United States Notes

[Noah]

And certainly more decorative.

I have a friend who has two notes. She had no idea why or what they were. When I asked her where she found them, she replied " at a flea market". I then asked why she bought them, her answer was, they were pretty.

[David Merrill]

The fiat currency in America (since 1863) invariably describes the trust structure with IN GOD WE TRUST.





You can confirm this with the constitutional and statutory form for Oaths of Office. Invariably any officer in America must swear by the Name of God. In the alternative, some lower officers are allowed to affirm but only if they do so under a judicial officer who swears by God, by Name. In Colorado the constitution describes who publishes where in a timely manner (30 Days) but the form is defined by statute:

Form of Oath.
Form of Affirmation.

What I was saying on Page 1 about Congress coercing parity is that my $2 US note there is only worth $2 of groceries down at the store even though US notes have never been subject to fractional lending - like I showed you, Title 31 U.S.C. §5115 specified that US note (United States currency notes) cannot be used as reserve currency.

[Pottapaug1938]

And certainly more decorative.

I have a friend who has two notes. She had no idea why or what they were. When I asked her where she found them, she replied " at a flea market". I then asked why she bought them, her answer was, they were pretty.

Red is my favorite color; so when I was a kid (at a time when silver certificates were common in circulation, even for $5 and $10 denominations), I loved seeing United States Notes, and tended to use them for my money stash. I've even scanned in my Series 1928 $1 United States Note, and used it for my screen saver at home.

[David Merrill]

I noticed the $2 US notes don't say, IN GOD WE TRUST.

[Pottapaug1938]

On a vaguely related note, gold dropped pretty radically yesterday. I expect a certain amount of rebound, but I'm not at all surprised. It's a useful, pretty metal. It is not legal tender, despite what the village idiot thinks.

A further bit about gold and how sh*t-hot a "hard and shiny" investment can be. ING, the insurance company which, among other things, manages a variety of financial products including mutual funds, just came out with a handout in which it states that a person who invested $10,000.00 in the securities included in the S&P (Standard & Poor's) 500 Index on January 1, 1980, would have a portfolio worth $97,278.00 on June 30, 2011 -- an average annual return of 7.74%. The handout notes that people who pulled their money out of the market during one of the low points of that period could have missed out on most, if not all, of the gains in the S&P during that period; and that someone who missed the 5 best months wound up with only a return of 5.92%. Someone who sat out the 20 best months got only 1.87%.

That got me to thinking: what if a different investor had invested $10,000.00 in gold bullion on January 1, 1980? The bullion price on January 2 was $559.50 per ounce, meaning that the investor received 17.873 ounces of gold (let's round it up to 17.875 ounces, assuming that eighth-ounce bars or rounds were available). Yesterday, gold closed at $1822.10, meaning that the investor now owns gold to the value of $32,570.00.

$97,278.00 vs. $32,570.00. It's facts like this that Harvey glosses over when he touts the value of "hard and shiny" investments.

[Nikki]

Not to overlook that gold pays very little in dividends AND that there's no vault charge for stocks.

Admittedly, the gold buyer could have taken possession of the metal, thereby avoiding the vault fees, but then he's at risk of some less-than-nice person walking off with his pound+ of gold.

[Parvati]

And certainly more decorative.

I have a friend who has two notes. She had no idea why or what they were. When I asked her where she found them, she replied " at a flea market". I then asked why she bought them, her answer was, they were pretty.

There's a quote floating around in my memory banks along the lines of, "The more ornate a nation's currency, the less it's worth." Apparently, the same holds true for stamps--the prettier they are, the poorer the nation.

[Cpt Banjo]

There's a quote floating around in my memory banks along the lines of, "The more ornate a nation's currency, the less it's worth." Apparently, the same holds true for stamps--the prettier they are, the poorer the nation.

Some of the really old U.S. commemoratives were very attractive (the $1 Trans Mississippi (Scott 292) comes to mind), but I think is one of the prettiest commemoratives ever issued:

[Pottapaug1938]

One reason why I lost interest in stamp collecting, as a young teenager, is that I got overwhelmed with the number of ornately designed stamps out there. I soon caught on to the fact that many countries crank out commemorative and special-issue stamps, far beyond the needs of their citizens, for sale to collectors. The only stamps I still have are ones with special meaning, like the Herblock-designed Bill of Rights stamp, the recent Scouting stamp, and a few others.

This is also why I have little interest in commemorative coins, or in the issues known as Non-Circulating Legal Tender. Every year, some special (and often, politically-connected) group gets mints throughout the world to mint "coins" on their behalf; but everyone knows full well that these coins will never see a cash register; and there are enough of these (few of which ever hold their value) to clog up the coin boxes of all but the most avid collector of these coins.

[Pottapaug1938]

I noticed the $2 US notes don't say, IN GOD WE TRUST.

