@dbldie55 said:
I was not aware Switt ever turned over a single example to the Government. I must have missed that.
( I am pretty sure he never sold one to a king either )
Not sure what nit you're picking here. The Langbord examples are the Switt coins.
And weren't some of the first 8 seized traced to Switt?
Every coin is traced to Switt (except perhaps 1), but he never turned any over. He sold them and I am sure he didn't offer refunds when they were seized (other than the ones the family ended up with)
Collector and Researcher of Liberty Head Nickels. ANA LM-6053
If the exact provenance and history of these coins was clear, they wouldn’t be nearly so interesting. It’s the intrigue that keeps them in the public eye. Otherwise they’d just be low-mintage curiosities, of which we have numerous somewhat obscure examples.
@BryceM said:
If the exact provenance and history of these coins was clear, they wouldn’t be nearly so interesting. It’s the intrigue that keeps them in the public eye. Otherwise they’d just be low-mintage curiosities, of which we have numerous somewhat obscure examples.
Well put! Here’s an example- 1802 $ proof novodel, population only 4 coins, but yet only 10% of the price of a 1913 nickel
@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.
The Coinage Act of 1965, 31 U.S.C. 5103, made all U.S. coin and currency legal tender. I’m not aware of any case law interpreting the section specifically, but it would seemingly come down to legal issuance to determine whether it is a U.S. coin as opposed to pattern or test piece, etc.
Of course the legality piece goes well beyond the definition of legal tender. Patterns aren’t legal tender but aren’t treated as illegal contraband. And even if an item is legal tender, if the government alleges the item was stolen as it did with the Langboard double eagles then legal tender status doesn’t really matter as title to stolen property doesn’t pass.
In short, it really is an issue of selective enforcement. The 1933 saint, 1964-D Peace Dollars, etc., have issues because the Mint/Treasury Department have declared it so playing semantic games on the concept of issuance which is a shame. Congress should step in, but I doubt it cares enough about the topic since it effects so few. Collectors shouldn’t be left in doubt.
P.S. I think the government’s case is weakest for the 1974 aluminum cents as these were distributed to dignitaries including members of Congress. Some were likely honestly lost making it different to allege theft.
@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.
There wasn’t an executive order against the other coins.
You don’t have to go that far for the 1933 DEs, just look at the 1933 Es.
@cameonut2011 said:
P.S. I think the government’s case is weakest for the 1974 aluminum cents as these were distributed to dignitaries including members of Congress. Some were likely honestly lost making it different to allege theft.
That’s probably why they haven't claimed the Toven specimen.
The Lawrence specimen wasn’t distributed to Congress.
Comments
I was not aware Switt ever turned over a single example to the Government. I must have missed that.
( I am pretty sure he never sold one to a king either )
Not sure what nit you're picking here. The Langbord examples are the Switt coins.
And weren't some of the first 8 seized traced to Switt?
Every coin is traced to Switt (except perhaps 1), but he never turned any over. He sold them and I am sure he didn't offer refunds when they were seized (other than the ones the family ended up with)
If the exact provenance and history of these coins was clear, they wouldn’t be nearly so interesting. It’s the intrigue that keeps them in the public eye. Otherwise they’d just be low-mintage curiosities, of which we have numerous somewhat obscure examples.
Well put! Here’s an example- 1802 $ proof novodel, population only 4 coins, but yet only 10% of the price of a 1913 nickel
The Coinage Act of 1965, 31 U.S.C. 5103, made all U.S. coin and currency legal tender. I’m not aware of any case law interpreting the section specifically, but it would seemingly come down to legal issuance to determine whether it is a U.S. coin as opposed to pattern or test piece, etc.
Of course the legality piece goes well beyond the definition of legal tender. Patterns aren’t legal tender but aren’t treated as illegal contraband. And even if an item is legal tender, if the government alleges the item was stolen as it did with the Langboard double eagles then legal tender status doesn’t really matter as title to stolen property doesn’t pass.
In short, it really is an issue of selective enforcement. The 1933 saint, 1964-D Peace Dollars, etc., have issues because the Mint/Treasury Department have declared it so playing semantic games on the concept of issuance which is a shame. Congress should step in, but I doubt it cares enough about the topic since it effects so few. Collectors shouldn’t be left in doubt.
P.S. I think the government’s case is weakest for the 1974 aluminum cents as these were distributed to dignitaries including members of Congress. Some were likely honestly lost making it different to allege theft.
There wasn’t an executive order against the other coins.
You don’t have to go that far for the 1933 DEs, just look at the 1933 Es.
That’s probably why they haven't claimed the Toven specimen.
The Lawrence specimen wasn’t distributed to Congress.