Us Mint Weight Tolerance
 

From what I remember the US mint had some pretty low weight tolerances for
their coins. I have ome acroos a 1952 quarter that weighs 6.37 grams
which is .12 grams or almost 2% over weight. Can I nsell this as a rare
error for lots of $$ on ebay?


Jorg Lueke ANA 197036, ANS 11206, CSNS, ACCG, TCACC , CWTS

http://www.ancientcoinvalues.com/

According to the "Specifications of U.S. Coins" chart (which I revised) in the
"Coin World Almanac" (which I helped write), the official weight tolerance for
U.S. silver quarters from 1947 to 1964 was 3.0 grains avoidupois, or approx.
0.194 grams. It had been 1.5 grains from 1873 to 1947 and 1.0 grains before
1873, but they were getting sloppy.
Tom DeLorey
..
Subject: Us Mint Weight Tolerance
From: Jorg Lueke
Date: 11/10/2004 11:07 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

From what I remember the US mint had some pretty low weight tolerances for
their coins. I have ome acroos a 1952 quarter that weighs 6.37 grams
which is .12 grams or almost 2% over weight. Can I nsell this as a rare
error for lots of $$ on ebay?


Jorg Lueke ANA 197036, ANS 11206, CSNS, ACCG, TCACC , CWTS

http://www.ancientcoinvalues.com/


TomDeLorey
-
"MADNESS!!! MADNESS!!!"
Final scene from "Bridge Over The River Kwai."

Thanks Tom. That is rather sloppy all things considered. You wouldn't
happen to know what the value for a good assay was? How close to 90%
silver did the mint need to get?


On 11 Nov 2004 05:32:46 GMT, TomDeLorey wrote:

According to the "Specifications of U.S. Coins" chart (which I revised)
in the
"Coin World Almanac" (which I helped write), the official weight
tolerance for
U.S. silver quarters from 1947 to 1964 was 3.0 grains avoidupois, or
approx.
0.194 grams. It had been 1.5 grains from 1873 to 1947 and 1.0 grains
before
1873, but they were getting sloppy.
Tom DeLorey
.
Subject: Us Mint Weight Tolerance
From: Jorg Lueke
Date: 11/10/2004 11:07 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

From what I remember the US mint had some pretty low weight tolerances
for
their coins. I have ome acroos a 1952 quarter that weighs 6.37 grams
which is .12 grams or almost 2% over weight. Can I nsell this as a rare
error for lots of $$ on ebay?


Jorg Lueke ANA 197036, ANS 11206, CSNS, ACCG, TCACC , CWTS

http://www.ancientcoinvalues.com/


TomDeLorey
-
"MADNESS!!! MADNESS!!!"
Final scene from "Bridge Over The River Kwai."



--
Jorg Lueke ANA 197036, ANS 11206, CSNS, ACCG, TCACC (I try), CWTS

http://www.ancientcoinvalues.com/

Subject: Us Mint Weight Tolerance
From: Jorg Lueke
Date: 11/11/2004 6:45 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Thanks Tom. That is rather sloppy all things considered. You wouldn't
happen to know what the value for a good assay was? How close to 90%
silver did the mint need to get?


Don't know the fineness tolerance that late, but suspect it was pretty tight. I
remember reading about a batch of Carson City silver dollars that was condemned
and remelted because they assayed out at only .899 fine.

TomDeLorey
-
"MADNESS!!! MADNESS!!!"
Final scene from "Bridge Over The River Kwai."

On 12 Nov 2004 05:55:20 GMT, TomDeLorey wrote:

Subject: Us Mint Weight Tolerance
From: Jorg Lueke
Date: 11/11/2004 6:45 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Thanks Tom. That is rather sloppy all things considered. You wouldn't
happen to know what the value for a good assay was? How close to 90%
silver did the mint need to get?


Don't know the fineness tolerance that late, but suspect it was pretty
tight. I
remember reading about a batch of Carson City silver dollars that was
condemned
and remelted because they assayed out at only .899 fine.

TomDeLorey
-
Interesting that they took such pains with the alloy but let the weight
drift. I suppose it must have been easier to control the fineness and
this also let them have more wiggly room with the weight. Although for a
quarter .001 difference would have been the same as a .006 gram differnce
which they obviously weren't very concerned about.

Interesting that they took such pains with the alloy but let the weight
drift. I suppose it must have been easier to control the fineness and
this also let them have more wiggly room with the weight. Although for a
quarter .001 difference would have been the same as a .006 gram differnce
which they obviously weren't very concerned about.


I think they were just trying to allow for the fact that the occasional coins
did come light or heavy, but they were very strict on bulk tolerances. They
weighed finished bags, allowing for the weight of the bag, of course, and if
the entire bag consisted of all light or all heavy coins (if, for example, a
strip had been rolled wrong) they melted it down and started over. Over the
long run, people got fair weight coins.
..

TomDeLorey
-
"MADNESS!!! MADNESS!!!"
Final scene from "Bridge Over The River Kwai."

On 13 Nov 2004 14:46:24 GMT, TomDeLorey wrote:

Interesting that they took such pains with the alloy but let the weight
drift. I suppose it must have been easier to control the fineness and
this also let them have more wiggly room with the weight. Although for
a
quarter .001 difference would have been the same as a .006 gram
differnce
which they obviously weren't very concerned about.


I think they were just trying to allow for the fact that the occasional
coins
did come light or heavy, but they were very strict on bulk tolerances.
They
weighed finished bags, allowing for the weight of the bag, of course,
and if
the entire bag consisted of all light or all heavy coins (if, for
example, a
strip had been rolled wrong) they melted it down and started over. Over
the
long run, people got fair weight coins.
.

TomDeLorey

That does make a lot of sense. As long as the weight variance for an
individual coin is low enough that people don't start weighing and
remelting the coins the individual weight would not be too critical.

From: Jorg Lueke

I have ome acroos a 1952 quarter that weighs 6.37 grams which is .12 grams or
almost 2% over weight.

scrape off the chewing gum

-heh-
JOKE



8-|
- Coin Saver

With silver @ 7.50 per OZ. Sweet, as Cartman would say.
Regards,
Dan