Best Coin

2011-01-09T22:33:00.000-08:00

United States Mint Releases 2011 Scheduled Products Listing

WASHINGTON - Collectors and gift-givers, mark your calendars! The United States Mint today released on-sale dates for the numismatic products in its 2011 portfolio:

PRODUCT	ON-SALE DATE
2010 America the Beautiful Quarters Three-Coin Set^TM - Yellowstone	01/05/11
2011 United States Mint Proof Set®	01/11/11
2011 United States Mint Silver Proof Set^TM	01/25/11
America the Beautiful Quarters® Bags and Two-Roll Set - Gettysburg (PA)	01/27/11
2011 United States Army Commemorative Coin Program	01/31/11
2011 United States Mint Uncirculated Coin Set®	02/08/11
2011 Kennedy Half-Dollar Bags and Two-Roll Set	02/15/11
2011 United States Mint Presidential $1 Coin Proof Set^TM	02/22/11
Andrew Johnson $1 Coin Rolls	02/23/11
2011 Medal of Honor Commemorative Coin Program	02/25/11
America the Beautiful Quarters Three-Coin Set^TM - Yosemite	03/01/11
First Spouse Series One-Half Ounce Gold Coin - Eliza Johnson	03/03/11
Eliza Johnson Bronze Medal 1-5/16"	03/03/11
2011 United States Mint Presidential $1 Coin & First Spouse Medal Set^TM - Andrew Johnson	03/15/11
2011 United States Mint America the Beautiful Quarters Proof Set^TM	03/22/11
2011 Native American $1 Coin Rolls	03/28/11
2011 United States Mint America the Beautiful Silver Quarters Proof Set^TM	03/29/11
Andrew Johnson $1 Coin Cover	03/31/11
America the Beautiful Quarters® Bags and Two-Roll Set - Glacier (MT)	04/04/11
2011 American Buffalo Gold Proof Coin	04/18/11
America the Beautiful Quarters Uncirculated Coin Set^TM	04/19/11
2011 American Eagle Gold Proof Coins	04/21/11
2010 America the Beautiful Quarters Three-Coin Set^TM - Mount Hood	05/04/11
2011 American Eagle Uncirculated Gold Coin	05/05/11
Ulysses S. Grant $1 Coin Roll	05/19/11
2011 American Eagle Platinum Proof Coin	05/26/11
First Spouse Series One-Half Ounce Gold Coin - Julia Grant	06/02/11
Julia Grant Bronze Medal 1-5/16"	06/02/11
America the Beautiful Quarters® Bags and Two-Roll Set - Olympic (WA)	06/13/11
2011 United States Mint Presidential $1 Coin & First Spouse Medal Set^TM - Ulysses S. Grant	06/23/11
Ulysses S. Grant $1 Coin Cover	06/30/11
2011 American Eagle Silver Proof Coins	By 07/06/11
America the Beautiful Quarters Three-Coin Set^TM - Gettysburg	07/27/11
America the Beautiful Quarters Three-Coin Set^TM - Glacier	07/27/11
America the Beautiful Quarters Three-Coin Set^TM - Olympic	07/27/11
Rutherford B. Hayes $1 Coin Rolls	08/18/11
America the Beautiful Quarters® Bags and Two-Roll Set - Vicksburg (MS)	08/29/11
First Spouse Series One-Half Ounce Gold Coin - Lucy Hayes	09/01/11
Lucy Hayes Bronze Medal 1-5/16"	09/01/11
United States Mint Presidential $1 Coin & Liberty Medal Set^TM - Rutherford B. Hayes	09/22/11
Rutherford B. Hayes $1 Coin Cover	09/29/11
America the Beautiful Quarters Three-Coin Set^TM - Vicksburg	10/19/11
America the Beautiful Quarters® Bags and Two-Roll Set - Chickasaw(OK)	11/14/11
James Garfield $1 Coin Rolls	11/17/11
2011 America the Beautiful Quarters® Circulating Coin Set	11/22/11
First Spouse Series One-Half Ounce Gold Coin - Lucretia Garfield	12/01/11
Lucretia Garfield Bronze Medal 1-5/16"	12/01/11
First Spouse Bronze Four-Medal Set	12/01/11
America the Beautiful Quarters Three-Coin Set^TM - Chickasaw	12/20/11
2011 United States Mint Presidential $1 Coin & First Spouse Medal Set^TM - James Garfield	12/22/11
James Garfield $1 Coin Cover	12/29/11
2011 American Eagle Silver Uncirculated Coin	TBD

2010-03-02T21:26:00.001-08:00

Pittman Kept Eye on Quality When Buying

By David L. Ganz

My friend John Jay Pittman, who was 37th president of the American Numismatic Association, a member of the 1947 annual Assay Commission, and coin collector nonpareil, died about 14 years ago in 1996. In the three succeeding years, 1997-1999, David W. Akers sold the Pittman collection at public auction.

“JJP,” as some called him, served on the ANA board from 1959 until he became president (1971-1973) and then ran for re-election. In November 1984, we sat together at Ben Stack’s funeral, and he used the opportunity to persuade me to run for the ANA board of governors.

He supported my candidacy and served with me for 10 years on the ANA board (including my two years as president, 1993-1995).

There were those who admired John Jay’s numismatic accomplishments as a collector and they were many – more about that in a moment – but my best memories were when we talked politics and planned the numismatic future of American coinage, in which he had an abiding interest.

Politics was twofold with John Jay. ANA politics was his fancy. And for more than 30 years, longer than anyone before (and, with an amendment to the bylaws pushed through by Ken Hallenbeck), no one else is very likely to serve as many years on the board of a national hobby organization (it is now limited to 10 years).

Pittman’s collecting interest spanned the globe. His holdings of early American proof gold coinage was rivaled, perhaps, only by the exemplars in the Smithsonian Institution. The British proof coin patterns, and indeed, the overall United Kingdom coinage, was nearly the equal of the British Museum.

Japanese coinage in his collection was probably second to the holdings of the Bank of Japan. Canadian coinage rarities include every major one – making it a clear second to the collection of the Bank of Canada and the Royal Canadian Mint. Its Mexican and South African holdings were legendary for their scope.

Significantly, over the last 50 years virtually all of the coins in the collection were placed on display at local coin clubs, regional and state shows and the ANA national conventions – John Jay traveled and spoke all over the country.

Many of the holdings were actually written up in The Numismatist, monthly publication of the American Numismatic Association, as part of the standard show-and-tells from coin club meetings of the 1940s and 1950s.

This extraordinary holding was assembled over Pittman’s lifetime.

What makes the assemblage all the more remarkable is that Pittman, who died on the day before his 83rd birthday on Feb. 17, 1996, did not have the fabulous wealth of a Norweb, Eliasberg or Garrett. He worked as a salaried employee – a chemical engineer for the Eastman Kodak Company – and bought his coins the way most collectors do, one at a time, over many years.

Collected from about 1940 until 1996, cumulatively the coins constituted more than 12,000 lots when sold by Akers.

To put that in historical context, that would be some 5,200 lots more than the fabled John Story Jenks sale of 7,300 lots sold over a 10-day period in 1921, garnering a then-incredible sum of $61,379.46. Pittman’s collection brought over $40 million in a three-catalog auction.

Pittman was a native Tarheel who grew up near Rocky Mount, N.C. He spent part of his youth as a hobo, riding the rails to New York City and then returning to attend and to graduate from the University of North Carolina.

“The school was founded in 1789,” he once told me, “the same year as your school, Georgetown University. Whenever there are academic processions, our schools stand together.”

By 1943, Pittman had already been collecting with sufficient intensity that he felt it appropriate to join the American Numismatic Association. His membership application was signed by George Bauer, Floyd Newell and William Hutcheson, and published in the September 1943 issue of The Numismatist.

Membership number 9759 was given to him. He later converted it to life member 152. This began his lifetime of membership in, and service to, the organization.

Pittman put his own stamp on things and was his own man. During his term as president, 1971-73, the hobby was in the midst of excitement over the coming Bicentennial, and the initial proposal of the United States Mint to commemorate the occasion with a half dollar and dollar bearing the dual date 1776-1976.

Pittman testified before Congress that the half dollar and dollar didn’t circulate and that the tribute was positively inadequate. He suggested adding the quarter as a circulating Bicentennial commemorative.

His role in creating the Bicentennial quarter is not given the credit for which he is due, even though in the official House report on Public Law 93-127 Rep. Leonor K. Sullivan, D-Mo., specifically gave him credit for the proposal.

Mrs. Sullivan wrote in the House Report that she was “impressed by Mr. Pittman’s plea for inclusion of the quarter, [and] the subcommittee urged the Treasury to restudy the feasibility ... Mrs. Brooks [the Mint director] subsequently reported that it would be possible ...” Pittman was also instrumental in working with Congress for the passage of the Hobby Protection Act in 1973.

For more than two decades following his early retirement from Kodak in Rochester, N.Y., in 1971, Pittman reached out to enrich the hobby with his background in chemical engineering, metallurgy and wealth of historical and political knowledge.

Pittman was honored repeatedly by the ANA. His numismatic service led to receipt of the ANA Medal of Merit in 1962; the Farran Zerbe Memorial Award for Distinguished Service in 1980; Honorary Life Membership in 1991; the Lifetime Achievement Award in 1994, and the Glenn Smedley Memorial Award in 1995. In 1992 he was inducted into the ANA’s Numismatic Hall of Fame.

Although I have written about John Jay’s collection extensively, when I started to put together my new book for Krause (Invest in Affordable Rare Coins: Build your retirement portfolio with can’t miss coins), I thought it was appropriate to devote a chapter to John’s accomplishments as a numismatist.

One thing that I did was decide to test John’s legendary “fine eye” against others in the marketplace. What better way to do this than with the coins comprising the Salomon Brothers coin portfolio index, which they started with Stack’s in 1978 and ran through 1990. (I’ve carried it on for many more years, but that is a different story).

Salomon took 20 coins (all silver and copper – no gold) and measured it over an extended period of time. Harvey Stack deliberately chose dates and types that were interchangeable. He also kept the identity of the component parts a secret.

My friends Neil Berman and the late Hans M.F. Schulman revealed the component parts in their 1986 book on investing in the coin market:

1. 1794 Liberty cap half cent, extremely fine;

2. 1873 2-cent piece, brilliant proof;

3. 1866 5-cent nickel with rays, brilliant proof;

4. 1862 3-cent silver, BU;

5. 1862 half dime, BU;

6. 1807 Draped Bust dime, BU;

7. 1866 Seated Liberty dime, BU;

8. 1876 20-cents, BU;

9. 1873 arrows quarter, BU;

10. 1886 Seated quarter, BU;

11. 1916 quarter, BU;

12. 1815 Bust half, uncirculated;

13. 1834 Bust half, BU;

14. 1855-O Seated half, BU;

15. 1921 Walking Liberty half, BU;

16. 1795 Draped Bust dollar, BU;

17. 1847 Seated dollar, BU;

18. 1884-S Morgan dollar BU;

19. 1881 Trade dollar, proof, and

20. 1928 Hawaiian half dollar.

As an example, the 1881 proof Trade dollar was a choice that could easily be substituted; as a proof-only issue, an 1879 or 1880, or even 1882 or 1883 would work.

The 1928 Hawaiian half dollar (mintage around 10,000 pieces) would substitute for many of the 144 commemorative halves; the modern era commemoratives were ignored because they were not yet a reality.

And so I used this approach for Pittman’s collection. In 1997, a year after he died, at around the time of the first sale of his collection, and for the following year, I took the prices realized and applied them:

The first price is Salomon, the second is Pittman. If the Pittman coin is different, it follows the second price.

1. 1794 Liberty cap half cent, EF, $2,750, $4,675;

2. 1873 2-cent piece, brilliant proof, $1,500, $1,320;

3. 1866 5-cent nickel with rays, brilliant proof, $2,000, $1,320, 1873 proof nickel

4. 1862 3-cent silver, BU $160, $660;

5. 1862 half dime BU $150, $1,265;

6. 1807 Draped Bust dime BU, $4,000, $49,500;

7. 1866 Seated dime, BU $1,200, $770;

8. 1876 20 cents, BU $800, $2,090;

9.1873 arrows quarter, BU, $1,200, $413;

10. 1886 Seated quarter, BU, $850, $2,640;

11. 1916 quarter, BU, $6,200 $4,125, 1923-S quarter choice BU

12. 1815 Bust half, uncirculated, $8,000, $3,300;

13. 1834 Bust half, BU, $600, $14,300;

14. 1855-O Seated half, BU, $700, $7,150

15. 1921 Walking Liberty half, BU, $2,600, $9,900

16. 1795 Draped Bust dollar, BU, $18,000, $13,200;

17. 1847 Seated dollar, BU, $1,100, $935, 1846-O XF-AU;

18. 1884-S Morgan dollar, BU, $16,500, $6,600 1881 Morgan dollar gem proof ;

19. 1881 Trade dollar proof, $2,000 $1,870 1882 proof Trade dollar, and,

20. 1928 Hawaiian commemorative half dollar, $4,500, $819 Lafayette dollar, AU.

Total Salomon: $74,810

Total Pittman: $126,851.50

Here are some of John Jay’s “cost” for his mini index, which I created from the auction catalogs: he acquired the half cent in 1954 at a cost of $24. The 1807 dime cost $11 from Bluestone in 1946. Another Bluestone auction item was the 1834 half dollar for $20.50 and the 1795 dollar for $42 in 1954).

It wasn’t a set of precise matches and when I picked substitutes, I low-balled (but of course used it against the actual price realized. (By the way, the price as of Dec. 31, 2009 for the portfolio: over $189,000.

Pittman’s collection might well be impossible to rebuild today, but his approach of “why not the best” paid off handsomely.

2010-02-26T19:43:00.000-08:00

Wrong Date on Taylor $1 Edge

By Numismatic News

Discovery of a Zachary Taylor Presidential dollar with a 2010 date instead of 2009 has caused the U.S. Mint to recall 700,000 of the Taylor dollars already in the process of being released in hopes of preventing others from getting into public hands, Numismatic News error specialist Ken Potter reports.

Numismatic Guaranty Corp. announced Feb. 20 that it had authenticated a Zachary Taylor Denver Presidential dollar coin bearing the date 2010 on its edge instead of the correct 2009.

This is the first reported Presidential dollar with the wrong date. It might be the only one. The authentication process was overseen by NGC special consultant and mint error expert, David J. Camire.

NGC said, “This error coin was included in a roll of 2010-D Native American dollar coins that were purchased using the U.S. Mint’s Direct Ship Program. Since only this lone Zachary Taylor dollar was found in the roll, one can speculate that the same machinery was used to strike 2010-D Native American dollars after completing a run of 2009-D Zachary Taylor dollars. A coin was left behind somewhere between striking and edge lettering (and) became mixed with Native American dollars headed for the edge lettering process, and was thus inscribed with the wrong date.

“Because of where this coin was found, it does not suggest that a large run of error coins were made and, therefore, this type of error coin may remain a significant rarity.”

When asked what the value might be, Potter replied, “That’s a tough question.” If it remains one of a kind, he said, “I think it could be $10,000.”

NGC explained the Presidential dollar coin striking process this way, “The date on each Presidential dollar coin appears on its edge and is applied by an edge lettering die after the obverse and reverse are struck with a blank collar. Because edge lettering is an additional and subsequent step, it has been the source of several types of novel mint error coins. Most common among these errors is partial edge lettering, which occurs when a coin gets hung up in the edge lettering machine and part of the edge lettering is not impressed. Another error is missing edge lettering; that error occurs when a coin misses the edge lettering step entirely. A third error type that has been encountered is doubled edge lettering, which is created when a coin passes through the edge lettering machine twice.

“The error coins that result from a cross pollination of Presidential dollars and Sacagawea or Native American dollars are unquestionably some of the most exciting error coins coming out of any mint today,” Camire said.

2010-02-20T09:43:00.000-08:00

Numbers Point to Melting of 1873-CC Dollar

By Paul M. Green

Mintages can sometimes be deceptive. Of course when the mintage in question is just 2,300 pieces it is hard for that to get too deceptive, but this is the case for the 1873-CC Seated Liberty dollar.

In early 1873 Congress was moving toward the authorization of a commercial or Trade dollar that would be larger than the standard silver dollar. While that was pending the mints could not simply stop, so normal production continued.

In Carson City normal production was not really a way of life. Since the facility opened for business in 1870, it had seen one problem after another. From the start it never produced the numbers of coins many expected. The problem was not a lack of silver. Heaven knows there was silver by the ton in nearby Virginia City, where the Comstock Lode was being mined. However, the owners of that silver did not want to send it to the local mint. The first superintendent of the Carson City Mint was Abe Curry, who apparently had more enemies than friends in the area. A number of owners shipped their silver all the way to San Francisco. Even when Curry left, the practice continued.

The silver dollar mintages in the early 1870s at Carson City had been well short of enormous. The 1870-CC, the first of the Carson City silver dollars, had a mintage of 12,462, and that was followed by the 1871-CC with a mintage of 1,376 and the 1872-CC had a mintage of 3,150.

Under these circumstances, the 2,300 mintage of the 1873-CC was not unusual. The production was stopped once the law authorizing the Trade dollar was passed early in the year.

The precise number of 1873-CC dollars to reach circulation is not known. Certainly the total was not large as is seen in the G-4 price of $6,000 today, and that price rises to $48,500 in AU-50. It lists for $225,000 in MS-63 and $625,000 in MS-65.

The high prices suggest that something went wrong with the mintage as the 1873-CC is more expensive than the 1,376 mintage 1871-CC in every grade.

The logical reason is that the 1873-CC was melted. The new Trade dollar would have more silver. It made sense that even though the Trade dollar in theory was made to be exported, the public would rather have the dollar made with slightly more silver. It is worth noting that Carson City has a history of melting down coins. The 1876-CC 20-cent piece was almost certainly melted. The Trade dollar would see some melting as well with 44,148 being melted in July of 1878.

As it stands today the 1873-CC is tougher than a date produced just two years earlier and with a 1,000-coin higher mintage. The differences in numbers may not be significant, but they are enough to make the 1873-CC Seated Liberty dollar the true king of the Carson City dollars.

2010-02-06T10:17:00.000-08:00

2010 Lincoln Shield Cent Release
in Springfield, Illinois

By CoinNews.net

The US Mint on Thursday announced the ceremonial release date for the newly redesigned 2010 Lincoln Shield Cent.

The official launch will occur on Thursday, February 11, 2010 at 9:30 AM Central Time at the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum in Springfield, Illinois.

The city is a popular destination for those wishing to follow in the footsteps of Lincoln, as it is there where he spent most of his adult life prior to becoming the 16th President of the United States.

Along with a plethora of other Lincoln related sites, to include the museum and the historic site where he lived, Springfield is home to Lincoln’s Tomb.

The new Lincoln "Preservation of the Union" penny is emblematic of President Lincoln’s "preservation of the United States of America as a single and united country." The reverse features a union shield with a scroll draped across it bearing the inscription E PLURIBUS UNUM. The 13 vertical stripes of the shield represent the states joined in one compact union to support the Federal government, represented by the horizontal bar above.

The union shield dates back to the 1780s and was used widely during the Civil War. In addition, the shield device is featured on frescoes throughout the halls of the U.S. Capitol Building by Constantino Brumidi, artist of the Capitol during Lincoln’s presidency. It was designed by Lyndall Bass and engraved by Joseph Menna.

Release Information

The ceremony in the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Museum is located at 212 N. Sixth Street,

Springfield, IL.

US Mint Directory Ed Moy will unveil the new cent.

Jan Grimes, Acting Executive Director, and Dr. James Cornelius, Curator, of the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum will be in attendance, as well as Elizabeth Wooley, News Anchor/Reporter, WICS TV.

Following the event, children 18 years and younger will receive one of the new pennies while adults can exchange cash for between two and six rolls of the coins.

On the same day, the cents will be available at the counters of Union Station in Washington, D.C., and at the U.S. Senate’s credit union. Both are open from 10 AM to 4 PM ET.

2010-01-15T19:23:00.000-08:00

Coins Proclaim Year of the Tiger

By Kerry Rodgers

It’s that time of the year again, the lunar new year, in fact. On Feb. 14 of solar year 2010 the new lunar year will dawn. It is a Year of the Tiger, the third aspect of the 12-year lunar cycle. For those who really need to know, it is the 27th year of the 79th 60-year zodiacal lunar cycle. And, if you insist on getting picky, it is a metal tiger or G?ngyín year.

Over the last couple of decades collecting lunar zodiacal coin issues has become a major sub-field of numismatics, and the world’s mints have had no intention of upsetting the punters this time around. Issues galore have been appearing over the past eight months.

Of course, for the Chinese the main significance of the coins is in giving – and receiving – them as gifts known as lai see, particularly the giving by adults to children.

The dosh commonly arrives in red envelopes that symbolize good fortune. Ideally the total amount of lai see cash involves numerous auspicious eights, and today smart mints package their lunar coins in red and/or involve “8” in one way or another, often either in the presentation or in the coin mintages.

The amount of money tells a recipient the depth of the donor’s feelings. Of course, these days folding money is the sole acceptable currency for teens. However, I am assured that a $10 coin will cut the mustard among most junior relatives, and I would except that any of the gold or silver coins described here would prove a most suitable lai see gift for those with a Tiger in their life.

This time around, the happy coincidence of the Lunar New Year with the Western world’s Valentine should represent a substantial money-saving bonus for some of us.

The Tigers Among Us

The Tiger got the bronze medal in the Great Race organized by the August Personage of Jade to determine the order of the lunar zodiac. He arrived at the finish line exhausted, panting out his pardons. He had found it difficult to cross the heavenly river. Strong currents kept pushing him downstream. It was only the power of his muscles that enabled him to reach the furthest shore in time for him to take his place as the third animal of the zodiacal cycle – after the Rat and the Ox.

The Tiger has come to be revered in many Asian societies. He is regarded as a mythical god-like being, a symbol of power and good fortune who protects people from evil, especially little children. His approximate Western counterpart is Aquarius.

The Tigers of our world score high in the popularity stakes. They are lively and engaging people. On their good days they come across as powerful, passionate and stimulating. They are intelligent, thoughtful, alert and farsighted, with a strong sense of their own dignity. They have little value for power or money. Those close to them find them sincere, affectionate and sensitive, being both generous and displaying great sympathy.

In general they are totally open and honest about their feelings, but they also expect the same from you. Then again, Tigers can be somewhat unpredictable. Never try and second-guess a Tiger. They may appear laid back but can strike without warning – and their claws are sharp.

They are naturally suspicious and, at worst, can be extremely short-tempered. Far too often they come into conflict with their elders or authority figures. The upshot is that they can appear intolerant, stubborn, aggressive, impulsive, rebellious and selfish.

Despite these shortcomings, Tigers are natural leaders, capable of inspiring great respect. They have their fingers on the pulse and are good strategists. Yet part of the package is a pig-headedness that can make them difficult if inspirational bosses. Beware their hidden agendas. Oddly, Tigers have trouble making decisions. Too, too often they rush off half-cocked with some ill-conceived notion or make the appropriate choice far too late.

Importantly, Tigers are incorrigibly competitors. They cannot pass up a challenge. They display courage to the point of recklessness but can afford the luxury of doing so, having been born lucky. As such, whatever the outcome, their natural good fortune ensures they land on their feet ready to pursue life with energy. In particular, expect Metal Tigers to stand out in a crowd.

New Zealand Mint’s Charismatic Cats

The newest member of the lunar coin club, New Zealand Mint, beat all other contenders when it released details of its first lunar issue in July of solar year 2009.

Following on from last year’s highly successful Year of the Ox coin, the New Zealand Mint has produced a matching Year of the Tiger 40 mm, 1-ounce, .999 fine silver $2 for Niue. Mintage is just 20,000 with an issue date of November 2009.

The reverse design shows a selectively-gilded, traditional tiger scaling a hill, signifying the animal’s readiness to scale the heights in its on-going quest for personal improvement. The evergreen pine trees around the hill’s summit invoke longevity.

The Tiger coin comes in an identical packaging to last year: a Lucky Blessings Gold Ingot that resembles a traditional boat-shaped gold sycee, a symbol of prosperity. The Chinese characters at top, front and back offer felicitations for success, longevity and happiness. In short, “Live long and prosper.” The auspicious peonies denote wealth, distinction, happiness and peace; a pair of magpies conveys joy and good fortune.

And the mint has produced its third lunar silver $2 for Pitcairn Islands. Mintage details are the same as for Niue except the coin’s diameter is 40.7 mm. The colorized reverse design shows a proud adult tiger prowling the alpine snows – which is just a tad incongruous given Pitcairn’s subtropical clime.

If your local dealer cannot supply either coin, try www.nzmint.com.

Perth’s Purrfection

Perth Mint may not have been first cab off the rank in the lunar coin game this year, but once again this mint has produced a vast array of lunar coins, with its first issues in the third part of its Lunar Series II released last August. Along with proof and common-or-garden bullion issues, there are several of those extra-special items.

Check out Perth’s Web site for details: www.perthmint.com.au. If your local dealer can’t supply, that is the place to buy.

Proofs: The reverse of the .9999 fine gold proofs all show a magnificent tiger’s head full frontal, its eyes focused on something just above the viewer’s left shoulder. The image is accompanied by the Chinese character for tiger, the inscription “Year of the Tiger” and the Perth Mint’s “P” mintmark.

The coins include 3,000 1-ounce ($100), 5,000 1/4-ounce ($25) and 5,000 1/10-ounce ($15) coins plus 3,000 three-coin sets containing one of each denomination housed in a oval timber and metal presentation case. The diameters and thickness of the three coins are: $100, 38.80 mm and 2.50 mm; $25, 22.60 mm and 2.20 mm; and $15, 18.60 mm and 2.00 mm.

The reverse of the .999 fine silver frosted proofs depicts a tiger in repose, perhaps contemplating a recent satisfying meal or lazily eyeing a prospective fatted calf, along with the Chinese character for tiger and Perth’s mintmark.

These silver coins come as 5,000 1-ounce ($1) and 500 1-kilo ($30) coins. In addition 2-ounce ($2) and 1/2-ounce (50 cents) proofs are available solely within 1,000 three-coin sets that include the 1-ounce ($1) proof. The diameters and thickness of the four coins are: $30, 100.60 mm and 14.60 mm; $2, 55.60 mm and 3.60 mm; the $1, 45.60 mm and 2.60 mm; and 50 cents, 36.60 mm and 2.30 mm.

Lunar bullion: Perth’s .9999 fine gold YoT bullion is the 15th such lunar issue with coin denominations similar to earlier years: 1/20 ounce ($5), 1/10 ounce ($15), 1/4 ounce ($25), 1/2 ounce ($50), 1 ounce ($100), 2 ounce ($200), 10 ounce ($1,000), and 1 kilo ($3,000). This year the 10 kilo ($30,000) has returned. The design is as for the gold proofs, showing a tiger full frontal.

No mintage limits exist for the $3,000, $1,000, $200, $50, $25, $15 and $5 gold bullion coins but production will close at the end of 2010. In the case of the $100, mintage is limited to 30,000 and production will cease when the mintage is fully sold or at the end of the series, whichever comes first. A maximum of 100 $30,000 coins will be produced on a made-to-order basis.

For the .999 fine silver bullion it is the 12th year of issue. The reverse design is that of the tiger-in-repose. Issues are identical to last year: 1/2 ounce ($0.50), 1 ounce ($1), 2 ounce ($2), 5 ounce ($8), 10 ounce ($10), 1/2 kilo ($15), 1 kilo ($30) and 10 kilo ($300).

Mintage limits are similar to last year’s Year of the Ox issues. No mintage limit applies to the $30, $15, $10, $8, $2 and 50-cent coins. With the exception of the $30, production of these coins will close at the end of 2010. Production of the 1 kilo coin will cease at the end of the series. In the case of the $1 coin, a maximum of 300,000 will be struck with production ceasing when that mintage is fully sold or at the end of the series, whichever comes first. A maximum of 500 $300 coins will be produced on a made-to-order basis.

Perth’s transmogrifications: As in past years, the $1 (1-ounce) .999 fine silver coin comes in Perth’s popular colored and gilded versions.

The tiger-in-recline come gilded in 24 karat with 50,000 of these coins struck in specimen BU quality. A colored version has a mintage of 170,000 with just 3,800 available in Australia, as was the case in the past two years.

All four proof, gilded, colored and bullion versions of the tiger-in-recline are available as a single packaged set. Mintage is 1,500 sets.

And this year’s colorized $30 1-kilo .999 fine silver gemstone issue comes complete with a golden topaz for the tiger’s eye.

The obverse of all of Perth’s coins shows the Ian Rank-Broadley effigy of Queen Elizabeth II, the 2010 solar year-date, the monetary denomination and, where appropriate, the weight, composition and fineness of the precious metal.

RAM’s Terrific Tortoiseshells

For the Royal Australian Mint the Year of the Tiger brings the fourth issue of their regular lunar series designed by Vladimir Gottwald. However, unlike the last three issues, this year there are just two coins: a 17.53 mm, 1/10-ounce .9999 fine gold $10 proof with a mintage of 2,500; and a 25.00 mm, 9.00 g BU aluminum-bronze with an unlimited mintage. No lunar silver proof in this series will be available in solar year 2010. If your local dealer cannot supply, these coins can be sourced from the mint’s Web site: www.ramint.gov.au.

In addition, it is the RAM’s second year for its second lunar series struck specifically for the Asian market and designed by Shang Erji. Last year’s Ox coins proved a great success and are matched by corresponding proof Tiger issues. These include a 40 mm, 1-ounce .999 fine silver dollar with a mintage of 30,000, a 17.53 mm, 1/10-ounce .9999 fine gold $10 with a mintage of 10,000, and a similar 30 mm, 1/2-ounce gold $25 with a mintage of 3,800. The silver dollar can be bought on its own or paired in sets with either of the gold coins. The gold $10 and $25 come solely in the sets.

At the time of writing, supplies of these coins in Australia were available from Downies at www.downies.com.

China’s Marvelous Moggies

The People’s Bank of China released 15 different .999 fine gold and .999 fine silver coins in October to celebrate the upcoming G?ngyín year. These come in a variety of shapes and sizes. All are legal tender of the People’s Republic of China.

The reverse of 11 of the coins shows a crouching tiger backed by tiger mask along with the face value and “G?ngyín” in Chinese characters. Nine of the obverses show the national emblem of the PRC either enclosed in a wreath of lotus and fish or flanked by lotus and fish to denote the upcoming year as one of abundance.

Four of these coins are conventional circular proofs: a 40 mm, 1-ounce silver ¥10 with a mintage of 100,000; a 100 mm, 1-kilo silver ¥300 (mintage 3800); an 18 mm, 1/10-ounce gold ¥50 (mintage 80,000); a 180 mm, 10-kilo gold ¥100,000 whose mintage is just 18 pieces.

Three are plum-blossom-shaped proofs: a 40 mm, 1-ounce silver ¥10 with a 60,000 mintage; a 27 mm, 1/2-ounce gold ¥200 (mintage 8,000); a 100 mm, 1-kilo gold ¥10,000 (mintage 118). Spring blossom is a potent symbol of the New Year. In general it signifies good fortune, but traditionalists consider the blooming of a seemingly dead branch as symbolizing hope. For those looking for love, plum blossoms are where it’s at.

Two coins are rectangular: a 80 by 50 mm, 5-ounce silver ¥50 (mintage 1,888) and a 64 by 40 mm, 5-ounce gold ¥200 (mintage 118).

Two BU strikes are fan-shaped: a 1-ounce silver ¥10 (mintage 66,000) and a 1/2-ounce gold ¥200 (mintage 6,600). Their reverses show the crouching tiger but their common obverse depicts the Drum Tower in Jiuquan, Gansu Province. In China fans represent prosperity and good fortune.

Four selectively colored coins have a reverse showing a traditional Chinese folk tiger design prancing in a field of auspicious peonies, along with the face value and the words G?ngyín in Chinese: a 40 mm, 1-ounce silver ¥10 (mintage 100,000); a 70 mm, 5-ounce silver ¥50 (mintage 8,800); an 18 mm, 1/10-ounce gold ¥50 (mintage 30,000); a 60 mm, 5-ounce gold ¥2,000 (mintage 1,500). The obverses of these coins are same as the round proofs.

Canada’s 'Kaptivating' Kitties

As in previous years, the Royal Canadian Mint launched its YoT coins in October and November. Last year was the 12th and last of the $15 bimetallic lunar series designed by Harvey Chan. This year the mint has inaugurated a new Lunar Lotus series, the work of Three Degrees Creative Group. The $15 .925 silver coin has a distinctive eight-fold scallops reminiscent of a lotus flower. On the reverse a restless tiger lashes its tail as it prowls through a bamboo grove. The plain-edged coin has a diameter of 38 mm and weighs in at 26.29 grams. As with Harvey Chan’s bimetallic lunar issues, the mintage is an auspicious 48,888.

Meanwhile, Harvey’s $150 18 karat (0.750 gold, 0.250 silver) extremely popular holographic lunar series continues on its most colorful way. As with the earlier nine coins in this series, the diameter is 28 mm and its weight 11.84 grams. Mintage is 4,888. The overall quality and colorfulness of this issue makes it an ideal Lunar New Year gift.

Both coins feature RCM’s distinctive, uncrowned effigy of Queen Elizabeth II by Susanna Blunt. Prospective purchasers can try www.mint.ca if their friendly neighborhood dealer proves unable to supply.

Singapore’s Fabulous Felines

This will be the 29th year Singapore Mint has issued its lunar coins. The first series ran from 1981 through 1992 and featured realistic representations of the 12 lunar animals. The second series from 1993 to 2004 depicted the animals as traditional Chinese cut-paper effigies.

Since 2005 the designs for the third series by Xu Yunfei of the Shanghai Mint has drawn its inspiration from traditional Chinese calligraphy. His Year of the Tiger coins were released on Nov. 21, 2009. The coins themselves are available from www.mint.com.sg or with a bit of tiger luck, from your favorite coin dealer.

As in recent years, three 0.9999 fine gold proof coins are available: $5 (1/4-ounce, 21.96 mm, mintage 2,000), $100 (1-ounce, 33.00 mm, 2,000) and $200 (5-ounce, 60 mm, 200).

In addition a tiny, 7 mm, 0.3 gram $1 gold coin comes mounted on a gold-colored card featuring a tiger family portrait. Singapore Mint claims this to be the smallest 0.9999 fine gold coin in the world. With a mintage of 3,000, it makes an ideal lai see gift for a junior relative.

The massive 5-ounce 0.999 fine $25 silver coin is the largest coin issued by Singapore Mint. The diameter is 65 mm and mintage of just 250 pieces. It is complemented by a small 20-gram $2 silver coin with a 6,000 mintage. But the prize of the silver collection is the 2-ounce, 45 mm, .999 fine silver $10 piedfort on which the tiger burns bright in full glorious color. Mintage is 20,000.

For those not into precious metals, as in past years a cupronickel proof-like, 38.70 mm $2 is available with an 80,000 mintage.

Once again these coins are available singly or in sets. The three-in-one set contains the $100 gold, the colored $10 silver piedfort and the $2 cupronickel coin, as well as an additional eight-sided, floral-shaped ingot featuring a tiger family taking their ease. The painting is the work of tiger artist Mr. Tan Seng Yong. Only 500 of these sets are available.

This year there is also a two-in-one set that contains the colored $10 silver piedfort, the $2 cupronickel coin and the eight-sided, floral-shaped tiger family ingot. Three-thousand sets have been produced.

And the regular circulating coin sets of the Singapore Mint for 2010 are available in bright red tiger-embellished packs accompanied by an auspicious Chinese New Year blessing. The obverse of all coins bears the Singapore Arms and 2010 solar date.

Once again the Singapore Mint has struck the lunar commemoratives for the Monetary Authority of Macau, as has occurred in the Year of the Rat and Year of the Ox. In keeping with these earlier issues, the designs blend of Western and Eastern cultures as happens in the melting pot of Macau itself.

The obverse of each 2010 coin features a stylish tiger crouching amidst pine trees depicted in brilliant red and green and symbolizing longevity. On the reverse is the Mandarin’s House built in 1881. A World Heritage Site, this was the home of the distinguished scholar Zheng Guanying, whose writings on economics influenced both Mao Tse Tung and Sun Yat Sen.

Mintages, denominations and metals are as for last year’s issue: 21.96 mm, 1/4-ounce (7.776 grams) .9999 fine gold colorized proof 250 patacas with a mintage of 3,000; a 65.0 mm 5-ounce (155.52 grams) .999 fine colorized silver proof 100 patacas with a mintage of just 500; and a 40.70 mm, 1-ounce (31.10 grams) .9999 fine silver colorized proof 20 patacas with a mintage of 6,000.

The coins along with those from Year of the Ox and Year of the Rat are available from www.mint.com.sg.

