Coin Community Family of Web Sites
Like us on Facebook! Subscribe to our Youtube Channel! Check out our Twitter! Check out our Pinterest!
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?


Welcome Guest! Need help? Got a question? Inherit some coins?
Our coin forum is completely free! Register Now!

San Francisco Minted Coins

 
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.
Author Previous TopicReplies: 13 / Views: 1,709Next Topic  
Pillar of the Community
United States
4742 Posts
 Posted 06/30/2017  10:49 am Show Profile   Bookmark this topic Add TheForce to your friends list Get a Link to this Message
Do you think the San Francisco Mint will ever make circulating coins again? I know they make business strikes of ATB Quarters but they aren't issued for circulation. They aren't even included in the annual mint sets. I still feel they should have started the S mint quarters at the beginning of the ATB program and not after it already started.
Moderator
Learn More...
United States
100962 Posts
 Posted 06/30/2017  7:53 pm  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add jbuck to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
I doubt it. I do not think they have the capacity to keep up with the other two, which would result in their output being hoarded because of the low mintage mint mark (they cannot just leave it off like they did the last time they supplemented the Philly mintage). If that is what is going to happen, they might as well just sell them directly at a premium like they do with the quarters.
Bedrock of the Community
13014 Posts
 Posted 06/30/2017  8:41 pm  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add basebal21 to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
They may have without a mint mark and just no one knows like with the Philly ASEs or West Point Cents. If they do they likely won't have any markings so practically speaking it wouldn't matter
Pillar of the Community
United States
1571 Posts
 Posted 06/30/2017  8:54 pm  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add jmkendall to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
They have in the past made cents at both SF and West Point. There are two possible ways to tell an SF coin. The first is that for all years that SF made the special mint sets, those same dies were probably also used for circulation strikes...till they wore out. The second is more problematic. It would seem logical that coins that circulated in the Bay Area in that time frame were made at the SF mint. I can't see the mint going to the expense of shipping cents out to SF when they were making them right there. In which case there are enough long time collections that should anyone really be interested, and have the time, they could probably find the dies characteristics for those years. I for one have cents from all those years pulled in those years in my personal collection.
Bedrock of the Community
United States
17385 Posts
 Posted 06/30/2017  10:10 pm  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add Conder101 to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
The problem with identifying the die characteristics is that first you have to prove the coins you are studying for characteristics are actually S mint coins. Just picking them up in the Bay area at the time is not good enough to "prove" they are S mint.
Gary Schmidt
Pillar of the Community
United States
1571 Posts
 Posted 07/01/2017  6:30 pm  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add jmkendall to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
Condor101, I think you could do that. I think you could check the shipping records from PA and Denver and see if they shipped any cents to the SF Fed.
.

Realistically, the mint is not going to be spending money to ship cents to SF when the local mint is making them. I take your point, as it is a good technical point. However; the most likely answer is that if you rolled cents in SF( and I lived in San Francisco/Vallejo) in 1967, that were dated 1967, then more likely than not they were made at the SF mint.

As an aside, growing up in the 60s in the Bay Area, it was frustrating trying to find the "P"s and "D"s for your albums, as they typically took a couple of years to show up in circulation. Which is why the condition of the other mm cents was usually AU to XF when you got them. Not always but usually. In 68 when they started to put the mm back on, all you saw were "s" minted 68's.The same with 69, ect. I probably have 20 to 30 rolls of 68-S LMC. And not one roll of P or Ds. That has to tell you something.

With that being the standard, it is hard to see why the Mint would change it's policy just becasue it stopped putting the mintmark on the coins. Remember one of the reasons for the Regional Feds was to supply money to a specific regions under their control. They purchased their coins from the closest mint and bep. The SF fed would be the recipient of the output of the SF mint. The SF Fed sold to the local banks.

The bottom line is that the police of the SF Fed was to purchase the output of the SF mint. The SF Fed supplied the local banks and armored car companies ( brinks et al). The vast majority of those cents, issued for circulation in the Bay Area, would be made at SF. By the Mints and Feds own policies we can see that a non "s" minted cent found in a specific year ( ala a 67 in 67) would be the exception rather than the rule. Therefore you would actually have to prove that the mint violated it's own policy in regards to dispercement to prove that the cents were NOT SF minted. Especially when you consider that the same policy was followed when the "official" mintage resumed in SF in 68.
Pillar of the Community
United States
1571 Posts
 Posted 07/01/2017  6:39 pm  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add jmkendall to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
I see from the mint directors report for FY67 that 14,325,000 cents were minted in SF.

P.35 shows that the SF mint only shipped to SF, Los Angeles, Portland Ore, Salt Lake City Ut, and Seattle Washington.

No coins from Philidelphia or Dever were shipped to the SF Fed in FY67.

Therefore all but a very small number of coins for a specific year, and collected in that year were minted in SF.

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=pst.000068053567;view=1up;seq=49

I worked as a detective for many years this sort of thinking and work is second nature to me.
Pillar of the Community
United States
1323 Posts
 Posted 07/02/2017  12:06 am  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add CollegeBarbers to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply

Quote:
Do you think the San Francisco Mint will ever make circulating coins again?

