| Author |
 Replies: 19 / Views: 1,566 |
Page 2 of 2
|
|
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
Canada
21610 Posts |
We really need pictures, not a video.
Also the weight should be to two decimal points, not one.
With the +- tolerance, it is pretty close to the accepted weight.
|
|
New Member
 United States
9 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1489 Posts |
Likely worn down enough to lose approximately 0.2 grams, down from around 3.1 grams originally. That's about a 6 to 7% loss.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
Considering the wear, within tolerance.  to the CCF! Edited by Coinfrog
03/25/2023 6:07 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
7174 Posts |
to the CCF and  Also might have started out a little light. |
|
New Member
United States
9 Posts |
If the coin was not worn, what would be your opinion?
|
|
Moderator
United States
96155 Posts |
Can you post up an image of the edge of the coin - sided by side with a normal weight cent?
|
|
New Member
United States
9 Posts |
This is the 1944 S 2.9 beside 1977 3.1  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2365 Posts |
My wild guess here would be about $2.00 in value. It would be an ok "filler" coin for a set. Like I said, this is just a wild guess. I have many, many older cents with little value. I don't see anything on the coin that would raise it's value.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1657 Posts |
If it's underweight at all it is so little that it wouldn't add any interest or value.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10982 Posts |
2.98 grams was the minimum coming out of the mint. 2.9 is completely normal given the level of wear. 1944 to 1946 cents were 95% Cu and 5% Zn (shell case brass). Same tolerance for weight.
It's worth 5 cents maybe.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
Wear could account for the difference, or maybe it was just a light planchet to start. It happens.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
6244 Posts |
The weight for this coin is normal. BH was faster then me to answer. It is normal to be under weight due to the heavy circulation. The CU-Zn alloy it is an relative soft metal resistant to abrasions.
|
|
New Member
United States
9 Posts |
Is bronze 2.5% lighter than brass?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
6244 Posts |
Quote:
Brass is an alloy containing Zinc as the principal alloying element with or without other designated alloys such as Tin, Aluminum, Nickel, and Lead . By Comparison Bronze is principally an alloy of Copper and Tin. Bronze does not necessarily contain Tin, and a variety of alloys of Copper, including alloys with Iron, Phosphorus, Lead, Aluminum, Manganese, and Silicon are commonly termed Bronze. In fact all are Brass in metallurgy. the name bronze come from anticity and still be use today. Tin and Zinc at 5% as alloying elements do not change the weight for the coins at 19 mm diameter and this tightness. The reason for change from the 95% cooper, 5% zinc and tin in 1962 to 95% cooper and 5% zinc, was not just the price of the tin but also of the elasticity proprieties of the alloy. Just analyze that all the cents from 1909 till now has max. 3.11gr and min. 2.98 gr mint acceptable weight. |
|
Page 2 of 2
|
Replies: 19 / Views: 1,566 |
Page 2 of 2
|
First Page
Posted 03/25/2023 5:49 pm
