That wording in the second paragraph shows extremely poor taste, imo. Gloating.
People can have different opinions and debate the entire saga but I have to think that most would agree that promoting and showing those two Langbord coins, right in their own backyard, shows zero couth.
"If I say something in the woods and my wife isn't there to hear it.....am I still wrong?"
I have very mixed feelings. I am glad they were preserved and not melted, and I suppose it would be nice to see them. But, their history and the government's claim are very controversial.
Sorry, but before I could post I had to stop and clean all the sour grapes off my shoes. The Mint has the right to display these whenever and wherever they wish. It's an ANA show for crying out loud; of course they're going to display them. They also aren't the ones who pick the venue. So all I can say is that those who are determined to stay offended about this should just not look at the display, or skip the show if it really irks you so much. Geez.
Sorry you have to get slapped in the face again, Roy. Believe me when I say I think Israel Switt stands high above all the dumbing down that's gone on. I'm no judge, but if I were.... He'd be exonerated not vilified.
And any normal church going man can easily see him marching with the saints.
Thanks for the positive comments. It is particularly troubling to me that the Mint is doing this in Philadelphia, but then the Government was In my opinion only concerned about finding a way of winning in this case not acknowledging the truth or doing the right thing.
Sorry, I am uninformed. I did not follow the trial very closely.
I don't wish to start a further discussion that has been going on for a decade (case is settled) so just one question:
I read somewhere (here on CU?) that for a time, these coins were being sold in the cash room before being recalled. If so, anyone off the street or anyone with access to them could have bought ten or switched them out with other $20's. Perhaps even a mint employee or higher up mint official. Then they were sold to Swift. If this took place before any order was given to end the release, nothing was actually stolen. although the mint claims they were.
None of us were around but Is there anything in this post that is 100% invalid?
Yes, Lance is correct....and likely Switt did acquire them during that short opportunity. He likely swapped in kind, so total gold was accurate. Such a shame. Cheers, RickO
@Insider2 said:
Sorry, I am uninformed. I did not follow the trial very closely.
I don't wish to start a further discussion that has been going on for a decade (case is settled) so just one question:
I read somewhere (here on CU?) that for a time, these coins were being sold in the cash room before being recalled. If so, anyone off the street or anyone with access to them could have bought ten or switched them out with other $20's. Perhaps even a mint employee or higher up mint official. Then they were sold to Swift. If this took place before any order was given to end the release, nothing was actually stolen. although the mint claims they were.
None of us were around but Is there anything in this post that is 100% invalid?
This is the crux of the problem. They were, allegedly, being sold from the cash room. So, in that sense they weren't stolen for free. However, they were being sold out of the cash room before they were authorized to be sold.
It is my understanding that this was relatively common practice for preferred dealers back in the day. The only reason this particular transgression became legendary is because the release never actually happened.
Personally, the Farouk example is only "legal" because of TWO government employee errors. [Proving, that two wrongs do make a right.] Farouk's representative bought a coin that should not have been sold. Then the customs (?) agent issued an export license for a technically illegally obtained item that should not have been sold or exported. The court in that case used the export license as government monetization of the coin even though that seems silly. The customs (?I'm not sure that's the right title) agent had no power to monetize currency and simply made a mistake in not realizing he shouldn't issue the permit.
I'm personally of the opinion that all the coins, including the Farouk example, probably should belong to the government as they were never officially released. But, it is a complex issue.
What I don't understand is why did the Langbord's take all "Ten" of them to the US Mint, why not just one to see if they were the Real Deal? It does seem like the US Treasury is rubbing it under their noses that we have them now and you can see them but Never Own them. I understand about the Gold being recalled but they could have been purchased before that at the Gift Shop at the Mint the day they were released. Other things may have come into play but you can not outdo the US Government when it comes to things like this, that why we have Laws.
The government botched the seizure, which should have given the Langbords free and clear custody of them, but then the government asked for and got a do-over.
Might makes right.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
While not stated explicitly in the Constitution, the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven has been upheld by US courts. The government's proof, in this case, wasn't very convincing IMO.
Displaying recently confiscated property at a trade show is pretty slimy.
@jughead1893 said:
the government stole these coins
How could the government have stole these coins if they were their property all along ?
That's the entire point of the case. The government had to prove the coins were never available for sale. They said they were never issued and monetized. What the government did was make the family prove they were legally available when no one alive knows for sure. Perhaps, possession should have carried more weight. Thus, once the coins got back into their hands, IMO, they were never going to be returned.
