US Mint historical questions 1 1

[RWB]

10 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Lying bastards........

So the Coin World article was incorrect in that neither of those pieces, even though they existed, were really introduced in that trial ?

The articles I wrote for CW were published long before the trial and 6 months before I became associated with the case. The documents you mention were introduced in 2011 but not in 1947.

[GoldFinger1969]

31 minutes ago, RWB said:

The articles I wrote for CW were published long before the trial and 6 months before I became associated with the case. The documents you mention were introduced in 2011 but not in 1947.

Got it....well, if the transcript of the court's decision is available, I would think the exhibits would be too.  I may need to ask someone familiar with Lexus-Nexis or whatever it's called.

[RWB]

Bartholomew's document is especially difficult to understand unless the reader has a very clear concept of mint gold operations in that period. Neither the government internal experts nor Mr. Tripp could figure it out - One could not expect the jury to make sense of it without solid background....but the jury's decision was all that counted. The matter is done and closed.

Edited April 5, 2020 by RWB

[Just Bob]

I feel like I need to apologize to Mr. Burdette.

When I first read the above mentioned Coin World articles, in late 2010, the 1933 Double Eagle case was getting publicity in the coin press and was being discussed on this forum. I sent him a PM, asking him if the Langbords had contacted him, since he obviously had lots of information that would be useful to their case. I had no idea that he had already become involved in the case, and I am sure he must have thought that either I was a spy for the other side, or, at the very least, extremely ignorant. He was, however, very gracious, and simply replied that he could not comment.

So, Mr. Burdette, I hope you can forgive the overzealousness of this country boy.

 

Edited April 5, 2020 by Just Bob

[RWB]

32 minutes ago, Just Bob said:

I feel like I need to apologize to Mr. Burdette.

When I first read the above mentioned Coin World articles, in late 2010, the 1933 Double Eagle case was getting publicity in the coin press and was being discussed on this forum. I sent him a PM, asking him if the Langbords had contacted him, since he obviously had lots of information that would be useful to their case. I had no idea that he had already become involved in the case, and I am sure he must have thought that either I was a spy for the other side, or, at the very least, extremely ignorant. He was, however, very gracious, and simply replied that he could not comment.

So, Mr. Burdette, I hope you can forgive the overzealousness of this country boy.

 

I had no connection to the case until January 2011. The articles were researched and written by me out of interest in the facts of the situation not literary drama or speculations. Coin World published them in various issues distributed around the time of the ANA Convention.

As for PMs and other questions, those are entirely normal and no one need apologize for anything. However, I appreciate the thoughtful comment by "Just Bob."

[Now --- can I hitch a ride to the Wawa in your turnip truck -- hope I don't fall out again....Got to get me a cold pop.  :) ]

[GoldFinger1969]

4 hours ago, RWB said:

Bartholomew's document is especially difficult to understand unless the reader has a very clear concept of mint gold operations in that period. Neither the government internal experts nor Mr. Tripp could figure it out - bu the jury's decision was all that counted. The matter is done and closed.

But if the 2 documents are material -- and CW said they were "gamechangers" or words to that effect -- then unless they were struck from the evidence pool, you have to assume the jury just didn't understand their import.  That can happen.

I read a whole ton of articles on the case including the 3rd District opinions a few weeks ago when I had plenty of time to kill.  What struck me was that the judge -- who clearly leaned to the govt side -- kept admonishing Attorney Berke for being too complicated and losing the jury in complex and numerous concepts.  Basically, the judge was going out of his way to tell him to "Keep It Simple, Stupid."   You wonder how badly his evidence -- even solid stuff like those 2 pieces above -- may have gotten lost to the jury if they were being put to sleep or he was losing them in complexity.

