Is it a good idea to make coin rings?

No, no they do not preserve the coin. They immediately destroy the coin, and make a trinket. You might be able to see it USED to be a coin, but that is the extent of it. I have never once seen a coin ring in a 2x2 or a Dansco of a coin collector. I do have love tokens and other damaged coins for jewelry I have accumulated over the years, but they are all in the junk silver box, along with broken chains, misc jewelry, etc.

BUT, I do agree with Fiatfiasco. Its your property, I cannot tell you how to use it. I can only caution that future generations will not be greatful for the poor custody you gave to the coins in your possession if you take an undamaged coin and do such a thing.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

He is right...all that you can tell is that at one time it was a coin. The coin is completely destroyed. This is why one should be selective as to what coin they use.

 

what i mean is that it preserves it more than melting it would. and yes, i understand that making it a ring destroys the numismatic value of the coin. and the coin itself (kinda)

 

You are correct...it is still recognizable as once being a coin. But as far as preserving history...it's not really any better than melting it.

 

It's recognizable and that's not any better than it being a blob of silver.
Can't agree with you on that.
I have no problem with any common coin in any grade being used.
There are some really great jewelry pieces out there.

 

Get a fake or copy of a real coin and convert it. Unless someone has a silver testing kit in their pocket, I doubt anyone will know. Personally, I have one coin ring and it has more meaning to me than some of my collectables. My eldest has already spoke up for it, and there is no certainty any of my children will keep the collection in tact. So in which one does the real value lay, the ring or my life long collection? What better fate could that one coin come by? To each his own.

 

For whatever flavor of ring you're thinking of making, look at the mint numbers. Choose the year with the highest mintage, find cleaned coins with nice details and go for it with a clean conscience.

Another option, make them using half dollars taken from 2003 or 2004 silver proof sets. Nobody seems to want those. I can sometimes score complete 2003 or 2004 silver proof sets for around $30 shipped on FeeBay. Based on today's spot price of $19.64, my max is $30.81 for a 2003 and $31.06 for the 2004. (2004 has an extra nickel, so I'm willing to give a little extra for those because I'll get a little extra when I sell off the clads.) I just scored two 2004's yesterday for $29.99 each shipped:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/151285763563

(Melt plus face value of the clads in a 2004 is $27.39, so $29.99 isn't bad at all.)

If all you want in the proof sets are the halves, you can sometimes come across fair deals on rolls of year 2000+ proof half dollars. Cheapest I saw in a search just now on FeeBay was $204 shipped. That's what, spot plus 44%? So the sets are usually a better deal, but more labor intensive for you.

Should you choose to do this, don't go about it with the assumption that every coin that you don't make into a ring is just going to get melted down anyway. There aren't too many coins getting melted down since they're usually worth more in coin form. The ones that do get melted down are usually highly circulated, heavily damaged, and very common.

I have a scrap bin that I would eventually like to refine using nitric acid. It contains damaged sterling silver jewelry, heavily damaged 90% silver coins (pitted, bent, etc), heavily worn 90% coins (to the point of hardly being able to recognize any features at all), and some shavings that came from my daughter making a couple of rings for her and her friends. A couple of dimes in the bin are so worn that they are paper thin. I wouldn't even make rings out of these coins because there either wouldn't be any details, or they would look like crud. But even so, if any of them were by any means rare, they might still be worth keeping to someone, so I wouldn't destroy them.

 

I guess I'm the only person here who doesn't know what a coin ring is (I've been hoping one of you would post a pic so I wouldn't have to reveal my ignorance).

Somebody please enlighten me.

 

0.5 seconds with the Coin Talk search reveals the following thread:

(Cool Morgan ring)

http://www.cointalk.com/posts/1905553/

Which links to this blog post about a Morgan ring:

http://osheacoinrings.blogspot.com/2013/04/morgan-dollar-coin-ring-1881.html

Which contains photos of this ring:



Enjoy!

 

0.5 seconds? What? Like I'm sitting around doing nothing and have that kind of time to waste?

Seriously . . . duh, didn't occurred to me that this is a subject that might have been discussed before. Thanks for the enlightenment.

