Home U.S. Coin Forum

Did the Langbords lose the 1933 Double Eagles because of a single CU forum post?

ZoinsZoins Posts: 34,113 ✭✭✭✭✭
edited April 27, 2019 1:27PM in U.S. Coin Forum

This is something I've been thinking about for a long time.

In the case, both the US Mint and the Langbords had expert witnesses that were book authors. With no hard evidence, a lot of weight is given to the credibility of the expert witnesses.

The expert witness for the Langbords had previously posted on the CU forums that, if selected as an expert witness, he would muster all the "hearsay and innuendo" to ensure that the coins did not return to the government. This post was found and presented to the jury.

How much did that single post affect the outcome of the case?

And did it damage the prospects of any future coins remaining in the hands of collectors, if any exist.

«134

Comments

  • SanctionIISanctionII Posts: 12,086 ✭✭✭✭✭

    No.

  • kbbpllkbbpll Posts: 542 ✭✭✭✭

    It wouldn't have swayed me too much. I just never bought into the whole "happened to discover them soon after the only legal one sold for $7.6 million" thing. Expert witnesses are paid large amounts of money to represent one side or the other. Bias is a given, isn't it?

  • SanctionIISanctionII Posts: 12,086 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Even if the jury decided the trial in favor of the Langbords the government would have appealed and as we saw the En Banc panel of the Court Of Appeal ruled in favor of the government. Thereafter the Supreme Court declined to review the case.

  • keetskeets Posts: 25,351 ✭✭✭✭✭

    truth usually wins out in the end despite however it is manipulated by either side in a case like this. TDN seems most correct, that the comment sure didn't help.

  • MFeldMFeld Posts: 13,398 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @kbbpll said:
    It wouldn't have swayed me too much. I just never bought into the whole "happened to discover them soon after the only legal one sold for $7.6 million" thing. Expert witnesses are paid large amounts of money to represent one side or the other. Bias is a given, isn't it?

    The timing of when the coins were discovered by the family has no bearing on how the coins were initially obtained.

    Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.

  • BillJonesBillJones Posts: 33,940 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The government stacked the jury to get what it wanted. The fact that an expert witness testified what was already knonw to be his position hardly changed things. If the expert witness presented to a position before he testified that was the same as his testimony, I hardly see how that should have any bearing on the outcome of the case. You don't hire expert witness to present evidence and opinions that run contrary to your position.

    Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
  • Moxie15Moxie15 Posts: 318 ✭✭✭

    @keets said:
    truth usually wins out in the end despite however it is manipulated by either side in a case like this. TDN seems most correct, that the comment sure didn't help.

    In my admittedly limited experience in a court room truth has very little to do with the outcome.
    What the jury, or judge, can be made to believe is true is what determines the outcome.
    An experienced litigator understands that what is true entirely depends on the point of view
    the trick is to make the jury see your point of view.
    Did the truth win out in the end?
    Whose to say.
    The Government's point of view won out.
    Justice has been served.

  • MFeldMFeld Posts: 13,398 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @1Bufffan said:
    My Question has always been why did they take "All" ten of them to the Government why not just One?? to see if it was an original.

    I believe that the Langbords and their attorney thought that was their best chance to have the coins authenticated AND eventually deemed legal to own.

    The fact that they ended up losing the lawsuit doesn’t necessarily mean that they made a poor decision. For example, some people have said they were foolish to turn over all ten coins. But if they had turned over just one coin and lost that lawsuit, what options would they have had with the other nine? Sell them secretly and illegally? If/since the family planned to obey the law, their options were extremely limited.

    Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.

  • MarkMark Posts: 3,536 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @MFeld If I had been in the Langbords' shoes, I might have considered initially taking 9 out of the country because I believe they are legal to hold outside of the United States. Then I would have taken the remaining 1 to the mint. If the 1 was declared legal to hold, either initially or as the result of a lawsuit, I would have claimed that the other 9 are similarly legal and worked to bring them back to the United States. If the 1 was determined to be illegal to hold, then I would have sold the remaining 9 abroad. As a (former?) lawyer, would you have spoken against this strategy?

