1965 Silver Coins

Discussion in 'Coin Chat' started by jorglueke, Jun 8, 2019.

  1. jorglueke

    jorglueke Member

    Oh, well that's never wrong. This is from the New York Times, September 6, 1964

    THE latest news from Washington is that the bill authorizing the Treasury Department to “freeze” the 1964 date on coins will be signed by President Johnson. The measure did not reach the President's desk until late last week.

    Enactment of the law still leaves uncertainties, principally because of its wording. The law orders retention of the 1964 date until the Secretary of the Treasury determines that “adequate supplies of coins are available.” Thus, the law will have no practical effect if Secretary Dillon decides that the Treasury's “crash” mintage‐acceleration program has relieved the national coin shortage by the end of this year. The Mints then will be able to follow normal procedure on Jan. 1 and place the 1965 date on coins.

    If the shortage continues into 1965, thus requiring retention of the 1964 date, but is relieved before July 1, Secretary Dillon can order the Mints to start putting 1965 on the coins for the last half of the year. To many observers, it seems inconceivable that he would take this step, for the Mints would be hard pressed to produce in only six months enough 1965 coins to avoid a short issue in one or more of the five coin denominations — and short issues are “meat” for coin‐hoarding speculators.

    Still officially unanswered, too, is the question of the date to be borne by the pending new issue of 45 million silver dollars.

    Friday is the opening day of the three‐day semi‐annual convention of the Empire State Numismatic Association in Saratoga Springs. On Saturday, the Long Island Coin Show will be held in the Roosevelt Field Shopping Center in Garden City, the Paterson Coin Convention will be staged in the Bergen Mall Center auditorium on Route 4 in Paramus, N. J., and the Bay Shore‐Brightwaters branch of the South Shore Coin Club (Box 59, East Islip, L. I.) will sponsor a coin show in Memorial Auditorium in Bay Shore.

    A version of this archives appears in print on September 6, 1964, on Page X24 of the New York edition with the headline: NEWS OF COINS; President Gets the Bill To Freeze 1964 Date
     
    Spark1951 and kaparthy like this.
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. Michael K

    Michael K Well-Known Member

    In order to stop people from hoarding coins, (they seem to like the ones with mint marks) they took the mint marks off of all coins in 1965 1966 and 1967. While still produced at all 3 mints, there's no real way to tell which mint a coin came from. No proofs those years. 1968 they put the mint marks back.
    And then they started making proofs in San Fran instead of Philly.
     
    Last edited: Jun 8, 2019
  4. mikenoodle

    mikenoodle The Village Idiot

    According to the Coin World Almanac 8th Edition pg 480 - “... to discourage hoarding it (public law 89-81 - The Coinage Act of 1965) stipulated that any .900 fine coins minted after the law’s enactment would be inscribed with the date 1964.”
     
  5. jorglueke

    jorglueke Member

    The coinage act wasn’t passed till July. What prevented the mint from striking 1965 dated 90% silver coins January-July 1965? It was not the Coinage Act
     
  6. kaparthy

    kaparthy Supporter! Supporter

    Glad you asked...



    Screen Shot 2019-06-08 at 10.49.03 PM.png
    https://sdbullion.com/silver-price-by-year


    Screen Shot 2019-06-08 at 10.50.13 PM.png
    https://www.silverinstitute.org/silverprice/1960-1965/


    Screen Shot 2019-06-08 at 10.50.38 PM.png
    https://www.silverinstitute.org/silverprice/1966-1970/

    As soon as silver began to move, people began to hoard it. That said, as I recall, even into 1972, the margin over spot was only about 10%. (It fell after peaking in 1968.) But with the general price levels being what they were - gasoline at 29 cents per gallon - it was worth it to many people to get change from the bank, sort the silver out of it, and then hoard the precious metal or sell it.
     
  7. Burton Strauss III

    Burton Strauss III Supporter! Supporter

  8. Burton Strauss III

    Burton Strauss III Supporter! Supporter

    Nothing. Public Law 88-580 ALLOWED them to keep striking 1964 silver coinage.
     
