When bullion becomes money.
RogerB
Posts: 8,852 ✭✭✭✭✭
This is a brief follow-up to an earlier post regarding the fallacy of "monetization."
In the period when U.S. Coins contained gold and silver there were some basic principles of handling precious metals. This short article might be helpful to collectors and others in understanding how bullion became coins.
First, the U.S. Mint tracked gold and silver bullion by weight of pure metal. At certain times this included the alloy necessary for coinage, but all accounting was by weight in Troy ounces. In every step of the coining process from casting ingots, rolling, blanking, upsetting and striking, the only method of measuring metal in use was by weight. There was no physical count of planchets. Adjustment records, even though filing was done by the piece, were always measured by weight. (A good example of this will be found in the “Guide Book of Peace Dollars” where a flow chart prepared by the Assistant Coiner shows the movement of silver through his department including striking of 1964-D one dollar pieces. Earlier Coining Department records demonstrate the same approach for gold.)
Second, once a planchet was struck by legal dies, it remained bullion. At this step of the coining process, struck pieces were checked for manufacturing errors, counted by piece, weighed and put into bags designed to hold $5,000 in gold or $1,000 in silver coin. This step is a little confusing because two things happened almost simultaneously. As each struck piece was weighed, it was assigned to a bin of either “light,” “standard,” or “heavy.” These pieces were all within the legal tolerance for individual weight. The purpose of separating by weight was because the Coinage Act of 1873 imposed a tolerance for both individual struck pieces AND the weight of a bag of coins. The legal weight of $5,000 in gold coin was 268.75 Troy ounces, with a deviation of only one-hundredth of an ounce per bag from this legal weight. The weight range for a bag of new double eagles was 268.74 to 268.76 Troy ounces. Struck pieces were counted – 250 double eagles per bag, for example – using pieces from each of the weight categories, and then weighed together. If the total weight was too high or too low, pieces were removed and replaced with “lights,” or “heavies” until the correct weight for $5,000 was attained. Thus, all coins in a bag were within legal tolerance for individual pieces, and each bag contained coins over a span of legal weights so that the $5,000 value was correct to within 0.01 Troy ounces. This type of accuracy for delivering bags of gold was not used in other large national mints.
Third, after correct bag weight was achieved, the Coiner approved the coins and they were then tracked only by legal tender denomination – that is, by dollars. Deliveries to the Superintendent were in dollars, not pieces. This was used in all reports of coinage, although piece count was often added so that Congress could see how much work was involved in making coins. At delivery, the pieces became full legal tender coins of the United States.
Comments
Great Info. Esp. for the New members of the forum. Thanks for the schooling.-joey
"Jesus died for you and for me, Thank you,Jesus"!!!
--- If it should happen I die and leave this world and you want to remember me. Please only remember my opening Sig Line.Recess is 30 minutes....and no standing on the monkey bars!
Do they even still have "monkey bars" because of the unsafe issue? We, as kids, experienced many things that are called "unsafe" today! We were tough kids back then, right?
"Jesus died for you and for me, Thank you,Jesus"!!!
--- If it should happen I die and leave this world and you want to remember me. Please only remember my opening Sig Line.RogerB:
A. How were Proof coins handled? They certainly were not put into bags on a regular basis? Please discuss the legal tender status of Proof coins of the 19th century.
B. How about non-Proof coins that were not put into bags? Collectors, dealers and tourists visiting the Mint would probably prefer coins that were never placed in bags, as coins put into bags often end-up with many bagmarks. Did visitors to the mint and others guests receive struck pieces that were not legal tender, items that most numismatists now would regard as true coins?
Building a Type Set of Eagles
****A. ****Proofs were made, checked and delivered in the same manner as circulation coinage. They were simply handled and packaged differently. Proofs were made in small batches and might be held by the Coining Dept. for some time, or added to a normal delivery of the same denomination. Cashier's Daily Statements show this on dozens of occasions. Proofs are legal tender just like any other delivered coins, and were included in monthly production totals. (Separate reports were made for proofs because they were sold at a premium and the profit accrued to the Medal Fund account as well as the coinage account.) The Coiner was solely responsible for determining that a struck planchet met the legal criteria for a “coin;” he could even classify a struck planchet as a coin or bullion depending on temporary need to balance and simplify recordkeeping. The Superintendent was responsible for verifying the Coiner’s decision and did so by accepting delivery. There are instances where the Coiner condemned large quantities of struck planchets because of a defect in weight or purity. This was also done by the Superintendent on occasion.
