• "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

Why the US Mint once issued gold discs to Saudi Arabia

Silver

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
4,321
Likes
6,535
#1
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-11-27/why-us-mint-once-issued-gold-discs-saudi-arabia

Why the US Mint once issued gold discs to Saudi Arabia



by BullionStar

Tue, 11/27/2018 - 09:00


Authored by JP Koning, submitted by BullionStar.com

I stumbled on some strange gold discs earlier this year. They’re pictured below:

1947 Saudi gold disc minted by the US Mint

As you can see, the front of the gold disc has been stamped with the emblem of the U.S. Mint, specifically that of the Philadelphia mint. On the reverse side, contains details about weight and purity. But while they are shaped like a typical coin, the discs are curiously anonymous. Unlike a typical coin they have no date, denomination, issuing country, or the face of some dead President or royal. What are these odd discs and why were they produced?

My curiosity about these coins took me through on a fascinating tour of monetary history. Along the way I also learnt some troubling details about the coin collecting industry. The value of any coin is driven in part by its mythology, but this mythology is not always factual. In this post I’ll share what I learnt with you.

The ARAMCO Connection
A quick Google search reveals all sorts of websites that sell the gold discs. APMEX, one of the world’s largest online precious metals dealers, describes them thusly:
“This Gold disk was made by the U.S. Mint in Philadelphia for ARAMCO (Arabian American Oil Company). ARAMCO needed them to pay royalties to Saudi Arabia for the right to start drilling for the vast oil reserves known to be there, and to help alleviate the shortage caused by the record consumption during World War II.”​

The reference to ARAMCO immediately jumps out. This is one of the most provocative and persistent details of the discs’ mythology: that they were produced for the Arabian American Oil Company, or ARAMCO, in the 1940s so that it could pay the Saudi government for oil. Comprised of a consortium of U.S. oil companies that included Standard Oil of California, Texaco, Exxon, and Mobil, ARAMCO explored and developed oilfields in Saudi Arabia.

Early ARAMCO Logo

The association of these disks with ARAMCO pops up everywhere on the internet. Heritage Auctions, the world’s largest collectible auctioneer, declares the discs to be “Aramco gold.” The Deutsche Bundesbank, Germany’s central bank, recently added the discs to its 90,000 coin collection. It describes them as being struck by the U.S. Mint on “behalf of the Arabian American Oil Company.”

Boosel’s pet theory
The linkage of the discs to ARAMCO was first proposed in 1959 by numismatist Harry X. Boosel. Boosel’s curiosity was originally sparked when he bought one of the discs in 1954.

He compiled a list of questions about the disc’s origins and diligently sent out letters to the U.S. Mint, the Saudi Arabian embassy, the State Department, and more. After he received several responses, Boosel penned a detailed article on the discs’ origins that was published in 1959 in The Numismatist, a publication by the American Numismatic Association.

Boosel learnt that the Philadelphia Mint had produced two types of discs. A larger one in 1945 contained 0.942 oz of gold, while the smaller 1947 version contained a quarter of that, 0.2354 ounces. The Mint had produced 91,210 of the original 1945 issue and 121,364 in the second batch.

Boosel’s article, from the July 1959 issue of the Numismatist

The letters that Boosel received in response to his inquiries further indicated that the order had been filled by the U.S. Mint on behalf of the Saudi government. The gold had been purchased by the Saudis from the U.S. Treasury by converting U.S. dollars into gold at the statutory $35 rate. This was back when the U.S. was still on a gold standard and the gold window was still open. The gold in their possession, the Saudis had then asked the U.S. Mint to turn it into discs. This wasn’t the first order that the Mint had completed for Saudi Arabia, one of Boosel’s correspondents pointed out. It had previously produced silver riyal coins as well as copper “girshs”.

But Boosel was annoyed. Although he had managed to fill in much of the detail surrounding the mysterious Saudi gold discs, he still didn’t know why they had been commissioned. His frustration was such that he concluded the paper by supplying his own pet theory, that the U.S. Mint had produced the discs for ARAMCO. Boosel tells us that gold was in short supply during and after the war, so it traded at a large–almost double!–premium to its official price of $35. Which is true. ARAMCO didn’t want to pay such a high price for gold, he claims, and thus went to Uncle Sam to get discs. Boosel provided no documents to back his contention.

Boosel’s shot-in-the dark ARAMCO theory has since gone on to become part of the accepted canon surrounding the discs. A 1991 New York Time article about the discs, for instance, notes that:
“Aramco sought help from the United States Government. Faced with the prospect of either a cutoff of substantial amounts of Middle Eastern oil or a huge increase in the price of Saudi crude, the Government minted 91,120 large gold disks adorned with the American eagle and the words “U.S. Mint — Philadelphia.” Aramco paid for the minting and the bullion. The coins were shipped off to Saudi Arabia.”​

By the 2000s, coin retailing websites were eagerly repeating Boosel’s ARAMCO theory.

