Copper cent weight difference need to be and error
1 1

20 posts in this topic

4,563 posts

The listed weight is 3.11 grams, with a tolerance of .13 grams. I would think a cent would need to be off by a bit more than that tolerance to be slabbed as an error, but you could send them an email or repost in the "Ask NGC" forum to get a definite answer from them. 

Edited by Just Bob
Just wanted to thank Conder101 for providing me with the pdf of coin specs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 posts

Thanks. I am new to this forum stuff and will try " "Ask NGC". Any and all information is helpful. I see lesser weighs on NGC slabs but they are also off metal planchets which brings up another question. Would a 93% Copper, 5% Zinc, 2% Tin Lincoln cent be considered an error?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,563 posts

The RedBook gives a standard composition of 95% copper and 5% zinc and tin. I am not sure if a 2% variance is enough to constitute an error or not, but my gut says no. Again, one of the experts, such as DW Lange or Conder101 would probably know the answer to that question, as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,563 posts

That puts it right at the upper limit of weight tolerance, so not really considered an error, weight-wise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 posts

According to a " Conder101 " in this "Coin Talk" link https://www.cointalk.com/threads/one-more-time-1983-d-lmc-weighs-2-74-g.334740/

a Whopping .4 gram is the tolerance before a 3.11 gram Lincoln cent is an error. That is a HUGE difference from tolerance of .13 grams Just Bob mentioned. Where did you get that .13 from Just Bob?

I think NGC really needs to post the tolerances for errors because all they say here (https://www.ngccoin.com/news/article/1655/Variety-versus-Mint-Error/) is

"NGC does not recognize as mint error coins those with minor die chips, breaks and rotations, etc., that fall within our interpretation of mint tolerance. The determination of what constitutes a mint error is at the discretion of NGC.  Hopefully, this information will clarify whether your coin is a variety or mint error. "

If 0.13 is Mint tolerance, and NGC tolerance is .4, they clarified nothing! Their idea or interpretation of mint tolerance is basically meaningless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,563 posts
1 hour ago, Mike's Currency said:

According to a " Conder101 " in this "Coin Talk" link https://www.cointalk.com/threads/one-more-time-1983-d-lmc-weighs-2-74-g.334740/

a Whopping .4 gram is the tolerance before a 3.11 gram Lincoln cent is an error. That is a HUGE difference from tolerance of .13 grams Just Bob mentioned. Where did you get that .13 from Just Bob?

I

That figure was from a list of specs for all US coins printed in the Coin World Almanac, Eighth Edition, 2011. It was emailed to me by the very same Conder101.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 posts

Who is this Conder101 that changed the tolerance from 0.13 to 0.4? You know this reminds me of similar situations I have seen before. Discredit something long enough while hoarding it and then one day present evidence to the contrary and cash in on it. Sometimes even a generation later. Something is not right here!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,572 posts

You misunderstood me, the tolerance IS .13 grams, but until the weight is about .4 gram out of the tolerance range it will not normally command any significant premium.  A cent the weighs  say 3.26 grams is out of tolerance and is technically an error but it isn't worth anything.  A cent that weighs 3.55 grams, about .3 grams outside the tolerance range would be worth a small premium.  But get the weight to 3.65 gramsor more and the premiums will start to become significant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 posts

Thank you for clarifying. The main issue here is at what weight does NGC consider it an error. What is their rule book? If the Mint tolerance is 0.13, what is NGCs number? If 0.4, why over three times higher that the Mint? The market is rarely rational, especially when the economy is good, so money predictions aside, after all people are paying many times face value for common items in this hobby all the time. NGC is not supposed to be in the business of market manipulation but a number over three times higher than the Mint sure sounds like manipulation to me.

I have a shinny brass Lincoln cent with a 3.24g weight and Brass metal composition by definition, but it resides in a normal slab despite the major differences from a normal cent. That is not right! Any normal collector would want to know this important information. It is so unusual that I am unable to find another to compare it to save for a Panama Planchet error. It's probably one in a million, or close to it. PMG grades paper money as error when the BEP considers it to be and even in minor situations that the BEP does not, so why are Lincoln  error tolerances so different? Are Nickels and Quarters the same, percentage wise? Does a nickel have to be over 0.6 grams before it is an error. Would anyone happen to you know the mint tolerance for metal composition as written by the Mint?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 posts

I know the NGC number is high because I sent a 1953 in that weighed 2.72 grams and they refused to label it an error stating that it is normal in weight. So either they did not weigh it, or their tolerances are indeed over three times higher than the U.S. Mint.

