@PhillyJoe said:
A lot were minted and sitting near the cashier’s window. Switt, being a jeweler, was a frequent visitor and probably exchanged a few older DE for the new shiny ones. No one stole any, all bag weights were correct. No one thought they would not be issued at the time.
The accuracy of the last sentence above depends upon (if applicable) when the coins were actually exchanged.
And it is still "theft" if you are sold something that had not been authorized for sale. No one is alleging that Switt pocketed them. But the Mint never authorized them for release to the public.
I always feel that if these were anything but coins people would be more up in arms about the insider trading and illegal acquisition.
I am still waiting to see the original police report of this alleged "theft."
If, as I speculated above, 25 1933 Double Eagles left the Mint, 25 other Double Eagles must have replaced them. Where was the "theft?"
In the 19th Century the Mint routinely rescued rare coins deposited for melting for the Mint's Collection by replacing the gold content with other gold. Was that "theft?"
I could see some hypothetical charge involving the word "conversion" in some manner, but the Mint has been getting away with this "theft" horse hockey for decades.
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.
@PhillyJoe said:
A lot were minted and sitting near the cashier’s window. Switt, being a jeweler, was a frequent visitor and probably exchanged a few older DE for the new shiny ones. No one stole any, all bag weights were correct. No one thought they would not be issued at the time.
The accuracy of the last sentence above depends upon (if applicable) when the coins were actually exchanged.
And it is still "theft" if you are sold something that had not been authorized for sale. No one is alleging that Switt pocketed them. But the Mint never authorized them for release to the public.
I always feel that if these were anything but coins people would be more up in arms about the insider trading and illegal acquisition.
I am still waiting to see the original police report of this alleged "theft."
If, as I speculated above, 25 1933 Double Eagles left the Mint, 25 other Double Eagles must have replaced them. Where was the "theft?"
In the 19th Century the Mint routinely rescued rare coins deposited for melting for the Mint's Collection by replacing the gold content with other gold. Was that "theft?"
I could see some hypothetical charge involving the word "conversion" in some manner, but the Mint has been getting away with this "theft" horse hockey for decades.
You can't legally buy what isn't for sale.
Let's say you buy a house and finance the purchase price at 100%. Could I just move in and assume the mortgage without your permission?
Pre-sales have existed forever. Hot selling books, cars, cabbage patch dolls, Beatles records were all manufactured and shipped prior to the official release date. Just needed a friend to get one before everyone else.
The Mint cashier, did what he always did, fulfilled a few orders before the official release date.
The Philadelphia Mint: making coins since 1792. We make money by making money. Now in our 225th year thanks to no competition.
Switt had a buddy at the Mint (McCann) who regularly got him coins in exchange for a little extra drinking money. The "what if" contention that was the lynch pin of the Langbords' case- about there being a window of time where these sorta, kinda, maybe might have been legally gotten at the cashier window- fell flat, as these by definition had to be monetized before being made available for use, thus they wouldn't be at the cashier window in the first place. Couple that with the fact that there was no record of them at said cashier's window plus the fact that they already had the $20s they needed for commerce at the time...and in a nutshell that's what sank the Langbords case.
@telephoto1 said:
Switt had a buddy at the Mint (McCann) who regularly got him coins in exchange for a little extra drinking money. The "what if" contention that was the lynch pin of the Langbords' case- about there being a window of time where these sorta, kinda, maybe might have been legally gotten at the cashier window- fell flat, as these by definition had to be monetized before being made available for use, thus they wouldn't be at the cashier window in the first place. Couple that with the fact that there was no record of them at said cashier's window plus the fact that they already had the $20s they needed for commerce at the time...and in a nutshell that's what sank the Langbords case.
