Realcent.org

Posted: **Mon Dec 23, 2013 6:10 pm**

I'm trying to get absolute clarity on this, and can't swear for sure that I'm there, but it appears to me that there are minor differences between the claims of investment coin content that do add up in the 4th decimal place. I thought I had this straight before but I've recently had to correct a couple of my prior assumptions.

For example, the American Buffalo is a nominal 1 oz coin at .9999 fine gold, but it is guaranteed to contain 1 troy ounce of gold, and therefore weighs a minimum of 1.0001 oz to accomodate the imperfect purity.

I believe the AGE is designed similarly, to be assured to contain 1 troy ounce of gold, but is 22 ct gold and therefore weighs a minimum of 24/22nds of a troy ounce.

If the above notes are correct 1000 of either coin contain at least 1000 toz of pure gold.

However, the ASE appears to be designed to contain 1 troy ounce of .999 fine silver, so 1000 ASEs only contain 999 toz of silver.

I'm working my way through the bulk of the major PM government coins to refresh what I know but trusted and traceable data on some of them is hard to find.

For example, the Mexican Libertads... is there a similar difference between silver and gold coins, or not? Are they 1 oz of pure metal, or 1 oz of .999 metal?

I know this is round-off error for many of you, but I know that many of you also reconcile your checking accounts to the penny. The bullion vaults consider this a serious countable amount, so I do also.

Any comments?

Posted: **Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:01 pm**

Posted: **Mon Dec 23, 2013 10:39 pm**

I have often asked this question myself but never been able to make the time. I would be interested in what you find.

Posted: **Tue Dec 24, 2013 6:51 am**

OBE, so deleted this one...

Posted: **Tue Dec 24, 2013 7:37 am**

thedrifter wrote:I have often asked this question myself but never been able to make the time. I would be interested in what you find.

It'll probably be a developing story, but this entry

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millesimal_fineness

has what I believe to be the correct definition of fineness, so I think the theoretical goal of fine is 100% pure. 24kt gold isn't fully pure, it's .999 fine. The finest gold ever produced was .999999 fine. So there always has to be a correction made, depending on the level of fineness. To get the total fine troy ounce you either multiply the weight by the fineness or increase the mass to compensate.

The AGE says "1 OZ FINE GOLD" - what is the total gold content?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Bull ... ct_of_1985
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5112

The law authorizing the AGE declared that it weighed 33.931 grams and contained 1 troy ounce of fine gold. That definition ensures that use of 22 kt .9167 fine gold would yield a minimum of 1.0 toz of gold. The coin itself declares "1 OZ FINE GOLD". Fully consistent.

The Buffalo says "1 OZ .9999 FINE GOLD" - what is the total gold content? It was authorized and defined by:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-109s ... 1047rs.pdf

If you look at the law, the specification matches the description on the coin and thus 10000 Buffs would contain 9999 toz of gold. So the two US gold coins appear to be rigorously defined.

However there seems to be an issue with the imprint on the ASE. The ASE says "1 OZ FINE SILVER" - so what is the total silver content? The authorizing law

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Statue_o ... ERTY_COINS

says that it weighs 31.103 grams (1 troy ounce) of .999 silver. That's not the same thing as 1 OZ FINE SILVER, so the mark on the ASE is (IMHO) wrong. It should say "1 OZ .999 FINE SILVER".

Posted: **Tue Dec 24, 2013 7:42 am**

Oh - for anyone that doesn't think this is interesting, the difference between .999 fine and fully fine over the production of the ASE to date amounts to almost 400,000 ounces of silver.

Posted: **Tue Dec 24, 2013 8:14 am**

.999 is the standard.

http://en.mimi.hu/jewelry/fine_silver.html

90% silver only has .8991 content.

Posted: **Tue Dec 24, 2013 8:17 am**

What cards n coins said

Posted: **Tue Dec 24, 2013 8:30 am**

beauanderos wrote:.999 is the standard.

http://en.mimi.hu/jewelry/fine_silver.html

90% silver only has .8991 content.

Jewelers don't care about the difference because they deal in small amounts where the round-off doesn't matter. But bullion houses count the difference.

US coin silver changed from 89.243% to 90% in 1837. At that point the US legal definition of coin silver became 371.25 parts silver out of 412.5, which is exactly .9.

For any who don't care about this I will be happy to deduct that tenth of a percent from my payments in any future purchases, since you don't care about the difference.

Posted: **Tue Dec 24, 2013 8:37 am**

68Camaro wrote:
beauanderos wrote:.999 is the standard.

http://en.mimi.hu/jewelry/fine_silver.html

90% silver only has .8991 content.

Jewelers don't care about the difference because they deal in small amounts where the round-off doesn't matter. But bullion houses count the difference.

US coin silver changed from 89.243% to 90% in 1837. At that point the US legal definition of coin silver became 371.25 parts silver out of 412.5, which is exactly .9.

For any who don't care about this I will be happy to deduct that tenth of a percent from my payments in any future purchases, since you don't care about the difference.

If you're the mint, the two cents you're talking about with each ounce could amount to something... for the rest of us :shifty:

Posted: **Tue Dec 24, 2013 8:40 am**

beauanderos wrote:If you're the mint, the two cents you're talking about with each ounce could amount to something... for the rest of us

Most of us would LOVE to have 0.1% of your hoard!

Posted: **Tue Dec 24, 2013 10:32 am**

68Camaro wrote:
beauanderos wrote:If you're the mint, the two cents you're talking about with each ounce could amount to something... for the rest of us

Most of us would LOVE to have 0.1% of your hoard!