Can you blame them? A tie-in with the oil industry spices up the discs’ history. And a provocative mythology can boost their market price. Although a 1945 disc contains just under an ounce of gold, it sells for US$2,749 on APMEX. A regular gold coin that contains one ounce of gold, say an American Eagle, currently retails for around US$1250. The market evidently attaches a very large premium to the rarity and unique history of the Saudi gold discs.

New documents surface
The ARAMCO story is certainly plausible, but I don’t think it is factual. The Federal Reserve Archival System for Economic Research, or FRASER, a relatively new archive, houses several documents that shed light on the discs, including a number of classified discussions between officials from the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury about the gold market between the end of the war up till 1950. This information would not have been available to Boosel when he was doing his research.

Boosel is certainly correct that ARAMCO needed gold to pay for oil. When the Saudi monarch Ibn Saud and ARAMCO inked their deal in 1933, the terms of the deal stipulated that for each ton of oil produced, ARAMCO owed the Saudi government a royalty of four gold shillings. This amount was payable in gold sovereigns, a British coin that circulated widely in the Middle East at the time. Each sovereign contained 0.2354 ounces of gold.

1893 British Gold Sovereign

The sovereign, however, had been discontinued. For the most part, the Brits had stopped minting these coins by 1917, and so their supply was limited. The FRASER documents provide us with several snapshots of ARAMCO desperately negotiating for old gold sovereigns. In 1948, it approached the Central Bank of Argentina with an offer to buy up its inventory of sovereigns1 while 1950 finds it knocking on the doors of the South African government to do the same.2

It seems logical, therefore, that in light of the rarity of sovereigns, ARAMCO might have contracted with the U.S. Treasury for gold discs. That the discs were stand-ins for sovereigns is underlined by the fact that the Philadelphia Mint had produced the 1947 issue with the exact same specifications as a British sovereign.3 Both sovereigns and discs contained 0.2354 ounces of gold and were of a fineness or purity of 0.9167.

Despite the attractiveness of Boosel’s ARAMCO theory, the FRASER documents do not bear it out. In each instance where discussions about the discs occur, they specify that the discs were made for the Saudi government, not ARAMCO.

Boosel’s ARAMCO theory is even more unlikely given that the transaction would have been illegal. Under the rules governing the gold standard of the day, the Treasury was prohibited from selling gold to private companies. When the U.S. had gone back on the gold standard in 1934 after a hiatus beginning in 1933, the terms of redemption had been altered. Whereas everyone had historically had the right to convert U.S. dollars into gold, after 1934 only foreign governments were permitted to convert dollars into the yellow metal. Additionally, all U.S. gold coins were demonetized and private ownership of gold declared illegal.

So ARAMCO didn’t have the right to purchase gold from the Treasury. Not only that, but it would have been illegal for ARAMCO to store the discs on U.S. territory once received. One of the FRASER documents goes to great pains to point this out, noting that:
“It is the policy of the Treasury Department to sell monetary gold only to foreign governments and central banks and international monetary institutions. Accordingly… the Treasury did not sell gold to the Arabian American Oil Company or to any other unofficial purchaser.”4​

This isn’t to say that there was no connection at all between the Treasury and ARAMCO. The FRASER documents mention several instances of cooperation between the two. For instance, in 1948 the Treasury helped to facilitate $82 million in ARAMCO sovereign purchases by connecting it with foreign governments that held coin inventories (including the Argentinean deal mentioned above).5 But the Treasury only pointed ARAMCO in the right direction, it didn’t actually participate in the deal itself.

Walter Spahr and the Gold Standard League

Even when it was acting as a liaison for ARAMCO, the Treasury was reticent of the role it was playing. There was ongoing agitation to bring the U.S. back onto a full gold standard, one in which gold coins circulated once again and everyone–including American citizens–could convert paper money into gold. The movement was led by the feisty Walter Spahr, a New York-based economist who was the guiding light behind the Gold Standard League and its associated organization the Economists’ National Committee for Monetary Policy.

