Roger Burdette's Saint Gaudens Double Eagles Book 4 4

[RWB]

On 2/21/2023 at 12:55 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

I was pretty sure that some of the sources I read said no compensation was given (like Switt's $2,000 loss).  I'll double-check and circle back.

If you VOLUNTARILY surrendered your gold, you got paid...but if they seized it ?  You're saying they'd still pay you ?

Was doing reading on the legal cases over the last week or so, maybe I got it mixed up.  I'll circle back to this in a few days if not sooner.

The government did not confiscate gold. A few people got caught trying to hoard it, but even they were paid the full legal tender value. Many pwople used the "coin collection" exemption - the fellow who bought 50 DE from Treasury could have done that, but did not....probably didnt know.

Whatever "sources" you are using a either ignorant, or biased, or maybe just grabbing emotionally-charged words with intent to distort or confuse.

Edited February 21, 2023 by RWB

[olympicsos]

On 2/21/2023 at 11:54 PM, RWB said:

The government did not confiscate gold. A few people got caught trying to hoard it, but even they were paid the full legal tender value. Many pwople used the "coin collection" exemption - the fellow who bought 50 DE from Treasury could have done that, but did not....probably didnt know.

Whatever "sources" you are using a either ignorant, or biased, or maybe just grabbing emotionally-charged words with intent to distort or confuse.

This gold confiscation is also used to hype products and induce fear to sell gold coins to this day. 

Edited February 22, 2023 by olympicsos

[GoldFinger1969]

On 2/22/2023 at 6:05 AM, olympicsos said:

This gold confiscation is also used to hype products and induce fear to sell gold coins to this day. 

Well, you WERE forced to turn it in and sell it for $20.67 an ounce -- and then a few months later it was worth $35/oz.   I have a problem with that. 

In retrospect, I'm surprised the GOP didn't make more of a stink.  Probably still licking their wounds from getting killed in the '32 elections.

[RWB]

On 2/22/2023 at 10:23 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Well, you WERE forced to turn it in and sell it for $20.67 an ounce -- and then a few months later it was worth $35/oz.   I have a problem with that. 

In retrospect, I'm surprised the GOP didn't make more of a stink.  Probably still licking their wounds from getting killed in the '32 elections.

The open market price of gold exceeded $20.67 by 1914. There was notable agitation to raise the official price. It fluctuated over time and by 1932 was consistently above $20.67 - mostly pushed by growing commercial demand and speculators.  Would you have a similar "problem" if a few months later gold was worth $16.00 per ounce? People who turned in gold or gold equivalents got exactly the same as if they had deposited it in a bank, or bought a barrel of gherkins with it. No American lost money.

[GoldFinger1969]

On 2/22/2023 at 11:44 AM, RWB said:

The open market price of gold exceeded $20.67 by 1914. There was notable agitation to raise the official price. It fluctuated over time and by 1932 was consistently above $20.67 - mostly pushed by growing commercial demand and speculators.  Would you have a similar "problem" if a few months later gold was worth $16.00 per ounce? People who turned in gold or gold equivalents got exactly the same as if they had deposited it in a bank, or bought a barrel of gherkins with it. No American lost money.

But you still were FORCED to give up something you wanted -- even if at FMV or above.

My grandparents and great-grandparents did have gold coins (not sure if DEs or what denomination) and they did give them up.  They didn't want to; my mother distinctly recalls her mother and grandmother bemoaning it all the time in the 1950's.  They knew/thought they'd be worth alot more $$$ down the line.  But they were immigrants, scared of not complying, so they did.

I wish I had been into gold and coins when my maternal grandfather was still alive.  He was born in 1903 and travelled the world with the Merchant Marines.  He probably used gold coins on and off in his travels in the 1920's and 1930's.  He was also very well-read (used to get The New York Times every single day by walking to the newstand ).  He probably had lots of stories about gold coins and maybe even Saint-Gaudens DEs. 

Sure wish I had known 30 years ago what I know today about gold, coins, and Saints.  

Edited February 23, 2023 by GoldFinger1969

[RWB]

Gold was not in the hands of most people in any country -- it was simply too valuable. One had to be middle class or above to ever be exposed to it. For most of the gold coin era the middle class was small -- most people were lower class or poor.

[Sandon]

 

On 2/22/2023 at 7:39 PM, RWB said:

Gold was not in the hands of most people in any country

   I question this assertion.   

