Something for Carson Mint fans 0

[RWB]

This letter was sent to the Secretary of Treasury following a meeting of the Annual Assay Commission. It gives us details of defective silver coinage at the Carson Mint during part of 1880. A formal investigation was soon in progress. Results will follow once the journals are digitized. (From NNP RG104 E-235 Vol 024, pp.388-390. Available for download next week.)

Hon. John Sherman

Secretary of the Treasury

 

February 15, 1881

 

Sir:

            I have the honor to transmit herewith for presentation to the President, the certificate signed by the Assay Commissioners at the close of the Annual Assay made by them at Philadelphia, commencing on the 9^th inst., by which it appears that one of the reserved coins tested and examined by them – a standard silver dollar from the Carson Mint – was found to deviate from the legal standard of fineness by a greater amount that allowed by law, and that the coin thus found defective was delivered by the Coiner to the Superintendent of that Mint on the 30^th day of August 1880.

            Upon making assay of the coins required to be forwarded monthly for test and examination, it had previously been discovered by the Assayer of the Mint Bureau that some of the silver coins delivered during the months of July, August and September were defective in fineness. The Superintendent of the Carson Mint was immediately directed to institute such inquiries and examination as would disclose the facts in the case and report them to me and in the mean time to retain in his custody all silver coins of the deliveries in which defective coins had been discovered. Upon his report that he was unable to distinguish the deliveries, he was directed to refrain from paying out any of the silver coins in the Mint for 1880, until further advised and that he should select three coins from each sack – one from the top, one from the middle, and one from the bottom – and that he should forward them to my office, and seal up the remainder of the sacks, distinguishing each.

            Ninety-six sacks were thus by him sealed up and two hundred and eighty-eight (288) coins forwarded to this Bureau, which have been carefully assayed in the Laboratory. All of the three coins from four of the sacks, two of the three in ten sacks, and one of the three in twenty-seven sacks, were found to be defective in fineness, showing that at least forty-one of the sacks contained defective coins.

            The Superintendent enclosed copies from the Assayer’s books of the assays of the silver ingots made prior to that time during the years, 1880, which show only one melt condemned for being too low in fineness, and he reported on the 6^th of November 1880, that upon a careful investigation he was unable to discover where the error lay. He also enclosed for test, proof silver used in assay at the Carson Mint, which on being tested, was found to be only 999-1/2 thousandths fine. This, however, would not be sufficient of itself to reduce any of the reported melts below the legal standard of fineness.

            The Superintendent also enclosed the Assayer’s statement of the assays of ingots mad at that Mint subsequent to the discovery of defective coins. These showed unusual variations in the fineness of different portions of the same ingot, and of different ingots from the same melt. This would indicate that the ingots had not been properly prepared, and if ingots of similar character were made during the previous months, the responsibility for defective coins lies upon the officers or employees in the Melter and Refiner’s Department.

            The Superintendent does not, however, state this to be a fact, and further investigation seems necessary to determine whether the Assay or Melter and Refiner’s Department of that Mint is in fault.

            Respectfully,

            Horatio C. Burchard, Director

[DWLange]

Along with low bullion deposits and a high cost per coin, things like this led to the CC Mint's demise. It's coining operations were suspended during the Democratic administration of President Cleveland 1885-89, revived under the Harrison 1889-93 and then terminated once and for all in 1893 when Cleveland became the only U. S. President to serve two non-consecutive terms.

[Just Bob]

22 hours ago, RWB said:

            The Superintendent also enclosed the Assayer’s statement of the assays of ingots mad at that Mint subsequent to the discovery of defective coins. These showed unusual variations in the fineness of different portions of the same ingot, and of different ingots from the same melt. This would indicate that the ingots had not been properly prepared...

 

 

If this were to happen these days, Congress would fine the private company that was found to be responsible, then give them ten years to correct the problem, and pay them millions of dollars for their trouble.

 

 

Does this mean that there are CC dollars currently in the hands of collectors and dealers which are not of the correct fineness? And, if so, would this prevent them from being certified, and possibly cause them to be labeled as counterfeit?

[DWLange]

NGC is not going to perform assays of otherwise genuine coins. Whatever discrepancy exists is irrelevant after 140 years, so they are quite certifiable.

[RWB]

The outcome of this Carson Mint investigation was located yesterday. The entire letter to the Carson Mint Superintendent, plus other interesting documents, will be found on NNP later this week.

 

“In order that the public may be protected from the issuance of coin of less than full legal value, and that the purity of the National coinage may be conserved, you are hereby instructed, upon the resumption of coinage operations at your mint, to melt and re-coin the whole amount of dollars [96,000] of doubtful fineness, referred to which were sealed and retained in your [Superintendent’s] possession.”

 

[RG104 E-235 Vol 026 pp.492-493]

[Conder101]

On 10/21/2019 at 10:49 AM, Just Bob said:

Does this mean that there are CC dollars currently in the hands of collectors and dealers which are not of the correct fineness? And, if so, would this prevent them from being certified, and possibly cause them to be labeled as counterfeit?

Most likely the fineness deviation, although out of legal tolerance, would have been so small that the only way to detect it would be by destructive assay.  I don't remember for sure the allowed deviation but I believe it was in the neighborhood of +/- .0015  so .8985 to .9015 fine.  As the letter mentioned the likely problem was caused by improperly made ingots.  If you take too long to pour the ingots or do not cool them fast enough the copper can begin to segregate from the silver resulting in ingots that are not completely homogenous.  In such a case some of the blanks cut from strip rolled from these ingots could deviate from the standard.

[RWB]

Silver segregation in .900 fine silver/copper alloy was well known. M&R Departments in cooperation with Assay Departments allowed for this by skewing the ingot fineness. This resulted in correct average purity along the strip's center where blanks were cut. (FYI - Nearly 50% of an ingot ended up in the scrap pile and was remelted.)

Properly conducted modern non-destructive assay can easily distinguish differences of less than 0.0002. But it hardly matters due to permitted tolerances and quality control limitations of the era.

I might write this up as a little article - as soon as I save enough $$ to pay the tax bills.  :(