From Mine to Mint 2 2

[RWB]

1 hour ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Best way to thank Roger is to plug his books. 

Geeee...I try to have book printed without holes...no need plug them. I'll look into that, so to speak, with the printer.

[GoldFinger1969]

1 hour ago, RWB said:

Geeee...I try to have book printed without holes...no need plug them. I'll look into that, so to speak, with the printer.

On a serious subject, since we're talking about book printing.....is the SAINTS book available in a PDF format (or Kindle-type online form) from Heritage ?  I may ask them.

Would love to have it on my smartphone where I can read the year and mint mark chapters.  Or on the couch at night.

[RWB]

12 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

On a serious subject, since we're talking about book printing.....is the SAINTS book available in a PDF format (or Kindle-type online form) from Heritage ?  I may ask them.

Would love to have it on my smartphone where I can read the year and mint mark chapters.  Or on the couch at night.

You'll have to as Heritage. I am not aware of an electronic format edition.

[GoldFinger1969]

1 hour ago, RWB said:

You'll have to as Heritage. I am not aware of an electronic format edition.

I did.  Probably not, but I'm hoping as a loyal client and buyer of the book they might be able to send me a PDF copy.

[rocket23]

On 12/23/2020 at 2:48 PM, Just Bob said:

That is the way to collect. There is an old adage in coin collecting that states, "Buy the book before the coin." If you have the knowledge beforehand, you are way ahead of the game.

I've been lucky........collected a few coins before I got a good book.....

[GoldFinger1969]

37 minutes ago, rocket23 said:

I've been lucky........collected a few coins before I got a good book.....

What coins do you collect, what coin books did you hit ? 

[rocket23]

1 minute ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

What coins do you collect, what coin books did you hit ? 

Basically pennies and dollar silver, all modern coins, by todays standards....as for books the ''red book'' and ''coins'' magazines I read typically to this day...also a coin almanac I picked up at my first coin show last year.

[Hoghead515]

In the Cochran theft. When he pulled those gold bars out under the vault door of the vault with a wire. Was he a mint employee? What job did he hold? Also did he spend much time in prison? Also how did they catch him?  Thank you for any feedback. Very interesting stuff. 

[RWB]

15 hours ago, Hoghead515 said:

In the Cochran theft. When he pulled those gold bars out under the vault door of the vault with a wire. Was he a mint employee? What job did he hold? Also did he spend much time in prison? Also how did they catch him?  Thank you for any feedback. Very interesting stuff. 

He was a highly trusted, long-time mint employee...21+ years. He was the weigh clerk which meant that all deposits went through his supervision. I don't know how long he spent in prison. He was caught because the transfer accounts didn't match. It is possible he had been taking small quantities from raw gold dust deposits for many years. The loss would be covered by wastage and impurities captured by the flux during melting.

[Hoghead515]

31 minutes ago, RWB said:

He was a highly trusted, long-time mint employee...21+ years. He was the weigh clerk which meant that all deposits went through his supervision. I don't know how long he spent in prison. He was caught because the transfer accounts didn't match. It is possible he had been taking small quantities from raw gold dust deposits for many years. The loss would be covered by wastage and impurities captured by the flux during melting.

Did they ever recover any of it. He may have been set after getting out of prison. He probably had a hoard rat holed somewhere waiting on him. That would test alot of people. Looking at all that gold all the time. Wouldn't take long to add up  just taking a tiny pebble a day home. He got greedy when he went after them gold bars that had done been accounted for. I know it will never be known but I sit and wondered as I read about how many of them got by with taking small amounts and not getting caught. There probably at least one slick one who made a decent payday after they retired or whatever. 

[GoldFinger1969]

I think all employees at the Mints who come into contact with gold or silver -- including West Point -- go through sophisticated metal detectors that would pick up if you had a piece of gold the size of one of those pastina minis you eat in soup. 

[Hoghead515]

42 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

I think all employees at the Mints who come into contact with gold or silver -- including West Point -- go through sophisticated metal detectors that would pick up if you had a piece of gold the size of one of those pastina minis you eat in soup. 

I was a talking about back in the 1800s before metal detectors were around. Id say a person couldn't even sneak a piece of bubble gum out of there these days where security so tight now. 

