Options
Differences between Canada 1967 .800 fine and .500 fine 10 and 25 Cents
CaptHenway
Posts: 31,550 ✭✭✭✭✭
If both are made of silver and copper and nothing else, and copper is less dense than silver, and the weights are the same, the .500 fine ones should be thicker than the .800 fine ones. Is the difference simply too small to measure reliably?
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
0
Comments
Anybody? Class? Bueller?
Excellent question and observation.
My current location does not allow me to weigh these coins (out fishing for a few salmon), but perhaps someone else will weigh them and let us know.
The Charlton book does not show any difference for weight on either coin.
As far as I can determine the only metals involved are silver and copper. Also, the weights are supposed to be the same, 2.33 grams. Diameters the same.
.
Since copper is less dense than silver, the greater volume of copper should make the coins slightly thicker. The official thickness of the .800 fine coins is 1.16 mm. However, Charlton does not make any mention of a difference in thickness.
.
I have no access to coins to measure. If somebody who is good with a calipers would care to measure some BU 1968 .500 fine silver coins (which should be the same as the 1967 .500 fine coins) and some BU 1966 or earlier .800 fine coins and report on the thicknesses, it might show something.
.
Better yet, anybody have a BU roll of the 1968 silvers and a BU roll of 1966 or earlier to measure? If there is a difference, it should be more noticable multiplied times 50.
.
Difference is too small, no reliable way to tell the difference, especially on coins it various states of circulation/weight/thickness loss.
Some dealers have metal analyzers (used mostly for jewelry) that may be able to tell the difference. Other than that, they would have to be sent for lab analysis. As there's no practical way to check, they all trade as 0.500 silver (as far as I know).
As poker said, unless they are all uncirc, the difference is too small to measure. Any wear on a coin will reduce the weight. If you have a good ear, then you can tell the difference from the "ring" when dropped. It makes no difference when you sell ... they classify them all as .500
... they classify them all as .500
...when they’re buying, not when they’re selling.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
If anyone has one of each IN BU, you can try the Klenex trick used for clad vs 40%. Lets hear if it works.
I am not familiar with the Kleenex test. Please elucidate.
FWIW, the Specific Gravity of .800 fine is 10.176 and .500 fine 9.705, which should be a measurable difference, but the smaller the coin the greater the margin of error. Should be more reliable on the 25 cent pieces.
Get a 40% silver coin and a clad coin. Place them under a 100W lamp and cover with a white tissue. The silver coin will appear much "whiter" than the clad coin.
I have found that the specific gravity test is not extremely accurate with out a balance good to +/- .001. Ours was on a granite base and the enclosed glass balance was shielded from all sides except the front.
That won't work then. .800 and .500 look the same color when BU.
Did you do the tissue test? If not, we still don't know if it works. Someone needs to get two BU Canadian quarters of the same date and different fineness and do as I asked. Thanks!
My LCS always split the difference on these 67 Canadians and sold them as 65% purity.
Jeff
50% and 80% silver content do in fact look different regardless of the type of struck surface.
, like type of dull.
50% does look more "silver like" , like "more expensive".
the ring test, IMO, is the best and cheapest way to be sure, followed by the "look".
(2 Springs so far, 12 & 18,5) yummmmmmmy
released bout 1 dozen, all under 10 pounds.
Even hard to tell on the GB 1920 3d and 6d where there are the 0.925 versus 0.500.
Well, just Love coins, period.
I've never been able to tell the difference even with the ring test. I just assume all are 50% if I come across them.
If you take a 1966 or earlier fime and drop it on a hard surface ... and then you drop a '67 to compare the sound. It is easy to tell an .800 from a .500.
I started to do some back of the napkin calculations but realized that the thicknesses may not be different. I’m assuming the 1.16 mm thickness is at the rim and that probably won’t change with composition. They key piece of data would be thickness spec of the planchets.
Using your SG values, the 50Ag planchet would be approx 4.6% thicker than the 80Ag (or about 0.04mm). However, I think the rim thickness is fixed by the die and collar set up, so there wouldn’t be any difference. I’m wondering if they just didn’t change the striking pressure slightly to compensate for the minor planchet thickness change.
So as others have previously said, measuring the thickness probably isn’t going to tell you anything. Accurately measuring the SG or using XRF should work, but precision balances and Handheld XRF units aren’t cheap.
Sorry, I'm
getting very frustrated to learn the result. Opinions are cheap!
One member posted the color is slightly different. Will someone who has access to the coins...Please take two AU/BU quarters of each fineness and lay a tissue across them.
These were circulating in Detroit when I was collecting Canadian coins out of circulation there. When new, there was no color difference between the .800 fine and .500 fine Centennial coins.
Obviously there is a difference in color between coins of either fineness and the pure nickel coins introduced during 1968, but that was not the question.
I still find the 1968 .500 coins both in circulation and from Coinstar reject slots. The 1967 coins are a different animal, I have never gotten the quarter and the dime is scarce to find - both because of the design difference on the reverse that makes them stick out.
Canadian vending machine operators are a patient bunch, what with even recent changes to the nickel, the dime and the quarter weights and compositions they manage. Now the only pure nickel coins I get in change are in the USA, in Canada the RCM has been removing them from circulation so that only the bonded steel coins are in circulation. While in Canada I think the earliest date I saw on coins was early 2000's on everything except the loonie and twoonie.
we should not get the 1968 quarter involved here, as it is either 50% silver +500% copper or 100% nickel.
The same goes for the 1968 Dime.
ok, I just measured a 1967 80% quarter and a 1967 50% quarter both about MS65 or better, also NOT circulated.
80% diam. 23.83 mm weight 5.821 gr rim thick 1.63 mm
50% diam 23.84 mm weight 5.805 gr rim thick 1.65 mm
I determined which type it is by the ring test and the color
the 80 % has a dull silver ring while the 50% has a somewhat more tinny ring, very noticeable on a marble surface.
the 80 % also has a subdue dull real true silver look, while the 50 % has a somewhat lighter shiny look. (not PL etc)
that my friends, is the best I can do without XRF.
if someone has lets say four of each. put them together and take a picture. you will see the differences in color.
dull and shiny.
PS: just tried the tissue test. I can not see a noticeable difference with a 100 watt incandescent lamp.
Sorry, couldn't help myself.
Thanks for the feedback!
not sure, but i am sure that either one of these 2 ladies would be welcome at my home . I cook, they drink wine...
lololololo
I think portable XRF or XRD would be a neat experiment to see if you can discern the two compositions.
Magnetic susceptibilities of the two metals are different, but one quick study found little support for being able to discern the difference. If it worked, it would have been a quick and cheap way to separate the two compositions of 1967 10 cents (and maybe the 25 cents).
Courtney Mustaphi, C.J. 2013. 10 cents 1967: Making the difference. Moneta – A Publication of the Ottawa Numismatic Society 4(6) August-September-October: 244-247.
http://ons-sno.ca/main/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Moneta_2013_08_PV.pdf
Thanks!