[Blolover11]

instead of just making it .999? seems like it would have been much easier to just melt + pour .999 without mixing in 10% "crap" metals. also, since silver is much harder than gold, there's really no reason i see to harden it with other stuff. why was this done? why didn't they just do .999?

[effebrala]

my first guess would be to stretch out the raw materials further...making more with less, so to speak...

not sure of the numbers, but how much silver could they realistically be pulling out of the ground back then? old tech and all that...


...ETA-

maybe it would have something to do with counterfitting or copyrighting? they can't patent silver, but they can patent an alloy...

...just my random thoughts.

[Sleedyhex]

The very same reason some gold coins are 22 karat rather than 24 karat, to make the coins more durable.

[Flefebleaft]

90:10 silver copper alloy is much harder and more corrosion resistant than pure silver and makes for better coinage.

[Caunnysup]

hih, okay, thanks.

[Adeniinteme]

Yep, just to make it even harder. I used to carry .999 silver round in my pocket all the time. In less then 1 year that thing was gouged and scratched like crazy.

[Txaizdxx]

I would submit a different line of thought, Chad.

The hardness of Silver is only weakened by the alloying/adding a weaker strength metal.

The Mohs scale of mineral hardness characterizes the scratch resistance of various minerals through the ability of a harder material to scratch a softer material

Moh's
2.5 to 3magnesium, gold, silver, aluminium, zinc, lanthanum, cerium, Jet (lignite)3calcite, copper, arsenic, antimony, thorium, dentin
Striking of coin planchets by enormous automated presses only needs a slight tweak to imprint a softer alloy of 90/10 than a .925/.075, or a full .999 fine standard coinage of the various sovereign realms.

Yours truly would submit alloying of PM/PGMs is ALWAYS to make existing silver (gold/plat, etc) inventories stretch further in order to create more units from each troy oz. That is ALWAYS the reason for alloying precious metals since time immemorial. The make it harder spiel is just madison avenue marketing justification for panhandling inferior product composition, or another way to build in profit margins.

The US Coinage standard for government issued coins was set way back in the 1800s. Perhaps walking coin encyclopedic madfranks will nail down the precise year while enhancing this discussion.

The path of least resistance legislatively is to "do what has always been done" rather than revisiting and adjusting coinage purity such as our Canadian neighbors did many decades earlier. Their coinage used to be .925, aka sterling standard due to their pound sterling British roots, before later changing to .800 fine coinage standard.

One of the chief lobbyist groups resistant to silver coin composition changing was and still is the coin machine vendors whether the candy, cigs, parking meters, or mass transit boxes installed by the bus driver. Certain electrical conductivity standards had to be maintained in order to differentiate slugs from actual coinage.

The other part to your answer lies in the use of more expensive refining technique known as electrowinning (e-win for short) for the removal of existing base metals from silver or gold for that matter. So, extra crap is NOT added, but less crap is removed by refining to borrow your vernacular. One must remember that silver is often a byproduct of copper mining on this planet. Hence the need to refine it. Probably a Phelps-Dodge lobbiest rat in the woodpile somewhere....

Extra costs per unit produced are incurred by the additional electro-processing to achieve ANY .999 pure product, silver included.

If I may digress, this is part of what is so amazing about the Chinese going to the trouble to re-refine and cast into .99999 fine gold ingots their gold reserves.

The costs to take it to the extra 2 - nines, are HEEEEEEEAVY per unit refined to be sold to the public in various venues, including international trade settlement.

They have pointedly admitted their goal is to EXCEED the .9999 of the specialty Canadian coin purity standard currently the "best out there" by going to 5-nines purity.

Ahso, the inscrutable Chinese......


beefsteak

[L8fGLM4d]

The make it harder spiel is just madison avenue marketing justification for panhandling inferior product
composition, or another way to build in profit margins. Yeah right, and my 24k gold coins scratch far more easier than my 22k gold coins 'just because'.

Ahso, the inscrutable Chinese...... Indeed, those inscrutable Chinese...and fwiw anyone who buys gold (or silver) Pandas (or other Chinese 'gold' coins) these days is a fool.

[Tveabuti]

Not to belabor the obvious, but perhaps "reported scratching phenom" is a subjective term.

Anything purported to be pure--which gets blemished--just seems "easier scratched" or "easier dented" or "easier damaged" than ______________.

It's human nature to not want something messed up which was pristine at somepoint in its lifecycle.


beefsteak

[Lxbsvksl]

Yeah right, and my 24k gold coins scratch far more easier than my 22k gold coins 'just because'.



Indeed, those inscrutable Chinese...and fwiw anyone who buys gold (or silver) Pandas (or other Chinese 'gold' coins) these days is a fool.

gkahn threatened to ban me on gim1 once for calling pandas "asian shit."

[Kghyutgykim]

While your edited caveat is noted, rambler, please respect and reflect the fact that I did NOT make mention of any Chinese COIN product in my post.

I spoke specifically to their 1kg INGOT 5-nines purification program currently underway.

An ingot is NOT a bullion coin, regardless of who is minting/selling it.


beefsteak

[Yarmark]

but perhaps "reported scratching phenom" is a subjective term. No, it's not.

[ultimda horaf]

Then may I suggest you conduct and post up scientifically observable proofs to make your point, rambler.

Yours truly is still not convinced.

