Update on survival percentage of $3 gold pieces (attn: Mr. Lustig)

RYK

In this thread, I offered the 54-D $3 as an example of a coin with a relatively high surviving population of a low reported mintage.

Mr. Lustig countered:

However, compared to other $3 gold pieces, the 54-D probably has a lower than average survival rate.

And then RYK:

Certainly the 54-D $3 has a lower survival rate than the low mintage 1880's issues, which were saved by collectors at an extraoridnary rate. Off the cuff, maybe not the case when compared to the earlier dates. I will do a full analysis and report back.

Well, I did my research and am reporting back. Using the recent Bowers/Winter reference on $3 gold pieces and their high estimated survival population, I have calculated the percent survival for each circulation strike issue (except the 70-S). As expected, for its era, the 1854-D $3 had a very high survival percentage, the highest until 1871. At this point, two things happenned: 1) The coins had become unpopular for circulation; 2) Thomas Elder and other 19th century numismatists were aggressively acquiring them.

Here's the data (date/MM issue, % survival):

1854: 5%
1854-D: 15%
1854-O: 2%
1855: 2%
1855-S: 3%
1856: 3%
1856-S: 2%
1857: 2%
1857-S: 2%
1858: 7%
1859: 5%
1860: 6%
1860-S: 2%
1861: 5%
1862: 4%
1863: 6%
1864: 8%
1865: 10%
1866: 6%
1867: 6%
1868: 10%
1869: 10%
1870: 8%
1871: 20%
1872: 12%
1873: 15%
1874: 14%
1877: 8%
1878: 18%
1879: 24%
1880: 22%
1881: 30%
1882: 21%
1883: 26%
1884: 11%
1885: 27%
1886: 20%
1887: 5%
1888: 15%
1889: 17%

Comments to follow later.

roadrunner

That's quite interesting. Never knew 19th century gold survival rates were that high.

Seated half dimes to halves of that era tended to fall in the under
1% range. A few as low as 0.1-.2%. An obvious exception being the low mintage Philly dates of 1879-1890. Would not be surprised if some of those approached 3-5% survival rate, mostly in unc.

One would have to wonder really how accurate some of those mintage figures really are.

roadrunner

MrEureka

Never knew 19th century gold survival rates were that high.

They weren't. It's only the threes.

RYK

Never knew 19th century gold survival rates were that high.

As I indicated in the other thread, the overall percent survival across the entire Dahlonega mintage (about one million coins) was 1% (about ten thousand coins). The $3's were saved at an extraordinary rate.

Barry

The $3's were saved at an extraordinary rate.

Why? The novelty of the odd denomination?
Speaking of which, what was the rationale for a $3 coin? Couldn't have been to buy 100 postage stamps, could it?

Leiana

Does "survival rate" mean Mint State coins or coins that still exist regardless of grade?

-Amanda

RYK

Does "survival rate" mean Mint State coins or coins that still exist regardless of grade?

All coins, regardless of grade. For some of the later dates, the MS coins exceed the circulated coins.

Why? The novelty of the odd denomination?
Speaking of which, what was the rationale for a $3 coin? Couldn't have been to buy 100 postage stamps, could it?

I'll get back to you on these.

Leiana

<< <i> Does "survival rate" mean Mint State coins or coins that still exist regardless of grade?

All coins, regardless of grade. For some of the later dates, the MS coins exceed the circulated coins. >>



Wow, that sounds incredibly low.

-Amanda

TheRaven

I am surprised the 54-O is not higher, but new orleans stuff is typically low low low.....

Tarmac

ryk, great analysis and interesting results.

One would have to wonder really how accurate some of those mintage figures really are.
RR, I keep saying that tomyself all the time not only on the $3s but many other series. Times like this I wish the TPGs had reliable pop info as a guide.

Longacre

Looks really interesting. Let me look at it more closely and I can comment further tomorrow.

MrEureka

Keep in mind that the survival rates on 1834 and later US gold coins will be largely influenced by collector values in 1933. Without a collector premium, a coin would have a far greater chance of going to FDR's melting pot.

