COME ON GUYS HELP......SILVER 1976 BICENTENNIAL MAJORLY underweight 21.6 grams COME ON GUYS HELP ME HERE
2 2

41 posts in this topic

Please help with this one my coin dealer had no answers for me as well and 6 different scales.  One coin dealer metal testing machine even showed a hence bit of gold. But this one is tricky

0E57245F-B522-4B82-9187-26423F65906F.jpeg

DBFEE0CB-28A1-4ECD-A2FE-AFA36925E771.jpeg

image.jpg

image.jpg

Edited by TON Collection
Added photos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my FIL's collection I found five gold-plated 1976 Ikes. I think my MIL had bought them for him off a TV channel, innocently thinking this was a Great Thing. Don't know if that has bearing on this. (I couldn't stomach having them in my collection, so I distributed them among his grandkids (my nieces and nephs).)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JKK said:

In my FIL's collection I found five gold-plated 1976 Ikes. I think my MIL had bought them for him off a TV channel, innocently thinking this was a Great Thing. Don't know if that has bearing on this. (I couldn't stomach having them in my collection, so I distributed them among his grandkids (my nieces and nephs).)

I probably do the same thing with this one I’ve had those plates gold ones as well. But this much underweight peaked my interest 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Denver Mint only issued circulation strikes in 1976 so it has been plated but that doesn't account for the lighter weight even with the tolerance.

Will be interesting to see what the final results are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Greenstang said:

The Denver Mint only issued circulation strikes in 1976 so it has been plated but that doesn't account for the lighter weight even with the tolerance.

Will be interesting to see what the final results are.

I'm seeing an "S"

I still have no idea about the coin, unless it is an underweight planchet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Just Bob said:

I'm seeing an "S"

I still have no idea about the coin, unless it is an underweight planchet.

I'm seeing an S too, Bob.  And I'm pretty confused on this one as well.......if I could see the coin in hand, I might be able to theorize something.  But, without having it hand, I'm staying quiet on this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The edge is odd but I do seem to be seeing some copper areas.  I strongly suspect this is a clad proof.  It is way out of tolerance for a silver proof, but it is within tolerance for a clad proof.

Results of a tissue test would be interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Results of a tissue test would be interesting.

Indeed it would.  That was one of the exact things I was thinking of when I said I'd feel much better theorizing about this coin if I had it in hand.  Like you said, Conder, the coin is in tolerance for a clad proof, but that edge would be the weirdest clad proof edge I've ever seen, and being a seller of US moderns, I've seen a lot of clad and silver proof Ike edges.  That edge looks like a silver proof edge to me all day.  This is a strange one.......

Edited by Mohawk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Mohawk said:

Indeed it would.  That was one of the exact things I was thinking of when I said I'd feel much better theorizing about this coin if I had it in hand.  Like you said, Conder, the coin is in tolerance for a clad proof, but that edge would be the weirdest clad proof edge I've ever seen, and being a seller of US moderns, I've seen a lot of clad and silver proof Ike edges.  That edge looks like a silver proof edge to me all day.  This is a strange one.......

Something is way wrong with this. If you guys seen what the metal tester gun said at the dealer today you guys would be scratching your head and wonder how in the hell that happened 

image.jpg

Edited by TON Collection
Afd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/5/2019 at 1:36 AM, JKK said:

My first thought was: "something not right with that Trade Dollar." The color looks off, plated even.

The most likely argument for its authenticity, to my mind, is the drilling. That probably happened long before the modern era of very convincing fake TDs. It might be plated, it's certainly abused, but I have a hard time imagining it's not real--not because it tested as silver, but because I think that is one very old drill-and-patch job.

 

On 6/5/2019 at 12:22 AM, Mohawk said:

That's very true and it's good that you know that TON.  While many Trade Dollar fakes are laughable (I have actually seen one dated 2009.  No joke.  2009), there are some good ones that are well made and are made out of silver.  I'd check out our host's page on the 1875 CC Trade Dollar and see how your example matches up.  That could help get you moving with determining the authenticity of your coin.

 

On 6/5/2019 at 10:01 AM, Just Bob said:

I'm seeing an "S"

I still have no idea about the coin, unless it is an underweight planchet.

 

23 hours ago, Mohawk said:

Indeed it would.  That was one of the exact things I was thinking of when I said I'd feel much better theorizing about this coin if I had it in hand.  Like you said, Conder, the coin is in tolerance for a clad proof, but that edge would be the weirdest clad proof edge I've ever seen, and being a seller of US moderns, I've seen a lot of clad and silver proof Ike edges.  That edge looks like a silver proof edge to me all day.  This is a strange one.......

