1944-46 shell casings: true or false

[rlm's cents]

What people say is not always true. Far more valuable is the physical evidence.

And just what is the physical evidence? Yes, there was an alloy change. If you are talking the impurities, why should that prove shell casings?

[Gunnovice09]

I don't know anything about using the casings for cents but if you look at it from a logical view you can probably figure it out. The Americans were busy fighting a war, I highly doubt they would waste resources, let alone time and their safety to go around and pick up the brass casings they had shot and send them back to the states. Also if they were taking the time to gather up the casings I'm sure they would reloading them instead of melting them down.

[GrumpyEd]

I can only assume but I think the US needed pure copper for wiring. They used tons of copper for all things, ships and planes have a lot of wire. They needed tons of shell casings. I doubt they picked them up on battlefields but from training at US bases they shot tons of 50 cals. They cover the ground at gun ranges. They covered the floor in planes returning to base.
It goes beyond small arms, big naval guns don't use shells but the small and medium size naval guns did use shells and they were big. Same with artillery and other big fixed or self propelled guns. The 75mm and 76mm tank rounds had big shells. Even from training they had piles of those at bases in the US. You can make a lot of cents from one 76mm VC firefly casing, they were monster size shells.

I doubt that they went out of their way to use ONLY those shell casings but they were part of the metal supply for the country so I'd assume they were in the mix. It's probably true that it was partly propaganda and partly reality.

Those are my assumptions.

[jps23]

I see a lot of rose colored coins from those years. Especially the 45-s

<-------

[Gunnovice09]

Those are good points grumpyed. When I was in the marine corps after we shot at the rifle range we had to pick up all the brass and they sent it off to be reloaded. That makes sense grumpyed.

[Justafarmer]

The composition of the cent was not changed - the source of the metal to produce them was. Brass is an alloy of copper and zinc. Basically all you need to know is the assay of the casings and their weight so that you know how much pure copper and pure tin needs to be added to the mix to produce an alloy consisting of 95% copper and 5% zinc and tin.

[willbrooks]

Great thread!

Alloy: A mixture of two or more metals. Until mid 1982, Lincoln cent planchets were made from copper alloyed with tin and/or zinc. From 1909 to 1942 and again from 1947 to 1962, planchets were 95% copper and 5% zinc and tin. From 1944 to 1946, the mint reportedly made planchets from melted-down world war II shell casings, which lacked tin, thus were 95% copper and 5% zinc plus possibly some other elements. From 1962 to 1982, planchets were 95% copper and 5% zinc. 1943 were zinc-plated steel. Planchets made from mid 1982 on are copper-plated zinc and do not contain alloys; however, due to occasional mint error, zinc planchets are sometimes inadvertently left in the plating bath and mix with the copper, which can result in what is sometimes referred to as a “brass plated cent.”

Hopefully I don't have anything erroneous in there.

[ray_parkhurst]

And just what is the physical evidence? Yes, there was an alloy change. If you are talking the impurities, why should that prove shell casings?

The physical evidence I've seen does not prove that shell casings were used, but it does suggest that use of shell casings is the strongest hypothesis to explain the timing of the apparent excursion in alloy purity. Occam's Razor says the strongest hypothesis is the simplest one, ie with fewest assumptions.

Your point about the alloy change and impurities is worth some discussion. The alloy change was made in 1944, and most Cents from 1944 show excellent color uniformity. This indicates (but does not prove) that the Mint (and/ or planchet suppliers) had not lost the recipe for making impurity-free bronze. A small % of 1944, and most 1945 (especially S-Mint) Cents I've seen have mottled red/orange toning, suggesting that perhaps late in 1944 there started to be more impurities in the Bronze alloy. Why would this be? My hypothesis would be that during this time some shell casings were added to the bronze mix. This is supposedly backed-up by some contemporary anecdotal accounts (that I cannot produce but perhaps others can). Another hypothesis is poor process control for alloying bronze at mint and/or its planchet suppliers, but long history of high bronze quality weakens this hypothesis, especially given the generally high quality bronze of 1944. Another hypothesis is that the alloying was intentionally tampered with, perhaps to make it appear shell casings were being used in order to divert them into (for instance) other money-making activities.

I don't have knowledge of who made the bronze Cent planchets during this time period. If anyone has details on who made the planchets it might help to either strengthen or weaken the hypothesis. The evidence seems to indicate San Francisco may have either used a separate supplier, or done the alloying on its own, or was given planchets from different lots than Philadelphia or Denver. The latter seems most likely, but again I don't know the details on planchet supply in the early post-WW2 period. Can anyone provide some insight here?

