The "Real" Weight of Junk Silver

Almost every single AG-G Barber I've ever seen has little to no reeding because it too does wear away.

Here's a pic of a group of them I had taken awhile ago and just about all of them had slick edges.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

That really is a beautiful sight illini, I wish I bought up lots of silver when it was lower

 

Observation based on my Mercury dimes pulled from circulation in the 1950's: Reeding disappears completely about the same time the wing on the helmet disappears completely. When the wing is half clear, the reeding is looking abused but still at least partly present. Does this match your coins?

I believe a lot of the ugliness in this thread is that some people consider a VF coin 'worn' while others of us consider VF too nice a coin to have in our junk Barbers or Mercs. We think of 'worn' as VG or worse. You guys can invest in any type silver you want but I hope you will think twice before actually melting anything before the current designs. During the silver bubble of the Hunt brothers era (1980 - when silver was in the $40's), I saw Athenian tetradrachms (mostly 3rd century BC trashy ones) in poor condition sold as melters. They weigh ~17g. and sell now for $50 to $200 in ugly shape.

 

I believe a lot of the ugliness in this thread is that some people consider a VF coin 'worn' while others of us consider VF too nice a coin to have in our junk Barbers or Mercs.

Read more: http://www.cointalk.com/t133717-3/#ixzz12BrVJ9Gb​

That's a good point and I'm not trying to be ugly. : ) VF and above there's little or no weight loss from mint specified tolerances. Below Fine and it's a different story. Some buyers, me included, will not buy "slicks" in PO1 or FR2 condition for this reason. Now a full $1,000 bag is never going to be all slicks unless someone took the time to make it that way. The .715 multiplier backs out 1.5% weight for wear, which is okay as long the coins average VG or better (and they usually will).

 

I knew you'd have some logical reasoning behind your view here Doug.
Have to point out that the lightest bag was 392 Troy which makes it fall below tolerance but certainly not 10%. Actually that would put average coin weight at 2.438 grams.

Yesterday I made up a half bag of mixed Roosevelts and Mercuries. 398.00 TO. As I have mentioned most fall into the 397-398 range.
A bag of 1964 Kennedy halves can weigh more. I've had those go as high as 399 TO.

So what am I saying here? I believe there is some loss to wear but it isn't that much. If I were to get a bag that weighed 10% under I would surmise it would be a bag of dimes containing coins I could spit through basically.

We don't weigh individual coins unless we think or know they are fake. We weigh them by $500 face increments.

As for the original OP questioning 40%. We don't weigh them period. They sell as they sell.

 

Depends on the coin and what comes in.
We buy junk as junk basically. We'll pay the same amount for a dateless Standing Liberty as we will for an AU 1964 Washington.

The bag of Mercury dimes in question would probably yielded few coins of a grade of F or better. First consider the circulation factor then the fact that we do peruse these for coins that are XF or better. We have buyers for those at a better premium.
That bag would have had coins from PR to F for the most part.

The mixed bag I made the other day would have yielded dimes from PR to AU. It was heavier on Roosevelts so the grades would have been consistently higher.

Same goes for quarters and even halves. Depends on what I put in the bag.

We have many buyers. One in Chicago supplies a lot of the places that put together overpriced sets for the uninformed.

He was paying a nice premium on Franklin halves recently. The grades on those will be lower than 1964 Kennedys and higher than Walking Liberties.

So in my vague answer any given bag can contain coins from PR to AU and even BU. The average weight is still generally 397-398 TO.

 

I would just point out Doug that you yourself stated that the tolerances were the range but it was expected that the average be 2.50. If the average weight of a bag of circulated coins was 2.438, or 2.475, then it is expected that they averaged 2.50 when minted, so they have lost weight due to circulation. Law of large numbers would make it extremely unlikely that every single coin in a 500 count bag would be on the low end of the mints accepted variance. Assuming that the average should be 2.50 therefor proves this bag is showing circulation loss. You cannot take a large sample and then say its ok for the large sample to be outside of expected value. You are correct when it comes to a single coin that it may not be due to loss because the range was plus or minus, but on large samples, like 500, that argument fails since there should be just as many high weight examples from the mint in there as low weight coins.

