Roger Burdette's Saint Gaudens Double Eagles Book 4 4

[Henri Charriere]

On 4/6/2023 at 9:17 AM, J P M said:

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

The movie line that comes to mind looking back over the years is "you're either very smart... or incredibly stupid."  And then there are the Bernie Madoff and Hunt brothers types who thought they had it all figured out.  I am partial to the hysteria generated by the pathological liars:  "Buy now!  Don't wait!  Gold is going up, Up, UP!!!"

[zadok]

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.]

...maybe not standard of living but does affect ones net worth....

[zadok]

On 4/6/2023 at 9:17 AM, J P M said:

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

...up n down as usual but i think trending up until the election as voters sense that the horizon is getting darker n darker....

[RWB]

On 4/6/2023 at 9:43 AM, Henri Charriere said:

I am partial to the hysteria generated by the pathological liars:  "Buy now!  Don't wait!  Gold is going up, Up, UP!!!"

Henri -- Yes. Truth is soooo boring.

[GoldFinger1969]

1920's Dies:  The book says they were susceptible to creating die cracks. 

Anybody have any idea why this would stand out with the 1920's dies and not earlier ones ?  You'd think better/stronger steel would progress through time and be less likely later on, no ?

I find it very interesting that the 1920's would stand out....you'd think it would be random, all dies pretty much equal and die cracking random across the years.  But apparently not so.

Wonder if it continued into the 1930's with reduced striking volumes.

[Henri Charriere]

On 4/27/2023 at 12:39 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

1920's Dies:  The book says they were susceptible to creating die cracks. 

Anybody have any idea why this would stand out with the 1920's dies and not earlier ones ?  You'd think better/stronger steel would progress through time and be less likely later on, no ?

I find it very interesting that the 1920's would stand out....you'd think it would be random, all dies pretty much equal and die cracking random across the years.  But apparently not so.

[Early morning antics with no historical basis in fact]:

Early mint records indicate an Earl Errorist was employed there.  May have occurred during his tenure.  🤣

[zadok]

On 4/27/2023 at 12:39 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

1920's Dies:  The book says they were susceptible to creating die cracks. 

Anybody have any idea why this would stand out with the 1920's dies and not earlier ones ?  You'd think better/stronger steel would progress through time and be less likely later on, no ?

I find it very interesting that the 1920's would stand out....you'd think it would be random, all dies pretty much equal and die cracking random across the years.  But apparently not so.

Wonder if it continued into the 1930's with reduced striking volumes.

...there r many variables to consider when assessing die cracks...planchet alloy, striking pressure, etc etc...one that is probably the least understood is the molecular crystal structure of the planchet being struck n the effect of the striking on that structure...the actual design or relief of the design of the die being used to strike that planchet also enters into the equation...various design elements of the die has varying effects on the crystal structure of the planchet n die crack patterns can be predicted to some degree...there is some studying of this aspect currently being considered (nothing published)...the point being that die cracks r not just random occurrences...u mite think that dies of the same design mite crack in similar patterns n in some instances that seems correct but not always...ur comment "apparently not so" much more correct than one mite imagine....

Edited April 27, 2023 by zadok
grammar

[RWB]

Overuse.

The US Mints had no technology experts, resulting in few and very slow advancements.

[GoldFinger1969]

On 4/27/2023 at 10:57 AM, RWB said:

Overuse.

Because of the high volumes struck in that time period, right ?

[RWB]

Possibly. Much depends on the press operator's attention to output and the press room foreman's attention to detail.

[GoldFinger1969]

On 4/27/2023 at 2:33 PM, RWB said:

Possibly. Much depends on the press operator's attention to output and the press room foreman's attention to detail.

Very interesting, thanks.  I sure wish there had been some documentaries made at the time -- even silent ones -- talking about how they were manufactured and with interviews.

Would be fascinating.

 

[RWB]

The Mint Bureau did not relish letting anyone know the details of their work. Public information was deliberately kept superficial. That continues today.

[Henri Charriere]

Let's see now.  How would a government employee respond to a simple query:

*No copper cents were authorized for mintage in 1943. 

*[Need to know.]

