I was wondering. If someone was offering to trade you three 40% silver Kennedy half dollars in normal condition for one 90% silver Kennedy half dollar you have, would you take the trade? It's more silver, but in a far less desirable format. Would you, conversely, take the other side of that deal? Would you trade away three of your 40% coins for a single 90% coin? I've been pondering this question for a while. Which is preferable, overall? I find it an interesting choice, and I believe there are people who will come down on both sides of the question. But which side would MORE people be on? I'm interested in finding out!
If it is just for the silver content alone, keep the 40%. Your correct, more silver in three vs one. If storage is the driving force, buy rounds of 99.9%. Again, this not considering any numistic value (errors, etc.).
Also depends on the year of the 40%s, if it's a 1970 I don't think I'd even trade that straight up for a 64, only 2million or so 70s were put into circulation
The three 40% coins contain a good bit more silver than the one 90%. You lose some advantage, though, because 40% silver trades at a discount -- you'll get less "per ounce of silver" when you try to sell them. And, of course, they take up three times the space. Right now, Provident buys back 40% halves at 5.7x face value (with a large minimum quantity, of course!). They buy back 90% halves at 15.14x FV. That means you'd get $8550 for 3000 40% halves, $7570 for 1000 90% halves. Using their figures for weight, they're paying $15.14/0.715 = 21.17/ozt for silver from 90% halves, and $5.70/0.295 = 19.32/ozt for silver from 40% halves. That's 8.7% less per ounce of actual silver weight for the 40%. But, since three 40% halves contain almost 24% more silver than one 90% half, they still come out ahead on price. One further note: I was surprised to see that Provident actually pays more for 1964 halves and Walkers (15.14x) than for Franklins (14.82x) or smaller 90% change (14.61x). I'm guessing that reflects a small numismatic premium on the Walkers, lower silver content on the worn Franklins, and lower content still on the smaller change. They do quote the same 0.715ozt/$FV weight for all classes of coins, but 1964 halves (which didn't circulate much) will probably be closer to their 0.723ozt/$FV original Mint specification. Sell to a dealer at a local store or coin show, and you'll usually be offered the lowest general-90% rate regardless of whether you're selling dimes, Franklins, or 1964 Kennedys. Sell on eBay, and you may get an even higher premium for the halves, but you'll pay eBay 10% of your gross, PayPal 2.9% of your gross, and whatever packaging and shipping cost you, plus the risk of bad buyers. Also, the discount for 40% is usually higher for local sales. I'm thinking my usual buyer at the local show was offering 12.4x for 90% and 4.2x for 40%, which would make your trade pretty much of a wash. He's "my usual buyer" because he consistently pays more than anybody else at the show, for either type; note that these prices were before silver's latest leap, and he's usually only a few tenths of a percent lower than Provident for 90%.
If the OP would have asked if 90% is preferable to hold versus 40%, given the same amount of silver, the answer is clear to me. 90% has a much more liquid market. 40% is less liquid as well as a bigger discount due to higher refining costs.
of course. that's part of what makes this an interesting question. 90% is the preferable coin by far... but is it far enough preferable that a person would take it over what is technically more silver, but 3x as much storage needed, and for all intents and purposes less valuable silver? It becomes a question of preferences, and that's why it's put in these terms. For each individual, is the 'bribe' of extra silver enough to offset the downsides of the 40% coin? Some say yes, some say no, and it's interesting.
If you're buying 90% 1964's (Kennedy's) at the price for junk silver, I'd buy all the junk Ben Franklins I could. You can build a full set just from junk grade. I just completed my 2nd set this way and you'll have lots of 90% silver halves anyway. You can't build a set of Walkers but you can fill a good number of holes for a low grade set and keep you price down but there is a slight buying premium on them.
I wouldn't trade straight up unless I knew the dates and grades involved. But I am interested in more than the silver content.
The 1970-D was only issued in Mint sets and not released for general circulation. The value of the silver was more than face value so it was not released for circulation.
An interesting question. I think the 90% would be the preferred item since it's much more liquid. If it helps any, over the weekend at the FUN show I was paying 13.8x for 90% and 5x for 40%. That's based on $20 silver spot. Keep in mind though that the premiums change just like the spot price changes. Nick
