2026 ASE proof tests as 96% silver...Why?

chrisfl

i have the SIGMA METALYTICS PMV PRO ,and was checking a few things. i threw my 2026 ASE proof W mint (1776-2026) that i received from the mint and to my surprise it tested good for 96% Britannia silver but not for 999.i tested a few other years of the proof ASE and they tested fine for 999. has anyone else run into this or have a reason why this would happen?

Rc5280

Test that first coin again and report back, please.

For all we know, the second coin pictured could be the first coin pictured.

chrisfl

that is the same coin tested as 999 silver in the failed pic and tested in 96% in the passing pic.for comparison this is how the 2024 ASE proof tested.

Rc5280

Now retest the supposed 96% coin.

DesertCoin

Try it out of the capsule. The plastic doesn’t usually affect the reading, but there’s a chance. Also will allow you to use the smaller bridge to double check.

epc

I'm not familiar with that tester, but the .96 case's "Tot: 1.04 Ozt" looks suspicious, when the .999 case says "Tot: 1.00 Ozt". Could the thing be doing a calculation with a bad weight value?

chrisfl

@DesertCoin said:
Try it out of the capsule. The plastic doesn’t usually affect the reading, but there’s a chance. Also will allow you to use the smaller bridge to double check.

same result, but worth a shot. while i had it out of the capsule i weighed it at 31.46g . i looked into the British Silver Britannia planchet that pre 2013 used 95.8% silver but was 32.45g for the 1oz silver. i was starting to think british silver but a whole gram shy is a little much.plus since 2013 they use .999 silver.

chrisfl

@epc said:
I'm not familiar with that tester, but the .96 case's "Tot: 1.04 Ozt" looks suspicious, when the .999 case says "Tot: 1.00 Ozt". Could the thing be doing a calculation with a bad weight value?

i believe it is because (precious metal weight)PMW=1oz ...but @96% total weight would be more than an OZ to give an ounce of silver.

epc

How is it getting the two weight values? In the capsule, it won't be measuring an accurate weight. Do you have to tell it one weight (PMW), and it calculates the other based on the measured % ? That would make sense with the numbers shown.
Could there be some impurity in what it's seeing, considering that the capsule might not be perfectly clean and clear?

chrisfl

@epc said:
How is it getting the two weight values? In the capsule, it won't be measuring an accurate weight. Do you have to tell it one weight (PMW), and it calculates the other based on the measured % ? That would make sense with the numbers shown.
Could there be some impurity in what it's seeing, considering that the capsule might not be perfectly clean and clear?

yes...when you test you pick the metal and purity (gold ,silver,etc / .999 , .999 , 92.5...etc) then you pick the coin weight( 1oz, 1/2 oz...etc) then it calculates . this tester tests through the metal and tells you dimensions it should be so you know your getting what you purchased. this should pass at .999 but it is not. only passed at 96% . that is why i am curious.

DesertCoin

@chrisfl said:

@DesertCoin said:
Try it out of the capsule. The plastic doesn’t usually affect the reading, but there’s a chance. Also will allow you to use the smaller bridge to double check.

same result, but worth a shot. while i had it out of the capsule i weighed it at 31.46g . i looked into the British Silver Britannia planchet that pre 2013 used 95.8% silver but was 32.45g for the 1oz silver. i was starting to think british silver but a whole gram shy is a little much.plus since 2013 they use .999 silver.

That’s very interesting. ASEs are known to occasionally be slightly less pure, but not by that much. If it was an improper alloy, I would expect the weight to be less than that of a normal coin (as copper is less dense than silver, therefore generating less weight in an equally sized planchet).

MetroD

On page 33, the PMV PRO manual specifically recommends using the 'Coins > Silver Eagle' alloy setting for ASEs, as opposed to 'Silver > .999'.

Does this work?

TwoSides2aCoin

Needs calibration at the factory.

chrisfl

@MetroD said:
On page 33, the PMV PRO manual specifically recommends using the 'Coins > Silver Eagle' alloy setting for ASEs, as opposed to 'Silver > .999'.

Does this work?

i did change the setting with the same results. under that setting i placed a different ASE(see the 2 results below). but thank you for the suggestion. the failed one is the coin in question,the other is the 2026 P ASE.

@TwoSides2aCoin said:
Needs calibration at the factory.

thanks but i cannot see why i would get 2 different readings on 2 separate ASE if it was a calibration issue.(also it is brand new). thanks for the suggestion.

jmlanzaf

@chrisfl said:

@MetroD said:
On page 33, the PMV PRO manual specifically recommends using the 'Coins > Silver Eagle' alloy setting for ASEs, as opposed to 'Silver > .999'.

Does this work?

i did change the setting with the same results. under that setting i placed a different ASE(see the 2 results below). but thank you for the suggestion. the failed one is the coin in question,the other is the 2026 P ASE.

@TwoSides2aCoin said:
Needs calibration at the factory.

thanks but i cannot see why i would get 2 different readings on 2 separate ASE if it was a calibration issue.(also it is brand new). thanks for the suggestion.

My LCS threw a copper round in after testing a silver coin (i forget the exact setting) and it tested good. It's possible that the Eagle is counterfeit. Source?

Find someone with an XRF if you can.

chrisfl

SOURCE=US MINT. that is why i am curious about this one.

jmlanzaf

@chrisfl said:
SOURCE=US MINT. that is why i am curious about this one.

