Roger Burdette's Saint Gaudens Double Eagles Book 4 4

[Henri Charriere]

On 11/27/2023 at 2:15 AM, dcarr said:

The last 20-Francs gold coins were minted in 1914, and they contained about the same gold content as the rare 100-Francs gold coins of 1929-1936.

So at some point between 1914 and 1929 the French Franc was devalued in terms of⁵ gold to 1/5th of what it was.

Not to belabor the matter any more than necessary, but the 20-Francs gold coins dated 1914 were minted in 1921.  The 20-Francs gold rooster, the last in the series which produced eleven (11) different types, was demonetized on June 25, 1928.

The 100 Francs gold Bazor was minted somewhat haphazardly from 1929 to 1936.  Only nine (9) were minted in 1929; prototypes of unspecified numbers in 1930,1931, 1932 and 1934; roughly 6.1 million minted in 1935 and 7.7 million in 1936 for a grand total of 13.8 million pieces. According to the latest copy of Monnaies Francaises (the French Red Book, 2021 ) prices, presumably in €, run from 1000 to 35,000 in the highest Mint State grades (FDC).

For the record... the earliest 100 Francs gold Napoleon III minted from 1855 to 1859 were 90% gold, weighed 32.25 g with a 35 mm diameter, and again with minor changes from 1862 to 1870 with the same specs. Off and on from 1878 to 1914, France continued to produce 90% gold 100 Francs, Genie, with the same specs. 🐓 

 

[RWB]

https://www.lbma.org.uk/wonders-of-gold/items/the-bazor-the-franc-that-never-was

[Henri Charriere]

On 11/27/2023 at 5:43 PM, RWB said:

https://www.lbma.org.uk/wonders-of-gold/items/the-bazor-the-franc-that-never-was

That's as good a title as any.  They were virtually identical to the 20-Francs Gold Rooster in size and weight but tres unattractive in appearance beginning with their notably tan color. I thank you for contributing to the body of knowledge.  

[GoldFinger1969]

On 11/27/2023 at 2:15 AM, dcarr said:

The last 20-Francs gold coins were minted in 1914, and they contained about the same gold content as the rare 100-Francs gold coins of 1929-1936. So at some point between 1914 and 1929 the French Franc was devalued in terms of gold to 1/5th of what it was.

WW I and the aftermath up to 1926 you had the devaluation.  France bled gold....but then, as I noted above, they tightened a ton and more so than the U.S. they overtightened and helped wreck the gold exchange standard.

[GoldFinger1969]

Dcarr, thanks for posting the info from your website.  Yes, you have an expired certificate.... whatever that means. 

I'm not sure what listing all the currency in circulation amounts to.  It's not really relevant to explain what happened in the 1920's and The Great Depression.  "Cover ratios" were low in some of the countries and relative to years earlier but not significantly so.  And the gold exchange standard means nothing for the solvency of the Federal Reserve System.

As for the French Franc.....

[GoldFinger1969]

As for the Fed being bailed out.....the Treasury got the gold, not the Fed; it was the predecessor of the Exchange Stabilization Fund.  I don't know why you are fixated on the Fed unless you are just restating those anti-Fed websites.

You keep focusing on the amount of gold reserves vs. printed currency and whether ALL gold obligations could be honored with the given gold stock.  Nobody disputed that it could NOT. 

But it doesn't matter about being able to meet all gold obligations in gold any more than banks can't meet every deposit liability when the money is in mortgages of your neighbors, as George Bailey once opined.   The Gold Clauses plaintiffs didn't want gold, but they wanted the change in the dollar value of gold to be reflected in the amount they received (in U.S dollars).  It was the fixed ratio that mattered, not actual gold.

[dcarr]

On 11/27/2023 at 3:08 PM, Henri Charriere said:

Not to belabor the matter any more than necessary, but the 20-Francs gold coins dated 1914 were minted in 1921.   🐓 

 

Thanks for the correction. Yes, "minted" in 1921 , and dated "1914".

[dcarr]

On 11/27/2023 at 3:08 PM, Henri Charriere said:

Not to belabor the matter any more than necessary, but the 20-Francs gold coins dated 1914 were minted in 1921.  The 20-Francs gold rooster, the last in the series which produced eleven (11) different types, was demonetized on June 25, 1928.

