The fallacy of "monetization"
RogerB
Posts: 8,852 ✭✭✭✭✭
A persistent question pops up when I attend coin shows and frequently on line. The question is usually something like "When is a coin monetized and become money?"
The answer has two parts:
Part 1. There is no such thing as "monetization" of U.S. coinage and never was. The term was used in the 1930s in relation to permitting silver bullion to be valued at its statutory coinage value ($1.2929) for the purpose of issuing silver certificates against the bullion. This avoided the expense and inconvenience of striking standard silver dollars. (This is per Treasury Chief Counsel Herman Oliphant's office memos 1935-36.)
Part 2. Gold and silver coins of the United States become legal tender when the Coiner certifies them as meeting all statutory requirements for legal tender, AND the pieces are then "delivered" to the Superintendent/Plant Manager of the mint where they were produced. The Superintendent's acceptance permits distribution of the coins unless otherwise directed. In the old days, delivery was usually made to the Cashier as the Superintendent's representative. No other act was necessary by law, rule or custom.
I hope this will some how sink in and the nonsense about "monetization" of some coin or other vanishes like the rotten bologna it is. Almost all on-line descriptions are pure falsehood.
Comments
Roger, Roger.
RogerB:
According to this definition, is it true that there did not have to be a precise written entry in the Cashier's ledger for each 'delivery'? Could there have been ambiguous or unrecorded 'deliveries' that satisfied the legal requirements of "legal tender?
Besides, it would help if the statute in question was explicitly cited here. Is Roger saying that copper and nickel coins could be 'legal tender without being subjected to such a process?
The fate of the ten Switt-Langbord 1933 Double Eagles
Here, here.
Few can argue the truth about monetization. The Flying Eagle cent (1856) was created before a law was passed authorizing it.
WB .... is that really the one and only RWB ?
If so, know you're a forever favorite ( authority and numismatist )
While I cannot cite law, common sense dictates what money / monetization is .
My previous understanding of usage of the term "monetization" was that it meant making the coins legal tender as you outline above. I assume base metal coins had the same requirements, as well, although since the value wasn't correlated with the weight, the statutory requirements were different.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
Thanks Roger, this makes it very clear so there should not be any confusion. Cheers, RickO
so, using this concise explanation it follows that any coins smuggled out of the Mint are not "money" since they were never delivered to the cashier.
All struck bullion pieces had to be approved by the Coiner as meeting the requirements for legal tender, AND then accepted by the Superintendent. There were no exceptions, although a delivery might include a mix of circulation coins and proofs. As most delivery records are missing we can only presume the mint was consistent, and I suspect it was. The officers took their work very seriously and did their best to be accurate. Wastage was consistently far below the levels set by Congress; and there were no incentives for this except personal satisfaction in public service and a job well done.
Also, let's be clear: pattern and experimental pieces were NOT legal tender and were NOT coins. The 1856 FE cents were not and are not coins.
Base metal/minor coins had to meet the same requirements as gold and silver for acceptance, although the tolerances were different. RE: "it would help if the statute in question was explicitly cited here." Check the coinage act of 1873 and other laws relating to coinage,and Mint regulations of various eras; they are consistent in this process and also in having no reference to the bogus term "monetization."
Lastly I do not and cannot make any remarks relating to pending litigation or proposed legislation. This post is not directed at or intended to relate to any other, and is solely about the fallacious term mentioned in the title.
RE: "so, using this concise explanation it follows that any coins smuggled out of the Mint are not "money" since they were never delivered to the cashier."
You have to define "smuggled" and also the time and place of the alleged activity to get a meaningful answer.
post deleted
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
I can make no comment on the previous post and would prefer that it be removed from this thread. Otherwise, I can make no further posts here.
RogerB:
I did not comment as to whether 1856 FE cents are or are not coins. R. W. Julian was referring to ALL Proof Flying Eagle cents, not just 1856 Flying Eagle cents. Please read my articles.
