Who would have thought it would be paper thin. http://www.coinnews.net/2010/02/15/...rica-the-beautiful-quarters-and-silver-coins/
"So, we’re having that difficulty, we’re just shooting to meet the legislative mandate making it a bullion coin for now." That makes me happy. At least I'll be able to get it closer to spot than if it were a numismatic coin.
I think somebody needs to go back to math class. My browser here at work won't let me view coinnews.net, so I don't know who it is that needs the refresher course, but here's why... The current Silver Eagle is roughly 1.5 inches, so the new coins will be about double the size. Since both coins are silver, we can equate weight with volume. The volume of a cylinder is proportional to the square of the radius. So doubling the radius would quadruple the volume, at the current thickness. But the 5 ounce coin is obviously 5 times the volume of the one ounce coin, so in fact the new bullion coins will need to be slightly thicker than the current Silver Eagles. (My calcs show a new thickness of 4.23 mm versus 2.98 for the ASE.)
My question is: Given the diameter of the coin, and the need to edge letter it, will the coin hold up under that kind of load? Thanks Jon
If you compare the diameter of the National Parks 5 oz silver coins (proposed 3 inch diameter or roughly 76mm) with some other 5 ounce silver coins (Mexican Libertad 5 ounce silver is 65mm and Australian Lunar Series 5 ounce silver is 60 mm), then they will indeed be thinner. Whether they will be "paper thin" as described will be a matter of opinion once they are in hand. Another interesting comparison is that the 10 ounce silver Lunar coins are 76mm, which is about the same as the proposed National Parks but twice the weight. TC
that must be some really thick paper then... just not accurate at all. edge letter can be applied to much thinner coins and has been done so in the past. heck, 200 years ago the Mint was putting edge lettering on half dollars that were pretty thin in comparison. the Mint should stop their whining and just do their job as congress has ordered.
I get roughly the same answers as jcz1 If the current ASE is 2.98 mm thick a 3 inch 5 oz coins would be between 4.13 and 4.23 mm thick (3/16 inch is 4.75 mm) That is thicker than the current small dollars, thicker than the early large cents, thicker than the 1984 Olympic dollar which had edge lettering. They are just making excuses. If they can't put edge lettering on it, then they can't put lettering on the edge of the NA and President dollars either
Now this was a paper thin coin, 4 inches diameter, one ounce, it could only be coined on the one side. http://imgur.com/4oV80.jpg The new 5 ounce national park bullion should be much thicker than other edge lettered coins such as the capped bust halves.
A 3 inch diameter coin of the SAME thickness as the silver eagle would weigh 3.63 oz. So twice the thickness would weigh 7.26 oz. They are only off by about 50%. So if their double thickness estimate (6mm) is 50% too high then the correct thickness would be 2/3rds of 6 mm or 4 mm thick. About the same figure jcz1 and I came up with earlier.
I don't like the edge lettering anyway. It looks like crap. It seems like an extra step for no reason. Why not just put the info on the die and be done with it! Lack
I have a 5 oz silver coin that is 3" and it is no where paper thin, I haven't got my mic. out to mesure it but 5/16-3/8" some wherein that ballpark.
