J-163 (pure copper) or J-164 (French bronze)
These two patterns look nearly identical, right? Can you determine which tested out as 100% copper and which tested out as bronze? As a general rule, one cannot eyeball an LFE and accurately determine its composition.
In the 1980s, Carmichael and Wilson studied 1854 pattern cents and similarly concluded, “Past dependence on visual method of examination has led to confusion between bronze and copper pieces, and among the various white-metal alloys. With the availability of modern analytical methods, persons researching coins as important as U.S. pattern pieces should use such procedures whenever possible.”
Combined, the Carmichael/Wilson research, which tested thirty-two 1854 and 1855 pattern cents using X-Ray Fluorescence, and my study, which tested nearly eighty 1854 and 1855 LFEs using SEM-EDX technology, found that nearly sixty percent of the coins tested had been misattributed pre-testing. In other words, even the experts could not confidently make an attribution by visual inspection of the surfaces alone. This topic will be discussed in depth in a later post.
Although color alone can be very deceptive, in some instances, there are other factors which, when taken together, can dramatically increase the reliability of an attribution. These factors include, but are not necessarily limited to weight, die state,
As an example, in the case of the 1854 Two-Leaf reverse, to date, various factors have been accurate in determining whether the coin is pure copper or bronze. To date, no confirmed J-163 exhibits die rust on the obverse rim between 3 o’clock and 4:30, while a large number of J-164s do exhibit such die rust.
Additionally, all 1854 Two-Leaf reverse LFEs that have weighed in the range of approximately 113 or 114 grains have been confirmed to be J-163s (100% copper). To date, all 1854 Two-Leaf LFEs that did not weigh in that range have been confirmed to be bronze (J-164).
Another factor that can be helpful in distinguishing between a J-163 and a J-164. To date, no known J-163 has had evidence of double-striking on the reverse. Every LFE with a double-struck reverse that has been tested has been confirmed to be a J-164 (bronze). However, one needs to be careful in extrapolating from that fact. A coin’s failure to evidence doubling on the reverse does not lead to the conclusion that it is a J-163 (pure copper) inasmuch as a large number of bronze Two-Leaf 1854s are not double-struck on the reverse.
Other factors seem to be relevant in making a distinction between a J-163 and J-164, but they are still subject to ongoing research.
If you haven’t figured it out, the top picture is of a J-164, while the bottom picture is of a J-163. In any event, the lesson to be taken from this is to never take anyone’s representation of the identity of a rare coin without proof. You might think that the label from PCGS or NGC is all the proof you need. NOT TRUE! The majority of the coins tested during my research came from PCGS and NGC slabs. The pros make mistakes (in the case of my study, about half the time).
The last thing you want to do is pay $5,000 for a coin described as “possibly unique,” and then have it tested, only to find out that it was actually one of dozens, worth $2,000. Then you’re stuck having to argue with the dealer (or TPG) as to why they should give you $3,000 for the lost value of your coin. Do your homework first. Chances are that the dealer won’t stand behind the attribution. TPGs might, but finding out won’t be fun. You’ll have to decide if it’s worth the gamble. In my humble opinion, one confirmed unique LFE is worth much more than two unconfirmed “possibly” unique LFEs.