The 100 Francs gold Bazor was minted somewhat haphazardly from 1929 to 1936.  Only nine (9) were minted in 1929; prototypes of unspecified numbers in 1930,1931, 1932 and 1934; roughly 6.1 million minted in 1935 and 7.7 million in 1936 for a grand total of 13.8 million pieces. According to the latest copy of Monnaies Francaises (the French Red Book, 2021 ) prices, presumably in €, run from 1000 to 35,000 in the highest Mint State grades (FDC).

For the record... the earliest 100 Francs gold Napoleon III minted from 1855 to 1859 were 90% gold, weighed 32.25 g with a 35 mm diameter, and again with minor changes from 1862 to 1870 with the same specs. Off and on from 1878 to 1914, France continued to produce 90% gold 100 Francs, Genie, with the same specs. 🐓 

 

The Bazor 100 Francs is one of my favorite gold coins. I only have a couple foreign gold coins, but a Bazor 100F is one of them .

Although the mintages for them were high in 1935 and 1936, the vast majority of those were never released and were melted.

[dcarr]

On 11/28/2023 at 12:43 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

As for the Fed being bailed out.....the Treasury got the gold, not the Fed; it was the predecessor of the Exchange Stabilization Fund.  I don't know why you are fixated on the Fed unless you are just restating those anti-Fed websites.

You keep focusing on the amount of gold reserves vs. printed currency and whether ALL gold obligations could be honored with the given gold stock.  Nobody disputed that it could NOT. 

But it doesn't matter about being able to meet all gold obligations in gold any more than banks can't meet every deposit liability when the money is in mortgages of your neighbors, as George Bailey once opined.   The Gold Clauses plaintiffs didn't want gold, but they wanted the change in the dollar value of gold to be reflected in the amount they received (in U.S dollars).  It was the fixed ratio that mattered, not actual gold.

Title to most of the 6,000 metric tons of gold owned by the US Treasury was assigned to the Federal Reserve in 1933. This was done by exchanging US Treasury Gold Certificates for Federal Reserve Notes.

Red-seal United States notes were issued in quantity from the early 1900s up until series 1966-A. These notes were widely used, but did not have any gold-clause printed on them.

Why did the Federal Reserve issue Federal Reserve Notes worth 56,000 metric tons of gold ? And why did they put "Redeemable in Gold on Demand" on them when they had no significant quantity of gold ?

For that matter, why did the Federal Reserve issue any notes at all ?

If nobody had the gold, why not just issue more red-seal United States Notes (via the US Treasury) instead of Federal Reserve Notes (via the Federal Reserve) ? That is what JFK wanted to do.

The reason is that the Federal Reserve profited handsomely by being able to issue Federal Reserve Notes. It was basically a zero-percent interest loan to the Federal Reserve in the amount of the total face value of the Federal Reserve Notes issued (36 billion dollars total, from 1913 to 1933).

I'd sure like to be able to borrow several billion dollars at zero percent interest, invest that money and keep all the proceeds, and have the government bail me out if those investments go sour.

Note that prior to (I think) 1951, the Federal Reserve member/owner banks were allowed to keep 100% of the FED profits.

It was only later that the FED was required to remit at least 94% of their profits to the US Treasury.

 

[Henri Charriere]

On 11/28/2023 at 5:05 AM, dcarr said:

The Bazor 100 Francs is one of my favorite gold coins. I only have a couple foreign gold coins, but a Bazor 100F is one of them .

Although the mintages for them were high in 1935 and 1936, the vast majority of those were never released and were melted.

For the benefit of members, like me, who had never heard of the French 100-Francs Gold Bazor, it may be of interest to know there are 5 set registrants who are owners, all whom had managed to acquire at least one example, all. dated 1935 and certified MS,-64. One member owns 3 of the sets, the same gentleman who currently owns (and will soon own) 5 of the top 10 sets on NGC'S Set Registry for the 20-Francs gold roosters.  (Note:  It is possible to start a set with a single coin and if the majority of F100GF Bazors were never released or melted down, the only  option for set registrants who collect this brief line of coins is to either upgrade or acquire the only other generally available example dated 1936.)

Back on Track. Carry on, gentlemen!  

Edited November 28, 2023 by Henri Charriere
Die-polishing.