But There’s More!

Regrettably, back in November 2009 Mongolia’s designs were unknown but, as in recent years, The Big Cat will likely stalk this country’s second lunar cycle series on its 500, 1,000, and massive 2,500 tugrik silver issues, as well as the 10,000 and 50,000 tugrik gold coins.

Nor had anything come in from Monnaie de Paris, who became a fully paid-up member of the lunar coin club in 2007. If the last three years are anything to go by, it can be assumed they will be issuing their silver 1/4-euro and gold 10-euro lunar coins with their distinctive, if somewhat unusual, bicultural designs: the obverse with Jean de La Fontaine, the 17th century French fabulist, and all 12 lunar zodiacal animals; the reverse bearing a tawny cat.

And I am sure there are others out there. Kung hei fat choi!

2010-01-14T10:32:00.000-08:00

Collecting U.S. Coins on a Budget

By Dr John H. MacMillan

The numismatic hobby is indeed “the hobby of kings” as a virtually unlimited amount of money can be spent on rare items if finances permit. Wealthy collectors such as Col H.R. Green, King Farouk of Egypt and Louis Eliasberg had no trouble acquiring rare items when the became available. Collectors of more modest means must focus their interest and “buy smart” or else risk financial difficulties.

Coin collecting can become addicting, and many collectors go over their budget on impulse purchases or spending sprees. It is imperative that you set a maximum amount you will be spend per month or year. This collector has found that on an amount of $1500-$2000 per year rapid progress is possible in many specialties for several years, provided that the periods are from 1850-present and the grades are extremely fine to proof. In today’s age this amount of money could be spent on a single computer or set of golf clubs!

The collectors advantage is that the collection will at least give a partial return of his money in the future, as compared to other items that depreciate to zero. The article is written from the perspective of a modest means collector, who wishes to enjoy his coins primarily from an artistic and historical viewpoint.

Of course he or his heirs will want to obtain at least a modest return on his hard earned money in the future. I will present the “buying smart” strategies from the context of a U.S. type set collector, but these thought processes apply to other collecting specialties such as date collecting, World Coins or ancients.

Getting started

Getting started as a U.S. type set collector is quite easy if one desires a set of circulating U.S. coins. One may pull nearly uncirculated examples from change and upgrade by ordering proof sets from the U.S. mint at less than $20.00. As many state quarters are circulating, this phase can be quite a lot of fun for several months. After the fun phase the new type collector can focus on earlier twentieth century issues.

At this point his first buying decisions must be made. Should he buy uncirculated or proof walkers, standing quarters, buffalo nickels etc or settle for circulated grades? As a rule of thumb, this collector would advise that you proceed by acquiring the best grade you can afford, remembering to not show glaring grade discrepancies if you will exhibit.

For example, a fine condition standing liberty quarter will “stick out like a sore thumb” in a collection surrounded by about uncirculated or brilliant uncirculated quarters. Excluding Barber quarters, and gold coins, a twentieth century type collection should be assembled at a minimum of the about uncirculated (A.U.) grade.

The second half of the nineteenth century will provide far more difficult grading and acquisition decisions. Does the collector try for extremely fine as the minimum grade or very fine? Should he include all Red Book varieties, even more exotic variations such as the 1859 “hollow star” half dime, or only the major types? The financial resources of the collector, his preferences and patience, all will influence his decision. I would advise purchasing this fifty year period in a minimum of extremely fine grade, even if the acquisitions slow somewhat due to finances. After all, you have your entire life to collect, and attractive higher grade coins always bring more on resale.

The decisions become even more difficult for the first 50 years of the nineteenth century. Are “no drapery” versions of the seated half dimes through half dollars to be included? I believe they are significant variations and have included them in my set. Prices are quite reasonable for the no drapery series in very fine and extremely fine grade.

Early gold coins from 1800-1833 are rare due to extensive melting, and are out of the price range of the average collector. I advise focusing on completing gold type from 1834 on in minimum of extremely fine grade. Certain early gold types are also available as legal reproductions (see below).

An additional complication now arising is how to deal with poorly struck issues, such as 1808-1814 large cents and 1800-1805 half dimes /dimes. Well struck problem free examples of these series are rare and cost many multiples of average strikes. My usual advice not to buy weakly struck coins still applies here unless the collector is on a very tight budget.

Costs rise dramatically in all series for about uncirculated grade and above. This collector has set a minimum grade of very fine for all coins of this period. As always you the collector must make your decisions based on “finances, preference and level of patience”. Never buy “bright shiny” early copper or silver unless professionally certified, as cleaning is probable. A cleaned coin is a difficult sell later.

Choice condition eighteenth century U.S. coins become nearly impossible for the moderate means collector. He may think that difficult choices must be made between obtaining extremely worn examples of many series (chain, wreath cents, early dimes) at greater than $500 each, or acquiring choice specimens only after protracted savings plans.

I solved this problem by obtaining a minimum of very fine grade for the type coins costing $1000 or less. The remaining slots were partially filled with choice reproductions from the Gallery Mint Museum in Eureka Springs Arkansas or Royal Oak Mint in Michigan. Vacant slots hopefully await further reproductions! Some discontinued GMM issues such as chain and wreath cents, have actually appreciated substantially in the open market.

Several hundred dollars spent on choice copies, in my opinion, is preferable to many thousands of dollars for barely discernable specimens provided that the collector is in the game for fun and history rather than investment.

Grading

The topic of grading will always bring controversy, but I will give brief guidelines.

a. Buy a copy of “Photograde” by James F. Ruddy and study all the pictures. Read the fine print about idiosyncrasies in each series. Try to grade yourself all circulated type coins you view, as moderate means collectors will include many circulated coins in their type set or other series.

b. If you are uncomfortable grading yourself, buy only Professional Coin Grading Service (PCGS), Numismatic Guarantee Corporation (NGC) or ANACS certified coins, even if they cost more. The old cliches read true in coin collecting, “you get what you pay for” and “there is no Santa Claus in Numismatics”. On eventual resale, a high percent recovery of cost, or even profit, is more probable for coins graded by these services. Lesser known services are more spotty in their standards and should be avoided.

c. Do not buy weakly struck coins, even if attractively priced. A weakly struck coin shows design obliteration only in specific areas, not on all, as is the case for a worn specimen. If you are unsure, pass on it.

d. If you do not like how a coin looks don’t buy it, as others probably wont like it either.

e. View as many coins as possible in all series. Internet auctions such as E-bay, and Internet dealers on-line catalogs are great starters. Go to all local shows and scan the bourse floor! Learning to grade your self before bidding is especially critical for internet auctions, as many coins offered there are grossly over graded.

Optimal Collecting Grade (OCG)

Eminent numismatic scholar Q. David Bowers has presented this wise collecting strategy in his recent work “The Experts Guide to Collecting and Investing in Rare Coins” and elsewhere. Basically, the budget conscious collector will “get the most bang for his bucks” by avoiding grades where the next lower grade is dramatically lower in price. Three examples will illustrate the concept.

Data are from a recent “Coin Values” issue.

1. 1902-O silver dollar, MS-64 $65.00, MS-65 $175.00, MS 66 $800.

2. 1922 Grant Memorial 50 cent, No Star, MS 63 $200, MS 64 $350, MS65 $1000

3. 1877-S, $20, AU58, $650.00, MS-60, $900, MS-62 $3500.

The highest grade listed for all three should be avoided. For the 1877-S, AU-58 may actually be the best value and the most attractive, as most MS-60 coins are heavily bag marked.

Avoid “MS-70″ certified common modern coins. They are usually highly priced and extremely subject to price downturns, as many more of them will be certified in the future.

Common Mistakes

I have made most of these mistakes myself. “Act in haste, repent in leisure”. Warning you of these pitfalls will help in economical collecting. .

a) Buying low grade low price coins to “quickly fill the holes” is always a mistake, as low grade coins have poor eye appeal and have practically no resale value. If you are a compulsive and impatient individual like me you can easily fall into this trap.

b) Not returning a coin with some problem as it is a “hassle” to repackage and mail. Believe me, it is a bigger hassle to be stuck with a “doggy” coin and face the necessity of upgrading it later. Ship it back to the dealer and don’t look back!

c) Buying for profit. Coin collecting is for fun, and a collection acquired over many years can sometimes but not always be sold for gain. Most circulated type coins bring only 30-60% of retail. If you seek profit from collecting buy only P.C.G.S or N.G.C. certified coins in mint state 63 and higher. Even for these coins profit is not guaranteed. The coin market is extremely cyclical with constant switching of “hot” and “slow” series. An advantage for the type collector is his intrinsic diversification by possessing many different series.

d) Impulse buying. Always have a short list of coins you wish to add in the next several months, their range of conditions, and expected price ranges. If the next morning after purchase you have regrets, return the coin immediately.

e) Going off the track. If you wish to enjoy collecting to the fullest, you should focus on at most two collecting specialties at a time. Doing otherwise will squander money and time on what will look like a mishmash with no theme. This collector in addition to U.S. type coins also has small collections of political hard times tokens, civil war tokens and ancients. I focus on only two of these in a calendar year.

Upgrading

In general, if you have the patience and discipline, it is always best to buy your coin just once in a pleasing grade that shows all the design details. Buying lower grade coins to fill the holes was mentioned earlier as a mistake. When you upgrade you become saddled with a lower grade duplicate that you probably cannot sell at retail value, or even at a loss. Thus you are paying more for the item in the long term. If you must upgrade, my general rule is that upgrading less than two full grade units is not worth it. For example, upgrade a very fine coin to about uncirculated, a fine coin to extremely fine, etc. At least in this manner you will also see a significant upgrade in eye appeal and detail, partially compensating for probable financial loss.

Legitimate Reproductions

It was mentioned earlier that many early U.S. type coins are high priced even in low grades. It is a matter of collector preference if you wish to fill these holes with modern reproductions. All legitimate reproductions contain the word “copy” on obverse or reverse. Avoid counterfeit coins or old reproductions without the word “copy” as they present resale and legal difficulties! This collector has been well satisfied with those manufactured by the Gallery Mint Museum in Eureka Springs Arkansas and the Royal Oak Mint in Michigan. They are made with close reproductions of original mint equipment, are original size, and are quite attractive. I collect the uncirculated rather than the proof versions, as they more closely resemble the look of the original coins. “Medal size” reproductions are junk. Avoid them.

Final Thoughts

The extremely successful state quarters and westward journey nickel series have drawn millions of novice collectors into our wonderful hobby. Many of these new collectors have limited finances but have been “bitten by the bug”. They will wish to expand into other collecting areas without straining their budgets. I hope this article will assist them in enjoying many years of collecting pleasure.

2009-12-02T14:09:00.000-08:00

The History of Coins

Coins and Coinage

By D.L. Crane

People have always had some type of monetary unit or compensatory method. In the ancient days of China shells were used, then later the Mesopotamians invented a type of banking where people could keep their grain, gold, livestock or other things safe or trade them by making a system of deposit. Actual coins began to appear a little later in time, and made life a lot easier for those who used them

The full history of coin covers a time span that ranges from ancient to modern day and is in fact, still unfolding.

The First Coins

Coins were invented at some point around 700 BC. Depending on who you ask, they were invented near Aegina Island or according to other scholars; the point of invention was in Ephesus Lydia at about 650 BC.

However you slice it, the first coins in the world appeared around 650-700 BC and were tied to the ancient Greeks. They were made of an alloy which was called electrum, which was a mingling of gold and silver and featured the head of a lion on the front side.

Many people believe that keeping things neater, making life more convenient was the impetus for development of actual coins. Since the time of those first coins and the lightweight, convenient means of payment that they offered, different countries have developed their own throughout history.

The Byzantine Empire was responsible for the minting of numerous different coins, many of them which bore the images of the emperors and later, of the cross of Christianity.

Tombs found as early as the latter part of the 11th century BC in China show us what are some of the first copper coins that have been found and from those tombs we know that coins were widely used by the Han Dynasty of China.

How Were Coins Made?

Many of the earliest coins were beaten around the edge so that they imitated the shape of a cow, which was their approximate value. Some coins were rectangle in shape while others were round. Many had holes in them so that they could be strung and carried even more conveniently.

The first coins that we find in history were made of little more than scraps from various metals. They were made by a hammer hitting the metal scrap that lay on an anvil. The Chinese introduced the first cast type of coinage that was seen, and this soon spread to Japan and other parts of Asian but aside from these, very few governments used cast coins.

The earliest coins that we find which were made of entirely gold or silver were the gold Dinars and the silver Dirhams which were found in the 7th century in the earliest years of the Islamic Caliphate.

United States Coins and Mints

The United States coins that are in use today have seen multiple changes since they began. The US Mint, which is the organization that makes United States coins was established by an act of Congress in 1792, and has operated continuously since that time. It was not until nearly a hundred years later, in 1873 that it became part of the Treasury Department.

United States coins have seen a wide array of change since they began to be made. Originally only a few coins were minted. Many of these contained some level of silver. Due to a wide range shortage of silver that took place the world over the Congress of the United States passed a coinage act.

The Coinage Act of 1965 caused a change to be made in the makeup of such coins as dimes, quarters, and fifty-cent pieces. These had all previously been made of about ninety percent silver. The silver content was completely removed from the quarter and the dime, while the half dollar content was lowered to about forty percent silver. That coins silver content too was removed in the early 1970's so that now the half dollar bears no silver in its makeup.

U.S. coins which were made in the beginning were these:

**Half Cent

**Two Cent

**Three Cent

**Twenty Cent

**Half Dime

Gold Coins in the United States appeared in the following denominations:

$1-One Dollar

$2.50-Quarter Eagle

$3-Three Dollars

$5-Half Eagle

$10-Eagle

$20-Double Eagle

Many of these coins were in play in the United States from about 1795 until 1933 in the United States.

Coin denominations that are in use today in the United States are the familiar penny, nickel, dime, and quarter, although at various times others are minted such as the Susan B Anthony and the Sacagawea dollars.

Mints and Mint Marks

The United States coins were given mint marks in many cases, which changed the appearance, and sometimes the value of the coins.

There are only a few mints that are now in operation but there have in the past been more. The Philadelphia mint began in 1792 and has functioned since that time. Denver mint entered into play beginning in 1906, while West Point Mint, which was at one time the bullion depository, does primarily gold Silver & Platinum coins. It was not officially recognized as a mint until 1988.

All coins in the United States offer a mint mark that lets you know which mint produced those coins. This is true with just a few exceptions. Between 1965, when the Coinage Act specified that no mint marks be used, and 1968, when they were authorized to reappear, no mint marks appeared on US coins. U.S mint marks usually show a P, or no mint mark for Philadelphia and D for those coins minted in Denver, while an S is shown for San Francisco, and a W mint mark for those coins minted at West Point.

Coin Collecting

Coins are not only a means of payment. They are now, and have been for many years, a means of investment, as well as something that is avidly and ardently collected. Coin collectors have spent many thousands, sometimes millions of dollars on a rare coin that was highly sought after.

Highly Expensive Coins.

In 1933 the US government decided they would no longer distribute the Double Eagle gold coin and destroyed all that existed. The problem was that they didn't. One man had managed to steal several which the government thought they had recovered and destroyed.

Again, they thought wrong. Three of the Double Eagle coins survived the destruction. Two of them were in the Smithsonian Museum, while the third came into the hands of a private collector. That coin was stored in a vault in the World Trade Center after being seized when it entered the country to be sold in New York.

Fortunately the coin was moved just a few weeks before the 9-11 attacks and had ended up in Fort Knox. In 2002 it was sold to a collector who remains unnamed at a cost of more than 7 Million dollars, which makes it the most costly coin ever sold.

Among the most avidly collected coins that have been sought after are some which are the most ancient and unique, as well as others which are not quite so ancient, but piqued the interest of collectors. Roman coins, Greek Coins, Pirate doubloons and Byzantine coins are some of the most prized by collectors throughout history, but so too is the Kennedy half dollar. Highly prized by collectors as well are mint sets and proof sets.

What is a Proof Set?

A proof set is a set of coins that are packaged by the mint which produced them. These coins are specially made types of the coins. They are coins which has had the planchet( the blank metal of which the coin is made) very highly polished. The coins are then struck not once but several times so that the quality of the image on the coin is extremely detailed.

What is a Mint Set?

A mint set is a set of coins that are uncirculated and specially packaged. They contain one of each denomination for the coins that were minted in that year.

Gold and Silver Coins and Bullion

Also prized by both collectors and investors are the various other types of bullion coins. They are minted specifically for use as pure precious metal coins. They are comprised of gold bullion, silver bullion, or sometimes even platinum. The coins are made in multiple ways, by multiple countries. Not only United States coins are ardently collected.

Among those coins which are minted world wide and are collected and sought after are:

American Eagle gold, silver and platinum coins

Buffalo Gold Coins

Canadian Maple Leaf gold & silver

South African Krugerrands

Chinese Panda gold and silver coins

Austrian Philharmonics

British Sovereign gold coins

.999 Fine Gold & silver Bars

Coins, as you can see have enjoyed a long and diverse history. Collecting coins and precious metals is a unique hobby as well as an investment that can net you some remarkable returns, both in monetary compensation, as well as personal satisfaction.

2009-11-28T16:39:00.000-08:00

Gold and Silver Coin Investing For Your Future

by D. L. Crane

There is an increasing interest in investing, and many people are turning to the gold and silver coin investments. Coins have been confirmed to be the safest way to invest in gold and silver. Like any investment there will always be risks, but now investing in this way may show to be more valuable than investing in bars or bullion.

Over and above being one of the most collectible and valuable of the precious metals, silver is a necessary component in many everyday electronics which will only serve to increase its value well into the future. Because the price of gold keeps rising, more typical investors are looking to silver to vary their investment portfolios. The technology sector continues to manufacture an incredible volume of computers and cell phones which require silver to function. A silver boom is bound to happen that is going to pay off big for the wise investors, those who start investing their money in silver now while it is still at a comparatively low price range. In the past ten years, the metal has increased an astonishing 300%. Due to this investors have been paying more attention to this market.

For the last 30 years or so, it’s a recognized fact that as the worth of the US dollar declines, the price of gold increases. In our economic climate it still makes good fiscal sense to invest in gold coins. Remember we all have read that gold is the investment of choice right now. And gold coins are always an outstanding asset. The last couple years gold has held steady at or about 7-8 hundred dollars an ounce but has fluctuated a lot between that number and over 1000 dollars. If there is another predicament it should go up to 1400 while holding steady at or above 1100. This could push it up to 2000 dollars.

There is no equivalent risk. Gold and silver in your custody is your ownership and reward. All bank deposits and paper or electronic transactions are nothing more than a promise to give by someone else. Moreover possessing precious metals is a good protection against inflation.

For the most part there are three half dollar coins that merit investing in. Since these half dollars are made of 90% silver, these coins are more sought-after by silver investors than others. These are the Walking Liberty Half Dollar, the 1964 dated Kennedy half dollar and the Ben Franklin half dollar.

When silver and gold go up in price coins go up too. If silver or gold go down the coins continue to be valuable to collectors. If the world economy suffers again, all coins should escalate in value.

There are those who are worried about a dooms day future – so there is only one medium of exchange that is acceptable–gold and silver. Because credit cards and paper money will be of no value. Remember that the smaller denominations – dimes, will be of more value than the larger - quarters. 1 oz silver will be used only for major purchases. Gold will buy almost anything, even the 1/10 oz coins. It seems like a great idea to have some silver coins and also some gold coins on hand in safe keeping.

2009-11-17T16:53:00.000-08:00

Origins of the Federal Reserve

by Murray N. Rothbard

The Progressive Movement

The Federal Reserve Act of December 23, 1913, was part and parcel of the wave of Progressive legislation on local, state, and federal levels of government that began about 1900. Progressivism was a bipartisan movement that, in the course of the first two decades of the 20th century, transformed the American economy and society from one of roughly laissez-faire to one of centralized statism.

Until the 1960s, historians had established the myth that Progressivism was a virtual uprising of workers and farmers who, guided by a new generation of altruistic experts and intellectuals, surmounted fierce big business opposition in order to curb, regulate, and control what had been a system of accelerating monopoly in the late 19th century. A generation of research and scholarship, however, has now exploded that myth for all parts of the American polity, and it has become all too clear that the truth is the reverse of this well-worn fable.

In contrast, what actually happened was that business became increasingly competitive during the late 19th century, and that various big-business interests, led by the powerful financial house of J. P. Morgan and Company, tried desperately to establish successful cartels on the free market. The first wave of such cartels was in the first large-scale business — railroads. In every case, the attempt to increase profits — by cutting sales with a quota system — and thereby to raise prices or rates, collapsed quickly from internal competition within the cartel and from external competition by new competitors eager to undercut the cartel.

During the 1890s, in the new field of large-scale industrial corporations, big-business interests tried to establish high prices and reduced production via mergers, and again, in every case, the merger collapsed from the winds of new competition. In both sets of cartel attempts, J. P. Morgan and Company had taken the lead, and in both sets of cases, the market, hampered though it was by high protective, tariff walls, managed to nullify these attempts at voluntary cartelization.

It then became clear to these big-business interests that the only way to establish a cartelized economy, an economy that would ensure their continued economic dominance and high profits, would be to use the powers of government to establish and maintain cartels by coercion, in other words, to transform the economy from roughly laissez-faire to centralized, coordinated statism. But how could the American people, steeped in a long tradition of fierce opposition to government-imposed monopoly, go along with this program? How could the public's consent to the New Order be engineered?

Fortunately for the cartelists, a solution to this vexing problem lay at hand. Monopoly could be put over in the name of opposition to monopoly! In that way, using the rhetoric beloved by Americans, the form of the political economy could be maintained, while the content could be totally reversed.

Monopoly had always been defined, in the popular parlance and among economists, as "grants of exclusive privilege" by the government. It was now simply redefined as "big business" or business competitive practices, such as price-cutting, so that regulatory commissions, from the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to state insurance commissions, were lobbied for and staffed with big-business men from the regulated industry, all done in the name of curbing "big-business monopoly" on the free market.

In that way, the regulatory commissions could subsidize, restrict, and cartelize in the name of "opposing monopoly," as well as promoting the general welfare and national security. Once again, it was railroad monopoly that paved the way.

For this intellectual shell game, the cartelists needed the support of the nation's intellectuals, the class of professional opinion molders in society. The Morgans needed a smokescreen of ideology, setting forth the rationale and the apologetics for the New Order. Again, fortunately for them, the intellectuals were ready and eager for the new alliance.

The enormous growth of intellectuals, academics, social scientists, technocrats, engineers, social workers, physicians, and occupational "guilds" of all types in the late 19th century led most of these groups to organize for a far greater share of the pie than they could possibly achieve on the free market. These intellectuals needed the State to license, restrict, and cartelize their occupations, so as to raise the incomes for the fortunate people already in these fields.

In return for their serving as apologists for the new statism, the State was prepared to offer not only cartelized occupations, but also ever-increasing and cushier jobs in the bureaucracy to plan and propagandize for the newly statized society. And the intellectuals were ready for it, having learned in graduate schools in Germany the glories of statism and organicist socialism, of a harmonious "middle way" between dog-eat-dog laissez-faire on the one hand and proletarian Marxism on the other. Big government, staffed by intellectuals and technocrats, steered by big business, and aided by unions organizing a subservient labor force, would impose a cooperative commonwealth for the alleged benefit of all.

Unhappiness with the National-Banking System

The previous big push for statism in America had occurred during the Civil War, when the virtual one-party Congress after secession of the South emboldened the Republicans to enact their cherished statist program under cover of the war. The alliance of big business and big government with the Republican party drove through an income tax, heavy excise taxes on such sinful products as tobacco and alcohol, high protective tariffs, and huge land grants and other subsidies to transcontinental railroads.

The overbuilding of railroads led directly to Morgan's failed attempts at railroad pools, and finally to the creation, promoted by Morgan and Morgan-controlled railroads, of the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1887. The result of that was the long secular decline of the railroads, beginning before 1900. The income tax was annulled by Supreme Court action, but was reinstated during the Progressive period.

"For this intellectual shell game, the cartelists needed the support of the nation's intellectuals, the class of professional opinion molders in society. Again, fortunately for them, the intellectuals were ready and eager for the new alliance."

The most interventionist of the Civil War actions was in the vital field of money and banking. The approach toward hard money and free banking that had been achieved during the 1840s and 1850s was swept away by two pernicious inflationist measures of the wartime Republican administration. One was fiat money greenbacks, which depreciated by half by the middle of the Civil War. These were finally replaced by the gold standard after urgent pressure by hard-money Democrats, but not until 1879, 14 full years after the end of the war.

A second, and more lasting, intervention was the National Banking Acts of 1863, 1864, and 1865, which destroyed the issue of bank notes by state-chartered (or "state") banks by a prohibitory tax, and then monopolized the issue of bank notes in the hands of a few large, federally chartered "national banks," mainly centered on Wall Street. In a typical cartelization, national banks were compelled by law to accept each other's notes and demand deposits at par, negating the process by which the free market had previously been discounting the notes and deposits of shaky and inflationary banks.

In this way, the Wall Street–federal government establishment was able to control the banking system, and inflate the supply of notes and deposits in a coordinated manner.

But there were still problems. The national-banking system provided only a halfway house between free banking and government central banking, and by the end of the 19th century, the Wall Street banks were becoming increasingly unhappy with the status quo.

The centralization was only limited, and, above all, there was no governmental central bank to coordinate inflation, and to act as a lender of last resort, bailing out banks in trouble. As soon as bank credit generated booms, then they got into trouble; bank-created booms turned into recessions, with banks forced to contract their loans and assets and to deflate in order to save themselves.

Not only that, but after the initial shock of the National Banking Acts, state banks had grown rapidly by pyramiding their loans and demand deposits on top of national-bank notes. These state banks, free of the high legal-capital requirements that kept entry restricted in national banking, flourished during the 1880s and 1890s and provided stiff competition for the national banks themselves.

Furthermore, St. Louis and Chicago, after the 1880s, provided increasingly severe competition to Wall Street. Thus, St. Louis and Chicago bank deposits, which had been only 16 percent of the St. Louis, Chicago, and New York City total in 1880, rose to 33 percent of that total by 1912. All in all, bank clearings outside of New York City, which were 24 percent of the national total in 1882, had risen to 43 percent by 1913.

The complaints of the big banks were summed up in one word: "inelasticity." The national-banking system, they charged, did not provide for the proper "elasticity" of the money supply; that is, the banks were not able to expand money and credit as much as they wished, particularly in times of recession. In short, the national-banking system did not provide sufficient room for inflationary expansions of credit by the nation's banks.[1]

By the turn of the century, the political economy of the United States was dominated by two generally clashing financial aggregations: the previously dominant Morgan group, which began in investment banking and then expanded into commercial banking, railroads, and mergers of manufacturing firms; and the Rockefeller forces, which began in oil refining and then moved into commercial banking, finally forming an alliance with the Kuhn, Loeb Company in investment banking and the Harriman interests in railroads.[2]

Although these two financial blocs usually clashed with each other, they were as one on the need for a central bank. Even though the eventual major role in forming and dominating the Federal Reserve System was taken by the Morgans, the Rockefeller and Kuhn, Loeb forces were equally enthusiastic in pushing, and collaborating on, what they all considered to be an essential monetary reform.

The Beginnings of the "Reform" Movement: The Indianapolis Monetary Convention

The presidential election of 1896 was a great national referendum on the gold standard. The Democratic party had been captured, at its 1896 convention, by the populist, ultrainflationist antigold forces, headed by William Jennings Bryan. The older Democrats, who had been fiercely devoted to hard money and the gold standard, either stayed home on election day or voted, for the first time in their lives, for the hated Republicans.

"Although these two financial blocs usually clashed with each other, they were as one on the need for a central bank."

The Republicans had long been the party of prohibition and of greenback inflation and opposition to gold. But since the early 1890s, the Rockefeller forces, dominant in their home state of Ohio and nationally in the Republican party, had decided to quietly ditch prohibition as a political embarrassment and as a grave deterrent to obtaining votes from the increasingly powerful bloc of German-American voters.

In the summer of 1896, anticipating the defeat of the gold forces at the Democratic convention, the Morgans, previously dominant in the Democratic party, approached the McKinley–Mark Hanna–Rockefeller forces through their rising young satrap, Congressman Henry Cabot Lodge of Massachusetts. Lodge offered the Rockefeller forces a deal: the Morgans would support McKinley for president, and neither sit home nor back a third, Gold Democrat party, provided that McKinley pledged himself to a gold standard. The deal was struck, and many previously hard-money Democrats shifted to the Republicans.

The nature of the American political-party system was now drastically changed: what was previously a tightly fought struggle between hard-money, free-trade, laissez-faire Democrats on the one hand, and inflationist, protectionist, statist Republicans on the other, with the Democrats slowly but surely gaining ascendancy by the early 1890s, was now a party system dominated by the Republicans until the depression election of 1932.

The Morgans were strongly opposed to Bryanism, which was not only populist and inflationist, but also anti–Wall Street bank; the Bryanites, much like populists of the present day, preferred Congressional, greenback inflationism to the more subtle, and more privileged, big bank–controlled variety. The Morgans, in contrast, favored a gold standard.

But, once gold was secured by the McKinley victory of 1896, they wanted to press on to use the gold standard as a hard-money camouflage behind which they could change the system into one less nakedly inflationist than populism but far more effectively controlled by the big-banker elites. In the long run, a controlled Morgan-Rockefeller gold standard was far more pernicious to the cause of genuine hard-money than a candid free-silver or greenback Bryanism.

As soon as McKinley was safely elected, the Morgan-Rockefeller forces began to organize a "reform" movement to cure the "inelasticity" of money in the existing gold standard and to move slowly toward the establishment of a central bank. To do so, they decided to use the techniques they had successfully employed in establishing a pro–gold standard movement during 1895 and 1896.

The crucial point was to avoid the public suspicion of Wall Street and banker control by acquiring the patina of a broad-based grassroots movement. The movement, therefore, was deliberately focused in the Middle West, the heartland of America, and organizations developed that included not only bankers, but also businessmen, economists, and other academics, who supplied respectability, persuasiveness, and technical expertise to the reform cause.

Accordingly, the reform drive began just after the 1896 elections in authentic Midwest country. Hugh Henry Hanna, president of the Atlas Engine Works of Indianapolis, who had learned organizing tactics during the year with the pro–gold standard Union for Sound Money, sent a memorandum, in November, to the Indianapolis Board of Trade, urging a grassroots, Midwestern state like Indiana to take the lead in currency reform.[3]

In response, the reformers moved fast. Answering the call of the Indianapolis Board of Trade, delegates from boards of trade from 12 Midwestern cities met in Indianapolis on December 1, 1896. The conference called for a large monetary convention of businessmen, which accordingly met in Indianapolis on January 12, 1897. Representatives from 26 states and the District of Columbia were present. The monetary reform movement was now officially underway.

The influential Yale Review commended the convention for averting the danger of arousing popular hostility to bankers. It reported that "the conference was a gathering of businessmen in general rather than bankers in particular" (quoted in Livingston 1986, p. 105).

The conventioneers may have been businessmen, but they were certainly not very grassrootsy. Presiding at the Indianapolis Monetary Convention of 1897 was C. Stuart Patterson, dean of the University of Pennsylvania Law School and a member of the finance committee of the powerful, Morgan-oriented Pennsylvania Railroad. The day after the convention opened, Hugh Hanna was named chairman of an executive committee, which he would appoint. The committee was empowered to act for the convention after it adjourned.

The executive committee consisted of the following influential corporate and financial leaders:

John J. Mitchell of Chicago, president of the Illinois Trust and Savings Bank, and a director of the Chicago and Alton Railroad; the Pittsburgh, Fort Wayne, and Chicago Railroad; and the Pullman Company, was named treasurer of the executive committee.

H. H. Kohlsaat, editor and publisher of the Chicago Times Herald and the Chicago Ocean Herald, trustee of the Chicago Art Institute, and a friend and advisor of Rockefeller's main man in politics, President William McKinley.

Charles Custis Harrison, provost of the University of Pennsylvania, who had made a fortune as a sugar refiner in partnership with the powerful Havemeyer ("Sugar Trust") interests.

Alexander E. Orr, a New York City banker in the Morgan ambit, who was a director of the Morgan-run Erie and Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific railroads, the National Bank of Commerce, and the influential publishing house of Harper Brothers. Orr was also a partner in the country's largest grain-merchandising firm and a director of several life-insurance companies.

Edwin O. Stanard, St. Louis grain merchant, former governor of Missouri, and former vice president of the National Board of Trade and Transportation.

E. B. Stahlman, owner of the Nashville Banner, commissioner of the cartelist Southern Railway and Steamship Association, and former vice president of the Louisville, New Albany, and Chicago Railroad.

A. E. Willson, influential attorney from Louisville and future governor of Kentucky.

But the two most interesting and powerful executive committee members of the Monetary Convention were Henry C. Payne and George Foster Peabody. Henry Payne was a Republican party leader from Milwaukee, and president of the Morgan-dominated Wisconsin Telephone Company, long associated with the railroad-oriented Spooner-Sawyer Republican machine in Wisconsin politics. Payne was also heavily involved in Milwaukee utility and banking interests, in particular as a long-time director of the North American Company, a large public utility–holding company headed by New York City financier Charles W. Wetmore.

So close was North American Company to the Morgan interests that its board included two top Morgan financiers. One was Edmund C. Converse, president of Morgan-run Liberty National Bank of New York City, and soon to be founding president of Morgan's Bankers' Trust Company. The other was Robert Bacon, a partner in J. P. Morgan and Company, and one of Theodore Roosevelt's closest friends, whom Roosevelt would later make assistant secretary of state.

Furthermore, when Theodore Roosevelt became president as the result of the assassination of William McKinley, he replaced Rockefeller's top political operative, Mark Hanna of Ohio, with Henry C. Payne as Postmaster General of the United States. Payne, a leading Morgan lieutenant, was reportedly appointed to what was then the major political post in the Cabinet specifically to break Hanna's hold over the national Republican party. It seems clear that replacing Hanna with Payne was part of the savage assault that Theodore Roosevelt would soon launch against Standard Oil as part of the open warfare about to break out between the Rockefeller–Harriman–Kuhn, Loeb, and the Morgan camps (Burch 1981, p. 189, n. 55).

"On monetary and banking matters, however, the Rockefeller and Morgan camps were as one."

Even more powerful in the Morgan ambit was the secretary of the Indianapolis Monetary Convention's executive committee, George Foster Peabody. The entire Peabody family of Boston Brahmins had long been personally and financially closely associated with the Morgans. A member of the Peabody clan had even served as best man at J. P. Morgan's wedding in 1865.

George Peabody had long ago established an international banking firm of which J. P. Morgan's father, Junius, had been one of the senior partners. George Foster Peabody was an eminent New York investment banker with extensive holdings in Mexico. He helped reorganize General Electric for the Morgans, and was later offered the job of secretary of the treasury during the Wilson administration. He would function throughout that administration as a "statesman without portfolio" (ibid., pp. 231, 233; Ware 1951, pp. 161–67).

Let the masses be hoodwinked into regarding the Indianapolis Monetary Convention as a spontaneous, grassroots outpouring of small Midwestern businessmen. To the cognoscenti, any organization featuring Henry Payne, Alexander Orr, and especially George Foster Peabody meant but one thing: J. P. Morgan.

The Indianapolis Monetary Convention quickly resolved to urge President McKinley to (1) continue the gold standard and (2) create a new system of "elastic" bank credit. To that end, the convention urged the president to appoint a new Monetary Commission to prepare legislation for a new, revised monetary system. McKinley was very much in favor of the proposal, signaling Rockefeller agreement, and on July 24 he sent a message to Congress urging the creation of a special monetary commission. The bill for a national monetary commission passed the House of Representatives but died in the Senate (Kolko 1983, pp. 147–48).

Disappointed but intrepid, the executive committee, failing a presidentially appointed commission, decided in August 1897 to go ahead and select its own. The leading role in appointing this commission was played by George Foster Peabody, who served as liaison between the Indianapolis members and the New York financial community. To select the commission members, Peabody arranged for the executive committee to meet in the Saratoga Springs summer home of his investment-banking partner, Spencer Trask. By September, the executive committee had selected the members of the Indianapolis Monetary Commission.

The members of the new Indianapolis Monetary Commission were as follows (Livingston 1986, pp. 106–07):

The chairman was former senator George F. Edmunds, Republican of Vermont, attorney, and former director of several railroads.

C. Stuart Patterson was dean of the University of Pennsylvania Law School, and a top official of the Morgan-controlled Pennsylvania Railroad.

Charles S. Fairchild, a leading New York banker, president of the New York Security and Trust Company, was a former partner in the Boston Brahmin investment banking firm of Lee, Higginson, and Company, and executive and director of two major railroads. Fairchild, a leader in New York state politics, had been secretary of the treasury in the first Cleveland Administration. In addition, Fairchild's father, Sidney T. Fairchild, had been a leading attorney for the Morgan-controlled New York Central Railroad.

