Trade Dollars. Who's right: the Red Book or ChatGPT 4?

FredF

Was reading through the introduction in the 2024 Red Book, and saw the comment on how the Trade Dollar was demonetized, and then remonetized through the Coinage Act of 1965. Not really a Trade Dollar guy, so wasn't aware of this. I was curious what the Act did and why. The wikipedia pages for the Trade Dollar and the Coinage Act of 1965 were unhelpful. While a few assorted links on the web talked about remonetization in 1965, I didn't see details. So I fired up ChatGPT 4 (I have a subscription for work). Here is the conversation:

How did the coinage act of 1965 remonetize the Trade Dollar?

The Coinage Act of 1965 did not remonetize the Trade Dollar. Instead, the primary focus of the Coinage Act of 1965 was to eliminate silver from most U.S. coins due to rising silver prices. The Act led to the introduction of clad coinage (coins with a core and outer layer of different metals) and the removal of silver from dimes and quarters. It also reduced the silver content of half dollars to 40% (and later, half dollars would be produced with no silver at all).

The Trade Dollar was a silver coin minted primarily for trade with Asia in the late 19th century. It was demonetized in 1876 due to various reasons, including the coin being slightly heavier than other U.S. silver dollars and being misused in domestic trade.

It's worth noting that the Trade Dollar was later remonetized by the Coinage Act of 1967, not 1965. This was primarily a numismatic gesture, as by 1967, Trade Dollars had not circulated for nearly a century and were mainly of interest to collectors. The 1967 Act made all Trade Dollars held by the public legal tender at face value, but this was mostly symbolic given their scarcity and collector value.

(Fred says to himself: "Coinage Act of 1967?" Quick Google says there is no such thing.)

Looking at your previous answer, I do not believe that there was a Coinage Act of 1967.

You're right, and I apologize for the oversight. I made an error in my previous response. There was no Coinage Act of 1967. The Coinage Act of 1965 was indeed significant for the reasons I outlined, but it did not remonetize the Trade Dollar.

The Trade Dollar, minted from 1873 to 1885 for trade with Asia, was demonetized in 1876. However, it was subsequently made legal tender through an act on February 11, 1887. But by that time, the Trade Dollar was no longer being minted and had not circulated widely for some years.

Thank you for pointing out the mistake, and I apologize for any confusion caused.

(Fred gets a bit frustrated, and looks up the text of the Coinage Act of 1965 and reads it. Sees the section that had this effect.)

I believe that section 102 of the Coinage Act of 1965 remonetizes the Trade Dollar. Would you agree?

Upon further examination, you are correct. Section 102 of the Coinage Act of 1965 does address the Trade Dollar. The Coinage Act of 1965, Public Law 89-81, Section 102 specifically states:

"All coins and currencies of the United States (including Federal Reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal Reserve banks and national banking associations), regardless of when coined or issued, shall be legal tender for all debts, public and private, public charges, taxes, duties, and dues."

This provision effectively remonetized previously demonetized coins, including the Trade Dollar, by making all U.S. coins and currency, regardless of when coined or issued, legal tender.

Thank you for pointing this out, and I apologize for the oversight in my initial responses.

Scoreboard: Red Book 1, ChatGPT 0.

david3142

In terms of apologizing and learning from its mistakes, ChatGPT has already far surpassed humans!

Sapyx

Unfortunately, ChatGPT seems to have learned entirely the wrong lesson by studying human behaviour on the Internet:

When asked a question to which the answer is unknown or ambiguous, (a) make stuff up, then (b) unequivocally assert that the made-up stuff is true.

And yes, it is widely regarded that the very ambiguous and generalistic phrasing of Section 102 implies that every single "United States coin" ever "coined or issued" is now legal tender for its face value, even if it had been previously demonetized (like the trade dollar) or had never before been declared legal tender by legislation (like half-cents and large cents). One could even logically extend this to Fugio Cents, since one could reasonably argue they too were "United States coins" that had been "coined and issued".

Indeed, the vagueness could even theoretically be used to legalize patterns, and "withdrawn coins" like 1933 double eagles and 1964 dollars, since they were all "coined", even if they were never "issued".

I don't think it's ever gone to court to prove it one way or the other, though; until then, it's just legal layman's opinions. There's been no pressure to test it since nobody's going to try to take someone to court over trying to pay a debt with such coins.

291fifth

I don't chat with Chat.

dcarr

Reading ChatGPT seems like eating empty calories.

Ownerofawheatiehorde

Me: “What is a 1873-S seated dollar worth?”

Our good friend Chat GPT: “The value of an 1873-S Seated Liberty Dollar can vary significantly based on several factors, including its condition (grade), rarity, and collector demand. As of my last knowledge update in January 2022, here's a general price range for 1873-S Seated Liberty Dollars:

• In well-worn condition (Good to Very Good), you might find one for a few hundred dollars.

• In better condition (Fine to Extremely Fine), the value can range from a few thousand to several thousand dollars.

• In higher grades (About Uncirculated or Uncirculated), the value can be considerably higher, often reaching tens of thousands of dollars or more.

RobertScotLover

I don't follow Chat nor do I care about what it says. Garbage in, garbage out imho.

jacrispies

Either a published work that has been in print for many decades or a fresh-cut robot? I would assume the published work will be accurate the vast majority of the time, especially with the subject material being the same for many years, less chance for mistakes.

jmlanzaf

@RobertScotLover said:
I don't follow Chat nor do I care about what it says. Garbage in, garbage out imho.

But gold in and gold out..

lkenefic

Thanks for posting this. I actually referenced this thread in a faculty meeting for online instruction. Sort of a "caveat emptor" for AI in general and Chat GPT in particular...

johnny9434

Hand in hand threw the garbage can, pass

Meltdown

I found that very interesting. Thanks. I have not used chatGPT myself but it is certainly not going away.

spyglassdesign

And this is the AI everyone is so afraid of? 😅😂 It couldn't even get basic facts right.

Smudge

@spyglassdesign said:
And this is the AI everyone is so afraid of? 😅😂 It couldn't even get basic facts right.

Maybe that’s what everyone is afraid of.