SIGMA Metalytics | SPECIFIC GRAVITY | This SILVER Is SUSPECT
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 сен 2024
- In my last video, my SIGMA METALYTICS Precious Metals Verifier identified 3-coins in my Libertad stack that were suspect. The 1993, 1999, and 1989 Libertads. Today, I conduct FURTHER TESTING on these coins.
1) I performed the PING Test
2) Magnet Test
3) Caliper Test
4) Specific Gravity Test
The results may surprise you! DO YOU AGREE WITH THE RESULTS? Let me know in the comments.
CHECK OUT @S.G.T.Stacking VIDEO ON SPECIFIC GRAVITY TESTING:
• Something You Probably...
Please SUBSCRIBE to the channel. @weeklybullion ✅
SMASH the LIKE Button.👍🏾
RING the Bell. 🔔
Thanks for your support! 🙏🏾
Email: weeklybullion@gmail.com
Epic Photos On Instagram: / weeklybullion
Helpful Links:
The Pocket Pinger
amzn.to/3JPVbpE
Weightman Scale To Weigh Coins
amzn.to/3PMWlGl
Ridiculously Strong MAGNET
amzn.to/3XEIX9b
Air-Tite x 36mm Coin Capsules For Libertads (1982-1995)
amzn.to/3D525Us
Label Maker:
amzn.to/3obtiB6
Black Lid Coin Capsule Storage Tubes:
amzn.to/3WpbCyl
Air-Tites for 1 oz Gold Eagles and Buffalos
amzn.to/3Y0acdc
Nice Slab Holder for NGC and PCGS Coins
amzn.to/3RbVKwE
#silver #silverstacking #preciousmetals
DISCLAIMER:
1. This channel is for ENTERTAINMENT Only.
2. When I share precious metals ideas, I’m only sharing what I am personally doing, NOT what you should do.
3. My ideas may not make sense for your personal or financial situation.
4. Many of my ideas are downright crazy!🤪
5. Instead of following my lead, PLEASE Do Your Own Research!
On the second coin (1989), it measured 479.2 in weight but you wrote 498.2. Gravity showed on that coin 46.2 Thus putting it at 10.35. Great video nonetheless, enjoyed! Liked and subbed.
Thanks for your comment, and your observations. I proved to be the weak link in the process. 😅 I appreciate your subscription to the channel! Welcome aboard, and I hope you continue to enjoy the content!
Awesome illustration my friend!! You did not have to mention me on this video brother, I looked at several other videos myself... certainly can not take any credit for this type of test lol but thank you very much. I failed to mentioned a few things on my video, that others pointed out, not sure how it really affects the results but I should have used distilled water (I believe this is just to prevent any corrosion on the coins) and Specific Gravity is the ratio of the materials density with that of water at *4°C*. I have equipment at work such as high accuracy RTD probes to measure temperature but that would be a lot of work to do lol maybe I'll do a video on it just show the results from a scientific standpoint regarding the difference in values for water at room temp vs 4°C. Some may say this is too much but I enjoy doing these type of studies.
Again great video, love your set up, and the lighting is PERFECT, in my opinion. What I would do with those suspect coins, is take them to an LCS with an XRF machine and see what material and percentage its made of. Great job my friend!
No worries, S.G.T. I'm glad to mention your video, because I found it very helpful, and I also - like back in school days, I like to show where I've derived my sources! 😅 Serious, though, this has been a good exercise on how to correctly evaluate your silver stack. Thanks for your feedback, and keep stacking, my friend!
Thank you! I know the best way to check my silver is with the SG test! No reason to throw away my money on SM machine!
Just thought I'd throw a quick comment in... After re-calculating your second coin and having it come in at 10.35, that would be in the range of Sterling Silver. As for the 3rd coin, your 10.13 comes pretty close to coins that are 80% Silver and 20% Copper (ie. similar to pre-1968 Canadian Silver Dollars). I hope this helps to lead you towards knowing what you have in those last two coins...
I have similar issues with Sigma Metalytics machine (the same one you have). The bar is slightly outside of range. However, when i tried the wand mode (I have three fhat comes wirh my Sigma machine). It checked out fine. And it is only on my 1989 Libertad, all my ohter Libertad (close to 200) checked out perfectly. Test out your 1989 and 1993 and see if everything get checked out (I'm almost certain it will).
Good advice, Tom. Thanks for watching and commenting on the video! I'll definitely subject them to wand testing as well!
I have to calibrate my sigma each start and it helps
I also had a 1994 testing slightly out of range, but I used the large wand. It test good.
Just a heads up you did the specific gravity test weighing in grains not grams
I must need tri-focals instead of bi-focals. 😅 Either way, specific gravity is a ratio of wet measurement to dry measurement, hence it retains its validity.
I'm glad you mention grains, i was wondering where those numbers were coming from lol
@@kitekart0 yeah, I know. I just couldn’t see well enough. The grn actually looked like gm. 😅
On your 1989 did you write your grams down correctly?
I was somehow looking at grains and not grams; nonetheless, its the ratio of wet weight to dry weight that counts.
@@weeklybullion, go to 10 mins 43 seconds, you copied the weight down wrong, it was 479.2 g you wrote 498.2g down, also it flicked between 46.3 and 45.7, you went with the 46.3. I think you’ll find the 1989 is good. Lovin the videos btw👍🏻
Try the wand?
