List of $500 and $1000 Nationals?

gsalex

While nosing through some of the Massachusetts nationals in the Smithsonian's proof collection, I found a $500 from a bank I'd never heard of before: The National Hide & Leather Bank of Boston! This got me wondering what other high denomination NBNs might be out there to look for. Does anyone have a list of banks that issued these notes -- seems like it wouldn't be that long.

rbethea

I believe there is a list in Bowers' Encyclopedia of US Paper Money for the $100, $500, and $1,000 notes. I can check when I get home from work.

DepressionscripGuy

Very cool bank name.

SaorAlba

I'd like to know if any issued notes exists?

2ndCharter

Chapter 10 in Peter Huntoon's United States Large Size National Bank Notes published by SPMC in 1995, gives all the details on $500 and $1000 Nationals issued including a list of all the banks and the number of notes printed.

STLNATS

Originally posted by: 2ndCharter

Chapter 10 in Peter Huntoon's United States Large Size National Bank Notes published by SPMC in 1995, gives all the details on $500 and $1000 Nationals issued including a list of all the banks and the number of notes printed.

a basic reference anyone interested in nbn should have.



4 500s have been reported, none in this bank and most in institutional collections. No 1000 has been reported. If you search prior threads there should be some discussion and even a pic or two on this board.

rbethea

Bowers just gives number of banks.

For 1865 Series:
Louisiana - 1 bank of issue, 720 printed, none known
Maine - 3 banks of issue, 560 printed total, none known
Maryland - 7 banks of issue, 860 printed, none known
Massachusetts - 46 banks of issue, 1031 printed, 2 known
New York - 19 banks of issue, 5767 printed, none known
Pennsylvania - 11 banks of issue, 1175 printed, 1 known
Rhode Island - 7 banks of issue, 410 printed, none known

2 known are with Chittenden-Spinner, 1 known is Colby-Spinner.

Of the gold national bank notes, 4 were issuers:
First National Gold Bank of San Francisco - 300 printed, none known
National Gold Bank of DO Mills and Co of Sacramento - 60 printed, none known
National Gold Bank and Trust Co of San Francisco - 250 printed, none known
Kidder National Gold Bank of Boston - 75 printed, but none issued

For 1875 Issue:
Alabama - 1 bank of issue, 292 printed, none known
Maine - 1 bank of issue, 9 printed, none known
Maryland - 1 bank of issue, 50 printed, none known
Massachusetts - 12 banks of issue, 842 printed, none known
New York - 6 banks of issue, 2843 printed, 1 known
Pennsylvania - 3 banks of issue, 230 printed, none known
Rhode Island - 2 banks of issue, 105 printed, none known

The known note is the First National Bank of the City of New York, signed by Allison-New.

For the $1000 notes, for issue of 1865:
Maryland - 3 banks of issue, 142 printed, none known
Massachusetts - 9 banks of issue, 1332 printed, none known
New York - 17 banks of issue, 3902 printed, none known
Pennsylvania - 5 banks of issue, 237 printed, none known
Rhode Island, 2 banks of issue 130 printed, none known

For the gold bank notes, the Kidder National Gold BAnk of Boston printed 75 but none were issued.

For 1875:
Massachusetts - 2 banks of issue, 160 printed, none known
New York - 5 banks of issue, 1465 printed, none known
Pennsylvania - 1 bank of issue, 11 printed, none known.

It sounds like Huntoon has the breakdown by bank and a further breakdown of how many notes by each bank.

Tookybandit

Great post! Thanks for taking the time to provide the data!

STLNATS

It sounds like Huntoon has the breakdown by bank and a further breakdown of how many notes by each bank.



Correct, as indicated by 2ndcharter all the specifics one might want including serials, pix of specimen sheets, some history of reported notes, outstandings, etc etc etc.



If one doesn't want to buy this (modestly priced) book I'm sure it can be obtained from your local library's interlibrary loan service.