Edited to add that this means that low mintage coins should on average have significantly higher survival rates than more pedestrian coins.

RYK

Speaking of which, what was the rationale for a $3 coin? Couldn't have been to buy 100 postage stamps, could it?

Barry, the numismatic urban legend that suggested that the $3 gold coin was created in order to buy 100 postage stamps seems ludicrous to me, for many reasons, not the least of which was that you could pay with a $5 bill or not and get change for the purchase, just like today. It would not make sense that there need be a denomination created to allow one to make this purchase.

In the Bowers/Winter book, they do not offer a conclusive answer, but instead indicate that it was created to match the currency that was previously in circulation ($1, $2, $3, and $5 notes). The Federal governemnt was considering a $3 note, had designs produced, but never went forward with this denomination. I think, therefore, that the best answer is that the $3 gold coin was created to help soak up the abundant gold supply from California and to match the prevailing bank note used in commerce.

BTW, IMO, the Bowers/Winter book, The United States $3 Gold Pieces: 1854-1889, is the best specialty coin book I have ever seen. The combination of US and numismatic historical background, provided by QDB, and the knowledge of the the details of the coins, their strike, their availability, etc. provided by DW make for an outstanding work that would be appreciated by specialists and non-specialists, alike. By the same token, I expect that if Brian Greer, for example, teamed up with QDB for seated dimes, they could probably have the same success.

Barry

Barry, the numismatic urban legend that suggested that the $3 gold coin was created in order to buy 100 postage stamps seems ludicrous to me

Maybe so, but that's why they minted a 3 cent coin. You could have bought one stamp and gotten change, too.


I think, therefore, that the best answer is that the $3 gold coin was created to help soak up the abundant gold supply from California and to match the prevailing bank note used in commerce.

This makes as much sense to me as the stamp theory. They already had 5 different denominations/sizes/dies to strike gold. They needed a 6th because they had too much gold?

RYK

I think, therefore, that the best answer is that the $3 gold coin was created to help soak up the abundant gold supply from California and to match the prevailing bank note used in commerce.

This makes as much sense to me as the stamp theory. They already had 5 different denominations/sizes/dies to strike gold. They needed a 6th because they had too much gold?

You omitted the consideration for matching the bank notes in circulation. If in 1852 you presented the bank with a $3 note, one of the most popular notes in circulation, and asked for specie, how did the bank pay you? Three $1 gold pieces? A quarter eagle and 50 large cents? Silver coin was nowhere to be found, or so I have read, in many parts of the country. Banks were issuing $3's and had to back them. The abundance of gold, in this backdrop, allowed them to add the denomination. When the US government took over printing and backing currency in 1862, they never created the $3 note, and soon after, the $3 coin was out of favor. Perhaps, I have not articluated the point well, but somehow the issuance of the $3 gold coin has to be linked to the presence of $3 bank notes.

Unless you have another idea...

(I am not a currency or monetary enthusiast, so if I have erred, please correct me.)

PerryHall

When the $3 gold was first issued in 1854, there were no US issued paper money being produced. This was the era of the privately issued bank notes. While we may consider it quaint today, the $3 denomination was popular among the issuers of these notes and they were not considered at all unusual at the time. That is probably why the US government issued this denomination in gold.

MrEureka

I feel like I'm helping to hijack this thread, but...

I think it's safe to assume that the $3 was introduced a natural extension of the new three cent silvers, which appeared in 1851. As for the three cent silver, stamps aside, it made sense to introduce a new higher denomination to reduce the burden on the public's pockets, which were increasingly overloaded with heavy, increasingly trivial coppers. Such is the nature of economic progress.

Oh, and if you wonder why they didn't just eliminate the cent, well, we can't even get that done in today's world. But at least they got rid of the half cent in 1857.

DaveG

The survival rate of pre-Civil War gold is very low. To explain why, you need to look at the old tenor (pre-1834) and new tenor (Classic Head and Coronet) coins separately.

First of all, relatively little old tenor gold was minted and much of it was exported. Gold was valued too highly in the US by the pre-1834 15-to-1 ratio of gold to silver, so silver was the circulating coinage and gold was exported. Then, when the value of the gold dollar was reduced by about 6% in 1834, probably much of the remaining old tenor gold was melted. If you look at the mintage figures, many more Classic Head gold coins were minted than old tenor gold coins. As I recall, the survival rate of old tenor gold is estimated to be around 1%, most of which is relatively high grade (AU-55 and up), presumably because the worn pieces were sent to be recoined and the nicer examples were saved.

As for the new tenor coins, these coins actually "circulated" prior to the Civil War, that is, they mostly went from the bank to the Custom House (to pay import tariffs) and, after 1846, from the Custom House to pay Federal employees and other expenses of the Federal government. The larger coins were frequently exported (both to pay for imported goods and for speculators to profit on the difference between the exchange rate of the US$ and English pound), which is why the survival rates of pre-1850 eagles and Type I double eagles is so very low.

Now, upon the discovery of gold in California, silver coins increased in value relative to gold coins. They essentially disappeared from commerce by 1850 or so, which is why the silver three-cent coin was introduced in 1851. It was only 75% silver, so it wasn't profitable to melt the coin and sell the resulting silver bullion for a premium in gold and the coin was LEGAL TENDER (but only for payments up to 30 cents). Remember, at this time, copper cents and half cents were not legal tender and neither were bank notes issued by state-chartered banks (the Obsolete or Broken banknotes).

Here's the part about the Post Office: Following the enactment of the Independent Treasury Act of 1846, the Federal government would only accept Legal Tender. That is, if you wanted to buy stamps (or pay an import duty), you had to do it with gold or silver coins. The postage rate was lowered to three cents in 1851, but there weren't any silver coins in circulation, so how could people pay for stamps? Solution: introduce the three cent coin. New Problem: How to buy more than ten stamps? Solution: introduce the $3 coin, so a customer could buy 100 stamps without forcing the Post Office to give out silver coins (which were selling at a premium) in change.

Obviously, the need for the three cent coins were eliminated by the reduction in the weight of all silver coins in 1853, which is why the mintages for the trime drop off so. (This also explains why pre-1853 silver coins are so rare. Because they weighed more than post-1852 coins, they were frequently melted and recoined.)

Now, those of you persnickety people who actually read their Red Book will argue that the $3 wasn't even introduced until 1854, which is after the problem was solved. To which I can only reply that the mechanics of the US Government obviously haven't changed in the past 150 years - they solve yesterday's problems today.

Back to gold coins: The larger $10s and $20s were frequently exported (and melted), but what about the half eagles and quarter eagles? They were both used in commerce (which meant that some of them got so worn they needed to be recoined) and melted. Following the beginning of the Civil War, the US government introduced Greenbacks (which weren't convertible into gold coins), so you had to pay a premium in greenbacks to buy gold coins (which you still needed to pay import duties). Many US gold coins were also purchased by speculators at this time and exported (and melted).

Edited to add: Don't forget, gold coins were in everyday circulation in California up until the early 20th century, so S-mint quarter and half eagles actually wore out and had to be recoined. Gold dollars are a bit of a separate issue: They were very popular at first in circulation and thereafter were even more popular as Christmas gifts and for use as jewelry (see Roger Burdette's article on gold dollars in an April(?) Coin World).

For those seeking further information, consult Fractional Money by Neil Carothers for information on the silver coins. Commercial Plug: For those of you seeking more information on how gold coins circulated in the 19th century, you can buy a copy of Doug Winter's brand-new Gold Coins of the New Orleans Mint (2nd edition) and read my chapter on the subject.

Barry

Thanks Dave. Very interesting!

Dennis88

<< <i>

<< <i> Does "survival rate" mean Mint State coins or coins that still exist regardless of grade?

All coins, regardless of grade. For some of the later dates, the MS coins exceed the circulated coins. >>



Wow, that sounds incredibly low.

