Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;medoraman, post: 8639319, member: 26302&quot;]The mint had plenty of internal controls. Heck, PM coinage was delayed in 1793 due to employees unable to post the required bonds set forth in the 1792 mint act, so internal controls around coinage were very much in evidence from the very beginning. Remember, every state at this point had long histories with paper currencies, and all of the theft, forgeries, etc that can happen with it, so I am sure every Congressman was well aware of the need for security around coining. </p><p><br /></p><p>Lots of stuff would come for sale, most of them fairly innocuous in terms of internal control design, since they could be accomplished with a single participant, (offset errors, switching out common coin for trial pieces measured by weight, etc). However, you are right this one was more of a concern since it required getting a die out of the vault, mounting it, then striking examples &quot;off books&quot; to make it happen. That shows conspiracy and intent to defraud, which is why the 1913 nickels I hate much more than patterns, offmetal strikes, etc that sole mint workers might have made over the years. I can more easily forgive a press worker selling off curiousities to collectors to improve his life more than a conspiracy to violate internal controls. Maybe it is my CPA coming out of me, or my CFO in me in trying to constrain employee misconduct.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in