Stuyvesant Fish, scion of two long-time aristocratic New York families, was a partner of the Morgan-dominated New York investment bank of Morton, Bliss, and Company, and then president of Illinois Central Railroad and a trustee of Mutual Life. Fish's father had been a senator, governor, and secretary of state.

Louis A. Garnett was a leading San Francisco businessman.

Thomas G. Bush of Alabama was a director of the Mobile and Birmingham Railroad.

J. W. Fries was a leading cotton manufacturer of North Carolina.

William B. Dean, merchant from St. Paul, Minnesota, and a director of the St. Paul–based, transcontinental Great Northern Railroad, owned by James J. Hill, ally with Morgan in the titanic struggle over the Northern Pacific Railroad with Harriman, Rockefeller, and Kuhn, Loeb.

George Leighton of St. Louis was an attorney for the Missouri Pacific Railroad.

Robert S. Taylor was an Indiana patent attorney for the Morgan-controlled General Electric Company.

The single most important working member of the commission was James Laurence Laughlin, head professor of political economy at the new Rockefeller-founded University of Chicago, and editor of its prestigious Journal of Political Economy. It was Laughlin who supervised the operations of the Commission's staff and the writing of the reports. Indeed, the two staff assistants to the Commission who wrote reports were both students of Laughlin at Chicago: former student L. Carroll Root, and his then-current graduate student Henry Parker Willis.

The impressive sum of $50,000 was raised throughout the nation's banking and corporate community to finance the work of the Indianapolis Monetary Commission. New York City's large quota was raised by Morgan bankers Peabody and Orr, and heavy contributions to fill the quota came promptly from mining magnate William E. Dodge, cotton and coffee trader Henry Hentz, a director of the Mechanics National Bank, and J. P. Morgan himself.

With the money in hand, the executive committee rented office space in Washington, DC in mid-September and set the staff to sending out and collating the replies to a detailed monetary questionnaire, sent to several hundred selected experts. The Monetary Commission sat from late September into December 1897, sifting through the replies to the questionnaire collated by Root and Willis. The purpose of the questionnaire was to mobilize a broad base of support for the Commission's recommendations, which they could claim represented hundreds of expert views.

Second, the questionnaire served as an important public-relations device, making the Commission and its work highly visible to the public, to the business community throughout the country, and to members of Congress. Furthermore, through this device, the Commission could be seen as speaking for the business community throughout the country.

To this end, the original idea was to publish the Monetary Commission's preliminary report, adopted in mid-December, as well as the questionnaire replies in a companion volume. Plans for the questionnaire volume fell through, although it was later published as part of a series of publications on political economy and public law by the University of Pennsylvania (Livingston 1986, pp. 107–08).

Undaunted by the slight setback, the executive committee developed new methods of molding public opinion using the questionnaire replies as an organizing tool. In November, Hugh Hanna hired as his Washington assistant financial journalist Charles A. Conant, whose task was to propagandize and organize public opinion for the recommendations of the Commission.

The campaign to beat the drums for the forthcoming Commission report was launched when Conant published an article in the December 1 issue of Sound Currency magazine, taking an advanced line on the Commission report, and bolstering the conclusions not only with his own knowledge of monetary and banking history, but also with frequent statements from the as-yet-unpublished replies to the staff questionnaire.

Over the next several months, Conant worked closely with Jules Guthridge, the general secretary of the Commission; they first induced newspapers throughout the country to print abstracts of the questionnaire replies. As Guthridge wrote some Commission members, he thereby stimulated "public curiosity" about the forthcoming report, and he boasted that by "careful manipulation" he was able to get the preliminary report "printed in whole or in part — principally in part — in nearly 7,500 newspapers, large and small."

In the meantime, Guthridge and Conant orchestrated letters of support from prominent men across the country. When the preliminary report was published on January 3, 1898, Guthridge and Conant made these letters available to the daily newspapers. Quickly, the two built up a distribution system to spread the gospel of the report, organizing nearly 100,000 correspondents "dedicated to the enactment of the commission's plan for banking and currency reform" (Livingston 1986, pp. 109–10).

The prime and immediate emphasis of the preliminary report of the Monetary Commission was to complete the promise of the McKinley victory by codifying and enacting what was already in place de facto: a single gold standard, with silver reduced to the status of subsidiary token currency. Completing the victory over Bryanism and free silver, however, was just a mopping-up operation; more important in the long run was the call raised by the report for banking reform to allow greater elasticity.

Bank credit could then be increased in recessions and whenever seasonal pressure for redemption by agricultural country banks forced the large central reserve banks to contract their loans. The actual measures called for by the Commission were of marginal importance. More important was that the question of banking reform had been raised at all.

Since the public had been aroused by the preliminary report, the executive committee decided to organize the second and final meeting of the Indianapolis Monetary Convention, which duly met at Indianapolis on January 25, 1898. The second convention was a far grander affair than the first, bringing together 496 delegates from 31 states.

Furthermore, the gathering was a cross-section of America's top corporate leaders. While the state of Indiana naturally had the largest delegation, of 85 representatives of boards of trade and chambers of commerce, New York sent 74, including many from the city's Board of Trade and Transportation, Merchant's Association, and Chamber of Commerce.

Such corporate leaders as Cleveland iron manufacturer Alfred A. Pope, president of the National Malleable Castings Company, attended; as did Virgil P. Cline, legal counsel to Rockefeller's Standard Oil Company of Ohio; and C.A. Pillsbury, of Minneapolis–St. Paul, organizer of the world's largest flour mills. From Chicago came such business notables as Marshall Field and Albert A. Sprague, a director of the Chicago Telephone Company, subsidiary of the Morgan-controlled telephone monopoly, American Telephone and Telegraph Company.

Not to be overlooked is delegate Franklin MacVeagh, a wholesale grocer from Chicago, an uncle of a senior partner in the Wall Street law firm of Bangs, Stetson, Tracy, and MacVeagh, counsel to J. P. Morgan and Company. MacVeagh, who was later to become secretary of the treasury in the Taft administration, was wholly in the Morgan ambit. His father-in-law, Henry F. Eames, was the founder of the Commercial National Bank of Chicago, and his brother Wayne was soon to become a trustee of the Morgan-dominated Mutual Life Insurance Company.

The purpose of the second convention, as former Secretary of the Treasury Charles S. Fairchild candidly explained in his address to the gathering, was to mobilize the nation's leading businessmen into a mighty and influential reform movement. As he put it, "if men of business give serious attention and study to these subjects, they will substantially agree upon legislation, and thus agreeing, their influence will be prevailing." He concluded that "My word to you is, pull all together."

Presiding officer of the convention, Iowa's Governor Leslie M. Shaw, was however, a bit disingenuous when he told the gathering, "You represent today not the banks, for there are few bankers on this floor. You represent the business industries and the financial interests of the country." There were plenty of bankers there, too (Livingston 1986, pp. 113–15).

Shaw himself, later to be secretary of the treasury under Theodore Roosevelt, was a small-town banker in Iowa, and president of the Bank of Denison throughout his term as governor. More important in Shaw's outlook and career was the fact that he was a long-time close friend and loyal supporter of the Des Moines Regency, the Iowa Republican machine headed by the powerful Senator William Boyd Allison.

Allison, who was to obtain the Treasury post for his friend, was in turn tied closely to Charles E. Perkins, a close Morgan ally, president of the Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad, and kinsman of the powerful Forbes financial group of Boston, long tied in with the Morgan interests (Rothbard 1984, pp. 95–96).

Also serving as delegates to the second convention were several eminent economists, each of whom, however, came not as academic observers but as representatives of elements of the business community. Professor Jeremiah W. Jenks of Cornell, a proponent of trust cartelization by government and soon to become a friend and advisor of Theodore Roosevelt as governor, came as delegate from the Ithaca Business Men's Association.

Frank W. Taussig of Harvard University represented the Cambridge Merchants' Association. Yale's Arthur Twining Hadley, soon to be the president of Yale, represented the New Haven Chamber of Commerce, and Frank M. Taylor of the University of Michigan came as representative of the Ann Arbor Business Men's Association.

Each of these men held powerful posts in the organized economics profession, Jenks, Taussig, and Taylor serving on the currency committee of the American Economic Association. Hadley, a leading railroad economist, also served on the board of directors of Morgan's New York, New Haven, and Hartford; and Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railroads.[4]

Both Taussig and Taylor were monetary theorists who, while committed to a gold standard, urged reform that would make the money supply more elastic. Taussig called for an expansion of national bank notes, which would inflate in response to the "needs of business." As Taussig (quoted in Dorfman 1949, p. xxxvii; Parrini and Sklar 1983, p. 269) put it, the currency would then "grow without trammels as the needs of the community spontaneously call for increase."

Taylor, too, as one historian puts it, wanted the gold standard to be modified by "a conscious control of the movement of money" by government "in order to maintain the stability of the credit system." Taylor justified governmental suspensions of specie payment to "protect the gold reserve" (Dorfman 1949, pp. 392–93).

On January 26, the convention delegates duly endorsed the preliminary report with virtual unanimity, after which Professor J. Laurence Laughlin was assigned the task of drawing up a more elaborate final report, which was published and distributed a few months later. Laughlin's — and the convention's — final report not only came out in favor of a broadened asset base for a greatly increased amount of national-bank notes, but also called explicitly for a central bank that would enjoy a monopoly of the issue of bank notes.[5]

Meanwhile, the convention delegates took the gospel of banking reform to the length and breadth of the corporate and financial communities. In April 1898, for example, A. Barton Hepburn, president of the Chase National Bank of New York (at that time a flagship commercial bank for the Morgan interests), and a man who would play a large role in the drive to establish a central bank, invited Monetary Commissioner Robert S. Taylor to address the New York State Bankers' Association on the currency question, since "bankers, like other people, need instruction upon this subject." All the monetary commissioners, especially Taylor, were active during the first half of 1898 in exhorting groups of businessmen throughout the nation for monetary reform.

Meanwhile, in Washington, the lobbying team of Hanna and Conant were extremely active. A bill embodying the suggestions of the Monetary Commission was introduced by Indiana Congressman Jesse Overstreet in January, and was reported out by the House Banking and Currency Committee in May. In the meantime, Conant met almost continuously with the banking committee members. At each stage of the legislative process, Hanna sent circular letters to the convention delegates and to the public, urging a letter-writing campaign in support of the bill.

In this agitation, McKinley's Secretary of the Treasury Lyman J. Gage worked closely with Hanna and his staff. Gage sponsored similar bills, and several bills along the same lines were introduced in the House in 1898 and 1899. Gage, a friend of several of the monetary commissioners, was one of the top leaders of the Rockefeller interests in the banking field. His appointment as secretary of the treasury had been gained for him by Ohio's Mark Hanna, political mastermind and financial backer of President McKinley, and old friend, high-school classmate, and business associate of John D. Rockefeller, Sr.

Before his appointment to the Cabinet, Gage was president of the powerful First National Bank of Chicago, one of the major commercial banks in the Rockefeller ambit. During his term in office, Gage tried to operate the Treasury as a central bank, pumping in money during recessions by purchasing government bonds on the open market, and depositing large funds with pet commercial banks. In 1900, Gage called vainly for the establishment of regional central banks.

Finally, in his last annual report as secretary of the treasury in 1901, Lyman Gage let the cat completely out of the bag, calling outright for a government central bank. Without such a central bank, he declared in alarm, "individual banks stand isolated and apart, separated units, with no tie of mutuality between them." Unless a central bank establishes such ties, Gage warned, the Panic of 1893 would be repeated (Livingston 1986, p. 153). When he left office early the next year, Lyman Gage took up his post as president of the Rockefeller-controlled US Trust Company in New York City (Rothbard 1984, pp. 94–95).

The Gold Standard Act of 1900 and After

Any reform legislation had to wait until after the elections of 1898, for the gold forces were not yet in control of Congress. In the autumn, the executive committee of the Indianapolis Monetary Convention mobilized its forces, calling on no less than 97,000 correspondents throughout the country, through whom it had distributed the preliminary report. The executive committee urged its constituency to elect a gold-standard Congress; when the gold forces routed the silverites in November, the results of the election were hailed by Hanna as eminently satisfactory.

The decks were now cleared for the McKinley administration to submit its bill, and the Congress that met in December 1899 quickly passed the measure; Congress then passed the conference report of the Gold Standard Act in March 1900.

The currency reformers had gotten their way. It is well known that the Gold Standard Act provided for a single gold standard, with no retention of silver money except as tokens. Less well known are the clauses that began the march toward a more "elastic" currency. As Lyman Gage had suggested in 1897, national banks, previously confined to large cities, were now made possible with a small amount of capital in small towns and rural areas.

And it was made far easier for national banks to issue notes. The object of these clauses, as one historian put it, was to satisfy an "increased demand for money at crop-moving time, and to meet popular cries for 'more money' by encouraging the organization of national banks in comparatively undeveloped regions" (Livingston 1986, p. 123).

The reformers exulted over the passage of the Gold Standard Act, but took the line that this was only the first step on the much needed path to fundamental banking reform. Thus, Professor Frank W. Taussig of Harvard praised the act, and greeted the emergence of a new social and ideological alignment, caused by "strong pressure from the business community" through the Indianapolis Monetary Convention. He particularly welcomed the fact that the Gold Standard Act "treats the national banks not as grasping and dangerous corporations but as useful institutions deserving the fostering care of the legislature."

But such tender legislative care was not enough; fundamental banking reform was needed. For, Taussig declared, "the changes in banking legislation are not such as to make possible any considerable expansion of the national system or to enable it to render the community the full service of which it is capable." In short, the changes allowed for more and greater expansion of bank credit and the supply of money. Therefore, Taussig (1990, p. 415) concluded, "It is well-nigh certain that eventually Congress will have to consider once more the further remodeling of the national bank system."

In fact, the Gold Standard Act of 1900 was only the opening gun of the banking reform movement. Three friends and financial journalists, two from Chicago, were to play a large role in the development of that movement. Massachusetts-born Charles A. Conant (1861–1915) a leading historian of banking, wrote his A History of Modern Banks of Issue in 1896, while still a Washington correspondent for the New York Journal of Commerce and an editor of Bankers Magazine. After his stint of public relations work and lobbying for the Indianapolis Convention, Conant moved to New York in 1902 to become treasurer of the Morgan-oriented Morton Trust Company.

The two Chicagoans, both friends of Lyman Gage, were, along with Gage, in the Rockefeller ambit: Frank A. Vanderlip was picked by Gage as his assistant secretary of the treasury, and when Gage left office, Vanderlip came to New York as a top executive at the flagship commercial bank of the Rockefeller interests, the National City Bank of New York.

Meanwhile, Vanderlip's close friend and former mentor at the Chicago Tribune, Joseph French Johnson, had also moved east to become professor of finance at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. But no sooner had the Gold Standard Act been passed when Joseph Johnson sounded the trump by calling for more-fundamental reform.

Professor Johnson stated flatly that the existing bank note system was weak in not "responding to the needs of the money market," i.e., not supplying a sufficient amount of money. Since the national banking system was incapable of supplying those needs, Johnson opined, there was no reason to continue it. Johnson deplored the US banking system as the worst in the world, and pointed to the glorious central banking system as existed in Britain and France.[6]

But no such centralized banking system yet existed in the United States: "In the United States, however, there is no single business institution, and no group of large institutions, in which self-interest, responsibility, and power naturally unite and conspire for the protection of the monetary system against twists and strains."

In short, there was far too much freedom and decentralization in the system. In consequence, our massive deposit credit system "trembles whenever the foundations are disturbed," i.e., whenever the chickens of inflationary credit expansion came home to roost in demands for cash or gold. The result of the inelasticity of money, and of the impossibility of interbank cooperation, Johnson opined, was that we were in danger of losing gold abroad just at the time when gold was needed to sustain confidence in the nation's banking system (Johnson 1900, pp. 497f).

After 1900, the banking community was split on the question of reform, the small and rural bankers preferring the status quo. But the large bankers were headed by A. Barton Hepburn of Morgan's Chase National Bank, who drew up a bill as head of a commission of the American Bankers Association, and presented it in late 1901 to Representative Charles N. Fowler of New Jersey, chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee, who had introduced one of the bills that had led to the Gold Standard Act. The Hepburn proposal was reported out of committee in April 1902 as the Fowler Bill (Kolko 1983, pp. 149–50).

The Fowler Bill contained three basic clauses. The first allowed the further expansion of national bank notes based on broader assets than government bonds.

The second, a favorite of the big banks, was to allow national banks to establish branches at home and abroad, a step illegal under the existing system due to fierce opposition by the small country bankers. While branch banking is consonant with a free market and provides a sound and efficient system for calling on other banks for redemption, the big banks had little interest in branch banking unless accompanied by centralization of the banking system.

Third, the Fowler Bill proposed to create a three-member board of control within the Treasury Department to supervise the creation of the new bank notes and to establish clearinghouse associations under its aegis. This provision was designed to be the first step toward the establishment of a full-fledged central bank (Livingston 1986, pp. 150–54).

"While branch banking is consonant with a free market and provides a sound and efficient system for calling on other banks for redemption, the big banks had little interest in branch banking unless accompanied by centralization of the banking system."

Although they could not control the American Bankers Association, the multitude of country bankers, up in arms against the proposed competition of big banks in the form of branch banking, put fierce pressure upon Congress and managed to kill the Fowler Bill in the House during 1902, despite the agitation of the executive committee and staff of the Indianapolis Monetary Convention.

With the defeat of the Fowler Bill, the big bankers decided to settle for more modest goals for the time being. Senator Nelson W. Aldrich of Rhode Island, perennial Republican leader of the US Senate and Rockefeller's man in Congress,[7] submitted the Aldrich Bill the following year, allowing the large national banks in New York to issue "emergency currency" based on municipal and railroad bonds. But even this bill was defeated.

Meeting setbacks in Congress, the big bankers decided to regroup and turn temporarily to the executive branch. Foreshadowing a later, more elaborate collaboration, two powerful representatives each from the Morgan and Rockefeller banking interests met with Comptroller of the Currency William B. Ridgely in January 1903, to try to persuade him, by administrative fiat, to restrict the volume of loans made by the country banks in the New York money market.

The two Morgan men at the meeting were J. P. Morgan himself and George F. Baker, Morgan's closest friend and associate in the banking business.[8] The two Rockefeller men were Frank Vanderlip and James Stillman, long-time chairman of the board of the National City Bank.[9] The close Rockefeller-Stillman alliance was cemented by the marriage of the two daughters of Stillman to the two sons of William Rockefeller, brother of John D. Rockefeller, Sr., and long-time board member of the National City Bank (Burch 1981, pp. 134–35).

The meeting with the comptroller did not bear fruit, but the lead instead was taken by the secretary of the treasury himself, Leslie Shaw, formerly presiding officer at the second Indianapolis Monetary Convention, whom President Roosevelt appointed to replace Lyman Gage. The unexpected and sudden shift from McKinley to Roosevelt in the presidency meant more than just a turnover of personnel; it meant a fundamental shift from a Rockefeller-dominated to a Morgan-dominated administration. The shift from Gage to Shaw was one of the many Rockefeller-to-Morgan displacements.

On monetary and banking matters, however, the Rockefeller and Morgan camps were as one. Secretary Shaw attempted to continue and expand Gage's experiments in trying to make the Treasury function like a central bank, particularly in making open-market purchases in recessions, and in using Treasury deposits to bolster the banks and expand the money supply.

Shaw violated the statutory institution of the independent Treasury, which had tried to confine government revenues and expenditures to its own coffers. Instead, he expanded the practice of depositing Treasury funds in favored, big national banks. Indeed, even banking reformers denounced the deposit of Treasury funds to pet banks as artificially lowering interest rates and leading to artificial expansion of credit. Furthermore, any government deficit would obviously throw a system dependent on a flow of new government revenues into chaos.

All in all, the reformers agreed increasingly with the verdict of economist Alexander Purves, that "the uncertainty as to the Secretary's power to control the banks by arbitrary decisions and orders, and the fact that at some future time the country may be unfortunate in its chief Treasury official [has] … led many to doubt the wisdom" of using the Treasury as a form of central bank (Livingston 1986, 156; Burch 1981, pp. 161–62).

In his last annual report of 1906, Secretary Shaw urged that he be given total power to regulate all the nation's banks. But the game was up, and by then it was clear to the reformers that Shaw's as well as Gage's proto–central bank manipulations had failed. It was time to undertake a struggle for a fundamental legislative overhaul of the American banking system, to bring it under central-banking control.[10]

Charles A. Conant: Surplus Capital and Economic Imperialism

The years shortly before and after 1900 proved to be the beginnings of the drive toward the establishment of a Federal Reserve System. It was also the origin of the gold-exchange standard, the fateful system imposed upon the world by the British in the 1920s and by the United States after World War II at Bretton Woods. Even more than the case of a gold standard with a central bank, the gold-exchange standard establishes a system, in the name of gold, which in reality manages to install coordinated, international, inflationary, paper money.

"The gold-exchange standard establishes a system, in the name of gold, which in reality manages to install coordinated, international, inflationary, paper money."

The idea was to replace a genuine gold standard, in which each country (or, domestically, each bank) maintains its reserves in gold, by a pseudo–gold standard in which the central bank of the client country maintains its reserves in some key or base currency, say pounds, or dollars. Thus, during the 1920s, most countries maintained their reserves in pounds, and only Britain purported to redeem pounds in gold.

This meant that these other countries were really on a pound rather than a gold standard, although they were able, at least temporarily, to acquire the prestige of gold. It also meant that when Britain inflated pounds, there was no danger of losing gold to these other countries, who, quite the contrary, happily inflated their own currencies on top of their expanding balances in pounds sterling.

Thus, there was generated an unstable, inflationary system — all in the name of gold — in which client states pyramided their own inflation on top of Great Britain's. The system was eventually bound to collapse, as did the gold-exchange standard in the Great Depression, and Bretton Woods by the late 1960s. In addition, the close ties based on pounds and then dollars meant that the key or base country was able to exert a form of economic imperialism, joined by their common paper and pseudogold inflation, upon the client states using the key money.

By the late 1890s, groups of theoreticians in the United States were working on what would later be called the "Leninist" theory of capitalist imperialism. The theory was originated, not by Lenin but by advocates of imperialism, centering around such Morgan-oriented friends and brain trusters of Theodore Roosevelt as Henry Adams, Brooks Adams, Admiral Alfred T. Mahan, and Massachusetts Senator Henry Cabot Lodge.

The idea was that capitalism in the developed countries was "overproducing," not simply in the sense that more purchasing power was needed in recessions, but more deeply in that the rate of profit was therefore inevitably falling. The ever-lower rate of profit from the "surplus capital" was in danger of crippling capitalism, except that salvation loomed in the form of foreign markets and especially foreign investments.

New and expanded foreign markets would increase profits, at least temporarily, while investments in undeveloped countries would be bound to bring a high rate of profit. Hence, to save advanced capitalism, it was necessary for Western governments to engage in outright imperialist or neoimperialist ventures, which would force other countries to open their markets for American products and would force open investment opportunities abroad.

Given this doctrine — based on the fallacious Ricardian view that the rate of profit is determined by the stock of capital investment, instead of by the time preferences of everyone in society — there was little for Lenin to change except to give an implicit moral condemnation instead of approval and to emphasize the necessarily temporary nature of the respite imperialism could furnish for capitalists.[11]

"To save advanced capitalism, it was necessary for Western governments to engage in outright imperialist or neoimperialist ventures, which would force other countries to open their markets for American products and would force open investment opportunities abroad."

Charles Conant set forth the theory of surplus capital in his A History of Modern Banks of Issue (1896) and developed it in subsequent essays. The existence of fixed capital and modern technology, Conant claimed, invalidated Say's Law and the concept of equilibrium, and led to chronic "oversavings," which he defined as savings in excess of profitable investment outlets, in the developed Western capitalist world.

Business cycles, claimed Conant, were inherent in the unregulated activity of modern industrial capitalism. Hence the importance of government-encouraged monopolies and cartels to stabilize markets and the business cycle, and in particular the necessity of economic imperialism to force open profitable outlets abroad for American and other Western surplus capital.

The United States' bold venture into an imperialist war against Spain in 1898 galvanized the energies of Conant and other theoreticians of imperialism. Conant responded with his call for imperialism in "The Economic Basis of Imperialism" in the September 1898 North American Review, and in other essays collected in The United States in the Orient: The Nature of the Economic Problem and published in 1900.

S. J. Chapman (1901, p. 78), a distinguished British economist, accurately summarized Conant's argument as follows: (1) "In all advanced countries there has been such excessive saving that no profitable investment for capital remains." (2) Since all countries do not practice a policy of commercial freedom, "America must be prepared to use force if necessary" to open up profitable investment outlets abroad, and (3) the United States possesses an advantage in the coming struggle, since the organization of many of its industries "in the form of trusts will assist it greatly in the fight for commercial supremacy."[12]

The war successfully won, Conant was particularly enthusiastic about the United States keeping the Philippines, the gateway to the great potential Asian market. The United States, he opined, should not be held back by "an abstract theory" to adopt "extreme conclusions" on applying the doctrines of the Founding Fathers on the importance of the consent of the governed.

The Founding Fathers, he declared, surely meant that self-government could only apply to those competent to exercise it, a requirement that clearly did not apply to the backward people of the Philippines. After all, Conant wrote, "Only by the firm hand of the responsible governing races … can the assurance of uninterrupted progress be conveyed to the tropical and undeveloped countries" (Healy 1970, pp. 200–01).

Conant also was bold enough to derive important domestic conclusions from his enthusiasm for imperialism. Domestic society, he claimed, would have to be transformed to make the nation as "efficient" as possible. Efficiency, in particular, meant centralized concentration of power. "Concentration of power, in order to permit prompt and efficient action, will be an almost essential factor in the struggle for world empire."

In particular, it was important for the United States to learn from the magnificent centralization of power and purpose in Czarist Russia. The government of the United States would require "a degree of harmony and symmetry which will permit the direction of the whole power of the state toward definite and intelligent policies." The US Constitution would have to be amended to permit a form of Czarist absolutism, or at the very least an enormously expanded executive power in foreign affairs (Healy, pp. 202–03).

An interesting case study of business opinion energized and converted by the lure of imperialism was the Boston weekly, The US Investor. Before the outbreak of war with Spain in 1898, the US Investor denounced the idea of war as a disaster to business. But after the United States launched its war, and Commodore Dewey seized Manila Bay, the Investor totally changed its tune. Now it hailed the war as excellent for business, and as bringing about recovery from the previous recession.

Soon the Investor was happily advocating a policy of "imperialism" to make US prosperity permanent. Imperialism conveyed marvelous benefits to the country. At home, a big army and navy would be valuable in curbing the tendency of democracy to enjoy "a too great freedom from restraint, both of action and of thought." The Investor added that "European experience demonstrates that the army and navy are admirably adopted to inculcate orderly habits of thought and action."

But an even more important benefit from a policy of permanent imperialism would be economic. To keep "capital … at work," stern necessity requires that "an enlarged field for its product must be discovered." Specifically, "a new field" had to be found for selling the growing flood of goods produced by the advanced nations, and for investment of their savings at profitable rates. The Investor exulted in the fact that this new "field lies ready for occupancy. It is to be found among the semicivilized and barbarian races," in particular the beckoning country of China.

"The US Constitution would have to be amended to permit a form of Czarist absolutism, or at the very least an enormously expanded executive power in foreign affairs."

Particularly interesting is the colloquy that ensued between the Investor, and the Springfield (Mass.) Republican, which still propounded the older theory of free trade and laissez-faire. The Republican asked why trade with undeveloped countries is not sufficient without burdening US taxpayers with administrative and military overhead. The Republican also attacked the new theory of surplus capital, pointing out that only two or three years earlier, businessmen had been loudly calling for more European capital to be invested in American ventures.

To the first charge, the Investor fell back on "the experience of the race for, perhaps ninety centuries, [which] has been in the direction of foreign acquisitions as a means of national prosperity." But, more practically, the Investor delighted over the goodies that imperialism would bring to American business in the way of government contracts and the governmental development of what would now be called the "infrastructure" of the colonies. Furthermore, as in Britain, a greatly expanded diplomatic service would provide "a new calling for our young men of education and ability."

To the Republican's second charge, on surplus capital, the Investor, like Conant, developed the idea of a new age that had just arrived in American affairs: an age of large-scale manufacture and hence overproduction, an age of a low rate of profit, and consequent formation of trusts in a quest for higher profits through suppression of competition.

As the Investor put it, "The excess of capital has resulted in an unprofitable competition. To employ Franklin's witticism, the owners of capital are of the opinion they must hang together or else they will all hang separately." But while trusts may solve the problem of specific industries, they do not solve the great problem of a general "congestion of capital." Indeed, wrote the Investor, "finding employment for capital … is now the greatest of all economic problems that confront us."

To the Investor, the way out was clear:

The logical path to be pursued is that of the development of the natural riches of the tropical countries. These countries are now peopled by races incapable on their own initiative of extracting its full riches from their own soil.… This will be attained in some cases by the mere stimulus of government and direction by men of the temperate zones; but it will be attained also by the application of modern machinery and methods of culture to the agricultural and mineral resources of the undeveloped countries. (Quoted in Etherington 1984, p. 17)

By the spring of 1901, even the eminent economic theorist John Bates Clark, of Columbia University, was able to embrace the new creed. Reviewing proimperialist works by Conant, Brooks Adams, and the Reverend Josiah Strong in a single celebratory review in March 1901 in the Political Science Quarterly, Clark emphasized the importance of opening foreign markets and particularly of investing American capital "with an even larger and more permanent profit" (Parrini and Sklar 1983, p. 565, n. 16).

J. B. Clark was not the only economist ready to join in apologia for the strong state. Throughout the land by the turn of the 20th century, a legion of economists and other social scientists had arisen, many of them trained in graduate schools in Germany to learn of the virtues of the inductive method, the German Historical School, and a collectivist, organicist state. Eager for positions and power commensurate with their graduate training, these new social scientists, in the name of professionalism and technical expertise, prepared to abandon the old laissez-faire creed and take their places as apologists and planners in a new, centrally-planned state.

Professor Edwin R. A. Seligman of Columbia University, of the prominent Wall Street investment banking family of J. and W. Seligman and Company, spoke for many of these social scientists when, in a presidential address before the American Economic Association in 1903, he hailed the "new industrial order."[13] Seligman prophesied that in the new, 20th century, the possession of economic knowledge would grant economists the power "to control … and mold" the material forces of progress. As the economist proved able to forecast more accurately, he would be installed as "the real philosopher of social life," and the public would pay "deference to his views."

In his 1899 presidential address, Arthur Twining Hadley of Yale also saw economists developing as society's philosopher kings. The most important application of economic knowledge, declared Hadley, was leadership in public life, becoming advisers and leaders of national policy. "I believe," opined Hadley,

that their [economists'] largest opportunity in the immediate future lies not in theories but in practice, not with students but with statesmen, not in the education of individual citizens, however widespread and salutary, but in the leadership of an organized body politic. (Silva and Slaughter 1984, p. 103)

Hadley perceptively saw the executive branch of the government as particularly amenable to providing access to position and influence for economic advisers and planners. Previously, executives were hampered in seeking such expert counsel by the importance of political parties, their ideological commitments, and their mass base in the voting population.

But now, fortunately, the growing municipal reform (soon to be called the Progressive) movement was taking power away from political parties and putting it into the hands of administrators and experts. The "increased centralization of administrative power [was giving] … the expert a fair chance."

And now, on the national scene, the new American leap into imperialism in the Spanish-American War was providing an opportunity for increased centralization, executive power, and therefore for administrative and expert planning. Even though Hadley declared himself personally opposed to imperialism, he urged economists to leap at this great opportunity for access to power (Silva and Slaughter 1984, pp. 120–21).

"Throughout the land by the turn of the 20th century, a legion of economists and other social scientists had arisen, many of them trained in graduate schools in Germany to learn of the virtues of the inductive method, the German Historical School, and a collectivist, organicist state."

The organized economic profession was not slow to grasp this new opportunity. Quickly, the executive and nominating committees of the American Economic Association (AEA) created a five-man special committee to organize and publish a volume on colonial finance. As Silva and Slaughter put it, this new, rapidly put together volume permitted the AEA to show the power elite how the new social science could serve the interests of those who made imperialism a national policy by offering technical solutions to the immediate fiscal problems of colonies, as well as providing ideological justifications for acquiring them. (Silva and Slaughter, p. 133)

The chairman of the special committee was Professor Jeremiah W. Jenks of Cornell, the major economic adviser to Governor Theodore Roosevelt. Another member was Professor E. R. A. Seligman, another key adviser to Roosevelt. A third colleague was Dr. Albert Shaw, influential editor of the Review of Reviews, progressive reformer and social scientist, and long-time crony of Roosevelt's. All three were long-time leaders of the American Economic Association.

The other two, non-AEA leaders, on the committee were Edward R. Strobel, former assistant secretary of state and adviser to colonial governments, and Charles S. Hamlin, wealthy Boston lawyer and assistant secretary of the treasury, who had long been in the Morgan ambit, and whose wife was a member of the Pruyn family, longtime investors in two Morgan-dominated concerns: the New York Central Railroad and the Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York.

Essays in Colonial Finance (Jenks et al. 1900), the volume quickly put together by these five leaders, tried to advise the United States how best to run its newly-acquired empire.

First, just as the British government insisted when the North American states were its colonies, the colonies should support their imperial government through taxation, whereas control should be tightly exercised by the US imperial center. Second, the imperial center should build and maintain the economic infrastructure of the colony: canals, railroads, and communications. Third, where — as was clearly anticipated — native labor is inefficient or incapable of management, the imperial government should import (white) labor from the imperial center. And, finally, as Silva and Slaughter put it,

the committee's fiscal recommendations strongly intimated that trained economists were necessary for a successful empire. It was they who must make a thorough study of local conditions to determine the correct fiscal system, gather data, create the appropriate administrative design and perhaps even implement it. In this way, the committee seconded Hadley's views in seeing imperialism as an opportunity for economists by identifying a large number of professional positions best filled by themselves. (Silva and Slaughter 1984, p. 135)

With the volume written, the AEA cast about for financial support for its publication and distribution. The point was not simply to obtain the financing, but to do so in such a way as to gain the imprimatur of leading members of the power elite on this bold move to empower economists as technocratic expert advisers and administrators in the imperial nation-state.

The American Economic Association found five wealthy businessmen to put up two-fifths the full cost of publishing Essays in Colonial Finance. By compiling the volume and then accepting corporate sponsors, several of whom had an economic stake in the new American empire, the AEA was signaling that the nation's organized economists were (1) wholeheartedly in favor of the new American empire; and (2) were willing and eager to play a strong role in advising and administering the empire, a role which they promptly and happily filled, as we shall see in the following section.

In view of the symbolic as well as practical role for the sponsors, a list of the five donors for the colonial-finance volume is instructive.

One was Isaac N. Seligman, head of the investment-banking house of J and W Seligman and Company, a company with extensive overseas interests, especially in Latin America. Isaac's brother E. R. A. Seligman was a member of the special committee on Colonial Finance and an author of one of the essays in the volume.

Another was William E. Dodge, a partner of the copper mining firm of Phelps, Dodge, and Company, and member of a powerful mining family allied to the Morgans.

A third donor was Theodore Marburg, an economist who was vice president of the AEA at the time, and also an ardent advocate of imperialism as well as heir to a substantial American Tobacco Company fortune.

Fourth was Thomas Shearman, a single-taxer and an attorney for the powerful railroad magnate Jay Gould.

And last but not least, was Stuart Wood, a manufacturer who had a PhD in economics and had been a vice president of the AEA.

Conant: Monetary Imperialism and the Gold-Exchange Standard

The leap into political imperialism by the United States in the late 1890s was accompanied by economic imperialism, and one key to economic imperialism was monetary imperialism. In brief, the developed Western countries by this time were on the gold standard, while most of the Third World nations were on the silver standard. For the past several decades, the value of silver in relation to gold had been steadily falling, due to

an increasing world supply of silver relative to gold, and

the subsequent shift of many Western nations from silver or bimetallism to gold, thereby lowering the world's demand for silver as a monetary metal.

The fall of silver values meant monetary depreciation and inflation in the Third World, and it would have been a reasonable policy to shift from a silver-coin to a gold-coin standard. But the new imperialists among US bankers, economists, and politicians were far less interested in the welfare of Third World countries than in foisting a monetary imperialism upon them.

"Hadley perceptively saw the executive branch of the government as particularly amenable to providing access to position and influence for economic advisers and planners."

For not only would the economies of the imperial center and the client states then be tied together, but they would be tied in such a way that these economies could pyramid their own monetary and bank credit inflation on top of inflation in the United States. Hence, what the new imperialists set out to do was pressure or coerce Third World countries to adopt, not a genuine gold-coin standard, but a newly conceived "gold-exchange" or dollar standard.