-Amanda >>



Don't forget, coins weren't saved as much by collectors like it happens now. There were a few collectors, but mostly they settled for proof pieces. That's why high grade proof coins can be easier to get for some denominations/series then high state mint state coins. The circulation strikes were intend to circulate, and most did. The ones which are now still in high grade, were either saved by banks, a collector who didn't had a chance to buy proof pieces in Philadelphia, or quickly went out of circulation (got in a box which was put aside, lost in a book and decennia's later recovered etc.). Also, the early collectors weren't interested in MM, so they only saved one example of the year.

Dennis

MrEureka

Dave - Interesting post! Everything makes sense. Is it all documented? If not, which parts are speculation?

PerryHall

I don't buy the stamp --- $3 gold connection. In 1854, $3 was more than a day's pay for a skilled tradesman. When was the last time you took more than a day's pay and spend it all on postage stamps? This doesn't make sense. Banks issued notes in the $3 denomination and they were common in commerce so it seems reasonable the US would produce the equivalent coin.

RYK

I don't buy the stamp --- $3 gold connection. In 1854, $3 was more than a day's pay for a skilled tradesman. When was the last time you took more than a day's pay and spend it all on postage stamps? This doesn't make sense. Banks issued notes in the $3 denomination and they were common in commerce so it seems reasonable the US would produce the equivalent coin.

BillJones

The Three Dollar gold coins were unpopular from the start and never really circualted. For those reasons the survival rates were higher than they were for other more popular gold coins.

If you are using population reports for the 1854-D survival rate, I'd question it. I've known of a number of examples of that coin that have been submitted multiple times to get a higher grade. Generally it is believed that the 1854-D is virtually unknown in Mint State, and if one could get a nice AU in even an MS-61 or 62 holder, they could get very serious money for it. As a result the POP report numbers for those coins in grades like AU are too high IMO because of resubmissions. There are more AU 1854-D Three Dollar gold pieces in the population reports than there are coins in reality because of double counting.

RYK

If you are using population reports for the 1854-D survival rate, I'd question it. I've known of a number of examples of that coin that have been submitted multiple times to get a higher grade.

In am using Doug Winter's estimates from the book on $3 gold coins that he co-authored with QDB. DW typically uses population reports, auction appearances, and personal observation to derive these estimates. While they may not be correct, there is no reason to suspect that there is any bias in the estimates. They probably are sufficient to judge relative rarity between the individual issues, which was the purpose of this exercise.

DaveG

I don't buy the stamp --- $3 gold connection. In 1854, $3 was more than a day's pay for a skilled tradesman. When was the last time you took more than a day's pay and spend it all on postage stamps? This doesn't make sense. Banks issued notes in the $3 denomination and they were common in commerce so it seems reasonable the US would produce the equivalent coin.

Perry,

Just because it doesn't seem sensible doesn't mean that it isn't accurate. (After all, look at the stupid reasons that were used to justify the 20 cent piece.) Certainly, it's highly unlikely that an individual would have purchased more than ten stamps at a time, but how about a business? I don't know anything about how the mail worked back then, but it seems possible to me that a newspaper or journal publisher might have needed stamps to mail copies to distant subscribers or that a business might have needed to mail correspondance to its customers.

Certainly a business could have sent a clerk to the post office every day to buy ten stamps, but wouldn't it have been easier to buy 100 at a time? If you wanted to do that (and silver coins were at a premium) how would you buy more than ten stamps with gold coins without silver coins to make change?

MrEureka

What would the Post Office do with the hundreds or thousands of three cent pieces they collected every day?

Edited to say that I would not be surprised to find that the legislation authorizing the trime also obligated banks to redeem them in gold for the Post Office. If so, the three dollar gold piece would be very useful in the exchange.

RWB

A small amount of additional information to add to the mix:

Re: $3 survival rate:

Excerpt from a report by T. Louis Comparette in a letter dated February 12, 1913 to Director George Roberts from Philadelph8ia Mint Superintendent John Landis:

“ …I beg to make the following report on the special gold coins transferred to this Mint, from the Treasurer’s office, to be sold and the profits used for the benefit of the Numismatic Collection…259 $3.00 gold pieces were sold to Mr. Thos. L. Elder of New York City at a profit ranging from $1.00 to $1.50 apiece, the total profit received on their sale being $271.65. Out of this profit, the following medals and coins were purchased by the Curator…”

The hoard of gold coins also included 313 gold dollars all dated 1889. Comparette does not state the date on the $3 but 1888 or 1889 are reasonable guesses. All the coins bought by Elder were uncirculated. Later, Elder bought most of the remaining 40 slightly inferior $3 for approximately $3.50 each.

