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.

[occnumis2021]

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.

we pretty much narrowed this down to being nothing more than just thick stock. it happens. now the question is, "is this a valuable error?"

i'd post it on the pcgs or ngc forum as there are error experts there that will clear this up in a heartbeat.

thanks for the update and good fortune to you.

[qwackers]

we pretty much narrowed this down to being nothing more than just thick stock. it happens. now the question is, "is this a valuable error?"

i'd post it on the pcgs or ngc forum as there are error experts there that will clear this up in a heartbeat.

thanks for the update and good fortune to you.

As for the mystery of this coin, I have gotten it to NGC for submission and research. I just hope that it pays the service bill from NGC, shipping and insurance in value.

NGC is about 4-6 weeks out on orders, so keep you updated.

inchcalulator.com suggests that thickness would equate to .5gm

[occnumis2021]

As for the mystery of this coin, I have gotten it to NGC for submission and research. I just hope that it pays the service bill from NGC, shipping and insurance in value.

NGC is about 4-6 weeks out on orders, so keep you updated.

inchcalulator.com suggests that thickness would equate to .5gm

well i hope we are proved wrong and it comes back something amazing for you!

fwiw, if you dont know, it is best to send off a few coins at a time to help average out the costs unless you send something really valuable by itself.

[qwackers]

well i hope we are proved wrong and it comes back something amazing for you!

fwiw, if you dont know, it is best to send off a few coins at a time to help average out the costs unless you send something really valuable by itself.

Hey, thanks for the info. Not so painful so far but, I got to shout-out to Josh @ sarasotanumismatics.com for super easy submission (free of charge), NGC service is initially $60. I am going to use them in the future.

[qwackers]

I'm back with results, (or lack there of) on this over weight coin. The coin has been graded and slabbed by NGC. My only question is, and still continues, as to why this single coin can weigh 1. g over. What is the tolerance for this production spec.? It can't consist of 2 grams variance on a 11.5 gram standard? Plus or minus 1 gram, that's over a 17% tolerance allowance. No further ahead, but here is the registered coin on NGC.com NGC 1968D MS62(12.5g) .jpg

[MintErrors]

In my opinion, allI am willing to add on this subject is, sure the coin may be out of tolerance but it could simply be on thicker stock. It also depends on what information the sender puts on the form when submitting the coin. To make the TPG do a little more leg work, the paperwork could have had the following conditions added on the form.

Please check for Improper planchet thickness
Please put weight of coin on label

I currently dont have my handy-dandy homemade weights and tolerances sheet handy as I just built a new pc and the old one has the data which is being moved over. The tolerance window should be available via a search on your favorite web search engine. I know one exists on this forum as well.

Like i said above, some times the metal was not rolled out properly and some planchets were simply overweight, resulting in a slightly thicker planchet. It happend quite frequently in the 1960s and 1970s. I have seen a lot of these slabbed and honestly, draw only a mild interest with seasoned collectors.

Thats all I have to add for this one.

[qwackers]

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.

This was spec out by occnumis2021, second post on this chain.
I also spec. out the thickness with my digital calipers that shows minimal thickness diff. of I believe .07mm from the other 68's that I'd measured.
It's exciting to figure out oddities but I have run into a wall and am moving on.