  9. Burton Strauss III

    Burton Strauss III Supporter! Supporter

    Back to the coinage act of 1965... note the "SHALL"

    upload_2019-6-9_14-28-9.png

    (This is a floor price)

    ASW of a silver quarter is 0.1808 troy ounces, so there was about $0.226 worth of silver in a quarter - or more based on market prices...
     
    Pickin and Grinin likes this.
  10. Conder101

    Conder101 Numismatist

    That would be the floor price value, but the free market price was already above that. The average for 1965 was 1.29 which was also the break even point where the silver value in the dimes and quarters equaled their face value but there were also times inb the year when the market price rose higher than that. I have seen one refernce to the market price of silver briefly hitting as high as $1.70 on oz in July of 1965. At that point the silver in a dime would have been worth 13 cents.

    As for the date freeze both are correct. The Sept 1963 legislation froze the 1964 date for ALL coins, while the Coinage act of 1965 froze the 1964 date only on 90% silver coins struck after that point.
     
    mikenoodle likes this.
  11. Clawcoins

    Clawcoins Well-Known Member

    but WikiPedia said ...

    :angelic:
     
  12. Burton Strauss III

    Burton Strauss III Supporter! Supporter

    Stupid is as stupid does ——-Forest
     
  13. mikenoodle

    mikenoodle The Village Idiot

    Hold on a second! That’s really rude. I quoted Wikipedia as a simple, easy to reference source. I then quoted the Coin World Almanac when you questioned the Wikipedia article (even though it WAS correct).

    We share info here. We argue and correct each other in the hopes of providing the actual truth to people going forward.

    Have I posted incorrect information in the past? At times, yes. Did I nail down what jorgleuke wanted, no, but what I posted was true AND correct.

    I will put my body of work up for review if anyone wants to fact-check me. We all hope to educate and provide good research, there’s no need to call anyone stupid just because you disagree.
     
    harrync and green18 like this.
  14. chascat

    chascat Well-Known Member

    The mint struck 1964 Kennedy halves until early 1966 at the San Francisco Mint. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
     
  15. Burton Strauss III

    Burton Strauss III Supporter! Supporter

    Switch to decaf... I was calling Wikpedia stupid not an individual.

    We pride ourselves here at being better than Wikipedia and better than YouTube. The problem is referencing YouTube video or a Wikipedia article without doing the critical thinking to say is the article or the video correct.

    If you do the critical research and find the primary source then quote it, not the cliff notes.
     
    CoinCorgi likes this.
  16. mikenoodle

    mikenoodle The Village Idiot

    That would be incorrect. The 1964 dated coins were struck at Philadelphia and Denver well into 1966 (May IIRC)
     
    chascat likes this.
  17. jorglueke

    jorglueke Member

    No need to get bent out of shape. I asked because I had always assumed the Coinage Act laid out the changes starting from 1965 on. It does but when I saw that it didn't pass until July 1965 well that leaves a gap of seven months where the mint surely couldn't have just kept minting 1964 coins in 1965 without authorization. Then indeed there was an earlier law for this. Now, was there a third law allowing for mint marks to be returned in 1968 or was that at the discretion of the Treasury once they were sure no hoarding was being done of the new clad pieces?
     
  18. jb10000lakes

    jb10000lakes New Member

    That would be "Forrest" if you're going to try and throw quotes.
     
    Burton Strauss III likes this.
  19. Burton Strauss III

    Burton Strauss III Supporter! Supporter

    PL 88-580 didn't suspend mint marks either. That was part of PL 89-81 the 1965 coinage act...

    upload_2019-6-10_13-14-38.png

    The trick to figure out the question @jorglueke asked is to trace the renumbering of the law from 1965 to today's 31 U.S. Code § 5112. There are tables in the Cornell site: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5112 that do some of the tracing.
     
    Spark1951, CoinCorgi and jorglueke like this.
  20. Pickin and Grinin

    Pickin and Grinin Well-Known Member

    I would imagine it was all silver. This is the first time I have heard that but I wouldn't doubt it.
     
  21. serafino

    serafino Well-Known Member

    Maybe I missed seeing it but are there any 1965 dated dimes, quarters, halves minted in 90% silver, by error ? There had to have been a few silver planchets that got mixed in with the clad.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page