President Washington thanks DeSassure for service at Mint 1 1

[RWB]

Transcription of the letter by George Washington to Henry DeSassure thanking him for his service as Mint Director. DeSassure wanted to return to South Carolina and start the canal project. Other letters suggest he was also fed up with criticism of the Mint.

Philadelphia

Sunday Morning

November 1, 1795

Henry William DeSassure, Esq.

Philadelphia

Dear Sir,

            I thank you for the plan of the Santee Canal, which you have had the goodness to send me.

            If General Vickney has gone more into detail, than is found in the expression of your letter relative to the establishment at Fort Johnson, I should be glad to receive an extract thereof; otherwise the transcript would be unnecessary. It is to be observed, however, that the strength of our garrisons must be proportioned to the means from whence they are drawn.

            I cannot, in this moment of your departure, but express my regret that it was not accordant with your views to remain in the Directorship of the Mint. Permit me to add thereto, that your conduct therein, gave entire satisfaction; and to wish you a pleasant voyage, and a happy meeting with your friends in South Carolina – being with great esteem Dear Sir – Your Obedient Servant

            George Washington

[Note Below]

South Carolina,

City of Charleston

I do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original letter, now in my possession, from President George Washington to my father the late Chancellor Henry Wm. DeSassure.

December 10, 1850

H.A. DeSassure

Edited April 16, 2020 by RWB
Geez - I hate the formatting on this board....!

[Conder101]

24 minutes ago, RWB said:

Other letters suggest he was also fed up with criticism of the Mint.

Hey, he was one of the ones piling on before he became Director.  Now he knows how his predecessor felt.

[DWLange]

When he became director after David Rittenhouse he discovered that the Mint had not been complying with the awkward legal standard for silver coins of .8924 fine, electing instead to coin at the more easily measured standard of .9000 fine, thus cheating depositors out of a small amount of silver with each piece. This was yet another reason to get out of Dodge before the malfeasance became public knowledge. He left his successor, Elias Boudinot, to deal with the mess.

[RWB]

DeSasseur discussed his view about the alloy discrepancy in his letter to President Washington of October 27, 1795. Here is the relevant excerpt:

“It is important to inform you of what I have before mentioned to the heads of Departments above named, that the standard of the silver coin, in use at the mint, differs from the standard fixed by law. The law establishing the mint, fixes that the silver coinage should contain 1485 parts of fine silver to 179 parts alloy, or 10 oz. 14 dwt. 5 gr. of fine silver, to 1 oz. 5 dwt. 19 gr. alloy.

“Before my operations commenced under this law, it was supposed by the best informed men that this standard was too low; would debase the coin too much; and was inconvenient in other respects; and it was presumed that an alteration would be made, which was recommended by its propriety and correctness. The alteration contemplated went to the establishment of a standard, which required that nine parts in ten should be fine silver, the other tenth alloy, or, 10 oz. 16 dwt. fine to 1 oz. 4 dwt. alloy, in the pound Troy. Upon the presumption of such an alteration, I understand the coinage was commenced in October, 1794, and the matter was submitted in the winter to a committee of Congress, who reported on the propriety of the alteration. By some means, that part of the report on the mint, which related to the standard, after passing one branch of the Legislature did not pass the other. Still, however, the coinage was continued on the principle it was commenced. It being represented to me, when, soon after my coming into office, I observed the fact, that some mistake alone had prevented the change by the Legislature, I did not feel myself qualified to alter the standard which I found in use in the mint, under the weighty sanctions of Mr. Rittenhouse’s authority, and the report of a committee of the Legislature. I am thus particular in stating this business, as it is of high importance that the law should be altered, or that the standard should be accommodated to the law.”

On Feb. 23. 1795, the House considered a committee report about the mint and approved a series of resolutions including alteration in the standard for silver to 900 fine. The resulting bill passed the House on Feb. 27, but was amended in the Senate, and the supplementary Act of March 3, 1795 did not include the change. [Journal of the House, 7:263–64, 281, 305–6; 1 Stat. 439–41.]

Edited April 16, 2020 by RWB

[physics-fan3.14]

Not much left of the old Fort Johnson. There's a marine research facility there now. I remember taking a field trip there when I was young. 

