Realcent.org

I was thinking... something I've never done, but I'm happy to stand on the shoulders of giants, and there are a few Titans here..... so was wondering.

Has anyone done an analysis of average circulated 90% on which retains the most weight after normal wear? We all like to use .715, but it seems realistic to think that surface area per X dollars face would be different.

I havent' done this yet, but my hypothesis would be that $10 face of average circulated halves would lose less weight than $10 face of average circulated quarters which would lose less than $10 average circulated dimes. However, I would imagine that average circulated quarters could have more wear than everything else because people like to use quarters (I think) more than other coins.

Has anyone done any research on this? What were your results?

If someone hasn't done it, but just wants to give your opinion - BRING IT!

I didn't record the detail results but did a major personal study last year as a function of year on about 2000 face of all types, years. The order - on the whole - is definitely halves, quarters, dimes. You forget that a dime in the 30s was some serious pocket change - a hamburger and a coke was a dime. They were used a lot more than quarters back then. The cut-off point for "full" weight is typically 1953-ish for halves, and a year or two newer for quarters ~1955, and newer still for dimes ~1956-57. In that lot it was hard to put together a full weight roll in halves before the war (I think I managed 1 or 2), it became difficult in quarters by mid 40s, and difficult in dimes by late 40s. I think I managed to put together on 2 $5 rolls of full weight Mercs, out of a great many. Of course there are many individual exceptions, and in a large enough batch it is possible to pick out the best and put together some nice rolls of anything, which I did.

68Camaro wrote:The cut-off point for "full" weight is typically 1953-ish for halves, and a year or two newer for quarters ~1955, and newer still for dimes ~1956-57. In that lot it was hard to put together a full weight roll in halves before the war (I think I managed 1 or 2), it became difficult in quarters by mid 40s, and difficult in dimes by late 40s.

that's about right. i have a lot of full weight WLs, but generally i agree.

easiest thing to do is stick to JFK's and Bens. because they are larger, they are easier to work with.

715 is a standard that was implemented at least fifteen years ago when junk silver was sold in mixed denomination silver bags. With the passage of time, and the inevitable application of Gresham's Law (keeping your best coins, selling your worst) the standard is losing its applicability. Your own private stash probably exceeds 715 if you've stuck with newer denominations, but that purchased from large online dealers will frequently be considerably less than 715. You WILL NOT find an online dealer, anywhere, that can supply you with a $100 face bag of Walker halves, Mercury dimes, Standing Liberty quarters, or any of the Barber series that weighs in at 715. More likely those will be 670 to 690. Those coins have to be at least XF to AU to retain that gram wt... and they sell as numies, not as bullion. You could buy (from a limited amount of sellers) coins that were all XF or better... but then you would likely pay a minimum of twenty to thirty percent above melt to obtain them. Those series should not be bought as bullion, not if you want the best bang for your buck. Now if you're combining collecting with stacking, then that's a different matter. Another member was telling me how he bought a large amount of dimes from Gainesville (recommended by many as your best source for cheapest silver) and he got less than 700 when he weighed them. Trust me, no online dealer is going to reimburse you 15 oz when you call them later to complain that your bag was light. Realistically, and I think you'll see this implemented eventually, the standard should be lowered to 710, if not 705. The wt variability is one reason I like newly produced 999 silver fractionals.

