Very thin 3.9 g 1982p quarter

[Della]

Hi, I recently joined Coneca, as I’ve been collecting US coins some on and off through the years. Of course after just a little research I started stashing and analyzing all the1982 pennies-and saving other 82/83 coins since they were no proof years. I ran into a strange thin quarter with a bronze circle on the reverse and it only weighs 3.9 on my scale. Not a hammered or dryer quarter since the ridges on the side are still intact-but appear bronze- and everything is readable, so I wasn’t sure if it was acid-but all markings are intact or perhaps a clad error? Pics attached and any insight is appreciated. And my apologies if this needs to be on another board (please re-direct) of if it’s duplicate post, newbie here-tried earlier but it’s posted in a visitor section, sorry tried to remove from there but putting up here for now, I think.

[Shleppodella1]

I'm nowhere close to an expert!!!
I'm wondering if it's struck on a nickel planchet. Which would help explain the 3.9g vs 5.67g maybe? But the graded ones I looked at, it looks like the top part LIBERTY is cut off a little more than yours but that could be placement in the collar and die strike maybe. Cool coin though and pictures.

[MintErrors]

In my opinion, I am not sure what to think of this. When I look at both sides of the coin, I think I see a muddy style appearance. It's almost flat looking, no shiny patina ? If it were a typical coin. I think I would see a shiner finish, this photo has plenty of light. It almost looks mushy, a sign for me it has potential to be called acid treated.

I will look the coin over closel especially ver close to the rim on both sides all the way around. I will look for any tell tale signs, like small ravines that might be formed as the acid treatment falls off the coin.

Sure, it's odd to see the clad missing just on one side, but some one could have used a paint brush to apply the solution. There are hundreds of ways this could have happened, some legitimately or, nefariously.

One of the best examiners that I have emailed is Mike Diamond. He occasionally hangs out at https://error-ref.com

I suggest going there and use the contact us link. I think you can send him text only, but you should be able to copy the URL (web page link) of this post, and paste it into the contact form. If Mike is willing to answer, at least he has some decent photos to look over.

[Della]

Thank you, it is quite the enigma. I thought it had a fuzzy look to it too indicating acid but the weight thing is really throwing me for a loop. I thought it could’ve been an art experiment possibly as well. The link isn’t working but I’m trying to track down an email address for Mr. Diamond, so I appreciate the information and comments!

[MintErrors]

yeah, not sure what is up with that website. It is usually very reliable. Its a Wordpress critical error. It could be as simple as a conflicting application or out of date skin or app.

For now, the only thing I can offer is a post from my website that is about wrong thickness stock. I know it happened to quarters on dime thickness stock back in the 1970's. The post allows you to figure out the area and eventually tells you the approximate weight of the coin IF it was a quarter struck on dime stock.

The struck on dime stock is different than a dime planchet. The thickness stock is the actual metal intended for the dime. But, instead of punching out normal dime size planchets (blanks) that dime stock had quarter size blacks punched out, and it would weigh less than a quarter, but more than a dime.

https://minterrors.org/index.php/str...ickness-stock/

[Della]

Thanks! It seems to match the thinness of a dime and makes a tin like sound when dropped (like a ting, as opposed to the louder plunk of a normal quarter, sounds very similar to the dime but it is larger so not exact… I did track down an email address for Mike D. will see if I get a reply. Thank you for the link I’ll investigate it further.
if it’s some sort of fake someone went though a lot of trouble but the reeding on the side is very prominent and appears to be solid copper-no sign of silver showing. And the finish on it is brighter/lighter than that of other quarters. Thanks for the input!IMG_6133.jpeg

[MintErrors]

Della

It could be missing clad layer, but this just looks odd. I have to remind myself that coins can have multiple errors although uncommon. The reeding is pretty pronounced. It's early and i am trying to logically wrap a strong reeding along with a thin planchet. I need coffee....hehehe .

The planchet (blank) is fed into a minting machine. Typically the coin is placed into a collar, which is like a thick ring. The planchet is a tad smaller than the collar, so it fits in without any problem for most coins. The working dies then "squeeze" the planchet putting the coins image on the planchet, making it a coin. When it was "squeezed" the planchet metal fills in around the collar this does two things at this point. It keeps the coin round, and that metal flow fills the collar which has the reeding on the inside of that collar.

Thicker coins tend to have enough metal to spread and fill that collar. This one being thinner, looks like it spread enough to keep it round and have reeding all the way around the coin.

The weight is crucial. There are multiple possibilities. The missing clad layer. Struck on wrong planchet and others. The possibility of struck on wrong planchet is a bit time consuming. One has to take the weight of the coin, the mint mark as well so we know what mint to coin was made and the year.

So we have 1982 Quarter weighing 3.9 grams struck in Philadelphia. There is a spreadsheet about 60 pages or so of a list of countries that had foreign blank planchets and foreign planchets struck into foreign coins. I will attempt to find the link and post it here.

https://minterrornews.com/news-5-13-..._the_mint.html

If you want, click on the blue link about 2 or 3 sentences into the article.
That website is not affiliated with me.

It does not hurt to look into the possibility of a wrong planchet, but there may be another reason other than what's been discussed why the planchet is so light.

If you decide to look through the spreadsheet, it's important to look for all three conditions on one listing; 1982, Philadelphia mint, 3.9 grams. You coin looks copper and possibly nickel as well. Those entries might narrow it down.

For the record, I personally have turned off most, if not all email notifications from this website. So, I usually have to revisit the posts I have commented on and some simply fall through the cracks and I do not revisit them. Don't feel left out, it's just that my mailbox was cluttered with notifications and I had to put a stop to it.

[Zimmy]

Unfortunately, your coin has been acid treated outside of the mint. Classic example and this damage has plagued our hobby for many years. Most people think they are struck on thin or foreign planchets but acid has a tendancy to eat into the field area making the planchet thinner but still leaving the details visible. However , the details will have a wavy/mushy appearance and the acid will uniformly reduce the diameter of the coin. These acid treated coins, when familiar with this post mint damage type, are very easy to recognize. Thanks,

[Della]

Thanks so much, that was my original thought, on some of the markings especially; but I was trying to find out how that could significantly decrease the weight as well.