Coin or paper?
What a caper!
One is proper,
one a whopper.
Drastic
is what’s inelastic,
plastic
more than gold’s fantastic.
What is copper
to a shopper,
what a penny?
One too many.
Paper powers
golden showers,
yet isn’t ours!
But a buck round
is square and sound.
One is proper,
one a whopper.
Coin or paper?
What a caper!
Images:
First $1 bill issued in 1862 as a Legal Tender Note. (Wikipedia)
President Franklin Roosevelt’s conditional approval of the one-dollar bill’s design in 1935, requiring that the appearance of the sides of the Great Seal be reversed, and together, captioned. (Wikipedia)
1921-D Peace Dollar. (Wikipedia)
1976-S Type 1 (1975) Eisenhower Dollar with Bicentennial Design. (Wikipedia)
Initially, the proposal was to issue a series of Liberty-themed coins for the five silver-colored circulating coins but dropped the 5-cent coins after Barr said that there must be no cost to the taxpayer. Currently, the U.S. Mint reports that it costs 10.9-cents to produce the Jefferson nickel and was removed from discussion. What the politicians fail to grasp is that coin production does not cost the U.S. taxpayer anything because all of the money used to operate the U.S. Mint comes from the seigniorage collected on all coins, commemoratives, and tokens sold including circulating coinage to the Federal Reserve. Since the Federal Reserve does not use taxpayer money in its operation, the purchase of circulating coins generates a profit for the government.
Although removing the 5-cent coins from consideration is a wise political move, it demonstrates the illogic and dysfunction of the politics. It also illustrates why the current system of how congress controls the U.S. Mint is unsustainable and needs to be changed.
No other mint in the world is under the same legislative control as the U.S. Mint. Every other major mint are autonomous entities running under the authority of the government required to produce circulating coinage for the country’s central bank and must obtain approval from the central bank to create any legal tender coin. A government can decide that it should produce certain denomination or stop producing a denomination and the autonomous entity must comply.
People who want to discontinue the use and production of the one-cent coin looks to Canada as an example of how a country to stop producing their lowest denomination and be successful. While it is too soon to judge the success and failure of this move, what is lost on people is how the Royal Canadian Mint, a Crown corporation of Canada, is required to comply with the laws passed by the Canadian Parliament. If the Canadian Parliament passes a law that says the Royal Canadian Mint is not to produce any more one-cent coins, than the Royal Canadian Mint does not produce one-cent coins.
The 2004 Poppy Quarter was the Royal Canadian Mint’s first colorized circulating coin.
While parliament does prescribe that certain coins be made, the Royal Canadian Mint is free to produce coins of its own designs to sell to the public. They work with the Bank of Canada on the approval of designs and the Bank of Canada allows the Royal Canadian Mint to strike coins with a denomination so that these have legal tender status. Most of these coins are bullion and non-circulating legal tender (NCLT) issues sold to investors and collectors for the sole purpose of generating revenues (seigniorage).
Nearly every mint operates in the same manner. while the Royal Mint is more conservative in their issues, the Perth Mint, the Mint of Poland, and Austrian Mint operate in a similar manner.
Some countries do not operate a mint even as a public corporation. Countries like Niue, Somalia, and Isle of Man that have produced popular NCLT issues contract their minting to other mints, such as the New Zealand Mint, or to private corporations like the family-owned Pobjoy Mint. Even the government of Israel thought it was best to privatize their mint. After being established in 1958 by then Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion, the Israel Coins & Medals Corp was privatized and sold in 2008 where they continue to operate under the authority of the Israeli government and the Bank of Israel.
Although it could be successfully argued that some of the mints have gone overboard with their bullion and NCLT programs like the Royal Canadian Mint and Perth Mints, it could also be noted that other mints have show great constraint in what they have produced. An example of showing restraint would be the Britain’s Royal Mint and Australian Mint who have concentrated on producing quality and not quantity. These are all models to learn from for the future.
Those who would be against privatizing the U.S. Mint immediately point to Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution that says “The Congress shall have Power… To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof,” as the reason not to privatize the U.S. Mint. While the Constitution gives congress this authority, it does not say that the government has to own the means of production nor does it say that congress has to dictate the design of that money. In its most basic term, “to coin money” means to authorize production of and make legal tender of coins used in commerce (for a full description based on case law, see this section).
