User talk:Godot13/Gold certificate (United States)

When will the rest of the small size gold certificates be uploaded? I'm very eager to have a close look at the 100,000.

I have a comment regarding the friedberg numbers of the early gold certificates. You will notice in the official catalog that there is no entry for 1166p, the 1875 $5,000. It was skipped, causing the 1875 $10,000 to have the 1166q designation, rather than 1166p, leaving a place for the possibility of an 1166p entry. While we currently have no known evidence establishing the circulation of 1875 $5,000's, and thus, no knowledge of which signature combination would have appeared on them (or test prints of them), there is evidence that the plates were prepared, and that at the very least, test prints did exist, if not official currency. The evidence for this is the official brochure for the Department of the Treasury's currency exhibit at the Chicago World's Fair of 1893. Therein, a list is provided of all the pieces of currency that would be displayed at the exhibition. Under "Series 1870" is listed denominations 500 - 10,000, including the Fr. 1166k 1870 $5,000. Under "Series 1875" is listed denominations 100 - 10,000, including an 1875 $5,000 Gold Certificate, which should therefore possess the 1166p Friedberg catalog number designation.

There is a further problem with the friedberg catalog with respect to the 1870 & 1871 $100 gold certificates. Currency was issued from plates displaying both series, 1870, and 1871. According to Treasury records, printing began on May 18, 1871, using plates with "Series 1870" on them. Records also show that new plates were prepared at the beginning of 1872 with "Series 1871" on them, and that at least 18,000 notes of "Series 1871" were printed and issued. It is unknown exactly how many "Series 1870" notes were printed. The treasury report of July 1871 to June 1872 accounts for 32,000 notes printed, but does not specify how many were printed before or after the switch to "Series 1871" plates in early 1872. In total, 50,000 notes were printed, and all were issued. What further confuses this issue is the fact that all annual treasury reports of the early 1900's classify Series 1870 and Series 1871 notes as "Series 1871". "Series 1870" balances are always divisible by $500, showing that 100's are not included in the accounting of "Series 1870" notes. In other words, the treasury refers to all $100's as series 1871, regardless of the plates used. The correlation here is the fact that notes were printed before 1871 plates were prepared, and that all notes printed were issued. In the 1908 treasury report, $900 in "1871's" were still outstanding. All these reports demonstrate that there existed two varieties of $100's, which should have 2 friedberg numbers: 1166h(I), and 1166h(II), or however you would go about labeling it.

The nature of these early gold certificate issues makes it extremely difficult to nail any of this down, which is fairly effectively illustrated by the fact that all of them are subdivisions of "1166". (They were all "Discovered" after the creation of the catalog.) 99.7.246.126 (talk) 20:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Your comments make it very clear that you have an advanced knowledge of paper currency, either as an academic or collector, or both. The layout of the table I'm working on (and converting the article into a list-format article) is the best I could do without having gaps in the images (i.e., creating the 1870-75 category versus addressing them individually).
 * The missing 1166p is a bit of a dilemma. While room was left for it, and the 1893 program (with which I am familiar) describes it, there is no proof impression of it in the BEP certified proofs at the Smithsonian. This is surprising because all of the first issue gold certificate proofs (which pre-date the BEP) are there. I would not be surprised if the Treasury Department printed color proofs for the occasion, and perhaps they exist somewhere at Treasury. The early series color proofs in the table were discovered in a Treasury presentation book prepared for John Sherman. Same source as this image.
 * I have never seen (which does not rule out its existence) a gold certificate proof where "Series 1871" was part of the engraved design. Perhaps these are hiding with the 1166p?
 * The complexity of the early golds does make it tricky. On a recent trip to DC I noticed that the first issue (1863-65) had varieties, at least in proof form, that are not mentioned in the main reference books. For example, the $100 note was prepared for both engraved and autographed countersignatures; they were prepared to be redeemed by 1) the Assistant Treasurer of the United States (no place), 2) the same, payable in Washington DC, and 3) the same, payable in New York.
 * The rest of the small size is coming... The reason I hadn't linked the 1934 series notes to the table is because I plan to replace them with the serial number one examples. They will be downsized (still full screen size) per an agreement made with the Smithsonian.
