Gold $1, $3, and 3-cent discontinued Sept. 1890 0

[RWB]

Gold $1, $3, and 3-cent discontinued Sept. 1890, so why were none of these made in 1890?

The Mint Bureau and Treasury wanted to discontinue gold dollar, three dollars and 3-cents coins because they were useless in circulation and the gold coins were diverted to jewelry use. That is, the Mint was spending public money to make trinkets for rings, pendants and other decorative items. Production of these coins in 1889 was limited to proofs and small quantities to meet holiday demand. Gold dollars were rationed to banks that promised to sell them only to individual customers. Most orders for $3 pieces were rejected; no one seems to have ordered 3-cent pieces except in proof sets.

Treasury sponsored legislation to discontinue these three denominations, and agreed to make none of them in 1890 until Congress could act.

Edited May 25, 2020 by RWB

[kbbpll]

32 minutes ago, RWB said:

so why were none of these made in 1890?

It looks like the letter is actually dated 1889? (Handwritten correction) But the bill to redesign all the coinage was signed September 26, 1890 so the "89" correction seems wrong.

[Just Bob]

3 hours ago, kbbpll said:

It looks like the letter is actually dated 1889? (Handwritten correction) But the bill to redesign all the coinage was signed September 26, 1890 so the "89" correction seems wrong.

I think what appears to be a handwritten correction is the design of the letterhead. It appears to be the same color ink as the rest of the writing at the top, except for the typewritten date.  The first three digits of the date - 189 - were already written in,and the writer was expected to write in the month, day, and last digit of the year.

[kbbpll]

Thanks, you are correct. At first glance it looked like 0 was crossed out and replaced with 89.

[RWB]

Letter heads were likely prepared with handwritten text in mind. When a typewriter was used, the clerks just typed over the printed digits. Many contemporary Treasury letters have the typed date right over the horizontal line - at first glance they look like strike-outs (or at least "ball four").

[GoldFinger1969]

You know.....it's amazing that the phrase "phony as a $3 bill" is part of our lexicon and yet there really was a $3 coin.

I'll bet that 98% of Americans don't know that.

[DWLange]

On 5/24/2020 at 7:40 PM, RWB said:

Treasury sponsored legislation to discontinue these three denominations, and agreed to make none of them in 1890 until Congress could act.

That was no hardship, as these coins typically were made toward the end of the year for holiday season gifts. It's likely that only proofs would have been made earlier in the year.

[RWB]

This letter in response to a request for gold dollars indicates the status of these coins as of mid-August 1889, and supports Mr. Lange's comment.

Edited May 26, 2020 by RWB

[Conder101]

On 5/26/2020 at 12:27 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

it's amazing that the phrase "phony as a $3 bill" is part of our lexicon and yet there really was a $3 coin.

There were also a LOT of genuine 3 dollar bills as well before 1862.  At one point the Federal government even planned to print $3's.  There was a currency design that was to be used for 1's, 2's, and 3's that had all three numbers printed on it and an open "spirograph" was printed over them with the proper denomination in the opening.  They were issued for the 1 and 2 but not the 3.

[Prethen]

Dumb question...what was wrong with the first "signature" that it was crossed out and retyped out again?

[RWB]

On 6/1/2020 at 8:48 AM, Prethen said:

Dumb question...what was wrong with the first "signature" that it was crossed out and retyped out again?

A clerk typing this draft likely typed "signature" twice. The duplicate word was crossed out when the draft was edited before that final version was prepared.

[To process this kind of letter, a clerk would have taken shorthand dictation from the author, and typed a draft for approval. The author would make any corrections, return the revised draft to the clerk, and the final version typed and presented for signature to the author.]

Edited June 2, 2020 by RWB

[Henri Charriere]

I don't particularly like the tone of that second letter, ending with...

     "If you want one send 25c additional, otherwise your remittance will be returned."  

Telephones, understandably, were new but costly. And I can well appreciate the value of a quarter, circa 1889/1890, but the gentleman's customer relation skills are clearly lacking.

Last month a coin consortium in Europe unexpectedly raised their sale price [for, you know] after I had already transmitted a bank wire transfer at a cost to me of $50. and a currency conversion fee from USD to euros for an additional fee of roughly $25. I balked and they relented, unbeknownst to me, shipping the item and describing it as a "global discount."  (I later bought 20 euros in New York and airmailed it to them). They acknowledged receiving it but informed me they were unable to maintain it as a credit on my account -- or, in the alternative, keep it with my well wishes for the holidays, as I had graciously suggested.

Maybe being accommodating to prospective buyers is against government policy -- or possibly illegal, but that is what I would have done.

[I wonder what some of the rough-and-tumble guys who frequent this Forum would say?]

[RWB]

In the era of the 2nd letter, there were few "form" letters. Clerks had to prepare each response individually. That likely led to short tempers and abrupt comments. The letter is a draft. Common practice was to add a note to the correspondence's original letter and mail it back to them....this left no trace of the correspondence unless there was some sort of follow-on.

[Very few individuals had telephones. There were no mimeograph machines; a form letter had to be printed and that required multiple approvals. Such items were issued as "Circulars" or "Circular Letters." NNP has a separate small collection of these relating to the US Mints.]