2013 Niue Monopoly Coins struck by the New Zealand Mint. Is this too much?
An argument used against privatizing the U.S. Mint is to compare what could happen to the U.S. Postal Service. However, the Postal Service is not a government-owned corporation. According to 39 U.S.C. § 201, it is “an independent establishment of the executive branch of the Government of the United States.” While it has many independent powers, it still regulated by congress and subject to insipid rules no private company could ever meet.
In a huff, those who argue against government-owned corporation point to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae as examples of the dangers of making critical government functions private. Unfortunately, these people are reading the headlines and not the reasons for Freddie and Fannie’s problems caused by the recent fiscal crisis. While both companies can be blamed for their parts in the failure of the markets, a lot of their blame can be traced to the laws that congress passed giving them a complicated deregulated environment from which to try to accomplish their goals. Rather than find a way to fix the issues, congress wants to end the programs Freddie and Fannie support and close those entities even though new regulations have been working.
The problem with making the U.S. Mint a government-owned corporation would be the 535 member board of directors (congress) whose knowledge of what it would take to do this right is suspect. This is the same congress that has forced the Postal Service to over pay into its pension fund while forgetting that it has to the power “to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States” by shutting down the government or preventing the payment of debt by manipulating the artificial debt ceiling.
It would be possible to make the U.S. Mint a government-owned corporation using the lessons learned from the governance of the Postal Service, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and any number of other world mints. A charter would be established to make the government-owned Mint corporation the sole provider of circulating coins to the federal reserve and that its operations would be managed by a board with representation from the executive branch, legislative branch, and the Federal Reserve. The board would have oversight power over the Mint corporation and work within the parameters set up by the charter.
Provisions of the charter would be that congress would regulate coinage in that nearly every part of 31 U.S.C. § 5112 would be eliminated except for paragraph (a) that describes the denominations and their size specifications. All laws regarding weights, composition, and design with the exception of the first sentence of paragraph (d), would be eliminated.
2013 American Eagle West Point Two-Coin Silver Set with reverse proof and enhanced uncirculated coins.
So that coin series are maintained, all current programs like the American Eagle, Presidential dollar, National Parks quarters, and Native American dollars would be maintained until they are completed as described in the current law.
A new charter would allow congress to designate two commemorative coins per year with a surcharge to be paid to an organization as it does today, but the Mint corporation could create additional non-circulating legal tender coins with its own designs that are made legal tender by following the specifications of the law (e.g., 31 U.S.C. § 5112(a)(10) allows for “A five dollar gold coin that is 16.5 millimeters in diameter, weighs 3.393 grams, and contains one-tenth troy ounce of fine gold.”) and approved by the design board, the Mint charter board, and the Federal Reserve.
The design board would be the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee. Rather than have two design groups, one that whose purpose outside of reviewing coins is to review architecture, only the CCAC would continue as the approved design board. This way, the Mint corporation would have artistic oversight by a dedicated organization and not have to worry about whether the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, whose purpose is to oversee the architecture of Washington, understands design and the issues with striking those designs.
We should keep the 24-karat gold Buffalo coins, too!
This charter can be written in a way to create a special inspector general that would work with the Department of the Treasury to help the executive branch maintain oversight over the new corporation.
Freeing the U.S. Mint to be more autonomous and provide them the ability to create new products will not cost the taxpayer anything. In fact, it has the potential for the new corporation to earn more than it does now with new products on the market because if you notice, I never said to get rid of the U.S. Mint Public Enterprise Fund (31 U.S.C. § 5136). On the contrary, the new Mint corporation should be required to set an operations budget and leave the budget plus 25-percent in the Public Enterprise Fund for emergencies. The rest should be deposited in the account of the company’s shareholders: the General Treasury of the United States of America.
In this scenario, it will not matter that it costs more than face value to manufacture the cent and 5-cent coins. The losses can be made up by selling other products to a world that trusts the U.S. Mint—a world that buys more bullion and collectibles from the U.S. Mint than any other country. Imagine how much the new Mint corporation could help reduce the deficit if allowed to be run more like a commercial enterprise than an over regulated government agency.
