2⢠Trivia

I'm still a bit leery about this 1933 law...even Walter Breen notes that coins like the Half Cent did not become legal tender until 1965. In fact I don't think he even mentions the 1933 law in his book at all. I must admit that I'm a bit perplexed but the text definitely states that all previous coins are legal tender. I will need to pursue this line of questioning with some others.

Again, either very poorly posed questions or the answers given are completely fictitious...... A Two Cent Piece is legal tender for Two Cents and has been every day since it was first minted.... It has never been legal tender for four cents or Twenty Cents.... The Acts afore mentioned refer to the maximum number of coins (10) that could be legally tendered by either buyer or merchant in a single transaction without objection.

As far as the 1933 resolution mentioned earlier, this is yet another boondoggle for the sake of misinterpretation...... This Act in no way changed legal tender status of anything other than gold coins, Gold Certificates and Federal Reserve Notes printed by the United States.



This was intended to thwart folks from shaving/clipping coins down and accumulating the shavings/clippings, and spending or redeeming the remainder of the coin at face value.



The purpose of this resolution (as the OP correctly alludes to) revolves completely around the abortion of the Gold Standard..... Gold certificates were now no longer legal tender, small size Federal Reserve notes no longer supported the statement inscribed on them ("Redeemable in gold on demand at the United States Treasury, or in gold or lawful money at any Federal Reserve Bank").

Prior to this Act, the Gold Certificates were redeemable at face value in gold coin..... Federal Reserve notes bearing the clause quoted above were redeemable at 40% face value in gold coin and the remaining 60% in other lawful money of the United States.

The day following Roosevelt's signing of the resolution, these "Gold Certificates" and "Federal Reserve Notes" (with the gold clause) ceased to be printed..... and were replaced immediately by "Federal Reserve Bank Notes", otherwise known as "National Currency" or "Emergency Money".... (The series annotation of 1929, was engraved in the National Currency plates in 1929, but the plates were not used before 1933).



A visual comparison:


This is a "Federal Reserve Note" (NOT MY NOTE)... notice the gold clause




This is a "Gold Certificate" (MY NOTE).....





This is a "Federal Reserve Bank Note" the note that Replaced them both in June 1933 (MY NOTE)......

Much of what the Congress passes as law is steeped in absurd redundancy or meaningless babble...... As far as the issue of legal tender status goes, this Act gave legal tender status to the U.S. Trade dollar, but was beyond that, nothing more than a restatement of existing law.

The limitations placed on the number of Two Cent Pieces allowable to be tendered in a single transaction was repealed a very, very long time prior to 1965..... The 1864 Act placing such an unenforceable law on the public is a prime example of the caliber of folks that we elect as our representatives to enact law on our behalf that we do not need...... What law enforcement agency was to enforce the maximum tender of 10 Two Cent coins in a single transaction? What court system would uphold cases involving such idiocy?


I assume that this is the verbiage that causes the OP to feel that unlimited legal tender status was bestowed upon the Two Cent coin in 1965:



What that means is that the 1865 Two Cent Piece and the 1934 $500 Federal Reserve Note, and the 1901 $10 United States Note, and the 1861 $20 Demand Note, and the 1957 $1 Silver Certificate, and the 1895 Morgan dollar and the 1916 SLQ are all obligations of the United States Treasury and the United States Government at face value, just as every other piece of currency or coinage issued for circulation is.

What it does not mean is that any portion of the public is required to accept any of these legal tender instruments as payment or in change..... Just try buying a $350,000 car with that equal amount in dimes.... Walk into a convenience store that displays a sign on the door stating "No bills higher than $20 will be accepted".... Just try invoking the 1965 law on them..... The fact of the matter is that there is no such law restricting the number of coins that can be used in a single transaction, nor is there any law giving unlimited legal tender status to any denomination of coin or currency.... Go to a merchant who refuses to accept any form of cash money, but will only accept credit cards..... Invoke this 1965 law.... just try.

Here is a $10 bill (MY NOTE) issued by a bank that no longer exists.....




Is it legal tender today?

