Quote from billycgribble on February 4, 2015, 1:56 pmMystery solved... thank you!
You The problem is both of the silver and silver plate pieces weigh exactly the same. The silver plated piece is reingraved on the dates, weak spots and the words Fort Sumter on the reverse.
That is not possible unless the silver piece is thinner or smaller in diameter. Silver is a denser, heavier metal than copper and it's alloys. All things being equal, silver must be heavier than silver plate. I had the chance to weigh silver and silver-plated examples of several so-called dollars last week in Long Beach. Silver examples were uniformly around 20 percent heavier. We took one piece with no copper showing through the silver and had it tested with a variable power XRF gun (read surface and below surface, important for heavily plated pieces). The weight of the plated piece was the same as the unplated. Sure enough, it was copper below the heavy plating. If the weights are same, then they must be the same, plated or silver. If they weigh the same as the copper or bronze medal, then they must be plated (all else being equal, diameter and thickness). edited by bill on 2/4/2015
Mystery solved... thank you!
You The problem is both of the silver and silver plate pieces weigh exactly the same. The silver plated piece is reingraved on the dates, weak spots and the words Fort Sumter on the reverse.
That is not possible unless the silver piece is thinner or smaller in diameter. Silver is a denser, heavier metal than copper and it's alloys. All things being equal, silver must be heavier than silver plate. I had the chance to weigh silver and silver-plated examples of several so-called dollars last week in Long Beach. Silver examples were uniformly around 20 percent heavier. We took one piece with no copper showing through the silver and had it tested with a variable power XRF gun (read surface and below surface, important for heavily plated pieces). The weight of the plated piece was the same as the unplated. Sure enough, it was copper below the heavy plating. If the weights are same, then they must be the same, plated or silver. If they weigh the same as the copper or bronze medal, then they must be plated (all else being equal, diameter and thickness). edited by bill on 2/4/2015
Quote from billycgribble on February 4, 2015, 2:06 pmMystery solved... thank you![/quoteYou misinterpreted me. I purchased both the pieces listed as silver and silver plate from charbarro in south Carolina. I weighed the silver one in the piece and it weighs the same as the silver plated one. THERE ARE NO SILVER PIECES! which I realize is what your saying Bill. Good thing is it did get an NGC MS rating so where there were no uncirculated ones there now is one and I am fortunate to have it. To me it appears too thin planchets were used resulting it lots of flat spots and the dies were retooled and reworked and same thin but different plating used on the second set of planchets. The 2nd set does not tarnish the same and my guess is that there was more nickel used to offset the cost of retooling. The problem is both of the silver and silver plate pieces weigh exactly the same. The silver plated piece is reingraved on the dates, weak spots and the words Fort Sumter on the reverse.
That is not possible unless the silver piece is thinner or smaller in diameter. Silver is a denser, heavier metal than copper and it's alloys. All things being equal, silver must be heavier than silver plate. I had the chance to weigh silver and silver-plated examples of several so-called dollars last week in Long Beach. Silver examples were uniformly around 20 percent heavier. We took one piece with no copper showing through the silver and had it tested with a variable power XRF gun (read surface and below surface, important for heavily plated pieces). The weight of the plated piece was the same as the unplated. Sure enough, it was copper below the heavy plating. If the weights are same, then they must be the same, plated or silver. If they weigh the same as the copper or bronze medal, then they must be plated (all else being equal, diameter and thickness). edited by bill on 2/4/2015
Mystery solved... thank you![/quoteYou misinterpreted me. I purchased both the pieces listed as silver and silver plate from charbarro in south Carolina. I weighed the silver one in the piece and it weighs the same as the silver plated one. THERE ARE NO SILVER PIECES! which I realize is what your saying Bill. Good thing is it did get an NGC MS rating so where there were no uncirculated ones there now is one and I am fortunate to have it. To me it appears too thin planchets were used resulting it lots of flat spots and the dies were retooled and reworked and same thin but different plating used on the second set of planchets. The 2nd set does not tarnish the same and my guess is that there was more nickel used to offset the cost of retooling. The problem is both of the silver and silver plate pieces weigh exactly the same. The silver plated piece is reingraved on the dates, weak spots and the words Fort Sumter on the reverse.
That is not possible unless the silver piece is thinner or smaller in diameter. Silver is a denser, heavier metal than copper and it's alloys. All things being equal, silver must be heavier than silver plate. I had the chance to weigh silver and silver-plated examples of several so-called dollars last week in Long Beach. Silver examples were uniformly around 20 percent heavier. We took one piece with no copper showing through the silver and had it tested with a variable power XRF gun (read surface and below surface, important for heavily plated pieces). The weight of the plated piece was the same as the unplated. Sure enough, it was copper below the heavy plating. If the weights are same, then they must be the same, plated or silver. If they weigh the same as the copper or bronze medal, then they must be plated (all else being equal, diameter and thickness). edited by bill on 2/4/2015
Quote from Pioneer on June 3, 2016, 9:39 pmDuring a recent visit to Charleston SC, I took a city tour, and as we were going by the park outside the Citadel, the tour guide stopped at the bandstand in the photo below and said "this is one of the only remaining buildings from the 1901-1902 SC Interstate/West Indian Expo." How cool is that! It's used today mostly for weddings. It turns out that after the Civil War, Charleston SC went from being one of the richest places in America to one of the poorest. Charleston went thru a 40+ year depression, and the 1901 Expo clearly was an effort to stimulate the terrible economy and bring in more people to stimulate future growth. If you look at the medals from that expo, you will see Charleston landmarks such as Fort Sumter, the palmetto tree (that defeated the attempted British invasion in 1776), and transportation motifs. For more info on this exposition, please see the following link: http://www.angelfire.com/sc2/chasexpo/ edited by rjesinger on 6/4/2016
During a recent visit to Charleston SC, I took a city tour, and as we were going by the park outside the Citadel, the tour guide stopped at the bandstand in the photo below and said "this is one of the only remaining buildings from the 1901-1902 SC Interstate/West Indian Expo." How cool is that! It's used today mostly for weddings. It turns out that after the Civil War, Charleston SC went from being one of the richest places in America to one of the poorest. Charleston went thru a 40+ year depression, and the 1901 Expo clearly was an effort to stimulate the terrible economy and bring in more people to stimulate future growth. If you look at the medals from that expo, you will see Charleston landmarks such as Fort Sumter, the palmetto tree (that defeated the attempted British invasion in 1776), and transportation motifs. For more info on this exposition, please see the following link: http://www.angelfire.com/sc2/chasexpo/ edited by rjesinger on 6/4/2016