Mark, no worries - i never meant to suggest that you originated this thread.
My broader point is that the Treasury has needlessly spent enormous amounts of time, money and manpower on 1933 DE for generations.
And after they confiscated the Langford coins a few years ago, at the ANA convention they displayed their ten trophies of feckless federal futility as if they were the spoils of a righteous war.
I fully agree about the Treasury. And while I’m sure a lot of hobbyists enjoyed seeing the 1933 Saints on display, I found it repulsive that they were paraded around like that, prior to a resolution of their legal ownership.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@JBK said:
This thread is descending into nonsense.
The federal government's position has been quite clear for almost 100 years, and they have stuck to it. Only a messy court case was able to result in the legalization of one coin.
The government is under no pressure to propose or accept any kind of deal such as those proposed here. In fact, any attempt to do so would almost certainly result in legal action since they assured the buyer of the one legal coin that it was, and would be, the only one.
Sure, a Member of Congress or a Senator could slip a provision to legalize them all into a bill. Sure, some compelling new evidence proving that some 1933 DEs were legally sold to the public could surface. Sure, some future lawsuit could succeed in overturning the government's claims on these coins. Anything could theoretically happen. But it's all just wild fantasy and speculation.
You had me at "This thread is descending into nonsense." I agree and think it's a shame.
Read and try to understand what you want and dismiss the rest is what I try to do. Labelling this thread as having "descended into nonsense" is not useful. btw, I have yet to see "Agree" from anyone other than you. An "official" Agree is in order?
I see that this thread has gone back on topic, but I have to respond to this nonsense, as I'm the only person who can give a definitive response.
When I bid on this auction in auction, it was made very clear to me that this is the one and only 1933 DE that the government will EVER allow to be legalized if they can do anything about it. And this is the only reason why I was willing to bid so much for the coin. If there were 10+ 1933 DE's that were legal to own, the finest known would not be worth nearly as much as this Farouk 1933 DE. At least I would never have paid this much for it.
So the answer is a definitive NO. I would not be ok with the government legalizing all 10 other 1933 DE's and then trading the finest known for my Farouk specimen. It would be extremely dumb of anyone to be ok with a deal like this. It's exactly like trading a unicorn for the prettiest goat in the herd. Another thing to note is that the Farouk specimen has a lot of history attached to it. It's not just 1 of 10 random Longboard coins. Even if people don't think it deserves a MS 65 grade by PCGS/NGC/CAC, it doesn't matter because it's the only one legal to own with a super fascinating history behind its existence. Grades don't matter on unique coins. So trading a unique coin for a non-unique one that has a slightly higher grade makes no sense whatsoever.
Exactly! Thank you for making this point so clear.
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.
Mark, no worries - i never meant to suggest that you originated this thread.
My broader point is that the Treasury has needlessly spent enormous amounts of time, money and manpower on 1933 DE for generations.
And after they confiscated the Langford coins a few years ago, at the ANA convention they displayed their ten trophies of feckless federal futility as if they were the spoils of a righteous war.
Yeah, that display did have a gloating, "heads on pikes" kind of vibe.
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.
FWIW, a high-ranking Treasury official said in the 1950's or 1960's that not only was the 1933 confiscations/seizures/meltings permitted and correct, he said the same thing could/should be done to the 1913 Liberty Nickles and other coins/patterns.
Really Gestapo-like nonsense. So glad they're worrying about coin collectors and not counterfeit coins and commemoratives from domestic and overseas sources.
The ex Farouk piece is inferior to the nicest piece that NGC graded is the point. And really, how can anyone know that the only 1933 DE that is legal to own was actually owned by Farouk? Are there any photographs or is there videos in existence of King Farouk showing off his 1933 so we can be certain of it's provenance? No, there are not.
Let’s leave it to Rick on Pawn Stars to provide the definitive Say in this matter! 😄
@JBK said:
We are talking about a coin that is unique in private hands. It is, as a result, the finest known example that can be legally owned.
The feds don't need to concern themselves with a TPG's opinion or whose coin grades highest.
The Feds would be getting the coin back that they have so badly sought for decades. The trade is for the finest example '33 DE in the world that is legal to own, an ex Langbord. Put the ex Farouk on display in the Smithsonian. Sweeten the trade for the owner of the finest example to include Switt's pocket piece '33 DE, in its own right a historic piece. Owner of the ex Farouk would not be interested in trading his one legal to own 1933 DE for two legal to own 1933 DE's?
Switt's pocket piece '33 is more "historic" than the ex Farouk, in my opinion.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
The ex Farouk piece is inferior to the nicest piece that NGC graded is the point. And really, how can anyone know that the only 1933 DE that is legal to own was actually owned by Farouk? Are there any photographs or is there videos in existence of King Farouk showing off his 1933 so we can be certain of it's provenance? No, there are not.
Let’s leave it to Rick on Pawn Stars to provide the definitive Say in this matter! 😄
@JBK said:
We are talking about a coin that is unique in private hands. It is, as a result, the finest known example that can be legally owned.
The feds don't need to concern themselves with a TPG's opinion or whose coin grades highest.
