Has the hobby been harmed by the "Great Silver Melt" of '79-'80?

[PocketArt]

I came across this article the other day that was wrote by Ed Reiter in 1999. It's an interesting read that provides an account of a few dealers who were involved in the silver melt of '79-'80, some of the material that was melted, and thoughts on the long term effect, of this event, on the hobby.

 

http://www.pcgs.com/News/After-The-Melts-Whats-Left-In-Silver-Coins

 

After reading this article, I suppose we are fortunate that silver prices didn't stay at $50 an ounce for a prolonged period of time!

 

In the closing paragraph of this article; the question of what long term impact this may have on the hobby was considered. Since the articles publication in '99, and 17 years later, do any of you believe this had an effect; even minor?

 

Are there any particular coins you know of that were melted in great quantities- specific dates of BU rolls, or, bags?

 

 

[PocketArt]

Just a thought, perhaps the census data, to a degree reflect what the melts had on coinage? Looking at Roosevelt dimes, very few MS68 coins listed in census during the 1960's that were silver, in relation to previous dates. Safe to say that the "great silver melt" could have been the culprit?

[World Colonial]

My answer is no at least for US coins. It might apply to coins from elsewhere. Here are a few examples:

 

Many South African Union coins must have been melted at this time. The 1959 circulation strike crown (mintage about 2,000) struck specifically for collectors should be a lot more available than what I see. I can only presume that its market price was less than melt, despite its relative scarcity.

 

In 1975, I saw 19th century Bolivianos (crown sized) by the hundreds or thousands in local shops. They were displayed in food weighing scales. Since I returned in 1997, I have seen almost none. I suspect most have been melted.

 

Outside of specialization (such as die varieties), almost any US coin melted at the time Is still so common, I don't see that it makes any difference. For most of them, I believe the current supply is either greater or a lot greater than the collector base who will ever pay a noticeable premium for it.

[coinman_23885]

I think the melts could have arguably helped numismatics by weeding out low end piece, problem coins, etc., that so many collectors are lulled into paying premiums for. Imagine all of the cleaned coins that were melted.

[RWB]

Brokers paid by weight of silver after deducting an assumed percentage for dirt and debris. A lot of circulated silver coins were melted but we don't know how many tons or anything about the dates/mints involved. Much of this depended on human behavior - a tendency to keep new shiny coins and dispose of worn dirty ones; melting cull silver dollars but not nicer ones that brought a small premium; non-collectors cashing in gallon jars and tubs of silver coins tossed back over the years.

 

The largest numismatic loss, I think, was to the mass of unsearched EF and better silver that non-collectors had put aside. Metal brokers did not check these and who knows how many nice 1919 double die dimes were melted. The hobby is left with the high and the low but is likely to be missing the middle of condition distribution.

 

Some rare coins were probably melted, too. This follows the pattern at the US Mints and NY Assay Office in the 1930s when a few very rare coins were turned in along with piles of common pieces. (See my future article in The Numismatist on this subject.)

[DWLange]

I had some fun looking through the silver coins that were cashed in by the public during 1979-80. The best thing I found at my local shop was an 1877-CC half dollar in AU with lovely old toning. It had acquired some fresh but very small nicks as a result of being tumbled in a coin counter, but it was still a bargain at its then silver value of $20 or so.

[RWB]

Nice find! I wonder how many more vanished?

[PocketArt]

Interesting all. No doubt that millions of average circulated pieces were melted. I was only 5 in 1979 and my only memory of this phenomenon was Dad showing me a 100 oz Englehard bar of silver that he kept in a chocolate box in the fridge. I remember asking Dad "why do you have to keep it cold"? Dad explained it was silver, and it was quite valuable and he had to keep it there till the bank opened and could put it in the safe deposit box.

 

In the article that I put a link to- it was mentioned that one dealer remembers having 100 bags of uncirculated 1963 halves melted. Also, there are references to melting common, uncirulated rolls of coins. Apparently, this was done as well in great frequency due to the common date and price of silver per article.

 

Do any of you believe there is a correlation perhaps with very few high grade 1960-64 dated coins; dimes, quarters, and halves in relation to earlier dates in high grade? Could the low population of high grade '60's dated silver coins have to do with the melt? The population of '60's dated dimes, quarters, and halves that are 67-69 is quite low in relation to higher mintage. If any of you have a chance please check this out.

