XF or AU $20 Liberty gold?

[DaveG]

GoldFinger1969,

 

Actually, if you're reading about the Pacquet Reverse, you're about two-thirds of the way through Chapter 6.

 

Go back and read the first few pages of the chapter.

[GoldFinger1969]

GoldFinger1969, Actually, if you're reading about the Pacquet Reverse, you're about two-thirds of the way through Chapter 6.Go back and read the first few pages of the chapter.

Doing it this afternoon, thanks Dave ! (thumbs u

[O mint bug]

What I read last night. what I did not know is how much European gold wound up in circulation in the U.S. DW first pages of his 2nd edition on O mints really gives a very well written overview of the roll gold played in term of coin circulation in the U.S. Bank notes were note so successful and the further you got from the bank the greater the discount to face. Much ( U.S. and European )gold was used to back the notes but I doubt the reserves were sufficient.

 

On the west coast circulated gold was more prevalent. The U.S. is not a very old country but I feel our history is second to none since our inception as an independent country. I was also astounded by just how important the Ca. gold rush was to the U.S. Alan Crum's book on one type ones Des goes into this in detail.

[O mint bug]

I have read the Europeans did as they had no gold deposits, had a huge appetite for it and many other coins were made of it. The Spanish got so greed they set up a mint in Peru and used melted Inca gold as feedstock. I got a Spanish coin with the Pure mint mark. many went to Europe as our trade with them increased. Numbers are lost forever but it is certain many were melted there. type ones were not destroyed in the number as prior to the civil war European trade was just really getting started and so few were minted to begin with. I the later libs and Saints were the ones that got melted the most. many of the Saints spend many years in a Swiss bank vault that are back in U.S. collector hands. I cannot remember the fellows name but his advertisements in various books state per his words just how many he repatriated.

[O mint bug]

I wonder what mark thinks of the PCGS/ NGC issue. Hope he post a reply. After looking at type ones in DWs book I concluded he had a very tough job. No two coins are the same out of the mint in terms of strike or other specific attributes.

[DaveG]

. . .very well written overview of the roll gold played in term of coin circulation in the U.S.

 

O mint bug,

 

Thanks for the kind words! (thumbs u

 

 

 

p.s., whatever machine you're typing on isn't doing you any favors in terms of spelling, word completion, etc.

[GoldFinger1969]

What I read last night. what I did not know is how much European gold wound up in circulation in the U.S. DW first pages of his 2nd edition on O mints really gives a very well written overview of the roll gold played in term of coin circulation in the U.S. Bank notes were note so successful and the further you got from the bank the greater the discount to face. Much ( U.S. and European )gold was used to back the notes but I doubt the reserves were sufficient.

 

I really wish I had asked my mother's parents about their use/holdings of gold. My grandfather was born in 1904 and served in the Merchant Marines so he would have been travelling in the 1920's I believe (will check with my mother). My grandmother was born later (1914) so when she was in the workforce it was mostly after FDR's edict.

 

But both would have been youngsters cognizant of coinage/money in the 1915-1930 period. I believe my grandmothers's parents were immigrants who DID have gold coins and kept them -- and then turned them in because they were afraid they'd be deported.

 

On the west coast circulated gold was more prevalent. The U.S. is not a very old country but I feel our history is second to none since our inception as an independent country. I was also astounded by just how important the Ca. gold rush was to the U.S. Alan Crum's book on one type ones Des goes into this in detail.

 

Lack of communication with the East Coast and the more 'rural' nature of the West Coast (LA was a fraction of today's size) made precious metals much more prevalent. NYC was a big city and so were Philly and Boston by 1900.

[DaveG]

Lack of communication with the East Coast and the more 'rural' nature of the West Coast (LA was a fraction of today's size) made precious metals much more prevalent. NYC was a big city and so were Philly and Boston by 1900.

 

GoldFinger1969,

 

Actually, the reason why gold coins were much more common in California than currency was that Californians were opposed to currency from the time California was admitted as a State.