The Feds would be getting the coin back that they have so badly sought for decades. The trade is for the finest example '33 DE in the world that is legal to own, an ex Langbord. Put the ex Farouk on display in the Smithsonian. Sweeten the trade for the owner of the finest example to include Switt's pocket piece '33 DE, in its own right a historic piece. Owner of the ex Farouk would not be interested in trading his one legal to own 1933 DE for two legal to own 1933 DE's?
Switt's pocket piece '33 is more "historic" than the ex Farouk, in my opinion.
The hypothetical trade(s) that you keep talking about would require an agreement between parties who wouldn’t have any interest. Your personal opinion regarding which example is more historic doesn’t matter and neither does mine.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@mr1931S said:
Owner of the ex Farouk would not be interested in trading his one legal to own 1933 DE for two legal to own 1933 >DE's? Switt's pocket piece '33 is more "historic" than the ex Farouk, in my opinion.
EC just chimed in -- it's HIS coin. He wouldn't/doesn't want to do it.
@mr1931S said:
The Feds would be getting the coin back that they have so badly sought for decades. The trade is for the finest example '33 DE in the world that is legal to own, an ex Langbord. Put the ex Farouk on display in the Smithsonian. Sweeten the trade for the owner of the finest example to include Switt's pocket piece '33 DE, in its own right a historic piece. Owner of the ex Farouk would not be interested in trading his one legal to own 1933 DE for two legal to own 1933 DE's?
Switt's pocket piece '33 is more "historic" than the ex Farouk, in my opinion.
No, not interested whatsoever. I care very little about the Switt pocket piece. And I don't see why the government cares about getting the Farouk piece back.
@mr1931S said:
The Feds would be getting the coin back that they have so badly sought for decades. The trade is for the finest example '33 DE in the world that is legal to own, an ex Langbord. Put the ex Farouk on display in the Smithsonian. Sweeten the trade for the owner of the finest example to include Switt's pocket piece '33 DE, in its own right a historic piece. Owner of the ex Farouk would not be interested in trading his one legal to own 1933 DE for two legal to own 1933 DE's?
Switt's pocket piece '33 is more "historic" than the ex Farouk, in my opinion.
No, not interested whatsoever. I care very little about the Switt pocket piece. And I don't see why the government cares about getting the Farouk piece back.
The government must care because mr1931S thinks it does (or should) care.😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@mr1931S said:
The Feds would be getting the coin back that they have so badly sought for decades. The trade is for the finest example '33 DE in the world that is legal to own, an ex Langbord. Put the ex Farouk on display in the Smithsonian. Sweeten the trade for the owner of the finest example to include Switt's pocket piece '33 DE, in its own right a historic piece. Owner of the ex Farouk would not be interested in trading his one legal to own 1933 DE for two legal to own 1933 DE's?
Switt's pocket piece '33 is more "historic" than the ex Farouk, in my opinion.
No, not interested whatsoever. I care very little about the Switt pocket piece. And I don't see why the government cares about getting the Farouk piece back.
The government must care because mr1931S thinks it does (or should) care.😉
Does he actually? Or is he just trolling? When the guy who owns the coin isn't interested in the trade, he has a definitive answer that he's just ignoring.
@mr1931S said:
The Feds would be getting the coin back that they have so badly sought for decades. The trade is for the finest example '33 DE in the world that is legal to own, an ex Langbord. Put the ex Farouk on display in the Smithsonian. Sweeten the trade for the owner of the finest example to include Switt's pocket piece '33 DE, in its own right a historic piece. Owner of the ex Farouk would not be interested in trading his one legal to own 1933 DE for two legal to own 1933 DE's?
Switt's pocket piece '33 is more "historic" than the ex Farouk, in my opinion.
No, not interested whatsoever. I care very little about the Switt pocket piece. And I don't see why the government cares about getting the Farouk piece back.
The government must care because mr1931S thinks it does (or should) care.😉
Does he actually? Or is he just trolling? When the guy who owns the coin isn't interested in the trade, he has a definitive answer that he's just ignoring.
Maybe he hasn’t seen the reply with the definitive answer yet.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
The government must care because mr1931S thinks it does (or should) care.
The government is on the record as saying the '33 DE's that they stole from the Langbords will never be melted. Seems to me if they didn't care, those stolen pieces would have seen the melting pot by now.
Melted was the fate of the ten pieces illegally seized from their owners by the Secret Service in the '40's, of course.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
From my 1933 notes, I believe this was from an issue of CoinWorld:
"...Berke questioned Tripp about the relationship of 1933 double eagles to 1933 Indian Head gold $10 eagles, to which the government objected, as the coins are not the subject of this litigation. Despite Mint records showing that only four 1933 Indian Head gold $10 eagles left the Mint legally, there are estimates that as many as 35 are available today. Yet the the $10 eagles are not subject to confiscation, unlike the 1933 double eagles.
Tripp countered that the 1933 $10 eagles differ from the 1933 $20 double eagles in that no 1933 double eagles left the Mint through legitimate means, while “once the barn door is open” through legal distribution of 1933 $10 eagles, it became impossible to differentiate legitimate versus illegitimate coins. Berke used this example as further proof that the Mint records of 1933 didn’t accurately show what was happening at the time."
This testimony took place on the same day that multiple topics were discussed in court and the judge warned Langbord's Attorney Berke that "...“if you lost me, you’ve lost the jury” with some off-tangent analysis involving a 1936 coin collection.