Instead of silver currency fluctuating freely in terms of gold, the silver to gold rate would then be fixed by arbitrary government price-fixing. The silver countries would be silver in name only; the country's monetary reserve would be held, not in silver, but in dollars allegedly redeemable in gold; and these reserves would be held, not in the country itself, but as dollars piled up in New York City.

In that way, if US banks inflated their credit, there would be no danger of losing gold abroad, as would happen under a genuine gold standard. For under a true gold standard, no one and no country would be interested in piling up claims to dollars overseas. Instead, they would demand payment of dollar claims in gold. So that even though these American bankers and economists were all too aware, after many decades of experience, of the fallacies and evils of bimetallism, they were willing to impose a form of bimetallism upon client states in order to tie them into US economic imperialism, and to pressure them into inflating their own money supplies on top of dollar reserves supposedly, but not de facto, redeemable in gold.

The United States first confronted the problem of silver currencies in a Third World country when it seized control of Puerto Rico from Spain in 1898 and occupied it as a permanent colony. Fortunately for the imperialists, Puerto Rico was already ripe for currency manipulation. Only three years earlier, in 1895, Spain had destroyed the full-bodied Mexican silver currency that its colony had previously enjoyed, and replaced it with a heavily debased silver "dollar," worth only 41 cents in US currency. The Spanish government had pocketed the large seigniorage profits from that debasement.

The United States was therefore easily able to substitute its own debased silver dollar, worth only 45.6 cents in gold. Thus, the United States' silver currency replaced an even more debased one, and also the Puerto Ricans had no tradition of loyalty to a currency only recently imposed by the Spaniards. There was therefore little or no opposition in Puerto Rico to the US monetary takeover.[14]

The major controversial question was what exchange rate the American authorities would fix between the two debased coins: the old Puerto Rican silver peso and the US silver dollar. This was the rate at which the US authorities would compel the Puerto Ricans to exchange their existing coinage for the new American coins.

The treasurer in charge of the currency reform for the US government was the prominent Johns Hopkins economist, Jacob H. Hollander, who had been special commissioner to revise Puerto Rican tax laws, and who was one of the new breed of academic economists repudiating laissez-faire for comprehensive statism.

"So that even though these American bankers and economists were all too aware, after many decades of experience, of the fallacies and evils of bimetallism, they were willing to impose a form of bimetallism upon client states in order to tie them into US economic imperialism."

The heavy debtors in Puerto Rico — mainly the large sugar planters — naturally wanted to pay their peso obligations at as cheap a rate as possible; they lobbied for a peso worth 50 cents American. In contrast, the Puerto Rican banker-creditors wanted the rate fixed at 75 cents. Since the exchange rate was arbitrary anyway, Hollander and the other American officials decided in the time-honored way of governments: more or less splitting the difference, and fixing a peso equal to 60 cents.[15]

The Philippines, the other Spanish colony grabbed by the United States, posed a far more difficult problem. As in most of the Far East, the Philippines was happily using a perfectly sound silver currency, the Mexican silver dollar. But the United States was anxious for a rapid reform, because its large armed forces establishment suppressing Filipino nationalism required heavy expenses in US dollars, which it of course declared to be legal tender for payments. Since the Mexican silver coin was also legal tender and was cheaper than the US gold dollar, the US military occupation found its revenues being paid in unwanted and cheaper Mexican coins.

Delicacy was required, and in 1901, for the task of currency takeover the Bureau of Insular Affairs (BIA) of the War Department — the agency running the US occupation of the Philippines — hired Charles A. Conant for the task. Secretary of War Elihu Root was a redoubtable Wall Street lawyer in the Morgan ambit who sometimes served as J. P. Morgan's personal attorney. Root took a personal hand in sending Conant to the Philippines. Conant, fresh from the Indianapolis Monetary Commission and before going to New York as a leading investment banker, was, as might be expected, an ardent gold-exchange-standard imperialist as well as the leading theoretician of economic imperialism.

Realizing that the Filipino people loved their silver coins, Conant devised a way to impose a gold US dollar currency upon the country. Under his cunning plan, the Filipinos would continue to have a silver currency; but replacing the full-bodied Mexican silver coin would be an American silver coin tied to gold at a debased value far less than the market exchange value of silver in terms of gold. In this imposed, debased bimetallism, since the silver coin was deliberately overvalued in relation to gold by the US government, Gresham's law went inexorably into effect. The overvalued silver would keep circulating in the Philippines, and undervalued gold would be kept sharply out of circulation.

The seigniorage profit that the Treasury would reap from the debasement would be happily deposited at a New York bank, which would then function as a "reserve" for the US silver currency in the Philippines. Thus, the New York funds would be used for payment outside the Philippines instead of as coin or specie. Moreover, the US government could issue paper dollars based on its new reserve fund.

It should be noted that Conant originated the gold-exchange scheme as a way of exploiting and controlling Third World economies based on silver. At the same time, Great Britain was introducing similar schemes in its colonial areas in Egypt, the Straits Settlements in Asia, and particularly in India.

"Conant originated the gold-exchange scheme as a way of exploiting and controlling Third World economies based on silver."

Congress, however, pressured by the silver lobby, balked at the BIA's plan. And so the BIA again turned to the seasoned public relations and lobbying skills of Charles A. Conant. Conant swung into action. Meeting with editors of the top financial journals, he secured their promises to write editorials pushing for the Conant plan, many of which he obligingly wrote himself.

He was already backed by the American banks of Manila. Recalcitrant US bankers were warned by Conant that they could no longer expect large government deposits from the War Department if they continued to oppose the plan. Furthermore, Conant won the support of the major enemies of his plan, the American silver companies and prosilver bankers, promising them that if the Philippine currency reform went through, the federal government would buy silver for the new US coinage in the Philippines from these same companies. Finally, the tireless lobbying, and the mixture of bribery and threats by Conant, paid off. Congress passed the Philippine Currency Bill in March 1903.

In the Philippines, however, the United States could not simply duplicate the Puerto Rican example and coerce the conversion of the old for the new silver coinage. For the Mexican silver coin was a dominant coin not only in the Far East but throughout the world, and the coerced conversion would have been endless.

The United States tried; it removed the legal tender privilege from the Mexican coins, and decreed the new US coins to be used for taxes, government salaries, and other government payments. But this time the Filipinos happily used the old Mexican coins as money, while the US silver coins disappeared from circulation into payment of taxes and transactions to the United States.

The War Department was beside itself: how could it drive Mexican silver coinage out of the Philippines? In desperation, it turned to the indefatigable Conant, but Conant couldn't join the colonial government in the Philippines because he had just been appointed to a more far-flung presidential commission on international exchange for pressuring Mexico and China to go on a similar gold-exchange standard.

Hollander, fresh from his Puerto Rican triumph, was ill. Who else? Conant, Hollander, and several leading bankers told the War Department they could recommend no one for the job, so new then was the profession of technical expert in monetary imperialism.

But there was one more hope, the other procartelist and financial imperialist, Cornell's Jeremiah W. Jenks, a fellow member with Conant of President Roosevelt's new Commission on International Exchange (CIE). Jenks had already paved the way for Conant by visiting English and Dutch colonies in the Far East in 1901 to gain information about running the Philippines. Jenks finally came up with a name, his former graduate student at Cornell, Edwin W. Kemmerer.

"There was more of a public-private partnership between the US government and the investment bankers, with the bankers supplying their own funds, and the State Department supplying good will and more concrete resources."

Young Kemmerer went to the Philippines from 1903 to 1906, to implement the Conant plan. Based on the theories of Jenks and Conant, and on his own experience in the Philippines, Kemmerer went on to teach at Cornell and then at Princeton, and gained fame throughout the 1920s as the "money doctor," busily imposing the gold-exchange standard on country after country abroad.

Relying on Conant's behind-the-scenes advice, Kemmerer and his associates finally came out with a successful scheme to drive out the Mexican silver coins. It was a plan that relied heavily on government coercion. The United States imposed a legal prohibition on the importation of the Mexican coins, followed by severe taxes on any private Philippine transactions daring to use the Mexican currency.

Luckily for the planners, their scheme was aided by a large-scale demand at the time for Mexican silver in northern China, which absorbed silver that was in the Philippines or that would have been smuggled into the islands. The US success was aided by the fact that the new US silver coins, perceptively called "conants" by the Filipinos, were made up to look very much like the cherished old Mexican coins. By 1905, force, luck, and trickery had prevailed, and the conants (worth 50 cents in US money) were the dominant currency in the Philippines. Soon the US authorities were confident enough to add token copper coins and paper conants as well.[16]

By 1903, the currency reformers felt emboldened enough to move against the Mexican silver dollar throughout the world. In Mexico itself, US industrialists who wanted to invest there pressured the Mexicans to shift from silver to gold, and they found an ally in powerful finance minister Jose Limantour. But tackling the Mexican silver peso at home would not be an easy task, for the coin was known and used throughout the world, particularly in China, where it formed the bulk of the circulating coinage.

Finally, after three-way talks between US, Mexican, and Chinese officials, the Mexicans and Chinese were induced to send identical notes to the US Secretary of State, urging the United States to appoint financial advisers to bring about a currency reform and stabilized exchange rates with the gold countries (Parrini and Sklar 1983, pp. 573–77; Rosenberg 1985, p. 184).

These requests gave President Roosevelt, upon securing Congressional approval, the excuse to appoint in March 1903 a three-man Commission on International Exchange to bring about currency reform in Mexico, China, and the rest of the silver-using world. The aim was "to bring about a fixed relationship between the moneys of the gold-standard countries and the present silver-using countries," in order to foster "export trade and investment opportunities" in the gold countries and economic development in the silver countries.

The three members of the CIE were old friends and like-minded colleagues. The chairman was Hugh H. Hanna, of the Indianapolis Monetary Commission, the others were his former chief aide at that Commission, Charles A. Conant, and Professor Jeremiah W. Jenks. Conant, as usual, was the major theoretician and finagler. He realized that major opposition to Mexico and China's shift to a gold standard would come from the important Mexican-silver industry, and he devised a scheme to get European countries to purchase large amounts of Mexican silver to ease the pain of the shift.

"It is clear that the devotion to the gold standard of Conant and of his colleagues was only to a debased and inflationary standard controlled and manipulated by the US government, with gold really serving as a facade of allegedly hard money."

In a trip to European nations in the summer of 1903, however, Conant and the CIE found the Europeans less than enthusiastic about making Mexican silver purchases as well as subsidizing US exports and investments in China, a land whose market they too were coveting. In the United States, on the other hand, major newspapers and financial periodicals, prodded by Conant's public relations work, warmly endorsed the new currency scheme.

In the meantime, however, the United States faced similar currency problems in its two new Caribbean protectorates, Cuba and Panama. Panama was easy. The United States occupied the Canal Zone, and would be importing vast amounts of equipment to build the canal, and so it decided to impose the American gold dollar as the currency in the nominally independent Republic of Panama.

While the gold dollar was the official currency of Panama, the United States imposed as the actual medium of exchange a new debased silver peso worth 50 cents. Fortunately, the new peso was almost the same in value as the old Colombian silver coin it forcibly displaced, and so, like Puerto Rico, the takeover could go without a hitch.

Among the US colonies or protectorates, Cuba proved the toughest nut to crack. Despite all of Conant's ministrations, Cuba's currency remained unreformed. Spanish gold and silver coins, French coins, and US currency all circulated side by side, freely fluctuating in response to supply and demand. Furthermore, similar to the prereformed Philippines, a fixed bimetallic exchange rate between the cheaper US, and the more valuable Spanish and French, coins led the Cubans to return cheaper US coins to the US customs authorities in fees and revenues.

Why then did Conant fail in Cuba? In the first place, strong Cuban nationalism resented US plans for seizing control of their currency. Conant's repeated request in 1903 for a Cuban invitation for the CIE to visit the island met stern rejections from the Cuban government. Moreover, the charismatic US military commander in Cuba, Leonard Wood, wanted to avoid giving the Cubans the impression that plans were afoot to reduce Cuba to colonial status.

The second objection was economic. The powerful sugar industry in Cuba depended on exports to the United States, and a shift from depreciated silver to higher-valued gold money would increase the cost of sugar exports, by an amount Leonard Wood estimated to be about 20 percent.

While the same problem had existed for the sugar planters in Puerto Rico, American economic interests, in Puerto Rico and in other countries such as the Philippines favored forcing formerly silver countries onto a gold-based standard so as to stimulate US exports into those countries. In Cuba, on the other hand, there was increasing US investment capital pouring into the Cuban sugar plantations, so that powerful and even dominant US economic interests existed on the other side of the currency reform question. Indeed, by World War I, American investments in Cuban sugar reached the sum of $95 million.

Thus, when Charles Conant resumed his pressure for a Cuban gold-exchange standard in 1907, he was strongly opposed by the US Governor of Cuba, Charles Magoon, who raised the problem of a gold-based standard crippling the sugar planters. The CIE never managed to visit Cuba, and ironically, Charles Conant died in Cuba, in 1915, trying in vain to convince the Cubans of the virtues of the gold-exchange standard (Rosenberg 1985, pp. 186–88).

The Mexican shift from silver to gold was more gratifying to Conant, but here the reform was effected by Foreign Minister Limantour and his indigenous technicians, with the CIE taking a back seat. However, the success of this shift, in the Mexican Currency Reform Act of 1905, was assured by a world rise in the price of silver, starting the following year, which made gold coins cheaper than silver, with Gresham's law bringing about a successful gold coin currency in Mexico.

But the US silver coinage in the Philippines ran into trouble because of the rise in the world silver price. Here, the US silver currency in the Philippines was bailed out by coordinated action by the Mexican government, which sold silver in the Philippines to lower the value of silver sufficiently so that the Conants could be brought back into circulation.[17]

But the big failure of Conant/CIE monetary imperialism was in China. In 1900, Britain, Japan, and the United States intervened in China to put down the Boxer Rebellion. The three countries thereupon forced defeated China to agree to pay them and all major European powers an indemnity of $333 million.

The United States interpreted the treaty as an obligation to pay in gold, but China, on a depreciated silver standard, began to pay in silver in 1903, an action that enraged the three treaty powers. The US minister to China reported that Britain might declare China's payment in silver a violation of the treaty, which would presage military intervention.

Emboldened by the United States' success in the Philippines, Panama, and Mexico, Secretary of War Root sent Jeremiah W. Jenks on a mission to China in early 1904 to try to transform China from a silver- to a gold-exchange standard. Jenks also wrote to President Roosevelt from China urging that the Chinese indemnity to the United States from the Boxer Rebellion be used to fund exchange professorships for 30 years.

Jenks's mission, however, was a total failure. The Chinese understood the CIE currency scheme all too well. They saw and denounced the seigniorage of the gold-exchange standard as an irresponsible and immoral debasement of Chinese currency, an act that would impoverish China while adding to the profits of US banks where seigniorage reserve funds would be deposited.

Moreover, the Chinese officials saw that shifting the indemnity from silver to gold would enrich the European governments at the expense of the Chinese economy. They also noted that the CIE scheme would establish a foreign controller of the Chinese currency to impose banking regulations and economic reforms on the Chinese economy. We need not wonder at the Chinese outrage. China's reaction was its own nationalistic currency reform in 1905 to replace the Mexican silver coin with a new Chinese silver coin, the tael (Rosenberg 1985, pp. 189–92).

Jenks's ignominious failure in China put an end to any formal role for the Commission on International Exchange.[18] An immediately following fiasco blocked the US government's use of economic and financial advisers to spread the gold-exchange standard abroad. In 1905, the State Department hired Jacob Hollander to move another of its Latin American client states, the Dominican Republic, onto the gold-exchange standard.

When Hollander accomplished this task by the end of the year, the State Department asked the Dominican government to hire Hollander to work out a plan for financial reform, including a US loan, and a customs service run by the United States to collect taxes for repayment of the loan. Hollander, son-in-law of prominent Baltimore merchant Abraham Hutzler, used his connection with Kuhn, Loeb and Company to place Dominican bonds with that investment bank.

Hollander also engaged happily in double dipping for the same work, collecting fees for the same job from the State Department and from the Dominican government. When this peccadillo was discovered in 1911, the scandal made it impossible for the US government to use its own employees and its own funds to push for gold-exchange experts abroad. From then on, there was more of a public-private partnership between the US government and the investment bankers, with the bankers supplying their own funds, and the State Department supplying good will and more concrete resources.

Thus, in 1911–1912, the United States, over great opposition, imposed a gold-exchange standard on Nicaragua. The State Department formally stepped aside, but approved Charles Conant's hiring by the powerful investment-banking firm of Brown Brothers to bring about a loan and the currency reform. The State Department lent not only its approval to the project, but also its official wires, for Conant and Brown Brothers to conduct the negotiations with the Nicaraguan government.

By the time he died in Cuba in 1915, Charles Conant had made himself the chief theoretician and practitioner of the gold-exchange and the economic-imperialist movements. Aside from his successes in the Philippines, Panama, and Mexico, and his failures in Cuba and China, Conant led in pushing for gold-exchange reform and gold-dollar imperialism in Liberia, Bolivia, Guatemala, and Honduras. His magnum opus in favor of the gold-exchange standard, the two-volume The Principles of Money and Banking (1905), as well as his pathbreaking success in the Philippines, were followed by a myriad of books, articles, pamphlets, and editorials, always backed up by his personal propaganda efforts.

Particularly interesting were Conant's arguments in favor of a gold-exchange, rather than a genuine gold-coin, standard. A straight gold-coin standard, Conant believed, did not provide a sufficient amount of gold to provide for the world's monetary needs.

Hence, by tying the existing silver standards in the undeveloped countries to gold, the "shortage" of gold could be overcome, and also the economies of the undeveloped countries could be integrated into those of the dominant imperial power. All this could only be done if the gold-exchange standard were "designed and implemented by careful government policy," but of course Conant himself and his friends and disciples always stood ready to advise and provide such implementation (Rosenberg 1985, p. 197).

In addition, adopting a government-managed gold-exchange standard was superior to either genuine gold or bimetallism because it left each state the flexibility of adapting its currency to local needs. As Conant asserted,

It leaves each state free to choose the means of exchange which conform best to its local conditions. Rich nations are free to choose gold, nations less rich silver, and those whose financial methods are most advanced are free to choose paper.

It is interesting that for Conant, paper was the most "advanced" form of money. It is clear that the devotion to the gold standard of Conant and of his colleagues was only to a debased and inflationary standard controlled and manipulated by the US government, with gold really serving as a facade of allegedly hard money.

And one of the critical forms of government manipulation and control in Conant's proposed system was the existence and active functioning of a central bank. As a founder of the "science" of financial advising to governments, Conant, followed by his colleagues and disciples, not only pushed a gold-exchange standard wherever he could do so, but also a central bank to manage and control that standard. As Emily Rosenberg points out,

Conant thus did not neglect … one of the major revolutionary changes implicit in his system: a new, important role for a central bank as a currency stabilizer. Conant strongly supported the American banking reform that culminated in the Federal Reserve System … and American financial advisers who followed Conant would spread central banking systems, along with gold-standard currency reforms, to the countries they advised. (Rosenberg 1985, p. 198)

Along with a managed gold-exchange standard would come, as replacement for the old free-trade, unmanaged, gold-coin standard, a world of imperial currency blocs, which "would necessarily come into being as lesser countries deposited their gold stabilization funds in the banking systems of more advanced countries" (ibid.). New York and London banks, in particular, shaped up as the major reserve fundholders in the developing new world monetary order.

It is no accident that the United States' major financial and imperial rival, Great Britain, which was pioneering in imposing gold-exchange standards in its own colonial area at this time, built upon this experience to impose a gold-exchange standard, marked by all European currencies pyramiding on top of British inflation, during the 1920s. That disastrous inflationary experiment led straight to the worldwide banking crash and the general shift to fiat paper moneys in the early 1930s. After World War II, the United States took up the torch of a world gold-exchange standard at Bretton Woods, with the dollar replacing the pound sterling in a worldwide inflationary system that lasted approximately 25 years.

Nor should it be thought that Charles A. Conant was the purely disinterested scientist he claimed to be. His currency reforms directly benefitted his investment banker employers. Thus, Conant was treasurer, from 1902 to 1906, of the Morgan-run Morton Trust Company of New York, and it was surely no coincidence that Morton Trust was the bank that held the reserve funds for the governments of the Philippines, Panama, and the Dominican Republic, after their respective currency reforms. In the Nicaragua negotiations, Conant was employed by the investment bank of Brown Brothers, and in pressuring other countries he was working for Speyer and Company and other investment bankers.

After Conant died in 1915, there were few to pick up the mantle of foreign financial advising. Hollander was in disgrace after the Dominican debacle. Jenks was aging, and lived in the shadow of his China failure, but the State Department did appoint Jenks to serve as a director of the Nicaraguan National Bank in 1917, and also hired him to study the Nicaraguan financial picture in 1925.

But the true successor of Conant was Edwin W. Kemmerer, the "money doctor." After his Philippine experience, Kemmerer joined his old Professor Jenks at Cornell, and then moved to Princeton in 1912, publishing his book Modern Currency Reforms in 1916. As the leading foreign financial adviser of the 1920s, Kemmerer not only imposed central banks and a gold-exchange standard on Third World countries, but also got them to levy higher taxes.

Kemmerer, too, combined his public employment with service to leading international bankers. During the 1920s, Kemmerer worked as a banking expert for the US government's Dawes Commission, headed special financial advisory missions to over a dozen countries, and was kept on a handsome retainer by the distinguished investment banking firm of Dillon and Read from 1922 to 1929. In that era, Kemmerer and his mentor Jenks were the only foreign-currency-reform experts available for advising. In the late 1920s, Kemmerer helped establish a chair of international economics at Princeton, which he occupied, and from which he could train students like Arthur N. Young and William W. Cumberland. In the mid-1920s, the money doctor served as president of the American Economic Association.[19]

Jacob Schiff Ignites the Drive for a Central Bank

The defeat of the Fowler Bill for broader asset currency and branch banking in 1902, coupled with the failure of Secretary of Treasury Shaw's attempts of 1903–1905 to use the Treasury as a central bank, led the big bankers and their economist allies to adopt a new solution: the frank imposition of a central bank in the United States.

"In short, there was far too much freedom and decentralization in the system."

The campaign for a central bank was kicked off by a fateful speech in January 1906 by the powerful Jacob H. Schiff, head of the Wall Street investment bank of Kuhn, Loeb and Co., before the New York Chamber of Commerce. Schiff complained that, in the autumn of 1905, when "the country needed money," the Treasury, instead of working to expand the money supply, reduced government deposits in the national banks, thereby precipitating a financial crisis, a "disgrace" in which the New York clearinghouse banks had been forced to contract their loans drastically, sending interest rates sky-high. An "elastic currency" for the nation was therefore imperative, and Schiff urged the New York Chamber's committee on finance to draw up a comprehensive plan for a modern banking system to provide for an elastic currency (Bankers Magazine 1906, pp. 114–15).

A colleague who had already been agitating behind the scenes for a central bank was Schiff's partner, Paul Moritz Warburg, who had suggested the plan to Schiff as early as 1903. Warburg had emigrated from the German investment firm of M. M. Warburg and Company in 1897, and before long his major function at Kuhn, Loeb was to agitate to bring the blessings of European central banking to the United States.[20]

It took less than a month for the finance committee of the New York Chamber to issue its report, but the bank reformers were furious, denouncing it as remarkably ignorant. When Frank A. Vanderlip, of Rockefeller's flagship bank, the National City Bank of New York, reported on this development, his boss, James Stillman, suggested that a new five-man special commission be set up by the New York Chamber to come back with a plan for currency reform.

In response, Vanderlip proposed that the five-man commission consist of himself; Schiff; J. P. Morgan; George Baker of the First National Bank of New York, Morgan's closest and longest associate; and former Secretary of the Treasury Lyman Gage, now president of the Rockefeller-controlled US Trust Company. Thus, the commission would consist of two Rockefeller men (Vanderlip and Gage), two Morgan men (Morgan and Baker), and one representative from Kuhn, Loeb.

Only Vanderlip was available to serve, however, so the commission had to be redrawn. In addition to Vanderlip, beginning in March 1906, there sat, instead of Schiff, his close friend Isidore Straus, a director of R. H. Macy and Company. Instead of Morgan and Baker there now served two Morgan men: Dumont Clarke, president of the American Exchange National Bank and a personal adviser to J. P. Morgan and Charles A. Conant, treasurer of Morton and Company. The fifth man was a veteran of the Indianapolis Monetary Convention, John Claflin, of H. B. Claflin and Company, a large integrated wholesaling concern. Coming on board as secretary of the new currency committee was Vanderlip's old friend Joseph French Johnson, now of New York University, who had been calling for a central bank since 1900.

"The reformers wanted a credit inflation controlled by and confined to the large national banks; they most emphatically did not want uncontrolled state-bank inflation that would siphon resources to small entrepreneurs and "speculative" marginal producers."

The commission used the old Indianapolis questionnaire technique: acquiring legitimacy by sending out a detailed questionnaire on currency to a number of financial leaders. With Johnson in charge of mailing and collating the questionnaire replies, Conant spent his time visiting and interviewing the heads of the central banks in Europe.

The special commission delivered its report to the New York Chamber in October, 1906. To eliminate instability and the danger of an inelastic currency, the commission called for the creation of a "central bank of issue under the control of the government." In keeping with other bank reformers, such as Professor Abram Piatt Andrew of Harvard University, Thomas Nixon Carver of Harvard, and Albert Strauss, partner of J. P. Morgan and Company, the commission was scornful of Secretary Shaw's attempt to use the Treasury as a central bank. Shaw was particularly obnoxious because he was still insisting, in his last annual report of 1906, that the Treasury, under his aegis, had constituted a "great central bank."

The commission, along with the other reformers, denounced the Treasury for overinflating by keeping interest rates excessively low; a central bank, in contrast, would have much larger capital and undisputed control over the money market, and thus would be able to manipulate the discount rate effectively to keep the economy under proper control. The important point, declared the committee, is that there be "centralization of financial responsibility." In the meantime, short of establishing a central bank, the committee urged that, at the least, the national bank's powers to issue notes be expanded to include being based on general assets as well as government bonds (Livingston 1986, pp. 159–64).

After drafting and publishing this "Currency Report," the reformers used the report as the lever for expanding the agitation for a central bank and broader note-issue powers to other corporate and financial institutions. The next step was the powerful American Bankers Association (ABA). In 1905, the executive council of the ABA had appointed a currency committee which, the following year, recommended an emergency-assets currency that would be issued by a federal commission, resembling an embryonic central bank.

In a tumultuous plenary session of the ABA convention in October, 1906, the ABA rejected this plan, but agreed to appoint a 15-man currency commission that was instructed to meet with the New York Chamber currency committee and attempt to agree on appropriate legislation.

Particularly prominent on the ABA currency commission were,

Arthur Reynolds, president of the Des Moines National Bank, close to the Morgan-oriented Des Moines Regency, and brother of the prominent Chicago banker, George M. Reynolds, formerly of Des Moines and then president of the Morgan-oriented Continental National Bank of Chicago and the powerful chairman of the executive council of the ABA.

James B. Forgan, president of the Rockefeller-run First National Bank of Chicago, and close friend of Jacob Schiff of Kuhn, Loeb, as well as of Vanderlip.

Joseph T. Talbert, vice president of the Rockefeller-dominated Commercial National Bank of Chicago, and soon to become vice president of Rockefeller's flagship bank, the National City Bank of New York.

Myron T. Herrick, one of the most prominent Rockefeller politicians and businessmen in the country. Herrick was the head of the Cleveland Society of Savings, and was one of the small team of close Rockefeller business allies who, along with Mark Hanna, bailed out Governor William McKinley from bankruptcy in 1893. Herrick was a previous president of the ABA, had just finished a two-year stint as Governor of Ohio, and was later to become Ambassador to France under his old friend and political ally William Howard Taft as well as later under President Warren G. Harding, also a recipient of Herrick's political support and financial largesse.

Chairman of the ABA commission was A. Barton Hepburn, president of one of the leading Morgan commercial banks, the Chase National Bank of New York, and author of the well-regarded History of Coinage and Currency in the United States.

After meeting with Vanderlip and Conant as the representatives from the New York Chamber committee, the ABA commission, along with Vanderlip and Conant, agreed on at least the transition demands of the reformers. The ABA commission presented proposals to the public, the press, and the Congress in December 1906, for a broader-asset currency as well as provisions for emergency issue of banknotes by national banks.

But just as sentiment for a broader-assets currency became prominent, the bank reformers began to worry about an uncontrolled adoption of such a currency. For that would mean that national-bank credit and notes would expand, and that, in the existing system, small state banks would be able to pyramid and inflate credit on top of the national credit, using the expanded national bank notes as their reserves.

The reformers wanted a credit inflation controlled by and confined to the large national banks; they most emphatically did not want uncontrolled state-bank inflation that would siphon resources to small entrepreneurs and "speculative" marginal producers. The problem was aggravated by the accelerated rate of increase in the number of small southern and western state banks after 1900.

Another grave problem for the reformers was that commercial paper was a different system from that of Europe. In Europe, commercial paper, and hence bank assets, were two-name notes endorsed by a small group of wealthy acceptance banks. In contrast to this acceptance paper system, commercial paper in the United States was unendorsed single-name paper, with the bank taking a chance on the creditworthiness of the business borrower. Hence, a decentralized financial system in the United States was not subject to big-banker control.

Worries about the existing system and hence about uncontrolled asset currency were voiced by the top bank reformers. Thus, Vanderlip expressed concern that "there are so many state banks that might count these [national-bank] notes in their reserves." Schiff warned that "it will prove unwise, if not dangerous, to clothe six thousand banks or more with the privilege to issue independently a purely credit currency." And, from the Morgan side, a similar concern was voiced by Victor Morawetz, the powerful chairman of the board of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad (Livingston 1986, pp. 168–69).

Taking the lead in approaching this problem of small banks and decentralization was Paul Moritz Warburg, of Kuhn, Loeb, fresh from his banking experience in Europe. In January 1907, Warburg began years of tireless agitation for central banking with two articles, "Defects and Needs of our Banking System," and "A Plan for a Modified Central Bank."[21]

Calling openly for a central bank, Warburg pointed out that one of the important functions of such a bank would be to restrict the eligibility of bank assets to be used for expansion of bank deposits. Presumably, too, the central bank could move to require banks to use acceptance paper or otherwise try to create an acceptance market in the United States.[22]

By the summer of 1907, the Bankers Magazine was reporting a decline in influential banker support for broadening asset currency and a strong move toward the "central bank project." Bankers Magazine (1907, pp. 314–15) noted as a crucial reason the fact that asset currency would be expanding bank services to "small producers and dealers."

It was surely no accident that Warburg himself was the principal beneficiary of this policy. Warburg became Chairman of the Board, from its founding in 1920, of the International Acceptance Bank, the world's largest acceptance bank, as well as director of the Westinghouse Acceptance Bank and of several other acceptance houses. In 1919, Warburg was the chief founder and chairman of the executive committee of the American Acceptance Council, the trade association of acceptance houses. (See Rothbard 1983, pp. 119–23).

The Panic of 1907 and Mobilization for a Central Bank

A severe financial crisis, the Panic of 1907, struck in early October. Not only was there a general recession and contraction, but the major banks in New York and Chicago were, as in most other depressions in American history, allowed by the government to suspend specie payments; that is, to continue in operation while being relieved of their contractual obligation to redeem their notes and deposits in cash or in gold.

While the Treasury had stimulated inflation during 1905–1907, there was nothing it could do to prevent suspensions of payment, or to alleviate "the competitive hoarding of currency" after the panic; that is, the attempt to demand cash in return for increasingly shaky bank notes and deposits.

Very quickly after the panic, banker and business opinion consolidated on behalf of a central bank, an institution that could regulate the economy and serve as a lender of last resort to bail banks out of trouble. The reformers now faced a two-fold task: hammering out details of a new central bank, and more importantly, mobilizing public opinion on its behalf.

"Very quickly after the panic, banker and business opinion consolidated on behalf of a central bank. The task was made easier by the growing alliance and symbiosis between academia and the power elite."

The first step in such mobilization was to win the support of the nation's academics and experts. The task was made easier by the growing alliance and symbiosis between academia and the power elite. Two organizations that proved particularly useful for this mobilization were the American Academy of Political and Social Science (AAPSS) of Philadelphia, and the Academy of Political Science (APS) of Columbia University, both of which included in their ranks leading corporate-liberal businessmen, financiers, attorneys, and academics.

Nicholas Murray Butler, the highly influential president of Columbia University, explained that the Academy of Political Science "is an intermediary between … the scholars and the men of affairs, those who may perhaps be said to be amateurs in scholarship." Here, he pointed out, is where they "come together" (Livingston 1986, p. 175, n. 30).

It is not surprising, then, that the American Academy of Political and Social Science, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), and Columbia University held three symposia during the winter of 1907–1908, each calling for a central bank, and thereby disseminating the message of a central bank to a carefully selected elite public. Not surprisingly, too, E. R. A. Seligman was the organizer of the Columbia conference, gratified that his university was providing a platform for leading bankers and financial journalists to advocate a central bank, especially, he added, because "it is proverbially difficult in a democracy to secure a hearing for the conclusions of experts." Then in 1908 Seligman collected the addresses into a volume, The Currency Problem.

Professor Seligman set the tone for the gathering in his opening address. The Panic of 1907, he alleged, was moderate because its effects had been tempered by the growth of industrial trusts, which provided a more controlled and "more correct adjustment of present investment to future needs" than would a "horde of small competitors." In that way, Seligman displayed no comprehension of how competitive markets facilitate adjustments.

One big problem, however, still remained for Seligman. The horde of small competitors, for whom Seligman had so much contempt, still prevailed in the field of currency and banking. The problem was that the banking system was still decentralized. As Seligman declared, "Even more important than the inelasticity of our note issue is its decentralization. The struggle which has been victoriously fought out everywhere else [in creating trusts] must be undertaken here in earnest and with vigor" (Livingston 1986, p. 177).

The next address was that of Frank Vanderlip. To Vanderlip, in contrast to Seligman, the Panic of 1907 was "one of the great calamities of history" — the result of a decentralized, competitive American banking system, with 15,000 banks all competing vigorously for control of cash reserves. The terrible thing is that "each institution stands alone, concerned first with its own safety, and using every endeavor to pile up reserves without regard" to the effect of such actions on other banking institutions.

This backward system must be changed, to follow the lead of other great nations, where a central bank is able to mobilize and centralize reserves, and create an elastic currency system. Putting the situation in virtually Marxian terms, Vanderlip declared that the alien, external power of the free and competitive market must be replaced by central control following modern, allegedly scientific principles of banking.

Thomas Wheelock, editor of the Wall Street Journal, then rung the changes on the common theme by applying it to the volatile call-loan market in New York. The market is volatile, Wheelock claimed, because the small country banks are able to lend on that market, and their deposits in New York banks then rise and fall in uncontrolled fashion. Therefore, there must be central, corporate control over country-bank money in the call-loan market.

A. Barton Hepburn, head of Morgan's Chase National Bank, came next, and spoke of the great importance of having a central bank that would issue a monopoly of bank notes. It was particularly important that the central bank be able to discount the assets of national banks, and thus supply an elastic currency.

The last speaker was Paul Warburg, who lectured his audience on the superiority of European over American banking, particularly in (1) having a central bank, as against decentralized American banking; and (2) — his old hobby horse — enjoying "modern" acceptance paper instead of single-name promissory notes. Warburg emphasized that these two institutions must function together. In particular, tight government central-bank control must replace competition and decentralization: "Small banks constitute a danger."

The other two symposia were very similar. At the AAPSS symposium in Philadelphia, in December 1907, several leading investment bankers and Comptroller of the Currency William B. Ridgely came out in favor of a central bank. It was no accident that members of the AAPSS's advisory committee on currency included A. Barton Hepburn; Morgan attorney and statesman Elihu Root; Morgan's long-time personal attorney Francis Lynde Stetson; and J. P. Morgan himself.

Meanwhile, the AAAS symposium in January 1908 was organized by none other than Charles A. Conant, who happened to be chairman of the AAAS's social and economic section for the year. Speakers included Columbia economist J. B. Clark, Frank Vanderlip, Conant, and Vanderlip's friend George E. Roberts, head of the Rockefeller-oriented Commercial National Bank of Chicago, who would later wind up at the National City Bank.

All in all, the task of the bank reformers was well summed up by J. R. Duffield, secretary of the Bankers Publishing Company, in January 1908: "It is recognized generally that before legislation can be had there must be an educational campaign carried on, first among the bankers, and later among commercial organizations, and finally among the people as a whole." That strategy was well under way.

