Home U.S. Coin Forum
Options

1913 Liberty nickel

gumby1234gumby1234 Posts: 5,436 ✭✭✭✭✭

Its probably been posted somewhere on this website before. I have always wondered why the 1913 Liberty nickel doesn't get seized when the 1933 Double Eagle gets seized all the time

Successful BST with ad4400, Kccoin, lablover, pointfivezero, koynekwest, jwitten, coin22lover, HalfDimeDude, erwindoc, jyzskowsi, COINS MAKE CENTS, AlanSki, BryceM

«1

Comments

  • Options
    jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 32,022 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @gumby1234 said:
    Its probably been posted somewhere on this website before. I have always wondered why the 1913 Liberty nickel doesn't get seized when the 1933 Double Eagle gets seized all the time

    Because the Mint claimed for a long time that they didn't make the 1913 Liberty nickels.

    The 1933's were also ordered destroyed so any that escaped the melting pot should have been illegal.

  • Options
    jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 32,022 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @BryceM said:
    ..... unless you accept the "Could have been exchanged at the register" theory.

    Which? The 1933's? I'm sure they COULD have been exchanged. However, it wasn't legal for them to be exchanged as they never officially released them. Of course, it was common for dealers to have a back door for early release and special favors. This time, however, they got caught in the Great Melt.

    This has been the position of the government for 80 years and every Court who has heard the case has ruled in their favor. Coin collectors, however, appear unwilling to accept the ruling of the Courts.

  • Options
    gumby1234gumby1234 Posts: 5,436 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @jmlanzaf So if the mint claims they did not make then wouldn't that automatically make them illegal? I'm confused

    Successful BST with ad4400, Kccoin, lablover, pointfivezero, koynekwest, jwitten, coin22lover, HalfDimeDude, erwindoc, jyzskowsi, COINS MAKE CENTS, AlanSki, BryceM

  • Options
    MFeldMFeld Posts: 12,056 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @BryceM said:
    ..... unless you accept the "Could have been exchanged at the register" theory.

    Which? The 1933's? I'm sure they COULD have been exchanged. However, it wasn't legal for them to be exchanged as they never officially released them. Of course, it was common for dealers to have a back door for early release and special favors. This time, however, they got caught in the Great Melt.

    This has been the position of the government for 80 years and every Court who has heard the case has ruled in their favor. Coin collectors, however, appear unwilling to accept the ruling of the Courts.

    Not every court - the Langbord’s didn’t lose at every trial level.

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

  • Options
    MFeldMFeld Posts: 12,056 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @gumby1234 said:
    @jmlanzaf So if the mint claims they did not make then wouldn't that automatically make them illegal? I'm confused

    If they weren’t made, they couldn’t be misappropriated/stolen.😉

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

  • Options
    amwldcoinamwldcoin Posts: 11,269 ✭✭✭✭✭

    If that's the case wouldn't that make them counterfeits?

    @MFeld said:

    @gumby1234 said:
    @jmlanzaf So if the mint claims they did not make then wouldn't that automatically make them illegal? I'm confused

    If they weren’t made, they couldn’t be misappropriated/stolen.😉

  • Options
    MFeldMFeld Posts: 12,056 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited June 11, 2021 7:03PM

    @amwldcoin said:
    If that's the case wouldn't that make them counterfeits?

    @MFeld said:

    @gumby1234 said:
    @jmlanzaf So if the mint claims they did not make then wouldn't that automatically make them illegal? I'm confused

    If they weren’t made, they couldn’t be misappropriated/stolen.😉

    How can you have a copy/counterfeit of a coin that supposedly wasn’t ever made? Or, like in the case of 1964 Peace Dollars, which was produced, but which allegedly, no longer exists? Isn’t that one of the arguments of supporters of the legality of some Carr coins?

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

  • Options
    jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 32,022 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @gumby1234 said:
    @jmlanzaf So if the mint claims they did not make then wouldn't that automatically make them illegal? I'm confused

    I would say yes. They never cared. If they were fantasies, they might fall under the Dan Carr exception.

    Personally, I feel like they should be illegal. The government never cared about them for some reason.

  • Options
    jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 32,022 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @MFeld said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @BryceM said:
    ..... unless you accept the "Could have been exchanged at the register" theory.