Further strengthening this hypothesis would require physical analysis to check the chemical composition of Cents from various years and mints, looking for impurity signatures that would be consistent with the residues of primers and powder from WW2 munitions. Beyond this, actually proving shell casings were used is difficult. Logs of how many shell casings and of what type were used in each batch would give further credence, as would photos of the shell casings being loaded into the melting pots,etc, but these and other "evidence" could be faked with an ever-increasing level of conspiracy.

Perhaps I am missing something obvious, and a simpler set of circumstances would explain the evidence. I would love to hear alternative hypotheses! What was the explanation given by folks at Coin World or other debunkers?

[liveandievarieties]

I strongly agree with Ray. After having handled upwards of a hundred 1945-S and 1946-S BU rolls of cents in the last 5 years, there is definitely some anomalous content in the planchets of those years, '44-S too, but I've handled fewer due to their cost.

The planchets of these years regularly exhibit colors of rose, gold, green, brown and gray. All part of the planchet, not toning. A logical hypothesis can be drawn and that's the direction I'm leaning. "Urban Legend" is often rooted from fact and I think there's enough evidence in this matter to validate further investigation. There's undoubtedly something different in the alloy for the three years, this isn't a point that can be argued.

[liveandievarieties]

Further strengthening this hypothesis would require physical analysis to check the chemical composition of Cents from various years and mints, looking for impurity signatures that would be consistent with the residues of primers and powder from WW2 munitions.

This is something I can do- I regularly use an X-ray spectrometer and have BU cents from these years to test. I can have some cents tested in the coming 2 weeks.

[GrumpyEd]

The planchets of these years regularly exhibit colors of rose, gold, green, brown and gray.

That reminds me that the green hue is often on 46 cents.
It's interesting that at least from what I've seen there was a trend, 44/gold 45/rose/orange/gray 46/green/orange/gray.
The 45-S are the most likely to look wild, I've also seen cents from all 3 years that look normal.

[ray_parkhurst]

That reminds me that the green hue is often on 46 cents.
It's interesting that at least from what I've seen there was a trend, 44/gold 45/rose/orange/gray 46/green/orange/gray.
The 45-S are the most likely to look wild, I've also seen cents from all 3 years that look normal.

I've seen normal looking coins from all years as well, usually from Philadelphia or Denver. This could be related to planchet lot or supplier dependency.

[Justafarmer]

My thoughts are the shell casing would be melted as is with some chemistry added and poured into ingots/billets. These ingots/billets would be weighed and assayed. Then shipped to the company contracted to produce cent planchets. I don't think the facility which actually produced plancets would be set up to process and handle scrap. The casing wuld have arrived through many ports of call. Certainly would have been cheaper to handle and ship standard sized ingots/billets as opposed to rail cars loaded with spent shell casings. Heck the ingots/billets may have been formed overseas closer to the source before being shipped to the States. Certainly would make it easier to load and unload off a ship.

[mustbebob]

Wow! A lot of theories here, but to me a few of them seem a little off. The Mint said it used shell casings and we know there was a small composition change. Is there a reason not to believe it happened just as they said so? Can any one attest to the exact metal composition of the casings, and how they would affect the mixture, and in what quantities? Are we saying the mint had an ulterior motive and purposely announced the change and it has since been identified as mis-information with a purpose to keep the American people from the real answer? Really??? I love the fact that people are on board with the discussion but are we not taking on something that really doesn't need to be debated?
Someone here mentioned they have never had any proof that shell casings were used. What kind of proof are you seeking and why? Someone mentions gunpowder residue and primer material? Not all casings were actually made into ammunition. I can assume that the casings were those made before they were assembled, not after they were fired. I don't know what sort of recycling program they had back then
This is a serious question....I am not trying to start something but to figure out where you guys are going with this and why we went this deep into an area 70 years old. My biggest issue is just plain why? Why are we questioning this if the mint says it did so. Other than the obvious discussion we are having here, what is is we want to gain, and what is the numismatic value of this information? Does it change anything? Does this end up being anything other than someone's 'guess' on the internet?

[rlm's cents]

The shell casings were a 70/30 alloy. I am not sure how to read the rest of this answer;

Some old books say that the 1944-1946 cents were ?shell casing brass,? made from salvaged shell casings, with a composition of 70 percent copper and 30 percent zinc. Modern catalogs call them ?shell casing brass? but give the composition as 95 percent copper and 5 percent zinc. Which is correct?

According to Ed Rochette, the original plan was to use the 70-30 alloy of the shell casings, but at the last moment enough copper became available to avoid the need for a third change in the composition in three years. To keep the patriotic flavor, a few shell casings were actually melted down, but the alloy remained the same 95 percent copper and 5 percent zinc, with a trace of tin used in the latter part of 1942.

- See more at: http://www.numismaticnews.net/articl....qJaVHSlX.dpuf