dcarr

. The denticles on this auction coin do not match those seen on the questionable piece. .

. A "little friend". .

The pictures are too small to be conclusive. But from what I can see, the coin appears to be genuine, and possibly MS-63 vicinity. The rings are NOT from jewelry mounting. They are an affect of worn dies and they are often seen on $2.50 Native-Head gold.

Nitric acid has the property that it eats away very evenly, preserving the coin's details while making it thinner.

The rim effect is due to a minor planchet delamination. The top of the "8" in the date took a hit and got mashed.

The coin was subjected to a rather strong nitric acid solution.

The US Mint could still make silver and gold eagles. Here is a bank check with a 2-cent Internal Revenue tax stamp on it. Banks didn't like this system, but it did work and it was fair. This type of tax arrangement raised revenue from people and entities that did more banking, more investing, and were wealthier. Poorer people would not have been opposed to this tax system because it didn't affect them that much. Your contention regarding the support for the 16th amendment is flawed. Every state should follow North Dakota's lead. Such a thing could be scaled much larger. Why are you so against nationalized banking ? Because that doesn't line your pockets ? As Shakespear wrote: "me thinks thou doth protest too much !"

Biden wants to hire 87,000 IRS agents. They would produce nothing useful, they would only take from the economy. If a transaction-fee digital currency was in place, the tax system would be fair, simple, and there would be no cheating. Most of the IRS would no longer be needed. Those 87,000 IRS agents would have to get jobs elsewhere actually producing useful goods and services. And everyone else would benefit from not having to fill out tax forms. That would be a much better system. But you sound scared of such a thing.

For example a digital currency issued by the US Treasury. Use of this currency would have a small transaction fee (like a credit card) and those fees would replace the income tax system. Imagine never having to file a tax return again. Prior to about 1913 there was no income tax. The Federal Government was funded via small fees on bank checks, insurance policies, stocks, bonds, and other financial documents. It worked well, but the banks and Wall Street were successful at taking the tax collection off of themselves and put it onto the general public instead. North Dakota has the right idea. They established a state-run bank for the benefit of the people, and proceeds from those bank activities go towards paying the state's bills.

You make your living with the financial and monetary systems the way they are now. So naturally you would feel threatened by any major change to how these systems work. There are far better (and more equitable) ways for these things to function, but you would have none of it.

When I had some "dug" coins that looked like that, I put them into the "CoinStar" machine

The lighter-color streaks are likely a different alloy (such as brass or similar). The rest of it is normal bronze. The streaks show up later because one alloy does not tone as dark as the other basic bronze. Bronze is mostly copper with a small percentage of tin (and no significant amount of zinc). Brass is mostly copper with a small amount of zinc (but not any significant amount of tin). Mixing, melting, and pouring metals is a messy job and improper mixtures can occur. Tin, zinc, and maybe even small amounts of silver and/or gold getting into the mix can change the properties. The elongated "woodgrain" pattern is formed when the bronze ingots are rolled out into strips for planchet stock. During the rolling, the ingots do not get wider - they only get longer. So any structures and defects in the ingots get elongated in one direction only. This coin is a good example and evidence for the theory. I found it in a dealer's "junk" box as a cheap damaged coin. But it is actually a genuine clipped-planchet mint error. Most clips are, of course, curved to approximately the same radius as the planchet punch. However, this particular clip is straight because the planchet was punched partially off the edge of the strip. The point to this is that the "woodgrain" streaks are parallel to the straight edge. They are both oriented in the direction of rolling. Conversely, the flat edge being parallel to the "woodgrain" is an indication of a genuine straight-clip.

It does not appear to be a genuine circa 1740 item, sorry. It has characteristics similar to modern Chinese production.

.

The FED had liabilities of at least 20,000 metric tons of gold but had no gold to cover that. FDR relieved the FED of its gold obligations and also assigned the title to our gold to the FED. That was a classic "bailout".

Even though Roosevelt confiscated all the gold and severed the domestic gold clause, US currency still had gold backing (supposedly) for foreign holders of it. So the gold standard was still somewhat in effect until 1971. So when the US Treasury handed over to the Federal Reserve the title to all our gold in 1933, the Federal Reserve Notes actually had some gold to back them for the first time. This was a major part of the bailout of the Federal Reserve. If the profits are actually as small as you claim, then the Federal Reserve should have no problem with altering the statutes so that they are required to remit 100% of their profits to the US Treasury instead of the current 94% minimum. Or better yet, fully nationalize the Federal Reserve. I bet they would do everything they could to fight any such change. The Federal Reserve issued vast quantities of Federal Reserve Notes at very little cost to them. These notes pay no interest. So when the public accepted them, that constituted an interest free loan made to the Federal Reserve. As of 1933, the total amount of that loan was 36 billion dollars. The FED could then loan and/or invest that 36 billion and keep the proceeds. The Treasury only mandated to the FED what interest rates should be set at. Did the US Treasury mandate how many Federal Reserve Notes the FED could issue ? No. Prior to 1951, the Federal Reserve was allowed to keep 100% of its profits. FED officials obviously make a lot of money on the side. Why else would they take such an "underpaid" job ?

