type set scan (was: type set question)

type set scan (was: type set question)

Post by Paul Colema » Tue, 18 Apr 2000 04:00:00



The Large files can't be found.  Make sure you posted them correctly.


Quote:
> I finally became less lazy this week and have scanned my type set of
Lincon
> cents (I mentioned
> I would do this in a previous thread, but then didn't).

> I scanned both large and small file sizes, be warned, the large files are
> enlarged 400%, and run 300 - 500k.
> I suppose I could have cut out the individual coins from the large scans,
> but would probably have been
> too lazy :)

> The small files are:
> http://home.san.rr.com/mwalenski/stypeoc.jpg
> http://home.san.rr.com/mwalenski/styperc.jpg

> The large files are:
> http://home.san.rr.com/mwalenski/typeobv.jpg
> http://home.san.rr.com/mwalenski/typerev.jpg

> Comments / suggestions are welcome!  I've been thinking that this set is
> missing something essential to
> the series, but am not sure what.  The 55-S seems to be the weak spot,
which
> I might replace, or I'm thinking of adding one or two more coins, but have
> no idea which?  Any thoughts?

> The coins included are:
> 1909-VDB
> 1912
> 1943-D
> 1955-S
> 1957
> 1960 (small date)
> 1986-S

> thanks for any comments!

> Matt

 
 
 

type set scan (was: type set question)

Post by Matthew Walensk » Wed, 19 Apr 2000 04:00:00


I finally became less lazy this week and have scanned my type set of Lincon
cents (I mentioned
I would do this in a previous thread, but then didn't).

I scanned both large and small file sizes, be warned, the large files are
enlarged 400%, and run 300 - 500k.
I suppose I could have cut out the individual coins from the large scans,
but would probably have been
too lazy :)

The small files are:
http://home.san.rr.com/mwalenski/stypeoc.jpg
http://home.san.rr.com/mwalenski/styperc.jpg

The large files are:
http://home.san.rr.com/mwalenski/typeobv.jpg
http://home.san.rr.com/mwalenski/typerev.jpg

Comments / suggestions are welcome!  I've been thinking that this set is
missing something essential to
the series, but am not sure what.  The 55-S seems to be the weak spot, which
I might replace, or I'm thinking of adding one or two more coins, but have
no idea which?  Any thoughts?

The coins included are:
1909-VDB
1912
1943-D
1955-S
1957
1960 (small date)
1986-S

thanks for any comments!

Matt

 
 
 

type set scan (was: type set question)

Post by Matthew Walensk » Wed, 19 Apr 2000 04:00:00


oops.  Thanks for pointing that out :)

The correct locations are:

http://home.san.rr.com/mwalenski/typerevc.jpg
http://home.san.rr.com/mwalenski/typeobvc.jpg

Matt


Quote:
> The Large files can't be found.  Make sure you posted them correctly.



> > I finally became less lazy this week and have scanned my type set of
> Lincon
> > cents (I mentioned
> > I would do this in a previous thread, but then didn't).

> > I scanned both large and small file sizes, be warned, the large files
are
> > enlarged 400%, and run 300 - 500k.
> > I suppose I could have cut out the individual coins from the large
scans,
> > but would probably have been
> > too lazy :)

> > The small files are:
> > http://home.san.rr.com/mwalenski/stypeoc.jpg
> > http://home.san.rr.com/mwalenski/styperc.jpg

> > The large files are:
> > http://home.san.rr.com/mwalenski/typeobv.jpg
> > http://home.san.rr.com/mwalenski/typerev.jpg

> > Comments / suggestions are welcome!  I've been thinking that this set is
> > missing something essential to
> > the series, but am not sure what.  The 55-S seems to be the weak spot,
> which
> > I might replace, or I'm thinking of adding one or two more coins, but
have
> > no idea which?  Any thoughts?

> > The coins included are:
> > 1909-VDB
> > 1912
> > 1943-D
> > 1955-S
> > 1957
> > 1960 (small date)
> > 1986-S

> > thanks for any comments!

> > Matt

 
 
 

type set scan (was: type set question)

Post by Bob Flamini » Wed, 19 Apr 2000 04:00:00


Excuse my daftness, but what's the type difference between 1955-S and 1957?

