And the smaller one issued in 1947. I believe that this piece is scarcer, but its lower gold content results in similar prices for both.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
The Saudi gold discs had no connection to CASOC or ARAMCO.
As for the weight and purity expressions, these were what the Saudi's wanted. Final expression were somewhat simplified from initial proposals. The point of the pieces was to have them exactly equal the contents of 4 British sovereigns; same for the later 1 sovereign content pieces. (Note that I did not use the word "value;" that is intentional.)
[Excerpt from the research article:]
Within a week, mint director Ross replied to a note from the treasury department.
"In reference to your note concerning the gold discs for Saudi Arabia, the following is pointed out:
1. A sovereign weighs 123.27447833+ grains and contains 113.00160510+ grains of pure gold. Thus, a disc equivalent to four sovereigns would have a gross weight of 493.09791332 grains and would have a net gold content of 452.00642040 grains.
2. Because of the fraction in the fineness…and the fraction in weight, it is impossible to make an even calculation. Therefore, we suggest that the gross weight of the disc be 493.10 grains…[with a] theoretical net gold content of 452.008333+ grains.
Now I'm dying to read the article! From Roger's post it does sound like the mint was able to measure weights out accurately at least as far as what is stamped into the discs.
Bill, nice examples. Have you found that the premium over spot has changed since you purchased yours? There are a few more coming available at FUN I notice.
The Mint was able to do the calculations but I doubt they could actually prepare alloy to that accuracy. The best then needed for US and foreign coins was about 0.0005 and repeatability of assay was 0.001 grain or so.
Weights and finenesses are ideals that are strived for but only attained on average over large volumes. Was looking at the individual weights for the 1873-S Half Dimes in the 1874 Assay Commission Report. Standard weight 19.2 grains. Of five coins the low was 18.82 and the high 19.5. The average was pretty close to standard. The batch was deemed acceptable.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
The US Mints had a gold "bag tolerance" which ensured that every $5,000 bag contained the same weight of gold. Britain, on the other hand, simply counted sovereigns and if the purchaser got a bag filled with legal, but light coins, that was too bad.
@CaptHenway said:
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.
I did attend school that day. Mathematical ratios: Correct
Physical accuracy (Stuff) Cannot create accuracy with ratios.
Multiplication and Division (Common scientific explanation)
In mathematical operations involving significant figures, the answer is reported in such a way that it reflects the reliability of the least precise operation. Let's state that another way: a chain is no stronger than its weakest link. An answer is no more precise that the least precise number used to get the answer. Let's do it one more time: imagine a team race where you and your team must finish together. Who dictates the speed of the team? Of course, the slowest member of the team. Your answer cannot be MORE precise than the least precise measurement.
Google significant figures rules.
This is a common error, creating impossible accuracy numbers when multiplying fractions of physical things. By the logic used above, if we had used a fraction with infinite repeatability (2/3's) is .66666 to infinity. If we cut off 2/3's of a 1000 gram bar of gold, we would have 666.6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666 grams of gold. Of course, beyond the 19th decimal, it would no longer be gold, and beyond the 22 decimal, the protons would break down, and beyond the 25th, the electrons would collapse, but by the logic of infinite decimal place while multiplying, it would still be gold.
In my previous life, one of my jobs was reviewing process documentation for quantum trench semiconductor physics manufacturing. Lots of boring words, but it paid well. Even PHD level theoretical physicists made the significant is error at times when mixing a ratio versus a physical item.
While the e-sylum article is interesting, the writer does not seem to be aware that the Australians struck over 50 million sovereigns between 1918 and 1931. Sovereigns weren't impossible to get, but they were pricey in paper terms.
I know one older gentleman who was well acquainted with Harry X. Boosel, perhaps I can ask if he has any recollections along this line. My friend once told me that he sold an 1873 three dollar gold piece to Boosel, but the coin had been converted into a love token. This was probably before 1965 or possibly before 1960.