While it has been done, most never win a case against the government.
I spoke to my 90 year old mother today and told her our coins were being displayed in Philadelphia by the Mint, She had a short response—“Those S.O.B. s”.
@rhl said:
I spoke to my 90 year old mother today and told her our coins were being displayed in Philadelphia by the Mint, She had a short response—“Those S.O.B. s”.
So she won't be waving the new flag "Go ahead, tread on me" then?
@jughead1893 said:
the government stole these coins
How could the government have stole these coins if they were their property all along ?
That's the entire point of the case. The government had to prove the coins were never available for sale. They said they were never issued and monetized. What the government did was make the family prove they were legally available when no one alive knows for sure. Perhaps, possession should have carried more weight. Thus, once the coins got back into their hands, IMO, they were never going to be returned.
While it has been done, most never win a case against the government.
Agreed and my purpose is not to redirect this thread but what has bugged me about this case is not what the government did or didn't do. It is the fact that these coins were evidently "found" in a safe deposit box as if nobody knew they were there. I don't think anyone really believes that.
A few words of explanation— the “safe deposit box” was not the slim, metal box that you traditionally think of. More of a mini vault, bigger than a bread box as they say. It was also crammed full of bags and boxes and papers. It mainly contained family records and my grandmother’s personal property. Their was little or no reason to regularly visit it. This was particularly true since my mother had a difficult relationship with her parents. The Double Eagles were in a small department store paper bag at the bottom of the box along with other coins. They were virtually impossible to find unless you went through the entire box, which is exactly what happened when the box had to be drilled out and repaired. Given their relationship I can say with 100 percent certainty that my grandfather did not tell my mother of the coins location or existence.
It does not matter where they were "found" or if the family knew the coins were anything other than a generic $20.
I believe King Solomon would have arbitrated the situation in a much more agreeable and just way for all concerned. The family made a decision, one that I would not have made - even with the benefit of hindsight. Decisions have consequences.
Several times a week a customer sends us a "special" coin that they had no clue about how special it is or it's addition added value. I've even had a professional coin dealer bring in an Ultra HR $20 with no clue what it was.
Thankfully they were great caretakers of the coins. It is too bad they cannot sue the government for expenses + a fee for their services all those years.
How anyone could prove anything about those coins escapes me. As I wrote, once ALL the coins were surrendered, there could only be one outcome for the family.
Was there any consideration/discussion/vocal opinion by the ANA board to prohibit the Mint from displaying the pieces in question at the show? Or was a vote/poll offered to the membership on such an exclusion? Might have proved interesting to see what such a vote would of resulted in. Could the ANA have prevented the display?
Successful transactions:Tookybandit. "Everyone is equal, some are more equal than others".
My experience with the ANA is that they have always been tightly tied to the Mint in connection with their shows. When the Mint exhibited our coins in 2006 along with their one sided “history” of the coins’ origin, my family through our lawyers objected and at minimum asked for changes or a chance to present our side of the story. ANA did nothing.
At one time I worked for the ANA. The ANA has always had problems, personalities, and scandals; however it is our ANA. Those coins on display plus the publicity will draw extra people to the show who will pay an admission charge or join the ANA to get into the door.
And don’t forget how much money the Mint pays as an exhibitor. If an organization’s goal is to simply perpetuate itaelf and raise as much money as possible, then principles usually take a back seat. Or that was certainly the sense we got.
@rhl said:
And don’t forget how much money the Mint pays as an exhibitor. If an organization’s goal is to simply perpetuate itaelf and raise as much money as possible, then principles usually take a back seat. Or that was certainly the sense we got.
Based on what I know about other shows, the Mint gets a free space from the ANA. Both parties benefit form their attendance.
@TwoSides2aCoin said:
This makes me want to rescind my lifetime membership with the ANA.
What better way to "cast your vote" in opposition to the display. Rescinding of spending via the pocketbook is usually the best/only way to make a point.
Successful transactions:Tookybandit. "Everyone is equal, some are more equal than others".
lkeigwin
Posts: 16,887 ✭✭✭✭✭
Comments
the government stole these coins
I get a bad taste in my mouth when ever I think of these.
Successful Trades: Swampboy,
Unthinkable what the government did !!!
That wording in the second paragraph shows extremely poor taste, imo. Gloating.
