From Mine to Mint Question - RWB 0

[Woods020]

Roger,

A question yesterday someone asked jogged my memory of a clarification I have been meaning to ask about FMTM, and mint record keeping more broadly. 
 

In the book it mentions yearly mint clean ups, sweeps, etc..  You also mention the contents of these recoveries was added back to balance accounts. My questions are on how this was credited to the balances? I know they expected a loss of a small portion from melting, and I assume this was just included as melt loss. But when added back it obviously didn’t go back to the depositor. 
 

1. How was the recovery metal accounted for in the balances?
 

2. Was it added as a special line item to the total, or was it added to department totals?

3. Was this used as a slush fund to make the books balance? Was it applied how and where needed to make this happen or a systematic way of adding back?

4. And here is the real crux of the how and why questions. Could this recovery be a partial explanation for some of the debated topics of items leaving the mint yet books still balance? I make no guess or have no opinion of how or why these events occurred just curious if this is a way for the mint to make things add up if the situation arises. 
 

Thanks!

[RWB]

Interesting questions and the answers are not the same from time-to-time as mint policy and regulations changed occasionally.

All of the mints closed once during the year for the Annual Settlement. After 1873 it was always the end of June. Before then it was usually the end of March. Settlement included a full count of all metals held by a mint and was checked against the Cashier’s records, Vault Custodian’s journals and metal processing records for the prior year. During shutdown, the chimneys, flues, roof and rain catchment, dry wells, waste water sump and other collection areas were cleaned. The M&R rooms had their iron floor grates removed, cleaned and the flooring swept to collection any bits of metal. All of this was collected, treated to remove dirt, melted and assayed. Almost all of this was credited to the M&R Department, which is where most of it originated. “Sweeps” consisted of ground up crucibles, refining pots, stray amalgam and other debris. Sweeps were sampled and assayed. This was collected 4 to 5 times a year and sold to the high bidder (based on the assay) in lots of 100 barrels or thereabouts. The buyer paid in gold coin. Most of the proceeds were credited to M&R. Smaller credits were made to the Coining Department whenever the source of gold or silver could be clearly determined. For example, hand washing water for the Adjusters was channeled to a separate sand-well. Therefore, all the gold recovered from this was credited to the Coining Department. Much the same for other parts of coining. Likewise the Assay Department waste was segregated, and any recovery returned to the department’s credit.

These actions allowed US Mints to have annual metal losses far below the legal limits. In fact, if a mint approached anything close to the legal limit an investigation was begun.

There was no “slush fund.” All gains and losses were reported. Having gains was even more suspicious than losses…the mint officers did not expect to see any overall gain pf metal. This always led to a detailed investigation. It was difficult to explain how there was a gain unless someone or some process had been secretly removing metal in the past, and had now stopped.

Precious metals left the mints almost daily – just as they came in almost every day. Every item leaving a mint had to have a signed permission slip like this sample:

  

Mint records were also checked by a series of Auditors from the Treasury Department. These people frequently found minor errors and regularly sent corrections to each mint. It is likely that within this flow of paperwork – much of it 4 to 6 months out of date – that errors occurred. But, these affected bullion, coins, and spending, not things like dies or coin designs or patterns.

Edited March 6, 2021 by RWB

[Woods020]

Thanks for this. It seems there would have to be widespread collusion for the recoveries to be used to offset anything, which would be highly unlikely. Makes sense to me. It’s interesting that the mint sold off these items and didn’t refine it themselves. Although it’s probably more trouble than it’s worth with for the mint. 

[RWB]

43 minutes ago, Woods020 said:

Although it’s probably more trouble than it’s worth with for the mint. 

That was the situation with sweeps - too much debris mixed with a little gold or silver. Refiners and metal recovery firms were better equipped to do this.

[GoldFinger1969]

8 hours ago, RWB said:

That was the situation with sweeps - too much debris mixed with a little gold or silver. Refiners and metal recovery firms were better equipped to do this.

(1)  Is it true that gold coins were strewn around the floors of vault cages at the Philadelphia Mint ?

(2)  Amazing that with all that attention to detail for microscopic amounts of gold, that the entire bag of 1928 Saints (250 ounces) got stolen. 

Edited March 7, 2021 by GoldFinger1969

[RWB]

46 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

(1)  Is it true that gold coins were strewn around the floors of vault cages at the Philadelphia Mint ?

(2)  Amazing that with all that attention to detail for microscopic amounts of gold, that the entire bag of 1928 Saints (250 ounces) got stolen.

1) No. On rare occasions a coin or two were found loose in a vault. The only large scale mess was when rotten bags of silver dollars burst open in the main Philadelphia Mint vault. Several million coins were recounted, bagged and boxed.

2) Sometimes, it is easier to remove a big thing than a tiny one. An assay chip might be missed immediately, but if a work crew removed a press everyone might assume it was legitimate.

