If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
why aren't nickels in Silver Proof Sets 90% silver?
"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. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
why aren't nickels in Silver Proof Sets 90% silver?
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? |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
why aren't nickels in Silver Proof Sets 90% silver?
? "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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
why aren't nickels in Silver Proof Sets 90% silver?
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. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
why aren't nickels in Silver Proof Sets 90% silver?
"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 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
why aren't nickels in Silver Proof Sets 90% silver?
"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. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
why aren't nickels in Silver Proof Sets 90% silver?
"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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FA: Various proof sets (2000 Clad, 2003 Silver, 2004 Silver) | John Carney | Coins | 0 | April 19th 05 02:22 AM |
FA:1999,2000,2001,2002,2003 Silver proof set,Silver Eagles,Silver. 18 hrs left | LAWRENCE TINGWALL | Coins | 1 | June 7th 04 01:51 AM |
FA- 1999 thru 2003 Silver Proof Set, Silver Eagle rolls, 10 oz Silver Bar | LAWRENCE TINGWALL | Coins | 4 | May 31st 04 08:22 PM |
both new nickels in silver proof year end?? | ELurio | Coins | 2 | April 1st 04 06:49 PM |
Silver Proof Sets Not Silver Anymore? | Galen Brinson | Coins | 40 | August 4th 03 02:54 AM |