VIII. Fake Western Gold Bars.

A. The skewed pattern of finds indicates that the western gold bars are false.

In his 1997 article, Buttrey pointed out that there was a remarkably skewed pattern of discovery of the western gold bars. Before 1950, you could not find them at all. After 1950 - a huge number came onto the market. Hodder was unable to refute this. By misusing the term “unparted,” Hodder was able to include any silver bar he found in his sample. But even so, he was only able to come up with twenty-nine bars with provenances before 1950 - and one of them really had a documented provenance only to 1966 (Hodder 1999, 110-13). The corpus published with this article lists 186 fake western gold bars that emerged on the scene after 1950.

A natural explanation would be the discovery of hoards. Bowers, with the assistance of Hodder, produced a book that included several hoards of gold bars (Bowers 1997). Buttrey has pointed out how there is nothing convincing behind these stories (Buttrey 1997, 109-12). All signs indicate that Hodder and Bowers have come around to Buttrey's point of view on these hoards. When Hodder delivered his lecture about gold bars at the American Numismatic Society in 1999, and in his published article, the hoards were omitted (Hodder 1999).

Bowers, too, has dropped the hoard explanation. His hoard book contained a long discussion of the Brother Jonathan and about the gold bars allegedly recovered from the wreck. Two years later Bowers published a book about the wreck of the Brother Jonathan, in association with the auction of the gold coins that really were recovered from the wreck. All mention of the gold bars was dropped (Bowers 1999a). Likewise, in the ANS Newsletter, Bowers published a reply to Buttrey (Bowers 1999b). To Buttrey's question, “How is it that bars which had been unknown for a hundred years became suddenly not just available, but relatively common and so diverse?” Bowers pointed to the increasing interest in many numismatic fields. But there was one counter-argument he did not resort to: the argument from hoards. Bowers, too, dropped the hoards argument. One can only conclude that Bowers and Hodder no longer believe in the hoards of Western bars that were listed in their 1997 book.

Buttrey pointed out that the only circulating Western Gold Bars listed by the contemporary authors Eckfeldt and Dubois and, later, by Edgar Adams, are those issued by Moffat and Kohler (Buttrey 1997, 105). Hodder argued that the reason for this is that those authors were only listing bars that were officially issued. Kohler was the State Assay Office of Gold. Moffat & Co. eventually became the San Francisco Mint (Hodder 1999, 102-4).

Hodder's claim about official issuance is far-fetched. Moffat & Co. did become the San Francisco Mint in 1854, but it was nowhere near official in 1849 when it issued its bars. Hodder says that Moffat “had the written endorsement of R. J. Walker, then Secretary of the Treasury” (Hodder 1999, 102 n. 37). If Hodder is saying that Walker endorsed Moffat, Hodder is wrong: Walker's endorsement applied to Moffat's referees, not to Moffat himself (Adams 1913, 14). If Hodder is saying that Moffat had in his possession an endorsement by Walker, which just happened to endorse some other people, he has crafted a sentence that is true on its face, but extraordinarily misleading.

Hodder's argument has the legs knocked out from underneath it because other contemporary observers - who had no reason whatsoever for the “official” bias that Hodder mentions - only remarked Moffat and Kohler too as issuers of bars as coinage substitutes. The Alta California wrote on November 25, 1850 about a contemplated issue of ingots by Humbert:

They will possess but little, if any, advantage, over the ingots assayed and stamped by [Kohler,] the State Assayer, all of which did no good. They will have no particular advantage over the ingots prepared by Messrs. Moffat & Co. last year, which failed also to serve as coin for public use (Adams 1913, 15 n. 1).

This is an interesting remark. Note that the observer says nothing of a number of monetary bars that emerged after 1950 that were ostensibly made before November 1850: the Meyers & Co. bar and the Naglee & Co. bar. The Meyers bar, if real, would have to be issued in 1849, because it imitates the Moffat bar. The Naglee bar, if real, would have to be issued in 1850 because Naglee wound up his bank in September 1850. This article from the Alta California indicates that those bars did not exist before November 1850. For that matter, they did not exist before November 1950.

B. Valuation problems: many of the bars do not value bullion at the par prices of $20.6718 (gold) and $1.2929 (silver), which proves they are false.

When we have a piece of private gold that bears the weight, the fineness, and the denomination in dollars, we can determine the gold price. From 1834 until 1933, the mint price for a troy ounce of pure gold was $20.6718 (see Stack's 1/2002:475). Before 1851, some private gold issuers undervalued gold in these calculations. The Bechtler coins work out to a gold price of $20.32 to $20.57. Moffat issued bars valued at $20.60 and $20.62. Kohler issued most of his bars at $20.35; one bar from Sacramento was valued at $20.64. Contemporary observers noted this deliberate undervaluing too (Eckfeldt and DuBois 1851, 230; Eckfeldt and DuBois 1852, 9; Kleeberg 2000, 223).

This undervaluation ends in 1851. All issues by Humbert and the USAOG are within three mills of $20.6718. The bars from the Central America are within two mills of $20.6718; often, they are exactly on or only a few ten thousandths away (Kleeberg 2000, 225).

The same exercise can be performed with silver bars. Since the silver bars list the gold content, the pure silver and pure gold components are calculated first; then those values are multiplied by $1.2929 and $20.6718, added, and the value compared with the value stamped on the bar.

Two bars that do not meet this authenticity criterion have been set aside in the “authenticity undetermined,” rather than in the fake category. One is an anonymous bar, dated March 1, 1890, where 3.10 ounces of silver is deemed worth 40 cents (Bowers & Ruddy 3/1982:248). The silver price collapsed after 1873, and this low value indicates that. The other is the J. Rosenthal bar for $15.60; this bar is accurate if only the silver is included, but it is worth $18.66 if the gold is added. Well authenticated silver bars - Harris and Blake - include the gold value in the total value of the bar, which puts the Rosenthal bar under a cloud. It remains possible, however, that Rosenthal just included the silver value, and not the gold value in his bars, so it has been listed among the “undetermined” silver bars. But in every other instance the value calculated matched the value stamped on the bar. The gold price was $20.6718 and the silver price $1.2929.

When we examine the questioned Western Gold Bars, we find bars with gold prices that are simply impossible. These include a Kohler bar with a price of $21.35 (Breen 7807); an Adams bar at $21.61 (Kagin 1981, 277, no. 1); a Parsons bar at $20.27 (Breen 7951).

The gold bars bearing the name of the Eagle Mining Company wreak merry havoc with the gold price. Catalog no. 37 is an Eagle Mining Company bar, dated 1878 (NASCA 4/1980:2438), using a gold price of $20.54. Catalog no. 38 is an Eagle Mining Company bar, also dated 1878 (Stack's 11/1974:217), using a gold price of $20.58 - not including the silver. Including the silver, the gold price drops to $20.33, which is even more out of line with $20.6718. Yet another Eagle Mining Company bar, catalog no. 33 (Stack's 11/1974:218), bears the date 1877 and is struck to a gold price of $20.67. So here are three bars, all punch linked with each other and issued by the same company: in 1877 the company issues a gold bar at $20.67 an ounce, in 1878 at $20.54, and in 1878, again, in $20.58 not including the silver and $20.33 if we do. On the basis of the gold price there is no way these bars can be reconciled with the authentic gold bars from the Central America. These bars are false.