As I said, no "Significant error" was committed. The intended gross weight of 493.1 grains was a standard, a desired goal, and for that standard gross weight the calculated net weight was and is correct, subject only to how far you wish to carry out the 3's.
Actual gross and net weights would have fluctuated slightly because that is the reality of coining. They do not invalidate the printed standards, or the math used to calculate them.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@mustangmanbob my wife is mustangsandy06 in ebay world! 06 coupe, nothing special but she loves it.
On topic, scientifically speaking, significant figures are big deal in science as he was articulating correctly. No biggie, but when I see decimal places 6 out makes me wonder too where they come from. Using fractions perhaps are the best way around them.
Refs: MCM,Fivecents,Julio,Robman,Endzone,Coiny,Agentjim007,Musky1011,holeinone1972,Tdec1000,Type2,bumanchu, Metalsman,Wondercoin,Pitboss,Tomohawk,carew4me,segoja,thebigeng,jlc_coin,mbogoman,sportsmod,dragon,tychojoe,Schmitz7,claychaser, Bullsitter, robeck, Nickpatton, jwitten, and many OTHERS
No, that is not the reason. The absence of ARAMCO or CASOC connection was mentioned because there was none. The article quoted in e-sylum is focused on refuting Boosel's silly claims and does not deal with the primary subjects of "Why" and "How" the Saudi discs were prepared. That ARAMCO needed sovereigns to make the annual concession payment is well-known fact. However, there were many avenues open to acquiring sovereigns, especially for a company involved in important U.S. national interests.
@scubafuel said:
So was it just a case of this being a cheaper/easier route than “acquiring sovereigns”? After all why scrape them together when you can just make ‘em?
That part about cheaper/easier to make new is true, plus the USA was sitting on a mountain of already mined & refined gold by 1945.
Don't forget that the US wanted to rebuild Europe after WWII which requires oil which was in extremely short supply because the oil fields and refineries in Europe had been destroyed by allied bombers. Hence, there was a critical need for Saudi oil supplies and they didn't want to paid with paper and only wanted gold.
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
@scubafuel said:
So was it just a case of this being a cheaper/easier route than “acquiring sovereigns”? After all why scrape them together when you can just make ‘em?
The premium on Sovereigns was high after the war. Perhaps it was thought that by striking an alternative to them, the premium on actual sovereigns could be driven down.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
RE: "PCGS considers these to be Saudi Arabia coins"
If PCGS considers the Saudi gold discs to be coins, then they are wrong. The U.S. Mint, Treasury and Saudi government were in agreement and absolutely clear that the discs were not coins and not a legal tender under any circumstances. The Philadelphia Mint struck legal tender coins in silver for the Saudi Arabian government, but that is a different matter.
@PerryHall said:
Don't forget that the US wanted to rebuild Europe after WWII which requires oil which was in extremely short supply because the oil fields and refineries in Europe had been destroyed by allied bombers. Hence, there was a critical need for Saudi oil supplies and they didn't want to paid with paper and only wanted gold.
At this time it does not matter to me if they are listed in the World Coin Catalogue as U.S. or foreign ISSUES, coins or bullion. They belong in the Redbook! I expect this will be taken care of.
Were they not legally tendered to the saudis in exchange for goods and services? It sure walks like a duck.
Where oil is concerned, the US has always been willing to bend the rules a bit.
How did so many of them get back here? Any stories on what these things were actually used for beyond the first payment?
Gold was illegal for US citizens to own. Many folks turned in their gold coins w/o knowing that coin collections must have been exempt. My grandfather had a few gold coins that he kept hidden as he thought he was breaking the law. He was from the "Old Country."
I believe the confiscated gold was turned into bars. Apparently, some were made into disc's and RECORDED in the Mint report of the year.
Is there another issue which correlate to these pieces?
Maybe it's the trade dollar? Hear me out:
Made not at the request or need of the public, but rather for US industry. Struck by the mint, made of precious metals, designed to be circulated outside of the us. Originally designed as a bullion-only issue with no face value (though that changed prior to striking), and not legal tender in the US (at least not in quantities greater than 5) and eventually demonitized entirely.
