Wrote a letter to the Red Book about the 1940s US Mint Saudi gold "disks"
Weiss
Posts: 9,942 ✭✭✭✭✭
One of my favorite recent purchases was a Saudi 4 pound (KM#34) I got just over a year ago. I've posted it here a couple of times, and it seems most people really like these historically interesting pieces that are shrouded in mystery.
I got a 2019 Red Book for Christmas--an annual tradition from the mother in law going back about a decade. Thumbing through it yesterday and once again, the circa 1945 gold disks minted by the US Mint in Philadelphia to pay the Saudi Arabian government for oil rights were excluded. 
I mean, I can kind of see why: These weren't made for circulation here in the US. But on the other hand, they literally say (and ONLY say) U.S. MINT PHILADELPHIA USA
Anyway, it seems the Red Book has really made some interesting additions (and deletions) to their pages in recent years. So I emailed them to see what their thoughts were about including these pieces.
I hadn't really expected to get a reply other than an automatic "thanks". Imagine my surprise when I got a response from a real person and a promise to pass the request up the chain. And then imagine my surprise when, a few exchanges later, I received a wonderfully rich email from Dennis Tucker, Publisher of Whitman Publishing (publisher of the Red Book).
He was kind enough to grant me permission to reprint his email here:
_Thank you for your recent query about including the Saudi gold disks in the Guide Book of United States Coins. Ken Bressett (Editor Emeritus of the Red Book) and I talk about these items from time to time. Collectors and researchers come to us and ask about them (and about the possibility of including them in the Red Book). I remember they were the subject of an enthusiastic discussion at the ANA convention in Boston in 2010.
Ken has described himself as long being a fan of these unusual items, and he’s maintained an extensive file about them ever since they became known to the public.
Even so, throughout his tenure as editor (then senior editor, and now as editor emeritus) of the Red Book, after careful consideration he always concluded that they don’t really qualify for inclusion.
“They really are bullion pieces and not circulation coins,” he has said in the past, “and despite the fact that they were made at the Philadelphia Mint, they are not U.S. coins.” He points out that in the past U.S. mints have made many numismatic items for other countries, including several coins for Ecuador that contain the words PHILADELPHIA, or PHILA. U.S.A., as their mintmark.
Space limitations in all books are a factor in determining which fringe or related items can be included to enlighten the hobby community about specific topics. There are many such things that might be valuable additions to the Red Book, but unfortunately, for practical reasons, they really belong in other, more appropriate, publications.
In recent times we’ve discussed the possibility of including an appendix on the Saudi gold disks in Mega Red (the expanded Deluxe Edition of the Red Book). And in the second edition of my own book, American Gold and Silver: U.S. Mint Collector and Investor Coins and Medals, Bicentennial to Date, I might include a section on them.
I’ll copy Whitman Publishing senior editor Diana Plattner on this email, as well as Red Book senior editor Jeff Garrett, and Mega Red senior editor Q. David Bowers. I’ll also drop a line to Ken Bressett.
If you have any information you’d like to share about these interesting numismatic pieces, we welcome your ideas.
Thank you again for writing!_
How cool is that??!!
I won't bore you guys by sharing the email I just got from Q. David Bowers. 
--Severian the Lame
Comments
I'd put them at the beginning of the US Bullion Coins section - they do belong.
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
If they don't include bullion coins then why do they?
bob
Several years ago I lobbied Ken B to get the American Arts gold medals listed in the Redbook. He did not agree that they should be in there permanently, but did include them in one of the one-year only listings. Keep trying and you might succeed someday.
That said, he is correct that this is a foreign item with a spectacular Philadelphia mint mark.
I may see Ken at a coin club meeting next Wednesday evening, weather permitting. If you have any further comments send them to me in a PM and I will try to discuss them with him.
TD
Because the modern bullion coins have denominations, of course. A lot of phoney baloney, but the nonsensical denominations cause those bullion things to clear an important hurdle to inclusion in the Red Book (A Guide Book of United States Coins).
I would be very pleased to see these Saudi golds included in the Mega Red Book. If Mr. Bressett were allowed to expound upon the topic, so much the better!
These pieces should be included and I would put them in front of bullion as @Regulated said.
I absolutely adore them and yours is beautiful looking. I love every time you post it
.
CoinsAreFun Toned Silver Eagle Proof Album
.
Gallery Mint Museum, Ron Landis& Joe Rust, The beginnings of the Golden Dollar
.
More CoinsAreFun Pictorials NGC
They are denominated, after all (granted, it isn't a US denomination)...
