Has the metallic composition changed over the years?

[Guest]

I know about zinc pennies and the steel cent, but was the composition modified between 1944 and 1982? Cents from the '70s tend to take a "green" tinge, while mid-'60s and back pennies look more "brown". Prewar cents are usually brown. Of course, there are red pennies, but I'm talking about circulated specimens. I've noticed this searching through hundreds of rolls of pennies. Am I seeing things?

[coppercoins]

In mid-year 1962 they removed the tin from the composition of the cent creating a brass alloy of copper and zinc rather than the traditional french bronze containing copper, tin, and zinc. The amount of tin in the french bronze was small enough that substituting it with all zinc didn't change the composition enough to change the weight of the finished product, so the only way to tell the difference between the two compositions in 1962 cents is to have the metal analyzed.

[willbrooks]

Here is my glossary entry on the subject:

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, (and this is still a topic of debate) 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.”

[mustbebob]

From 1944 to 1946, (and this is still a topic of debate) the mint reportedly made planchets from melted-down world war II shell casings, which lacked tin,

I am very curious because I have heard this statement more than once in the past few weeks. I am wondering why this is a topic of debate. Who says otherwise? Who is it that is debating that this actually happened? Everything I have ever read says the mint used shell casings between 1944 and 1946. I am a student of the process and If there is any other party that is saying otherwise, I would love to see the source and study that statement and why they think so.

[willbrooks]

I am very curious because I have heard this statement more than once in the past few weeks. I am wondering why this is a topic of debate. Who says otherwise? Who is it that is debating that this actually happened? Everything I have ever read says the mint used shell casings between 1944 and 1946. I am a student of the process and If there is any other party that is saying otherwise, I would love to see the source and study that statement and why they think so.

Agreed. These words are not necessary to say since the words, "The mint reportedly" are in there, and that is the important factual information.

We are in fact having a debate about it right now, though, so the words are not intrinsically inaccurate. But I agree they don't belong there. Thanks, Bob!

[mustbebob]

Thank you very much Will. It was just one of those things that I had wondered about....and I guess the post does qualify as a debate Well done!

[willbrooks]

Thank you very much Will. It was just one of those things that I had wondered about....and I guess the post does qualify as a debate Well done!

As long as I have the facts correct is my main concern. When we are fortunate enough for you and Charles to post about such subjects, I try to memorize.