Possible does not mean provable. Also, the government’s word is only as good as whoever the current politicians/bureaucrats are. We already know they don’t adhere to the judiciary.
Diplomatic cables about the then pending petroleum dispute (and its quick resolution right after issuance of DE export license ) detailed in my post of Oct. 11th above.
.
FDR was personally involved in resolving that dispute which had arisen late 1943.. His memo to Secretary of State Hull, and Ickes at Interior:
Memorandum by President Roosevelt10
Washington, January 10, 1944.
I do hope that you can get together and straighten out this problem of the Petroleum Reserves Corporation. It is, of course, true that the State Department should handle, in general, matters relating to foreign affairs—but at the present time I think it vital that we should go ahead with some speed in negotiating with the American companies, in order to find out just where the United States stands before we take the matter up with the British. I thought that this policy had been settled at one of our earlier meetings in the White House.
I feel that time is important—because after the war the American position will be greatly weaker than it is today. Can’t we agree on a policy and on the method of putting it into effect?....
FDR
Treasury had it's own representative in Cairo at the time--Raymond Mikesell. Currently trying to locate his papers. Doing a deeper dive into Ambassador Kirk's papers presently.
Lot of coincidences for an export license to have been "inadvertently issued." a substantial petro dispute to then quickly resolve, and Secret Service beginning to confiscate--- all within a little more than about a month.
Think the above does call for a deeper dive.......
it sounds adventurous to collect illegal coins, what a weird way to lead a criminal lifestyle, I wonder if the illegal market is discontinued enough that I could ever afford something amazing
A lot late to the party, but what the heck… I think we’re picking at nits here. I don’t believe anyone who owns this coin would emphasize the fact that “Yeah, it’s a five!” I can fully understand the desire of the grading services to be a part of its history but, in an ideal world, perhaps it would have been better to holder the coin (stating the basics, pedigree and guaranteeing authenticity) without a numerical grade. Of course, that would leave CAC entirely out of the picture. And, speaking of pictures, if you want an example of really! loose grading, I direct you to Christies sale of “DaVinci’s” Salvator Mundi 😊
@sm_delta said:
I'm not going to comment about the current grade of the coin since I'm definitely not an expert in this area. What I question is the uniqueness of the coin. Doesn't the government possess 10 other 1933 DEs confiscated from the Israel Swift stolen coins? What is to prevent the GSA from selling these at auction? It would not be the first time the GSA has auctioned collectible coins.
What's unique about it is that it's the only one that's legal to own. And in order for any of the 10 others to be made available for sale there would need to be 1) a 180 degree shift in policy and 2) a win in what I believe would be an inevitable lawsuit brought by whomever owned the Farouk/Elite coin at that time.
Sounds like the only winners in this scenario are the lawyers?
@CaptHenway said:
I choose to believe that the story about a Mint employee smuggling 1933 $20's and 1933 $10's and 1932 $20's and god knows what else out of the vaults circa 1936-1937 is true, and that the person who did this substituted equal face values of common date coins of the appropriate denominations when he did so. I strongly suspect that he did $500 face of everything he swapped, which would be 50 of the $10's which is not that far off from the current reported population, and 25 of the $20's, which is about right for the pieces sold to collectors in the 1930's and 40's and then recovered and destroyed (except for the Farouk coin) in the 1940's and 50's; plus the Langbord 10 pieces and the other piece surrendered in recent years, with a few unaccounted for. TD
Not only that Captain, but recall that the Secret Service themselves said that Israel Switt was also the source of a bunch of 1932's and 1931's at the time they were tracking the 1933's. Nobody said that the 1932s or 1931s were illegal....but a bunch of them got released and CRUSHED the market for them, as I recall. The feeling among dealers and collectors was that some 1933's had already been legally released so be careful in dealing with Switt because more 1933's were coming out just like the 1932s and 1931s and you didn't want to overpay for them.