****B. ****Pieces that were not delivered to the Superintendent were not legal coins. Souvenirs of coinage all came from delivered production regardless of their status as circulation or proof coins. This also applied to Annual Assay coins and other pieces reserved for quality control….all of these were among the delivered coins. Another way to see this is that the Cashier (earlier, Treasurer) was the point of exchange of coinage with the public. All coins in his custody were legal tender.
Note that question B assumes many things that are only speculation and not part of the minting process or visitor reception/entertainment.
Great Information.
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
RogerB:
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 otherwise "delivered" by the coiner to the cashier or to representatives of the mint cashier. On more than one occasion, he has permitted me to quote him on this point in my published articles.
It is my understanding that Proof U.S. coins from the 1840s were never "delivered" by the coiner to the cashier, or entered into the cashier's ledger. Would it really make sense to say that these are not coins?
Certainly, those who researched mint records regarding 1841 quarter eagles seem to be in agreement, despite their sharp differences on other points, that there was no explicit record of 1841 quarter eagles being delivered by the Coiner to the Cashier or to a superintendent. They say that there are no clear records of 1841 quarter eagles in the cashier's ledger. R. W. Julian has said as much as well.
The Controversy over 1841 Quarter Eagles, Part 1
The Controversy over 1841 Quarter Eagles, Part 3, The physical characteristics of Proof coins
Insightful10@gmail.com
Great thread!
X> @hchcoin said:
It truly is.
I did not know bags were subject to such a fine tolerance or that there even was a spec for bags, period.
"If I say something in the woods and my wife isn't there to hear it.....am I still wrong?"
My Washington Quarter Registry set...in progress
Very interesting thread...Please continue....So far, it appears that record keeping varied from intense control, to haphazard....depending on the time/personnel/product....Cheers, RickO
1. Most early US Mint records are missing. However, where we have records, they are consistent with the practices I described earlier. The Philadelphia Mint revealed in 1938 that they did not have proof coin records for minor coins before 1878 and for other proofs prior to 1858. (This information is freely available to anyone who bothers to look in the archives. I've sent copies to numerous persons and publishers.) The coins would have been recorded normally and the quantities simply included in monthly or annual totals -- we don't know for sure because the records do not exist. The historical presumption in hobby literature is that something illicit and nefarious was going on -- lots of "midnight minters" running around. Fun stories, but modern research does not corroborate most of those allegations.
2. No one implied that pre-1858 proofs ("master coins," etc.) were not coins. They are not explicitly separated in the dearth of available documents.
3. “No clear records” does not mean “no records kept.” The bullion had to be accounted for, as did time and labor and all the actions necessary to prepare and strike coins. A lot of “old tyme” hobby literature being repeated completely ignore all of the processing steps that precede making a coin on a press. (Mr. Julian, as is consistent with is complete research approach, is one of the few who understand this.) If you look in “From Mine to Mint” you might get a better idea of all the things that must occur first. (Or, check the flow chart for 1964-D dollars in “A Guide Book of Peace Dollars.”) There was no big supply of planchets just sitting around waiting for someone to single handedly make a bunch of coins for personal profit. Dozens of workmen and managers were intimately involved throughout manufacture and on a daily basis. (Early investigation into manufacture and distribution of proof coins and pattern pieces clearly shows the extensive resources necessary to make even one piece for a collector as a trade for a coin for the Mint Cabinet.)
RE: "I did not know bags were subject to such a fine tolerance or that there even was a spec for bags,"
This requirement arose because bags of British sovereigns and Latin Monetary Union gold often had correct piece count AND correct individual coin weights (within legal tolerance), yet the total gold content of a bag of 1,000 sovereigns was less than standard. The problem occurred when the Royal Mint and others in Europe used automatic planchet shaving machines. (These were easier to use in Britain because there were only two gold coins to adjust.) The machines were set to reject light and heavy planchets ("out of tolerance" or in Royal Mint language "beyond remedy"), it was to the mint's advantage to issue sovereigns that were at standard or slightly below. This was commonplace with the result that U.S. bankers had to separately verify sovereigns to ensure they received the full gold content, and not just a piece count. The Coinage Act of 1873 sought to force a higher standard on world gold exchange bu imposing very tight tolerances for every $5,000 in gold; hence, 268.74 to 268.76 Troy ounces.