 

Roger i'll be sure to read your article when it's published.

 

Thanks all,

 

Rich

[johnny9434]

I had some fun looking through the silver coins that were cashed in by the public during 1979-80. The best thing I found at my local shop was an 1877-CC half dollar in AU with lovely old toning. It had acquired some fresh but very small nicks as a result of being tumbled in a coin counter, but it was still a bargain at its then silver value of $20 or so.

that makes me wonder how much we did lose to melt from people who did not know what they had. your luck you found that 1877 cc half dollar as well

[RWB]

"Do any of you believe there is a correlation perhaps with very few high grade 1960-64 dated coins; dimes, quarters, and halves in relation to earlier dates in high grade? Could the low census of high grade '60's dated silver coins have to do with the melt? The census of '60's dated dimes, quarters, and halves that are 67-69 is quite low in relation to higher mintage. If any of you have a chance please check this out."

 

Not here....silver coins of that date range are so common in bag quantities that sending them for authentication is grossly expensive and pointless. The authentication companies' population lists are useless for the purposes you suggest. (NOTE: A "census" is a count (aka, enumeration) of every item in a class such as 1963 Franklin half dollars.A "population" is a list of items meeting certain criteria but with no attempt to identify them all. Some early U.S. coins and pattern/experimental pieces have reasonably accurate enumerations, as do many early varieties of half cents and cents. Coin specialist groups often maintain a census of specific varieties; but these will be found to disagree with authentication company publications.)

[thebeav]

Speaking for myself, I didn't melt any numismatic material. I was on the floor, in my shop, until 1 or 1:30 am every day checking dates. Sometimes that meant thousands of Mercs. Of course the toughest dates to see quickly are Canadian dimes. But there isn't much to look for there. Those could be sorted and searched by the 'head' of the coin.

I don't think that this melt had much to do with values today. Common stuff then still seems to be common stuff now. I'm sure something slipped through, but certainly nothing of any significance.

Paul

 

[Zebo]

I wonder how that melt compares to the what occurred in 2011 along with the overall effect.

[WoodenJefferson]

Back in 79 or 80 I don't remember exactly, but I sold 4 or 5 lbs of culled silver (Walkers. Franklins, Washies, Mercury & Roosevelt dimes) to some Hunt Bros buyers. I had a bunch of 64 Kennedy halves but hung onto those for some strange reason...but I was paid on average $32 per troy oz. which was a pretty good payout since 90% of the coins I got at face value.

 

It was a weird and surreal experience. The buyers had a check embosser, first one I ever seen and marveled not only at the quality of the check but at the amount they were willing to pay me for basically junk silver.

 

There were no 32 Washies in the mix or 38-D Walkers...just plain ordinary circulated change from a bygone era, melted and smelted into bars of fortune, only to have their house brought down around them.

[dcarr]

"Do any of you believe there is a correlation perhaps with very few high grade 1960-64 dated coins; dimes, quarters, and halves in relation to earlier dates in high grade? Could the low census of high grade '60's dated silver coins have to do with the melt? The census of '60's dated dimes, quarters, and halves that are 67-69 is quite low in relation to higher mintage. If any of you have a chance please check this out."

 

Not here....silver coins of that date range are so common in bag quantities that sending them for authentication is grossly expensive and pointless. The authentication companies' population lists are useless for the purposes you suggest. (NOTE: A "census" is a count (aka, enumeration) of every item in a class such as 1963 Franklin half dollars.A "population" is a list of items meeting certain criteria but with no attempt to identify them all. Some early U.S. coins and pattern/experimental pieces have reasonably accurate enumerations, as do many early varieties of half cents and cents. Coin specialist groups often maintain a census of specific varieties; but these will be found to disagree with authentication company publications.)

 

I can say from experience that the typical 1960-1964 silver coin is going to be lower quality than those from pre-1960. The closer to 1964, the worse they are. There are some exceptions, naturally, like 1955-D quarters which are generally not great and some 1964 P & D quarters which are nice.