2ndCharter

this (modestly priced) book

There's a few for sale on eBay right now including one copy at $18.99 with free shipping - can't beat that!

gsalex

Looks like the information is in Chapter 10 on Table 5. Could someone scan and post that page? For your efforts, I will go hunting for a $1000 NBN proof to post. :-)

bkzoopapa

The only $500 in private hands is the on on the First National Bank City of New York. It was in Amon Carter's collection for many years. After his death I bought the note from the estate through Johnny Rowe at the Memphis show in 1983 (featured on the top of the front page of the July Bank Note Reporter 1983) for the then staggering sum of $100,001. I paid Johnny a check for $100,000 and gave him an Eisenhower dollar to make it over the $100,000 mark. I bought it for a private collector who had me exhibit it at a later Memphis with his other notes showing the only complete type set of Nationals ever in existence then, as it also had the then only known $100 Value Back in it also. It was privately sold to Andrew Shiva a couple years ago when he again exhibited it in Memphis. Another $500 is on display in the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago's Money Museum. None have ever been sold publicly.

Jamericon

Banks that received deliveries of $500 and/or $1000 national bank notes. Most of the types delivered were Original Series notes.



29 New York NY

200 Boston MA

290 New York NY

307 New York NY

379 Boston MA

387 New York NY

407 Salem MA

460 Boston MA

475 Boston MA

514 Boston MA

524 Boston MA

529 Boston MA

536 Boston MA

539 Philadelphia PA

545 Boston MA

554 Boston MA

557 Philadelphia PA

561 Philadelphia PA

563 Philadelphia PA

578 Boston MA

582 Boston MA

595 Roxbury MA

597 Lancaster PA

601 Boston MA

603 Boston MA

609 Boston MA

613 Pittsburgh PA

615 Roxbury MA

619 Pittsburgh PA

625 Boston MA

629 Boston MA

638 Lynn MA

643 Boston MA

646 Boston MA

654 Boston MA

656 Philadelphia PA

665 Boston MA

668 Pittsburgh PA

672 Boston MA

677 Boston MA

678 Pittsburgh PA

690 New Bedford MA

726 Salem MA

727 Pittsburgh PA

733 New York NY

743 New Bedford MA

766 Taunton MA

799 New Bedford MA

806 Brighton MA

843 Pawtucket RI

847 Boston MA

891 New York NY

905 New York NY

917 New York NY

936 Boston MA

941 Portland ME

947 Taunton MA

974 Boston MA

983 Providence RI

985 Boston MA

986 Lowell MA

993 Boston MA

1000 New York NY

1015 Boston MA

1023 Portland ME

1028 Boston MA

1029 Boston MA

1036 Providence RI

1060 Portland ME

1080 New York NY

1121 New York NY

1131 Providence RI

1135 Worcester MA

1250 New York NY

1252 Baltimore MD

1278 New York NY

1295 Boston MA

1303 Baltimore MD

1325 Baltimore MD

1326 Providence RI

1336 Baltimore MD

1366 Providence RI

1370 New York NY

1375 New York NY

1384 Baltimore MD

1389 New York NY

1393 New York NY

1394 New York NY

1413 Baltimore MD

1461 New York NY

1472 Providence RI

1476 New York NY

1489 Baltimore MD

1527 Boston MA

1595 Mobile AL

1699 Boston MA

1741 San Francisco CA

1825 New Orleans LA

1994 San Francisco CA

2014 Sacramento CA

2ndCharter

Could someone scan and post that page?

Since the book is copyrighted by SPMC, I suggest you better contact SPMC first.

STLNATS

Originally posted by: gsalex

I will go hunting for a $1000 NBN proof to post. :-)

Like this?







and one on NYC







Perhaps not surprising, the archives are incomplete for the period prior to transfer of the plates, etc from the private bank note companies to BEP. Several I expected to find were not there. Consequently, I think that most (if not all) of these hi denom proofs are going to be associated with the 1875 series as both of these are (note the BEP line on both of these proofs). Treasury sigs are different on the original and 1875 notes, and there's a nice table in Huntoon that provides each set of sigs, by bank and sheet layout.



edited to add: FWIW, that's the charter number printed and stamped in blue at the bottom of each sheet.



