Wheat pennys

2108silver1 said:

Most of my permission if not all are 1920s or teens. Houses. Rarely find silver sometimes find a few wheats and of course clad. I never find indian head pennies but 1 time in the last 2 years. So here is my question I can see silver being cherry picked as folks say happens in the past but if thats the case how would you miss nice signals like old wheat pennies 1910 to 1950s if the Indians are gone why not the wheats

Click to expand...

I don't think those ratios are d/t any past persons "cherry picking".

Cherry picking might explain a ratio abundance of nickels and low conductors (foil, tabs, etc...) . And it might explain ratios of clad vs oldies (d/t past persons skipped all shallow beeps?) . But I don't think that applies to wheaties vs silver dimes.

While it's true that there's a subtle TID difference between copper pennies and silver dimes (on *some* machines), yet the difference is too close to call.

When I cherry pick, i dig many more old wheat pennies than silver dimes. They sound too much alike and are at similar depths. Not sure why there are no indians. I rarely dig them either, but I rarely am on sites that old.

2108silver1 said:

...if the Indians are gone why not the wheats....

Click to expand...

IHPs and wheats were each minted for about 50 years, and both well before hobby metal detecting. That's where the similarities end.

About 25 billion wheats were minted. About 1.8 billion Indian Head Cents. If all else was equal as far as how they're lost and found, you'd expect about 12 Wheats to 1 IHP. But, of course, not all things are equal. Many things are biased against finding IHPs. By my own stats so far this year, I'm 26 to 1, and I'm hunting places where I have a decent chance of finding IHPs.

To get the obvious one out of the way: One cent in 1890 was worth a lot more than a cent in 1950, and therefore fewer IHPs were treated carelessly. For example, change purses were a thing in the late 1800s and early 1900s. That kept coins secure, whereas people were later carrying "loose change" in pockets.

On top of that, people didn't have big bundles of house and car keys they were regularly removing from their pockets around their homes, which is a major way change gets dropped. (They neither had cars nor did many people lock their doors.)

More than anything, of the IHPs that did manage to get lost, a large percentage of them were lost in places that are now buried under concrete. That is, compared to where most lost wheat pennies ended up lost. In the 1800s coins were probably dropped less often in yards and more often on dirt streets and sidewalks around businesses and outdoor vendors. IHPs dropped on farms that have since become housing developments.

Those IHPs we find in yards and farm fields are the unusual drops. I bet most of them are buried under streets, sidewalks and foundations. Imagine an 1890s neighborhood that didn't get paved sidewalks and streets until 1920 and some of the lots not developed until that same time or later. There are Indian heads (and some early wheats) under those sidewalks and roads.

Another theory is that IHPs were picked out of circulation relatively quickly after the switch to the Lincoln cent. Yet, when the wheat was replaced by the memorial, the wheats stayed in circulation longer. So the wheats have been at risk of loss longer even if IHPs came first. Heck, I received a wheat penny in my change just yesterday.

In summary, even though IHPs have been around longer than wheats, there were fewer IHPs than wheats, they were likely lost less frequently than wheats, and when they were lost they're more likely than wheats to now be in places that are inaccessible.

Oh, and we know that wheats give off a strong higher conductivity signal than IHPs. So, IHPs likely get overlooked or are more easily masked/affected by a lower conductor. Even a shallow IHP right out in the open can give off a sketchy signal at the low end of the high conductors.

ToySoldier said:

... One cent in 1890 was worth a lot more than a cent in 1950, and therefore fewer IHPs were treated carelessly. .....

Click to expand...

I don't think that the economic buying power necessarily caused people to be "more careful" in 1890, versus 1950. Because, heck, people even lost gold coins. People loose valuable rings. Etc.... Things that you would think "people would be more careful with" . So I think the rule of fumble-fingers (unintentional losses) was equal during all those years .

Perhaps by the 1960s and '70s, then yes, a penny became so worthless that no one stops to pick them up nowadays. (Heck, when I was in high school in the late 1970s, we used to throw pennies back and forth at each other !)

I think the much bigger difference in demographics of distribution (as it relates to being found by us md'rs) is : USA society became much more affluent and prosperous after WWII. The late 1940s to mid 1960s was about the most prosperous economy that the USA had ever seen. Contrast to the 1930s depression, and earlier. Thus while a kid in 1890 to 1930s might have been LUCKY to have a nickel in his pocket, yet by the the 1950s, every kid had multiple coins in his pocket. School milk and lunch programs were introduced, meaning each kid carried his nickel and dime to school now, etc...

I have seen this societal change played out at schools which, for instance, were built in the 1910s and '20s. When I first got into detecting, in the mid 1970s, we were hitting these schools. And I noticed that the vast majority of coins were 1940s/50s type-losses. So, for example, when we DID find 1920s wheaties, they showed evidence of more wear/circulation (lost in the 40s). Only rarely did we get crisp silver and wheaties from the teens/20s. But 1940s mercs, and silver roosies were more numerous.

Since the schools had had the same student population #'s since the teens and '20s, I always wondered why we didn't get the earlier dates ? And I wrote it off to the rationale that : The older coins must be deeper, beyond our reach. However, when deeper seeking machines came along, that made child's play out of reaching deeper depths, we STILL didn't see the teens/20s coins ratio go up. And I've even been on those schools after tractors scraped off the turf for various renovations. And again, only a few teens wheaties, or barbers or IH's. So I began to see that "Depth" was not the culprit to blame for the ratios. It was societal shifts in prosperity .

