Need help from everyone -- "war" nickel irregularities, and potential numismatic implications...

Hi, all.

I'm on a mission. I believe to be on the trail of something that could, potentially, have some rather substantial numismatic (and historical) significance.

As we all know, "war" nickels were minted starting in 1942, with minting continuing through the end of WWII (1945). This of course was done due to nickel becoming a "strategic" metal for the war effort. We also know that generally, "war" nickels read very similar to "regular" Jefferson nickels, on a detector. Over the years, however, I've heard numerous reports that occasionally, a war nickel gets dug that reads like a penny/dime -- and even out of the ground, in an air test, it reads right there in the penny/dime range. As an example, I have a hunting buddy who just this year has dug two of them, and both read 12-43 on his CTX. He tested them on his Deus, just to be sure, and sure enough, they read the same way -- penny/dime range.

In doing a bit of "research" on this, I discovered that when Congress initially deliberated in early 1942 on the need to produce a "different" nickel, that did not contain nickel, what was eventually authorized in legislation was a 50% silver, 50% copper "nickel," but allowance was made in the legislation to permit adjustments by the U.S. Mint to be made to the alloy composition, as might be necessary (for instance, in order to permit the nickel to continue to work properly in vending machines). Later that year, what "supposedly" was decided upon as the "official" alloy was the 35% silver, 56% copper, 9% manganese alloy that is reported to have been used to produce war nickels, starting in the fall of 1942 and continuing through 1945 (after which, the "post-war" nickels reverted to the normal 75% copper, 25% nickel alloy).

So, the interesting issue to me is, what's going with this very small, but not EXTREMELY rare, subset of "war" nickels that read way up in the penny/dime range? I am currently inquiring with the numismatic community to find out if anyone knows of any documentation that exists, to verify that a different alloy was used on some small subset of war nickels. So far, no one seems to have any information in that regard.

Given that the metal detector readings on these "high-reading" war nickels almost CERTAINLY verifies a very different "conductivity" of these coins, and thus almost certainly implying that a different alloy was used to produce this rather small "subset" of "high-reading" war nickels, MY hypotheses are:

1. Some nickels WERE minted with the Congressionally-authorized 50% silver, 50% nickel alloy, but that this was for some reason either not documented officially, OR the documentation was limited and obscure, such that few, if any, know about it today; or...

2, Some nickels were minted with 35% silver (as the "official" alloy eventually came to include), but the manganese was left out -- resulting in a 35% silver, 65% copper "nickel."

These are my hypotheses; whatever the case, though, I believe it is fair to conclude with a high degree of certainty that these "high-reading" war nickels ARE comprised of a different alloy of SOME sort -- an alloy with different electrical properties than the "official" war nickel alloy. WHAT that alloy might be, is to me the only real question.

HOWEVER, more than just figuring out the alloy, it would seem to me that IF INDEED there is this different sub-species of war nickel out there, and IF INDEED this is not known in the numismatic community, could this be a discovery that would have at least somewhat significant numismatic importance/implications? Is this at all analogous to someone discovering a previously unknown/undocumented mint error?

I'd love to hear thoughts/opinions/input on this.

What I'd also like to do is to begin to compile a database. So, for anyone willing to contribute, who has access to any war nickels (either having dug them, or acquired them otherwise), please report to me the date, mint mark, what it reads on your detector, type of detector, and what the "normal" VDI range for nickels, and for "pennies/dimes" is on that particular detector. For instance, on the CTX 3030 the "normal" war nickels read in the 12-13 vicinity, while the "high-reading" ones read around 12-43. On an Equinox, it's 13-14 for a "normal" one, and 24-26 for one of the "high-reading" ones.

Basically, what I want to do is compile a spreadsheet of war nickels and their VDIs, and then try and sort them by date, mint mark, etc. etc. I plan to then report the data I collect to some agency or agencies who might be willing to follow up on the data -- i.e. the U.S. Mint, or maybe someone like PCGS. In other words, some interested entity who might be able to perhaps do an actual analysis of the content of the alloy in these "high-reading" war nickels -- so as to unlock the "mystery."

Not sure, but I think this could have some rather interesting implications in the numismatic community -- and detectorists, it may turn out, may be the group who initially uncovered the "anomaly" (which would have been hard to figure out otherwise, if it was not well-documented by the Mint -- as no one would have known to even CONSIDER a different composition of the alloy, prior to this "peculiarity" being hinted at by metal detectors).

Thoughts?

