| Author |
 Replies: 21 / Views: 16,971 |
|
New Member
United States
6 Posts |
Hello to everyone. I'm new here and this is my first post. I quickly went over the site rules, but I didn't study them for very long and so I hope I don't break any of them with this post or this question. If so, I apologize. I'm not really a coin collector in the sense that I don't have much interest in the numismatic value of the coins I've been purchasing. I have recently began purchasing old, circulated US "junk" silver coins (war nickels, pre-1965 quarters and dimes, etc.) and am mostly interested in the silver content as a hedge against inflation. I've been buying the coins on ebay, but since I'm not experienced with coins I have no idea how to tell if I have been receiving counterfeits or not. Recently, I purchased a roll of 1944 quarters and a roll of 1964 quarters, from different sellers. I counted each roll, and each contains 40 quarters with the expected date stamps as I would expect. Yet the roll of 1944 quarters is noticeably shorter than the 1964 ones (approximately 1/2 inch shorter). So I decided to weigh both rolls. I used a Weight Watchers food scale my wife had in the kitchen, and I'm not sure how accurate it is. I switched the measuring units to grams and placed each roll on the scale one at a time, with paper. The 1944 quarter roll with paper weighed 246 grams, while the 1964 quarter roll with paper weighed 251 grams. My question is, is this deviation normal? Or should I suspect one of the rolls to be counterfeit? If so, which roll should I suspect is counterfeit? Please let me know if I need to provide more information or include pictures. |
|
|
|
Valued Member
United States
337 Posts |
maybe the 44s are just more worn down
the 64s could be in better shape thus weight more
example I have 2 rocks that start off weighing the same
one of them I have had since I was 5 the other I got yesterday
everyday I shake them in a bag for 5 minutes the bag is filled with other rocks
clearly the older one (44) would start to weigh less because its getting worn down the (64) hasnt been worn as much so it weighs more
I say look at the shape of them first
also you could check them with a magnet
silver isn't magnetic so if a quarter pulls to the magnet it is fake
there are 2 easy possible checks for you :)
|
|
New Member
 United States
6 Posts |
Thank you, Chriscoinmaster. What you said makes sense, and I did think of that. I just wanted to be reassured that such wear, to the extent of 5 grams and 1/2 inch per roll, is normal for older coins. I examined the shape of all the quarters, and each looks to have the same dimensions with the exception of the 1944 quarters being every so slightly thinner. I did take a strong magnet to each quarter and each roll, and none of them were magnetic. However, my common nickels and pre-1982 copper pennies that I have on my desk right now are not magnetic either, and they don't have a gram of silver in them. Are counterfeit coins typically made out of magnetic metals?
EDIT - I need to clarify - the 1/2" was an "eye check" guesstimate. I just now measured and the difference in height is only about 1/4"
Edited by cuppettcj
04/15/2011 11:17 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2602 Posts |
I think most likely the 1944 vs 1964 weight and height differences are due to the 1944 seeing mroe cirulcation and 1964s did not owing to them being last year of silver and it was rapidly pulled from circulation after going to clads in 1965. I think it's probably normal.  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3184 Posts |
the difference is because the older dates are probably more worn down as someone above mentioned.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1745 Posts |
I bought a roll of well worn Barber dimes, and it was quite a bit shorter than normal roll. You can weigh them to find our how much? |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1348 Posts |
I think you are just fine. I wouldn't be worried.
|
|
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.
|
| |
Replies: 21 / Views: 16,971 |
Posted 04/15/2011 11:07 am