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
I don't know much about rare coins but that is a nice piece of gold ...... exactly the same color as my Saudi gold jewelries
Did the Bar Copper have a denomination? I agree, include them.
American sovereigns. I like those and that is a nice example. Crown gold too like AGE's. just really pegs the cool meter.
I've only had my 2019 Red Book for a couple of days (my oversight in not getting it last April), and upon looking carefully, the detailed information on the American Silver Eagles, the American Gold Eagles, the American Gold Buffalos, and the American Platinum Eagles has been dropped from the standard Red Book! Detailed information on the First Ladies Gold is gone too. Shocking!
The mint issuing so much stuff these days that it’s soon going to take a phone book to cover it. The mint has just launched a new “gold dollar” program that started this month. The response has been underwhelming according to”Coin World.” The coins are all sold for more than face value and must be ordered from the mint. It’s going be issued for the 50 states plus the territories.
I could have told them that this project had problems. When I was a dealer the four piece presidential Proof sets were about as popular as a disease. You could barely get face value for them. At my local club, you almost had to bend peoples’ arms to get them to take Gem Mint State presidential dollars as door prizes or at face value. The mint has also continued this foolishness of putting the date on the edge. Collectors don’t want that.
The mint is issuing too much stuff. Perhaps “The Red Book” will net to become two volumes as it now is with the Spink price guide. One for the older coins and one for the new.
I believe that it was Congress that continued the foolishness. The mint just does what it is told to do by the enabling legislation.
With the presidential dollars the feeling was that the designs were too cluttered so they moved some elements to the edge. They unnecessarily kept the edge lettering/dates with the subsequent Sacagawea dollars.
I have one and they are certainly neat but they are not coins. They show the weight and fineness but they do not show a denomination and they are not legal tender. They are strictly bullion and would be more comparable to a silver round or a gold round rather than a ASE or a AGE which are actual legal tender coins. It would be great if they were included in the red book since my example would increase in value but I can understand why the publishers don't want to include it.
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
Wow, really great color on that puppy. What was the mint run number on them, if you know? I think it should be included. They are legal tender cause it's gold. Peace Roy
BST: endeavor1967, synchr, kliao, Outhaul, Donttellthewife, U1Chicago, ajaan, mCarney1173, SurfinHi, MWallace, Sandman70gt, mustanggt, Pittstate03, Lazybones, Walkerguy21D, coinandcurrency242 , thebigeng, Collectorcoins, JimTyler, USMarine6, Elkevvo, Coll3ctor, Yorkshireman, CUKevin, ranshdow, CoinHunter4, bennybravo, Centsearcher, braddick, Windycity, ZoidMeister, mirabela, JJM, RichURich, Bullsitter, jmski52, LukeMarshall, coinsarefun, MichaelDixon, NickPatton, ProfLiz, Twobitcollector,Jesbroken oih82w8, DCW
They made a lot of them but most were melted and used to mint new coins in the 1950's by Saudi Arabia. They are fairly scarce now. They've been counterfeited so buy one that's been slabbed by one of the major grading services.
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
Is any body else bothered by the significant mathematical error on the coin?
While not a U.S. coin, it certainly is a part of U.S. minting history... so maybe the Mega Red should have a section on them. Certainly should be documented. Cheers, RickO
British sovereigns DO NOT have a stated denomination on them. It is simply a matter of weight, or multiples thereof.
If the weight (and fineness) is correct, you can say this Philadelphia gold slug has a denomination (as @Regulated did).
This makes no sense. There are many legal tender coins that are one ounce of pure gold. Are you saying that all one ounce gold rounds therefore have a denomination?
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
British sovereigns do not have a denomination on them.
Everyone knows what they are, and everyone knows that they are a pound (at least back in the day).
Wealthy Saudis about 1950 would have immediately understood the equivalency.
The one Troy ounce stuff did not gain much of a following until the later 1970s and are a different animal. The one Troy ounce stuff did not proliferate into all the different countries until after 1980.
Actually the Saudi's wanted payment in Sovereigns in 1945 but there weren't enough available but they agreed to accept round discs of equivalent weight. The US Mint also made smaller gold discs with the weight being equivalent to 1 Sovereign. These are considerably scarcer than the larger gold discs.
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
IIRC, the British issued approximately 1.2 million new sovereigns in 1949, but they had the portrait of George V and were dated 1925. There had been some 1925 dated sovereigns earlier, but those had been scarce.
The postwar Attlee government (highly socialist) probably had mixed emotions about issuing gold coins.
