why aren't nickels in Silver Proof Sets 90% silver?

On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 15:15:07 -0600, Edwin Johnston
wrote:

Jon Purkey wrote:
On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 05:22:41 -0800 (PST), oly wrote:

On Dec 26, 5:44 pm, Edwin Johnston wrote:
oly wrote:
On Dec 26, 5:09 pm, yawnmoth wrote:
Looking at the informational sheet in the 2008 Silver Proof Set, I see
that the nickel consists of 25% nickel and balance copper, whereas all
the other silver colored coins consist of 90% silver and balance
copper. Any ideas as to why this is?
Traditionally, the five cent coin never was 90% silver. Only the
traditional silver denominations are represented in silver. Color has
nothing to do with it.
oly
But if they were truly being traditional, they'd have made the cent out
of 95% copper instead of copper coated zinc.

Very frankly, I am reasonably certain that the Mint could do a good
sale of traditional copper cents. Maybe make two or three million per
annum and sell them in $25 or $50 bags at five cents per coin. I wish
that they would do next year's four commemorative cents in good
bronze. It would be a boost to the elongated coin rollers, for sure.

The cents in next years annual coin sets will be 95% copper / 5% tin
and zinc:

http://www.usmint.gov/mint_programs/lincolnRedesign/

They should do the cents that way every year.


It may turn out as you allege, but from the link it does not say so
specifically. It could be a single proof cent and a single satin finish
cent and still fit the description on the Mint's website.

With what they'll probably charge for the 36-coin mint sets you would
think they could do them all in copper.

"RWF" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...

Apparently, the US Mint used to know how to make circulating coins out of
pure gold as well...



The US Mint has never made circulating coinage of unalloyed gold.
Pure gold is far too soft to last in circulation, so copper was added to
toughen it up.

We could go back to the days when we all carried pouches of gold dust and
assay scales.


--
*
/?\
/___\
-O=O-
^
AS & His Magic Hat

A conclusion is simply the place
where you decided to stop thinking.

On Dec 27, 11:06*am, (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
In article ,
Arizona Coin Collector wrote:



Both pure silver, and pure gold, are very soft
metals. Copper is added as a hardener to both gold
and silver coins. The ratio mix is usually 90/10
(90% silver - 10% copper). Otherwise, pure gold or
silver coins would be to soft and easy to
deface.

Last time the issue of gold content of jewelry came up in another
newsgroup, the same statement was made--that pure gold was too soft
to make anything out of--and the reply was "Only Americans seem to
have that problem". *Allegedly jewelers in India, etc. have no
problem making jewelry out of pure gold. *I don't know who to
believe.

That's always struck me as odd. Jewelry, in the states, is usually
done at 14k, in my experience. Circulating gold coins were done at
22k. If jewelry is less prone to damage than coins are (and
intuitively, it seems that it would be), than it seems that they could
use higher caret gold than circulating gold coins - probably even
24k. So why don't they?

? "yawnmoth" ?????? ??? ??????
...
On Dec 27, 11:06 am, (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
In article ,
Arizona Coin Collector wrote:
Last time the issue of gold content of jewelry came up in another
newsgroup, the same statement was made--that pure gold was too soft
to make anything out of--and the reply was "Only Americans seem to
have that problem". Allegedly jewelers in India, etc. have no
problem making jewelry out of pure gold. I don't know who to
believe.

That's always struck me as odd. Jewelry, in the states, is usually
done at 14k, in my experience. Circulating gold coins were done at
22k. If jewelry is less prone to damage than coins are (and
intuitively, it seems that it would be), than it seems that they could
use higher caret gold than circulating gold coins - probably even
24k. So why don't they?

I don't know why but I can tell you that not only in the US jewelry is
(generally) manufactured with 14K gold.
In many countries in the old Europe most of the jewels are made also from
14K gold, the rest is made of 18K gold.
Same reasoning: higher grade gold would result in "softer" jewels thus
jewels faster deteriorating...

