Realcent.org

While reading this article last evening that was linked from Coinflation, I became confused and thus I have a question about a statement that was made.

http://www.survivalblog.com/2011/03/two_letters_re_nickels_as_an_i_1.html

My question is in regards to a statement in the following section:

Something very similar happened to silver Dimes, Quarters, Half Dollars in the mid-1960s. In 1964 they were still found in everyone's pocket change, but by the end of 1965 they had nearly all been wisely gathered in Mason jars at home and put under lock and key. This is explained by the Coinage Act of 1965, that introduced debased coins (copper slugs that were just flashed with silver), that started circulating side-by-side with the genuine 1964 and earlier silver coins. Gresham's Law dictated that the new, debased "bad" money would drive the older genuine "good' money out of circulation. Just a few years later, most of the the 90% silver coins that were deem non-numismatic (derisively called "junk" silver by collectable coin dealers) had been gathered into $500 and and $1,000 face value bags, and traded as a commodity. We need to learn from history. It doesn't repeat, but it often rhymes.

Is the above statement about the 1965 dimes correct? I tried to do a search last night about the composition and could only find information that states copper/nickel. Nowhere could I find any information that these coins were flashed with silver. Is that just an expression and doesn't really mean they were coated with silver? I know they aren't supposed to be, yet sometimes when I find a 1965 or 1966 dime I have to really check the edge carefully as the layer showing on the front and back sure have a look of silver to them.

Just confused about the statement so I hope someone can enlighten me.

Thanks.

That statement doesn't mean those coins have any silver content. The statement doesn't even mean that they were plated with silver. It simply means they were flashed with silver. They also could have been mooned with silver.

@Preserving, I was wondering the same thing! Kind of confusing if you ask me, but then again I'm not very knowledgeable when it comes to coins. Thanks for asking a very important question.

I don't know of the owner of that blog - JWR - wrote that or not, but I'll bet he did. He's not one to do a lot of fact checking before writing... (Note that I didn't call him the writer of that blog - his readers actually do most of the writing...) Remember, not only was he an officer in the service, he was a military intelligence officer....lol. (Who pushes nickels over cents.) In spite of all that, I like his blog, but not enough to read it daily.

Dimes and quarters starting with date code 1965 had no (0) silver content. Half dollars had 40% date codes 1965 through 1970.

If any dimes or quartes were minted in 1965 with silver content, they had a 1964 date code.

I read the article, and was surprised at the confusing language. No silver in the quarters and dimes stamped 1965 and later. We called those coins "Johnson's funny money".

Although I like Shinnosuke's explanation of the wording best.

Don't take that info literally. Unfortunately that is one of the confusing risks of info from the internet.

Don't let that detract from the main point of the article which is still valid.

Would be nice if he would edit/correct as others with initally incorrect info have done, to prevent further confusion.

.
I thought silver flashing had some silver in it.

I looked at a bunch of 1965 dimes and they do look like silver coating, plating, or flashing.

I read that yesterday too, so I checked dimes, and saved a few back.

he is totally wrong, and should be notified by someone, to get his facts straight.

that should be an embarrasement to him.





.