(excerpt from “Renaissance of American Coinage 1909-1915,” draft v32h.)


Re: 3-cent silver.

After Mint Director Patterson was told on March 11, 1851 to “...make all arrangement for making a prompt and large issue of the coin.” He was notified on June 20, 1851 that “…demand for 3-cent pieces has been very inconsiderable and is daily diminishing.”

DaveG

Andy,

The Independent Treasury legislation established a series of Sub Treasury offices around the country to accept and disburse money on behalf of the government. I've never done any formal research on how the Sub Treasuries operated, but I presume that Post Offices and Custom Houses would remit their proceeds to the Sub Treasuries from time to time (just like making a bank deposit). The Sub Treasuries would then disburse funds to meet the government's obligations, such as payroll, office supplies, pensions, etc.

Longacre

Outstanding information in these posts (very impressive, DaveG!). I don't think I can add anything without spending some time in the Longacre Library performing intensive research.

Now let's get back to threads about keyword spamming on Ebay.

Prethen

Very cool thread!

CoinRaritiesOnline

I feel much smarter having read this thread.

BillJones

<< <i>If you are using population reports for the 1854-D survival rate, I'd question it. I've known of a number of examples of that coin that have been submitted multiple times to get a higher grade.

In am using Doug Winter's estimates from the book on $3 gold coins that he co-authored with QDB. DW typically uses population reports, auction appearances, and personal observation to derive these estimates. While they may not be correct, there is no reason to suspect that there is any bias in the estimates. They probably are sufficient to judge relative rarity between the individual issues, which was the purpose of this exercise. >>



In Dough Winter's Dahlonega gold coin book, published in 2003, he estimated that there were 100 to 125, 1854-D Three Dollar Gold pieces. That number seems about right to me, which works out to about a 10% survival rate. The 15% rate would peg the number at 168. That seems to be too high in my estimation. Yes, a large number of these coins were saved over other gold coins of the period, but you don't see THAT many of them.

Edited to add that Coin Facts says there are 300, 1854-D Three Dollar gold coins. I think that number is WAY off base. That would almost make it a "common coin" given the survival rates of many 19th century gold pieces.

GeorgeKellogg

This is the first time that I've read this old thread. It's packed with well researched information on this odd (but interesting) gold denomination. Please accept my belated congratulations to all who contributed!

BillJones

<< <i>I don't buy the stamp --- $3 gold connection. In 1854, $3 was more than a day's pay for a skilled tradesman. When was the last time you took more than a day's pay and spend it all on postage stamps? This doesn't make sense. Banks issued notes in the $3 denomination and they were common in commerce so it seems reasonable the US would produce the equivalent coin. >>



It was my understanding that this was the justification for Congress authorizing the Three Dollar Gold coin. As we all know what gets debated in Congress does not always stand up to reality. The real reason for this coin was that the gold interests to looking for new ways to use up their product, which was in abundance after the California gold strike. The silver interests would do the same thing in the 1870s with the Twenty Cent piece and the more importantly the Morgan dollar.

As for the Trime and postage rates, that is perfectly logical. Large cents did not circulate well outside of the major cities. Given that fact, how could one buy a postage stamp or get change from a half dime given that the large cents were not available?

Lakesammman

Great read - thanks for bringing it back up.

My great Uncle owned a milk delivery service. I recall visiting him in the 1960's - he had a file drawer full of sheets of 3c stamps, mostly from the 30's, purchased to send out monthly bills. He saved more than a few thinking they would be a good investment. I still have 10 sheets I bought from him.