To be clear: Royal Mint practice was entirely normal and legal. Individual coins confirmed to law, but there was nothing in law relating to coins in bulk.
Hope this helps a little.
Given that the largest category of patterns are pieces de caprice, does it follow that the extensive resources necessary for a single piece may have be regularly exercised?
Patterns and experimental pieces were made by order of the Mint Director, Treasury Secretary or Congress as samples of proposed coinage design or other substantive change. That removes them from the kind of tracking and accounting afforded legal tender coins. But, restrikes - even those made for exchange to benefit the Mint Cabinet - were a different matter: money had to come from someplace to pay workmen and for metals. Limited original sources available at present show these costs were added to what was charged when restrikes were sold.
Patterns were not coins - except here the design was later made a legal tender, such as the pattern pieces of the approved Trade Dollar designs.
RogerB:
Information and analysis provided to me by R. W. Julian would suggest that this statement is not true. He concluded that pre-1860 Proofs were not 'delivered' by the Coiner to the Cashier or to a superintendent. They were not recorded in a pertinent Cashier's ledger. Moreover, I am NOT, in any way, implying that it was illegal or unethical to make and release Proofs in this manner. R. W. Julian may not be either. Julian is saying that such items are not coins, according to the law, and not really drawing conclusion as to whether it is legal or illegal to own them. There are numismatic items that are not coins.
If it is true that there never were any Mint Cashier's records of most or all Proof coins from the 1840s, then Proofs from the 1840s would not satisfy the definition of 'legal tender' that has been put forth by Roger or the definition put forth by U.S. Treasury Department lawyers in some cases. (We can talk about definitions without talking about particular legal cases.)
If the definitions put forth by Roger or by U.S. Treasury Department lawyers indicate that Proof 'coins' from the 1840s are not coins or are bullion items, then maybe their respective definitions are wrong. In my view, an item can be a true coin without there being a written record in a Mint Cashier's ledger or in a "Cashier's Daily Statement"!
RogerB:
This statement is just not true and is not indicative of responsible research. R. W. Julian has made it clear that, in his view, most or all pre-1860 U.S. Proofs are "technically not coins." Moreover, anyone who maintains that there has to be a record of a 'delivery' from the Coiner to the Mint Cashier (or superintendent) for a struck piece to be a coin would also be stating that most or all pre-1860 Proofs are not true coins. This topic is relevant to the legal status of thousands of coins in PCGS holders.
It is also very relevant that there are no mint records regarding 1841 quarter eagles. Please see my post above.
Insightful10@gmail.com
Bob Julian's research is uniformly excellent, but your understanding is palpably incoherent. You attempt to find a problem when there is none beyond missing records and your own confusion.
Roger:
In addition to being factually wrong, as I very recently confirmed my interpretation of Julian's research in this regard with him, this statement by Roger is malicious and is not in any way helpful.
RogerB:
Bob Julian has granted permission to me, several times over the years, to quote him on this matter. I have done so only to a limited extent because his views on this matter are beside the topics of my articles. Such views are, however, extremely pertinent to the topic of this thread.
R. W Julian:
Although I do not agree with Bob, I am certain that I am fairly and accurately representing his point of view on this matter. He is maintaining that most or all pre-1860 Proofs are "technically not coins"!
In order to seriously attempt to define a coin and to analyze relevant legal cases that might arise in the future, perhaps relating to 1913 Liberty Head nickels, Ultra High Relief Saints or 1870-S silver dollars, there is a need to understand (though not necessarily to agree with) the reasons why some U.S. Treasury (or Justice) Department lawyers have argued that all 1933 double eagles are not coins. (There is not a need to refer to any one case to discuss general definitions.) The definition of a coin employed by such government lawyers is very much consistent with that put forth for years by R. W. Julian: it must be 'delivered' by the coiner to a Mint Cashier or superintendent, and a clear written record must be kept, for a struck price to become a "true coin."
In my opinion, this whole mode of thinking is wrong. In order to disagree with an approach, though, it is a good idea to understand it. Also, my opinions are beside the main point here, which is to clarify and to question definitions of a coin and of "legal tender."
