Do Peace Dollars have the same amount of silver as Morgan Dollars?

Thanks, Conder!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Thank you, I appreciate your correction. Of course copper, I don’t know why tin was in my brain.
CoinFacts is generally a very good source, however mistakes are found. The weight listed for the 1878 8TF Morgan being one and the 90% silver 10% copper with the Flowing Hair being another.

 

Is that the reason why the Double Eagle weighs that amount -- or is it also because $20.00 in gold is achieved with 0.9675 ounces at $20.67/oz. of gold ?

Or are they 2 sides of the same coin ?

 

Also, I believe the grains in an ounce differs if it is a Troy ounce or an Avidiripodous (sp.).

 

The dollar, as a specific weight of gold, was established long before the double eagle came along.

And yes the number of grains in an avoirdupois ounce is different from that of a troy ounce, but when you are dealing with precious metals you always use the troy oz. All the calculations I showed are troy figures.

And dollars had to be defined before $20.67/oz had any meaning. In fact if the definition of the dollar hadn't been changed from 24.75 grains to 23.22, .9675 oz of gold would have been $19.35. $20 worth of gold would have required 1.03 troy oz and gold would have been $19.39/oz. The double eagle would then have weighed 495 grains of pure gold or 544.5 grains, (28.5 grains heavier) of standard alloy gold.

 

As such a fount of info, can you explain my query (in this thread)? From the Mint's wording, they are going to make the dollars the same size and weight as the originals, but .999 pure instead of .90. How? If the other direction, you'd have the 10% to come up with a blend of metals that are the equivalent of silver size/mass wise. But how are they going to do the opposite. How can you keep the dimensions and weight the same as the blended with a pure metal?

 

You reduce the thickness slightly. By 1.5% If a Morgan or Peace dollar blank was say 2.5 mm in thickness, you reduce that by .04 mm and you're there. It won't be visually different, and it won't be detectable on the finished struck coin either.

Typically coins are specified by weight, diameter, and composition. The thickness isn't specified because once you have the first three the thickness becomes automatic. And that determines the thickness of the blank not the coin. The thickness of the final coin is somewhat determined by the force of the strike, especially since most people measure the thickness at the rim and the stronger the strike the more the rim fills.

 

So they are pretty much just lying. (Yes, it will be close to the same, but then, that's what it should say)

"The Mint’s intent is to use the .999 fine silver planchets that they strike for commemorative dollars as those will produce coins to the same weight, thickness and diameter of the original dollars."

 

Is that quote from the Mint, or from someone else? Since it refers to the "Mints intent", I would assume it comes from somewhere else and that they are in error and they will be the same weight and diameter but not thickness. If they are .999 they can't be all three, if they are .900 then they can.

 

I found where the quote came from and it is not a statement by the Mint, it is by a columnist in Numismatic News. And it is clearly wrong because the .999 fine commemorative dollars are not the same weight, diameter and thickness. The specs for the diameter and weight are the same for the commemoratives as for the Morgan/Peace dollars so the blanks would HAVE to be thinner.

And if they keep the weight the same then the new Morgan/Peace dollars would contain .8593 troy oz of silver instead of .7734 troy oz.

 

That's what they've done for the commemorative dollars, which also have the same dimensions and weight:

https://www.ngccoin.com/news/article/7251/silver-change/

Coin silver has a density of 10.31g/cc, pure silver is 10.49g/cc. Assuming the new coins are struck to the same diameter, they'll be 1.7% thinner. That's a difference of 0.03mm. With a good micrometer, you could measure it; with your eye, you'll never spot it.

And remember, the weight tolerance for an old-fashioned silver quarter was plus or minus three percent -- so the thickness differences among coin-silver quarters will likely swamp the thickness differences between .999 and coin-silver quarters.

 

I got it pretty close. In post 47 I said 1.5% and .04 mm. And you could probably only really measure it on the blank not the final struck coin.

Tolerance for the 1947 - 64 quarters was 3% (they loosened tolerances in 1947), before 1964 it was 1.5%. Tolerance for the Morgan and Peace dollars was .3%

 

Any time I think that you're wrong, I know it's time to go back and check my work more thoroughly.

 

Since a Troy oz and an Av oz are different, you are correct.

 

Interesting occurrence...I got in on those 7 mins...sort of...and this will likely not endear you to the US Mint...at least not their ordering and maybe marketing process. Had signed up for their e-reminders (not the pre-order enrollment, which maybe I should have done, live and learn) and was online when the e-reminder came across. Jumped on it and was trying to order two...one for each of my W/USA sons...the order site accepted two but then at check-out I noticed it had been changed to 8 and was prompting me to confirm payment for something like $600-plus. No way I could buy 8, so tried to remove 6 of them or change the qty to two, but in doing so it then said, "Sorry, this product is no longer available." I could of bought 8, but I "couldn't" just buy 2. Now I see them selling on eBay and elsewhere well north of $200-$250. I will try and pre-order the unc issue of the W ASE when it opens up, but me thinks something was/is rotten in Denmark.

 

Brilliant