As for the $2.50 and $5 Indians, the supply of uncs is much smaller. do you think that is due more to the lower numbers struck or higher rate of circulation??
The biggest factor is the large piles of unc Double Eagles that sat in European bank vaults for decades. (In the past 40 years or so, most have been repatriated.)
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Roger, A story from our family. My mom was born in 1915. She told me that before she was born and while she was a child, her dad would receive a $5G in his pay envelope as well as paper money.
I never pursued the family story other than just listening to it. I am of the conclusion that it was very customary for people to try to save the gold at home by accumulating it. One of the few reasons to spend it was to buy a home. Outright, with no mortgage.
<<Mint and Treasury shipment documents state that nearly all the $2.50 and $5 gold coins were used for holiday gifts. They were demanded by banks from Oct through Dec, then began returning to FRBs and Treasury in January and February. I have not seen enough of the recoinage records to know if the returns were consistently recoined, or if recoinage was into the same denomination or different ones.>>
This same effect could be clearly seen with silver dollars in the 1950's. (Silver dollars had their own entry in the Treasury's circulation statement.) There was a smaller peak in circulation at Easter (Passover). In the 1960's the backflow of silver dollars from the banks was overshadowed by the amount going into circulation. By the way, most of the silver dollars that passed through my hands were circulated. There were some glorius exceptions though.
<< <i>No doubt a lot of gole. Dollars were sent through the mail >>
gole post???
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
<< <i>During WW-I US business did without gold coins or bullion bars. They found out that the metal wasn’t needed. The economy worked just fine. Federal Reserve Notes were backed by gold until the US left the fully convertible gold standard.
After the war, circulation of gold coins never recovered, hence the low mintages of small denominations. (Compare values not piece count.) Treasury shipping records show clear seasonal patterns for small gold requests by banks. These patterns are supported by internal correspondence noting the consistent seasonal demand, and by expressions of the waste in time and material to make them for non business use. (This parallels the situation of the $1 gold where for at least the final 15 years of production, almost none entered commerce – they were used for jewelry in Britain and Japan.)
My purpose in the original post was the get folks looking more critically at the old assumptions and myths that have grown up around the subject. There are many ways to do that. >>
That is one possibility. Another is that there was a large enough quantity of gold coins already in or available for circulation that the Mint did not need to strike any more for a while. Look at the dimished mintages of most denominations in the 1920's.
Here's a question for you: If $2-1/2 gold pieces were not circulating after World War One, why did the Mint strike 2,360,000 of them between 1925 and 1929?
TD >>
I guess I should amend this question to include the 662,000 $5 coins struck in 1929. TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
<< <i>2.36 million coins is a lot of Christmas gifts.
I notice that the first of the 1925-29 strikings was in Denver. Is it possible that gold was circulating "out West"? It is a fact that silver dollars circulated "out West" until the 1960's, even while the Midwest, East and South ignored them except at Christmas.
There are people on here who will claim that silver dollars did not circulate, because "everybody knows that is true," while the truth is that they did circulate "out West." Is it possible that the circulation of gold was regional, and ignored by so-called experts back East who simply did not see it, but wrote as though their own personal experience was the way of the entire country?
TD >>
I don't think the Mint and Treasury officials were writing based on their personal experiences. RWB is presenting pretty compelling evidence from the agencies that were actually producing and dealing with gold coinage. They had a larger view of the circulation of coins in the economy. Captain, do you have reason to believe that that the Treasury and the Mint did not really have a handle on how gold was circulating in the period under question here? Moreover, I don't think RWB is saying the gold didn't circulate. It is my understanding that he is suggesting that it didn't circulate nearly as much people like to believe and that compared to the amount of coinage in circulation, gold was insignificant.
<< <i>That is one possibility. Another is that there was a large enough quantity of gold coins already in or available for circulation that the Mint did not need to strike any more for a while. Look at the dimished mintages of most denominations in the 1920's. >>
Indeed, that is another possibility. Do you have any evidence?
<< <i>Right. That's why one looks for verification from multiple sources and from low level operational materials vs high level summaries or "press releases." >>
<< <i>Is it possible that the circulation of gold was regional, and ignored by so-called experts back East who simply did not see it, but wrote as though their own personal experience was the way of the entire country? >>
Perhaps it is true that gold was circulating regionally but the amount may still have been rather small in comparison to the economy as a whole and therefore not thought to be significant by Mint and Treasury officials. Still, I wouldn't call the documents they were producing the products personal anecdotal knowledge.
After the Civil War, especially after Specie Resumption in 1879, there really wasn't much need for gold coins in commerce - paper money was much more convenient for most people and uses.
Exactly. Once people are convinced that the paper is exchangeable, they are comforted enough to not want to ever exchange it. They are happy using paper. Prior to 1879 there was silver coin, gold coins and greenbacks. Each at their own rate (similar to today, in a way with PM prices related to the Federal Reserve Note). Once they said the greenback was going to be convertible the prices snapped together. The silver flooded back to the Treasury and the Mint didn't have to make new silver coins except where it was mandated (Silver Dollars) for the next 15 years. Gold coins needed to be made only to back the notes, although obviously some did circulate.
<< <i>BTW, what was the total face value of the gold actually turned in by the population in 1933-34 or whenever it stopped?
Was this gold not in "circulation" before it was turned in?
TD >>
Do you have this figure?
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Every published quantity is subject to some sort of exception or inconsistency. Sometimes, gold notes were included, sometimes not. Sometimes coin already in bank reserves was counted as being turned in by the public, sometimes not. I’m still searching for a number to cover 1933 that is gold coin, only, and is reasonably reliable.
Total In Treasury Custody 6/30/1932 $969,253,738.58
“From 1934 to 1960 the total gold coin actually collected from individuals and banks was small, approximately $12 million. Although treasury records stated there was over $310 million in gold coin circulating at the beginning of 1933, the Treasury Department eventually wrote off $279 million in gold as being lost, in numismatic collections or exported without record prior to April 1933. As early as 1926 the mint director admitted the movement of gold and silver coin was very complicated, and subject to so many individual transaction variables, that published quantities were only estimates. He noted that gold ‘goes into hiding then reappears.’ Small scale, individual accumulatioins might have played a greater role than many have assumed.”
As Mark Twain once said, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, danm lies and statistics!"
Let us consider the hypothetical situation of one million $2-1/2 Indians in active day-to-day circulation and one million $20 Saints being held in the Treasury as backing for Gold Certificates. What percentage of this gold is "in circulation?"
If you count the weight of the gold, or the face value, then only 11.1% of it is "in circulation." If you count the number of coins being circulated, then 50% of it is "in circulation."
If you add up the mintage figures for the 1921 and 1923-32 Saints of all mint marks (a significant percentage of the 1920 and 1922 coins were released into circulation) and calculate the face value of the coins, minus an allowance for the coins that had been shipped to Europe, then it would be reasonable to say on Dec. 31, 1932 that a large percentage of the gold struck in the first third of the 20th Century was not circulating. No doubt certain Mint officials felt that way. However, that still leaves millions of other coins "out there" in circulation.
Gold did circulate in the early 20th Century. Circulated U.S. gold coins up to and including 1922 are very common. The title of this thread is wrong and misleading.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
It's bankers opposing stimulus by issuance of "asset money" (paper money backed by issuance of bonds rather than backed by gold.) But they acknowledge that this type of stimulus might be needed from time to time, but as soon as the crisis is over, the increased money supply needs to be mopped up with heavy taxes to prevent inflation down the line. Notice also the mention of greedy bankers and speculation bubbles as the cause of market panics. What's different today, is that any attempts to mop up the extra cash...an 1/4 of 1% excise tax on short term stock transactions, an excise tax on Wall Street bonuses, or not extending the "temporary" 2001 tax cuts for billionaries, were all rejected by a congress that still thinks it would be better to let the entire country pay for mess through inflation rather than taxing the people who made fortunes causing the mess.
Frank Provasek - PCGS Authorized Dealer, Life Member ANA, Member TNA. www.frankcoins.com
It's bankers opposing stimulus by issuance of "asset money" (paper money backed by issuance of bonds rather than backed by gold.) But they acknowledge that this type of stimulus might be needed from time to time, but as soon as the crisis is over, the increased money supply needs to be mopped up with heavy taxes to prevent inflation down the line. Notice also the mention of greedy bankers and speculation bubbles as the cause of market panics. What's different today, is that any attempts to mop up the extra cash...an 1/4 of 1% excise tax on short term stock transactions, an excise tax on Wall Street bonuses, or not extending the "temporary" 2001 tax cuts for billionaries, were all rejected by a congress that still thinks it would be better to let the entire country pay for mess through inflation rather than taxing the people who made fortunes causing the mess. >>
Frank, you consistently lose any credibility you may have when you (and others, for that matter) get into this sort of nonsensical political garbage. If you researched our economic history, you will find that we had financial 'panics' about every fifteen years before the Federal Reserve was created. They upset the financial apple cart, so to speak, but they were relatively short-lived. Since the creation of the Fed, we have had fewer of such 'panics,' but they have been longer-lived.
You simply cannot compare our economy today with that of 100 years ago, for reasons which are obvious, and I don't have the time or interest to delve into the finer points on this.
"Vou invadir o Nordeste, "Seu cabra da peste, "Sou Mangueira......."