beauanderos wrote:715 is a standard that was implemented at least fifteen years ago when junk silver was sold in mixed denomination silver bags. With the passage of time, and the inevitable application of Gresham's Law (keeping your best coins, selling your worst) the standard is losing its applicability. Your own private stash probably exceeds 715 if you've stuck with newer denominations, but that purchased from large online dealers will frequently be considerably less than 715. You WILL NOT find an online dealer, anywhere, that can supply you with a $100 face bag of Walker halves, Mercury dimes, Standing Liberty quarters, or any of the Barber series that weighs in at 715. More likely those will be 670 to 690. Those coins have to be at least XF to AU to retain that gram wt... and they sell as numies, not as bullion. You could buy (from a limited amount of sellers) coins that were all XF or better... but then you would likely pay a minimum of twenty to thirty percent above melt to obtain them. Those series should not be bought as bullion, not if you want the best bang for your buck. Now if you're combining collecting with stacking, then that's a different matter. Another member was telling me how he bought a large amount of dimes from Gainesville (recommended by many as your best source for cheapest silver) and he got less than 700 when he weighed them. Trust me, no online dealer is going to reimburse you 15 oz when you call them later to complain that your bag was light. Realistically, and I think you'll see this implemented eventually, the standard should be lowered to 710, if not 705. The wt variability is one reason I like newly produced 999 silver fractionals.

I was just wondering about this today... thanks for posting the info.

I myself like to purchase anything "64". Whether halves, quarters or dimes. I go out of my way to search out buys in that year. Being that they are the last of modern silver base coin the US mint punched out. I collected one roll of Mercury dimes and found them to be worn down to a nubbin. Same money and less silver. That was my last roll of them. I did a trade with a gentlemen a while back and did a oz. for oz. trade. My foreign silver for his 90% US silver, and to my delight the rolls he paid me in were all 1964 uncirculated quarters and dimes. SCORE! Maybe Ray can post a link to the blog site were he goes into detail about the .715 factor. If you are new to collecting metals, that would be good learning.

more info here:

http://www.realcent.org/viewtopic.php?f ... convention

Keep in mind that the mint punched out 1964 dated silver coin for up to two more years into 1966, while they converted to the clad - kept the dates at 64 so that you would know that all 65 and newer dated coin wasn't silver (as if you couldn't tell). But the main thing is that when news of the changeover hit, people started hoarding them, so all the early 60s coin has very little wear on it, but especially the 64s.

Lemon Thrower wrote:

68Camaro wrote:The cut-off point for "full" weight is typically 1953-ish for halves, and a year or two newer for quarters ~1955, and newer still for dimes ~1956-57. In that lot it was hard to put together a full weight roll in halves before the war (I think I managed 1 or 2), it became difficult in quarters by mid 40s, and difficult in dimes by late 40s.

that's about right. i have a lot of full weight WLs, but generally i agree.

easiest thing to do is stick to JFK's and Bens. because they are larger, they are easier to work with.

I exaggerated a bit on the low side on my walkers - I know I have more than a couple of rolls, but (now you've made me go look at my spreadsheet) it's a far lower number. 13% Walkers, 30% Franklins, 58% JFKs. But those ARE biased because I purposely weeded out low weight coins and focused on purchase full weight coins. But it's probably indicative of how relatively easy each are to get.

There was a study done of wear factors on coins, based upon amount of time in circulation, done clear back in the late 1800's. Coins in uncirculated condition, when released by the mint, contained 723 oz per $1000 face value. There is a direct correlation of wear vs age. If you were to obtain 1000 coins of mixed denomination, with equal representation of dimes, quarters, and halves, for each year, from general circulation and weigh them, you would find with only the tiniest variability in more recent years, but increasingly more as you recede in date, that each year was lighter than the prior year. You will probably hit 715 at about 1953. Thus, what the dealers intend to imply is that mixed bags of coins will randomly contain enough newer dated coins to counterbalance the wear represented by the older coins, and will weigh, on avg, 715. This is clearly not the case as evidenced by what can be obtained on ebay, unless you are willing to outbid others for pure rolls of 1964. Three years ago you used to be able to get them at par with other rolls, but now they fetch a premium, so any advantage gained by less wear is negated by greater initial cost. At present, even Barber slicks or Standing Liberty quarters with dates illegible, will fetch full face value when sold to online dealers in large ($100 face bags and greater) volumes as the convention has not yet changed from buying/selling at a calculated fraction of face value to determine worth to actually weighing coins to exactly determine wear factors. This is likely to change as price rises exponentially (although even gold still sells in similar fashion, at it's far higher values... no one weighs gold to determine buying/selling prices, at present). However, what you will first encounter in the market place is that you still are required to buy at face, but can only sell by weight. When enough people complain about that manner of trade, either a new, much lower convention of say, 700, will be adopted industry-wide, or all silver-bearing coins will be both sold and bought back by online dealers by gram wt alone.