    Mark


  • MFeldMFeld Posts: 13,398 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Mark said:
    @MFeld If I had been in the Langbords' shoes, I might have considered initially taking 9 out of the country because I believe they are legal to hold outside of the United States. Then I would have taken the remaining 1 to the mint. If the 1 was declared legal to hold, either initially or as the result of a lawsuit, I would have claimed that the other 9 are similarly legal and worked to bring them back to the United States. If the 1 was determined to be illegal to hold, then I would have sold the remaining 9 abroad. As a (former?) lawyer, would you have spoken against this strategy?

    Mark, while I obtained a law degree, I never practiced, as rare coins called to me 😉

    If I knew it was legal to take and sell the coins abroad, I’d have no problem with that course of action.

    Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.

  • MFeldMFeld Posts: 13,398 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @BillJones said:
    A better strategy would have been to have submitted one and held the other 9 back. If the one failed, melt the other 9. At least they would have over $10,000 worth of gold.

    Would that have been legal?

    Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.

  • CoinstartledCoinstartled Posts: 10,135 ✭✭✭✭✭

    This is a very interesting thread.

  • HemisphericalHemispherical Posts: 9,370 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Obstruction of justice
    Definition

    18 U.S.C. § 1503 defines "obstruction of justice" as an act that "corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice."

    —————-

    Tampering with Evidence

    Tampering with evidence is an offence and there are statutes proscribing tampering with evidence, fabricating evidence, and the concealment or destruction of evidence for the purpose of impairing its availability as evidence in an investigation or official proceeding. At common law, suppression, fabrication, or destruction of physical evidence amounts to obstruction of justice.

  • cladkingcladking Posts: 28,630 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @ricko said:
    It is a foolish move for expert witnesses to advance commentary outside of factual evidence - after all, they are supposed to be experts in a given field. Extraneous commentary gives the appearance of amateurish braggadocio.

    I agree it's important to keep up appearances but the reality is that experts on anything rarely agree on any specifics. Even experts must proceed with "hearsay and innuendo" in a case like this. We can only hope that expert opinion is more likely to be right than the average man but the reality is sometimes all the experts are wrong and some others are correct. Indeed, any time all the experts agree then they are probably wrong.

    Tempus fugit.
  • ZoinsZoins Posts: 34,113 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited April 27, 2019 8:12AM

    I always thought the credibility of the Langbord's expert witness was critical as:

    • The Berke / Langbord approach seemed to be to use a CAFRA technicality to release the coins
    • The government's approach was to claim the coins were obtained illegally, in which case CAFRA didn't matter

    Since there wasn't hard evidence on whether the coins were legal or illegal, the credibility of the expert witnesses was critical.

    Here's some information from the time of the hearings about the post and subsequent desire to downplay the comments.

    The context was that David Enders Tripp had been selected as an expert witness to be paid $300/hour nearly 2 years before the trial, and that the Langbord's eventual expert witness claimed he could provide expert testimony for the same price:

    “I can muster all the hearsay, innuendo, assumption, gossip, rumor, allusion and insinuation you want to obfuscate the facts … and, I can do it at only $300 an hour, too!”

    When this was presented, it was tied to cross examination and questioning of his 20-page expert report.

    Barry Berke brought this up again to indicate it was a joke.

    1933 double eagle trial: Roger Burdette takes the stand - Government cross examination seeks to raise doubts on credibility

    https://www.coinworld.com/news/us-coins/2011/07/1933-double-eagle-trial-roger-burdette-takes-.html

    Perhaps more problematic was a Feb. 10, 2009, posting that has since become inaccessible where Burdette wrote to the effect of mustering all the hearsay and innuendo required to obfuscate the facts; adding, “I’ll do it at $300 an hour.” Rue wasted no time in asking Burdette, “Isn’t that what you’ve done here today?” attacking the credibility of his findings. Burdette replied that his comments on the message board were sarcastic and didn’t reflect his research, frequently asking to be shown the statements as he didn’t remember them individually.

    Rue was relentless in suggesting that Burdette was more creative than factual in his theory that 1933 double eagles might have been included in the March 4, 1933, shipment to the cashier as the 1945 statement that Burdette relied upon said “43 pieces” and not double eagles. She added that if Burdette’s interpretation that “43 pieces” meant 43 1933 double eagles was true, it would compromise each document provided to Mint officials afterwards.