[GoldFinger1969]

On 11/28/2023 at 5:36 AM, dcarr said:

Title to most of the 6,000 metric tons of gold owned by the US Treasury was assigned to the Federal Reserve in 1933. This was done by exchanging US Treasury Gold Certificates for Federal Reserve Notes.  ed-seal United States notes were issued in quantity from the early 1900s up until series 1966-A. These notes were widely used, but did not have any gold-clause printed on them. Why did the Federal Reserve issue Federal Reserve Notes worth 56,000 metric tons of gold ? And why did they put "Redeemable in Gold on Demand" on them when they had no significant quantity of gold ? For that matter, why did the Federal Reserve issue any notes at all ? If nobody had the gold, why not just issue more red-seal United States Notes (via the US Treasury) instead of Federal Reserve Notes (via the Federal Reserve) ? That is what JFK wanted to do. The reason is that the Federal Reserve profited handsomely by being able to issue Federal Reserve Notes. It was basically a zero-percent interest loan to the Federal Reserve in the amount of the total face value of the Federal Reserve Notes issued (36 billion dollars total, from 1913 to 1933). I'd sure like to be able to borrow several billion dollars at zero percent interest, invest that money and keep all the proceeds, and have the government bail me out if those investments go sour. Note that prior to (I think) 1951, the Federal Reserve member/owner banks were allowed to keep 100% of the FED profits. It was only later that the FED was required to remit at least 94% of their profits to the US Treasury.

Wherever you are getting your information from is wrong:

(1)  All gold resided with the Treasury after the Gold Reserve Act of 1934.  Ours was the only Central Bank NOT in charge of the country's gold.

(2)  The different verbiage on our currency is beyond the scope of this particular thread and not particularly relevant.  But the Fed is our central bank so of course they printed currency (in partnership with the Treasury Dept.).

(3)  The Fed doesn't "profit" -- any profits from open market operations, check clearing, etc...are all swept to the Treasury on an annual basis.  This has been the big talk in the bond market with the 12 regional Federal Reserve banks reversing years of "profits" swept to the Treasury being replaced with losses that won't reverse until 2024 or 2025.

(4)  "....the shareholder rights of the System’s member banks are limited and tightly regulated."  "Dividends" are at the discretion of the FRB and are normally credited against member capital accounts and required reserves.  You imply that there is free money being given to the banks.  There is not.  Show us the disclosure where even a large money center bank tied to the NY Federal Reserve Bank (the largest and most profitable of the 12 banks) got substantial dividends.  They aren't.  They're not even paid for the most part -- they are de minimus.   Profits were minimal or nonexistent in the 1930's and 1940's.  If there are all these "profits" at the time, where did they go ?  They didn't stay with the Fed, they didn't get swept to the Treasury, and no large banks reported them, either.

The "profits" from the GSEs (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Ginnie Mae, etc.) are much larger historically than the Fed's but some people seem to think the Fed is making tons of money.  They aren't.  If they were, the Chairman of the Fed -- maybe the most powerful person in the world on economic matters -- would be paid more than $225,000 a year. 

Edited November 28, 2023 by GoldFinger1969

[GoldFinger1969]

On 11/28/2023 at 6:14 AM, Henri Charriere said:

For the benefit of members, like me, who had never heard of the French 100-Francs Gold Bazor, it may be of interest to know there are 5 set registrants who are owners, all whom had managed to acquire at least one example, all. dated 1935 and certified MS,-64. One member owns 3 of the sets, the same gentleman who currently owns (and will soon own) 5 of the top 10 sets on NGC'S Set Registry for the 20-Francs gold roosters.  (Note:  It is possible to start a set with a single coin and if the majority of F100GF Bazors were never released or melted down, the only  option for set registrants who collect this brief line of coins is to either upgrade or acquire the only other generally available example dated 1936.)

So while millions were minted, none were released, right ?

Most were melted, but some were NOT, right ?

If both of those are right....I would wonder why they were released at all and/or why they all weren't melted down.  Seems like some snuck out ala the 1933 Double Eagles but clearly the French government has not assigned Inspector Clouseau to track them down unlike what happened here ! 

Hey, he got back the Pink Panther, he can certainly find those 100 Franc gold coins ! 