    Which? The 1933's? I'm sure they COULD have been exchanged. However, it wasn't legal for them to be exchanged as they never officially released them. Of course, it was common for dealers to have a back door for early release and special favors. This time, however, they got caught in the Great Melt.

    This has been the position of the government for 80 years and every Court who has heard the case has ruled in their favor. Coin collectors, however, appear unwilling to accept the ruling of the Courts.

    Not every court - the Langbord’s didn’t lose at every trial level.

    I forget the exact court sequence. But they didn't completely win, did they?

  • Options
    JBKJBK Posts: 14,791 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @jmlanzaf said:
    If they were fantasies, they might fall under the Dan Carr exception.

    The DCarr exception involves bring struck over a genuine coin. :*

  • Options
    tradedollarnuttradedollarnut Posts: 20,147 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Nobody really knows how or why the 1913s were struck but what we do know is that at the time it was legal to strike minor proof coinage off the books. Gold coinage, on the other hand, was strictly regulated and once the Federal Reserve Bank was in place required so called Monetization. So you’re talking apples to oranges.

  • Options
    sellitstoresellitstore Posts: 2,498 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @tradedollarnut said:
    Nobody really knows how or why the 1913s were struck but what we do know is that at the time it was legal to strike minor proof coinage off the books. Gold coinage, on the other hand, was strictly regulated and once the Federal Reserve Bank was in place required so called Monetization. So you’re talking apples to oranges.

    I didn't know that it was legal to strike minor proof coinage off the books in 1913. That was also the year that the Federal reserve was established.

    Was it legal to modify the date on a V nickel obverse die without authorization? What about other acts required for striking like obtaining the material and use of mint equipment. Were they legal?

    The leading 1913 theory, they were struck by someone with access off hours, is our best guess as to how these came to be. The fact that they were done on mint equipment gives them their claim to some degree of authenticity. If done in someone's basement, we'd all agree that they are fantasy issues with little value. But they weren't. And that's why many collectors consider them as legitimate.

    The government's position that we didn't make 'em, so we don't care to recover them is lucky for numismatists. The mint could take to position that they are stolen property or the product of illegal, for profit, activity.

    Collector and dealer in obsolete currency. Always buying all obsolete bank notes and scrip.
  • Options
    BAJJERFANBAJJERFAN Posts: 30,994 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @gumby1234 said:
    @jmlanzaf So if the mint claims they did not make then wouldn't that automatically make them illegal? I'm confused

    The mint's claim is that they were never monetized. Monetization is the act of or process for making money including any quality control or certification at the end. The coins were certified but the results were never sent back to the mint in time for them to be delivered from the coiner to the cashier and thus be available for legal issue or exchange. That is a summary of how I understand it.

  • Options
    jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 32,022 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @BAJJERFAN said:

    @gumby1234 said:
    @jmlanzaf So if the mint claims they did not make then wouldn't that automatically make them illegal? I'm confused

    The mint's claim is that they were never monetized. Monetization is the act of or process for making money including any quality control or certification at the end. The coins were certified but the results were never sent back to the mint in time for them to be delivered from the coiner to the cashier and thus be available for legal issue or exchange. That is a summary of how I understand it.

    That is also how I understand it. Hence the $20 paid to the government the first time the coin was sold. Which itself was weird to me because I assume Farouk's agent paid $20 at the time of acquisition. Shouldn't someone refund Farouk (Egypt) $20? >:)

  • Options
    BAJJERFANBAJJERFAN Posts: 30,994 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @gumby1234 said:
    Its probably been posted somewhere on this website before. I have always wondered why the 1913 Liberty nickel doesn't get seized when the 1933 Double Eagle gets seized all the time

    The other issue is that some pedantic Ahole who was a stickler for correctness decided that he was going to make every effort and spare no expense to round up all of the ones that had escaped.

  • Options
    tradedollarnuttradedollarnut Posts: 20,147 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Was it legal to modify the date on a V nickel obverse die without authorization? What about other acts required for striking like obtaining the material and use of mint equipment. Were they legal?

    1913 Liberty head nickel dies were made by the Mint in a duly authorized manner - nobody needed to alter any dates. The fact is that no one knows who struck the coins and in what manner - but the dies were on hand and there was a window for legal striking.

