Tale of two war nickels--Equinox

markinswpa

Forum Supporter
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
7,061
Location
Pittsburgh Pa.
OK, The one thing I've learned for certain in my 5 yrs. of Mding is that nothing is certain. Had a little head scratcher today. After a factory reset I put my settings back in Park 1 and Field 2. Doing some air tests to check my tones I noticed one of the only two war nickels I've dug this year sounded completely different. The 45P sounded with a higher more melodius 12-13 and the 43 P came in with a lower flat tone with numbers showing 15-16. Not just a slight difference, If you heard these tones in the field you would think two different targets for sure and the numbers would tell you the same. Now both nickels have been cleaned and have about the same amount of detail. Comparing with two recently dug Buffs they rang 12-13 and sounded the same as the 45P. Park 1 the same. Park 2 50 tones still a big difference. Went into the warchest and pulled out 10 43 P's. 3 of them had the low flat tone with 15-16 numbers but the other seven all rang louder, higher with 12-13s. Ok I understand variables in the field but there are no variables in an airtest with the coil hanging of my dining room table. By the way sensitivity was down to 12 in the house. And all the other coins I tested came in right around where they should be. Gentlemen your thoughts, please. Mark
 
OK, The one thing I've learned for certain in my 5 yrs. of Mding is that nothing is certain. Had a little head scratcher today. After a factory reset I put my settings back in Park 1 and Field 2. Doing some air tests to check my tones I noticed one of the only two war nickels I've dug this year sounded completely different. The 45P sounded with a higher more melodius 12-13 and the 43 P came in with a lower flat tone with numbers showing 15-16. Not just a slight difference, ...

Yes, they can vary. In fact, I have one or two war nickels that read closer to silver even after they're out of the ground. I think there must have been some variations in their alloy blend.
 
Mark, there's nothing too spectacular with your results because .... "things vary."

That's one of the problems of relying on any brand's visual Target ID for a lot of people. Some of the crappy junk that usually reads 'off' a bit can sometimes register as a good targets and get recovered. then at other times things that should fall in at a particular spot based on their claimed alloy content ... don't. So those sometimes get ignored and not recovered.

It was noticeable before visual Target ID came along, too. With USA coinage, look at the alloy make-up of the non-fatty Indian Head 1¢ coins and then the Wheat-back Lincoln 1¢ early-on. Same alloy content, but as a very avid detectorist back in the mid-to-late '70s there were a few models that had a broader range of Discrimination that could get up to Screw Cap rejection. It was more apparent with many models from '78 to '82.

Most of the Indian Head 1¢ coins as well as a bulk of the earlier Lincoln's from 1909 to ±1920 would be rejected (or 'read' lower with visual TID when it came out) than the bulk of the latter Lincolns, even though their alloy content was the same.

Why? Well, in that case it was the source of, and production of, the copper used in the mintage. But it's not limited to smaller coins, either. I had an enjoyable day with friends in my favorite ghost town a number of years ago when I got a 'double.' I dug a silver 1871 Seated Liberty Half-Dollar and, naturally double-checking the spot I had another good response and just a bit below where the first was located was a 2nd Seated Liberty Half-Dollar, an 1868.

Two nice-sized silver coins with close production dates, but the 1868 reads noticeably lower on any make or model's numeric VDI read-out. Digable, but different. I've been hunting with a Minelab Vanquish since it arrived Monday and been working an old CCC camp that's now a large county park. I recovered a few targets that flickered between '13'-'14' and '14-'15' in the hope I might snag a "War Nickel" because they generally read a little higher than common nickels due to the silver content. No success, but anticipated.

Also, the '12'-'13' VDI's were not all 5¢ coins, either. Matter-of-fact, only 1-out-of 5 turned out to be a coin. You summed things up quite well when you started you post when you stated:

"OK, The one thing I've learned for certain in my 5 yrs. of Mding is that nothing is certain."

I'm just finishing 55 years of detecting and just about every detecting jaunt I make offers proof of that statement.

Don't let it bother you, just get out hunting and enjoy!

Monte
 
War nickels are notorious for coming in weird. I’ve had some ring as high as a penny. The reason being the loss of magnesium in them. The more magnesium they lose the higher the vdi. That black gunk you’ll sometimes see on a dug war nickel is the magnesium leaking out


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
giphy.gif
 
War nickels are notorious for coming in weird. I’ve had some ring as high as a penny. The reason being the loss of magnesium in them. The more magnesium they lose the higher the vdi. That black gunk you’ll sometimes see on a dug war nickel is the magnesium leaking out

Huh. That's interesting!
 
Yes, they can vary. In fact, I have one or two war nickels that read closer to silver even after they're out of the ground. I think there must have been some variations in their alloy blend.

TS I woulda' thunk like Coca Cola and KFC the recipe would've been non-negotiable, especially with US coins. Huh ?

Mark, there's nothing too spectacular with your results because .... "things vary."

