How much silver is lost....

mumu

Generally scrap silver sells for something close to spot as a ratio to face value. Most of these coins are in lower worn down conditions. Looking at some silver I have in G to VG that I bought i cant help but wonder if you are really paying nearly twice spot as they look to have worn down to half the size. I know I could answer my own question with a scale but I dont have one. Seems to make more sense buying larger coins like AU common morgans than say a bag of warn down barber quarters.

7over8

Avg Circ $1000 face 90% bags have about 715 oz pure silver

If the coins are "slugs" - you are correct $1000 face would weigh less, so you do need a scale to confirm.

Most would agree that avg circ is not AG-G, it is VG-XF and at that sampling of grades the bag should weigh out around 715 oz.

astrorat

<< <i>Seems to make more sense buying larger coins like AU common morgans than say a bag of warn down barber quarters. >>



This is an "apples to oranges" comparison as silver dollars and 90% silver are not traded on the same basis. A Morgan dollar (26.73 grams 90% silver) contains more silver than four Barber quarters (25 grams 90% silver) and thus the Morgan dollars are traded at a premium. Also, generally speaking, Barber quarters are not traded as generic 90% bullion as they carry a collector premium.

I agree that it would make more sense in principle to buy, let's say, AU 1960s Washington versus worn 1940s Washington quarters if given the choice. But do keep in mind that when you sell, it is unlikely you will garner much of a premium, if any, for the "high grade" common 90% bullion.

Lane

illini420

While it's true a roll of unc washington quarters will have more silver than a roll of AG-G barber quarters, the loss isn't even close to half (even though a roll of these stacked will maybe look half the size). I've weighed out a sample before and the loss is maybe only a couple of percent of the weight tops. But in the case of old worn out barbers, i figure there's a slight premium on those that makes up for the few percent or so of silver loss (and maybe even more of a premium than that) anyways.

Also, this thread on the PM forum might be of help:

90% Silver Loss Thread

illini420

To add to my above post, the loss from silver wear is not that significant, especially in small lots. For example, I don't have the best scale (only accurate to the nearest gram), but I weighed out $3.50 face of my best washingtons the AU/Bu coins and they weighted about 85g. Then I weighed $3.50 of my AG-VF washingtons from the 30s & 40s and they weighed abou 84g. Finally, I took $3.50 of the very worn thin dateless Standing Liberty Quarters and Barber Quarters I have and they came out to be about 82g. Not much of a difference (maybe about a 3% loss or about $3-$4 of silver melt value per roll), but if you were buying a $1000 face bag it would add up to be a little more substantial (maybe $300-$400 of silver lost in a bag) if you don't tack on any numismatic premium for the old stuff. Even though the worn coins seem significantly thinner and lighter, not much real weight of silver is lost as it's only the rim and the top part of the devices that get worn away. Pretty cool

SaorAlba

When I have bought bulk silver coin I rarely find that older very worn Barber anymore. The earliest coin I have found was an 1892 dime. A lot of that stuff, even pretty worn, carries a small premium over melt so you won't see much anymore. The most worn coins I see now are the SL quarters ca. 1916-1930, and even those are pretty scarce in rolls.

mumu

Ok the barber example was just that. Let me shift focus to when scrap silver is offered at Xtimes face value, and not so much as to when offered as 50 ounce bag or whatever. Be it Barbers, mercs, nivkels whatever.

rpw

I cannot speak authoritatively to weight change due to circulation. However I recently came into possession of a couple of thousand Mercury dimes that were salted away during WW2. They ran the gamut from G-VG (1916-1919) to AU-CU (1943-1945). After sorting by date and mint mark (no keys or semi-keys were encountered) I wrapped them by year, which had the effect of wrapping them by grade. I measured the difference in the length at 18%. No doubt most of that is due to the rims being worn flat and the actual weight difference would be less. However when you set the rolls next to each other the difference in size is striking. If I get the opportunity I will try to photograph the rolls.

cladking

The weight loss relative to thickness decrease is highly dependent on
design and strike characteristics.

Normal wear always affects the high spots first and coins with rims (al-
most all of them) will lose thickness very rapidly. A Barber dime roll will
be about half the thickness of a proof '90's roll even though they used
the same planchet thickness.

Usually about 3% weight loss is associated with heavily worn coins but
this can be much higher on some coins like silver 3c pieces.

Most bags now days are traded at weight so there will be a dicount for
heavily worn coins. This may be leasding to these coins being removed
when they carry numismatic premiums as well as being selectively melted.