| Author |
 Replies: 21 / Views: 16,976 |
Page 2 of 2
|
|
|
|
Valued Member
United States
341 Posts |
1/4" divided by 40 quarters would be .00625 of an inch that each one wore by, roughly. Sounds logical to me.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
337 Posts |
not sure what counterfits are normally made of but I have heard of fake silver dollars being magnetic
just an easy way to check
if they were magnetic we would've known immediately
|
|
New Member
 United States
6 Posts |
Well, I did some more research, and I'm starting to get worried. Apparently, there are fake silver Washington quarters coming out of China. Here is a post from an ebay seller who is honest enough to admit his quarters are "replicas": http://cgi.ebay.com/Replica-1932-Wa...em27ba1c7cbb . Here is a video I watched from a coin dealer who teaches you how to spot fakes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnMZ...feature=fvwp . He talks about how the makers of the fakes make the coins thicker to conceal the difference in their density. The density is what worries me. I took each roll of quarters out of their papers, the 1964 ones and the 1944 ones, stacked them next to each other on a table and measured their respective heights. The stack of 1944 quarters comes to approximately 65 millimeters (1.625 mm per quarter), while the stack of 1964 quarters comes to 72 millimeters (1.8 mm per quarter). Each quarter was only suppose to be 1.75 mm thick when minted, correct? I was able to take another 3 silver quarters that I have, a 1955 one, a 1962 one, and a 1958 one and add it to my 1944 stack, giving me a total of 43 silver quarters in that stack, for a total height of 70 mm, which is still slightly shorter than the 40 quarter stack of 1964 coins. But here's the kicker - those extra 3 quarters added about 19 grams of weight to my 1944 stack of coins! So I have 43 quarters that weigh approximately 265 grams in one stack that is shorter, and 40 quarters that stand taller but only weigh 251 grams in the other stack. So the shorter stack weighs more. If the difference can be explained by simple wear and tear, wouldn't the taller stack weigh more, since the density of the metals should be the same? I mean, shouldn't 72 millimeters of stacked 90% silver coins weigh more than 70 millimeters of stacked 90% silver coins? This doesn't look or feel right to me. Granted, my instruments and measuring techniques are probably not precise enough. I just bought and ordered a digital caliper from Amazon. I'm going to examine the thickness of the 1964 coins. I'm beginning to smell a rotten fish. |
|
Valued Member
United States
341 Posts |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
341 Posts |
Search the ccf site for " tissue test", incase you've never heard of it. I never did till joining this forum. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2271 Posts |
They're probably fine.
Coin thickness is more dependent on strike characteristics than on planchet thickness. Planchet thickness is what determines weight on a given sized coin so what you're seeing is striking characteristics if they are uncirculated.
If they are circulated then the difference is highly predictable because wear goes from the highest points of the surface to the lowest points. In other words the high rim is there specifically for the purpose of protecting the design from wear. As the rim wears very quickl due to small surface area coins get very thin very fast in circulation and the thinning slows when more detail is becoming worn.
Time don't fly, it bounds and leaps.
|
|
New Member
United States
6 Posts |
Thank you, cladking. What you said makes sense, now that I think about it. Wear and tear on a coin, therefore, has a much bigger impact on the thickness of the coin than the weight of it. That explains why a stack of 40 lightly circulated (from the looks of it; the quarters have a much shinier appearance than the 1944 quarters) 1964 silver quarters stands taller than a stack of 43 heavily circulated (all look considerably dirtier with the lettering appearing more worn) 1944, 1942, 1955, and 1958 silver quarters. That's a serious relief.
I will go ahead with the order for the caliper, however. I plan on buying a lot more silver over the next several months and I don't want to get ripped off. I need accurate tools for weighing and measuring the coins so that I can become familiar with fakes when and if they arrive for me.
|
|
New Member
United States
6 Posts |
To follow up with General Tso's suggestion, I can confidently report that the 1964 quarters pass the tissue test with flying colors. Comparing it to a 1942 quarter and a 1983 quarter, I can certainly say that the 1964 quarter appears the whitest, followed by the 1942 quarter (which has white around the Washington head and the rim, but darker in between), then the cupranickel 1983 quarter, which was dark everywhere. Thanks for the tip! Now I should at least be able to tell if the plate is not silver. |
|
Valued Member
United States
287 Posts |
I'd guess you are ok,
but there is also a ring test, where you can flip them in the air, or balance one on a finger & tap with another one...silver has a nice ring to it that is unique. Also note that a strong magnet will move silver, so don't be afraid if you get some movement if you wave it over the coin...but it should not stick to it....gold is the same B.T.W.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
659 Posts |
If someone was counterfieting, woulcn't they be doing key dates?
|
|
Valued Member
United States
307 Posts |
I can feel the weight difference in my hand between a worn 1941 and a BU 1964. I think you are probably fine.
|
|
New Member
United States
6 Posts |
Thanks for your comment, jimineez. I may want to learn to do the other tests. I wanted to add that while most of the 1964 quarters in my roll pass the tissue test with flying colors, as I said above, some of the heavily tarnished ones in that roll do not. In fact, I have one 1964 quarter that actually appears darker than my 1983 cupranickel quarter under the tissue. So I don't think that test is very reliable. In my research, I found this site which evaluates the silver tests in use (but doesn't include the tissue test) and their reliability: http://www.silverbarter.com/avoid_c...erfeits.html . That site rates the ring test (he calls it the sound test) as only poor / average. As the coin dealer demonstrated in the video I linked to above, some good fakes can sound very similar to the the real ones. According to the silverbarter site, measuring weight and dimensions is one of the best tests you can do to spot a fake. The only way to properly fake that is to use a cheaper metal that has a very similar density to silver, like Molybdenum. Of course, I can always use the nitric acid test to confirm that the plating is silver, which combined with the weight and dimensions measurement would eliminate all fakes except the ones that use silver plated Molybdenum (or possibly another metal that has roughly the same density of silver). I doubt that current fakes, even the good ones coming out of China, go to this length yet (key word yet). I suspect that once silver goes above $50 a troy ounce that this will start to become a real possibility. Once it does, the specific gravity test with very good instruments may be the only way to truly spot a fake. At that point, I plan on acquiring those instruments. |
|
Valued Member
United States
287 Posts |
Good website,
I plan on reading up on the specific gravity test soon.
I'll tell you that the first time that I tested a coin with a strong magnet & it moved, I was quite worried for awhile until I figured out that silver actually is affected by a magnet!
|
|
Valued Member
United States
309 Posts |
Yep, probably just worn. If you are just buying for silver then buy newer dates. Send us the other ones since you don't want to collect them anyways. :-)
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
838 Posts |
Your discrepancy on the scale and length measurement doesn't worry me. You aren't really comparing the densities accurately by doing this: there is void space between the low-relief fields on unworn coins when stacked. The high-relief features, such as the rim and high points of the design, are the first things to disappear upon wear. So that's probably why your 1944s seemed more dense.
1964 quarters are simply not worth counterfeiting and there are zillions of them with almost no circulation.
|
|
Page 2 of 2
|
Replies: 21 / Views: 16,976 |
Page 2 of 2
|
First Page
Posted 04/15/2011 1:22 pm
