Carson Mint. Reason silver dollar mintages were reported in even thousands.
RogerB
Posts: 8,852 ✭✭✭✭✭
This letter might help collectors understand why silver dollars and some other coins were "minted" in even thousands. Also note that completed coins could be carried forward to the new calendar year even though dated the previous year.
6
Comments
Yes, I have been saying this for years. Thanks for proving me right.
Could you please email me a copy of this image?
Original image sent. 5.3 meg.
Much grass!
So the mintages were reported in even thousands but any odd numbers were counted into the next year's numbers and so-on. Therefore actual dollar mintages of this time are +/- 999. Interesting, thanks for sharing!
Yes, and see that half dollar mintages are usually in multiples of 2,000, quarters in multiples of 4,000, etc.
I have long suspected that the 700 Standard Dollars reported for San Francisco for 1873 were leftover 1872-S dollars held past the end of 1872 according to this standard operating procedure of the era, that were then issued in 1873 as 1873 coins regardless of the true date on the coins. One was even sent to the Assay Commission along with other 1873, with everybody politely turning their eyes away from the date. Of course, I cannot prove this.
TD
Very interesting observation and makes sense given this letter. Rounded to the nearest $1,000 bag.
If they only knew what their time saving shortcut and mintage count would create a 100 years later! Probably did not matter to them anyway.
Does this mean that 1888 was the only year this wasn't the case?
Pacific Northwest Numismatic Association
RE: "Yes, and see that half dollar mintages are usually in multiples of 2,000, quarters in multiples of 4,000, etc."
The quantities refer to a full bag ($1,000) of each denomination. You will see the same pattern in gold coins ($5,000/bag): DE 250, E 500, HE 1000, QE 2000, $3 1667, and G$ 5000.
Interesting, thanks for posting. However, this appears not to be the case initially at the Carson City mint. The mintages for Carson City-minted Liberty Seated Dollars and early Trade Dollars were not rounded to the 1,000s. There doesn't appear to be any rounding in 1870, 1871 and 1872. Starting in 1873, it appears that Carson City Seated Dollars and then Trade Dollars were rounded to the nearest 100. Rounding to the nearest 1,000 looks to have started in 1876.
Complete Set of Chopmarked Trade Dollars
Carson City Silver Dollars Complete 1870-1893http://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/showcase.aspx?sc=2722"
Good information... might throw the previously believed mintage numbers slightly off ... Cheers, RickO
What does this imply for the 1895 Philadelphia Morgans? All Morgan dollars (except for years 1878, 1890 and 1891) had official mintages in even thousands. Official Mint policy was to deliver all silver dollars in its possession, in even thousands, at the end of each calendar year. Why, therefore, would 12 full bags of 1,000 Morgans dated 1894 be held back at the close of the 1894 calendar year, to be reported instead in the 1895 calendar year?
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
Have been browsing through the 1895 Mint Report looking for any plausible reason why the delivery of 1894 dollars might have been delayed until 1895, such as a change in personnel in either the Coiner or the Cashier, but the issue is not very chatty. I think you would have to read the Philadelphia newspapers of late 1894 and early 1895 to find any news of such a personnel change.
There is an item on P. 22 about miscellaneous Appropriations and Expenditures. Owing to a change in the Superintendency of the Philadelphia Mint on April 1, 1894, $22,041.41 was spent on inventorying all of the precious metal bars and coins in the Mint. The weighing of 111,150 bars containing 118,992,256 ounces of silver was not completed until October.
The weighing and counting of 50,000,000 silver dollars commenced in March and was not completed until January of 1895, because: "Owing to the fact that the roof of the vault in which the dollars were stored leaked, the bags had rotted. The count was, on this account, rendered very tedious, and was not completed until January, 1895."
I am assuming that the Cashier was in charge of the vault and the inventory. I can just see the Cashier telling the Coiner in December of 1894 "I don't need any more (bleeping) dollars right now! Just hang on to them for a while until I get this done!" At least that is what I would have said.
This is of course mere speculation on my part. Your mileage may vary.
TD
A further note on P. 71: Mr. William S. Steel resigned as Coiner as of May 31, 1895, and was in office as of the start of the Fiscal Year on July 1, 1894, so he did not leave office at the end of 1894, as I speculated might have happened in the above post.
Hmm. There was only a small run of 1894 Philadelphia dollars. The "official" mintage is 110,000. Presumably this is the number of dollars delivered sometime in calendar year 1894. So if an additional 12,000 were struck but not delivered, they would likely have been struck late in the year. (If we have access to reported numbers delivered by month, it would be helpful.)
Also, any 1894 dollars delivered would not be in the "rotted bags" group, and so could have been counted rather quickly. Twelve intact bags would not have been a big deal in the overall scheme of things. And the Cashier may not have had the discretion to override official Mint policy regarding end-of-year delivery.
