RWB

"Collodion varnish" was (still is) used to protect ambrotypes and wet plate collodion images (which are metallic silver). Here's a link to a company in New Mexico that sells wet plate photographic products: https://www.bostick-sullivan.com/cart/ (Not an advertisement - I have no connection with this company.)

RE: "BTW, why are the miners having so much difficulty making money at $20.67/oz. ? " Gold was the only mineral product that was subject to price control. Had the market price been allowed to float, gold mines would have been profitable. As it was, anyone who wanted gold could buy it from the government (or get coins) at $20.67+ per fine ounce.

This letter in response to a request for gold dollars indicates the status of these coins as of mid-August 1889, and supports Mr. Lange's comment.

Here's some advice for removing tarnish from proof coins from the Curator of the Philadelphia Mint Cabinet of Coins. The town of Mauch Chunk was in the heart of Pennsylvania anthracite coal country. L. F. Leisenring Mauch Chunk, Penna. August 25, 1890 Superintendent, U.S. Mint Philadelphia, Pa Dear Sir: I am well aware that the U.S. Mint is no “bureau of information,” but I would esteem it a favor if you will kindly advise me what kind of acid and in what manner same is used to clean tarnished proof coins without using a brush or cloth. Also, how to keep coin from tarnishing. Your early reply will oblige. Yours truly, L. F. Leisenring [Manuscript reply:] A weak solution of cyanide of potassium. Preserve with collodion varnish. Do not play around with potassium cyanide - poison.

Well, yes....in part because silver was never a U.S. monetary standard. Silver had its own value relative to products and services, but any meaningful ratio between silver and gold was fiction. There cannot be two "standards" unless both are tightly controlled and that is not possible for any governmental entity. (Think of the tension and confusion between the two so-called "grading standards" - neither controls and thus neither is reliable.) A monetary standard of today is closer to ancient production value. That is, the value of any currency depends on the aggregate of economic activity in relation to economic activity of others, plus open market stability and market faith in the issuing entity. This has a larger "opinion" bias than production value by itself, but has the flexibility to deal with multiple non-integrated economies....it tends to smooth sharp changes.

The official date was January 31, 1934. That's when it became law versus Treasury's floating buying price.

.....Uh...the article refers to data transmission rate of 44.2 Terabits/second over commercial optical (75km test distance), not image bit depth. :)

Wonderful article about practical use of soliton crystals. Bill Corcoran, Mengxi Tan, et al, "Ultra-dense optical data transmission over standard fibre with a single chip source." https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-16265-x

The point of licenses TGL-4 and TGL-4A was that the holder could acquire gold as used, scrap or unrefined material and had to keep it in that form until deposited at a Mint or Assay Office. This was specifically intended to prevent melting gold coins (foreign or domestic) and casting into bars, or mixing scrap gold with melted coin to imitate a bar of scrap. This was in response to smuggling of US gold into Canada as scrap bars. It also covered Treasury's policy of buying gold scrap at the daily market fix, and legal tender coins at face value.

An earlier question mentioned gold licenses, so here's a Treasury telegram about two types. Don't expect clarity. Things were still confused in October 1933.

Letter heads were likely prepared with handwritten text in mind. When a typewriter was used, the clerks just typed over the printed digits. Many contemporary Treasury letters have the typed date right over the horizontal line - at first glance they look like strike-outs (or at least "ball four").

The silver-to-gold value ratio has long been a subject of confusion and emotional debate. Although this ratio has long been largely fictitious, it remains an interesting artifact of economic and numismatic history. Below is a table from the U. S. Mint Bureau showing the silver to gold market ratio from 1896 to 1924. Ratios were calculated using the statutory value of gold versus the average monthly silver market price in London. “During the period December 1916 – June 1920 it is probable that the world’s basic silver price was that of New York rather than that of London. The normal relationship between the two prices – New York a fraction of a cent below London quotation with exchange considered – did not prevail during this period, when the average monthly New York price varied between approximately 3-cents above and 6-cents below the London price. This period appears to have been initiated by enormous coinages to meet wartime needs, and large shipments from the United States to the Orient. Its close was coincident with the removal of the product of United States mines from the world market, purchases under the Pittman Act of April 23, 1918, having begun in June 1920.” [Excerpt from letter of April 4, 1924 to Prof. J. Lawrence Laughlin, Boston.] The period December 1916 – June 1920 roughly coincides with a period of increasing labor and supply expenses for gold mining companies. Many such businesses could not make a profit with gold fixed at $20.67+ per fine ounce and chose to close mines, or divert work to lead, silver, copper and other metals. During the War miners petitioned Congress for an increase in the gold price to $40 per ounce, or addition of surcharges on newly mined gold. None of these proposals went very far, but miners had legitimate economic complaints. Similar tables covering a longer period appear in scattered issues of the Director’s Annual Reports. All indicate fundamental instability of the silver-to-gold ratio, its absurdity as monetary policy, and impossibility as a fixed commercial relationship.

Gold $1, $3, and 3-cent discontinued Sept. 1890, so why were none of these made in 1890? The Mint Bureau and Treasury wanted to discontinue gold dollar, three dollars and 3-cents coins because they were useless in circulation and the gold coins were diverted to jewelry use. That is, the Mint was spending public money to make trinkets for rings, pendants and other decorative items. Production of these coins in 1889 was limited to proofs and small quantities to meet holiday demand. Gold dollars were rationed to banks that promised to sell them only to individual customers. Most orders for $3 pieces were rejected; no one seems to have ordered 3-cent pieces except in proof sets. Treasury sponsored legislation to discontinue these three denominations, and agreed to make none of them in 1890 until Congress could act.

