| Author |
 Replies: 17 / Views: 3,388 |
|
Valued Member
United States
249 Posts |
I've heard this before; a term/word to describe the difference/reason that any particular whole unit in precious metal has MORE in a single coin than a combination of lesser fractional coins of the same value.
Such as the US silver dollar of 1879 which has .774 of an oz. of silver in it while four quarters/10 dimes or 2 halves contain only .715 of an oz. of silver.
Ostensibly done so as to offset the cost of making the (greater numbers of) smaller coins.
What is the word/term I'm thinking of? I've read about it before but forgotten what it's called.
regards, mitch
|
|
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10284 Posts |
|
|
Rest in Peace
10197 Posts |
I was of the impression later silvers were .715oz as well. making FV and ASW on equal footing...  OP seems correct in ASW figures, no more stacking of chump change silvers for me, Lady Morgana and the Tranny, oops, cant say that, the "I dont know what it is" silver dollars from now on!  Edited by Crazyb0
09/18/2017 3:26 pm
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
I was told there would be no math.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
744 Posts |
Quote:
I was told there would be no math.  |
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
3049 Posts |
I think you might be referring to "debasement" .... Putting less silver in smaller coins to cover the cost of minting smaller denominations...
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3323 Posts |
... or perhaps "seignorage"?
"Nummi rari mira sunt, si sumptus ferre potes." - Christophorus filius Scotiae
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
I certainly don't know this word. If production costs were a factor, then dimes and quarters would have progressively lower silver contents than halves, which is not the case - they are all the same. Here's the story - The Mint Act of 1853 authorized the lowering of the silver content in dimes, quarters and halves by about 7% to discourage the melting and hoarding of minor coins during a period of rising silver prices (arrows/rays were added to the dates of the lower-content coins). The dollar was left at it's original silver content level, creating the disparity that existed until 1873, when further changes were made in the silver content of minor coins. That Act (adding arrows again to the date), during a period of falling silver prices, restored some of the parity for minor coins with the dollar coin but not all of it. Got it? Anyone still awake?  Edited by Coinfrog
09/18/2017 7:10 pm
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
249 Posts |
Bump111 !! Eureka! that's the word! Thanks so much!... I've been trying to think of it for days now.  |
|
Valued Member
United States
249 Posts |
Coinfrog... your thinking backwards: "I certainly don't know this word. If production costs were a factor, then dimes and quarters would have progressively lower silver contents than halves, which is not the case - they are all the same." We were already making quarters dimes and halves for years and years weights unchanged... The Morgan silver dollar was a "new" coin but kept the same disparity as the SL dollar before it, a higher silver content to account for the fact that we only had to strike one coin to equal a dollar rather than a combination of any of the lesser denominations. This was to satisfy the Public's perception of fair, not the other way around; the government wasn't supposed to be making money, while making money! |
|
Valued Member
United States
249 Posts |
And you're right... they don't make a distinction between quarters, dimes and halves, but as a group the gov. does make a distinction against the $.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3323 Posts |
Winner, winner, chicken dinner!
The mint's concept was to base the intrinsic value of coined precious metals on their related amounts in the highest denomination minted in the particular metal. Minting a dollar was to be even money, but they had to reduce the silver content in smaller denominations because it took 2x, 4x, 10x and sometimes 5x or 20x more time and wear/tear to mint an equal value of the other coins. So, they were not so much attempting to make money as to break even.
Not sure how this equates in gold coinage, though.
"Nummi rari mira sunt, si sumptus ferre potes." - Christophorus filius Scotiae
|
|
Moderator
 United States
23522 Posts |
I'm thinking a die wears at the same rate regardless of size - the pressures of strike do not change per unit of area - and the cost of producing a die has to be labor-dominant and not much different by denomination in terms of material cost. The extra size of a large-denomination die is likely offset by the increased difficulty of producing good detail in a smaller die.
Therefore, the per-unit minted cost of a smaller die has to be greater as the denomination gets smaller. I really don't know if that exacting a cost analysis was governing back in the precious-metal days - like it would be today - but all the same it would be prudent thinking on the part of those responsible.
The Crown-sized coins - like Morgans - were a separate category, since that's where the US competed directly with efforts from other countries. These denominations were traded internationally, being of an intrinsic value useful for larger transactions, and the accepted norm of (essentially) one ounce of 90% silver tended to govern. The rest of the world didn't care about US minors, and we could do better for seigniorage with them.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
17884 Posts |
The amount of silver in the dime, quarter, and half were reduced in respect to the dollar coin in 1853 not because it cost more to make them but because the coins were being made subsidiary and their legal tender status was being restricted. (effectively putting the country on the gold standard) The silver dollar retained it's unlimited legal tender status. This permitted the silver coins to remain in circulation regardless of the fluctuating values of gold and silver. Unfortunately it undervalued the silver dollar and insured that it would not circulate.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7840 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1374 Posts |
Although seignorage might have been the word you were thinking of, I don't believe it applies to the situation you described. I believe that seignorage is the term used to indicate the profit a government gets from producing coins at a cost lower than their face value.
|
| |
Replies: 17 / Views: 3,388 |
Posted 09/18/2017 3:17 pm
