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

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

The planning began in the mid 20s. Other than that, I don't have any comment about the post.

 

Mr. Carr, while very knowledgeable, is presenting alternative history suppositions. While debate is fine, discussion based on mutual understanding of the historical events prevents unnecessary convoluted debates that turn heated for no other reason than a mutual disrespect of participants.

 

The discussion at hand is not an example of Gresham. Greed was not the issue, and neither was there a conspiracy to dupe The People. There have been comments over the years of same, all without merit.

 

1)

From 1914 through 1933, the Federal Reserve bank issued 36 billion dollars worth of gold-redeemable currency notes.

 

3)

FDR himself said in 1933 that all the gold in all the world amounted to 11 billion dollars worth. He also said that there was only enough gold available for one out of every 25 claims on it.

 

Those are not "alternative history suppositions".

The suppositions come into play when considering the motives behind this.

 

Either the Federal Reserve was incompetent and didn't realize what they were doing, or they knew full well that they were issuing far more claims on gold than there was actual gold to back it up.

 

Either way, it is bad.

 

Gresham's Law is not necessarily about greed. In simple terms, Gresham's Law dictates that desirable forms of money tend to be withheld from circulation when less-desirable forms of money are available. That is exactly the case in 1933 with gold coinage.

 

If you are comfortable that you are well read on the subject and have read the accounts of all participants and entities and world leaders on the subject, going back to 1923, then it is your Right to believe as you desire to. Debating for the sake of debate and using innuendo, supposition and limited (very) resources, and surmising that which isn't, is also your Right. As to Gresham, my comments mirror the same belief that it is your Right. Unfortunately, my Jesuit training declines your position. I also decline faux debate and do not accord with debate as a substitute for meaningful discussion that is had between persons that are fully informed via all the information available. If you get a chance to read Baruch and Churchill on the subject, and then review MacArthur, that would be good start and we might be able to limit the conspiracy theory approach. Issuance of forward prescribed Notes for a nation is the least unusual application of Notes, as far back as the Crusade. The Chosun people were doing so 3,000 years ago. Where do you think the idea came from? The Dutch...blame the Dutch and then we will attack the East India Trading Co. I am content with my description of alternative history suppositions.

 

No, it is not exactly the case. It is what you desire to exactly be the case. There is nothing wrong with that, but logic does not support your position, and I doubt you have any desire to hold a different position. That is OK, too. Either/or is not fact and informed logic. It is BIGFOOT. Don't misinterpret me, because BIGFOOT could possibly exist. I am just using a metaphor for your logic position, that is all I mean by BIGFOOT.

 

Apparently, you do not think it was "bad" that the Federal Reserve issued 36 billion dollars of gold claims on less than 4 billion in gold. It is your right to hold that opinion.

 

However, a logical conclusion as to the end result of this activity is that it caused the Great Depression by inflating a credit bubble and moving economic activity growth forward in time from the 1930s to the 1920s. The cost of this was a severe credit contraction and lowered levels of economic activity in the early 1930s. These would not have been nearly as severe if the Federal Reserve had been earlier restrained from blowing such an enormous bubble in the 1920s.

 

Regarding your comments as to what I believe and that I "desire" to believe it, this is known as The Ownership Fallacy .

 

You can not desire to believe something. A belief is only an involuntary response to information. Desiring to believe something is like wishing something is true. Either you truly believe something or you don't. Desiring to believe something is mere pretending. I do not "desire" to believe as I do. I believe as I do because that is what the evidence looks like.

 

 

We do not have any meaningful opportunity of informed discussion.

 

Your method of discussion is to debate and obfuscate. At this point, the subject has been diverted to pronouncements of conspiracy. I do not aspire to discuss might have could have would have scenarios. That is not history or fact. It is a TV show. I am certain we can not agree on the cause of the economic downturn that started in 1919 or the reasons it was necessary and why gold assets played a large, and this prevents any hope of meaningful discussion concerning gold assets.