[GoldFinger1969]

I wonder if this Bazor gold coin was designed to compete with American Double Eagles or other larger/1-ounce coins from other countries ?

Clearly, the French people preferred smaller gold coins for hoarding/commerce, just like Americans.  Who knows, maybe the French government and central bank figured a 1 ounce gold coin would be hoarded less ? 

[RWB]

The primary international gold coin was the sovereign and other pieces of the same size and gold content. US coins were never major international bullion pieces. Eagles were in greater demand than Double Eagles as were Half Eagles until the awful "Indian Head" version. All U.S. military and diplomatic actions during and after WW-2 used sovereigns, Napoleons, and occasionally Canadian, Italian lira, Swiss francs, etc. In negotiations with French and Libyans in North Africa, U.S. gold coins were rejected for their unfamiliarity to locals.

The three pages below, from the book Saudi Gold and other tales from the Mint describes the situation more fully. (Start midway on page 164 and read through page 166.)

Edited November 28, 2023 by RWB

[dcarr]

On 11/28/2023 at 8:01 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Wherever you are getting your information from is wrong:

(1)  All gold resided with the Treasury after the Gold Reserve Act of 1934.  Ours was the only Central Bank NOT in charge of the country's gold.

(2)  The different verbiage on our currency is beyond the scope of this particular thread and not particularly relevant.  But the Fed is our central bank so of course they printed currency (in partnership with the Treasury Dept.).

(3)  The Fed doesn't "profit" -- any profits from open market operations, check clearing, etc...are all swept to the Treasury on an annual basis.  This has been the big talk in the bond market with the 12 regional Federal Reserve banks reversing years of "profits" swept to the Treasury being replaced with losses that won't reverse until 2024 or 2025.

(4)  "....the shareholder rights of the System’s member banks are limited and tightly regulated."  "Dividends" are at the discretion of the FRB and are normally credited against member capital accounts and required reserves.  You imply that there is free money being given to the banks.  There is not.  Show us the disclosure where even a large money center bank tied to the NY Federal Reserve Bank (the largest and most profitable of the 12 banks) got substantial dividends.  They aren't.  They're not even paid for the most part -- they are de minimus.   Profits were minimal or nonexistent in the 1930's and 1940's.  If there are all these "profits" at the time, where did they go ?  They didn't stay with the Fed, they didn't get swept to the Treasury, and no large banks reported them, either.

The "profits" from the GSEs (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Ginnie Mae, etc.) are much larger historically than the Fed's but some people seem to think the Fed is making tons of money.  They aren't.  If they were, the Chairman of the Fed -- maybe the most powerful person in the world on economic matters -- would be paid more than $225,000 a year. 

(1) Assigning title and transferring possession of gold are two different things. You apparently didn't read what I wrote. The US Treasury maintained physical possession of the gold, but title to that gold was assigned to the Federal Reserve.

(2) People wanted assurances that the currency they use is backed by gold (or silver). Otherwise, they would have shunned the paper and just used gold and silver coins.

>>> "But the Fed is our central bank so of course they printed currency". That is a woefully inadequate contention.

I stand by what I wrote. Why go to all the trouble to issue Federal Reserve Notes ? It would have been easier for the FED to just order United States Notes from the US Treasury. But then the FED wouldn't be, in effect, receiving a huge interest-free loan that way.

(3) We are discussing the end of the Gold-Standard era, not modern FED operations. The FED realized huge profits for their member/owner banks during the time that they were allowed to keep 100% of the FED's profits.

(4) The FED typically has owned a quantity of US Treasury Bonds. They earn positive interest on those bonds. But they could buy those bonds using funds from what was essentially a zero-percent interest-free loan.

FED profits went to the member/owner banks. Those records are not generally public information for the earlier years of the FED.

The official salary of the FED Chairman is of little importance. Their salary is supplemented by "investment" income. I'd like to see the official income tax returns for recent FED chairpersons.

 

[GoldFinger1969]

On 11/28/2023 at 2:20 PM, dcarr said:

(1) Assigning title and transferring possession of gold are two different things. You apparently didn't read what I wrote. The US Treasury maintained physical possession of the gold, but title to that gold was assigned to the Federal Reserve.

The Fed didn't control the gold anymore and didn't control monetary policy.  That's the key.  That is why Eugene Meyer, Fed Chairman, objected and resigned.   

