1964 Silver Dollars
LickThoseStamps
Posts: 1,028 ✭
I find the use of the words "possible recovery" interesting.
From the Department of the Treasury announcement W04-5011:
"May 31, 1973
The Bureau of the Mint today issued the following information in answer to a number of inquiries concerning the authorization, production, destruction and possible recovery of 1964-dated 90 per cent silver dollar coins:
In 1965, in response to a Treasury request, Congress appropriated $600,000, an amount sufficient to manufacture 45 million silver dollars. To carry out the expressed intent of the Congress, the Treasury recommended to The White House that the United States Mint be authorized to begin production. It was on this recommendation that announcement was made by The White House on May 15, 1965, that production could begin.
Some trial strikes were produced at the Denver Mint as a prelude to the resumption of manufacturing this denomination for the first time since 1935. The Peace Dollar design was utilized, and because of the delayed-dating arrangement then in effect, the year coinage shown on the coin was 1964. These coins contained 90 per cent silver.
Members of the Congress, however, who by reason of their committee assignments, and having a direct and responsible interest in United States coinage, strongly urged the Treasury not to proceed with the production of these dollars, due to the fast approaching shortage of silver. The Treasury Department determined, therefore, that the Mint would not produce any dollar coins at that time.
All of the trial strikes for this proposed 1964 dollar were ordered destroyed under the strict supervisory and accounting procedures required by Mint regulations. None reached the final stage of being counted, bagged and issued by the Mint’s cashier as finished coins. Should anyone have such trial Mint-struck pieces in his possession, they are the property of the United States which it is entitled to recover since the pieces were never issued. "
From the Department of the Treasury announcement W04-5011:
"May 31, 1973
The Bureau of the Mint today issued the following information in answer to a number of inquiries concerning the authorization, production, destruction and possible recovery of 1964-dated 90 per cent silver dollar coins:
In 1965, in response to a Treasury request, Congress appropriated $600,000, an amount sufficient to manufacture 45 million silver dollars. To carry out the expressed intent of the Congress, the Treasury recommended to The White House that the United States Mint be authorized to begin production. It was on this recommendation that announcement was made by The White House on May 15, 1965, that production could begin.
Some trial strikes were produced at the Denver Mint as a prelude to the resumption of manufacturing this denomination for the first time since 1935. The Peace Dollar design was utilized, and because of the delayed-dating arrangement then in effect, the year coinage shown on the coin was 1964. These coins contained 90 per cent silver.
Members of the Congress, however, who by reason of their committee assignments, and having a direct and responsible interest in United States coinage, strongly urged the Treasury not to proceed with the production of these dollars, due to the fast approaching shortage of silver. The Treasury Department determined, therefore, that the Mint would not produce any dollar coins at that time.
All of the trial strikes for this proposed 1964 dollar were ordered destroyed under the strict supervisory and accounting procedures required by Mint regulations. None reached the final stage of being counted, bagged and issued by the Mint’s cashier as finished coins. Should anyone have such trial Mint-struck pieces in his possession, they are the property of the United States which it is entitled to recover since the pieces were never issued. "
0
Comments
Russ, NCNE
P.S. I think the 1964 Peace Dollars are one of the coolest "mythical" coins out there. I believe they still exist, having been legally exchanged (based on posts in the past by forum members).
--Christian
<< <i>I wish they would have minted Peace dollars in lieu of the Ikes. It probably would have been a more successful program. >>
I don't think design has much to do with the public not wanting to get them in change and spend them.
<< <i>I wish they would have minted Peace dollars in lieu of the Ikes. It probably would have been a more successful program. >>
I agree, to me the IKEs are too bland, though I do realize many love them. Just not me.
<< <i>I know for a fact that there are some out there. Somebody I know and trust held one in his hand in the mid 70's. >>
expect a visit from the Mint Policia. (remember, you don't know me)
ZeroHedge makes debut at White House press corps briefing
If someone out there actually has one – a real Denver Mint product or one of the Philadelphia Mint test pieces – kindly donate it to the Smithsonian. This might be the only place that can protect and preserve the coin for future generations to enjoy.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
Comment -- It’s a great story, or group of stories. But, actually, it’s not documented at all. Not one former employee ever stated in writing that this occurred. Mr. Lantz, speaking in Denver last summer, confirmed to an audience that he not only was not aware of this occurring, but that it would likely have violated Mint regulations since no order to release the coins to circulation had occurred.