 

Coins wear with use and lose weight. It's a known fact that SLQ and Barbers lose up to 20% of their specified weight when in PO1 condition. I can't believe a concept as simple as metal wearing down from use can't be grasped. The U.S. Gov't use to regularly pull silver coins from circulation that had "worn down" and no longer met legal requirments.

Again - I've weighed hundreds of coins, not full bags, individual coins that were underweight by 15%. Find a SLQ quarter in PO1 and weigh it. It will be under 5.5 grams.

 

This thread reminds me of an old line: "A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still".

 

Because they can

So how is it that people keep telling me that they disagree with me ?



You a bachelor, Doug?

Bottom line~weigh the bag, pay the price.
​

 

I was disagreeing with you saying they are "in spec" individually you can say that, but as a group they are not in spec since they would be expected to be 2.50 in a large group.

 

It's simple. Too simple. His data, however skewed it may be by not knowing the condition of coins, even supports it.

Coins wear and lose a great deal of weight below VG condition. In PO1 or FR2 condition there's a SLQ in the world that's over 6 grams. It's such an obvious fact and all you have to do is weigh a few coins and find out. Look at a few "slicks" and notice how thin they are. Silver has worn off, lots of it.

 

I'm starting to wonder if there isn't something more going on here. An ASE, which being more pure silver are softer than junk silver, being a silver-copper alloy. I've taken two ASE and have been grinding the edges together making a gritting sound as the reeded edges pass over each other. So far, I've been doing this for about 2 months, and I haven't noticed the ridges any smoother.

Now, I've seen a few Barber halves that have smooth edges. Recall, junk silver is harder than ASE, because it's an alloy. What gets me is, what do people have to do to these coins to get the edges smooth like that? I'm starting to think that they were shaved on purpose. I only see this kind of worn edges on Barbers. Did people in the late 1800's grind these coins down to salvage the silver for another purpose, stopping only to preserve the integrity of the coin, so that they could still use it as currency?

 

It's from wear. I'm positive... I have a modern clad half dollar that was used as a pocket piece and has no reeding on it.

 

How long was that half dollar in your pocket? What rubbed against the edge to remove the reeding? As I said, I'm purposefully grinding the edges of two ASE together and I still don't see any noticable wear. And I carry these two ASE's in my pocket. Pure silver is softer than the 90% alloy. I don't know if I'm totally convinced.

I do know that people use coins to scratch off game pieces instead of using their fingernail. I'm wondering if there was something like that happening in the late 1800's to make Barbers appear so worn.

 

I am investing in 1964 Silver Half Kennedy's and Franklin Half Dollars. I found someone online (coin collector on answers.com) that says the total tolerance of the Half Dollars +/- is 0.259. The Silver halves should weigh 12.50g according to the US Mint. The majority of mine weigh between 12.45-12.55 grams (well within any tolerance level). I do have about five though that weigh as little as 12.30 or as high as 12.67. When you do the math that is a difference of 1.6% deviation on the low end and 1.3% on the high end. I have seen an article at about.com that says that anything under or over 1% is not considered an authentic coin. I have seen another post where people said to look up the weight tolerance levels in a coin collecting book like Coin World Almanac. The coins are all circulated and to me it makes sense that some of the coins would lose some of their metal content through friction and everyday use. I have an old silver quarter that comes in at 5.5 grams (the day it was struck it should have been 6.25 grams). My question is does anybody know where I can find the standard tolerance levels prescribed by the US Mint and give me your general opinion do you think my coins are authentic? The size is nearly perfect (I measured it with calipers, it looks like silver, feels like silver, and the ping test sounds like silver) it is just the weight. It bothers me a little bit.

 

Nobody is gonna forge a '64 Kennedy.

 

That is what I was thinking. When I looked on Ebay I could only find copy Morgan's, Peace Dollars, and other rare coins (date-wise). Do you think anyone is going to forge the Franklin's? And what do you think about the weight ranges I gave? Any help is much appreciated. Thanks.