On Apr 14, 2:01*pm, wrote:

Just added more photos comparing the 1922 with a common-date 1923 for
side-by-side comparison to the same site as above. Both coins have the
same diameter. But not *the same thickness.

If they have the same diameter and the same weight, but a different
thickness it means they do not have the same specific gravity and thus
there is some difference in composition.

I'm not sure whether this
is due to wear, the apparent cuds on the 1922, or what. The 1922
appears slightly thicker. When I try to hold them together to take the
rim photos, the coins had enough space between them to allow light to
pass through completely.

If the 1922 is thicker then it has the lower specific gravity than the
1923 and this might mean a lower percentage of silver. Even so, the
extraneous material that is included is a point to consider. If that
happened as you suggested as an error, then it may have caused the
coin to seem thicker, but I can understand how it might have happened
unless the original flan was damaged and the gunk was layered within
it (I know people make jokes about the quality of government work, but
it seems unlikely that it made it through any inspection at the mint).

As far as seeing light between the coins, normally you should not.
One coin might be bent or it simply might be that the gunk protrudes a
little from the surface. I simply can't decide from the pictures.

Peter has suggested there is glue or other extraneous material on the
1922. My fingernail chips before any portion of the material is
removed on the rim. I next used acetone to clean the surfaces. Other
than minor soil, nothing came off the coin.

Noted; sorry to be the cause of extra work.

Daniel B. Wheeler- Hide quoted text -


I still would wonder if it is counterfeit; if it is an error it looks
like a multi-aspect error.