Tom_in_CA said:

I don't think that the economic buying power necessarily caused people to be "more careful" in 1890, versus 1950. Because, heck, people even lost gold coins. People loose valuable rings. Etc.... Things that you would think "people would be more careful with" . So I think the rule of fumble-fingers (unintentional losses) was equal during all those years . .

Click to expand...

I don't disagree. There can be the same rate of untintentional loss of pennies, while ALSO having a higher rate of careless loss during the later wheat penny period when a cent had less buying power.

I don't know how many people gave pennies to kids to play with or spend, or how often people failed to make the effort to pick up a dropped penny, or how many people kept them loose in a pocket instead of secure in a change purse, but I'm guessing those things were all higher during the age of wheats than the age of IHPs.

ToySoldier said:

Oh, and we know that wheats give off a strong higher conductivity signal than IHPs. So, IHPs likely get overlooked or are more easily masked/affected by a lower conductor. Even a shallow IHP right out in the open can give off a sketchy signal at the low end of the high conductors.

Click to expand...

Yes, the early, until 1864, IHP's are 88% copper and 12% nickle then changed to bronze (95% copper, 5% tin) whereas Lincoln cent is 95% copper, 5% zinc (until 1982).
This makes the conductivity different.

Thanks for the tip on Ihp. Being a lower conductor. Will have to sharpen my attention on that. I have only found one indian so I don't have that field experience.

Most times your not going to find ihps at houses from the 20’s through the 50’s.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

coin whisperer said:

Most times your not going to find ihps at houses from the 20’s through the 50’s.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

That's been my experience. Of the six I have this year only one was on a property where the major activity started after 1920, and I can't rule out the possibility it was dropped earlier than that.

2 - late 1800s city house
2 - late 1800s farm house
1 - river bank next to (different) 1800s farm
1 - Park with activity starting in the 1920s

Thanks

Thanks yeah I grabbed my 1891ihp was surprised to see it ring up like a zinc penny. Good to know . I thought they would have a copper reading like a wheat.

waltr said:

Yes, the early, until 1864, IHP's are 88% copper and 12% nickle then changed to bronze (95% copper, 5% tin) whereas Lincoln cent is 95% copper, 5% zinc (until 1982).
This makes the conductivity different.

Click to expand...

According to my copy of the Redbook (2011 edition), IHs and wheaties are identical in weight (3.11), diameter (19mm), and composition (bronze; 95% copper, 5% tin and zinc for both).

So, that does not explain the difference in conductivity unless it is a fact but not a reported fact that the bronze alloy changed and wheaties have more zinc and less tin than IHs. The Redbook doesn't list it that way, tho. Given that both IHs and wheaties were minted in 1909, it seems unlikely, at least to me, that they would make an alloy change in the planchlets mid year.

I've always thought the conductivity difference was explained by 2 factors a) IHs being in the ground longer, and thus having more of a patina/corrosion (I do know patina affects conductivity), and b) IHs being thinner (either the rim is thinner by design, or they are thinner due to more wear or more time in the ground).

I don't know, but have always been curious about this. I'm not convinced a change in alloy is the answer (it could be, but I don't think so; I'd just like to see something official somewhere on this).

I do know I've dug some corroded, thin wheates that rang mid tone like IHs, supporting my speculation.

(This all should be easy to test using an undug IH and wheatie of the same thickness and no patina/corrosion, but I don't have such handy at the moment).

Very interesting discussion to someone in hunt of their first IHP.

randy said:

According to my copy of the Redbook (2011 edition), IHs and wheaties are identical in weight (3.11), diameter (19mm), and composition (bronze; 95% copper, 5% tin and zinc for both).

So, that does not explain the difference in conductivity ....

Click to expand...

This has come up over and over again on md'ing forums. The observation you make, regarding the composition and weight. Yet .... even for un-circulated coin-store variety samples in-an-air-test: They read differently. IH's read lower than wheaties.

So theoretically, this should not be possible. Right ?

But as I understand it, the explanation is that copper varies with subtle impurities, from region to region. And copper strikes varied from decades to decades. So, for example, the copper in certain sets of years tended to come from Montana. Then another set of years from Arizona . Then in another set of decades from Utah. And so forth. Uncle Sam bought the copper from whatever markets were cheapest. Ie.: where the strikes and booms were. And each region/state has subtle differences in trace minerals.

For example: Not all gold is the same either. Gold coming from different regions has slightly different colors (rose gold, etc...). D/t the impurities and trace minerals. Those affect the TID's.

This is why, for example teens wheaties read differently than 1950s wheaties. EVEN WITH UNCIRCULATED SPECIMENS . Because the copper mined in the teens was from different areas than copper mined in the 1950s.

I grew up in the 60’s. Us kids lived in middle class subdivisions, even then very few of us had coins in our pockets...I remember a half dozen of us raking a lawn and each paid a dime for our labor...kids back before WW2 had even less.

Tom_in_CA said:

(Heck, when I was in high school in the late 1970s, we used to throw pennies back and forth at each other !)

Click to expand...

East of the Mississippi we use large cents to throw at each other. Much more abundant and their size give us a greater throwing range.

pballwiz said:

East of the Mississippi we use large cents to throw at each other. Much more abundant and their size give us a greater throwing range.

Click to expand...

Thanks

Well all in all its been a good lesson for me. Looks like ibwill dig any. Reading in the zinc range I just figured a indian was good ok solid copper and should ring up like a red hot copper reading.

What kind of detector are you using?