A new Large size $2 note to add to the collection!!

Did I missread the 000000000000000000000 LOL

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

at $8000, I wouldn't call it worthless. Although I can't believe such a premium for a note that technically has no intrinsic value.

 

Very nice two dollar note. Where could I look for paper money other than a coin shop ? I would like to start collecting, but don't want to pay ridicules prices.

 

You can find some nice bits on Ebay, it all depends what you are after realy

 

Not exactly. The 1964 regulation which legalised the holding of gold certificates specifically referred to U.S. gold certificates issued before January 30, 1934--thus excluding the Series 1934 notes.

At the time, of course, it was illegal for U.S. citizens to own gold at all (with certain exceptions), so it wouldn't have made any sense to lift the ban on the 1934 notes, nor on various foreign issues, which were still redeemable for gold. But the pre-1934 U.S. gold certificates hadn't been redeemable since '34 anyway, so there was no reason to prevent collectors from holding them. In fact, the loosening of the rules in 1964 came about because the Secret Service confiscated a few GC's from a collector, and the collector happened to have an old friend who was then serving in Congress....

BTW, I'm pretty sure I've seen that note with serial 20113 before. I think it's on exhibit at one of the Federal Reserve Banks, but I'm too sleepy to go searching for it now.

 

ok so that makes sense as to why its illegal -- but NOT to why they excluded them from being legal to own, while letting everything else remain or become legal. They issue a law revoking the redemption in gold on all notes before 1934, why not have the law say on all notes before 1935? I know its a possibility that they never thought of the notes when making the law because it wasnt a circulating note to begin with ... But it would only make sense to make it all legal tender, just not redeemable in gold. Why exclude a single note/series ....

they decisions they make... never cease to amaze me

Thanks for clearing it up Numbers.. the legallity question i mean

 

The whole point of the 1934 series was that they *were* still redeemable in gold. When pre-1934 gold certificates were recalled, John Q. Citizen had to trade his in for FRNs or something; the Federal Reserve traded theirs in for 1934 gold certificates. The 1934 GCs could then be used in transfer payments between Federal Reserve Banks and a few other authorised holders of gold.

What *should* have happened in 1933 is an exception for "collectible" gold certificates, just as collectible gold coins were excepted from the gold recall. But there weren't enough paper money collectors back then for anyone to think of such a thing, so anybody who wanted to keep a few GCs in a collection had to do so illegally. That's the problem that was fixed by the 1964 change.

The 1934 GCs were still in use in 1964, though, transferring ownership of gold around between FRBs and such. So they had to remain redeemable in gold, and therefore illegal for private citizens to own. I suppose the restriction *could* have been lifted in 1974 when private ownership of gold was finally re-legalised, but once again nobody thought of it.

 

that makes sense in an overly large, non-functioning, beaurocratic way instead of making things easy ... the govt. does it wrong, and makes things harder. go figure lol

thanks for the explanation Numbers!

 

Just curious, did you actually have $100,000 laying around looking to buy that note? LOL.

Anyway, back to RickieB's topic, the note in the OP is one of the couple that I couldn't bring myself to sell when I sold off teh bulk of my collection awhile back. I uploaded pics in this thread a few months ago.

http://www.cointalk.org/showthread.php?t=31100

 

me .. have a spare 100,000 laying around ... you must not read any of my posts but, sadly, no i do not have that kind of cash .. close, but not enough

 

That's assuming you could find one in a teller's drawer and get it for face