Posted: **Tue Dec 24, 2013 11:40 am**

.999 does not necessarily mean .99900000000000

probably closer to .9995 or better

Posted: **Tue Dec 24, 2013 1:39 pm**

Rodebaugh wrote:.999 does not necessarily mean .99900000000000

probably closer to .9995 or better

This. Even if your 1000 ounces of silver eagles could technically only contain 999 ounces of pure silver, it's likely not off by that much. And for all practical applications of the element silver, you have 1000 ounces. Send two sealed monster boxes to a coin dealer, a silver refiner, or an industrial silver plater, they are all going to pay you for 1000 ounces, not 999.

Posted: **Tue Dec 24, 2013 2:53 pm**

Rodebaugh wrote:.999 does not necessarily mean .99900000000000

probably closer to .9995 or better

It wouldn't be .9995 or better unless by accident or carelessness. No business purposely wastes money. The melt would have just enough extra to avoid missing the .9990 minimum spec value by a sampling or testing error.

Posted: **Tue Dec 24, 2013 3:06 pm**

natsb88 wrote:...Send two sealed monster boxes to a coin dealer, a silver refiner, or an industrial silver plater, they are all going to pay you for 1000 ounces, not 999.

Good points guys, and I'm not sweating it, I just want to ensure I understand the limits. ASEs are ASEs and as long as there isn't excessive concern about fakes they will retain a premium, and no one is going be melting them unless counterfeits have caused loss of faith in their credibility.

I'm sure if I send a 1000 oz bar marked .999 to Comex they would pay me for 999 ounces, unless I was willing to have the bar melted, assayed, and be paid based on actuals (which would cost more to do - at current rates - than it would be worth).

I also know that as PM rises in value (as I believe it will) the rules tend to change. Gold is inventoried based on actual net fineness. When you look at bar inventories the bar weights are multiplied by the assay values and the total troy ounces of gold are logged as 100% fine, not .9999 or some other number.

Posted: **Tue Dec 24, 2013 3:11 pm**

beauanderos wrote:

Mine was lost in a watercraft of more recent vintage. I knew you were old, but didn't realize your loss happened prior to the advent of the steam engine! :lol:

Posted: **Tue Dec 24, 2013 7:44 pm**

68Camaro wrote:I'm sure if I send a 1000 oz bar marked .999 to Comex they would pay me for 999 ounces, unless I was willing to have the bar melted, assayed, and be paid based on actuals (which would cost more to do - at current rates - than it would be worth).

I don't think that's true. The commodity is silver with a minimum fineness of .999, not silver calculated to a fineness of 1.000.

From the Comex requirements: "Silver delivered under this contract shall assay to a minimum of 999 fineness."

So anything from .999 to .99999999 would be treated the same way, full weight. For this purpose, any purity beyond .999 is wasted effort. The weights and totals are in silver with a minimum fineness of .999, not in actual silver weight calculated by individual bar weight and purity. At least that has always been my understanding. I would be very interested in documentation indicating otherwise though.

Posted: **Tue Dec 24, 2013 8:46 pm**

I get what you're saying; you might be right. (Certainly you're right about the fineness, but that's not quite the question here.) And/or there might be a difference between silver and gold in this respect. I skimmed the Comex and London rules several years ago when I had much less appreciation for them and a lot of it was going over my head then cause I was still drinking from the whole PM firehose. I'll have to see if I can get something in writing either way with reference, but chances are I won't be doing much diggin into it until Thursday, unless I find something really fast, in the morning over coffee before we have to go over to the MIL's for breakfast at 9 (and to watch the junior nieces and nephews opening presents, until I hit my limit).

Posted: **Tue Dec 24, 2013 11:13 pm**

68Camaro wrote:I get what you're saying; you might be right. (Certainly you're right about the fineness, but that's not quite the question here.) And/or there might be a difference between silver and gold in this respect. I skimmed the Comex and London rules several years ago when I had much less appreciation for them and a lot of it was going over my head then cause I was still drinking from the whole PM firehose. I'll have to see if I can get something in writing either way with reference, but chances are I won't be doing much diggin into it until Thursday, unless I find something really fast, in the morning over coffee before we have to go over to the MIL's for breakfast at 9 (and to watch the junior nieces and nephews opening presents, until I hit my limit).

Take along the gift from Copper catcher an join the fun :lol:

Realcent.org

What's a thousand-th or a ten-thousand-th - between friends?

What's a thousand-th or a ten-thousand-th - between friends?

Re: What's a thousand-th or a ten-thousand-th - between frie

Re: What's a thousand-th or a ten-thousand-th - between frie

Re: What's a thousand-th or a ten-thousand-th - between frie

Re: What's a thousand-th or a ten-thousand-th - between frie

Re: What's a thousand-th or a ten-thousand-th - between frie

Re: What's a thousand-th or a ten-thousand-th - between frie

Re: What's a thousand-th or a ten-thousand-th - between frie

Re: What's a thousand-th or a ten-thousand-th - between frie

Re: What's a thousand-th or a ten-thousand-th - between frie

Re: What's a thousand-th or a ten-thousand-th - between frie

Re: What's a thousand-th or a ten-thousand-th - between frie

Re: What's a thousand-th or a ten-thousand-th - between frie

Re: What's a thousand-th or a ten-thousand-th - between frie

Re: What's a thousand-th or a ten-thousand-th - between frie

Re: What's a thousand-th or a ten-thousand-th - between frie

Re: What's a thousand-th or a ten-thousand-th - between frie

Re: What's a thousand-th or a ten-thousand-th - between frie

Re: What's a thousand-th or a ten-thousand-th - between frie

Re: What's a thousand-th or a ten-thousand-th - between frie