Information was tough to get back then, alot of it was rumours.
But it stands to reason that your scenario above was very plausible. Anybody trying to beat the melting of gold coins in 1937 (or earlier) who had a source was going to bring OLDER gold coins (Saints) and exchange them for the NEWEST ones -- 1933's, 1932's, 1931's. Nobody knew in 1933 and even in early-1937 that NO 1933's had gotten out; it was believed that other Saints might actually be rarer (like the 1924-S).
Mint employees had leeway to "bend the rules" so to speak...many went on trips to visit Philly, NY, or Boston collectors with fresh-off-the-presses coins that they sold at a nice markup. There was no formal edict against getting certain dates for coins out before the 1937 melt, or for that matter, any of the coins really (except it had to be gold-for-gold). The Treasury did theoretically cut off these exchanges AFTER April 12th, 1933 but again -- you weren't going to jail if you gave someone a 1931 or 1932 or 1933 in exchange for a 1924 Saint.
If the Coiner told the Cashier not to release a new batch of freshly-struck coins until 12 PM and someone showed up at 10 AM and said they had to take the train back to NYC and could they please make an exception for a few hours early release....nobody thinks that wasn't done (esp. if the collector gave the Cashier a little Thank You ).
I've seen other U.S. agencies and departments abrogate to themselves the right to make policy, often at odds with what the American people were told when legislation was passed, so what the Treasury did in the 1940's and 1950's and with the Langbord's doesn't surprise me.
@FlyingAl said:
"Was just going through a book on $20 Saints - looks like in the end of 1932 there was a shortage of 43 double eagles to complete a bag. This shortage was likely carried over until 1933 where 43 1933 $20s were put in that bag to fill up the difference. I'd assume that bag was the first bag paid out for 1933, so logically 43 1933 $20s are out there. 18 have been confiscated by the government, Elite has one, and there are 24 unaccounted for. I think we can agree Mr. Connecticut has one, and DLH might as well.
That analysis is from Roger Burdette, in-depth commentary of which took place in his 2018 SAINTS book. He wasn't allowed to introduce part of this information in the trial in Philly.
Thanks for the reference. OK, I do note that on page 565 Roger states, "Estimated Survival:15." He does though in the narrative discuss the 43 removed coins and after making various subtractions does state on the following page, "We can therefore account for all except 24 coins."
Thanks for posting the document. Think Burdette's's inference that a bag of 1932's was topped off with 43 1933 DE's was found, for reason, not to be credible:
From the Trial Judge in Langbord:
Finally, Claimants' expert Roger Burdette posited a theory that forty-three (43) 1933 Double Eagles were taken from production before the '33 Double Eagles were counted, and these 43 coins were mixed-in with the '32 Double Eagles, perhaps in the cashier's office. (Tr. 219, at 31–45). Burdette formulated his theory by reading between the lines of a 1945 memo revealing a discussion between Philadelphia Mint officials. ( Id.). The memo concerned 458.1 ounces of extra gold coins that the Mint mutilated at the end of 1932. ( Id.). Burdette testified that the Mint turned this 458.1 ounces of mutilated gold into 43 unaccounted for '33 Double Eagles in order to make-up for 43 damaged '32 Double Eagles. ( Id.). However, the memo does not actually say this. (Tr. 220, at 24–28, 35). The memo does not even say “forty-three coins,” but rather says “forty-three pieces.” (Tr. 219, at 41). While “pieces” could mean “coins” to those in the industry, such an interpretation would make little sense in the context of the memo. Specifically, “forty-three pieces” was given as an answer to the question, “how many pieces does this 458.1 ounces represent?” ( Id.). A Double Eagle weighs just over an ounce, so 458.1 ounces would represent over four-hundred (400) coins, not just 43. (Tr. 219, at 83, 90–93).
