I was playing with my 90% junk silver Barbers today and having loads of fun sorting them by dates and stacking them I remembered reading many posts/threads from some who refuse to buy worn out AG Barbers as 90% because of all of the silver lost through wear over the years. And I remembered posts of others who claim that there isn't as much silver worn away as you'd think because only the high points of the coins are actually worn away. So I thought it would be fun to break out the scale and weigh some Barbers $50.00 face value of brand new 90% silver Barber coinage should weigh 1250g, the denomination of the individual coins doesn't make a difference. 500 dimes at 2.50g each = 1250g 200 quarters at 6.25g each = 1250g 100 halves at 12.50g each = 1250g Knowing that information, I weighed $50.00 face value of average circulated Barbers of each denomination. Most coins were in the typical junk Barber grades of AG-G, with many coins worn down pretty thin, especially the dimes. Here's the results: $50.00 face value of Barber Half Dollars = 1163g or 93.04% of original weight when new $50.00 face value of Barber Quarter Dollars = 1141g or 91.28% of original weight when new $50.00 face value of Barber Dimes = 1133g or 90.64% of original weight when new So, based on these results, it's clear that the smaller denominations lose more weight when they are heavily circulated. It is interesting that the actual weight lost of these coin is only in the 7-10% range. I guess for some of the silver investors that may be significant (especially at today's prices). You'd think it would be much more than that when you can take worn out Barber Dimes and fit around $8 face value in a tube made for $5 face. Personally, if I'm buying 90% junk silver I'll still take worn out Barber coinage if I can get it at the same price as other 90%. I think the coolness of dealing with 100+ year old coins and looking for dates still needed for my "junk albums" more than makes up for the 7-10% of weight lost through circulation. :thumb:
That, and as long as you can still sell them by FV instead of weight, you're not shortchanging yourself. In fact, you're reducing your storage space, and the amount of heavy lifting you need to do. I do wonder whether what will happen as junk silver continues to trade. Will there be more people who think the "good money" is the older stuff, like you, or will it be the newer, less-worn material that's "forced out of circulation" because it's more valuable? I rather suspect the latter, but that's perhaps good news for those who feel as you do.
I have weighed quite a few coins for the same reason the OP did. My results were essentially the same as his. Once, in a mixed bunch of 90% silver I found a capped bust dime. It took me a long time just to determine the date. If I recall correctly it was close to 15% under.
Great study! I've noticed that Franklins and Kennedys are pretty close to spec weight but every walker I have ever found has been a slick.
Well, he asserted that, but it seems to be a minority opinion, and measurements with accurate scales don't seem to support it. In general I defer to Doug's knowledge and experience, but on this specific point, I still think he's got it wrong.
I think there is some substance to it, it makes sense that some details are flattened, but the weights show that 10 percent or so is lost.
I'd certainly expect the very highest points to be fragile, and subject to flattening -- but I think that would show up as visible damage, not "normal wear". As some coins wear, their lettering broadens -- but I think that's because the profile of the detail is wider near the field than at the "peak". In other words, if you took a cross-section through the lettering, the strokes of the letters would be "wedge-shaped", wider at their base than at the top. If "mashing down" really does happen significantly, I'd expect some fine details to get "mushroomed out" at the top, with actual overhangs. Again, I haven't seen that, except on coins that were obviously damaged. I imagine that bag marks and nicks on MS coins are probably more a matter of moving metal around, not gouging it out or slicing it off. But I'm still convinced that actual wear comes from the removal of metal, not mashing it down. Again, if someone comes up with a reasonable experiment for simulating wear (that doesn't beg the question of what constitutes "normal wear" processes), I'd love to try it.
