QUERY: XRF COIN COMPOSITION ANALYSIS

I am an independent researcher investigating anomalous coin compositions. Recently, I analyzed two coins from opposite sides of the Iron Curtain using an XRF spectrometer (Olympus Vanta): a Soviet 10 Kopecks from 1939 and a US 5 Cents "Buffalo".

To my astonishment, both coins share an absolutely identical trace element profile that does not match their official recipes. Please look at the data:

• USSR 10 Kopecks 1939: Mn 0.263%, Fe 0.171%, Co 0.098%, Ni 18.99%, Cu 80.41%, Au 0.064%
• US Buffalo Nickel: Mn 0.178%, Fe 0.239%, Co 0.069%, Ni 24.33%, Cu 75.15%, Au 0.041%

The presence of Gold (Au), Cobalt (Co), and Manganese (Mn) in these base metal alloys is highly unusual. The fact that this exact "fingerprint" appears on coins from two opposing superpowers on the eve of WWII suggests either a shared source of raw materials (scrap metal recycling?) or a parallel technological experiment.

Have your readers ever encountered such a transcontinental metallurgical connection? I would be grateful for any insights.

I also recently analyzed a trio of coins from completely different parts of the world:

1. Switzerland, 2 Francs 1980
2. Denmark, 10 Øre 1954
3. Kuwait, 5 Fils 1961

All three coins share an absolutely identical, non-standard trace element profile. They are officially made of standard Copper-Nickel alloys, but the XRF analysis reveals the same systematic "fingerprint":

• Switzerland 2 Francs 1980: Cu 75.17%, Ni 24.66%, Mn 0.079%, Co 0.020%, Au 0.072%
• Denmark 10 Øre 1954: Cu 74.97%, Ni 24.76%, Mn 0.179%, Co 0.038%, Au 0.054%
• Kuwait 5 Fils 1961: Cu 78.70%, Ni 21.07%, Mn 0.158%, Co 0.015%, Au 0.063%

The presence of Manganese (Mn), Cobalt (Co), and especially Gold (Au) in these base metal coins is highly unusual. How did three different nations, spanning three decades (1954, 1961, 1980) and three continents, end up with the exact same unregulated trace elements?

Could this point to a shared source of recycled industrial scrap metal circulating in the global market? Or was this a parallel, undocumented technological experiment by different mints?

I would be extremely grateful for any insights or historical context your knowledgeable readers might have regarding such transcontinental metallurgical connections.

1. Environmental Interaction & Trace Element Transfer
   • Soil Composition: Soils globally contain varying trace quantities of metallic elements—most commonly Iron (Fe), Manganese (Mn), and Cobalt (Co) alongside Copper (Cu) and Zinc (Zn).
   • Surface Contamination: Regular circulation and environmental interaction (such as ground corrosion) can transfer these soil elements onto a coin's surface. During X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) analysis, this surface contamination is often read at trace levels.
2. Metallurgical Associations & XRF Anomalies
   • Nickel & Cobalt: The association of Cobalt within Nickel alloys is standard and not unexpected especially at trace levels.
   • Gold & False Positives: Detecting trace amounts of Gold (Au) is unusual. In XRF analysis, this can be a false positive caused by spectral overlap with other elements, such as Copper (Cu). I've also observed coin samples that are pure or nearly pure copper (dating to the 18 th century) to occasionally trigger XRF false readings for Platinum Group Elements (PGEs), such as Iridium, which is illogical.
3. Assessment of Origins & Hypotheses
   • Identical Profiles: The observed composition does not indicate an "absolutely identical" trace element profile; it is far more likely a coincidence resulting from normal circulation and environmental exposure.
   • Recycled Industrial Scrap: The theory that this composition stems from a shared source of recycled global scrap metal is unlikely.
   • Parallel Mint Experiments: The possibility of parallel, undocumented technological experiments conducted across different mints is also unlikely.

Bill Eckberg writes:

I fully understand what your colleagues are saying. However, I would frame the question slightly differently. I didn't write to you immediately because this topic is very complex, and I don't think anyone in the US is currently working on this for a number of reasons. In Russia, there are still people trying to find something, but unfortunately, true specialists in this field are already gone.

I focus on a very narrow specialization: finding trial strikes (patterns) that are released into circulation alongside regular batches. They are called "hard-to-distinguish" patterns. A layperson, or even an ordinary collector, will never be able to tell such a coin apart from a regular one. Even major experts do not possess this information – I have checked this.

I have been doing this for 45 years, since I was 5 years old. My great-grandfather taught me and gave me a trial strike as a gift back then. I collected for myself; it was a burning interest, excitement, and a hobby. But now that I am 51, I have finally decided to share this information with people who might find it interesting, because numismatics is a science without borders.

Before I take any coin for analysis, I meticulously select it by its die features, separating it from the rest of the batch. All these dies are unique; despite their apparent similarity, they will always have fundamental features that no other coin in the batch can replicate.

Therefore, I am attaching three additional photos of the Switzerland, Denmark, and Kuwait coins, where I have indicated the fundamental differences from the serial coins and, in fact, why exactly they ended up on the XRF analysis. I think it will be easier this way to understand both me and these coins.

Switzerland 2 Francs 1980 comparison

Denmark 10 Øre 1954 comparison

Kuwait 5 Fils 1961 comparison

	NBS (coinbooks.org) Web