I think the most likely scenario for these coins origin is also the simplest: Some miner(s) periodically took their raw gold to town, and paid some fee for assay and conversion to coin. This was usually paid out with recent 20's and 10's, with the occasional older worn coin included, and with the small change probably being spent.
The money accumulated until the guy(s) decided to bury it, so they got some sturdy cans, sealed the coins inside, found a remote place with some landmarks, and hid it.
Who knows what happened, why they never came back, but I think the gold was earned by digging it out of the ground in the first place, and the recent diggers own it now for the same reason.
It could be as simple as someone who was familiar with the area, but not an owner of that particular property. In that case unless they left specific details to someone and those got passed on, it's unlikely the true stasher will ever be found. No idea what level of knowledge of the coins would be required in order to establish a valid claim.
If the coins were exchanged for gold at the mint and records kept, it should be a laborius, but doable task to figure out who could have accumulated them.
Me thinks all this banter about this hoard is making the folks at Kagin's very very happy. All this free publicity is creating a frenzy. This hoard will sell high and sell deep across the industry based on this "Perry Mason" like attitude regarding the coins. I don't believe the coins were stolen from the mint. I don't think anyone will have a claim on this buried treasure other than the finders. I think Kagin's was brilliant in their marketing of this event. Now that the mint has publicly stated they were not stolen from the mint, I think it is clear sailing.
<< <i>Me thinks all this banter about this hoard is making the folks at Kagin's very very happy. All this free publicity is creating a frenzy. This hoard will sell high and sell deep across the industry based on this "Perry Mason" like attitude regarding the coins. I don't believe the coins were stolen from the mint. I don't think anyone will have a claim on this buried treasure other than the finders. I think Kagin's was brilliant in their marketing of this event. Now that the mint has publicly stated they were not stolen from the mint, I think it is clear sailing. >>
So why would they wait until May when things have died down? Sell em now while they're hot.
<< <i>Me thinks all this banter about this hoard is making the folks at Kagin's very very happy. All this free publicity is creating a frenzy. This hoard will sell high and sell deep across the industry based on this "Perry Mason" like attitude regarding the coins. I don't believe the coins were stolen from the mint. I don't think anyone will have a claim on this buried treasure other than the finders. I think Kagin's was brilliant in their marketing of this event. Now that the mint has publicly stated they were not stolen from the mint, I think it is clear sailing. >>
So why would they wait until May when things have died down? Sell em now while they're hot. >>
Gotta wait till tax season is over and everyone is flush with cash from their refunds. Plus, May is probably a better time to sell coins than the dead of winter.
Among any SF mint experts here, what was the raw gold input for the mint? Did they get commercial bars, mix with copper and then make their planchets? Or did they take in circulated gold coins? Both?
yosclimber,
The mints had full-service refineries, so they accepted gold in every shape and form.
For the fiscal year ended June 30, 1901, the SF Mint received a total of $76.04 million in gold deposits. (In comparison, the New York Assay Office received the 2nd largest amount of gold deposits, $55.9 million, and the Philadelphia mint received $24.3 million.)
The categories and amounts the SF Mint received that fiscal year were: Refined Domestic Bullion - $25.2 million; Foreign Coins - $23.1 million; Redeposited Unparted Bars - $21.9 million; Unrefined Domestic Bullion - $4.4 million; Unrefined Foreign Bullion - $1.2 million; Refined Foreign Bullion - $306,000; Jewelers' Bars, old plate, etc. - $30,000; Domestic Coin (Treasury Transfer) - $13,000; and, Domestic Coin (Mutilated and Abraded) - $3,000.
The redeposited unparted bars were probably from one or more of the smaller western Assay offices; they were "unparted" bars because they contained both silver and gold and they were "redeposited" because they were already counted among the deposits of another mint or assay office.
The amount of mutilated and abraded US gold coins deposited for re-coining varied from year to year and mint to mint. For example in Fiscal 1901, the Philadelphia Mint received $122,000 of mutilated and abraded coin.
Thanks for sharing the 1901 gold deposits distribution by type. This is very helpful in understanding the input to output inventory and process.
Clearly the 1901 Domestic Coin totals at $16,000 were not enough to comprise all of the Dimmick theft.
Do you also have the gold deposits in Domestic Coin figures for the SF Mint in 1900?
Presumably some of those could have still been in the inventory in early 1901 if the refining process was not too rapid. It's also possible the theft took place in 1900 but was not detected until the 1901 audit. (I don't know the sequence of audit dates).
