Some might say that silver is silver. But I have noticed that older silver coins ie., walkers, morgans, and peace dollars in general, don't seem to deteriorate like the modern silver coins do from wear, oxidation, etc.?
I was just wondering the same thing. I like the look of the older coin's more But I thinks Silver is silver. I have lot's of silver , Even the wife likes the old silver platters and bowls better than the new one's..
Old silver coins were made from coin silver which is 90% silver 10% copper. The modern commemorative coins from the mint are 99.9% silver which may account for the difference you are seeing.
I think the artistic abilities of past engravers exceeded the current modern artists who are attached to graphics programs and Computer assisted engraving. Computers are great, but the advantages are less time and effort, and that is not the best for a design. IMO entirely.
the standard for coin silver has not really changed, .900 silver and .100 copper. That said, either the silver or the copper could have trace other elements that vary which could make very small difference in the alloy. But overall, 90% silver, aka coin silver, coins are pretty much the same. That's my copper plated zinc 2c worth.
Actually, modern commemorative coins are 90% silver and 10% copper, the exact same composition as the pre 1965 coins. Bullion coins are 99.9% silver.
Hard to say, as it would be rare to see any modern mint products with any significant wear. If there are differences, it's more likely due to the designs.
I would ask you exactly what modern silver coins you are talking about since the last silver coins ever to see circulation were made in 1964. So a Walker or a Peace dollar, in particular, is not that much older than the Frankies, silver Kennedy halves, or silver quarters and dimes. The composition is exactly the same on all of the them, the relief is basically the same on all of them, so I see no way one could show wear any more than any other. As for oxidation or toning as it is more commonly known, that is the same as well. But if you are comparing these older circulation coins to say ASE's, then yes, the ASE's will tone more readily because they are pure silver instead of an alloy. And they could, or would, show wear more readily (if they circulated, which they don't) because the pure silver is softer than the alloy.
Given that the only "post-1964" 90% silver US coins are either commemorative or "silver set" issues, there shouldn't be wear on the modern coins. Speaking specifically to Morgan/Peace dollar issues, you have to also remember that many weren't in circulation for as long as their dates would seem to indicate. There are so many "hoard" examples of the coins that it wouldn't surprise me if some of the non-GSA coins were actually GSA auction coins that individuals chose to place into their Morgan albums or something similar. If you're talking about worn down coins (F8 or lower grades), then it's likely a result of the design elements of the coin, rather than the reasons you cited. Also, remember, that you're probably not comparing dollars to dollars. Barber coinage wears down nearly flat, and that's across pretty much all denominations. Those coins pre-date the coins that you would call "older days" and deteriorate readily. I don't know what to say on the Walkers, other than they made a TON of the short set ones. The 1942 Walker (which is likely the date you keep seeing "in general") had a whopping 47.8mm mintage.
If anything the silver today would probably be higher quality than the older silver. You would expect they could refine more of the trace elements out of the silver today than they could back in the early twentieth century.
I'm not a chemist so I don't know how elements work in detail, but I wonder if the newer silver coins aren't made more from, or mixed with a conglomerate of recycled silver instead of first use mined silver and may have to do with quality issues. You'd think elements in their raw form would be consistent regardless and it wouldn't make a difference. Maybe so. I do know in our traction motors of our locomotives at work they only use first use mined copper for the giant coils, as they say the electrons line up correctly, or something along those lines. It leads me to believe the same metal elements can have different characteristics based on how many times it's re-worked into something.
I don't think this would matter. It matters for plastics, but I don't think it would matter with actual elementary metals. 0.999 refined silver is still 0.999 refined silver, since the "trace" portions account for less than 0.1% of what's there. Also, native metals (newly mined) are still refined before being used.
Do you really believe this to be true? Having read Roger's book, From Mine to Mint, it appears that the refining processes at the Mint(s) were pretty thorough, lacking only the modern automation processes. Chris
.999 = .999 .900 = .900 Today vs. Yesterday...same as it ever was, although probably less in the way of variability these days.
I don't think the main problem, at least for American coins, is the use of computers and graphic programs. I think the main problem is how politicized the process of choosing what design get to go on a coin. With Congress determining the major design elements that will go on a coin this limits the designs artists create to put on a coin. Then there the lobbying groups that will scream bloody murder if you even whisper that Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, etc should be removed from our coinage. Too bad we don't have another Teddy Roosevelt to demand and implement the highest level of artistic designs for our coinage!!