What fun!

gsalex

Thank you so much, rbethea and Jamie, for all your information. Those charter numbers help a lot. But I'm disappointed to confirm what I had already read elsewhere -- that a great many of the $1000 NBN proofs were pilfered from the BEP's specimen files, likely by their own employees. This is a loss to all national bank note enthusiasts since these are now not part of the Smithsonian's digital collection.

There should be some $500 and $1000 proofs in the early California boxes, but there are not. Also nothing in Louisiana. The Maryland boxes had two $500s -- but no $1000s. I also came across a proof of the only Alabama $500 note, from the First National Bank of Mobile. Heady stuff!

I found success in Massachusetts, where I found the only $1000 NBN proof so far, from the National Bank of Commerce of Boston. There were also more than a dozen $500s throughout the 13 boxes, including a beauty from the FNB of Lynn with a Spinner signature. But also plenty of holes where charter numbers indicate there should be a high denom proof.

New York and later states will have to wait until I have more time to search, unless some else in the "transcription pool" wants to take a look. Perhaps we'll have some luck there; keep your fingers crossed.

EDIT: STLNATS, you beat me by five minutes, while I was editing my screen shots. Good work on the New York $1000!

STLNATS

It's interesting that the Lynn has original charter sigs, no printed charter number at the bottom, AND no BEP logo. It'd be VERY interesting to see how many other originals are in the collection. The Alabama is an 1875 series specimen.



But I'm disappointed to confirm what I had already read elsewhere -- that a great many of the $1000 NBN proofs were pilfered from the BEP's specimen files, likely by their own employees.



I had not heard this before and would love to see where it's documented. FWIW, my comment about earlier specimens missing from the files is based on a conversation with Pete (and others I thought) from my efforts to find a specimen, or even title layout, from the bank in Carondolet MO, a suburb of STL and home to shipyards building the river monitors. Interesting little bank that lasted less than 2 years most of which was spent trying to figure out how to go out of business. At any rate, my understanding was that the private BN companies retained the proofs for the plates they produced which is why the Lynn note is so interesting.



edited to add: California and Louisiana only issued original series 500s, no 1875s nor 1000s of any series. Alabama only issued 1875 500s, no 1000s.

STLNATS

A couple more for the enormous 733 of NYC. No 1000s in the collection, but examples of both the original and 1875 series 500 are present. Note the different sigs. Again, no BEP imprint on the originals. At some point the C position was removed from the orignal specimen altho there is no indication of when it may have occurred.



Original





Series of 1875

STLNATS

The missing 1000s bothered me and I found the following in chapter 10:



The BEP "certified proofs holdings were periodically raided by Bureau employees as examples were needed for displays or presentation pieces. We find that the Bureau proof $1000s are commonly cut off from what was once a 500-1000 plate proof." Perhaps that's what happened to the missing $500 I posted before and it looks like there was an "official" explanation/justification for the missing proofs altho it is too bad that they were not returned to the collection.



In the same section he also suggests that while there are a few original series $1000 proofs produced by the National Banknote Company, most are 1875 series produced by the BEP. This may also apply to the 500s as well since for my little corner of the world, original series proofs seem to be the exception.

gsalex

I've seen at least one cut-off $500 myself in the Smithsonian collection. "Pilfered" maybe wasn't the right word -- employees probably weren't pulling the $1000 proofs for themselves. But they were still given away and hence a loss to the public. Seems like a case could be made that any privately held specimens of BEP certified proofs are still government property and could be seized.

luckybucks

Neat notes. Very informative thread.

STLNATS

Originally posted by: gsalex

I've seen at least one cut-off $500 myself in the Smithsonian collection. "Pilfered" maybe wasn't the right word -- employees probably weren't pulling the $1000 proofs for themselves. But they were still given away and hence a loss to the public. Seems like a case could be made that any privately held specimens of BEP certified proofs are still government property and could be seized.

