951 Posts |
Don't forget, the 2009 P and D Lincoln's from the mint set are also copper. Mintage 784,614 for mint set coins, 2009 S mintage 2,995,615 for proofs. And the mint coins have satin finish ...  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1374 Posts |
Quote:
All are shadows of reflected portions of the cameo,like facets of a diamond. Perhaps, but if they're reflections then I'd expect the look to change as the coin is rotated in hand and it does not. Like I said, I don't know what the cause is, but I still suspect some kind of planchet defect. Again, at least to me, the appearance of these coins could be mistaken and lead one to believe that they were struck on a zinc planchet with improper copper cladding, even though they are not. I guess the point is that I wouldn't recommend buying these coins site unseen. Here are some other examples     BTW, I got all of these from the same ebay seller. They were shipped to me loose in a baseball card sleeve  I couldn't believe it. I didn't return them because I didn't want them sold to someone else. Needless to say negative feedback was left  Edited by BadDog
02/09/2018 10:13 am
|
|
Moderator
United States
188213 Posts |
Quote:
Not all of them do, but take a look at bottom part of the top middle cent and you'll see that it is nickel colored rather than copper colored. IMHO it makes the coin look like its struck on a zinc planchet that was poorly plated with copper. Ah, okay, I get it now. I think it is because bronze (95% copper) tones differently than plating (100% copper). |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1374 Posts |
Quote:
I think it is because bronze (95% copper) tones differently than plating (100% copper). Well again, maybe this it, as I've said I don't know, but have you ever seen a pre-1982 Lincoln proof cent with this kind of toning? I haven't and none of my pre-1982 proof cents exhibit this appearance either. The mint struck these coins on a material they hadn't used for over 30 years. I'm still thinking that something in either the planchets themselves or their preparation resulted in the cents appearance this way. Of course, I didn't get these cents directly from the Mint, so I have no way of knowing if this is the way they appeared from day 1, or if it's something that has occurred over time, such as some kind of toning issue.  |
|
New Member
United States
4 Posts |
Six years later I found the explanation the mint put out with some of the 2009S cent issues. Since the Mint admits the issue, would it not be considered a variety/error? I have 5 of these sets with excessive "silvering/toning" to where it looks like exposed zinc. When it's all said and done, I'll have 10 of these sets, all $20 or less. I do like the dual coloring which appears mostly on the reverse but also has affected the obverse on all my sets. I live in Florida, under A/C and only my original 2009S SMS has no toning. I don't think this is a care issue from anywhere in the country but consider it a mint issues that belongs to the responsivity of the mint.  |
|
Moderator
United States
95740 Posts |
 to CCF @vettejack. Thanks for that mint note concerning the uncirculated P and D sets, one can assume the same procedure was done at the San Francisco mint as well? |
|
New Member
United States
4 Posts |
I can't make an assumption if the notice was directed for all mintmarks, but I default just to the S mintmark since it's the only one that seems to have the only conversation about this 'magical' toning.
On another note: is PCGS still grading these S mint sets as a group (I bought one years ago as PR69)? If so, do they charge for 4 coins or just the set of 4 as one?
Edited by vettejack
02/09/2026 10:46 am
|
|
Page 2 of 2
|
Replies: 19 / Views: 3,090 |
Page 2 of 2
|
First Page
Posted 02/07/2018 5:24 pm