If it is said that the private sector can do better than the government, here is one way to put that rhetoric to a test!
Today’s Poll
What do you think? In addition to writing a comment below, how about participating in a poll. Do you think that the U.S. Mint should become a government-owned corporation?
Loading ...
U.S. Mint logo courtesy of the U.S. Mint.
Image of the 2004 Canadian Poppy Quarter courtesy of Talisman Coins.
2013 Niue Monopoly Coin images courtesy of the New Zealand Mint.
All other images are property of the author.
The other day I was talking with a someone who was not a coin collector to explain why I liked collecting coins. One of the reasons I mentioned was the thrill of the hunt. To be able to find that one coin to add to a collection or even reaching into my pocket and finding something interesting, even if it was not valuable.
To demonstrate what could happen, I reached into my pocket and happen to pull out what could be considered a type set of Jefferson nickels. I first found the 2012-P nickel that seems to now be in common circulation. Next was a 1982-D nickel with what looks like a filled “D” mintmark. For the time period, the blob for the mintmark was common and not worth anything more than a curiosity.
As I slid the 1982-D aside, I found the reverse the the Keelboat type 2004-P nickel. The person I was talking with was not aware of the Westward Journey nickel program commemorating the Lewis and Clark expedition to the west. I mentioned that the 2005 American Bison design was my favorite. Not only does it have the the American Bison on the reverse, the animal that most represents the country’s westward expansion, but the front has that wonderful bust of Jefferson designed by Joe Fitzgerald.
When I started to look at the last nickel, I said, “oh… this is older.” When asked how I knew before looking at the date, I explained how the relief had changed over the years. Using the four coins in hand, I could demonstrate how the relief and designs have been altered over the years to accommodate striking requirements. Even though the composition of the United States 5-cent coin has not changed since 1883 except for the silver-copper-manganese composition during World War II (1942-45), the U.S. Mint has lowered the relief of the coins in order to make the dies last longer and reduce production costs. According to the U.S. Mint’s 2012 Annual Report (PDF) it costs 10.9 cents to make one nickel. It could be more if the U.S. Mint had to use more dies to strike coinage for circulation.
I adjusted my glasses to see that the coin had the year 1956 then I flipped it over to see if there is a mintmark. When asked why I was looking for the mintmark on the back when it appeared on the front of the other coins, I said that up until 1964 the mintmark on the Jefferson nickel was to the right of Monticello and only if the coin was struck in Denver or San Francisco. Only the War Nickels had a mintmark prior to 1964. Luckily, I was able to demonstrate when a “D” mintmark appeared on the coin.
A small type set of Jefferson nickels found in pocket change. Top row: 1956-D and 1982-P. Bottom row: 2004-P Keelboat design and 2012-P.
The next question was “How much is it worth?” Since the coin could be graded Good-4 at best, I said it would probably be worth 5-cents, face value. I decided to look up the price and saw that it was worth 6-cents! It is hardly worth the effort to sell. But the person that I was showing the coins found my little pocket-change type set was interesting.
Now that I have written about them, all four coins will go back into circulation for someone else to find. Who knows, maybe a young numismatist will find the 1956-D, think it is cool and add it to their collection. If you are in the Washington, D.C. metro area, you can be on the lookout for the 1956-D and other nickels I just wrote about. Happy change hunting!
If you have not heard, the U.S. Mint is offering free standard shipping starting today at noon eastern time through September 30, 2013. This means that all orders made over the telephone (800-USA-MINT or 800-872-6468) or their online catalog will not be charged the $4.95 shipping costs regardless of the purchase price and size of the order.
Expedited shipping will be charged only the UPS 2nd Day Air fee of $12.95.
Bag and box orders will be charged only the $7.95 surcharge.
If your order qualifies for free expedited shipping upgrades by costing more than $300, then your expedited shipping will be free.
Because this offer is only for domestic standard shipping service, international orders will continue to be charged $14.95 + $2.95 per item.
Although the U.S. Mint has not announced why they are doing this, they might feel that they need collectors to spend more money in order raise revenues. Since the U.S. Mint is largely self-sustaining, revenue projections may be lower because of the lowered production, the lack of enthusiasm for commemorative coins, and a reduction in sales of bullion products as the costs of precious metals continue to trade off their highs from earlier this year.