Is there another series or striking that is closer? And if trade dollars are included in the Red Book, shouldn't these be?
We are like children who look at print and see a serpent in the last letter but one, and a sword in the last. --Severian the Lame
@Insider2 said:
Gold was illegal for US citizens to own. Many folks turned in their gold coins w/o knowing that coin collections must have been exempt. My grandfather had a few gold coins that he kept hidden as he thought he was breaking the law. He was from the "Old Country."
I believe the confiscated gold was turned into bars. Apparently, some were made into disc's and RECORDED in the Mint report of the year.
Sorry, bu the above statements are false. and the last sentence makes no sense at all.
Gold was not illegal to own. Hoarding gold was. It sounds like your grandfather was misinformed. Further, coin collections were immune from the 'hoarding' definition even if that contained a lot of duplicates. The Smithsonian Curator never found a US gold coin that lacked significant historical value.
Gold was not confiscated; even the hoarders and foreign owners with bullion in the US were paid face value for gold certificates and lost no real money, except the speculative 'profit.'
RE: "...designed to be circulated outside of the us...."
Nope. Not a coin by any stretch.
Some are attempting to fit the Saudi discs into a pre-defined notion that is, itself, invalid.
While I agree that it probably belongs in the Guide Book due to the level of collector interest, it's closest analogy is that of foreign coins made at a US Mint; these are not in the Guide Book for the obvious reason that they are not U.S. coins.
@RogerB said:
RE: "...designed to be circulated outside of the us...."
Nope. Not a coin by any stretch.
Per Wikipedia: A coin is a small, flat, round piece of metal or plastic used primarily as a medium of exchange or legal tender. They are standardized in weight, and produced in large quantities at a mint in order to facilitate trade. They are most often issued by a government.
small
flat
round
piece of metal
used as a medium of exchange
standard in weight
produced in large quantities at a mint
issued by a government
Sure seems like a small stretch, if any, to me.
We are like children who look at print and see a serpent in the last letter but one, and a sword in the last. --Severian the Lame
Still not a coin: It was not money, not generally used as money, not designated as money and not created as money by any of the governments involved. How any individual decided to treat a small gold piece (or 'ingot) was up to them.
Further the Wikidoodle definition is patently false in respect to #1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7.
@Insider2 said:
Gold was illegal for US citizens to own. Many folks turned in their gold coins w/o knowing that coin collections must have been exempt. My grandfather had a few gold coins that he kept hidden as he thought he was breaking the law. He was from the "Old Country."
I believe the confiscated gold was turned into bars. Apparently, some were made into disc's and RECORDED in the Mint report of the year.
Sorry, bu the above statements are false. and the last sentence makes no sense at all.
Gold was not illegal to own. Hoarding gold was. It sounds like your grandfather was misinformed. Further, coin collections were immune from the 'hoarding' definition even if that contained a lot of duplicates. The Smithsonian Curator never found a US gold coin that lacked significant historical value.
Gold was not confiscated; even the hoarders and foreign owners with bullion in the US were paid face value for gold certificates and lost no real money, except the speculative 'profit.'
Please go look up the 1933 recall.
As I stated, you did not need to turn it your coins.
Please explain what the big deal was when Nixon allowed US citizens to buy bullion AGAIN!
I hope your article tells us what happened to all the gold coins that were turned in. Otherwise, everything I have read and been told is incorrect and you are correct. I can accept that as I have an open mind.
PS I have a copy somewhere of a sheet stating the terms of the recall. I cannot lay my hands on it so perhaps a member has one they can post for us to read.
@RogerB said:
RE: "...designed to be circulated outside of the us...."
Nope. Not a coin by any stretch.
Per Wikipedia: A coin is a small, flat, round piece of metal or plastic used primarily as a medium of exchange or legal tender. They are standardized in weight, and produced in large quantities at a mint in order to facilitate trade. They are most often issued by a government.
small
flat
round
piece of metal
used as a medium of exchange
standard in weight
produced in large quantities at a mint
issued by a government
Sure seems like a small stretch, if any, to me.
