1968 D Kennedy half that shows a weight of 12.5g

[qwackers]

if the pics dont show extra thickness im leaning towards 90% flan odd as tho it may be.

there are many many inexplicable errors out there so it wouldnt surprise me but it would be a heck of an error if it proves out.

i think a silver tester (electronic) could sort this out quickly w/o a submission.

saw some 1970s 40% half errors fwiw

If you look at edges, you can see clear fields of non silver, and if it is not 90%, does the exaggerated thickness account for 1 gram more of weight. The best pictures for manipulations is still the other forum mentioned above. What other material would be in place of silver/copper to raise it's weight

[MintErrors]

It does not have to be any other material. If I remember correctly 1968 in Denver did not make many foriegn planchets or foriegn coins. In 1968 there was no dollar coin, so it's not a larger coin struck on wrong g thickness stock.

It could easily be a planchet that was punched from some metal stock that was a tad thicker meant for Kennedy halves. The rollers that made the sheets did not do a perfect job at maintaining the same thickness.

As for how much more material, it would be equivalent to taking a copper cent (3.11g) and shaving it into 3 pieces, like cake layers. Spread one of those layers (1.04g) out over the entire Kennedy half, and realistically it's not very much metal. It would be paper thin.

[occnumis2021]

It does not have to be any other material. If I remember correctly 1968 in Denver did not make many foriegn planchets or foriegn coins. In 1968 there was no dollar coin, so it's not a larger coin struck on wrong g thickness stock.

It could easily be a planchet that was punched from some metal stock that was a tad thicker meant for Kennedy halves. The rollers that made the sheets did not do a perfect job at maintaining the same thickness.

As for how much more material, it would be equivalent to taking a copper cent (3.11g) and shaving it into 3 pieces, like cake layers. Spread one of those layers (1.04g) out over the entire Kennedy half, and realistically it's not very much metal. It would be paper thin.

based on all the avail info, i'm just agreeing with you about extra thick stock. what you mention sounds like an amount that would be considered within mint tolerance.

think i'll wait for pics next time before chiming in.

[MintErrors]

occnumis2021

Eh, honestly it's aways a guess and experience that brings out the best answer. Unless the coin is in hand, scales calibrated and really expensive tools are ready to go, it's more of a SWAG than actual fact. Well, it applies to the masses but, there are a few who have. extensive knowledge in the field who very well may be able to assess the correct finding if all the facts are lined up. I just try my best to logically deduce what the heck might have happened. =)

I know the mint has tolerances, but back in the day, in my opinion, things like making sure random planchet weight tests may have fallen through the cracks.

In the 60s and 70s, I think some place not to be mentioned may have had liquid lunches because some of the things that were produced were eye opening. You can easily see them with the naked eye. Being a little stimulated and seeing double back then may have seemed normal. So when something weird was seen, they might have thought it was a flashback or existing condition. They shook it off, threw water on their face and moved on. So did the product.

[qwackers]

An update on this heavyweight, I was the Detroit area coin show today and inquired about this "Heavyweight Jack". Left there with all the vendors scratching their heads, but I had secured some more knowledge. #1- no one had ever seen one, #2- it did not appear to be fake, #3- on a sigma test it came back 90% silver.

That is where I'm currently at, sorry for the delay as I go dark at times. I will update as I can, Thank You to the members for your patience and help.