U.S. MINT PHILADELPHIA - U.S.A.
Weiss
Posts: 9,941 ✭✭✭✭✭
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
--Severian the Lame
23
Comments
that's awesome - what is it, @Weiss?
That's a big gold coin
--Severian the Lame
I've always liked these. They are so plain, to the point and reflective of their time in history. It's cool.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
It's a whole thing, and kinda controversial. They were produced by the US mint for use in Saudi Arabia, with some experts saying they were related to US oil rights via AramCo, and others (more believable) that they weren't related to AramCo at all.
Anywho, QDB, Jeff Garrett, Dennis Tucker et al indicated to me in 2018 that Mega Red would have a section about these. But I don't think that ever came to pass. Anyone see the listing that I missed?
--Severian the Lame
We made those to pay for oil drilling rights in Saudi Arabia after WW2. Even Bedouins who had never spent a day in school knew better than to accept paper money. They were the sized like 4 sovereigns the Saudi preferred coin, but while the British had enough sovereigns to pay, too many had Victoria on them and the Saudis would not accept a coin with a woman on it. The US Mint scrambled to make these. Fascinating story and coins.
Edited
HMMM.................
Glad we didn't send any Trade Dollars.
Pete
Thank you for the history lesson. I learned something new today 👍😎
I have always liked these since the first time I saw them. I totally agree with TomB with the description,
that’s what attracted me to these.
.
CoinsAreFun Toned Silver Eagle Proof Album
.
Gallery Mint Museum, Ron Landis& Joe Rust, The beginnings of the Golden Dollar
.
More CoinsAreFun Pictorials NGC
Curious then that the Maria Theresa Thaler was so popular in the Middle East for such a long time.
The House of Saudi is conservative even by Middle Eastern standards.
These are really cool!
Although, on the coin she does look a little masculine.
I always though they were a specific payment to Saudi for gas in WW2 because they would only take gold at the time. That is what I always heard but I don't know. I have come close to buying one of both of the type/sizes a few times but they are pretty scarce.
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
@Crypto
The last research that I read about these did a pretty convincing job of debunking the myth that these were payments to Saudi Arabia for oil rights, or gas, or the war effort.
This is one of the reasons I reached out to the Red Book and asked them to include them. To finally clear up the mystery behind these enigmatic pieces.
Their argument against was that they don't include foreign coins--even those struck by the US Mint.
But these are different. They flat out say "US MINT" on them, with zero reference to Saudi. I think you could make the argument they're closer to the pre- Gold Eagle American Art Medallion series: non-denominated gold struck by the US mint to assist in ownership of gold bullion.
And those arguments eventually led to their decision to include them. So I'm kind of bummed they've opted not to. Especially once QDB chimed in in favor.
The Aramco story is exciting and believable, if incorrect.
--Severian the Lame
Certainly a “I gotta get me one of those” coin. Someday.
As I understand it, they were made for payments TO Saudi Arabia, not made FOR Saudi Arabia.
I would probably consider them US coins/bullion, sort of like Trade Dollars.
Love how mine has battle scars. I'd like to think that it saw use in the Souq Al-Zal, tossed back and forth between gold jewelers and rug sellers in the late 1940s like something from an Indiana Jones movie.
Only 91,000 of these were minted. And it's my understanding the vast majority were melted upon arrival or shortly thereafter (I believe the exchange rate was very favorable--they were minted and denominated at a huge discount).
NGC has only graded 312. PCGS has graded 109. So about 400 pieces graded, total.
--Severian the Lame
Forgot to add: If you're thinking of buying one, they should be slabbed by our host or ATS. This simple design is an easy target for counterfeiters.
--Severian the Lame
Silver wasn't good enough.
Do these have known counterfeits?
Interesting
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
From what I've read, these have been heavily counterfeited.
Also, there is a one pound coin that uses the same design but doesn't have the wide plain rim like the four pound version.
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 funny part is the one pond coin is rarer by a smidge and used to bring more money than the heavier 4 pound (approx 1/4 ounce vs 1.1) but now that gold is so high it appears to have flipped
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
The one pound is the same gold content as the British Sovereign, o.2354 troy ounce net gold weight. The four pound is four times that, .9416 tr. oz. net wt.