Twenty-eight bars have incorrect valuations. They are listed in the following two tables. The first table lists monometallic bars and shows the under- or overvaluation of the gold or silver price. The second table lists these bars again, plus the mixed gold and silver bars. Here the actual value of the bar was found by calculating how many ounces of pure gold were in the bar, calculating how many ounces of pure silver were in the bar, and multiplying the first figure by $20.6718 and the second by $1.2929. This is contrasted with the stated value.

No fewer than 15% of the 186 questionable gold bars have erroneous gold and silver prices, and, indeed, of the bars where we can determine weight, fineness and value, no fewer than 59% have errors in the gold and silver prices. With so many erroneous mathematical calculations, the bars cannot be genuine. The forger of these bars was an engineer whose talent was greatest in mechanical tinkering, and weakest in mathematics.

C. Fineness problems indicate that the questionable gold bars are false; many are too pure to be genuine western unparted bars, and their fineness does not appear in a random pattern.

1. Many of the bars are too pure to be genuine western unparted bars.
Many bars were not refined to the two main commercial finenesses of 916 2/3 or 900. Many were left in the purity in which the ore existed naturally. Yet among the questionable bars, many exist at a higher purity than naturally occurs in California (Kleeberg 2004). A. P. Molitor, writing in 1859, observed that although it was not unusual to encounter California gold that was finer than 970, a piece of gold assaying as high as 992 fine was “a unique case” (Owens 2000, 44-45, Kleeberg 2004). The highest fineness among the bars from the Central America was 973.

But by the 1950s gold bars refined to 999 fine were common. If these forgeries began as a scheme to hide gold when it was illicit to hold, then we would expect many questionable gold bars to be unusually fine. The forgers would have to go an extra step to debase the gold. This is exactly what we find.

Lists at the end of this article include two silver bars with fineness above 992 among the genuine bars, and one silver bar of that high a fineness among the authenticity undetermined group. High fineness is not enough on its own to condemn a silver bar. Where we condemn silver bars for high fineness, we have additional evidence against their authenticity: lack of an Internal Revenue stamp, a date on a bar that is not designed as a presentation piece. The extremely fine silver bars may be explained by being the product of a later date; one of them, a presentation bar, is dated 1890. The development of additional refining methods (chlorine, cyanide) in the late nineteenth century allowed the attainment of higher finenesses in the field than was done in the third quarter of the nineteenth century. Other than these three outliers, the silver bars show a similar pattern to the Central America gold bars: the highest fineness on the shipwreck is 973, the highest fineness among the silver bars is 979.

Now we apply the criterion from A. P. Molitor: are there many bars that emerged post-1950 that have a fineness above 992?

Bars of the following companies have a fineness above 992:
J. Bates
Bates, Baxter Gold Mining Co.
B. Baxter & Co.
G. W. Bell
Eagle Mining Co. (gold and silver bars)
F. G. Hoard
Knight & Co.
H. M. Naglee & Co.
Edward Posen
Silver King, Pickets Post (silver bar)
Star Mining Co.
Thorne Mining & Refining Co. (gold and silver bars)
Tri-Bullion Mining Co.
Virtue Gold & Silver Co. (silver bar)

Sixty-six gold bars of the questionable post-1950 group have a gold fineness higher than 992. The gold bars that ostensibly were made by Felix Grundy Hoard are egregious for their high fineness, with most being 999 fine. This would require Mr. Hoard to bring up vats of nitric acid from San Francisco by stagecoach, an unlikely scenario.

All of the assay companies in the table above have bars that are stamped at a higher fineness than 992, with one exception: Knight & Co. This bar, no. 1787 for $148.39, is stamped 982 fine. Hodder, however, had it non-destructively tested by PIXE analysis at Harvard University in May 1998, and it turned out to be 996 fine. Such a high fineness does not occur naturally in California gold. The Knight & Co. gold bar is false; and so are all the Knight gold bars that punchlink with it. Hodder contends that “the analyses of these western bars show they are genuine” (Hodder 1999, 131-32). These analyses do nothing of the kind; on the contrary, Hodder himself has produced the damning evidence that proves the Knight & Co. gold bar is a forgery (Kleeberg 2004).

2. On the questionable gold bars, the same fineness reappears on consecutively numbered bars; on the Central America bars, the fineness is a random pattern.

Among the questionable gold bars, we find many bars where consecutive serial numbers have the same fineness. Yet on the Central America, the fineness occurs in a random pattern. The recovery of the Central America treasure has been so thorough that the salvors have brought up numerous runs of serial numbers. In one group of Kellogg and Humbert bars there are eleven consecutive serial numbers (nos. 545-555). Their finenesses are: 907, 891, 889, 893, 863, 949, 841, 908, 764, 864, 894 - a random pattern. Out of the 532 bars recovered, there are only two instances from the Central America where consecutive serial numbers have been recovered and the fineness repeats (Kellogg and Humbert bars nos. 727-728, and 922-923). This shows how unusual it is for the fineness to repeat in real life.

The Central America group is what we would expect - a random distribution of finenesses. But what happens when we look at the questionable gold bars? A monotonous repetition of the fineness among consecutive serial numbers:

F. G. Hoard Gold Bars

Serial Number	Fineness	Serial Number	Fineness
2173	999	2189	999
2174	999	2191	999
2175	999	2192	999
2176	999	2194	999
2177	999	2195	999
2181	999	2196	999
2182	999	2197	999
2183	999	2198	998
2185	999	2199	998
2186	999	2205	999
2187	999	2206	999
2188	999	2207	999

Knight & Co. Gold Bars

Serial Number	Fineness
1789	982
1790	982
1791	982

Star Mining Company Gold Bars

Serial Number	Fineness	Serial Number	Fineness
42	678	234	994
43	678	235	994
44	678	236	994
48	881	237	994
49	881	238	994
61	998	376	990
62	998	377	990
69	998	378	990
70	998	521	995
232	994	522	995
233	994	523	995
		524	995

In the case of real bars - the bars from the Central America - the fineness was not known until after the bar was cast and the bar assayed. The fineness varies randomly from bar to bar. When we construct a chart of the finenesses for the Central America, the result is a bell curve that peaks between 875 and 899 fine (see chart). With the questionable bars, however, the forgers made a gold alloy of a certain fineness and then cast the bars - and as they poured this mix into various molds, they prepared many bars of the same fineness.

Genuine bars were heavy. Mark Twain, who provides an extensive description of silver bars in chapter fifty-two of Roughing It, says that a silver bar was usually worth from $1500 to $3000, depending on the amount of gold mixed in with it - in other words, approximately a thousand troy ounces. Powerful economic incentives favored large bars. There is no reason to go through two hundred times as much work making small bars, if a bar of 1000 ounces will do just as well. Furthermore, a bar that must be lifted by several men is less likely to be stolen.