By the way, not a fan of the coin ring. Just seems . . . wrong.

 

I think this came up in a different thread very recently - and I think someone else already said this, but here goes: I like the way the coin looks, but I would never wear it. And since I dont collect rings, I would prefer it just stay a coin in most cases. Drilling a hole out of the center of the coin (unless already damaged) seems wrong to me. I am also not a fan of belt buckles, money clips, pendants or anything else like that made from coins. Just seems gaudy to me I guess.

Having said all of that, if you like it, great! If you can make money at it, even better! To each his own - beauty in the eye of the beholder and all of that...

 

I feel the say way...I'm glad I'm not the only one.

 

I agree with the fact that it's the OP's property, and he can do with it what he wishes.

I disagree with the notion that choosing common coins from high mintage years, or coins with flaws are somehow appropriate to use when others are not. I said it in a prior thread and it bears repeating - coins get destroyed every year for a variety of reasons...natural disasters, refiners, jewelry, etc., etc. What we view as a flawed - and therefore non-collectible - coin today does not mean that it will always be viewed that way. The reason is quite simple:

1. Coins in all conditions are destroyed each year for a variety of reasons.
2. They're not making any more of them (not counting the counterfeits).

The simple fact is that what we view as cull coinage today with no numismatic value will one day be viewed as collectible as the overall population of authentic specimens decline with the normal passage of time. For some coins, this already exists, and the examples are numerous. Would any of us here destroy a 1916 d Merc in any condition? I think not. For some coins, it may be within our lifetimes. For others, it may take several generations. But it will happen with all coins, as sure as the sun rises and sets, and the proof is no further away than a quick trip to ebay or any number of etsy shops that specialize in destroying coins.

Although I readily admit that they look cool, I don't believe that a true collector of coins - someone who understands their role in preserving specimens of all grades for future generations to appreciate - should advocate the destruction of coinage in any form.

 

Here's an idea:

Since coins are so important to the 1% of the population who consider themselves coin collectors, let's just go ahead and pull ALL coins out of circulation and put them ALL in holders to preserve for the sake of future generations of collectors. Does that sound reasonable? No, of course not...

If one is going to destroy a coin, then I believe using common coins from high mintage years is more appropriate, or less evil, or less damaging to collectors than using lower mintage years. Despite the high mintages, will coins from those years still become scarce in 100 or 200 or 500 years? Yes, eventually. But I believe they will always be reasonably easy for collectors to obtain. Can we protect and preserve every coin in existence? Should we even try? No, of course not...

 

I realize you're being sarcastic, but I think it's pretty clear that's not what I was suggesting...There's a difference between knowing that coins are lost over the years for exactly these reasons and advocating for their destruction. Personally, I don't advocate for their destruction because I know they're being destroyed already as it is.

As coins continue to be destroyed, what makes you think they will always be easy to obtain? I'm not talking about a modern issue that has a mintage of a half a billion a year...I'm talking about coins that had far smaller mintages by comparison and are already 100 years old or more. They cannot continue to be destroyed AND always be easy to obtain well into the future...

 

I am not necessarily "advocating for their destruction", but rather trying to minimize the effects of destruction on the coin collecting community by steering them towards common dates and already damaged coins.

As for the second point, the number of coins being destroyed will decrease as the number of well circulated or damaged specimens decreases. There will come a point where all decent specimens are held by collectors. Economics will keep people from destroying rare coins to make jewelry at any significant rate because they will be worth more as unmolested coins. This doesn't necessarily mean they have to reach $5000+ like the 1916 d's, but 2-3 times melt is usually enough.

In 100 years, Mercury dimes will still be "easy to obtain" by collectors. It might be hard (expensive) to put together a complete set of all years and mint marks, but the destruction of even 90% of the 1944's wouldn't make that set hard to complete, it would be the already scarce 1916 d's.

 

I would agree with this point of view.

 

k, I ordered the mandrel and punch and die set. they will be here on the 6th! this means i should have a shop up and running by the 20th!

 

Made a few! here are some results: