| Author |
Replies: 24 / Views: 6,090 |
Page 2 of 2
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 France
1591 Posts |
Hum, I have to do my first SG test :) Very busy right now, I'm back from vacation, and have to do all the work that have been waiting then ... I'll come back here as soon as I've done that !
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5362 Posts |
Interesting coin - I guess I missed this thread. Busy on book.
SG is a great test and definitely is definitive if done with accuracy. There are a lot of cheap scales that read out to 1/1000 ths but which are no where near that accurate. I have tried digital and it is quicker but not as accurate as the big old analytical balance. A 4 or 5 beam mechanical balance is of course better (but expensive) and it takes time to get it right. Digital is great when you suspect GS or CN or some bronze alloy. But when dealing with high grade debased silver not so great.
Full weight silver counterfeits CAN and DO EXIST. SG can detect 95% or more of frauds using an incorrect metal content. But SG can not detect all frauds. A counterfeit can be made using an alloy created to match the density of 903 fine silver (10.31) and a counterfeit can of course be made using 903 fine silver.
XRF combined with the surface characteristics of the coin itself are then the best tools available.
But always keep in mind that the better forgers all know this and can answer most forgery tests with improved techniques. But they are somewhat limited they still must find a buyer that is uninformed - and the more expensive the coin - the fewer "uniformed collectors" there are.
It is easy to find a sucker for a $7 fake but much harder to find a buyer for a fake that costs $700 to make.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United Kingdom
2135 Posts |
I just Googled and found that hand-held XRF analysers exist.
I wonder how much an entry level machine costs, and whether it's possible to hire them.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5362 Posts |
Those are the junk yard types and the ones used for field analysis of pollutants - don't think they would be great for distinguishing much more than SG can for a fraction of the cost.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Hong Kong
1270 Posts |
Is XRF = X-ray Fluorescence? I study a bit from an essay of Wikipedia, it is likely a tool to identify different kinds of chemical elements or compounds in any trace amount. How can it be used to identify the age of an old silver coin? Who can tell me more about the principle of this technique or suggest a link to a correct site for me? Thanks in advance.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United Kingdom
2135 Posts |
wonghinghi, What method/caculation did you use to calculate the SG for your coin, please ?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Hong Kong
1270 Posts |
Pertinax, I am happy to tell you how I can measure the S.G. of my coin. This is the method learned from swamperbob. The principle is based on Archimedes's law of buoyancy. Hardwares (shown below): 1)An electronic scale with two decimal places 2)Distilled water 3)Two standards: 1797 2D cartwheel (0% Ag) and a .999 Sterling silver (100% Ag)   Data: 1)Weight of the hanger 1.72g 2)Weight of the iron wire 0.23 g In air(A) Net wt(N) In H2O(W) A-W S.G. %Ag 100%Ag 33.11 31.16 30.12 2.99 10.46 100 0% Ag 57.0 55.05 50.79 6.21 8.88 0 My 1820 28.8 26.85 26.17 2.63 10.248 86.8 Calculations: N = A - 1.95 1.95 = Weights of hanger + wire SG = N/(A-W-0.01) Suppose the floating effect caused by wire wound around the coin
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Hong Kong
1270 Posts |
Sorry for a careless mistake in posting my reply, I re-list my data here to explain my calculations
Data: Hanger+wire = 1.95g
Std 1 : 100% Ag ; Std 2 : 0% Ag My 1820 : ?%
In air (A)-- measured by the scale dirctly Std 1 :33.11g Std 2 :57.0g My 1820 : 28.8g
Net wt (N) N=A-1.95 Std 1 :31.16g Std 2 :55.05g My 1820 : 26.85g
In water (W) --measured by the scale directly Std 1 :30.12g Std 2 :50.79g My 1820 : 26.17g
A - W Std 1 :2.99g Std 2 :6.21g My 1820 : 2.63g
S.G. {SG=N/(A-W-0.01)} (There is an assumption that the wire winding the coin exerts a floating effect to the system, so we suppose it is 0.01g arbitrarily)
Std 1 :10.46 Std 2 :8.88 My 1820 : 10.248
As this is a linear graph so I don't plot a st. line to read the %Ag of my coin but to calculate it by the following formula:
%Ag = (SGtest-SGSTD2)/(SGSTD1-SGSTD2) So the %Ag of my 1820 : 86.80%
I am sorry that I can list it as a table (I don't know how to do that), I hope you can put your patience to read my data and calculations.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5362 Posts |
For XRF tests to be useful they must disclose trace elements to the level of 10 or 20 parts per million. A tester that reads to 1% plus or minus is WORTHLESS for authentication.