Roger has proven these points to be false because:
What does "small mean? Since Yap stones exist Roger is correct.
Flat? Absolutely not, most coins have some relief so Roger is correct again.
Round? Not at all. Don't forget ancients and all the geometric or funny shapes (guitars) coins come as. Correct again Roger.
Not all coins are metal. Darn Roger is correct again.
Since coins come in different standards there is no standard. Correct Roger.
Some coins were produced in limited quanties. I'll bet someone here that knows a lot can tell use of several one-off issues. What about that huge Australian or Canadian coin. How many were made.
We should count ourselves very lucky that experts post here to keep thing correct.
Of course, the big deal when Nixon scheduled the lifting of the gold restrictions at the end of 1974 was that a raft of post-1933 World gold coins and private gold ingots became available to Americans. The 1967 Canadian $20 gold and the South African gold Krugerrands were illegal for Americans to own, up to that moment, as well as the 1958 and later British sovereigns. The modern Israeli gold had been illegal for Americans, up to that point. The modern Mexican gold 20 Pesos and Gold 50 Pesos were mostly illegal. I suppose that the principal subjects of this thread were previously illegal for American to own too.
It now strikes me that the British could have been restriking the 1925 George V sovereign partly to skirt the American regulations.
With the lifting of the prior restrictions, the office or offices in the Treasury that monitored those restrictions were abolished or absorbed into other offices.
Yes, Americans could always get, hold, buy and sell pre-1933 gold coins. Buying and selling American gold coins was a hot hot business in the mid-to-late 1960s. There were exaggerated fears of a dollar collapse, a British pound collapse, a French franc collapse, etc. Many people thought that if the USA federal government ever had a 30 billion dollar annual deficit, western civilization itself would collapse.
While I appreciate your sarcasm, @Insider2 , I was checking off the features of these pieces specifically as they compare to the definition of a "coin", and not the definition of a "coin" in general. Though we can certainly debate the definition.
It's clear that these pieces can cause rational numismatists to get excited. I actually appreciate the debate.
But the thing that most of us seem to agree on is that they do belong in the Red Book. And that's what I'm most excited about.
We are like children who look at print and see a serpent in the last letter but one, and a sword in the last. --Severian the Lame
It now strikes me that the British could have been restriking the 1925 George V sovereign partly to skirt the American regulations.
I had never made that connection, @BillDugan1959. While middle-eastern goldsmiths were making high-karat gold "replicas" of classic American coins in the mid-20th century, with at least some of that product directed at US buyers circumventing the gold ownership laws, it's possible the British government was doing the same thing legally.
We are like children who look at print and see a serpent in the last letter but one, and a sword in the last. --Severian the Lame
@Weiss said:
While I appreciate your sarcasm, @Insider2 , I was checking off the features of these pieces specifically as they compare to the definition of a "coin", and not the definition of a "coin" in general. Though we can certainly debate the definition.
It's clear that these pieces can cause rational numismatists to get excited. I actually appreciate the debate.
But the thing that most of us seem to agree on is that they do belong in the Red Book. And that's what I'm most excited about.
I understood exactly what you were doing. Unfortunately, my comments fell on the wrong eyes. I hope that person still speaks with me as he really is an important numismatist in my eyes.
It now strikes me that the British could have been restriking the 1925 George V sovereign partly to skirt the American regulations.
I had never made that connection, @BillDugan1959. While middle-eastern goldsmiths were making high-karat gold "replicas" of classic American coins in the mid-20th century, with at least some of that product directed at US buyers circumventing the gold ownership laws, it's possible the British government was doing the same thing legally.
The possibility hadn't struck me earlier either.
Mr. Chard stated that a heck of a lot of those new 1925 sovereigns were readily available in the U.K. In the 1960s.
I was 15 at the end of 1974 and owned like three US Five dollar gold pieces. The lifting of the US gold restrictions was hot news back when Coin World newspaper had 120 pages every week.
