Tim Shoppa wrote:
. . .
Some insist it has to really be Copperweld brand to be good but my
standards aren't so high. Besides Copperweld-brand stuff seems to be
conspicuously out of stock at all the ham retail shops, and when I
inquire about it they tell me that they don't ever expect to get it
again.

My recommendation of Copperweld by brand was made only because it's a
known quantity. I'm sure there are other brands which are just as good.
But I'll bet there are others with a skimpy copper plating, or cladding
that might be thin enough to allow current in the steel, particularly on
the lower bands.

You need to be more cautious using stranded copper clad steel wire than
solid wire. Even though the copper might be equally thick in terms of
wire diameter, smaller diameter individual conductor strands mean a
thinner coating in absolute terms. The only time I've actually had a
problem was with RG-174 sized coax, where the loss was much higher than
expected on the lower bands because of the very small center conductor
strands, and I think the conductor was genuine Copperweld. But a
combination of small strands and less-than-Copperweld thickness might be
enough to result in considerable extra loss in some antenna sized wire.

The great majority of amateurs wouldn't notice the few dB of extra loss,
and in fact are likely to think highly of the extra bandwidth the loss
would bring. (One was presented in QST years ago, the author apparently
unaware that the secret of the broad bandwidth was the loss of the
chosen wire type.) So this phenomenon isn't necessarily bad. But some
folks might benefit from knowing about it.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL