everycountrycoins

No, but I wouldn't really expect it to. A polished, proof nickel coin should probably look about the same as a polished, proof copper-nickel coin. The obvious difference is laid bare by the magnet. I knew that it couldn't be nickel. The test provided an answer that is consistent and plausible. I wish that I knew how rare this coin is (and which people would love to have it).

Yes. The mint designated planchets for the proof set quarters were either composed of nickel or silver. The nickel ones are easy to identify as such with a magnet. I had another person who has one of these sets check his quarter with a magnet. It was nickel (as it was supposed to). Thus, if this is a rare planchet error coin, it is probably going to be worth at least $100 to somebody (or possibly more if it turns out to be possibly unique). I'm glad that I noticed that it wasn't magnetic!

Well, I had it tested with an electron microscope today. The conclusion--an approximately 75/25 copper/nickel alloy. I have no idea where it may have come from, but it clearly was not the composition that it should have been. I guess a 75/25 C-N alloy isn't magnetic? Well, hopefully somebody will consider this "error" to be valuable.

56 percent nickel is required before the alloy shows ferro-magnetic properties at ordinary temperature. Thus, all makes much more sense, now (other than the origin of this non-standard proof planchet).

In fact I did reach out to a geoscientist. He said that if it is in a 1/16” or 1/32” solid plastic “window," then it is virtually impossible to get X-rays in and/or X-rays out. Also, "Assuming it is “plastic” and of some thickness more than a few microns or tens of microns, I doubt that any ‘normal’ XRF device could be used to determine the elemental composition."

I guess the specific answer as to why a magnet doesn't attract it will remain a mystery....

If I had an easy means of getting it XRF scanned, I probably would. Another collector reported having a magnetic quarter in one of the other 40,000 sets of this type. This only enhances my curiosity. I suspect that I will never know for sure why it is different. I'm not even sure why I happened to check it in the first place! :-)

Hey Canadian coin people,

I was just looking at my 2012 base metal 2012 Canada proof set. As you may know, the quarter in this set is supposed to be composed of nickel (as are the 5, 10, and 50 cent coins). They are all appropriately magnetic except for the 25 cent piece. Does anybody know why this might be? At the very least, can any of you confirm this observation?

Thanks in advance,

Bruce

I just figured it out. It's supposed to be "fauna" set, but a letter was missed.

I have seen the phrase "faun set" a few times on eBay. Does anybody have any idea what that means? My only guess is that it means that it is not packaged (clothed) in any way. The seller is usually not a native English speaker, but I have seen it more than once from people from different countries.

Bruce

It does not appear that your images made it into your post. Care to try again to post them?

Actually, that's only true of Portuguese 1 Euro coins (and has nothing to do with Type A and Type . These Types only apply to 2 Euro coins.

For anybody following my decision-making process, I am going to use the method of starting with the national side up. I believe that is what the majority of "serious" euro collectors use, and seems slightly more intuitive to put the obverse up.

Oh, oh. Here is a fairly authoritative argument for the other school of thought. http://www.ebay.co.uk/gds/position-a-or-position-b/10000000175909898/g.html Maybe I shouldn't switch after all. I'm back to my state of indecision. It just seems so counter-intuitive, and I have little confidence in my own USA when it comes to choosing units of measurements and standards (too attached to tradition and not to what might be simpler).

I think that as long as there is a consensus that the national side is the obverse, it makes more sense to have that side up and the reverse side down when determining edge type. Thus, that is what I will push out to those who are posting something else. Thanks for at least helping me think/post through this for myself.

Bruce (everycountrycoins)

Hey coinpeople,

I have gone back and forth on something and would like to know if there is a definitive standard on this topic. I don't need responses from people who don't believe that this is a meaningful difference.

Every 2 euro coin has two types based on the orientation of what is on the edges of the coins. These types are usually referred to as Type A and Type B. The problem that I have is that half of the sources "out there" say to have the national side of the coin facing upward before looking at the edge and the other half of the sources say to have the common side facing upward. Needless to say, this would lead to opposite Type A and Type B conclusions.

Do any of you believe that one website expresses greater "authority" on this question than the others? If yes, what is it?

Hoping that at least one of you knows what I am talking about,

Bruce (everycountrycoins)

Hello,

The set that I am asking about is a Franklin Mint set of $1 coins. If you do have this set, do you have a CoA for it? I believe that this CoA indicates the composition of the coins. I'm hoping to find out what this CoA indicates. The 1983 set had two silver coins, but I sort of doubt that the 1984 set did.

I will be a bit surprised if anybody responds to this question.

I have found ways to change just about everything except my user name. Can I do that? Or only after 100 posts?

Thanks,

Bruce

Hmmm...I agree with tbirde56 that this is not a particularly interesting "variety". However, I think that a rim is a raised area of metal around the outer surface of the face of a coin or flan. Thus, a rim is a potential part of a flan, not synonymous with flan. Planchet appears to be somewhat synonymous with flan.

Hello,

I have about 6 1943 Vichy 1 Franc coins. I've noticed in the SCWC (Krause/Mishler) that there is a separate listing for thick flan and thin flan. I've turned the coins on edge but don't feel that there are any completely obvious differences. Are they all the same? Or is the difference in flan thickness not completely obvious? Surely at least one of you has both varieties...? Can you provide an image that would demonstrate the difference?

I don't think that it has ever taken this long to get a response before,

Bruce Broker

Madison, WI