Steve

Steve,

I have recovered silver war nickels from the entire conductivity bandwidth......... with the exception of iron. On a Fisher CZ...... silver nickels that ID as:

Foil
Nickel
Round Tab
Square Tab
Zinc Penny
High Coin

What makes your analysis/data collection difficult is........ it is rare to go into a park with a dig-all mindset/intent. For those nickels that ID in the non-coin range.......,,,,,,,,, they will hardly ever get dug. This badly skews (and disqualifies) accurate data resultant.

NASA-Tom,

Good points. I was not aware that "war nickels" have been dug "all over the spectrum," and thus, you are right, there'd be no way to arrive at accurate percentages, given how many of us "target" certain ID zones. My assumption obviously was that if all of them seem to be found in two ID regions (either nickel, OR penny/dime), then there may be a systematic explanation for the high-reading ones. Being that you say you've dug them all over the spectrum, then that basically shoots down the theory of some use of a specific, different alloy in some batches of the coins.

Hmm...

What you post, about ID of war nickels, suggests perhaps either MULTIPLE alloys being used, at various times, or perhaps even some in-the-ground process reacting with the alloy (presumably the manganese) to result in altered conductivity of the coins?

Steve

I suggest that you concentrate on testing regular circulated coins, that haven't been affected by any significant corrosion. The problem with dug-ups is they can and will corrode, the severity being unknown. The only certainty being that corrosion will lower the conductivity.

We had a related occurence here in the U.K, when in 1920/21 we changed our silver coins from 92.5% (Sterling) to 50% silver content. I have observed a small number of 'rogue' inbetween values, and some that had the Sterling composition, but a date that 'should' be 50%. It turned out I was correct about the latter case, the Mint did produce later-dated coins in the Sterling alloy, as they were using up stocks of coin blanks, notably of the threepence value, but also some sixpences.

My first year detecting, I found a 1944 Henning counterfeit nickel. Only found out about them when I was looking up the value because it has no mint mark on it. Anyhow, I was offered 60 bucks for it but did not sell. If you have not read/heard about Henning and his fake nickels, it's a decent story. They were never taken out of circulation either.

Thanks, Pimento. Interesting thoughts. Certainly, corrosion can affect conductivity some, extremest of the extreme examples being our modern "zinc" Memorial pennies.

Interesting thoughts, on the coin change from Sterling to 50%. Using up "old blanks" makes sense; it's kind of analogous to my thought that some blanks WERE made, of the 50% silver, 50% copper alloy approved in Congressional legislation in 1942 -- and thus the "penny-reading" war nickels...

Steve

Supernaut --

Yep, I have read just a bit about those Henning nickels. Very interesting story, for sure. I don't know ALL the details, but knew that some of his counterfeits were during the "war nickel" era...

Steve

SteveG,please continue you pursuit,whatever the outcome it will be an interesting journey.

Steve - What an interesting thread! I think you probably hit on the primary reason for varying silver nickel IDs. Not differing alloys (although I wouldn't rule that out, especially in wartime) but rather the instability of that 9% manganese.

Supernaut - Thank you for educating me. I had never heard of Henning counterfeit nickels, so I read up on it. Fascinating story, and from now on all my 1939, 1944, 1946, 1947 and 1953 no mintmark nickels will hit the scale.

Reminds me of a few years back when Tom posted a thread where I learned that 1964 dated silver coins were being minted and put into circulation as late as 1966. Unlike the Henning nickels though, these were produced by the mint. So there's no way to differentiate the 1964 dated coins actually minted in 1964 from the 1964 ones minted in 1965 and 1966.

I suspect the issue is poor quality control resulting in lack of uniformity. I've dug numerous war nickels with my Etrac, including one which rang up 12-22. They typically ring up at 12-14 or 12-15.

Yes........ batch INCONSISTENCIES

Gents --

Thanks for the additional thoughts. I do think it's interesting, even though it may turn out not to be as simple as I had hoped. It seemed to me that the IDs on these coins were falling in two areas -- "nickel," and "penny/dime." However, with NASA-Tom digging them "all over the scale," and Bayard reporting a 12-22 (was that confirmed after digging with an air test, Bayard?) it seems to make sense at this point that improper, inconsistent batches of alloys may have occurred (as NASA-Tom) said. HOWEVER, I still feel that with a number of these ringing right there at dime/penny level (including the two my partner dug this year, both of which ring 12-43 on the CTX, in an air test) that at least with some of the batches of planchets coming from whomever produced them, the manganese was either missing, or in the wrong quantity.