BTW, his daughter was Katherine Graham who would run The Washington Post for decades after her father bought it in the 1930's when he left the Fed. 

On 11/28/2023 at 2:20 PM, dcarr said:

I stand by what I wrote. Why go to all the trouble to issue Federal Reserve Notes ? It would have been easier for the FED to just order United States Notes from the US Treasury. But then the FED wouldn't be, in effect, receiving a huge interest-free loan that way.

There is no "loan."  The government's balance sheet is the same whether the Fed or the Treasury record an asset or a libaility.  The Fed and Treasury each have different functions.  

Where is this "loan" ?  When was it paid back ?  Again, the Treasury controlled the Fed until 1951, telling the Fed to peg interest rates during WW II.

The U.S. Mint (coins) and the Bureau of Engraving and Printing (currency) each operate under the Treasury.

On 11/28/2023 at 2:20 PM, dcarr said:

(3) We are discussing the end of the Gold-Standard era, not modern FED operations. The FED realized huge profits for their member/owner banks during the time that they were allowed to keep 100% of the FED's profits.

Define "huge profits."  I gave you the numbers in recent years...anywhere from $50 - $125 billion per year.  Not that large on a balance sheet averaging $7 trillion dollars.  JP Morgan alone makes $30 billion a year in a good year.  You want us to believe a sum 2-4x larger...distributed among  HUNDREDS of banks....is material to the banks ??   Sorry, it is not. 

On 11/28/2023 at 2:20 PM, dcarr said:

(4) The FED typically has owned a quantity of US Treasury Bonds. They earn positive interest on those bonds. But they could buy those bonds using funds from what was essentially a zero-percent interest-free loan. FED profits went to the member/owner banks. Those records are not generally public information for the earlier years of the FED.  The official salary of the FED Chairman is of little importance. Their salary is supplemented by "investment" income. I'd like to see the official income tax returns for recent FED chairpersons.

They are LOSING money right now on many of their bonds. 

They don't need to get any bogus "zero-percent interest free loan" since they create money, that is high-powered reserves, through the NY Fed's System Open Market Account and open market operations.

The Fed made about $35 MM - $75 MM in annual profits in the 1920's through the 1930's.  Hardly large profits.  The Fed paid $10 MM in "dividends" to member banks in 1930, par for the years before and after.  They split that money with 8,000 banks.  Do the math and tell me again what a racket the Fed and the banks are !!  

The Fed chairman and others are underpaid.  They could each command salaries that are 10-50x what they earn at The Fed.

[dcarr]

On 11/28/2023 at 8:28 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

The Fed didn't control the gold anymore and didn't control monetary policy.  That's the key.  That is why Eugene Meyer, Fed Chairman, objected and resigned.   

BTW, his daughter was Katherine Graham who would run The Washington Post for decades after her father bought it in the 1930's when he left the Fed. 

There is no "loan."  The government's balance sheet is the same whether the Fed or the Treasury record an asset or a libaility.  The Fed and Treasury each have different functions.  

Where is this "loan" ?  When was it paid back ?  Again, the Treasury controlled the Fed until 1951, telling the Fed to peg interest rates during WW II.

The U.S. Mint (coins) and the Bureau of Engraving and Printing (currency) each operate under the Treasury.

Define "huge profits."  I gave you the numbers in recent years...anywhere from $50 - $125 billion per year.  Not that large on a balance sheet averaging $7 trillion dollars.  JP Morgan alone makes $30 billion a year in a good year.  You want us to believe a sum 2-4x larger...distributed among  HUNDREDS of banks....is material to the banks ??   Sorry, it is not. 

They are LOSING money right now on many of their bonds. 

They don't need to get any bogus "zero-percent interest free loan" since they create money, that is high-powered reserves, through the NY Fed's System Open Market Account and open market operations.

The Fed made about $35 MM - $75 MM in annual profits in the 1920's through the 1930's.  Hardly large profits.  The Fed paid $10 MM in "dividends" to member banks in 1930, par for the years before and after.  They split that money with 8,000 banks.  Do the math and tell me again what a racket the Fed and the banks are !!  

The Fed chairman and others are underpaid.  They could each command salaries that are 10-50x what they earn at The Fed.