This is true for all early issues of US currency. The motto was only added to US currency in the 1950s, as I recall. In the 1960s, I recall seeing some Series 1935A Silver Certificates in circulation (printed between 1935 and 1946); and they had no "In God We Trust" over the word "ONE" on the reverse; and in my collection, I have several higher denomination notes that also lack the motto.

There is a Wikipedia article on the subject; and from it I have copied the following quote, which should put somewhat more at east the fevered mind of that guy in Colorado:

Some activists have been known to cross out the motto on paper money as a form of protest.[13] Although federal law (18 U.S.C. § 333 and 18 U.S.C. § 475) prohibits defacement of currency, it specifies either "intent to render such bank bill...unfit to be reissued" or a "notice or advertisement", and no documented cases exist of prosecution for such action. Additionally, the Federal Reserve frequently recirculates similarly altered notes.

Since the guy in Colorado does not appear to intend to render his FRNs unfit for circulation, he is almost certainly off the hook on the defacement issue.

[Dr. Caligari]

Since the guy in Colorado does not appear to intend to render his FRNs unfit for circulation, he is almost certainly off the hook on the defacement issue.

Yes, but under the Quatloosian Penal Code he is almost certainly guilty of aggravated mopery, impersonating a normal person, and consorting with known idiots.

[David Merrill]

I noticed the $2 US notes don't say, IN GOD WE TRUST.

This is true for all early issues of US currency. The motto was only added to US currency in the 1950s, as I recall. In the 1960s, I recall seeing some Series 1935A Silver Certificates in circulation (printed between 1935 and 1946); and they had no "In God We Trust" over the word "ONE" on the reverse; and in my collection, I have several higher denomination notes that also lack the motto.

There is a Wikipedia article on the subject; and from it I have copied the following quote, which should put somewhat more at east the fevered mind of that guy in Colorado:

Some activists have been known to cross out the motto on paper money as a form of protest.[13] Although federal law (18 U.S.C. § 333 and 18 U.S.C. § 475) prohibits defacement of currency, it specifies either "intent to render such bank bill...unfit to be reissued" or a "notice or advertisement", and no documented cases exist of prosecution for such action. Additionally, the Federal Reserve frequently recirculates similarly altered notes.

Since the guy in Colorado does not appear to intend to render his FRNs unfit for circulation, he is almost certainly off the hook on the defacement issue.

No. The motto was added to US currency in 1863 and is there on the legal tender by law. The reason that the Treasurer can forgo the trust indenture on the US notes is that they are lawful money.

In the exercise of that power Congress has declared that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money.

and

United States notes shall be lawful money, and a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States, except for duties on imports and interest on the public debt.

In fact, by law the US notes are out of general circulation (albeit technically still circulated within bank vaults of the Fed) because they are still redeemable in gold and gold certificates.

...redeemed and paid in gold at the treasury.

Regards,

David Merrill.

[Pottapaug1938]

"In fact, by law the US notes are... technically still circulated within bank vaults of the Fed...."

Wrong again. After the enactment of the Riegle Act, cited above, all USNs in the Treasury vaults were destroyed.

"No. The motto was added to US currency in 1863".

Wrong again. Any collector of US currency can provide numerous examples of genuine US currency which does not contain the motto. Also, anyone who is interested can enter "United States Notes" into the search field of Google and view images of USNs throughout the years. I did a quick check, and did not see "In God We Trust" on ANY USN with a Series designation of 1928 or before.

The guy may be thinking of the motto being added to COINS starting in 1864 (not 1863), with the two cent piece being the first example; but Teddy Roosevelt objected to the motto being on coins, which is why some 1907 gold coins do not bear the motto. Only after the 1916 coinage redesign did the motto appear on all US coins.

[David Merrill]

"In fact, by law the US notes are... technically still circulated within bank vaults of the Fed...."

Wrong again. After the enactment of the Riegle Act, cited above, all USNs in the Treasury vaults were destroyed.

"No. The motto was added to US currency in 1863".

Wrong again. Any collector of US currency can provide numerous examples of genuine US currency which does not contain the motto; and probably there are images online of these pre-motto notes.

You are failing to discern. I have shown you an example of a $2 US note with no motto. The question would better be, Are there any Federal Reserve notes since 1933 that do not have the motto?

The court ruling is that the US notes shall stay in circulation so destroying the ones in the vaults is inconsequential. Circulating them within the vaults makes no sense anyway.

The law requires that the IN GOD WE TRUST indenture be on the currency but that would only apply to legal tender, not lawful money.

[fortinbras]

The guy may be thinking of the motto being added to COINS starting in 1964 (not 1863), with the two cent piece being the first example; but Teddy Roosevelt objected to the motto being on coins, which is why some 1907 gold coins do not bear the motto. Only after the 1916 coinage redesign did the motto appear on all US coins.

Sorry, it should say that the motto was added to coins in 1864, while Lincoln was in office.

