swanky

These are the pre-1920 premiums I bid with (GC = good condition): GC crowns = 50%, GC half-crowns = 10%, everything else = 5%. Just enough to win occasional auction. But this was a 12+ months ago.

You should be buying the 50% stuff at ~90% melt value, because no way you get 100% bulk selling to a jeweller etc when they need to melt down to refine.
Pre-1920 trades for a premium, but that premium is fairly consistent so just accept it. I prefer this over pre-1947, needs less space.

I collect both and can add some information. Except I don't collect near-mint-condition .925, premium too high, so potential for bias.
.925 is more worn than .500, makes sense as silver is softer The first .500 alloy, 1920-22 with the 10% nickel, also wears a lot - less than .925 but more than the successive .500 alloys The next alloy, 1922-27 with 50% copper, fares slightly better Anything from 1927 holds up really well

He's literally an author and comedian, just the kind of person I go to for financial information 🤣

He's literally an author and comedian, just the kind of person I go to for financial information 🤣

I collect both and can add some information. Except I don't collect near-mint-condition .925, premium too high, so potential for bias.
.925 is more worn than .500, makes sense as silver is softer The first .500 alloy, 1920-22 with the 10% nickel, also wears a lot - less than .925 but more than the successive .500 alloys The next alloy, 1922-27 with 50% copper, fares slightly better Anything from 1927 holds up really well

I was about to state that. The NCA is out there protecting the elite.

Maybe, but probably more likely that they followed her and did the usual tap of her phone. Catching a courier is “chicken feed”, tracking her to her handlers is probably more worthwhile. 

Silver from 1920-1946 isn't that straight forward.
1920-1922 it was 50% silver, 40% copper and 10% nickel.
This nickel is responsible for the rather unappealing yellow/mustard toning they get.
From 1922-1926 the nickel was eliminated. So 50% silver and 50% copper.
From 1927-1946 the coins were 50% silver, 40% copper, 5% nickel and 5% zinc (I think it was zinc).
 
Source: Coincraft 2000 catalogue.

No VAT on used old British coinage.

I like this example: Back in 1900 in London, England, 10 shillings would buy weekly groceries for one member of a wealthy household (this is documented in diary records). That's was half of £1 sterling then, same as half a gold sovereign today. Today that gold is worth £150 ($110), definitely enough for a luxurious weekly shop. So at least gold has maintained purchasing power.

But in those 10 shillings is 1.68oz of silver, at today's market price that would get just £28 ($21), barely enough for a minimal weekly shop. If silver was widely adopted as everyday money like in 1900, the nominal value in £ or $ should be 5x.

In my experience average premiums are:
Crowns - 90% Half-crowns - 50% Smaller denominations - 25%

They still haven't learnt.
 

Old (circulated) British coinage is the best way to stack silver in UK imo. Buy used = no VAT, and cost of minting covered by BoE many decades ago. That just leaves postage, and sometimes s a premium but you get that back when selling. Plus you get to handle it without worrying about smudges or milk spots.

£1 Notes and coins:

1914 was possibly the beginning of the end.

Old (circulated) British coinage is the best way to stack silver in UK imo. Buy used = no VAT, and cost of minting covered by BoE many decades ago. That just leaves postage, and sometimes s a premium but you get that back when selling. Plus you get to handle it without worrying about smudges or milk spots.

Surely the cost of producing a coin is the same though.  I don't know the true cost, but suppose it was , say, £5 to produce a coin then that is a massive percentage of a 1oz silver coin and a very much small percentage of a gold 1 oz coin.
If you are doing it for investment, then gold is the way to go.

£ gold price will still be green. Half of this move is sterling falling on unexpectedly dovish BoE announcement - $ gold price is flat over a week.

We have gone back and forth over the argument of bringing silver into the country  - funnily enough i haven't seen exactly what i have posted above put forwards before - that is the rule that you don't need to declare less than £10 000 in cash.
The British Government created the £2 coins. These round pieces of metal are £2 coins because they have the Queen's head on and are marked up by the authorities as £2. That is what they are, they are £2 coins. They happen to be made of silver but legally they are £2 coins.
A green monster box has 500 x £2 coins. They are legal tender - they are money - they are cash. They don't become something else because the intrinsic value of the metal is worth more or less than £2.
They are cash and 4999 of them is less than £10 000 in cash - so according to HMRC rules they don't need to be declared.
If they were silver bars (not coin bars) then they would be dealt with as silver. These are coins and under the UK Coinage Act 1971, it is illegal to melt any UK coin produced after the 16th of May 1969, so these £2 coins are coins and it is illegal to use them as anything else (i.e. melt them down for their metal content).

I like this example: Back in 1900 in London, England, 10 shillings would buy weekly groceries for one member of a wealthy household (this is documented in diary records). That's was half of £1 sterling then, same as half a gold sovereign today. Today that gold is worth £150 ($110), definitely enough for a luxurious weekly shop. So at least gold has maintained purchasing power.