Since these were supposed to emulate the sovereign, they were struck from "crown gold" or 91.7% purity (or as the 4 pound says on the reverse: "FINENESS 916 2/3"). So while they're a little smaller and I believe thicker than a $20 double eagle, their slightly higher gold purity places them at less than a gram difference in actual gold weight of the 90% pure $20 gold piece (29.287 grams vs. 30.092 grams).
--Severian the Lame
If these were struck to support general bullion ownership, there should be some information on distribution of these. What information is there? Also, if these are for general ownership of gold bullion, then these would have to be issued in 1975 or later right?
When were these first known?
What do we actually know about these for a fact?
To clarify: I do believe they were struck for use in Saudi Arabia--not for private US gold ownership. What is perhaps not fully understood is why they were struck for use in Saudi Arabia. @RogerB had researched these a few years back and I believe had an article ready to publish, but I'm not sure if it ever made it to print. It's my understanding his research dispelled the oil payment story.
--Severian the Lame
If they were struck for general ownership of bullion, I find it unlikely they would be 91.7% purity.
Again: by comparing the 1945 pieces to the American Arts Commemorative Medals of the 1980s, I was noting that both series were struck by the US Mint, struck in gold and nominally 1 troy ounce size, with gold weight indicated, but not denominated. Those shared characteristics make them interestingly similar, to me at least.
I recognize that the Saudi pieces were not made for the US consumer and were in fact created during private gold prohibition in the US.
--Severian the Lame
That’s Crown Gold, same as an AGE.
Yep 22k
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
One thing to remember @Smudge @Crypto @Zoins re: private ownership of gold is that this was outlawed in the US in 1933, but not in lots of other places. These gold discs were sold into world markets by Saudi Arabia and thus available for private purchase and ownership, but not in this country at the time.
As part of my research into World Coins Manufactured by Mints of the United States, I've seen a working draft on the subject of these discs written out by RogerB, formerly of these boards. Although I cannot copy verbatim, the main point was that much of what has been written about these discs in the past has been off base. The research that Roger did included primary source evidence from the National Archives related to State and Treasury Department records.
In summary, the one-pound and four-pound discs were not related to the CASOC (California Arabian Standard Oil Company)/ later renamed ARAMCO (Arabian American Oil Company) oil concession as was previously thought. CASOC/ARAMCO did need to make oil exploration and extraction concession payments in gold to Saudi Arabia, but this was accomplished by CASOC/ARAMCO buying gold sovereigns from either the Bombay Mint or the New York Assay Office for delivery to the Saudi Finance Minister.
Completely separate from those transactions, during WWII, the US had negotiated to sell gold to Saudi Arabia using dollars that the Kingdom had accumulated, at the US official gold rate of $35 plus a small percentage. In this way, the US would be able to provide economic assistance to the Kingdom, as the Saudis could turn around and sell the gold acquired from the US at the prevailing international market rate of gold around $48/oz. During an economic downturn in fall 1944, Saudi Arabia requested $1 million in gold. Initially, the US agreed to provide this amount as gold bars weighing 5.4543 ounces each of 91.67% fineness. Apparently, all parties recognised the labor intensive process required to create hand-poured bars to exact specifications and after the initial shipment arrived in Saudi Arabia at the end of 1944, the Saudis requested an additional $1 million in assistance, but this time in the form of gold discs with a value of four British sovereigns. There was some back and forth on the design and specs, but the US agreed, and the coin @Weiss has above is the result. It was designed and engraved by John Sinnock, the Chief Engraver of the US Mint from 1925 to 1947, who is more famous in numismatic circles for his design of the Roosevelt dime and Franklin half dollar.
Another request for $2 million in four-pound discs was made and delivered by the end of October 1945, bringing the total mintage to a little over 91,000. Official mint reports state 91,210 of the four-pound discs were made. The $1 million worth of one-pound discs (121,364 of them) were requested in late 1946 and used for the same purpose in 1947. The master hub of the eagle/US Mint was the same as the larger coin, just with less space around the edges.