1933 billboard requiring Americans to give up their gold

The Treasury, which had banned gold coins from circulation only eleven years before, feared Spahr and his ideas.6 By minting coins for foreign governments and helping companies purchase sovereigns, the Treasury risked drawing Spahr’s anger, providing him with the sort of fuel that he required to spark a public debate on the issue of gold coinage. Luckily for the Treasury, neither the Aramco sovereigns nor the coins sold directly to Saudi Arabia attracted Spahr’s attention or generated public complaints. “Skillful handling of reporters no doubt helped head off the chance of embarrassment,” wrote one official.7

To sum up, it is doubtful that the discs were made for ARAMCO – if they had, the Treasury would have been breaking the law. The idea that the U.S. might have chosen to illegally issue the discs is even more unlikely given that government officials were sensitive to any sort of criticism in light of public agitation for a return to a pre-1934 gold standard.


A nation reliant on discontinued foreign gold coins

There is a much easier answer to Boosel’s frustrated plea for “the Why” behind the discs. Like most nations in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia didn’t have its own banknotes. Its monetary system was entirely reliant on precious metals coins. But it didn’t produce its own coinage. For smaller transactions, Saudis relied primarily on foreign silver coins including the ubiquitous Maria Theresa dollar, a coin minted in Austria. The Indian rupee, which circulated widely in the Middle East, was equally important. For larger exchanges, Saudis used British gold sovereigns.

It therefore made perfect sense for the Saudi government to call upon the U.S. Treasury for help. As I pointed out earlier, the Brits no longer made sovereigns. Given the inevitable shortage this must have caused, Saudi officials would have been desperate to supply the nation with a workable gold substitute for circulation within national borders. Turning to the U.S. made sense. The U.S. Treasury was the largest owner of gold in the world, and the U.S. Mint could turn this gold into coins. Unfortunately for the Saudis, British officials had refused to release the original dies for making sovereigns to the U.S. Mint.8 The unadorned discs that the Mint offered to produce in their place were thus a decent second-best option for the Saudi government. Apart from their markings, the discs were exactly similar to sovereigns.

After filling the 1945 and 1947 orders for gold discs, in October 1947 the U.S. Mint received a third order from the Saudi government. But the Saudis ended up cancelling this order in light of a superior proposal. That December, U.S. officials indicated to the Saudis that the Treasury would be willing to auction off old British sovereigns that it held in its official reserves.9 For the Saudis, this offer of actual sovereigns was too good to pass up, so they nixed the third issue of discs and took delivery of sovereigns instead.10

In Conclusion

The ARAMCO gold disc story is apocryphal, a bit of idle speculation first dreamt up fifty years ago and recounted often enough to be accepted as gospel. If anything, I hope that my account convinces gold coin buyers to do their homework. Anyone who is planning on purchasing a gold coin at a large premium to its commodity value needs to be sure they know exactly why they’re paying such a high price. Otherwise, best to stick to regular gold bullion coins.

The story of the Saudi gold discs also illustrates the bewildering variety of monetary arrangements that have existed across the globe, even within the same era. How strange is it that the U.S., which itself had banned gold coins only a few years before, found itself in the position of minting gold coins for a nation that was still wholly dependent on precious metals? Monetary systems are often full of surprises like this.

Footnotes:
1. Gold Transactions : 1949. Pg. 79
2. Gold Transactions : 1950. Pg. 12
3. ibid, Pg. 87.
4. Gold Transactions : 1949. Pg. 79
5. Gold Transactions : 1950. Pg. 52
6. ibid. Pg. 88.
7. ibid. Pg. 54.
8. ibid. Pg. 88.
9. ibid. Pg. 87.
10. Document 931

References:
1. United States. Department of the Treasury. Gold Transactions : 1950, Box 18, Folder 11, William McChesney Martin, Jr., Papers. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/archival/1341/item/472983, accessed on November 24, 2018.
2. National Advisory Council on International Monetary and Financial Problems (U.S.). Gold Transactions : 1949, Box 18, Folder 10, William McChesney Martin, Jr., Papers. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/archival/1341/item/472982
3. Foreign Relations of the United States, 1947, The Near East and Africa, Volume V Document 931. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1947v05/d930
4. Eric P. Newman Library, Harry X. Boosel Correspondence File, 1954-2001. https://archive.org/details/booselharry1954to2001epncorr
 

newmisty

Splodey-Headed
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
24,311
Likes
33,877
Location
Qmerica
#2
Wow, intersting stuff. Thanks Silver.
 

Ragnarok

I'd rather be
Midas Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
5,650
Likes
4,524
#3
Where do you even find one of these?

R.
 

oldgaranddad

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Feb 21, 2012
Messages
4,437
Likes
7,232
Location
On the top shelf.
#4
Where do you even find one of these?

R.
They’re around but beware that there are also some very good fakes out there too.
 

newmisty

Splodey-Headed
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
24,311
Likes
33,877
Location
Qmerica
#5
Where do you even find one of these?

