Hello! I have an 1860s Gold Price/Refining question

[Mint]

I did a little on line research into the fineness of California Gold. It ran from the 700 fine to 900+ fine. The majority is in the 850 fine range. As stated above, the charge to the miner was 1/5th of 1%. So they did charge for refining. The 15% difference from the log book would also indicate that the 15% difference between weighed in, and payed out, will tell the story on the fineness for the particular mines pay out.

Cool! Two questions, and two comments:
1 )I have not seen that scale (700-900+ etc) for 'fineness'. Can you point me to a source to explain that scale and its use?
2) Can you direct me to what you were looking at on California fineness? And do you know of something similar for Idaho Territory??

That charge (1/5th of 1%) mentioned was for making 'coins'-- I don't know that this transaction involved making coins... and I am guessing that they got greenbacks or just any old dollar coins for this. Probably Mint's choice.................................... Oh dear, now I have another investigation

...

If I use the AVERAGE PRICE from that NMA table in my first post-- that is only a 7% loss compared to their final payout based on melted weight.... This depends on both factors!

 

[goldshark]

Cool! Two questions, and two comments:
1 )I have not seen that scale (700-900+ etc) for 'fineness'. Can you point me to a source to explain that scale and its use?
2) Can you direct me to what you were looking at on California fineness? And do you know of something similar for Idaho Territory??

That charge (1/5th of 1%) mentioned was for making 'coins'-- I don't know that this transaction involved making coins... and I am guessing that they got greenbacks or just any old dollar coins for this. Probably Mint's choice.................................... Oh dear, now I have another investigation

...

If I use the AVERAGE PRICE from that NMA table in my first post-- that is only a 7% loss compared to their final payout based on melted weight.... This depends on both factors!

I just Googled " fineness of gold from California mines ". Scroll down a couple of hits to the first USGS paper. Tells the average fineness from each county. Do a similar search for Idaho. USGS reports are the best, unbiased, source of info. Lots of public info at www.usgs.gov .

 

[Mint]

I just Googled " fineness of gold from California mines ". Scroll down a couple of hits to the first USGS paper. Tells the average fineness from each county. Do a similar search for Idaho. USGS reports are the best, unbiased, source of info. Lots of public info at www.usgs.gov .

I'll try that. I got a name at USGS from NMA and have not heard back from my email...

 

[goldshark]

I'll try that. I got a name at USGS from NMA and have not heard back from my email...

If you need a research project, you could always look in the ledger for the name of the mine or the person who submitted the sample, Find out the location of the mine, reverse the numbers so the initial amount , verses the refined amount, is consistent with the USGS reports from those areas regarding the fineness. I don't have enough time in my life for such a project, but I think you will see what is happening at the mint regarding payment scales.

 

[Mint]

I'll try that. I got a name at USGS from NMA and have not heard back from my email...

If you need a research project, you could always look in the ledger for the name of the mine or the person who submitted the sample, Find out the location of the mine, reverse the numbers so the initial amount , verses the refined amount, is consistent with the USGS reports from those areas regarding the fineness. I don't have enough time in my life for such a project, but I think you will see what is happening at the mint regarding payment scales.

The first page I got with USGS was https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...ChAWegQIHRAB&usg=AOvVaw3yjSfC2wJO-U4IC_MkBGTd --- that link has an article but doesn't include any info on where it was published. I'll go back to the USGS website and just look.
Ha! @goldshark -- this is already a multi-decade research project for me! Maybe USGS has better links than the Treasury Dept, Mint and Archives.... I understand your time! Again thanks for your help!!
But one more clarification, @goldshark --- did you mean the US Mint ledger from 1863 and 64 where I got the images above? Or a ledger from USGS somewhere? The former is only hard copy and I would have to go back to California... If I do that, I can look up other examples from the same time frame and see what they were paid and their %loss, etc....

