Home U.S. Coin Forum
Options

1850s U.S. Assay office San Francisco

JW77JW77 Posts: 460 ✭✭✭✭✭

A couple of questions on $50 slugs produced in connection with the Assay office. 1) Were any produced on U.S. Gov presses or were they all contracted to private parties. 2) Are these slugs considered U.S.legal tender? Thanks in advance for any info.

Comments

  • Options
    lilolmelilolme Posts: 2,462 ✭✭✭✭✭

    https://youtube.com/watch?v=2YNufnS_kf4 - Mama I'm coming home ...................................................................................................................................................................... RLJ 1958 - 2023

  • Options
    ZoinsZoins Posts: 33,887 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited February 10, 2023 3:27AM

    @JW77 said:
    A couple of questions on $50 slugs produced in connection with the Assay office. 1) Were any produced on U.S. Gov presses or were they all contracted to private parties.

    They were contracted to John Little Moffat's company, Moffat & Co.

    @JW77 said:
    2) Are these slugs considered U.S.legal tender? Thanks in advance for any info.

    The slug are explicitly not legal tender to address the Act of January 18, 1837.

    The following is from Kagin:

    Donald H. Kagin said:
    The ingots of the U. S. Assay Office were accepted for all customs duties by customs officer T. Butler King upon authorization from the President, but unfortunately Congress stopped short of according them full legal tender status. As a matter of fact, Mint Director George N. Eckert clarified his office’s position on this issue by stating that, “Even these are not money, or a legal tender, and the government is under no obligation to receive them.” This was intended to evade the provisions of the Act of January 18, 1837, which prescribed fixed alloy ratios for coins.

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

    Not Legal Tender, however, they sure do sell for a bundle of the legal stuff... :D;) Cheers, RickO

  • Options
    JW77JW77 Posts: 460 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Zoins said:

    @JW77 said:
    A couple of questions on $50 slugs produced in connection with the Assay office. 1) Were any produced on U.S. Gov presses or were they all contracted to private parties.

    They were contracted to John Little Moffat's company, Moffat & Co.

    @JW77 said:
    2) Are these slugs considered U.S.legal tender? Thanks in advance for any info.

    The slug are explicitly not legal tender to address the Act of January 18, 1837.

    The following is from Kagin:

    Donald H. Kagin said:
    The ingots of the U. S. Assay Office were accepted for all customs duties by customs officer T. Butler King upon authorization from the President, but unfortunately Congress stopped short of according them full legal tender status. As a matter of fact, Mint Director George N. Eckert clarified his office’s position on this issue by stating that, “Even these are not money, or a legal tender, and the government is under no obligation to receive them.” This was intended to evade the provisions of the Act of January 18, 1837, which prescribed fixed alloy ratios for coins.

    @Zoins said:

    @JW77 said:
    A couple of questions on $50 slugs produced in connection with the Assay office. 1) Were any produced on U.S. Gov presses or were they all contracted to private parties.

    They were contracted to John Little Moffat's company, Moffat & Co.

    @JW77 said:
    2) Are these slugs considered U.S.legal tender? Thanks in advance for any info.

    The slug are explicitly not legal tender to address the Act of January 18, 1837.

    The following is from Kagin:

    Donald H. Kagin said:
    The ingots of the U. S. Assay Office were accepted for all customs duties by customs officer T. Butler King upon authorization from the President, but unfortunately Congress stopped short of according them full legal tender status. As a matter of fact, Mint Director George N. Eckert clarified his office’s position on this issue by stating that, “Even these are not money, or a legal tender, and the government is under no obligation to receive them.” This was intended to evade the provisions of the Act of January 18, 1837, which prescribed fixed alloy ratios for coins.

    thank you, very informative

Leave a Comment

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