Since this offer will be good through the end of September, I probably will not buy anything from the U.S. Mint at the World’s Fair of Money. After all, I think it will be easier to have my collectibles shipped home than have to schlep it through the airport.
The COINS Act is designed to eliminate the $1 federal reserve note from circulation by increasing the circulation of coins and reducing the circulation of the paper currency over three years. At the end of three years, the Federal Reserve will not be allowed to distribute the $1 not. The bill does allow the Bureau of Engraving and Printing to continue to distribute the $1 note as a collectible for numismatists.
The bill was introduced by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) and co-sponsored by Sens. John McCain (R-AZ), Tom Coburn (R-OK), Mike Enzi (R-WY) and Mark Udall (D-CO). It supports the GAO reports that suggest the potential savings of using the coin over paper will be $13 billion.
If you are in the Washington, DC area and what to talk about the COINS Act, the briefing will be held a noon at the Russell Senate Office Building in Room 385. Attending the briefing for the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste and The Dollar Coin Alliance:
Aaron Klein, Former Chief economist for the Senate Banking Committee and Deputy Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury
William Christian, Director of Government Affairs, The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste
Former Congressman Jim Kolbe (R-AZ), Honorary Co-Chair of the Dollar Coin Alliance
If you cannot attend the briefing, take the opportunity to contact your senators to let them know how you feel about the bill.
Encased cent given to attendees to the Colonial Coin Club’s 50th Anniversary celebration.
Sometimes it is fun serving as an officer for a coin club or a regional organization. The past week I had the honor to represent the Maryland State Numismatic Association as its vice president at the 50th anniversary celebration of the Colonial Coin Club of Annapolis, Maryland.
The Colonial Coin Club was founded in 1963 by members of the Baltimore Coin Club who commuted to meetings from Annapolis. While not that far of a commute, these members felt there was enough interest to form their own local club. The first meeting of the Colonial Coin Club was March 19, 1963. Fifty years later they are still a vibrant club serving collectors in the Annapolis area.
With my busy schedule, not only did I welcome the one night diversion to join the celebration at a nice restaurant in Gambrils, Maryland, but I had a chance to speak to congratulate them, encourage them to continue their good work for the next 50 years and beyond, and invite them to participate with the state organization and to visit the club I am president of, the Montgomery County Coin Club.
Colonial Coin Club has quite a history serving collectors in the eastern part of Maryland. Although Baltimore may be Maryland’s largest city, the areas around the Chesapeake Bay is the birthplace of the original Maryland colony. Although the Calvert family settled into what we now know as Baltimore, Annapolis was the colony’s economic hub. Amongst Annapolis’s residents was Jonas Green who became the colony’s official printer. Green served as an apprentice and worked for Benjamin Franklin in Philadelphia.
Green died in 1767 around the time that the colonial government was issuing its first currency. Taking over the printing business was his wife Anne Catherine Green making her the first woman to publish a newspaper in the colonies. Because of the social stigmas against women in these types of position, she printed her name as A.C. Green.
1783 Chalmers Shilling (PCGS XF 40).
Drawing on the history of the Maryland colony, the Colonial Coin Club uses the 1783 John Chalmers shilling as part of its logo. Chalmers, who was a silversmith by trade, served as a captain in the Continental Army, was a representative to the common council of Annapolis, and was once the sheriff of Baltimore. As a civic-minded entrepreneur, Chalmers seized on the new law in Maryland that ended the practice of issuing paper money and the shortage of specie to propose a new coinage system. Chalmers created several prototypes that included the one shilling, three pence, and six pence coins. Chalmers’ shilling became the most famous of the his coins.
The design of the Chalmers Shilling has been a matter of debate. Several references call the long animal depicted a worm while others call it a snake and the two birds as doves. Some claim the birds are fighting over the worm/snake and there is no speculation as to why the worm/snake is depicted over a hedge. If you consider Maryland’s history at the time, snakes were not as prevalent in the Annapolis area. Birds would be going after worms and the two birds, which could be doves, are not fighting but sharing the worm—a symbol of Chalmers trying to tell people to get along during the tense period of transition from being British subjects to a free country. Considering that the coins were designed by Thomas Sparrow, who also designed the Maryland currency when it was issued, The worm over the head was to show unity across the Maryland fields.
