A question from ATS by Barberian 0

[RWB]

Question about mintages of '79 to '90 seated Liberty halves

"Does anyone know why all of these mintages are divisible by 200? Did they strike halves in 'blocks' of 200 coins a block. I noticed that this also seems to be true for coins going back to 1874. My guess is that 200 planchets can be cut from a strip of 90% silver.
Edited to add that the mintages of Philly quarters for those years are divisible by 400, i.e., seem to be struck in groups of 400 coins ($100) at a time."

Answers:

1. See my column in CoinWeek for reasons for low quarter and half mintages for this period.

2. Coiners preferred to deliver in even dollar amounts -- especially for small mintages. This made calculations easier and reduced errors and discrepancies. If there was an odd amount of good coin after weighing, the Coiner would hold some so he could deliver an even amount, then deliver the leftovers next time. It had nothing to do with the number of blanks cut from a strip or any of the other conjectures in the original post.

[Henri Charriere]

If I may be so bold as to inquire...

...where were you exactly -- what did you see or hear -- that prompted you to make these remarkably keen extrapolations?  Enquiring minds would like to know!

[Barberian]

On 9/8/2023 at 4:31 PM, RWB said:

Question about mintages of '79 to '90 seated Liberty halves

"Does anyone know why all of these mintages are divisible by 200? Did they strike halves in 'blocks' of 200 coins a block. I noticed that this also seems to be true for coins going back to 1874. My guess is that 200 planchets can be cut from a strip of 90% silver.
Edited to add that the mintages of Philly quarters for those years are divisible by 400, i.e., seem to be struck in groups of 400 coins ($100) at a time."

Answers:

1. See my column in CoinWeek for reasons for low quarter and half mintages for this period.

2. Coiners preferred to deliver in even dollar amounts -- especially for small mintages. This made calculations easier and reduced errors and discrepancies. If there was an odd amount of good coin after weighing, the Coiner would hold some so he could deliver an even amount, then deliver the leftovers next time. It had nothing to do with the number of blanks cut from a strip or any of the other conjectures in the original post.

Pardon the third person reply.  This is a copy and paste with some editing of my response ATS.  Perhaps I should post over here more often.

"RWB offers a succinct explanation that I can apply to figure out the rest. He states it makes shipping and accounting easier rather than the result of the planchet manufacturing and coining process. This still leaves some questions as to why mintages of halves are divisible by 200 (1886 & 1887) and 400 ('79-'85, '88-'90), and quarters by 400 in those years. In many other years, the halves appear to be minted in $1000 batches (final mintage for halves usually in even thousands) rather than reaching a final round number for the year. They seemed to do these fixed-size batches throughout the mintage process, with batch size depending upon bullion availability and the magnitude of mintage.  At least that's what I conclude drawing from RWB's comments." 

Does that seem reasonable, RWB?  

Edited September 9, 2023 by Barberian

[Barberian]

On 9/8/2023 at 6:03 PM, Henri Charriere said:

If I may be so bold as to inquire...

...where were you exactly -- what did you see or hear -- that prompted you to make these remarkably keen extrapolations?  Enquiring minds would like to know!

I was sitting in my busted office chair, occasionally expelling gas, while staring at late Philly SLH mintages in the Redbook. 

They're an interesting group of coins that I refer to as "the Maginot Line" of the series for their formidably low mintages, yet they're relatively easy to "get around" or acquire.  They just happen to occur at the end of the sequence rather than at the beginning like their namesake of WWII. I've been working on them, recently acquiring an 1882 and 1888 while searching for a circulated 1879 that I like. 

The pattern was apparent to me after looking at their mintages repeatedly through the years.  Just like 2000-coin batches appear to be the pattern in many years for SLHs.  There are other years where the batch size appears to be, for example, 300 halves ('66, '68-'71), but these mintages could also be arrived at with a number of batch sizes or combinations of batch sizes.  Perhaps different mints show different patterns, I don't know.  Something to look into.

[RWB]

Comment from PCGS board:

RWB offers a succinct explanation that I can apply to figure out the rest. He states it makes shipping and accounting easier rather than the result of the planchet manufacturing and coining process. This still leaves some questions as to why mintages of halves are divisible by 200 and quarters by 400 in those years. In many other years, the coins appear to be minted in $1000 batches (final mintage for halves in 'even' thousands) rather than reaching a final round number for the year. They seemed to do these count intervals or batches throughout the mintage process. At least that's what I conclude from RWB's comments.

US Mints accounted for coins in dollars, not pieces. Thus, both quarters and halves in the question were delivered in dollar sums divisible by “100.” Easier accounting. Treasury required dollar valuations because it was consistent with all other financial, accounts. It should also be understood that all of the Treasurer’s and Cashier’s daily reports were in dollars.

 Piece counts we see in reference books were derived from the dollar value. These were useful to the Mint Bureau because they emphasized the large amount of work necessary to make just a few thousand dollars in low denomination coins. This is actually the main reason so many Bust halves were struck – reporting production in dollars impressed Congress. The same piece count in half-dimes looked meek and paltry to men holding the purse strings. Here is an excerpt from an April 16, 1839 letter by New Orleans Coiner Rufus Tyler to Superintendent Bradford where he uses piece count to emphasize improvement of productivity under his administration.

“It will be found on reference to the Treasurer’s books, that I delivered to him in the month of January 70,000 pieces [$7,000 dimes], in February 128,000 [$6,400 half-dimes], and in March 370,000 [$37,000] pieces in dimes and ½-dimes, and I have reason to believe the result of the present month’s labor will show a continued progressive increase in the effectiveness of the department under my direction.” [RG56 E-289 Box 4] )

 Coins were not usually minted in “$1,000 batches,” silver dollars being an exception. The Treasurer of U.S. (and others) decided the dollar value of each denomination that was required for commerce. This varied from one region to another and with the time of year, such as spring planting, fall harvest, Christmas-New Year and so forth. The Treasurer, with agreement by the Secretary of Treasury and Comptroller of Currency, then ordered the Mint Bureau to manufacture, say $1,000,000 in half eagles by a certain date. The Mint Director then allotted production based on available capacity, regional demand, bullion availability and other influences such as equipment out-of-service. On completion the coins were delivered as instructed by the US Treasurer.

 Conversions of dollar value to piece counts were also used to compare cost of production at the mints, such as in this example from November 1898.

(New Orleans costs seem low, but they are skewed because their large proportion of dollars increased the ration of pieces per dollar spent.)

 Here’s an example of Special Assay coins were value and quantity are used as a cross check, with value being the official number.

The mintage results we now depend on in catalogues and guides are the somewhat confused mash of production (plus Philadelphia proof) scattered among several mints and in greatly varying quantities.

 My forthcoming book, Mine to Mint 2, has an extensive chapter about how coins were issued and distributed from 1793 to the beginning of FRB distribution in 1921. It’s something of an eye-opener and can be confusing for modern collectors to understand.

I hope this helps answer your question.

Edited September 10, 2023 by RWB