Your introduction of current litigation prevents me from responding further to this post. You have now succeeded in destroying two information posts which were intended to aid collectors. Hope you are pleased with yourself.
Now, boys boys, let's not fight! Both of you will have to go to the "Principle's office"!-
"Jesus died for you and for me, Thank you,Jesus"!!!
--- If it should happen I die and leave this world and you want to remember me. Please only remember my opening Sig Line.Roger:
I have not destroyed any threads. I have fairly and accurately introduced Bob Julian's pertinent view, with his permission. I made clear that we can discuss the definition of a coin generally without commenting upon "current litigation," which we can certainly do.
Besides, although I have not yet read the appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court that was filed by the Switt-Langbord family, my understanding thus far is that this appeal solely relates to CAFRA, not directly to the definition of a U.S. coin or to the definition of "legal tender." If I am incorrect on this point and the current legal appeal is tied to such concepts, it would be Roger, not me, who would be implicitly affecting the appeal on his own initiative, as he started threads on "monetization" and "legal tender" at a time when it is very apparent to many members of this forum that these were central concepts in both the Fenton and Switt-Langbord 1933 DE cases.
It was "Mr. 1874," not me, who connected the concept of "monetization" to controversies over 1933 double eagles, in Roger's recent thread on "monetization." Furthermore, before the Fenton 1933 Double Eagle case, I do not remember anyone using the term 'monetization' in regard to classic U.S. coins. The mere mention of the term on this forum this year relates to the Fenton and Switt-Langbord 1933 Double Eagle cases. While I contend that the arguments put forth by government lawyers in both the Fenton and Switt-Langbord cases are logically flawed and inconsistent with the traditions of the Philadelphia Mint, it does not make sense for Roger to implicitly address the government's approach in this matter, while denying that he is doing so.
The Treasury Department use of the term "monetization" in 1933 DE cases is obviously almost the same as Roger's use of the concept 'make legal tender' in this thread. Both stem from the narrow, puzzling, and untenable, notion that, for a struck piece to be a coin, it has to be "delivered" by the Coiner to the Mint Cashier (or superintendent) and has to be included in an entry in a Cashier's ledger or spreadsheet. There are numerous items, which are clearly coins, that were not subject to such a process, in my view. Bob Julian thinks otherwise, and his perspective should be included for a debate on the meaning of a U.S. coin to be especially productive. Also, I believe that the views of QDB on this matter are similar to mine, but not exactly the same.
Insightful10@gmail.com
I would be interested to read more of what Bowers (QDB) has to say about this. In the event that there are conflicting opinions, I would tend to believe the conclusions of Bowers over those of Burdette.
PS:
Are you an alias for "RWB" (Burdette) and weren't you banned from this site ?
If so, it didn't take long for you to go back to your old insulting habits.
Personally I don't really care if a person circumvents the rules by establishing an alternate ID.
But they shouldn't expect to win any friends with unproductive rhetoric of this sort.
DCarr:
I wrote two articles about the Switt-Langbord 1933 DE trial in 2011. I contacted QDB, and I quoted him in one of my articles. I had earlier discussed 1933 Double Eagles with him at the Summer 2004 ANA convention. I have also read some of his statements 'for the record' in the Fenton case.
Additionally, in his book on double eagles, QDB provides much interesting information regarding this topic and releases in general of rare double eagles from the Philadelphia Mint during the 1930s. I an not endorsing all of his points. Indisputably, however, he is implying that many rare double eagles that were not formally delivered by the Coiner to the Cashier, and not entered into a Cashier's ledger, are coins and are legitimately owned by collectors now.
https://www.amazon.com/Official-Red-Book-Complete-History/dp/079481784X
My pre-trial article on the Switt-Langbord case shared the NLG award for best article to be published on a web site.
The fate of the ten Switt-Langbord 1933 Double Eagles
My post-trial article includes comments by Q. David Bowers and David Ganz:
Analysis of the Verdict in the Switt-Langbord Case
I'll have to largely support Roger on this. A technical argument can be made that certain proofs are not coins since they were not delivered though the Mint Treasurer or recorded according to the coinage acts. However, that is a very technical point and there is no question that they were accounted for in some manner as the Mint had to account for all metals down to the grain. Eckfeldt and later Coiners and Directors certainly had a "proof and experimental" account book for proofs, patterns, and experimental coins. That most of those records are now missing does not alter the fact that the MInt had to have accounted for the metal.