*(no response; or a delayed response: a letter I wrote the U.S.D.O.J. was answered and received exactly one year from the date it was mailed.  It consisted of a single page of 18 boxes on an unsigned form letter, one of which was checked:  the information sought is unavailable.)

*a background check followed by the appropriate security level clearance, is required.

*the information sought would constitute a violation of the NDA you signed.

*the information you seek is not public information.

*the [agency] will neither confirm nor deny...

*My personal favorite:  thecomplaint/allegation will be reviewed when it is received.

Take your pick.  🤣

[RWB]

Actual responses from the 1950s were that no bronze cents were made dated "1943." Which is correct from a production record standpoint. It was only much later that there was a hint of acceptance that stray planchets from 1942 "might" have gotten stuck in tote trucks.

Much of the time, Mint responses have been denials, or accusations  - typically while internal documents show the technology people already knew what had happened. 1955 doubled die and 1969 doubled die cents come to mind. We have to remember that to the US MInt folks, these are mistakes and should never have gotten out of Govt custody. I remember a remark by Director Ed Moy to Bill Fivaz: "You keep collecting the coins I try to prevent making"  -- or something close to that.

This type of denial/blame/ignorance game merely reduces numismatic confidence in the Mint's trustworthiness....and it's all unnecessary.

[GoldFinger1969]

On 4/28/2023 at 8:44 PM, RWB said:

1955 doubled die and 1969 doubled die cents come to mind. We have to remember that to the US MInt folks, these are mistakes and should never have gotten out of Govt custody.

Why do they even care ?  Either by random luck or because of mechanical issues, sometimes an "error" or glitch happens....they catch it...some get out...it stokes interest and demand from collectors.  What's the big deal ?

They act like they misspelled a word or a hidden obscenity got out.  I don't get the paranoia.

[RWB]

That is part of the "Mint culture" which includes secrecy, insularity, and the other seemingly unnecessary aspects we encounter. Our mint is not alone in this, but it is less forthcoming than mints in Great Britain and some other places. However, there are many other national mints that are far worse.

[RWB]

I should add -- the U.S. Mint Bureau had no research and development department, except the most casual as associated with individuals (Assay, Coiner, M&R). Only with the FDR Administration and Nellie Ross' directorate, did Timothy J. Quirk, Metallurgist and others begin to have a meaningful role. (Much of what we know about 19th century dies and metallurgy come from William Chandler Roberts-Austin of the Royal Mint. American sources are silent.)

[GoldFinger1969]

Finishing up the book American Default, not sure if I have a dedicated thread on that or not (can't find it now) but wanted to let people know that if they Google "Gold Clause Cases" there are some good legal articles going back to Hart's Harvard Law Review 1935 piece on the subject which came out a few months after the February 1935 decisions were rendered. 

I think the best one is From the Gold Clause Cases to the Gold Commission: A Half Century of American Monetary Law by Kenneth W. Dam, which was written in 1982 when the Reagan Administration had some "gold bugs" advocating for a return and they did some serious studies on the possibility.  Other law review or legal writings can be found up to a few years ago, though there aren't that many that touch on this arcane subject given it deals with gold and monetary policy, something not considered hot-burner issues today.  

Anyway, it's a bit more detail if the talk of gold flows and the gold standard in RWB's book whets your appetite.

Edited May 8, 2023 by GoldFinger1969

[VKurtB]

On 4/28/2023 at 11:50 AM, RWB said:

Public information was deliberately kept superficial. That continues today.

Correct! And the same applies to numismatic organizations often. And that needn’t be the case. Tomorrow will be the ANA’s monthly “public meeting”, and some paid staff will likely try to make everything “confidential”. That garbage needs to STOP! Are you listening, HW?

Edited May 8, 2023 by VKurtB

[GoldFinger1969]

On 5/8/2023 at 1:20 PM, VKurtB said:

Correct! And the same applies to numismatic organizations often. And that needn’t be the case. Tomorrow will be the ANA’s monthly “public meeting”, and some paid staff will likely try to make everything “confidential”. That garbage needs to STOP! Are you listening, HW?

No argument, don't they release minutes ?  What's so secretive ?

[VKurtB]

On 5/8/2023 at 12:34 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

No argument, don't they release minutes ?  What's so secretive ?