Also, wasn't the composition of the 1944-45 cents somewhat different -- and
thus warrant a "type"?

-Bob


Quote:
> oops.  Thanks for pointing that out :)

> The correct locations are:

> http://home.san.rr.com/mwalenski/typerevc.jpg
> http://home.san.rr.com/mwalenski/typeobvc.jpg

> Matt



> > The Large files can't be found.  Make sure you posted them correctly.



> > > I finally became less lazy this week and have scanned my type set of
> > Lincon
> > > cents (I mentioned
> > > I would do this in a previous thread, but then didn't).

> > > I scanned both large and small file sizes, be warned, the large files
> are
> > > enlarged 400%, and run 300 - 500k.
> > > I suppose I could have cut out the individual coins from the large
> scans,
> > > but would probably have been
> > > too lazy :)

> > > The small files are:
> > > http://home.san.rr.com/mwalenski/stypeoc.jpg
> > > http://home.san.rr.com/mwalenski/styperc.jpg

> > > The large files are:
> > > http://home.san.rr.com/mwalenski/typeobv.jpg
> > > http://home.san.rr.com/mwalenski/typerev.jpg

> > > Comments / suggestions are welcome!  I've been thinking that this set
is
> > > missing something essential to
> > > the series, but am not sure what.  The 55-S seems to be the weak spot,
> > which
> > > I might replace, or I'm thinking of adding one or two more coins, but
> have
> > > no idea which?  Any thoughts?

> > > The coins included are:
> > > 1909-VDB
> > > 1912
> > > 1943-D
> > > 1955-S
> > > 1957
> > > 1960 (small date)
> > > 1986-S

> > > thanks for any comments!

> > > Matt

 
 
 

type set scan (was: type set question)

Post by Jay S Jackso » Wed, 19 Apr 2000 04:00:00


Howdy, y'all!

        I can't answer your question about the difference between a '55-S and a
'57, but here's my take on your 2nd question:

        In 1944, the U.S.Mint changed the cent composition from "zinc-coated
steel" to .950 Cu and .050 Zn (per my Redbook).  This was essentially the
composition used from 1864 forward but without the trace of W (Tin) which was in
the pre-war cents.  These were also made of recycled shell-casings picked up on
the battle field.
         A researcher in the '70's (IIRC, but whose name I cannot recall),
determined that the shell-casing portion could not have been more than 20%-30%
based on the published mintage figures and the delivery manifests from the War
Department to the Treasury Department.  At. 3.1 grams apiece, the 7,539,150,000
[7 1/2 BILLION] cents produced in 1944 thru 1946 would have weighed almost
26,000 tons... No one would have had any time to fight for the time it would
have taken to pick up empty shell casings had all 26 Kilotons of cents been made
from them.
         Yes, some shell casings were made into cents, but the entire production
of cents was not made solely from spent shell casings.  The lack of W did affect
the color of uncirculated specimens but not the utility of the coin.  In 1947,
the W was restored to the coin's alloy (per Redbook).

       So, IMHO, the 1944 - 1946 cents could be classed as a different type of
cent

       HTH!

Jay in Garrison, TX

Quote:

> Excuse my daftness, but what's the type difference between 1955-S and 1957?

> Also, wasn't the composition of the 1944-45 cents somewhat different -- and
> thus warrant a "type"?

> -Bob

<Big ol' snip>
 
 
 

type set scan (was: type set question)

Post by Quadrig » Wed, 19 Apr 2000 04:00:00


Quote:

> Howdy, y'all!

>         I can't answer your question about the difference between a '55-S and a
> '57, but here's my take on your 2nd question:

>         In 1944, the U.S.Mint changed the cent composition from "zinc-coated
> steel" to .950 Cu and .050 Zn (per my Redbook).  This was essentially the
> composition used from 1864 forward but without the trace of W (Tin) which was in
> the pre-war cents.  These were also made of recycled shell-casings picked up on
> the battle field.
>          A researcher in the '70's (IIRC, but whose name I cannot recall),
> determined that the shell-casing portion could not have been more than 20%-30%
> based on the published mintage figures and the delivery manifests from the War
> Department to the Treasury Department.  At. 3.1 grams apiece, the 7,539,150,000
> [7 1/2 BILLION] cents produced in 1944 thru 1946 would have weighed almost
> 26,000 tons... No one would have had any time to fight for the time it would
> have taken to pick up empty shell casings had all 26 Kilotons of cents been made
> from them.
>          Yes, some shell casings were made into cents, but the entire production
> of cents was not made solely from spent shell casings.  The lack of W did affect
> the color of uncirculated specimens but not the utility of the coin.  In 1947,
> the W was restored to the coin's alloy (per Redbook).