I bet there are more die chip graded errors by NGC than 2.7 gram Lincoln cents in existence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,563 posts
17 hours ago, Mike's Currency said:

Who is this Conder101 that changed the tolerance from 0.13 to 0.4? You know this reminds me of similar situations I have seen before. Discredit something long enough while hoarding it and then one day present evidence to the contrary and cash in on it. Sometimes even a generation later. Something is not right here!

Aside from having a cent that you think should have been classified as an error, and was not, I'm not sure what the particular problem that you are having is, but that response was completely unnecessary, in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 posts

Sorry if it hit you personally, Not my intention. But if you voice your opinion publicly, you should expect some criticism, not that there is any in my question followed by an experience.

I wonder how many pennies one has to search thru before finding one 3 times under the Mint Tolerance? If it's one in a 500,000, which is probably true in today's change. Then it's special. A WWII vet had this penny in a 2x2 labeled "Thin Planchet" which is why I weighed it and had it graded. He spent much time searching Lincoln cents in his lifetime and acquired many of them but only one at 2.7 Grams. He even had two 1909-S V.D.B.. From what I have seen these do sell for decent amount when labeled properly. For there to be a market for something there has to be a supply. When TPGs refuse to label these, they hurt the market and steal from the customer. Not only did I pay the Tier price, I paid the error fee, and since the Metallurgic Analysis has a Weight section, I paid for that too. After all those costs, NGS failed to supply me with the weight other than saying " The reason the weight of the coin was not placed on the label is because they weighed it and it weighed within the range of a normal planchet. ". THIS IS A COMPLETE LIE! I added a picture of this coin on one of the three scales I tested it on. I even contacted several people about this and one well respected expert said " A weight of 2.7 grams is well below tolerances. The coin should have been labeled as "struck on rolled-thin planchet" My uncle works for FOX news and wants me to do an interview so he can possibly put this on the evening news. This coin was sent to NGC twice! It just dawned on me, these graders know coins that don't make the grade are dumped on places like ebay or etsy. So, I would not be surprised if they deny and under grade coins on purpose only to scoop them up later for cheap. Now that's a shot.

017 (2).JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
603 posts

I think I understand your point, but I believe you are also ignoring a major factor. Yes, for a market to exist there has to be a supply; however, what good is a supply if there is no demand. As Bob and Conder101 have already explained there is next to no demand for a penny marginally out of tolerance. What would be the point in creating a supply for something that is not currently nor ever has been in demand? You even said so yourself, if the deviation from standard tolerance is set to such a high threshold by the TPG than the coin certified as such truly is special. The supply is so small, as you stated, that even the slightest demand would create a “market” for these certified coins. Marginally over or underweight coins such as the subject of this post are just not “special” enough to deem further consideration as set forth by the collecting community because numerous more examples exist. Although this isn’t my area of focus I sincerely doubt that there a ton of collectors purposefully seeking underweight coins in general. In my opinion, that is one of the most subtle and drab errors to pursue. Given what I’ve seen, it appears the general numismatic community agrees as made evident by auction records, or lack thereof. 

Just because you paid for an educated opinion and did not receive confirmation of your own thoughts does not automatically condemn the service provider. They provided a service and rendered an opinion based on the conventions of the hobby. You just happen to not agree with it. Furthermore, the conspiracy theory you insinuated at the end is completely unsubstantiated and way out of line. NGC and their employees are prohibited from trading commercially. Even if they were as corrupt as you insinuate, the idea that they wait for the unsuspecting submitter to list the coin on eBay is absolutely absurd. By all means, talk to your uncle, but given the general collecting community has little to no interest, I sincerely doubt that the general public would either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 posts

Maybe there is a lack of demand because there is a lack of supply to sell or Market. People don't know what they want until they see it. I spend well over $100,000 a year at auctions so I know this to be true. I sent these coins in based on NGC advertising and past graded examples I have seen. I found several a NGC slabbed coins with weight on them including a1940-S Lincoln that says 2.9g, cert 012386-006. My 2.7 gram coin is an error and should be treated as such regardless of market demand. NGC certainly should not lie to their customer and say it was normal weight. They can pull number grades out of thin air as that is an opinion but the weight is a scientific fact that can't be made up. If a customer pays over a $100 for a coin I would think asking for or including the weight would not be too much to ask for, especially when there is a line for it in the process or report. If that line was not in the report, I would not have bothered with some of the coins. I feel like I took my car in for new breaks and they only did half of it while telling me it was a complete job.