One of the main reasons that the Saudis turned to these discs instead of just playing the float game with British sovereigns is that there were so many British sovereigns available in world markets from 1944-1947, that their price was discounted, so the Saudis could make more float selling these discs. By 1948, the value of a British gold sovereign on the international market had regained parity with the gold disc, and the US government changed policy and wouldn't allow the Kingdom to sell the discs above the US official rate, so subsequent purchases by the Saudis were made of British sovereigns directly, and that was the end of the gold discs. Apparently, most of the discs were sold off by the Saudis in world markets prior to 1950.
@Weiss - great looking piece! In my World Coins Manufactured by Mints of the United States type set, the two discs along with the Cuba 20P are the only three coins currently missing, so I hope to find a nice one like yours soon!
Outstanding, @mvs7 . Thank you for sharing this information. Such a fascinating history!
--Severian the Lame
Many of these bullion discs (they weren't considered to be coins) were melted by the Saudis when they started to mint their own gold coins so they are fairly scarce. I bought a PCGS slabbed one off of eBay a few years ago when gold was cheaper and even then it carried a decent premium over melt value.
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
Very interesting.... I have seen these discussed before. Good information by @mvs7, thank you. Cheers, RickO
Thnks for the education on these. Very interesting.
Sorry @Weiss815, but I can't buy into the concept that these pieces were struck in the 1940s to assist in gold ownership. The U.S. Government was very hostile toward gold ownership by U.S. citizens until the ban was officially lifted in 1974. A U.S. citizen could not even own gold legally if it were stored in a foreign country. Why would the government strike coins that would help foreign citizens own gold? It makes no sense.
For what it's worth, here is an article that I wrote for my local club's newsletter. Call it truth; call it fiction. It's what I learned from my research. It's based on a number of articles that I found on-line and in my numismatic library.
The American Sovereign
In 1933 President Franklin Roosevelt issued his Gold Surrender Order. The order required American citizens to sell all but a small portion of their gold to the Federal Reserve at a rate of $20.67 per troy ounce. Those who failed to comply with this executive order were subject to a fine of up to $10,000 or a prison term of up to 10 years. Exemptions were made for "customary usage for industry, profession or art," which covered artists, jewelers, dentists, and sign makers among others. There was also a provision for citizens to hold up to $100 in gold (about 5 ounces) and for "gold coins having recognized special value to collectors of rare and unusual coins."
Given the broad sweep of this executive order, which was supported by an act of Congress in 1934, you might assume that The United States mint did not produce any gold pieces for an American company until the restrictions were lifted in 1974. Interestingly there were exceptions, and the first one occurred in 1945, only a dozen years after the order was put into effect. As you might expect national security and the health of the American economy were involved.
Saudi Arabian Oil
In 1932 the Bahrain Petroleum Company, which was a subsidiary of Standard Oil of California (SoCal, now known as Chevron), discovered petroleum on the island of Bahrain, which is east of Saudi Arabia. This discovery heightened speculation that there were also petroleum reserves on the Saudi mainland. The Saudi government accepted a proposal from SoCal over a rival bid from the Iraq Petroleum Company, and SoCal formed a wholly owned subsidiary, California-Arabian Standard Oil (CASOC) to search for it.
By 1936 CASOC had not found any oil, and chose to sell 50% of its interest in the venture to Texaco. Finally in 1938 oil was discovered and production expanded rapidly. During the Second World War Saudi Arabia would become a strategic source for petroleum in the war effort, which made a continuing flow of petroleum products vital to the Allied cause. In 1944 the California-Arabian Standard Oil changed its name to the Arabian American Oil Company or Aramco for short.
The contract between Aramco and the Saudi government called for a royalty payment of $3 million a year in gold. During the wartime period the Saudi government had accepted this payment in U.S. dollars, but that changed in 1945. By then wartime pressures on the world economy had pushed gold prices to $70 an ounce in some markets. This sharp deviation from the official American price of $35 prompted the Saudis to demand gold for their royalty payment. Aramco and more importantly, the U.S. Government faced the possibility of losing a vital source of oil if the Saudi demands were not met.
