What numbers do you use ...

pursuitofliberty

... for calculating the ASW of 90% bullion?



Uncircultaed 90% silver is technically .7234 oz to the dollar, unless I am all screwed up (dollars have a different wieght so I am only refering to 10c, 25c and 50c, 90% silver minted after 1874)

One of the industry's normal quotation is for 90% to be .715 oz to the dollar


I figure 90% in three catagories, and probably should include a fourth for the "good's"


Choice AU or better I figure is pretty much full weight

~EF I figure at about .705

~F I figure about .695



For those that want to share, I would request that you also provide your methodolgy ... if scientific, please explain, if a WAG, that's cool too.

My numbers are more WAG than not

RedHerring

The .715 multiplier is good all the down to VG for most series.

It's slicks/culls/damage that I watch out for.


Edit: Methodology? Same as the government used prior to 1965: If they're under legal weight, I don't want them. That's usually G04 and below.

Coulport

You might want to consider the KISS method.

gsa1fan

.715 ~ 90% is 90% period! If you what to sell it for a numismatic premium pull out the better stuff and do so.

DO NOT sale it as 90% junk silver coins.

gecko109

While technically, the OP is correct about AU/UNCs being .7234, I tend to use .715 in all instances. Its about a 1% difference, too small to either make me or break me depending on what side of the transaction im on that day.

Wingsrule

I use 0.715 and then 'adjust' based on the lot itself. For instance, Walkers tend to garner a slight premium.

I've seen offers here on the boards for 0.65 or 0.66.

As Gecko pointed out, the difference tends to be small in the grand scheme of things.

$20 FV x $41 spot x 0.723 = $592.86
$20 FV x $41 spot x 0.715 = $586.30

Someone here once did a study where they took a bunch of well-worn Mercs or Barbers and weighed them. I do not recall the specific outcome and will see if I can find that thread.

Comparing APMEX and Tulving prices, APMEX charges above spot when buying from them while Tulving is slightly below.

pursuitofliberty

Good morning, and thanks for the replies ...


it was just one of those questions in my head. It doesn't really affect anything ... as stated, very small in the grander scheme of things. I also try to keep my stacks in the F/VF or better range, and avoid (or get rid of) culls, damaged coins and the like ...


but the question of "how much does it really weigh?" has crossed my mind ... and did again yesterday afternoon


maybe I'll have to spend a little time and be more scientific in my search for an answer

piecesofme

I use 0.715 and then 'adjust' based on the lot itself. For instance, Walkers tend to garner a slight premium

I never understood this. All Walkers are worn that are in a 90% deal, right, or else they'd be in a slab. 1964 Kennendys will (almost) always weigh more. So with my simple logic, 1964 Kennedys should be the ones that carry the slight premium, but they never seem to. Why is that if you're looking at it purely from a "90% is 90%" point of view?
Not arguing, just think it's a fair question and one that I have never been able to understand.

gsa1fan

90% is 90% industry standard. Your buying/selling the lot for SILVER weight nothing else implied.

AMPEX - 90% buy/sell

piecesofme

I understand that Tim, and if you're purely buying weight, then why don't '64 Kennedys carry the most premium rather than Walkers?

or are you saying that nothing should carry a premium because it's all just 90%?
If that's the case, then why do Barber coins carry even more of a premium than Walkers?
Like I said, it makes no sense to me.

greatnortherncoin

who pays spot x .715 for 90%