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
RE: "What does this imply for the 1895 Philadelphia Morgans? All Morgan dollars (except for years 1878, 1890 and 1891) had official mintages in even thousands. Official Mint policy was to deliver all silver dollars in its possession, in even thousands, at the end of each calendar year. Why, therefore, would 12 full bags of 1,000 Morgans dated 1894 be held back at the close of the 1894 calendar year, to be reported instead in the 1895 calendar year?"
1894-dated dollars were not involved in 1895. The "story is false and of no merit. This bit of nonsense arose out of a well-intended article in a Bowers & Merena newsletter. The article made several assumptions based on incomplete information and blind guesses. Later research shows that the 1895 dollars were struck and delivered at the end of June. There were no unusual circumstances and all circumstances are entirely normal. Collectors should also consider that the Mints operated on a fiscal year for accounting purposes, and the June 1895-dated coins were, for reporting purposes, part of the 1894 fiscal year that began July 1, 1894.
Further, to put this falsehood to rest, look at RG 104 Entry 271 vol 4 on NNP (as referenced in another thread). This shows completely normal reporting.
Overdate, Re-read the last part of the last line in the letter. It says that "...good pieces not delivered may be included in the deliveries of next year." It does not say that the number of good pieces not delivered has to be less than one full bag.
Obviously the intention was to deliver as many full bags as possible by the end of the calendar year, but the letter leaves a large loophole big enough to drive a cart with 12 bags of dollars on it through. The Mint was a classic Old Boys institution. If the Cashier asked the Coiner for a small favor, the chances were good that he would get it. It was no skin off the Coiner's nose.
From the monthly coinage reports:
1894 standard silver dollar deliveries:
March 252
June 179
August 48,000
September 12,200
October 50,000
December 341
Total for calendar year -- 110,541
Maybe a little perspective on the operational "pecking order" at the Philadelphia and other mints will help.
The boss was the Superintendent
The number 2 in authority was the Superintendent's chief clerk
Next came the Chief Coiner - but he had absolute control over coinage operations - beginning to end - and coin acceptance as legal tender. He could also categorize struck pieces as "coin" or "bullion" as he deemed appropriate.
The Assayer came next. He could condemn any melt or coinage production for improper purity.
The Engraver (at Philadelphia only) could condemn any coinage he felt was improperly made even if it passed the Chief Coiner's tests.
As for others, the Cashier worked for the Superintendent, but individually was of limited influence in coinage. However, he controlled the storage vaults and Cashier's Cash vault.
No one wanted to "rock the boat" so change was very slow in coming. Ad hoc moving of coin and bullion was evidently very uncommon - it disrupted the tight parameters of everyone's work....and that just created more work.
Those are deliveries. I am speculating that coins may have been struck but their delivery delayed, in which case they would not appear on this chart.
You tend to believe the Mint. I have been lied to enough times by the Mint (granted, in modern times) that I do not necessarily believe what they say.
Misinformation from the US Mint has always been focused on outward presentation - not internal use and documentation. It is certainly valid to view mint press releases and public explanations with considerable circumspection. But one cannot conflate that onto routine operations - operations and accounting that would immediately fall apart if one department falsified documents.
I do not "tend to believe the Mint." I believe the operational documents and numbers from multiple sources that confirm events. For example, if one looks at proof coin production in 1885, one will fine several contemporary sources plus later compilations. These sources agree on quantities for most denominations, but not all. Discrepancies in reporting occur and make it impossible to make a modern, definitive statement - only a range. But the discrepancies do not mean anyone is lying - only that different sources disagree. Now, if we look at a public example such as 1969-S doubled die cents, the situation is entirely different. Mint operatives openly lied in an attempt to cover production errors - but internal documents show that technicians knew what had happened and the problem was under discussion. (See the post discussing strike doubling of proofs.)
Every internal document relating to coinage shows consistent operations for 1895, 1894, 1896 or most any other year anyone cares to select.
To believe that someone waited 6 months to deliver 12,000 coins is absurd. There is no objective evidence or proof of this "1894 coin" lie. (When the B&M article was written it was an interesting idea. We had nothing or confirm or deny it. Several prominent numismatists jumped on the "band wagon" and promoted the hypotheses. Now we have a lot of original information, from multiple data streams, and can present the truth built on facts, not speculation.)
My approach is factual with ample support from multiple original materials. If some wish to believe some outlandish and unsupported explanation, they can do so. But promoting fiction as fact is unworthy.
It seems unlikely that an odd lot (341) would be delivered in December while an 12 full bags of 1,000 were intentionally left sitting until the following June. If the Cashier wanted December deliveries to be delayed, why would he have accepted the odd lot of 341 but refused to accept the 12 Mint-approved bags of 1,000?
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
Re: Capt. Henway....I can confirm that the good Captain has been telling me for years about coins being minted in
even thousands...