During the same month, the legislative lead in banking reform was taken by the formidable Senator Nelson W. Aldrich, (Republican, Rhode Island), head of the Senate Finance Committee, and, as the father-in-law of John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Rockefeller's man in the US Senate. He introduced the Aldrich Bill, which focused on a relatively minor interbank dispute about whether and on what basis the national banks could issue special emergency currency. A compromise was finally hammered out and passed, as the Aldrich-Vreeland Act, in 1908.[23]

But the important part of the Aldrich-Vreeland Act, which got very little public attention, but was perceptively hailed by the bank reformers, was the establishment of a National Monetary Commission that would investigate the currency question and suggest proposals for comprehensive banking reform. Two enthusiastic comments on the Monetary Commission were particularly perceptive and prophetic.

One was that of Sereno S. Pratt of the Wall Street Journal. Pratt virtually conceded that the purpose of the commission was to swamp the public with supposed expertise and thereby "educate" them into supporting banking reform:

Reform can only be brought about by educating the people up to it, and such education must necessarily take much time. In no other way can such education be effected more thoroughly and rapidly than by means of a commission … [that] would make an international study of the subject and present an exhaustive report, which could be made the basis for an intelligent agitation.

The results of the "study" were of course predetermined, as would be the membership of the allegedly impartial study commission.

Another function of the commission, as stated by Festus J. Wade, St. Louis banker and member of the currency commission of the American Bankers Association, was to "keep the financial issue out of politics" and put it squarely in the safe custody of carefully selected "experts" (Livingston 1986, pp. 182–83). Thus the National Monetary Commission was the apotheosis of the clever commission concept, launched in Indianapolis a decade earlier.

Aldrich lost no time setting up the National Monetary Commission (NMC), which was launched in June 1908. The official members were an equal number of Senators and Representatives, but these were mere window dressing. The real work would be done by the copious staff, appointed and directed by Aldrich, who told his counterpart in the House, Cleveland Republican Theodore Burton, "My idea is, of course, that everything shall be done in the most quiet manner possible, and without any public announcement." From the beginning, Aldrich determined that the NMC would be run as an alliance of Rockefeller, Morgan, and Kuhn, Loeb people. The two top expert posts advising or joining the commission were both suggested by Morgan leaders.

On the advice of J. P. Morgan, seconded by Jacob Schiff, Aldrich picked as his top adviser the formidable Henry P. Davison, Morgan partner, founder of Morgan's Bankers' Trust Company, and vice president of George F. Baker's First National Bank of New York. It would be Davison who, on the outbreak of World War I, would rush to England to cement J. P. Morgan and Company's close ties with the Bank of England, and to receive an appointment as monopoly underwriter for all British and French government bonds to be floated in the United States for the duration of the war.

For technical economic expertise, Aldrich accepted the recommendation of President Roosevelt's close friend and fellow Morgan man, Charles Eliot, president of Harvard University, who urged the appointment of Harvard economist A. Piatt Andrew. And an ex officio commission member chosen by Aldrich himself was George M. Reynolds, president of the Rockefeller-oriented Continental National Bank of Chicago.

The NMC spent the fall touring Europe and conferring on information and strategy with heads of large European banks and central banks. As director of research, A. Piatt Andrew began to organize American banking experts and to commission reports and studies. The National City Bank's foreign exchange department was commissioned to write papers on bankers' acceptances and foreign debt, while Warburg and Bankers' Trust official Fred Kent wrote on the European discount market.

Having gathered information and advice in Europe in the fall of 1908, the NMC was ready to go into high gear by the end of the year. In December, the commission hired the inevitable Charles A. Conant for research, public relations, and agitprop. Behind the facade of the Congressmen and Senators on the commission, Senator Aldrich began to form and expand his inner circle, which soon included Warburg and Vanderlip.

Warburg formed around him a subcircle of friends and acquaintances from the currency committee of the New York Merchants' Association, headed by Irving T. Bush, and from the top ranks of the American Economic Association, to whom he had delivered an address advocating central banking in December 1908.

Warburg met and corresponded frequently with leading academic economists advocating banking reform, including E. R. A. Seligman; Thomas Nixon Carver of Harvard; Henry R. Seager of Columbia; Davis R. Dewey, historian of banking at MIT, long-time secretary-treasurer of the AEA and brother of the progressive philosopher John Dewey; Oliver M. W. Sprague, professor of banking at Harvard, of the Morgan-connected Sprague family; Frank W. Taussig of Harvard; and Irving Fisher of Yale.

During 1909, however, the reformers faced an important problem: they had to bring such leading bankers as James B. Forgan, head of the Rockefeller-oriented First National Bank of Chicago, solidly into line in support of a central bank. It was not that Forgan objected to centralized reserves or a lender of last resort — quite the contrary. It was rather that Forgan recognized that, under the National Banking System, large banks such as his own were already performing quasi-central-banking functions with their own country-bank depositors; and he didn't want his bank deprived of such functions by a new central bank.

The bank reformers therefore went out of their way to bring such men as Forgan into enthusiastic support for the new scheme. In his presidential address to the powerful American Bankers Association in mid-September, 1909, George M. Reynolds not only came out flatly in favor of a central bank in America, to be modeled after the German Reichsbank; he also assured Forgan and others that such a central bank would act as depository of reserves only for the large national banks in the central reserve cities, while the national banks would continue to hold deposits for the country banks.

Mollified, Forgan held a private conference with Aldrich's inner circle and came fully on board for the central bank. As an outgrowth of Forgan's concerns, the reformers decided to cloak their new central bank in a spurious veil of "regionalism" and "decentralism" through establishing regional reserve centers, which would provide the appearance of virtually independent regional central banks to cover the reality of an orthodox, European, central-bank monolith.

As a result, noted railroad attorney Victor Morawetz made his famous speech in November 1909, calling for regional banking districts under the ultimate direction of one central control board. Thus, reserves and note issue would be supposedly decentralized in the hands of the regional reserve banks, while they would really be centralized and coordinated by the central control board. This, of course, was the scheme eventually adopted in the Federal Reserve System.[24]

On September 14, at the same time as Reynolds's address to the nation's bankers, another significant address took place. President William Howard Taft, speaking in Boston, suggested that the country seriously consider establishing a central bank. Taft had been close to the reformers — especially his Rockefeller-oriented friends Aldrich and Burton — since 1900. But the business press understood the great significance of this public address: that it was, as the Wall Street Journal put it, a crucial step, "towards removing the subject from the realm of theory to that of practical politics" (quoted in Livingston 1986, p. 191).

One week later, a fateful event in American history occurred. The banking reformers moved to escalate their agitation by creating a virtual government-bank-press complex to drive through a central bank. On September 22, 1909, the Wall Street Journal took the lead in this development by beginning a notable, front-page, 14-part series on "A Central Bank of Issue." These were unsigned editorials by the Journal, but they were actually written by the ubiquitous Charles A. Conant, from his vantage point as salaried chief propagandist of the US government's National Monetary Commission.

The series was a summary of the reformers' position, also going out of the way to assure the Forgans of this world that the new central bank "would probably deal directly only with the larger national banks, leaving it for the latter to rediscount for their more remote correspondents" (ibid.).

To the standard arguments for the central bank: "elasticity" of the money supply, protecting bank reserves by manipulating the discount rate and the international flow of gold, and combating crises by bailing out individual banks, Conant added a Conant twist: the importance of regulating interest rates and the flow of capital in a world marked by surplus capital. Government debt would, for Conant, provide the important function of sopping up surplus capital; that is, providing profitable outlets for savings by financing government expenditures.

"Government debt would provide the important function of sopping up surplus capital; that is, providing profitable outlets for savings by financing government expenditures."

The Wall Street Journal series inaugurated a shrewd and successful campaign by Conant to manipulate the nation's press and get it behind the idea of a central bank. Building on his experience in 1898, Conant, along with Aldrich's secretary, Arthur B. Shelton, prepared abstracts of commission materials for the newspapers during February and March of 1910. Soon Shelton recruited J. P. Gavitt, head of the Washington bureau of the Associated Press, to scan commission abstracts, articles, and forthcoming books for "newsy paragraphs" to catch the eye of newspaper editors.

The academic organizations proved particularly helpful to the NMC, lending their cloak of disinterested expertise to the endeavor. In February, Robert E. Ely, the secretary of the APS, proposed to Aldrich that a special volume of its Proceedings be devoted to banking and currency reform, to be published in cooperation with the NMC, in order to "popularize in the best sense, some of the valuable work of [the] Commission" (quoted in Livingston 1986, p. 194).

And yet, Ely had the gall to add that, even though the APS would advertise the NMC's arguments and conclusions, it would retain its "objectivity" by avoiding its own specific policy recommendations. As Ely put it, "We shall not advocate a central bank, but we shall only give the best results of your work in condensed form and untechnical language."

The AAPSS, too, weighed in with its own special volume, Banking Problems (1910), featuring an introduction by A. Piatt Andrew of Harvard and the NMC, and articles by veteran bank reformers such as Joseph French Johnson, Horace White, and Morgan Bankers' Trust official Fred I. Kent. But most of the articles were from leaders of Rockefeller's National City Bank of New York, including George E. Roberts, former Chicago banker and US Mint official about to join National City.

Meanwhile, Paul M. Warburg capped his lengthy campaign for a central bank in a famous speech to the New York YMCA on March 23, on "A United Reserve Bank for the United States." Warburg basically outlined the structure of his beloved German Reichsbank, but he was careful to begin his talk by noting a recent poll in the Banking Law Journal that 60 percent of the nation's bankers favored a central bank provided it was "not controlled by 'Wall Street' or any monopolistic interest."

To calm this fear, Warburg insisted that, semantically, the new Reserve Bank not be called a central bank, and that the Reserve Bank's governing board be chosen by government officials, merchants, and bankers — with bankers, of course, dominating the choices. He also provided a distinctive Warburg-twist by insisting that the Reserve Bank replace the hated single-name paper system of commercial credit dominant in the United States, by the European system whereby a reserve bank provided a guaranteed and subsidized market for two-named commercial paper endorsed by acceptance banks. In this way, the United Reserve Bank would correct the "complete lack of modern bills of exchange [i.e., acceptances]" in the United States.

Warburg added that the entire idea of a free and self-regulating market was obsolete, particularly in the money market. Instead, the action of the market must be replaced by "the best judgment of the best experts." And guess who was slated to be one of the best of those best experts?

"Warburg added that the entire idea of a free and self-regulating market was obsolete, particularly in the money market. Instead, the action of the market must be replaced by "the best judgment of the best experts." And guess who was slated to be one of the best of those best experts?"

The greatest cheerleader for the Warburg plan, and the man who introduced Warburg's volume on banking reform (1911) was his kinsman and member of the Seligman investment-banking family, Columbia economist E. R. A. Seligman (Rothbard 1984, pp. 98–99; Livingston 1986, pp. 194–98).

So delighted was the Merchants' Association of New York with Warburg's speech that it distributed 30,000 copies during the spring of 1910. Warburg had paved the way for this support by regularly meeting with the currency committee of the Merchants Association since October 1908, and his efforts were aided by the fact that the resident expert for the merchants committee was none other than Joseph French Johnson.

At the same time, in the spring of 1910, the numerous research volumes published by the NMC poured onto the market. The object was to swamp public opinion with a parade of impressive analytic and historical scholarship, all allegedly "scientific" and "value-free," but all designed to aid in furthering the common agenda of a central bank.

Typical was E. W. Kemmerer's mammoth statistical study of seasonal variations in the demand for money. Emphasis was placed on the problem of the "inelasticity" of the supply of cash, in particular the difficulty of expanding that supply when needed. While Kemmerer felt precluded from spelling out the policy implications — establishing a central bank — in the book, his acknowledgments in the preface to Fred Kent and the inevitable Charles Conant were a tip-off to the cognoscenti, and Kemmerer himself disclosed them in his address to the Academy of Political Science the following November.

Now that the theoretical and scholarly groundwork had been laid, by the latter half of 1910 it was time to formulate a concrete practical plan and put on a mighty putsch on its behalf. In the book on Reform of the Currency, published by the APS, Warburg made the point with crystal clarity: "Advance is possible only by outlining a tangible plan" that would set the terms of the debate from then on (p. 203).

The tangible-plan phase of the central-bank movement was launched by the ever-pliant APS, which held a monetary conference in November 1910, in conjunction with the New York Chamber of Commerce and the Merchants' Association of New York. The members of the NMC were the guests of honor at this conclave, and delegates were chosen by governors of 22 states, as well as presidents of 24 chambers of commerce.

Also attending were a large number of economists, monetary analysts, and representatives of most of the top banks in the country. Attendants at the conference included Frank Vanderlip, Elihu Root, Thomas W. Lamont of the Morgans, Jacob Schiff, and J. P. Morgan.

The formal sessions of the conference were organized around papers by Kemmerer, Laughlin, Johnson, Bush, Warburg, and Conant, and the general atmosphere was that bankers and businessmen were to take their general guidance from the attendant scholars. As James B. Forgan, the Chicago banker who was now solidly in the central-banking camp, put it, "Let the theorists, those who … can study from past history and from present conditions the effect of what we are doing, lay down principles for us, and let us help them with the details."

C. Stuart Patterson pointed to the great lessons of the Indianapolis Monetary Commission, and the way in which its proposals triumphed in action because "we went home and organized an aggressive and active movement." Patterson then laid down the marching orders of what this would mean concretely for the assembled troops: "That is just what you must do in this case, you must uphold the hands of Senator Aldrich. You have got to see that the bill which he formulates … obtains the support of every part of this country" (Livingston 1986, pp. 205–07).

With the New York monetary conference over, it was now time for Aldrich, surrounded by a few of the topmost leaders of the financial elite, to go off in seclusion and hammer out a detailed plan around which all parts of the central-bank movement could rally. Someone in the Aldrich inner circle, probably Morgan partner Henry P. Davison, got the idea of convening a small group of top leaders in a super-secret conclave to draft the central-bank bill. On November 22, 1910, Senator Aldrich, with a handful of companions, set forth in a privately chartered railroad car from Hoboken, New Jersey to the coast of Georgia, where they sailed to an exclusive retreat, the Jekyll Island Club.

Facilities for their meeting were arranged by club member and coowner J. P. Morgan. The cover story released to the press was that this was a simple duck-hunting expedition, and the conferees took elaborate precautions on the trips there and back to preserve their secrecy. Thus, the attendees addressed each other only by first name, and the railroad car was kept dark and closed off from reporters or other travelers on the train. One reporter apparently caught on to the purpose of the meeting, but was in some way persuaded by Henry P. Davison to maintain silence.

The conferees worked for a solid week at Jekyll Island to hammer out the draft of the Federal Reserve bill. In addition to Aldrich, the conferees included Henry P. Davison, Morgan partner; Paul Warburg, whose address in the spring had greatly impressed Aldrich; Frank A. Vanderlip, vice president of the National City Bank of New York; and finally, A. Piatt Andrew, head of the NMC staff, who had recently been made assistant secretary of the treasury by President Taft.

After a week of meetings, the six men had forged a plan for a central bank, which eventually became the Aldrich Bill. Vanderlip acted as secretary of the meeting and contributed the final writing.

The only substantial disagreement was tactical, with Aldrich attempting to hold out for a straightforward central bank on the European model, while Warburg and the other bankers insisted that the reality of central control be cloaked in the politically palatable camouflage of "decentralization." It is amusing that the bankers were the more politically astute, while the politician Aldrich wanted to waive political considerations. Warburg and the bankers won out, and the final draft was basically the Warburg plan with a decentralized patina taken from Morawetz.

The financial power elite now had themselves a bill. The significance of the composition of the small meeting must be stressed: two Rockefeller men (Aldrich, Vanderlip), two Morgans (Davison and Norton), one Kuhn, Loeb person (Warburg), and one economist friendly to both camps (Andrew) (Rothbard 1984, pp. 99–101; Vanderlip 1935, pp. 210–19).

After working on some revisions of the Jekyll Island draft with Forgan and George Reynolds, Aldrich presented the Jekyll Island draft as the Aldrich Plan to the full NMC in January 1911. But here an unusual event occurred. Instead of quickly presenting this Aldrich Bill to the Congress, its drafters waited for a full year, until January 1912. Why the unprecedented year's delay?

The problem was that the Democrats swept the Congressional elections in 1910, and Aldrich, disheartened, decided not to run for reelection to the Senate the following year. The Democratic triumph meant that the reformers had to devote a year of intensive agitation to convert the Democrats, and to intensify propaganda to the rest of banking, business, and the public. In short, the reformers needed to regroup and accelerate their agitation.

The Final Phase: Coping with the Democratic Ascendancy

The final phase of the drive for a central bank began in January 1911. At the previous January's meeting of the National Board of Trade, Paul Warburg had put through a resolution setting aside January 18, 1911, as a "monetary day" devoted to a "Business Men's Monetary Conference." This conference, run by the National Board of Trade, and featuring delegates from metropolitan mercantile organizations from all over the country, had C. Stuart Patterson as its chairman.

"The financial elites of this country, were responsible for putting through the Federal Reserve System as a governmentally created and sanctioned cartel device to enable the nation's banks to inflate the money supply in a coordinated fashion."

The New York Chamber of Commerce, the Merchants' Association of New York, and the New York Produce Exchange, each of which had been pushing for banking reform for the past five years, introduced a joint resolution to the monetary conference supporting the Aldrich Plan, and proposing the establishment of a new "business men's monetary reform league" to lead the public struggle for a central bank. After a speech in favor of the plan by A. Piatt Andrew, the entire conference adopted the resolution. In response, C. Stuart Patterson appointed none other than Paul M. Warburg to head a committee of seven to establish the reform league.

The committee of seven shrewdly decided, following the lead of the old Indianapolis convention, to establish the National Citizens' League for the Creation of a Sound Banking System at Chicago rather than in New York, where the control really resided. The idea was to acquire the bogus patina of a "grassroots" heartland operation and to convince the public that the league was free of dreaded Wall Street control. As a result, the official heads of the League were Chicago businessmen John V. Farwell and Harry A. Wheeler, president of the US Chamber of Commerce. The director was University of Chicago monetary economist J. Laurence Laughlin, assisted by his former student, Professor H. Parker Willis.

In keeping with its Midwestern aura, most of the directors of the Citizens' League were Chicago nonbanker industrialists: men such as B. E. Sunny of the Chicago Telephone Company, Cyrus McCormick of International Harvester (both companies in the Morgan ambit), John G. Shedd of Marshall Field and Company, Frederic A. Delano of the Wabash Railroad Company (Rockefeller-controlled), and Julius Rosenwald of Sears, Roebuck. Over a decade later, however, H. Parker Willis frankly conceded that the Citizens' League had been a propaganda organ of the nation's bankers.[25]

The Citizens' League swung into high gear during the spring and summer of 1911, issuing a periodical, Banking and Reform, designed to reach newspaper editors, and subsidizing pamphlets by such proreform experts as John Perrin, head of the American National Bank of Indianapolis, and George E. Roberts of the National City Bank of New York.

A consultant on the newspaper campaign was H. H. Kohlsaat, former executive committee member of the Indianapolis Monetary Convention. Laughlin himself worked on a book on the Aldrich Plan, to be similar to his own Report of 1898 for the Indianapolis Convention.

Meanwhile, a parallel campaign was launched to bring the nation's bankers into camp. The first step was to convert the banking elite. For that purpose, the Aldrich inner circle organized a closed-door conference of 23 top bankers in Atlantic City in early February, which included several members of the currency commission of the American Bankers Association, along with bank presidents from nine leading cities of the country. After making a few minor revisions, the conference warmly endorsed the Aldrich Plan.

After this meeting, Chicago banker James B. Forgan, president of the Rockefeller-dominated First National Bank of Chicago, emerged as the most effective banker spokesman for the central-bank movement. Not only was his presentation of the Aldrich Plan before the executive council of the ABA in May considered particularly impressive, it was especially effective coming from someone who had been a leading critic (if on relatively minor grounds) of the plan. As a result, the top bankers managed to get the ABA to violate its own bylaws and make Forgan chairman of its executive council.

At the Atlantic City conference, James Forgan had succinctly explained the purpose of the Aldrich Plan and of the conference itself. As Kolko sums up,

the real purpose of the conference was to discuss winning the banking community over to government control directly by the bankers for their own ends.… It was generally appreciated that the [Aldrich Plan] would increase the power of the big national banks to compete with the rapidly growing state banks, help bring the state banks under control, and strengthen the position of the national banks in foreign banking activities. (Kolko 1983, p. 186)

By November 1911, it was easy pickings to have the full American Bankers Association endorse the Aldrich Plan. The nation's banking community was now solidly lined up behind the drive for a central bank.

However, 1912 and 1913 were years of some confusion and backing and filling, as the Republican party split between its insurgents and regulars, and the Democrats won increasing control over the federal government, culminating in Woodrow Wilson's gaining the presidency in the November 1912 elections. The Aldrich Plan, introduced into the Senate by Theodore Burton in January 1912, died a quick death, but the reformers saw that what they had to do was to drop the fiercely Republican partisan name of Aldrich from the bill, and with a few minor adjustments, rebaptize it as a Democratic measure.

Fortunately for the reformers, this process of transformation was eased greatly in early 1912, when H. Parker Willis was appointed administrative assistant to Carter Glass, the Democrat from Virginia who now headed the House Banking and Currency Committee. In an accident of history, Willis had taught economics to the two sons of Carter Glass at Washington and Lee University, and they recommended him to their father when the Democrats assumed control of the House.

The minutiae of the splits and maneuvers in the banking-reform camp during 1912 and 1913, which have long fascinated historians, are fundamentally trivial to the basic story. They largely revolved around the successful efforts by Laughlin, Willis, and the Democrats to jettison the name Aldrich.

Moreover, while the bankers had preferred the Federal Reserve Board to be appointed by the bankers themselves, it was clear to most of the reformers that this was politically unpalatable. They realized that the same result of a government-coordinated cartel could be achieved by having the president and Congress appoint the Board, balanced by the bankers electing most of the officials of the regional Federal Reserve Banks and electing an advisory council to the Fed.

However, much would depend on whom the president would appoint to the board. The reformers did not have to wait long. Control was promptly handed to Morgan men, led by Benjamin Strong of Bankers' Trust as all-powerful head of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. The reformers had gotten the point by the end of congressional wrangling over the Glass bill, and by the time the Federal Reserve Act was passed in December 1913, the bill enjoyed overwhelming support from the banking community.

As A. Barton Hepburn of the Chase National Bank persuasively told the American Bankers Association at the annual meeting of August 1913: "The measure recognizes and adopts the principles of a central bank. Indeed … it will make all incorporated banks together joint owners of a central dominating power" (Kolko 1983, p. 235). In fact, there was very little substantive difference between the Aldrich and Glass bills: the goal of the bank reformers had been triumphantly achieved.[26]

$30 $25

"To achieve the Leviathan State, interests seeking special privilege and intellectuals offering scholarship and ideology must work hand in hand."

Conclusion

The financial elites of this country, notably the Morgan, Rockefeller, and Kuhn, Loeb interests, were responsible for putting through the Federal Reserve System as a governmentally created and sanctioned cartel device to enable the nation's banks to inflate the money supply in a coordinated fashion, without suffering quick retribution from depositors or noteholders demanding cash.

Recent researchers, however, have also highlighted the vital supporting role of the growing number of technocratic experts and academics, who were happy to lend the patina of their allegedly scientific expertise to the elite's drive for a central bank. To achieve a regime of big government and government control, power elites cannot achieve their goal of privilege through statism without the vital legitimizing support of the supposedly disinterested experts and the professoriate. To achieve the Leviathan State, interests seeking special privilege and intellectuals offering scholarship and ideology must work hand in hand.

Murray N. Rothbard (1926–1995) was dean of the Austrian School. He was an economist, economic historian, and libertarian political philosopher.

2009-11-13T13:53:00.000-08:00

Gold futures build on gains as dollar falls back

By Nick Godt

Gold futures finished the session up almost 1% Friday, and gained almost 2% on the week, receiving a lift as the dollar weakened and on news that Vietnam lifted a ban on imports of the precious metal.

The dollar came under renewed pressure Friday as upbeat earnings news from Walt Disney Co. helped offset a weak reading on U.S. consumer sentiment, lifting stocks on Wall Street.

Gold for December delivery rose $10.10, or 0.9%, to end at $1,116.70 an ounce on the New York Mercantile Exchange.

Crude recovers, but fundamentals stay weak

Oil prices rebound from sharp losses, boosted by a weaker dollar. But fundamentals remain sluggish -- U.S. refinery runs are at the lowest levels in decades, reflecting persistent weak consumer demand.

The contract gained nearly 2% for the week.

Gold earlier slipped below $1,105 an ounce on the heels of the Reuters/University of Michigan index, which showed consumer sentiment earlier this month fell to 66.0, missing expectations for a rise to 71.8. The index has now fallen for two months. Read more on consumer sentiment.

But investor sentiment on Wall Street remained buoyed by an upbeat earnings report from Walt Disney Co. (NYSE:DIS) . Read more about U.S. stocks.

The U.S. dollar index (INDEX:DXY) fell 0.5% to 75.20.

A weaker dollar increases the perceived value of hard assets such as bullion. The dollar has in recent months tended to fall on good economic news and gain when times look bleak. Read more on the dollar.

On Thursday, the December gold contract fell $8 an ounce to post its first loss this month, as the U.S. dollar edged higher.

Gold's earlier gains were helped by news that Vietnam has lifted its ban on imports of the precious metal, according to analysts at GoldCore.

This "will add fresh impetus and demand into a historically pro-gold region," they wrote in a note. With a volatile dollar, "gold should hold above the $1,000 an ounce level, gather fresh investors and continue its bull run."

Gold had been given a lift after the dollar sank as government data showed the U.S. trade deficit widened more than expected, to $36.5 billion in September, and that import prices rose 0.7% last month. See more on the U.S. trade gap.

Among other metals, December silver rose 12 cents, or 0.7%, to $17.38 an ounce, while January platinum gained $25.50 an ounce, or 1.9%, to $1,385.50 an ounce. Read more on silver.

December copper was up 2 cents, or 0.8%, to $2.97 a pound.

Holdings in SPDR Gold shares (NYSE:GLD) , the biggest gold exchange-traded fund, stood at 1,114.44 metric tons, unchanged from the prior three sessions but the highest level since early July.

2009-10-07T16:13:00.000-07:00

Eagles No, Buffaloes Yes

By David C. Harper

No proof one-ounce American Eagle gold or silver collector coins will be produced in 2009 by the U.S. Mint.

The bad news, cleared for release at noon Eastern Daylight time Oct. 6, doesn’t end there.

There will also be:

• No “W” mintmarked uncirculated silver American Eagle collector coins,

• No proof fractional gold American Eagles,

• No “W” uncirculated one-ounce gold American Eagles (the fractionals of this were killed at the end of last year),

• No Uncirculated Dollar Coin Set, which would include a “W” silver American Eagle, and

• No platinum American Eagle bullion coins.

But the Mint also gives as well as takes.

Perhaps the most surprising new issues coming are the probable Oct. 15 release of the 2009 gold Buffalo bullion coin and the Oct. 29 release of the proof collector version.

Fractional gold American Eagle bullion coins in tenth-ounce, quarter-ounce and half-ounce weights are scheduled tentatively for release Dec. 3.

A proof one-ounce platinum American Eagle also is scheduled tentatively for release Dec. 3. The Mint stresses the word “tentatively.”

It is still battling to supply the market with American Eagle bullion coins, which are mandated by law whereas the collector versions are not.

“Because of unprecedented demand for American Eagle gold and silver bullion coins, the United States Mint suspended production of 2009 proof and uncirculated versions of these coins,” it says.

Even though the rationing of the bullion gold and silver American Eagles ended June 15, acquiring adequate supplies of blanks has been an ongoing struggle for the Mint. In light of this, it might perhaps be surprising that the Mint would bother to produce the gold Buffalo coins this year at all.

Those with a lawyer’s eye will spot the exception in the language here: “All available 22-karat gold and silver bullion blanks are being allocated to the American Eagle gold and American Eagle silver bullion coins programs as mandated by Public Law 99-185 and Public Law 99-61, respectively.”

The one-ounce Buffalo gold bullion coins and collector coins are struck on 24-karat gold planchets.

Once again the Mint holds out the hope that the collector coins suspended this year will be returned to production, but now in 2010, as it works “diligently with current and potential blank suppliers to increase the supply of bullion coins blanks.”

2009-08-31T19:51:00.001-07:00

Mint Needs New Innovative Direction

By Gary Huskey

I am an avid coin collector and owner of Legacy Numismatics, LLC, located in Doctors Inlet, Fla., just a few miles from Jacksonville. As a retailer of coins from around the globe, it has become apparent to me that the United States Mint is falling way behind in many aspects of our beloved hobby. Some of the Mints' shortfalls include innovation, technology, value, options, customer service and a serious lack of passion for the hobby.

By definition, innovation is a new way of doing something. It may refer to incremental, radical and revolutionary changes in thinking, products, processes or organizations. A distinction is typically made between invention, an idea made manifest, and innovation, ideas applied successfully (Mckeown 2008). In many fields, something new must be substantially different to be innovative, not an insignificant change. As you visit the Web sites of The Royal Canadian Mint and The Perth Mint of Australia, you soon discover the cutting edge of innovation and how far they push the envelope to develop and introduce new coins to the marketplace like we have never seen in the U.S. Some examples are the applied color hologram technique, coins with crystal raindrops and odd-shaped coins that are currently being produced by the RCM. Other examples include coin firsts such as orbital coins with moving parts, dynamic imaging, colorization and gilding as produced by The Perth Mint.

Innovation can be as simple as placing a serial number on the Certificate of Authenticity, as do other countries, so as to create a feeding frenzy for collectors to obtain the lowest numbered certificate possible when newly released coins hit the market. A manganese dollar coin is not innovation. A new Lincoln cent reverse is not innovation. A Lincoln silver commemorative coin is not innovation. It is even safe to say that the 2009 Ultra High Relief is not innovation. Of course I will own at least one, but even this coin is a sequel. Why would the mint go through the trouble of recreating this masterpiece only to have to enjoy it through a magnifying glass due to its reduced size when the original issue in 1907 was a full 34 millimeters without all of today's technology? And by all means let's not overlook the fact that the face value of this one ounce gold coin dropped to that of 1907 values, as if a face value of $50 isn't way undervalued already for 1 ounce gold coins. I will discuss more on value a bit later.

When talking technologically challenged, one need not look any further than the U.S. Mint online catalog. As the world's largest coin dealer, a visit to the U.S. Mint Web site should make you proud to be an American. Instead, it resembles a generic, do-it-yourself, $50 per month, self-edit, home-based Web site. The Treasury United States Mint logo with the American flag is barely legible and appears to be an afterthought in the upper left-hand corner of the page. The home page displays one featured coin. That's right folks, one coin. Maybe if the Mint used all of the available monitor space instead of the 75 percent currently being used there would be enough space to feature many coins on the home page making site surfing a breeze. To benefit from modern technology, it must be implemented to its fullest capacity. Giving credit where it is due, let it be noted that digital technology was used to map the coin plasters for reproduction of the UHR. With world leading technology available in the U.S. today, I demand that it be implemented by the Mint to create the most unique coins the world has ever seen.

Now let's tackle the subject of value. The value of a modern coin should be based on its ultra high quality, intrinsic value, collectibility, rarity and re-sale. Let's take a silver Eagle proof for example. If the face value remains at $1 and the retail price at $33, the coin is undervalued by 3,200 percent. However, if the face value of these coins was increased to $10 per coin and the retail price remained the same, then the value of the coin over its face value is dramatically reduced to around 225 percent. With silver trading at $14 per ounce, the coin is still undervalued by just over 130 percent.

Let's go back to the 2009 Ultra High Relief gold coin for a moment. Gold has been trading near $950 per ounce for several weeks now. The Mint has this coin available for a staggering $1,289 each. This is a margin of nearly 40 percent. Keep in mind that there is no mintage limit set for this coin and no way to know how rare this coin is going to be, so why the hefty premium? In the year 2000 the face value of the 1 ounce gold Panda was increased to 500 yuan from its previous value of 100 yuan; an increase in face value of 400 percent. This coin now trades at a 100 percent margin over its face value. U.S. gold bullion coins still have a face value of $50 and trade for nearly $1,000. That puts the margin of its true value over face value at 2,000 percent. Certainly the U.S. Mint can increase the face value of these coins since they will never trade at $50. The rolls of state quarters have no intrinsic value and are minted in very high quantities yet are priced at over 60 percent of their face value at the Mint.

Let's look at the Presidential dollar first day coin covers. The face value of this product is $2 yet it retails for a mind-blowing 650 percent markup over its face value. There should be laws against this. Numbers published last year indicated that the cost of producing a single cent at the Mint has now exceeded the face value by 70 percent. Information was also published that taxpayers pick up the tab for the additional cost beyond production costs to produce the cent. If this information is correct, then why does the Mint charge a premium of nearly 800 percent over the face value of these coins for the two-roll set? Again, please keep in mind that these are modern coins with no intrinsic value that are minted in very large quantities.

The only explanation for this is simply profit. The Mint's earnings declined in 2008, falling 25.7 percent to $806.4 million compared to the $1,085.6 billion it generated in 2007. Even with the 2008 decline, and nearly $3 billion in gross sales, the overall profit margin averaged just over 325 percent. If it's unacceptable for the oil companies to generate ridiculous profit margins by overcharging for their products, then it should be just as unacceptable for the United States Mint to do the exact same thing. If the Mint retains just over $100 million to operate and returns over $700 million back to the Treasury, then the cost of numismatic items could be made more affordable by lowering the price to consumers and thus encouraging new interest in coin collecting by people that may otherwise not be able to afford to collect coins. If the Federal government can dictate what profit margin is too high for the oil companies, why aren't they doing anything to protect numismatic consumers from being overcharged by the Mint?

We, the coin collectors of the United States of America, would solemnly appreciate some options. For example: we are about to be introduced to the exciting world of America's National Parks through yet another sequel, the quarter dollar program. Another clad quarter dollar program does no justice to the majesty of our treasured National Parks. Why not actually make them more collectible by producing a 40 percent silver half dollar that would not only renew interest in the half dollar and make the design larger and easier to see, but also give the coin intrinsic value at the same time. How about any coin, preferably a totally new design altogether, in 40 percent or even 92.5 percent silver. Why not a new coin in 14 or 18 karat gold? Why not rose or white gold? Silver coins (excluding bullion) produced today by the Mint are either 90 percent silver or no silver at all. Gold coins also are either 22 or 24 karat with no other, more affordable options available. The Royal Canadian Mint has raised the bar and is leading the way in options for metal composition while the U.S. Mint is stuck in a rut with few options.

"While we have fulfilled our mission and have various individual successes, as a whole, the United States Mint should excel beyond minimal requirements. From the outside the United States Mint appears to be delivering an average performance, and it is, but we aspire to more. We aspire to excellence." These are words from the Mint director himself that were published in the 2008 U.S. Mint Annual Report, which I urge everyone to read. It is available on the Mint's Web site. No truer words could be spoken when relating to customer service. Many times I have attempted to contact customer service only to hear that no one is available. How difficult can it be to e-mail my questions and concerns to the Mint and actually have them answered by a simple return e-mail? I'm not talking about being referred to the commonly asked questions page but rather a live chat perhaps with a living, breathing Mint representative. Not to be redundant, but technology plays an important role here as well. When customers are the most important aspect of your business, shouldn't customer service be as important?

A survey was conducted in 2008 by the Mint (also published in the 2008 Annual Report) to rate how good a job the Mint is doing and the results are as follows: Poor = 4.4 percent, Below Avg. = 6 percent, Avg. = 31.3 percent, Good = 32.3 percent and Excellent = 26 percent. These are overwhelming statistics that show the vast majority of people surveyed felt the job the Mint was doing was at best good or worse. The percentage of highly satisfied customers and the percentage of orders filled in seven days or less was lower in 2008 compared to previous years. This is a trend that is only getting worse as years pass. Customer service has become nonexistent in many large organizations as employees show up for work Monday through Friday only to be able to collect a check on payday while doing as little as possible to earn it. Never forget that without customers there is no paycheck.

What ever happened to the passion evidenced by the Mint of yesteryear? Passion evidenced and made manifest through the production of unique gold and silver coin masterpieces from long ago. Passion should be the driving force behind all that is accomplished by the Mint. Is passion for quality, originality, design, innovation, technology, integrity and art a thing of the past? God, I hope not, as in him I do trust, but the Mint I believe is in desperate need of new direction.

2009-08-30T09:27:00.000-07:00

Coin Chat Radio

Bonhams & Butterfields Coin Auctions
Standard Catalog of US Paper Money

By Darrin Lee Unser

Bob Van Ryzin’s "What’s In The News" begins this week’s episode of Coin Chat Radio with release of the 2009 Lincoln One Cent Proof Set from the US Mint.