The Mint was not required to accept any deposit of gold bullion for less than $100, as codified by Section 20 of the Mint Act of 1873. This did not apply to silver bullion. Act of February 12, 1873, 17 Stat. 424 (1873), at 427. In other statutes the threshold was referred to as five ounces. During the period 1834-1933, when the gold price was fixed at $20.6718, five ounces or $100 was virtually the same as a threshold.

So there is still a market at the mint for small silver bars; but there is no market at the mint for small gold bars.

There was a good reason not to make gold bars that were worth less than $100 - approximately five troy ounces in weight. A bar that weighed less would not be accepted by the Mint, the ultimate gold consumer.

The assayer Charles Blake writes, “In assaying, especially in a small country office, most of the assays are small. The bars are hardly large enough to be marketable” (Owens 2000, 61). But what does Blake consider small? It becomes clear elsewhere in his letter: below $500 worth of gold (Owens 2000, 60). What does he mean about a bar that is not “large enough to be marketable”? This must refer to the threshold of 5 ounces/$100.

The Central America had one bar that weighed 4.95 ounces, plus two other bars that weighed more than five ounces but less than $100; doubtless the result of a miscalculation on the part of a gold dust broker, who thought he had put together a batch that would result in a bar that would just clear the threshold, but overlooked a larger than usual element of impurities. But all the other 529 bars recovered from the Central America weighed above $100. 343 Kellogg & Humbert bars have been recovered from the Central America. Of these, only thirty-nine - 11% - weighed less than twenty troy ounces. These proportions are more than reversed for the questionable gold bars. All the questionable western gold bars except for three “American Flag” bars weigh less than twenty troy ounces - a proportion of 98%. Of the questionable gold bars, over eighty, more than 40% of the total, are worth less than $100, and thus not acceptable at the U.S. Mint. Of the thirty-nine Star Mining Company bars, twenty-two weigh less than five ounces (Kleeberg 2004).

The North Star Mine gold bar weighs 2 ½ ounces, yet is stamped “U.S. MINT S.F.” A bar, made to a weight that the U.S. Mint cannot accept, is stamped with this seal of approval (Bowers & Ruddy 3/1982:89). The North Star Mine bar cannot be genuine.

Light weight, in and of itself, does not mean that an individual bar is a forgery, for there are genuine bars, notably the 4.95 ounce Blake & Co. bar recovered from the Central America, which do weigh less than five ounces. A half dozen bars that were worth less than $100 would be no cause for alarm - but 80 out of 186?! What indicates that the questionable gold bars are forgeries is the skewed weight pattern - skewed towards the low end of the scale.

Although low weight bars make no sense in the real bullion trade as it operated in California in the 1850s, it made great sense in the 1950s. By making small bars, Ford and Franklin could eke out their gold and make more items that they could then sell to their gullible “boobs.”

E. Many of the gold bars, if genuine, must be monetary ingots; yet they lack security edges.

A possible defense of the low weight is that the questionable bars were not intended as transfer bars for the bullion trade, but to pass from hand to hand as monetary ingots. Most Moffat and Kohler bars are genuine, and they weigh under five ounces. An example of a possible monetary ingot among the questionable group is the Adams & Co. $5 bar. This bar is tiny - the size of a thumb. It is also made to standard monetary denomination. Yet this argument falls apart, for it cannot be a monetary ingot: it has no security edge.

The first bars and coins issued in California did not have security edges: the Moffat bars did not, and the Norris Gregg & Norris coins were first issued with plain edges. But as early as 1849, California coiners adopted security edges for their issues. Reeded edges replaced plain ones on the Norris Gregg & Norris coins; apparently machinery difficulties led Norris Gregg & Norris to revert to plain edge coins at Stockton in 1850. Other early issuers known with plain and reeded edges are Ormsby and the Pacific Company (assuming, for the moment, that the latter coins were issued in California). With the sole exception of the Norris Gregg & Norris Stockton piece, every California gold coin issued from 1850 onwards was issued with a protective edge device: the Moffat coins, and all other circulating California coins, were issued with reeded edges. Although reeding discouraged most people from shaving gold off the edges, some people still tried, as demonstrated by the double eagle with a shaved edge recovered from the Central America (Bowers 2002, 941-42). When Kohler issued his bars in 1850, he stamped “STATE ASSAYER” on the edges to prevent tampering. Humbert's octagons had some of the most elaborate lettered edges of any U.S. coins.

Anything made for monetary circulation after 1849 must bear a security edge. Yet the post-1950 bars ostensibly issued for monetary purposes have no security edges. That is the case for the Adams & Co. $5, the James King of William $20, the Naglee & Co. $100, and the Parsons & Co. $20 bars. Those bars could not have circulated. They cannot be genuine.

F. Many of the questionable gold bars have the lettering applied with separate letter punches rather than logotypes, which would be an uneconomic way of producing bars.

On real bars, such as those from the Central America, logotypes (gangpunches) were used as much as possible. On the Kellogg & Humbert bars, for example, logotypes were used to make the words “No.,” “FINE,” “Oz.,” and “KELLOGG & HUMBERT ASSAYERS” (in a box). One logotype for “KELLOGG & HUMBERT ASSAYERS” means the name can be applied with one blow, instead of twenty-three. Any assayer who enjoyed even a moderate success would use a logotype.

Individual letter punches do not condemn a bar per se. An exception to test the rule is the well-pedigreed Blake & Co. $3.04 silver bar from Owyhee. It would have been one of the first bars that Francis Blake issued after he established himself at Owyhee in 1866 - before he had prepared a logotype for his new location (Owens 2000, 104). But as a rule, most bars should be prepared using logotypes.

Yet many of the questionable gold bars have the letters punched individually. The Adams & Co. $54.33 bar is amusing - it has its letters punched in individually (this can be seen by the large gap between the D and the second A), yet it is numbered 934. If it had not occurred to Adams & Co., despite making 933 bars, to start using logotypes, one can understand why they went bankrupt. Many of the questionable gold bars purport to be from large-scale operations (Adams, Wells Fargo), not a small start up like that run by Francis Blake (who soon adopted logotypes anyway). These companies, if they did issue bars, would have been quick to adopt logotypes.

G. Tests by Proton Induced X-Ray Emission Analysis show the western gold bars to be fake.

Hodder had PIXE analyses run on gold and silver bars. The maximum variation with a silver bar (A. P. Molitor, which has a pedigree back to Garrett) was 29 thousandths. Some of the questionable gold bars were outside this limit. The Posen bar had a stated fineness of 584; it tested at 624, 40 thousandths too much. The Blake & “Agnell” bar had a stated fineness of 22 carats (917); it tested at 857, 60 thousandths too little. Once more Hodder refused to confront this issue, merely commenting on the Blake bar, “Its difference is the largest measured” (Hodder 1999, 130-32). Despite Hodder's euphemisms, the conclusion is obvious: the Posen bar and the Blake & “Agnell” bar have been shown by the PIXE analysis to be fake.