How would the coins have been “monetized”, back then? And if the were exchanged for others, why would the lack of a record of them being at the cashier’s window make a difference ?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@telephoto1 said:
Switt had a buddy at the Mint (McCann) who regularly got him coins in exchange for a little extra drinking money. The "what if" contention that was the lynch pin of the Langbords' case- about there being a window of time where these sorta, kinda, maybe might have been legally gotten at the cashier window- fell flat, as these by definition had to be monetized before being made available for use, thus they wouldn't be at the cashier window in the first place. Couple that with the fact that there was no record of them at said cashier's window plus the fact that they already had the $20s they needed for commerce at the time...and in a nutshell that's what sank the Langbords case.
How would the coins have been “monetized”, back then? And if the were exchanged for others, why would the lack of a record of them being at the cashier’s window make a difference ?
Perhaps "authorized and released for use" is a more fitting term. As to the lack of a record of them being at the window... that totally shoots the Langbords' case, which totally hinged on the supposed window of time where they could have been legally obtained via said window. Records existed of the other coins there, which was part of their daily accounting procedures. But no mention of 1933 $20s. None. Mc Cann went to where they were stored and did the swap but none of the remaining pieces went to the cashier...otherwise many other people would have received them and not just Switt.
@Clackamas1 said:
Carr needs to do a 1934. I would buy that coin.
Dan already did a 1934 St Gaudens $20 Gold Double Eagle Coin a few years back in 2018.
1934 - SAINT GAUDENS $20 Gold Double Eagle ICG MS70 4808551301 60 pcs 05/15/18
My coin graded MS70
How is that not a counterfeit ? Pretty sure there is verbiage about altering legal tender/ money for profit and deception. Bumping the grade up is deception.
@PhillyJoe said:
A lot were minted and sitting near the cashier’s window. Switt, being a jeweler, was a frequent visitor and probably exchanged a few older DE for the new shiny ones. No one stole any, all bag weights were correct. No one thought they would not be issued at the time.
The accuracy of the last sentence above depends upon (if applicable) when the coins were actually exchanged.
And it is still "theft" if you are sold something that had not been authorized for sale. No one is alleging that Switt pocketed them. But the Mint never authorized them for release to the public.
I always feel that if these were anything but coins people would be more up in arms about the insider trading and illegal acquisition.
I am still waiting to see the original police report of this alleged "theft."
If, as I speculated above, 25 1933 Double Eagles left the Mint, 25 other Double Eagles must have replaced them. Where was the "theft?"
In the 19th Century the Mint routinely rescued rare coins deposited for melting for the Mint's Collection by replacing the gold content with other gold. Was that "theft?"
I could see some hypothetical charge involving the word "conversion" in some manner, but the Mint has been getting away with this "theft" horse hockey for decades.
Same for the pieces the Mint Director, Linderman? had struck and sold for years.
Roger B. couldn't find any use of the word "monetized" in historical documents of that time or before.
When the chief coiner accepted the weight & appearance, they were put into bags.
The mint cashier received partial bags at his station to distribute to walk-in customers.
Coins could be traded one-for-one at the window so long as they weren't under weight.
So far as the mint was concerned, they were bullion coins & the date was basically irrelevant.
A bunch of collectors wanted 1921 Saints but they were buried behind tons of newer coins and inaccessible.
They never moved the newer coins until the big melt.
@PhillyJoe said:
Pre-sales have existed forever. Hot selling books, cars, cabbage patch dolls, Beatles records were all manufactured and shipped prior to the official release date. Just needed a friend to get one before everyone else.
The Mint cashier, did what he always did, fulfilled a few orders before the official release date.
That's actually not exactly how it works. They have to be officially given to the cashier. That's why there exists the issue of the coins never having been monetized.
While it was not abnormal behavior, that doesn't make it legal.
@telephoto1 said:
Switt had a buddy at the Mint (McCann) who regularly got him coins in exchange for a little extra drinking money. The "what if" contention that was the lynch pin of the Langbords' case- about there being a window of time where these sorta, kinda, maybe might have been legally gotten at the cashier window- fell flat, as these by definition had to be monetized before being made available for use, thus they wouldn't be at the cashier window in the first place. Couple that with the fact that there was no record of them at said cashier's window plus the fact that they already had the $20s they needed for commerce at the time...and in a nutshell that's what sank the Langbords case.
