Options
Information wanted about Philippine coinage 1903-1904. P and S Mint tables included.
RogerB
Posts: 8,852 ✭✭✭✭✭
I came across this large spreadsheet while searching for information on Puerto Rican coinage. The quantities - especially for 1904 proofs - seem odd....there are just too many proof coins to be reasonable. Can someone proficient in Philippine coinage help me understand? Thanks!
1
Comments
I have some info from Lyman L. Allen: U.S./Philippine Coins 6th Ed..
The only mintage figures I could find listed are:
1903 2,558 Proof Sets
1904 1,355 sets
1905 471 sets
1906 500 sets
1908 500 sets
I just checked the Red Book and the figures match so this was of no help...Sorry.
In the jingoism surrounding the establishment of America's first colonial empire they may have been expecting huge sales.
Allen wrote that many 1906 and 1908 sets were unsold and sent to Philly. Wayte Raymond bought some that were sold after his death.
For 1903 the table shows "2,558" just as in Mr. Allen's book. But for 1904 the total is 10,962 ! The table shows 13,520 for 1903 and 1904. I'm confused.....
That sure is a mystery.
I've checked the numbers every which way to no avail.
Doesn't act like a clerical error.
I'd like to know the sources of the currently published numbers.
"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
Unless I'm reading the spreadsheet incorrectly, the mintage of non-proofs of 1904 coins seems to be extremely low (low enough to maybe be coins for assay purposes only?).
The Lyman Allen reference mentions that 10,000 sets of 1904-P Philippines coins were ordered by Farran Zerbe to be sold at the Philippine Exhibit of the 1904 St. Louis World's Fair. Is it possible those "special order" coins were classified by the Mint along with the proofs for some reason?
The numbers there seem to add up to just over 10,000 sets struck in June 1904. With the St. Louis Fair running from April 30, 1904 to December 1, 1904 the timing works out as well.
Michael Kittle Rare Coins --- 1908-S Indian Head Cent Grading Set --- No. 1 1909 Mint Set --- Kittlecoins on Facebook --- Long Beach Table 448
illini - Interesting and plausible explanation for the proofs. Basically, most of those reported on the table were not actually proof coins, but a special order.
The regular 1904 coinage is strange....Also, assay and special assay coins were taken from production, not specially struck.
Here's the corresponding San Francisco table. Nothing seems unusual here.
Trying to figure this out: how about:
1903 and 1904 proof coinage is as you say 13520
and if the 1903 proof coinage is correct from the table and in Allen's book at 2558 then (13520 minus 2558)= 10962
for the 1904's
Krueger
Its long been suspected that the 1904 coinage was struck from proof dies most likely with a single strike.
too costly to make new dies to strike so few coins.
Looks like 1352 proof ten centavos were struck ( therefore max double struck proof sets that could be made) this matches well with the 1904 - 1355 proof set totals listed elsewhere.
The difference count of three maybe was for ASSAY purposes, or an error in transposition from authors later??
10962 total pesos - 1352 pesos for proof sets= 9610 left. This leaves Zerbe short by 390. More mysteries, did he order 10,000 sets or just pesos only, as
the table shows not enough 50 centavos or twenty centavos where available for 10,000 sets . Maybe more were struck from other silver sources than just silver bullion purchases as noted?? Maybe they were made up in 1905??
The numbers concerning these sets in the various literatures as been confusing for years. I do not profess to have
the answers only to engage the discussion.
Krueger
Another strange phenomenon, in 42 years collecting USPI. I have never seen a compete 1904 " Zerbe" set in tacked from time of issue. I have been told by just a few dealers that they have had one. But they could have been a put together set as I never saw them. Does anyone have a catalog reference or photo of such a set with possibly identifying documentation? I think whatever they consisted of, most of them were probably remaining after the 1904 Fair and were released to the Philippines or dealers as they were worth face value 1/2 U.S. currency.
Krueger
Assay pieces, both Special Assay and Annual Assay were included in total production. No coins were struck only for "assay" purposes - that would defeat the purpose of them.
The proofs are listed by value, not count. 13,520 10-centavo proof pieces are shown on the first table.
