1942/1943 Copper Plated Steel Test Planchets

Two three things:

The slab appears to be "Seven Seas Coin Grading Service" or "Seven Seas Grading Company," based in Alberta. There is a website. I won't link it here or anywhere.
This same coin has been posted on CCF before. Here's the thread.
You may sense the terseness of my post and think I dislike seeing this stuff reappear. You wouldn't be wrong.

Fascinating discussion. In a perfect world, would love to see and evaluate the piece in-hand.

Her collection was auctioned by Stack's starting back in 1991. I am reasonably confident that if such a genuine specimen were to have been from her collection it would have been verified and surfaced well before now.

Do you something to support the provenance of the coin?

Also, to be fair to the grading company, the slab does not unequivocally claim the coin is "Genuine" or "Authentic", just that it's copper plated.

PCGS and NGC use those terms when there is some question, even when the coin gets a "Details" designation, so we can't assume authenticity is being claimed.

There is a huge difference between the known plated pattern blanks and purported struck patterns or coins. The mints (plural) did not need to strike the blanks to know they could strike coins on those blanks. The mint superintendents, designers, and coiners fully well knew they could strike hard-metal coins and had been doing so for many years. In addition to the U.S. .750 Cu .250 Ni coins (three and five cent), the mints had been striking many hard-metal coins for foreign governments. These included magnetic .999 Ni coins such as the 1928 Ecuador five centavos and 1940 Indochina 10 centimes. Zinc-plated-steel coins were also struck during the war for Allied use in Belgium (the 1944 2 Franc). Chromium steel and stainless steel coins have also been struck by U.S. mints, though later than the war.

The mints sought replacements for the U.S. cent and five cent to conserve copper and nickel for the war effort, and needed to avoid aluminum and chromium for the same reasons. One explanation for the various blanks is show-and-tell exhibits to get Congress to make a decision ("pick something, anything, just do it now") so the mints could maintain production quotas. Copper use was significantly reduced, but not discontinued, by the mints during the war. In addition to the .100 Cu in the .900 Ag coins, Philadelphia and San Francisco minted .700 Cu .300 Zn coins for Peru throughout the war.

In addition to the eventually used zinc-plated-steel, everything from pressed cardboard (like the OPA tokens) to paper scrip to pressed fiberboard to various plastics was kicked around. Given the rusty shrapnel we constantly see in coffee cans filled with the steel cents, there is a fair argument that they picked one of the worst choices.

That said, there is a huge difference between a plated coin and a pattern or coin struck on a previously mint-plated blank. Show me a 1943 cent certified by PCGS, NGC, or ANACS as having been struck on a mint-plated blank, and I'm a believer.

Absolutely 100% agree.

I wasn't trying to argue for or against the authenticity of the coin. Shoot, one can barely tell it's a coin with Lincoln on it from the low quality photograph.

My post was more a response to the a priori rejection of authenticity voiced by others based on lack of known examples i.e.:




Now that we have authenticated examples of copper plated steel cent production the objection to the coin must shift from the general (this kind of cent doesn't exist) to the specific (this isn't a genuine example).

If there's anyone who thinks they can prove or disprove that from the one bad photo provided now is the time to show off your skills.