For $7.95, collectors can purchase proofs of the four new cent designs honoring the bicentennial birth of Abraham Lincoln. Of interest to most, the cents are struck from the same bronze alloy (95% copper and 5% tin and zinc) used on the first Lincoln penny minted back in 1909.

Also mentioned by Ryzin is the announcement by Krause Publications that it will assume full in-house control of the three numismatic events it produces in Chicago, namely the Chicago Paper Money Expo, the Chicago Internation Coin Fair and the Mid-America Coin Expo.

Numismatic News Editor Dave Harper takes a few moments to interview dealer Paul Song from Bonhams and Butterfields, which is starting a new coin division. Harper digs into the details of how the startup is going and how it will be different from other coin auctions, to which Song replies:

"There has been a great demand for this type of service, especially at Bonhams. I think the fact that we are actually tapping a market that has been somewhat underserved by a traditional auction house that has collecting categories and expertise in over 80 areas."

"I don’t want to be in a situation where I am trying to build a huge volume business. I want to build this incementally, and I want to build it my way, which is with good interesting material."

Online Editor Lisa Bellavin talks with Editor George Cuhaj about the newest edition of the Standard Catalog of United States Paper Money.

"The book covers quite a bit," Cuhaj responds when asked what kind of collector will enjoy the book. "It has the large size and small size federal currency. It incorporates national bank notes by type, and then there are extra listings for the pre-federal notes, going back to the War of 1812 through the 1850’s. And also special sections on encased postage envelopes, encased postage stamps that were used during the Civil War, fractional currency as well as military payment certificates."

Closing out Coin Chat Radio this week is Publisher Scott Tappa and the "Freshly Minted" segment. He discusses new offerings from the National Bank of Poland which commemorates the start of World War II as well as new coins from Finland and Singapore.

To listen to this program, go to http://www.coinchatradio.com/.

2009-08-27T08:12:00.000-07:00

Rare Coin Markets in August 2009

By Greg Reynolds

This is the second part of my August market report (Read Part One Here) regarding scarce or rare U.S. coins, with a focus on bourse activity at ANA Convention in Los Angeles in early August, along with references to pre-ANA and ANA auctions. This part mostly includes analytical comments from experts relating to copper, nickel and silver coins, along with some passages relating to very rare gold coins. Analytical remarks of mine are found herein as well. I suggest reading Part 1 first. Next, please see my companion article on the growing price gap between high end and low end coins.

In addition to a relative increase in demand for high end coins on the bourse floor at the ANA Convention, there was intense trading in many areas, partly because there was so little fresh material available. Most market participants, who properly recognize the current levels, are cautiously optimistic about the near future. There is a good chance that underlying market levels will hold steady or increase slightly over the next few months. Keep in mind that I am talking about pre-1934 scarce or rare coins, or condition rarities, not generics or bullion items.

The market for generics is driven by speculators, and mass marketing operations, and has little to do with coin collecting. Generics are very common, often hundreds of thousands or millions are known of specific coin issues, and collectors only buy a small percentage of them.

Since numerous market participants in 2009 are gradually adjusting, or refusing to adjust, to the lower levels that have prevailed for months, it would be easy for some to get a false impression that coin trading is very slow and demand is falling. Volume is considerable, and, on average, market prices were holding steady or increasingly slightly. Most of the market declines occurred in the last quarter of 2008 and the spring of 2009. Many of the declines were not then recorded in price guides, which are becoming relatively less useful for scarce or rare coins.

John Feigenbaum has “seen Morgans drop quite a bit lately. Buffaloes are soft as is Proof type.” Steve Contursi agrees that the market for “Proof silver type is soft.”

All type coins are not acquired by collectors assembling type sets. In this context, 19th century type coins are the least scarce dates of their respective types, or are coins that do not sell for a significant premium over the least scarce dates. Many Liberty Seated coins, Barber coins, pre-1914 nickels, trimes, and bust silver coins are type coins, though such ‘type coins’ are often acquired by buyers who are collecting ‘by date.’ Usually, type coins are the least expensive coins of each respective type. The term ‘type’ also refers to series that are usually collected ‘by type’ rather than ‘by date.’ Liberty Seated series are usually collected ‘by type,’ while Morgan dollars, Buffalo Nickels and Mercury Dimes are more apt to be collected ‘by date.’

Matt Kleinsteuber is lead trader and grader for NFC coins. He believes “that all bust and seated coins in uncirculated and circulated grades are down over the last year. [He] can still sell almost all circ seated and bust fast, just at prices from 10% to 30% less,” and these “have a lot of activity at the new levels.” Matt goes on to reveal that “MS-64 and above bust halves are weak and hard to sell. Finest known Liberty Seated coins are way off, in some cases as much as 50% less” than they were priced twelve months ago. Liberty Seated ‘type coins,’ and “slightly better dates,” that grade from “MS-61 to MS-64 are doing okay, as prices are not down much,” Kleinsteuber concludes.

Wayne Herndon finds that business strike Barber coins “have been slow for the past year, both uncirculated and circulated coins.” Rich Uhrich points out that 1901-S quarters, which are the keys to sets of Barber Quarters, “have gone down 15% to 20% over the past year.”

Contursi believes that demand for gem uncirculated Barbers has fallen since January 2009, when “Dale Friend’s Barber halves brought especially strong prices at auction.” I agree.

Barber dimes, quarters and halves that grade MS-64 or higher now constitute one of the coldest categories in coin markets. Is this a good reason to start collecting them?

It is interesting that Rich Uhrich draws attention to severe weakness in particular categories of silver type coins. “For bust silver [1794-1830s] and Liberty Seated series [1837-1891], non-rare Very Fine [grade] coins are probably down 20% to 50% since August 2008.” Uhrich declares that the “price guides do not indicate how much common date coins have dropped in value.” In contrast, Rich says that “many rare dates in these series that are priced under $5000 have not gone down in value over the last year; some are even up a bit.” As examples, he mentions 1867 and 1886 quarters, and 1852-O halves. Uhrich also finds, however, that “the number of buyers of rare date silver coins that cost more than $5000 has declined over the past year, and prices have gone down 10% to 20%.”

Proof Liberty Seated and Barber coins are faring somewhat well. Garrett has a customer who is seriously collecting Proof Liberty Seated coins, and Garrett was “able to find a few of those” at the ANA Convention. Wayne Herndon “sold out of [his] Cameo Proof Seated and Barber material,” which were “all gem grades” (65 and higher). Wayne states that prices for these “were a little lower than six to twelve months ago, but not by much.” He “would estimate a 5%” drop in prices for gem quality Liberty Seated and Barber coins.

Pre-1858 Proof Liberty Seated coins did amazingly well in the Heritage auction, and Stack’s sold a few for strong prices. These, though, are typically much rarer than post-1865 Proofs, and really merit a separate discussion. They are not indicators of a large part of coin markets.

“Before the ANA show,” reports Andy Lustig, it was pretty clear that most market sectors are weak. Rare date gold, [classic] gold commemoratives, silver type, better date Morgan and Peace dollars, and certified colonials all seemed especially weak.” I agree with Andy. These are all areas that have faltered since the winter, and have dropped significantly in value since August 2008. Uhrich and Contursi also point to weakness in silver type coins.

“Over the past six months,” Schweitz concludes, “prices have fallen for gem quality small cents [Indians & Lincolns] and Buffalo nickels, and the market has not found stable levels” for these. In my view, such levels have also not been found for Morgan dollars. Kris Oyster reports, however, that, on the ANA bourse floor, “trading was brisk for mid range to high end, better-date Morgans.”

Matt Kleinsteuber asserts that “Buffalo nickels have taken it on the chin in the grades of 65 and above,” with “exceptions.” Matt exclaims that Buffalo nickels that are clearly the highest certified by the PCGS or the NGC, not just tied for the highest certified, for their respective dates, are “still bringing crazy prices.” Kleinsteuber finds “that $10,000 Buffalo nickels are down 20%, that $30,000 one are down 30%, and six figure nickels are down 40% or more, over the last twelve months.”

Though down 10% to 30% over the last twelve months, very rare gold coins were strongly demanded and seemed to be selling well at their new levels, especially in the pre-ANA and ANA auctions.

A PCGS graded AU-58 1804 Quarter Eagle ($2½ gold coin), with thirteen stars on the back, realized $322,000 in Heritage’s auction. I was expecting it to sell for around $200,000. Market prices have dropped since the Ed Price coin of the same variety brought the same $322,000 price a year earlier, and many of the results in the Ed Price sale were considered outrageously high at the time. In the same Heritage pre-ANA 2009 auction, Steve Contursi bought an 1841 Quarter Eagle. It is NGC certified Proof-58, for $132,250, a healthy price in the current market, but significantly less than it would have brought had it been auctioned in Jan. 2008 or even Jan. 2009. Also, an 1873-CC $10 gold coin, which is NGC graded AU-55, sold for $63,250, which is a very strong price, even considering that it is one of the highest certified.

In the B&M auction, an 1808 Quarter Eagle brought $161,000. It is PCGS graded MS-61, a high grade for this very rare one-year type coin. Markets for early gold coins skyrocketed for years and then dropped considerably over the last twelve months. This coin is early, very rare, and an extremely important type coin. It brought a healthy price, while less than it would have brought during the first half of 2008, the $161,000 price is a lot more than I expected.

After the close of the ANA Convention, Lustig concludes that, “given the obvious weakness in the market, [he] was very pleasantly surprised to see truly great and/or interesting coins selling very easily”! Andy was “also surprised at how easily less interesting coins sold if they were properly discounted.”

Assuming that the 2009 ANA Convention was necessarily to be held in the Western United States, I found that the attendance was consistent with current market conditions. I do not believe that attendance would have been greater in Seattle or Denver. Anaheim, which is also in Los Angeles County, might have been a better choice because Anaheim is geared for tourism. Moreover, this convention suffered a little because people had a false impression, worsened by ridiculous rumors among coin enthusiasts, that the area around the LA Convention center is dangerous. I investigated the area; it is not dangerous. Rich Uhrich feels that “it is much like” the area around the “Baltimore Convention center.”

I found it to be more comfortable at night than the vicinity of the Baltimore Convention center. Almost immediately West and Southwest of the Los Angeles Convention center is a friendly, middle income, residential area.

Rumors are often untrue. Someone who was buying or selling low end coins, perhaps unknowingly, is likely to draw a false negative conclusion about coin markets or about bourse activity at the ANA Convention. Some of the dealers who complained to me about the ANA Convention were selling low end coins, had not adjusted their asking prices to reflect current market realities, and/or were specialists in areas that are very weak in 2009. Others are not accepting the reality that fewer collectors can afford to travel and buy in 2009. The incredibly intense demand, from 2004 to mid 2008, for almost all scarce U.S. coins could not continuously last forever.

Markets for excellent rare U.S. coins, in all grades, have only fallen 5% to 15%, for the most part. Excellent U.S. coins are truly rare, or in some cases very scarce, are in the mid range to high end for their respective certified grades, have mostly (or preferably entirely) original surfaces and/or natural toning, and have some significance in the traditions of coin collecting in the United States. The substantial demand and active trading in excellent U.S. coins, as I have defined them, made the bourse activity at the ANA Convention successful. The price distinctions between high end and low end coins are analyzed in my companion article, The Coin Market Phenomenon of 2009 is the Widening Gap between the Prices of High End and Low End Certified Coins.

2009-05-22T19:38:00.001-07:00

Numbers Soar for Second Lincoln Roll Set

By David C. Harper

It is a good thing that sales numbers for the second 2009 Lincoln cent roll set are available this week, because otherwise things are kind of summertime sleepy - and the calendar says it is not even summer yet.

In the first three days of sales, more than twice as many Lincoln roll sets have been sold. The precise count is 200,055. It took almost two weeks for the first roll set to hit the 96,000 maximum.

How many roll sets will be ordered? Judging from the number of e-mails I have received, the numbers should jump a good bit further, depending on how many the Mint will be able to supply.

The Mint Web site already has the notation that shipping of the Lincoln rolls commences July 15.

January's hot item, the Ultra High Relief $20 gold piece, hardly moved up in sales numbers this week, with the total creeping forwarded by much less than 1,000 coins.

The six-coin D.C. and Territories proof set rose by 8,016 and the silver version jumped by 11,006. The silver set is not more popular; it has simply been available for less time.

Braille sales numbers have also done nothing particularly noteworthy, but then the summerlike pace is apparent.

Bullion Eagle numbers didn't change at all, but I don't think bullion investors have gone on vacation, so let's meet here again next week to see what happens.

2009-05-20T15:31:00.000-07:00

Boulton Father of Mechanized Press

By Kerry Rodgers

Two hundred and twenty-one years ago, Matthew Boulton coupled James Watt's steam engine with a coining press and ushered in the era of high quality, mass-produced, milled coins. This year is the bicentenary of his death and is an appropriate time to reflect on the debt society and numismatists far and wide owe Boulton.

Metal Man

Matthew Boulton was born on Sept. 3, 1728, in Birmingham, where his dad manufactured a range of small metal products. At age 21 he became a partner and general manger of the family business.

In 1759 he formed a partnership with John Fothergill to establish the Soho Manufactory on Handsworth Heath, where a water-driven metal-rolling mill existed. Here they produced a variety of small metal products such as buttons, buckles, boxes, japanned ware, silverware and ormolu, using assembly-line mass-production on a considerable scale. Henry Ford would have been impressed. They established a reputation for high quality work.

Boulton was way ahead of his time. The factory was equipped with a range of labor-saving devices. Wherever possible, he employed interchangeable components in his different products and used the latest in available technology to mass-produce these. Little was sub-contracted out. All aspects of design, production and marketing were kept under one roof.

And Boulton was right into occupation safety and health. His workers enjoyed clean, well-lit and well-ventilated premises. They even had employment insurance.

Round about 1767, Boulton struck up the acquaintance of Scot James Watt. Boulton was looking for some way to increase his throughput. To do so, he required a better power supply. Watt for his part needed facilities to develop and manufacture his steam-engine. When Watt's business partner got into financial strife in 1772, Boulton accepted a two-thirds share in Watt's patent in payment for the debt.

In 1775 Watt and Boulton entered into a formal partnership and were joined by William Murdoch. It was Boulton who provided the facilities, capital and wherewithal to ensure the steam engine became a commercial success. It was the Boulton & Watt steam engine that would help power the Industrial Revolution.

Master Minter

With that particular show on the road, Boulton turned his gaze to coins. They were, after all, just another small metal product. He was fascinated by the problem of the mass production of a standardized coinage. He discussed it at length with James Watt.

In the late 18th century, quality control at the Royal Mint was non-existent. Their minting technology was crude at best. There was little control over coin size. The product was easily counterfeited. By 1786, it was estimated that up to two-thirds of English coinage in circulation was counterfeit. The Mint's answer was to simply cease production, leading to a country-wide coin shortage.

In 1788, Boulton set up the Soho Mint Mk I within the Soho Manufactory. It contained eight steam-driven presses, each of which could strike 70 to 84 coins per minute. Getting this enterprise fully up to speed proved costly in both money and headaches. But within months, the first ever machine-powered mint was producing copper and silver coins for the East India Company, Sierra Leone and Russia - when it was not producing high quality uniform blanks for other mints. The new system represented a major breakthrough in the mass-production of images.

Boulton spent a great deal of time in London trying to get the British government's attention as he believed he now had the answer to the Royal Mint's problems. He was largely ignored by Whitehall, but across the channel the French showed interest and invited him to consider minting their coins.

He was also plagued by industrial spies and rivals. The latter tried to reproduce his patent presses, while at the same time urging the government to close Boulton's mint down. However, Boulton's persistence paid off. In 1797, he was commissioned to mint an entire new copper coinage for Britain, starting with 45 million penny and 2-penny pieces. The smaller denominations followed later.

To frustrate counterfeiters, Boulton proposed new designs, related to other systems of Imperial measurement. His penny would weigh 1 ounce and have a diameter such that 17 would measure 2 feet. His halfpenny would be half an ounce with 10 to a foot, and the farthing a quarter-ounce with 12 to a foot. He topped these three off with a massive 2-ounce twopence that had just eight to the foot. The coins had broad raised rims. Their inscriptions and designs, by leading European medalist K�chler, were impressed on the field below. And, as all good Aussie collectors know, these were the renowned cartwheel coins that would become part of Australia's proclamation coinage.

So successful was the Soho Mint that Boulton & Watt presses and engines were used to re-equip the Royal Mint and mints abroad. The Cornish mines, who were Boulton's main copper suppliers, were hard-pressed to keep up with the throughput. Copper prices swung wildly, contributing to rioting in the streets. The Industrial Revolution was in full swing and Boulton was leading the charge.

His innovative coin designs, however, would prove just too much for the purses and pockets of His Majesty's subjects, let alone the bureaucrats of the Royal Mint. They were discontinued by the end of the century.

'Lunatick' and Philanthropist

In his spare time, Boulton was a founder member of the illustrious Lunar Society. This was an informal learned society that doubled as dinner and social club. Its members consisted of Midland's industrialists, natural philosophers and assorted intellectuals who met regularly from 1765 to 1813 in Birmingham and Lichfield.

The name signified that the meetings occurred at full moon, when the extra light made the journey between club and home safer. Naturally, the members called themselves "lunaticks." Along with Boulton and Watt were makers and shakers such as Erasmus Darwin, Joseph Priestley and Josiah Wedgwood. Corresponding members included Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and Antoine Lavoisier.

Boulton was extremely active in Birmingham society. He campaigned for establishment of the Birmingham Assay Office and served on committees involved in establishment of a General Hospital and in development of the Birmingham Dispensary to provide medicines and medical care to the poor. In 1794 he became High Sheriff of Staffordshire.

He was a lifelong Handel fan and promoted early music festivals to raise funds for the hospital and to enhance the tone of Birmingham's cultural life. His son noted that in many respects the Soho Manufactory doubled as an art school. Promising apprentices received tuition in drawing and were encouraged to attend plays and exhibitions to develop their artistic sensibilities.

In 1756 Boulton had married Mary Robinson, a distant cousin and heir to a large fortune. They had no children and she died in 1760. He subsequently married Mary's sister, Anne, despite this being perceived by the church as incestuous. He and Anne had a son, also called Matthew, who took over the business along with James Watt's son in about 1800. It was the mint of the two sons that struck the fourth issue reduced-size copper coinage of George III.

Matthew Boulton died on Aug. 18, 1809. As his legacy, he left us his coinage press able to rapidly strike coins of a uniform weight and size. These coins are the direct forebears of those we use today. His techniques remained in use around the world for many years. Along the way, he also developed a simple way of reeding and lettering edges to further frustrate forgers. The Royal Mint took a little while to adopt this latter proposal, 170 years in fact.

It was Boulton's steam-powered, pneumatic 5-inch screw coining presses that were purchased by the Heaton family in 1850 and used to establish the Birmingham Mint. I believe Matthew would have approved.

2009-05-19T17:01:00.000-07:00

Generic prices falling

By Steve Roach

In the generic end of the U.S. coin market, the collectors who are looking for a splendid example are willing to pay strong prices for the right example. But, in cases where supply exceeds demand, great bargains are available.

In total approximately $45 million in numismatic property changed hands at the recent Central States Numismatic Society Heritage auctions – an impressive number in any market. While Platinum Night, which I discussed last week, contains the glitziest and priciest coins, the nonfloor sessions, held immediately after the convention ends, illustrate a different sector of the market.

These sessions, which contain coins primarily in the $200 to $1,000 range, achieved a remarkable 92 percent sell-through rate by lot. That multiple examples of the same issue in the same grade are offered in a single auction allows for interesting comparisons.

The dominant trend was that generic coins sold generally well below established retail levels, sometimes falling even below wholesale sight-unseen bids. Perhaps the quintessential generic coin is the 1881-S Morgan dollar – a coin that "comes nice" and is widely available in all grades.

For example, two 1881-S Morgan dollars graded Mint State 67 by Numismatic Guaranty Corp. were offered at the Heritage nonfloor session after CSNS. One sold for $661.25, another for $1,092.50, and a non-star MS-67 example realized $633.65. The last price is below the sight-unseen wholesale bid, but the results are not inconsistent with prices realized at the last several major auctions.

Those with the patience to look through these large auctions will be rewarded with bargains and the ability to buy coins at wholesale levels. However, exceptional examples for the grade, and those coins that exhibit beautiful toning continue to bring strong prices. The rest seem to have found some stability.

The auction format is still attractive to consignors because it lets coins that are extraordinary soar past expectations. But, collectors aren’t bidding up nonexceptional coins because they know that the next large auction will likely offer another large selection.

2009-05-01T14:54:00.000-07:00

Mint Halts 09 Nickels and Dimes Production

By Mike Unser

The United States Mint has halted production of circulating 2009 Jefferson nickels and 2009 Roosevelt dimes for the rest of this year, according to the latest issue of [1] Coin World. As the dime and nickel production graphs show, the stoppage creates historic, staggering low mintages for the two coins — levels not seen since the 50s.

Coin Word’s Paul Gilkes reports the US Mint made the announcement on April 23, and included details of a scale back in producing for other circulating coins, like the three remaining 2009 Lincoln Pennies.

It’s not that the public or collectors dislike the new coins. Quite the opposite, in fact. Collector demand for 2009 circulating coinage is exceptionally high. It’s all about the recession. It has, by itself, significantly eroded demand for new coins in every day transactions.

Why? In addition to buying less, consumers as a whole no longer hoard loose change at home. They spend or cash it in, replenishing circulating supplies to such an extent that coin inventories at banks have climbed. Banks, in turn, cut Federal Reserve orders for new coin shipments. Federal Reserve banks do the same to the Mint, which is then forced to slash production.

Electronic transactions has already cut into demand for circulating coins over the last several years. The latest news from the Mint, however, overshadows how drastic demand for coins has been affected due solely to the recession.

Using the latest Mint circulating coin production figures for 2009 Jefferson nickels, 33.36 million from Denver and 36 million from Philadelphia were struck, for a total of 69.36 million coins. In contrast, 640.6 million nickels were minted last year. That is an astonishing 89.2 percent reduction. The last time a U.S. nickel had such a low combined mintage was in 1951.

The picture is very similar for 2009 Roosevelt dimes. 41.50 million in Denver and 78.50 million in Philadelphia were struck, for a total of 120 million coins. In contrast, 1.05 billion circulating dimes were minted last year. That is a 88.6 percent reduction. The combined mintage level has not been this low for the dime since 1955.

Finding circulating 2009 nickels and dimes will become a priority for many collectors, as their comparative scarcity is extremely attractive. The task may be quite difficult, however. To date, finding 2009 coinage has been a challenge. And unlike other circulating coins, the Mint does not directly sell the nickel and dime in bags or rolls to collectors.

2009-03-22T08:01:00.000-07:00

Bags and Rolls of Puerto Rico Quarters 3/30

by U.S. Mint

The United States Mint will release millions of commemorative quarter-dollar coins into circulation on March 30, 2009, to honor the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. At noon Eastern Time (ET) the same day, customers can begin ordering two-roll sets (40 coins per roll) that include one roll each from the United States Mint facilities at Philadelphia and Denver, and bags of 100 and 1,000 coins.

The set, priced at $32.95, contains two rolls of coins wrapped in specially designed United States Mint coin paper that displays a "P" or "D" for the roll's mint of origin, "PR" for Puerto Rico and "$10," representing the roll's dollar value. The bags of 100 coins are offered at $32.95, and the bags of 1,000 coins are offered at $309.95. Each bag is also marked with the mint of origin and the dollar value of its contents. The bags and two-roll sets contain Puerto Rico quarters struck for use in general circulation.

The Puerto Rico quarter is the second released under the 2009 District of Columbia and U.S. Territories Quarters Program. The design on the reverse (tails side) of the Puerto Rico quarter features a historic sentry box in old San Juan and a hibiscus, Puerto Rico's official flower. The design, by United States Mint Sculptor-Engraver Joseph Menna, includes the inscriptions Isla del Encanto (Island of Enchantment), E PLURIBUS UNUM, 2009 and PUERTO RICO.

Orders for the bags and rolls of Puerto Rico quarters may be placed at the United States Mint's secure Web site, www.usmint.gov, or by calling 1-800-USA-MINT (872-6468). Hearing- and speech-impaired customers may order by calling 1-888-321-MINT (6468). Domestic orders include a $4.95 fee per order for shipping and handling. Because of their weight and size, 1,000-coin bags of quarters will be charged an additional fee of $7.95 per bag.

Contact:

Press inquiries: Michael White (202) 354-7222

Customer Service information: (800) USA MINT (872-6468)

2009-03-06T19:37:00.001-08:00

Story of Fakes Gets New Chapter in China

By F. Michael Fazzari

Our hobby is under attack in a way that calls for some drastic changes in order to protect the marketplace from a new plague of deceptive counterfeits. In two columns, I'll trace earlier generations of bogus coins, explore some of the new fakes from China and suggest some possible ways to remedy the problem of these counterfeits.

Counterfeiting is probably older than the first coins; while alterations made to items considered as money may have preceded that. Nevertheless, let's begin well after this period and consider the era of struck coinage. One common form of alteration was "clipping" where small amounts of metal were cut from the edges of coins. This led governments to add various edge ornamentation to coins in order that someone could see the piece was intact and of full weight.

Eventually, entire coins were faked such as the contemporary counterfeit English pennies and American Bust halves that are eagerly collected today. In most cases, the style of the design used on these fakes and others left much to be desired. However, we know that these fakes were deceptive enough to circulate as they are usually found only in worn condition. Collectors of ancient coins must deal with much more dangerous and artful counterfeits than these.

While the counterfeit Machin's Mill coinage that plagued the Colonies might be an exception in terms of output, for much of the past, counterfeit operations were largely small and confined to contemporary circulating coinage. An engraver or "small time" crook could produce very limited quantities of one-off pieces similar to some of the famous varieties of large cents that bear no relationship to any government design or the Pioneer Era trial pieces that turn up now and then with a good pedigree.

When a government got into the act of fakery in order to debase the currency of another country, with few exceptions that I know of, their attention was on paper currency. However, coins such as British Trade dollars and gold sovereigns were counterfeited on a large scale, probably with government backing.

I don't believe numismatists had much of a problem with fakes until coins became valuable as collectibles. I can certainly speak to the 1960s and up to now with authority. Since coins have become more valuable, alterations have gone from a garage setting using a hot plate and battery to almost undetectable specimens with added mintmarks, tooled designs, and repairs that have taken on a quality once reserved for Old World master craftsmen!

As with coin alterations, counterfeits have improved over time. The improvements usually occur in distinct stages. For example, in the 1960s we had a glut of gold coins from Lebanon made using actual coining presses. These fakes were of such poor quality that many experts at the time wrote that they were made by casting. Although these fakes were not of numismatic quality, soon the next batch of fairly deceptive Liberty and Indian quarter eagles came out. While their style and relief was better and thus more deceptive, this generation of fakes was made using the wrong alloy of gold. Thus, these fakes were off-color.

The next leap forward was heralded by the "Omega" High Relief double eagle, and deceptive $1 and $3 gold coins. At the time, the sharpness and amount of detail on these coins was astounding. That's the reason, for a short time, so many professional numismatists disputed the fact that these coins were counterfeit. Fortunately, defects on the transfer dies made these fakes easy to detect once the professional authenticators revealed them and began to share the diagnostic information they had discovered.

Counterfeits have continued to improve as the fakers moved on to common date $20 Liberty and Saint-Gaudens designs and the gold and silver commemorative series. I believe some of the counterfeit silver commemoratives exemplified their best work and I am writing about fakes that were made almost 20 years ago.

Recently, with the advent of the Chinese connection, the counterfeiters have made another big step in the quality of their product. Most of you have probably read about the fake numismatic items produced by a Chinese businessman. Whether government backed or truly just a private enterprise, his work can be quite deceptive especially to the average collector. It's also a good bet that there are many such businesses there and I suspect that some of them are producing a much better product than those being reported so openly.

Finally, let's not forget the counterfeit slabs that have appeared. What a novel idea to attack the very system that was put in place to protect us from fakes and overgraded coins. You must know that it takes a large initial investment to make the plastic parts used to produce a third-party grading service's slab.

Here in the States, I believe the tooling for a case die alone can cost over $20,000. Then you'll need to add the labels, inserts, and sonic sealing machine dies. Perhaps, in an effort to keep their cost down, the fakers concentrated on one size coin (dollars are popular) and are working abroad as is being done in China today. Fortunately, from what I've seen, the counterfeit slabs are more dangerous and are better copies than the coins inside them; but that is changing.

2009-02-13T11:41:00.001-08:00

Mint Sells $948 Million in Bullion Coins

By David L. Ganz

Just out is the 2008 Annual Report of the Director of the Mint, a 70-page breath of fresh air that at once pays homage to the state quarters program and simultaneously is a valedictory address of Edmund Moy, who became Mint director in 2006.

Over the past dozen or so years, the annual report read more like an advertising brochure than the annual accounting of an entity that, if found in the private sector, could qualify as number 700 in the "Fortune 1,000" listing of American corporations. It had the graphics and sizzle, but lacked substance and core information.

Moy views the 2008 report as a personal triumph, and it is. "It took me two years but I think we are now on the irreversable track of greater transparency," he said in a Jan. 30 e-mail.The report is available at the Mint Web site, www.usmint.gov.

The report affords insight into the Mint's view that it currently costs more than face value to produce a cent and also the nickel - and explains the methodology of how this accurately reflects the relative cost of producing other denominations, dime through dollar.

It does not, however, reflect what would happen if production of the cent and nickel ceased, leaving the Mint with a huge overhead of fixed costs (such as the die shop), physical plant, and heat, light and utilities. The effect is to make the dime cost more than face value to produce - because the method used is capitation - one coin, one vote.

Circulation coinage was down 25 percent last year (from $1.7 billion face value in 2007 to $1.2 billion in 2008, and it is probably no great surprise that numismatic sales of circulating coins was also down by 18 percent.

Still, the numismatic sale of circulating coins amounted to $29.6 million - down from 2004 at the height of the state quarters program when $62.1 million in sales was racked up. The Mint's numismatic program increased by about 2.4 percent over last year with $527 million in gross sales. In 2007, it was $515.4 million - and five years ago in 2004 it weighed in at a mere $279 million.

Higher returns and profit were possible, but the report states the Mint's mandate: "Our mandate for numismatic coin sales is not to maximize profit but to recover costs and keep prices as low as practicable so that Americans can afford them."

The bullion program brought in a whopping $948 million in revenue and net income of $17.8 million - but protecting that profit was a hedge purchase, revealed for the first time in the Mint report. The bullion program's aim is also revealed: "By law, the purpose of the bullion coin program is to make precious metal coins available at minimal cost to investors, so we manage to a 2 percent margin."

Actually, the Mint missed the margin slightly, since the net income on $948.8 million in sales would be $18.9 million; still, a $17.8 million profit is credible. It also acknowledged supply problems with gold and silver in 2008.

"In FY 2008, we produced more ounces of precious metal bullion coins than any prior year, a feat that we are proud of. However, we could not procure enough planchets to meet demand. We were forced to temporarily suspend sales and established allocation programs to equitably distribute available inventory to authorized purchasers."

But that profit was achieved artificially, the report reveals: "In addition, as of Sept.30, 2008 ... the inventory includes $32.0 million ... in fair value silver hedge activity."

This is amplified later in the report.

"Each sale to and from the purchaser carries a small transaction fee, the selling and buying fees net to a cost of one-half cent per ounce," the report says. For $14 an ounce silver, that is modest.

The Mint incurred $90,000 in hedging fees in FY 2008, compared to $43,000 incurred in fiscal year 2007. At Sept. 30, 2008, hedging activity of $32.0 million represents the value of the silver sold to the Mint's trading partner and not yet sold by the Mint. In fiscal 2008, the Mint recorded an unrealized gain from hedging activity of $932,000.

Moy's report is candid in assessing the difficulties of the Mint: "Weaknesses include inadequate accountability, a risk-averse culture and a lack of coordination and trust."

Another conundrum at the mint is the long lead time needed to change coin composition to meet market realities. In the 1960s, for example, it took oer four years to change to copper-nickel cladding. The Mint reauthorizaition act of 1973 ultimately was not considered until 1981.

"Base metal prices continue to fluctuate. If prices continue to climb, there may be further erosion of seigniorage per dollar issued on circulating coins. We are optimistic that Congress will pass legislation enabling the United States Mint to more aggressively address the composition and cost of our circulating coins, but implementation will take time. Should legislation pass, we predict that the first positive effects of any content change will occur in FY 2010," the report says.

The Mint's course of action shifted under Moy. Last year, the Mint "created a Brand Identity Steering Committee... to develop and establish a United States Mint branding strategy. The objective of this effort is to establish and reinforce the exclusive brand identity of the United States Mint."

Some of the key components of this objective are to increaaase the public's recognition of the Mint as the exclusive origin of United States coins and medals. They want as well to reinforce individuality, and official authority of "United States Mint marks, names, symbols, and trade dress," terms familiar to intellectual property attorneys but foreign to the mint.

The Mint had two other key goals.

"Diminishing the public's likelihood of confusion and mistake between the United States Mint and other sources of coins and medallions, such as private mints and dealers; and Promoting the reputation, goodwill, confidence and quality associated with the United States Mint name and marks."

The Mint is also committed to excellence in coin design, its report says. "Coins are one of the most visible, tangible representations of a country. Thus, we believe our products are exceptional artistic media for expressing our national character, memorializing our past, and embodying our future"

New technology for the Mint in its production regime was also effected last year, the report says. "The resulting new digital process employs computer software tools to generate two- and three-dimensional designs on virtual paper and clay. Designs are digitally scanned, reviewed and revised electronically."

This brings about a significant operational change: "Once obverse and reverse designs are perfected, a Computer Numerically Controlled machine uses digitally controlled lasers to accurately reproduce the design on a single or multiple hubs. This digital process has reduced the time required to manufacture a hub from two to three days to under 24 hours."

2009-02-06T19:16:00.000-08:00

1899 Morgan Available for Its Low Mintage

By Paul M. Green

Most of the time we report on coins that are more elusive today than their mintages suggest. It does, however, work the other way. It is possible for a coin to be more available than might be expected based on its mintage. The 1899 Morgan dollar is one of those cases and an interesting story as well.

The 1899 Morgan dollar was certainly not needed. The only real purpose for major silver dollar mintages was to back Silver Certificates. In the vaults at Philadelphia and the other mints were more than enough Morgan dollars to meet any possible demand. In fact, 1899 saw the publication of an article describing how Morgan dollars stored in the vault in Philadelphia were basically dirty, sitting in bags that had started to rot.

About the only 1899 Morgans released into circulation were done so by accident, as we have relatively few examples in circulated grades today. That makes us suspect that they were not released at the time. It has even caused some to doubt the low 330,000-piece mintage.

However, Morgan dollars had so many factors at work that any combination could make a certain date tougher or easier than might be expected. When it comes to the 1899, we probably have little or no Pittman Act melting to reduce the supply. That fact alone could make it seem more available than its mintage suggests.

The mintage was low with only about half a dozen Morgan dollar dates having lower totals. Also, it appears that the collector saving of the day was of only 846 proofs, which was fairly typical of the time.

It was clear very early that the 1899 was not in circulation. As Q. David Bowers reports in his book, The Official Red Book of Morgan Silver Dollars, "in 1925 a serious specialist could not find one [1899 Morgan dollar], despite a lot of searching through quantities of dollar coins." That would have helped. If the 1899 was seen as tough early, when a bag did surface there might be greater saving of nice examples.

In fact, bags of the 1899 appear to have been released late. There are reports of up to 100,000 examples being released in the 1950s and then more in assorted places in the 1960s. At this point, there were more collectors and more interest.

In the end we have supplies of the 1899 in most grades. In MS-60 it is at a low $295, while an MS-65 at $1,000 is also low considering the mintage.

The supplies of today may not have come about in the normal fashion, but how the coins were released and when does not really matter since the 1899 does in fact exist today.

The 1899's situation is one of relatively few Morgan dollar dates where it can be said that it is more available in Mint State than might be expected based on its total mintage.

2009-02-03T16:37:00.000-08:00

Ultra High Relief $20 Double Eagle Exhibit in Philadelphia

By CoinNews.net

The United States Mint on Tuesday opened a new exhibit in Philadelphia that offers a glimpse into the development of the 2009 Ultra High Relief Double Eagle Gold Coin.

The 2009 gold piece is a modern day recreation of the Augustus Saint-Gaudens’ designed 1907 $20 Double Eagle — considered by many to be the most beautiful gold coin ever made in the history of U.S. coinage.

