Home U.S. Coin Forum

Do you think Congress should bring back the Assay Commission?

… Do you think we should bring back the Assay Commission?

PerryHall asked this question on another post, but I think it deserves its own home.

Background:
The old Assay Commission was intended to independently validate the conformance of silver and gold coins to legal standards. It did this my weighing sample coins taken from multiple coin deliveries, and by destructive assay of individual coins and an aggregate of coins. This was done for the output of each mint. However, during the old Assay Commission and presumably during any new one, the assay was performed by Mint employees – not by Committee members. Members simply watched and wrote down the results. Members of the Annual Commission were nominated by the Secretary of the Treasury and Appointed by the President. The proceedings were overseen by at least one Federal Judge, the Mint Director and the Philadelphia Mint’s Assayer. Their report went to the President.

My opinion:
Now that silver and gold no longer circulate as money, the validation function seems to be moot. However, the mints also produce large quantities of silver and gold bullion pieces that are sold worldwide. For these, there is presently no citizen-based, independent validation of weight and purity. It would seem reasonable to have some sort of Annual Assay Commission for bullion.

Comments

  • garrynotgarrynot Posts: 1,874 ✭✭✭
    I agree. If the Mint is going to produce gold and silver bullion, Eagles, Spouse and Buffalo gold coins and the like, there should be an independent authority testing these. Maybe it is the current budget climate that will prevent this from happening in the near future.
  • LindeDadLindeDad Posts: 18,766 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I see no need. The mint has sent me a little piece of paper with the gold coins I have bought that says they are good.
  • PerryHallPerryHall Posts: 47,399 ✭✭✭✭✭
    It was more tradition than anything practical. The cost of the last assay commission was less than $3000 if I remember correctly so any saving by abolishing it were insignificant. The assay commission members paid their own way and their only remuneration was a medal and the experience of a lifetime. When we were only producing base metal coins, one could argue an assay commission didn't make sense but we've been producing precious metal ASE's, AGE's, gold Buffalo's, gold & silver commems, and APE's so an argument can be made that there is a place for an assay commission.

    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

  • ElKevvoElKevvo Posts: 4,193 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Quality control is much better these days....I see no need for it.

    K
    ANA LM
  • Steve27Steve27 Posts: 13,277 ✭✭✭


    << <i>I see no need. The mint has sent me a little piece of paper with the gold coins I have bought that says they are good. >>



    Good one! LOL
    "It's far easier to fight for principles, than to live up to them." Adlai Stevenson
  • LongacreLongacre Posts: 16,717 ✭✭✭
    The testing can be outsourced to Dalian or Bangalore.

    Seriously, I don't think it would be necessary given the current quality control with manufacturing.
    Always took candy from strangers
    Didn't wanna get me no trade
    Never want to be like papa
    Working for the boss every night and day
    --"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
  • CoinosaurusCoinosaurus Posts: 9,650 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I'd rather see an externally-audited quality check (TL9000 or whatever), than an assay commission.

    Did you get to the part in the Archives, where they talk about what all the assay commission banquet menus consisted of? It made me hungry image
  • RWBRWB Posts: 8,082
    "...several good wines and a selection of whiskeys and fine cigars..." were a nice touch.
  • LewyLewy Posts: 594
    Whiskey and cigars? Yeeeuck!!!!image

    Lead me to the wine table pleaseimage
  • ambro51ambro51 Posts: 14,281 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Roger a serious question here. I have read (and I forget where) that it is thought that the reason for some spectacular gems that survive from some early branch mint gold is due to assay coins which were preserved. What DID happen to those examples which were not destroyed by testing?
  • RWBRWB Posts: 8,082
    I have read (and I forget where) that it is thought that the reason for some spectacular gems that survive from some early branch mint gold is due to assay coins which were preserved. What DID happen to those examples which were not destroyed by testing?

    Each year the mints reserved coins for use of the Annual Assay Commission. They were saved in quantities prescribed by the Coinage Act of 1873. In many years this meant that the Commission was presented with envelopes and boxes containing thousands of coins – far too many for the Commission to use.

    Usually, the members divided into three subcommittees: Counting, Weighing and Assaying. The Counting folks counted all the coins and made sure the quantities matched separate inventory lists. The Weighing people selected coins from some of the samples and weighed them individually and also selected groups of coins to be weighed together, then averaged. Lastly, the Assaying Committee selected about a dozen pieces of each denomination and mint, and the Mint staff assayed each coin separately. The Committee also selected another lot similar to the first, and these were melted en mass and assayed by denomination.

    After the proceedings were over. Members were commonly invited to exchange money for samples from the Pyx as souvenirs. Naturally, the coin collectors were selective in their pickings. Between 1906 and 1922 the Mint Curator selected the best coins from the pyx for distribution to major collections at face value. The best documented examples are in the Mitchelson Collection in Connecticut. Some of these coins are the finest examples of circulating coinage we have. (See RAC 1909-1915 for some of the anecdotal information.)

    Coins not destroyed during assay or exchanged by participants or distributed by the Curator, were put into circulation. There was no need to melt the leftovers – they were normal coins. There was one exception: commemoratives distributed by an organization were usually destroyed to avoid violating the Mints’ agreement with the promoters.

    Hope this helps.

    [Nearly all of this research was performed by yours truly.]
  • ambro51ambro51 Posts: 14,281 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Thank You Sir, Yes, that information is very good. Must have been a grand time to be a "well connected" collector, eh?
  • Ed62Ed62 Posts: 857 ✭✭
    Yes, it should be the highest national priority to reestablish the Assay Commission. It is important to assure the world that the circulating coinage issued by the US Mint contains the requisite amount of precious metal -- which, I understand, is set by federal statute to be zero.

    The next highest priority should be to reestablish the Tea Tasting Commission. The USG should protect the consuming public from inferior-tasting tea of foreign origin.
    Ed
  • SanctionIISanctionII Posts: 12,863 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Don't give the federal government any ideas about growing even bigger.

    If the government sees this thread we may have a new "Coin Assay Czar" created as a patronage position with a few hundred supporting positions created just to support the Czar as he/she goes about such important work.
  • With all the recent spotting I thought the coinage was still being asssprayed... oh you said assayed, sorry. image
  • rickoricko Posts: 98,724 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Thanks for the interesting history RWB... Cheers, RickO

Leave a Comment

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