1968 D Kennedy half that shows a weight of 12.5g

[qwackers]

Could anyone tell me why this coin weighs more than other '68s I've weighed. I am not able to upload this one picture currently, says file is too big. Anyhow the weight does not match up the coin. Measures 30.66 mm dia., 2.25mm edge thickness weight 12.5g, unable at this time to perform a SG test accurately, with any thoughts?

[qwackers]

Kennedy 12.5.jpg

[occnumis2021]

hmm, that is well above tolerance.

11.5 +/- .400

30.61mm

9.53 grav.

but this info says:

the 90% silver ones weighs 12.5, +/- .259

it is up to you but you can do a gentle "ring" test by dropping from a few inches above a solid wood surface and comp to the other ones, it may sound quite a bit diff but it is possible this is a very desirable error (or something else i'm not thinking of ATM).

i know there are "tests" with paper, tissues etc that make the silver coins appear diff when viewed through them. not sure how this applies to a 40% vs 90%.

i'd put the coin into a couple flips for the duration to be safe. mylar preferred.

edited to add:

even tho that obv pic, albeit zoomed out pretty far, doesn't look like a PMD coin, can we get better full obv/rev pics? maybe include a side shot of the edge.

[qwackers]

I am going to a jeweler tonight to see if they can perform a specific gravity test to determine silver. The other thing peculiar is that the thickness is 2.25 mm or .089. I had to screen shot the pictures and manipulate to get to 2MB or under so it could be accepted by coneca. If you know how, let me know (Android). I really appreciate your help and interest.

[occnumis2021]

I am going to a jeweler tonight to see if they can perform a specific gravity test to determine silver. The other thing peculiar is that the thickness is 2.25 mm or .089. I had to screen shot the pictures and manipulate to get to 2MB or under so it could be accepted by coneca. If you know how, let me know (Android). I really appreciate your help and interest.

reducing image size/dimensions is a bit harder on phones (normal cropping doesn't seem to cut it) but there should be a multitude of image edting apps out there.

if you have a PC with windows, just drop image into the old ms paint and drop their size w/o sacrificing quality quite a bit, even for jpg.

while webp seems to be the future for quality vs size on disk for images, not enough older progs accept them for me to switch yet.

i don't have thickness specs on-hand but i'm gonna guess there is a big tolerance on this due to big variance in stock and flan processes but i'm sure at some point it becomes a recognizable error thing of course.

[qwackers]

Thanks I will try that with the phone. As for the coin thickness, I measured 14) 1968 halves and range between 2.05-2.18mm. Still pushes the overweight Kennedy by >.07 more, don't know if that's a big difference.
Occnumis2021, I would like to thank you, being a novice in sharked up waters, you guys give us newbies protection (of ignorance) and are a value source to get these coin out there for all.

[MintErrors]

occnumis2021 are you thinking it could be a transitional piece ? It could be a overweight planchet aka rolled thick. It's near one gram which is 1/28th of an ounce, that's pretty far off but pretty minor in weight. Occ is right, his mentioned tests are usually tried and true.

For the original poster, make sure the scale is accurate please. See if it can weigh another Kennedy that either clad or silver. If you don't have another half, try any coin, the the better.

Two more quick tests, if you have another half of any type.

Take both of them and place them side by side on a table. Does one look higher than the other ?

Then carefully place them on top of each other and inspect the reeding. See if they are the same thickness.

This forum has had a tolerance chart added to a post. I will attempt to find and post here.

https://board.conecaonline.org/filed...2&d=1690262988

[MintErrors]

The photos need to be less than 2mb each. I will provide a link to a post that gives general info on how to take a photo with a cell phone. I agree with occnumis2021 it can be a pain to resize on a phone or tablet.

https://board.conecaonline.org/forum...th-a-cellphone

[qwackers]

The photos need to be less than 2mb each. I will provide a link to a post that gives general info on how to take a photo with a cell phone. I agree with occnumis2021 it can be a pain to resize on a phone or tablet.

https://board.conecaonline.org/forum...th-a-cellphone

Thank you so much for the link in forum, I managed to qualify data file size per picture, by putting it on white/neutral background it had dropped unnecessary fill. Though, I keep getting an error saying "invalid server response" while uploading attachments (5) under 2mb each. Currently still uploading and I can't get it to quit by canceling this post either. Will post and see what happens

[qwackers]

If you'd care to venture to coinauctionhelp.com, I did upload an older set of photos to see in the error and variety forum under 1968 Kennedy planchet error (spelled planchet wrong there, lost the h)

[qwackers]

Ah man, this is cool, I learned today that the most technologically compromised person can get along with it to finally get pictures manipulated and sent. Now if these help, please advise, thanks again to MintErrors. I'm sorry but after review of #3 coin's edge photo, I had flipped the coins inadvertently and disregard 5 photos. If you already show 5 photos early is I just removed the incorrect one.

[qwackers]

The web site forum was coinauctionshelp.com, drop the 's' in 1st post

[occnumis2021]

Untitled.jpg

[qwackers]

Here's some more photos for comparisons. Good luck hunting

[occnumis2021]

occnumis2021 are you thinking it could be a transitional piece ?

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