Edited April 5, 2020 by GoldFinger1969

[GoldFinger1969]

47 minutes ago, Just Bob said:

I feel like I need to apologize to Mr. Burdette. When I first read the above mentioned Coin World articles, in late 2010, the 1933 Double Eagle case was getting publicity in the coin press and was being discussed on this forum. I sent him a PM, asking him if the Langbords had contacted him, since he obviously had lots of information that would be useful to their case. I had no idea that he had already become involved in the case, and I am sure he must have thought that either I was a spy for the other side, or, at the very least, extremely ignorant. He was, however, very gracious, and simply replied that he could not comment.  o, Mr. Burdette, I hope you can forgive the overzealousness of this country boy.

 

One of the more disgusting ploys was the willingness of the U.S. Attorneys to smear Switt, the Langbords, and RWB.  They couldn't refute RWB's documents so they brought up sarcastic or joking posts on forums like this...research on unrleated coins (i.e., 1929 Eagles), etc.  A bunch of real slime-bags if you research their resumes and history.

Of course, what you needed was some intelligent jurors who are either coin knowledgeable or able to process information and distill relevant from irrelevant facts.  Unfortunately, most of the people who can afford to spend weeks or months away from a job (if they have one) on a jury tend to be people with neither attribute.

Edited April 5, 2020 by GoldFinger1969

[RWB]

Accurate information about US Mint processes and procedures were never well documented. I had to rebuild as much as possible from thousands of letters and reports. It's a little like the reconstruction of Rachmaninov's 1st Symphony from the parts after the score was destroyed....at least they had a full set of parts.

This is one of the problems faced in researching the US Mint: there is no internal documentation of operations; not now, and never was. People carried the details in their heads and in little pocket notebooks. Only gross information was elsewhere.

[GoldFinger1969]

1 hour ago, RWB said:

Accurate information about US Mint processes and procedures were never well documented. I had to rebuild as much as possible from thousands of letters and reports. It's a little like the reconstruction of Rachmaninov's 1st Symphony from the parts after the score was destroyed....at least they had a full set of parts.

This is one of the problems faced in researching the US Mint: there is no internal documentation of operations; not now, and never was. People carried the details in their heads and in little pocket notebooks. Only gross information was elsewhere.

If only the jurors had all read FMTM they would have understood 100%.

In other news.....if I could only double my outside shooting percentage, I'd be better than Michael Jordan and/or LeBron James. 

[danno26]

Not sure this is in your wheelhouse, but let's give it a try. I'm interested in any listing, mintages, or really any info on the 20th century golden bronze (sandblast) medals the mint sold to the public. I know they are listed by Julian numbers and this info is available for the 19th century "mahogany finish" medals (or at least estimates). Any info is appreciated. Thanks RWB!

[RWB]

2 hours ago, danno26 said:

Not sure this is in your wheelhouse, but let's give it a try. I'm interested in any listing, mintages, or really any info on the 20th century golden bronze (sandblast) medals the mint sold to the public. I know they are listed by Julian numbers and this info is available for the 19th century "mahogany finish" medals (or at least estimates). Any info is appreciated. Thanks RWB!

Danno26 - Project files for medals are split between NARA at College Park, MD and Philadelphia, PA. Bob Julian might have accessed these when researching his medals book, but largely they appear untouched. I have not examined the in anything but the most cursory manner, so I can;t be of much help.

It is possible Julian or another person might have researched your subject. Maybe your post here and on the PCGS board might dig up some information.

[GoldFinger1969]

Just to be clear, RWB.....from the September 2010 CoinWorld article that you wrote and was referenced again by CW:

(1)  Bartholomew's letter was admitted as evidence and the long-standing March 15th start date for the 1933 DE's was really March 2nd ?  If the letter wasn't admitted then I would guess the trial used March 15th as their start date.

(2)  Similarly, what happened with the $3,180 in DE's paid out that apparently were NOT on the cashier's statement but that you found evidence for their disbursement ?  The Judge kind of pooh-poohed it:  "These gold coins released to the public included Double Eagles, but not 1933 Double Eagles. On March 9th, the cashier paid out $3,000 in circulated Double Eagles. This took place prior to the first delivery of ' 33 Double Eagles to the cashier on March 15th. On March 16th, the cashier paid out $140 in circulated Double Eagles. However, at that point in time, the '33 Double Eagle special assay coins had just been sent out for testing. Finally, on March 17th, $40 in prior year Double Eagles were sent to the Smithsonian." 