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust

[Pottapaug1938]

"In fact, by law the US notes are... technically still circulated within bank vaults of the Fed...."

Wrong again. After the enactment of the Riegle Act, cited above, all USNs in the Treasury vaults were destroyed.

"No. The motto was added to US currency in 1863".

Wrong again. Any collector of US currency can provide numerous examples of genuine US currency which does not contain the motto; and probably there are images online of these pre-motto notes.

You are failing to discern. I have shown you an example of a $2 US note with no motto. The question would better be, Are there any Federal Reserve notes since 1933 that do not have the motto?

Yes. Google the words "Federal Reserve Notes Series 1950" and you will see some examples. I have a Series 1950D $5 FRN, printed between 1963 and 1965, which does not have the motto. I might also point out that my Series 1935G $1 Silver Certificate, printed between 1961 and 1962, likewise lacks the motto.

The court ruling is that the US notes shall stay in circulation so destroying the ones in the vaults is inconsequential. Circulating them within the vaults makes no sense anyway.

. United States Notes still in circulation may remain there (but often they are pulled out of circulation by non-collectors who think that since they are unusual, they are rare and thus "worth money" -- but unless they are new or almost so, or of a scarce variety, they are worth only face value. You are right about the circulation in the vaults making no sense; but this is not news to anyone at the US Treasury or within the numismatic community. We've long felt that this "circulation" made no sense; and now the Riegle Act has put a stop to it all.

[Pottapaug1938]

Silly me -- in all the discussion about types of United States Currency, I quite forgot about "National Currency". Before the Civil War, the old privately-issued currency, issued by banks against their deposits, were essentially taxed out of existence, partly because many of the issuing banks either overissued their currency or else failed, making their currency worthless.

In 1863, a law was passed which allowed banks, if they bought United States bonds, or "other securities", and deposited them in the Treasury of the United States, the right to issue currency against a percentage of the value of those bonds; and the currency so issued was of the same general type as regular US issue, except that the name of the issuing bank, signatures of bank officers, and other identifying information appeared on the banknotes. The various Federal Reserve banks also issued notes of this type. However, the law authorizing these notes was repealed in 1935, partly because people feared taking these notes because they didn't know if the issuing bank had gone under and didn't understand the backing requirement, and because FRNs and USNs were already available to add to or subtract from the money supply, as the need arose.

Interestingly, on the Series of 1929 $10 National Currency Note, issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, that is in my collection, I can find no legal tender clause anywhere on the note. I do see that the notes does say "redeemable in lawful money of the United States at United States Treasury or at the bank of issue". My guess is that this latter clause, as in the case of FRNs, was intended to allow anyone who possessed one of these notes to exchange it for whatever constituted "lawful money" at the time.

These notes have long since vanished from circulation -- but that's where I got mine. I got it in change from a coin dealer with whom I do regular business; and more than once I've gotten unusual currency in change from him. The notes weren't worth keeping in his stock, so he gave them out in change. I've also bought $50 in old, worn Silver Certificates from him; and over time I've given them in change or in payment to kids who find them interesting.

[Number Six]

You must have a good coin and currency dealer up there in your commonwealth, Pottapaug.

It's becoming a risky livlihood. Steve Halfon was recently killed in NYC and long time dealer Don Blau lost well over $100K at a robbery at the last Parsippany show. The precious metals thieves have a lot lower risk of getting caught than bank robbers and their crimes are a lot more lucrative.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/broo ... zsbXZnN7cN

[ktesibios]

There's a quote floating around in my memory banks along the lines of, "The more ornate a nation's currency, the less it's worth." Apparently, the same holds true for stamps--the prettier they are, the poorer the nation.

When I was a kid I always had the coolest coin collection of anyone in my school because my late Uncle Tony's engineering business took him all over the world. Every few months he'd come back from somewhere like Ethiopia or Saudi Arabia and he'd always being back a little small change or small-denomination currency for my collection.

I remember being struck by how pretty and colorful the Mexican 10 Peso note was, compared to U.S. bills- and discovering "American Banknote Co." in fine print at the bottom (apparently it was common for foreign governments to "outsource" the manufacturing of currency; the U.S. Mint has long provided a similar service for coinage).

Among the items I had inherited from my father was a pre-WWII Chinese banknote. It was a truly gorgeous example of the engraver's art- and China's economy at the time was a combined trainwreck and meteor impact.

So there might be a grain of truth in the "prettiest money is the least valuable" truism.

[David Merrill]

DMVP's stamps remind me of the something I see from time to time down here in South Texas. Once in a while, I'll get a bill with a "blessing" on it from a curandero or brujo (healer or witch), written to bless the money, get the money to "return," for good luck, etc.

Such writtings may well be more effective than the DMVP stamp; who knows?

Why would a silly witch bless a blessing?

I like it when people pay me with US Notes in the form of FRNs.