It seems unlikely because the Philadelphia and Denver mints are meeting production needs, so if San Francisco does need to chip in a bit it would probably do so without a distinguishing mint mark like others have suggested.

Now making more NCLT is another story and seems much more likely given the uncirculated S-mint ATB Quarters. Yet even they aren't very popular and aren't really highlighted or advertised by the Mint, so anything beyond them might be a long shot.
Moderator
Learn More...
United States
100962 Posts
 Posted 07/02/2017  12:33 am  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add jbuck to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply

Quote:
It seems unlikely because the Philadelphia and Denver mints are meeting production needs
Get them to stop minting cents and they can exceed production needs.
Bedrock of the Community
United States
17385 Posts
 Posted 07/03/2017  5:39 pm  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add Conder101 to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply

Quote:
I think you could check the shipping records from PA and Denver and see if they shipped any cents to the SF Fed.
.

You are also going to have to check all the Federal Reserve bank shipping records, because if one runs low on a given denomination they can get shipments from other banks.

You will also have to prove your roll were actually rolled in 1967, that may be a little easier. Did the San francisco Federal Reserve do their own rolling on 67? Were the rolls marked that they were from the Federal Reserve? And even if they did, unless you video taped the opening of the rolls and had witnesses with you while you did so and documented the die characteristics how do you get people to accept it? I mean I could post die characteristics from what I claim were 1967 rolls wrapped by the San Francisco Fed, but what real proof do I have? Especially making the claim some 50 years later?


Quote:

I see from the mint directors report for FY67 that 14,325,000 cents were minted in SF

Problem with that figure. In 1966 San Francisco struck 383,355,000 cents and in 1967 813,715,000. Not sure where that 14,325,000 comes from. (FY reports make it rather difficult as well because the Mint FY runs July 1 to June 30 so it contains coins with two different dates.)
Gary Schmidt
Edited by Conder101
07/03/2017 5:41 pm
Pillar of the Community
United States
1571 Posts
 Posted 07/03/2017  8:33 pm  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add jmkendall to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
I think you answered your own question. The FY 67 report only reports the first half of Calendar year (CA) 67. I could check the FY 68 report and it would show the CA 67 numbers. However; my point was only to show that SF was making cents that year. I could have easly have chosen 1966. And you yourself show that almost a billion cents were minted in CA 67.

As for the rest of your counter argument, I have already provided documentation that shows the the SF Fed ONLY received the output from the SF Mint; according to their own report.

Indeed the onus would be on the other side to prove that cents were shipped in those years; from the other mints. AS the amounts minted by Philidelphia and Denver were roughly on par with SF, then there is no obvious reason for the other mints to send supplies to the Fed. The fed received their shipments in bulk 1000 coin bags. They passed some of those bags on to banks and suppliers. There might indeed be mint sealed bags out there from the SF mint for the years in question. I have mint sew bags from 71, 72, 73, 74, 75 and 77 from the SF Mint. Surely there are others.

The point is to claim that coins obtained from circulation in early 65, 66, 67 et al, in the San Francisco Bay area were by law, practice and custom minted in the SF Mint. To declare otherwise would require proof.

Granted there would always be detractors.

For instance; Amatures declared that Giant Squids existed. Depositions were made. Sightings documented. A dead example washed up on the East Coast of the United States in the early part of the 20th Century. Photographs were taken. Samples were preserved, and still exist in the Smithsonian. Yet; because the discovery was not made by an accredited academic it was deemed myth, until and Academic "discovered" it, and published in an Peer Based publication.

The point is that for some things there will always be people who will not believe you until a Wiles, et al, publishes in "Coin Universe". Nothing against our experts. They do us a valuable service and deserve their accolades. However they should never be the only authority.

I believe that you could find sufficient examples from these years back home in SF. If we can accept that the most likely source for these coins is the SF mint. As I said you would have to prove that the coins in question did not come from SF; as that was standard.

If you could isolate how many die pairs were made and marry the die pairs they you could determine the die characteristics.

As an aside. I'm and Engineer, you're a Chemist. The SF blanks are uniquely alloyed and can usually be identified with materials analysis. I've been working on a book for a few years now on miss alloyed Lincoln cents. My primary emphisis is on Woodies. However; in the process I subjected several coins to material analysis. SF and Denver had simliar but slightly different compositions. Philadelphia and the New York assay office, which provided bronze ingots, bars and planchets for Philadelphia were similiar to each other but slightly different than Denver and SF. Muddying the waters is that for several years Philadelphia purchased blanks from outside venders. Coins for all mints from 44 to 46 seem to have a unique signature, which I surmise was because the mint had to melt artillary shell casings ( not a myth, as some say) which were of a different alloy than Cent Bronze. The Copper added to that mix would result in a more homogeneous alloy, than normally happened. The alloy in 46 to early 50 was also unique in Denver and Philadephia. In fact I got to the point where I can put the coins down so that only the reverses show and I can pick out the 46 to 49 coins by color. Now, that does not mean all of those coins. It does mean that some of those coins have a distinct appearance, and that appearance is unique to coins of the era from 1946 to 1949. Some 1950 and a very few 1951 cents. Coins from SF tend to have a different appearance in those years and produced many more woodies.