  • Options
    pmh1nicpmh1nic Posts: 3,151 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @tradedollarnut said:
    Was it legal to modify the date on a V nickel obverse die without authorization? What about other acts required for striking like obtaining the material and use of mint equipment. Were they legal?

    1913 Liberty head nickel dies were made by the Mint in a duly authorized manner - nobody needed to alter any dates. The fact is that no one knows who struck the coins and in what manner - but the dies were on hand and there was a window for legal striking.

    Do we know that the coins struck were struck by dies that are known to have been made by the mint?

    The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
  • Options
    MFeldMFeld Posts: 12,056 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Bruce, can you refresh my memory? How do we know the 5c piece dies weren’t for Buffalo nickels?

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

  • Options
    tradedollarnuttradedollarnut Posts: 20,147 ✭✭✭✭✭

    See where it says “Barber’s design”? 50 obverse and 80 reverse dies

  • Options
    MFeldMFeld Posts: 12,056 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited June 12, 2021 6:32PM

    @tradedollarnut said:
    See where it says “Barber’s design”? 50 obverse and 80 reverse dies

    I sure do (now)🥴, thank you.

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

  • Options
    dbldie55dbldie55 Posts: 7,719 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @BAJJERFAN said:

    @gumby1234 said:
    @jmlanzaf So if the mint claims they did not make then wouldn't that automatically make them illegal? I'm confused

    The mint's claim is that they were never monetized. Monetization is the act of or process for making money including any quality control or certification at the end. The coins were certified but the results were never sent back to the mint in time for them to be delivered from the coiner to the cashier and thus be available for legal issue or exchange. That is a summary of how I understand it.

    That is also how I understand it. Hence the $20 paid to the government the first time the coin was sold. Which itself was weird to me because I assume Farouk's agent paid $20 at the time of acquisition. Shouldn't someone refund Farouk (Egypt) $20? >:)

    Farouk's agent never paid $20. That coin got out in the same manner as all others. The issue was someone in the Government signed off on it to be exported (and shouldn't have). So when it found it's way back to the US, the feds decided they could lose the case so the made it a split ownership. However, they still needed to monetize it.

    A couple of good books on the subject.

    Collector and Researcher of Liberty Head Nickels. ANA LM-6053
  • Options
    CoinosaurusCoinosaurus Posts: 9,615 ✭✭✭✭✭

    David Tripp answered this question in a recent ANS Zoom presentation. The issue was that the '33 $20 symbolized the gold recall, the transition to fiat money, and the need for the government to ensure a stable currency. So the feds, from the 1940s on, were obsessed with recovering the 1933 $20s. The nickel was just a piece of nickel and not worthy of their attention. Is it inconsistent? Of course it is. But I think Tripp's explanation tells us how we got to this point.

  • Options
    jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 32,022 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @dbldie55 said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @BAJJERFAN said:

    @gumby1234 said:
    @jmlanzaf So if the mint claims they did not make then wouldn't that automatically make them illegal? I'm confused

    The mint's claim is that they were never monetized. Monetization is the act of or process for making money including any quality control or certification at the end. The coins were certified but the results were never sent back to the mint in time for them to be delivered from the coiner to the cashier and thus be available for legal issue or exchange. That is a summary of how I understand it.

    That is also how I understand it. Hence the $20 paid to the government the first time the coin was sold. Which itself was weird to me because I assume Farouk's agent paid $20 at the time of acquisition. Shouldn't someone refund Farouk (Egypt) $20? >:)

    Farouk's agent never paid $20. That coin got out in the same manner as all others. The issue was someone in the Government signed off on it to be exported (and shouldn't have). So when it found it's way back to the US, the feds decided they could lose the case so the made it a split ownership. However, they still needed to monetize it.

    A couple of good books on the subject.

    Nonsense. Farouk didn't grab one of a pile and then apply for an export license.

    They were likely all exchanged for $20s. It is just that they weren't supposed to be released.

