Free Updates
Navigation
Categories
| August, 2008 (1) |
| June, 2008 (1) |
| May, 2008 (2) |
| April, 2008 (1) |
| March, 2008 (2) |
| February, 2008 (2) |
| January, 2008 (1) |
| December, 2007 (2) |
| November, 2007 (4) |
| October, 2007 (3) |
| September, 2007 (3) |
| August, 2007 (4) |
| July, 2007 (5) |
| June, 2007 (3) |
| May, 2007 (1) |
Search
Archives
| | Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat | | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 1 | | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | | 30 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
More Links
|
 Thursday, December 27, 2007
I'll take it in Trades
Posted by bob
Much of my collecting lately focuses on drafts, checks, receipts, etc., related to the Comstock Lode, in Virginia City, Nev., and the Bank of California. Although I have acquired items of value pertaining to famous personages active on the Comstock during its heyday, my favorites in the collection are some that didn't cost much but have interesting backgrounds.  This draft from the Agency of the Bank of California at Gold Hill (on the Comstock Lode) is one such item. It only cost me $11, and you can see that a portion of the draft is missing. So it is certainly not a high-grade specimen. However, what's unusual about this draft is what it was payable in. Many of these drafts indicated they were payable in gold. This one, however, goes out of its way to designate payment in U.S. Trade dollars. And it does so in four different places. One appears in parenthesis, next to "One Hundred & Fifty." Another is at the lower left, after the numeric designation of $150. And it can be found twice in red ink, vertically across the draft, as "Payable in Trade dollars." What further interested me is that the draft is dated June 17, 1876. A little more than one month later, the Trade dollar's legal-tender status was revoked by Congress. Originally intended for u  se in the Far East, shortly after issue, the coins became a nuisance in the United States, where they were legal tender only in small amounts. Silver had by then begun to fall in value, and by 1876 the silver in the Trade dollar wasn't worth a dollar, even though the coin was still being paid out at full value—at a loss to most who took it. That same year (according John M. Willem Jr.'s The United States Trade Dollar: America's Only Unwanted, Unhonored Coin), the Aug. 3 issue of the Virginia City Territorial Enterprise reported that there had been a meeting of area saloon owners, at the Delta Saloon in Virginia City, to discuss the fate of the Trade dollar. Only 24 of the businesses (or a scant one-seventh of those in this hard-drinking town) were represented. Some barkeeps called for total refusal of the Trade dollar in payment for liquor. Others suggested taking the coins at 90 cents or as low as 87-1/2 cents.  Considering the obvious problems with Trade dollars (and their shameful lack of acceptance even for basic necessities such as fine two-bit liquor), it's probably a wonder you could have found anyone who wanted payment in Trades rather than gold.
12/27/2007 4:27:09 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
|
|
 Friday, December 14, 2007
Mind your Ps, Ds, and Ss
Posted by bob
With silver above $14 an ounce, it is a good time to check any old coins you may have lying about. Most people know that even common-date dimes, quarters and half dollars dated 1964 and prior have most of their value tied to their bullion content. I recently had the opportunity to go through a hoard of coins. Unfortunately, there were no rarities, but there was considerable value just from the bullion. Included were silver dimes, quarters, half dollars, 10 or 11 silver dollars, and one common-date gold $5. Up until 1964, dimes, quarters and half dollars were being minted in 90 percent silver. What's lesser known by many in the general public, and the reason some silver can still be found, is that although 1964 was the last year for 90 percent silver halves, they continued to be coined in 40 percent silver through 1970 and still show up in searches of rolls at banks. Another coin to watch for is the silver war nickel. These were issued during Wor  ld War II to save on copper for the war effort. Thus, the normal 75 percent copper/25 percent nickel composition of all nickels before and since was changed to one that featured 56 percent copper/35 percent silver/a  nd 9 percent manganese. Fortunately these are easy to identify. I should say that they were easy for most to identify, with the exception being one ill-fated counterfeiter—Francis Leroy Henning. In the 1950s, Henning decided to produce counterfeit Jefferson nickels. Noted for being overweight, of poor quality and color, and sporting a defect in the "R" of "PLURIBUS," some of Henning's nickels had a more glaring error. He failed to observe that genuine wartime silver nickels (1942-1945) displayed a large mintmark above the dome of Monticello on the coin's reverse (see the color photo).  It was the first time the Mint had used a mintmark to identify coins struck at Philadelphia. Up until that point, Jeffersons from Philadelphia had no mintmark, while those from Denver and San Francisco showed a small D or S mintmark on the coin's right side, next to Monticello. Hennings, who turned to producing other non-silver dates as well, before being arrested in 1955, was eventually sentenced to a few years in jail and fined $5,000. The black and white photo here is of a Henning's counterfeit.
12/14/2007 11:42:35 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
|
|
|