When one 1933 Eagle left the mint legally, they ALL left the mint legally. When one 1933 Double Eagle left the mint legally (think Farouk's piece that was LEGALLY exported to Egypt) they ALL left the mint legally.
Of course, there was that bag of 250 Double Eagles, most likely '28's, that got lifted by Mint employee(s) in a heist that was never solved, never solved because the powers that be at the Mint in the '30's didn't want the crime solved.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
@mr1931S said:
When one 1933 Eagle left the mint legally, they ALL left the mint legally. When one 1933 Double Eagle left the mint legally (think Farouk's piece that was LEGALLY exported to Egypt) they ALL left the mint legally.
Of course, there was that bag of 250 Double Eagles, most likely '28's, that got lifted by Mint employee(s) in a heist that was never solved, never solved because the powers that be at the Mint in the '30's didn't want the crime solved.
\
When (as you're doing), you're stating your opinions, please don't (as you've also been doing) state them as facts.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@mr1931S said:
The Feds would be getting the coin back that they have so badly sought for decades. The trade is for the finest example '33 DE in the world that is legal to own, an ex Langbord. Put the ex Farouk on display in the Smithsonian. Sweeten the trade for the owner of the finest example to include Switt's pocket piece '33 DE, in its own right a historic piece. Owner of the ex Farouk would not be interested in trading his one legal to own 1933 DE for two legal to own 1933 DE's?
Switt's pocket piece '33 is more "historic" than the ex Farouk, in my opinion.
No, not interested whatsoever. I care very little about the Switt pocket piece. And I don't see why the government cares about getting the Farouk piece back.
The government must care because mr1931S thinks it does (or should) care.😉
Does he actually? Or is he just trolling? When the guy who owns the coin isn't interested in the trade, he has a definitive answer that he's just ignoring.
Unfortunately, some people think that a plastic holder is more important than the coin inside it.
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.
@mr1931S said:
When one 1933 Eagle left the mint legally, they ALL left the mint legally. When one 1933 Double Eagle left the mint legally (think Farouk's piece that was LEGALLY exported to Egypt) they ALL left the mint legally.
No, the key is that the Farouk piece currently owned by EC is traceable.
In theory...if in the 1940's or 1950's all the holders of 1933 DEs got together and "swapped" coins....then they'd all have to be allowed since the government wouldn't know which one was the legal one and which were the "stolen" ones.
Unfortunately, nobody ever came up with Operation Switcheroo !
Of course, there was that bag of 250 Double Eagles, most likely '28's, that got lifted by Mint employee(s) in a heist that was never solved, never solved because the powers that be at the Mint in the '30's didn't want the crime solved.
No, if you read the background story put together by Roger Burdette for an auction of an unrelated 1928 DE bag, Superintendent Dressel was on the hook so they certainly wanted to solve it. But someone -- almost certainly high-up -- pulled a fast one because an entire bag of 250 DEs is not something you can put in your pocket and walk out with in those pre-metal detector days. 10 DEs yes, 250 DEs no.
I can't prove it...I could be off....but the fact that the bag of stolen 1928's was from a pallet of DEs including 1933's that had the dust disturbed at a particular time leads me to wonder if the two groups of DEs were not somehow intertwined.
What's different, of course, is that the Treasury/Mint/Government immediately suspected George McCann and Israel Switt. NOBODY was even rumoured in the 1928 DE case.
@mr1931S said:
When one 1933 Eagle left the mint legally, they ALL left the mint legally. When one 1933 Double Eagle left the mint legally (think Farouk's piece that was LEGALLY exported to Egypt) they ALL left the mint legally.
I am far from an expert on the 1933 DEs, but based on what I know, this assessment is incorrect.
I believe that the feds always considered all 1933 DEs to be ill-gotten, but the fact that a federal export license was issued for one of them muddied the waters for that one coin, so they chose a settlement that prevented a possible wider ruling.
If, as I have heard, there was likely a brief window of opportunity when a 1933 DE could be purchased/swapped legally, then that should be the basis for all of them being legal.
@mr1931S said:
When one 1933 Eagle left the mint legally, they ALL left the mint legally. When one 1933 Double Eagle left the mint legally (think Farouk's piece that was LEGALLY exported to Egypt) they ALL left the mint legally.
Of course, there was that bag of 250 Double Eagles, most likely '28's, that got lifted by Mint employee(s) in a heist that was never solved, never solved because the powers that be at the Mint in the '30's didn't want the crime solved.
\
When (as you're doing), you're stating your opinions, please don't (as you've also been doing) state them as facts.
You are free to accept or reject my theories however you choose. Btw, it's not my opinion that a bag of DE's were stolen from a Mint vault. That's a fact. Should have been an easy crime to solve so why wasn't it? Do you have an opinion about this?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
@mr1931S said:
Should have been an easy crime to solve so why wasn't it? Do you have an opinion about this?
Outside of RWB's write-up for another 1928 DE bag, I have seen NOTHING on the theft, as opposed to all the different stories on the 1913 Liberty Nickel or the 1933 Saints.
I'm not sure if there are official Treasury or Mint or SS reports on it but it looked to be a dead-end very quickly.
Remember...there were tens of thousands of 1928's out already when the bag was found missing. Tough to track down 250 stolen ones, unlike with the 1933's where ALL 1933's were considered "stolen."