[RWB]

"Production dates" and "delivery date" are not the same. I was not allowed to explain that or any other necessary details.

[GoldFinger1969]

2 hours ago, RWB said:

"Production dates" and "delivery date" are not the same. I was not allowed to explain that or any other necessary details.

What a surprise.  SOBs.....

[GoldFinger1969]

MCMVII HRs and Saints stacking problem:  I wonder why this was a big problem.  Since cashiers didn't have much demand for Double Eagles, why worry about if they stacked perfectly or not ?  Pennies, nickles, dimes, quarters, etc....I get the need to stack, you're dealing with them all the time.

Why worry about DEs ?

Edited June 25, 2021 by GoldFinger1969

[RWB]

Cashiers and other money handlers counted coins by stack height. They counted one stack of 10 or 20 pieces, then matched that height without counting each piece. Mixing issues of different rim heights slowed counting and produced inaccuracies.

 

Edited June 26, 2021 by RWB

[zadok]

6 hours ago, RWB said:

Cashiers and other money handlers counted coins by stack height. The counted one stack of 10 or 20 pieces, then matched that height without counting each piece. Mixing issues of different rim heights slowed counting and produced inaccuracies.

 

much the same as croupiers do at gaming tables with casino chips....

[numisport]

On a different note can anybody tell me with some sanity as to why the U.S. Mint cannot seem to keep silver on hand to satisfy demands for production of collector coins that were scheduled far ahead. Oh I know the typical argument given even when they care not to list a final price due to market fluctuation, and whatever corny excuse they can give us. But I'll bet a few large silver suppliers would love to sell them bulk metal. And I can only guess their suppliers must behave in a politically correct way and adhere to a socially justified footprint in order to do business with the U.S Mint, is that it ?

[GoldFinger1969]

9 minutes ago, numisport said:

On a different note can anybody tell me with some sanity as to why the U.S. Mint cannot seem to keep silver on hand to satisfy demands for production of collector coins that were scheduled far ahead. Oh I know the typical argument given even when they care not to list a final price due to market fluctuation, and whatever corny excuse they can give us. But I'll bet a few large silver suppliers would love to sell them bulk metal. And I can only guess their suppliers must behave in a politically correct way and adhere to a socially justified footprint in order to do business with the U.S Mint, is that it ?

I doubt it -- would hope not -- it's probably just logistical supply chain issues.  Cost of transporting silver to the Mints may have gone up since March 2020.

[RWB]

Like any business or government agency, contracts for services are put out for open bid. (Government must disclose this, businesses do not.) Bidders present a proposal usually including delivery schedules, contingencies, price, etc. Once a bid is accepted and the contract signed, the agency or business buyer is obligated by the terms of the contract. There might be several contract awards for the same item in different parts of the country, or for contingency awards if the prime bidder cannot fulfill their obligations. There is no "political correctness," "socially justified" or other ignorant nonsense. Contractors have to meet all technical terms of the RFP (Request for Proposal).

The US Mint's RFPs define ready-to-use planchet specifications - not "bulk metal" that would require considerable manipulation or refining. Government is also required to be entirely open in the acquisition process, and this creates legal conditions for publication, public response, and notification that cannot be ignored. (A corporation can do what it wants in most cases and has to disclose nothing.)

Lastly, Mint supply contracts are nearly all on an "as and when needed" basis. This avoids wasting money on maintaining raw material inventory, but it also comes with the risk of supply-chain disruption.  (The pandemic has clearly shown how supply disruption in one country can affect production, distribution and sales in other countries. Silver and gold are just commodities and float about the globe on the same container ships as underwear and turnips.)