[RWB]

9 hours ago, Hoghead515 said:

Did they ever recover any of it. He may have been set after getting out of prison. He probably had a hoard rat holed somewhere waiting on him. That would test alot of people. Looking at all that gold all the time. Wouldn't take long to add up  just taking a tiny pebble a day home. He got greedy when he went after them gold bars that had done been accounted for. I know it will never be known but I sit and wondered as I read about how many of them got by with taking small amounts and not getting caught. There probably at least one slick one who made a decent payday after they retired or whatever. 

All of his property was confiscated. There is more to the story but the documents are only slowly being revealed from the archives. When FMTM was published, little except what is in the book was known.

[GoldFinger1969]

How much gold did this guy take/steal ?

[RWB]

14 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

How much gold did this guy take/steal ?

$3,407.71, on account of U.S. vs. Henry S. Cochran plus the $10,000 surety bond. (Letters 1893, 1894)

[GoldFinger1969]

54 minutes ago, RWB said:

$3,407.71, on account of U.S. vs. Henry S. Cochran plus the $10,000 surety bond. (Letters 1893, 1894)

So about 170 ounces or 10.6 pounds.

[Hoghead515]

Thats a good chunk of gold. 

[GoldFinger1969]

27 minutes ago, Hoghead515 said:

Thats a good chunk of gold. 

You stick it inside your sweater or put it in your HAPPY DAYS lunch box. 

Edited January 20, 2021 by GoldFinger1969

[rocket23]

Only thing I'll ever get from the mint should be a thank you,lol

[Hoghead515]

In what year did they start accepting the face values of coins even if even if they were heavily circulated? For example in the 1800s they could refuse a worn coin at a bank if they didn't think the weight was there.  And today coins can be worn out and still took at face value. Which our coins now are not precious metals but, was it like that plum up till 1964 when they were still silver?  Or did they start accepting them anyways at face value after a certain time? Or pass some sort of bill in Congress or anything that still recognized them as face value even if well worn?  

[RWB]

On 1/19/2021 at 10:45 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

So about 170 ounces or 10.6 pounds.

12 Troy ounces in a pound.

Added:

$13,407.71 divided by $20.67 = 648.66 Troy oz divided by 12 oz/lb = 54.06 pounds.

Edited January 21, 2021 by RWB

[Hoghead515]

I truly love the old the old electric boxes from those days. It's just something about those old knife blade switches and the marble boxes. The style of it all. It's amazing how much technology was coming along in those days. That is an impressive switchboard at the Philadelphia mint in 1902. Those guys were very intelligent to wire those machines up the way they had to back then. 

[RWB]

On 1/20/2021 at 7:47 PM, Hoghead515 said:

In what year did they start accepting the face values of coins even if even if they were heavily circulated? For example in the 1800s they could refuse a worn coin at a bank if they didn't think the weight was there.  And today coins can be worn out and still took at face value. Which our coins now are not precious metals but, was it like that plum up till 1964 when they were still silver?  Or did they start accepting them anyways at face value after a certain time? Or pass some sort of bill in Congress or anything that still recognized them as face value even if well worn?  

US Mints would not accept legal weight coins for deposit except for damaged or mutilated pieces. Underweight or mutilated coins were accepted at bullion value. Exceptions were made for direct exchanges for a few silver or gold pieces for collectors or special occasions such as births and anniversaries. Here's a typical coin request:

Gold coins were subjected to a kind of "musical chairs" approach. Everything was good until someone refused the coin. Then the holder tried to give it to a different merchant or bank; neither of which were obliged to accept it. Whoever held the coin last (when the music stopped) was stuck with it, and the loss was his/hers. The sub-Treasuries and later Federal Reserve Banks, accepted damages and light weight gold from banks at estimated bullion value. The Mints received these in batches and charged the s-Ts or FRBs with the difference between legal and measured value. Banks were then credited back if they were owed money.

In a few situations such as 1917 on the west coast, the Treasury accepted all old worn and lightly damaged gold coins at full face value. They wanted to get the substandard coins out of circulation and replace them with FR Notes and fresh coins.