You would think by the process of elimination that there should have been only 3 or 4 or 5 or whatever who could access the Vault at the Philly Mint. Maybe breaking a seal required 2 higher-ups -- not sure.
All I know is the "investigation" died very quickly and if not for legislation passed years later, Dressel would have been on the hook.
From RWB's HA write-up, date was February 3rd, 1937:
"....At 11 o'clock that morning, senior employees B. Watson (Shipping Clerk) and Louis H. Frizzel (Vault Custodian) accompanied Cashier George H. McCann as he opened Vault F and broke the old seal on Cage 1 -- part of the main gold vault. They were to count the bags against the totals recorded on the seal. A crew of workmen stood ready with four-wheeled hand trucks to transport bags of gold coins to the melting and refining department for casting into bars. The old seal showed that the last time this cage had been opened was on October 20, 1936, so that an alarm system could be installed, but nothing had been removed. Before that, it had been opened in February 20, 1934, to add more gold coins, and before that it had been sealed on June 27, 1933. Each time the cage was resealed, its contents had been verified as correct. The cage was supposed to contain more than $18 million in 1928 double eagles, over $35 million 1929 pieces, another $58 million double eagles dated 1931, and additional $20, $10, $5 and $2.50 pieces, totaling $166,132,130. 1928 had been the final year of massive double eagle production. The denomination was also struck from 1929 through 1933, but never again approached the $176 million worth made in 1928. So many 1928 double eagles were struck that they clogged the mint vault cages and blocked access to other double eagles. Double eagles dated 1929 were in one of the blocked storage cages, and few of them made it out before all gold coins were melted. But that was in the past. Dressel's problem in February 1937 was to determine if a $5,000 bag was really missing, and then what to do about it. Dressel immediately assigned extra guards to the vault.
In counting the bags of gold stored in Cage 1, it was noticed that a bin containing only 1928 double eagles held 29 bags, not the usual 30. It was also noticed that dust accumulation was different in the spot where the bag should have been. More guards were brought to the vault and Dressel and the others began looking through the cage and vault for a misplaced bag. None was found. Dressel made his call to the Treasury's Secret Service at 3:30 pm, and then called mint headquarters. Within half an hour, agent Landvoight from the Philadelphia Secret Service office arrived at the mint. Vault F was locked down and sealed by the agent.
Next day a fingerprint specialist arrived at the Philadelphia Mint to meet the Superintendent, Mint Director Ross, and an additional agent. No prints could be found, but the investigation showed that the spot where the bag had been, had remained uncovered for a long time. Dust on that spot resembled dust on bags of 1933 double eagles and differed from that on all the other 1928 coin bags.
The agents explored other leads and looked for anyone who might have removed the bag. Coins were recounted and checks made of other vaults, but the bag remained missing. Annual settlement records were examined and committee members questioned, but with no resolution to the problem. The only conclusion was that a bag of 1928 double eagles was taken from Vault F, Cage 1 sometime in 1933."
@mr1931S said:
When one 1933 Eagle left the mint legally, they ALL left the mint legally. When one 1933 Double Eagle left the mint legally (think Farouk's piece that was LEGALLY exported to Egypt) they ALL left the mint legally.
I am far from an expert on the 1933 DEs, but based on what I know, this assessment is incorrect.
I believe that the feds always considered all 1933 DEs to be ill-gotten, but the fact that a federal export license was issued for one of them muddied the waters for that one coin, so they chose a settlement that prevented a possible wider ruling.
If, as I have heard, there was likely a brief window of opportunity when a 1933 DE could be purchased/swapped legally, then that should be the basis for all of them being legal.
Correct. The Farouk coin left the Mint under the same cloud as all the other 1933 $20's other than the two sent to the Smithsonian.
HOWEVER, the issuance of an official export license for it created a plausible case for it having been authorized to be outside the Mint after the fact, and the Treasury Department wisely agreed to cut its losses and agree that that one coin was legal to own, because this specific circumstance did not apply to any other 1933 $20.
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.
Below is a flow-chart generously provided by Roger Burdette. The table is copyright Seneca Mill Press LLC 2015, 2024.
You can see the disposition of where the 1933 Eagles went and the 4 coins "Sold By Treasurer" in the bottom right highlighted in blue. Those are the 4 coins that legitimize ALL 1933 Eagles.....Coin #5 was sold by the Philadelphia Cashier ("Paid Out Philadelphia").
RWB also provided a couple of Cashier Reports for 2/28/33 and 3/1/33:
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.
See the column heading "Shipped to Treasurer per standing order of 1929."
First I have ever heard about it.
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.
"This was a clarification of policy from about 1917 that ordered each mint to send a small quantity of new coins to the Treasurer of the U.S. from initial production.These would be offered for sale to coin collectors at face value.
The purpose was to relieve individual mints of the burden of responding to collector requests for current coins. This had been a problem since the 1892 subsidiary silver design change, and generated complaints of lost orders, delays from collectors, and excessive use of clerk time and materials doing something that was not part of their job. Sending small lots to the Treasurer US relieved the mints from this work and placed distribution of current uncirculated coins for collectors into a consistent process. Eventually, this evolved into the post WW-II "Mint Sets."