 

The subject has been exhausted and at this point you are repeating yourself.

 

The Ownership Fallacy is not the avenue to travel to arrive at a destination of fact.

 

While I appreciate your clarification of desire vs. belief, it will not substitute informed discussion for evil government conspiracy.

 

We can not even begin to agree to disagree, because we are not discussing.....I am discussing, you are debating....the same subject. There is nothing I can add that would be meaningful.

 

 

[dcarr]

We do not have any meaningful opportunity of informed discussion.

 

Your method of discussion is to debate and obfuscate. At this point, the subject has been diverted to pronouncements of conspiracy.

 

Perhaps you could present a case that the Federal Reserve's actions were not harmful to the economy, or that they were actually doing a good job ? I would certainly consider it if you did.

 

So far in this thread your posts lack any meaningful or substantive information. Rather, they seem to be merely an elaboration on "discussion" vs "debate".

 

For example, I claimed that the dearth of gold coins in circulation was due, in part to Gresham's Law. You only wrote that no, it wasn't an example of Gresham's Law. Without any elaboration including supporting points, it becomes a "yes it is because... , no it isn't" argument and not a discussion or debate.

 

I do not aspire to discuss might have could have would have scenarios. That is not history or fact. It is a TV show. I am certain we can not agree on the cause of the economic downturn that started in 1919 or the reasons it was necessary and why gold assets played a large, and this prevents any hope of meaningful discussion concerning gold assets.

 

The subject has been exhausted and at this point you are repeating yourself.

 

Forget all that stuff about not being able to agree, etc. It means little in this discussion (debate). FOCUS. What do you think is the reason for the discrepancy between the total number of Federal Reserve Notes issued, and the quantity extant reported by the Federal Reserve in 1933 ?

 

The Ownership Fallacy is not the avenue to travel to arrive at a destination of fact.

 

Neither is claiming a desire aspect to belief systems.

 

While I appreciate your clarification of desire vs. belief, it will not substitute informed discussion for evil government conspiracy.

 

We can not even begin to agree to disagree, because we are not discussing.....I am discussing, you are debating....the same subject.

 

Nobody said this was supposed to be a "discussion". A debate might seem preferable. So far, metaphorically, you've brought a fife to a food fight.

 

There is nothing I can add that would be meaningful.

 

On that, I am starting to agree. So you see, we CAN agree on something

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

We do not have any meaningful opportunity of informed discussion.

 

Your method of discussion is to debate and obfuscate. At this point, the subject has been diverted to pronouncements of conspiracy.

 

Perhaps you could present a case that the Federal Reserve's actions were not harmful to the economy, or that they were actually doing a good job ? I would certainly consider it if you did.

 

So far in this thread your posts lack any meaningful or substantive information. Rather, they seem to be merely an elaboration on "discussion" vs "debate".

 

For example, I claimed that the dearth of gold coins in circulation was due, in part to Gresham's Law. You only wrote that no, it wasn't an example of Gresham's Law. Without any elaboration including supporting points, it becomes a "yes it is because... , no it isn't" argument and not a discussion or debate.

 

I do not aspire to discuss might have could have would have scenarios. That is not history or fact. It is a TV show. I am certain we can not agree on the cause of the economic downturn that started in 1919 or the reasons it was necessary and why gold assets played a large, and this prevents any hope of meaningful discussion concerning gold assets.

 

The subject has been exhausted and at this point you are repeating yourself.

 

Forget all that stuff about not being able to agree, etc. It means little in this discussion (debate). FOCUS. What do you think is the reason for the discrepancy between the total number of Federal Reserve Notes issued, and the quantity extant reported by the Federal Reserve in 1933 ?

 

The Ownership Fallacy is not the avenue to travel to arrive at a destination of fact.

 

Neither is claiming a desire aspect to belief systems.

 

While I appreciate your clarification of desire vs. belief, it will not substitute informed discussion for evil government conspiracy.

 

We can not even begin to agree to disagree, because we are not discussing.....I am discussing, you are debating....the same subject.