Perhaps the British issue of new sovereigns helped to preclude the issue of any additional American disks.
What alleged error?
@Weiss
Nice to know the writers/publishers do take interest in the field by responding to correspondence. This may help to promote a better numismatic product in the end, IMO.
Quick update:
After some discussion, the editors are tentatively planning to include these Saudi /Aramco / US Mint pieces in a future issue of the Mega Red Book, as an appendix entry if not a permanent addition.
And I agree, @Hemispherical. Their willingness to engage their audience and pursue their shared interests is a real and welcome gesture.
I'm stoked
--Severian the Lame
FYI - Most of the published material about the Saudi gold discs is false....not intentionally so, but just assumed from a Treasury press release and some casual comments by officials.
As production items, they are nearly identical to coins struck for foreign governments. The discs are not strictly coins, but small certified gold ingots. The story is too complex to discuss here. I will publish the entire article one day when I have the funds to pay for printing....whenever that is.
@RogerB thanks for that info. I’m going to do some internet research on these for now until
you publish something sooner than later.......I hope.
I think these and now others like this are fascinating
.
CoinsAreFun Toned Silver Eagle Proof Album
.
Gallery Mint Museum, Ron Landis& Joe Rust, The beginnings of the Golden Dollar
.
More CoinsAreFun Pictorials NGC
I did NOT know that. Very interesting! I appreciate you posting that information. I have one sovereign, and you guessed it, it's a 1925. Considering how insanely nice it is, lack of bag marks, I am pretty sure it's one of the modern re-strikes... Oh well.
https://goldsovereigns.co.uk/1925sovereign.html
My YouTube Channel
Weiss, that NGC example you have is SWEET!
My YouTube Channel
@asheland I believe that what I stated is correct. Chard's webpage tends to confirm this.
https://goldsovereigns.co.uk/1925sovereign.html
Chard feels 1925 originals were struck in greater numbers than I realized. Perhaps these were not fully issued before the Great Depression and the Second World War.
I've met people who claim they can readily tell the difference between an original 1925 sovereign and the later 1949 additional issue. I believe that they are pretty safe guessing the latter in nearly all instances.
This description makes them sound like a 20th century version of the $50 slug, which was officially considered an ingot. Sounds like an incredible article.
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
That site claims the rims are an indicator. I'll have to check mine as I'm curious now...
The picture on my phone is probably not good enough to tell (shot from a distance)
My YouTube Channel
I've always felt that the reverse of these pieces (I guess it's the reverse?) shares much with the Humbert and Moffatt / US Assay Office gold rush pieces of 100 years earlier:
--Severian the Lame
Bump. Still waiting to hear what the alleged error is.
Gross Weight 493.1 grains
Net Weight 452.008333 grains
Fineness 916 2/3
A grain, equivalent to a single theoretical grain of cereal = 64.79891 milligrams
So the net weight is being specified in nanograms, which was far beyond the mint's capability to measure.
Basic science, accuracy cannot be created by changing units, multiplying, dividing, etc.
The original weight was measured in .1 grains. That is the limit of accuracy, 1 decimal place.
The percentage is 91.6 2/3,
The net weight, 452.008333 is a ratio of net weight x fineness, but since the gross weight accuracy stops at 1 decimal place, .1 grains, any subsequent measures are bound by that limit. The original weight could have have been 493.052 to 493.148, therefore, having a net weight ACCURACY to 6 decimal places fails.
Simple example: You get on the bathroom scale, and it shows 145 pounds. One atom of gold, weighing in at 3.2 x 10^ -22 e grams falls on you head. Then your weight must be 65770.90000000000000000000032 grams ??
Putting it another way, total weight of water earth, weighing an estimated 1,450,000,000,000,000,000 short tons. If we create 1 molecule of water, it does not mean there are 1,450,000,000,000,000,000.00000000000000000000000000027 short tons of water on the earth.
The correct net weight should have been 452.0 grains. The last 5 digits of "accuracy" do not exist, because the source weight was truncated to 1 decimal place.
I hope the discrepancy doesn't make them want their oil back.
You must have skipped school the day they taught how to multiply times fractions.
22 karat gold is 22/24ths pure.
493.1 grains times 22 = 10,848.2
10,848.2 divided by 24 = 452.008333
No grams were harmed in making this calculation.
No "significant error" was committed. The repeating 3's are mathematically provable.
The issue is that the fineness is exact when expressed as a fraction. Whether the mint was actually able to hit fineness so precisely is debatable. I wonder if they would have added more "3"s if there had been room?
