2005 P Dime. Missing Cupronickel Outer Layers?

Thanks Coop. You may be right. I would do a scratch test, but don't want to damage it further just in case.

I do have a postal scale, but it doesn't even read to the tenths of a gram.

I did pull out the micrometer and when comparing the dime in question with several other normal looking dimes.....I get:

• 1.26mm / 17.80mm (thickness/diameter respectively) This is the 2005 P in question.


• 1.30mm / 17.77mm 2005 P for comparison #1


• 1.38mm / 17.85mm 2005 P for comparison #2


• 1.40mm / 17.86mm 1993 P for comparison #3


• 1.33mm / 17.87mm 1996 P for comparison #4


• 1.40mm / 17.86mm 1985 P for comparison #5

So it appears to be on the low end for thickness. The diameter is on the lower end of the average.

Are there any other methods/techniques/observations we can come up with that would confirm this dime is not missing its outer layers?

Thanks again Coop.

Its interesting in this pic how the date seems quite faint, but the mint mark is well pronounced.

Good idea Conder. I'll give it a try tonight right after a trip to the store for some Popsicles. ;)

I would still carry it for a time in your pocket. You might get a nice antiqued look to it. Take it out when the high points show silver and the fields are still copper looking. Give us an image if you decide to do that.

I have seen the occasional Australian all copper nickel coin from circulation take on this sort of colour appearance.

I am at a loss as to how such an appearance may be acquired, unfortunately. Nevertheless, a small scrape to below the brown surface may reveal the silvery white copper nickel alloy underneath.
This case may be somewhat different, because it is a clad coin but the copper nickel cladding could still be capable of taking on the same coppery appearance if my first statement still holds true.

The chamfered edges may be the result of slightly lower striking pressure. The lower striking pressure could be the result of a slightly thinner planchet as a result of the planchet being minus it's cladding.

Accurate weight measurement may shed a little more light on this discussion.

I don't mind if all of my statements here are regarded as a form of speculation, but they should at least provide some food for thought.