 

Currency (which would have been issued by State banks at that time) was not permitted (by the California constitution, I believe). When Federal currency (Greenbacks) came along during the Civil War period, Californians refused to accept them at face value, but would only accept them at their depreciated value in gold.

 

This was a big problem for the Federal government, because they paid their bills (including employee salaries) in Greenbacks, which were worth less than a comparable salary paid in gold.

 

QDB discusses this in his book on the Brother Jonathan.

 

I'm not sure when Californians began to accept currency at face value - most likely it was after Greenbacks became fully convertible in 1879. In any event, I don't think they fully accepted currency until around WWI.

 

A number of years ago, my wife interviewed an elderly lady who was originally from Michigan, but who honeymooned in California in 1914. She said that gold coins were uncommon in Michigan at the time, but common in California.

[GoldFinger1969]

I wonder what mark thinks of the PCGS/ NGC issue. Hope he post a reply. After looking at type ones in DWs book I concluded he had a very tough job. No two coins are the same out of the mint in terms of strike or other specific attributes.

Probably addressed better in that thread. FWIW, Mark used to be a grader at NGC.

[GoldFinger1969]

p.s., whatever machine you're typing on isn't doing you any favors in terms of spelling, word completion, etc.

But makes for interesting reading, huh ?

[GoldFinger1969]

Lack of communication with the East Coast and the more 'rural' nature of the West Coast (LA was a fraction of today's size) made precious metals much more prevalent. NYC was a big city and so were Philly and Boston by 1900.oldFinger1969,Actually, the reason why gold coins were much more common in California than currency was that Californians were opposed to currency from the time California was admitted as a State.Currency (which would have been issued by State banks at that time) was not permitted (by the California constitution, I believe). When Federal currency (Greenbacks) came along during the Civil War period, Californians refused to accept them at face value, but would only accept them at their depreciated value in gold.This was a big problem for the Federal government, because they paid their bills (including employee salaries) in Greenbacks, which were worth less than a comparable salary paid in gold.QDB discusses this in his book on the Brother Jonathan.I'm not sure when Californians began to accept currency at face value - most likely it was after Greenbacks became fully convertible in 1879. In any event, I don't think they fully accepted currency until around WWI.A number of years ago, my wife interviewed an elderly lady who was originally from Michigan, but who honeymooned in California in 1914. She said that gold coins were uncommon in Michigan at the time, but common in California.

Yes, Dave...but the UNDERLYING REASON why it was in the Constitution was distrust of paper money...because there were no big, reputable banks in CA at that time...they were all on the East Coast....2,500 miles away.....several days (weeks !) by telegraph...no phones.....about as trustworthy as a brokerage account today in the Ukraine !

[DaveG]

GoldFinger1969,

 

You've got a couple of ideas mashed together when they shouldn't be.

 

The lack of East Coast banks had nothing to do with the distrust of paper money in California. Banks at that time were organized state-by-state, so the East Coast banks wouldn't have had a direct presence in California in any event.

 

Outside of a few states in the East (such as New York, Massachusetts, Louisiana and Indiana), banks and paper money were loosely regulated and tended to be unreliable. Many of the '49ers would have just recently experienced the Hard Times of the 1837-1844 period, when banks across the country stopped redeeming their paper money. With all the gold in California, they didn't want the potential mess of paper money.

 

However, that didn't mean there weren't lots of banks (and bank-like companies) in California: the express companies (such as Wells Fargo) performed a lot of bank functions and banks were started fairly quickly after the beginning of the Gold Rush. There was lots of business to be done, principally in foreign exchange, trade finance and the shipment of bullion.

 

In addition, as the truism holds: "news always travels by the fastest available means." Every ship that came into port carried the latest news from wherever it had come from. Indeed, newspapers regularly formed part of a ship's cargo. Yes, news traveled faster when the undersea cable was completed and the telegraph spanned the continent, but it traveled pretty fast before that.

[GoldFinger1969]

GoldFinger1969,You've got a couple of ideas mashed together when they shouldn't be.

You don't like ideas like potatos, mashed ?

 

The lack of East Coast banks had nothing to do with the distrust of paper money in California. Banks at that time were organized state-by-state, so the East Coast banks wouldn't have had a direct presence in California in any event.

I meant there were no big reputable CA banks in the late 1800's that rivaled the NY and Philly banks like JP Morgan & Co.

 

Outside of a few states in the East (such as New York, Massachusetts, Louisiana and Indiana), banks and paper money were loosely regulated and tended to be unreliable. Many of the '49ers would have just recently experienced the Hard Times of the 1837-1844 period, when banks across the country stopped redeeming their paper money. With all the gold in California, they didn't want the potential mess of paper money.

Agreed.....but paper money circulated pretty freely on the East Coast after 1880.

 

However, that didn't mean there weren't lots of banks (and bank-like companies) in California: the express companies (such as Wells Fargo) performed a lot of bank functions and banks were started fairly quickly after the beginning of the Gold Rush. There was lots of business to be done, principally in foreign exchange, trade finance and the shipment of bullion.

But the people on the West Coast preferred bullion coins, right ?

 

In addition, as the truism holds: "news always travels by the fastest available means." Every ship that came into port carried the latest news from wherever it had come from. Indeed, newspapers regularly formed part of a ship's cargo. Yes, news traveled faster when the undersea cable was completed and the telegraph spanned the continent, but it traveled pretty fast before that.

There were times when news got across the country in hours and other times it took days -- or weeks. Depended on where it originated and where it ended.

 

The experience of paper money in the past had not been good. That's why foreign gold coins were popular from 1776 - 1850 or so.

 

Then you had the Greenback debacle during the Civil War, when even the Union currency traded at a steep discount to gold (but not as bad as the Confederacy).

[DaveG]

GoldFinger1969,

 

You've still got your ideas mashed together when they shouldn't be.

 

I meant there were no big reputable CA banks in the late 1800's that rivaled the NY and Philly banks like JP Morgan & Co.

 

Don't be silly, of course there were big reputable California banks in the late 19th century! While none of them could compete with JP Morgan (who could?), California had a big economy for its population size and its banks transacted business internationally and were quite sophisticated.

 

Agreed.....but paper money circulated pretty freely on the East Coast after 1880.

 

Paper money circulated in the Eastern cities (farmers rarely saw money) from the earliest Colonial days onward. When paper money is what one has, paper money is what one spends. Yes, Federal currency was at par in gold after 1878, but that was the only real difference.

 

But the people on the West Coast preferred bullion coins, right?

 

People on the West Coast then did what people always do - they use what makes sense. People on the lower end of the socio-economic scale used cash when they didn't have access to credit. People on the higher end of the socio-economic scale and companies used cash, checks, bank drafts and bills of exchange. As I said, gold and silver coins were preferred to currency, at least prior to 1879.

 

By the way, "bullion coin" is a modern term, since, in the 19th century, coins were made out of gold or silver (except for minor coins). You might as well call a half eagle a "coin-coin" as call it a "bullion coin" at the time.

 

That's why foreign gold coins were popular from 1776 - 1850 or so.

 

Foreign gold coins weren't "popular" - they were available, which, prior to 1834, American gold coins weren't. Prior to the devaluation of the US dollar in terms of gold in 1834, American gold coins didn't circulate, as they were worth more as bullion than they were as coins - so they were primarily exported as soon as they were minted. That's why Old Tenor gold coins (as pre-1834 US gold coins are called) are so rare today.

 

ps, if you'd like a quick primer on how gold coins were used in commerce in the 19th century, I'd recommend you follow O Mint bug's lead and read Chapter two of Doug Winter's Gold Coins of the New Orleans Mint. Most of the book, including Chapter two is available via Google books for free.

[GoldFinger1969]

Dave, I still think that most people West of the Mississippi and especially in California were much less trusting of banks than on the East Coast and that was a factor in the popularity of gold (and silver) coinage. I recall reading it in Friedman/Schwartz' book and a few others.

 

Remember, it was a very traumatic and difficult trip out West (mostly covered wagons) and people moving out there had no familiarity with the banks/institutions out West as opposed to those they were familiar with in the East.