@Insider2 said:
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.
Not I.
Successful transactions:Tookybandit. "Everyone is equal, some are more equal than others".
@Insider2 said:
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.
Not I.
Just proves there are "all kinds" of folks in the world. In fact In another thread, one ANA member stated that he got out of the free registration for ANA members line and paid the $8 street admission to get into the show faster.
"Mint records clearly establish that no 1933 Double Eagles were ever issued or released to the public as legal tender" seems a too robust a statement to be taken as true, nicht wahr?
Shouldn't they have written, "We have found no Mint records to show that 1933 Double Eagles were ever issued or released to the public as legal tender"?
There's a big difference between being able to prove something by the existence of evidence and not being able to prove something due to lack of evidence. While I don't have any evidence to prove that I have ever been to the State of Maine, but there is no evidence to suggest I have ever been there.
Today I visited the ANA show to see my family’s coins. The Mint in its display included a card under the coins labeled “Litigation over Stolen Property”. On it they state that my family “voluntarily” turned our coins over to the Mint only to later sue for their return “after the government refused to offer financial compensation”. This is a totally and apparently intentionally false statement. Even a cursory read of the Court papers and decisions shows that this was never the case. I am shocked that the ANA, an organization allegedly dedicated to historical accuracy, has said or done nothing.
In a similar vein, I heard from numerous people at the show that the Mint’s claim that the other 1933 on display was turned in simply as a gesture of good faith by its owner was in fact also not the case. I wonder if anyone has any further information.
@Insider2 said:
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.
Not I.
Just proves there are "all kinds" of folks in the world. In fact In another thread, one ANA member stated that he got out of the free registration for ANA members line and paid the $8 street admission to get into the show faster.
Couldn't agree more with your assessment of ("all kinds). There sure are.
Successful transactions:Tookybandit. "Everyone is equal, some are more equal than others".
@rhl said:
Today I visited the ANA show to see my family’s coins. The Mint in its display included a card under the coins labeled “Litigation over Stolen Property”. On it they state that my family “voluntarily” turned our coins over to the Mint only to later sue for their return “after the government refused to offer financial compensation”. This is a totally and apparently intentionally false statement. Even a cursory read of the Court papers and decisions shows that this was never the case. I am shocked that the ANA, an organization allegedly dedicated to historical accuracy, has said or done nothing.
In a similar vein, I heard from numerous people at the show that the Mint’s claim that the other 1933 on display was turned in simply as a gesture of good faith by its owner was in fact also not the case. I wonder if anyone has any further information.
If your family name was used in the display, perhaps there is an opening for a case of libel. Sweet revenge. However, I believe your family did turn the coins over voluntarily. The rest appears to be incorrect.
We did not. At the request of the Mint and as part of ongoing negotiations we agreed to make the coins available for the limited purpose of authentication. This was in writing. At no time did we simply voluntarily turn the coins over to Mint and then later ask them for money.
Rhl, I think you are make it obvious that what we read in the past and present is not the whole story. It great that you are sharing your family prespective, it has to hard and I can imagine painful. Can you clear up something. To be hosest, I have not read your story in a some time now. If I recall, the case ended with the SC not taking the case. My question, is that final, being they did not make a judgement one way or on other? My limited knowledge of SC, it only takes one judge to sponsor a case and bring before the count. The SC have new judges, so can they be petition again?
"At the request of the Mint and as part of ongoing negotiations we agreed to make the coins available for the limited purpose of authentication."
I'm on your side BUT your family VOLENTARILY (under pressure of negotiations, etc) surrendered the coins to the government. You gave them the coins. IMO, everything they did to your family after that is suspect.
In hindsight, you all would have probably done differently. As in, "Sorry Uncle Sam, we ground our property into gold dust and sprinkled it into the ocean. We'll be happy to show you the spot.
It takes multiple justices to accept a case in the Supreme Court. In our case, the Court required the government to respond to our request for a hearing but ultimately the Court decided to not hear the appeal. That decision ended the case for my family. It was not a ruling one way or another on the facts or law.
However, while we are precluded from going back to Court, other owners of 1933 Double Eagles or other disputed coins are free to bring a case in another federal circuit.
For my family, our only remaining recourse would be an order from the Treasury or the Executive or an Act of Congress.
@rhl said:
It takes multiple justices to accept a case in the Supreme Court. In our case, the Court required the government to respond to our request for a hearing but ultimately the Court decided to not hear the appeal. That decision ended the case for my family.