Furthermore, the fact remains that, should one care to, one could take a, say, 1827 proof half dollar to the Treasury and have it accepted as legal coin (at face, prof course). Now, there may be some initial questions,but if the gov't that struck the coin recognizes it as legal coin, then is it not a coin?
The foregoing is not as wild as it seems, Early coinage used to show up at banks on occasion. In fact, the Mint records document the return of many obsolete coins, incl.uding large cents as late as the 1950s. I could regale members of my finds in the 60s to 80s, but no one believes that stuff, probably with good reason.
Rittenhouse:
I am not sure that this remark indicates an understanding of the seriousness of the matter or of the underlying debate. This is a long post, as I seem to have failed to communicate central and extremely important concepts earlier in this thread.
In any event, R. W. Julian is clearly saying that pre-1878 Proof Indian cents, all Proof Flying Eagle cents (1856-58), Proof Two Cent pieces and some Proof Three Cent nickels are "technically not coins." He also asserts that most or all pre-1860 Proofs are not coins as well. I made it clear that I DISAGREE with R. W. Julian regarding his definition of a coin. Roger's definition above of a struck piece becoming "legal tender" is about the same as Julian's definition of a struck piece becoming a "coin."
Rittenhouse:
It is obvious from his posts that Roger does not regard it as merely a "very technical point." It could be fairly suggested that the Treasury Department's whole case in the Switt-Langbord trial stood on this "very technical point"!
It is puzzling that Rittenhouse does not see that the absence of a clear record of a delivery of 1933 Double Eagles from the Coiner to the Cashier is the main argument by government lawyers that all 1933 Double Eagles are NOT COINS AND are stolen. As there is a limit the topics that can be addressed in any one thread, let us focus on whether pre-1860 Proofs, 1870-S silver dollars and 1933 Double Eagles are coins. Even if one holds that such pieces are not coins, hypothetically, it does not necessarily follow that any were "stolen." But, this thread is about whether struck pieces NOT recorded by the Cashier are coins, 'legal tender,' not about whether they were stolen.
As I said above, I contend that the arguments put forth by government lawyers in both the Fenton and Switt-Langbord cases, and by the government's sole coin community witness in the Switt-Langbord case, are logically flawed and inconsistent with the traditions of the Philadelphia Mint. Again I say, throughout the history of the Philadelphia Mint, it was common for collectors, dealers or other visitors to trade old coins for new coins, or to trade common date coins for scarcer coins. 1931, 1932 and 1933 double eagles, and 1870-S silver dollars, are rare dates.
It is fair to conclude that the people involved in such coin-for-coin trades or exchanges honestly did not think that there was a legal requirement to record each coin-for-coin trade in a Cashier' ledger or equivalent 'accounting book.' The fact that so many interested people do not understand my thesis, and similar findings by QDB in the past, is the main reason why some people honestly believe that 1933 double eagles are not coins. They are coins.
Rittenhouse:
This remark is misleading. Anyone could have brought gold or silver to the Mint. Employees had gold or silver coins in their pockets.
The fact that no precious metal in sum was missing does not mean that there were ever records of all silver or gold numismatic items that left the Mint. If people traded old half dollars for new half dollars, Proofs or business strikes, during the 1820s and 1830s, there would thus have been the same amount of silver 'on hand' at the Philadelphia Mint. In 1827, if an 1825 business strike was traded by a collector for a Proof 1827, then there was the same amount of silver at the Mint before and after such a trade.
In the 1840s, Proofs were made and distributed 'off the books'! The people who did so, I hypothesize, honestly believed that such a practice was legal and ethical.
My pre-trial article on the Switt-Langbord case shared the NLG award for best article to be published on a web site.
The fate of the ten Switt-Langbord 1933 Double Eagles
My post-trial article includes comments by Q. David Bowers and David Ganz:
Analysis of the Verdict in the Switt-Langbord Case
Ah, my apologies. Now I see your point. Before I proceed, let me say that I could not care less about the fate of the 33 Saints and the following discussion is only from a technical standpoint of the coinage acts and mint practices.