However, there are multiple affidavits signed by every employee involved in the Peace dollar trial striking stating that they neither had nor have any of the coins or blanks. They also tracked down a former employee who left just after the coins were struck. There are also signed destruction orders including the names of Secret Service Agents who were called in as soon as the order to stop the tests was issued.
The Denver Mint never got close to receiving an order to release the trial pieces. The production/release target was approximately 7,000,000 pieces not a few hundred thousand. Distribution was planned for Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Nevada and Colorado.
The mints do not work like other manufacturing business. Mint products are legal tender and accounted for in one way or another from beginning to end of the process. The coins they produce are not simply packed and shipped out the door to retailers. Employees are not allowed to “buy” samples until the coins have been officially released.
…they haven't been produced because their owners fear they will be confiscated, just as the Mint did with the Langbord's 1933 double eagles.
Comment -- The legal basis and arguments relating to the 1933 double eagles are not the same as might be applied to any 1964-D silver dollars. There is little similarity. The Treasury did not threaten to confiscate any of these until the date of the press release at the beginning of this thread. The only action has been to re-issue the release from time to time.
Could some of the 1964-D trial pieces have left the Denver Mint and not been missed? Sure – nobody counted the struck coins…everything was accounted for by weight and there are several “holes” in the overall sequence of handling the planchets and struck pieces. There were also 30 made in Philadelphia, with the last 2 documented as destroyed in the 1970’s (see David Ganz’ article in Numismatist). “Could have” does not mean that something occurred, and right now the old stories have little supporting evidence. But you can read the evidence in the book next fall...
All the while sweating the chance of being discovered and suffering a financial loss in the millions upon confiscation and possible legal problems to fund adding to the loss.
<< <i>I would be great to own one of these, or would it? You would have to be very selective and trusting to show it to even one person. You couldn't insure it. If you did decide to sell it, you would have to be in the right circle to even have a potentially trustworthy customer. Then the transaction would be in the millions and how would one account for the financial gain? A big suitcase full of cash or a money laundering type of transaction?
All the while sweating the chance of being discovered and suffering a financial loss in the millions upon confiscation and possible legal problems to fund adding to the loss. >>
Then the transaction would be in the millions and how would one account for the financial gain? A big suitcase full of cash or a money laundering type of transaction?
Keith
<< <i>Is this an area where coin collectors prefer to break the law? >>
I was not aware that the U.S. Mint was given lawmaking powers by the U.S. Constitution.
<< <i>
<< <i>Is this an area where coin collectors prefer to break the law? >>
I was not aware that the U.S. Mint was given lawmaking powers by the U.S. Constitution. >>
So is it an error to say legitimate 1964-D Peace Dollars in private hands must have been stolen? Or is stealing not against the law?
<< <i>So is it an error to say legitimate 1964-D Peace Dollars in private hands must have been stolen? >>
That is obviously a matter of great debate.
<< <i>It is well-documented that the employees had an opportunity to buy 2 per person of the new 1964-D Peace Dollars shortly after they were manufactured (statement of Denver Mint employee Michael Lantz). Supposedly, when the decision was made to not release the coins, the employees returned every one. Really? When the employees bought the coins, there was no reason to take their names, as several hundred thousand were going to be released. Employees that bought the coins, then received notification that the coins were not going to be released would have an inkling that they might have a potentially rare coin on their hands.
Comment -- It’s a great story, or group of stories. But, actually, it’s not documented at all. Not one former employee ever stated in writing that this occurred. Mr. Lantz, speaking in Denver last summer, confirmed to an audience that he not only was not aware of this occurring, but that it would likely have violated Mint regulations since no order to release the coins to circulation had occurred.
However, there are multiple affidavits signed by every employee involved in the Peace dollar trial striking stating that they neither had nor have any of the coins or blanks. They also tracked down a former employee who left just after the coins were struck. There are also signed destruction orders including the names of Secret Service Agents who were called in as soon as the order to stop the tests was issued.
<snip> >>
If not a single former employee confirmed this story and if every single employee involved with the 1964-D Peace dollars signed statements saying that they neither had nor have any of the coins, then are the coins either (a) stolen or (b) received by liars?
He then said that he didn't buy any, because they were just another coin to him, but that his buddy bought two of them on the way out. The next day, there was a big hullaballoo about the coins, and everybody was told that if they did not return the coins that they had bought they would be fired. They must have made a record of whom they did sell the coins to, because they came to the man's buddy (they worked in the weighing room) and demanded the two coins back. The buddy told the Mint people asking for the coins back that he had spent them the night before at a bar on Colfax Ave. The buddy was not fired.