Another bar analyzed by Hodder was the Knight & Co. bar number 1787, which the analysis showed to have gold content of a fineness (996 fine) that does not naturally occur in California gold. That bar, too, has been shown by PIXE analysis to be fake.

H. Assayers standardized their designs to a high degree; yet the questionable gold bars show wide variations.

Assayers who adopted particular designs used them even after their firm changed. A good example is Kellogg & Humbert. The design of their bars is well known from the Central America. When the firm became Kellogg, Hewston & Co., the same design - the name within a box - was used even though the firm had changed. This is demonstrated by a silver bar with a long pedigree, formerly in the collection of the Chase Manhattan Bank (Superior 2/1992:3432); and a gold bar with a documented pedigree back to 1929, now in the Smithsonian. Even after Kellogg, Hewston & Co. became the San Francisco Assaying & Refining Works, a similar design was used (Holabird 2001). Another example is Harvey Harris, who continued to use the “eye of providence” emblem after the dissolution of his partnership with Desiré C. Marchand. An assayer's name was a valuable asset; by using the same design the assayer could indicate to customers that it was the same firm, despite the constant turnover among partners. These designs would be fixed and standardized. The name within a box logo allowed the San Francisco Assaying & Refining Works to tap into the goodwill built up by the Kellogg predecessor firm; and the eye of providence emblem allowed Harvey Harris to tap into the goodwill built up when he had operated in partnership with Desiré Marchard.

Yet this is not what we see on the questionable gold bars. Questionable bars are known from Blake & “Agnell” and Blake & Co. On all these bars the lettering is raised. Yet on all the bars recovered from the Central America, no matter which assayer, the lettering is incuse. We are asked to believe that Gorham Blake used a design in 1856 that no assayer used in 1857. A defender of this bar (Stack's 1/2001:1611) admits that this bar is unlike the genuine Blake bars from the Central America, but the only argument made in its defense is that the Central America was just one shipment out of hundreds that carried gold bars. Yet it is hard to credit that Blake would change the bar design - when we know from other bars that assayers sought to standardize the appearance of their bars, not to vary them. The Blake & “Agnell” and the Blake & Co. gold bars that are not from the Central America are so different from the unquestionably genuine bars they cannot be genuine.

I. The questionable gold bars provide much irrelevant information.

California interest rates were high - 2.5% to 5% a month (Owens 2000, 62). In a letter of June 1, 1854, John Hewston reported that interest rates were then 5% a month, and that most businesses demanded to be paid every week or every two weeks, for they could not afford to let their accounts receivable to mature longer than that (Bowers 2002, 643). Assayers advertised the speed with which they could convert gold dust into bars. To save time and money, they placed only essential information on the bars. Robert Evans has pointed out that the Central America bars have five pieces of information on each of them, and five pieces only:

1. the name of the assayer
2. the fineness of the gold
3. the serial number of the bar
4. the weight of the bar
5. the dollar value of the gold (Bowers 2002, 990).

The questionable gold bars have much extraneous information on them. The Eagle Mining Company gold bars list the year and the state - but not, oddly, the town where the Eagle Mining Company was located. The dubious Western Gold Bars are real chatty Cathies - they tell us the year, often the state where they were made, and additional information we do not need such as “Standard Mint Value” or “Warranted Assay.” This additional information is useless if the bars are real. For fake bars, however, it serves two important purposes. The bars need to bear a date to show that they were made before 1933 (when gold hoarding became illegal); and they need to say “CALIFORNIA” or “COL” so that they can be sold as part of the “Wild West.”

J. The use of the abbreviation “S.M.V.”

The abbreviation “S.M.V.,” meaning “Standard Mint Value,” appears on California private gold coins beginning with Moffat's issues of 1849 (Adams 1913, 15). It also appears on the coins of Baldwin, Dubosq, Dunbar, and Wass, Molitor.

This abbreviation only appears on coins that closely resemble the Federal type. It is not used on Baldwin's vaquero type, nor is it used on the issues of the Miner's Bank, Norris, Gregg & Norris, Ormsby, and the Pacific Company. The expression “Standard Mint Value of California Gold - Ten Dollars” is an evasive inscription. Moffat could claim that they were not saying the coin was worth $10, but only informing their clients that if this monetiform lump of gold were taken to the Mint in Philadelphia, the Mint would pay ten dollars for it (Adams 1913, xi-xii).

This practice dropped out of use in 1851. Shultz did not use this abbreviation, nor did Kellogg. Dunbar, who commenced minting in 1851, did use it, but Dunbar may have been continuing Baldwin's operation (Adams 1913, 77). Wass, Molitor did use the inscription, but only on its $10 coins dated 1852 and 1855. But these $10 coins re-used old Dubosq dies, which explains the antiquated inscription (Kagin 1981, 115, 168; Breen 1988, 639, 653-54; Christie's 12/2000:124).

Thirdly, the inscription “S.M.V. CALIFORNIA GOLD” on the Kellogg, Moffat/USAOG and Wass double eagles is replaced by the place of issue - “SAN FRANCISCO.” The same thing happens on the Blake & Co. copper pattern, which bears its place of issue: “SACRAMENTO.” The abbreviation “S.M.V.” and the place of issue never appear together.

Yet the questionable Blake & Co. $20 and the Blake & “Agnell” $50 both bear this abbreviation - even though they were issued at the end of 1855, even though they do not resemble Federal coinage at all, and even though they include the place of issue “SAC. CALIFORNIA.”

Even more senseless are the Knight & Co. gold bars with S.M.V. (Bowers & Ruddy 3/1982:55), ostensibly issued in the 1860s, long after the abbreviation “S.M.V.” had dropped out of use (none of the Colorado coiners use it). Nor does that abbreviation appear on any unquestionably genuine western bars.

The use of the abbreviation “S.M.V.” proves that several questionable items - the Blake & Co. $20, the Blake & “Agnell” $50, and the Knight & Co. gold bars - cannot be genuine.

K. On the questionable gold and silver bars, the Internal Revenue tax stamp appears on bars ostensibly minted outside the years 1864-68, and does not appear on bars that were ostensibly minted during the years 1865-67; which proves the bars are false.

In 1864 Congress enacted a stamp tax on gold and silver bullion, taking effect on August 29, 1864, collected by the Office of Internal Revenue within the Treasury Department. Act of June 30, 1864, 13 Stat. 223 (1866). This tax was repealed in 1868. Act of March 31, 1868, 15 Stat. 58 (1869). Bars made between August 29, 1864 and April 1, 1868 must bear an Internal Revenue stamp.

Hodder calls the Office “the Internal Revenue Commission” and uses the abbreviation “IRC.” This is wrong. The Office of Internal Revenue, although presided over by a Commissioner, was never called the Internal Revenue Commission. It was always the Office of Internal Revenue, or, later, the Bureau of Internal Revenue, until it was renamed the Internal Revenue Service in 1953.

