which wore fastest in circulation .925 or .500 silver

[Chris99a]

I was just wondering if anyone knew if silver wore faster in general circulation if exposed to similar treatment as sterling silver or when it was debased to .500. I am just curious because the .500 silver coins I tend to come across generaly exibit allot of signs of ware. does a higher or lower silver content effect a coins life in circulation?

[ArgentSmith]

I thought it was the other way round but not my area of expertise. I don't have an area of expertise to be honest.

[matt1r]

.925 silver .75 copper

.500 silver .500 copper

Silver is slightly softer than copper, so the 925 should wear quicker. I think I’m right in saying this, someone correct me if I’m way off.

[PhilB]

11 minutes ago, matt1r said:

.925 silver .75 copper

.500 silver .500 copper

Silver is slightly softer than copper, so the 925 should wear quicker. I think I’m right in saying this, someone correct me if I’m way off.

Agreed. Pre 1920 constitutional silver (.925) tends to be much more worn than the pre-1947 50% silver coinage. 

 

[Centauri167]

8 hours ago, matt1r said:

.925 silver .75 copper

.500 silver .500 copper

Silver is slightly softer than copper, so the 925 should wear quicker. I think I’m right in saying this, someone correct me if I’m way off.

Is this with all older silver coins so that the other material was only copper or with the ones from the UK ?

I thought they also used other materials, like nickel or combinations ?

[matt1r]

50 minutes ago, Centauri167 said:

Is this with all older silver coins so that the other material was only copper or with the ones from the UK ?

I thought they also used other materials, like nickel or combinations ?

Yea this is where I was unsure and maybe someone else had more knowledge I think it’s a combination of metals on the 500. I remember reading once something along the lines someone at the mint was very happy with the look of the metal achieved by using only 50% I recall it listing the metals used but can’t find the article now.

[ArgentSmith]

 

2 hours ago, Centauri167 said:

I thought they also used other materials, like nickel or combinations ?

There is no nickel in the .5 silver, the nickel replaced the silver post 1947

[PhilB]

 

57 minutes ago, ArgentSmith said:

 

There is no nickel in the .5 silver, the nickel replaced the silver post 1947

Hence cupro-nickel 

[SidS]

Silver from 1920-1946 isn't that straight forward.

1920-1922 it was 50% silver, 40% copper and 10% nickel.

This nickel is responsible for the rather unappealing yellow/mustard toning they get.

From 1922-1926 the nickel was eliminated. So 50% silver and 50% copper.

From 1927-1946 the coins were 50% silver, 40% copper, 5% nickel and 5% zinc (I think it was zinc).

 

Source: Coincraft 2000 catalogue.

Edited January 29, 2022 by SidS
Factual errors.

[TeaTime]

I don't think there's a lot of difference in how .925 & .500 coins wear. If there is then it will be minimal.

I think a combination of poor striking and the obvious discolouration to .500 coins gives the appearance of more wear. The George V coins minted for general circulation tend to be a bit less defined even in uncirculated examples - a bit like the Gillick effigy on Elizabeth II coins..

[SidS]

9 minutes ago, TeaTime said:

I don't think there's a lot of difference in how .925 & .500 coins wear. If there is then it will be minimal.

I think a combination of poor striking and the obvious discolouration to .500 coins gives the appearance of more wear. The George V coins minted for general circulation tend to be a bit less defined even in uncirculated examples - a bit like the Gillick effigy on Elizabeth II coins..

Which I presume is partially why the sterling era designs were replaced by lower relief art-deco style designs in the late 1920s. The 1930s coins certainly look and wear better overall.

In practice, I should imagine that sterling should wear faster than 50% bring softer (particularly where nickel is included in the alloy).

However the quantities of 1920-22 era coins which come out just as worn as say Vicky Young head coins (approaching near blanks), suggest that they wore either very fast in circulation (if being progressively withdrawn from 1947 onwards) or they stayed in circulation right through to the early 1970s and had a good 40-50 years of use.

[ady]

Interesting question. I think you have to remember how many things could be bought for coppers when sterling silver was circulating and the silver maybe did not circulate as quickly. With inflation the 50% silver coins would have come to circulated quicker, plus the sterling coin going into hiding.

[SidS]

A study of hoards found in the late 1880s, early 1890s of silver coinage which had been removed from circulation at those dates, based on the prevalance of coins from the later dates, suggest that coinage of George III - William IV was still circulating at the end of the 19th century but are often so worn to be dateless and in some cases near blank.