[Woods020]

Even though these are small pieces of precious metal (shavings, particles from adjusters hands, etc.) it must have been a meaningful amount in total. If they sold sweeps in barrels by the hundred, even though they were largely other material with trace amounts of anything precious, it would seem to still be a meaningful amount of recovery. That’s why I was curious how it was accounted for. I’m sure with all of these activities 250 ounces wouldn’t be out of the question to offset. I have no idea how much they actually recovered, but I doubt they did this yearly if it didn’t produce a meaningful amount.  In the case of the 1928s it was clearly recognized. But if the focus was macro and looking at total metal content in the facility, then these gifts from the floor grates, machines and hands could make some books balance to a certain degree. 

[RWB]

Here's a comment extracted from a  Sept. 23, 1904 letter by the Melter & Refiner to the mint director.

"Gold is always found in the gutters carrying off the rainfall from the roof. These cleanings have been sent to the sweep cellar. These indications point unmistakably to the passage of gold out of the stacks.

They are strongly confirmed by the fact that by simply passing a wire scratch-brush down the stacks at our annual clean up, 1,250 ozs. of gold was recovered from the soot. If in so short a distance from the furnace to the roof, such an amount of gold was deposited, it is impossible to estimate the amount which did not lodge in the flue, or which was absorbed by the brickwork, and is still there." [RG 104 entry UD 87 box 1]

[Woods020]

So who wants to pan the dirt around the old mint site in Philly with me?

[Lem E]

41 minutes ago, Woods020 said:

So who wants to pan the dirt around the old mint site in Philly with me?

We will meet up at Jim’s for a quick cheesesteak and then we can head out 

[Hoghead515]

That was an awesome book.  I would love to have scraped the rooftops of the mint and all the surrounding buildings before they put in a special flue.  The book goes into lots of detail on things like that. And how the employees had to shower everyday and they caught the bath water in a special tank to include in when they done their sweeps. They also started putting down special mesh flooring to catch the gold in that could be taken up. Amazing how much gold was recovered from the sweeps. 

 

Edited March 7, 2021 by Hoghead515

[Hoghead515]

32 minutes ago, Lem E said:

We will meet up at Jim’s for a quick cheesesteak and then we can head out 

If we going for cheesesteak count me in!!!!!

[Lem E]

3 minutes ago, Hoghead515 said:

If we going for cheesesteak count me in!!!!!

Always room for one more brother.

[Hoghead515]

7 minutes ago, Lem E said:

Always room for one more brother.

Appreciate it my friend. Same here. 

[GoldFinger1969]

4 hours ago, Lem E said:

We will meet up at Jim’s for a quick cheesesteak and then we can head out 

Pat's, King Of Steaks......I have to meet Gazzo on some business.  

[Hoghead515]

4 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Pat's, King Of Steaks......I have to meet Gazzo on some business.  

That sounds pretty good also. 👍 

[RWB]

Not sure if anyone scraped the ground around the old mint on Chestnut. 70 years of "lost" gold might be waiting?

[RWB]

This letter might also help explain some of the losses and gains in mint reports. This refers specifically to the gain reported on rolling silver.

Mint of the United States at Philadelphia, Pa.

Coiner’s Department

 July 21, 1878

 Hon. Daniel M. Fox,

Superintendent

 Sir:

            In response to the inquiry of the director in his letter of the 20^th inst., desiring information relative to the item on the Coiner’s Monthly report “Loss/Gain from rolls,” I have the honor to state, that the silver ingots during their treatment for coinage are first rolled into strips, of proper thickness, and with a view to preserve these in each stage of reduction of suitable ductility from the breakdown and finishing rolls, preparatory to their being drawn and cut into blanks; these strips are successively heated to low redness in an open annealing furnace, and under exposure to this heat, the surface becomes oxidized, and to this accretion foreign matter, or oxygen gas which may have combined with the copper, is due the apparent gain from rolls.

            There is nothing unusual in this gain from rolls, it always existed by this mode of annealing, the blank reports furnished by the Department already provide for the item.

            The following statement shows the gain from rolls from 1882–1887.

Fiscal Year	Amt Operated Upon	Apparent Loss	Gain from Rolls	Actual Loss
1882	19,652,112.90	7,272.20	5,101.60	2,170.60
1883	22,129,567.50	8,844.70	5,245.70	3,599.00
1884	25,047,074.00	9,490.40	5,099.70	4,390.70
1885	27,551,884.90	9,353.80	5,006.00	4,347.80
1886	38,710,491.50	13,021.40	7,649.50	5,371.90
1887	41,611,039.60	15,489.60	9,936.00	5,553.60

 Very Respectfully,

            Your Obedient Servant

            William S. Steel, Coiner

 [Abstract – July 21, 1887. W. S. Steel. Explaining the item on Coiner’s Monthly Report “Loss/gain from rolls.”]

Edited March 8, 2021 by RWB