    Burdette was also questioned about his familiarity with his expert report, specifically statements addressing the relation of the number of coins struck versus the number of coins delivered, and the importance of this. When Burdette couldn’t recall what he stated on this in his 20-page expert report filed earlier this year, Rue read him his statement in his submitted report that it was “impossible” to know how many coins were struck in any one year. After the reading, Burdette added with a smile, “I appreciate knowing how nicely I wrote it.”

    1933 double eagle trial: Sides finish their cases - Jury deliberations likely to begin today

    https://www.coinworld.com/news/us-coins/2011/07/1933-double-eagle-trial-sides-finish-their-ca.html

    Private little world brought into the light

    Barry Berke, the Langbords’ attorney, wanted to begin his redirect by addressing Burdette’s Feb. 10, 2009, statement in the online forum, which threatened his credibility as an expert witness the prior day. The posting stated, “I can muster all the hearsay, innuendo, assumption, gossip, rumor, allusion and insinuation you want to obfuscate the facts … and, I can do it at only $300 an hour, too!” In a conversation between the attorneys and Judge Davis, Berke said he wanted to bring it back up to show that Burdette was making a joke in writing in order to put the statement into context.

    Judge Davis warned that such a technique could be ill-advised, adding that there were some “extremely offensive comments in the post.” Judge Davis added that the dialogue from which the Feb. 10, 2009, comment came was a “remarkable document” that included comments from the “2009 Numismatist of the Year,” providing a window into “their private little world which they never thought would come to light.”

    Berke began by pointing out that the posting was written nearly two years before January of this year, when Burdette became an expert in this case and referred to David Enders Tripp, who was getting paid $300 an hour by the government. Burdette revealed that he was charging $154 an hour and that he had researched the 1933 double eagle prior to being retained as a witness. Rue declined to ask Burdette any more questions and with that, Burdette’s service was completed.

  • JBKJBK Posts: 15,474 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Good question on the value of the gold. I am not up to speed on the details of the case. However, if it was argued by the feds that the Langbords did not have a right to own those specific coins, not that the coins themselves were stolen. them then they gold value should have been returned.

  • ZoinsZoins Posts: 34,113 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @JBK said:
    Good question on the value of the gold. I am not up to speed on the details of the case. However, if it was argued by the feds that the Langbords did not have a right to own those specific coins, not that the coins themselves were stolen. them then they gold value should have been returned.

    The government's claim was that the coins were stolen.

  • ZoinsZoins Posts: 34,113 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited April 27, 2019 7:52AM

    I've wondered if this was the best scenario to make the case the coins could have left the Mint legally, and now that this is over, the door is shut on other coins, unless accompanied with documentation like the Farouk specimen.

  • kbbpllkbbpll Posts: 542 ✭✭✭✭

    @MFeld said:

    @kbbpll said:
    It wouldn't have swayed me too much. I just never bought into the whole "happened to discover them soon after the only legal one sold for $7.6 million" thing. Expert witnesses are paid large amounts of money to represent one side or the other. Bias is a given, isn't it?

    The timing of when the coins were discovered by the family has no bearing on how the coins were initially obtained.

    Actually, to me it has bearing on the knowledge of how they were obtained. I only know broad brushstrokes of the overall case, and I don't want to disparage anyone's character. I just always thought the notion that nobody knew there were $70 million worth of coins in that safety deposit box was a stretch. Therefore a conclusion I can draw is that somebody knew they were there, knew they were trouble, saw one legally sell, and thought the door was finally open. I suppose I could take the "story" at face value though. It's hard to know what to believe when that much money is involved.

    I wonder if they could have donated them to the Smithsonian and had a tax write-off for life?

  • CaptHenwayCaptHenway Posts: 32,091 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Possibly. Comments said in jest (in threads I participated in) were presented as solemn testimony. The government played hardball, and won, even though it totally screwed the pooch with its CAFRA default.

    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.
  • Insider2Insider2 Posts: 14,452 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @MFeld said:

    @1Bufffan said:
    My Question has always been why did they take "All" ten of them to the Government why not just One?? to see if it was an original.

    I believe that the Langbords and their attorney thought that was their best chance to have the coins authenticated AND eventually deemed legal to own.