   My maternal grandparents and my grandfather's parents, then recent immigrants, operated a corner grocery store in an Eastern city during the mid to late 1920s. My grandmother told me that it was not uncommon for the neighborhood people, also mostly immigrants of the same ethnicity, to spend $5 and $10 gold pieces in that store, as well as the occasional $2.50 gold piece.  (She related that someone once spent as a cent what initially appeared to be "a little shiny penny" but turned out to be a quarter eagle.)  My grandmother claimed to be unaware of the existence of $20 gold pieces.

    In 1933 my grandparents saved the $75 in $5s and $10s that they had accumulated. This was entirely legal, as each person was allowed to keep up to $100 in face value.  This was a lot of money to them, but they had learned in the "old country" not to trust paper currency.  

   I now own several of these coins, with the others having been distributed to family members. I saw and catalogued them when they were all together.  They are dated between 1881 and 1911, a mixture of relatively common dates of Liberty and Indian types of each denomination.  They all grade between XF 40 and perhaps AU 55 by today's standards, one with rim damage. They have considerably fewer bag marks than the uncirculated coins that have returned from overseas.  

   It is questionable whether my grandparents could have been classified as "middle class" at that time.  Most of their customers certainly could not have been. I've encountered a number of other people whose immigrant ancestors left U.S. or foreign gold coins that they had obtained during the early twentieth century. Gold has long been coveted by people in most parts of the world, from all walks of life. The rich might have more, but even the poor often have some.

[GoldFinger1969]

On 2/22/2023 at 8:50 PM, Sandon said:

My maternal grandparents and my grandfather's parents, then recent immigrants, operated a corner grocery store in an Eastern city during the mid to late 1920s. My grandmother told me that it was not uncommon for the neighborhood people, also mostly immigrants of the same ethnicity, to spend $5 and $10 gold pieces in that store, as well as the occasional $2.50 gold piece.  (She related that someone once spent as a cent what initially appeared to be "a little shiny penny" but turned out to be a quarter eagle.) 

We here in this country think that high inflation was 12% during the 1970's.   That meant your money lost 12% purchasing power in a year. Imagine your money losing 12% purchasing power EACH MONTH....EVERY DAY.....EACH HOUR !!   

Our grandparents and great-grandparents probably experienced this or knew of family or friends who did.  Certainly, European wars and/or Panics were the main cause of economic and financial/banking destruction.  Kleptocracies and just lousy fiscal and monetary mismangement were others.

On 2/22/2023 at 8:50 PM, Sandon said:

My grandmother claimed to be unaware of the existence of $20 gold pieces.

Not surprising....$20 was ALOT of money in the 1920's. 

An average/median workweek in the 1920's probably earned someone $30-$40.  Not many people would have $20 gold coins (as Roger has correctly stated here numerous times), anymore than most people today if you check their wallet or billfold will have it filled with $100 bills. 

On 2/22/2023 at 8:50 PM, Sandon said:

In 1933 my grandparents saved the $75 in $5s and $10s that they had accumulated. This was entirely legal, as each person was allowed to keep up to $100 in face value.  This was a lot of money to them, but they had learned in the "old country" not to trust paper currency.    I now own several of these coins, with the others having been distributed to family members. I saw and catalogued them when they were all together.  They are dated between 1881 and 1911, a mixture of relatively common dates of Liberty and Indian types of each denomination.  They all grade between XF 40 and perhaps AU 55 by today's standards, one with rim damage. They have considerably fewer bag marks than the uncirculated coins that have returned from overseas.  

Wow, fascinating !!  I'd personally value a lower-graded coin that my ancestors had saved over a more valuable one that I bought online or at a coin show.  You're a lucky person to have them ! 

On 2/22/2023 at 8:50 PM, Sandon said:

It is questionable whether my grandparents could have been classified as "middle class" at that time.  Most of their customers certainly could not have been. I've encountered a number of other people whose immigrant ancestors left U.S. or foreign gold coins that they had obtained during the early twentieth century. Gold has long been coveted by people in most parts of the world, from all walks of life. The rich might have more, but even the poor often have some.

Very true.  In my grandparents and great-grandparents case, they feared the government not being English-speaking.  But it's possible this is a generalization that isn't 100% true....I would really need to have talked to my grandmother (more so than my mother) to find out exactly what my great-grandparents (who were well-into their working years) thought about when confronted by the EO on gold. 

My grandfather and grandmother (my mother's parents) were 30 and 20, respectively, when the gold recall/confiscation hit in 1933....so they were just starting out in their careers (though my grandfather had already been at sea for years).  My grandmother's parents (not sure about my grandfather's) would have been in their 40's and 50's and in prime-working age when FDR's EO hit.  They would have had the savings/gold accumulation more so than their daughter and son-in-law, I would think.