They do release minutes, but often months late. The selection of Oklahoma City for the 2025 convention was treated like a deep dark secret, despite it was done at an open meeting. The lawyer went nuts that it got out. Some people are just information control freaks. Besides, lawyers simply bug me with the way they act. 

Edited May 8, 2023 by VKurtB

[RWB]

On 5/8/2023 at 2:25 PM, VKurtB said:

They do release minutes, but often months late. The selection of Oklahoma City for the 2025 convention was treated like a deep dark secret, despite it was done at an open meeting. The lawyer went nuts that it got out. Some people are just information control freaks. Besides, lawyers simply bug me with the way they act. 

Minutes of corporate meetings that my folks ran were always ready for review by participants the next business day. Each participant had 24 hours to revise, amend, or correct the minutes (48 hours if it was a long meeting). Revised minutes went out the day after revisions were due. If someone did not respond without good cause, it was explicit approval. Never had a problem once the Govt folks knew the rules and all the Asst Secs and SES'ers loved it.

Edited May 8, 2023 by RWB

[VKurtB]

On 5/8/2023 at 4:12 PM, RWB said:

Minutes of corporate meetings that my folks ran were always ready for review by participants the next business day. Each participant had 24 hours to revise, amend, or correct the minutes (48 hours if it was a long meeting). Revised minutes went out the day after revisions were due. If someone did not respond without good cause, it was explicit approval. Never had a problem once the Govt folks knew the rules and all the Asst Secs and SES'ers loved it.

I think you mean implicit approval, but I get it. If you haven’t checked ANA Board minutes lately, the timeliness varies greatly, but often 3 or 4 months behind. The Exhibiting Committee has now made three substantive changes to Exhibiting, NONE OF WHICH have been published to the membership. 
 

Example: the ANA now has a single-case class in Exhibiting. Show me where you can see that. You can’t, but quite a few single-case exhibits have been entered. “Insider information”.

Another: Class 19 is an exhibit in the Convention Theme. What is it? Nobody knows. 

Edited May 8, 2023 by VKurtB

[RWB]

No, I meant "explicit." The rule was stated, not implied. In most instances, final minutes went to the Asst Sec or SES within 2-3 days. Action item follow-ups were recorded at the next meeting (or sooner if required).

My people practiced preparing meeting agendas and taking minutes. They pooled notes after a meeting so that the "scribe" could get details from various specialists on the team. Casual chit-chat was discouraged and everyone quickly learned to stick to the subject, state their views and research clearly, and determine any actions to be taken. (Action items were part of the minutes.) Yes, I ran a highly structured group of professionals who appreciated that their time and knowledge were respected. The goal was to meet and exceed all contract deliverables and specifications, and to integrate those work products with the client's future plans. (Not something the company I worked for understood.) My staff did the work -- I made sure they had everything necessary to create and succeed; and the credit was entirely theirs.

Had I any influence with ANA, that's approximately how I would operate meetings.

Edited May 9, 2023 by RWB

[GoldFinger1969]

Did their minutes get taken by a professional or by a volunteer ?  My condo used a pro for the first time a few weeks ago -- worth the $$$ IMO. 

[RWB]

On 5/8/2023 at 9:36 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Did their minutes get taken by a professional or by a volunteer ?  My condo used a pro for the first time a few weeks ago -- worth the $$$ IMO. 

....practiced preparing meeting agendas and taking minutes. Few "experienced" people had either the security clearance or technical knowledge to do the job. Also, there was no line item for a paid note-taker.

[GoldFinger1969]

On 5/8/2023 at 9:39 PM, RWB said:

....practiced preparing meeting agendas and taking minutes. Few "experienced" people had either the security clearance or technical knowledge to do the job. Also, there was no line item for a paid note-taker.

Security clearance ?  What was this, a CIA meeting ? 

I think our professional cost us $150 or so.

[olympicsos]

On 4/29/2023 at 1:01 PM, RWB said:

That is part of the "Mint culture" which includes secrecy, insularity, and the other seemingly unnecessary aspects we encounter. Our mint is not alone in this, but it is less forthcoming than mints in Great Britain and some other places. However, there are many other national mints that are far worse.