If nothing else, I am adding the speculation as to the meaning of the coin.
As part of the celebration, the club put together a nice book of their history with articles from their journals, members, press clippings, and images that also makes is a really nice modern scrapbook of the club. It is an impressive bit of work by Betty Meck, a past president of the club, with help from their current Secretary, club historian, and the member with the longest service to the club Hank Schab. Both of whom I had a pleasure to meet and want to make special note of their contributions.
For a good overview of picker checks, you can read Picker Checks, Currency of the crops [PDF] by Gilbert Sandler from the University of Baltimore archives.
Finally, I would like to thank Colonial Coin Club President Rod Frederick for inviting the Maryland State Numismatic Association to participate which allowed me to be there as their representative. I will be 103 when the club celebrates a century of serving the coin collectors of the Annapolis area. I hope they will invite me back to celebrate with them!
A few images of the Colonial Coin Club’s 50th Anniversary history and album:
Chalmers Shilling image courtesy of Heritage Auction Galleries. Coin is from the January 2008 FUN Auction in Orlando and sold for $13,800 (including buyer’s premium).
On Friday, I received a notice to renew my American Numismatic Association membership by the end of this month. Even though a few people wrote to me after the election saying that they would not renew their membership, I believe that the ANA is still a good organization worth of the support of every numismatist regardless of age, experience, and collecting interest. My only question is whether to change to the basic level to save trees.
Members renewing at the Basic level can read The Numismatist online or via my computer or the iPad app. I stopped using the iPad app for a while after having problems. The app was updated and seems to be working fine now. I think I would prefer to read it on my iPad than the paper version. It is more portable. However, if the program could be converted to work with Apple’s Newsstand, the ANA may be able to find a new revenue stream by selling individual issues.
After the election I received a lot of complaints about the the ANA and how it operates. In many cases, I agree with the assessments but I also see where there are changes coming and all of the changes are for the better!
First and foremost, the ANA is being dragged into the technology of the 21st century. In a move started by former Executive Director Jeff Shevlin, the ANA has engaged Amos Digita, the technology arm of Amos Press, the publisher of Coin World. Anyone who has seen the positive evolution of the Coin World website and has read Coin World Next online can see examples of their work. Working with Amos Digital is a very positive step for the ANA.
Between Amos Digital, the commitment of the ANA staff involved, and the Technology Committee (which I am a member) the future to better the ANA’s technology is looking very good!
Technology alone is not going to make the ANA a better organization but the technology will provide a platform to make the ANA more responsive to its members. Technology can help with virtual clubs, education, and to bring the information out to the members. Technology can enhance shows and deliver some of the content to the members who may not be able to attend the shows.
However, technology is only an enhancer—a tool to make the ANA better for you. The problem is that those of us who are putting the tool together may not know what will make the ANA a better organization for you. What do you want to see from the ANA? How can the technology be used to make your experiences better?
Although I have some ideas, I am a systems guy. I put together systems to do what my customers want. And even though I know what I want as a member, it is only my opinion.
As a member of the ANA Technology Committee I want your opinion. What do you want from this tool? How can the ANA use these tools to make your experience as a member the ANA better? I am handing you a blank sheet of virtual paper (the comment section, below). Let me and my fellow Tech Committee members know how we can use this tool to better serve the membership.
To bring back the weekly poll, I thought about my post the other day about desktop finds where I discussed the items I found while cleaning my desk. I was thinking about this and was curious as to what other collectors do? After all, many of these items are the results of my saying “oh neat” and buying something outside of my collecting interest. Others are items that were given to me that are also outside of my collecting interest.
I read articles that say if you’re not a collector you’re an accumulator. But it is not that simple. Sometimes I over buy just to get one specific item. For example, the lot of Canadian dimes I found on my desk were purchased because I wanted one of the dimes for my collection. I will probably resell the rest of the dimes, but in the mean time they are on my desk.
Other items are souvenirs like the faux million-dollar bill and the package of shredded currency. While I may not have an attachment to them, they are not salable and I just do not want to throw them away. Maybe I’ll create an auction lot of this stuff to see if someone else wants it but it is still here, too.