Featured display items include:
A pencil sketch of an early design by Saint-GaudensThe final digital model used to create the 2009 coinTest blanks, feasibility strikes and progression strikesA set of feasibility dies, a set of the final design dies and a three-part collar segment that forms the raised edge letteringAnd the 2009 Ultra High Relief Double Eagle Gold Coin

"We are proud to give visitors to the United States Mint at Philadelphia a glimpse into our journey to fulfill the dream of Saint-Gaudens and President Theodore Roosevelt," said United States Mint Director Moy in a press statement.

The Mint first unveiled the coin and exhibit at the World’s Fair of Money® last year in Baltimore. A version of the exhibit is available through the US Mint website page, Online Exhibit.

2009-01-30T19:52:00.000-08:00

Sizzling Ultra High Relief $20 Double Eagle Sales Figures

By CoinNews.net

Collectors were more than eager to slap down $1,189.00 for the 2009 Ultra High Relief $20 Double Eagle Gold Coin during its first days of availability, with sizzling sales figures reported.

The United States Mint placed the modern day recreation of the famed Augustus Saint-Gaudens’ designed 1907 $20 Double Eagle gold piece on its online store January 22, 2008.

All indicators pointed to a first day Double Eagle meltdown. Initial online orders took an hour or more to place, and collector reports about Mint phone line back-ups were plentiful.

The one-ounce highly detailed coin is struck in 24-karat, .9999 fine gold and is limited to a single year of issue. Its smaller diameter of 27mm is more than 50 percent thicker than modern US Mint gold coins. Those features and more, made the coin a hit.

Numbers are now surfacing with Mint sales of 28,173 within the first day and 40,727 sold during the first four days. In terms of revenue, the Mint generated an impressive $33.5 million on day one, or $48.4 million through the first four days. Those are exceptional figures. But they came with some negative side affects as well.

Collectors placing orders quickly discovered the coins would not ship immediately. The Mint sent out backorder notices with shipping dates in early February, and for some, follow-up notices pushing the delivery date back several more days.

Some collectors and bloggers who did buy or were thinking about buying the gold piece also voiced concern that the Mint’s pricing policy could result in higher credit card charges should the coin’s price go up before the coins shipped.

While the price of the new coins did rise to $1,239.00 on Thursday to better match climbing gold prices, the Mint said it will charge only what the coin was priced at during order time. An obvious policy taken for granted by many, but not so for those who have lost confidence in the Mint these past several months for one reason or another.

David Harper, editor of Numismatic News, wrote a thoughtful piece on Friday entitled What can the Mint Do? For those questioning the Mint’s newest pricing methodology and have felt the pain of apparent Mint mistakes, it is well worth the read.

Likewise, Susan Headley from About.com: Coins voice her thoughts about double eagle sales and the Mint’s "beating."

Both of these exceptionally experienced numismatists hit the nail on the head for many who feel the US Mint deserves more credit than it gets, or at least less thrashing.

When it comes to the newest $20 Double Eagle coin, the early sales numbers in a struggling economy speaks volumes about the Mint’s achievement.

2009-01-27T13:36:00.001-08:00

Ultra-High-Relief on Sale, Delay in Delivery Possible

By Maggie Stigsell

To the excitement - and frustration - of collectors, the 2009 Ultra-High-Relief Saint-Gaudens gold $20 went on sale from the U.S. Mint at noon EST on Jan. 22. Online delays as long as an hour and a half were reported at the opening of the order period.

The original price was set at $1,189, but this could fluctuate weekly based on the price of gold bullion, according to the Mint's recently instated pricing structure.

The Mint says production of the coin is subject to the availability of gold blanks, and delivery could take six to nine months. Orders are currently limited to one coin per household.

The Ultra-High-Relief Double Eagle Gold Coin is a digitally reproduced version of sculptor Augustus Saint-Gaudens' original ultra-high-relief 1907 Double Eagle gold piece, never issued into circulation. On the coin's obverse, Saint-Gaudens shows Liberty, personified by a statuesque woman striding forward. A young eagle flying during a sunrise is depicted on the reverse.

The 2009 coin is updated to reflect the year in Roman numerals. Four stars were added to represent the last four states admitted to the Union. The inscription "IN GOD WE TRUST" and a small border were also added. "E PLURIBUS UNUM" is featured in raised lettering on the edge of the coin, with each letter separated by a star.

Information about the most current pricing will be posted online at http://catalog.usmint.gov/. To get in the ordering line, call (800) USA MINT or visit the Mint's Web site. Because of possible fluctuations in pricing, the Mint will not be accepting any mail orders.

2009-01-23T19:37:00.000-08:00

Scarcity of Blanks May Slow Delivery of High Relief $20

By Numismatic News

Sales were set to begin for the Ultra-High-Relief Saint-Gaudens gold $20 Jan. 22 just as this issue of Numismatic News was going to press.

An initial price of $1,189 was set and it could fluctuate each week in accordance with the Mint's new pricing procedures based on the London price of gold bullion.

An order limitation of one coin per household was in effect.

Also, the Mint cautioned that delivery could take up to nine months depending on the quantity of orders received and the availability of blanks.

The Mint has been struggling with a shortage of gold blanks because unprecedented worldwide demand for gold bullion coins is straining the blank producers that the Mint depends upon.

The coin is smaller than a standard $20, more the $10 size and much thicker. It contains one troy ounce of .9999 fine gold. The coin is the original 1907 work of the artist that was never actually produced for circulation.

The 2009 date is in Roman numerals.

To order, visit the Mint's Web site at www.usmint.gov, or telephone toll-free (800) USA-MINT. No mail orders will be accepted due to the possible price changes

2009-01-22T21:10:00.001-08:00

2009 Ultra High Relief Gold on Fire

By Mike Unser

The United States Mint released the highly anticipated 2009 Ultra High Relief Double Eagle Gold Coin today at noon (ET). All indications show that coin sales are blazing, with reports of busy Mint phone lines and online ordering backups that have taken up to an hour to place an order.

The coin collector’s excitement for the modern day recreation of the famed Augustus Saint-Gaudens’ designed 1907 $20 Double Eagle gold piece is felt across the Internet — websites, forums, and social groups. On CoinNews itself, thousands of collectors have searched for and viewed recent double eagle articles in a matter of hours, easily ranking interest in this coin at a historical high for any on the site.

The Mint’s opening price for the gold piece is set at $1,189.00, plus $4.95 for shipping and handling. The one-ounce coin is struck in 24-karat, .9999 fine gold and is limited to a single year of issue. Striking is the coin’s more than double thickness when compared to other modern gold coins from the Mint.

On Thursday morning, the London AM gold price was fixed at $860 an ounce. The CoinNews US Mint Price Guide shows a $329 premium over gold for the modern $20 double eagle. While not an insignificant margin at 27.7 percent, it is actually less than two other collector bullion coin options the Mint now sells.

Before placing orders, coin collector’s must consider the following bolded statement from the Mint’s product page.

Orders will be processed on a first-in, first-out basis, and could potentially take up to six to nine months to complete based on gold blank availability. When placing your order, please consider your credit card’s expiration date, as charges will coincide with shipment. If your credit card has expired by the time of shipment, your order will be cancelled. To update your credit card information, you must call 1-800-USA-MINT and have your order number available.

The thought of potentially waiting 6-9 months is disheartening. Then again, the US Mint has not always been the quickest to deliver advertised products. Disappointing, yes. Even a bit upsetting. However, it is also a two-edged sword that can work for collectors. Anyone can cancel their order should the wait become too long, or even re-order — albeit with some risk — should gold prices go down and the double eagles with them.

2009-01-21T18:53:00.001-08:00

Has Gold and Silver Buying Panic Started

By Patrick A. Heller

News and rumors were spreading across the financial markets that Bank of America, Citigroup, and JPMorgan Chase & Co. were each at high risk of failure last week. Some analysts even speculated that at least one might be nationalized as early as this past weekend. Each of these banks used to be considered as part of the bedrock support for the global financial system.

Apparently, the $345 billion of various bailout monies already given by the U.S. government (i.e., taxpayers) to Citigroup are not enough to save it. Bank of America was given another emergency disbursement of $20 billion to help cover higher than expected losses from the acquisition of Merrill Lynch, but it is expected that the bank will need at least another $100 billion almost immediately. I haven't heard any bailout numbers about JPMorgan Chase, but the stories are that this bank has effectively already been taken over by the U.S. government.

In this past week, the stock values for all three banks plummeted, even during the times when the overall stock markets were rising.

If you accept the thesis (which is pretty much an established fact) that the U.S. government is behind manipulation to suppress the price of gold, the horrible news for these three banks would require manipulation to hold down gold's price last week. This is exactly what happened through Thursday.

On Friday, however, the market shifted. One trader in the COMEX gold pit reported that agents for JPMorgan Chase were aggressive buyers that day. JPMorgan Chase has a larger short gold position on the COMEX than all the gold held against COMEX contracts. This bank also has huge short positions on the COMEX silver market. If JPMorgan Chase has reached the breaking point and is genuinely trying to close out its short positions, the prices of gold and silver could explode within days.

All week long, customers have been flocking to our store and calling our mail-order department to purchase gold and silver bullion coins and ingots at levels we have not experienced in about three months. Part of the reason for the surge was the appearance of 2009-dated U.S. gold and silver American Eagles. Another reason was the declines in premium levels. Part of the reason was also the temporary price dips. However, some of the reason was definitely that there are more people worried that the U.S. financial system is on the brink of a major catastrophe. It is entirely possible that we are already in the early stages of a gold and silver buying panic.

Actually, if one or more of these three banks fails, that could shake the trust in the U.S. banking system so much that "worst-case scenarios" could become reality. It is no longer out of the question that incoming president Obama could impose a bank holiday similar to what was done by former President Franklin D. Roosevelt shortly after he assumed office. In the most pessimistic circumstances, such an event could happen within a few days from now.

Should one or more of these three banks fail, I anticipate that demand for physical gold and silver could rise so quickly that they might become virtually impossible to purchase within a few days. The bad news is that these potential bank failures are only some of several plausible scenarios that could occur that would spark major panic buying of gold and silver.

This week is especially scary for the financial system. As Barack Obama is sworn in as president, his nominee for Treasury Secretary will not yet be approved by Congress. At the earliest, his nominee could be approved three days later. The President's Working Group that oversees market manipulation cannot execute any programs until they are signed by the Treasury secretary.

After former Treasury secretary left that office at the end of 2002, new Treasury Secretary John Snow was not installed until Feb. 3, 2003. During this 34-day gap when the President' Working Group was not able to take action to suppress gold prices, the price of gold rose more than 10 percent. Could something similar happen again during these volatile times when there is no Treasury secretary? Yes it can.

Even if the financial system survives this week without a near catastrophic event, that leaves the possibility that a major blowup could occur next week, the week after, next month, or maybe later. As time goes on, the prospects are getting slimmer of a financial recovery without extreme volatility.

2009-01-20T18:30:00.001-08:00

And Now, the Hard Part

By Jon Nadler

Change came to Washington on this cold January Tuesday. As the noon hour ticked over to 12:01 pm, the "Under New Management" sign might as well have been unfurled above the White House's main entrance in Washington. The first such sign came from the www.whitehouse.gov website, which underwent an instant transformation and today's agenda section was led by a simple but bold entry titled: "Economy." America's new leader appears to be fully cognizant of the priorities facing him at this juncture. A tough road lies ahead. Confidence and unity will be indispensable.

This is not to say that the stock market greeted the changing of the guard with a display of confident fireworks. In fact, the Dow sank to under 8,000 and shed 315+ points - mainly on concerns about the global recession and the difficulties manifest in the banking sector. Then again, looking at the US dollar's 1.34 point rise on the index as well as against the pound and the euro, one might likely conclude that perhaps the greenback's rivals have larger hurdles ahead of them. Cutting rates is fast-approaching a dead-end and the next step will be the acquisition of assets by various central banks. Welcome to global(national)ization.

Showing signs that its problems are more severe than those of the US dollar, the British pound took a pounding that left it at a seven and a half year low of $1.3915 against the greenback, and at a record low of 125,62 versus the yen. Worries about the state of the financial sector and that of the domestic economy helped drive the currency lower overnight, amid indications that a second bank bailout and the quasi-nationalization of the Royal Bank of Scotland were in the works. The Bank of Canada joined the race towards zero, offering up an interest rate cut of its own, easing to 1% with (possibly) more to follow. That's as low a rate as we've had since the creation of the BoC in 1934, and it is now in place obviously because the economy is doing just plain lousy.

Risk aversion was therefore manifest among investors once again. Guru Jim Rogers urged them to sell "any sterling they might have left." Apparently, the pound can be broken without any Mr. Soros trades, of late. Investors are leaning towards the few currencies that have trade surpluses acting as a cushion underneath them: the Swiss Franc, Japanese yen, and the Norwegian Kroner are the prime beneficiaries of such a quest.

Crude oil prices initially slipped to under $33 per barrel, on a combination of another surge in the US dollar, evaporating demand, rising inventories, and the upcoming expiration of the February contract. The latter subsequently turned into a short-covering stampede as participants danced the 'contango tango' and loaded up on the contract before expiration. Black gold popped much higher during the afternoon hours, reaching back towards $39 per barrel. This comeback helped gold prices maintain a good part of their early gains and it, in turn, reached highs at near $858 per ounce as uncertain participants tried to gauge near-term direction for the precious metal in the wake of the dollar's surge and darting oil prices.

At the end of the day, economic worries continue to dominate the investment scene globally, and many a trader and investor will be looking to Mr. Obama for clues to the future, as he now takes the helm of the severely listing US ship. Will he be better able to unite the country and to lead it on a stable course, following the 42 white men who came before him? Expectations are running high (at least) on the economic front following the Bush administration's worst jobs record since WW II.

More nervousness in gold as well as in other markets will surely be on tap for the next several sessions, and perhaps for months. While it was encouraging to record a day on which gold rose in tandem with its main rival (the dollar), the very long-term bear signal given in the wake of last October's decline to $736 per ounce is (at least in the view of market technician Merv Burak) very much in place, so long as gold struggles under $925 per ounce. Silver, platinum, and palladium were not quite as fortunate as gold was today, shedding 6 cents, $10 and $2 respectively, and they were quoted at $11.16, $939 and $183 per ounce. News that FIAT will take a 35% ownership stake in moribund Chrysler (for no cash!) was offset by Toyota's first decline in annual sales in nearly a decade and weighed heavily on the automotive demand-dependent noble metals.

In case you did not have a chance to watch or listen to Mr. Obama's inaugural speech, we have isolated several statements that our readers may be specifically interested in. While we (and history) will only be able to judge these words as having been prophetic or naive some five or ten years from now, the time to read them dispassionately is today - the day when differences are supposed to be set aside and the man that America elected given a chance to do the job he signed up to do:

"...Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet. These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land — a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights.

Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America — they will be met.

...We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions — that time has surely passed.

Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.

For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act — not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do.

...Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions — who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage.

What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them — that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works — whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account — to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day — because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control — and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our Gross Domestic Product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart — not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.

...In the year of America's birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people: "Let it be told to the future world ... that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive ... that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it]."

America. In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations."

The work beings tonight.

2009-01-19T19:55:00.000-08:00

Gold will Emerge Winner

By Christopher G Galakoutis

A Federal Reserve balance sheet that has grown from 900 billion to well over 2 trillion since last fall may be on its way to 10 trillion according to some observers. There is no denying it’s been pedal to the floor in money-printing efforts to restore the credit markets back to health.

What also needs to be restored is profits for the banking industry. It is that industry, after all, that the Fed really answers to. It is also an industry that knows how to profit from inflation. Throughout history bankers and the ruling classes have profited from inflation, as a transfer of wealth occurs at the expense of the vast majority of the population.

Along those lines what we have witnessed since last fall has been a Fed effort to create inflation and rescue the banking system. This following a textbook case of the law of unintended consequences, where runaway commodity and food prices -- a consequence of an irresponsible bubble creating Fed -- earlier in 2008 and a financial sector ailing due to its own greed, saw a miscalculating Fed bring a violent reversal of those trades and a crash, when it decided to backstop certain financial institutions and not others.

Since then, the Fed has been purchasing commercial paper, mortgage-backed securities, and any and all other assets to keep the banking system from collapsing into a deflationary spiral. Expansion of the Fed plan, including purchasing consumer and small business loans, as circumstances warrant with the help of the Treasury, is sure to follow.

Calls for the Fed to "proceed with caution" with its new policy are going unheeded. The fear is that plans are not in place to immediately reverse course at first sign of inflationary trouble. In a market where a misguided fear of a deflationary winter has its grip on most, inflation is a luxury item beyond reach for now.

The stock market crash and continued deleveraging brought the financial system’s money flow, gripped by fear, to a standstill. The Fed’s efforts at gorging the money supply with new liquidity is an attempt to overcome that standstill -- an opposing force also referred to as the rate of money velocity -- and create positive inflation.

With green lights flashing across the central banking landscape, eager governments and millions of citizens in dire straits, it is hard to imagine that unlimited money printing will give way to a finite opposing force. The point the opposing force is finally overcome is obviously of real concern due its inflationary ramifications, and was reflected in the strong price of gold throughout this crisis. Gold’s strength looks to be signaling a coming inflation and an inability of central banks to withdraw said stimulus in time.

Weighed down by enormous debt levels, no domestic savings from which to draw, angry foreign creditors and a collapsing tax base, the Fed has no choice but to inflate in a big way; while it may be a race to inflate worldwide, the US has more baggage than others. With all countries both daring the inflation monster while trying to stay one step ahead of its jaws, the one that is weighed down the most, much like the slowest antelope in tiger country, will naturally be the first to be caught. The carnage won’t be pretty, but gold will shine.

2009-01-12T17:02:00.000-08:00

2009 District of Columbia & Territories Quarters Proof Set Available

by U.S. Mint

Collectors can begin placing their orders for the United States Mint 2009 District of Columbia & U.S. Territories Quarters Proof SetTM, the United States Mint announced today. The set, released January 5, 2009, contains six commemorative quarter-dollars honoring the District of Columbia and the five U.S. territories - the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, U.S. Virgin Islands and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

Genuine United States Mint proof coins are manufactured at the United States Mint at San Francisco. Unlike coins produced for general circulation, these coins are extraordinarily brilliant, with sharp relief and a mirror-like background. A frosted, sculpted foreground gives proof coins a cameo effect. To protect their pristine finish, the coins of the United States Mint 2009 District of Columbia & U.S. Territories Quarters Proof Set are sealed in a protective lens. The set includes an official United States Mint Certificate of Authenticity.

The United States Mint 2009 District of Columbia & U.S. Territories Quarters Proof Set is priced at $14.95. Collectors may place their orders at the secure Web site, www.usmint.gov, or at the toll-free number, 1-800-USA-MINT (872-6468). Hearing- and speech-impaired customers may order by calling 1-888-321-MINT (6468). All domestic orders will be accessed a $4.95 shipping and handling fee.

Contact:
Press inquiries: Michael White (202) 354-7222
Customer Service information: (800) USA MINT (872-6468)

2008-12-23T20:16:00.000-08:00

US Quarter Dollar to be Replaced by National Park Quarters

By CoinNews.net

America’s Beautiful National Parks Quarter Dollar Coin Act became law today with President Bush’s signature. The bill authorizes a new series of 56 quarter designs at a rate of five per year beginning in 2010.

The law mandates that each quarter will be "emblematic of a national park or other national site in each State, the District of Columbia, and each territory of the United States."

The Treasury Secretary will select the final list for respective quarter designs within 270 days and after consulting with the Secretary of the Interior and the governor or other chief executive of each State. The quarter series will last for at least 11 years, but an optional provision provides the Treasury Secretary the authority to extend the series past 2030.

The legislation, H.R. 6184, was introduced by Rep. Michael Castle [R-DE], Rep. Luis Gutierrez [D-IL], and Carolyn Maloney [D-NY] on June 4, 2008. It passed rather quickly through the House on July 9 and then, in complete surprise, sailed through the lame duck Senate session on December 10.

An intriguing section in the new law also calls for a massive silver bullion duplicate of each quarter that is 3.0 inches diameter and struck in 5.0 ounces of .999 fine silver. The popular American Eagle silver is one of the largest coins, but is just 1.598 inches wide and contains only an ounce of silver.

When the new series ends, the quarter reverse will depict George Washington crossing the Delaware River prior to the Battle of Trenton.

A resource for the quarter series may be found at National Park Quarters. Also, David L. Ganz for Numismatic News wrote an interesting article prior to the bill becoming law that is entitled Park Themes Get Nod for New Coin Series. Additionally, Susan Headley for About.com: Coins has a must read piece over at New State Quarters Program Awaits Signature.

2008-11-14T09:26:00.000-08:00

Mint Holds Clearance Sale

By David C. Harper

The U.S. Mint is holding a clearance sale.

Hundreds of current and past products are being offered to collectors to clear out fulfillment centers in Memphis, Tenn., and Plano, Texas, in preparation for a January move to a new center in Plainfield, Ind.

The news confirms online speculation that some numismatic versions of American Eagle and Buffalo precious metal coinage will not be offered again. However, the extent of program terminations offers a few surprises.

Uncirculated platinum American Eagles with the "W" mintmark in all sizes end with this year's coinages.

American Eagle platinum proofs come to an end, too, except for the one-ounce coin.
Uncirculated gold American Eagles will be discontinued except for the one-ounce size.
All American Buffalo uncirculated "W" collector versions will be ended.

Proof American Buffalo gold coins will be stopped except for the one-ounce coin.
Other terminated products include new ones like Presidential dollar Signature Sets and the proof Presidential dollars sold individually.

Old ones, like state quarter First Day Coin Covers and Greetings from America Portfolios and Card Sets, are coming to an end after the 10-year program concludes.

"It will be limited time. First come, first served," said Mint Deputy Director Andrew D. Brunhart. "No household limits. All sales will be final. If you're wondering, we won't exceed any Mint limits."

The sale, which began Nov. 15, concludes at 5 p.m. Dec. 19, but some products are likely to be gone well before then.

Of those that don't sell, Brunhart says, "We're going to be doing a significant detrashing and melting (of) the products that do not sell by Dec. 19. Those products will be immediately broken down and sent to the melter."

The clearance sale is part of a major re-evaluation of the Mint's product line. Brunhart said the product offerings will be reduced from more than 550 available in 2008 to roughly 200.
Leftover 2008 products will stay on sale until June, when they will get the same detrashing and melting treatment.

"From now on at the end of each year, we will examine our portfolio to make sure the warehouse is not stuffed with products they (Mint customers) don't want," Brunhart said. "We're undergoing a significant renewal of our numismatic portfolio in 2009. We have too many products. We have heard loud and clear from our collecting community. We are responding to that. We will be focusing our resources on key products (with the) broadest appeal.
"Fewer products to concentrate on will enable us to bring out and offer much earlier in the calendar year our key products."

The benefit to collectors will be earlier release of hobby favorites.
"Four of these, clad proof sets, silver proof sets, uncirculated sets and silver American Eagles (will be offered) in January of each year," Brunhart said.

2008-10-13T07:49:00.000-07:00

THE CRAZY MARKETS-MID OCTOBER

by Legend Numismatics

LEGEND AND ITS BUSINESS ARE SOLID

First, Legend would like to clarify the last email everyone got from us. We were surprised to hear some people took our "no cash buying" as desperation selling. Wrong!

What we were trying to do is move old inventory and get something we badly needed-gold. Dealers close to us had incredibly strong orders for generic Saints and Liberties and we felt it might be wise to suggest some profit taking. Thanks to that email we did 2 transactions for generic gold and have 2 more on hold. Plus, we simply have too many physical coins. We prefer to control our inventory at certain levels.

SINCE OCTOBER 1ST LEGEND HAS SPENT $3,000,000.00 WITH COLLECTORS! This is NOT getting consignments, NOT placing coins into auction, not anything else but writing checks! We have had everything from a small Pattern Collection to a million dollar collection sold to us this month. We've even purchased a $1,000,000.00 coin that we promptly sold to a collector! The collectors who we knew for a long time and had given us Want Lists had a few holes in their collections filled. We were never kidding when we said we could sell up to $10,000,000.00 in coins -if we could find them. Since Oct 1st, we have found some and the buyers were still there. They especially loved the fact they didn't have to contend for them in an auction and end up overpaying possibly.

Legend can easily handle ANY size deal-still. Unlike many other dealers, we manage our cash flow very well and are well financed.

Our only concerns are about our older inventory. We deem the auction process too risky and slow for today’s daily changing financial marketplace (plus if your coin does sell, you have to wait another 45 days to be paid). We don't want to have an huge inventory being neglected. So we are eager sellers of any coin that has been in our inventory for more than 60 days. $3,000,000.00 (in 2 weeks) buys you a lot of coins-and you forget about your older coins very easily!

An FYI about who was selling and why: not everyone was dumping because they needed money or were panicked. One substantial deal had nothing to do with anything financial. Another deal happened because the collector felt they could not improve their set. Yet another collector was retiring from his business. One collector sold us his duplicates so he had more money to work on his main sets. Only a small handful told us they needed money.

LEGENDS CURRENT SALESWe read one dealer who wrote that its a lie if someone says they are selling a lot of coins. Well, they need a better customer base! A substantial part of the $3 million we purchased is now in collectors hands. Included are coins such as: A choice/GEM PCGS group of PR Half cents, $10 1801 in high grade, an 1808 $2.5 in high AU, several GEM PR Seated Dollars, and one very special coin we will have an announcement on shortly.
These coins all went to different buyers-NOT the usual suspects.

At the new slightly lower levels, coins are indeed trading on the retail level. Not everyone is staring a stock screen trying to figure which window to jump out of. The correction in coins actually happened months ago when collectors realizing things were going to change and the financial world was shifting. At that point, they started to demand ONLY true quality. The lesser material immediately fell at least 10-20%. Up until now, "better" coins have been strong. We see only minor weakness so far-but the coins we are handling are the best of the best and manage to out last (financially) widgets, generics, and general product. The upcoming Stacks and Heritage auctions will be major bellwethers as to where the general market is at. Both follow each other at the end of the month.

THE STOCK MARKET AND THE COIN MARKETThe stock market is pure insanity at this point. Traders have made sure to drive a wedge into every investors thoughts and create a potentially harmful psychology. Even great companies have had their stocks become worth less than their book values! Investors still do have money, but thanks to the loser hedgies (slang for hedge funds) giving them super wedgies, they are sitting on the sidelines confused or plain scared.

Our government is working hard to clean up the mess. Clearly, it will take time to heal. The coin market is NOT spooked. Values have NOT collapsed. Collectors and the general public have bought so much gold bullion there is virtually none available. The major telemarketers are slowly starting to transfer that demand into rare gold coins. The potential for a turn around just based on new collectors who couldn't get gold bullion is staggering.

We have no prediction on how the coin market will now end the year. The stock market is on too wild of a ride to do any serious calculating on. We will say it is a buyers market for many coins-save for the classic rarities. There is NOT a flood of coins to choose from (which is a VERY good sign). Again, all the coins we wanted to sell last week SOLD. Only our older inventory (yes, we'll make deals) is sluggish.

A HUGE POSSIBLITY OF POTENTIAL We are fed up with stocks. Some of our holding have dropped as much as 76% since July! Shame on us for not having the bulk of our assets in a field we know best-coins. No more playing the stock market. We'll put a minimum amount into stocks, and the rest into rare coins. We doubt that over the next few months as things stabilize we'll be alone. Even if a fraction of a fraction of the investor money that’s out there came into coins-we'd be right back in a raging bull market. If this happens it will happen virtually overnight and it will be one heck of a herd coming in. Prices could dramatically shoot up.
Unlike the stock market, coins do not have 1000 point daily stomach churning sessions. In the end you have a beautiful historical hard asset, not a worthless piece of paper.

THERE DEFINATELY IS A COIN MARKET THAT IS STILL ACTIVE. THE SKY IS NOT FALLING!

2008-10-10T15:47:00.000-07:00

Gold Picks

By John Kamin

John Kamin, author of The Forecaster, has recommendations for those who want to buy rarer or scarcer coins:

"$1 gold Type 2 1854 or 1855 small Indian princess head in Ms-60 or MS-62;"

"$3 gold 1879 through 1889 in MS-62;"

"1915-S Panama Pacific $2.5;"

" 1917 $1 McKinley

Kamin advises avoiding the $1 Pacific Rim and 1916 $1 McKinley because they are too common.

As for bullion coins, Kamin recomments the 2008 quarter ounce and half ounce gold coins because they are lower mintage than the $1 American Eagle and can be purchased for a few percent over melt value.

Kamin suggests avoiding junk accumulations, cable TV pitches, 1 ounce gold Eagles, one-tenth ounce gold Eagles, circulated $20 Liberty and circulation St. Gaudens.

"These are much too common, with too high mintages and I can't see any significant numismatic premiums for them for a number of years," he says.

2008-10-09T08:45:00.000-07:00

Wicker Praises In God We Trust Relocation

By CoinNews.net

U.S. Sen. Roger Wicker has more reason to celebrate than most for the new 2009 Presidential Dollar designs the United States Mint released on Wednesday. He introduced the amendment calling for the motto "In God We Trust" to be relocated from the edge of the $1 coin to its face. (View up close 2009 Presidential $1 Coin design images.)

"The words of these two phrases symbolize who we are as Americans and should not be relegated to the rim of this new, high-profile coin. They should continue to be proudly and prominently displayed," said Mr. Wicker in 2007 when he was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives."

In late 2007, Congress passed Mr. Wicker’s amendment within the Consolidated Appropriations Act, which included a provision directing the Secretary of the Treasury to move the inscription “In God We Trust” from the edge of the Presidential $1 Coin to the obverse (heads side) or reverse of the coin.

After the U.S. Mint’s revelation of the new 2009 Presidential Dollar designs with the motto on the coin’s obverse, Sen. Wicker commented,

"The words ‘In God We Trust’ symbolize who we are as Americans and should not have been relegated to the rim of the new $1 coins. It was wrong to obscure these important, symbolic words from view.

I am glad my amendment received the support it did to ensure these important words will be displayed on the face of future presidential $1 coins, starting with the coins the U.S. Mint revealed today."

Mr. Wicker said the phrase has been prominently displayed on U.S. currency since 1864, and it was important that it continued with the new $1 coins.

The Presidential $1 Coin Program started in 2007 and features a series of four different designs each year, with each honoring a former President in the order they served. The 2009 Presidential $1 Coins honor William Henry Harrison, John Tyler, James K. Polk and Zachary Taylor.

To date, more than 1.3 billion $1 coins have been minted for circulation that bear the images of the first seven Presidents. The 2008 Martin Van Buren Presidential Dollar is scheduled for release on November 13.

2008-10-03T16:27:00.000-07:00

Austrian Railways Fourth Silver Commemorative

"Empress Elisabeth West Railway"

By Austrian Mint

The Austrian Mint has issued the fourth 20 Euro silver commemorative coin within the "Austrian Railways" six silver coin series. The coin is dedicated to the "Empress Elisabeth West Railway" from Vienna to Salzburg, which was constructed between 1856 and 1860. It features locomotive "kkStB 306" steaming across an iron railway bridge and a superbly crafted scene depicting the platform hall of the West Railway Station in Vienna.

In the Austrian Empire the railway lines north to the coalfields and factories of Bohemia or south to the harbour of Trieste and the Adriatic shipping lanes were by far the most important. A railway line from Vienna westwards parallel to the Danube River was of less consequence.
However, the Kingdom of Bavaria was very anxious to see such a line between Salzburg and Vienna, which would enable trains from Munich to travel eastwards through Hungary and down to Constantinople. Plans by the government to build such a line were subsequently abandoned in 1856 to a private consortium, the Empress Elisabeth Railway Company.

Construction began in 1856 and by late 1858 the line had reached the city of Linz. In the next two years the line was extended to Salzburg, the first train from Vienna arriving on 26th May, 1860. The official opening was not until 12th August. On that day the Emperor Franz Joseph coming from Vienna and King Maximilian II of Bavaria coming from Munich arrived in the Salzburg Railway Station at precisely the same time. The official opening was followed by celebrations first in Munich and then in Vienna. The new line would also be used by Franz Joseph to travel to his beloved Bad Ischl in Summer, and by the Empress Elisabeth herself to travel home to see her family in Bavaria.

The locomotive 306 which appears on the obverse of the new coin, was designed and built in 1908 by the chief engineer Karl Gölsdorf. Unfortunately, it proved insufficiently strong to move the new heavy express trains and consequently only three engines of this model were constructed. The locomotive 306 was then employed in pulling the imperial court trains which Emperor Franz Joseph and members of the imperial family used on their frequent journeys throughout the Empire. Each line placed such a special train at the disposal of the imperial family, although the journeys themselves were billed to the court.

In 1881 the Empress Elisabeth West Railway, which had been struggling with financial problems, fell victim to the government’s plans to bring all the railways under the control of the Imperial State Railways. The entire network of lines and the running of all trains were incorporated into the state system. In 1884 the Empress Elisabeth West Railway was officially nationalised. After the First World War with the dismemberment of the Habsburg Empire, the North and South Railways declined in significance. The West Railway became (and remains) the most important line in the Republic of Austria.

The new silver 20-Euro coin shows the locomotive 306 steaming across an iron railway bridge. The reverse side depicts the platform hall of the West Railway Station in Vienna. A train has just arrived and the passengers begin to disembark. A railway official stands with a timetable in hand to assist passengers with inquiries. To the right is the statue of the Empress Elisabeth, who gave her name to the line. This figure was in the entrance to the old station, and although damaged in the Second World War, it stood until recently in the entrance hall of the new West Station.

The new coin is struck in 900 fine silver in proof quality only and to a maximum mintage of 50,000 pieces. Each coin is issued in an attractive box with a numbered certificate of authenticity. A prestigious collection case for the entire series can be purchased separately.

The new "Empress Elisabeth West Railway" coin has already been received with enthusiasm by coin collectors and railway fans the world over.

2008-09-30T17:11:00.000-07:00

Mark Twain Gold and Silver Coins

By CoinNews.net

Rep. John Larson and five other House members proposed on Friday gold and silver coins emblematic of the life and legacy of Mark Twain.

Mark Twain was the pen name for Samuel Clemens, whose many works are still mostly in print after nearly a century past his death in 1910. Clemens is one of the best known Americans in the world with over 6,500 editions of his books translated into 75 languages.

The commemorative uncirculated and proof coins for collectors would be issued in 2010, which is the year marking both the 175th anniversary of Mark Twain’s birth and the 125th anniversary of the publication of Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.

The legislation, named the Mark Twain Commemorative Coin Act, H.R. 7152, calls on the Commission of Fine Arts and the Board of the Mark Twain House and Museum to collaborate in the design for the coins. Those designs would then be reviewed by the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee with the final selection made by the Treasury Secretary.

H.R. 7152 would issue a maximum of 100,000 $5 gold coins with the following specifications:
weighing 9.359 grams, with a diameter of 0.850 inches, and composed of 90 percent gold and 10 percent alloy

It would also issue a maximum of 500,000 $1 silver coins,
weighing 26.73 grams, with a diameter of 1.500 inches, and made from 90 percent silver and 10 percent alloy.

The Mark Twain Commemorative Coin Act includes surcharges of $35 per gold coin and $10 per silver coin that would be distributed as follows (taken directly from the bill’s language):

(1) 1/2 of the surcharges, to the Mark Twain House & Museum in Hartford, Connecticut, to support the continued restoration of the Mark Twain house and grounds, and ensure continuing growth and innovation in museum programming to research, promote and educate on the legacy of Mark Twain.

(2) 1/6 of the surcharges, to the Mark Twain Project at the Bancroft Library of the University of California, Berkeley, California, to support programs to study and promote Mark Twain’s legacy.

(3) 1/6 of the surcharges, to the Center for Mark Twain Studies at Elmira College, New York, to support programs to study and promote Mark Twain’s legacy.

(4) 1/6 of the surcharges, to the Mark Twain Boyhood Home and Museum in Hannibal, Missouri, to preserve historical sites related to Mark Twain and help support programs to study and promote his legacy.

2008-09-26T15:41:00.000-07:00

Slow Death of Circulating Coins

By Mike Unser

It’s no secret. The currency of choice is not change, and it’s no longer paper money. For many Americans, both forms have become annoyances — especially in high value purchases. Coin usage is declining, and trending toward extinction. These days, it’s about plastic with the convenience of credit and debit cards.

While the U.S. Mint is spending money on mandated marketing and a doomed promotion of Presidential $1 coins, or announcing the exciting four new 2009 Lincoln penny design images, the reality is Americans dislike to receive or use these coins more than any other pocket change. And how a coin looks or feels is mostly inconsequential to anyone but collectors. But it goes beyond the penny and dollar $1 coin, as the outlook for every circulating coin further declines.
It’s all about convenience Convenience is the fundamental driving factor that has decided the success or failure of coin usage today. Of any coin, the quarter is the most used with the least amount of disdain. For smaller transactions, its king. For larger purchases, it’s still, however, lost in the mix. Where does that leave coins as the years go by and smaller and smaller transactions are turning toward plastic?