[numisport]

11 minutes ago, RWB said:

Like any business or government agency, contracts for services are put out for open bid. (Government must disclose this, businesses do not.) Bidders present a proposal usually including delivery schedules, contingencies, price, etc. Once a bid is accepted and the contract signed, the agency or business buyer is obligated by the terms of the contract. There might be several contract awards for the same item in different parts of the country, or for contingency awards if the prime bidder cannot fulfill their obligations. There is no "political correctness," "socially justified" or other ignorant nonsense. Contractors have to meet all technical terms of the RFP (Request for Proposal).

The US Mint's RFPs define ready-to-use planchet specifications - not "bulk metal" that would require considerable manipulation or refining. Government is also required to be entirely open in the acquisition process, and this creates legal conditions for publication, public response, and notification that cannot be ignored. (A corporation can do what it wants in most cases and has to disclose nothing.)

Lastly, Mint supply contracts are nearly all on an "as and when needed" basis. This avoids wasting money on maintaining raw material inventory, but it also comes with the risk of supply-chain disruption.  (The pandemic has clearly shown how supply disruption in one country can affect production, distribution and sales in other countries. Silver and gold are just commodities and float about the globe on the same container ships as underwear and turnips.)

As always your explanation is very well presented. It makes me wonder then what happens when any contractor cannot supply the agreed amount of processed material within the time frame needed to meet production demands. What penalties could be imposed and how might it effect future bids ?

[GoldFinger1969]

What ARE the reasons that the premiums on ASEs are so high ?  Why hasn't the premium faded the last few months ?

I wouldn't expect such a premium to persist unless the price was skyrocketing. 

 

[Woods020]

2 hours ago, numisport said:

As always your explanation is very well presented. It makes me wonder then what happens when any contractor cannot supply the agreed amount of processed material within the time frame needed to meet production demands. What penalties could be imposed and how might it effect future bids ?

I can’t speak to these specific contracts, but I am intimately familiar with government contracts for pharmaceuticals and healthcare supplies. There is very clearly failure to supply language in the contracts, and financial penalties associated. There are reasons in the contract that may negate this based on acts of god and such, but generally speaking if we don’t supply the agreed upon amount at the agreed upon time we are penalized. And yes the government does take past performance into account, atleast in my field, for future bids. I am making an assumption this is a general process, but it may be different from my field. 

Edited June 26, 2021 by Woods020

[RWB]

2 hours ago, numisport said:

As always your explanation is very well presented. It makes me wonder then what happens when any contractor cannot supply the agreed amount of processed material within the time frame needed to meet production demands. What penalties could be imposed and how might it effect future bids ?

Part of all government contracts are provisions covering default and including various deficiencies and remedies. I've not read the Mint silver, gold, platinum, and other metal contracts, but I would expect to see provisions covering raw material fluctuations, shipping, civil unrest and other routine situations. Egregious non-performance might result in removal of GSA approval for bids and penalties.

[Woods020]

@RWB

I seem to remember reading a while back that the mint can only buy materials at “real world prices” and not above. The term may be slightly off but you get the gist.
 

1. Is that correct or a fantasy item I think I read? 😂

2. How is “real world price” defined? Generally speaking when supply is low prices rise. Basic economics we are all familiar with. Given the pandemic related facility closures, logistics challenges, etc. I assume supply and demand kicked in and prices rose. Largely what is driving the increased premiums for ASEs. If the mint is restricted to a “real world price”, or whatever the term may be I am sure I am butchering it, is that real time? Meaning would the cost limit they could buy planchet material at increase based on current market conditions, or does it lag meaning the mint may not be able to buy enough supply of planchet material currently at an acceptable price?

Edited June 26, 2021 by Woods020

[RWB]

"Market rates."