If one takes 1837 to be the newest date of pre-Victoria and the date of around 1897 or so, that gives the coins 60 years max to end up in that state - obviously if they had spells out of circulation then it could be seen to be of shorter duration.

As you say inflation no doubt played a part with the greater use of pre-47 coinage, but I suspect they had a long circulation life beyond 1947. Doesn't always appear to be the case with the George VI 1945-46 era, they seem much better preserved on the whole.

See this pdf report from the British Numismatic Journal:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.britnumsoc.org/publications/Digital%20BNJ/pdfs/1964_BNJ_33_23.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjc4Yzyj9f1AhWaQEEAHbPdBpwQFnoECAQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw28Kt0aM6e8htt2TSIerBWh

Edited January 29, 2022 by SidS

[LawrenceChard]

15 hours ago, Chris99a said:

I was just wondering if anyone knew if silver wore faster in general circulation if exposed to similar treatment as sterling silver or when it was debased to .500. I am just curious because the .500 silver coins I tend to come across generaly exibit a llot of signs of ware. does a higher or lower silver content effect a coins life in circulation?

I doubt if anyone has ever done any scientific research into the wear rate, but I may be wrong.

It seems intuitive that purer silver coins would suffer from more wear, but this is not necessarily a correct assumption. Baser alloys may suffer from greater levels of chemical attack, which could increase mechanical wear. Also with metallurgy, and alloys, things are not always simple. The sizes of atoms relative to the other elements in the alloy mean that some proportions of alloys fit together into a tighter matrix or crystalline structure, which would help the alloy resist wear better.

Pre-1920 UK coins were usually struck in quite high relief, which I think got lowered after 1919, so that wear patterns may appear differently.

  

[LawrenceChard]

15 hours ago, matt1r said:

.925 silver .75 copper

.500 silver .500 copper

Silver is slightly softer than copper, so the 925 should wear quicker. I think I’m right in saying this, someone correct me if I’m way off.

 

6 hours ago, Centauri167 said:

Is this with all older silver coins so that the other material was only copper or with the ones from the UK ?

I thought they also used other materials, like nickel or combinations ?

 

2 hours ago, SidS said:

Silver from 1920-1946 isn't that straight forward.

1920-1922 it was 50% silver, 40% copper and 10% nickel.

This nickel is responsible for the rather unappealing yellow/mustard toning they get.

From 1922-1926 the nickel was eliminated. So 50% silver and 50% copper.

From 1927-1946 the coins were 50% silver, 40% copper, 5% nickel and 5% zinc (I think it was zinc).

 

Source: Coincraft 2000 catalogue.

@SidS and Coincraft are about right about the varying alloy compositions.

I have analysed a significant number of British coins, not just for silver content, but also to check into the other metals used. I don't have easy access to the results in any scientific manner, the testing has been rather ad hoc, but it was known that the Royal Mint were experimenting with different alloys duriing much of the post 1919 "silver" coins period, so I suspect there may also be some variation even within years. 

As most TSF members probably know, I have analysed larger number of gold sovereigns, and can confirm that most early sovereigns, 1817 onwards contained significant proportions of silver (I have noted as high as 56 parts per thousand). During most of Victoria's reign, and to the end of George V's, a typical silver content was around 4 ppt, although with some variation. The silver content helps to give a pleasant yellow colour. Very recent sovereigns noticeably have zero silver content, and look a rather unpleasant coppery red. The table on this page gives the alloy content for 14 dates representing sovereigns from 1817 to 2021. https://www.chards.co.uk/blog/analysis-of-alloy-content-of-gold-sovereigns/180

One thing I wonder is what the general public thought about the colour of the various alloys of 500 fine silver issued between 1920 and 1946. In those days the colour was probably more important in maintaining trust of circulation coins, rather than their aesthetic appeal to collectors.

 

 

[dicker]

This is well worth a read.  The Silver content of the Sydney Type II “Sovereign” seemed to have been to blame for fast wear (contemporaneously)

Best

Dicker
 

https://www.sterlingcurrency.com.au/blog/news-research/australian-gold-coinage/the-1868-type-ii-sydney-mint-sovereign-a-turning-p/

[KevjustKev]

Coins that were too worn would have been taken out, melted and reminted, plus a larger population using the 50% can account for coins that look worn out.