>        So, IMHO, the 1944 - 1946 cents could be classed as a different type of
> cent

>        HTH!

> Jay in Garrison, TX


> > Excuse my daftness, but what's the type difference between 1955-S and 1957?

> > Also, wasn't the composition of the 1944-45 cents somewhat different -- and
> > thus warrant a "type"?

> > -Bob

Just a technical correction: "W" is the symbol for tungsten (wolfram).
The symbol for tin is "Sn".

Oh yes... and the "shellcase" composition of 95% Cu, 5% Zn was restored
from 1962 until 1982... repeat: the tin was removed in 1962.

Check your Red Book... it's in there, in very small type.
--
Kevin Colosa
Quadriga Ancients
Barton, Vermont 05822-0706

http://www.quadrigaancients.com

ANA Member #181192

 
 
 

type set scan (was: type set question)

Post by Matthew Walensk » Thu, 20 Apr 2000 04:00:00


So, just to collate the information so far:
the 1957 cent has the post war no tin composition?
the 1955-S is somewhat vaguely purposed; to answer Bob's not-daft-at-all
question, I originally
included it to capture the mint mark varieties of the wheat back type, but
then decided not to include
a Denver mint marked memorial cent.  Leaving it in as a loose end, for no
reason other than I liked the
way it looked.

So what do people think of the following ideas: (the goal to capture the
variety of the Lincoln cent series)

1.  remove the 55-S
2.  add a D mint memorial cent
3.  replace the 55-S with something else that's interesting to the series --
perhaps a BIE cent?  (inexpensive)
double die?

Thanks for the responses so far :)

Matt


Quote:

> > Howdy, y'all!

> >         I can't answer your question about the difference between a
'55-S and a
> > '57, but here's my take on your 2nd question:

> >         In 1944, the U.S.Mint changed the cent composition from
"zinc-coated
> > steel" to .950 Cu and .050 Zn (per my Redbook).  This was essentially
the
> > composition used from 1864 forward but without the trace of W (Tin)
which was in
> > the pre-war cents.  These were also made of recycled shell-casings
picked up on
> > the battle field.
> >          A researcher in the '70's (IIRC, but whose name I cannot
recall),
> > determined that the shell-casing portion could not have been more than
20%-30%
> > based on the published mintage figures and the delivery manifests from
the War
> > Department to the Treasury Department.  At. 3.1 grams apiece, the
7,539,150,000
> > [7 1/2 BILLION] cents produced in 1944 thru 1946 would have weighed
almost
> > 26,000 tons... No one would have had any time to fight for the time it
would
> > have taken to pick up empty shell casings had all 26 Kilotons of cents
been made
> > from them.
> >          Yes, some shell casings were made into cents, but the entire
production
> > of cents was not made solely from spent shell casings.  The lack of W
did affect
> > the color of uncirculated specimens but not the utility of the coin.  In
1947,
> > the W was restored to the coin's alloy (per Redbook).

> >        So, IMHO, the 1944 - 1946 cents could be classed as a different
type of
> > cent

> >        HTH!

> > Jay in Garrison, TX


> > > Excuse my daftness, but what's the type difference between 1955-S and
1957?

> > > Also, wasn't the composition of the 1944-45 cents somewhat
different -- and
> > > thus warrant a "type"?

> > > -Bob

> Just a technical correction: "W" is the symbol for tungsten (wolfram).
> The symbol for tin is "Sn".

> Oh yes... and the "shellcase" composition of 95% Cu, 5% Zn was restored
> from 1962 until 1982... repeat: the tin was removed in 1962.