    The fact that they ended up losing the lawsuit doesn’t necessarily mean that they made a poor decision. For example, some people have said they were foolish to turn over all ten coins. But if they had turned over just one coin and lost that lawsuit, what options would they have had with the other nine? Sell them secretly and illegally? If/since the family planned to obey the law, their options were extremely limited.

    While I applaud their desire to be honest believing that their relative had done absolutely nothing wrong to obtain the coins (We'll never know for sure how he got them, how they left the mint, etc); IMHO, the family and their adviser screwed up REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, BIG TIME! :(

    As to this disappointing statement: "...what options would they have had with the other nine?" Really? Really?

  • BAJJERFANBAJJERFAN Posts: 31,075 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @MFeld said:

    @1Bufffan said:
    My Question has always been why did they take "All" ten of them to the Government why not just One?? to see if it was an original.

    I believe that the Langbords and their attorney thought that was their best chance to have the coins authenticated AND eventually deemed legal to own.

    The fact that they ended up losing the lawsuit doesn’t necessarily mean that they made a poor decision. For example, some people have said they were foolish to turn over all ten coins. But if they had turned over just one coin and lost that lawsuit, what options would they have had with the other nine? Sell them secretly and illegally? If/since the family planned to obey the law, their options were extremely limited.

    At least they still would have had 9 coins which would be 9 that the Government didn't have. I suspect that the Government would have browbeaten them wanting to know if there were more. Half would have been better.

    theknowitalltroll;
  • sparky64sparky64 Posts: 7,036 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Coinstartled said:
    This is a very interesting thread.

    Normally I'd agree.
    The answer to the OP's question is No.
    Certain people in this thread have injected it full of venom and it's despicable.
    There are two threads going on here.
    One educational.
    One childish bullyng.

    "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

  • BAJJERFANBAJJERFAN Posts: 31,075 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @sparky64 said:

    @Coinstartled said:
    This is a very interesting thread.

    Normally I'd agree.
    The answer to the OP's question is No.
    Certain people in this thread have injected it full of venom and it's despicable.
    There are two threads going on here.
    One educational.
    One childish bullyng.

    How is what the OP posted any different from a prospective juror saying during interview or in advance that he is going to vote one way regardless of evidence? His primary reason for doing so would be to get out of serving. Would he be found to be in contempt?

    theknowitalltroll;
  • Batman23Batman23 Posts: 4,999 ✭✭✭✭✭

    One never really knows what number half was...

  • MFeldMFeld Posts: 13,398 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @kbbpll said:

    @MFeld said:

    @kbbpll said:
    It wouldn't have swayed me too much. I just never bought into the whole "happened to discover them soon after the only legal one sold for $7.6 million" thing. Expert witnesses are paid large amounts of money to represent one side or the other. Bias is a given, isn't it?

    The timing of when the coins were discovered by the family has no bearing on how the coins were initially obtained.

    Actually, to me it has bearing on the knowledge of how they were obtained. I only know broad brushstrokes of the overall case, and I don't want to disparage anyone's character. I just always thought the notion that nobody knew there were $70 million worth of coins in that safety deposit box was a stretch. Therefore a conclusion I can draw is that somebody knew they were there, knew they were trouble, saw one legally sell, and thought the door was finally open. I suppose I could take the "story" at face value though. It's hard to know what to believe when that much money is involved.

    I wonder if they could have donated them to the Smithsonian and had a tax write-off for life?

    I can understand your reasoning. I personally believe the Langbord family’s statements regarding the discovery of the coins. And even if the coins were obtained legally - I believe there is a very good chance that they were - based on previous confiscations of 1933 Saints from other owners, the Langbord family would have good reason to want to keep their existence a secret. That is why I opined that the actual timing of the coins’ discovery had no bearing on how they were obtained.

    Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.

  • BAJJERFANBAJJERFAN Posts: 31,075 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Batman23 said:
    One never really knows what number half was...

    5 would have been believable without inviting further suspicion.

    theknowitalltroll;
  • Insider2Insider2 Posts: 14,452 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited April 27, 2019 10:37AM

    @BAJJERFAN said:

    @Batman23 said:
    One never really knows what number half was...

    5 would have been believable without inviting further suspicion.