In speaking with folks in the coin community, it has been suggested that I have one of these "high-reading" war nickels tested with an XRF analyzer. This seems like a great idea to me, IF I can find someone who has an analyzer (a big gold/silver buyer, or large jeweler was suggested as a possibility; I also thought that maybe the local University may have such equipment). I am currently thinking about finding someone with this equipment...

Marcomo -- you mentioned "instability of the manganese." Is this something you have some knowledge of, from a "chemistry" perspective? I'm curious, because it would seem at least theoretically possible that from a "chemistry" perspective, use of manganese in an alloy might for some reason result in an alloy that could be particularly prone to undergoing chemical changes (some "corrosion" process), after being buried in soil of certain chemical composition (which could possibly lead to altered conductivity of the alloy?)

Steve

What you say makes sense, Steve. I hope you are able to get use of one of those analyzers. As you said, this could have significant numismatic implications. A good percentage of the war nickels I've dug are corroded to varying degrees unlike silver and copper coins. That indicates to me manganese as the culprit. Perhaps, as you theorize, a result of being alloyed with one of the other metals in the composition. On the other hand, I've dug at least three or four that were beautiful. Silverish with no corrosion or graying.

If you look at the mintages a lot of war nickels were circulated over four years. I remember as a kid how omnipresent they were and in circulation they were always dark gray, immediately recognizable from other nickels.

steveg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Supernaut --
>
> Yep, I have read just a bit about those Henning ni
> ckels. Very interesting story, for sure. I don't
> know ALL the details, but knew that some of his co
> unterfeits were during the "war nickel" era...
>
> Steve

Thanks Steve and Marcomo. This thread is why I prefer the single tone non VDI detectors, I use a Tesoro Vaquero. It always gives me enough information with sound and disc level on what to dig without display numbers and multi-tones. This thread proves how inconsistent those numbers can be if you are relying on them and not only with the war nickels either.

Bayard reporting a 12-22 (was that confirmed after digging with an air test, Bayard?)

It air tests 12-21 and is a 1944-D. If you study this subject thoroughly, and I am not discouraging you from doing so at all, I believe you will find nothing more than random variation.

NASA-Tom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes........ batch INCONSISTENCIES

Inconsistencies no doubt, BUT if enough data's captured on these inconsistencies, they may no longer be as random as you seem to imply

Bayard --

Random variation in alloy mix, then? I presume that's what you mean? That could be part of it for sure -- that the alloys used for the planchets were inconsistently mixed, and thus the variation in ID. I will say this though, even that is interesting, in my mind. We don't see pennies and dimes that read all the way from foil up through penny/dime range, nor quarters nor any other coin. YES, there's some variance, but nothing like that. For instance, my buddy once dug a Merc that air tests at 12-41 on his E-Trac. A nice one, too -- not an old worn/corroded one. Just a week or two ago, I dug a nice Jefferson nickel that reads a solid "12" on an Equinox. NO variation. Every other Jefferson I've dug is a solid 13 in an air test. No 12s show up at all. I could not even coax a single 13 out of that "12" Jefferson. So yes, I totally agree that there can be "random variation" within detector IDs of most all coins, possibly due to a bit of variation in the mix of the alloys. BUT -- not "all over the spectrum" variations, like NASA-Tom stated about his war nickels.

Most interesting to me, though, is that there does at least anecdotally seem to be a small, but substantial (it would seem) subset that reads right at dime/penny...that suggests to me the possibility of something less "random," and more "systematic" -- i.e. either a substantial alloy difference, OR a chemical change that occurs in some soils.

Steve

FWIW......... more than half of my "dug" war nickels........ do not ID as 'nickel'. Regardless of detector brand. And corrosion does not appear to play a significant role in my locale. ...... as far as : altering ID.

Very interesting. More than half? Wow. Would you say, anecdotally, that of the half that don't ID as "nickel," that they are fairly equally distributed across the ID spectrum, loosely speaking? Or do you have a disproportionate number that ID up in the penny area?

Steve

The bulk of the "non-nickel ID" war-nickels....... ID higher (conductively) than "nickel" ID. And at a fairly linear dispersion above nickel. There is no consistency for any specific conductive bandwidth.

Interesting. Thanks for the additional info. I have some thoughts.

I will wait until I have a chance to try and have an XRF analysis of one of the "penny-reading" war nickels (12-43 on a CTX). I will have the nickel shortly, now I just need to find where to have an XRF analysis done. I'm hoping the University...

