Hi! Does anyone know the composition of this token? It's non-magnetic and looks like copper-nickel to me. I'd like to know for sure.
Thanks, AY
Edit to add: I see the ½ Fare 1923 is of Nickel silver, which I believe is non-magnetic. Can anyone confirm they are the same? I don't have a Nickel silver example of any coin or token at hand.
Edit: Looking at the picture of the ½ Fare token and my token, I believe it's likely, but can anyone please confirm it?
There is a TC reference number. Clicking on the reference number leads to the page in TC. Material is identified as WM White Metal (Cu-Ni alloy). I can't independently verify it is correct.
The ½ Fare in Numista is listed as Zinc (same as in TC). Where did you see Nickel silver?
White metal refers to a large group of alloys which are mostly zinc based. They do not contain nickel or copper.
Nickel alloys, usually refered to as cupronickel, or German silver, are much more common in coinage and always contain copper.
To tell the difference, you could do a density test. D=M/V. M= weight. Volume formula is: radius squared times thickness times π. This is a rough measurement as the surfaces are not flat.
Zinc density is 7.14 grams/cubic centimeter
Nickel is 8.9
Copper is 8.93
So any zinc alloy will be lighter by volume than cupronickel.
Token Catalog defines Cu-Ni alloys as white metal. I think you have to trust their Cu-Ni composition even if you don't think the term white metal applies.
And I think you'll need to revise your density formula.
With the utmost respect, density formulas are what they are and cannot be revised. I'm not above making mistakes, and if I've made one here, I'd very much like to be corrected.
White metal and cupronickel have vastly different properties and are not interchangeable. Does Token Catalog truly understand the difference? If they are using both terms to identify one coin, I'd have to say no.
Your formula obviously won't work on the subject token since the volume is not πr2T. If you look at the picture of the token I posted you'll see that your formula doesn't account for the air in the cylinder.
I don't know what Token Catalog knows. They identify the composition as Cu-Ni which is backed up by an independent source. Could they both be wrong? Absolutely but with a lack of contradictory data I have to assume they are correct.
I stand corrected on the density issue. I failed to actually look at the token.
But I remain firm on the alloy issue. Look up both groups, using scientific or industrial sources. White metal will be lighter with a much lower melting point. It's not quite as durable or corrosion resistant as cupronickel, but is cheaper to produce.
If Token Catalog didn't use the term “white metal” would you question the composition as Cu-Ni?
How about this one? N#41948 which Numista says is Cu-Ni and Token Catalog says is White Metal (Cu-Ni alloy).
Token Catalog has their own definition of White Metal. They call zinc zinc. You're correct in that it's not the standard use of white metal but it doesn't change the fact that they say it's Cu-Ni.
What I object to is Token Catalog referring to white metal as cupronickel. It's like saying German silver is real silver made in Germany.
There is a lot of confusion regarding metal nomenclature. I only hope to help clarify.
Once again, white metal refers to alloys of zinc or tin, in which antimony, cadmium, bismuth, lead, and aluminum are sometimes present. There are many different alloys and the common feature is a low melting point. Some will actually melt below 100°C.
Copper nickel alloys are an entirely different beast, and none will melt below 1100°C. There is absolutely no overlap between these groups.
A solution would be to try melting one, but I'd have to strongly advise against it.
Hello again! I'm not going to get into any arguments about density, because my maths doesn't qualify me to. I can say with certainty that any zinc amount in this token must be tiny or, I believe, non-existent. I looked at that token site and made a note to myself to register. I am slowly going through a large amount of exonumia, collected over about five years.
rsirian1. Here is the link to the 1923 token identified as Nickel silver: N#440213
JLHare. I agree with you that the composition should be changed to Cu-Ni. I don't know about the one given in the link above, I'm bound to have one, but I'm yet to locate it.
Thanks for everyone's input. I'm going with Cu-Ni.
Hi! I would think that, seeing as Token Catalogue specialises in tokens, they would know what they are on about. Why wait? Let's solve the mystery now and update the catalogue to be correct. I will try to find one of these 1923 examples, and based on that and TC, contact JLHare to change it, if he does not wish to do so now.
I already invited JLHare to this post. He may have the two references on the Numista pages and the Token Catalog pages. Since he would be the one to approve any changes I'm going to wait until he weighs in here.
Fair enough. I will wait also, I'm sure he's very busy. And I have to find that token, which may take forever, if I have it at all. My advice to new coin collectors: Do not buy more than you can organise and sort… Buy some > organise and sort it > buy some more. That's what I'd do if I could start again.
Token Catalog, like Numista is a collaborative catalog and the information on it is based on the information given from the contributor. Atwood Coffee 8th Edition says the following about composition and why they use “White Metal” to describe most of the entries in the book.
As for Copper Nickel and Nickel Silver, Numista guidelines state that if the metal is white and unknown to enter it as Nickel Silver.
As for why Numista uses Nickel Silver, Nickel Brass or even Nickel Steel. I would say for the ability to easily list unknown compositions. If left blank, you could not easily list all the unknown compositions on Numista or in your collection.
I agree with that assessment. For the purposes of the catalogue, my suggestion is that the term ‘white metal’ be used to designate metals in the zinc, tin, aluminum, etc. group in which the compositions are unknown. This group is lighter than CU-NI, and has a different appearance.
I agree with that assessment. For the purposes of the catalogue, my suggestion is that the term ‘white metal’ be used to designate metals in the zinc, tin, aluminum, etc. group in which the compositions are unknown. This group is lighter than CU-NI, and has a different appearance.
You should post your suggestion in the General - Numista Website forum. But I would search first to make sure it has not been suggested before because this topic has come up before. Many contributors are not as knowledgeable as others and don't know what the composition is, some don't even take the time to enter it. Many pages lack even the weight and diameter. Only an image is provided. Then what? Leave it blank? Again, I think the rules mentioned above are intended only as a way to list all unknowns together, and to distinguish them by color (White and Yellow) and if magnetic or not.
For myself, I'll play by the rules, and any unknown entry shall be nickel silver when entering into this catalogue, unless the powers that be determine otherwise. What any person chooses to write on their coin flip is their own business. I would rather that something other than nothing be entered under composition. White Metal sounds like an appropriate idea, but I won't be taking it further than this comment here. So long as something is entered, I'm fine. Otherwise, it bugs me. Sometimes it's easiest to trust in the system. Better to rebel with your own pen.
Hawaii • 1 Full Fare - Honolulu Rapid Transit Co. (Honolulu, Hawaii)