    So would ONE. And that's what they would have received from my family after we emptied the safe deposit box of the other 9 coins in our possession that we inherited and then put other things into it for "safekeeping" just in case the box was opened by anyone who had no need to check the family's personal stuff in the land of the free. :p

    PS I'll LMAO at any sensitive, do-good, C. pinko posting here who has not broken some law or other! Remember, none of us knows the "TRUE" story - only its sad outcome for this honest and ill-advised family.

  • santinidollarsantinidollar Posts: 1,056 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The Langbords lost the coins because they belonged to the government and not the Langbords.

  • MFeldMFeld Posts: 13,398 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Insider2 said:

    @BAJJERFAN said:

    @Batman23 said:
    One never really knows what number half was...

    5 would have been believable without inviting further suspicion.

    So would ONE. And that's what they would have received from my family after we emptied the safe deposit box of the other 9 coins in our possession that we inherited and then put other things into it for "safekeeping" just in case the box was opened by anyone who had no need to check the family's personal stuff in the land of the free. :p

    PS I'll LMAO at any sensitive, do-good, C. pinko posting here who has not broken some law or other! Remember, none of us knows the "TRUE" story - only its sad outcome for this honest and ill-advised family.

    And after losing the lawsuit over one coin, what would you do with the other nine?

    Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.

  • Insider2Insider2 Posts: 14,452 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited April 27, 2019 11:00AM

    What would I do with the other nine?

    Mark, this is a very disappointing question. You are an "insider." Nevertheless, I'll humor you. I'll bet I or many folks here could dispose of all 9 1933 Saints in 5 minutes if we were not concerned with getting top dollar. LOL!

    Don't answer this but I would make you a deal you couldn't refuse just to make my point. FIVE MINUTES or less! Just because I like you.

    In truth, if I owned nine after losing the case, I would keep two for a rainy day and "place" the rest into strong and well vetted hands a reasonable price that would guarantee the buyer a profit. :)

  • MFeldMFeld Posts: 13,398 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited April 27, 2019 11:20AM

    @Insider2 said:
    What would I do with the other nine?

    Mark, this is a very disappointing question. You are an "insider." Nevertheless, I'll humor you. I'll bet I or many folks here could dispose of all 9 1933 Saints in 5 minutes if we were not concerned with getting top dollar. LOL!

    Don't answer this but I would make you a deal you couldn't refuse just to make my point. FIVE MINUTES or less! Just because I like you.

    In truth, if I owned nine, I would keep two for a rainy day and sell the rest. :)

    Sorry you were disappointed with my question. You wouldn’t be concerned about getting caught, selling the seven coins?

    Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.

  • Insider2Insider2 Posts: 14,452 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited April 27, 2019 11:10AM

    @santinidollar said:
    The Langbords lost the coins because they belonged to the government and not the Langbords.

    While it can be argued successfully (and I guess it was) that the coins "belonged" to the government, they did not have possession of the coins and did not know of their existence. The family lost ALL of their inherited property because they had bad advice. PERIOD!

    If the coins were stolen government property (true or not) possession of stolen property does not transfer to the new owner no matter how many times they are sold. Let's PLEASE keep this out of our fantasy discussion because no one can disagree with it! The trial determined (true or not) that the coins were stolen from the government.

  • ZoinsZoins Posts: 34,113 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Insider2 said:

    @santinidollar said:
    The Langbords lost the coins because they belonged to the government and not the Langbords.

    While it can be argued successfully (and I guess it was) that the coins "belonged" to the government, they did not have possession of the coin and did not know of their existence. The family lost ALL of their inherited property because they had bad advice. PERIOD!

    Is it confirmed that all were lost, or could they have more?

  • Insider2Insider2 Posts: 14,452 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I'll bet more are out there; however, this family probably has none.

  • MFeldMFeld Posts: 13,398 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Insider2 said:

    @santinidollar said:
    The Langbords lost the coins because they belonged to the government and not the Langbords.

    While it can be argued successfully (and I guess it was) that the coins "belonged" to the government, they did not have possession of the coins and did not know of their existence. The family lost ALL of their inherited property because they had bad advice. PERIOD!

    If the coins were stolen government property (true or not) possession of stolen property does not transfer to the new owner no matter how many times they are sold. Let's PLEASE keep this out of our fantasy discussion because no one can disagree with it! The trial determined (true or not) that the coins were stolen from the government.

