1902 Coins in circulation recieved at Philly and New Orleans Mint BY DATE! (Lg. images)
EagleEye
Posts: 7,677 ✭✭✭✭✭
From the 1902 Mint Report
A study of abrasion loss on silver coins. The Mints sorted coins by date!
A study of abrasion loss on silver coins. The Mints sorted coins by date!
Rick Snow, Eagle Eye Rare Coins, Inc.Check out my new web site:
0
Comments
Thank you. I'll study it later.
I also find the last page of interest, showing how many counterfeits they were getting in. During the 1890's silver was so cheap that it paid off 2-to-1 to make fakes of of full weight silver.
Look how many fake cents they recieved!
<< <i>It gives you an idea of the distribution of dates, slanted in favor of the Seated and Bust coinage, that was being collected by the Philadelphia Mint and New Orleans Mint. This is the Government sifting through coins by date! amazing!
I also find the last page of interest, showing how many counterfeits they were getting in. During the 1890's silver as so cheap that it paid off 2-to-1 to make fakes of of full weight silver. >>
The Chicago FED did the same thing back in 1998 in anticipation of the
issuance of the states quarters. These were current coins though and
they just wanted to know what was in circulation and its condition.
Maybe a FOIA request would get one.
If memory serves it was some 10,000 coins.
CopperW
Michael Kittle Rare Coins --- 1908-S Indian Head Cent Grading Set --- No. 1 1909 Mint Set --- Kittlecoins on Facebook --- Long Beach Table 448
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
<< <i>Very interesting documents. Thank you for sharing. Cladking, do you have a link to the information about the clad count you described? This forum rocks!
>>
It's not well known and most improbable it exists on the net. I did look a couple years ago.
Way cool.
siliconvalleycoins.com
Today, contemporary counterfeit Indian Cents are very rare compared to higher denominations. Therefore, my guess is that the "counterfeits" in the report were mostly Civil War Tokens.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
18,254 large cents redeemed in 1902 according the report.
Rofl
<< <i>Look how many fake cents they recieved! >>
THAT blew me away, as you never see contemporary counterfeit Indian cents.......I wonder if they were Civil War tokens still circulating as cents?
TD
Edited to add.....Oops....should have finished reading the thread before posting.
siliconvalleycoins.com
siliconvalleycoins.com
siliconvalleycoins.com
It may be because much of these early halfs may have been exported to the Carribean and in later years, especially after the specie resumption act of 1879, they came back to the US through New Orleans.
siliconvalleycoins.com
At the ANA Summer Seminar, last week, while everyone else was taking a joy ride to Pikes Peak, I stayed in the library and went through the Mint reports. I was researching the copper and nickel coins (lg. cents, CN cents, bronze cents, two cents, 3c nickels and 5c nickels) redeemed and recoined into cents and nickels from 1894 to 1909. The 1902 mint report stands out as a truly wonderful edition. It has images of the new Third Philadelphia Mint (which I can post) as well as a description of the new mint from every department (I can also post that) along with the typical statistics that they usually have.
It is not often I find fault with ancient government publications, but what in the heck is the "loss, per cent / ounces" columns?
It is not a per cent. It is a ratio. If you multiply the numbers shown by 100 you get per centages and not before.
It is abraded ounces missing divided by original ounces. The ounces cancel each other out. It has no unit of measure. It is a pure ratio.
I was surprised at the large number of silver dollars turned into the New York Sub-treasury.
It's searchable in the .html form, or you can download it as a .pdf.
Almost all of the Mint Reports from about 1875 to 1910 are available on Google books, in one form or another. Frequently, they're combined with the Annual Report of the Secretary of the Treasury, which gives a lot of information on general economic and currency conditions.
edited to add: By the way, be sure to look at the errata slip near the title page - it corrects some errors in the information on uncurrent coins.
Check out the Southern Gold Society
<< <i>This is some very, very interesting data.
It is not often I find fault with ancient government publications, but what in the heck is the "loss, per cent / ounces" columns?
It is not a per cent. It is a ratio. If you multiply the numbers shown by 100 you get per centages and not before.
It is abraded ounces missing divided by original ounces. The ounces cancel each other out. It has no unit of measure. It is a pure ratio.
I was suyrprised at the large number of silver dollars turned into the New York Sub-treasury. >>
They really should define uncurrent as well. There's little doubt this
includes some holed and severely damaged coins. It's somewhat sur-
prising that coins with 10% loss of metal from wear would even have
a readable date.
$20.50 (41 Columbus halves) Abrasion .17
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
<< <i>So there! I should have gone to Pikes Peak anyway! The Internet is your friend! >>
The internet is our friend but having only poked my head into the ANA Library I can tell you I certainly would treasure a peaceful afternoon spent there reading and researching.