First let me state that Analyst's impression that the mint workers were allowed to carry coin is somewhat mistaken. The earliest mint rules written by Boudinot in 1795 clearly state under rule 10 that: "In order to avoid suspicion, no workman or laborer shall carry about him any of the same denomination of coins, at that time striking at the mint, under the penalty of forfeiting the same, and all the wages that shall then be due to him, and be immediately discharged."
The bit about denominations being then struck is due to the fact that the circulating coinage of the time mainly consisted of foreign coinage. So, the mint couldn't care less if someone had, say, British or Spanish or French coinage on him, but he would not be allowed to have US coinage.
I have not found this or other mint rules codified into any of the coinage acts up through 1873, but I may have missed it. Nonetheless, it was a published internal rule and had effect. Obviously, at some time this rule was amended to cover any coins, which is were it is today. So no, mint workers would not be waltzing around the mint with coin in their pockets that they could easily switch out.
As to the exchange of coins, the only way a citizen could exchange would have been to come to the cognizant official at the time and receive new coin for old, or to purchase proofs. He wouldn't waltz into the mint grab some half dollars or whatever out of a bag or box and toss in his trade, as Analyst seems to imply.
As to one point I made earlier, the various coinage acts make it very clear that a struck piece is not a legal coin until it is delivered to and accepted by a cognizant authority. Prior to 1873, that was the Treasurer. After 1873, it was the superintendent. However, lack of a delivery record does not mean the coins were not legally delivered. There is no delivery record for the 1839 Gobrecht dollars, but they are accounted for in the mint's account books and they are shown in the quarterly report to the Treasury. Ergo,there is a clerical error.
Did coins leave the mint illegally? You bet. Prior to Director Kimball largely putting an end to the practice, mint officials regularly struck and sold pieces to collectors. But, make no mistake, these restrikes and fantasy pieces, such as the Gorbrecht restrikes, mules, and off-metal pieces, are quite illegal and the gov't would be well within its rights to seize them at any time.
As to my point on proofs, early on the mint sold these to collectors as a promotional practice. Under J R Snowden, it became more formal and the mint published public notices of availability and prices. These monies did accrue to the mint and there certainly was some account book (now missing), so despite the fact that they did not go through the "official delivery" channels, one could solidly argue that they are legal coin. An additional supporting argument can be made that proofs and other collector pieces are not directly addressed by the various coinage acts, which are clearly directed toward coinage for circulation, and thus the acts do not apply. I'll leave that argument to the lawyers should it come to pass.
AS to the 33 Saints, if I recall, it has been argued that mint workers were allowed to purchase specimens of new coinage by exchange for a coin of equal denomination. I have not seen any substantive documentation of that issue, but then I really haven't looked. So again, I'll leave that to the lawyers.
I have mentioned this before in another thread, but I bartered some muffler work with a fellow in town who advertises on his marquee that he will work for .999 silver. It cost me three ounces to have my stock muffler removed and my Magnaflow welded on...back when silver was around $16 per ounce this past summer.
BST transactions: dbldie55, jayPem, 78saen, UltraHighRelief, nibanny, liefgold, FallGuy, lkeigwin, mbogoman, Sandman70gt, keets, joeykoins, ianrussell (@GC), EagleEye, ThePennyLady, GRANDAM, Ilikecolor, Gluggo, okiedude, Voyageur, LJenkins11, fastfreddie, ms70, pursuitofliberty, ZoidMeister,Coin Finder, GotTheBug, edwardjulio, Coinnmore, Nickpatton, Namvet69,...
It is my understanding that there was a general amnesty, as I and many others had suggested before the finished revision to the site was rolled out.
Roger has been fairly open as to his true identity, more so than many in the forums.
TD
Rittenhouse:
Evidently, Rittenhouse has not read my pertinent articles, has not read QDB's relevant writings and has not communicated about such matters with R. W. Julian. Of course, I did NOT imply that anyone could grab half dollars "out of a bag." This is a peculiar interpretation of my post above. Indeed, I put forth a hypothetical, though extremely plausible, example of someone trading a business strike 1825 half dollar for a Proof 1827 half dollar, clearly not something that would be in a bag left open on the floor.