Yes, it most certainly is..... Why?.... It is an obligation of the United States Government, not the bank that no longer exists..... Is it required of 'anyone' to accept it as acceptable tender? No..... "Unlimited legal tender status" means only that the U.S. Government is obligated to buy back those coins and currencies at face value... any and all of them.

A comment was made earlier about the $10,000 Gold Certificate available to collectors today..... These notes were not circulating currency..... they were in essence, checks made payable "to the order of" (usually Federal banks, agencies, or cities.... not the general public)... they were intended for one time use, and were canceled after redemption, just as your personal checks are today, and as such, have no legal tender status.

NOT my note..... NOT currency..... NOT legal tender.

Every piece of coin or currency is given legal tender status by Act of Congress prior to being produced by the mint, private banknote company, or the BEP.... There is no need whatsoever to bestow legal tender status again at a later date.

An understanding of the intent of the Act of 1933 is necessary to relate this to legal tender status..... This was an emergency Act, and that is why the exception of underweight gold coins..... What did this entire Act revolve around? Gold.




Was this anything new? No, this did not give legal tender status to these legal tender instruments that were already legal tender..... This was a statement of reassurance that these coins and currency are still, and would remain, legal tender at face value.




This is the heart of the statement, and effectively demonetized gold coins as private citizens were restricted to ownership of $100 in gold coin...... (who is going to use gold coin as legal tender at face value, when face value is less than actual weight value)? The government wanted the gold, and gave citizens a May 1st deadline to turn it in at the redemption value of just over $20 per ounce, or risk uncompensated seizure. Profits made by the government from the Act were great as the government increased the price of gold for foreign transactions the following year to $35 per ounce.

Your words Prethen, and they were most correct.... This is when that particular coin became legal tender, not before, and not after.... Legal tender is an Act of Congress, without it, no coins or currency are minted or printed by or for the U.S. Government. The Gold Act of 1933 had absolutely nothing to do with the legal tender status of previously issued coin or currency beyond restating such status.

All of your previous statements in this thread are true and correct.... The problem I had with any of it was that the original questions were ambiguous in my opinion, and the answers provided did not clearly answer those questions as stated..... If the questions were more along the lines of "What is the maximum number of coins that could be used in a single transaction per wording of law?", I would have ignored the entire thread rather than going overboard on semantics. (Legal tender status of a Two Cent coin is Two Cents, and has not changed since April 22nd, 1864).

There is one aspect of the 1933 Act that David Lange and I are discussing in e-mail right now....was it ever signed into law by the President? I actually thought of that very question as soon as Conder referred to this House Resolution. The House Resolution passed on June 5, 1933 but makes no mention of when it was signed into law. I have to wonder if that's why the 1965 Act is the only one that was signed into law on this issue.

Stay tuned!

My words, and idiotic words they were.... I was recalling the Executive Order 6102.

Good point Prethen..... and again correct.... There is no reason for a President to sign a House Resolution.... A House Resolution is nothing more than a unified statement of position or support.

In the wake of the banking emergency of Feb-Mar 1933, there was a great deal of political positioning including:

Executive Proclamation 2039 in March
The Emergency Banking Act of 1933 in March
Executive Order 6102 in April
The Gold Clause Resolution in June
Executive Order 6260 in August
The Gold Reserve Act in January 1934
and various other mumbo-jumbo with intent to leverage absolute control over nearly everything, but especially gold.

These all acted as successive spring boards with the goal of grabbing gold from the U.S. citizen.

No, I confirm no such thing...... Congressional Resolutions are not forwarded to the President for signing into law. In this case, Roosevelt had the backing of Congress for Executive Order 6102 of April 1933 which laid claim to the gold in citizen's hands.

If you are compelled to find verbiage signed into law by a President concerning legal tender status of coin and currency, you would probably be safe in sticking with your original answers, however, this sort of stuff is deeply buried in obscure places in laws that don't have even the most remote correlation to coins or currency..... My guess would be that (somewhere), sometime, prior to 1900 that the 10 coin limit was repealed or amended.