Not hearing the case was not a ruling by the Supreme Court on the facts or merits of our case. And while we are precluded from going back to Court, other owners of 1933 Double Eagles or other disputed coins are free to bring a case in another federal circuit.
For my family, our only remaining recourse would be an order from the Treasury or the Executive or an Act of Congress.
Write a letter to The Donald, it cannot hurt. Then get your side of the story out to the public. A great drama story with everything. Hardly anyone outside of our hobby even knows what a Saint Gaudens $20 is, that we couldn't own gold at on time, etc. I believe public opinion will be on the side of your mother.
There is one bright side to this, your family name will hold a high place in numismatic history - forever.
@rhl said:
It takes multiple justices to accept a case in the Supreme Court. In our case, the Court required the government to respond to our request for a hearing but ultimately the Court decided to not hear the appeal. That decision ended the case for my family.
Not hearing the case was not a ruling by the Supreme Court on the facts or merits of our case. And while we are precluded from going back to Court, other owners of 1933 Double Eagles or other disputed coins are free to bring a case in another federal circuit.
For my family, our only remaining recourse would be an order from the Treasury or the Executive or an Act of Congress.
Write a letter to The Donald, it cannot hurt. Then get your side of the story out to the public. A great drama story with everything. Hardly anyone outside of our hobby even knows what a Saint Gaudens $20 is, that we couldn't own gold at on time, etc. I believe public opinion will be on the side of your mother.
There is one bright side to this, your family name will hold a high place in numismatic history - forever.
I agree, an letter to the executive office would not hurt. What do you have to lose, right. I personally like an AoC, better. An antiquities action for our coin hobby would be the the ticket. Something like, once a coin reaches, let’s say sake of discussion 50 years old, then it is no longer seeked by the government. This would clear up the 64 dollar, etc. But as you know, its takes an AoC to do an AoC.
What is the "Heritage Assets Collection", when was it formed, whom formed it, what assets are in it and what criteria must be met for an asset to be be included in it?
@Catbert said:
Strictly from a curiosity standpoint, would any board member wounds here be salved if the Mint donated these to the ANA?
Nothing short of returning them to Mr Langbord works for me
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
@Catbert said:
Strictly from a curiosity standpoint, would any board member wounds here be salved if the Mint donated these to the ANA?
Nothing short of returning them to Mr Langbord works for me
m
If I were in charge, they all would be monetized. One would be returned to the family with a letter of thanks. A second would be returned to the family with a letter of apology. A third would be put on permanent loan at the ANA. One would be put on display at the Philadelphia Mint. One would be returned to the other person who turned one in. One would be melted and the gold mixed in a batch to strike a finite mintage of "made from" $20 Saints dated 1933-S. The remaining coins would be offered for sale at the same price as the first one that was monetized - 7 million. Any not sold at that price would be kept at Fort Knox for anyone to purchase anytime in the future at the same price.
All money from sales would be ... I don't wish to be in charge anymore!
If anyone takes the time to read the actual Secret Service report from 1944, it concludes that they were unable to determine when, how and under what circumstances the 1933 Double Eagles left the Mint.
Comments
Not I.
The main attraction will be the 1943, AU-53 (NGC) discovery piece , anyway.
A 1943 bronze cent discovered by a collector way back in the forties, who never sold it .... until now.
And I'm kind of surprised our government didn't confiscate those, too. They were meant to be bullets.
Just proves there are "all kinds" of folks in the world. In fact In another thread, one ANA member stated that he got out of the free registration for ANA members line and paid the $8 street admission to get into the show faster.
"Mint records clearly establish that no 1933 Double Eagles were ever issued or released to the public as legal tender" seems a too robust a statement to be taken as true, nicht wahr?
Shouldn't they have written, "We have found no Mint records to show that 1933 Double Eagles were ever issued or released to the public as legal tender"?
There's a big difference between being able to prove something by the existence of evidence and not being able to prove something due to lack of evidence. While I don't have any evidence to prove that I have ever been to the State of Maine, but there is no evidence to suggest I have ever been there.
Obscurum per obscurius
Today I visited the ANA show to see my family’s coins. The Mint in its display included a card under the coins labeled “Litigation over Stolen Property”. On it they state that my family “voluntarily” turned our coins over to the Mint only to later sue for their return “after the government refused to offer financial compensation”. This is a totally and apparently intentionally false statement. Even a cursory read of the Court papers and decisions shows that this was never the case. I am shocked that the ANA, an organization allegedly dedicated to historical accuracy, has said or done nothing.