People can have different opinions and debate the entire saga but I have to think that most would agree that promoting and showing those two Langbord coins, right in their own backyard, shows zero couth.
"If I say something in the woods and my wife isn't there to hear it.....am I still wrong?"
My Washington Quarter Registry set...in progress
Saw that, I am disgusted at the brazen attitude this displays by the mint.
Best, SH
Successful transactions with-Boosibri,lkeigwin,TomB,Broadstruck,coinsarefun,Type2,jom,ProfLiz, UltraHighRelief,Barndog,EXOJUNKIE,ldhair,fivecents,paesan,Crusty...
It's crazy what the government can get away with.
Sickening
"A dog breaks your heart only one time and that is when they pass on". Unknown
Love my country, fear my Government. Appalling that these were not returned.
Later, Paul.
I like to see the picture of them all together despite the ugly story.
Oh
Just
You
Wait.
"We, the government of the United States, in order to........"
The government likes our gold, so they can keep our gold.
I like number 4
My 20th Century Gold Major Design Type Set ---started : 11/17/1997 ---- completed : 1/21/2004
We offered $20 million for the group right when the court case started. Offer still good ( I am NOT kidding).
Now I have to sit there and moan while they are a thin sheet of glass away... grrr.....
If these were to be for sale, they would sell as fast any modern.
so this means that the case is over and Our Uncle owns the coins?? good.
I have very mixed feelings. I am glad they were preserved and not melted, and I suppose it would be nice to see them. But, their history and the government's claim are very controversial.
Sorry, but before I could post I had to stop and clean all the sour grapes off my shoes. The Mint has the right to display these whenever and wherever they wish. It's an ANA show for crying out loud; of course they're going to display them. They also aren't the ones who pick the venue. So all I can say is that those who are determined to stay offended about this should just not look at the display, or skip the show if it really irks you so much. Geez.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
Grand Theft!
Sorry you have to get slapped in the face again, Roy. Believe me when I say I think Israel Switt stands high above all the dumbing down that's gone on. I'm no judge, but if I were.... He'd be exonerated not vilified.
And any normal church going man can easily see him marching with the saints.
Total bull$#!+ as monetization occurred when the dies struck the planchet!
Thanks for the positive comments. It is particularly troubling to me that the Mint is doing this in Philadelphia, but then the Government was In my opinion only concerned about finding a way of winning in this case not acknowledging the truth or doing the right thing.
Sorry, I am uninformed. I did not follow the trial very closely.
I don't wish to start a further discussion that has been going on for a decade (case is settled) so just one question:
I read somewhere (here on CU?) that for a time, these coins were being sold in the cash room before being recalled. If so, anyone off the street or anyone with access to them could have bought ten or switched them out with other $20's. Perhaps even a mint employee or higher up mint official. Then they were sold to Swift. If this took place before any order was given to end the release, nothing was actually stolen. although the mint claims they were.
None of us were around but Is there anything in this post that is 100% invalid?
Correct, there was a window during which Izzy Switt could have acquired the coins legally, and probably did.
Lance.
Yes, Lance is correct....and likely Switt did acquire them during that short opportunity. He likely swapped in kind, so total gold was accurate. Such a shame. Cheers, RickO
Strictly from a curiosity standpoint, would any board member wounds here be salved if the Mint donated these to the ANA?
This is the crux of the problem. They were, allegedly, being sold from the cash room. So, in that sense they weren't stolen for free. However, they were being sold out of the cash room before they were authorized to be sold.
It is my understanding that this was relatively common practice for preferred dealers back in the day. The only reason this particular transgression became legendary is because the release never actually happened.
Personally, the Farouk example is only "legal" because of TWO government employee errors. [Proving, that two wrongs do make a right.] Farouk's representative bought a coin that should not have been sold. Then the customs (?) agent issued an export license for a technically illegally obtained item that should not have been sold or exported. The court in that case used the export license as government monetization of the coin even though that seems silly. The customs (?I'm not sure that's the right title) agent had no power to monetize currency and simply made a mistake in not realizing he shouldn't issue the permit.
I'm personally of the opinion that all the coins, including the Farouk example, probably should belong to the government as they were never officially released. But, it is a complex issue.
I like how our Treasury Department is rubbing our noses in this sh#**y business.
