I Really Don't Like The Term Junk Silver.

It shouldn't apply to many coins but with metal prices soaring, enormous numbers of very nice pieces fall into the category traditionally called junk silver.

Then once all the current junk silver has been melted, the remaining junk silver will become collectible because all of the nice stuff has disappeared.

I wrote a paragraph about this somewhere on a thread!
I agree with you. Being that at least 95% of my collections come from roll searching, some of my silver pieces might be considered junk silver. To me they are precious pieces of history. Plus to me junk silver is an oxymoron.

I think we are missing a point. Junk does not refer to the quality of the coin. As I understand it. It is only called "junk" because it is less than pure .999 silver. At least that's how it was explained to me years ago.
So even the top rated registry set of Morgans is made up of "junk" silver.
It is a refiners term.

I never liked that term either. The term "junk bonds" used to bother me too, but that refers to the grade (relative safety) of the bond. When it works for your investment portfolio, you are willing to overlook the prettiness of the term.




With that understanding, a roll of 1916-D Mercs is junk silver.

I like the term junk silver. Just me..

Here is what an ebay bidder explained to me what junk silver means...

"Junk Silver" has nothing to do with the quality of coins, it simply refers to coins that have a silver value in excess of numismatic value. Culls(the real "junk") are not typically included as junk because many culls are underweight from damage or extreme wear. Many dealers will not even buy culls for silver or they may only purchase them at a steep discount. The term does typically apply to the more common 20th century circulated coins but others like Barbers and Morgans can fall into the "junk" category as well. There is no reason to be offended by the term and there is nothing "elitist" about it at all.