That would seem to be an incredibly difficult case to make beyond "we're the government, here's our guns and we're here to take 'em." If the proofs were used in presentations (to officials, bankers, or whoever) that were officially sanctioned, which seems to be the case, I can't see how they could be legitimately claimed to be government property and seized. And similar to obsoletes, it appears that relatively few original series nbn proofs/specimens were ever transferred to the government but were retained by the banknote companies. Indeed a few lower denominations appear in Heritage's auction archives all of which seem to be original series issues (don't recall seeing an example of an 1875 series proof which most likely would be a BEP product being sold, but frankly I've not looked very hard). I'm also aware of a few BEP produced progress of later series also sold at auction with no question raised about ownership.



If some of the proofs were used in displays who knows what happened to them. They could well still be buried in the Treasury, the BEP or National Archives somewhere, or pitched or given away.

DanCong

The story of the 1933 Gold Double Eagles is a case in point, though an appeals court has overturned the seizure, the case is not yet over. Here is a quote from the story
"The family had taken the coins to the Secret Service in Philadelphia to have them examined, Berke said. "They authenticated the coins and said, 'Thank you very much. We will now be keeping them,'" he said."

STLNATS

Originally posted by: DanCong

The story of the 1933 Gold Double Eagles is a case in point, though an appeals court has overturned the seizure, the case is not yet over. Here is a quote from the story

"The family had taken the coins to the Secret Service in Philadelphia to have them examined, Berke said. "They authenticated the coins and said, 'Thank you very much. We will now be keeping them,'" he said."

I thought of that too but the situation is rather different and the government has a legitimate case to make. I thought the coins were either stolen or at least not officially distributed/put into circulation in any sense. By contrast a presentation, for instance, would have official sanction by definition. And the originals do not seem to have ever passed to the government except in a few instances.

DanCong

The government's argument is to disprove a negative, i.e. "we never released these" rather than "here is the police report identifying these as stolen and the way to uniquely identify these as those in the police report". It is quite clear the mint as well as the BEP have made unofficial bits and given them away fairly regularly, and in fact could have presented those to someone. However from the government's point of view it is "Hey those are cool, we want them, so we will just take them because we have been so careless to not keep track of what we were doing and you need to prove you are innocent of a possible crime from 100 years ago". Other proofs and specimens have been seized that way before.

gsalex

Isn't the BEP specimen stamp on all these proofs a de facto "property of" statement?

gsalex

While transcribing more of the Pennsylvania boxes today, I found another example of a $500 proof, minus the $1000 which should have been below it.

STLNATS

A few things to note about the Union piece.

This is a series of 1875 note, produced by the BEP

The last shipment of these to the bank occurred in 1884 (11 sheets) per Huntoon. The remainder of the printing (sheets 12 to 55) were cancelled and not sent to the bank. In fact the last hi denom note delivered to ANY bank was in mid 1885.

The BEP stamp is dated 1891, well after this sheet was pulled to proof the plate. That is, while I suppose the BEP stamp could be considered a "property statement" (altho it could also just be a "specimen" statement frequently added to notes) it was added several years after the sheet was produced.

The charter number is on the prez sig line rather than the lower margin.

The latter two points suggest to me that the 1000 was separated from the sheet before the charter number stamp and perhaps the BEP stamp was added. As a sidebar, I don't recall any of the BEP stamps dating before the 1890s and the Mobile AL seems to be dated around WWI (191-).



I'm just speculating, but it looks like there was a project to stamp charter numbers to sheets (or remainders such as the Union) at some point. Many already seem to have had the number printed in the lower margin but not all and remainders would not have retained the number so perhaps this was done for consistency. Also, the BEP stamp was added to proofs including existing originals and 1875 series proofs perhaps beginning in the early 1890s; don't know for sure, but perhaps it was done to stop the use of proofs for presentations, etc. At some point thereafter it appears that a BEP stamp was routinely added to proof sheets as they were produced. Here's a later example of the stamp used in the early 1900s. While it doesn't seem to have a date, it does appear that the stamp was part of the approval process evidenced by the date and sigs in the margin.

gsalex

Absolutely love the World's Fair note! I had never heard of this bank -- looks like was almost created for the purpose of producing notes. Only this 50/100 proof appears in the digital collection.