R.
The article mentioned that APMEX sells them:
Although a 1945 disc contains just under an ounce of gold, it sells for US$2,749 on APMEX. A regular gold coin that contains one ounce of gold, say an American Eagle, currently retails for around US$1250. The market evidently attaches a very large premium to the rarity and unique history of the Saudi gold discs.
 

newmisty

Splodey-Headed
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
24,311
Likes
33,877
Location
Qmerica
#8

JayDubya

Platinum Bling
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
4,805
Likes
5,666
#9
None of the slabs mention Aramco .
Here's what 3 of mine say - notice the inconstancy with NGC.
I find it odd that PCGS mentions the Krause catalog number on their slab and NGC does not as Krause is a subsidiary of NCG.

1945 Saudi Arab 4 Sov AU55 (NCG)
1945-46 Saudi Arab 4P AU55 (NGC)
1947 Saudi Arabia Pound KM35 AU58 (PCGS)
 

Ragnarok

I'd rather be
Midas Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
5,650
Likes
4,524
#10
Another mentioned something like this back in the day, gold for oil, ot rather, gold to ensure the flow of oil.

R.
 

EO 11110

Posting from Epstein Island
Site Supporter
Mother Lode
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
13,760
Likes
10,216
#11
where is the tie-in to the oil embargo? good piece, but author left a lot of meat on the bone
 
Last edited:

JayDubya

Platinum Bling
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
4,805
Likes
5,666
#12
I found this is another forum. Not sure if it's kosher to link to them or not so I'm just going to do the copy & paste thing...

Wrote a letter to the Red Book about the 1940s US Mint Saudi gold "disks"

One of my favorite recent purchases was a Saudi 4 pound (KM#34) I got just over a year ago. I've posted it here a couple of times, and it seems most people really like these historically interesting pieces that are shrouded in mystery.
I got a 2019 Red Book for Christmas--an annual tradition from the mother in law going back about a decade. Thumbing through it yesterday and once again, the circa 1945 gold disks minted by the US Mint in Philadelphia to pay the Saudi Arabian government for oil rights were excluded.


I mean, I can kind of see why: These weren't made for circulation here in the US. But on the other hand, they literally say (and ONLY say) U.S. MINT PHILADELPHIA USA

Anyway, it seems the Red Book has really made some interesting additions (and deletions) to their pages in recent years. So I emailed them to see what their thoughts were about including these pieces.

I hadn't really expected to get a reply other than an automatic "thanks". Imagine my surprise when I got a response from a real person and a promise to pass the request up the chain. And then imagine my surprise when, a few exchanges later, I received a wonderfully rich email from Dennis Tucker, Publisher of Whitman Publishing (publisher of the Red Book).

He was kind enough to grant me permission to reprint his email here:

Thank you for your recent query about including the Saudi gold disks in the Guide Book of United States Coins. Ken Bressett (Editor Emeritus of the Red Book) and I talk about these items from time to time. Collectors and researchers come to us and ask about them (and about the possibility of including them in the Red Book). I remember they were the subject of an enthusiastic discussion at the ANA convention in Boston in 2010.

Ken has described himself as long being a fan of these unusual items, and he’s maintained an extensive file about them ever since they became known to the public.

Even so, throughout his tenure as editor (then senior editor, and now as editor emeritus) of the Red Book, after careful consideration he always concluded that they don’t really qualify for inclusion.

“They really are bullion pieces and not circulation coins,” he has said in the past, “and despite the fact that they were made at the Philadelphia Mint, they are not U.S. coins.” He points out that in the past U.S. mints have made many numismatic items for other countries, including several coins for Ecuador that contain the words PHILADELPHIA, or PHILA. U.S.A., as their mintmark.
Space limitations in all books are a factor in determining which fringe or related items can be included to enlighten the hobby community about specific topics. There are many such things that might be valuable additions to the Red Book, but unfortunately, for practical reasons, they really belong in other, more appropriate, publications.

In recent times we’ve discussed the possibility of including an appendix on the Saudi gold disks in Mega Red (the expanded Deluxe Edition of the Red Book). And in the second edition of my own book, American Gold and Silver: U.S. Mint Collector and Investor Coins and Medals, Bicentennial to Date, I might include a section on them.

I’ll copy Whitman Publishing senior editor Diana Plattner on this email, as well as Red Book senior editor Jeff Garrett, and Mega Red senior editor Q. David Bowers. I’ll also drop a line to Ken Bressett.

If you have any information you’d like to share about these interesting numismatic pieces, we welcome your ideas.
Thank you again for writing!_
How cool is that??!!
I won't bore you guys by sharing the email I just got from Q. David Bowers.


 

newmisty

Splodey-Headed
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
24,311
Likes
33,877
Location
Qmerica
#14