The sigma is not foolproof. Again, find someone with an XRF. But if it came from the Mint it is highly unlikely to be 96% unless their supplier screwed up.

blitzdude

@jmlanzaf said:

@chrisfl said:

@MetroD said:
On page 33, the PMV PRO manual specifically recommends using the 'Coins > Silver Eagle' alloy setting for ASEs, as opposed to 'Silver > .999'.

Does this work?

i did change the setting with the same results. under that setting i placed a different ASE(see the 2 results below). but thank you for the suggestion. the failed one is the coin in question,the other is the 2026 P ASE.

@TwoSides2aCoin said:
Needs calibration at the factory.

thanks but i cannot see why i would get 2 different readings on 2 separate ASE if it was a calibration issue.(also it is brand new). thanks for the suggestion.

My LCS threw a copper round in after testing a silver coin (i forget the exact setting) and it tested good. It's possible that the Eagle is counterfeit. Source?

Find someone with an XRF if you can.

Exactly. I've never really been a fan of the Sigma. It is not full proof and honestly can rather easily be fooled. RGDS!

chrisfl

i will see if i can find someone with an XRF...thanks for the input .

7Jaguars

OK, I admit my eyesight is not the best these days but I did NOT see mentioned the fact that this machine and even XRF only essentially read off the surface and are not reliable necessarily to TOTAL whole object purity. Interestingly, usually the surface metal (defined as to limits of depth elsewhere) is MORE pure than the deeper metal, but will not get into that at this point. I have not kept up with specific gravity testing as it was rather primitive when I was in school but perhaps that would work - good luck on finding help on that one. I can't even find a local XRF machine and not in Palo Alto anymore where I had access to all. Ah well, good luck and do report on your progress if you pursue this matter.

jmlanzaf

@7Jaguars said:
OK, I admit my eyesight is not the best these days but I did NOT see mentioned the fact that this machine and even XRF only essentially read off the surface and are not reliable necessarily to TOTAL whole object purity. Interestingly, usually the surface metal (defined as to limits of depth elsewhere) is MORE pure than the deeper metal, but will not get into that at this point. I have not kept up with specific gravity testing as it was rather primitive when I was in school but perhaps that would work - good luck on finding help on that one. I can't even find a local XRF machine and not in Palo Alto anymore where I had access to all. Ah well, good luck and do report on your progress if you pursue this matter.

This is true. However, when you have a 99.9% pure silver coin, there shouldn't be 4% of anything on the surface.

MetroD

@7Jaguars said:
OK, I admit my eyesight is not the best these days but I did NOT see mentioned the fact that this machine and even XRF only essentially read off the surface and are not reliable necessarily to TOTAL whole object purity. Interestingly, usually the surface metal (defined as to limits of depth elsewhere) is MORE pure than the deeper metal, but will not get into that at this point. I have not kept up with specific gravity testing as it was rather primitive when I was in school but perhaps that would work - good luck on finding help on that one. I can't even find a local XRF machine and not in Palo Alto anymore where I had access to all. Ah well, good luck and do report on your progress if you pursue this matter.

The PRO model has a "thru mode".

Source: Page #5 @ https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0915/7879/4257/files/PRO_Manual_2025_Dec_2025.pdf

Batman23

I've never used one of these instruments. Is there any difference if you test the reverse?

chrisfl

i went to a local pawn shop and they where kind enough to test it for me and the XRF RESULTS ARE......98% silver remains= CADMIUM. may not be 96% but still not .999 .i wonder if that is enough to account for the coin to be at 31.46g .

jmlanzaf

@chrisfl said:
i went to a local pawn shop and they where kind enough to test it for me and the XRF RESULTS ARE......98% silver remains= CADMIUM. may not be 96% but still not .999 .i wonder if that is enough to account for the coin to be at 31.46g .

Cadmium? How odd

PeakRarities

Do you have a separate scale?

chrisfl

and scale was zeroed out to account for the tray and the pad.

chrisfl

@Batman23 said:
I've never used one of these instruments. Is there any difference if you test the reverse?

no...same

Heubschgold

Yikes, this is troubling.

Perhaps you should contact somebody at the Mint, a supervisor above basic customer service.

Or even contact the US Mint specialized youtube personality, Son of a Silver Stacker.

He would be interested and also has US Mint connections.

This thread can be shared with the youtube guy and Mint.

Please follow up on this interesting finding!!

sonofasilverstacker@gmail.com

https://www.youtube.com/@SonOfASilverStacker

Edit: afterthoughts, hypothetically, if indeed this ASE sample has cadmium and unusual silver purity, would this make the coin an anomaly and "rare" ($) ??

PeakRarities

Interesting. I’m curious now, you don’t happen to be in southeast FL do you? I have an XRF but I don’t know what type of accuracy/reliability the pawn shop test has, and cadmium is a very strange result for sure. Something worth double. Checking, imo.

chrisfl

@PeakRarities said:
Interesting. I’m curious now, you don’t happen to be in southeast FL do you? I have an XRF but I don’t know what type of accuracy/reliability the pawn shop test has, and cadmium is a very strange result for sure. Something worth double. Checking, imo.

i am in SE FL. i would have no problem getting a second opinion. i did some looking into cadmium and find it hard to believe that it made it into the coin.

rooksmith

And yet they are selling them for $279 - must be NUMISMAGIC value!