  • Options
    MFeldMFeld Posts: 12,056 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @dbldie55 said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @BAJJERFAN said:

    @gumby1234 said:
    @jmlanzaf So if the mint claims they did not make then wouldn't that automatically make them illegal? I'm confused

    The mint's claim is that they were never monetized. Monetization is the act of or process for making money including any quality control or certification at the end. The coins were certified but the results were never sent back to the mint in time for them to be delivered from the coiner to the cashier and thus be available for legal issue or exchange. That is a summary of how I understand it.

    That is also how I understand it. Hence the $20 paid to the government the first time the coin was sold. Which itself was weird to me because I assume Farouk's agent paid $20 at the time of acquisition. Shouldn't someone refund Farouk (Egypt) $20? >:)

    Farouk's agent never paid $20. That coin got out in the same manner as all others. The issue was someone in the Government signed off on it to be exported (and shouldn't have). So when it found it's way back to the US, the feds decided they could lose the case so the made it a split ownership. However, they still needed to monetize it.

    A couple of good books on the subject.

    Nonsense. Farouk didn't grab one of a pile and then apply for an export license.

    They were likely all exchanged for $20s. It is just that they weren't supposed to be released.

    I don’t understand the “nonsense” part of your post. I think the two of you are in essence, saying the same thing.

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

  • Options
    ZoinsZoins Posts: 33,913 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited June 13, 2021 1:51PM

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @gumby1234 said:
    Its probably been posted somewhere on this website before. I have always wondered why the 1913 Liberty nickel doesn't get seized when the 1933 Double Eagle gets seized all the time

    Because the Mint claimed for a long time that they didn't make the 1913 Liberty nickels.

    Did they ever stop claiming this? Is there any US document recognizing these items?

    If not, the 1913 Liberty nickels are not US coins according to the US government.

  • Options
    amwldcoinamwldcoin Posts: 11,269 ✭✭✭✭✭

    But wouldn't that make them counterfeit? o:)

    @Zoins said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @gumby1234 said:
    Its probably been posted somewhere on this website before. I have always wondered why the 1913 Liberty nickel doesn't get seized when the 1933 Double Eagle gets seized all the time

    Because the Mint claimed for a long time that they didn't make the 1913 Liberty nickels.

    Did they ever stop claiming this? Is there any US document recognizing these items?

    If not, the 1913 Liberty nickels are not US coins according to the US government.

  • Options
    ZoinsZoins Posts: 33,913 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited June 13, 2021 2:28PM

    @amwldcoin said:
    But wouldn't that make them counterfeit? o:)

    @Zoins said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @gumby1234 said:
    Its probably been posted somewhere on this website before. I have always wondered why the 1913 Liberty nickel doesn't get seized when the 1933 Double Eagle gets seized all the time

    Because the Mint claimed for a long time that they didn't make the 1913 Liberty nickels.

    Did they ever stop claiming this? Is there any US document recognizing these items?

    If not, the 1913 Liberty nickels are not US coins according to the US government.

    From a legality perspective, they could be like errors, as I assume many errors are also not recognized.

  • Options
    jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 32,022 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @MFeld said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @dbldie55 said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @BAJJERFAN said:

    @gumby1234 said:
    @jmlanzaf So if the mint claims they did not make then wouldn't that automatically make them illegal? I'm confused

    The mint's claim is that they were never monetized. Monetization is the act of or process for making money including any quality control or certification at the end. The coins were certified but the results were never sent back to the mint in time for them to be delivered from the coiner to the cashier and thus be available for legal issue or exchange. That is a summary of how I understand it.

    That is also how I understand it. Hence the $20 paid to the government the first time the coin was sold. Which itself was weird to me because I assume Farouk's agent paid $20 at the time of acquisition. Shouldn't someone refund Farouk (Egypt) $20? >:)

    Farouk's agent never paid $20. That coin got out in the same manner as all others. The issue was someone in the Government signed off on it to be exported (and shouldn't have). So when it found it's way back to the US, the feds decided they could lose the case so the made it a split ownership. However, they still needed to monetize it.

    A couple of good books on the subject.

    Nonsense. Farouk didn't grab one of a pile and then apply for an export license.

    They were likely all exchanged for $20s. It is just that they weren't supposed to be released.

    I don’t understand the “nonsense” part of your post. I think the two of you are in essence, saying the same thing.

    He said Farouk's agent never "paid" $20 for the coin. I'm saying that he did, or Switt did and then sold it to Farouk's agent.

    In some sense, it's a minor point. But I've always believed that the general consensus was that they were inappropriately/ illegally swapped out of the Mint. I don't believe they were spirited away in the dark of night.

  • Options
    jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 32,022 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Zoins said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @gumby1234 said:
    Its probably been posted somewhere on this website before. I have always wondered why the 1913 Liberty nickel doesn't get seized when the 1933 Double Eagle gets seized all the time

    Because the Mint claimed for a long time that they didn't make the 1913 Liberty nickels.

    Did they ever stop claiming this? Is there any US document recognizing these items?

    If not, the 1913 Liberty nickels are not US coins according to the US government.

    I don't know what the government finally said. The numismatic community stopped questioning the Mint origin.

  • Options
    tradedollarnuttradedollarnut Posts: 20,147 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Iirc, All US coins, no matter how minted or released, are now deemed legal tender with a few notable exceptions: 1933$20 1974 aluminum cent and 1964-D peace dollar.

  • Options
    ZoinsZoins Posts: 33,913 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited June 13, 2021 2:42PM

    @tradedollarnut said:
    Iirc, All US coins, no matter how minted or released, are now deemed legal tender with a few notable exceptions: 1933$20 1974 aluminum cent and 1964-D peace dollar.

    I assume the US government would still need to recognize the coins for this.

    It would be nice for the Mint to officially recognize them given the history of denial. Perhaps David Ryder could issue a declaration?

  • Options
    MFeldMFeld Posts: 12,056 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @MFeld said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @dbldie55 said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @BAJJERFAN said:

    @gumby1234 said:
    @jmlanzaf So if the mint claims they did not make then wouldn't that automatically make them illegal? I'm confused

    The mint's claim is that they were never monetized. Monetization is the act of or process for making money including any quality control or certification at the end. The coins were certified but the results were never sent back to the mint in time for them to be delivered from the coiner to the cashier and thus be available for legal issue or exchange. That is a summary of how I understand it.

    That is also how I understand it. Hence the $20 paid to the government the first time the coin was sold. Which itself was weird to me because I assume Farouk's agent paid $20 at the time of acquisition. Shouldn't someone refund Farouk (Egypt) $20? >:)

    Farouk's agent never paid $20. That coin got out in the same manner as all others. The issue was someone in the Government signed off on it to be exported (and shouldn't have). So when it found it's way back to the US, the feds decided they could lose the case so the made it a split ownership. However, they still needed to monetize it.

    A couple of good books on the subject.

    Nonsense. Farouk didn't grab one of a pile and then apply for an export license.

    They were likely all exchanged for $20s. It is just that they weren't supposed to be released.

    I don’t understand the “nonsense” part of your post. I think the two of you are in essence, saying the same thing.

    He said Farouk's agent never "paid" $20 for the coin. I'm saying that he did, or Switt did and then sold it to Farouk's agent.

    In some sense, it's a minor point. But I've always believed that the general consensus was that they were inappropriately/ illegally swapped out of the Mint. I don't believe they were spirited away in the dark of night.

    Hopefully dbldie55 can clarify, but I took his post to indicate that the Farouk coin was swapped, like the others that Switt ended up with. And that Farouk’s agent ended up buying it for him (for a lot more than $20) and that the coin was aubsequently exported. I still think the two of you agree.

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

  • Options
    jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 32,022 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @MFeld said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @MFeld said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @dbldie55 said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @BAJJERFAN said:

    @gumby1234 said:
    @jmlanzaf So if the mint claims they did not make then wouldn't that automatically make them illegal? I'm confused

    The mint's claim is that they were never monetized. Monetization is the act of or process for making money including any quality control or certification at the end. The coins were certified but the results were never sent back to the mint in time for them to be delivered from the coiner to the cashier and thus be available for legal issue or exchange. That is a summary of how I understand it.

    That is also how I understand it. Hence the $20 paid to the government the first time the coin was sold. Which itself was weird to me because I assume Farouk's agent paid $20 at the time of acquisition. Shouldn't someone refund Farouk (Egypt) $20? >:)

    Farouk's agent never paid $20. That coin got out in the same manner as all others. The issue was someone in the Government signed off on it to be exported (and shouldn't have). So when it found it's way back to the US, the feds decided they could lose the case so the made it a split ownership. However, they still needed to monetize it.