Among "common" coins offered at times were 1927-D double eagles. and 1933 Eagles."
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.
@GoldFinger1969 said:
Thanks for reaching out to RWB, Captain.....and thanks to RWB for that explanation.
I would have thought it had something to do with the Crash of 1929 and the reduced need for gold shipments. Clearly, wrong.
So some of the extra 1933 $10's could have come from this source, probably the four not receipted at the Philadelphia Mint cash window, and who knows how many others.
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.
To me, the ability of someone exchanging out the 1933's is nothing spectacular.....it's the entire stolen bag of 1928's that is really amazing.
You wonder if someone knew the mintage numbers and thought that with so many minted, they'd never miss 1 bag !!
I think the SS, Treasury, and Mint looking so hoodwinked on the bag of 1928's is another reason why they were so gung-ho to steal back the 1933's. The proximity of the 1928 bags to the 1933 bags in Vault F at Philly just adds to the mystery.
@GoldFinger1969 said: To me, the ability of someone exchanging out the 1933's is nothing spectacular.....it's the entire stolen bag of 1928's that is really amazing.
You wonder if someone knew the mintage numbers and thought that with so many minted, they'd never miss 1 bag !!
I think the SS, Treasury, and Mint looking so hoodwinked on the bag of 1928's is another reason why they were so gung-ho to steal back the 1933's. The proximity of the 1928 bags to the 1933 bags in Vault F at Philly just adds to the mystery.
Quite possibly.
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.
@mr1931S said:
When one 1933 Eagle left the mint legally, they ALL left the mint legally. When one 1933 Double Eagle left the mint legally (think Farouk's piece that was LEGALLY exported to Egypt) they ALL left the mint legally.
Of course, there was that bag of 250 Double Eagles, most likely '28's, that got lifted by Mint employee(s) in a heist that was never solved, never solved because the powers that be at the Mint in the '30's didn't want the crime solved.
\
When (as you're doing), you're stating your opinions, please don't (as you've also been doing) state them as facts.
Gee, Mark, why not? After all, Roger Burdette has made an entire career of doing EXACTLY and PRECISELY that.
Mark, no worries - i never meant to suggest that you originated this thread.
My broader point is that the Treasury has needlessly spent enormous amounts of time, money and manpower on 1933 DE for generations.
And after they confiscated the Langford coins a few years ago, at the ANA convention they displayed their ten trophies of feckless federal futility as if they were the spoils of a righteous war.
That indeed they did.
Pete
"I tell them there's no problems.....only solutions" - John Lennon
Mark, no worries - i never meant to suggest that you originated this thread.
My broader point is that the Treasury has needlessly spent enormous amounts of time, money and manpower on 1933 DE for generations.
And after they confiscated the Langford coins a few years ago, at the ANA convention they displayed their ten trophies of feckless federal futility as if they were the spoils of a righteous war.
From the 1930 Mint Report. Note that this was for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 1930, which included the second half of Calendar Year 1929. The 1929 $5's and $20's would have been made in the first half of Calendar Year 1929, which was in Fiscal Year 1929.
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.
@CaptHenway said:
Why there were no Quarter Eagles in 1933:
I'm confused....did the coins get spent and then wind up back in the vaults....or Christmas and holiday demand was very low and most of the struck pieces didn't get used as gifts/presents and THOSE went back into the vaults ?
The paragraph is unclear but maybe somebody familiar with fractional Eagles knows.
I guess that part of the confusion is over how gold Quarter Eagles were used at Christmas. Most people think of them being used as outright gifts from people who could afford to give them away to people who could afford to keep them rather than spend them. My one Grandmother had almost 30 grandchildren and she could not shop for each one of us, but we always got a brand new silver dollar from her each Christmas. Most banks kept a bag of silver dollars in their vault for such occasions, until they ceased to be available at face value in 1964. I of course immediately spent mine at the corner candy store.
That same Grandmother had to come live with us for a few years in 1967, and while with us she found out that I collected coins back then. This jogged her memory, and she told me a story.
She had been born and raised in a small town in the farthest north part of Michigan, and after she finished High School she went to work for the local telephone company as a switchboard operator. Back then people got paid in cash in a cash envelope, and she told me that one year at Christmas (this was before World War One) she got a gold $2-1/2 coin in her pay envelope. I of course asked her if she had kept it, and she said "No, two and a half dollars was what I got every week, they just paid me in gold rather than regular money. I took it home and gave it to my Mother like I did every week, and she gave me back the 50 cents I got to keep for myself." No way in hell could she afford to stash away two dollars and fifty cents!
I am sure that Great-Grandma just took it to the store and spent it, and the store deposited it, and the bank, which had probably special ordered the gold coins for the local telephone company and knew that there would be little demand for it before the next Christmas, just accumulated the quarter eagles spent by other employees of the phone company and eventually sent them all back to some big regional bank or the Fed.
I do not know how common the practice was of companies paying out wages in gold at Christmas, but I doubt if my Grandmother's experience was unique. If, perhaps, 100,000 companies did it nationwide, that was easily a million coins washing out with the tide and then washing back in.
By 1930 the Treasury Department was fed up with it. The hard times caused by the Great Depression probably did not help either. This was one recurring expense that could be made to go away.
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.