This might help a little. It accounts for about 16% of the year's production of halves.

Only when I can drink the Scotch and get to see the picture at the glass' bottom..... :)

Reminder - those are Mehl's buying prices. He was buying double eagles for less than $35/T ounce bullion and ripping off anyone ignorant enough to send him an 1860-O or 1861-O DE for $25. His full name was B. Max "Me" Mehl. He was an avid promoter of collecting coins for his fun and profit, and no more honest than Farran Zerbe and other selected fraudsters.

Fantastic piece of Olympic and sports history and a very attractive gold medal.

Cancelled checks, credit card receipts, bank loan papers, mortgage on the cat, et cetera....

What still is somewhat intriguing is why SanFran Saints ("S") would end up in European banks -- I would think that the Philly coinage would head across the Atlantic to Europe, and the SanFran coins (if needed) headed over to the Pacific for Asian settlements, if any. I doubt we ever ran short of Philly coins and NEEDED SanFran or Denver coins. It certainly didn't make sense cost-wise or time-wise to ship coins from SanFran or Denver over to Europe vs. Philly (unless maybe some were already shipped to New York ?). This might help a little…. At certain times the gold point favored export of bullion bars and at other times gold coins were favored. The banks and metal brokers were there to make a profit, not to hold gold, silver, or hard boiled eggs. Bankers hated holding gold for reserves – it earned no interest, brought no profit, took up space, and required expensive security measures. This meant that gold for export had to come from either the New York Assay Office or a U.S. Mint. Getting gold from main Treasury or Federal Reserve Banks did not work well because most of their gold was held as backing for Gold Certificates. Depending on how gold at the mints was earmarked, mints with a lot of physical bullion and coin might have very little they could ship out without violating the law. Hence, the necessity of occasionally transferring physical gold from San Francisco or Denver to the NYAO for export. In later years, gold was transferred by earmark and vault ledgers rather than physical means. This was the system that dominated after Bretton Woods, although it had been used long before – as early as about 1880.

I wonder if this lengthy thread has readers from other message boards? I ask because members have asked some excellent, thoughtful questions and those questions might be a lot of help to other collectors. Maybe GoldFinger1969 should assemble a PDF "booklet" he can send out?

PS: As kbbpll pointed out, above, this coin has appears twice in two different graded holders - both as MS66. A nice, high grade San Francisco dime. A label can no more change that than it can make an EF 1804 dollar uncirculated, or a MCMVII double edge a proof. "Specimen" is not a grade or description of wear: it is, like 'proof,' a description of process and documented intent or purpose.

Numismatic terms MUST have clear, discrete meanings. Absent that clarity the word are merely a jumble of opinion, wishful thinking and lies. Calling a coin a "specimen" indicates some sort of special treatment - something beyond the ordinary range of routine production. This definition has been in numismatics for centuries along with the non-specific "specimen" to indicate a sample piece. The U.S. Bureau and the individual mints never used the term after 1840 except in the non-specific such as "send State Department specimens of master coins for 1841 for diplomatic use," or "State Department wants 100 specimens of each of the following proof coins for 1888 for special purposes." In numismatics "specimen" has never been a synonym for "proof" or "master" coins since about 1840. Before then it sometimes meant a specially struck coin or not - the language is nearly always ambiguous. Nothing about the illustrated coin suggests anything except it being part of the normal range of production. If one looks at the few remaining old collections and their acquisition documentation, it will be noticed that some coins documented as coming directly from a production press under normal conditions are outstanding, and others are quite ordinary or even inferior. To satisfy a clear, discrete meaning for "specimen" there MUST be documentation to support that contention. Hearsay, and "looks specimeny" are no good. This particular coin is even less likely to be anything "special" since it has been authenticated/graded before and evidently was not a "specimen" back then. Have we descended into ignorance so quickly - or is it simply greed - a desire to inflate, pump-up, distort, pander, influence by deceit, trick, or artifice. Pick your poison. Much as now we cannot trust any newer-assigned "grade" thanks to rampant grade inflation, so some would extend that to making casual opinions into data-based facts. Numismatics as a hobby is already sick. Would some now have it drink bleach as a cure?

From BBC: 23:28 19 May Venezuela files claim for its gold reserves Venezuela's central bank has made a legal claim to try to force the Bank of England to hand over €930m ($1bn; £820m) worth of gold it holds. Venezuela, already suffering under US and British sanctions, says it wants to use the gold's value to tackle coronavirus. Legal documents say the bank wants the transfer made "as a matter of urgency" to buy supplies like food and medicine. They say the bank has agreed to transfer the money directly to the United Nations to administer for that purpose. Britain does not recognise [sic] the government of Nicolas Maduro as legitimate (saying his rival, Juan Guaido, won presidential elections). The Bank of England acts as a gold custodian for a number of developing nations.

We’ve long been told that the Philadelphia Mint sold old, defaced coin and medal dies as scrap metal. Yet little referring directly to this business practice has been published. Below is a brief letter from Henry Disston & Sons explicitly stating their prior purchase of “old scrap dies from the Mint.” This is just one of many small treasures hiding in U.S. Mint archives and available through the foresight and generosity of the late Eric P. Newman and the Newman Numismatic Portal (NNP).

This letter, from a major U.S. Mining Industry publication, will give members a good idea of the opinion of many business people about the practical utility of double eagles in the domestic economy. This view goes back several years before Congress authorized coining gold dollars and double eagles. (Volunteer transcription.)