As for my father's parents (no grandparents in this country).....well, my father tells me nothing about The Old Days , but his older sister (my aunt) is the keeper of the family lore so maybe she has something to tell me next time I see her.  Ironically, she was born in 1933. 

Edited February 23, 2023 by GoldFinger1969

[Fenntucky Mike]

This talk of gold coins in one's possession is completely foriegn to me and my family. My paternal family never had a gold coin to thier name, barter and trade ruled the day with them (still does). Maternal side never had physical gold either but was "invested" and lived humbly. Of course me and my peeps are a generation behind most here, with my grandparents (both sides) being immigrants as children in the '30's.

[GoldFinger1969]

On 2/22/2023 at 9:47 PM, Fenntucky Mike said:

Of course me and my peeps are a generation behind most here, with my grandparents (both sides) being immigrants as children in the '30's.

Yeah, you would have needed great-grandparents in the U.S. since your grandparents came here as kids (but didn't they come with your great-grandparents ?).

Whether you saw or used or saved gold coins (or even silver coins) probably was based on what you did for a living....previous experience with banking failures/economic distress...where you or your ancestors came from...and how much discretionary income you had (esp. if you had kids).

Edited February 23, 2023 by GoldFinger1969

[olympicsos]

On 2/23/2023 at 3:39 AM, RWB said:

Gold was not in the hands of most people in any country -- it was simply too valuable. One had to be middle class or above to ever be exposed to it. For most of the gold coin era the middle class was small -- most people were lower class or poor.

At best gold dollars for jewelry or quarter/half eagles for gifts I would assume. 

[GoldFinger1969]

On 2/23/2023 at 2:03 PM, olympicsos said:

At best gold dollars for jewelry or quarter/half eagles for gifts I would assume. 

My (great) grandparents on my mother's side did NOT keep their savings in banks until the 1950's.  I know that for a fact.  And they lived in the NYC area where they had big banks, not the rinky-dinks in Oklahoma and the Midwest.

They kept it in their house and/or in gold/silver/jewelry.

You had 4,000 banks alone fail in 1933.  Who would have trusted even Chase Manhattan or whatever it was called, or Manufacturers Hanover or Irving Trust.  MAYBE JP Morgan but I'm not sure they did retail banking back then.

[olympicsos]

On 2/23/2023 at 10:43 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

My (great) grandparents on my mother's side did NOT keep their savings in banks until the 1950's.  I know that for a fact.  And they lived in the NYC area where they had big banks, not the rinky-dinks in Oklahoma and the Midwest.

They kept it in their house and/or in gold/silver/jewelry.

You had 4,000 banks alone fail in 1933.  Who would have trusted even Chase Manhattan or whatever it was called, or Manufacturers Hanover or Irving Trust.  MAYBE JP Morgan but I'm not sure they did retail banking back then.

That wouldn’t surprise me one bit being from NYC myself. Immigrants who experience horrible things elsewhere have less trust and NYC has a lot of immigrants with the old country mindset. 

[RWB]

On 2/23/2023 at 2:43 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

You had 4,000 banks alone fail in 1933.

...and after the banking acts were passed, banks were required to act responsibly, the failures dripped to 1 or 2 per year -- from a 20-year prior average of around 450 per year.

The limited data on non-bank savings (mattress) suggests that money was kept mostly in paper and small change. Treasury examined gold coin flow in and out of the country with immigrants and travelers. Immigrants carried everything they had in material or money - There were small proportions of gold coin, but mostly paper and silver coin from their native country. Most immigrants had very little of anything except a desire for opportunity that was missing back home.

[VKurtB]

My mother’s side of the family were Pennsylvania Deutsch “plain people” of Amish ancestry that we have traced to central Switzerland. They immigrated well before the Civil War. My father’s paternal ancestry was “hoch Deutsch” from the Düßeldorf area, who immigrated early enough to have had a Union Army Captain in the Civil War injured at Gettysburg.  His mother’s people immigrated in 1890. Not a single one of my ancestry ever even SAW in person a United States gold coin, even my father (1922-2017). Gold coins were simply not a thing that ever touched their lives. 
 

To confirm what Roger wrote above me, my home region is bloody teeming with German currencies, from inflation notes to Nazi silver coins. The old Vanity Fair lingerie company was founded and run by Nazi sympathizers in PA. 

Edited February 23, 2023 by VKurtB

[GoldFinger1969]

Treasury Secretary William Woodin:  He's been portrayed in some passages in various books and lots of articles about the 1933 Double Eagles as being a friend to coin collectors, goldbugs, etc.