Believe it or not the manufacturing process at each mint was different from the other over the years. Melts were made by gas, city gas, and electricity. The machinery varied; the processes differed; Philadelphia generally did the experimenting, with the equipment changes first being made in Denver, then eventually making their way to SF. San Francisco seemed almost an autonomous Mint, with Denver being almost a sub depot of Philadelphia.
Bedrock of the Community
United States
17385 Posts
 Posted 07/04/2017  11:44 am  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add Conder101 to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply

Quote:
I think you answered your own question. The FY 67 report only reports the first half of Calendar year (CA) 67.

Should also show the last half of CY 1966.


Quote:
I have already provided documentation that shows the the SF Fed ONLY received the output from the SF Mint; according to their own report.

No you claimed that the SF mint only shipped to the SF Fed not that the SF Fed didn't receive shipments for other Federal Reserve Banks. And I took a quick look at the page you mentioned in the Annual Report, and I see nothing there that states that SFM shipped ONLY to the SF fed. That page just lists the Federal Reserve Banks and the Branch banks in their district. It also says "Coins are shipped to the Treasury Department in Washington, D,C, and to the thirty six Federal Reserve Banks and Branches, as follows" It does not say anything about which mint shipped to which bank. Was there somewhere else in the report I should look?


Quote:
Indeed the onus would be on the other side to prove that cents were shipped in those years; from the other mints.

No since you would be making the claim that these are S mint coins, and that these are the diagnostics that identify s mint coins, the burden of PROOF that they really did come for San Francisco is on you.

I would think your best shot, since you do metal analysis, would be to look for cents that match the alloy on SMS coins. All of the 65 - 67 SMS coins were struck in San Francisco, so I would think the S mint business strikes would be similar in composition. Yes I do know that there will be trace differences in the alloy between mints due to different sources of raw material. And I don know they used different methods and equipment. One question would be how do these trace differences vary during the course of the year and between different years? In theory every melt could be, and probably is, slightly different.)
Gary Schmidt
Edited by Conder101
07/04/2017 11:48 am
Pillar of the Community
United States
907 Posts
 Posted 07/04/2017  2:35 pm  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add n9jig to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply

Quote:
I would think your best shot, since you do metal analysis, would be to look for cents that match the alloy on SMS coins. All of the 65 - 67 SMS coins were struck in San Francisco, so I would think the S mint business strikes would be similar in composition. Yes I do know that there will be trace differences in the alloy between mints due to different sources of raw material. And I don know they used different methods and equipment. One question would be how do these trace differences vary during the course of the year and between different years? In theory every melt could be, and probably is, slightly different.)


This presumes that the raw materials were sourced differently. I don't know if the Mint bought raw copper, pre-made blanks or what back then but unless you could prove that the metal used at one mint was different than the others a metals analysis won't prove it.

Unless one followed the coin from the mint to the various distribution points there just is no real way to prove that coins obtained on the west coast were minted in SF. They could have been mixed at some point with Denver or Philly coins before arriving at the bank, store or wherever. That brand new roll of pennies I got from the bank in SF in 1967? Could have been Denver, there is no way to prove otherwise.

Until there is some type of die characteristic or definitive answer that proves a coin's origin there is enough doubt to prohibit a definitive statement. In the mean time any coin dated 1965 through 67 could have been minted at any of the 3 locations. The same goes for West Point coins with no mint marks, there just is no way to discern these from Philly coins.
Valued Member
United States
142 Posts
 Posted 04/26/2021  12:42 am  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add shaney777 to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
jmkendall,

Did you happen to finish the book that you mentioned working on here? I am highly interested in figuring out if it's possible to identify which no mintmark cents came from West Point. Did you test any more and get any kind of usable data? The 400,000 no mintmark 1986 West Point cent mintage is exciting! That 1 per every ~11,225 no mintmark 1986 business cents!
Facebook COIN OPP mod
Facebook COIN COLLECTING FOR BEGINNERS mod
Facebook Fans Of Lincoln Wheat Cents 1909-1958 (Beginners Welcome!) admin
Facebook Shield Cent Varieties & Errors mod
Facebook Variety's and Error's plus Tonners &Unique WOODY'S admin

TOCC #FM021
  Previous TopicReplies: 13 / Views: 1,709Next Topic  
 
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.





Disclaimer: While a tremendous amount of effort goes into ensuring the accuracy of the information contained in this site, Coin Community assumes no liability for errors. Copyright 2005 - 2021 Coin Community Family- all rights reserved worldwide. Use of any images or content on this website without prior written permission of Coin Community or the original lender is strictly prohibited.
Contact Us  |  Advertise Here  |  Privacy Policy / Terms of Use

Coin Community Forum © 2005 - 2021 Coin Community Forums
It took 0.51 seconds to rattle this change. Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.05