 

The reason for this is not melting. It is mostly due to the planchets. Prior to about 1961, the planchets have better integrity. By 1964, the planchets are really bad quality, probably due to the short-cuttings to achieve mass production. I found this out during my various fantasy-date over-striking activities. The first step in that process is to sand-blast each host coin that is going to be over-struck. When sand-blasting older silver coins, there was rarely ever a problem with peeling metal or other planchet integrity issues. But the later silver coins (especially 1964-dated pieces) were really bad. Upon sand-blasting, many of them would show blisters that would form on the surface from pockets of impurities under the surface. If I kept blasting such a bubble, eventually it would pop open or flake off, sometimes exposing black crud underneath. On many coins it was so bad I had to scrap them. After a thorough sandblasting, many looked like they were horribly corroded once all the inclusions and blisters had been taken off. So I can envision the 1964 planchet strip fabrication being rushed, not processed at the proper temperatures, and being done in a dirty environment where gunk and loose particles of silver get rolled into the planchet strip. But note that I did sand-blast some proof 1964 Kennedys, and there was never a problem with those. So, apparently, the Mint was more careful in the production of planchet strip for proofs.

 

[thebeav]

I can say from experience that the typical 1960-1964 silver coin is going to be lower quality than those from pre-1960. The closer to 1964, the worse they are. There are some exceptions, naturally, like 1955-D quarters which are generally not great and some 1964 P & D quarters which are nice.

 

The reason for this is not melting. It is mostly due to the planchets. Prior to about 1961, the planchets have better integrity. By 1964, the planchets are really bad quality, probably due to the short-cuttings to achieve mass production. I found this out during my various fantasy-date over-striking activities. The first step in that process is to sand-blast each host coin that is going to be over-struck. When sand-blasting older silver coins, there was rarely ever a problem with peeling metal or other planchet integrity issues. But the later silver coins (especially 1964-dated pieces) were really bad. Upon sand-blasting, many of them would show blisters that would form on the surface from pockets of impurities under the surface. If I kept blasting such a bubble, eventually it would pop open or flake off, sometimes exposing black crud underneath. On many coins it was so bad I had to scrap them. After a thorough sandblasting, many looked like they were horribly corroded once all the inclusions and blisters had been taken off. So I can envision the 1964 planchet strip fabrication being rushed, not processed at the proper temperatures, and being done in a dirty environment where gunk and loose particles of silver get rolled into the planchet strip. But note that I did sand-blast some proof 1964 Kennedys, and there was never a problem with those. So, apparently, the Mint was more careful in the production of planchet strip for proofs.

 

It's interesting ,the stuff you figure out when you 'get off the beaten path', so to speak.

 

A friend of mine, many years ago, wanted to try his hand at carving hobo nickels. So he was buying quantities of Buffalos from me, both dateless and dated stuff. The dated stuff was in the thirties. All of a sudden, all he wanted was dateless. I explained that a hobo on a higher grade would look much better, for only pennies more. He said that the dateless coins were far, far easier to carve. So, I'm pretty sure that the nickel planchet composition went through some undocumented change in the late 20's or so.....

 

Paul

[RWB]

The appearance of a new coin is highly dependent on the hardness of its planchet. Harder planchets usually result in coins with less pronounced detail than softer metal. This also affects the crystal structure of the coin alloy. Silver-copper and copper-nickel planchet hardness has been a problem at the Mints since their beginning.

[World Colonial]

"Do any of you believe there is a correlation perhaps with very few high grade 1960-64 dated coins; dimes, quarters, and halves in relation to earlier dates in high grade? Could the low census of high grade '60's dated silver coins have to do with the melt? The census of '60's dated dimes, quarters, and halves that are 67-69 is quite low in relation to higher mintage. If any of you have a chance please check this out."

 

Not here....silver coins of that date range are so common in bag quantities that sending them for authentication is grossly expensive and pointless. The authentication companies' population lists are useless for the purposes you suggest. (NOTE: A "census" is a count (aka, enumeration) of every item in a class such as 1963 Franklin half dollars.A "population" is a list of items meeting certain criteria but with no attempt to identify them all. Some early U.S. coins and pattern/experimental pieces have reasonably accurate enumerations, as do many early varieties of half cents and cents. Coin specialist groups often maintain a census of specific varieties; but these will be found to disagree with authentication company publications.)

 

My sentiments exactly. The supply of these coins is so vast, I don't see that prior melting will ever reduce availability below real collector (as opposed to speculator) demand. As for these specific grades, there aren't that many collectors buying them anyway.