How would the coins have been “monetized”, back then? And if the were exchanged for others, why would the lack of a record of them being at the cashier’s window make a difference ?
If I recall correctly, they have to be officially released to the cashier. These allegedly never were.
@Clackamas1 said:
Carr needs to do a 1934. I would buy that coin.
Dan already did a 1934 St Gaudens $20 Gold Double Eagle Coin a few years back in 2018.
1934 - SAINT GAUDENS $20 Gold Double Eagle ICG MS70 4808551301 60 pcs 05/15/18
My coin graded MS70
How is that not a counterfeit ? Pretty sure there is verbiage about altering legal tender/ money for profit and deception. Bumping the grade up is deception.
Bumping the grade??? As opposed to the original 1934 coins?
@PhillyJoe said:
Pre-sales have existed forever. Hot selling books, cars, cabbage patch dolls, Beatles records were all manufactured and shipped prior to the official release date. Just needed a friend to get one before everyone else.
The Mint cashier, did what he always did, fulfilled a few orders before the official release date.
That's actually not exactly how it works. They have to be officially given to the cashier. That's why there exists the issue of the coins never having been monetized.
While it was not abnormal behavior, that doesn't make it legal.
But does that make it theft/illegal?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@jmlanzaf said:
You can't legally buy what isn't for sale.
Then how do you explain the l913 lib nickels and other 'mysterious' pieces minted at the mint, never authorized, yet sold on a regular basis? Can't have it both ways.....................
@jmlanzaf said:
You can't legally buy what isn't for sale.
Then how do you explain the l913 lib nickels and other 'mysterious' pieces minted at the mint, never authorized, yet sold on a regular basis? Can't have it both ways.....................
The 1913 Liberty nickels were denied by the Mint. I've always thought the Secret Service should have seized those but I'm not sure they even know how they came to be.
If your point is that the Secret Service should be seizing more coins, I'll agree. But there are differences between coins, patterns and their genesis. 1964 Peace $s and 1974 Al cents fall under seizure largely because of contemporary legislation. Most of the patterns do not.
@PhillyJoe said:
Pre-sales have existed forever. Hot selling books, cars, cabbage patch dolls, Beatles records were all manufactured and shipped prior to the official release date. Just needed a friend to get one before everyone else.
The Mint cashier, did what he always did, fulfilled a few orders before the official release date.
That's actually not exactly how it works. They have to be officially given to the cashier. That's why there exists the issue of the coins never having been monetized.
While it was not abnormal behavior, that doesn't make it legal.
But does that make it theft/illegal?
You're the lawyer. But I can see "theft" as the appropriate term for selling/buying something that isn't for sale. If you know a more accurate term, I'll listen.
@PhillyJoe said:
Pre-sales have existed forever. Hot selling books, cars, cabbage patch dolls, Beatles records were all manufactured and shipped prior to the official release date. Just needed a friend to get one before everyone else.
The Mint cashier, did what he always did, fulfilled a few orders before the official release date.
That's actually not exactly how it works. They have to be officially given to the cashier. That's why there exists the issue of the coins never having been monetized.
While it was not abnormal behavior, that doesn't make it legal.
But does that make it theft/illegal?
You're the lawyer. But I can see "theft" as the appropriate term for selling/buying something that isn't for sale. If you know a more accurate term, I'll listen.
I’m not convinced that a crime was committed. But if it was, perhaps the term “misappropriation” would apply?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
The 1933 $10 eagle is almost parallel to the DE. Several hundred thousand minted, government ordered them to be turned in, a few dozen were obtained prior (most likely at the Mint’s cashier window) and are legal to own. Timing is everything.
The Philadelphia Mint: making coins since 1792. We make money by making money. Now in our 225th year thanks to no competition.