What about you? Do you buy extra items and think you’ll resell them later? What about those souvenirs? How many of you have cheap items that you know you cannot resell or even give away? Take the poll. Comments are always welcome!
What kind of "extra items" are in your collection?
I have bought something I thought was neat or unusual. (35%, 6 Votes)
I have bought lots of coins or exonumia just for one or two items. (24%, 4 Votes)
I have souvenirs that are not part of my main collection. (18%, 3 Votes)
I collect souvenirs but have bought more than I should have. (12%, 2 Votes)
I have a box of goodies, want to see it? (12%, 2 Votes)
I just have what I collect and nothing extra. (0%, 0 Votes)
In one of those news items from while I was away, Secretary of the Treasury Jacob J. “Jack” Lew put pen to official paper and provided an autograph that will appear on United States Federal Reserve Note. Treasury reports that Lew’s signature will first appear on Series 2013 five-dollar notes that will be issued this fall. No plans were announced for other denominations.
Lew, whose autograph has been called “lewpty” and been compared to the decorative icing on a Hostess cupcake, made a promise to the president that he would do better with his penmanship. During his confirmation hearing, Lew told Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, that he promised the president he would do better. This did not satisfy those with an ironic sense for the different when a petition appeared on the White House website to “Save the Lewpty-Lew.”
Mock-up of how Treasury Secretary Jack Lew’s autograph will appear on the Series 2013 $5 Federal Reserve Note in the Fall.
Remember as you were growing up spending time with a piece of paper practicing your signature? I wonder if Lew was doing this in his spare time?
While Lew’s autograph lost many of his infamous lewpts at least he did not go to the extreme that of predecessor, Tim Geithner. Geithner’s autograph was very readable and lacked character. At least Lew kept some of his lewpts. It will make for interesting conversations for currency collectors in the future as they examine the autographs on their collectibles.
Images courtesy of the U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Amongst my activities for the last month has been cleaning off the top of my desk. While for some this may be an easy project, for me it is a major proposition. One of the reasons is that the way I work can be best classified as “organized chaos.” Organized chaos builds piles of like items until there is no room. Rather than clean up the piles, priority items are reordered and piled on top of items that may not be needed until later. This keeps going until the desktop becomes unorganized as the piles get shifted looking for something that became buried. At some point the organization goes away and all that is left is the chaos. Finally, the day comes when a critical item can no longer be found.
I have had people tell me that the best way to keep my organization under control is to deal with the item right away. For some reason, I get attached to ideas, concepts, and the objects that are associated with them. Everything gets saved until I do something with them or I am faced with the difficult decisions to make it a priority when I finally dig out of the chaos.
But the digging can be fun because at the bottom of the pile, when the top of the desk is finally rediscovered, are the small items that are the most fun. In my case, there are a lot of coins, medals, tokens, and other items that I thought would be cool or nice to resell. Just to have a little fun, I gathered up some of the numismatic trinkets and decided to share it with my readers.
Some of the numismatic items found during my attempt to organize my chaos.
It looks like an eclectic little lot of stuff. I have a million dollar bill (talk about inflation money) sitting on top of a package of shredded currency that says has about $10 of chopped up notes, some Canadian money, and older U.S. coins. Those coins with the little numbered stickers were purchased at my coin club’s auction. There is a lot of five Canadian dimes, a copper 2-cent piece, and a nickel 3-cent coin.
Encased steel cent advertising John C. Roberts Shoes “for the particular man.”
But some of these coins are a bit interesting. Let’s look at this encased steel cent. Up until I bought this coin from noted error dealer Fred Weinberg through eBay I had never seen an encased steel cent. The aluminum ring says “Wear the John C. Roberts Shoe” around the top and “For Particular Men” on the bottom. The reverse has the address of a store in Chicago, Illinois.
John C. Roberts was one of the founders of the Roberts, Johnson & Rand Shoe Company of St. Louis in 1898 as a wholesaler. The other founders were Jack Johnson, Oscar Johnson, and Edgar E. Rand. They were a competitor to Peters Shoe Company that was founded in 1836 but organized into a formal corporation under Missouri law in 1891 by Henry W. Peters. The Peters Shoe Company was a manufacturer and wholesaler.