68Camaro wrote:

Lemon Thrower wrote:

68Camaro wrote:The cut-off point for "full" weight is typically 1953-ish for halves, and a year or two newer for quarters ~1955, and newer still for dimes ~1956-57. In that lot it was hard to put together a full weight roll in halves before the war (I think I managed 1 or 2), it became difficult in quarters by mid 40s, and difficult in dimes by late 40s.

that's about right. i have a lot of full weight WLs, but generally i agree.

easiest thing to do is stick to JFK's and Bens. because they are larger, they are easier to work with.

I exaggerated a bit on the low side on my walkers - I know I have more than a couple of rolls, but (now you've made me go look at my spreadsheet) it's a far lower number. 13% Walkers, 30% Franklins, 58% JFKs. But those ARE biased because I purposely weeded out low weight coins and focused on purchase full weight coins. But it's probably indicative of how relatively easy each are to get.

Your ratio of coins kept is not accurate if applied to coins acquired as it is likely skewed by intentional heavier purchases of pure Kennedy rolls. Only one in a million Kennedy halves will show wear greater than 715. However, the probability of Walkers vs Franklins is more likely to be close to the mark. One could, thus, presume from your figures that you would be twice as likely to find full wt Franklins than Walkers (although the percentage is actually much higher). Most mixed date Franklin rolls will range from 712 to 719, Walkers 698 to 713, Barbers 650 to 690, Kennedy's 720 to 723. Very few online dealers sell mixed denomination bags anymore, and most charge a premium for half dollar bags. In spite of their lighter wt, a premium is still charged on Mercury dime bags vs Rosies, and Walker halves bags vs Franklins and Kennedy's, catering to the perception/hope of collector's/investor's that some dates of great value can be found in "unsearched" bags. The same holds true with all Barber denominations, to an even greater extent. Will you find something that would make the price disparity worth what you lose in bullion value? Could happen, probably won't.

beauanderos wrote:Your ratio of coins kept is not accurate if applied to coins acquired as it is likely skewed by intentional heavier purchases of pure Kennedy rolls. Only one in a million Kennedy halves will show wear greater than 715. However, the probability of Walkers vs Franklins is more likely to be close to the mark. One could, thus, presume from your figures that you would be twice as likely to find full wt Franklins than Walkers (although the percentage is actually much higher). Most mixed date Franklin rolls will range from 712 to 719, Walkers 698 to 713, Barbers 650 to 690, Kennedy's 720 to 723. Very few online dealers sell mixed denomination bags anymore, and most charge a premium for half dollar bags. In spite of their lighter wt, a premium is still charged on Mercury dime bags vs Rosies, and Walker halves bags vs Franklins and Kennedy's, catering to the perception/hope of collector's/investor's that some dates of great value can be found in "unsearched" bags. The same holds true with all Barber denominations, to an even greater extent. Will you find something that would make the price disparity worth what you lose in bullion value? Could happen, probably won't.

Agree - I've bought a LOT of nothing but JFKs exactly for the reason of weight. On the other hand, I've hardly ever seen an underweight JFK, so essentially all are full weight. And if I'm not mistaken they made about as many of the 64 JFKs as they did all the Franklins put together. I'm in a rush to turn the computer off so I can let the drywall guy cover it, else I would look the numbers up, but there were an astonishing number of them made. Billions of bucks in silver, at today's spot. No wonder they ran out of silver for the other coins!