I don't think you can make a blanket statement for the entire country. The Eastern U.S. quit using "hard" money long before the west did. My Grandparents owned a pizza parlor in Missoula, Montana in the 50's and 60's. They told me that a large portion of the daily deposit consisted of Morgan and Peace dollars. In the early 60's they went on vacation back east somewhere and my Grandpa tipped a waitress with a Morgan dollar. She proceeded to show the coin to all of the other employees as if they had not seen a silver dollar.
Need a Barber Half with ANACS photo certificate. If you have one for sale please PM me. Current Ebay auctions
Comments
The biggest factor is the large piles of unc Double Eagles that sat in European bank vaults for decades. (In the past 40 years or so, most have been repatriated.)
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
A story from our family. My mom was born in 1915. She told me that before she was born and while she was a child, her dad would receive a $5G in his pay envelope as well as paper money.
I never pursued the family story other than just listening to it. I am of the conclusion that it was very customary for people to try to save the gold at home by accumulating it. One of the few reasons to spend it was to buy a home. Outright, with no mortgage.
This was in California, circa 1900-1930.
This same effect could be clearly seen with silver dollars in the 1950's. (Silver dollars had their own entry in the Treasury's circulation statement.) There was a smaller peak in circulation at Easter (Passover). In the 1960's the backflow of silver dollars from the banks was overshadowed by the amount going into circulation. By the way, most of the silver dollars that passed through my hands were circulated. There were some glorius exceptions though.
<< <i>No doubt a lot of gole. Dollars were sent through the mail >>
gole post???
<< <i>
<< <i>During WW-I US business did without gold coins or bullion bars. They found out that the metal wasn’t needed. The economy worked just fine. Federal Reserve Notes were backed by gold until the US left the fully convertible gold standard.
After the war, circulation of gold coins never recovered, hence the low mintages of small denominations. (Compare values not piece count.) Treasury shipping records show clear seasonal patterns for small gold requests by banks. These patterns are supported by internal correspondence noting the consistent seasonal demand, and by expressions of the waste in time and material to make them for non business use. (This parallels the situation of the $1 gold where for at least the final 15 years of production, almost none entered commerce – they were used for jewelry in Britain and Japan.)
My purpose in the original post was the get folks looking more critically at the old assumptions and myths that have grown up around the subject. There are many ways to do that. >>
That is one possibility. Another is that there was a large enough quantity of gold coins already in or available for circulation that the Mint did not need to strike any more for a while. Look at the dimished mintages of most denominations in the 1920's.
Here's a question for you: If $2-1/2 gold pieces were not circulating after World War One, why did the Mint strike 2,360,000 of them between 1925 and 1929?
TD >>
I guess I should amend this question to include the 662,000 $5 coins struck in 1929.
TD
<< <i>2.36 million coins is a lot of Christmas gifts.
I notice that the first of the 1925-29 strikings was in Denver. Is it possible that gold was circulating "out West"? It is a fact that silver dollars circulated "out West" until the 1960's, even while the Midwest, East and South ignored them except at Christmas.
There are people on here who will claim that silver dollars did not circulate, because "everybody knows that is true," while the truth is that they did circulate "out West." Is it possible that the circulation of gold was regional, and ignored by so-called experts back East who simply did not see it, but wrote as though their own personal experience was the way of the entire country?
TD >>
I don't think the Mint and Treasury officials were writing based on their personal experiences. RWB is presenting pretty compelling evidence from the agencies that were actually producing and dealing with gold coinage. They had a larger view of the circulation of coins in the economy. Captain, do you have reason to believe that that the Treasury and the Mint did not really have a handle on how gold was circulating in the period under question here? Moreover, I don't think RWB is saying the gold didn't circulate. It is my understanding that he is suggesting that it didn't circulate nearly as much people like to believe and that compared to the amount of coinage in circulation, gold was insignificant.
<< <i>That is one possibility. Another is that there was a large enough quantity of gold coins already in or available for circulation that the Mint did not need to strike any more for a while. Look at the dimished mintages of most denominations in the 1920's. >>
Indeed, that is another possibility. Do you have any evidence?
<< <i>Right. That's why one looks for verification from multiple sources and from low level operational materials vs high level summaries or "press releases." >>
I don't think anyone is listening, RWB. Sigh...
<< <i>Is it possible that the circulation of gold was regional, and ignored by so-called experts back East who simply did not see it, but wrote as though their own personal experience was the way of the entire country? >>
Perhaps it is true that gold was circulating regionally but the amount may still have been rather small in comparison to the economy as a whole and therefore not thought to be significant by Mint and Treasury officials. Still, I wouldn't call the documents they were producing the products personal anecdotal knowledge.