Article 10 of the constitution was ignored the day that phony presidential order was signed, and in my opinion, again in 1965.
Izzy Switt probably exchanged a couple dozen or more coins. There weren't illegalities and one could keep gold in the aggregate of $200., even after that order was signed. Why do we still have so many that are known ?
It's shocking how a submission by a private owner is mandated in '33, Fast forward 90 years and the goods get voluntarily submitted and then graded at NGC, then confiscated , then paraded around coin shows. Seems wrong to one citizen and shoving egregious activity in the faces of those who were just enjoying a solitary hobby. Gov.mint/goons took the fun outta that piece.
Tell a lie long enough and people start believing it's truth.
@TwoSides2aCoin said:
Article 10 of the constitution was ignored the day that phony presidential order was signed, and in my opinion, again in 1965.
Izzy Switt probably exchanged a couple dozen or more coins. There weren't illegalities and one could keep gold in the aggregate of $200., even after that order was signed. Why do we still have so many that are known ?
It's shocking how a submission by a private owner is mandated in '33, Fast forward 90 years and the goods get voluntarily submitted and then graded at NGC, then confiscated , then paraded around coin shows. Seems wrong to one citizen and shoving egregious activity in the faces of those who were just enjoying a solitary hobby. Gov.mint/goons took the fun outta that piece.
Tell a lie long enough and people start believing it's truth.
What did the Executive Order of 1933 or the Coinage Act of 1965 have to do with Article 10 of the Constitution?
As to why “do we still have so many that are known ?” - because one way or another, Izzy Switt ended up with quite a few of them, only some of which were subsequently melted.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@TwoSides2aCoin said:
Article 10 of the constitution was ignored the day that phony presidential order was signed, and in my opinion, again in 1965.
Izzy Switt probably exchanged a couple dozen or more coins. There weren't illegalities and one could keep gold in the aggregate of $200., even after that order was signed. Why do we still have so many that are known ?
It's shocking how a submission by a private owner is mandated in '33, Fast forward 90 years and the goods get voluntarily submitted and then graded at NGC, then confiscated , then paraded around coin shows. Seems wrong to one citizen and shoving egregious activity in the faces of those who were just enjoying a solitary hobby. Gov.mint/goons took the fun outta that piece.
Tell a lie long enough and people start believing it's truth.
What did the Executive Order of 1933 or the Coinage Act of 1965 have to do with Article 10 of the Constitution?
As to why “do we still have so many that are known ?” - because one way or another, Izzy Switt ended up with quite a few of them, only some of which were subsequently melted.
Are we talking Article 1 Section 10?
"Section 10.
No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts."
Section 10 limits the powers of the states not the Federal government.
Comments
I am still waiting to see the original police report of this alleged "theft."
If, as I speculated above, 25 1933 Double Eagles left the Mint, 25 other Double Eagles must have replaced them. Where was the "theft?"
In the 19th Century the Mint routinely rescued rare coins deposited for melting for the Mint's Collection by replacing the gold content with other gold. Was that "theft?"
I could see some hypothetical charge involving the word "conversion" in some manner, but the Mint has been getting away with this "theft" horse hockey for decades.
You can't legally buy what isn't for sale.
Let's say you buy a house and finance the purchase price at 100%. Could I just move in and assume the mortgage without your permission?
Pre-sales have existed forever. Hot selling books, cars, cabbage patch dolls, Beatles records were all manufactured and shipped prior to the official release date. Just needed a friend to get one before everyone else.
The Mint cashier, did what he always did, fulfilled a few orders before the official release date.