Although obviously a different era, I wouldn't underestimate the needs of merchants to conveniently buy stamps in bulk - there was no Pitney-Bowes at the time.

s4ny

Someone in Congress wanted the $3 coins made and they got minted. Just like the
current gold First Spouse program. I don't recall any groundswell of demand for those
coins either.

They also tried the $4 denomination, while they were still making $1, 2 1/2, 3 and 5 coins.

I never bought the 3 cent stamp reason. How many people or companies were buying
100 stamps at a time? How about buying 50 stamps with 3 half dollars? They minted
over 8 million 50 Cent coins in 1854.

ColonelJessup

This a very interesting thread with lots of good information.

Many observers have noted the high number of submissions for the '54-D issue. The premiums (cost/benefit equation) figure strongly into this. Going back 7-8 years, I know of a FL dealer who sent his 54-D in 8 times before he got the coveted 61 grade ATS. As the first mint state coin "made", a quick sale at over 60K resulted. I personally saw 3 different color schemes on the specific coin mentioned. The coin didn't start out "original" in the first place and never had the "dirty" look now more increasingly valued.

SethChandler

What a great thread.

I personally, 20 years ago looked at a complete set (minus 75 and 76) that was put together in the 1930's. It was part of a large collection.....but this was the only gold set. I wonder why? Reading in this thread about Elder buying up a bunch....maybe they were promoted by a dealer back then? The 54-D was a high end Au to Unc, the 55 would be a 66 today. Super frosty.


Great thread.

bkzoopapa

as another sidelight. J.F.Bell had a great penchant for obtaining $3 and $1 gold pieces. When Rarcoa was formed in 1962 by David Shapiro, who was Bell's son and Ben Dreiske, the goal of the new company was to have one of every date and mintmark gold piece in stock at all times. When it began there were over 1000 $3 gold pieces and $1 gold pieces numbered in the hundreds of may dates, especially the type 3's. Even when I got there in 1968 they $1's were still numbering in the hundreds with the late dates wrapped up by the tens in rubberbanded to make them easier to count.

DaveG

Wow!

This is a real blast from the past!

Barry

Wow. I read through this, not having recollection of it, and see I was a participant. Getting old, I guess...

DaveG

I found this information recently and thought it might add something to this thread:

In 1798 when his ministry began in the small country town of North Brookfield, Massachusetts, remembered the Reverend Thomas Snell, there was only one "channel of general intelligence" in town, a few weekly copies of "the one newspaper published the county." Fifty years later, the mail brought "each week 342 newspapers, weeklies and dailies, under fifty different titles -- together with fifty-five other periodicals every month."

From The Reshaping of Everyday Life, 1790-1840 by Jack Larkin, quoting Thomas Snell's A Sermon Delivered June 27th, 1848: Being the 50th Anniversary of His Ordination.

Now, even though this was said in 1848, three years before postage dropped to three cents, one can conclude that the mail service was quite busy (depending on exactly how the newspapers were transported). I suggest that the decrease in postage probably increased the volume of mail and, therefore, it would not surprise me at all that publishers and any other heavy mailers would have bought stamps in large quantities (perhaps even 100 at a time).


edited to add: I also forgot to mention that the authorization for the three-cent silver piece was contained in the same piece of legislation that reduced the postage rate to three cents, which I interpret as directly connecting the price of postage and the creation of the trime. While I haven't (since the 2006 creation of this thread) found anything that connects the $3 piece and postage, I suggest that the $3 piece was intended to facilitate the purchase of 100 trimes from the various sub-treasuries (where the trimes would have been deposited by the post office). Recall that, as a result of the Independent Treasury Act of 1846, the Federal government only dealt in legal tender, so no government agency would have accepted private banknotes (which is all that was available at the time).

Of course, this intended use was obviated by the flood of reduced-weight silver coins from 1853 and on, which made change for gold coins easily available and made the trime and the $3 piece obsolete.

EagleEye

The idea of the trime was to facilitate redemption of Spanish silver with a low bullion-to-face-value coin. It was a mere coincidence that the stamp price was lowered and included in the same bill.

