Weights are not accurate at all - forget the scale..

[koala33]

Sometimes when I am in a hurry on my lunchbreak, I like to weigh rolls and open the heavy ones. This makes my return to work a good one (after I have found some silver).

In any case, I haven't figured out why, but some rolls will weigh, say 225.6 grams and will have 2 40%ers in it, and other rolls will weigh 226.2 and have nothing in it.

Factor into the equation a coin with a hole in it. Let's say that the aforementioned rolls are all intact. What makes that roll so much heavier if there are no silver coins in there? What makes some coins lighter which compensates for a gross weight of only 225.6 with 2 40%ers in it?

One day when I have some time I really want to figure out what it is. I haven't weighed all of the wrappers so see if some are significantly heavier than others, but I guess this is a possibility.

Hmmmmm

Happy hunting..

I found about 10 40%ers via this method at lunch today - sometimes it works but other times I just don't understand the weights in relations to what I actually find.. 2.5 more boxes to sort tonight..

Shawn

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[TheRockDoc]

I havent weighed yet, but one thing I have always wondered, is that with halves, there are some that are as skinny as a nickel, and then others that are as thick as a proof half... but not a proof. Very inconsistent thicknesses from what I have noticed.

Maybe that could be what you are seeing.

 

[Bentfork]

Coins right from the mint don't necessarily weigh what the Red book says they should. That is a nominal weight and tolerance isn't mentioned. Not all clad halves right from the mint will weigh 11.34 grams. They can vary as much a .3 gram. Then factor in wear over the years and you have quite a bit of possible variation when it comes to 20 of them rolled up. I personally believe it is a bad practice unless the roll is extremely heavier than it should be. If you have a few clads that are really worn and only one 40% then you risk missing it if you don't open them up. Or lets say you have a nominal wight on most and a very worn Walker, then it can be missed.

HH

Bentfork

 

[cdickrun64]

I'll tell you EXACTLY why it is. The halfs from the early clad years...1971 to around 1986 weigh more (on average). Take 20 assorted halfs dated between these dates and they will always weigh more than their counterparts dated after 1986.

 

[koala33]

I'll tell you EXACTLY why it is. The halfs from the early clad years...1971 to around 1986 weigh more (on average). Take 20 assorted halfs dated between these dates and they will always weigh more than their counterparts dated after 1986.

That makes perfect sense... Thanks!

 

[jethro1469]

I've been weighing my rolls of halves for a while and have found that rolls of all clads seem to fall between 224.7 and 226.5 grams. However, in this weight range, I've found up to 2 40% in the mix. About the only time I've found a 90% at a weight less than 226.6 was in a roll of 19 coins. I just weighed a solid roll of 40% at 230.7 grams and a roll of solid 90% at 250.5 grams as a point of silver reference. ( These were from my stash not newly obtained.) After opening too many rolls of skunks this afternoon I had a roll weigh in at 233.4 grams! Quickly ripping it open to examine what had to be an Ag heavy roll, much to my disapointment were 20 clad halves and a gold presidential dollar. Yes, a buck profit but not what I thought!

 

[Cherryman68]

I blame the underpants gnomes.