Switt had a buddy at the Mint (McCann) who regularly got him coins in exchange for a little extra drinking money. The "what if" contention that was the lynch pin of the Langbords' case- about there being a window of time where these sorta, kinda, maybe might have been legally gotten at the cashier window- fell flat, as these by definition had to be monetized before being made available for use, thus they wouldn't be at the cashier window in the first place. Couple that with the fact that there was no record of them at said cashier's window plus the fact that they already had the $20s they needed for commerce at the time...and in a nutshell that's what sank the Langbords case.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
How would the coins have been “monetized”, back then? And if the were exchanged for others, why would the lack of a record of them being at the cashier’s window make a difference ?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
You took the words right out of my mouth.
Pete
Perhaps "authorized and released for use" is a more fitting term. As to the lack of a record of them being at the window... that totally shoots the Langbords' case, which totally hinged on the supposed window of time where they could have been legally obtained via said window. Records existed of the other coins there, which was part of their daily accounting procedures. But no mention of 1933 $20s. None. Mc Cann went to where they were stored and did the swap but none of the remaining pieces went to the cashier...otherwise many other people would have received them and not just Switt.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
How is that not a counterfeit ? Pretty sure there is verbiage about altering legal tender/ money for profit and deception. Bumping the grade up is deception.
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
Same for the pieces the Mint Director, Linderman? had struck and sold for years.
Roger B. couldn't find any use of the word "monetized" in historical documents of that time or before.
When the chief coiner accepted the weight & appearance, they were put into bags.
The mint cashier received partial bags at his station to distribute to walk-in customers.
Coins could be traded one-for-one at the window so long as they weren't under weight.
So far as the mint was concerned, they were bullion coins & the date was basically irrelevant.
A bunch of collectors wanted 1921 Saints but they were buried behind tons of newer coins and inaccessible.
They never moved the newer coins until the big melt.
My Saint Set
That's actually not exactly how it works. They have to be officially given to the cashier. That's why there exists the issue of the coins never having been monetized.
While it was not abnormal behavior, that doesn't make it legal.
If I recall correctly, they have to be officially released to the cashier. These allegedly never were.
Bumping the grade??? As opposed to the original 1934 coins?
But does that make it theft/illegal?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Then how do you explain the l913 lib nickels and other 'mysterious' pieces minted at the mint, never authorized, yet sold on a regular basis? Can't have it both ways.....................
The 1913 Liberty nickels were denied by the Mint. I've always thought the Secret Service should have seized those but I'm not sure they even know how they came to be.
If your point is that the Secret Service should be seizing more coins, I'll agree. But there are differences between coins, patterns and their genesis. 1964 Peace $s and 1974 Al cents fall under seizure largely because of contemporary legislation. Most of the patterns do not.
You're the lawyer. But I can see "theft" as the appropriate term for selling/buying something that isn't for sale. If you know a more accurate term, I'll listen.
I’m not convinced that a crime was committed. But if it was, perhaps the term “misappropriation” would apply?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
The 1933 $10 eagle is almost parallel to the DE. Several hundred thousand minted, government ordered them to be turned in, a few dozen were obtained prior (most likely at the Mint’s cashier window) and are legal to own. Timing is everything.
Article 10 of the constitution was ignored the day that phony presidential order was signed, and in my opinion, again in 1965.
Izzy Switt probably exchanged a couple dozen or more coins. There weren't illegalities and one could keep gold in the aggregate of $200., even after that order was signed. Why do we still have so many that are known ?
It's shocking how a submission by a private owner is mandated in '33, Fast forward 90 years and the goods get voluntarily submitted and then graded at NGC, then confiscated , then paraded around coin shows. Seems wrong to one citizen and shoving egregious activity in the faces of those who were just enjoying a solitary hobby. Gov.mint/goons took the fun outta that piece.
Tell a lie long enough and people start believing it's truth.
What did the Executive Order of 1933 or the Coinage Act of 1965 have to do with Article 10 of the Constitution?
As to why “do we still have so many that are known ?” - because one way or another, Izzy Switt ended up with quite a few of them, only some of which were subsequently melted.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Are we talking Article 1 Section 10?
"Section 10.
No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts."
Section 10 limits the powers of the states not the Federal government.