Edited January 24, 2021 by RWB

[GoldFinger1969]

How much loss are we talking about from circulation wear and friction anyway ?  I think someone on one of the coin sites did a test -- maybe one of your books Roger mentioned a similar government study (was one referenced in FMTM or the Saints book ?) -- and I think the loss over 10 or 20 years of heavy use was maybe 5% or something like that ?

It's not like someone would be coming into a bank or the Mint with hundreds of underweight coins looking to pull a fast one. 

Anybody know for a SLQ or GW quarter...when the features are almost completely erased from wear, and the coin is almost smooth on both sides, how much of the metal was erased ?

Edited January 24, 2021 by GoldFinger1969

[Hoghead515]

50 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

How much loss are we talking about from circulation wear and friction anyway ?  I think someone on one of the coin sites did a test -- maybe one of your books Roger mentioned a similar government study (was one referenced in FMTM or the Saints book ?) -- and I think the loss over 10 or 20 years of heavy use was maybe 5% or something like that ?

It's not like someone would be coming into a bank or the Mint with hundreds of underweight coins looking to pull a fast one. 

Anybody know for a SLQ or GW quarter...when the features are almost completely erased from wear, and the coin is almost smooth on both sides, how much of the metal was erased ?

Very good question. 

[RWB]

9 minutes ago, Hoghead515 said:

Very good question. 

This table should help. Anything less than the minimum weight for gold or silver rendered the coin not a legal tender. Few seem to have paid attention for small silver coins. Copy and save the JPG for better readability.

Edited January 24, 2021 by RWB

[GoldFinger1969]

I don't know how they measured it -- did they look at 20-year old coins or heavily bang-around some coins 24/7 for a few weeks to approximate 20 years of wear-and-tear ? -- but the reduction from the chart is < 1% for all the coins at the top.

[RWB]

For gold coins, the Philadelphia Mint collected samples from the light weight gold transferred from sub-Treasuries and banks. These were washed and then arranged by date/mint and then individually weighed to approximate the loss of mass due to circulation. This was repeated about one every 15 to 20 years usually in response to a question from Congress.

[leeg]

In my mind all these questions are just "Over the Top."

Roger shouldn't have to answer all these mundane (lacking interest or excitement; dull.) questions. This topic has come up before in this Forum  when the book project first came out.

Roger is a noted author with many "book of the year" awards. It's very simple really: You buy it based on past Numismatic Awards, or you don't. Simple as that.

P.S. Good thing I haven't printed my book.

 

[GoldFinger1969]

3 hours ago, leeg said:

In my mind all these questions are just "Over the Top."  Roger shouldn't have to answer all these mundane (lacking interest or excitement; dull.) questions. This topic has come up before in this Forum  when the book project first came out.  Roger is a noted author with many "book of the year" awards. It's very simple really: You buy it based on past Numismatic Awards, or you don't. Simple as that.  P.S. Good thing I haven't printed my book.

Leeg, Roger is very gracious with his time.  But nobody forces him to respond or pesters him -- he'll do so at his convenience and if he feels the post is important enough and worthy of a response. 

We are certainly grateful that he is helpful and generous in responding to our questions.  Most of us have bought his books already and we are looking to stimulate discussion based on our interest and enjoyment in reading his books.  The discussion also leads to questions and observations -- some good, some bad -- but not everybody is an expert on these topics so things get cleared up that way.  Roger is helpful to all, novice and expert. 

All we can do to reciprocate is spread the good word to buy his books and maybe find a way to support his research down the line.  I can tell you that is one thing I am looking into and I bet I find a receptive audience among others whom he has helped here and on other forums.

We are discussing some relatively minor items but there's nothing major going on in many of the books and topics and coins which Roger is an expert in.  We do have a thread on his SAINTS book and there's lots of valuable Q&A there.  Indeed, I've saved most of the pages in PDF format in case anything happens to the thread and this website. 

I know myself when I've written articles that have gotten published, I've LOVED the Q&A and feedback from the public.  I would guess Roger enjoys it, too. 

Sorry for the length of this post but I wanted to both thank Roger -- as well as the other participants in this thread for their useful observations and questions -- and respond to your concerns, too.

Edited January 25, 2021 by GoldFinger1969