In a similar vein, I heard from numerous people at the show that the Mint’s claim that the other 1933 on display was turned in simply as a gesture of good faith by its owner was in fact also not the case. I wonder if anyone has any further information.
Couldn't agree more with your assessment of ("all kinds). There sure are.
If your family name was used in the display, perhaps there is an opening for a case of libel. Sweet revenge. However, I believe your family did turn the coins over voluntarily. The rest appears to be incorrect.
We did not. At the request of the Mint and as part of ongoing negotiations we agreed to make the coins available for the limited purpose of authentication. This was in writing. At no time did we simply voluntarily turn the coins over to Mint and then later ask them for money.
Rhl, I think you are make it obvious that what we read in the past and present is not the whole story. It great that you are sharing your family prespective, it has to hard and I can imagine painful. Can you clear up something. To be hosest, I have not read your story in a some time now. If I recall, the case ended with the SC not taking the case. My question, is that final, being they did not make a judgement one way or on other? My limited knowledge of SC, it only takes one judge to sponsor a case and bring before the count. The SC have new judges, so can they be petition again?
My 20th Century Gold Major Design Type Set ---started : 11/17/1997 ---- completed : 1/21/2004
"At the request of the Mint and as part of ongoing negotiations we agreed to make the coins available for the limited purpose of authentication."
I'm on your side BUT your family VOLENTARILY (under pressure of negotiations, etc) surrendered the coins to the government. You gave them the coins. IMO, everything they did to your family after that is suspect.
In hindsight, you all would have probably done differently. As in, "Sorry Uncle Sam, we ground our property into gold dust and sprinkled it into the ocean. We'll be happy to show you the spot.
It takes multiple justices to accept a case in the Supreme Court. In our case, the Court required the government to respond to our request for a hearing but ultimately the Court decided to not hear the appeal. That decision ended the case for my family. It was not a ruling one way or another on the facts or law.
However, while we are precluded from going back to Court, other owners of 1933 Double Eagles or other disputed coins are free to bring a case in another federal circuit.
For my family, our only remaining recourse would be an order from the Treasury or the Executive or an Act of Congress.
Write a letter to The Donald, it cannot hurt. Then get your side of the story out to the public. A great drama story with everything. Hardly anyone outside of our hobby even knows what a Saint Gaudens $20 is, that we couldn't own gold at on time, etc. I believe public opinion will be on the side of your mother.
There is one bright side to this, your family name will hold a high place in numismatic history - forever.
I agree, an letter to the executive office would not hurt. What do you have to lose, right. I personally like an AoC, better. An antiquities action for our coin hobby would be the the ticket. Something like, once a coin reaches, let’s say sake of discussion 50 years old, then it is no longer seeked by the government. This would clear up the 64 dollar, etc. But as you know, its takes an AoC to do an AoC.
My 20th Century Gold Major Design Type Set ---started : 11/17/1997 ---- completed : 1/21/2004
Oh, one last point. It could be called the Langbord Act.. Has a nice ring.
My 20th Century Gold Major Design Type Set ---started : 11/17/1997 ---- completed : 1/21/2004
These are two of the info cards that are in the display case.
To me they read like they were written by a spiteful 8th grader.
Judge for yourself.
"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
What is the "Heritage Assets Collection", when was it formed, whom formed it, what assets are in it and what criteria must be met for an asset to be be included in it?
Nothing short of returning them to Mr Langbord works for me
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
If I were in charge, they all would be monetized. One would be returned to the family with a letter of thanks. A second would be returned to the family with a letter of apology. A third would be put on permanent loan at the ANA. One would be put on display at the Philadelphia Mint. One would be returned to the other person who turned one in. One would be melted and the gold mixed in a batch to strike a finite mintage of "made from" $20 Saints dated 1933-S. The remaining coins would be offered for sale at the same price as the first one that was monetized - 7 million. Any not sold at that price would be kept at Fort Knox for anyone to purchase anytime in the future at the same price.
All money from sales would be ... I don't wish to be in charge anymore!
If anyone takes the time to read the actual Secret Service report from 1944, it concludes that they were unable to determine when, how and under what circumstances the 1933 Double Eagles left the Mint.
Nice exchange and I learned a few things