> Check your Red Book... it's in there, in very small type.
> --
> Kevin Colosa
> Quadriga Ancients
> Barton, Vermont 05822-0706

> http://www.quadrigaancients.com

> ANA Member #181192

 
 
 

type set scan (was: type set question)

Post by Quadrig » Thu, 20 Apr 2000 04:00:00


Quote:

> So, just to collate the information so far:
> the 1957 cent has the post war no tin composition?
> the 1955-S is somewhat vaguely purposed; to answer Bob's not-daft-at-all
> question, I originally
> included it to capture the mint mark varieties of the wheat back type, but
> then decided not to include
> a Denver mint marked memorial cent.  Leaving it in as a loose end, for no
> reason other than I liked the
> way it looked.

> So what do people think of the following ideas: (the goal to capture the
> variety of the Lincoln cent series)

> 1.  remove the 55-S
> 2.  add a D mint memorial cent
> 3.  replace the 55-S with something else that's interesting to the series --
> perhaps a BIE cent?  (inexpensive)
> double die?

> Thanks for the responses so far :)

> Matt

Let's go through the different "types" as I understand them, as they
changed over the years... for this list, every change in design or metal
composition denotes a change, even if such a change repeats a condition
that existed before (kind of like how Grover Cleveland is considered the
22nd AND the 24th President):

(D) = design change
(A) = alloy change

1909            VDB initials on reverse, 95% Cu, 5% Sn and Zn.

1909-1917       No VDB anywhere on the coin.    (D)

1918-1942       VDB added in 1918.              (D)

1943            Zinc coated steel.              (A)

1944-1946       95% Cu, 5% Zn (shell case).     (A)

1947-1959       95% Cu, 5% Sn and Zn.           (A)

1959-1962       Memorial Reverse added, 1959.   (D)

1962-1982       95% Cu, 5% Zn.                  (A)

1982-2000       97.5% Zn, Cu plating            (A)

You might also want to get Proof and (intentionally) Cameo Proof
varieties of the different alloys and reverses.

Hope this helps... somewhat.

Kevin
--
Kevin Colosa
Quadriga Ancients
Barton, Vermont 05822-0706

http://www.quadrigaancients.com

ANA Member #181192

 
 
 

type set scan (was: type set question)

Post by Matthew Walensk » Fri, 21 Apr 2000 04:00:00


Thanks!  That actually was helpful. :)

I think I may bump my total up to eight coins, to include a cent from 44-46;
drop the 55-S, and include a cent from 62-82.

I may also be reconsidering my opinion on the FS in the Jefferson series...

Matt


Quote:

> > So, just to collate the information so far:
> > the 1957 cent has the post war no tin composition?
> > the 1955-S is somewhat vaguely purposed; to answer Bob's not-daft-at-all
> > question, I originally
> > included it to capture the mint mark varieties of the wheat back type,
but
> > then decided not to include
> > a Denver mint marked memorial cent.  Leaving it in as a loose end, for
no
> > reason other than I liked the
> > way it looked.

> > So what do people think of the following ideas: (the goal to capture the
> > variety of the Lincoln cent series)

> > 1.  remove the 55-S
> > 2.  add a D mint memorial cent
> > 3.  replace the 55-S with something else that's interesting to the
series --
> > perhaps a BIE cent?  (inexpensive)
> > double die?

> > Thanks for the responses so far :)

> > Matt

> Let's go through the different "types" as I understand them, as they
> changed over the years... for this list, every change in design or metal
> composition denotes a change, even if such a change repeats a condition
> that existed before (kind of like how Grover Cleveland is considered the
> 22nd AND the 24th President):

> (D) = design change
> (A) = alloy change

> 1909 VDB initials on reverse, 95% Cu, 5% Sn and Zn.

> 1909-1917 No VDB anywhere on the coin. (D)

> 1918-1942 VDB added in 1918. (D)

> 1943 Zinc coated steel. (A)

> 1944-1946 95% Cu, 5% Zn (shell case). (A)

> 1947-1959 95% Cu, 5% Sn and Zn. (A)

> 1959-1962 Memorial Reverse added, 1959. (D)

> 1962-1982 95% Cu, 5% Zn. (A)

> 1982-2000 97.5% Zn, Cu plating (A)

> You might also want to get Proof and (intentionally) Cameo Proof
> varieties of the different alloys and reverses.

> Hope this helps... somewhat.

> Kevin
> --
> Kevin Colosa
> Quadriga Ancients
> Barton, Vermont 05822-0706

> http://www.quadrigaancients.com

> ANA Member #181192