The Government also cast doubt on Burdette's credibility. For example, in February of 2009, in reference to this litigation, Burdette posted the following message on a coin collectors' online forum: “I can muster all the hearsay, innuendo, assumption, gossip, rumor, illusion and insinuation you want to obfuscate the facts. And I can do it at only 300 dollars an hour, too.”
What do they think "43 pieces" was referring to if not coins -- M&M's ??
That trial judge was a bit out there.
I have to re-read it as I haven't gone over that memo in 4 years....but isn't the 458.1 ounces referring to 457 coins (DEs)....in other words, a bit extra gold but probably within the tolerance limit....457 coins would be a 500 bag LESS the 43 defective 1932s before they were replaced with 1933's, no ?
Don't forget about Izzy Switt's friend at the Mint, Mr. Mc Cann, who obtained XX number of Saints for him in exchange for a little extra pocket (drinking) money. Given how many were discovered by his heirs, I should think it reasonably safe to assume that Switt obtained more than the grouping that was found. How does this reconcile with the accounting on the 43-piece estimate?
@telephoto1 said:
Don't forget about Izzy Switt's friend at the Mint, Mr. Mc Cann, who obtained XX number of Saints for him in exchange for a little extra pocket (drinking) money. Given how many were discovered by his heirs, I should think it reasonably safe to assume that Switt obtained more than the grouping that was found. How does this reconcile with the accounting on the 43-piece estimate?
It’s known that Switt had obtained more than the 10 coins which were found in the deposit box. The ones that were confiscated from collectors decades ago had also been traced to him. However, those combined numbers still don’t approach a total of 43.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
As I said above, the "43 coins" group may have moved sideways into a bag that was melted along with a lot of other coins.
There is no reason to believe that that (alleged) group had anything to do with the group that Switt handled.
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.
"43 coins" is an example of inference stacking (pyramiding inferences).
Judge rejected it due to the inconsistent math upon which the whole chain of events depended. Perhaps the expert elsewhere offered support reconciling his math, or to otherwise support his individual inferences. If so, would welcome reading it. Otherwise, believe the “43 coins” theory lacks support, and i would not cite it.
@MFeld said:
It’s known that Switt had obtained more than the 10 coins which were found in the deposit box. The ones that were >confiscated from collectors decades ago had also been traced to him. However, those combined numbers still don’t >approach a total of 43.
The 1933 DE's were not a new type of coin....not a special commemorative...not an experimental coin or pattern. The same low-relief Saint pretty much since 1907.
The ONLY reason the coins were supposed to be "embargoed" after the fact is that a government bureaucrat named Leland Howard was pissed off that a coin with a $20 face value was being sold for $1,500 in the secondary market and making big bucks for people who didn't like his boss, FDR, who was vehemently anti-gold. The average salary in the 1930's and 1940's for Treasury and Secret Service mid-level guys was probably about $4,000 or so. These guys resented these gold bugs making nice coin. They stole Switt's suitcase of coins and NEVER even paid face value. The American Way, right ?
If the secondary value of the 1933's were only $25 (like the MCMVII HR a few years after their price plunged), nobody is going after them.
This was a POLITICAL attack by government types who think THEY have the right to make laws independent of Congress and the Courts. We see this today with rogue bureaucrats deciding what businesses to attack at the DoJ and FTC.
Remember, if Treasury had their way, the 1913 Liberty Nickel would also be confiscated.
@CaptHenway said:
As I said above, the "43 coins" group may have moved sideways into a bag that was melted along with a lot of other >coins There is no reason to believe that that (alleged) group had anything to do with the group that Switt handled.
It's funny how NO GOLD was missing despite the word "stolen" being used all the time during the Langbord Trial...and in the 1940's...no gold shortfall at all.
But when an entire bag -- 250 coins or $5,000 -- of 1928 DEs gets STOLEN out of Vault F at the Philly Mint....nothing much happens. Quickie investigation...nothing to see here....everybody knows how easy it is to walk out with a bag of 250 gold coins from a subterranean vault.