Laundering 30K in 1901? Not easy. I've seen those 20th Century washboards and they are enough to...make your fingers bleed (sorry Mr. Kagin - that one could not be resisted).
I think the most likely scenario for these coins origin is also the simplest: Some miner(s) periodically took their raw gold to town, and paid some fee for assay and conversion to coin. This was usually paid out with recent 20's and 10's, with the occasional older worn coin included, and with the small change probably being spent.
The money accumulated until the guy(s) decided to bury it, so they got some sturdy cans, sealed the coins inside, found a remote place with some landmarks, and hid it.
Who knows what happened, why they never came back, but I think the gold was earned by digging it out of the ground in the first place, and the recent diggers own it now for the same reason. >>
In general, I think someone buried some gold and likely did not come back. But there I go speculating - you can't even KNOW that. Owner(s) may have walked past it every day with a glint in his eye. Heck, that is how they were said to be found.
The coins taken in the Dimmick theft were newly minted coins, not coins that were deposited to be recoined.
Here is what I wrote about that in another thread:
The cashier would have only had access to recently produced coins and since cashier Dimmick did steal the coins all at once, the coins would have been all of the same date (or, depending on when he stole the coins, perhaps of the prior year).
At the time, unlike silver dollars (which were struck only on the government's account and, therefore, belonged to the government until someone requested them from the Mint), the Mint did not store gold coins. Gold coins were minted on the depositor's account, so any gold that was deposited belonged to the depositor: the gold was deposited, minted into coins and them paid out. The Mint did keep a bullion fund to pay depositors before their gold was processed, but any gold paid out was replaced within a few days.
Any old gold coins that were deposited to be recoined were melted by the Melter & Refiner's staff - they was no way for such coins to get to the cashier. If you think of the Mint's process as an industrial production line: melting the coins happened at the beginning of the Mint's process; the cashier was at the end of the process.
(For those of you who will now exclaim that the Mint had the 1933 double eagles in storage long after 1933: The Mint's processes in 1900 were different than they were after 1933. Gold coins circulated in 1900; they didn't after 1932.)
In answer to your question, though, in the fiscal year ending June 30, 1900, the SF Mint received deposits of $5,112 in mutilated and abraded domestic coin. It received no deposits of domestic coin as Treasury Transfers.
(In contrast, the New York Assay Office received deposits of mutilated and abraded domestic coin of $753,000 and the Philadelphia mint received deposits of $218,000.)
What I find odd is that they are looking at using Amazon as a venue to sell a goodly potion of the stuff, especially since Kagin is involved. Why wouldn't Kagin just want to broker the whole deal themselves, or work out some high profile partnership deal/auction with say, Heritage or Stacks, where this stuff really creates a big buzz amongst the people who will pay the most money for it? There's just something a bit "QVC-ish" if you will about using Amazon... and if they're going to want moon money for common stuff just because it has a fancy label and a dubious pedigree, I'm out.
We can speculate all day with fancy scenarios where the coins really came from.
However its the property of the finders - finders keepers losers weepers. Whoever buried them is long dead plus they found it on their property. I think they did the smart thing getting PCGS involved (and Kagin to represent them). I am sure, with the advice of legal counsel, they have considered all the angles someone would try to take it away from them before going public. With the special labels this will give these coins a pedigree to get top dollar for the fantastic treasure collectibles they are.
As far as Amazon as a venue I am sure their representation was looking for a venue which offered a deal of both a favorable fee structure and getting top dollar with buyers whether the coin collecting public or not. Considering the buyers fees of some of the coin auction houses, how they match up with Amazon (or whatever deal was cut) is a good question. The General public is more familiar with Amazon than someone like Heritage or Stacks which are numismatic auction houses. So using Amazon may be a really smart idea to get top dollar. If I were the finders I would want someone representing me who can get top dollar. There are a lot of non coin collectors who are well off, and will step up and pay all the money to have this kind of treasure collectible, especially now with gold in a bull market. Think of all the free advertising and excitement the media alone will create. That is the target market I would want to go to, not some guy with a grey sheet in his hip pocket who just wants to pay bid. A couple of guys in the coin club have told me they plan to buy at least one, have it in their case at a show or ebay store (mainly for display) priced at double bubble (cost x 2) at the very least. So just think if you missed one in the original offering on Amazon, you can pick up one from one of them.