In response the U.S. Government agreed to supply gold pieces to Aramco to pay their debt. The gold pieces, which were defined as gold disks and not coins, were made at the Philadelphia mint. Aramco was responsible for paying for the gold and the production costs. The pieces featured a U.S. heraldic eagle in the center surrounded by "U.S. MINT ... PHILADELPHIA-U.S.A." This design appeared in the middle of plain, wide field, and the edges were reeded. John Sinnock, who designed the Roosevelt dime and the Franklin half dollar, took credit for the art work although it was really an application of a stamp that the mint used on official U.S. gold bars. The reverse read in three lines: "GROSS WEIGHT 493.1 GRAINS" / "NET WEIGHT (in gold) 452.008333 GR." / "FINENESS 9162/3." The piece weighed just over an ounce and contained .941 of an ounce of pure gold. In international terms the fineness and gold content were equal to four British gold sovereigns. The mintage was 91,210.
Most of these pieces no longer exist today. Large numbers of them were crated and shipped to Bombay, India where they were sold for $70 an ounce, double the official U.S. rate. Most of these pieces were melted, turned in gold bars and shipped to Macao, a Chinese territory. There were rumors that some pieces ended up in the American compound in Saudi Arabia where oil company employees used them as poker chips. Some numismatic researchers have discounted this story, however.
In 1947 Aramco once again needed gold pieces to pay the Saudi royalty. This time the U.S. mint struck 121,364 smaller gold disks with a similar design. These pieces featured the same gold eagle stamp on the obverse that had been used on the 1945 issues. The reverse read, "* CONTAINS * / .2354 TROY OZS. / * FINE GOLD *." These coins contained the same amount of gold as the British gold sovereign Those coins actually saw some popular use in Saudi Arabia and traded for about $12, or 40 silver Saudi riyals. Their popularity declined, however, when Swiss and Lebanese counterfeiters began striking similar pieces that had a lower gold content. After that the Saudis melted many of the remaining large and small American gold disks, and reused the bullion to produce their own gold sovereigns.
Today only a small supply of these unusual American gold pieces survives. Interested collectors should be very careful because many counterfeits have been produced and the purchase of certified pieces is highly recommended. NGC has graded 205 examples of the large gold disk with the highest grade assigned at MS-63 and 81 examples of the small gold disk with the highest grade pegged at MS-65. PCGS has graded 41 large pieces with the highest grade listed as an MS-63, and 19 examples of the small gold disk with the highest graded piece assigned rated as an MS-64.
These pieces are seen occasionally at the shows and in coin shops. The larger, four sovereign piece, is offered more often, but the prices for both varieties are similar. Although the larger piece contains four times as much gold, the small piece is scarcer. A search of the Internet reveals that dealers who specialize in foreign coins are most likely to have one of both of these pieces in stock.
Here are the two coins from my collection:
The American Four Sovereigns, Circa 1945
The American One Sovereign, Circa 1947
Sorry if you have had a hard time accessing this article. I had a lot of problems getting it to paginate properly from my cut and paste on my computer.
--Severian the Lame
@BillJones - your article follows with my readings on the subject and most printed references to it. However, the summary I give above in this thread is more recent, refutes the CASOC/ARAMCO angle with the disks, and reflects some primary source digging Roger Burdette did in the national archives in the State and Treasury Department areas around the disks. The primary takeaway from the original documents Roger found is that the CASOC/ARAMCO payments were not related to the disks; they were parallel activities in the mid-to-late 1940s, with the CASOC/ARAMCO payments being made in British sovereigns sourced at the Bombay Mint or New York Assay Office, while the disks were used for economic stimulus/foreign aid, with the gold purchased directly by the Saudi government using surplus dollars (originally in gold bars and transitioned to the discs after it became obvious the hand-poured bars were technically difficult to produce to spec) and then allowing the Saudis to keep the delta between the US official gold price and the international market price when they sold.
Nice examples of the coins in your collection!
As Spock would say. Fascinating!
Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value. Zero. Voltaire. Ebay coinbowlllc
thats pretty good i like