"Hey, forget the 250 missing 1928 DEs....another 1933 was allegedly sold by the Philly jeweler !! To the Batmobile......"
@JCH22 said:
"43 coins" is an example of inference stacking (pyramiding inferences).
Judge rejected it due to the inconsistent math upon which the whole chain of events depended. Perhaps the >expert elsewhere offered support reconciling his math, or to otherwise support his individual inferences. If so, >would welcome reading it. Otherwise, believe the “43 coins” theory lacks support, and i would not cite it.
I believe Roger B. wasn't given a chance to give supporting documentation. Tripp was alowed to go on and on, but Roger got cut off repeatedly by the judge or the U.S. attorneys.
@JCH22 said:
"43 coins" is an example of inference stacking (pyramiding inferences).
Judge rejected it due to the inconsistent math upon which the whole chain of events depended. Perhaps the >expert elsewhere offered support reconciling his math, or to otherwise support his individual inferences. If so, >would welcome reading it. Otherwise, believe the “43 coins” theory lacks support, and i would not cite it.
I believe Roger B. wasn't given a chance to give supporting documentation. Tripp was alowed to go on and on, but Roger got cut off repeatedly by the judge or the U.S. attorneys.
I was once called in as an expert witness on a tax preparer fraud case. The IRS was scared of my pending report to the court. So the IRS tried to make a deal to exclude me as an expert witness. The defense counsel objected. No matter, the Federal Judge sided with the IRS. So I believe that Roger was not allowed to properly testify.
@telephoto1 said:
Don't forget about Izzy Switt's friend at the Mint, Mr. Mc Cann, who obtained XX number of Saints for him in exchange for a little extra pocket (drinking) money. Given how many were discovered by his heirs, I should think it reasonably safe to assume that Switt obtained more than the grouping that was found. How does this reconcile with the accounting on the 43-piece estimate?
It’s known that Switt had obtained more than the 10 coins which were found in the deposit box. The ones that were confiscated from collectors decades ago had also been traced to him. However, those combined numbers still don’t approach a total of 43.
From my studies of the Langbord matter (limited though they may be, particularly compared to those of some here), I should think he (very) conservatively had a minimum of 20 if not more- and not from the same bag referenced in the 43-coin theories. Remember this is the same guy who was supposedly melting a bag of hot Saints (not 33s) in his basement as agents were entering upstairs to ask about them.
@telephoto1 said:
Don't forget about Izzy Switt's friend at the Mint, Mr. Mc Cann, who obtained XX number of Saints for him in exchange for a little extra pocket (drinking) money. Given how many were discovered by his heirs, I should think it reasonably safe to assume that Switt obtained more than the grouping that was found. How does this reconcile with the accounting on the 43-piece estimate?
It’s known that Switt had obtained more than the 10 coins which were found in the deposit box. The ones that were confiscated from collectors decades ago had also been traced to him. However, those combined numbers still don’t approach a total of 43.
From my studies of the Langbord matter (limited though they may be, particularly compared to those of some here), I should think he (very) conservatively had a minimum of 20 if not more- and not from the same bag referenced in the 43-coin theories. Remember this is the same guy who was supposedly melting a bag of hot Saints (not 33s) in his basement as agents were entering upstairs to ask about them.
Based on what I've read, if I had to guess how many 1933's Mr. Switt originally had, my number would be 25.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Comments
Possible does not mean provable. Also, the government’s word is only as good as whoever the current politicians/bureaucrats are. We already know they don’t adhere to the judiciary.
No conclusions as of yet.
Diplomatic cables about the then pending petroleum dispute (and its quick resolution right after issuance of DE export license ) detailed in my post of Oct. 11th above.
.
FDR was personally involved in resolving that dispute which had arisen late 1943.. His memo to Secretary of State Hull, and Ickes at Interior:
Memorandum by President Roosevelt10
Washington, January 10, 1944.
