In Gold We Trust - 1907 Oregon gold coins
Zoins
Posts: 34,304 ✭✭✭✭✭
In 1907, banks had run out of gold due to a run on banks. A bank in Baker City, Oregon had access to gold and minted their own coins with "In Gold We Trust" to differentiate from US coins. These were sold at auction for $900 but coin dealers immediately started pushing values to $3,000. However, since minting coins was illegal, government agents came and destroyed the existing coins and dies.
Are any specimens known today? Are there photos of any specimens available?
Here's more info, including a pic of a 1984 replica:
Tagged:
4
Comments
Now that's interesting! I've never heard of these before. Did they circulate outside of OR, or were these just a local solution to a vexing problem of the day?
Successful BST transactions with: SilverEagles92; Ahrensdad; Smitty; GregHansen; Lablade; Mercury10c; copperflopper; whatsup; KISHU1; scrapman1077, crispy, canadanz, smallchange, robkool, Mission16, ranshdow, ibzman350, Fallguy, Collectorcoins, SurfinxHI, jwitten, Walkerguy21D, dsessom.
The feds were being unreasonably harsh. Those are just gold rounds.
I saw one of these gold rounds
I can’t remember where
I do recall it resembled the piece
on the left in the Numismatist article with the notable exception being the date 1907 stamped on the obverse above Baker City
Ore. It was not a replica
$900 in 1907 is about $24467 today. Nobody in 1907 was paying $450/oz for a gold coin when it was $20/oz or less. Something smells fishy. Show me a real one.
This 1982 75th Anniversary belt buckle is currently being offered for $4,987.50.
I wonder who made the 1982 and 1984 pieces. I'm also curious what KPH stands for on the obverse of the 1982 piece.
Wow! That’s a great story... I bet, not many would be aware of such coins... wonder if they were accepted outside Oregon.. Cheers!
I had not heard of these gold 'coins' before...and it seems another case of Treasury overstepping their authority....no indication at all of counterfeiting or claims to be U.S. currency... just gold....Cheers, RickO
thanks for the post, very interesting
BHNC #203
I like that coin in the first post that shows "1 E.O.M.A. OUNCE MORE OR LESS". What does E.O.M.A. stand for? Also, "MORE OR LESS" doesn't give me much confidence in the actual the gold content.
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
If a "real" one were to appear wouldn't a chain of custody be required to prove that it was actually struck in 1907? This is the kind of item that could easily be faked so caution would be advised.
I am sure you meant $2467, right? Strangely, that is right around spot for two ounces of gold in 2019!
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
If promoters attempted to present the tokens as money or to encourage use as money, as the article indicates occurred, then they were considered counterfeits. Same applied to the von Nuthouse tokens.
The "values" presented in the caption would appear to be nothing more than typical popular press nonsense. Last, native gold and pure gold are not the same thing; which was used, or was it imaginary gold?
Try this link instead: https://www.pcgs.com/news/a-gold-rarity-from-baker-city
I had to check it out also. According to this 'inflation calculator', the original amount is correct.
in2013dollars.com/://
I found my notes. The piece I saw
reportedly weighed 954.15 grains
1907
BAKER CITY
ORE
OUNCES
I did not see the reverse. It was in a
glass display case at the Bank of Cal Money Museum in SF. This small museum has both real and fake items on
display. I think the late numismatist
John J Ford Jr. was the source for
a number of the pieces. I am looking for the photo I took. If I find it , I will post it.
No, $24467 was what I meant. Actually, the picture caption is straight out of "Oregon's Golden Years", published in 1995, so I should have used 1995. Running through a different inflation calculator gives:
"What cost $900 in 1907 would cost $14674.42 in 1995. Also, if you were to buy exactly the same products in 1995 and 1907,
they would cost you $900 and $54.56 respectively. "
So I'm pretty sure the author meant to say "in today's dollars". Someone paying $54.56 in 1907 makes a lot more sense - small premium over spot price at the time. The bit about "coin dealers valued them as high as $3000" surely also means "in 1995 dollars" - $3000 in 1907 was equal to $48914.73 in 1995, whereas $3000 in 1995 would have been $181.86 in 1907. And of course a coin dealer "value" doesn't mean any sold at that price.
Thanks @RogerB for the PCGS article, which says in part "perhaps, only two or three are known to exist".
Anybody have a picture from the Eliasberg catalogue?
This was sent to me for posting by captainblunt. Photo was taken at the Bank of California Money Museum in San Francisco. (I did some image editing so it would be clearer.)