 

12 hours ago, TON Collection said:

 

image.jpg

 

12 hours ago, TON Collection said:

Here is tissue test

image.jpg

image.jpg

 

11 hours ago, Conder101 said:

Tissue test seems to indicate it IS silver, so it is apparently a severely underweight (thin) planchet error.

Just got to Sarasota Coin See if I can get some other suggestions down here. Thanks for everyone’s help

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK guys Here is what we got. Ben  down at Sarasota rare numismatics  tested it handled it weighed it  and came back 90% silver he is confused as I am but did suggest that could be a presentation piece

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TON Collection said:

OK guys Here is what we got. Ben  down at Sarasota rare numismatics  tested it handled it weighed it  and came back 90% silver he is confused as I am but did suggest that could be a presentation piece

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have to agree. Even looking at the modern fake wood encased ones, it looks even better. It’s hard to tell unless nowadays you definitely have provenance. Not to discourage, I’ve just had to be very careful with these kind for a while now....

 

Happy Hunting 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Travis Hale said:

I would have to agree. Even looking at the modern fake wood encased ones, it looks even better. It’s hard to tell unless nowadays you definitely have provenance. Not to discourage, I’ve just had to be very careful with these kind for a while now....

 

Happy Hunting 

So what suggestions would you give? And your not discouraging this is what makes are hobby exciting 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Travis Hale said:

Definitely exactly what he did if you can, plus talk to professionals like you guys on this board. I’ve pridefully been burnt before though..

 

 

Exactly right, Travis.  TON....what Ben found would be pretty significant, but it would be very helpful to know exactly what he did to arrive at a 90% silver composition.  That would be quite a significant off-metal error but, and I may be wrong on this, I am unsure of how a 90% planchet would be made in 1975 and 1976 when these were struck.  So, with the knowledge I have at present, I cannot figure out how a 90% Silver Ike would be made and how it is as lightweight as it is because silver coins are heavier than copper nickel clad coins of the same size.  Maybe someone on here with an in depth knowledge of the US Mint and its products and production methods knows some things that I do not about what the US Mint was doing at this time in history that would make a 90% silver strike possible.  Knowing the exact test would definitely be helpful here because this is a weird one, no doubt about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mohawk said:

Exactly right, Travis.  TON....what Ben found would be pretty significant, but it would be very helpful to know exactly what he did to arrive at a 90% silver composition.  That would be quite a significant off-metal error but, and I may be wrong on this, I am unsure of how a 90% planchet would be made in 1975 and 1976 when these were struck.  So, with the knowledge I have at present, I cannot figure out how a 90% Silver Ike would be made and how it is as lightweight as it is because silver coins are heavier than copper nickel clad coins of the same size.  Maybe someone on here with an in depth knowledge of the US Mint and its products and production methods knows some things that I do not about what the US Mint was doing at this time in history that would make a 90% silver strike possible.  Knowing the exact test would definitely be helpful here because this is a weird one, no doubt about it.

What about a at home density test?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, TON Collection said:

Ben  down at Sarasota rare numismatics  tested it handled it weighed it  and came back 90% silver

What test did he use?  90% silver would make it more than 5 grams underweight which strains believeablity.  An XRF gun might get a mistakenly high reading, remember the outer layers on a 40% silver clad are 80% silver.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thought I'd look into possibility of wrong planchet/foreign planchet just to rule it out.  https://archive.org/details/domesticforeignc00unit80/page/100 

Starting on page 99 is foreign coinage amounts by country, mint, content, weight, diameter.  I didn't see anything produced in San Francisco in the 70s that would indicate a foreign planchet could be the reason.  The lowest comparable weight on a 90% silver coin produced is 26.73 grams.  

90% silver AND 21.6 grams should result in a coin a little smaller than a Morgan (not accounting for thickness).  Or, as Conder pointed out, 5 grams smaller (or 79 grains if you insist on using the Standard system referenced in the US portion of the book).

.....

Beside all that, this is a really cool book I'm glad I came across so thanks for that @TON Collection  Pretty sure they have the publication date entered wrong since the production figures go all the way through 1980.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The next step would be a specific gravity test.  90% silver has a SG of 10.34, 40% silver SG is 9.53, and coppernickel clad is 8.92.  These figures are far enough apart that it should be fairly easy to determine which it is.  The tissue test does seem to indicate silver or silver plated but I don't think you could silver plate a proof and still have the mirrored fields.  So 40% or 90%, and if it was 90% with that low a weight the coin would be visually noticeably thin.  I'm still thinking a severely underweight 40% silver planchet.  (Assuming the scale is accurate.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Got the scale 

If he has a water bath that will tare on his scale and still weigh out he can do it himself to answer sp question

Coin weight in grams divided by coin weight bathed in water (Coin Suspended in water and not touch sides or bottom of vessel ) = SP of coin

Look forward to results

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
2 2