The "Real" Weight of Junk Silver

Has anyone actually weighed a bag of junk silver to see how close it is to the actual amount that it would have been new? I keep my junk silver that I don't plan to sell off in plastic tubes. I have many 1964 Half tubes and they each have 20 coins in them. I was packing a mixed tube of Franklin's and Walkers and I got 21 in that tube. All of these coins have been pulled from circulation.

I am assuming that most of the bags of coins held by investors/speculators were assembled by large bullion dealers but what about the homemade bags. I've got a homeade bag (well they are actually in rolls) of 40% halves. Are these inferior because of the wear from circulation?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I disagee, I've weighed AG and G Barber and SLQ that were 10% under weight. After a coin drops below VG, you will usually notice weight loss. Under AG and the weight loss gets significant.

 

I agree with FishyOne, I have a Seated Half in G condition that weighs a little over 10g as compared to 12.4g for a new one.

 

I've weighed out some of my AG Barbers one time and found that the halves were around 5% average underweight and the dimes were around 8% average underweight. Doesn't bother me though as no one I know buys junk silver by weight, they pay based on face value, regardless of wear and with Barbers the wear is expected. Moreover, it's easier to find people to pay more for worn out junk Barbers than for AU junk silver from the 1950s-1960s.

 

Honestly, I have never had a junk coin weigh outside what normal tolerances are, but admittedly have not weighed that many. Those I sold were sold as a "Face" amount as well as the coins I have purchased over the years. I never bothered to weigh Silver bars I had purchased either, although I probably should have. But they were stamped "Englehard 100oz .999 fine" and the broker never weighed them when I sold one either. The label was as sufficient for determining value as it was for a coin.

I did investigate selling Silver directly to a smelter a few months ago, and they were purchasing face value bags or lots and qupted their buy prices accordingly.

Also, I have heard others that agree with Doug and state very little weight is lost by normal wear ? But evidently, that only holds true up to a point ? It might be interesting to study at which point wear is merely flattening of detail and when the coin starts losing metal. I suspect as said, it may be measured with the grade ?

 

The easy answer is that junk silver is sold "by tale" (by count) not by weight. This has been true for hundreds of years with the silver penny of England. Yes, we all know that Barber Halves weigh less than 1964 Kennedys. But I never in 35 years had a dealer do anything except run them through a counter.

I beg to differ. If they were mashed down, would the diameter not get larger? I had an uncle, a real estate agent, who knew the trick to tearing a phone book in half. He collected coins. Never mashed one flat.

 

I weighed several standing liberty quarters on a triple beam balance scale. They were more than 10% under weight and still had readable dates.

 

He's talking about mashed down by wear which would only effect the high points (relief and rim) and not the diameter of the entire coin. Even if it did, I don't think wear could mash the high points enough to change the diameter. But, I agree with GDJMSP, I don't think that metal is actually lost from wear. If anything, it just gets pushed around slightly. This is an extreme example, but when you sharpen a knife you create a burr, which is the metal being pushed to the edge. But, I don't know I'm not a metalologist. I make knives with it

A theory: I think the reason there are so many examples of coins losing weight is because of chemical reactions. molecules transferring atoms that affect the weight of the coin, since different atoms weigh different weights. But, I don't know. I'm not a chemicalologist.

 

I'm with the people that say they lose weight as I have a slick Barber half dollar that weighs 11.5g. A whole gram shy, it is in AG condition.

 

I think you mean chemist

I don't think it so much of "mashing" as it is "smearing". I think if details were "mashed", then the coins' designs would change over time. I haven't seen an G coin yet that has an indistinguishable design.

 

Yeah, that's what I meant. sorry, I'm not a wordologist

 

I've weighed hundreds of coins over the years and they do lose weight from wear. A 2002 GAE is not a good example. Weigh a few well worn SLQ on a good gram scale and you'll find many under 6 grams and that is 4% under nominal weight minimum.

 

You posted this last time you and I had this disagreement Doug. I believe its a red herring since its gold. I told you, like many have told you on this thread, that we have weighed circulated silver and its underweight. Grab any well circulated SL or Barber half and its readily apparent. I think gold could "squish" more than silver. If silver coins do not wear, then why are my hands always black after handling them? This is wear, and the metal is coming off the coin and is lost forever. Even if it is only 1% Doug, on a $1000 face bag that is over $167 worth of silver today, and I do not think a bag of slick barbers would only be underweight by 1%.

I have seen the same weight loss as other posters here, and I concur. However, no one weighs circulated bags. I think that the logic, (if there is any), is that newer coins with less numismatic premium will be heavier, while the worn ones could be coins with better numismatic premiums. No idea if that is true, but it might make sense.

 

How does a 2002 non-circulating coin get that much wear without being a pocket piece which should pick up scratches and dings not showing in that photo? Is that the way worn Eagles look? Are there a lot of them out there? Does the mint produce any flat strikes that look that bad when they leave the mint?

In my US collecting phase which ended in the early 1960's I saved three seated dimes out of circulation. The most worn is an 1875 that now weighs exactly 2.00g (down .49 from theory. That is about 20% and the coin still has a good date. I recall in the day not pulling dateless ones out of circulation so I can't weigh them. I would think that actually melting such coins would be a bit stupid. If you are buying by face and selling by weight, you lose.

 

Three reasons that i can think of for dealers accepting worn coins

1. They buy them at such a margin below spot that even if a coin is missing 10% of its metal they are still making a profit
2. Silver is still pretty cheap and a few penny's worth of lost metal is not a deal breaker, but that would change if silver hit 50+ a ounce
3. They can still pretty easy just pass them along in that form without sending them to be melted.

 

I'm amazed an Admin with that many posts doesn't use a gram scale and weigh a few worn pieces. Grab any AG3 or G04 SLQ and weigh it, then compare it to the 6.25g nominal weight. I've bought and sold 90% junk silver for years. Coins lose weight from wear. It's not suppostion, it's fact.

Do you think silver coins are made with something that doesn't wear down and lose weight from friction like every other metal? Of course not, they're simple silver-copper alloys that will lose weight from friction like other metals do.