 

Nobody said this was supposed to be a "discussion". A debate might seem preferable. So far, metaphorically, you've brought a fife to a food fight.

 

There is nothing I can add that would be meaningful.

 

On that, I am starting to agree. So you see, we CAN agree on something

 

Thank you Mr. Carr. You are correct in all aspects.

[dcarr]

Thank you Mr. Carr. You are correct in all aspects.

 

That seems like a polite way to close a "discussion", although the accuracy of that statement is still debatable.

 

But I really would like to see any other explanations for the apparent wide discrepancy between the Federal Reserve statement of notes extant versus the quantity of notes issued.

 

[DWLange]

I received the three-piece antiqued set of 1916 centennial coins yesterday. While the die work is excellent, all three have a green film on them which is particularly noticeable inside the trough surrounding the coin designs, but it's also evident within the fields of the coins. It looks like PVC residue, though it's likely part of the antiquing process. Is this removable with acetone?

[Nutmeg Coin]

I hope your conservation department can address those issues favorably. Cents have got to be one of the most reactive coins subject to environmental effects available.

[dcarr]

I received the three-piece antiqued set of 1916 centennial coins yesterday. While the die work is excellent, all three have a green film on them which is particularly noticeable inside the trough surrounding the coin designs, but it's also evident within the fields of the coins. It looks like PVC residue, though it's likely part of the antiquing process. Is this removable with acetone?

 

The "green" is positively NOT PVC. It is a part of the antiquing process. It is actually a bluish-green color that some people specifically request. The length of time that the medals are exposed to the patina solution determines the color. A short duration yields a light yellowish-brown splotchy patina. A medium duration yields a more-even bluish-green shade. A longer duration yields a slightly darker brownish-gray color. These particular medals are issued with either of the latter two patina types, which are very stable and will not change over time.

 

None of the patina types are affected in any way by solvents such as acetone.

 

That said, you can always return an item for a full refund or exchange, for any reason (or no reason at all).

 

[RWB]

The copy die work looks very good based on photos. Not so sure about the antiquing process used and the color as described. Was this a common finish on silver art medals? I've seen a lot of dark/light shaded gray.... ?

[mumu]

I am going to throw in an uninformed question into the mix based on nothing but logic.

 

Wouldn't the 36 billion of issued notes figure come from some declaration of policy and not an actual count of the notes in circulation at any point in time?

 

Therefore wouldn't DCarr be actually arguing about the policy of the FRB to issue 10x notes versus actual reserves?

 

In which case wouldn't money wear be an irrelevant issue as surely there are operational processes in place that constantly exchange worn money and replaces it with new money, while not affecting the actual policy based issuance of the money versus reserves?

 

I am sure its not an exact science but I am also guessing that the FRB bank also has some process in place that estimates hoarding in the spirit of having enough actual physical notes for the day to day needs of commerce?

[mark]

Mumu:

 

According to the Fed's balance sheet, there was $3.1 billion of Federal Reserve notes outstanding. To the best of my knowledge--which is pretty good because I worked as a visiting scholar at the KC Fed for 8 months and have done research with their currency data--that number means exactly what it says: There was $3.1 billion of Federal Reserve notes outstanding in 1933. That $3.1 billion takes account of new notes issued and old notes destroyed because they wore out. I think dcarr's adding of the various issues of Federal Reserve notes has lead him to error. And, again to the best of my knowledge, circa the 1930s the Fed never stated that it was planning to circulate or issue $36 billion.

 

Mark

[dcarr]

The copy die work looks very good based on photos. Not so sure about the antiquing process used and the color as described. Was this a common finish on silver art medals? I've seen a lot of dark/light shaded gray.... ?

 

This is the process I use:

 

1) The Medals are struck with a brilliant satin finish.

 

2) Bead-blasting to impart a matte finish.

 

3) Exposure to a sulfur-based solution to impart the patina.

 

4) Hand burnishing using the glass bead media to lighten the high points and reveal the relief.