When I was at ANACS we got in an Uncirculated Turban Head Half Eagle that apparently had been bought from some old family in England. It came with a folded piece of old, high-quality paper on which was written something to the effect of
.
"To Freddie-
An American Guinea
Christmas (the year of the coin)"
.
Apparently some ancestor had been in Philadelphia on business that year and he brought home the coin which he gave as a gift that Christmas. "Freddie" must have come from wealth, as he never needed to spend the coin.
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.
Interesting Thing To Ponder: I had forgotten that the 2 Smithsonian 1933's were given normally and theoretically could be sold into the private market. QDB notes this in his DE book.
The coins were transmitted routinely, which means there were no restrictions about trading them as the Smithsonian has done with coins in the past.
Comments
I fully agree about the Treasury. And while I’m sure a lot of hobbyists enjoyed seeing the 1933 Saints on display, I found it repulsive that they were paraded around like that, prior to a resolution of their legal ownership.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Exactly! Thank you for making this point so clear.
Yeah, that display did have a gloating, "heads on pikes" kind of vibe.
FWIW, a high-ranking Treasury official said in the 1950's or 1960's that not only was the 1933 confiscations/seizures/meltings permitted and correct, he said the same thing could/should be done to the 1913 Liberty Nickles and other coins/patterns.
Really Gestapo-like nonsense. So glad they're worrying about coin collectors and not counterfeit coins and commemoratives from domestic and overseas sources.
The Mysterious Egyptian Magic Coin
Coins in Movies
Coins on Television
The Feds would be getting the coin back that they have so badly sought for decades. The trade is for the finest example '33 DE in the world that is legal to own, an ex Langbord. Put the ex Farouk on display in the Smithsonian. Sweeten the trade for the owner of the finest example to include Switt's pocket piece '33 DE, in its own right a historic piece. Owner of the ex Farouk would not be interested in trading his one legal to own 1933 DE for two legal to own 1933 DE's?
Switt's pocket piece '33 is more "historic" than the ex Farouk, in my opinion.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
The hypothetical trade(s) that you keep talking about would require an agreement between parties who wouldn’t have any interest. Your personal opinion regarding which example is more historic doesn’t matter and neither does mine.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
EC just chimed in -- it's HIS coin.
He wouldn't/doesn't want to do it.
No, not interested whatsoever. I care very little about the Switt pocket piece. And I don't see why the government cares about getting the Farouk piece back.
Follow me on MyCollect!
If they cared, they would just buy it back in either auctions. It's not like $20m is anything to the government.
Follow me on MyCollect!
The government must care because mr1931S thinks it does (or should) care.😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Does he actually? Or is he just trolling? When the guy who owns the coin isn't interested in the trade, he has a definitive answer that he's just ignoring.
Maybe he hasn’t seen the reply with the definitive answer yet.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
The government must care because mr1931S thinks it does (or should) care.
The government is on the record as saying the '33 DE's that they stole from the Langbords will never be melted. Seems to me if they didn't care, those stolen pieces would have seen the melting pot by now.
Melted was the fate of the ten pieces illegally seized from their owners by the Secret Service in the '40's, of course.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
From my 1933 notes, I believe this was from an issue of CoinWorld:
"...Berke questioned Tripp about the relationship of 1933 double eagles to 1933 Indian Head gold $10 eagles, to which the government objected, as the coins are not the subject of this litigation. Despite Mint records showing that only four 1933 Indian Head gold $10 eagles left the Mint legally, there are estimates that as many as 35 are available today. Yet the the $10 eagles are not subject to confiscation, unlike the 1933 double eagles.
Tripp countered that the 1933 $10 eagles differ from the 1933 $20 double eagles in that no 1933 double eagles left the Mint through legitimate means, while “once the barn door is open” through legal distribution of 1933 $10 eagles, it became impossible to differentiate legitimate versus illegitimate coins. Berke used this example as further proof that the Mint records of 1933 didn’t accurately show what was happening at the time."
This testimony took place on the same day that multiple topics were discussed in court and the judge warned Langbord's Attorney Berke that "...“if you lost me, you’ve lost the jury” with some off-tangent analysis involving a 1936 coin collection.
When one 1933 Eagle left the mint legally, they ALL left the mint legally. When one 1933 Double Eagle left the mint legally (think Farouk's piece that was LEGALLY exported to Egypt) they ALL left the mint legally.
Of course, there was that bag of 250 Double Eagles, most likely '28's, that got lifted by Mint employee(s) in a heist that was never solved, never solved because the powers that be at the Mint in the '30's didn't want the crime solved.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
When (as you're doing), you're stating your opinions, please don't (as you've also been doing) state them as facts.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Unfortunately, some people think that a plastic holder is more important than the coin inside it.
Just trolling, but he seems to be reeling a few in to engage with him.
All too common for this member.
No, the key is that the Farouk piece currently owned by EC is traceable.
In theory...if in the 1940's or 1950's all the holders of 1933 DEs got together and "swapped" coins....then they'd all have to be allowed since the government wouldn't know which one was the legal one and which were the "stolen" ones.
Unfortunately, nobody ever came up with Operation Switcheroo !