    Nor, supposedly was it known or reported that those $20’s were missing or stolen from the Mint, according to its own (supposedly) meticulous records

    Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.

  • BAJJERFANBAJJERFAN Posts: 31,075 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Insider2 said:

    @BAJJERFAN said:

    @Batman23 said:
    One never really knows what number half was...

    5 would have been believable without inviting further suspicion.

    So would ONE. And that's what they would have received from my family after we emptied the safe deposit box of the other 9 coins in our possession that we inherited and then put other things into it for "safekeeping" just in case the box was opened by anyone who had no need to check the family's personal stuff in the land of the free. :p

    PS I'll LMAO at any sensitive, do-good, C. pinko posting here who has not broken some law or other! Remember, none of us knows the "TRUE" story - only its sad outcome for this honest and ill-advised family.

    Agreed if my last name was Smif instead of Langbord. Joe Smif turning one in would likely not conjure up further inquisitiveness whereas a Langbord turning one in likely would. YMMV

    theknowitalltroll;
  • JustacommemanJustacommeman Posts: 22,847 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Mr Langbord has stated on this forum that he was happy with Rogers work.

    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......
  • CoinosaurusCoinosaurus Posts: 9,625 ✭✭✭✭✭

    As long as we're speculating, how do we know the Langbord's don't have additional, unreported pieces in a Swiss bank box?

  • Insider2Insider2 Posts: 14,452 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited April 27, 2019 12:24PM

    @BAJJERFAN said:

    @Insider2 said:

    @BAJJERFAN said:

    @Batman23 said:
    One never really knows what number half was...

    5 would have been believable without inviting further suspicion.

    So would ONE. And that's what they would have received from my family after we emptied the safe deposit box of the other 9 coins in our possession that we inherited and then put other things into it for "safekeeping" just in case the box was opened by anyone who had no need to check the family's personal stuff in the land of the free. :p

    PS I'll LMAO at any sensitive, do-good, C. pinko posting here who has not broken some law or other! Remember, none of us knows the "TRUE" story - only its sad outcome for this honest and ill-advised family.

    Agreed if my last name was Smif instead of Langbord. Joe Smif turning one in would likely not conjure up further inquisitiveness whereas a Langbord turning one in likely would. YMMV

    NOT UNTIL AFTER he turned the first one over! Until then he was just as Joe Nobody with a famous (?) relative to the government.

  • Insider2Insider2 Posts: 14,452 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Coinosaurus said:
    As long as we're speculating, how do we know the Langbord's don't have additional, unreported pieces in a Swiss bank box?

    We don't, there may be the rest of a roll out there somewhere - together or split up. Perhaps Swift only wanted ten pieces. Perhaps he was only offered ten. Perhaps... YAWN.

    In any case, my Italian grandfather who worked for the city of Philadelphia liked to say: "You can't fight City Hall." That was the same as the U.S. Government to him. :wink:

  • MFeldMFeld Posts: 13,398 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited April 27, 2019 12:37PM

    @Insider2 said:

    @Coinosaurus said:
    As long as we're speculating, how do we know the Langbord's don't have additional, unreported pieces in a Swiss bank box?

    We don't, there may be the rest of a roll out there somewhere - together or split up. Perhaps Swift only wanted ten pieces. Perhaps he was only offered ten. Perhaps... YAWN.

    In any case, my Italian grandfather who worked for the city of Philadelphia liked to say: "You can't fight City Hall." That was the same as the U.S. Government to him. :wink:

    It is already known that Mr. Switt had more than 10 coins. If I recall correctly, all of the examples that were confiscated previously, were said to have come from him (though not directly).

    Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.

  • BillJonesBillJones Posts: 33,940 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @MFeld said:

    @BillJones said:
    A better strategy would have been to have submitted one and held the other 9 back. If the one failed, melt the other 9. At least they would have over $10,000 worth of gold.

    Would that have been legal?

    No, but since the whole case was based on politics, who cares?

    The government might as well melt the things now. The government thinks they are doing coin collectors a favor by carting them around the country at tax payers' expense to show them off at big coin shows. They are nothing but gold rounds confiscated by the government. Turn them into part of one those big gold bars and be done with it. There are two in the Smithsonian and one that MIGHT BE owned by a private citizen. That’s enough. Melt the rest.

    Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file