 * One last thing, can you tell me anything about your numismatic background? I will tell you this, while I know a fair amount about large-size type notes, it is not my area of specialization. I am jumping around in my editing in part because I am competing in the Wikicup 2014. I expect to get to the gold certificate article in June or July. Thanks for your input, and I look forward to more of it in the future.--Godot13 (talk) 04:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm strictly an amateur at this point. Currency has been my top hobby for over 10 years now. (I'm 30). I've become intimately familiar with the Friedberg catalog in that time, and have been on a crusade to create the most complete collection of friedberg numbers possible, in the highest resolution possible. I am disappointed to hear that there will be any downsizing of future pictures. Frankly, anything less than the 4500px to 6500px images here and on the national currency foundation website would be an injustice. The very nature of digital images makes it impossible to enjoy all the natural curves and the cross-hatch shading without such a high resolution. Anything less can be found anywhere, in so many auction websites' archives.
 * In some cases, I've been making plans to use some of your images to privately print 40" movie-poster-sized pictures to hang in my room. You have no idea how excited I was when I first saw your scan of the above-linked 1878 $1000 silver certificate. I had recently bought the BEP souvenir card of the beautiful 1878 $500 silver face proof with pink overprint. Man, nothing beats the issues of the 1870's, across the board. Gold, Silver, Legal Tender, all of it.
 * Bowers' "Whitman Encyclopedia of U.S. Paper Money" has many interesting illustrations from the Smithsonian of alternate plates using weird roman numerals instead of numbers, like C I and backwards C, on the $5,000 gold certificate of 1870, or CCI double backwards C on the $10,000. I hope you will discuss with the Smithsonian the possibility of bringing forth high resolution images of these as well as the proofs of some of the 1870 and 1875 certificates you have not thus far uploaded. Also, Bowers and Hessler have made use of a number of interesting notes and proofs belonging to the "Bureau of Public Debt", which has been reorganized into the Bureau of the Fiscal Service. I wonder if I might impress upon you to seek any and all connections and avenues which may lead you into talks with the Bureau to bring forth some of their stuff, as you have been doing with the Smithsonian. I frequently fantasize about these Indiana Jones "Top Men" in the government with their warehouses full of boxes of documents, and somewhere, hidden among the clutter, is a little box with a bunch of "unknown" money that the numismatic community has been dying to see. The proofs or notes we discussed earlier from the Chicago World's Fair of 1893 were in the possession of the Office of the Register of the Treasury, which eventually became the Bureau of Public Debt.
 * In my search for these old gold certificates, I've compiled some info which may be of interest:
 * Fr. 1166b - 1863 - $20, confiscated from Schermerhorn, now at the Smithsonian.
 * Fr. 1166e - 1863 - $1,000, Bureau Pub Debt, serial # 19683/C.
 * Fr. 1166f - 1863 - $5,000, Bureau Pub Debt, serial # 42023/C.
 * Fr. 1166h - 1870 - $100. A proof, illustrated in Bowers, belongs to the Smithsonian.
 * Fr. 1166j - 1870 - $1,000, Bureau Pub Debt, serial # A38887/C.
 * Fr. 1166m - 1875 - $100, two examples, both confiscated from Schermerhorn, both at Smithsonian. Serial # B13104/D, which you have uploaded, has significant damage to the top of the design, while serial # B5298/B appears to be fully intact, as per the Friedberg illustration. (I hope you will be able to scan that one!)
 * Only the cancelled note belonged to Schermerhorn. The other note was part of the Treasury Department collection transferred to the Smithsonian in 1979.--Godot13 (talk) 16:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Fr. 1166q - 1875 - $10,000, Bureau Pub Debt, serial # 3! (B3/C).
 * Keep up the great work. And good luck with the wikicup! 99.7.246.126 (talk) 20:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Ahhh... you've got the bug... The only downsized images will be #1 notes as the Smithsonian may wish to use these in the future for publication and promotion.
 * I know the roman numeral proofs, I have scanned them. I haven't done anything with them yet as frankly I have no idea what they are, or if they were ever issued. What is your understanding of their purpose?
 * The Bureau of the Public Debt has always had that Indiana Jones/Area 51 reputation. (That SN#3 1875 $10,000 GC is simply insane). Haven't been, but quietly working on it.
 * I have the scans of the Schermerhorn notes but need to verify some paperwork before they can be uploaded.