Several versions of the Internal Revenue stamp are known. The standardized version was round, reading U.S. INTR. REVENUE*, around a picture of a pair of scales above a shield. This appears on a Harvey Harris bar photographed in the Numismatist in 1911, well before the forger got to work (Adams 1911), so we may be confident of the authenticity of the bar and the Internal Revenue stamp.

Another genuine bar is the Knight & Co. bar in the Garrett sale, which has a pedigree back to 1884. This bar, however, does not bear the round Internal Revenue stamp, but an oblong one. Despite the unusual version of the Internal Revenue stamp, the lengthy provenance indicates that this version, too, is genuine. Fred Holabird has published a logotype punch for this version, now in the Langdon collection, which belonged to the assayer Frederick Heller of Idaho City (Holabird 1999, 86).

From another issuer, Van Wyck & Co., bars are known both with the round Internal Revenue stamp and another, simple, “TAX .10c” on a silver bar of Van Wyck & Co. (Owens 2000, 382, Stack's 1/2002:451, Stack's 1/2003:1661). (Hodder erroneously describes the stamp on this bar as reading “10c TAX PAID” [Hodder 1999]). Although the two bars have different Internal Revenue stamps, they do punch link with each other. Neither bar has a long provenance, but they are probably genuine. Another non-standardized stamp is the satirical “U S INFERNAL REVENUE TAX $0.0067” on a Theall presentation ingot (American Numismatic Rarities 1/2004), bearing the date September 20, 1864.

The “TAX . 10c” stamp can be dated to September or October 1864, for Van Wyck gives their location as Nevada Territory. Nevada became a state at the end of October 1864. The simple, purely epigraphic stamps on the Knight and the Van Wyck bars would have been used in 1864, before the Office of Internal Revenue came up with a standardized stamp. As so often in numismatics, a design moves from the simple to the more complex, because the more complex designs are harder to counterfeit.

The Internal Revenue stamp can be used to check the authenticity of the questionable Western gold bars. Three years are involved: 1865, 1866 and 1867. Bars made in 1864 or 1868 can be made with or without the Internal Revenue stamp; bars made in all other years should not have it. Nine issuers of bars fail this test.

The first is a bar attributed to the Virtue Gold and Silver Mining Company from 1866 (Stack's 6/1997:1033). This silver bar does not bear the Internal Revenue stamp. It also fails two other tests of genuineness. The name of the assayer is punched in with individual punches. The fineness is too high - 999 fine. This bar must be false.

A second bar is one issued by Bates, Baxter & Co. in 1865. Not only does this bar lack the Internal Revenue stamp, it also has a very high fineness - 9998. This bar is false.

A third group of bars is those attributed to G. W. Bell. Bell died in a nitroglycerine explosion on April 16, 1866. One auction sale of this bar described it thus:

[M]inor handling and bumps, undoubtedly caused by the “terrible calamity” of April 16, 1866...It is presumed that the explosion that blew Mr. Bell apart also destroyed his safe, which was rifled after the explosion. Presumably a handful of Bell's refined gold bars were taken by a few lucky San Franciscans, since all but one of Bell's ingots that survive are dated 1866. (Stack's 6/1997:1028)

This requires us to believe that Bell, one of the most respected assayers in San Francisco, was regularly dealing in illegal bars - unstamped bars. Why would such a man risk six months in prison in order to save ten cents in tax? These bars too must be false.

A fourth bar is allegedly issued by the successors of G. W. Bell, Rogers & Brown (Stack's 6/1997:1030). Dan Owens' research shows that Rogers & Brown operated only in 1866 and 1867 (Owens 2000, 349-52). Yet this bar does not bear an Internal Revenue stamp. Like so many of the questionable gold bars, this bar gives us a lot of information we do not need - such as the words “Warranted Assay” - yet leaves out some of the most important information, the mark that will keep Rogers & Brown out of prison. This bar must be false.

A fifth issuer is the firm Justh & Hunter. Genuine Justh & Hunter bars have been recovered from the Central America, casting serious doubt on the unique Justh & Hunter $80.40 bar in the Smithsonian, which does not look at all like them. Our forger let his imagination run wild and applied an Internal Revenue stamp to the bar. This is impossible, because the Justh & Hunter firm was only active in 1855-58 (Owens 2000, 204-210). This bar is false.

A similar piece is a Wells Fargo/Wass, Molitor $325 bar in the John Ford collection, which bears the date 1854 - but four Internal Revenue stamps (Kagin 1981, 308; Van Winkle 1990, Part II, 22). Ford claims that the Internal Revenue stamps indicate that the bar was “re-assayed” in the post-1864 period. It certainly could not have been “re-assayed” by Wass, Molitor, for they dissolved their partnership in 1857 (Owens 2000, 394). It is not credible that the anonymous assayer of the 1860s took the previous assay on faith and cheerfully applied the Internal Revenue stamp. Nor is it credible that Wells Fargo chose to sterilize $325 worth of capital for ten years in California, where interest rates are high. The “re-assay” contention is like the claim that the stamps on the Mexican gold bars are a 1770 “revalidation stamp” - an attempt to rehabilitate the bars after the forger messed up. John Ford has described this item as a “fabulous piece” (Van Winkle 1990, Part II, 22). It most certainly is, in the original sense of “fabulous” - something that belongs in a fairy tale (a fable).

A seventh group of eleven bars bears a boldly stamped date “1865.” This group is the U.S. Mint bars allegedly recovered from the Brother Jonathan shipwreck. None of these bars bears the Internal Revenue stamp.

The statute of 1864 specifically applied to bars assayed both at the U.S. Mint and by private assayers:

[A]ll sales, transfers, exchanges, transportation, and exportation of gold or silver assayed at any mint of the United States, or by any private assayer, unless stamped as prescribed by general regulations, as aforesaid, are hereby declared unlawful.

Bars issued by the U.S. Mint that are dated 1865, 1866, and 1867 must bear the Internal Revenue stamp to be genuine - just as is the case for bars issued by private assayers. This is borne out by the one example of a U.S. Branch Mint bar with a long pedigree: an 1865 Denver Mint bar now in the collection of the Colorado Historical Society (Adams, Dorsett and Pulcipher 1984). This bears the Internal Revenue stamp. This bar conforms to the requirements of the statute.

Other arguments against the genuineness of the pseudo-Brother Jonathan bars have been discussed elsewhere. The absence of the Internal Revenue stamp is another powerful argument. The pseudo-Brother Jonathan bars must be false.

The Internal Revenue stamp on genuine bars is applied clearly, to avoid forgery, with little overlap from other inscriptions. But the stamps on the questionable gold bars often have extraneous matter stamped over them - a date in case of the Wiegand gold bars, TM Co. in the-case of the Knight & Co. gold bars. The stamp is applied lightly, crudely, and is often not fully punched up. The very identifying that mark that will determine whether a bar is legal or not - the mark that will preserve the assayer from a prison term of six months to two years - is obliterated on the questionable Knight and Wiegand gold bars. Whoever punched in this Internal Revenue stamp had a reason for making sure that it would not be easy to examine closely. The logical answer is: the mark is partially obliterated because it is a forgery.