Reading AMERICAN DEFAULT, he's alot less helpful and less of an advocate than he was portrayed.  He's a in a Democratic administration and he's not pushing back at all against the economic policies of FDR's "Brain Trust."   Dean Acheson in the Treasury Department (before he moved to State) seemed to show more backbone in standing up for the gold clauses, gold holders, and even coin collectors.

In his defense (?), he was sick and would die within a year.  Maybe he just didn't have the strength to push back. 

Reading on.....

 

Edited March 18, 2023 by GoldFinger1969

[RWB]

Woodin was in overall agreement with the FDR administration's economic policies -- many of which were larger version of small projects tried by the Hoover admin. The success of those policies, including tight restrictions on banking speculation, were successful. The book you are reading is an ideological tome and not real applied economics. This is much like the phony "supply-side" absurdity that has never worked for the overall benefit, but which keeps being pushed as ideology and not for results.

However, reading the book is a good exercise in critical thinking -- separating distorted and meaningless from reality.

[GoldFinger1969]

On 3/18/2023 at 12:55 PM, RWB said:

Woodin was in overall agreement with the FDR administration's economic policies -- many of which were larger version of small projects tried by the Hoover admin. The success of those policies, including tight restrictions on banking speculation, were successful. The book you are reading is an ideological tome and not real applied economics. This is much like the phony "supply-side" absurdity that has never worked for the overall benefit, but which keeps being pushed as ideology and not for results.

However, reading the book is a good exercise in critical thinking -- separating distorted and meaningless from reality.

Hoover didn't want to go out on a limb once he was a lame duck even though things deteriorated sharply between the 1932 November election and the March inauguration.  The FDR people really hung them out to dry -- wouldn't commit to anything.

This book isn't even that much about economics, Roger.  It's basically focused on the implications of doing away with the gold clauses and gold.  Big focus on commodity prices (1/2 the country were farmers).  Focused on the debates and the back-door dealings. 

I'm half-way through so still waiting to get to the Supreme Court deliberations.

[GoldFinger1969]

"Had the United States followed the post-war practice of other countries, and pursued a modified gold standard, the antihoarding and nationalization of 1933 and 1934 might not have occurred."

I'm not following how the more stringent anti-hoarding campaign begun under Hoover would have been mitigated by a modified GS, Roger.

Are you saying that a weaker gold standard would have led to a shallower economic decline in 1929-33 and/or higher commodity prices ? 

 

[RWB]

There was never an international monolithic "gold standard." (See the opening chapters of Saudi Gold and other Tales from the Mint.)

I need the context of the quote to understand your question.

[GoldFinger1969]

On 3/21/2023 at 10:14 AM, RWB said:

I need the context of the quote to understand your question. 

Sorry...here it is:

"Most provisions of the gold embargo were lifted on June 9, 1919 by treasury secretary Carter Glass and in May 1920 the treasury announced that gold coins would again be minted. However, as late as December 1920 banks were instructed not to pay out gold coins for Christmas and New Year’s gifts.

In aggregate, these actions nationalized government held gold, taking the economy off the fully convertible gold standard for all practical purposes.

Domestically, this gold and silver embargo seems to have had no effect on the economy. Gold bars rarely changed hands in commerce and gold coins were of limited use outside of the western states. The government benefited by avoiding the expense of refining, coining and dis-tributing gold, although it continued to buy refined metal and perform assays. The government also benefited by avoiding the incidental loss of gold during shipment – the unavoidable consequence of the yellow metal’s softness. Had the United States followed the post-war practice of other countries, and pursued a modified gold standard, the antihoarding and nationalization of 1933 and 1934 might not have occurred."

 

Edited March 21, 2023 by GoldFinger1969

[RWB]

OK. The practice was to  move from a full gold exchange standard, prevalent before WW-1, to a limited coinage standard. This not only avoided most of the government cost of coinage and shipping, but altered economic use to bars and non-coin forms. This, in turn, reduced hoarding and speculative demand. By returning to the pre-war approach, the US set itself up as a speculators target. Of course, this is opinion - since it didn't happen.

[GoldFinger1969]

On 3/21/2023 at 5:34 PM, RWB said:

OK. The practice was to  move from a full gold exchange standard, prevalent before WW-1, to a limited coinage standard. This not only avoided most of the government cost of coinage and shipping, but altered economic use to bars and non-coin forms. This, in turn, reduced hoarding and speculative demand. By returning to the pre-war approach, the US set itself up as a speculators target. Of course, this is opinion - since it didn't happen.

Understood....but in the end, while you might have prevented hoarding of gold coins and gold, you wouldn't have prevented hoarding of Gold Certificates (for those who wanted them)....right ?