No, if you read the background story put together by Roger Burdette for an auction of an unrelated 1928 DE bag, Superintendent Dressel was on the hook so they certainly wanted to solve it. But someone -- almost certainly high-up -- pulled a fast one because an entire bag of 250 DEs is not something you can put in your pocket and walk out with in those pre-metal detector days. 10 DEs yes, 250 DEs no.
I can't prove it...I could be off....but the fact that the bag of stolen 1928's was from a pallet of DEs including 1933's that had the dust disturbed at a particular time leads me to wonder if the two groups of DEs were not somehow intertwined.
What's different, of course, is that the Treasury/Mint/Government immediately suspected George McCann and Israel Switt. NOBODY was even rumoured in the 1928 DE case.
I am far from an expert on the 1933 DEs, but based on what I know, this assessment is incorrect.
I believe that the feds always considered all 1933 DEs to be ill-gotten, but the fact that a federal export license was issued for one of them muddied the waters for that one coin, so they chose a settlement that prevented a possible wider ruling.
If, as I have heard, there was likely a brief window of opportunity when a 1933 DE could be purchased/swapped legally, then that should be the basis for all of them being legal.
Idk,
You are free to accept or reject my theories however you choose. Btw, it's not my opinion that a bag of DE's were stolen from a Mint vault. That's a fact. Should have been an easy crime to solve so why wasn't it? Do you have an opinion about this?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Outside of RWB's write-up for another 1928 DE bag, I have seen NOTHING on the theft, as opposed to all the different stories on the 1913 Liberty Nickel or the 1933 Saints.
I'm not sure if there are official Treasury or Mint or SS reports on it but it looked to be a dead-end very quickly.
Remember...there were tens of thousands of 1928's out already when the bag was found missing. Tough to track down 250 stolen ones, unlike with the 1933's where ALL 1933's were considered "stolen."
You would think by the process of elimination that there should have been only 3 or 4 or 5 or whatever who could access the Vault at the Philly Mint. Maybe breaking a seal required 2 higher-ups -- not sure.
All I know is the "investigation" died very quickly and if not for legislation passed years later, Dressel would have been on the hook.
From RWB's HA write-up, date was February 3rd, 1937:
"....At 11 o'clock that morning, senior employees B. Watson (Shipping Clerk) and Louis H. Frizzel (Vault Custodian) accompanied Cashier George H. McCann as he opened Vault F and broke the old seal on Cage 1 -- part of the main gold vault. They were to count the bags against the totals recorded on the seal. A crew of workmen stood ready with four-wheeled hand trucks to transport bags of gold coins to the melting and refining department for casting into bars. The old seal showed that the last time this cage had been opened was on October 20, 1936, so that an alarm system could be installed, but nothing had been removed. Before that, it had been opened in February 20, 1934, to add more gold coins, and before that it had been sealed on June 27, 1933. Each time the cage was resealed, its contents had been verified as correct. The cage was supposed to contain more than $18 million in 1928 double eagles, over $35 million 1929 pieces, another $58 million double eagles dated 1931, and additional $20, $10, $5 and $2.50 pieces, totaling $166,132,130. 1928 had been the final year of massive double eagle production. The denomination was also struck from 1929 through 1933, but never again approached the $176 million worth made in 1928. So many 1928 double eagles were struck that they clogged the mint vault cages and blocked access to other double eagles. Double eagles dated 1929 were in one of the blocked storage cages, and few of them made it out before all gold coins were melted. But that was in the past. Dressel's problem in February 1937 was to determine if a $5,000 bag was really missing, and then what to do about it. Dressel immediately assigned extra guards to the vault.
In counting the bags of gold stored in Cage 1, it was noticed that a bin containing only 1928 double eagles held 29 bags, not the usual 30. It was also noticed that dust accumulation was different in the spot where the bag should have been. More guards were brought to the vault and Dressel and the others began looking through the cage and vault for a misplaced bag. None was found. Dressel made his call to the Treasury's Secret Service at 3:30 pm, and then called mint headquarters. Within half an hour, agent Landvoight from the Philadelphia Secret Service office arrived at the mint. Vault F was locked down and sealed by the agent.
Next day a fingerprint specialist arrived at the Philadelphia Mint to meet the Superintendent, Mint Director Ross, and an additional agent. No prints could be found, but the investigation showed that the spot where the bag had been, had remained uncovered for a long time. Dust on that spot resembled dust on bags of 1933 double eagles and differed from that on all the other 1928 coin bags.
The agents explored other leads and looked for anyone who might have removed the bag. Coins were recounted and checks made of other vaults, but the bag remained missing. Annual settlement records were examined and committee members questioned, but with no resolution to the problem. The only conclusion was that a bag of 1928 double eagles was taken from Vault F, Cage 1 sometime in 1933."
Correct. The Farouk coin left the Mint under the same cloud as all the other 1933 $20's other than the two sent to the Smithsonian.
HOWEVER, the issuance of an official export license for it created a plausible case for it having been authorized to be outside the Mint after the fact, and the Treasury Department wisely agreed to cut its losses and agree that that one coin was legal to own, because this specific circumstance did not apply to any other 1933 $20.
1933 $10 Eagles:
Below is a flow-chart generously provided by Roger Burdette. The table is copyright Seneca Mill Press LLC 2015, 2024.