In its 2006 Annual Report, the U.S. Mint cited the downward demand for circulating coins as its second key challenge.

Over the past five years, the public’s use of credit and debit cards, ePurses, stored value cards (like phone cards), contactless transaction cards (like EZPass and SpeedPass), and other forms of electronic transactions has increased substantially. This transformation of the economy toward more cash-free transactions might have significant implications for the nation’s demand for circulating coins in the future.

The latest Mint circulating coin production figures highlight their challenge. If the trend continues, 2008 will score a new record for the fewest coins produced in at least the last ten years. 2000 was a momentous year with more than 28 billion coins issued. 2008 will be lucky to see just more than 10 billion coins. And of that amount, more than half will be pennies whose value is certainly felt by charities, but not by most of the spending public.

In a Numismatic News article titled, Dollars Aren’t Only Coins Not Circulating, Dan Knauth writes about the failure of Presidential $1 coins, and how others fail to circulate.

First, the bank sells coins to a merchant. Next, the merchant passes the coins to the consumer. The consumer takes the coins home and puts them in a jar (except maybe quarters). Every year or so, the consumer returns the coins to the bank and the process starts over.

Most transactions today are handled with credit and debit cards. Go to the grocery store, the gas station, the drugstore - people pay with plastic. When people do pay cash, they use bills, not change.

How long will it be before coins become obsolete for everyone but the collector and rare coin investor? Can the trend away from using circulating coins possibly reverse? It wouldn’t seem so.
Parking meters now taking plastic Even the smallest of transactions are trending toward plastic, instead of coin. 9NEWS.com reports in the video excerpt below about how Denver’s Public Works Department is proposing an experiment with new downtown parking meters that would accept debit and credit card transactions.

Lisa Nierenberg who often parks in Denver’s downtown was quoted as saying, “I would love it because I never have any money on me.”

Again, it’s all about convenience. And circulating coins are gradually losing their appeal in use.

2008-09-23T15:00:00.000-07:00

VIP Visitors at Long Beach

By Expos Unlimited

A virtually non-stop flow of bourse floor traffic, nearly $35 million of coin and bank note auctions and visits by California’s Attorney General and former Governor, Jerry Brown, and Long Beach Mayor Bob Foster, highlighted the busy September 18 -20, 2008 Long Beach Coin, Stamps & Collectibles Expo.

“Gold jumped about $40 an ounce on opening day, and we saw many ‘new faces’ among the thousands of attendees. Thursday is usually a busy day, and attendance this time was about 20 percent higher than recent, previous opening days,” said Ronald J. Gillio, Expo General Chairman.

“I’ve had a table at every Long Beach show since 1995, and this was my best opening day Thursday,” said Peter Walters of Columbia Collectibles in Irvine, California who specializes in Civil War to World War I era items.

The multiple auction sessions of U.S. and world coins, paper money and tokens and medals conducted by Heritage Auction Galleries of Dallas, Texas, official auctioneer of the Long Beach Expo, generated nearly $35 million in prices realized bidding.

Several hundred children took part in a Saturday “treasure hunt” at the show. Among the free numismatic gifts given to the participants were more than 100 modern proof and mint sets donated by collector Dennis Riley of Maryland, according to Walter A. Ostromecki Jr., coordinator of the show’s youth activities.

The Long Beach Stamp Club provided free stamps to help youngsters start collections.
A coin collector, Attorney General Brown walked the bourse floor for about an hour on Friday, September 19, accompanied by American Numismatic Association President Barry Stuppler and ANA Executive Director Larry Shepherd. He then met with collectors and dealers in an informal question and answer session organized by Stuppler in his role as President of the California Coin and Bullion Merchants Association.

Long Beach Mayor Foster was among the many visitors to the show on Saturday, September 20. An enthusiastic “fan” of the S.S. Central America sunken treasure history, he posed for a photo with Gillio as they jointly held a 149.35-ounce Harris, Marchand & Co. gold ingot recovered from the 1857 shipwreck. It was sold to an unidentified buyer for $375,000 and displayed at the show by Monaco Rare Coins. Mayor Foster also briefly met with numismatic conservationist, Bob Evans of Ohio, who served as chief scientist on the 1980’s mission that located the shipwreck and retrieved the California Gold Rush cargo.

A half dozen club meetings and public educational seminars were conducted during the show including another in the continuing “Share the Knowledge” series by the Professional Numismatists Guild. PNG member Greg Rohan, President of Heritage Auction Galleries, discussed “Everything You Wanted to Know About Rare Coin Auctions.”

Four exhibit awards were presented on behalf of the Long Beach Coin Club: First Place ($100 award) and Second Place ($75 award) in the U.S. exhibit category went to Andrew Woodruff for “Two Signatures of C.W. Landis, San Diego Bank Note Signator” and “Ships on Five Denominations of United States Currency” respectively. First Place ($100) in the world/foreign category was given to Mike Ontko for “The Spring of Hope and the Winter of Despair: Selected Coins of the French Revolution, 1789 – 1799,” and Second Place ($75) went to Robert Wu for his exhibit, “Central Bank Notes of the Republic of China (Taiwan).”

The next Long Beach Coin, Stamp & Collectibles Expo will be held February 5 – 7, 2009. For additional information, contact Expos Unlimited at (805) 962-9939. Online: www.LongBeachExpo.com.

Expos Unlimited is a division of Collectors Universe, Inc. (NASDAQ: CLCT).

2008-09-22T14:14:00.000-07:00

1903 Louisiana Purchase Cardboard Die Trial

By CoinLink

Editors Note: Every now and then we come across a numismatic items that we might have heard about but never seen, or in some instances had no knowledge of at all. This of course may be more of a function of our limited expertise than the fact that the item(s) is truly unique. So at the risk of being called a “dumb ass” (not the first time), we are going to create a new News category called “Unusual Items“. This will be an eclectic collection of the not-so-common items we stumble across during our daily search for worthwhile news and articles, and we hope that you will find this as informative and entertaining as we do.

These impressions in yellow cardboard measure 40 x 32 mm and show the obverse imprints of both the Jefferson and McKinley gold dollars with a slightly different pattern reverse.

Andrew Pollock assigned two numbers for this piece, apparently believing the obverses were on one card and the reverses on another. They should have received only one number.

There are two examples known, but the second is very different from this piece. The other contains both obverses and six different reverses. That piece is permanently impounded in the Smithsonian.

This is the only cardboard impression available to collectors.

Cardboard impressions are obviously rare but they date back to 1849 for the gold dollar. Other impressions include the 1851 three cent silver, and the Isabella quarter (obverse and reverse). The reason for the Isabella strikings is evident from the writing on the back of each card: They are first strikings from the new dies. One might easily assume the gold dollar and three cent silver impressions were for the same purpose.

The purpose here is somewhat more enigmatic. With a pattern reverse included on this card, it is likely this was produced before the first day of issue, as a first day of issue would surely have included the adopted reverse.

The cardboard has a rich, deep gold color, obviously meant to suggest the gold dollars that were soon to be struck. Deeply impressed. Regarding condition, this piece is essentially as struck with no scratches or surface problems worthy of mention.

2008-09-15T21:27:00.000-07:00

DGS Authenticates & Grades Rare Lafayette Dollar Variety

By Dominion Grading Service

Duvall 4-E Variety is Just the Second Reported Specimen

Virginia Beach, VA. The graders at Dominion Grading Service are excited to announce that they have certified the second known example of this very rare variety. The Duvall 4-E variety was thought to be unique until the discovery of this coin, which has been graded AU58 Cleaned by DGS.

According to John Feigenbaum, President of DGS, the coin has “the initial appearance of a mint state coin but the luster is almost too nice and lacks the frosty surfaces of a true mint state. The coin has virtually no wear and has been very lightly cleaned to show evidence of wipe lines upon close examination in proper lighting. The only significant mark on either side of the coin is a 3 mm scratch on Washington’s cheek. Without the mishandling, this coin might have otherwise graded MS63.”

Feigenbaum continued to say that “this coin is the perfect example of the kind of collector rarity that we pride ourselves at DGS. Because the coin is lightly cleaned, some of the other grading services wouldn’t even examine the coin for variety. At DGS, we appreciate that many great coins may not be pristine, but still benefit from certification. Our affiliation with David Lawrence Rare Coins and DLRC Auctions also gives clients the opportunity to submit the coins and then bring them directly to market. In the case of the 4-E, the client intends to do just that. No other leading firm can offer that full-service experience in house.”

The Duvall 4-E Variety

The Duvall 4-E variety is distinctive because of the unique positioning of the olive branch on the reverse. The right side of the branch terminates over the numeral 9 of 1900. All other known varieties see this branch end over the right side of the first 0 in 1900. Prior to the appearance of this coin, the existence of Duvall 4-E was thought to be unique.

The only other known Lafayette dollar of this die variety was sold in August 2007 by Heritage Numismatic Auctions as part of their Signature ANA Auction. (Lot 2090). It was graded MS60 by ANACS and realized $18,400 to a phone bidder. According to the Heritage lot description, that coin was “well struck with dusky chestnut, aqua, and plum-mauve patina. Both sides unusually free from marks, particularly on the portraits.” Based on the description of marks, these are clearly not the same coin.

About DGSDGS is a third-party grading service founded in April 2008. DGS offers a number of unique features including AuthentiView ™ and online Visual Population Report of every coin certified with a value over $100. Grading is conservative and accurate and problem coins (cleaned, scratch, etc) are certified with description listed on the holder. A limited number of 2000-D Virginia Statehood quarters are being made for sample purposes. To request a sample DGS slab, please email service@dominiongrading.com, or call 1-800-277-2646.

2008-09-12T09:20:00.001-07:00

Will 2008 Platinum Eagles Return?

2008 Proof Platinum Eagles went on sale May 5, 2008. Ordering options included the 1 ounce coin; 1/2 ounce, 1/4 ounce, and 1/10 ounce fractional coins; and a 4 coin set. On May 17, sales of the 4 coin set was suspended. On July 1, the individual ordering options were suspended. For the brief period between July 24 and August 7, all ordering options went back on sale at bafflingly higher prices. In total, coins were available for sale for a combined time period of 70 days.

2008-W Uncirculated Platinum Eagles went on sale July 1, 2008. Ordering options included the 1 ounce coin; 1/2 ounce, 1/4 ounce, and 1/10 ounce fractional coins; and a 4 coin set. All ordering options were suspended on August 7. In total, coins were available for sale for a period of 38 days.

The most recent suspensions came amidst a sharp and continuing decline in the price of platinum. The price of platinum has now declined nearly 50% from its all time high price of $2,290 reached earlier this year. The spot price of platinum as of the writing of this post is $1,191.

Will the 2008 Platinum Eagles ever go back on sale at the Mint?

I have not been able to attain any definite answer, but here are several possibilities (rumors) that have been floating around the internet. I can't vouch for any of these. I've listed the possible answers in descending order of probability:

The Mint is in the process of re-pricing the 2008 Platinum Eagles in line with the current market price of platinum. Since the Mint must go through a process of determining, approving, and publishing prices in a Federal Register, it takes a certain amount of time for coins to go on sale at the newly established prices.

The Mint is waiting for platinum prices to stabilize. Since there is a lag between the time the Mint determines prices and coins go on sale, the continuing steep decline in platinum has made accurate pricing impossible. The Mint needs some period of stability so their prices will reflect the market price of platinum.

The Mint cannot take a loss on the 2008 Platinum Eagles. This may be either legally or by choice. The platinum the Mint used to produce the coins was purchased at a much higher price than the current market price. They are waiting for previously high prices to return before putting the coins back on sale.

The Mint is done with 2008 Platinum Eagles. They are either fed up with the price movements of platinum or phasing out the products. The Mint may or may not sell the remaining inventory from the last production run before the end of the year.

2008-09-09T17:53:00.000-07:00

Antarctic Explorers Coins Issued in Ireland
By CoinNews.net

Silver and gold coins were issued Wednesday by Ireland’s Central Bank to commemorate the adventurous feats by Antarctic explorers Earnest Shackleton and Tom Crean, and celebrate the International Polar Year.

The proof collector €5 and €100 coins feature the two historic Irish explorers with their ship ‘The Endurance’ backdropped within the steel grips of Antarctic ice.
Shackleton and Crean ‘The Endurance’ Expedition Background In a remarkable story, in 1915 the pair set off to cross the Antarctica via the South Pole on an expedition that soon became a near hopeless battle for survival.

During the journey, The Endurance became wedged. The vessel could not shake the clutches of the South Pole ice, and eventually sank 10 months later.
Shackleton, Crean and crew were forced onto floating ice where they lived for many months until conditions improved where they could use three small boats to make their way to Elephant Island. The pair and four others then took one of the boats and crossed 800 miles (1,280 km) of treacherous seas in 16 days to reach South Georgia and help for the rest of the crew. No one in the expedition died.

Silver and Gold Antarctic Explorer Coin Information The following coin information was provided in a release statement by Ireland’s Central Bank:
This is the first time the Central Bank and Financial Services Authority of Ireland has issued a half troy ounce (15.55 grams in weight) gold coin denominated in Euro, with a legal tender denomination of €100.

In keeping with tradition, the national side of the coin depicts the 14 string Irish harp modelled on the ‘Brian Boru’ harp in Trinity College, Dublin. As an addition to the national side of the coin, a laurel wreath, a traditional symbol of excellence and integrity, surrounds the harp. The coins have been designed by renowned Irish artist, designer and medallist Thomas Ryan, RHA.

Coin Specifications and Order Details
Silver Gold Face Value: €5 €100 Condition:
Proof Proof Composition: Sterling Silver (.925 Ag) .999 fine gold (1/2 troy ounce) Weight: 8.52g 15.55 g Diameter: 28.00mm 28.00mm Mintage Limit: 5,000* 2,000* Price: €50.00 €395.00
*There is a special two-coin set with a limited edition of 1,000. Each is priced at €440.
An official order form for the coins is available from the Central Bank by phoning 1890 307 607 or from the website, http://www.centralbank.ie/.

About Coin Designer Thomas RyanTrained at the Limerick School of Art and the National College of Art in Dublin, Thomas Ryan has become a prominent figure in the Irish art world. He first exhibited work at the RHA in 1957, became an associate member in 1968 and was President from 1982-1993. He is well known for his portraits and his sensitive still life paintings. In the world of numismatics his work includes the Irish £1 coin featuring a red deer, which was introduced in 1990 to replace the £1 note and the 1988 Dublin Millennium 50p coin.
About International Polar YearThe International Polar Year (IPY) is a large interdisciplinary scientific research program focused on the polar regions of the Artic and the Antarctic. IPY will involve over 200 projects, with thousands of scientists from over 63 nations examining a wide range of physical, biological and social research topics.

They will explore the icy frontiers, undergo extreme conditions, learn about the earth system and monitor how the poles are changing. IPY offers an unprecedented opportunity to raise public awareness of the Polar Regions and develop a better understanding of global climate change and its potential impacts on the planet.

About the Central Bank of Ireland The Central Bank of Ireland, which came into being in 1943, was re-structured and re-named as the Central Bank and Financial Services Authority of Ireland (CBFSAI) on 1 May 2003. This body carries out all of the activities formerly carried out by the Central Bank of Ireland and additional regulatory and consumer protection functions for the financial services sector.

The Central Bank became part of the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) in Europe in 1999. The national central banks of the euro area together with the European Central Bank (ECB) form the Eurosystem.

2008-07-29T15:00:00.000-07:00

Corruptio Optimi Pessima

By Jon Nadler

As mentioned this morning, gold prices were under the potential threat of an outside factor dragging them down to the important $915 support area. That market-moving factor turned out to be the combination of cause and effect fallout from rising US consumer confidence, a strengthening dollar and a fresh drop crude oil on the heels of waning demand. According to one seasoned trader (RBC's own George Gero, who just made it to the ranks of grandfathership) the "pullback in gold from early trading intensified as crude sold off, dollar improved, and the Dow improved accordingly. In addition, [gold] open interest [was] off 16,000 as contract rollovers are almost complete and the "not in the money" options were abandoned. August first notice day is almost here and funds traders reluctant to put up full money on long positions were now sellers as the appeal of gold waned."

Of course, if you were to visit various gold forums, you would once again hear that the yellow metal was the sacrificial lamb as sinister manipulative forces try to prop up Western civilization and its financial instruments. The reality is that thus far, the yellow metal has offered little more than a technical bounce after last week's significant drop and remains range-bound in the absence of larger-scale external market-moving developments. If there was one sacrificial animal today, well, it was oil - it revisited a 14-week low on the surging dollar and on irrefutable evidence of demand destruction in the US. This, despite 'sour grapes' laments/ rhetorical questions from Iran as to why Western nations can be allowed to possess nukes.

Demand destruction appears to have finally caught up with black gold as it was revealed that Americans drove 10 billion fewer collective miles in the month of May, and as gasoline use in the US coincidentally (not) declined for 13 weeks in a row. In yesterday's comment we alluded to oil lobbyists bearing gifts. Turns out such strange men bearing gifts come in large numbers. Today, longest-serving Republican Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska was indicted on seven criminal charges. Among the revelations was the fact that he is alleged to have accepted gifts valued at over a quarter million dollars from...oil services company. So says the DOJ. How the mighty have fallen. Corruption of the best is the worst of all.

A sharply rising US dollar (showing a gain of .76 @ 73.42 on the index) and a major decline in oil (off $3 cents @$121.72 a barrel) underscored the unfavourable conditions in commodities and the yellow metal sold off quite heavily during the majority of today's New York session. Some support was found near $912, in an augmented replay of Monday's action. Much of what little support was indeed found, was related to financial woes over at Merrill Lynch whose $5.7 billion writedowns and $19 billion of losses over the past year have CEO John Thain pedaling harder than anyone in the latest Tour de France to shore up the firm's credit ratings, capital position, and shareholder confidence/patience.

New York spot gold was last showing a $12.00 loss quoted at $918.00 as participants started to fret about the possibility of a sub $900 dip. Bullion futures closed at more than a one-month low. The metal needs to keep above the water line at $915 in order not to induce additional liquidations among position holders. The euro traded much lower at $1.55 but all is not well in Euroland as the contagion from the US housing market is showing all of the signs of a full replay over in another hitherto white-hot market: Spain.

The implosion in that country's formerly soaring real estate has become a headache of first order of magnitude for the ECB's Mr. Trichet. Anyone for (more) covered bonds? Silver fell 19 cents to $17.30 while the noble metals presented a continuing negative picture as platinum fell $21 to $1734 and palladium was off $6 at $381 per ounce. In the background, thousands of unsold SUVs are choking dealer lots and one look at the emerging Kelley Blue Book values was enough to give a firm like Chrysler the final push - they are out of the auto leasing business. How is that for a reality check?

Presidential candidate Mr. Obama met with leaders from the world of money yesterday in Washington as he tackles the economy's challenging issues following his overseas 'foreign policy preview' tour. Though the timing of events was coincidental, the release of a projected deficit of $482 billion for 2009 by the Bush bean counters will have the Democratic contender up at night not only as he chooses monetary and fiscal managers but also as he selects what policies to put into motion (tax hikes, economic stimuli, etc.). Good thing he works out at the gym daily. He will need it. He is next slated to meet with Messrs. Bernanke and Paulson for more mental workouts. Speaking of working out, here is an interesting twist on possibly ameliorating the mortgage situation that has gripped the US and is now spreading to Don Quixote land. Covered Bonds. The NY Times fills us in on a home debt concept that has been quite familiar in Europe for some time now...

"The financial establishment came together Monday in search of a new way for banks to come up with cash for home mortgages. Regulators, bankers and traders, led by Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr., all pledged to do their best to get a “covered bond market” going in the United States.

"Covered" seems to be a synonym for collateralized, but it also has other meanings that may be appropriate in this effort to salvage the housing market. Think of covered wagons, which can be circled in times of crisis. With banks reluctant to lend their own money for mortgages, and the private securitization market quiescent if not dead, the cost of mortgage loans has been rising even as housing prices fall, making a bad situation worse. At best, a covered bond market would provide a cheaper source of financing for banks while reassuring investors that their money is safe.

Essentially investors would buy into a pool of mortgages that would be kept on the balance sheet of the bank that made the loans. These would be high-quality loans, and at the first sign of trouble in the underlying mortgages, those mortgages would be replaced in the mortgage pool. Thus, investors would be assured of repayment unless the underlying mortgages suffered major losses and the issuing bank failed. That might make investors burned by existing mortgage securities more willing to return to the market.

At best, a covered bond market would provide a cheaper source of financing for banks while reassuring investors that their money will be safe. It is highly unusual for the government to take such a major role in getting a market established, but Treasury officials said their action was needed to get more money into housing loans.

"We spoke to 50 or 60 market participants," a senior Treasury official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to describe the process publicly. "It became clear that if we took the lead, we had a real chance to kick-start this market."

In Washington, Mr. Paulson said that "as we are all aware, the availability of affordable mortgage financing is essential to turning the corner on the current housing correction. He was joined by officials from the Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision.

“We are at the early stages of what should be a promising path, where the nascent U.S. covered bond market can grow and provide a new source of mortgage financing," Mr. Paulson said. Four major banks — Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo — said they hoped to issue such bonds, and a larger group of investment banks and brokerage firms pledged to establish desks to trade the securities.

What remains to be seen is if there will be buyers. Mr. Paulson said the bonds appeared to be attractive to major banks, which would be able to pledge them to obtain loans from the Fed, and to some institutional investors. The F.D.I.C., which takes over failed banks, promised to respect the terms of the bonds, so that bondholders would be repaid from the value of the mortgages, even if other bondholders in the failed bank suffered major losses.

Covered bond markets exist in many European countries. In some of them, laws make the legal standing of such bonds clear, but Mr. Paulson and the other agencies concluded that no legislation was needed, and that policy statements by regulators would suffice. It is expected that Bank of America will be the first issuer. Bank of America has issued such bonds in Europe, and did one $2 billion American offering of covered bonds in June 2007, before antipathy to mortgage securities intensified.

The covered bond markets in some European countries have suffered to some extent from house price declines, but the markets have not closed down as the private-label securitization market has in this country. In the United States, those securities were backed by mortgages that were not guaranteed by either the federal government or by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two government-sponsored housing finance enterprises. Fannie and Freddie became the principal buyer of mortgages after the private securitization market closed down, but their own financial health has deteriorated, and provisions for their own bailout, if necessary, are pending. In normal times, an American covered bond market would bear little resemblance to traditional mortgage securitizations, in which the investors are paid from the interest and principal payments on underlying mortgages (and thus suffer all the risks involved in such loans).

Instead, a bank that issued such bonds could do so on any terms it and investors agreed on. The bond payments would come from general corporate funds, and would not have to be tied to terms of the mortgages. Under a set of "best practices" issued by the Treasury and rules issued by the F.D.I.C., the bonds could have maturities from one year to 30 years. The mortgages securing them would be of high quality, and for no more than 80 percent of the home’s market value. That market value would be adjusted according to regional trends in home prices; if home prices declined, mortgages covering those homes might have to be replaced in the pool.

Any mortgage on which payments were at least 60 days overdue would also have to be replaced, so at least in theory the pool would always include good loans, and their value would have to total at least 105 percent of the outstanding bonds. The mortgages would remain on the books of the bank that issued them, and the bank would stand to lose if the loans went bad. That was not the case in recent years when mortgages were sold to securitization pools. That led to an erosion of lending standards because the lender profited when the loan was made and sold, whether or not it was eventually repaid.

For the covered bond market to become a major source of mortgage money in the United States, investors will have to be willing to buy the bonds, accepting interest rates at least a little lower than the banks could get by borrowing money directly. The banks also will to need to be comfortable in making mortgage loans that they will keep on their balance sheets, tying up capital. In past decades, banks took for granted that they would do that. But in recent years fewer loans were kept on balance sheets. They were sold off as mortgage-backed securities, freeing up capital and enabling the banks to report higher profits.

Many of the risks of those mortgages stayed in the banking system, however, as banks kept some of the securities they issued or bought from other banks. That led to multibillion-dollar losses, which have made it harder for some banks to raise money and have made virtually all banks less willing to make mortgage loans. The covered loan market could bring in cash for mortgages, if both the banks and the investors are willing to cooperate. Those are not exactly sure things. "There’s not 100 percent certainty that it ever will become very significant," Mr. Paulson said.

Sector rotation out of commodities and into whatever bargains may abound in other sectors (the Dow was ahead 210 at last check) continues to manifest itself as the summer rolls on. We cautioned about the dollar. This time, it rose without jawboning, on a bad day for Merrill. Not a sign to take lightly. Something is clicking. Or, could it be...ticking?

2008-07-25T15:12:00.000-07:00

Mint Sculptor-Engraver Receives ANA Award

By US Mint

The United States Mint announced today that Sculptor-Engraver Jim Licaretz has been named the recipient of the 2008 Numismatic Art Award for Excellence in Medallic Sculpture (NAAEMS). The award, conferred by the American Numismatic Association (ANA), will be presented to Mr. Licaretz on August 2, 2008, at the ANA World’s Fair of Money® in Baltimore.
“We are pleased the panel of judges recognized Jim’s body of work,” said United States Mint Director Ed Moy. “Jim’s artistry is helping the United States Mint achieve a new level of design excellence.”

Mr. Licaretz’s works are included in numerous private collections, as well as the British Museum; the Royal Coin Cabinet; the National Museum of Economy, Stockholm, Sweden; the American Numismatic Society; and the Smithsonian Institution. His recent works for the United States Mint include the reverse design of the 2008 Bald Eagle Proof Silver Dollar Coin and the obverse design of the Andrew Jackson Presidential $1 Coin.

“To be honored with the American Numismatic Association’s award is quite a welcome surprise,” said Mr. Licaretz. “There is a great responsibility in giving form to one’s experience of life. Medallic sculpture is a unique way of recording and sharing these experiences.”

Mr. Licaretz was employed as a United States Mint Sculptor-Engraver from 1986 to 1989, and returned to the agency as a Medallic Sculptor in 2006. He also was a sculptor at Franklin Porcelain and the Franklin Mint in Pennsylvania, a master sculptor at Mattel, Inc. in California, and manager of the Sculpting Department at Artistic Solutions in California. In addition, he served as a faculty member at the Fleisher Art Memorial, Philadelphia; Otis School of Art and Design, Los Angeles; and the Academy of Art College, San Francisco.

Currently, Mr. Licaretz is president of the American Medallic Sculpture Association, and a member of the National Sculpture Society and the Federation International de le Medaille.
A native of Philadelphia, Mr. Licaretz graduated from the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts in Philadelphia. He received a Traveling Scholarship, as well as the Edmund Stewardson Prize for Figurative Sculpture, and a Philadelphia Board of Education four-year scholarship.

The ANA is a nonprofit educational organization dedicated to educating and encouraging people to study and collect money and related items. Established by the ANA in 1966, the NAAEMS recognizes a living artist whose cumulative lifetime achievement in the field has been of the highest order. Past United States Mint winners of the NAAEMS include Sculptor-Engraver Don Everhart and John Mercanti, Supervisory Design and Master Tooling Development Specialist.

2008-07-22T16:35:00.000-07:00

Superb Gem 1879 $4 Stella aluminum

By Stacks

What about rarity? This is the only example ever graded by NGC—in any grade!
What about grade? Consider Proof-67 Cameo!
What about fame?
The $4 Stella is one of the most heralded of American rarities, and among the two designs, the Coiled Hair, by George T. Morgan, is the rarer.

All set to cross the auction block in Stacks Baltimore sale is this rarest of the rare pattern, Judd-1640, a glittering Proof in aluminum—a rare format even more elusive that an gold impression.

Here is some background, from Dave Bowers’ Whitman book on type coins (excerpt, adapted):

The $4 Stella
The Stella or $4 gold coin is among the most famous and desired of American rarities. The vast majority were struck in gold, with just a few in other metals. The presently offered aluminum striking provides the opportunity for some historical information:

The $4 piece was the brainchild of Hon. John A. Kasson, who had served as a minister to Austria. In Europe coins of slightly less value than the American $5 piece (the British gold sovereign being but one of many examples) were popular in trade. Kasson thought that an American $4 piece would serve as an international medium of exchange. This stands as one of many such notions that reached pattern coin form, but never resulted in issues made for general circulation. Others include the international $5 of 1868 and Dana Bickford’s impressive $10 of 1874.

However, logic dictated that the familiar $20 pieces were more convenient for international trade, easier to count, and were already in place. Besides, although the $4 Stella was set as being worth $4 American dollars, it still was not of the same value as even a single other current variety of European gold coin, and change would have to be made in transactions, just as it would have to be made for the standard $5 half eagle.

Patterns were prepared in two styles for Kasson’s proposal, called the Stella from the five-pointed star on the reverse. The most familiar today is the 1879 with Miss Liberty having flowing hair, the work of Charles E. Barber, son of chief engraver William Barber. The attractive and curious $4 Flowing Hair Stellas, as they are designated today, with the type in capital letters, were distributed in significant numbers to congressmen and others. An early story, true per testimony of the era, is that these became favorite gifts to madams and others in the demimonde of Washington, where ladies were always pleased to cater to the pleasure of male legislators distant from home. As a result, more than just a few $4 pieces in existence today show evidence of having been used as jewelry. As to how many 1879 Flowing Hair Stellas were struck, no one knows, with 425 being a popular figure. My estimate is about 700.

In the same year, 1879, George Morgan created his version of the Stella, with Miss Liberty having coiled hair, the design offered here, in aluminum. Apparently, no records at all were kept of the quantity made, and later factual-appearing statements as well as guesses have ranged from 10 gold impressions upward. In 1880 both Flowing Hair and Coiled Hair versions were made, again in small numbers. In 1879 and 1880, information about the three rare varieties (1879 Coiled Hair and both of 1880) was kept under wraps, and it was not until decades later, well into the 20th century, that illustrations of each of these appeared in print!

2008-07-21T19:32:00.000-07:00

Finder of Viking Coin Treasure Gets $600,000

By CoinNews.net

Isle of Man MapA treasure hunter who discovered nearly 500 silver Viking coins by metal detecting on the Isle of Man will finally receive $600,000 in compensation.

Andy Whewell found 464 silver Viking coins, 26 silver ingots and an armlet in a field in Glenfaba in March 2003.

The coins were declared Treasure Trove in August of that year, with resulting expectations of receiving fair market value for the hoard.

However, Whewell and Manx National Heritage, the government agency responsible for protecting and promoting the cultural historical heritage of the Isle of Man, could not come to an agreement over the value of the coins and other artifacts.

According to Isle of Man Today, after several appraisals and a wait of nearly five years, an agreement was finally made for an amount of £300,000, or about $600,000 (US).

Andy Whewell wrote an article detailing his discovery. In his interesting narration, he describes how he uncovered the coins but didn’t have a container to carry them.

"I had to leave everything beside the refilled hole and walk back to my car for a container. Well, I actually ran all the way back. All I had was a cassette box. It seemed ages before I arrived back at the find spot, thinking all the time of the hoard I had left sitting in an open field."

Whewell provided the type of coins buried in the field:

Anglo-Saxon pennies (Aethelred II and Cnut) = 80, Hiberno-Scandinavian pennies = 324, One cut halfpenny, ‘Irish Sea’ imitation pennies of Cnut’s quatrefoil type = 11, Hiberno-Scandinavian/Manx transitional pennies = 30, 12 pennies that appear to be related to the Hiberno-Scandinavian/Manx series One Scandinavian imitation coin of Aethelred’s Long Cross type, and 5 coins that were unidentified Reportedly, Whewell will continue to look for more treasures with his metal detector.

2008-07-18T18:56:00.001-07:00

Treasure Coins on Block

By Numismatic News

Treasure coins brought up from the wreck of the S.S. New York in the Gulf of Mexico will highlight at pre-American Numismatic Association convention auction to be held July 27-28 by Stack's in Baltimore.

Gold and silver coins from Southern Mints will be among the highlights.
A privately produced Christopher Bechtler $5 gold piece, K-19, graded AU-58 by Numismatic Guaranty Corp. will go on the block.

A remarkable 1845-D quarter eagle, brought up from the ocean floor, is now considered probably the finest known at NGC MS-64.

There are other gold pieces from the Dahlonega, Charlotte and New Orleans Mints as well as from Philadelphia.

Gold coins of the world recovered from the wreck will also be sold. These include British sovereigns and gold 8 escudos pieces from Latin America.

Some coins show the ravages of ocean water and are labeled with various "shipwreck effect" letter grades A-C. Those that show no adverse impact from their time in the sea are graded normally.

Hard Times and Merchants token collection assembled by James E. Dice and M. Lamar Hicks were given their own separate Stack's catalog for a July 28 session.

The sale also features Continental currency, American paper money and American Bank Note Co. archive material.

For more information, check Stack's Web site at www.stacks.com.

2008-07-15T13:48:00.000-07:00

Kagin’s Free Platinum Coin

By Kagin's, Inc

Well-known numismatic firm, Kagin’s, Inc. (http://www.kagins.com/) of Tiburon, California, founded in 1933 by Arthur M. "Art" Kagin, will celebrate the company’s 75th anniversary during the upcoming American Numismatic Association World’s Fair of Money convention in Baltimore.

A lucky visitor to the Kagin’s booth (#531) will be awarded a free half-ounce American Eagle platinum coin valued at over $1,300 in a random drawing, and all visitors can enjoy a slice from a huge anniversary cake while it lasts.

"This is our platinum anniversary, so it’s appropriate we give away a platinum coin to celebrate," said Donald H. Kagin, Ph.D., son of the founder and a well-known numismatic researcher and dealer of pioneer gold and U. S. paper currency.

Kagin, the first to receive both a Bachelor of Arts and Doctorate degree in numismatics has managed the company since 1988.

"At 75 years, I believe we are the second oldest family-owned rare coin dealership in the United States. The tradition continues with my sister, Judy, who can be seen at major currency shows, and my nephew, Jeremiah, who is taking an active role with the company," said Kagin.
"Throughout the years, numismatics has not been just a business to us, but rather a passion and a way of life. We don’t just build collections, we build relationships."

Company founder Art Kagin, widely known as the "Dean of American Numismatics," passed away in 2005. He started collecting as a youth while selling newspapers and magazines when a woman gave him an 1883 "No Cents" Liberty Head nickel.

At the age of 13 he began working part-time selling coins, stamps and paper money in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Later he worked for over 30 years with his brother, Paul, buying and selling coins nationally through auctions from Des Moines, Iowa. At one point they had five offices in the Midwest including one in Omaha managed by another brother, Julius.

"Dad cataloged more auctions than anyone else, almost 350," said Kagin.

As a national goodwill ambassador for the hobby for decades, Art Kagin frequently emphasized, "Numismatics is like a marriage. It has to be shared to be enjoyed."

He organized and developed the first numismatic college courses in the nation at Roosevelt University in Chicago, and he and Don started the Foundation for Numismatic Education that continues to fund numismatic research projects.

The family’s philosophy of promoting numismatic education continues with Don teaching and lecturing at schools, service organizations and ANA Summer Seminar programs. His innovative, one-man shows, "The Oldest Living Pioneer" and "Colonial Man," have educated, entertained and delighted thousands of collectors and non-collectors around the country.

Both Art and Don served on the ANA Board of Governors and as Chairman of the Education Committee.

Under Don’s management, Kagin’s moved its headquarters in the 1980’s to Tiburon, California, just North of San Francisco. In 2006, the company acquired Holabird Americana of Reno, Nevada, managed by well-known geologist and Western Americana expert and researcher, Fred Holabird.

Kagin’s also utilizes the expertise of highly-regarded numismatic researchers David McCarthy, Cherie Schoeps and Meredith Hilton. The company specializes in pioneer gold, patterns, U.S. colonials, American paper currency, California fractional gold, errors, early type coins, classic rarities and Western Americana. The company has taken a lead role in raising over $4.75 million for the renovation of the Old San Francisco Mint Museum.

For additional information, contact Kagin’s, Inc., 98 Main St., Suite 201, Tiburon, California 94920. Phone: (415) 435-2601. Online: http://www.kagins.com/

About Kagin’s, IncNumismatist Donald H. Kagin has unique credentials as a numismatic authority. He earned the first Bachelor of Arts degree in Numismatics granted by Northwestern University, simultaneously earning another B.A. in history. Graduate and post-graduate studies at Northwestern, Drake University, John Hopkins University, the American Numismatic Society Museum, the Smithsonian Institution, and the Union Graduate School earned Don the first Doctorate in Numismatics ever granted in the United States.

Dr. Kagin’s fields of expertise are private gold coins and United States currency. He authored the most comprehensive book on the former, Private Gold Coins and Patterns of the United States, which won the Numismatic Literary Guild’s “Best Book of the Year” award. He has also authored the most comprehensive book on rare coin investing, Donald Kagin’s Personal Guide to Rare Coin Investments, which was awarded the “Best Investment Book” by the Numismatic Literary Guild.