Which mints are far worse? Which mints are the best from a collector perspective?

On 4/29/2023 at 5:51 PM, RWB said:

I should add -- the U.S. Mint Bureau had no research and development department, except the most casual as associated with individuals (Assay, Coiner, M&R). Only with the FDR Administration and Nellie Ross' directorate, did Timothy J. Quirk, Metallurgist and others begin to have a meaningful role. (Much of what we know about 19th century dies and metallurgy come from William Chandler Roberts-Austin of the Royal Mint. American sources are silent.)

After the Barber/Morgan era ended, the US Mint appeared to be not the same anymore. Seemed like in the 1930s and under Sinnock the Mint changed in how it operated and that change accelerated in the 1960s. 

On 4/28/2023 at 8:44 PM, RWB said:

Actual responses from the 1950s were that no bronze cents were made dated "1943." Which is correct from a production record standpoint. It was only much later that there was a hint of acceptance that stray planchets from 1942 "might" have gotten stuck in tote trucks.

Much of the time, Mint responses have been denials, or accusations  - typically while internal documents show the technology people already knew what had happened. 1955 doubled die and 1969 doubled die cents come to mind. We have to remember that to the US MInt folks, these are mistakes and should never have gotten out of Govt custody. I remember a remark by Director Ed Moy to Bill Fivaz: "You keep collecting the coins I try to prevent making"  -- or something close to that.

This type of denial/blame/ignorance game merely reduces numismatic confidence in the Mint's trustworthiness....and it's all unnecessary.

And Ed Moy was one of the "friendly" directors. 

Edited May 9, 2023 by olympicsos

[RWB]

On 5/9/2023 at 2:45 PM, olympicsos said:

Seemed like in the 1930s and under Sinnock

The big change for the worse was under Grant as Director. Everything languished. Ross took over a place where the guards carried rusted guns, and many were too old to perform the job. Some of the Secret Service reports on inspections read like an old Keystone Kops silent. Reading private communications during the early years between Ross and her secretary are dispiriting. The 1930s were a time of recovery, renovation and improvement in equipment, facilities and staff. Ross also happened to like Sinnock, even if he was a 2nd rate talent. She loved his Franklin portrait that eventually was used on the half dollar created by Frank Gasparo.

[GoldFinger1969]

Interesting section on the 1920 and 1921 Saints from the book.  Note that the government release was considered by the guy who got them to be "irregular."  Hmmmm...where have I heard that before ?

T. Louis Comparette, curator of the U.S. Mint collection in Philadelphia often supplied coins to major institutional collections such as the Mitchelson collection owned by the Connecticut State Library. In 1920 and again in 1921 he made special arrangements to obtain coins struck for circulation but intended for other purposes by the treasury department, such as double eagles. Here we find Comparette openly stating his actions were “irregular:"

"Herewith I am sending you a [1920] Twenty Dollar gold piece, just struck. It is for the Reserve Funds and not to be issued for general circulation, and the securing of the specimens for others than the government collection is probably irregular, so please do not let the fact become public knowledge. For others will demand specimens as soon as they learn that a few have them are out."

Six months later Comparette reminded Connecticut State Librarian George Godard, that the Mitchelson collection had gotten a good “deal” on the double eagle transaction:

"By the way, you and the Senator were lucky in re the 1920 Double-eagles. But very few of them got out. All the rest are under seal along with the reserve funds, and the repeated efforts of scores to secure specimens have so far proved unavailing. I have been trying to get a specimen for the American Society in New York, but in vain. Dealers have offered as high as $30 for a specimen. I have an urgent commission now to get one at $25, but it is useless to try it. Sometime, undoubtedly, they will be obtainable, but nobody now can surmise when. Perhaps the next Secretary of the Treasury will find a way to be accommodating and release a bag of them for the hungry collectors."

The 1921 double eagles proved to be more difficult to obtain as indicated by this exchange of letters, first from Comparette on December 15, 1921:

"Some [1921] double eagles are being struck here at the mint. Do you wish one?

Godard replied the next day:

We both… desire to have specimens of the double eagles…."

Edited May 11, 2023 by GoldFinger1969