BillDugan1959 - None of the gold comments have any connection with Saudi gold discs. But, I'll try to answer your questions as clearly as i can.
RE: "Please go look up the 1933 recall. As I stated, you did not need to turn it your coins."
The 1933 executive order (many copies available on line from objective sources) was aimed entirely at hoarding. and no confiscation occurred or was considered. Those are facts. (Per the Treasury Dept. legal folks, all court rulings and Supreme Court decision.) Most "gold" was in the form of gold certificates, not metal, and there was much more bullion exchanged for cash that coins.
RE: " Please explain what the big deal was when Nixon allowed US citizens to buy bullion AGAIN!"
For coin collectors, there was not much of a "big deal" except that post 1933 gold coins - or any gold - could be purchased at will. Anyone in a business could easily get all the gold they needed. You are correct that individuals could not buy gold bullion without a purpose, but that never extended to jewelry, dental or other common uses. However, simple ownership was not illegal. (In 1933 and early 1934 some mine owners did not sell their output,; they held it in anticipation of a higher price. During Mach through September some made extra profits and some did not. Those who sold after the Gold Act of 1934, saw a substantial increase in revenue, and US gold mining quickly regained it's pre-War vigor.
RE: " I hope your article tells us what happened to all the gold coins that were turned in."
Not sure to what 'article' this referrers. The Saint-Gaudens Double Eagle book has considerable information on the quantity of US gold coins actually turned in from the general public (versus those already in Treasury vaults) and its disposition. Al in existence are the melting records by mint vault letter/number showing when various coin were melted and where this was done. (This was not published because most of it was not germane to the subject. The date 1933 DE were melted can be identified, but that's meaningless since 1933 DE were just another date of DE in the vaults.) The book also goes into export residuals, and US gold coins that were confiscated by the Nazis, then identified and returned to their rightful owners.
Comments
Here are examples of these pieces.
The larger piece, issued in 1945
And the smaller one issued in 1947. I believe that this piece is scarcer, but its lower gold content results in similar prices for both.
Okay, got it. It's making a helluva mess on the stove. Will the aluminum pot affect the assay?
All kidding aside, has anyone mentioned (or does anyone know) how MUCH oil or oil "rights" these things were good for?
..............?????
RE: "These Aramco discs ...."
The Saudi gold discs had no connection to CASOC or ARAMCO.
As for the weight and purity expressions, these were what the Saudi's wanted. Final expression were somewhat simplified from initial proposals. The point of the pieces was to have them exactly equal the contents of 4 British sovereigns; same for the later 1 sovereign content pieces. (Note that I did not use the word "value;" that is intentional.)
[Excerpt from the research article:]
Within a week, mint director Ross replied to a note from the treasury department.
"In reference to your note concerning the gold discs for Saudi Arabia, the following is pointed out:
1. A sovereign weighs 123.27447833+ grains and contains 113.00160510+ grains of pure gold. Thus, a disc equivalent to four sovereigns would have a gross weight of 493.09791332 grains and would have a net gold content of 452.00642040 grains.
2. Because of the fraction in the fineness…and the fraction in weight, it is impossible to make an even calculation. Therefore, we suggest that the gross weight of the disc be 493.10 grains…[with a] theoretical net gold content of 452.008333+ grains.
Now I'm dying to read the article! From Roger's post it does sound like the mint was able to measure weights out accurately at least as far as what is stamped into the discs.
Bill, nice examples. Have you found that the premium over spot has changed since you purchased yours? There are a few more coming available at FUN I notice.
The Mint was able to do the calculations but I doubt they could actually prepare alloy to that accuracy. The best then needed for US and foreign coins was about 0.0005 and repeatability of assay was 0.001 grain or so.
@RogerB Your mention of Mrs. Ross' reply is both very interesting and very timely here. Many thanks.
Weights and finenesses are ideals that are strived for but only attained on average over large volumes. Was looking at the individual weights for the 1873-S Half Dimes in the 1874 Assay Commission Report. Standard weight 19.2 grains. Of five coins the low was 18.82 and the high 19.5. The average was pretty close to standard. The batch was deemed acceptable.