(1) Assigning title and transferring possession of gold are two different things. You apparently didn't read what I wrote. The US Treasury maintained physical possession of the gold, but title to that gold was assigned to the Federal Reserve. (2) People wanted assurances that the currency they use is backed by gold (or silver). Otherwise, they would have shunned the paper and just used gold and silver coins. >>> "But the Fed is our central bank so of course they printed currency". That is a woefully inadequate contention. I stand by what I wrote. Why go to all the trouble to issue Federal Reserve Notes ? It would have been easier for the FED to just order United States Notes from the US Treasury. But then the FED wouldn't be, in effect, receiving a huge interest-free loan that way. (3) We are discussing the end of the Gold-Standard era, not modern FED operations. The FED realized huge profits for their member/owner banks during the time that they were allowed to keep 100% of the FED's profits. (4) The FED typically has owned a quantity of US Treasury Bonds. They earn positive interest on those bonds. But they could buy those bonds using funds from what was essentially a zero-percent interest-free loan. FED profits went to the member/owner banks. Those records are not generally public information for the earlier years of the FED. The official salary of the FED Chairman is of little importance. Their salary is supplemented by "investment" income. I'd like to see the official income tax returns for recent FED chairpersons.

Title to most of the 6,000 metric tons of gold owned by the US Treasury was assigned to the Federal Reserve in 1933. This was done by exchanging US Treasury Gold Certificates for Federal Reserve Notes. Red-seal United States notes were issued in quantity from the early 1900s up until series 1966-A. These notes were widely used, but did not have any gold-clause printed on them. Why did the Federal Reserve issue Federal Reserve Notes worth 56,000 metric tons of gold ? And why did they put "Redeemable in Gold on Demand" on them when they had no significant quantity of gold ? For that matter, why did the Federal Reserve issue any notes at all ? If nobody had the gold, why not just issue more red-seal United States Notes (via the US Treasury) instead of Federal Reserve Notes (via the Federal Reserve) ? That is what JFK wanted to do. The reason is that the Federal Reserve profited handsomely by being able to issue Federal Reserve Notes. It was basically a zero-percent interest loan to the Federal Reserve in the amount of the total face value of the Federal Reserve Notes issued (36 billion dollars total, from 1913 to 1933). I'd sure like to be able to borrow several billion dollars at zero percent interest, invest that money and keep all the proceeds, and have the government bail me out if those investments go sour. Note that prior to (I think) 1951, the Federal Reserve member/owner banks were allowed to keep 100% of the FED profits. It was only later that the FED was required to remit at least 94% of their profits to the US Treasury.

The Bazor 100 Francs is one of my favorite gold coins. I only have a couple foreign gold coins, but a Bazor 100F is one of them . Although the mintages for them were high in 1935 and 1936, the vast majority of those were never released and were melted.

Thanks for the correction. Yes, "minted" in 1921 , and dated "1914".

The last 20-Francs gold coins were minted in 1914, and they contained about the same gold content as the rare 100-Francs gold coins of 1929-1936. So at some point between 1914 and 1929 the French Franc was devalued in terms of gold to 1/5th of what it was.

>>> I haven't seen evidence of that ... Then look at it. >>> new scholarship shows that countries were "too tight" monetarily. Do you really think that the "Roaring Twenties" was the result of a "too tight" monetary policy ? >>> It DOES pose a POTENTIAL problem but only in theory. Do you think that the Great Depression was/is only a "theory" ? >>> We've discussed this elsewhere, but there was no "bailout" of the Fed which could in theory print its way out of any constraints ... Yes, the FED could "print" itself out of insolvency, but only by cheating on the Gold Standard even more than they already had. So the barriers imposed by the Gold Standard were removed in 1933, so as to relieve the FED of all their gold obligations and to allow the FED to print more currency. Here are the brief facts: In 1933 the US Treasury held about 6,000 metric tons of gold reserves. The Federal Reserve had very little. From about 1906-1933, the US Treasury issued Gold Certificates which were paper claims on 16,000 metric tons of gold. From 1913-1933, the Federal Reserve issued gold-clause notes which were paper claims on 54,000 metric tons of gold. So that is 70,000 metric tons of gold promised, but only 6,000 on hand. And this this does not include all the Treasury Bonds that were sold prior to April 1933 and redeemable in gold. >>> You should read here, DC, it will clear up many misconceptions you have about The Fed: https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/treasury-fed-accord The 1951 Treasury-FED Accord has very little to do with the FED making massive gold promises during 1913-1933. Promises that they would never be able to honor.

It is my article and website. I wrote it. It is not "full of spyware" or "no-nos". Maybe the website certificate has expired or is invalid or something. Nobody else has reported any accessibility issues with it. Here is the article as screen-capture images (click on the first image to see larger and then cycle through to see them all):

File marks to adjust the planchet to the proper weight.