I look for these coins to start with a high opening bid / reserve and the bidding to be aggressive and furious especially if gold is on the uptick. With the fantastic tool of PCGS Coin Facts the new owners can even track the value of their coins over time. The news it will generate could bring a lot of new collectors into the hobby. I have structured all my new purchases to be entirely gold coins and some quality certified world or US Currency on occasion. All this has caused me to bid / buy a lot of USGTC in the AU50-58 range off ebay especially if I can get them below the 500-1500 range. I picked up some really nice PCGS AU 58 - MS 63 $2.50 Libs just for fun just this past month.
<< <i>What I find odd is that they are looking at using Amazon as a venue to sell a goodly potion of the stuff, especially since Kagin is involved. Why wouldn't Kagin just want to broker the whole deal themselves, or work out some high profile partnership deal/auction with say, Heritage or Stacks, where this stuff really creates a big buzz amongst the people who will pay the most money for it? There's just something a bit "QVC-ish" if you will about using Amazon... and if they're going to want moon money for common stuff just because it has a fancy label and a dubious pedigree, I'm out. >>
There are more people likely to pay stupid money at Amazon than there would be at Heritage. With less that 1400 coins available and hundreds of thousands of nimrod customers, they won't last long. Look what people pay for common stuff at HSN.
<< <i>What I find odd is that they are looking at using Amazon as a venue to sell a goodly potion of the stuff, especially since Kagin is involved. Why wouldn't Kagin just want to broker the whole deal themselves, or work out some high profile partnership deal/auction with say, Heritage or Stacks, where this stuff really creates a big buzz amongst the people who will pay the most money for it? There's just something a bit "QVC-ish" if you will about using Amazon... and if they're going to want moon money for common stuff just because it has a fancy label and a dubious pedigree, I'm out. >>
There are more people likely to pay stupid money at Amazon than there would be at Heritage. With less that 1400 coins available and hundreds of thousands of nimrod customers, they won't last long. Look what people pay for common stuff at HSN. >>
True enough-the key words there being "nimrod customers"... but are real numismatists going to bite at what will undoubtedly be retail-plus numbers on what is mostly pedestrian fare? Doubtful.
Thanks for explaining about the process from input to output, and the 1900 coin input figures. The reason I was looking for sources of circulated coins in the mint vaults was that an early report stated 1/3 of the coins were pristine. We know now that 200 were damaged by improper cleaning, and that some were circulated. Others perhaps damaged by the rough storage. But I agree, there seems to be no way that the quantities of uncirculated different dates could have been stored as part of the mint's normal processes.
Comments
<< <i>Pfffffft >>
Seems like a perfectly logical "non-answer" when no logical answer and be conceived.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>Bajjerfan, I put you on pffffft when you made your mean spirited ethnic remarks awhile back. >>
It wasn't mean-spirited, just insensitive. The cops know where the coins are and could get a subpoena to out the finders if that was warranted.
I think the most likely scenario for these coins origin is also the simplest: Some miner(s) periodically took their raw gold to town, and paid some fee for assay and conversion to coin. This was usually paid out with recent 20's and 10's, with the occasional older worn coin included, and with the small change probably being spent.
The money accumulated until the guy(s) decided to bury it, so they got some sturdy cans, sealed the coins inside, found a remote place with some landmarks, and hid it.
Who knows what happened, why they never came back, but I think the gold was earned by digging it out of the ground in the first place, and the recent diggers own it now for the same reason.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
If the coins were exchanged for gold at the mint and records kept, it should be a laborius, but doable task to figure out who could have accumulated them.
<< <i>Me thinks all this banter about this hoard is making the folks at Kagin's very very happy. All this free publicity is creating a frenzy. This hoard will sell high and sell deep across the industry based on this "Perry Mason" like attitude regarding the coins. I don't believe the coins were stolen from the mint. I don't think anyone will have a claim on this buried treasure other than the finders. I think Kagin's was brilliant in their marketing of this event. Now that the mint has publicly stated they were not stolen from the mint, I think it is clear sailing. >>
So why would they wait until May when things have died down? Sell em now while they're hot.