What I don't understand is why did the Langbord's take all "Ten" of them to the US Mint, why not just one to see if they were the Real Deal? It does seem like the US Treasury is rubbing it under their noses that we have them now and you can see them but Never Own them. I understand about the Gold being recalled but they could have been purchased before that at the Gift Shop at the Mint the day they were released. Other things may have come into play but you can not outdo the US Government when it comes to things like this, that why we have Laws.
Why is the Mint displaying them? Rubbing thier noses in it?
"NeenerNeenerNeener!!! We gots you coins and we're gonna parade them around!!!"""
Melt the damn things and be done with it.
The government botched the seizure, which should have given the Langbords free and clear custody of them, but then the government asked for and got a do-over.
Might makes right.
While not stated explicitly in the Constitution, the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven has been upheld by US courts. The government's proof, in this case, wasn't very convincing IMO.
Displaying recently confiscated property at a trade show is pretty slimy.
Perhaps it is a shifty way to make sure everyone gets accustomed to the idea that the government owns the coins.
Totally agree but I'd substitute @BryceM 's "slimey" or my "sh#**y" for your "shifty" and that's just how i feel about this.
How could the government have stole these coins if they were their property all along ?
That's the entire point of the case. The government had to prove the coins were never available for sale. They said they were never issued and monetized. What the government did was make the family prove they were legally available when no one alive knows for sure. Perhaps, possession should have carried more weight. Thus, once the coins got back into their hands, IMO, they were never going to be returned.
While it has been done, most never win a case against the government.
I spoke to my 90 year old mother today and told her our coins were being displayed in Philadelphia by the Mint, She had a short response—“Those S.O.B. s”.
So she won't be waving the new flag "Go ahead, tread on me" then?
Agreed and my purpose is not to redirect this thread but what has bugged me about this case is not what the government did or didn't do. It is the fact that these coins were evidently "found" in a safe deposit box as if nobody knew they were there. I don't think anyone really believes that.
A few words of explanation— the “safe deposit box” was not the slim, metal box that you traditionally think of. More of a mini vault, bigger than a bread box as they say. It was also crammed full of bags and boxes and papers. It mainly contained family records and my grandmother’s personal property. Their was little or no reason to regularly visit it. This was particularly true since my mother had a difficult relationship with her parents. The Double Eagles were in a small department store paper bag at the bottom of the box along with other coins. They were virtually impossible to find unless you went through the entire box, which is exactly what happened when the box had to be drilled out and repaired. Given their relationship I can say with 100 percent certainty that my grandfather did not tell my mother of the coins location or existence.
It does not matter where they were "found" or if the family knew the coins were anything other than a generic $20.
I believe King Solomon would have arbitrated the situation in a much more agreeable and just way for all concerned. The family made a decision, one that I would not have made - even with the benefit of hindsight. Decisions have consequences.
Several times a week a customer sends us a "special" coin that they had no clue about how special it is or it's addition added value. I've even had a professional coin dealer bring in an Ultra HR $20 with no clue what it was.
Thankfully they were great caretakers of the coins. It is too bad they cannot sue the government for expenses + a fee for their services all those years.
How anyone could prove anything about those coins escapes me. As I wrote, once ALL the coins were surrendered, there could only be one outcome for the family.
Was there any consideration/discussion/vocal opinion by the ANA board to prohibit the Mint from displaying the pieces in question at the show? Or was a vote/poll offered to the membership on such an exclusion? Might have proved interesting to see what such a vote would of resulted in. Could the ANA have prevented the display?
My experience with the ANA is that they have always been tightly tied to the Mint in connection with their shows. When the Mint exhibited our coins in 2006 along with their one sided “history” of the coins’ origin, my family through our lawyers objected and at minimum asked for changes or a chance to present our side of the story. ANA did nothing.
This makes me want to rescind my lifetime membership with the ANA.
At one time I worked for the ANA. The ANA has always had problems, personalities, and scandals; however it is our ANA. Those coins on display plus the publicity will draw extra people to the show who will pay an admission charge or join the ANA to get into the door.
And don’t forget how much money the Mint pays as an exhibitor. If an organization’s goal is to simply perpetuate itaelf and raise as much money as possible, then principles usually take a back seat. Or that was certainly the sense we got.
Based on what I know about other shows, the Mint gets a free space from the ANA. Both parties benefit form their attendance.
What better way to "cast your vote" in opposition to the display. Rescinding of spending via the pocketbook is usually the best/only way to make a point.