--

E' mai possibile, oh porco di un cane, che le avventure
in codesto reame debban risolversi tutte con grandi
puttane! F.d.A

Coins, travels and mo
http://s208.photobucket.com/albums/bb120/golanule/
http://gogu.enosi.org/index.html

On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:01:19 -0800 (PST), yawnmoth
wrote:

On Dec 27, 11:06*am, (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
In article ,
Arizona Coin Collector wrote:



Both pure silver, and pure gold, are very soft
metals. Copper is added as a hardener to both gold
and silver coins. The ratio mix is usually 90/10
(90% silver - 10% copper). Otherwise, pure gold or
silver coins would be to soft and easy to
deface.

Last time the issue of gold content of jewelry came up in another
newsgroup, the same statement was made--that pure gold was too soft
to make anything out of--and the reply was "Only Americans seem to
have that problem". *Allegedly jewelers in India, etc. have no
problem making jewelry out of pure gold. *I don't know who to
believe.

That's always struck me as odd. Jewelry, in the states, is usually
done at 14k, in my experience. Circulating gold coins were done at
22k. If jewelry is less prone to damage than coins are (and
intuitively, it seems that it would be), than it seems that they could
use higher caret gold than circulating gold coins - probably even
24k. So why don't they?


More profit for the jewelers probably.

"yawnmoth" wrote in message
...
Looking at the informational sheet in the 2008 Silver Proof Set, I see
that the nickel consists of 25% nickel and balance copper, whereas all
the other silver colored coins consist of 90% silver and balance
copper. Any ideas as to why this is?

I see there were plenty of other replies.. but I'll just add this..

A few years go, I forget how many, The Jefferson Full Step Nickel Club, who
always has a table at the Long Beach Coin Shows.. issued a limited Edition
series of the Jefferson Nickel based on Felix Schlag's original design,
which was rejected back in 1938.. Too bad, because it was much prettier than
the design that The Mint kicked him into changing it to.. On his original
design, he used an Art Deco style lettering for all the mottos, and
Monticello is shown at an oblique angle, rather than head-on.. The JFSNC
coins are not legal tender, but they are the exact dimensions of circulating
Nickels, and are stamped "JFSNC" in small incuse (I think) letters on
Jefferson's bust or somewhere like that.. ALL of them were serial numbered
and slabbed by SEGS.. none were sold raw.. they produced them in both Matte
Proof (Unc.) and regular Proof.. the slab labels did not have any grades..
just serial numbers.. and JFSNC attribution.. I forget how many of each they
made.. anyway, they are all 90% Silver.. I have a matched-number pair of
them bought at one of the Long Beach shows years ago.. and as far as I know,
they are still available.. something like $25.00 each.. maybe more, maybe
sold out, dunno.. I'd have to go dig them outta the safe and check the
receipt.. occasionally they show up on eBay.. I vaguely remember that when
they came out, one could buy a matched number pair, and really low serial
numbers (on the slab labels, not on the coins..) .. might have been a bit
pricier.. or not.. I don't know if the JFSNC still sells them, or if they
eventually sold them all.. some Googling should get you the information if
you care or want to bother seeking them out..

Besides the absence of any 90% legal tender Silver Nickels, as best I can
recall, the SBA was never issued in Silver at all..

HNY
HTH
LOL
TTFN
Harv

"Frank Provasek" wrote in message
...
On Dec 27, 12:40 pm, (Paul Ciszek) wrote:


Would 90% gold work out to 21.6 karat, or is it not that simple?

It's that simple...


The karat may be antiquated and has long outlived it usefulness but the math
behind it is sound.

"Paul Ciszek" wrote in message
...



Would 90% gold work out to 21.6 karat, or is it not that simple?


Actually probably not that simple. Some unscrupulous dealer no doubt
exploits the karat and its horrible relationship with a modern percentage
scale and sells 20 karat gold as 90% pure.