<< <i>
<< <i>Me thinks all this banter about this hoard is making the folks at Kagin's very very happy. All this free publicity is creating a frenzy. This hoard will sell high and sell deep across the industry based on this "Perry Mason" like attitude regarding the coins. I don't believe the coins were stolen from the mint. I don't think anyone will have a claim on this buried treasure other than the finders. I think Kagin's was brilliant in their marketing of this event. Now that the mint has publicly stated they were not stolen from the mint, I think it is clear sailing. >>
So why would they wait until May when things have died down? Sell em now while they're hot. >>
Gotta wait till tax season is over and everyone is flush with cash from their refunds. Plus, May is probably a better time to sell coins than the dead of winter.
In all reality, I have no idea??????????????
Did they get commercial bars, mix with copper and then make their planchets?
Or did they take in circulated gold coins? Both?
yosclimber,
The mints had full-service refineries, so they accepted gold in every shape and form.
For the fiscal year ended June 30, 1901, the SF Mint received a total of $76.04 million in gold deposits. (In comparison, the New York Assay Office received the 2nd largest amount of gold deposits, $55.9 million, and the Philadelphia mint received $24.3 million.)
The categories and amounts the SF Mint received that fiscal year were: Refined Domestic Bullion - $25.2 million; Foreign Coins - $23.1 million; Redeposited Unparted Bars - $21.9 million; Unrefined Domestic Bullion - $4.4 million; Unrefined Foreign Bullion - $1.2 million; Refined Foreign Bullion - $306,000; Jewelers' Bars, old plate, etc. - $30,000; Domestic Coin (Treasury Transfer) - $13,000; and, Domestic Coin (Mutilated and Abraded) - $3,000.
The redeposited unparted bars were probably from one or more of the smaller western Assay offices; they were "unparted" bars because they contained both silver and gold and they were "redeposited" because they were already counted among the deposits of another mint or assay office.
The amount of mutilated and abraded US gold coins deposited for re-coining varied from year to year and mint to mint. For example in Fiscal 1901, the Philadelphia Mint received $122,000 of mutilated and abraded coin.
Check out the Southern Gold Society
Thanks for sharing the 1901 gold deposits distribution by type.
This is very helpful in understanding the input to output inventory and process.
Clearly the 1901 Domestic Coin totals at $16,000 were not enough to comprise all of the Dimmick theft.
Do you also have the gold deposits in Domestic Coin figures for the SF Mint in 1900?
Presumably some of those could have still been in the inventory in early 1901 if the refining process was not too rapid.
It's also possible the theft took place in 1900 but was not detected until the 1901 audit. (I don't know the sequence of audit dates).
Eric
<< <i>Petty squabbling among posters aside,
I think the most likely scenario for these coins origin is also the simplest: Some miner(s) periodically took their raw gold to town, and paid some fee for assay and conversion to coin. This was usually paid out with recent 20's and 10's, with the occasional older worn coin included, and with the small change probably being spent.
The money accumulated until the guy(s) decided to bury it, so they got some sturdy cans, sealed the coins inside, found a remote place with some landmarks, and hid it.
Who knows what happened, why they never came back, but I think the gold was earned by digging it out of the ground in the first place, and the recent diggers own it now for the same reason. >>
Eric
The coins taken in the Dimmick theft were newly minted coins, not coins that were deposited to be recoined.
Here is what I wrote about that in another thread:
The cashier would have only had access to recently produced coins and since cashier Dimmick did steal the coins all at once, the coins would have been all of the same date (or, depending on when he stole the coins, perhaps of the prior year).
At the time, unlike silver dollars (which were struck only on the government's account and, therefore, belonged to the government until someone requested them from the Mint), the Mint did not store gold coins. Gold coins were minted on the depositor's account, so any gold that was deposited belonged to the depositor: the gold was deposited, minted into coins and them paid out. The Mint did keep a bullion fund to pay depositors before their gold was processed, but any gold paid out was replaced within a few days.
Any old gold coins that were deposited to be recoined were melted by the Melter & Refiner's staff - they was no way for such coins to get to the cashier. If you think of the Mint's process as an industrial production line: melting the coins happened at the beginning of the Mint's process; the cashier was at the end of the process.
(For those of you who will now exclaim that the Mint had the 1933 double eagles in storage long after 1933: The Mint's processes in 1900 were different than they were after 1933. Gold coins circulated in 1900; they didn't after 1932.)
In answer to your question, though, in the fiscal year ending June 30, 1900, the SF Mint received deposits of $5,112 in mutilated and abraded domestic coin. It received no deposits of domestic coin as Treasury Transfers.
(In contrast, the New York Assay Office received deposits of mutilated and abraded domestic coin of $753,000 and the Philadelphia mint received deposits of $218,000.)