Although these two companies were competitors, their policies, ideals. and business standards were so closely aligned that they were drawn together by a mutual respect. The companies merged in 1911 and changed their name to the International Shoe Company. The next year, in 1912, the International Shoe Company purchased Friedman-Shelby Shoe Company, another St. Louis-based shoe manufacturer. In 1921, International Shoe Company was incorporated in Delaware.
International Shoe Company was once the world’s largest manufacturer of shoes with Red Goose shoes being its flagship brand. At one time, International Shoe Company owned Florsheim and Savage Shoes, Canada’s largest shoemaker. In 1966 the company changed its name to Interco and tried to become a conglomerate in apparel, footwear, and retailing. The company’s troubles began as it branched into furniture by buying Ethan Allen and Broyhill Furniture in 1980 as the furniture manufacturing was declining in the United States.
Eventually, Interco filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 1991 and sold off all of its operations except for Broyhill, Lane, Converse (which it bought in 1986), and Florsheim. By 1994, the company sold Converse and Florsheim to exit the shoe business. The company was rebranded as Furniture Brands International 1996 after buying Thomasville Furniture. Now they only manufacture and sell furniture leaving collectors with these encased coins to raise our curiosity.
Obverse of Montgomery County Coin Club medal with standard logo that was gold plated for the 50th Anniversary.
Reverse of the Montgomery County Coin Club medal with the special sticker commemorating the club’s 50th anniversary in 2009.
My next interesting find was my “gold” medal commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Montgomery County Coin Club in 2009. As president of the Montgomery County Coin Club, it was my job to help lead a celebration honoring our 50th anniversary. Since I was not a member for as long as others, I leaned heavily on longer tenured members for assistance. I believe the celebration went well.
To commemorate the occasion, we wanted a special medal but we did not want to spend a lot of money. Rather than buy new medals, we dipped into our ample supply of pewter medals and had them gold plated. On the back, I created a “50” logo that was similar to our regular logo that uses the reverse of the Maryland Tercentenary half-dollar but uses the reverse of the Lincoln Memorial cent that was released in 1959. That logo was added to a sticker and numbered. The club as #1 as a souvenir. Since I was the president, I was able to get #2. I just wish I made the background of that sticker a bit lighter.
Miscellaneous Items with Canadian dollar, dimes, a TBTA token, and Keith Hernandez souvenir “coin.”
Sometimes there is just some loose stuff on the desk including a Canadian dollar commemorating the 100th anniversary of the Montreal Canadiens (they are a professional hockey team for those who do not follow hockey), a token from the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority (TBTA) in New York City, a small set of Canadian dimes, and a Keith Hernandez “coin” from a 7-Eleven promotion in the mid-1980s. Hernandez was the Mets’ star first baseman when they won the 1986 World Series. Yes, I know he played for St. Louis before being traded to the Mets, but that is inconsequential to my collecting interests!
The TBTA token is interesting because it is smaller than the ones I used to use because it is for other tolls than the East River bridges. This token was primarily used on the Henry Hudson and the Marine Parkway (now Marine Parkway-Gil Hodges Memorial) Bridges where the tolls were cheaper. The larger tokens were used on the Triborough Bridge, Verrazono-Narrows Bridge, the Queens Midtown Tunnel, and other nearby crossings.
Tokens are no longer accepted at the TBTA crossing and they stopped issuing special Staten Island resident tokens for the Verrazano Bridge in 1998 with the introduction of EZ-Pass. I should try to find a Staten Island resident token for my collection.
An 1865 3-cent nickel and an 1865 2-cent coin for my 2-, 3-, and 5-cent one-pager
Finally, something that was purchased relatively recently but made it to the bottom of the pile are two coins I bought to start my one-page collection of 2-, 3-, and 5-cent coins. The week after writing about this in a blog post, the coins were available in my coin club’s monthly auction. Since I plan to put the set together, I bought these 1865 2-cent and 3-cent nickel coins to begin the question. But like a number of items that ended up buried on the surface of the desk, this is where that stopped. Now that I found the coins, I am going to make note of where I am in this collection and bring the list to the World’s Fair of Money in August to see if I can fill in the holes. In fact, I will probably work on completing my one-page cent collection, too. It’s not like I will have anything else to do!
There is more but if I do not stop now I am not going to be able to finish my cleaning!
Loading ...