But in those 10 shillings is 1.68oz of silver, at today's market price that would get just £28 ($21), barely enough for a minimal weekly shop. If silver was widely adopted as everyday money like in 1900, the nominal value in £ or $ should be 5x.

The old dollar = 24g of silver
New dollar = 0.04 of old dollar = 0.04 x 24g silver = 0.96g silver
On this value basis 1 oz of silver (31.1g) is worth 31.1 / 0.96 = $32.40 new dollars.

I was thinking of contributing to this thread.
I noticed a number of comments which sounded like their authors were confused or unclear, but there were so many, and it would have taken so much time, that I switched off, and thought it better to save my time and effort for something important and constructive.
However I then realised that much of the confusion is caused by the very first post in the topic thread. So I started to analyse the first post, one statement, sentence or line at a time. I didn't get far:
"What is the Value of Silver?"
In terms of what? monetary value in USD, usefulness as an industrial metal, in medicine? The question itself as posed is meaningless, at least without making a few guesses or presumptions.
"By: Jordan Graveline"
WTF is Jordan Graveline? Is he @Junior, or somebody else. Which Jordan Graveline?, what are his qualifications? When and where did Jordan Graveline publish this article? Give us a few clues!. Don't treat your audience with such contempt!
"What is the value of silver? To answer this question, we must first ask ourselves: What is the value of a dollar?"
Why?
What has the dollar got to do with it?
Are you examining the value of silver in terms of "the dollar"? If so, why did you not state this at the start?
Also, which dollar are you talking about. You are based in Canada, so are you talking about the Canadian Dollar, the US Dollar, the Zimbabwean Dollar, or one of the other few dozen dollars? Your readers shoud not have to guess or presums which dollar you are talking about!
Do you even know which dollar you or Jordan Graveline is talking about? Does he know? Are you sure? JHow? Did you understand his article? Did you analyse it? did you question any of it? I can think of many more questions on this point, but let's move on...
"This question has plagued the modern investor, tax payer, and overall general consumer for many years."
Has it really? Are you sure? What evidence is there for any of the three assertions you or the original author makes.
It hasn't plagued me.
Has it plagued anybody else reading this?
Why parrot and quote a sweeping assertion with no evidence?
"I will attempt to show what I believe the value of silver is by using the declining purchasing power of the US dollar."
Purchasing power is respect of what? Silver? Wages? Corn? 
Why not gold?
At this point I was in danger of losing the will to live.
There is absolutely no point me wasting my time reading such a pile of garbage in a vain attempt to try to understand it, when I suspect its original author, and the OP, do not understand it. If any other TSF member understands it, or thinks they do, you can always let me know, although I might not believe you.
I think I will go and read about Fermat's Last Theorem. It may be a challenging read, but at least it will be stated in clear terms without any sweeping assertions, and without requiring any guesswork or assumption by the reader.
Sorry if any of this sounds harsh or overcritical, especially as you are a newbie, and say you are young (or was that Jordan Graveline?).
My questions are constructive. If you work your way through them, find the answers, understand why I asked, then you will have gained a great deal of wisdom.
... No charge!...
😎
 

@swanky
So the reason I used 24 grams of silver and $0.04 from the chart are as follows:
24 grams represents how much silver was in a silver dollar in 1900 (and other years as well). So a dollar in 1900 represented the value of 24 grams of silver.
Since the dollar is no longer made out of silver, but rather paper, I relied on the chart to give the “value” as it showed in 2019.
The value of the dollar has declined to $0.04 (4 cents) to what it was compared to the year 1900. Which is why in my math I compare 24 grams of silver to the present day dollar’s value. And when you divide 24 / $0.04 = $600 [Thank you @swanky for catching the multiplication. It needs to be division]. In essence, if you pegged the paper dollar to 24 grams of silver, that silver should be valued at $600. 
Does that clarify the reasons why my math is done that way?

@swanky is correct, your maths(logic) is wrong.
the fact that it was 24g silver for each $1 coin has nothing to do with the depreciation of the dollar.
(does it make a difference if it was 24g = ~370 grains of silver? ie would it now be 370 grains divide by $0.04 ?)
the maths should be: $1(original coin value) divide by $0.04(current coin value) = 25
ie the paper $1 has depreciated by a multiple of 25, so it takes 25 current $1 to equal an old $1.
thus valuing an old $1 to be $25(current dollars) not $600(current dollars).
(what a huge surprise that when you do the maths correctly, $25 per 24g is not that far off from the current
spot price of $23/toz.)
 
the above is for clarification as it's all a moot point, as the analysis is next to irrelevant to the value of silver.
as I've pointed out it before if you replaced 'silver' with bread in your analysis, all of the dollar depreciation
analysis will be just the same and equally representative. dollar depreciation is not a silver specific thing,
it's a dollar specific thing and affects all items denominated in dollars.
 
HH

Why has no one questioned the maths?
What is going on here? Why would you do this?
What if I did this: 24g ÷ $1 = $24
What does that mean? 24g of silver should have cost $24 in 1900?