Do you think the silver in this Sacky is a composition error or some sort of toning? I know that the Sackys have copper cores but is there some way that the bronze plating could show this sort of clad coloring?
Ah, the "golden" dollar! I take it from your question that you are talking about the silverish hues at the bottom of the obverse. I think it looks like toning of some sort. Compositional errors (wrong planchet) are usually uniform throughout. Does the reverse show the same pattern? It looks like in was in contact for a long time with some other coin or reactive surface causing the change in color. Another possibility is that the strip from which the planchet was cut was not very well mixed, but that seems like a long shot. The Sacagawea Dollar is made of a strange alloy, and I am of the opinion (I'm not alone either) that the mint could have selected a better wearing composition. Beginning in 2000 I kept one in my pocket pretty much all the time for several months. They look pretty bad pretty quickly, with lots of silvery tone to the worn parts. The reason more people don't see the wear very much? The coins don't circulate.
The Sacagewea Dollar's are plated like our modern Cent's,thus another possible answer would be that the coin recieved improper plating. This is something that might best be reviewed by experts at one of the major certification services. ~ Jim
Wrong .... brass bux are clad just like our dimes, quarters and halves but instead of nickel/copper/nickel they are manganese-brass/copper/manganese-brass. You can learn about them here: http://www.numismedia.com/series/series.shtml It is my opinion that the original posters coin is nothing more then toning. Just my opinion, I could be wrong. Jason Craton
That's not any type of error. These "golden" dollars, will change color and the surfaces will smear, mearly by touching them.
From the link you supplied "The coin's physical makeup is a three-layer composite construction - pure copper sandwiched between and metallurgically bonded to outer layers of manganese brass." Sounds like Clad inside with the coin then "metallurgically bonded to ..." how is this different than electro plating? (on the surface) It would be like plating Copper-Nickel over a Quarter,nothing more. ~ Jim
The US Mint site says: "The coins physical makeup is a three-layer clad construction - pure copper sandwiched between and metallurgically bonded to outer layers of manganese brass." -- Stujoe
Are you serious? The layers are bonded together .... A layer of magnese-brass, a layer of copper and a layer of magnese-brass sandwiched together ..... NOT plated. The only coin currently made with any type of plating in the process is the Lincoln cent. "Laz", take a look at a brass buck and look at the edge of the coin. You will see three distinct layers. If the coin was plated like a cent (as you said in your original post), you would not see clad layers, you would only see one metal. Jason Craton
Yep, I agree that better compositions exist and that one could have been used. The "Nordic Gold" alloy developed by the Swedish monetary authority would have been a much better choice. It doesn't turn the color of a counterfeit penny the way the "sack of whatever" coin does. The fiat money US coinage produced since 1964 is all garbage, IMO. I don't buy any of it or sell any of it it and would much prefer not having to use it at all no matter what "innovative designs" the dept. of treasury dreams up. BTW, how many collectors and investors realize that the US Eagle bullion coins are being struck of precious metals bought on the open world market? Those are yearly issues of US coins worth buying and keeping unlike the sets of pot metal coins being offered by the Mint every year. While I can still trade worthless fiat money for precious metal coins, I intend to keep doing it.
Hmmmmm - I think you just proved your own comment to be invalid. If it is worthless - why do they give you gold & silver for it ??
Sure, you can buy a quarter ounce gold coin they've denominated "ten dollars" for around $125 of the paper dollars. That certainly makes the paper look valuable, doesn't it? That doesn't make my comment invalid, more likely just a little ahead of its time. Give it a few more years and the $10 gold eagle will cost $500 paper dollars, if indeed the paper is still in circulation. there's one thing I can say for sure: Nobody ever went broke from buying gold and silver coins. The same can't be said for people who buy fad collectibles, which is what fiat money always turns out to be sooner or later. Lodz ghetto zincs are now worth money because they're scarce. Fiat coins with an issue of 500 million pieces per denomination/type aren't going to attain that status for centuries, probably. I know that some collectors are still dutifully buying the various sets foisted off on the unwary buyer by the mint as collectible coins, but I also know many collectors who simply don't care for any circulation coins struck after 1964. It's kind of like the hobby of collecting paper money. Some collectors value it as collectible and some don't. If one is collecting, or hoarding, for intrinsic value, there's a different aim for what one purchases.
I'd certainly disagree with that. You could talk to a WHOLE BUNCH of collectors and dealers who went broke buying gold & silver coins in the '70s & '80s. There would be some who would argue that point too. Especially since there are quite a few of these fiat money coins with minatges of 500 million that are now and have been for the past 30 or 40 yrs selling for hundreds and often thousands of dollars. Now with is type of comment I'd never argue. By all means - let any collector collect whatever he or she wishes and for whatever reason. But you should also be aware that there are a great many in the numismatic community that consider American Gold, Silver & Platinum Eagles as not being collectible. They are considered by these folks to be nothing but a hunk of bullion that will never achieve a value beyond their intrinsic value. The point I'm making of course is that one thing is valuable to one person for a given reason while to the next person it has no value at all. It's just depends on who you are and what you like. And as long as it has value to you - does it matter ? And as for the paper notes still being in circulation in a few years - well you might want to consider that the first currency note was put into circulation back in 118 BC. So I kinda think the idea might stick around
The speculators you're talking about didn't go broke buying gold coins. They went broke trying to ride the commodities market. Those who simply bought gold stopped buying for awhile when the prices went into the stratosphere. Speculators were "buying on margin", which is a fancy way of saying they were betting money they never had. Paper money will probably always be around. The paper money we have in our pockets could be off the scene next week for all we know. It's fiat money, paper backed by nothing at all. Fiat money always collapses. Ours has lasted longer than some other types, but it's about to fall. If it's replaced by actual gold or silver certificates which circulate as bearer instruments along with gold and silver coins, we might just have a stable currency for a change. Collectors of bullion coins are a very small part of the bullion coin market, I suppose. I don't collect bullion coins. I buy them to keep and resell some as jewelry framed in bezels. As you may have guessed, I 'm not a collector at all.
I apologize for my previous comment - shouldn't have done that. You have every right to your own opinion - whether I agree with it or not or how misguided I think it may be. Won't happen again.