The Internal Revenue stamp on the gold Knight bars is suspicious for another reason. The questionable gold Knight bars bracket the genuine Knight silver bar in their serial numbering: if genuine, they were prepared both before and after the silver bar. The silver bar bears a non-standardized Internal Revenue stamp - the type of stamps used in 1864. Yet the gold bars bear the standardized stamp. In other words, we are supposed to believe that Knight began by stamping bars with the standardized Internal Revenue stamp, then shifted to a non-standard stamp, and finally went back to the standard stamp at the end. This is not believable. The Knight & Co. gold bars must be false.

The Internal Revenue stamp provides us with a touchstone to determine authenticity. Nine groups of bars fail it: the gold Knight bars; the gold Wiegand bars; the G. W. Bell gold bars; the Bates, Baxter gold bar; the Virtue Gold and Silver Mine silver bar; the Rogers & Brown gold bar; the Smithsonian Justh & Hunter bar; the Wells Fargo/Wass, Molitor bar in the Ford collection; and the U.S. Mint bars allegedly from the Brother Jonathan.

L. Problems with Individual Issuers.

1. Baldwin & Co.
   The Baldwin & Co. $56.60 ingot has a round stamp on it depicting an eagle (Kagin 1981, 279). The eagle used on the stamp has five arrows in his claw. All eagles used in California private gold - with the only exception of the eagle for the Pacific Company, which carries a hammer rather than arrows - have three arrows.
   
2. G. W. Bell.
   There is a gold bar in the Lilly collection of the Smithsonian issued by G. W. Bell, for $39.92 (Buttrey 1997, no. 1 on plate). On its reverse it is stamped ADAMS S.F. This bar is impossible. G. W. Bell opened his assay office for business on April 11, 1859 (Owens 2000, 28). The bank Adams & Co. failed in February 1855 (Cross 1927).
   
3. Eagle Mining Co.
   The gold bars of this company are supposed to be issued by the same company that issued its silver bars. But a careful comparison of the gold bars with the silver bars shows that this is not possible. The shape of the numeral “9” is different; it has a longer tail on the silver bars. The silver bars are all 999 fine; the gold bars vary in their fineness. The gold bars often bear dates, plus the abbreviation of the state, “COL;” the silver bars never do. It is impossible for both the gold and the silver bars to be genuine.
   
   The true explanation is that the Eagle Mining Company silver bars, like the Thorne bars, were made as fantasies at the request of Franklin in the 1950s. Franklin regularly approached refineries, asking them to make bars for him. This was perfectly legal for silver. Franklin then made illicit gold copies of the silver bars on his own; this accounts for the subtle differences. The gold bars were illegal. Both groups are false; both, for that matter, could be considered modern fantasies. The silver bars were made above ground, which accounts for their more regular appearance and consistency; the gold bars were made illicitly in Massapequa Park, Long Island.
4. Haraszthy, Uznay & Co.
   Haraszthy resigned from the mint in January 1857. His new assay office opened for business on March 17, 1857 (Owens 2000, 149). Yet the bar attributed to Haraszthy bears the date “1856.” Furthermore, his firm was named “Haraszthy, Uznay & Co.,” not “Haraszthy & Uznay.” But the bar reads “H., & U.” Although one can use “& Co.” to substitute for the names of the other partners - thus “Haraszthy & Co.” is correct, as is “Haraszthy, Uznay & Co.” - one cannot substitute the names of two partners and leave out the third, or leave out “& Co.” (See Harrison v. McCormick, 11 P. 456 [Cal. 1886]). The wrong date and the wrong name of the company derive from incorrect information in an old directory (Owens 2000, 148). The wrong information in the directory led the forger astray - like the misspelling “Agnell” that he copied from Adams.
   
5. Hentsch & Berton.
   The questionable Hentsch & Berton gold bar (value, $6.27) is a copy of a bar in the Wells Fargo Museum in San Francisco. The forger copied everything from that bar, except the weight and value. But the deception became obvious once the San Francisco bar was located. It is too much to credit that there should be two bars with the exact same serial number (8625) and the exact same fineness (867) (Stack 1943). Even the credulous Hodder does not accept that this bar is genuine. He excludes it from his listing of pre-1950 “unparted“ bars, and does not mention that it was one of the bars that was exhibited at the 1949 ANA Convention (Convention 1949, 677; Hodder 1999, 108-10). This fake bar is now in the Smithsonian Institution.
   
6. F. G. Hoard.
   F. G. Hoard's ingots appear with the marking “USM” on the back. This marking is improbable for four reasons:

   First, at the period when these bars would have had to have been made (1868-71), the United States Branch Mint of at San Francisco was abbreviated USBM; it was only in 1873 that it became a fully fledged United States Mint.

   Secondly, assaying was a business where time was literally money. Assayers would not add extraneous marks. The extra stamping USM is precisely that - an unnecessary added mark.

   Thirdly, we know where the San Francisco U. S. Branch Mint obtained its bars in 1868-71, and it was not from F. G. Hoard. Before July 1870 it made them itself. After July 1870 it had them made by the San Francisco Assaying and Refining Works (Raymond 1871, 516).

   Fourthly, if real, a United States Mint endorsement would have added great value to a gold bar. Precisely for this reason, if the United States Branch Mint were to describe itself as the United States Mint - which it didn't before 1873 - and if it were to buy bars from F. G. Hoard - which it didn't in the precise time period that concerns us - it would not have sloppily marked the bars with the simple letters “USM.” That would be too easy to forge. It would have been an elaborate marking, probably including an eagle, that would have been hard to imitate.

   This article has pointed out many other reasons why the F. G. Hoard bars must be fake. The letters “USM”confirm the overwhelming case against them.

   Finally, the F. G. Hoard bars, like the USAOG pieces and the Mexican gold bars, are associated with the multiple stories that John Ford liked to create to market these bars. In 1971, Douglas G. Liddell said that the F. G. Hoard and the Star Mining bars had been in Mexico from 1920 until they were consigned to the Glendining's auction in 1969 (California 1971). In 1996, however, John Ford said that the F. G. Hoard bars had been discovered in California in July 1968 (Bowers 1997, 277). Neither story is true - these bars were probably manufactured in Scottsdale, Arizona, where Franklin had moved from Massapequa.

7. Justh & Hunter
   The Justh & Hunter firm is one of those represented among the bars recovered from the Central America, which sank in 1857. The Smithsonian Institution has a questionable Justh & Hunter bar dated 1857; when compared with the Justh & Hunter bars recovered from the Central America it is a “scrawl, made by some amateur in a back alley” (thus Buttrey). This is harsh but fair, given that not only is there no comparison between the questionable bar and the Central America bars, but the questionable bar, which could have been issued no later than 1858, bears the Internal Revenue stamps that were only used after 1864. Holabird, Evans, and Fitch have condemned this same bar for the same reasons (Holabird, Evans, and Fitch 2003a, 22).
   
