opinions wanted: coins as jewelery

[Doogy]

I'm going to surprise my wife with a 1/10 oz. gold pendant that she can wear on a necklace. More than likely, i'll buy myself the same one or maybe a larger quarter ounce version. Anyway, proof gold issues look so much better, but i'm worried it will show wear quicker than the uncirculated issues of the same type without the "frosting". Granted, they are to be necklace pendants so they won't be knocked against stuff like a ring would be, but i don't want it looking bad after a few months. Anyone have experience using proof issues as jewelry, especially when it concerns necklace pendants, or have any opinions as to whether it will hold up under daily wear? thanks!

 

 

Doug

[Burks]

I've never seen anyone with a proof necklace. They've always worn the unc version.

 

Take it for what it's worth. I'd think the proof would show too much wear and discolor easily.

[gxseries]

I have seen both proof and unc, although I guess UNC are normally used because the price is usually much cheaper.

 

Since it is gold, usually unc or proof doesn't matter, unless you are talking about metals like palladium, which I usually prefer them to be in unc condition.

 

What I usually find with proof coins is that they are much prone to show clearer damages compared to UNC. I probably would op for a UNC too.

 

Proof coins are a bit too expensive to be used in jewellery

[ageka]

For jewelry 900/1000 is better then pure gold and uncirculated better then proof

Reason is that jewelers will use ultranonic and chemicals to clean if you are unsatisfied with the remaining lustre and those go well with sovereigns and french 20 francs etc

[Doogy]

great points all, thanks for weighing in!

 

 

Regards,

 

Doug

[Vfox]

I actually think my thread my be useful to you. I've taken some gem proof coins recently and started carrying them around in my pockets for a while now. The 1977 proof set has seen about a month of rubbing in my pocket, and the mirrors are really starting to lack lustre, but I have some good news for the proof option you're looking at. Although the wear is MUCH more apparent on a proof coin, it seems the smaller it is and the more raised the frosted design is, the less the fields have marks on them. The proof dime I've been toting around isn't really showing much wear on the fields, and remember these have been carried around in a pocket full of anything from pens, to other metallic items. Basically these have seen a lot more abuse than a necklace would.

 

Have a look.

http://www.coinpeople.com/index.php?showtopic=9755

[gxseries]

Vfox, doesn't have one to take in context the difference in the hardness of the metals might make a difference? I was thinking gold, even as alloyed are generally softer than most metals used for circulation.

[Vfox]

For the most part yes, you're correct. Gold is a bit softer, especially in its finer forms, such as the 22kt gold eagles. Bullion (.999) silver might be the closest comparison I could think of without jumping into gold ranges. Coin silver is of course harder, and the 1962 proof set I've been toting around is showing more tarnish than wear on the highest points. I just figured my post may be useful as more of a reference of what you can expect a proof coin (gold or otherwise) to look like after constant rubbing.

[joanjet]

I have two proof coins that are necklaces. I have had them for over 5 years and neither one shows much wear. The reason is I had them set into bezzles that stick out further than the edge of the coin itself. One is set into a ruby bezzle, the other into a plain gold bezzle, but that way if the coin is hit against something harder than myself, it's only the bezzle that is hit, not the coin itself.