R. W. Julian has pointed out, as examples, that ALL Proof Flying Eagle Cents, ALL pre-1878 Proof Indian Cents and many other Proof coins of the 19th century were not entered into Cashier's ledgers or in any way "delivered" by the Coiner to the Mint Cashier. In his view, these are "technically not coins." I do not agree, but I very much respect his view. He could be right. R. W. Julian is the leading researcher of mint records of 19th century Proof coins.
IMO, it is illogical, probably a mis-interpretation of the law, and certainly inconsistent with the traditions of the Philadelphia Mint to theorize that a struck piece must be "delivered" by the Coiner to the Mint Cashier (or superintendent) and clearly recorded in a ledger (or accounting book) for it to be a coin or to be "legal tender."
If a law really sets forth these requirements, it should not be taken literally as to apply to ALL struck pieces. Coins distributed in quantity to recipients, especially multiple bags of coins, of course, were legally required to undergo a strict procedure to ensure that coins were not stolen or accidentally mis-directed, and to keep the accounting straight regarding money and bullion received by the Mint as well as to track large releases of coins.
Coin for coin exchanges by collectors, dealers, or tourists, were be a different matter, as were Proofs sold to collectors. A trade of a common date for a rare date, or a trade of an old coin for a 'new' coin of the same denomination is a like-for-like exchange that should not be relevant to the topics of "legal tender," Monetization or theft.
My understanding from researchers is that, other than one or two documents that indicate an 1870-S dollar was placed in a "cornerstone" of the second SF Mint, there is no record of 1870-S silver dollars. Yet, I am certain that nine exist and are privately owned. I argue that these are coins and are (or were in 1870) "legal tender" even if they were not delivered by the SF Mint Coiner to the Mint Cashier or to a superintendent.
Million Dollar Coins, Part 2: U.S. Silver Dollars, including 3 1870-S coins
Insightful10@gmail.com
I cannot participate in any discussion including active litigation or legislation.
Statements in the post immediately above violate that and I can make no further response to this thread. End of responses.
Too bad Roger.... I understand your position, but value your inputs...Cheers, RickO
i am considering editing my previous post so that RB's discussion about the fallacy of "monetization" can continue here.The edit would constitute of removing all my words from my post since total removal can only be done by PCGS.
PCGS,go ahead and remove my previous post in this thread if you see fit.
I would consider removal or deletion of my post a small price for me to pay for RB to exercise his First Amendment right to free speech on the subject of monetization on this board in this thread.
i don't know how to edit post,though,with this new format.
Is it even possible for the poster to edit post here?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
@mr1874 Edit by clicking on the "gear" icon [next to the time in the top margin of your post] and then clicking 'edit'.
Successful transactions with : MICHAELDIXON, Manorcourtman, Bochiman, bolivarshagnasty, AUandAG, onlyroosies, chumley, Weiss, jdimmick, BAJJERFAN, gene1978, TJM965, Smittys, GRANDAM, JTHawaii, mainejoe, softparade, derryb
Bad transactions with : nobody to date
Thanks 1630Boston.The deed will be done.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Mr. 1874:
I have edited my post above as well. There is now no mention of any past or present legal cases. On this forum, I have never referred directlyor indirectly to "active" legislation.
Million Dollar Coins, Part 3: Half Cents
The subject of the thread is "The fallacy of 'monetization,'" please stick to that so that the thread is useful to others. If there are other questions, then it might be best to start a new thread.
I concur with Roger with the minor caveat that prior to the Act of 1873, it was technically the Treasurer of the Mint who certified that the coins delivered to him by the Chief Coiner met standard and were thus legal coinage. You can find links to the various coinage acts on loc.gov at http://www.heritech.com/pridger/monetaryacts.htm. Linderman changed that with the Act of 1873 for his own convenience which, I believe, JD will be discussing in his upcoming proof books.
Yep. I did not want to further complicate matters by introducing the pre-1873 Treasurer's role. Linderman was the primary author of the 1873 act. Removal of the Mint Treasurer position was long an item of discussion due to conflicts between that officer and the Superintendents, and the Treasurer's other role as Assistant Treasurer of the U.S. But that's a different topic.
Very interesting post.
My Ebay Store
Very interesting post.
My Ebay Store