That's one of the problems of relying on any brand's visual Target ID for a lot of people. Some of the crappy junk that usually reads 'off' a bit can sometimes register as a good targets and get recovered. then at other times things that should fall in at a particular spot based on their claimed alloy content ... don't. So those sometimes get ignored and not recovered.

It was noticeable before visual Target ID came along, too. With USA coinage, look at the alloy make-up of the non-fatty Indian Head 1¢ coins and then the Wheat-back Lincoln 1¢ early-on. Same alloy content, but as a very avid detectorist back in the mid-to-late '70s there were a few models that had a broader range of Discrimination that could get up to Screw Cap rejection. It was more apparent with many models from '78 to '82.

Most of the Indian Head 1¢ coins as well as a bulk of the earlier Lincoln's from 1909 to ±1920 would be rejected (or 'read' lower with visual TID when it came out) than the bulk of the latter Lincolns, even though their alloy content was the same.

Why? Well, in that case it was the source of, and production of, the copper used in the mintage. But it's not limited to smaller coins, either. I had an enjoyable day with friends in my favorite ghost town a number of years ago when I got a 'double.' I dug a silver 1871 Seated Liberty Half-Dollar and, naturally double-checking the spot I had another good response and just a bit below where the first was located was a 2nd Seated Liberty Half-Dollar, an 1868.

Two nice-sized silver coins with close production dates, but the 1868 reads noticeably lower on any make or model's numeric VDI read-out. Digable, but different. I've been hunting with a Minelab Vanquish since it arrived Monday and been working an old CCC camp that's now a large county park. I recovered a few targets that flickered between '13'-'14' and '14-'15' in the hope I might snag a "War Nickel" because they generally read a little higher than common nickels due to the silver content. No success, but anticipated.

Also, the '12'-'13' VDI's were not all 5¢ coins, either. Matter-of-fact, only 1-out-of 5 turned out to be a coin. You summed things up quite well when you started you post when you stated:

"OK, The one thing I've learned for certain in my 5 yrs. of Mding is that nothing is certain."

I'm just finishing 55 years of detecting and just about every detecting jaunt I make offers proof of that statement.

Don't let it bother you, just get out hunting and enjoy!

Monte

Monte wow, 55 years. My hats off to you sir. And you are right with your example on the pennies, the same but different. I like things cut and dried but this hobby changes all the rules. Thanks HH Mark

A higher number with a lower tone because that’s how you have the pitches arranged?

Kevin great thought, and you are right. Adjusted settings in Park 1 and Field 2, but in factory Park 2 and Field 1 the Vdi's are still 12 and 16 and a noticeable difference in tone only the 16 tone is higher in factory settings. Thanks Mark

War nickels are notorious for coming in weird. I’ve had some ring as high as a penny. The reason being the loss of magnesium in them. The more magnesium they lose the higher the vdi. That black gunk you’ll sometimes see on a dug war nickel is the magnesium leaking out


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
giphy.gif

Vic, thanks much. Did not know that. It helps explain the discrepancy. I had heard he phrase "plug nickel", thought maybe I had one. lol Take care, Mark
Huh. That's interesting!

Thanks guys. This is one of the reasons I love this forum. Its like a google for Mding. HH Mark
 
TS I woulda' thunk like Coca Cola and KFC the recipe would've been non-negotiable, especially with US coins. Huh ?

I only entertained the idea of fluxuating war nickel alloy composition because it was war time (of course) and that's the reason they changed in the first place. CoinWhisperer's info makes more sense, though.
 
Could there be any merit in thinking that same production year, mint-to-mint differences in alloy composition could be possible as well? As in a 1909S WP could ring up differently than a 1909 (date and denomination just as an example)?
 
coin wisperer has it right its the magnesium it is the lowest conductor in the nickle the more that leaches out the higher the coin will read .Then again who's to say they put less magnesium in the nickel and used it for the war effort. A good read would be Wikipedia indain cent if you read this you will see why a copper nickel indain is so hard to find .

By the way 1864 and on were to be 95 percent copper and 5 percent tin and zinc but as you know a indain does not read like a latter wheat cent or early wheat that 5 percent tin and zinc portion was different to 1918 or there abouts another war started and the tin to zinc was changed.

Copper nickel 88 copper 12 nickel Fattys
1864 to 1962 95 copper 5 percent zinc and tin
1962 to 1982 95 copper 5 percent zinc no tin that's why they read higher than pre 62 pennys

Now I know indain and early wheats read lower than later wheats and that's because they changed the tin portion more tin than zinc 1864 to 1962 it does not give a percent of either metal just says 5 percent zinc and tin ..sube
 
Last edited:
I don't dig as many IHP's you guys but, the only one I dug this year an 1882 was about 6" deep and read 20-21 in Park2. I think most early Wheats I have dug ring in that range. I thought the IHP was going to be a Wheat. I just did an air test on it and it came up 21 just like when I found it. I do primarily look for IHP's to ring up 18-19 as most have, but dug a few that were ringing 17-18. I also tested all my War nickels and they were all 12-13 mostly 13.
 