 

[dcarr]

I am going to throw in an uninformed question into the mix based on nothing but logic.

 

Wouldn't the 36 billion of issued notes figure come from some declaration of policy and not an actual count of the notes in circulation at any point in time?

 

Therefore wouldn't DCarr be actually arguing about the policy of the FRB to issue 10x notes versus actual reserves?

 

In which case wouldn't money wear be an irrelevant issue as surely there are operational processes in place that constantly exchange worn money and replaces it with new money, while not affecting the actual policy based issuance of the money versus reserves?

 

I am sure its not an exact science but I am also guessing that the FRB bank also has some process in place that estimates hoarding in the spirit of having enough actual physical notes for the day to day needs of commerce?

 

Mumu:

 

According to the Fed's balance sheet, there was $3.1 billion of Federal Reserve notes outstanding. To the best of my knowledge--which is pretty good because I worked as a visiting scholar at the KC Fed for 8 months and have done research with their currency data--that number means exactly what it says: There was $3.1 billion of Federal Reserve notes outstanding in 1933. That $3.1 billion takes account of new notes issued and old notes destroyed because they wore out. I think dcarr's adding of the various issues of Federal Reserve notes has lead him to error. And, again to the best of my knowledge, circa the 1930s the Fed never stated that it was planning to circulate or issue $36 billion.

 

Mark

 

The Bureau of Engraving and Printing reports that 36 billion in Federal Reserve notes were issued from 1914 to 1933. About half of that 36 billion was in the new small-size 1928 series. So in 1933, 18 billion in Federal Reserve notes would have been 5 years old or less. It seems unlikely that four out of five high-denomination Federal Reserve Notes didn't even survive for those five years at most.

 

I wouldn't automatically take the Federal Reserve's "3.1 billion" figure at face value (so to speak). Remember what FDR said in 1933:

"Behind government currency we have, in addition to the promise to pay, a reserve of gold and a small reserve of silver, neither of them anything like the total amount of the currency."

If the Government and the Federal Reserve had actually done their due diligence to make sure that all issued gold & silver notes were backed by the mandated amount of bullion, then FDR's statement would not have been necessary.

 

[mark]

dcarr:

 

You are approaching "denier" status. The Fed's balance sheet--which is created by very competent accountants--said that $3.1 billion FRNs were outstanding. That means $3.1 billion FRN notes were outside of the Federal Reserve system.

 

You take FDR's statement as proof positive. But suppose FDR made a slight error in his comment. Suppose he was looking at "money" rather than just currency. Money includes things such as checking accounts and savings accounts, depending on the definition one uses. It's easy for a non-expert (FDR) to mistakenly say "currency" when he actually meant "money." M1 (which includes checking accounts) was apparently about $20 billion in 1933 and M2 (which includes saving accounts) was apparently about $32.2 billion. Regardless, if I had to choose between one statement by FDR and the Fed's balance sheet for data about currency, for me the choice is easy: the Fed's balance sheet.

 

Mark

 

PS: You still have not supplied a reason why the Fed was "maximizing its profit" during the 1920s...

 

 

[RWB]

Paranoid Personality Disorder DSM-5 301.0 (F60.0)

A well-known group of patients have a need for personal validation through possession of “secret” or unique insight into the real world. These patients claim to “know” the truth about specific situations or historical events, and seek approval by others for this. Common descriptions involve “conspiracy theorists,” “alien abduction victims,” and others involving hidden threats.

 

Persons with PPD are entirely sincere in their beliefs.

 

(Balance removed -- too much 'stuff'.)

[Afterword]

If you rely on references to come to a conclusion, your conclusion is only as reliable as your references. References are secondhand knowledge that may or may not be reliable.

 

Second-guessing references is equally unreliable, but much more entertaining.

 

In the case of documented history, you can accept it as truth or question its truthfulness. Regardless of which approach you take, the truth will remain in question.

 

Of this, as always, I am uncertain.

 

 

[RWB]

Yep.