You can see the disposition of where the 1933 Eagles went and the 4 coins "Sold By Treasurer" in the bottom right highlighted in blue. Those are the 4 coins that legitimize ALL 1933 Eagles.....Coin #5 was sold by the Philadelphia Cashier ("Paid Out Philadelphia").
RWB also provided a couple of Cashier Reports for 2/28/33 and 3/1/33:
Fascinating!
What is the standing order of 1929?
Not sure you're asking me, CH, but I'm not sure. What do you mean, "standing order of 1929" ?
See the column heading "Shipped to Treasurer per standing order of 1929."
First I have ever heard about it.
I queried Roger Burdette, who replied:
"This was a clarification of policy from about 1917 that ordered each mint to send a small quantity of new coins to the Treasurer of the U.S. from initial production.These would be offered for sale to coin collectors at face value.
The purpose was to relieve individual mints of the burden of responding to collector requests for current coins. This had been a problem since the 1892 subsidiary silver design change, and generated complaints of lost orders, delays from collectors, and excessive use of clerk time and materials doing something that was not part of their job. Sending small lots to the Treasurer US relieved the mints from this work and placed distribution of current uncirculated coins for collectors into a consistent process. Eventually, this evolved into the post WW-II "Mint Sets."
Among "common" coins offered at times were 1927-D double eagles. and 1933 Eagles."
Thanks for reaching out to RWB, Captain.....and thanks to RWB for that explanation.
I would have thought it had something to do with the Crash of 1929 and the reduced need for gold shipments. Clearly, wrong.
So some of the extra 1933 $10's could have come from this source, probably the four not receipted at the Philadelphia Mint cash window, and who knows how many others.
To me, the ability of someone exchanging out the 1933's is nothing spectacular.....it's the entire stolen bag of 1928's that is really amazing.
You wonder if someone knew the mintage numbers and thought that with so many minted, they'd never miss 1 bag !!
I think the SS, Treasury, and Mint looking so hoodwinked on the bag of 1928's is another reason why they were so gung-ho to steal back the 1933's. The proximity of the 1928 bags to the 1933 bags in Vault F at Philly just adds to the mystery.
Quite possibly.
Oops
Gee, Mark, why not? After all, Roger Burdette has made an entire career of doing EXACTLY and PRECISELY that.
That indeed they did.
Pete
And it WAS a righteous war.
Why there were no Quarter Eagles in 1933:
From the 1930 Mint Report. Note that this was for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 1930, which included the second half of Calendar Year 1929. The 1929 $5's and $20's would have been made in the first half of Calendar Year 1929, which was in Fiscal Year 1929.
I'm confused....did the coins get spent and then wind up back in the vaults....or Christmas and holiday demand was very low and most of the struck pieces didn't get used as gifts/presents and THOSE went back into the vaults ?
The paragraph is unclear but maybe somebody familiar with fractional Eagles knows.
I guess that part of the confusion is over how gold Quarter Eagles were used at Christmas. Most people think of them being used as outright gifts from people who could afford to give them away to people who could afford to keep them rather than spend them. My one Grandmother had almost 30 grandchildren and she could not shop for each one of us, but we always got a brand new silver dollar from her each Christmas. Most banks kept a bag of silver dollars in their vault for such occasions, until they ceased to be available at face value in 1964. I of course immediately spent mine at the corner candy store.
That same Grandmother had to come live with us for a few years in 1967, and while with us she found out that I collected coins back then. This jogged her memory, and she told me a story.
She had been born and raised in a small town in the farthest north part of Michigan, and after she finished High School she went to work for the local telephone company as a switchboard operator. Back then people got paid in cash in a cash envelope, and she told me that one year at Christmas (this was before World War One) she got a gold $2-1/2 coin in her pay envelope. I of course asked her if she had kept it, and she said "No, two and a half dollars was what I got every week, they just paid me in gold rather than regular money. I took it home and gave it to my Mother like I did every week, and she gave me back the 50 cents I got to keep for myself." No way in hell could she afford to stash away two dollars and fifty cents!
I am sure that Great-Grandma just took it to the store and spent it, and the store deposited it, and the bank, which had probably special ordered the gold coins for the local telephone company and knew that there would be little demand for it before the next Christmas, just accumulated the quarter eagles spent by other employees of the phone company and eventually sent them all back to some big regional bank or the Fed.
I do not know how common the practice was of companies paying out wages in gold at Christmas, but I doubt if my Grandmother's experience was unique. If, perhaps, 100,000 companies did it nationwide, that was easily a million coins washing out with the tide and then washing back in.
By 1930 the Treasury Department was fed up with it. The hard times caused by the Great Depression probably did not help either. This was one recurring expense that could be made to go away.
When I was at ANACS we got in an Uncirculated Turban Head Half Eagle that apparently had been bought from some old family in England. It came with a folded piece of old, high-quality paper on which was written something to the effect of
.
"To Freddie-
An American Guinea
Christmas (the year of the coin)"
.
Apparently some ancestor had been in Philadelphia on business that year and he brought home the coin which he gave as a gift that Christmas. "Freddie" must have come from wealth, as he never needed to spend the coin.
Interesting Thing To Ponder: I had forgotten that the 2 Smithsonian 1933's were given normally and theoretically could be sold into the private market. QDB notes this in his DE book.
The coins were transmitted routinely, which means there were no restrictions about trading them as the Smithsonian has done with coins in the past.