Weigh out 22 units of gold and 2 units of copper (by weight) and melt them together and "wah-lah!" (sp?) you have 22 kt gold. Any slight deviation within standard mint tolerances is not "significant." Read an annual assay report from the years when the U.S. Mint was making gold for circulation and you will find any number of fire assays slightly above or below 0.900.
@RogerB said: " The discs are not strictly coins, but small certified gold ingots."
My feelings exactly and that is why (IMO) they belong in the Redbook. I have always considered them to be in the same as Territorial gold. When I first read about these in the Numismatist magazine (containing the info that Roger disputes) I wanted one. At the time the ownership of gold bullion was illegal. These pieces traded under the table when the average out-of-the-know collector would not even have the chance to find one.
Some counterfeits appeared in the 1970's. Several different dies were used to strike the 4P. At one time I had them all.
Territorial gold coins have a denomination. Or are you talking about non-denominated ingots?
The first U.S. gold coins did not carry a denomination, yet they are still coins.
Most Sovereigns do not carry a denomination, yet they are still coins.
However, both coins had laws backing them up that made them coins. I do not think that any such law was ever passed that made the Saudi disks "coins." As such they are cute little round ingots.
Capt, true, but then accuracy of your scales becomes an issue which I think is what @Mustangmanbob was pointing at.
Your fineness will only be as exact as your scales are with that technique.
(and your refining of course. You better have gold and copper both refined to 6 decimal places in purity.)
Agreed that its not a "significant" error by any stretch, it's just weird that they'd put a specific weight on there that they PROBABLY couldn't actually measure.
It'd be like taking a silver eagle, and putting "1.0000000 oz" fine silver. Which is technically the same as saying "1 oz", just without drawing attention to the false precision.
Not sure how/why the mint decided to end the decimals at 6 places, since their math would create a repeating decimal that would extend forever. Maybe they were just trying to impress the Saudis?
Or, maybe they shipped so much gold that 6th decimal really started to add up??
Broaden your horizons. A coin does not need to have a denomination appearing on it. Just because most U.S. coins do...
Context is important. By the time these were issued, US Mint issued coins generally had denominations. We don’t need to be so general here.
The Bicentennial Medals, the Colorado Statehood Medals, the Presidential medals, the American Commemorative Arts Medals were struck by the US Mint. They have no denomination but are included in the Red book.
The Lesher tokens were not struck by the US Mint, though they have a "pseudo-denomination". And they are included in the Red Book.
The Philippine issues were struck by the US mint but were not meant for domestic circulation, and they are in the Red Book.
The 1964 Peace dollars were struck by the US Mint, but their legality to own is debatable. But a whole paragraph is dedicated to them in the Red Book.
These pieces were struck by the US mint as is intentionally and purposefully indicated on them, in a size and purity indicated which to me amounts to a "pseudo-denomination". They were not meant for domestic circulation in part because their legality of domestic ownership at the time of their minting is open to debate--though clearly no longer.
To me it's clear: These Aramco discs check off more than enough boxes to at least be included in the Mega Red if not included in the permanent "bullion" or "Mint Medal" sections. Frankly, I'd love to see a whole new category created for them if their square peg doesn't fit in any extant round hole. Excluding them entirely just doesn't make any sense to me.
--Severian the Lame
I guess from my perspective as a collector of all world coins from ancient to modern, I never gave a thought to this "denomination" exclusion.
PS For any members less knowledgeable than most of us posting here, U.S. coins are considered world coins by many collectors.
Unfortunately, a member above made a valid point about publications regarding the cost of changes and space. I for one am completely FROSTED when an entire group of coins listed and numbered in an older edition has disappeared from the newer copy for whatever the reason. I'm stuck with putting the Krause # on world coins and I hate having to look all over for a coin only to find it imaged and numbered in an old edition of their catalog and left out of the latest book!
I think they will list the discs. Then their prices should rise to where it belongs as more folks appreciate them for what they are: U.S. Mint-made, stamped bullion.
Well, for the US Mint at the time, one is legal tender and another is not, which is generally important for coin classification. Were these US legal tender?
I agree with you in general but think context matters.
Again, as a review of the British (formerly Seaby) guidebook readily shows, London sovereigns do not bear a stated denomination.
I've never had the opportunity to try it myself, but if you put the large Aramco piece on one side of a balance scale, and four one sovereign coins on the other side, the scale should be in perfect balance.
Spellchecker will be the death of modern civilization yet, mark my words!