I later wrote to Dan Brown about the incident, and he wrote me back to say that the Superintendent at the Denver Mint at the time of the striking had told him that they had indeed sold coins to employees on the day of the striking, but that they had gotten all of them back. I have that letter somewhere.
Tom DeLorey
<< <i>If not a single former employee confirmed this story and if every single employee involved with the 1964-D Peace dollars signed statements saying that they neither had nor have any of the coins, then are the coins either (a) stolen or (b) received by liars? >>
Surely you are not so naive as to believe one version of a story without doing research on the subject yourself and reviewing all the evidence? Or do you automatically take at face value whatever you read on this forum?
<< <i>
<< <i>If not a single former employee confirmed this story and if every single employee involved with the 1964-D Peace dollars signed statements saying that they neither had nor have any of the coins, then are the coins either (a) stolen or (b) received by liars? >>
Surely you are not so naive as to believe one version of a story without doing research on the subject yourself and reviewing all the evidence? Or do you automatically take at face value whatever you read on this forum? >>
What evidence?
From Tom's post it seems plausible that someone may have gotten the coins legitimately, spent them during the intervening night and then signed an affidavit saying he did not have any at the time of the signing. If this does turn out to be the case, then there is another option aside from stolen and lying. I don't see anything wrong if asking if the names of the people in this story are known.
<< <i>
<< <i>Hi Tom, do you have the name of the Mint employee you spoke to and/or the name of the person who bought the two coins and spent them? >>
In no way do I dispute the integrity of RWB, but how is it that you ask one member to present evidence supporting their position without asking for evidence from the other side, as well? >>
My reasons in this particular case are two fold. First, RWB wrote that no employee has issued a written statement that the story occurred. If this is not the case, then I would expect written stories to be put forth by other people to counter RWB's claim, not from RWB himself. Secondly, RBW stated that Mint employee statements say that they didn't have any of the coins or blanks. If someone had spent the coins, they could have legitimately signed a statement that they didn't have any of the coins or blanks.
<< <i>Hi Tom, do you have the name of the Mint employee you spoke to and/or the name of the person who bought the two coins and spent them? >>
No. At the time we had an old beam balance on loan from the Mint on display in the rotunda, and the man volunteered the information that he used to use one of those up at the Mint! That prompted me to ask him about the dollars, but I never asked him his name.
TD
<< <i>Hi Tom, do you have the name of the Mint employee you spoke to and/or the name of the person who bought the two coins and spent them? >>
In no way do I dispute the integrity of RWB, but how is it that you ask one member to present evidence supporting their position without asking for evidence from the other side, as well? Where are the "multiple" affadavits that "every employee" had to sign? Where is a list of the names of all employees of the Denver Mint (so we can make sure that they did all, in fact, sign)? What was the name of the employee who quit and was "tracked down?" Where is the documentation for this? Does RWB not accept that there may be undiscovered evidence that is contrarian to his point of view?
Regarding the comment "...it would likely have violated Mint regulations..." How does something "likely" violate a regulation? Either it does or it doesn't. Is it possible that Mr. Lantz was not an expert on Denver Mint policy? Does anyone have a copy of the speech he supposedly made in Denver, where he denies that the Peace Dollars were ever officially traded?
Again, not that I dispute any of the statements RWB has made (I have not done extensive research on this, so I am in no position to contradict him), but I do see the necessity of seeking evidence to support an argument. One cannot simply accept an argument without examining the evidence on both sides.
<< <i>First, RWB wrote that no employee has issued a written statement that the story occurred. If this is not the case, then I would expect written stories to be put forth by other people to counter RWB's claim >>
Then why don't you research the matter yourself, instead of blindly accepting something that someone else says?
<< <i>If someone had spent the coins, they could have legitimately signed a statement that they didn't have any of the coins or blanks. >>
Quite so, which means that there may be some non-stolen coins out there after all. Heck, even if an employee did lie on one of these alleged affadavits, that makes him/her guilty of perjury, not theft. And perjury does not, to my knowledge, prevent valid title to attaching to a piece of property (whereas theft does).
P.S. I am not criticizing you, nor am I criticizing RWB. I'm just stating the necessity of doing research yourself before blindly accepting one side of the story.
As for why I don't do the research myself, perhaps I will but my impression is that there are people who are passionate about this issue and have already looked into it. If they cannot come up with evidence then my likelihood of success would be low.
If a person lies on an affidavit, the coins may still be legal to own but that does not mean they were not made available through a liar. I did not claim that lying made the coin's ownership illegal.