 * If the 1893 exhibit contained real notes, then (if memory serves) there is an 1878 $1,000 silver (payable at San Francisco) on it...--Godot13 (talk) 20:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The Schermerhorn situation is an unfortunate one. It seems to me that the confiscation was nothing more than bad timing. Some of his notes were canceled with stamps dated Aug 31, 1961, which would lead me to believe that the only reason they were confiscated was because the legislation of 1964 which relaxed the policies of the Gold Reserve Act had not yet been implemented. Ever since then, the Secret Service has been fairly hands-off with the currency community. Although, I've heard some rumors of possible problems involving single-sided proofs with silver-colored "Specimen - Not Negotiable" text on the reverse -- including, possibly, the famous Taylor Family Collection proof of the $100,000 gold certificate (Heritage, Feb 2005). Otherwise, the free trade of fr. 1225a-h Series 1900 $10,000 gold certificates seems to speak volumes about current policy, even though many of them were technically stolen from the 1935 post office fire. Earlier this year, I was a half-bid shy of acquiring a fr.1225h with no stamps or hole punches or spindle holes or tears. It was heart-breaking! But I can imagine my opponent was prepared to keep going. Returning to Schermerhorn, I suppose the silver lining here is that his notes are now at the Smithsonian, which is a great blessing to those of us who follow your work.
 * The strange roman numeral gold certificate proofs are apparently evidence of alternate designs that were eventually rejected. To quote Bowers, "[their meaning] could not have been clear to the typical viewer." Their meaning can be seen in the wikipedia article on Roman Numerals. There are apparently two styles used for larger numbers. One involves an overline above the number to multiply it by 1,000 -- while the other makes use of these backwards C's, possibly from Etruscan. IƆ is 500, visually similar to D. CIƆ is visually similar to M. IƆƆ is 5000, and CCIƆƆ is 10000. The whole idea must have been abandoned, given how obscure and uncommon that usage had become. But it is extremely intriguing that the plates survive to illustrate the thought process at the Treasury Department. It's also interesting to note that the V with overline is used on the obverse of the 5000's at top left, and the X with overline is used on the reverse of the 1863 10,000's at center.
 * I have discovered an extremely entertaining activity involving plate designs. I prepare images of different series whose designs are nearly identical (for example, Gold certificates of 1870, 1875, 1888, and 1900). I center the image files so that when they are viewed in rapid succession, it's like watching a cartoon, and you can see where border elements and spacing are very slightly changed from plate to plate, showing that these plates were indeed made individually by hand.
 * If you ever find yourself in need of assistance in digging around through those government warehouses in search of lost numismatic treasure, I'd be happy to tag along! -- 99.7.246.126 (talk) 23:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The info on the Roman numerals is great and makes a lot of sense. I'll work on editing the 2-3 proof impressions I have and get them up.
 * I found scans of some of the reverses for the early issue proofs and re-edited the images to include them.--Godot13 (talk) 16:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The reverse of the 1863 $10,000 is illustrated in Hessler, and it's funny to note that at the time of publication it was his understanding that the obverse design was unknown. Yet now we have an excellent proof of the obverse on your page. As usual, Hessler failed to mention the source of the illustrated reverse proof. It's a very weird design, "$10,000" in the four corners, and a tiny X in the middle.
 * Did you ever notice that the female at the bottom of the 1863 $100 is the same as on the Friedberg # 202, 1863 $5,000 5% Interest, 1 year notes, on which appears the vignette of the woman laying her jewels upon an altar depicting George Washington? 99.7.246.126 (talk) 15:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Tuttle was assistant treasurer under Spinner from the time Tuttle was appointed (shown in your external link as November 1866) until at least March 1873, and perhaps the 1870 $500 illustrates that he was still in office as of May 1, 1874. I can't find documentation of when he was discharged, although he likely couldn't have stayed in office past the end of Spinner's tenure in 1875. Tuttle's signature is seen on the unique 1870 $1,000. We know from official reports that all 1870/71 $100's were printed and issued during this time, and would have been signed by Tuttle. So I suggest adding "Allison & Tuttle" to 1166h and 1166j, instead of "xxx" and "xxx".
 * Also, while the proof of the 1875 $10,000 (fr.1166q) shows the signatures of Allison and Wyman, I think we should make mention of the fact that the sole surviving issued note bears the signatures of Allison and New (the serial # 3 note at the Bureau of Public Debt). And, in the friedberg column, the 1875 $100 should read "1166m" to correspond with the image; likewise, the $1,000 and $10,000 should read 1166o and 1166q respectively. 99.7.246.126 (talk) 19:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)