NGC advertises" If the analysis indicates that the coin has a non-standard metal composition, the three most abundant non-trace metals present on the coin's surface and the weight of the tested coin will appear on the NGC certification label. " Since 95% Copper and 5% Zinc is standard, common sense tells me 93% 5% 2% is not and NGC should have done as advertised. There is a huge disconnect between what they advertise, what they have done, and what they are doing. If NGC does not fix these then PCGS or ANACS will be asked to. I am also getting a second Metallurgic Test done because I have absolutely No trust in NGC after this experience and after being told by an expert (who shall remain nameless) that " If you're expecting accuracy from the grading services, you will end up bitterly disappointed. "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 posts

They Did Not rendered an opinion based on the conventions of the hobby. They left out important information that was or is normally included in the hobby. Why, I don't know. For some reason the Test results were left out of the second mailing and later found in the file when I asked for them. Maybe the graders never saw the test results and that is the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,572 posts
3 hours ago, Mike's Currency said:

NGC advertises" If the analysis indicates that the coin has a non-standard metal composition, the three most abundant non-trace metals present on the coin's surface and the weight of the tested coin will appear on the NGC certification label. " Since 95% Copper and 5% Zinc is standard, common sense tells me 93% 5% 2% is not and NGC should have done as advertised.

I would not consider those results to be out of line.  It is very difficult to make a bronze of brass alloy to an exact composition specification.  Both zinc and tin boil at temperatures lower than copper melts.  In order to do the melt you have to start withthe tin and zince and melt those then add the copper in small piece and dissolve, not melt, the copper into the melt.  But as the amount of copper increases you have to start raising the temperature to keep it liquid.  After a certain point the tin and zinc start to volitize out of the alloy whileyou are still trying to melt the copper into it.  So you typically start with an excess of tin and zinc and try from practice and experience to try to melt it fast enough and to hold the melt liquid a short enough time to hit the alloy it are aiming for. But the chance of getting exactly the copper/zinc/tin ratios you want is unlikely.  So each within a few percent is considered acceptable.

I do agree than a 2.7 gram cent is enpugh out of spec to be considered an error, I'm not sure why they didn't put it on the label since you paid for it.  I wouldn't consider that small an amount out of tolerance to be worth slabbing though.  The premium value would be less than the cost of slabbing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 posts

Thank you for the info. This is more about honor and principal than money. NGC offered a service for a price. They took the money but failed to do the job. Where I come from, when your hired to do a job, you do it or you get out of the business, or go to jail for fraud. They set a precedent when the slabbed the 2.9gram cent Cert 012386-006 . As for the non standard metal coin, they can avoid the error part if they want, but they have to do as their wording says. According to the the Mint and every place I looked 95% and 5% is standard so anything out of that range, (especially when 3 vs 2 metals come up on a report) is the opposite of standard. Unless someone can show me that 93% 5% 2% is common, I have no choice but to think otherwise. A judge would agree. 93% 5% 2% may not be something you would pay for but I know someone who will. I challenge anyone to find another coin like mine and I will gladly pay them $1,000 for it. It is a high grade example and looks like a gold coin with nice flow pattern to the metal. It's one in a million for sure. If I were collecting Lincolns, I would want to know if I am buying a normal composition or non standard as it does affect the look. If NGC is lying about the weight on the 1953, how can I trust them with the percentage on the 1941. Another test will be performed. You seem to know your stuff but I don't see how you can know where people will put their money. The collectible market has been more volatile than the stock market at times. NGC can hold their ground with grading opinions but this is different, this is about facts! And the fact that someone lied about the facts says a lot about who we are dealing with.

Share this post


Link to post
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
1 1