8. James King, of Wm.
   Two gold bars are known that were ostensibly issued by James King, of Wm. One is in the collection of the Union Bank of California in San Francisco, and the other was auctioned by Stack's in January 2001, along with other items from the Paul Franklin estate. These bars are stamped JAS. KING/OF/WILLIAM & CO.
   
   Contemporary evidence as to how James King spelt his name includes: a check from 1853 (Kagin 1981, 130); a photograph of his banking house (Kagin 1981, 131); an article in the Alta California (Owens 2000, 72); and San Francisco City Directories (one of which has a full page advertisement). All these sources, including all the San Francisco City Directories, call him “James King, of Wm.” His bank is sometimes called the “Banking House of James King, of Wm.” So compared with the contemporary evidence, the bars have five important differences:
   
   1. James is abbreviated “Jas.” on the bar; King never did this.
   2. William is spelt out on the bar - King always abbreviated it as Wm.
   3. There is no comma after King on the bar; when one added one's father's name after one's own, according to the Maryland custom, one always set it off with a comma.
   4. There is the use of “& Co.,” when the San Francisco directories show that King always operated his bank as a sole proprietorship, and never as a partnership. This may be another mistake that goes back to Cross (Cross 1927, 1:57). There is some evidence that Jacob R. Snyder acted as King's partner for the three quarters from July 5, 1851 untilMarch 5, 1852 (Cross 1927, 1:57; Kagin 1981, 130; Owens 2000, 242). If we grant that the bank operated as James King, of Wm. & Co. from 5 July 1851 until 5 March 1852, it still does not explain why King would issue monetary ingots at such a late date - at a time when the United States Assay Office of Gold was in full operation, producing much more satisfactory products. Furthermore, these monetary ingots have no security edges - unlike the bars that Kohler made in 1850.
   5. The James King gold bars have a crude, almost cartoonish picture of a crowned head. There is much evidence about the life of James King, of Wm., and there is no evidence anywhere that he ever used this punning image.
   6. There is no documentation about these bars. Owens has nineteen closely printed pages filled with information about James King, of Wm.; if there is one man in San Francisco about whom we know much, it is James King, of Wm.; if there is one man who would have been attacked for issuing private monetary ingots, when he was attacking everyone else for doing so, it was James King, of Wm.; yet there is no mention of these bars anywhere. Surely his enemies would have had the motive for publicizing their existence?
      
9. Knight & Co.
   There exists for this firm a silver bar with a good pedigree: it appeared in the Garrett sale (Garrett:1947). The top of the numeral 7 on the silver bar is flat. The “o” in Co. is small. On the gold bars, the top of the numeral 7 is wavy. The “O” in CO. is the same size as the other letters. The curved “KNIGHT & CO.” on the gold bars is distant from the word “ASSAYERS;” on the silver bar, it is close. The pedigree indicates that the silver bar is genuine. The gold bars are false (Kleeberg 2004, 60).

   Stack's Gibson sale mentions a $41.58 bar of Knight & Co. issued from Sacramento in the John Ford Collection. Although Knight did work in Sacramento, his work was as a pipe fitter (Owens 2000, 263-64). It was not until he moved to Marysville that he opened an assay office in June 1863 (Owens 2000, 264). Sacramento newspapers and directories say that there are two assaying firms in Sacramento: Blake & Co. and Harris, Marchand & Co. (Owens 2000, 91-92, 178, 182-83). Knight is not one of them. This is a further strike against that particular bar, in addition to the problem with the punches that are common to all the Knight gold bars. It should also be recalled that the Knight & Co. gold bars are condemned by the PIXE analysis that Michael Hodder had performed, which showed that one such bar had a fineness of 996 - a level of fineness that did not occur naturally in California gold.

   John Ford gave the Knight & Co. bars an elaborate false hoard story - about how the bars were buried by the banks of the Sacramento River, where they were probably the loot from a stagecoach robbery (Bowers 1997, 273). This story, however, was not always attached to the Knight & Co. bars. In 1971, when asked about the F. G. Hoard and Star Mining bars, “Ford speculated the bars had been included in a stage coach robbery and later hidden” (Gold Bars 1971, 542). Evidently he had not yet decided to assign this lovely story to the Knight & Co. bars, as he later did.

10. F. D. Kohler.
    Two Kohler bars must be condemned - the one denominated $41.68, and the one denominated $47.71. The latter of these bars, from Sacramento, uses a gold price that Kohler never used - $21.34 an ounce (Kleeberg 2000, 224). No issuer in California ever issued bars for more than $20.6718. It also has many of its letters individually punched (such as STATE ASSAYER on the reverse) where the genuine Sacramento bar (now in the Smithsonian) uses logotypes.

    John Ford says that the $47.71 bar was discovered by Paul Franklin in Arizona in the middle of 1956 (Ford 1965). This pedigree does not inspire confidence - it leads us straight to the man who would discover so many more “rarities” eighteen months later when he “found” the “Franklin Hoard.” Hodder does not include the $47.71 ingot in his list of post-1931 discoveries (Hodder 1999, 105). Hodder, too, must doubt its authenticity.

    The $41.68 bar has its weight altered. Kohler would not have done this - it would have been an open invitation to start raising his bars (like raising banknotes) - and thereby destroy people's confidence in the circulating medium. The most likely explanation is that our forger made yet another mistake in math, caught it in time and adjusted his work (Kleeberg 2000, 225-27).

    Ford says the $41.68 bar was discovered by Ben Stack in the San Francisco Bay Area in August 1964, owned by a woman whose great-great-grandfather was a captain of a San Francisco river steamer and who received the bar from Kohler (Ford 1965). The same pedigree is mentioned in Hodder's list of new discoveries in western gold since 1931 (Hodder 1999, 105). Unfortunately this story has not been consistently upheld. An inventory of the Lilly collection, prepared in 1967, says of the $41.68 bar, “Stack's acquired this via the California State Historical Society” (Lilly 1967). With two contradictory provenances for the same bar, the likely explanation is that both provenances are false - and the bars are false too.

11. Meyer & Co.
    When the “Meyers & Co.” $18 bar first emerged onto the market, Meyer & Co. was only known through a unique “pattern,” denominated a half ounce, overstruck on a large cent (Adams 1913, 102; Kagin 1981, 346). In the Taylor sale in 1987 another Meyer & Co. piece was offered, for one ounce, which indicated the place of manufacture - Philadelphia (Bowers & Merena 3/1987:1364). It turned out that these pieces are not patterns, but bullion weights. Both pieces read “Meyers & Co.,” although we now know that Meyer had no “s” in his name; the usage is probably a possessive indicating that Meyer owns the firm, like the “s” in Stack's. Owens has traced Frederick Meyer & Co., a scale manufacturer, through the Philadelphia directories (Owens 2000, 281-82). The “Meyers & Co.” bar, overvalued at $18, never could have circulated in the East, not least in the mint city, Philadelphia. It could not circulate in California, either, where gold was undervalued before 1851, not overvalued (Kleeberg 2000, 219-27). This bar is fake. The bar was also modeled after the Moffat bars - but it had no mark of fineness as the Moffat bars have. Since the forger did not have the information that Meyer was from Philadelphia available to him when he made the bar, he slipped up.
    