Among people who have studied the history of coin collecting in the U.S., the notion that of coin-for-coin trades by collectors, dealers and tourists, is widely accepted and is not controversial. The technicalities of the laws may be subject to conflicting interpretations. The notion that coin-for-coin trades occurred should not be subject to debate; there is no doubt about it.
Rittenhouse:
No, as R. W. Julian and others have made clear, before the mid 1850s, Proofs were available to anyone at face value, provided that those seeking Proofs knew who to ask and how to word the requests. Terminology was not standardized to the extent that it is now. Anyone could have gone to the Cashier's "window" or office and traded old coins for new coins or rarities that were available. Generally, there were collectors in the Philadelphia area who got to know Mint employees. Later, there were dealers who did so as well. Julian has provided evidence that, in some circumstances, there were fees charged for the cases that housed Proof coins, especially Proof sets, in situations where the Proofs themselves were released at face value.
Rittenhouse:
Another legal judgment in Rittenhouse's most recent post should probably be left to lawyers as well. There were no legal restrictions regarding the nature of pattern, experimental and trial pieces, including fantasies. The legal issues are ambiguous, and there is no evidence that any patterns were 'stolen.' If mint employees "sold" pieces for more than face value or production costs, as evidently they did in the late 1850s and 1860s, then the accounting of the profits has serious legal implications and it is possible that 'profits' were stolen. It does not necessarily follow that any patterns were stolen.
Rittenhouse:
Rather than "leave that to the lawyers," it would make sense to read my articles, as no lawyers seem to be considering the issue at the moment, as far as I know. Besides, there are not many lawyers who are familiar with the history of coin collecting in the U.S.
QDB has repeatedly pointed out that forms published by the U.S. Mint in the 20th century made clear that anyone could trade common date Saints for rare date Saints. Even in the absence of such forms, someone who understands the history of coin collecting could easily figure that out, without specific evidence.
In a book written by a government witness, it is made clear that a tourist came to the mint and acquired a new 1933 single eagle ($10 coin) at FACE VALUE. That author says or implies, that since only a small number of the known 1933 eagles can be accounted for via entries in the Cashier's ledger, most known 1933 eagles ($10 coins) were 'stolen.' I do not accept this conclusion.
I theorize that a tourist is more likely than a collector to ask for a receipt because a tourist would be more likely than a dedicated coin collector to soon spend such a 1933 eagle ($10 coin) and thus would want to keep a receipt as a souvenir of his visit to the Mint if he later decides to spend the 1933 eagle ($10 coin).
oih82w8
Even though this statement might seem to be off-topic at first, it actually is indirectly pertinent. The transaction cited by "oih82w8" is NOT a like-for-like trade. When collectors or dealers went to the Mint to acquire coins of interest to collectors, the implicit policy of the people involved, the tradition, was that a collector, dealer or tourist could trade an old coin for a new one, or a common coin for a rare coin, as long as the denominations matched. These were considered like-for-like trades and probably not subject to the paperwork required for releasing many bags of coins earmarked for a bank.
My pre-trial article on the Switt-Langbord case shared the NLG award for best article to be published on a web site.
The fate of the ten Switt-Langbord 1933 Double Eagles
My post-trial article includes comments by Q. David Bowers and David Ganz:
Analysis of the Verdict in the Switt-Langbord Case
This is a great thread....and an interesting debate. Thanks to all who have posted!
K
_It was "Mr. 1874," not me, who connected the concept of "monetization" to controversies over 1933 double eagles, in Roger's recent thread on "monetization." _
i didn't realize at the time i made my post that Roger was not at liberty to discuss "1933" before i made my post in the monetization thread,"Analyst."
i fixed my post by deleting it in entirety so that Roger could further express himself freely to the extent he feels comfortable with.
You want to discuss which came first,"Analyst," the chicken or the egg?
You should remove the links to your award winning articles for Roger to be comfortable with responding in a thread like this. It's just using common sense for you to do this,"Analyst."
Hijack threads much? lol
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
I love these educational threads!
Early on, the mint sold proofs to collectors at face value. The important point is not the cost but the mechanism. The average citizen could possibly purchase a proof at the mint if one were available. Generally, these were obtained by writing to the Director or other official. The point being that they went through an official channel.