The government is commonly restricted on how much, or how little, it can pay for supplies. This economic policy is intended to support fair market pricing, and not artificially inflate or suppress capitalist markets. There are exceptions, and the Treasury has been involved in some of them - the largest numismatic-related dollar involvements were price supports for silver, adjustments to gold pricing to stimulate production, the silver Act of 1934 that again supported silver mining. Agricultural price supports and guarantees affect nearly all farming which in turn aids farmers in establishing foreign markets for produce (even when the farmers use their own Co-Ops) where they sell at their own prices. The economic basis is to give everyone fair access to building successful businesses, just as the Constitution guarantees equal rights and justice. At various times, it has been necessary to suspend this policy, but these are usually for limited periods and for certain categories of goods. (WW-I and WW-II rationing, 1970s odd/even gas rationing, Covid-19 vaccine allotments to high risk groups, and similar situations.)

Does this help -- at least a little?

[Woods020]

3 minutes ago, RWB said:

"Market rates."

The government is commonly restricted on how much, or how little, it can pay for supplies. This economic policy is intended to support fair market pricing, and not artificially inflate or suppress capitalist markets. There are exceptions, and the Treasury has been involved in some of them - the largest numismatic-related dollar involvements were price supports for silver, adjustments to gold pricing to stimulate production, the silver Act of 1934 that again supported silver mining. Agricultural price supports and guarantees affect nearly all farming which in turn aids farmers in establishing foreign markets for produce (even when the farmers use their own Co-Ops) where they sell at their own prices. The economic basis is to give everyone fair access to building successful businesses, just as the Constitution guarantees equal rights and justice. At various times, it has been necessary to suspend this policy, but these are usually for limited periods and for certain categories of goods. (WW-I and WW-II rationing, 1970s odd/even gas rationing, Covid-19 vaccine allotments to high risk groups, and similar situations.)

Does this help -- at least a little?

It’s great info. And the Pittman act and others are great examples of the government using the mint as a tool for economic policy. 

My question is more around the current situation. Can the mint buy sufficient supply of silver planchets let’s say currently, or would they be unable because short term supply constraints have caused a spike? The Morgan dollar restrike being an example. Is there an issue buying the planchets at their approved prices because of current market conditions, and is this a potential reason for a delay?

[RWB]

3 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

it's probably just logistical supply chain issues. 

This is as likely as anything, unless the prime supply contractor has encountered other problems. You might recall that a few weeks ago there were news stories about the high cost of lumber and adding as much as $35,000 to an average new home price. Since then, international and domestic supply has improved and prices dropped about 50% of the recent increase. It's expected to continue to decrease until only a modest amount over pre-pandemic prices. (Nearly all businesses use temporary cost fluctuations to add permanent price increases. Theoretically, competition is supposed to create lower prices, but that has never been very efficient - self interest of businesses exerts too great a pressure. This is why we see cycles of Monopoly growth and Government Monopoly suppression ["Trust Busting"]. Steel, railroads, coal, petroleum, electricity, water, telephone, and more recently investigations of Google, Amazon, AntGroup, and others. Government purchases are required to work within this free market framework.)

Edited June 26, 2021 by RWB

[Woods020]

5 minutes ago, RWB said:

This is as likely as anything, unless the prime supply contractor has encountered other problems. You might recall that a few weeks ago there were news stories about the high cost of lumber and adding as much as $35,000 to an average new home price. Since then, international and domestic supply has improved and prices dropped about 50% of the recent increase. It's expected to continue to decrease until only a modest amount over pre-pandemic prices. (Nearly all businesses use temporary cost fluctuations to add permanent price increases. Theoretically, competition is supposed to create lower prices, but that has never been very efficient - self interest of businesses exerts too great a pressure. This is why we see cycles of Monopoly growth and Government Monopoly suppression ["Trust Busting"]. Steel, railroads, coal, petroleum, electricity, water, telephone, and more recently investigations of Google, Amazon, AntGroup, and others. Government purchases are required to work within this free market framework.)

Thank you! 
 

I have seen several people reference a shortage. I don’t feel it’s as much of a shortage per se, but more price constraints based on the mint due to short term supply chain based cost increase. 

Edited June 26, 2021 by Woods020

[RWB]

Reference to "a shortage" of most things are deceptive. They are usually temporary, localized, and causative.