The US Mints had a gold "bag tolerance" which ensured that every $5,000 bag contained the same weight of gold. Britain, on the other hand, simply counted sovereigns and if the purchaser got a bag filled with legal, but light coins, that was too bad.
Great pieces @BillJones! I love the breadth of your collection and your willingness to share, both photos and information!
Did anyone read the recent article on these in the e-sylum?
This is perhaps why Roger mentioned that the connection to ARAMCO is dubious.
https://coinbooks.org/v21/esylum_v21n49a21.html
I did attend school that day. Mathematical ratios: Correct
Physical accuracy (Stuff) Cannot create accuracy with ratios.
Multiplication and Division (Common scientific explanation)
In mathematical operations involving significant figures, the answer is reported in such a way that it reflects the reliability of the least precise operation. Let's state that another way: a chain is no stronger than its weakest link. An answer is no more precise that the least precise number used to get the answer. Let's do it one more time: imagine a team race where you and your team must finish together. Who dictates the speed of the team? Of course, the slowest member of the team. Your answer cannot be MORE precise than the least precise measurement.
Google significant figures rules.
This is a common error, creating impossible accuracy numbers when multiplying fractions of physical things. By the logic used above, if we had used a fraction with infinite repeatability (2/3's) is .66666 to infinity. If we cut off 2/3's of a 1000 gram bar of gold, we would have 666.6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666 grams of gold. Of course, beyond the 19th decimal, it would no longer be gold, and beyond the 22 decimal, the protons would break down, and beyond the 25th, the electrons would collapse, but by the logic of infinite decimal place while multiplying, it would still be gold.
In my previous life, one of my jobs was reviewing process documentation for quantum trench semiconductor physics manufacturing. Lots of boring words, but it paid well. Even PHD level theoretical physicists made the significant is error at times when mixing a ratio versus a physical item.
While the e-sylum article is interesting, the writer does not seem to be aware that the Australians struck over 50 million sovereigns between 1918 and 1931. Sovereigns weren't impossible to get, but they were pricey in paper terms.
I know one older gentleman who was well acquainted with Harry X. Boosel, perhaps I can ask if he has any recollections along this line. My friend once told me that he sold an 1873 three dollar gold piece to Boosel, but the coin had been converted into a love token. This was probably before 1965 or possibly before 1960.
As I said, no "Significant error" was committed. The intended gross weight of 493.1 grains was a standard, a desired goal, and for that standard gross weight the calculated net weight was and is correct, subject only to how far you wish to carry out the 3's.
Actual gross and net weights would have fluctuated slightly because that is the reality of coining. They do not invalidate the printed standards, or the math used to calculate them.
I had just been reading that when you posted it!
--Severian the Lame
Sounds like Mustang was teaching the class instead of skipping it.
@mustangmanbob my wife is mustangsandy06 in ebay world! 06 coupe, nothing special but she loves it.
On topic, scientifically speaking, significant figures are big deal in science as he was articulating correctly. No biggie, but when I see decimal places 6 out makes me wonder too where they come from. Using fractions perhaps are the best way around them.
No, that is not the reason. The absence of ARAMCO or CASOC connection was mentioned because there was none. The article quoted in e-sylum is focused on refuting Boosel's silly claims and does not deal with the primary subjects of "Why" and "How" the Saudi discs were prepared. That ARAMCO needed sovereigns to make the annual concession payment is well-known fact. However, there were many avenues open to acquiring sovereigns, especially for a company involved in important U.S. national interests.
So was it just a case of this being a cheaper/easier route than “acquiring sovereigns”? After all why scrape them together when you can just make ‘em?
PCGS considers these to be Saudi Arabia coins:
The PCGS Registry Set for these is called:
Saudi Arabia Bullion Coinage, Circulation Strikes (1945-1947)
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/saudi-arabia/saudi-arabia/saudi-arabia-bullion-coinage-circulation-strikes-1945-1947/3136
Here's what a cert verification page looks like:
https://www.pcgs.com/cert/28586654
That part about cheaper/easier to make new is true, plus the USA was sitting on a mountain of already mined & refined gold by 1945.
