| Author |
 Replies: 48 / Views: 4,835 |
|
|
|
Valued Member
United States
268 Posts |
I think that they should use stainless steal on the Penny,because then it will be abit less to make and it will not rust like some coins do.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
203 Posts |
I'm in favor of using regular steel but galvanized fully to replace the current composition on the penny. The nickel, as there are still nickel slot machines and other uses, probably should be aluminum that is plated with nickel or an alloy of the two. That way, it won't be magnetic which would stick in vending machines. All of the vending machines that I have seen don't take pennys any longer so it being magnetic is not really an issue.
|
|
Moderator
 United States
188488 Posts |
Quote:
Some stainless steel grades are non magnetic. I believe the cost is a significant factor though. |
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1733 Posts |
Jbuck is right, stainless is more expensive and harder to work with than plated metals. All forms of stainless work harden significantly as well making it tougher to work with as it gets cut and so on.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4132 Posts |
Quote:I think they should do nickel plated zinc for the nickels and aluminum for the pennies. But what about tin, or manganese? I know they used manganese in the War Nickels (9%). Tin is very soft plus it can start falling apart at low temperatures (13° C, in fact, which isn't even that cold). Maybe there are some alloys of tin that would work. Pewter, which is mostly tin, has been used for coins, but I think most pewter objects are cast, not struck. It also may be too soft, and it has quite a low melting point. It's a handsome gray color, so it might do for the nickel in that respect, but I don't know how well it takes plating. I don't know how it fares in terms of cost (the other components like antimony and bismuth are a lot less common than tin). Manganese is in the War Nickels and brass bucks to make their electrical properties match up well with cupronickel nickels and SBA dollars. By itself it reacts with water, but it might again serve in alloys. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3283 Posts |
What about recycled plastic for cents since they are worthless anyway?
|
|
Moderator
United States
188488 Posts |
Quote:
What about recycled plastic for cents since they are worthless anyway? In other words, how about we just quit minting them?  |
|
Valued Member
United States
203 Posts |
Stainless is way too expensive. At a previous job, we used to bring a recycler stainless and they paid usually 1/4 of whatever copper was that day. Steel or iron was generaly 2 cents per pound. In other words, steel is a viable option if done correctly. Aluminum is also cheap enough to be viable. Stainless or bronze would be too expensive by themselves to use.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4132 Posts |
I wonder if there's a cheaper, non-stainless, austenitic steel alloy out there. That is, can you make a steel alloy that is like stainless in its non-magnetic properties, but forgoes the corrosion resistance to make it cheaper.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
17884 Posts |
Quote:
If they must make steel cents, a chrome or nickel plate would last and look nice. Yes, look just like dimes. And did you see what I said about Chromium being $60 a pound? Quote:
Some stainless steel grades are non magnetic. But many (most?) tend to be high in nickel content. Quote:
I think that they should use stainless steal on the Penny,because then it will be a bit less to make and it will not rust like some coins do. It would probably cost MORE than the current cent . I'm pretty sure stainless steel cost more than zinc. Quote:
I'm in favor of using regular steel but galvanized fully to replace the current composition on the penny. When discussing steel, galvanized typically means to coat with zinc. Bad move. Copper plate them instead. It will provide the same protection and they will be visually the same as the current cents. Quote:
The nickel, as there are still nickel slot machines and other uses, probably should be aluminum that is plated with nickel or an alloy of the two. That way, it won't be magnetic which would stick in vending machines. The problem is if you use plated aluminum the coins will be over 60% lighter and the current coin mechanisms will reject them. And trying to adjust the mechanisms to accept that wide a range of weights would probably mean it will also accept a wide variety of slugs and possibly foreign coins as well. Plated zinc would be better because then you only have to deal with a 20% reduction in weight. As I mentioned earlier you might be able to gain part of that back by making the planchets slightly thicker. The question being how thick can you go before the mechanism rejects them for being too thick? If you want to try a plated aluminum alloy, try aluminum bronze, alloy of aluminum and copper. Copper weighs almost exactly the same as nickel but it is cheaper. Quote:
Stainless is way too expensive. At a previous job, we used to bring a recycler stainless and they paid usually 1/4 of whatever copper was that day. That would put it somewhere around the cost of zinc. (Of course that is for scrap, new material would be higher) So it is a washout for the cent, no advantage. It would be possible for the nickel, but the material would be more difficult to handle than just plated zinc. It also would not strike up as well, and would be harder on the dies. Edited by Conder101
01/25/2012 3:56 pm
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
9104 Posts |
Thanks to ever-increasing labor costs, no matter how far you cut back material costs, it will get to the point where it costs more than face to makes cents and nickels. Get rid of them.
|
|
Moderator
United States
188488 Posts |
Quote:
Thanks to ever-increasing labor costs, no matter how far you cut back material costs, it will get to the point where it costs more than face to makes cents and nickels. Get rid of them. I agree. In other words, even if the materials were free, we would still lose money. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4132 Posts |
I think most people here agree that getting rid of them is the best idea. I think if you ask most scientists, they'd agree that we should join the rest of the world in the 19th century and switch over to metric. But as with the metric system, getting rid of our small coins seems to be politically impossible, because voters apparently like them too much.
That's why there's a discussion around minimizing the cost of making cents and nickels, rather than a discussion about getting rid of them. If we're going to lose money while making them, we ought to lose as little as possible.
|
|
Moderator
United States
188488 Posts |
Quote:
... we should join the rest of the world in the 19th century and switch over to metric. I have been singing that tune for thirty years now. Quote:
That's why there's a discussion around minimizing the cost of making cents and nickels, rather than a discussion about getting rid of them. If we're going to lose money while making them, we ought to lose as little as possible. The problem is the discussion is not free (at least not where the government is involved) and the costs of the discussion is not being accurately factored into the equation.  |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
17884 Posts |
Quote:
I agree. In other words, even if the materials were free, we would still lose money. And the cent has already passed that point. There is no way to bring it's cost down enough to keep from losing money on it short of selling advertising space on it. |
| |
Replies: 48 / Views: 4,835 |
First Page
Previous Page
Posted 01/25/2012 08:39 am