"Inspiration exists, but it has to find you working" Pablo Picasso
I wish I had this data for mutilated/melted data for seated dollars...
Very cool thread!
It makes the history we hold in our hand even more tangible.
To think a little more than 100 years ago, these coins could still be found in circulation.
Wow.
Thanks for the history lesson!!
"Bongo hurtles along the rain soaked highway of life on underinflated bald retread tires."
~Wayne
<< <i>the number of counterfeit cents is amazing to me
Today, contemporary counterfeit Indian Cents are very rare compared to higher denominations. Therefore, my guess is that the "counterfeits" in the report were mostly Civil War Tokens. >>
I wonder if, in the finest tradition of governmentese, they only considered the Civil War Tokens that looked like Federal issue coins (i.e., with Indian Heads on them) to be "counterfeits" and ignored the others?
TD
<< <i>I think it is interesting to see how many 3 cent silvers were still in circulation...for some reason I had it in my head that they just disappeared after the 1870's. I guess not! >>
I notice that they did not bother to calculate the loss on these, either because there were two different weights and two different finenesses to take into consideration, or because it was just too trivial to worry about.
TD
<< <i>What are some thoughts on why the results from the New Orleans Mint were different than the Philly mint? Halves of every date up to 1806 turned in for melting, while the philly mint on had coins dated 1821 and later. >>
Actually, Philly had halves back to 1808, but for some reason the early dates appear at the end of the date listing rather than at the beginning. Perhaps the typesetter accidentally skipped the first page of copy as he was setting the hot lead, and when he finished all that work and found the missing page just tacked it on at the end.
<< <i>Under twenty cent peices it says 1874-1875... ummm????
Very cool thread! >>
But then lumps them together onto one line.....
Perhaps the person who set up the recording sheet for the searchers to record their finds on went back through Mint records and wrote down some fiscal year coining figures on his template, or other bookkeeping anomolies. Note that they had a line for 1826 dimes, which were never struck with that date.
Interesting that they never found an 1846 dime. Tough date.
TD
<< <i>
<< <i>This is some very, very interesting data.
It is not often I find fault with ancient government publications, but what in the heck is the "loss, per cent / ounces" columns?
It is not a per cent. It is a ratio. If you multiply the numbers shown by 100 you get per centages and not before.
It is abraded ounces missing divided by original ounces. The ounces cancel each other out. It has no unit of measure. It is a pure ratio.
I was suyrprised at the large number of silver dollars turned into the New York Sub-treasury. >>
They really should define uncurrent as well. There's little doubt this
includes some holed and severely damaged coins. It's somewhat sur-
prising that coins with 10% loss of metal from wear would even have
a readable date. >>
FWIW, I once checked some weights of some slick Seated quarters and halves and some Morgan dollars, and found them to all be pretty close to 7% light. For a coin to be 10% light and have a readable date I would expect it to be bent in such a way that the date was somewhat protected.
TD
TD
As I recall from reviewing the late-19th century Mint and Treasury reports, there is discussion of Trade Dollars scattered here and there.
In the Mint Director's reports, each Mint reported the amounts and types of gold and silver that were deposited each year. Usually, though, there is just a line item for "mutilated and uncurrent coin", without any detail regarding the years and denominations of the coins. (Sometimes there's more detail regarding the foreign coin that was deposited.)
I was focusing on the gold deposits in my research, so I didn't really look at the silver deposits. I don't recall if there was a separate line item for Trade Dollars.
Check out the Southern Gold Society
Buying top quality Seated Dimes in Gem BU and Proof.
Buying great coins - monster eye appeal only.
I couldn't help but cringe when I saw all the scarce/rare coins that were just melted.
What I wouldn't give for a time machine to go back and pick up a few rolls from the bank
<< <i>Very cool, thanks for posting.
I couldn't help but cringe when I saw all the scarce/rare coins that were just melted.
What I wouldn't give for a time machine to go back and pick up a few rolls from the bank >>
I am pretty sure that what made them scarce/rare in the first place
Lafayette Grading Set
There are several journals listing uncurrent, etc., coin by mint/assay office. NARA College Park.
<< <i>Here's a bit of speculation: Perhaps because of the move to the new mint in October 1901, there were many idle hands. This may have been a make-work project to keep the mint workers busy for a few weeks. >>
That would make sense, especially if the melting pots were offline as well for the move.
<< <i>as a collector of seated coins, i find it amazing that so many early dates were still circualting in 1901, lots of very scarce dates on those pages. if im reading that correctly, that was what the mints melted in '01 alone ?? >>
Remember that all pre-Civil War silver disappeared by 1862, only to reappear in the late 1870s.
TD
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution