Does Every U.S. Coin Have Legal Tender Status?

[Mr. Smith Guesser]

Does every U.S. coin have legal tender status?

 

Obviously, the coins in your pocket do. And as far as I'm aware, so do all of the bullion coins. What about all the commemorative coins? Do they all have legal tender status?

 

Can the government even issue a non-monetary coin?

[thebeav]

The only non-legal tender coins, I always thought, were trade dollars.

At least, until someone tries to spend a silver eagle if silver were to drop to 90 cents an ounce. Remember what happened in Canada when someone tried to deposit a bunch of those silver Olympic 5's and 10's.......

Paul

[World Colonial]

It is my understanding that all US patterns are not legal tender since they were not "monetized", a concept I consider ridiculous.

 

Elsewhere, I have read that the Swiss 1000 CHF and 500 CHF gold plus 50 CHF silver struck for their annual festivals were/are legal tender only during the event. When gold was a lot lower and the USD-CHF cross rate was a lot lower, I bought a few of the 1000 CHF as a currency hedge only to find out I was wrong later.

 

I also own nine of the Australia $200 AUD gold commemoratives from the 1980's or 1990's; can't remember which one. They contain about one-third of an ounce. At the time I bought them, I paid face value (by the then FX rate) and melt. I bought them on Teletrade for about $145 each. I'm not sure if they are legal tender or not but it doesn't matter since the metal value is worth a lot more now.

[asdfgh]

All of the modern comms have 1 dollar on the silver dollars, 50 cents on the half dollars, 5 dollars on the 1/4 oz gold and so on... So yes they are legal tender.

 

[DWLange]

The trade dollar had lost its domestic legal tender status in 1876, but this was inadvertently reinstated under the Mint Act of 1965, which declared all coins ever issued by the U. S. Mint to be legal tender. This also gave legal tender status to the half cent and large cent, which had never enjoyed such status during their years of production.

[RWB]

Pattern pieces were not coins and had/have no legal tender status.

 

They were not coins because the designs/compositions had not been approved. A few saw limited circulation - the $4 Stella is the best example - largely because of their precious metal content or an assumption by recipients that they were just new-design coins.

[physics-fan3.14]

Can the government even issue a non-monetary coin?

 

A coin is, by definition, money. Non-money products of the mint, such as medals, are clearly not coins.

[Mr. Smith Guesser]

Can the government even issue a non-monetary coin?

 

A coin is, by definition, money. Non-money products of the mint, such as medals, are clearly not coins.

 

Yeah, I shoulda said non-monetary bullion round. But I guess that's like a gold medal or something like that. So yeah, I guess they can and do.

 

Thanks for the info all.

[James_OldeTowne]

The trade dollar had lost its domestic legal tender status in 1876, but this was inadvertently reinstated under the Mint Act of 1965, which declared all coins ever issued by the U. S. Mint to be legal tender. This also gave legal tender status to the half cent and large cent, which had never enjoyed such status during their years of production.

I had heard something to this effect many years ago but wasn't sure if it was the truth - thank you, David.

 

Now, what'll happen if I try to spend my pillar dollar....

[Nutmeg Coin]

A definition of coin:

1.

a flat, typically round piece of metal with an official stamp, used as money.

synonyms: penny, nickel, dime, quarter; etc..

 

The same goes for most US currency that was neither cancelled nor obsoleted. I spoke to a currency dealer about the theory some suggest that Colonials and Continentals should still be redeemable, and he said he would redeem them if offered.

 

[Mohawk]

The only ones I can think of that may have not been affected by the Mint Act of 1965 are the US/Philippines issues. I know that the Philippines demonetized and withdrew them from circulation. However, I do not know what the status on these is in the United States......if anyone has that answer, I'd be very interested to know!

[RWB]

They were not legal tender in the U.S.

[Mohawk]

Hi Roger,

That's right! You had to exchange them and it was a two pesos to one dollar exchange!! Man, was that stupid of me to forget! Thanks for setting me straight!

~Tom

[RWB]

Yep. That was a problem with the first Peso coins -- they had the same specifications as US dollar coins, but were worth half as much when exchanged....

[Nutmeg Coin]

The best coin dealers/coin shows will always pay more for numismatics than a bank, which pretty much goes without saying.

[mark]

RWB:

 

What of the 1856 Flying Eagles. Are they patterns, with no legal tender status, or do you think they are coins, with legal tender status?

 

Mark

[Conder101]

I'd say they are patterns because the design was not approved for use until Feb 1857, so the pieces made before the design was approved would have to be patterns. As patterns they are not legal tender.

 

I spoke to a currency dealer about the theory some suggest that Colonials and Continentals should still be redeemable,

By whom? The government that issued the Continentals no longer exists. The state governments that issued the colonial currency still exist, but were the colonials legal tender? I don't know. And if they were did they ever revoke the legal tender status of their old notes? When the government under the Articles of Confederation assumed the states debts, did that include the obligation to redeem their notes? If so once again you have the case that that government no longer exists.

[RWB]

A new design/alloy is not a coin until it has been approved. As Condor101 notes, they were made before the date of approval. They were made to get Congressional approval for the new weight and alloy, so you might also think of them as promotional or U.S. Mint advertising pieces.

[Nutmeg Coin]

I'd say they are patterns because the design was not approved for use until Feb 1857, so the pieces made before the design was approved would have to be patterns. As patterns they are not legal tender.

 

I spoke to a currency dealer about the theory some suggest that Colonials and Continentals should still be redeemable,

By whom? The government that issued the Continentals no longer exists. The state governments that issued the colonial currency still exist, but were the colonials legal tender? I don't know. And if they were did they ever revoke the legal tender status of their old notes? When the government under the Articles of Confederation assumed the states debts, did that include the obligation to redeem their notes? If so once again you have the case that that government no longer exists.

 

Good points, and to be honest I considered the idea the state or federal governments should be forced to redeem old non-obsoleted currency preposterous, but it would make an interesting case. That the note holder should be compensated for the original face value plus interest due to negligence to not redeem all notes at the time or other fraud, or breach of good faith contract making them liable for what follows. If lower courts reject the arguments appeal to the higher courts and hope you are in Clarence Thomas' jurisdiction.

[Mr. Smith Guesser]

I'd say they are patterns because the design was not approved for use until Feb 1857, so the pieces made before the design was approved would have to be patterns. As patterns they are not legal tender.

 

I spoke to a currency dealer about the theory some suggest that Colonials and Continentals should still be redeemable,

By whom? The government that issued the Continentals no longer exists. The state governments that issued the colonial currency still exist, but were the colonials legal tender? I don't know. And if they were did they ever revoke the legal tender status of their old notes? When the government under the Articles of Confederation assumed the states debts, did that include the obligation to redeem their notes? If so once again you have the case that that government no longer exists.

 

Good points, and to be honest I considered the idea the state or federal governments should be forced to redeem old non-obsoleted currency preposterous, but it would make an interesting case. That the note holder should be compensated for the original face value plus interest due to negligence to not redeem all notes at the time or other fraud, or breach of good faith contract making them liable for what follows. If lower courts reject the arguments appeal to the higher courts and hope you are in Clarence Thomas' jurisdiction.

 

That's interesting because the deal seems to work out in the U.S. gov's favor. So they'd have to pay face value?

[mark]

Conder101 and RWB:

 

Thanks guys.

 

Mark

[cladking]

Remember what happened in Canada when someone tried to deposit a bunch of those silver Olympic 5's and 10's.......

 

The 5 and 10$ coins were sold as legal tender. When some banks refused to accept them the government stepped in and bought them up to protect their reputation and coin programs. My understanding is relatively few were redeemed and melted.

 

There was a thriving trade in the 1980's of companies buying up high denomination bullion, especially Carribean gold, and taking them to their origins for redemption. Some of these coins were melted in large quantities.

[disme]

There seems to be some confusion over whether a coin has legal tender. Minor coins were

not legal tender until 1864 although as early as 1836 Mint Director Patterson attempted to

persuade Congress to give legal tender status to cents and half cents.

 

A struck piece is not a coin until it meets certain legal requirements, primarily being delivered

under a warrant signed by an appropriate official. I do not know the process that exists at the

present time but before 1873, for example, the mint director at Philadelphia or superintendents

at the branch mints had the legal authority to sign the necessary warrants. After 1873 the mint

director was no longer involved, only superintendents.

 

It is not generally realized but proof coins are not always legal coins. Gold and silver proof coins

struck prior to 1860 were not delivered according to law and are technically medals struck with

coinage dies. The same is true for all minor proof coins struck prior to 1878.

 

The 1856 Flying Eagle cents were not coins because they were not delivered under warrant.

 

None of the above has anything to do with the so-called “monetizing” argument produced by the

mint lawyers for the 1933 double eagle discussions. It was devised simply to mislead courts and

juries and has no legal meaning.

[Zoins]

Are the 2000-W Sacagawea 22k gold dollars legal tender? The designs and denomination are approved.

 

[Nutmeg Coin]

Why not? But then again banks can make their own rules, can they be "forced" to redeem what they don't want to handle? Too many SB Anthonys, IKEs, etc.? Used to be they would redeem bills that were 3/4 or more present, not any more.....It is up to their discretion.

[Mr. Smith Guesser]

So basically, what I'm getting from the coin definition stuff is this...

 

A "coin" is monetized by a government. An object might look like a coin, flip like a coin, sound like a coin, taste like a coin, even be minted by a government to look exactly like all of it's other coins. But unless it's monetized, then it's not a "coin".

 

Yes?

 

So the 1933 Double Eagles were not issued...they're not "coins"? Or the 1974 aluminum penny...not a "coin"?

[RWB]

1. The gold Sacagawea 22k dollars are not legal tender. They fail the alloy test.

 

2. Sorry, a coin is NOT "monetized" by government. Please read disme's comments.

 

As stated many times before, a struck piece of metal conforming to the authorized specifications for "legal tender" became a "coin" only when the Coiner certified the piece as meeting all specifications of law AND then accepted ('delivered') by the Superintendent of the producing Mint. Delivery is the point where profit is credited for conversion of bullion to coin. There is NO requirement for official "release" or any other bologna. [The 'release" occurred when the Superintendent accepted the coins...thereafter it did not matter what happened.

 

This also means that if the Coiner changed his mind about the worthiness of struck pieces, he could revert them to bullion. This happened with the DE in 1932 and in some previous years.

 

3. 1933 DE were exactly the same as those of 1932 or any other date in the series. They meet all standards for legal tender coinage.

[derryb]

US Law covers coinage and declares that coins described and authorized for striking by this law are legal tender.

 

[GoldFinger1969]

1933 DE were exactly the same as those of 1932 or any other date in the series. They meet all standards for legal tender coinage.

Those 445,000 or so DE's were never monetized. The owner of the 2002 auction had to pay $20 to monetize the coin after forking over $7.5 MM.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

1933 DE were exactly the same as those of 1932 or any other date in the series. They meet all standards for legal tender coinage.

Those 445,000 or so DE's were never monetized. The owner of the 2002 auction had to pay $20 to monetize the coin after forking over $7.5 MM.

 

I do not agree with either of the statements.