Could there be any merit in thinking that same production year, mint-to-mint differences in alloy composition could be possible as well? As in a 1909S WP could ring up differently than a 1909 (date and denomination just as an example)?

Andrew, does make you wonder doesn't it ? HH Mark

coin wisperer has it right its the magnesium it is the lowest conductor in the nickle the more that leaches out the higher the coin will read .Then again who's to say they put less magnesium in the nickel and used it for the war effort. A good read would be Wikipedia indain cent if you read this you will see why a copper nickel indain is so hard to find .

By the way 1864 and on were to be 95 percent copper and 5 percent tin and zinc but as you know a indain does not read like a latter wheat cent or early wheat that 5 percent tin and zinc portion was different to 1918 or there abouts another war started and the tin to zinc was changed.

Copper nickel 88 copper 12 nickel Fattys
1864 to 1962 95 copper 5 percent zinc and tin
1962 to 1982 95 copper 5 percent zinc no tin that's why they read higher than pre 62 pennys

Now I know indain and early wheats read lower than later wheats and that's because they changed the tin portion more tin than zinc 1864 to 1962 it does not give a percent of either metal just says 5 percent zinc and tin ..sube

Sube I agree. Depending on the area, calling a wheat or Ihp is a crapshoot. Most of the penny signals I get will high tone first with numbers around 30 or higher then as I work the signal it will drop to its perspective number. 24-26 Mem. 22-23 Wheat, 18-21 Ihp. I've learned to accept the fact that just about any signal you get in the field can surprise you but the airtest of the nickels, with such a blatant difference was an eye opener. Vics explanation makes perfect sense. HH Mark

I don't dig as many IHP's you guys but, the only one I dug this year an 1882 was about 6" deep and read 20-21 in Park2. I think most early Wheats I have dug ring in that range. I thought the IHP was going to be a Wheat. I just did an air test on it and it came up 21 just like when I found it. I do primarily look for IHP's to ring up 18-19 as most have, but dug a few that were ringing 17-18. I also tested all my War nickels and they were all 12-13 mostly 13.

Longbow The only thing I can say for sure is when an Ihp shows up its a welcome surprise. I dug a deep black copper with 21-22 last week, it was a 1920 wheat. Now as far as the 15-16 on war nickels, I'll probably start digging more of those now. HH Mark
 
coin wisperer has it right its the magnesium it is the lowest conductor in the nickle the more that leaches out the higher the coin will read .Then again who's to say they put less magnesium in the nickel and used it for the war effort.
Too many years of finding these and comparing. It would be slight differences in the production quality of the alloys used and not a degrading of the lowest quantity metal.

Also, we're not talking about magnesium but manganese. Different metals.


By the way 1864 and on were to be 95 percent copper and 5 percent tin and zinc but as you know a indain does not read like a latter wheat cent or early wheat that 5 percent tin and zinc portion was different to 1918 or there abouts another war started and the tin to zinc was changed.

Now I know indain and early wheats read lower than later wheats and that's because they changed the tin portion more tin than zinc 1864 to 1962 it does not give a percent of either metal just says 5 percent zinc and tin ..sube
Mid-February of '81 I was working a Garrett booth at a Portland Sportsman's Show with Roy Lagal and we had several interesting discussions, different topics, and shared some similar deductions. One was regarding operating frequencies, 'Electronic Prospecting' (which was big back then), old coins and trade tokens, and the conductivity of coins. This was two years before visual Target ID and almost a year before the US went to the Zinc Cent.

We discussed Indian Head and early-era Wheat-back Cents and how they had less conductivity than more modern Cents. We could determine that using the highest Discrimination settings or some models.

In 1864 we went from the 'fatty' Indian Heads to those with the 95% Copper and 5% Tin and Zinc composition. We kept using the composition until the change in the 1940's during WWII, but we noticed the differences in most. Almost all of the Indian Head Cents and Wheat-backs from 1909 to ± 1920 would have a slightly lower conductivity than those that followed.

From what he and I had read or could consider, the difference had to be related to the location source of the copper, and the refining that was done to produce the copper used.

Target ID was developed first by George Payne at the original Teknetics with their new CoinComputer models in '83, and we still mostly had the good old 'copper' cents in circulation because the Zinc Cent had only been out since the year before. It was determined that the copper cents and clad dimes had a very similar conductivity, so early TID models showed the 1¢/10¢ ID on their display for several years before they realized the modern Zinc Cent read lower due to less conductivity. Then we saw Zn and Cu on the displays to separate the pennies. and for a while they still combined the 10¢ clad coins with the Cu (copper) Cents.

Today, 38 years after the introduction of the Zinc Cent, most TID displays only show 1¢ at a lower reading because they are the 1¢Zn (Zinc) coin and a higher read-out as 10¢ because of the differences in conductivity. They no longer references the once-common Copper 1¢.

Anyway, we felt it was the source and purity of the copper being used that caused the lower rejection point or conductivity of those Indian Heads and decade or so of Wheat-back Cents.

Monte
 
Back
Top Bottom