 

[goldshark]

The first page I got with USGS was https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...ChAWegQIHRAB&usg=AOvVaw3yjSfC2wJO-U4IC_MkBGTd --- that link has an article but doesn't include any info on where it was published. I'll go back to the USGS website and just look.
Ha! @goldshark -- this is already a multi-decade research project for me! Maybe USGS has better links than the Treasury Dept, Mint and Archives.... I understand your time! Again thanks for your help!!
But one more clarification, @goldshark --- did you mean the US Mint ledger from 1863 and 64 where I got the images above? Or a ledger from USGS somewhere? The former is only hard copy and I would have to go back to California... If I do that, I can look up other examples from the same time frame and see what they were paid and their %loss, etc....

The US mint ledger.

 

[Mint]

The US mint ledger.

@goldshark Wish me a trip back to California soon.... Thanks again...

 

[goldshark]

@goldshark Wish me a trip back to California soon.... Thanks again...

Best of luck! I think there are 2 mints, the old one (out of service), and the new one. Correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Mint]

Well, there were/are actually 3. This is really confusing-- the so-called old mint was the one built in 1875. The Mint that my murderers went to was opened in 1854 and I call it the"old old Mint" (and closed when the new Old Mint was opened in 1875). The CURRENT Mint is the 3rd, but they are/were all rather near each other.
ANYhow, @goldshark, THE original RECORDS are at the US Archives in San Bruno. That's where I have to go... make an appt, ask them to locate the records, re-take the test because my license since expired, etc etc....

 

[goldshark]

@goldshark Wish me a trip back to California soon.... Thanks again...

Have you visited the "Guide to Federal Records ", then scroll to mint records?

 

[Mint]

Have you visited the "Guide to Federal Records ", then scroll to mint records?

Yeah, but only about 10 million times... That section 104 with the SF ARchives is where all the goodies are. Also the 38 page 'Finding Aid" I mentioned above... Bless your heart for still helping me!!

 

[Mint]

@4metals I read most of Hoke-- that shows up as a link from your posts. Wow, what a tour-de-force for 1940! And I saw that 10 years ago you were an important part of the introduction for this book. I went to see a local jeweler who learned the trade from his father and he seems to follow most of the same floor and polishing waste tricks mentioned here.... Very interesting-- thanks again for this forum and your help! Good holidays to ya'll.

 

[4metals]

And I saw that 10 years ago you were an important part of the introduction for this book.

When I read your post I went to read the copy of Hoke's book that Frugalrefiner, Dave, made available to forum members. I then noticed at the end of a long list of corrections that Dave listed which have become common practice since the book was written that he then said;

"With Special Thanks to 4metals, butcher, freechemist, goldsilverpro,Harold_V, lazersteve, and Lou. Without their contributions, this introduction would not have been possible."

Please note, all I have done since I came to this forum is talk about something I did for a living and enjoyed. There are others Dave thanked as well and we were listed in alphabetical order. All of those listed contributed freely to this forum and many others not listed. Please do not think for a minute that I was any more outstanding than anyone else on that list. I love the work I did for my career and just felt it right to give back, and that is all I did.

 

[Mint]

When I read your post I went to read the copy of Hoke's book that Frugalrefiner, Dave, made available to forum members. I then noticed at the end of a long list of corrections that Dave listed which have become common practice since the book was written that he then said;

"With Special Thanks to 4metals, butcher, freechemist, goldsilverpro,Harold_V, lazersteve, and Lou. Without their contributions, this introduction would not have been possible."

Please note, all I have done since I came to this forum is talk about something I did for a living and enjoyed. There are others Dave thanked as well and we were listed in alphabetical order. All of those listed contributed freely to this forum and many others not listed. Please do not think for a minute that I was any more outstanding than anyone else on that list. I love the work I did for my career and just felt it right to give back, and that is all I did.

OK, got it! I did see that there other nom de plumes besides yours, and assumed that meant it was written from info on this forum. But I recognized yours and appreciate your interest and help for my project. Kudos to you all. Well, and especially the expert (woman) chemist who wrote/published much almost 100 years ago.