    A couple of good books on the subject.

    Nonsense. Farouk didn't grab one of a pile and then apply for an export license.

    They were likely all exchanged for $20s. It is just that they weren't supposed to be released.

    I don’t understand the “nonsense” part of your post. I think the two of you are in essence, saying the same thing.

    He said Farouk's agent never "paid" $20 for the coin. I'm saying that he did, or Switt did and then sold it to Farouk's agent.

    In some sense, it's a minor point. But I've always believed that the general consensus was that they were inappropriately/ illegally swapped out of the Mint. I don't believe they were spirited away in the dark of night.

    Hopefully dbldie55 can clarify, but I took his post to indicate that the Farouk coin was swapped, like the others that Switt ended up with. And that Farouk’s agent ended up buying it for him (for a lot more than $20) and that the coin was aubsequently exported. I still think the two of you agree.

    Idk. His first sentence is that Farouk's agent never paid $20. That suggests no swap.

  • Options
    gumby1234gumby1234 Posts: 5,436 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I have been following this thread and there are many valid points.
    If the nickels were not made by the mint, but somebody at the mint produced them from the dies that the mint obviously had made then those would be considered illegal. YES?

    If they were not made at the mint then they would be either illegal OR they would not be considered to be a coin at all. Maybe a token? My understanding is that a coin is legal tender and other things struck by individuals or other means are tokens/medals.

    If I am wrong I am sorry but this is what I am thinking.

    Successful BST with ad4400, Kccoin, lablover, pointfivezero, koynekwest, jwitten, coin22lover, HalfDimeDude, erwindoc, jyzskowsi, COINS MAKE CENTS, AlanSki, BryceM

  • Options
    sellitstoresellitstore Posts: 2,498 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I agree. Even though the mint made the dies (50 obverses!), their use was not authorized. Nor was the use of minting equipment. Does this make the production from them illegal and coins contraband? That's my point. It isn't just the question of who produced the die (answered) but the other activities associated, too, including subsequent sales.

    No, it's not a token as these are issued under somebody's authority, and this coin was produced without official authority. And it's not a medal as medals don't represent money or have denominations.

    Collector and dealer in obsolete currency. Always buying all obsolete bank notes and scrip.
  • Options
    tradedollarnuttradedollarnut Posts: 20,147 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @sellitstore said:
    I agree. Even though the mint made the dies (50 obverses!), their use was not authorized. Nor was the use of minting equipment. Does this make the production from them illegal and coins contraband? That's my point. It isn't just the question of who produced the die (answered) but the other activities associated, too, including subsequent sales.

    No, it's not a token as these are issued under somebody's authority, and this coin was produced without official authority. And it's not a medal as medals don't represent money or have denominations.

    This entire post is based upon assumptions made with no real evidence. Again, there was a window when the dies were on hand and normal Mint procedures could have resulted in the coins being struck - die trials, anyone? The only difference between these and a multitude of other coins struck and released by the Mint is.....nothing.

  • Options
    jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 32,022 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @tradedollarnut said:

    @sellitstore said:
    I agree. Even though the mint made the dies (50 obverses!), their use was not authorized. Nor was the use of minting equipment. Does this make the production from them illegal and coins contraband? That's my point. It isn't just the question of who produced the die (answered) but the other activities associated, too, including subsequent sales.

    No, it's not a token as these are issued under somebody's authority, and this coin was produced without official authority. And it's not a medal as medals don't represent money or have denominations.

    This entire post is based upon assumptions made with no real evidence. Again, there was a window when the dies were on hand and normal Mint procedures could have resulted in the coins being struck - die trials, anyone? The only difference between these and a multitude of other coins struck and released by the Mint is.....nothing.

    At one point Brown claimed they were die trials. Although I'm not sure how credible anything he says might be.

  • Options
    MasonGMasonG Posts: 6,268 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @MFeld said:
    How can you have a copy/counterfeit of a coin that supposedly wasn’t ever made? Or, like in the case of 1964 Peace Dollars, which was produced, but which allegedly, no longer exists?