[dicker]

Indeed.  I have also seen an article on the Type I / II “Sovereigns which also references faster wearing”

Worth a read.

https://numistip.com/blog/Half_Sovereigns_of_the_Sydney_Mint.html?fbclid=IwAR0xLXRnmdSlKmbgkQbhttukFK4NAIp3-to3InDi0zgdGV-5vRCF-2Jijek

[swanky]

I collect both and can add some information. Except I don't collect near-mint-condition .925, premium too high, so potential for bias.

• .925 is more worn than .500, makes sense as silver is softer
• The first .500 alloy, 1920-22 with the 10% nickel, also wears a lot - less than .925 but more than the successive .500 alloys
• The next alloy, 1922-27 with 50% copper, fares slightly better
• Anything from 1927 holds up really well

Edited January 30, 2022 by swanky

[stefffana]

Sterling silver 925 with copper is a very well balanced alloy, with a good over all resistance.

The pre20 coins are looking almost blank now only because been in circulation longer than pre47, coexisting in parallel another few more decades.

It is easy to test this theory experimentally, with two coins of the same type (3d for example to not cry after experiment) and in the same degree of wear, rubbed together on both sides on an abrasive paper applying on both the same force of pressing.

[ArgentSmith]

 

 

On 29/01/2022 at 14:08, LawrenceChard said:

I doubt if anyone has ever done any scientific research into the wear rate, but I may be wrong.

 

We could be on the verge of a scientific breakthrough 👇

20 minutes ago, stefffana said:

It is easy to test this theory experimentally, with two coins of the same type (3d for example to not cry after experiment) and in the same degree of wear, rubbed together on both sides on an abrasive paper applying on both the same force of pressing.

I put it to you Prof Steffana in order to eliminate possible variables such as the extent of existing relief, potential variations in pressure applied etc. I would like to propose an alternative method into this Scientific enquiry. 🤓

Method: Make two samples of  .925 and .5 silver coins equal in denomination or surface area. Note weight of each sample. Barrel each sample for 12 hours and note weight of each barreld sample. Calculate the percentage reduction in weight from each sample.

The sample which loses the most weight in terms of percentage is the fastest wearing.

Who's going to do it?

Edited January 31, 2022 by ArgentSmith

[LawrenceChard]

2 hours ago, stefffana said:

Sterling silver 925 with copper is a very well balanced alloy, with a good over all resistance.

The pre20 coins are looking almost blank now only because been in circulation longer than pre47, coexisting in parallel another few more decades.

It is easy to test this theory experimentally, with two coins of the same type (3d for example to not cry after experiment) and in the same degree of wear, rubbed together on both sides on an abrasive paper applying on both the same force of pressing.

 

1 hour ago, ArgentSmith said:

 

 

We could be on the verge of a scientific breakthrough 👇

I put it to you Prof Steffana in order to eliminate possible variables such as the extent of existing relief, potential variations in pressure applied etc. I would like to propose an alternative method into this Scientific enquiry. 🤓

Method: Make two samples of  .925 and .5 silver coins equal in denomination or surface area. Note weight of each sample. Barrel each sample for 12 hours and note weight of each barreld sample. Calculate the percentage reduction in weight from each sample.

The sample which loses the most weight in terms of percentage is the fastest wearing.

Who's going to do it?

Sounds promising, I nominate @stefffana

😎

[stefffana]

I feel flattered to see that I was nominated to execute this delicate experiment. I promise you I won't disappoint you. I have already ordered two threepence coins from different alloys. After they arrive, I will communicate the pseudo-scientific results.😊

[Dakaras]

Here's a spin for you, going through a bag of pre 1920s silver (which I got from @stefffana thank you very happy) I noticed almost without exception the reverse of shillings and sixpences was more worn that the obverse, so weaker strike? Less deeply engraved dies? 

 

Just occurred to me the pressure of the strike should be same for both sides shouldn't it?

Edited January 31, 2022 by Dakaras

[stefffana]

2 minutes ago, Dakaras said:

Here's a spin for you, going through a bag of pre 1920s silver (which I got from @stefffana thank you very happy) I noticed almost without exception the reverse of shillings and sixpences was more worn that the obverse, so weaker strike? Less deeply engraved dies? 

 

Just occurred to me the pressure of the strike should be same for both sides shouldn't it?

Thank you, @Dakaras, good point. I am supposing the same. The pressure is equally on both sides for sure. So, you have already the correct explanation. On the obverse is less deep.