Did pre-1853 Quarters wear harder than pre-1853 Halves
1630Boston
Posts: 13,817 ✭✭✭✭✭
I found this interesting at the NNP
https://nnp.wustl.edu/blog-post/527187
.
Self-Correction of Silver, Gold, and Currency
A single-leaf circular recently loaned to us by Bill Shamhart reveals the complexity of mid-19th century monetary transactions in America. Issued by the Philadelphia house Cronise & Co in 1857, this brochure is addressed “40 (old style 28) South Third Street,” making reference to the Philadelphia Ordinance of 1856, which standardized street numbers in the City of Brotherly Love.
Various exchange rates are expressed for silver coin (prior to the weight reduction in 1853), gold coin, and paper money, with the one southern city (Richmond, VA) discounted the most, at 7 and 8 percent. Pre-1853 halves were worth more than pre-1853 quarters ($1.04 per dollar face value, vs. $1.02½), suggesting that quarters wore harder in circulation, or simply that it was more convenient to handle half dollars in bulk. The same idea is seen with California territorial gold pieces, for which the $50 and $20s were discounted at 0.5% to 1.0%, while $10s were exchanged into silver at a 2% discount. In any case, the clear message is that silver, gold, and paper money were not convertible at par, and that large conversions resulted in non-trivial brokerage fees.
.
Successful transactions with : MICHAELDIXON, Manorcourtman, Bochiman, bolivarshagnasty, AUandAG, onlyroosies, chumley, Weiss, jdimmick, BAJJERFAN, gene1978, TJM965, Smittys, GRANDAM, JTHawaii, mainejoe, softparade, derryb
Bad transactions with : nobody to date
Comments
This detail can be derived from the 1902 Mint report, which analyzed returned coin by date and denomination. I vaguely recall that dimes wore harder than quarters, and quarters more than halves.
https://nnp.wustl.edu/library/publisherdetail/51?Year=1902&displayAmt=50
Thanks for the link @Coinosaurus
.
Successful transactions with : MICHAELDIXON, Manorcourtman, Bochiman, bolivarshagnasty, AUandAG, onlyroosies, chumley, Weiss, jdimmick, BAJJERFAN, gene1978, TJM965, Smittys, GRANDAM, JTHawaii, mainejoe, softparade, derryb
Bad transactions with : nobody to date
From a metallurgical standpoint, I don't see how different denominations could wear differently unless the mint made a change to the alloying process or the 10% non-silver alloy composition.
it Could be due to the design but seated dimes quarters and have are very similar. My guess is it was more likely due to circulation. Smaller denominations change hands more than halves. Just my thoughts
@1630Boston .... Thanks for another interesting glimpse into coin history. @Oldhoopster, I agree.... the smaller coins would have endured far more service than the larger denominations.
Thus, wear faster. Cheers, RickO