    If they no longer exist, why did the mint issue a notice that they were illegal to own?

  • Options
    MFeldMFeld Posts: 12,056 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @MasonG said:

    @MFeld said:
    How can you have a copy/counterfeit of a coin that supposedly wasn’t ever made? Or, like in the case of 1964 Peace Dollars, which was produced, but which allegedly, no longer exists?

    If they no longer exist, why did the mint issue a notice that they were illegal to own?

    I purposely included the word "allegedly" and believe that they do exist.

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

  • Options
    MasonGMasonG Posts: 6,268 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @MFeld said:

    @MasonG said:

    @MFeld said:
    How can you have a copy/counterfeit of a coin that supposedly wasn’t ever made? Or, like in the case of 1964 Peace Dollars, which was produced, but which allegedly, no longer exists?

    If they no longer exist, why did the mint issue a notice that they were illegal to own?

    I purposely included the word "allegedly" and believe that they do exist.

    Based on the mint's notice, so do they.

  • Options
    dbldie55dbldie55 Posts: 7,719 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @MFeld said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @MFeld said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @dbldie55 said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @BAJJERFAN said:

    @gumby1234 said:
    @jmlanzaf So if the mint claims they did not make then wouldn't that automatically make them illegal? I'm confused

    The mint's claim is that they were never monetized. Monetization is the act of or process for making money including any quality control or certification at the end. The coins were certified but the results were never sent back to the mint in time for them to be delivered from the coiner to the cashier and thus be available for legal issue or exchange. That is a summary of how I understand it.

    That is also how I understand it. Hence the $20 paid to the government the first time the coin was sold. Which itself was weird to me because I assume Farouk's agent paid $20 at the time of acquisition. Shouldn't someone refund Farouk (Egypt) $20? >:)

    Farouk's agent never paid $20. That coin got out in the same manner as all others. The issue was someone in the Government signed off on it to be exported (and shouldn't have). So when it found it's way back to the US, the feds decided they could lose the case so the made it a split ownership. However, they still needed to monetize it.

    A couple of good books on the subject.

    Nonsense. Farouk didn't grab one of a pile and then apply for an export license.

    They were likely all exchanged for $20s. It is just that they weren't supposed to be released.

    I don’t understand the “nonsense” part of your post. I think the two of you are in essence, saying the same thing.

    He said Farouk's agent never "paid" $20 for the coin. I'm saying that he did, or Switt did and then sold it to Farouk's agent.

    In some sense, it's a minor point. But I've always believed that the general consensus was that they were inappropriately/ illegally swapped out of the Mint. I don't believe they were spirited away in the dark of night.

    Hopefully dbldie55 can clarify, but I took his post to indicate that the Farouk coin was swapped, like the others that Switt ended up with. And that Farouk’s agent ended up buying it for him (for a lot more than $20) and that the coin was aubsequently exported. I still think the two of you agree.

    I understand your point and would assume you are correct (they were traded for at face value and thus the mint received $20 for the coin). I suspect the Government's point of view is there is no documentation saying it left the mint legally and thus they still required the $20 to monetize it (despite how silly that really was)

    Collector and Researcher of Liberty Head Nickels. ANA LM-6053
  • Options
    MFeldMFeld Posts: 12,056 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @dbldie55 said:

    @MFeld said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @MFeld said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @dbldie55 said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @BAJJERFAN said:

    @gumby1234 said:
    @jmlanzaf So if the mint claims they did not make then wouldn't that automatically make them illegal? I'm confused

    The mint's claim is that they were never monetized. Monetization is the act of or process for making money including any quality control or certification at the end. The coins were certified but the results were never sent back to the mint in time for them to be delivered from the coiner to the cashier and thus be available for legal issue or exchange. That is a summary of how I understand it.

    That is also how I understand it. Hence the $20 paid to the government the first time the coin was sold. Which itself was weird to me because I assume Farouk's agent paid $20 at the time of acquisition. Shouldn't someone refund Farouk (Egypt) $20? >:)

    Farouk's agent never paid $20. That coin got out in the same manner as all others. The issue was someone in the Government signed off on it to be exported (and shouldn't have). So when it found it's way back to the US, the feds decided they could lose the case so the made it a split ownership. However, they still needed to monetize it.