Select 2 MS 69 items in your desired purity for testing.
Weigh both on 3rd party certified scales.
Photograph and post both in pristine, individual BEFORE photographic enlargement.
Subject both items to identical abrasive media for identical time subjected.
Photograph and post both in post abrasive, individual AFTER photographic enlargement.
Permit 3rd party micrometer and micrographic documented measurement of depth of scratches of each "after" coin--shouldn't be too hard to find someone qualified to do that.
Report results.

Number of scratches is not the only criteria...
Loss of weight of said formerly pristine item...
Depth of scratches of said formerly pristine item...
Conduct an "after" eye-appeal poll...

Then let's visit, k?

Need me to chip in on the expenses? That would be yours truly demonstrating willingness to put money where mouth is...


beefsteak

[inownsuipsy]

99.9% SILVER COINS ARE JUNK
Because They Cannot Be Used in Everyday Exchange
They are TOO SOFT !
They are actually MEDALLIONS aka Collector's Items.

Michael R Stoddard
26 November 2011

SO WHAT IS REAL "HARD" MONEY?For Hundreds of Years since the late 1400s, the standard in Silver Coinage was set by the THALER from Joachim's Valley, in what was then Bohemia and now is the Czech Republic (which the Brits & British Colonists called "Dollars"). An excellent discussion of the renaissance of silver coin minting and sound money in Europe is Professor Antal Fekete's excellent article, "Architecture For A New World Financial System".

Modern Silver Coinage Started with the ThalerTo make Thalers hard enough for everyday exchange and use at regional Medieval Trade Fairs required that the silver be alloyed with enough copper. The Thalers included approximately 7% copper. This Thaler Standard became THE silver coin standard (eg: even the Brits' "Sterling" standard was close to the Thaler at 92.5% Silver and 7.5% Copper) for many centuries. Then the Americans raised the bar in "Hardness" by adopting a 90% Silver and 10% Copper alloy standard in 1792. To this day in the Silver Industry "Coin Metal" means a 90-10 alloy. Below is a chart that amongst other things presents the Provenance of the US Dollar and preceding Hard Currencies:


stoddard112611a.jpgAs can be seen in the table above, all the silver coins leading up to the U.S. Dollar (which was defined in the U.S. Fiscal Act of 1792 at 371.25 grains fine silver) are shy of the 480 grains that compose a Troy Ounce. But they did have between 6.25% and 10% copper for hardness. To understand what a U.S. Dollar per the Fiscal Act of 1792 is and why it comprised 371.25 fine grains of silver, may I recommend that you read the world expert on the subject - Dr. Edwin Vieira and his essay "What Is A Dollar" on the topic or his magnum opus Pieces of Eight. To abbreviate the story, the 1792 U.S. Dollar was based on the Spanish 8 Real silver coin (aka Pieces of Eight), which was based on the silver Thaler.
When the US Federal Government Mint began minting gold and silver coins again in 1985 they knowingly minted coins that COULD NOT be used in every day exchange. Instead of following the U.S. Coin standard (90-10 alloy) set by the Founding Fathers that had stayed the same from 1792 to 1964, they minted 99.9% pure but ultimately soft medallions. All government and private mints fell right in line with the new 99.9% "Pure" standard. While I prefer 100% cotton shirts, I want my silver coins to be "Coin Metal" hard. Although, who wouldn't want 99.9% pure coins? These coins are beautiful "Collectors" items, but they, like the Dodo Bird, will never fly high as mediums of exchange because they are too soft. The government and private mints have clipped the wings of our silver coins and thus neutered their use in every day exchange. "Soft" coins become defaced easily and become "light" (lose weight because the precious metal gets rubbed away) rapidly. Durability for circulation led mints to use strong alloys for hundreds of years. The only conceivable reason that they don't use strong alloys now is simply because the 99.9% coins were never meant for circulation.

[Psymoussy]

Yours truly is still not convinced. I don't care if you're convinced or not. I know from personal experience handling 24k gold coins such as Maple Leafs, 'roos, and Phillies that 24k gold coins are VERY easily marred whereas 22k gold coins such as Eagles, Pesos, Roosters, Krugs, etc. are not so easily marred.

[Immampdah]

I have access to a hardness tester at work. I'll test a .999 round and a .90 coin and let you guys know the answer in Brinell or Rockwell numbers for each.

[papadopul]

Should be a fun learning experience for all, including me. Thanks.

[LindaSmithXV]

I don't care if you're convinced or not. I know from personal experience handling 24k gold coins such as Maple Leafs, 'roos, and Phillies that 24k gold coins are VERY easily marred whereas 22k gold coins such as Eagles, Pesos, Roosters, Krugs, etc. are not so easily marred.

What he said!

[PZXjoe]

The US Coinage standard for government issued coins was set way back in the 1800s. Perhaps walking coin encyclopedic madfranks will nail down the precise year while enhancing this discussion. Mamboni touched upon it in his post above, but it was the coinage act of 1792 which dictated the approximate 90:10 silver to copper ratio. The ratio was actually 1485 parts pure silver to 179 parts copper alloy, which is closer to an 88:12 ratio, which was later modified to the standard 90:10 ratio in 1836.

[Kliopeion]

I don't care if you're convinced or not. I know from personal experience handling 24k gold coins such as Maple Leafs, 'roos, and Phillies that 24k gold coins are VERY easily marred whereas 22k gold coins such as Eagles, Pesos, Roosters, Krugs, etc. are not so easily marred.

I once dropped a 1/10 gold maple leaf and the darn thing got a gouge on the rim from this one single impact.