You may be onto something in regards to the charter numbers and specimen stamps. A stamped proof would certainly be a deterrent to creating presentation pieces.

I went through the only other state that might have hi-denom proofs -- Maine. No first charter notes, but here is the only bank to issue a $500 in the 1875 series, the Merchants National Bank of Portland, charter 1024. Only NINE notes were ever printed from this plate! The last possibility will be Rhode Island -- those boxes should be up for transcription shortly.

gsalex

Here is a puzzler. According to the information that rbethea posted earlier, there should only be one series 1875 $500 NBN from Maryland:

For 1875 Issue:
Maryland - 1 bank of issue, 50 printed, none known

Yet, I've been able to find two -- The National Mechanics Bank of Baltimore and the Citizens National Bank of Baltimore. Both have Allison/New signatures, so they are clearly not first charter. And there's also something peculiar about the Citizens NB note. Closer inspection of the BEP imprint shows that it appears to have been pasted on later.

Any idea what's going on here?

STLNATS

For charter 1413, likely the the original series plate was prepared for the series 1875 after the BEP took over but no notes were ever ordered so none were printed/issued to the bank. I've actually seen something similar this for a series 1902 large circulation STL bank (I think 170 but I'd have to check my notes). A new plate was prepared apparently never used; instead another plate was prepared and used (with correctly incremented plate letters).



My understanding is that the proofs were pretty disorganized when Pete compiled the list 20 years ago so it may have been overlooked/missed.



For 1384 I suppose it's possible that that this is either an incomplete progress proof (after only the sigs had changed) and the final proof sheet was spoiled or lost or that the plate slipped through initially without the BEP imprint which wasn't noted until sometime later. Not clear when the pasted info was added.

gsalex

Which Maryland bank is listed as issuing the 1875 series $500, according to Huntoon's book?

I have to say, it seems odd that the BEP would spend the time to prepare a plate for such a high-denom note without an order. Bet there's more to this story, but I'm not sure how you'd research it.

STLNATS

OK, you didn't cite the original source of the info you're using but it may not be complete/accurate. Per Kelly both 1384 and 1413 issued original series $500 in the form of a single note sheet, 70 and 60 respectively. You didn't see the proofs of the originals most likely because they probably were NOT transferred to the BEP when the BEP took over the production of nationals in the mid 1870s. This is VERY common for original charter plates, a STL example being the Carondolet bank I mentioned before.



1384 ALSO issued 50 series of 1875 single note sheets.

Originally posted by: gsalexI have to say, it seems odd that the BEP would spend the time to prepare a plate for such a high-denom note without an order. Bet there's more to this story, but I'm not sure how you'd research it.

Not at all odd if you follow how this went down. When the BEP took over the printing from the private banknote companies they added the BEP legend to and changed the sigs of the plates produced by the banknote companies in anticipation of having to print notes. The high denoms were not in strong demand at the time (there's some nice graphs in the text that support this) so I get the strong impression that at least to some extent the BEP did not automatically print a stock of the hi denoms (as they did with other notes) but waited for an order from the bank. Also as I mentioned, I have found one example on STL and think that there is at least another in the chapter on plate lettering altho I think that the exact reason may well have been different than that of 40-50 years before with the hi denoms. At any rate, the most obvious and simple explanation is that they modified the plates for both banks, since each had previously received hi denoms, but only received orders for one.

AllLincolns

Gorgeous notes... Are there any proofs of the backs of the $500 and $1000?

STLNATS

Originally posted by: AllLincolns

Gorgeous notes... Are there any proofs of the backs of the $500 and $1000?

Found these from a quick google search:









I'm pretty sure these are from the Smithsonian collection but wouldn't think they would be in the same group with the face plates.

STLNATS

FWIW I had a chance to look at some of the other tables in Huntoon and the 1875 plate/proof for 1413 was known to him. Table 10, footnote d notes that the original series plate was converted to series of 1875 but was never used.