The "Real" Weight of Junk Silver

Then why does my scale say they do?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I see this thread is quite controversial.

If I had a refining business I would pay based on weight. I would segregate all of the coins of the same type and weigh the whole lot.

If I was a dealer I'd pay based on face because I'd be reselling.

My only real concern with junk silver is that if the world witnesses a mass civil breakdown is they guy on the other side of the barter going to say "this half dollar looks worn, I'm not taking it, I only take these" (and pulls out a shiny 1964).

 

Aren't most G-VG coins much thinner than XF+ coins? At least, that's my experience. I would think the lack in width would cause some weight loss for the coin.

 

Im going to go with they lose weigh form wear i have many seated dimes, seated quarters standing, liberty quarters, barber halfs that are all under weight and its all from wear. You can tell the difference between a coin that has been in circulation and a coin that has been droped on the sidewalk or street and worn down that way. Im sticking with that it loses weight from wear and until someone can prove that wrong that is what im going to think.

 

If I had a scale, I'd gladly weigh my 1977 Kennedy half pocket piece. It's so worn, you can't even see the date... I'd be willing to put good money on it being underweight by a decent margin.

 

I believe the refininers (smelters) buy US coins by face may be because of the traditional market and knowing the exact (within tolerance) composition of each coin. Actual weight loss is probably small enough not to be considered significant ?

I do know that Silver investment coins are sold by $100, $500 & $1000 bags and traded that way, while bullion is traded by weight. At least that's how everyone I dealt with did it. Somehow I feel that if the industy was losing money, the method would change ?

 

At work we put our junk silver in $500 face value bags (1/2 a bag).

I weigh ALL 90% bags because we had another dealer tell us we owed him a few ounces of silver.

The canvas bags weigh 104 grams so this is subtracted from the total weight in grams. The resulting figure is divided by 31.1 to come up with a figure that is supposed to represent the troy ounces of silver per half bag.

Generally they come out at 397 -398. I did have a 1/2 bag of well worn Mercury dimes that weighed just over 392. Realize folks we're talking about 5000 coins here.

It would seem to me there is some weight loss due to wear but it takes a lot of coins for it to really become apparent.

 

Weight Loss, or Not?

I find this post interesting, because of the supposition presented without supportive data of statistical merit.

I was in the process of preparing a 100 coin lot of 90% Silver Mercury dimes, literally having a 1916-S, and other coins varying in dates (at least 35 different dates/mint-marks) from 1916 to 1945.

100 coins of this type with considerable "wear", I believe is a reasonably quantity for statistical extrapolation.

The coins have been selected to have a ~Good to <Very-Good grade for the dates from 1930 to 1945, and an ~About-Good grade on coins with dates from 1916 to 1930. None are damaged, just "worn". All of these coins would be expected to have appreciable "wear", as none of the coins have a full reverse rim, and many haven't a reverse rim (AG acceptable for this type).

I constantly use a triple beam balance, where I clean the pan, and tare for proper balance, which was done before weighing the 100 coins

The weight of 100 coin lot was 240+ grams.

The stated weight of 100 mint struck condition coins is 250 grams.

These coins are within 4% of their "standard" mint struck weight.

I wonder, what was the allowable "standard" negative weight deviation for these coins at the time of minting?

Hmmmm, Very Interesting!!

 

"Now I will go one further. Do this - find all of the VF & F coins that you can, from any source. I think you and everyone else here will have to agree that VF & F coins have a significant amount of wear. That said, by your claims they should all have lost a significant amount of weight from that wear. So go and weigh them. See for yourself. I dare ya !"​

Read more: http://www.cointalk.com/t133717-2/#ixzz12A8KmHH8

​

VF coins do not have significant wear. Go get some FR02 and AG03 silver coins and weigh them - they're 10% under nominal weight and far out of spec. End of story.

 

If it's worn nearly slick, like many junk Barbers and SLQ are, then it's well under specified weight. Friction and wear cause any metal to lose weight. I'm an engineer by trade and a coin dealer on the side and believe me, coins are not made of some magic metal that defy the laws of physics.

 

What

Why go through the trouble?

What are these things on the side of the coinage and why did they put them there?

Is if because we are all trustworthy?

I thought it had to do with "Real Weight", no?

 

Here's the proof. Two Barber dimes and a copper Lincoln cent. The Barbers should weigh 2.5g. The one that's G04 weighs 2.15 or 14% under weight. The ones that's about F12 weighs 2.25g or 10% under weight. The Lincoln cent is AU and has lost no weight.

 

This would seem pretty easy to resolve. Someone who has credibility in these forums needs to get some Good condition coins and weigh them to see if they are within mint tolerances (1%) both individually and in the aggregate. Wouldn't that pretty much take care of the issue?

 

Almost all the older silver coins I pull from circulation have barely any reeding. Are you suggesting that they're all fake?

 

OMG - Call the Secret Service!

I've got bunches of under-weight junk Barbers laying around. Anything under VF condtion is underweight. Down in PO1 or FR2 they're up to 20% underweight. Same applies to all silver coins ever minted. Ever wonder why well worn coins are so thin? Because they've lost a lot of silver through wear.