<< <i>If a person lies on an affidavit, the coins may still be legal to own but that does not mean they were not made available through a liar. I did not claim that lying made the coin's ownership illegal. >>
My comments were made to refute this quote:
<< <i>So is it an error to say legitimate 1964-D Peace Dollars in private hands must have been stolen? >>
Yes, I believe it is an error to say that legitimate 1964-D Peace Dollars in private hands *must* have been stolen. They may have been stolen. They may have *very likely* been stolen. But *must* they have been stolen? No.
<< <i>Zoins, the reason for my last few posts is because I've read some excellent threads by people who contend that they are legal to own and that they were not stolen. Unfortunately, none of them have posted in this thread yet. If you search for some archived threads, you should find some good counterpoints to RWB's arguments. >>
Thanks for mentioning this. If these threads are easy for you to find, I would be grateful if you could post some links. I'll look into this if no one else posts the links.
<< <i>My comments were made to refute this quote:
<< <i>So is it an error to say legitimate 1964-D Peace Dollars in private hands must have been stolen? >>
Yes, I believe it is an error to say that legitimate 1964-D Peace Dollars in private hands *must* have been stolen. They may have been stolen. They may have *very likely* been stolen. But *must* they have been stolen? No. >>
Thank you for the clarification. My understanding of the situation has changed since my post and Tom's. Tom's post was useful as it added information to my understanding. Your initial posts suggesting I do research did not provide any avenues to pursue nor hints of what I would find. Now you have indicated there are threads here that maybe worthwhile. Thank you for that.
By the way, I recall seeing either a photo or a sketch of a 1964 Peace dollar in Coin World back in 64 or 65 (I was about 13 years old then). Does anyone have info about this? Was it an actual photo???
best, Alan Mendelson
BestDealsTVshow.com
www.AlanBestBuys.com
www.VegasBestBuys.com
<< <i>Besides the mysterious 1964 Peace Dollars... the Mint also made in the mid 1970s some pattern cents made of steel, similar to those of 1943. These cents were distributed to various members of Congress, but several were not returned to the Mint. >>
I believe the coins which were distributed to the congressmen were aluminum although the mint did experiment with other materials.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
PerryHall is correct, these coins were aluminum. I recall that one of them surfaced a few years back, was certified and photographed, and then resubmerged. At the time I recall thinking that the owner was bold because if I had one, I'd be afraid that the Secret Service would track it down by applying pressure to the certification service.
<< <i>So is it an error to say legitimate 1964-D Peace Dollars in private hands must have been stolen? >>
If it's true that Denver Mint employees were given the opportunity to BUY them, then they weren't stolen as they were paid for. At most it would be unlawful possession of an item that's illegal to own...not theft.
The question then becomes, is there any way to verify that every purchased '64-D Peace Dollar *was* returned? On what basis did the Superintendent know with certainty that all were returned? IF that can be verified, then it's reasonable to believe that any extant pieces were stolen.
<< <i>PerryHall is correct, these coins were aluminum. I recall that one of them surfaced a few years back, was certified and photographed, and then resubmerged. At the time I recall thinking that the owner was bold because if I had one, I'd be afraid that the Secret Service would track it down by applying pressure to the certification service. >>
Yes. ICG graded one AU-58, at which point it was crossed over to PCGS as MS-62.
<< <i>At the time I recall thinking that the owner was bold because if I had one, I'd be afraid that the Secret Service would track it down by applying pressure to the certification service. >>
I was actually thinking about that last night. I guess there are ways to do it anonymously, such as to drive to another state and pay a bonded courier (in cash) to take the coin to PCGS and return it?
Design has nothing to do with public accepatance of a one dollar coin. The dollar bill has everything to do with public acceptance of a one dollar coin. Until the folks running the show in Washington figure that out, there will NEVER be a one dollar coin that is reguralay seen in circulation.
Dennis
Looking for PCGS AU58 Washington's, 32-63.
<< <i>I wish they would have minted Peace dollars in lieu of the Ikes. It probably would have been a more successful program.
Design has nothing to do with public accepatance of a one dollar coin. The dollar bill has everything to do with public acceptance of a one dollar coin. Until the folks running the show in Washington figure that out, there will NEVER be a one dollar coin that is reguralay seen in circulation.
Dennis >>
Exactly. Coin collectors tend to think the public sees things the same way as we do. If we collect based on design, we'll think the public will circulate them based on the same criteria. It's the same with toning. We think a non-collector will like a toned coin, when in reality they like them cleaned.
One
Two
Three
<< <i>I wish they would have minted Peace dollars in lieu of the Ikes. It probably would have been a more successful program.