[Henri Charriere]

Outdated thread. I know.  I know.

Nevertheless, can anyone tell me what year gold's numismatic value exceeded it's stated bullion value?  I assume it was during the time private ownership was banned.  And if that were the case, would anyone producing a coin afterwards be asked, What are you doing with this? or How long have you had this? or Where did you get this from? -- or would the coin simply be confiscated for face value?  I assume this occurred during the 1930's, but were there any interesting seizures?

[RWB]

The earliest American coin collectors would pay more than bullion value for gold coins they wanted, and bullion brokers usually charged a little more than market rate for coins of collector interest such as early US gold. Thus, there was no starting year.

[zadok]

On 12/21/2021 at 9:11 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

Outdated thread. I know.  I know.

Nevertheless, can anyone tell me what year gold's numismatic value exceeded it's stated bullion value?  I assume it was during the time private ownership was banned.  And if that were the case, would anyone producing a coin afterwards be asked, What are you doing with this? or How long have you had this? or Where did you get this from? -- or would the coin simply be confiscated for face value?  I assume this occurred during the 1930's, but were there any interesting seizures?

...to be more precise...gold was not banned during the 1930s, gold coins with numismatic value were not required to be exchanged, nor was the gold in ur teeth or in the rings on ur fingers...there was a requirement to relinquish ownership of bullion n bullion related coinage, there were no domestic seizures, there were some international holdings that resulted in resolutions....even after the executive order citizens could hold up to 5 troy ounces privately....

[DWLange]

Gold coins were bringing slight premiums from WWI onward, though this was not for numismatic purposes; it was simply the only way to get them from banks and brokers. This trend accelerated after 1930. A lot of gold bugs became "numismatists" after 1934, because it provided a means of continuing to hold gold coins. Louis Eliasberg started this way, but then he got hooked. The real numismatic market in 20th Century gold coins developed in the early 1940s and exploded as WW2 was ending.

[Conder101]

Also all gold coins dated before April 5th 1933 US or domestic could be held. (This was the result of an amendment to the gold regulations in 1954, before that only pre-April 5th US gold could be held)  For coins dated after that they could be held as part of a coin collection if it was determined that they were "rare or unusual and of interest to collectors" by submitting to the Treasury Dept for determination.  After 1961 the determinations were made by the Office of Domestic Gold and Silver Operations.  All gold coins imported had to have a license from the ODGSO and getting the license could be a crapshoot because sometimes they would rule in favor of a coin and then rule against the same coin on another license request.

[Henri Charriere]

[Note: there came a time in the mid-1960's when large silver coins simply disappeared.

My question regards the same phenomenon.  Gold coins were minted with many denominations for circulation.  When did the tipping point occur where "common" gold coinage minted for circulation was simply no longer available anywhere AT FACE VALUE?  

Edited December 22, 2021 by Quintus Arrius
Die polishing

[DWLange]

The Treasury withheld gold coins after 1916 in response to changing economic conditions resulting from WWI.  Most nations had suspended gold coinage by that time, the USA included. In the early 1920s gold coins once again became available, but they were bringing premiums from European buyers, and thus they ceased to circulate in the western states, the only place they had circulated since 1861. Americans wanting gold coins had no choice but to match the foreign premium. In many cases supplying gold coins to bank customers was also considered a courtesy that warranted a tip, kind of like when your bank today saves half dollars or other uncurrent coins for your next visit.

[Henri Charriere]

@DWLange

Thank you, sir!

Re halves, I was told repeatedly by one bank branch that, knowing I liked coins with heft, they had the "old" large silver dollars. Assuming they were mistaken, I passed on them. But, sure enough, they turned out to be, not Morgans, but Ikes. They had none of the newer dollar-coins, halves or two-dollar bills, so I said sure!  They said how many?I said I'll take all you've got. Over a hundred rolls the end of which were all 1776-1976. I would love to pass them on to newbies, but do not know the procedure.

[RWB]

On 12/22/2021 at 11:35 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

I would love to pass them on to newbies, but do not know the procedure.

Take them to the maternity ward of your local hospital and give one to each newborn - or a parent.

Another use would be to hold closed the eyes of the dead unvaccinated Covid-19 victims.