You need to recheck your numbers on coin weight. You weighed the # 2 coin at 479 but wrote down 498 grams. Makes a big difference
Thank you for that observation. A few others said the same thing. My mistake... I'll provably revisit that episode.
@@weeklybullion Great video. I have a round that totally fails the ping test but passes the weight check, magnet test and now the specific gravity check. Puzzled by the ping tester
Of course, you know a troy ounce is 31.1 grams. Specific gravity is a ratio and not measured in grams.
Yep, ratio of wet weight to dry weight.
For diameter measurements hold the coin parallel to the calipers. That way you always catch the maximum reading. But again, try other settings, like 9999 or 925.
Thanks for your feedback, Meteoman. I'll try some additional settings!
@ 8:50 ish the coins look different sizes ?...
When measuring the coin diameter with the caliper measuring tool, I would turn the coin 90 degrees, should be parallel to the caliper. This automatically gives you the highest point. Otherwise, you can visually misjudge the highest point on the coin a little.
Ah, great point, my friend! Thanks for that suggestion. It seems so obvious once you mentioned it! 😅
maybe you can bring them to a nearby LCS if there is one ... usually LCS have XRF tester ... good luck
Bingo, exactly my thoughts as well. Most of these machines will give you a percentage of each metal in a specific coin. Great advice.
@@S.G.T.Stacking 👍
I'll do that. Hopefully my local LCS has an XRF tester.
@@weeklybullion ✌
Trust but verify.
Indeed, Jessemarsh! Thanks for watching the video!
It is like a Contruction worker you need all your tools to work.
Very true, Big Apple! "If it's not right, it's wrong."
Sorry those two might not be real. The quality assurance on thrm might have juet been off at the time of production but according to your measurements they are suspect. Best thing to do is get them XRF'ed if possible.
What kinda scale u got lolo
U said gram but your scale is in grain they are diff wights for diff measures
2nd weight you wrote down wrong
Thanks for letting me know.
I hope you didn’t pay over melt value for that scratched up and cleaned 1999 Libertad, even though it’s absolutely genuine. I definitely wouldn’t want it in my collection ! 🤔 😲😳😬 🤣😂🤣
haha 😅 That was one of my very first liberatads. Don't worry, I've got quite a few slabbed NGC MS 69 1999 liberatads. Check out my previous video ruclips.net/video/2HOcD5nPEAA/видео.html.
@@weeklybullion I had two 1999 Libertads at one time but gave one to a friend for his birthday. Of course it wasn’t as perfect as the one I kept. With the low mintage of only 95,000 coins I felt your pain when at first became suspect. Glad it worked out though. Great video by the way.
Hi Weekly, I see a number of potential problems in your analysis. I doubt the validity of your s.g. methodology and results. First, if you work in precious metals, you need to know what you're measuring and how. That you thought 400-something grams is a reasonable conversion from 1.0 ozt is problematic. You should know without having to consult a reference that 1 ozt is 31.1 grams, 1 oz is 28.35 g, one pound avoirdupois is 16 oz or 454 grams, one pound troy is 12 ozt or 373 grams, and so on. These should roll off the tongue without a moment's notice. You should know the history and difference between avoirdupois (Imperial) and troy. But the most problematic issue I see is the way you did the specific gravity test. Again, you didn't know units. If you divide grams by grams, the grams cancel and you end up with a *unitless* value. You need to understand how specific gravity works. You're measuring *displacement* of the liquid. This is essential. You might run across a test that says you must use alcohol or oil for your specific gravity test. You need to know that you are measuring liquid displacement, and the unitless value you obtain will depend on the particular liquid you are using. Water can be assumed 1.00 g/mL (1.00 g/cc) at 25 deg. C (room temperature), even if it's a little off from that. What was the temperature of the water you used? Did the water contain a lot of dissolved minerals? Most people will use tap water for the test, but tap water will have somewhat higher density than pure water. So always use pure distilled water for the test. The string is definitely problematic. Does the string contain cotton? Bad mistake. Cotton can slowly or quickly absorb water into the fibers. Your test results lead me to hypothesize that you used the same string for the first two tests and then used a second string for the third. If that's what happened, you've already identified the problem. Don't use cotton string. Don't use any string that will absorb water, because the water absorption will change the water displacement. Did you tare between weighings? You have to do that. The second big problem is that you did not suspend from an immobilized object. I saw the weight fluctuate a lot in the first s.g. test, almost certainly due to hand movement. Your wire (NOT string) needs to be hooked up to an unmoving bar. I constructed mine using two metal bookends through which I drilled holes to insert a thick aluminum rod over the balance (weight 'scale'), placed the balance between the bookends, and lowered the coin in its aluminum wire cradle into the water to the marked line on the wire. Both the water and the wire, immersed to the immersion line, were tared before every weighing. In this way, I can determine specific gravity to 3 digits. Your method may not give you even two digits, because you used potentially water-absorbing string and you did not immobilize the coin in the liquid. There could be other problems, indicated by your general lack of understanding of weighing, displacement, and so on. Do a little research. It's so easy nowadays. When I was your age, I had to go to a library to learn all this stuff. You can do it on the internet and expend only a tenth of the effort to obtain understanding *better* than what I obtained. You will spend minutes, not days, as I had to. But you must do that research if you hope to have some clue about precious metals, how to evaluate them, etc. PM 2023.
Thank you. Heading to the library right now!