Steve

I'm glad you're doing this!

Thanks!

It intrigues me; we don't see this much variation in ID of other coin types; it appears unique to the "war" nickel. As such, some answers here would be interesting (as I'm not finding much documented information from "official" sources...)

Steve

I've made some progress...

I spoke with a professor at the University -- in the geology department, who has an XRF analyzer. He sent an email to a couple of folks, who apparently are going to help me get the nickel(s) tested...

I will update when I have more info...should be interesting.

Steve

Ok. Good to know.

I'm just leaving Penghu Island right now (testing equipt) ....... otherwise...... I'd be helping/testing...... as I have some curiosities to answer.

Well, that required me to do some Googling...Penghu Island -- WOW! That's a long trip (and, an "intriguing" reason that you are headed there!)

I'm "curious" to know about your "curiosities," when you get back/have some time.

I received a few war nickels from my friend in the mail today -- including the "12-43 on the CTX 3030" one. Haven't heard back from anyone at the University yet. I will follow up by the end of the week, if I haven't heard from anyone by then.

Steve

An update -- with representative samples of war nickels in hand, I now have an appointment at the University for XRF analysis on June 11. I look forward to it!

Steve

Great! Me too!

OK everyone, I had the XRF analysis done. Unfortunately, it was not nearly as conclusive as I had hoped. At the University lab I had the testing done at, they are set up to test shale samples, with an eye toward oil exploration. So, they use "calibrations" and voltages that are suited for looking for certain elements within those samples. So, we were guessing a bit at what voltage to run, on the nickels, to get a reasonable reading, and what calibration to use. As it turns out, after the testing was complete and the person who did the samples for me ran through the raw data, we found that there was no measurement at all made for silver; if I understand correctly, the fact that they aren't usually LOOKING for silver in their samples was a part of why it wasn't even one of the elements measured for. SO -- there is no data on silver content. ALSO, the tests measure "parts per million" of an element, and the "parts per million" depend upon what voltage and what calibration you chose, and so it's not truly a "component analysis." Bottom line, there is apparently a specific voltage and a specific calibration that should be used, and it differs for each metal. And since this lab does not have interest in the metals I was interested in, they do not have proper calibrations, or proper knowledge of what voltages should have been used.

SO -- bottom line, the BEST that could be done, as far as I can tell, with the data I have, is to compare RELATIVE amounts of each metal, between the four nickel samples I used. In other words, if nickel "a" has 100,000 ppm copper, but nickel "b," using the same voltage and same calibration, only showed 50,000 ppm copper, we can deduce that there is less copper (and thus more of some "other" metal) used in the alloy of one of the nickels, versus the other.

WITH ALL THAT SAID, what I see in the data is that indeed, some of the nickels have half as much copper as others. None had any nickel, so that makes sense. Amounts of manganese differed, as well; a couple of interesting things were that some samples contained what appeared to be non-trivial amounts of aluminum, some with zinc, and one even had a non-trivial amount of iron show up in the sample!

But, again -- these results are not what I was hoping, i.e. that I would actually have a reasonably accurate measurement of the metals used in each coin, and the percentage of each of these metals.

What it appears to me is that the alloys used varied SIGNIFICANTLY, from sample to sample -- which is right in line with the fact that I used four nickels that each read very differently on a metal detector -- two on the "higher" end of the spectrum, and two on the "lower end." So, my theory that the "cause" of these detector readings is due to different alloy compositions being used appears to be correct. HOWEVER, it remains a mystery as to exactly what metals, and in what percentages, were actually used...and it appears that perhaps some metals were used in some of the coins that I've never seen mentioned as having been used in these nickels -- aluminum, zinc, and possibly even iron/steel...

So, that's where we stand. One last note is, they DID tell me that someone who knows proper calibrations for the specific metals I'm looking for would be able to do a better job of analyzing the coins, in terms of giving me the type of results I'm looking for. But, for now, I don't know "who" that person or entity would be, and so I'm at a bit of a dead end. I think I have enough info to conclude that my basic theory that there are substantial variations in alloys used in these nickels, alloys that deviate SUBSTANTIALLY from the "official" alloy, is correct. But, beyond that, there is still no way to quantify amounts of each metal in the different sample coins, nor am I certain (given my inexperience) that I can conclude with CERTAINTY that zinc, aluminum, and possibly iron were used in some of the coins...

Steve