Don't forget that the US wanted to rebuild Europe after WWII which requires oil which was in extremely short supply because the oil fields and refineries in Europe had been destroyed by allied bombers. Hence, there was a critical need for Saudi oil supplies and they didn't want to paid with paper and only wanted gold.
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
The premium on Sovereigns was high after the war. Perhaps it was thought that by striking an alternative to them, the premium on actual sovereigns could be driven down.
RE: "PCGS considers these to be Saudi Arabia coins"
If PCGS considers the Saudi gold discs to be coins, then they are wrong. The U.S. Mint, Treasury and Saudi government were in agreement and absolutely clear that the discs were not coins and not a legal tender under any circumstances. The Philadelphia Mint struck legal tender coins in silver for the Saudi Arabian government, but that is a different matter.
Nope on the oil connection.
At this time it does not matter to me if they are listed in the World Coin Catalogue as U.S. or foreign ISSUES, coins or bullion. They belong in the Redbook! I expect this will be taken care of.
Were they not legally tendered to the saudis in exchange for goods and services? It sure walks like a duck.
Where oil is concerned, the US has always been willing to bend the rules a bit.
How did so many of them get back here? Any stories on what these things were actually used for beyond the first payment?
Scubafuel - Nope, sorry.
Gold was illegal for US citizens to own. Many folks turned in their gold coins w/o knowing that coin collections must have been exempt. My grandfather had a few gold coins that he kept hidden as he thought he was breaking the law. He was from the "Old Country."
I believe the confiscated gold was turned into bars. Apparently, some were made into disc's and RECORDED in the Mint report of the year.
Is there another issue which correlate to these pieces?
Maybe it's the trade dollar? Hear me out:
Made not at the request or need of the public, but rather for US industry. Struck by the mint, made of precious metals, designed to be circulated outside of the us. Originally designed as a bullion-only issue with no face value (though that changed prior to striking), and not legal tender in the US (at least not in quantities greater than 5) and eventually demonitized entirely.
Is there another series or striking that is closer? And if trade dollars are included in the Red Book, shouldn't these be?
--Severian the Lame
Sorry, bu the above statements are false. and the last sentence makes no sense at all.
Gold was not illegal to own. Hoarding gold was. It sounds like your grandfather was misinformed. Further, coin collections were immune from the 'hoarding' definition even if that contained a lot of duplicates. The Smithsonian Curator never found a US gold coin that lacked significant historical value.
Gold was not confiscated; even the hoarders and foreign owners with bullion in the US were paid face value for gold certificates and lost no real money, except the speculative 'profit.'
RE: "...designed to be circulated outside of the us...."
Nope. Not a coin by any stretch.
Some are attempting to fit the Saudi discs into a pre-defined notion that is, itself, invalid.
While I agree that it probably belongs in the Guide Book due to the level of collector interest, it's closest analogy is that of foreign coins made at a US Mint; these are not in the Guide Book for the obvious reason that they are not U.S. coins.
Per Wikipedia: A coin is a small, flat, round piece of metal or plastic used primarily as a medium of exchange or legal tender. They are standardized in weight, and produced in large quantities at a mint in order to facilitate trade. They are most often issued by a government.
Sure seems like a small stretch, if any, to me.
--Severian the Lame
Still not a coin: It was not money, not generally used as money, not designated as money and not created as money by any of the governments involved. How any individual decided to treat a small gold piece (or 'ingot) was up to them.
Further the Wikidoodle definition is patently false in respect to #1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7.
PS I have a copy somewhere of a sheet stating the terms of the recall. I cannot lay my hands on it so perhaps a member has one they can post for us to read.
Roger has proven these points to be false because:
We should count ourselves very lucky that experts post here to keep thing correct.