    A couple of good books on the subject.

    Nonsense. Farouk didn't grab one of a pile and then apply for an export license.

    They were likely all exchanged for $20s. It is just that they weren't supposed to be released.

    I don’t understand the “nonsense” part of your post. I think the two of you are in essence, saying the same thing.

    He said Farouk's agent never "paid" $20 for the coin. I'm saying that he did, or Switt did and then sold it to Farouk's agent.

    In some sense, it's a minor point. But I've always believed that the general consensus was that they were inappropriately/ illegally swapped out of the Mint. I don't believe they were spirited away in the dark of night.

    Hopefully dbldie55 can clarify, but I took his post to indicate that the Farouk coin was swapped, like the others that Switt ended up with. And that Farouk’s agent ended up buying it for him (for a lot more than $20) and that the coin was aubsequently exported. I still think the two of you agree.

    I understand your point and would assume you are correct (they were traded for at face value and thus the mint received $20 for the coin). I suspect the Government's point of view is there is no documentation saying it left the mint legally and thus they still required the $20 to monetize it (despite how silly that really was)

    Thank you.

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

  • Options
    TwoSides2aCoinTwoSides2aCoin Posts: 43,858 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Dignitaries back then could get what they wanted. When your mom is the witch of Wall Street... well there are the back door policies. Worked for Green, not for Switt.

  • Options
    TwoSides2aCoinTwoSides2aCoin Posts: 43,858 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited June 15, 2021 8:04AM

    How about that 1856 Flying Eagle cent made and distributed before the law was passed to make them ?
    But you see, it's not about legality or law. Well, not until the people get interested in collecting. That is when and where "seizure" begins. ( my opinion) ... then add gold: which we no longer use to base a dollar.
    Addendum: Anyone have an aluminum cent from '74 ? That's 1974.

  • Options
    jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 32,022 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @TwoSides2aCoin said:
    Dignitaries back then could get what they wanted. When your mom is the witch of Wall Street... well there are the back door policies. Worked for Green, not for Switt.

    It worked for Switt... just not that one time.

  • Options
    TwoSides2aCoinTwoSides2aCoin Posts: 43,858 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @TwoSides2aCoin said:
    Dignitaries back then could get what they wanted. When your mom is the witch of Wall Street... well there are the back door policies. Worked for Green, not for Switt.

    It worked for Switt... just not that one time.

    Or only that one time ( when smuggled to a king ) , for one particular specimen ?
    The system had order in place, in the old days. We didn't change the terms of service until the forties, when interest and availability coexisted. Coins weren't "rigged" into numismatics. They were created, as usual, for commerce. Many were removed from commerce, early. For one specific purpose. Collecting. Yet, apparently in the aggregate of $200, they're confiscated..(decades later) from collectors. Defying the presidential order that authorized them existing for the benefit of "modern" collectors, like Switt and others , post market crash and pre war.

  • Options
    TwoSides2aCoinTwoSides2aCoin Posts: 43,858 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Whatever the case... the government settled it in their (OUR) favor.

  • Options
    jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 32,022 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @TwoSides2aCoin said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @TwoSides2aCoin said:
    Dignitaries back then could get what they wanted. When your mom is the witch of Wall Street... well there are the back door policies. Worked for Green, not for Switt.

    It worked for Switt... just not that one time.

    Or only that one time ( when smuggled to a king ) , for one particular specimen ?
    The system had order in place, in the old days. We didn't change the terms of service until the forties, when interest and availability coexisted. Coins weren't "rigged" into numismatics. They were created, as usual, for commerce. Many were removed from commerce, early. For one specific purpose. Collecting. Yet, apparently in the aggregate of $200, they're confiscated..(decades later) from collectors. Defying the presidential order that authorized them existing for the benefit of "modern" collectors, like Switt and others , post market crash and pre war.

    I was referring more to the very common occurrence of dealers getting preferential access early. Switt's trip to the Mint for the 1933 DEs probably was an annual event when he went to get new issues. Some "insiders" even got the Mint to do them little...er...favors. If we were legal purists, there's probably a lot of 19th and early 20th century material that could be vacuumed up by the Feds for being illegally struck and/or distributed.

Leave a Comment

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