The trime was 75% silver and was not made with 3 cents of silver. It was our first debased coinage. The rationale was to make a cheap coin that could be traded for Spanish silver at an advantage since the Spanish silver would be melted down.


See my article in the April The Numismatist, "On the Verge of Change".

I have not seen any rationale for the minting of the $3 gold coin in any reference. I doubt any postage stamp connection. It certianly wasn't to redeem Spanish coins either.

DaveG

Rick,

I missed your article and will pull it out of the archives.

Actually, Carothers (Fractional Money) indicates both reasons for the introduction of the trime. However, he says that the coin was first proposed in 1850, by Senator Dickinson, for withdrawal of the worn Spanish coins (he remarks that the 3 cent denomination "fitted easily into the common 6 and 12 cent ratings of the medio and real"); unfortunately, this bill was not enacted.

In the next session, in 1851, a House committee introduced a bill reducing the postage rate to 3 cents from 5 cents. Carothers says that "The committee thought that the unpopularity of the copper cent would lead to inconvenience in the purchase of the new stamps. They included in the bill a provision for Dickinson's fiduciary 3 cent piece, formulating the clause so carelessly that essential details were omitted." Carothers says that Dickinson advocated for including the provisions of his earlier bill that were essential to make the law practicable, but the proposed amendments were voted down.

I presume that Carothers' mention of the unpopularity of the copper cent refers to the the cent only circulating in the cities of the Eastern seaboard (which he mentions elsewhere in the book). I do find it curious that he doesn't mention that the copper cent wasn't legal tender at this point and the Post Office was supposed to only accept legal tender. (Whereas the trime had limited legal tender status - up to 30 cents in the second bill and up to 20 cents in the first bill.)

Also, he doesn't suggest that the two bills were related in any way nor does he suggest that the sponsors of the second bill shared Dickinson's aim to facilitate withdrawal of the worn Spanish coins. Did you find any documentation as to motivation of the second bill?

Carothers cites pages of the Congressional Globe as sources for this section (Vol. 23, 227, 672 and Vol. 24, 275) . I presume, however, that you consulted them for your article.

CaptHenway

<< <i>The idea of the trime was to facilitate redemption of Spanish silver with a low bullion-to-face-value coin. It was a mere coincidence that the stamp price was lowered and included in the same bill.

The trime was 75% silver and was not made with 3 cents of silver. It was our first debased coinage. The rationale was to make a cheap coin that could be traded for Spanish silver at an advantage since the Spanish silver would be melted down.


See my article in the April The Numismatist, "On the Verge of Change".

I have not seen any rationale for the minting of the $3 gold coin in any reference. I doubt any postage stamp connection. It certianly wasn't to redeem Spanish coins either. >>



Rick, I guess I missed that article during my recent move. I am returning a book to the ANA Library on Friday, and I will try to remember to look it up.

It would certainly have been advantageous to have a coin more or less evenly divisible into the Reale, nominally worth 12-1/2 cents though I would assume commonly traded as 12 cents. Two trimes redeem a Half Reale, and just multiply from there.

As to the $3 coin, I like the suggestion earlier in the thread that it was used by business to buy stamps in multiples of 100. That makes sense.

As to the change in the trime from .750 fine to .900 fine in 1854, though at a reduced weight that now made it proportional to the larger fractional silver, I would speculate that the Mint found it awkward to be working with silver in two different finenesses at the same time, because you would have to be very careful in segregating the scrap. One handful of .750 fine shruff in a barrel of .900 fine scrap and you have to re-refine the whole thing, instead of simply melting it down and casting new bars.

TD

EagleEye

Carothers (Fractional money) was the source of the information (ANA truncated by bibliography for space). I interpreted the joining of the trime and 3 cent stamp sections into the same bill in 1851 as a means to and end, as happens in Congress all the time. It didn't change the original intent.

DaveG

Rick,

I have to say, as I noted in the comments in my post above, that, based only on the information in Fractional Money, that I do not draw the conclusion there is no postage connection or that the sponsors of the 1851 legislation shared the same intent as the sponsor of the 1850 legislation.

CaptHenway

ttt for the other trime thread.