Something of interest when reading about early U.S. gold exports 0

[RWB]

 

Differences in assay and weight measuring systems in the US and England caused persistent confusion in the post-Gold Rush era. The following is an example which might also be helpful in authenticating 19th century British gold.

In reply to the former statement, we have to say that it errs at the outset, in taking United States standards and assays as the basis upon which our gold coin is purchased in the London market. Thus, as our coin ought to be 900 parts fine in a thousand, and as our assays report their coin at 915-1/2 parts, it is assumed that British dealers are guided by those data. But upon inquiry there, we shall find that they consider their own coin as being 916-2/3 parts fine in a thousand (or 22 carats ) as their law requires, and at the same time rely upon their own mint as says for the fineness of our coins. It is important, therefore, to know how they report upon our gold. We have understood, in general terms, that it is found to be equal to the alleged or legal fineness ; and , indeed, a late letter from an English gentleman residing in London, and fully conversant with mint affairs, states that “the twenty - dollar pieces run a trifle better than the standard.”

            But taking the basis of an exact equality to legal standard, or 900/1000 fine, it is next to be noticed that the British assayers adhere to the old carat system of notation , and do not report nearer than 1/32 of a carat, or 1/8 of a carat-grain; also, that if the coin under trial should fall only a shade below a certain eighth, they drop down to the eighth below; consequently their report upon our coin would be technically “W. 1-5/8,” or “worse one carat-grain and five eighths” – which is 899-3/4 thousandths, very nearly. Then we have $10,000 in gold, weighing 537-1/2 ounces, producing 527.58 ounces in British legal standard, which at £3 17s. 9d. yields £2,050 19s. 4d., instead of £2,057 2s. 10-1/2d.[1]

---

[1] J. Smith Homans, ed., “Export of gold to Europe – Remarks,” The Bankers’ Magazine and Statistical Register. October 1851. Crosby, Nichols and Company, Boston 1852. 274-275.

Edited January 14, 2022 by RWB

[Henri Charriere]

I must say I love these excruciatingly detailed posts.  🐓 

[GoldFinger1969]

On 1/14/2022 at 3:16 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

I must say I love these excruciatingly detailed posts.  🐓 

Roger has some very good stuff on gold flows among nations in his book.

[Henri Charriere]

On 1/15/2022 at 2:47 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Roger has some very good stuff on gold flows among nations in his book.

Q.A:  I am thinking of doing the unthinkable.

🐓:  Throw yourself into the frigid river?

Q.A.:  No, silly!  Locating a copy of @RWB's 📖 book. This whole double-eagle presentation has piqued my interest.  

[Oldhoopster]

@RWB I always enjoy these snippets of info.  It's always good to learn something new.

[GoldFinger1969]

On 1/15/2022 at 5:22 AM, Quintus Arrius said:

Q.A:  I am thinking of doing the unthinkable.

🐓:  Throw yourself into the frigid river?

Q.A.:  No, silly!  Locating a copy of @RWB's 📖 book. This whole double-eagle presentation has piqued my interest.  

It's only available through Heritage, AFAIK.  It's 650 pages and very detailed on each coin (about 8 pages on each coin, except the more famous/valuable ones which have more).  But you can always avoid the less-interesting sessions on the first read-through.  And if you or someone does look at collecting Saints (though I know you're a Rooster man), this is THE book. 

[numisport]

Why is coin silver .900 fine (like coin gold is .900 fine) and then Sterling silver is .925 fine ? This also effects conversions to troy ounces but I guess as long as these metals are not melted, they can be easily be identified since Sterling is usually masked as such. Is it because Coin silver requires more copper in the alloy ?

[RWB]

On 1/15/2022 at 10:56 AM, numisport said:

Why is coin silver .900 fine (like coin gold is .900 fine) and then Sterling silver is .925 fine ? This also effects conversions to troy ounces but I guess as long as these metals are not melted, they can be easily be identified since Sterling is usually masked as such. Is it because Coin silver requires more copper in the alloy ?

As I think I understand, the original English Sterling approach came from the gold and silver guilds in the 15th century. But ---- permit me to check my database in the Royal Mint materials.

Updated below

[The best overall single source is Sir. Albert Feavearyear’s book, The Pound Sterling published in 1963. But it is a technical history and largely inaccessible except to financial historians.]

The following is derived from multiple sources, and presents a general agreement on events for which there is no precise documentation.

Origin of the purity of “sterling” coins is based on the issuance by Saxon kingdoms, beginning in about 775 CE, small silver coins commonly called “sterlings.” These were similar to the denarius or Frankish denier which were the normal “penny”  in use throughout much of Europe. In Saxon England there were 240 “pennies” (or deniers) per pound (approx. a Troy pound) of pure silver. After the Norman conquest, the pound of sterlings was divided into 20 shillings and into 240 pennies (pence). In Latin, which was the official language, the corresponding words are: libra, solidus, and denarius, which led to the abbreviations £, s., and d. (An equivalent system of one livre to 20 sous and 240 deniers had already been adopted in the Frankish kingdom under Charles son of Pepin.)

Weight and purity varied considerably until the reign of William I (1066-1087) when the penny was given a uniform weight of 22.5 grains. Purity, or fineness. was a matter of both refining technology and durability (also economic debasement – but that’s another matter). For these we have to look to the Silver Guild of London who largely settled on a practical standard. The small “sterling” coins, now called “penny” were standardized at 92.5% silver and 7.5% copper alloy. This accepted that “pure silver” was not really 100% silver and that residual impurities, plus 7.5% copper resulted in a coin that was easy to produce and had good wearing characteristics. (Generally, silver alloys of greater purity were too soft for general use – even for later tableware.)

The word “Sterling” became associated with the King’s standard and thus attained its present meaning in both purity of metal and as a standard of money accounting.

Introduction of gold coinage created a similar practical solution from the Gold Guilds, with a combination of refining limitations and durability determining the eventual coinage fineness of 22 carats (11/12ths fine). By alloying with copper, gold coins of this fineness were durable and readily maintained good color. The US practice of using silver for up to half of the alloy, resulted in coins of lighter color and reduced durability in circulation.

Hope this helps a little.

PS: In the time of Saxon kings, a pound of silver would buy 15 cows. Presumably a bull was included unless the cows are part of his Lordship's “tasting menu.”

Edited January 15, 2022 by RWB