Even though Roosevelt confiscated all the gold and severed the domestic gold clause, US currency still had gold backing (supposedly) for foreign holders of it. So the gold standard was still somewhat in effect until 1971. So when the US Treasury handed over to the Federal Reserve the title to all our gold in 1933, the Federal Reserve Notes actually had some gold to back them for the first time. This was a major part of the bailout of the Federal Reserve.

If the profits are actually as small as you claim, then the Federal Reserve should have no problem with altering the statutes so that they are required to remit 100% of their profits to the US Treasury instead of the current 94% minimum. Or better yet, fully nationalize the Federal Reserve. I bet they would do everything they could to fight any such change.

The Federal Reserve issued vast quantities of Federal Reserve Notes at very little cost to them. These notes pay no interest. So when the public accepted them, that constituted an interest free loan made to the Federal Reserve. As of 1933, the total amount of that loan was 36 billion dollars. The FED could then loan and/or invest that 36 billion and keep the proceeds.

The Treasury only mandated to the FED what interest rates should be set at. Did the US Treasury mandate how many Federal Reserve Notes the FED could issue ? No. Prior to 1951, the Federal Reserve was allowed to keep 100% of its profits.

FED officials obviously make a lot of money on the side. Why else would they take such an "underpaid" job ?

 

Edited November 30, 2023 by dcarr

[GoldFinger1969]

On 11/29/2023 at 11:08 PM, dcarr said:

FED officials obviously make a lot of money on the side. Why else would they take such an "underpaid" job ?

Same reason Donald Trump and Joe Biden and others do:  they enjoy and value public service.  They enjoy the responsibility.  It's an ego trip.  Whatever....

There are fewer Fed Chairman in our history than presidents.  They have alot of power and responsibility.  It's the one job in government I would eagerly accept. 

[zadok]

On 11/30/2023 at 10:53 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Same reason Donald Trump and Joe Biden and others do:  they enjoy and value public service.  They enjoy the responsibility.  It's an ego trip.  Whatever....

There are fewer Fed Chairman in our history than presidents.  They have alot of power and responsibility.  It's the one job in government I would eagerly accept. 

...im still waiting on the public service part....

[GoldFinger1969]

Dcarr, the Fed "printing money" or engaging in Open Market Operations is not the actions of a bailout or interest-free loan.

It's what every central bank does. 

 

[dcarr]

On 11/30/2023 at 1:01 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Dcarr, the Fed "printing money" or engaging in Open Market Operations is not the actions of a bailout or interest-free loan.

It's what every central bank does. 

 

The FED had liabilities of at least 20,000 metric tons of gold but had no gold to cover that. FDR relieved the FED of its gold obligations and also assigned the title to our gold to the FED. That was a classic "bailout".

 

[GoldFinger1969]

On 11/30/2023 at 10:11 PM, dcarr said:

The FED had liabilities of at least 20,000 metric tons of gold but had no gold to cover that. FDR relieved the FED of its gold obligations and also assigned the title to our gold to the FED. That was a classic "bailout".

"Gold cover ratios" have nothing to do with currency in circulation vs. gold reserves.  It's about maintaining a liquid, functioning market with predictable FIXED exchange rates.  That's what the gold exchange standard was predicated on.

How much gold backed our currency is not important.  Predictable monetary policy AND exchange rates are what mattered.

[zadok]

On 11/30/2023 at 10:48 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

"Gold cover ratios" have nothing to do with currency in circulation vs. gold reserves.  It's about maintaining a liquid, functioning market with predictable FIXED exchange rates.  That's what the gold exchange standard was predicated on.

How much gold backed our currency is not important.  Predictable monetary policy AND exchange rates are what mattered.

...not sure i can go along with this assessment, there was n still is an expectation of collateral backed currency in this country, gov't maintained bookkeeping not a big assurance in the mind of the general populace n as for the gov't being predictable? just look at FED policies for the past several years...if u stopped 100 people on the street anywhere in the US, ala jay leno, n asked them bout the backing of US currency i bet u 97% would tell u its still backed by gold in ft knox....

