Home U.S. Coin Forum
Options

Did pre-1853 Quarters wear harder than pre-1853 Halves

1630Boston1630Boston Posts: 13,772 ✭✭✭✭✭

I found this interesting at the NNP
https://nnp.wustl.edu/blog-post/527187
.
Self-Correction of Silver, Gold, and Currency
A single-leaf circular recently loaned to us by Bill Shamhart reveals the complexity of mid-19th century monetary transactions in America. Issued by the Philadelphia house Cronise & Co in 1857, this brochure is addressed “40 (old style 28) South Third Street,” making reference to the Philadelphia Ordinance of 1856, which standardized street numbers in the City of Brotherly Love.

Various exchange rates are expressed for silver coin (prior to the weight reduction in 1853), gold coin, and paper money, with the one southern city (Richmond, VA) discounted the most, at 7 and 8 percent. Pre-1853 halves were worth more than pre-1853 quarters ($1.04 per dollar face value, vs. $1.02½), suggesting that quarters wore harder in circulation, or simply that it was more convenient to handle half dollars in bulk. The same idea is seen with California territorial gold pieces, for which the $50 and $20s were discounted at 0.5% to 1.0%, while $10s were exchanged into silver at a 2% discount. In any case, the clear message is that silver, gold, and paper money were not convertible at par, and that large conversions resulted in non-trivial brokerage fees.
.

Successful transactions with : MICHAELDIXON, Manorcourtman, Bochiman, bolivarshagnasty, AUandAG, onlyroosies, chumley, Weiss, jdimmick, BAJJERFAN, gene1978, TJM965, Smittys, GRANDAM, JTHawaii, mainejoe, softparade, derryb

Bad transactions with : nobody to date

Comments

  • Options
    CoinosaurusCoinosaurus Posts: 9,614 ✭✭✭✭✭

    This detail can be derived from the 1902 Mint report, which analyzed returned coin by date and denomination. I vaguely recall that dimes wore harder than quarters, and quarters more than halves.

    https://nnp.wustl.edu/library/publisherdetail/51?Year=1902&displayAmt=50

  • Options
    1630Boston1630Boston Posts: 13,772 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Thanks for the link @Coinosaurus
    .

    Successful transactions with : MICHAELDIXON, Manorcourtman, Bochiman, bolivarshagnasty, AUandAG, onlyroosies, chumley, Weiss, jdimmick, BAJJERFAN, gene1978, TJM965, Smittys, GRANDAM, JTHawaii, mainejoe, softparade, derryb

    Bad transactions with : nobody to date

  • Options
    rickoricko Posts: 98,724 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @1630Boston .... Thanks for another interesting glimpse into coin history. @Oldhoopster, I agree.... the smaller coins would have endured far more service than the larger denominations.
    Thus, wear faster. Cheers, RickO

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file