Once again, you conflate price with mechanism
Ah, so taking pieces out of the Mint Cabinet Collection and selling them to a collector is not stealing? Mint officials using mint labor and equipment to manufacture planchets and strike pieces for sale to collectors for private gain is not stealing? Violating coinage acts, which are federal law, and distributing coins to the public in a manner other than that prescribed is not illegal? You have some interesting definitions of legal and illegal. The mint and the gov't certainly considered these activities illegal as Linderman was under investigation at the time of his death and all of the aluminum patterns were seized from his estate prior to auction. His estate was lucky they didn't take the rest.
Once again, you are conflating issues. First, I clearly stated that I do not care about the outcome of the current legal issue. Second, I have no material interest or standing in the case, as either a complainant, defendant, lawyer, gov't representative or otherwise. So, why would it make sense for me to read an outside opinion on the subject? Furthermore, if your argument is that the 33 Saints currently under litigation are legal for what ever reason you think you have, why would you bother to argue it here? Even if everyone on this site agrees, that has no bearing on how the case will be decided. The argument(s) need to be made in court, or at least to the owners' attorneys. If you have already done so, or are one of the attorneys, then so far your arguments haven't been very convincing as evidenced by the existing court verdict. If an appeal is filed, I wish you and the owners the best of luck.
Analyst, as quoted by Rittenhouse: </i
Rittenhouse:
Yes, I have been saying this for years, in my articles and on this forum. This point was not clear in Rittenhouse's posts earlier in this thread, which certainly muddied the issue. It is thus important for me to emphasize this point now.
Rittenhouse:
Not just possibly, likely, this was especially true if the "average citizen" visited the Philadelphia Mint on mulitple occasions, showed an interest in coins, and sought to 'get to know' people who work there. For numismatists who have some understanding of the history of the Philadelphia Mint, these seem like obvious points to me.
Rittenhouse:
Neither common sense nor evidence is consistent with this point by Rittenhouse, which is thus likely to be wrong. If we consider all the pre-1855 Proofs, all the early gem quality business strikes, all the 'restrikes,' and other relevant 19th century pieces that are not easily classified, it seems obvious that most were NOT obtained by writing letters. Obviously, there were collectors and dealers who were known to Mint officials. Most of these items were obtained 'in person,' probably without paperwork.
My theory, which is similar to the views put forth by QDB and others, is that the people involved in coin-for-coin exchanges (at face value) honestly believed that there actions were legal and ethical, even if there were not recordings in a Cashier's ledger or any other pertinent accounting book. Of course, I am not referring to every single item that left the Philadelphia Mint. I am putting forth a general rule, for which there may be exceptions. I further argue that, before the 1933 DE cases, a tradition of coin-for-coin exchanges was widely understood by most everyone who was involved or very interested. Although I understand why some researchers may disagree, there is both logic and evidence that supports my theory.
As I acknowledged repeatedly, QDB's views on the matter are very similar to mine, though not exactly the same. He may have put forth a similar theory long before I did. I have been reading his works since I was ten years old. Remarks regarding his views on this matter may be found in some of his books (especially in the Whitman book on Double Eagles, 2004), many of his articles in Coin World, and clearly in some of his statements for the record in the Fenton 1933 DE case. For example, QDB shows evidence that rare date double eagles, years after they were struck respectively, were available from the Mint at face value during the 1920s and 1930s.
R. W. Julian has also indicated that, at times, throughout the history of the U.S. Mint, people obtained new coin issues for face value, without being issued receipts and without entries in a Cashier's ledger. Like Roger B. might possibly say, Bob Julian would say that such struck pieces are not "legal tender" if not 'properly' recorded by the Cashier (or other designated official). There is no question, however, that obtaining a struck piece at face value is different from paying a premium for it.
Rittenhouse's point above that I "conflate price with mechanism" is not accurate, and does not make sense. A profit would have to be accounted for in a way that a like-for-like trade would not be. An exchange of one silver dime for another silver dime does not involve a price; it is just a coin-for-coin exchange. After such an exchange, the respective Mint would have the same amount of silver and the same total number of dimes.
My pre-trial article on the Switt-Langbord case shared the NLG award for best article to be published on a web site.
The fate of the ten Switt-Langbord 1933 Double Eagles
My post-trial article includes comments by Q. David Bowers and David Ganz:
Analysis of the Verdict in the Switt-Langbord Case