Check out the Southern Gold Society
Why wouldn't Kagin just want to broker the whole deal themselves, or work out some high profile partnership deal/auction with say, Heritage or Stacks, where this stuff really creates a big buzz amongst the people who will pay the most money for it?
There's just something a bit "QVC-ish" if you will about using Amazon... and if they're going to want moon money for common stuff just because it has a fancy label and a dubious pedigree, I'm out.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
However its the property of the finders - finders keepers losers weepers. Whoever buried them is long dead plus they found it on their property. I think they did the smart thing getting PCGS involved (and Kagin to represent them). I am sure, with the advice of legal counsel, they have considered all the angles someone would try to take it away from them before going public. With the special labels this will give these coins a pedigree to get top dollar for the fantastic treasure collectibles they are.
As far as Amazon as a venue I am sure their representation was looking for a venue which offered a deal of both a favorable fee structure and getting top dollar with buyers whether the coin collecting public or not. Considering the buyers fees of some of the coin auction houses, how they match up with Amazon (or whatever deal was cut) is a good question. The General public is more familiar with Amazon than someone like Heritage or Stacks which are numismatic auction houses. So using Amazon may be a really smart idea to get top dollar. If I were the finders I would want someone representing me who can get top dollar. There are a lot of non coin collectors who are well off, and will step up and pay all the money to have this kind of treasure collectible, especially now with gold in a bull market. Think of all the free advertising and excitement the media alone will create. That is the target market I would want to go to, not some guy with a grey sheet in his hip pocket who just wants to pay bid. A couple of guys in the coin club have told me they plan to buy at least one, have it in their case at a show or ebay store (mainly for display) priced at double bubble (cost x 2) at the very least. So just think if you missed one in the original offering on Amazon, you can pick up one from one of them.
I look for these coins to start with a high opening bid / reserve and the bidding to be aggressive and furious especially if gold is on the uptick. With the fantastic tool of PCGS Coin Facts the new owners can even track the value of their coins over time. The news it will generate could bring a lot of new collectors into the hobby. I have structured all my new purchases to be entirely gold coins and some quality certified world or US Currency on occasion. All this has caused me to bid / buy a lot of USGTC in the AU50-58 range off ebay especially if I can get them below the 500-1500 range. I picked up some really nice PCGS AU 58 - MS 63 $2.50 Libs just for fun just this past month.
<< <i>What I find odd is that they are looking at using Amazon as a venue to sell a goodly potion of the stuff, especially since Kagin is involved.
Why wouldn't Kagin just want to broker the whole deal themselves, or work out some high profile partnership deal/auction with say, Heritage or Stacks, where this stuff really creates a big buzz amongst the people who will pay the most money for it?
There's just something a bit "QVC-ish" if you will about using Amazon... and if they're going to want moon money for common stuff just because it has a fancy label and a dubious pedigree, I'm out. >>
There are more people likely to pay stupid money at Amazon than there would be at Heritage. With less that 1400 coins available and hundreds of thousands of nimrod customers, they won't last long. Look what people pay for common stuff at HSN.
<< <i>
<< <i>What I find odd is that they are looking at using Amazon as a venue to sell a goodly potion of the stuff, especially since Kagin is involved.
Why wouldn't Kagin just want to broker the whole deal themselves, or work out some high profile partnership deal/auction with say, Heritage or Stacks, where this stuff really creates a big buzz amongst the people who will pay the most money for it?
There's just something a bit "QVC-ish" if you will about using Amazon... and if they're going to want moon money for common stuff just because it has a fancy label and a dubious pedigree, I'm out. >>
There are more people likely to pay stupid money at Amazon than there would be at Heritage. With less that 1400 coins available and hundreds of thousands of nimrod customers, they won't last long. Look what people pay for common stuff at HSN. >>
True enough-the key words there being "nimrod customers"... but are real numismatists going to bite at what will undoubtedly be retail-plus numbers on what is mostly pedestrian fare? Doubtful.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
Happy St. Patrick's Day!
Thanks for explaining about the process from input to output, and the 1900 coin input figures.
The reason I was looking for sources of circulated coins in the mint vaults was that an early report
stated 1/3 of the coins were pristine.
We know now that 200 were damaged by improper cleaning, and that some were circulated. Others perhaps damaged by the rough storage.
But I agree, there seems to be no way that the quantities of uncirculated different dates could have been stored as part of the mint's normal processes.