Of course, the big deal when Nixon scheduled the lifting of the gold restrictions at the end of 1974 was that a raft of post-1933 World gold coins and private gold ingots became available to Americans. The 1967 Canadian $20 gold and the South African gold Krugerrands were illegal for Americans to own, up to that moment, as well as the 1958 and later British sovereigns. The modern Israeli gold had been illegal for Americans, up to that point. The modern Mexican gold 20 Pesos and Gold 50 Pesos were mostly illegal. I suppose that the principal subjects of this thread were previously illegal for American to own too.
It now strikes me that the British could have been restriking the 1925 George V sovereign partly to skirt the American regulations.
With the lifting of the prior restrictions, the office or offices in the Treasury that monitored those restrictions were abolished or absorbed into other offices.
Yes, Americans could always get, hold, buy and sell pre-1933 gold coins. Buying and selling American gold coins was a hot hot business in the mid-to-late 1960s. There were exaggerated fears of a dollar collapse, a British pound collapse, a French franc collapse, etc. Many people thought that if the USA federal government ever had a 30 billion dollar annual deficit, western civilization itself would collapse.
While I appreciate your sarcasm, @Insider2 , I was checking off the features of these pieces specifically as they compare to the definition of a "coin", and not the definition of a "coin" in general. Though we can certainly debate the definition.
It's clear that these pieces can cause rational numismatists to get excited. I actually appreciate the debate.
But the thing that most of us seem to agree on is that they do belong in the Red Book. And that's what I'm most excited about.
--Severian the Lame
I had never made that connection, @BillDugan1959. While middle-eastern goldsmiths were making high-karat gold "replicas" of classic American coins in the mid-20th century, with at least some of that product directed at US buyers circumventing the gold ownership laws, it's possible the British government was doing the same thing legally.
--Severian the Lame
I understood exactly what you were doing. Unfortunately, my comments fell on the wrong eyes. I hope that person still speaks with me as he really is an important numismatist in my eyes.
The possibility hadn't struck me earlier either.
Mr. Chard stated that a heck of a lot of those new 1925 sovereigns were readily available in the U.K. In the 1960s.
I was 15 at the end of 1974 and owned like three US Five dollar gold pieces. The lifting of the US gold restrictions was hot news back when Coin World newspaper had 120 pages every week.
BillDugan1959 - None of the gold comments have any connection with Saudi gold discs. But, I'll try to answer your questions as clearly as i can.
RE: "Please go look up the 1933 recall. As I stated, you did not need to turn it your coins."
The 1933 executive order (many copies available on line from objective sources) was aimed entirely at hoarding. and no confiscation occurred or was considered. Those are facts. (Per the Treasury Dept. legal folks, all court rulings and Supreme Court decision.) Most "gold" was in the form of gold certificates, not metal, and there was much more bullion exchanged for cash that coins.
RE: " Please explain what the big deal was when Nixon allowed US citizens to buy bullion AGAIN!"
For coin collectors, there was not much of a "big deal" except that post 1933 gold coins - or any gold - could be purchased at will. Anyone in a business could easily get all the gold they needed. You are correct that individuals could not buy gold bullion without a purpose, but that never extended to jewelry, dental or other common uses. However, simple ownership was not illegal. (In 1933 and early 1934 some mine owners did not sell their output,; they held it in anticipation of a higher price. During Mach through September some made extra profits and some did not. Those who sold after the Gold Act of 1934, saw a substantial increase in revenue, and US gold mining quickly regained it's pre-War vigor.
RE: " I hope your article tells us what happened to all the gold coins that were turned in."
Not sure to what 'article' this referrers. The Saint-Gaudens Double Eagle book has considerable information on the quantity of US gold coins actually turned in from the general public (versus those already in Treasury vaults) and its disposition. Al in existence are the melting records by mint vault letter/number showing when various coin were melted and where this was done. (This was not published because most of it was not germane to the subject. The date 1933 DE were melted can be identified, but that's meaningless since 1933 DE were just another date of DE in the vaults.) The book also goes into export residuals, and US gold coins that were confiscated by the Nazis, then identified and returned to their rightful owners.