The theory behind XRF testing is that there are elements in any coin that are "contaminants". A silver / copper alloy will contain far more than 2 elements when analysed. That is simple fact. But there are some elements that should or should not be present based on the origin of the silver and the methods employed in extracting and refining the silver. These factors change over time AND when forgers get involved they usually vary WIDELY.
While tests on specific coins still need a good deal of experienced interpretation there are elements always found in early 8Rs from Mexico that are missing in later made coins and those made in Spain or South America even in the same period.
What specifically all those trace elements are is not, nor should be public knowledge. Once published that data changes the playing-field and counterfeits made AFTER the data becomes well known - could be corrected.
At present there is one very common contaminant that is extremely well known to forgers and authenticators BOTH because of previous publication of data. That contaminant is GOLD. Silver mined anywhere that was extracted using the patio process and refined by cuppellation did not remove all the gold from the silver. Therefore to have been made in Mexico in say 1820 a silver coin MUST contain some gold. How much? I am not saying.
The study results that define the upper and lower limits of this range are at present being retained as proprietary data to protect the integrity of the process. If the forgers want to get the same information let them spend a few $100,000 and get it themselves.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United Kingdom
2135 Posts |
That's interesting and useful to know, and I can see why it you want to hold onto it.
However, I doubt it's worth anything like $100,000.
If I wanted the information badly, I could buy 50 known genuine coins and do the analysis myself.
If I could be sure of a sufficiently random sample, I could reduce my sample to 30 specimens.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5362 Posts |
Pertinax I think 50 would be a bare minimum unless you were planning to do just one very brief period at one mint. As I noted there is a range of variance seen even in coins of the same date from the same mint. The limit of the permissible range of variance is the most critical factor when you view several elements in relation to one another. Also the apparatus to do the testing will run near $100k without training. As an alternative you can of course hire the testing to be done. A professional XRF test in a lab still runs near $50 for each test - it may come down with volume. So even if your 30 tests was enough to establish the range accurately that would cost you $1500 just to discover a proper mix. Then you would need to test each of your component metals to see what trace contaminants you get in each of them. By mixing "pure" silver and "pure" copper today you still end up with that digit AFTER the .999 fine which consists of impurities. Silver is 0.999 fine commercially - but you should do an XRF to see if it actually that close. That 0.001 is one ten thousandth or 10,000 millionths or 10,000 ppm. It could theoretically contain 50 different contaminant elements each at a density of 200 ppm or more. How many of those DO NOT belong in your mix and how do you get rid of them? That is a lot of area to hide a 10 ppm contaminant that does not belong. So getting the elements pure enough is a hurdle. Copper being less valuable is commensurately less pure. In addition, remember that a typical original 8R has a list of anywhere from 7 to 12 contaminant elements (excluding the lighter elements like Aluminum). You might need to add one or two of those to any random batch. Where do you get pure Tungsten or Iridium or Cadmium and who can make a mix that contains only 50 ppm Cadmium anyway? And on top of this you need to cast, roll, laminate, cut, adjust, edge, pickle and anneal your metal before you get to strike it. Each step has the threat of contamination which could void your work up to that point. The technical issues of creating the perfect alloy from raw metals currently available is at present nearly insurmountable. That is why some specialists do advocate FULL RELEASE of test data. But for now we are not to the point of release. Of course, in doing the foregoing you would have missed a far cheaper solution. Anyone care to hazard a guess? 
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United Kingdom
2135 Posts |
Well, the forgers could just buy worn specimens. melt and cast or restrike, but that wouldn't be so profitable.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5362 Posts |
That is the solution but for obvious reasons the target would of necessity be common date coins NOT the rare stuff and the margin is very low.
But isn't that the objective of authentication - to leave no place for the forgers to operate at huge profits?
The junk fakes that pass today cost as little as 1 cent to make and bring $30-50. That is what NEEDS TO GO.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Hong Kong
1270 Posts |
Thank you, swamperbob, your two latest replies are so knowledgeable, they let me know more about XRF. If I am a forger, I don't think I would buy the old coins to re-make them. It is so cumbersome! I would make some popular species and sell them at the tourist spots. This is the way of getting largest marginal profit.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5362 Posts |
Henry - Forgers are doing what they do for profit.
If the profit margin can be reduced there will be fewer forgers attracted to the business.
Now all we need is a cheap way to do just that.
|
|
Page 2 of 2
|
Replies: 24 / Views: 6,090 |
Page 2 of 2
|