Exactly. Once people are convinced that the paper is exchangeable, they are comforted enough to not want to ever exchange it. They are happy using paper. Prior to 1879 there was silver coin, gold coins and greenbacks. Each at their own rate (similar to today, in a way with PM prices related to the Federal Reserve Note). Once they said the greenback was going to be convertible the prices snapped together. The silver flooded back to the Treasury and the Mint didn't have to make new silver coins except where it was mandated (Silver Dollars) for the next 15 years. Gold coins needed to be made only to back the notes, although obviously some did circulate.
<< <i>BTW, what was the total face value of the gold actually turned in by the population in 1933-34 or whenever it stopped?
Was this gold not in "circulation" before it was turned in?
TD >>
Do you have this figure?
<< <i>
<< <i>BTW, what was the total face value of the gold actually turned in by the population in 1933-34 or whenever it stopped?
Was this gold not in "circulation" before it was turned in?
TD >>
Do you have this figure? >>
It would be interesting not only to know the total face value but also the number of individuals/entities that turned it in.
Total In Treasury Custody 6/30/1932 $969,253,738.58
“From 1934 to 1960 the total gold coin actually collected from individuals and banks was small, approximately $12 million. Although treasury records stated there was over $310 million in gold coin circulating at the beginning of 1933, the Treasury Department eventually wrote off $279 million in gold as being lost, in numismatic collections or exported without record prior to April 1933. As early as 1926 the mint director admitted the movement of gold and silver coin was very complicated, and subject to so many individual transaction variables, that published quantities were only estimates. He noted that gold ‘goes into hiding then reappears.’ Small scale, individual accumulatioins might have played a greater role than many have assumed.”
Let us consider the hypothetical situation of one million $2-1/2 Indians in active day-to-day circulation and one million $20 Saints being held in the Treasury as backing for Gold Certificates. What percentage of this gold is "in circulation?"
If you count the weight of the gold, or the face value, then only 11.1% of it is "in circulation." If you count the number of coins being circulated, then 50% of it is "in circulation."
If you add up the mintage figures for the 1921 and 1923-32 Saints of all mint marks (a significant percentage of the 1920 and 1922 coins were released into circulation) and calculate the face value of the coins, minus an allowance for the coins that had been shipped to Europe, then it would be reasonable to say on Dec. 31, 1932 that a large percentage of the gold struck in the first third of the 20th Century was not circulating. No doubt certain Mint officials felt that way. However, that still leaves millions of other coins "out there" in circulation.
Gold did circulate in the early 20th Century. Circulated U.S. gold coins up to and including 1922 are very common. The title of this thread is wrong and misleading.
Link
It's bankers opposing stimulus by issuance of "asset money" (paper money backed by issuance of bonds rather than backed
by gold.) But they acknowledge that this type of stimulus might be needed from time to time, but as soon as the crisis is
over, the increased money supply needs to be mopped up with heavy taxes to prevent inflation down the line. Notice also the
mention of greedy bankers and speculation bubbles as the cause of market panics. What's different today, is that any attempts
to mop up the extra cash...an 1/4 of 1% excise tax on short term stock transactions, an excise tax on Wall Street bonuses,
or not extending the "temporary" 2001 tax cuts for billionaries, were all rejected by a congress that still thinks it would be better
to let the entire country pay for mess through inflation rather than taxing the people who made fortunes causing the mess.
<< <i>Here is an interesting New York Times article from 1903 Adobe or Foxit pdf reader required
Link
It's bankers opposing stimulus by issuance of "asset money" (paper money backed by issuance of bonds rather than backed
by gold.) But they acknowledge that this type of stimulus might be needed from time to time, but as soon as the crisis is
over, the increased money supply needs to be mopped up with heavy taxes to prevent inflation down the line. Notice also the
mention of greedy bankers and speculation bubbles as the cause of market panics. What's different today, is that any attempts
to mop up the extra cash...an 1/4 of 1% excise tax on short term stock transactions, an excise tax on Wall Street bonuses,
or not extending the "temporary" 2001 tax cuts for billionaries, were all rejected by a congress that still thinks it would be better
to let the entire country pay for mess through inflation rather than taxing the people who made fortunes causing the mess. >>
Frank, you consistently lose any credibility you may have when you (and others, for that matter) get into this sort of nonsensical political garbage. If you researched our economic history, you will find that we had financial 'panics' about every fifteen years before the Federal Reserve was created. They upset the financial apple cart, so to speak, but they were relatively short-lived. Since the creation of the Fed, we have had fewer of such 'panics,' but they have been longer-lived.
You simply cannot compare our economy today with that of 100 years ago, for reasons which are obvious, and I don't have the time or interest to delve into the finer points on this.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."