One of the reasons for scattered early gold coinage, and the resulting die varieties.
RogerB
Posts: 8,852 ✭✭✭✭✭
The part of a longer letter helps us understand why early gold coinage was sporadic. This delay between batches of gold coins, also likely increased die varieties due to unfamiliarity of workers with the dies and metal.
[Patterson to Woodbury, July 21, 1834. Excerpt.]
“In regard to gold, which it is presumed constituted the more interesting branch of the enquiry, a practice has obtained varying from the general rule without being supposed to violate its spirit but rather to promote its design. Formerly when gold was received only in trifling amounts, it was allowed to accumulate, since small parcels are not suitable to operate on, until the amount of say $50,000 had been received, which perhaps would not be more than once in a quarter: it was then all coined at once, the silver coinage meantime proceeding with no sensible interruption. As gold increased in quantity, and a fit mass for operation was accumulated at shorter intervals, the periods of coinage became more frequent, and for the last two years it has rarely happened that any deposits of gold has remained uncoined to the extent of 40 days: we consider 30 days as the ordinary extreme when the coinage takes place, all that has been for even a week in the Mint is usually thrown into it – care being taken by timely precautions that the deliveries of silver coins shall still be maintained.”
[RG104 E-216 Vol 01. Available free at NNP.]
Comments
The five dollar gold coins were issued on a fairly regular basis throughout the 1795 to July 1834 period. It was the two and a half dollar pieces that were issued sporadically.
Still this explains why die rust is often seen on the earlier gold die varieties. The humid climate in Philadelphia rusted a lot of the dies the Philadelphia Mint used. As the mint waited to hit the “magic number” of $50,000 in gold, the dies could deteriorate in the mean time if they were not protected from the elements.
This goes into the 1850s and beyond. I once owned a high grade 1854, Type II gold dollar that had extensive die rust on the obverse.
Very interesting.
Makes sense to me - especially with the batch processing that was common back then.
There had to be many steps to convert the "raw gold" into strip and planchets ready for striking. Recycling of offal as well. Striking was probably one of the easiest steps but in any event, they would want to set up the entire process and run an economical lot size without expending extra labor for setup.
“In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." - Thomas Jefferson
My digital cameo album 1950-64 Cameos - take a look!
A typical "melt" of gold was about 2,000 T. ounces. $50,000 in gold was likely handled in two 1,250 oz batches....not really very much. About 1/2 of that ended up as scrap for remelting.
I have often wondered how much of the gold scrap left the plant by theft..... seems their systems were not the most stringent back then, though I am sure that accountability was important. Still, chips and clips add up after a while.... Cheers, RickO
Weights had to balance correctly at the beginning and end of each day and each process step. There was a legal tolerance for unavoidable wastage, but questions were asked if the actual amount exceeded 5% of tolerance.
The primary Mint operations where fraud occurred was in deposits of gold, silver and natural alloys. Before about 1870, naturally occurring iridium, osmium and platinum were also problems in California gold.