Design has nothing to do with public accepatance of a one dollar coin. The dollar bill has everything to do with public acceptance of a one dollar coin. Until the folks running the show in Washington figure that out, there will NEVER be a one dollar coin that is reguralay seen in circulation.
Dennis >>
I disagree. If they had minted Peace dollars, I would have a completed a collection. I passed on the Ikes.
Circulation acceptance starts with collector acceptance.
<< <i>Coin collectors tend to think the public sees things the same way as we do. If we collect based on design, we'll think the public will circulate them based on the same criteria. >>
Sometimes design does impact circulation.
Half dollars did circulate some until the Kennedy half was introduced. A lot of people starting hoarding those and halves quickly disappeared from circulation after that. Since then our lives have revolved around the quarter being the largest denomination in circulation, and old habits die hard.
<< <i>Zoins, here are a few links to threads on the subject:
One
Two
Three >>
Here is another one that I found.
So far as the bits of information I mentioned earlier, all are documented and will be referenced in the Peace dollar book. I have photocopies and examined the originals. (The chapter on the 1964-D is the only one in the book with footnotes because of its controversial content. It’s about 30 pages long.)
There are quite a few anecdotes similar to the ones Tom D. related, and they make for really interesting hypothetical situations. The difficulty is in establishing the origin of the anecdote and in locating evidence that supports it. One of the most common variations is: “Former superintendent Fern Miller said the employees were allowed to purchase two of the new dollar coins….” Sounds great! Here we have the person in charge of the Denver Mint in 1965 saying that this happened. Slam-dunk, case closed!
But – when we start asking questions, things become less conclusive. When did Ms. Miller make this statement? Who specifically did she make it to? Did anyone witness the statement being made? Did Ms. Miller confirm this in a written statement or sign something to that effect? If the comment is correct, what confirming evidence is there? Are there extant records, names of individuals? How were the coins that were sold accounted for – by the piece, by weight, by replacement with a previously struck silver dollar? Obviously this can go on until some verifiable information comes out, or we give up in frustration at not finding anything to support the statement. Analyzing an anecdote is a valid way of understanding the statement and establishing its accuracy.
Now – let’s take Ms. Miller’s statement and make one small change, “Former superintendent Fern Miller said the employees were allowed to purchase two of the new half dollar coins….” If we ask the same questions for this statement, we will likely obtain different answers. I do not have all the documents available, but several former Denver Mint employees (including Mr. Lantz) have stated publicly that employees were allowed to purchase two new Kennedy halves on the official release date. Cashier’s records are supposed to exist verifying this. Assuming the above to be correct, the same type of analysis could end up verifying the anecdote because it helps us uncover evidence supporting Ms. Miller’s statement.
Regarding those who report knowing someone who has seen one of the 1964-D dollars, the difficulty is that no one has come forward with a specimen of the coin for independent examination. Unfortunately, the “sightings” are consistently reported as second-hand events. I’ve never read an account that says: “I saw one on June 16 in the Pittsburgh Public Library coin collection.” Previous experimental and trial pieces exist – in the Peace dollar series alone there are four – so there’s nothing particularly unusual about one or more of the 1964 pieces escaping.
(I want to make it clear that this kind of analysis does NOT malign the integrity, honesty or ability of anyone involved.)
The articles by Ed Reiter and David Ganz are excellent at summarizing what was known at that time. Ganz also interviewed the Mint’s chief technologist and presents what may be the only first-hand statements by a key participant.
One minor item: the most published quantity of 1964-D trial strikes is 316,076. After examining the Denver Coiner’s records, I think a more accurate quantity is 322,394 based on weight of planchets struck as coin.
Prior to publication of the June 4,7-8 hearings on the Coinage Act of 1965, members of Congress were told approximately 300,000 pieces were struck. The quantity of 316,076 was first quoted in internal mint and treasury documents on June 15, and provided to congress during Coinage Act of 1965 hearings. After June, the quantity internally quoted as struck varies from 316,000 to 322,000. The first known correspondence using the 316,076 mintage was to author Ted Schwarz in a letter from the mint written on May 29, 1975.
-- Sam Spade
The Mysterious Egyptian Magic Coin
Coins in Movies
Coins on Television
<< <i>Were the 1964 and 1964-D Peace dollars struck using the same hub as the 1935-S (with fourth ray below "ONE"), or were other hub changes (other than the date) incorporated into the design ? Are there any actual photographs of 1964 Peace dollars ? >>
Daniel, do you have a project in mind?