How's that again? Also, rubber is almost always loaded with sulfur -- I'd be nervous even about putting it around the outside of a bag containing coins.
How do you figure that? Every silver dollar struck since 1840 (excluding Trade Dollars) contains .77344 oz. of pure silver. This is "zero" wear! Besides, coins don't lose as much weight in the lower circulated grades as some may think. I just weighed my 1893-CC which is an F12, and my scale which only weighs to the nearest 1/10th oz. shows that it is .77 oz. This means that it may actually weigh .765xx-.77344. This grade for most common silver dollars would be considered "junk silver". Please explain. Chris
You, at 12 years old, have much to learn. Detecto is in the same category of collector that you are. Newbie, with much to learn. Trust me, do a search of his started threads and read them all and you will understand what we mean.
There are two things going on here. First, "$1 FV silver" generally refers to some combination of dimes, quarters, and halves. Uncirculated silver dollars (excluding, as you say, Trade Dollars and older issues) contain about 7% more silver than the corresponding face value of uncirculated dimes/quarters/halves. Second, the weight-loss-through-wear issue is a bit complex. I started to do some empirical investigation, but sort of dropped the ball: http://www.cointalk.com/t154492/ http://www.cointalk.com/t144944/ General points: 1) It seems like you don't start to see serious weight loss until you get down into the single-digit grades. Everyone seems to agree on this. 2) There's disagreement as to whether the early stages of wear come from metal being worn away, or just flattened into the coin. I strongly believe the former; Doug strongly believes the latter. I think if the metal were just being squashed down, we'd see evidence on the legends and other sharp high points -- mushroom-caps where the metal has been beaten down. On coins I've examined closely, I almost never see that. And since the high points cover a small fraction of the coin's surface area, removing a thin layer of metal just from them doesn't take away much of the coin's mass, explaining why you don't see much weight loss in higher circulated grades. 3) Weight loss with wear is much more pronounced in smaller denominations. That's because weight comes from the volume of metal in a coin, but wear happens at the surface -- and smaller objects have more surface area relative to their volume (the square-cube law). So, yeah, silver dollars lose a smaller fraction of their weight than do half dollars, and dimes lose a lot more. I really should get organized and write something up about this. But I'm pretty sure it doesn't belong in the "newbie flyer".
Ya, even if that's so, dolnt criticize him, I hate when a pile of people start getting on one person just cause they are different, in this case a newbie!
There is a distinct difference between a newbie who wants to learn and a newbie who doesn't listen. Unfortunately, Detecto oftentimes only hears his own drummer. Chris
You are totally missing what's going on here, and haven't been around here long enough to know. No one is "getting down on one person." As I recommended, search his started threads, read them all, and educate yourself on the matter. Until then, you can not give an educate opinion of the matter.
You should include a line advisiing coin collecting newbies to take with a LARGE grain of salt any advice that comes from a newbie who, within the last 8 months, has promoted using a rock tumbler to clean coins. http://www.cointalk.com/t199298/ http://www.cointalk.com/t205659/