[GoldFinger1969]

On 12/1/2023 at 8:19 AM, zadok said:

...not sure i can go along with this assessment, there was n still is an expectation of collateral backed currency in this country, gov't maintained bookkeeping not a big assurance in the mind of the general populace n as for the gov't being predictable? just look at FED policies for the past several years...if u stopped 100 people on the street anywhere in the US, ala jay leno, n asked them bout the backing of US currency i bet u 97% would tell u its still backed by gold in ft knox....

FDR even said only 3-4% of the currency could be redeemed all at once for gold.  Again, it's why it was a gold EXCHANGE standard and not a true, classical gold standard.

The Gold Clause plaintiffs didn't even want gold, just more dollars in the higher valued face value for their bonds.

 

[GoldFinger1969]

Roger, what documents or discussions have you seen that talked about the decision to melt down all the Double Eagles into gold bars ? 

There had to be a debate, no ?  I get that 400-oz. bars are easier to facilitate trade...but if they went through all the time and expense of striking all these coins (including the smaller denominations) over DECADES....didn't someone...somewhere....say "Hey, maybe we just want to BAG and STORE these things and wait until things settle down....before definitively and irreversibly melting them all down ?"  I get that they waited about 3 years until 1937...why not just send (most of) the bags to Fort Knox instead of doing all this work to melt down tens of millions of coins ?  Where's the necessity ?

The big decision was to take us off the gold exchange standard.  Why the rush to melt down coins into bars, aside from just making it a bit easier to store and since bars were better to facilitate trade (which wasn't a priority since everyone was leaving the gold exchange standard anyway ?).

Maybe you footnoted 1 or 2 key sources in the book, if so, I'd like to scour them more in-depth.  Or maybe there really wasn't a debate.....they just figured gold coins were for people and those are the ones who will no longer be allowed to hold gold so ditch the coins ?

This entire melting of the coins -- seems like nobody at the White House, Treasury, Mint, or collectors of the day....Assay Commission folks...or advisors....even talked about it and said "Stop the rush."  

I get that there was a Depression and 25% unemployment....they certainly had more pressing things to do with their time...but somewhere...someone....you would think...had to spend a few minutes pondering this decision and listing the pros and cons. 

At least I would hope so.

Edited December 2, 2023 by GoldFinger1969

[RWB]

There are a couple of letters where Treasury officials state that on of the reasons for melting the coins in Treasury's vaults was so they could never be re-issued. If you look through the Congressional Record you'll see that several members wanted to return these coins to circulation at double their face value. (None of the discussions I've seen go into anything beyond a knee-jerk proposal.) Former Rep. Ashbrook, who got the ANA charter approved and was deeply involved in profiteering from the 1907 design changes, was one of the politicians who did not like dropping the gold exchange standard.

Edited December 2, 2023 by RWB

[GoldFinger1969]

That's helpful, maybe I'll do a little work on Ashbrook.  If anybody would have thought this through, a coin collector would have. 

[RWB]

On 12/2/2023 at 6:57 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

That's helpful, maybe I'll do a little work on Ashbrook.  If anybody would have thought this through, a coin collector would have. 

You will find many quotes from Ashbrook regarding his coin collecting and his buying all the 1907 knife-rim Eagles when they were offered to Assay Commission members in Feb 1908. His diary "A Line a Day for 50-Odd Years" (I think that's the title) was pretty well picked clean by me for RAC 1905-1908 and also regarding the Peace dollar in 1921 (RAC 1916-1921).

His diary also includes a little about the theft of his main coin collection from the vault of a Savings & Loan he owned. He never really collected coins again.

Edited December 3, 2023 by RWB

[GoldFinger1969]

On 12/2/2023 at 8:14 PM, RWB said:

His diary also includes a little about the theft of his main coin collection from the vault of a Savings & Loan he owned. He never really collected coins again.

Wow, sounds interesting.  Those vaults even back then were tough to get into, assuming it was a walk-in.  Most thieves would just rob the bank, it was easier and quicker than spending an hour or two trying to get through 6" of steel after-hours.

Edited December 3, 2023 by GoldFinger1969

[RWB]

On 12/2/2023 at 8:23 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Wow, sounds interesting.  Those vaults even back then were tough to get into, assuming it was a walk-in.  Most thieves would just rob the bank, it was easier and quicker than spending an hour or two trying to get through 6" of steel after-hours.

His diary provides few details and contemporary newspaper articles don't add much. I never found an inventory of the theft.