(Bamidbar 7:13) "And his offering was one silver dish, etc.": We are hereby taught (by the uniformity of all of the items) that they were originally made for the sake of the offerings. "one silver bowl of seventy shekels in the shekel of the sanctuary": This tells me only that the bowl was in the shekel of the sanctuary. Whence do I derive the same for the dish? From ("in the shekel of the sanctuary) both of them" — Just as the bowl was in the shekel of the sanctuary, so, the dish.
R. Chanania the son of the brother of R. Yehoshua says: There is no need (for this derivation), for it is already written (Ibid. 85) "two thousand and four hundred in the shekel of the sanctuary." What, then, is the intent of "both of them full"? From ("one silver dish) weighing one hundred and thirty shekels," I would think that since they were not equal in weight, (the bowl weighing seventy shekels), they were not equal in capacity; it is, therefore, written "both of them full."
And what is the difference between dish and bowl? The plate of the dish is thick; the plate of the bowl is thin. "both of them full of fine flour": (also) donated. "one spoon": It makes what is in it "one" (for halachic purposes). "ten gold (shekels)": (Is the meaning that) it was of gold, and its weight (ten shekels) of silver, or that it was of silver, and its weight,(ten shekels) of gold? It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 86) "All the gold of the spoons — one hundred and twenty (shekels.")
The first assumption, then, is the correct one — It was of gold, and its weight, of silver. "full of incense": donative (and not required) incense.