Options
Should slick/worn 90% be sold at a discount?
goldrealmoney79
Posts: 417 ✭✭✭
Many times I see slick/worn/dateless 90% being sold at FV valuations, but I wonder if metal loss is so severe that they should be sold at weight instead?
for example:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/100-face-no-date-90-standing-liberty-quarter-lot-400-pcs/333879235180?hash=item4dbcc0d26c:g:MokAAOSwhYdgHHH2
What are your thoughts on this? Would you pay fv or weight for worn/ slick lots?
0
Comments
I avoid damaged/worn silver unless heavily discounted. It is harder to resale. I expect 2-3 pieces in a silver lot ,with problems but no more.
That lot is what I would consider "90% junk silver," and not worth a premium over melt.
Personally, I would never sell my 90% by weight. If I ever sell any of my “junk” silver, even worn, I would sell it by face value. If the person wants to buy it by weight instead of the going multiples of face, I would take my business elsewhere.
Best thing about the current Bulguarian "shortage" is I was able to dump all my slick junk. Over the years I was pretty OCD with the stacking. When rolls would come in I'd sort the slicks out immediately and they went into their own slick rolls. They were the first to go. I moved it at melt just to quickly get rid of it. Never expected a premium but certainly wouldn't of let go at a discount. All transactions buying and selling have always been done at FV, never by weight. THKS!
The whole worlds off its rocker, buy Gold™.
Should slick/worn 90% be sold at a discount
It definitely Should! You Should enforce it on all transactions. You Should tell them that I agree with you. That Should impress 'em. 😉
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
I thought it was already sold at a discount.
I try to just keep the uncirculated for my own stash. I also like hand-picking nice Walkers and Mercs.
Click on this link to see my ebay listings.
I kept some circ walkers, barber, mercs and grandpa's war nickels. The rest is proof, unc or "BU". Got some 30s and 40s walkers in decent shape pretty happy about that.
Much happier about all the proof Halves and war nickels than anything else.
Saw the premiums start to climb when fractional pieces started taking off 4 months ago. I watched people rip through the cream of the crop but also the lowest hanging fruit.
I think that was one of the most obvious signs that it's the working man stacking and this will only get worse.
Gold did the same thing, G$20 and G$1 were some of the first to disappear these past few runs as 2020 began to unfold. Things settled a little and then grams disappeared, etc.
My next play would be all in on fractional silver if I was buying today, premiums be damned. I'd be buying absolute tons of it.
The liquidity and premiums of attractive 90% must never be underestimated. I paid 15-20 face and now most of it is 34-40 face and I bet it's gonna keep rising until all the silver grams are wiped out.
And woops, as for the question in the subject, I pay 0% premium for slickers. Junk/cull right now has tons of buyers so there's no reason to lose money. Not in markets like this, anyway.
I would not pay a premium for slick silver...melt has more than doubled over the past year, and likely to go higher. I am very selective in my purchases...and have been for years. At this time, I would not even bother with slick silver coins. Well, maybe if someone was unloading at a real bargain. Cheers, RickO
Slick and damaged silver coins should be sold by weight like any other scrap metal.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
Honestly, once it's worn to a certain point, they should just melt it down...
My YouTube Channel
Everyone should-ing all over the place! 🙄
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
I would say yes.
Dump it on the bay, .99 cents no reserve auction free shipping
Lot of the bigger firms, weigh it, if slick, many discount. Also, Modern 90% although full silver content that you would think would be prefered is actually not, and discounted as well.
@jdimmick said: "Also, Modern 90% although full silver content that you would think would be prefered is actually not, and discounted as well."
Yes, isn't that weird? But, I have to confess I prefer 1964 and prior for my mini silver hoard. It just feels right.
@Meltdown -- I like the 1892 quarter in your stash!
I think junk silver should be purchased based on weight rather than face value. That’s just me though.
You’d be surprised how much silver content a worn down coin loses compared to when it was brand new with full silver content.
I don't see why a buyer wouldn't discount for alot of slicks in a particular lot of 90% silver. There's really no numismatic premium, so why would anyone want to pay the full multiple of face for 90% that is under weight?
I knew it would happen.
you mean bought .
If I'm selling I am not discounting my item unless forced to
Particularly when you can't see the coins. Made me think about the $500 bag i bought years ago. So i got on the scale with it; it is ~27.5lbs which puts it somewhere between .723 and .715 which is good. I can feel the raised features of the quarters through the bag. At least the seller in that linked eBay auction is showing a photo of the coins and describing the high wear condition. The seller can list for whatever they want, it is the buyer that needs to determine what they are willing to pay. But it would definitely not be honest to sell badly worn (measurably below .715oz/$1face) coins without describing their condition.
@Azurescens @Meltdown
Nice hoards you have! I like the stacks as well!
I do agree with most here if im selling I am aiming for face, if im buying I am for weight. I do try to avoid slicks as well and do like to look through the lot before purchasing.