12. Moffat & Co.
    In the Spring of 1940 an attempt was made to sell two $16 Moffat bars to Stack's. Stack's became suspicious and showed the bars to F. C. C. Boyd, who compared them to the Moffat bar he owned and condemned them. The numeral 2 has a nearly flat bottom; on the real bars the numeral 2 has a curlier bottom. The dollar sign on the real bars has knobs at the ends of the S; the dollar sign on the fake bars lacks this. There is a dot below the Co on the fake bars; there is a line below the Co on the real bars. The first numeral in 16.00 is a Hindu-Arabic numeral 1 on the real bars; it is a Roman numeral I on the fake bars (Stack's 1940).

    In the 1950s another of these fake bars came onto the market. It was authenticated by the old “fake of a fake” ruse. The forger makes a crude fake of his forgery; the crude fake is condemned, which by implication - authenticates the high quality forgery (Ford and Taxay 1964). Fortunately few people were taken in. The fake Moffat bar never made it into any of the standard references - neither the Red Book, nor Breen, nor Taxay, nor Krause. Unfortunately one person taken in happens to be Michael Hodder, who refers to “the second variety of the $16 bar, which used a Roman I instead of an Arabic 1 in the denomination” (Hodder 1999, 105).

13. Naglee.
    From July 1, 1849, when he dissolved his partnership with Sinton, Henry M. Naglee conducted his bank as a sole proprietor. Since he had no partner, there was no “& Co.” (Cf. Harrison v. McCormick, 11 P. 456 [Cal. 1886][holding that when one sues a firm with the addition “& Co.,” one sues all the partners].) This is confirmed by a Naglee check of August 1850 (Bowers & Ruddy 3/1982:269). The term “& Co.” is a mistake in Cross (Cross 1927, 1:48). Henry M. Naglee put his bank into liquidation per an advertisement of September 13, 1850 in the Alta California (Owens 2000, 324).

    The Naglee bar bears the date “1850” on its edge. The name of the issuer is given as “H. M. Naglee & Co.” The forger derived his information from Cross; but Cross was wrong, as we now know because of Owens' research. Furthermore, the bar has no security edges - yet as a $100 bar it is designed to circulate. This bar must be false.

14. Parsons & Co.
    John Ford said in an interview in Coin World on September 6, 1999 that he bought this bar from Paul Franklin in November 1952 for $225. Ford sold it to Don Keefer for over $500. The piece has long been controversial - Ford has referred to it as “infamous” (Van Winkle 1990, Part II, 48). The bar has all its elements punched in with individual letter punches, a toilsome, expensive, and improbable method. The bar has no security edges; and it uses carats to indicate fineness, which was no longer used for bars in 1860 (Owens 2000, 50). The Parsons bar also suffers from the forger's dodgy math: it uses a gold price of $20.27. A second Parsons bar was displayed at the 2002 ANA Convention in New York City, in an elaborate velvet-lined presentation box with an engraved inscription on silver saying that this bar was the first gold bar made by Parsons in Colorado. A third Parsons bar was photographed in the Numismatist in September 1983. These other two bars share the same problems as the Smithsonian example.

    Holabird, Evans, and Fitch, although declaring that they have reached no conclusion about the Parsons bar, say that their testing of the Smithsonian bar casts serious doubt upon it. The carat fineness stamped on the Smithsonian Parsons bar converts to 771 fine. But when tested, it turned out to be 877 fine. There is no reason to share the caution of Holabird, Evans, and Fitch. This degree of variation is far beyond the error one would expect from an assayer in the field. The Parsons bar is a forgery. Not surprisingly, since it was one of the very first bars that John Ford bought from Paul Franklin, it has the most significant errors. Franklin would improve his skills in forgery dramatically as the 1950s proceeded.

15. Star Mining Company.
    In addition to the many other reasons to condemn the Star Mining bars - low weights, high finenesses, repetitive finenesses - we are also confronted here with phony hoard stories, just as with the Mexican gold bars and the USAOG pieces. In 1971, Douglas G. Liddell said that the Star Mining bars had been in Mexico from 1920 until they were consigned to the Glendining's auction in 1969 (California 1971). In 1996, however, John Ford said that the Star Mining bars were found with a metal detector in July 1966 (Bowers 1997, 277). All these stories are false, as are the bars themselves.
    
16. Conrad Wiegand.
    With Wiegand, we encounter two bodies of material: silver bars, many of which can be pedigreed into the early twentieth century (plus one bar that is gold by a small majority, which also has a long pedigree), and gold bars, most of which can be traced back to Paul Franklin. The well-documented bars will be called the “silver Wiegand bars,” because all but one of them are silver; the suspect bars will be called the “gold Wiegand bars,” because they are all gold.

    The Wiegand gold bars are a superb job - it shows us the quality of the work the forger could do. But when we compare them with the well-documented Wiegand silver bars, there is an important difference: the forger gave the numeral “1” on the gold bars a longer base as opposed to the short base on the genuine bars. Since that punch does not match, the gold bars must be fake. Furthermore, the gold Wiegand bars do not bear serial numbers; but all the silver bars do. The gold Wiegand bars bear dates; the silver bars do not, with three exceptions. The three exceptions are all clearly presentation ingots (see Auction '79 (Rarcoa):1484; NASCA 4/1980:2447; Bowers and Ruddy 3/1982:228), whereas the questionable gold Wiegand bars bear dates on bars that are made ostensibly for the bullion trade. On the silver Wiegand bars, the names of the metals - GOLD, SILV, and the phrase VAL are all done with logotypes; on the gold Wiegand bars, a careful examination shows that they are individually punched. The gold Wiegand bars bear the Internal Revenue stamp; the silver bars do not. In 1866 Wiegand was operating not as a sole proprietor, but as a member of a partnership, Edwards & Wiegand (Owens 2000, 403). Yet there are gold bars bearing the date of 1866 with only Wiegand's name (Stack's 4/1974:219; Bowers & Ruddy 3/1982:232), which would only be valid if Wiegand were operating as a sole proprietor in that year. The Internal Revenue stamp is often double punched, not clearly struck up, and often partially obliterated by a date - something that occurs on no unquestionably genuine bars. Finally, on one Wiegand gold bar, the initials “T.D.” are placed above the Internal Revenue stamp, and are said to stand for “Treasury Department” (Stack's 4/1974:220). This usage is found on no unquestionably genuine bar that bears the Internal Revenue stamp. It is yet another imaginative creation by our forger.