dcarr

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.

The incuse line across the coin has a thin ridge of metal along both sides. The ridges are visible at upper right (see arrows). This is indicative of metal displacement from a knife cut. So it is absolutely post-mint damage. It couldn't be a pre-strike planchet scratch because, if it was, the thin ridges would have been flattened by the strike.

From about 1900 to 1933, the gold standard was massively cheated upon. Most of that cheating occurred during the "Roaring Twenties" when a lot of paper money creation and expanding credit lead to a lot of economic activity. It got to the point that there was not nearly enough gold to sufficiently back all the gold-clause currency and bonds. In 1933 When Roosevelt confiscated gold, the United States Treasury held about 6,000 metric tons of gold and the Federal Reserve had none of its own gold (other than some coins on deposit). From 1913-1933 the US Treasury issued Gold Certificates amounting to 16,000 metric tons of gold. And during the same time, the Federal Reserve bank issued gold-clause Federal Reserve Notes amounting to 54,000 metric tons of gold. And this does not even include the outstanding US Treasury Bonds that were payable in gold. Add to that all the gold-clause corporate bonds, and it is apparent that the Gold Standard had already been abandoned years earlier. It appears that entities in Europe were aware of the developing situation, and that is one reason why a lot of US gold coins were accumulated by European entities. Here is some more details: FDR’s 1933 Gold Confiscation was a Bailout of the Federal Reserve Bank .

It is definitely a genuine mint error "die chip" in the upper loop of the 9. The top left of the 7 has an impact mark on it. But even though it is a genuine error coin, the value is not much more than the 3-cents that common wheat-back cents sell for in bulk.

The coin appears to me to be genuine, although scrubbed. As such, I would put the value at about $30 (not enough to justify certification in my opinion).

There is a regulation in effect prohibiting the commercial mass melting of current US one-cent and five-cent coins. All other coins, and older cents and nickels that are not "current", can be legally melted. Small-time hobbyists are not prohibited from melting a few current cents or nickels. Defacement of US Coins is generally legal. Here are instances where it would not be legal: 1) The defacement is done with fraudulent intent. This would include intentionally increasing the apparent face value of the coin or note and then knowingly attempting to spend it into general circulation at the higher (apparent) face value. 2) Adding commercial advertising to money and then putting it back into general circulation. 3) Shaving metal off coins and then putting those coins back into general circulation. (this law is from the era of circulating gold and silver coins - nobody except the CoinStar and vending machines would really care today about shaving copper-nickel coins) 4) Melting current cents and nickels (as discussed above). Note that nobody is legally required to accept certain coins as payment. If a coin was genuine legal tender but significantly defaced, the holder could still legally present that coin as payment. But the payee could legally refuse to accept it for that payment. The payer and the payee could then negotiate a different form of payment, or either party could unilaterally cancel the transaction (although any debt associated with this would not be cancelled unless the creditor agreed to cancel the debt).

It appears to be genuine, but it was lightly polished (cleaned) and then toned brown again. EF-45 details.

Given the topic and source, that is not a statement that I would have expected.

It does not look "plated" or "acid-treated" to me. The simple explanation is that it has metallic paint on it. Soak the coin in lacquer thinner or other solvent and if it comes off, then we will know.

You wrote: "The [dcarr] coins have no value to me. In fact I don't want them out there." You don't want them out there, meaning that you don't want any available for anyone to collect (even if they wanted to).

There is an interesting discussion that I commented on about "improper annealing" vs "sintered plating" that is currently going over in the "Newbie Coin Collecting Questions" forum. It has nothing to do with any of my products.

I don't believe that it has been proven that "Black Beauty" nickels are not "sintered plating". Even though the Mint never intended to use sintering in any process, it could still happen on a small scale accidentally. If metal particles are permanently bonded to a solid metal surface by the application of heat and/or pressure then that fits the definition of sintering as far as I'm concerned. But I'm not married to the term, so either descriptor is ok with me.

During blanking and coining operations, large quantities of tiny metal particles are generated. This is especially the case with cupro-nickel. Those particles could get onto blank planchets and then be permanently "sintered" onto those planchets during annealing. Another thing that can happen is if the annealing process is too hot, too long in duration, and/or if too much oxygen gets to the planchets while they are hot, planchets with copper content can oxidize and turn dark. Looking at the "Black Beauty" nickels of the late 1950s, they appear to have a dull, dark, and greasy look, even if uncirculated. This is not a characteristic of merely an oxidized planchet. They are consistent in appearance with some sort of adherents on the planchets prior to striking. Classic "chocolate brown" medals, as issued by the US Mint, often come with proof-like fields. These medals are repeatedly struck and annealed. Each time they are annealed, they turn dark brown. Subsequent strikes leave the brown color but impart more relief and a proof-like finish. So an oxidized planchet alone does not generally produce a dull finish after striking. My theory, although unproven, is that the "Black Beauty" nickels got that way due to sintered metal particles on the surface and not by oxidation alone. RWB is an expert in researching government archives. I am not. But he is not an engineer, metallurgist, or chemist, and he has never worked in a mint or in metal fabrication. I have a degree in Mechanical Engineering and I own and operate my own mint. RWB and I once had a disagreement over whether or not a gouge on a blank hub would still be visible after it was hubbed. He stated that it would not. I indicated that it certainly could and even a relatively shallow lathe mark on a blank hub could still be visible after hubbing. I have actually hubbed dies, so I challenged him to a $5,000 wager on the matter, but he did not reply. I later did a test hubbing to show that a series of moderately-deep scratches on an otherwise blank hub were still visible after hubbing. So don't necessarily take RWB's (or anyone else's) claims about the minting process as completely accurate.

As you recently told a "Newbie" poster: "you need EDUCATION". Here is a reasonable and accurate description from the internet: "Sintering or frittage is the process of compacting and forming a solid mass of material by pressure or heat without melting it to the point of liquefaction. Sintering happens as part of a manufacturing process used with metals, ceramics, plastics, and other materials. The nanoparticles in the sintered material diffuse across the boundaries of the particles, fusing the particles together and creating a solid piece."

I think "sintered metal error" is a reasonable term for contaminated surfaces that are "baked on". "Improper annealing" is also suitable.

It is not up to you to decide for other people what they should want to collect. Everybody decides that for themselves. If you don't like it, then don't collect it. If you happen to own one, it is your property so you can do whatever you want with it (including melting it). But telling other people that they can't collect it, even if they can and want to, is "Bad Juju".

That is not a nice way to welcome a brand new member (hkfears and their coin club) to the forum. You want to see a Cartoon ? Here is one in your "honor" (and likeness) :

In a mint, "annealing" is a process where planchets are heated and then cooled to relieve the internal stresses that developed in the metal during the rolling and punching processes. Annealing has the effect of softening the metal to make the planchets easier to strike and reduce wear and breakage of dies. "Sintering" is a process to solidify metal particles into a solid mass. This can be useful when the powder is molded into a shape and then heated to a point where the metal particles fuse together, but not completely melt. The result is a seemingly solid piece of metal in the intended molded shape. Sintered metal errors on coins are typically the result of dirty metal particles that get stuck on planchets and then are fused onto them during the annealing process. Such sintered metal layers on a coin are typically very thin (like electro-plating) and do not generally present as laminations or delaminations. Note that clad layers in a coin are not sintered (they are melted metal which was cooled, rolled out to thickness, and then the layers bonded together). "Heat Treating" typically refers to a process to harden metal (such as a coinage die), and/or to temper an item to make is less susceptible to cracking. PS: The coin shown at the beginning of this discussion appears to have been stained by something after it left the Mint.

I disagree with every point in that post. A chop-marked British trade dollar will typically sell for at least $50 and sometimes more than $200. So, at a minimum, it is worth double the "melt" value. The character of the "J" mark, in terms of the wear pattern and patina inside it, indicates that it is likely contemporary with the other Chinese chop marks on the coin. Many British trade dollars likely passed through Hong Kong where they could have been stamped with English characters for some reason (unknown to me).