[RWB]

Part of the WW-1 era policy was to limit gold certificates, also. They were, in essence, warehouse receipts requiring physical delivery of gold coin or bars. I didn't go into much of that because the book was about DE. Chapters 1 and 2 of Saudi Gold and other Tales from the Mint explain more about gold certificates and their use.

[GoldFinger1969]

I finished all the non-coin sections in the book.  Amazing how much more information you gather reading a book the 2nd time (of course, I have greater knowledge and understanding now vs. 3 years ago when I read the book).  I'd say I had about 10-20% of the key information in this book "stick" with me when I read it during the peak of the Covid pandemic in 2020.  I re-read the key portions, particularly on the Gold Standard and gold coin movements, and it's amazing how much was of interest to me NOW but which I kind of glossed over 3 years ago.  I guess maybe I wanted to just finish them and get onto the year-by-year coin annuals. 

Roger, I also scanned the 1933 section again and was wondering:  how did you come up with the realization regarding the 43 1933 DEs that were used to balance the count of 1932's ?    Had this ever been discussed before ?  Did you hear about this happening with another coin series and thought maybe it happened with Saints and proceeded to check various mintages ? 

Or were you just looking through the NARA boxes and came across it ? 

If you were led there by the L.G. Barnard '47 case, it would seem that it was "forgotten" for a long time unless others talked about a few dozen 1933's being mixed in with 1932's and I am not aware of that (but maybe it's in some obscure numismatic periodicals).

Edited March 23, 2023 by GoldFinger1969

[RWB]

On 3/23/2023 at 1:21 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Roger, I also scanned the 1933 section again and was wondering:  how did you come up with the realization regarding the 43 1933 DEs that were used to balance the count of 1932's ?    Had this ever been discussed before ?  Did you hear about this happening with another coin series and thought maybe it happened with Saints and proceeded to check various mintages ? 

Or were you just looking through the NARA boxes and came across it ? 

If you were led there by the L.G. Barnard '47 case, it would seem that it was "forgotten" for a long time unless others talked about a few dozen 1933's being mixed in with 1932's and I am not aware of that (but maybe it's in some obscure numismatic periodicals).

The addition of 43 1933-dated coins to the 1932 DE total is explicitly stated by the Coiner, William Bartholomew. This was a normal procedure but used only when necessary - for example if a delivery were condemned and could not be made up before the change of date.The documents are in a folder at NARA Philadelphia. Context was in relation to the Barnard case, but the information was never shared with defense attorneys and possibly not with the Treasury either.

In the Langbord case, the Treasury "expert" came across it during his research, but did not understand any of the documents. He admitted at trial that I was the only person able to explain Bartholomew's signed memo and how this processes worked for gold coinage. I presented the info at trial, but was prohibited from explaining how all of this worked within the ACTUAL operations of the Mint. The Treasury "expert" did not know how the Mints operated in 1933 and presented wrong info. to the Court. I was not allowed to correct the errors. Facts were not very important on appeal. Thus, the fact that 43 DE dated "1933" were made in early March and counted with the 1932-date DE was likely not considered by the jury. The judge just wanted to start his summer vacation.

[GoldFinger1969]

On 3/24/2023 at 11:20 AM, RWB said:

The judge just wanted to start his summer vacation.

I hope it rained for 2 weeks !!  

[Henri Charriere]

On 8/4/2020 at 12:05 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

.... and while I am not one of the carnival barkers calling for $5,000 or $10,000 gold in a few years, I can certainly make a case for $2,500 by early-2021 and $3,000 within a few years.

If I was working FT I'd probably be nibbling here but I'm certainly NOT selling here.

P.S. We crossed $2,000 a few minutes ago !

A look back...

[Yes, gold crossed $2,000--and has since re-crossed it and retreated.  All I know is while the supply of certified gold has increased along with the number of devoted collectors, my feeling (shared apparently by no one else) is their physical or constructive possession, by owners or heirs of owners, in and of itself, has no bearing on one's standard of living or net worth.]

[GoldFinger1969]

On 4/5/2023 at 10:04 PM, Henri Charriere said:

A look back...[Yes, gold crossed $2,000--and has since re-crossed it and retreated.  All I know is while the supply of certified gold has increased along with the number of devoted collectors, my feeling (shared apparently by no one else) is their physical or constructive possession, by owners or heirs of owners, in and of itself, has no bearing on one's standard of living or net worth.]

OK....which means....you think the price of gold is going.....where ?

[J P M]

Gold will just be going up and down around the 2K mark until the elections and then it will morph into whatever party wins.