68Camaro wrote:

beauanderos wrote:Your ratio of coins kept is not accurate if applied to coins acquired as it is likely skewed by intentional heavier purchases of pure Kennedy rolls. Only one in a million Kennedy halves will show wear greater than 715. However, the probability of Walkers vs Franklins is more likely to be close to the mark. One could, thus, presume from your figures that you would be twice as likely to find full wt Franklins than Walkers (although the percentage is actually much higher). Most mixed date Franklin rolls will range from 712 to 719, Walkers 698 to 713, Barbers 650 to 690, Kennedy's 720 to 723. Very few online dealers sell mixed denomination bags anymore, and most charge a premium for half dollar bags. In spite of their lighter wt, a premium is still charged on Mercury dime bags vs Rosies, and Walker halves bags vs Franklins and Kennedy's, catering to the perception/hope of collector's/investor's that some dates of great value can be found in "unsearched" bags. The same holds true with all Barber denominations, to an even greater extent. Will you find something that would make the price disparity worth what you lose in bullion value? Could happen, probably won't.

Agree - I've bought a LOT of nothing but JFKs exactly for the reason of weight. On the other hand, I've hardly ever seen an underweight JFK, so essentially all are full weight. And if I'm not mistaken they made about as many of the 64 JFKs as they did all the Franklins put together. I'm in a rush to turn the computer off so I can let the drywall guy cover it, else I would look the numbers up, but there were an astonishing number of them made. Billions of bucks in silver, at today's spot. No wonder they ran out of silver for the other coins!

ok, that was a chore. Someone else can add up the total of all Walkers ever made. Get this, folks! In "one" year, mintage of 1964 Kennedy half dollars nearly eclipsed the entire fifteen year run of Franklin halves in number. Franklins 1948 to 1963 481,161,410. Kennedy's? 433,460,212!

Great topic! I've been interested in this subject for a few months. I've been weeding out the coins that don't meet the 715 standard out of my stack. I have a "cheepo" scale that's accurate to 0.01 gram that I weigh my coins with. I've found uncirculated halves that weigh either over/under the 12.50 gram standard by 0.1 grams. Does anyone know what the original mint tolerances were on 90 % coins?

Sounds like you did it the hard way Ray. For future reference, just copy and paste that stuff into Excel, and then use the autosum feature.

Engineer wrote:Sounds like you did it the hard way Ray. For future reference, just copy and paste that stuff into Excel, and then use the autosum feature.

That's beyond my skillset. I'm a technophobe. Can't operate a digital camera, don't know the functions on my cellphone. What's Excel?

Engineer wrote:Sounds like you did it the hard way Ray. For future reference, just copy and paste that stuff into Excel, and then use the autosum feature.

Can you do that with the Walker mintages and post the result here? Thanks!

68Camaro wrote:

Lemon Thrower wrote:

beauanderos wrote:

This is what I'm talking about when I say standing on the shoulders of giants. I love to learn from men of wisdom!

OneBiteAtATime wrote:

68Camaro wrote:

Lemon Thrower wrote:

beauanderos wrote:

This is what I'm talking about when I say standing on the shoulders of giants. I love to learn from men of wisdom!

You're just short. Everyone's a giant

beauanderos wrote:

Engineer wrote:Sounds like you did it the hard way Ray. For future reference, just copy and paste that stuff into Excel, and then use the autosum feature.

Can you do that with the Walker mintages and post the result here? Thanks!

Yeah...but you'll have to wait until I've finished my chili smothered fritos.

edit:

485,320,640....burp.

beauanderos wrote:You're just short. Everyone's a giant

See that. Pay the man a compliment and he cuts you down to size. Let me rephrase. Ahem. How did Beauanderos get in that list? I said standing on the shoulders of giants, not leaning in the bellies of the rotund.

OneBiteAtATime wrote:

beauanderos wrote:You're just short. Everyone's a giant

leaning in the bellies of the rotund.

Now that's more like it! Nicest compliment I've heard in weeks

Engineer wrote:Yeah...but you'll have to wait until I've finished my chili smothered fritos.

edit:

485,320,640....burp.

Yum, chili fritos! (aka, Frito Pie)

Bump for my reference board...

Just hoard halves from 1960 to 1964 and you will be fine.