Philadelphia circulation coinage Dec 1903-Sep 1904 is also "goofy."
Well --- "No coins were struck only for "assay" purposes - that would defeat the purpose of them." -- seems to be incorrect for this situation.
A list of assay pieces, evidently originally part of the Philadelphia table in the first post, shows the tiny mintages of circulation pieces as part of "assay coins." Very strange and completely against Mint Regulations and Coinage Act of 1873.
Am I reading the first table post correctly? There appears to be identified for 1904 small mintages of separate pieces of 10 pesos, 7x 50 Centavos ,7x20 Centavos and, 7x 10Centavos. Were these the supposed Assay set asides?
There are some random Philippine proof coins out in the collector base of 1905,1906 dates I have seen with numbers punched above the eagle. Could these be mint identified assay pieces, or something other nefarious?
Do you have the chart /table from 1906 mintages for the Philippines?
Krueger
Philadelphia table: The 3rd column from left has mintages in pesos (no pieces) and nearly every entry has strange amounts -- as if 1 piece of each denomination were made separately.
The SF table show no such activity, simply dividing between metal sources as purchased silver and from uncurrent coins.
OK, I read and calculated the table wrong. Yes on what you said. I count a total of 10 business strike pieces struck for each denomination from march thru June 1904. In Altz and Barton "Foreign Coins Struck at the United States Mint" ,1965 ,pg46 , It states(10) silver sets were set aside for Assay purposes in 1904, (4) in 1905, and (1) each in 1906 and 1908. They were included in the regular mintage figures and not in the listing of the proof coins.
On the Philly account sheet Left side very top it says includes assay coins less proofs.
Still confused on total 1904 mintage. Capitulation table total of 13520 includes the May thru Dec 1903 proof coinage of 2558 ( it adds up) leaving 1904 proof column total at 10962 which is also what you get when individual 1904 monthly totals are added up. According to the chart all in this column were coins ( including those sent to Zerbe). 10,000 went to the order from Zerbe thus leaving a remaining 962 proof sets. Where did the number 1355 proof sets total in 1904 come from in the literature? still trying to figure that out ( see below).
Altz and Barton says 10,000 (Zerbe), 1355 proof sets plus 10 assay pieces = 11365.
Neil shafer (1961) "United States Territorial Coinage for the Philippine Islands" states that none of the 1904 coinage was struck for circulation as the Mint record shows, **and 1355 proof sets were struck by order **and were sold at the Mint throughout the year.
He does not say that all these sets sold were of the date 1904 though. By my additions of the Mint record they only had 962 sets available to strike as proofs by order.. The Mint record/ count says all 1904 silver coins were accounted for as proof mintages ( but more likely they were like the 1960's special mint set strikes) except the 10 assay pieces. I wonder if 393 or 1355 of the 10,000 Zerbe sets were actually full mint ordered struck proofs (962+393= 1355). If all this is correct then there was a total mint record sum mintage of 10962 plus 10 Assay pieces for a total 10972 of which 1355 were Mint ordered truly struck proofs. Therefore: 9607 mint special mint sets plus 1355 proofs plus 10 business or mint set strikes for assay.
Krueger
I don't think any of the sources mentioned stated exactly where they found the data. The key here is to go back to the original documents. They would include Mint and Treasury materials about the Philippines, and Bureau of Insular Affairs archives, also in NARA, College Park, MD.
Zerbe's "10,000 sets" might have been made on a toggle press, which means they were not proofs. But, maybe they were counted with the real proofs. The really strange thing is making a handful of coins for assay - that was contrary to all past actions and regulations, and seems to have no purpose.
Here are extracts from the 1903 and 1904 Annual Assay Commission official minutes:
1903
1904
[Source – Burdette: Annual Assay Commission, United States Mint 1800-1943.]
Yes sources of their data were not mentioned. Neil Shafer did tell me though some years ago at the Pittsburg ANA show that he used mint archives records. He said he had spent a lot of time in the Archives on them when he wrote his book.
Krueger
Unfortunately, saying "mint archives" is useless. You need Entry number and box or volume number, and preferably dates of the documents.