United States Assay Office [gelöst]

U.S. Assay Office 

It was located in San Francisco.

https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/category/territorial/california-gold/u-s-assay-office-humbert-1851-1852/1724

Thank you.

The article does not seem to be clear on who is actually producing the coins.  Is it Moffat? And then the Assay Office certifies their value?  

Should it be Moffat/United States Assay Office?

This article might help more: https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/category/territorial/california-gold/u-s-assay-office-1852-1853/1725

Or we could just put in a choice for a broad location of  “San Francisco”?

I think better to keep the name United States Assay Office so it's not confused with the U. S. Mint at San Francisco.  I'll just set it up that way (since there was also a period when Moffat produced their own, unaffiliated with the Assay Office)..

Edit:  Done

I don't think that Assay Office produced any coins and was more of a private Assay Office than official US institution.  It just verified purity of privately made gold coins.  Here are the list of all official US Assay Offices and years of operation:

New York Assay Office (NY)            1854-1982
Boise Assay Office (ID)                     1872-1933
Helena Assay Office (MT)                1877-1933
St. Louis Assay Office (MO)            1881-1911
Deadwood Assay Office (SD)        1898-1927
Seattle Assay Office (WA)               1898-1955
Salt Lake City Assay Office (UT)  1909-1933

The question was posed upthread about whether Moffat was the actual producer of the coins, and reading the PCGS article again, I think this is correct.  

However, the article also refers to the coins being “issued” by the Assay Office.  It appears to be in the language of the federal legislation that Humbert's name and title are to be struck as part of the design, and the wording suggests he is a federal employee ("Humbert … was appointed United States Assayer and was paid a salary of $5,000").  So it sounds like this Assay Office was a part of the Federal system, but playing a different role (or playing its role slightly differently) than the ones that succeeded it.    

Maybe Moffat & Co. should be the mint, and United States Assay Office the Issuer?

Moffat and Co issued specific coins, those are the ones that have Moffat and Co labeled on them. The Humbert and Assay Office are similar but separate. Moffat and Co should become a mint too. Having the two mints as an option will be good as it will be determined by a case by case basis on which coins should be from which mint. 

Moffat and Co should be a mint and an issuer option.

US Assay office should be a mint and issuer too.

Humbert is just part of the Assay office.

Why does the United States Mint not recognize it as a US Assay Office?  Maybe because it did not produce or verify any USA legal tender coins?  Once the US opened the San Francisco mint in 1854 all assaying of coins minted there was done by the assay office within the mint. Are you saying the US government was in the business of producing private gold coinage?

rsirian1

Why does the United States Mint not recognize it as a US Assay Office?  Maybe because it did not produce or verify any USA legal tender coins?  Once the US opened the San Francisco mint in 1854 all assaying of coins minted there was done by the assay office within the mint. Are you saying the US government was in the business of producing private gold coinage?

1.  Sounds like a good reason.  Another way of saying it is that it was a prototype (or a band-aid) that was never repeated. 

2. If the PCGS article is accurate, an act of congress specified the key design elements, and then set up an interim assaying office so that the fineness and weight would be certified by an assayer in the employ of Washington.  But then said the coins would NOT have full status as legal tender.  And Moffat made the alloy and struck the coins.

So I would not say the U.S. government was in the business of producing private gold coinage, but took steps to improve the public trust in the existing private coinage (or at least one of them).

OK I guess. When I look at the two Numista pages for this assay office production the comments are a direct copy from the Heritage Auction description of the two coins.  How are we allowed to do that?

We should cite the source. 

Now fixed (thanks for pointing it out).

Shouldn't it also state “Used with permission”?

Here's another N#384962

Actually all of these:  https://en.numista.com/catalogue/colorado_gold-1.html

…and

Some of these:  https://en.numista.com/catalogue/georgia_gold-1.html

Some of these:  https://en.numista.com/catalogue/north_carolina_gold-1.html

This N#122065

Some of these https://en.numista.com/catalogue/utah_gold-1.html

Seems like a lot of copying without permission.

Working on fixing that. I know it has been mentioned before, but, we should change the issuing names to just the states. I feel “North Carolina gold” just does not sound right. I know some people will try to put other tokens there in the coin catalog, but we can just reject their request. I don't know of any other issuer on Numista that has the metal of it's coinage in it's name.

North Carolina joined the union in 1789.  The Constitution of the US prohibited the States from issuing coinage.  These coins had no monetary value and existed only because they were made of gold.  Other issuers in Numista (other than the ones in US private/territorial catalog) were not such constrained.

Still, do we need the gold part at the end of the issuer name? 

Only if you create a new section called US private/territorial gold.  My opinion of course, but I think “gold” is integral to the issuers in this case.

Alright. I see your point. We could consider making Private/Territorial gold. Though, for now might as well let it be. Can we close this forum?

Yep

Here is where we are: 

1. The United States Assay Office (1851-1852) and United States Assay Office of Gold (1852-1853) have been made "Issuing Entities" and are available in the dropdown list for the appropriate coins.

2. The various private mints are being added into the Mint database.

Here is how it looks for one of the coins we have been discussing: N#117571

… and I will close the thread as Done.

Alright. Thank you.