I do hope that you can get together and straighten out this problem of the Petroleum Reserves Corporation. It is, of course, true that the State Department should handle, in general, matters relating to foreign affairs—but at the present time I think it vital that we should go ahead with some speed in negotiating with the American companies, in order to find out just where the United States stands before we take the matter up with the British. I thought that this policy had been settled at one of our earlier meetings in the White House.
I feel that time is important—because after the war the American position will be greatly weaker than it is today. Can’t we agree on a policy and on the method of putting it into effect?....
FDR
Treasury had it's own representative in Cairo at the time--Raymond Mikesell. Currently trying to locate his papers. Doing a deeper dive into Ambassador Kirk's papers presently.
Lot of coincidences for an export license to have been "inadvertently issued." a substantial petro dispute to then quickly resolve, and Secret Service beginning to confiscate--- all within a little more than about a month.
Think the above does call for a deeper dive.......
it sounds adventurous to collect illegal coins, what a weird way to lead a criminal lifestyle, I wonder if the illegal market is discontinued enough that I could ever afford something amazing
A lot late to the party, but what the heck… I think we’re picking at nits here. I don’t believe anyone who owns this coin would emphasize the fact that “Yeah, it’s a five!” I can fully understand the desire of the grading services to be a part of its history but, in an ideal world, perhaps it would have been better to holder the coin (stating the basics, pedigree and guaranteeing authenticity) without a numerical grade. Of course, that would leave CAC entirely out of the picture. And, speaking of pictures, if you want an example of really! loose grading, I direct you to Christies sale of “DaVinci’s” Salvator Mundi 😊
Sounds like the only winners in this scenario are the lawyers?
Not only that Captain, but recall that the Secret Service themselves said that Israel Switt was also the source of a bunch of 1932's and 1931's at the time they were tracking the 1933's. Nobody said that the 1932s or 1931s were illegal....but a bunch of them got released and CRUSHED the market for them, as I recall. The feeling among dealers and collectors was that some 1933's had already been legally released so be careful in dealing with Switt because more 1933's were coming out just like the 1932s and 1931s and you didn't want to overpay for them.
Information was tough to get back then, alot of it was rumours.
But it stands to reason that your scenario above was very plausible. Anybody trying to beat the melting of gold coins in 1937 (or earlier) who had a source was going to bring OLDER gold coins (Saints) and exchange them for the NEWEST ones -- 1933's, 1932's, 1931's. Nobody knew in 1933 and even in early-1937 that NO 1933's had gotten out; it was believed that other Saints might actually be rarer (like the 1924-S).
Mint employees had leeway to "bend the rules" so to speak...many went on trips to visit Philly, NY, or Boston collectors with fresh-off-the-presses coins that they sold at a nice markup. There was no formal edict against getting certain dates for coins out before the 1937 melt, or for that matter, any of the coins really (except it had to be gold-for-gold). The Treasury did theoretically cut off these exchanges AFTER April 12th, 1933 but again -- you weren't going to jail if you gave someone a 1931 or 1932 or 1933 in exchange for a 1924 Saint.
If the Coiner told the Cashier not to release a new batch of freshly-struck coins until 12 PM and someone showed up at 10 AM and said they had to take the train back to NYC and could they please make an exception for a few hours early release....nobody thinks that wasn't done (esp. if the collector gave the Cashier a little Thank You
).
I've seen other U.S. agencies and departments abrogate to themselves the right to make policy, often at odds with what the American people were told when legislation was passed, so what the Treasury did in the 1940's and 1950's and with the Langbord's doesn't surprise me.
This is courtesy of Roger Burdette's outstanding book on Saint-Gaudens DEs. I include some text for context, too.
I couldn't find the standalone memo uncropped but this should suffice.
Thanks for the reference. OK, I do note that on page 565 Roger states, "Estimated Survival:15." He does though in the narrative discuss the 43 removed coins and after making various subtractions does state on the following page, "We can therefore account for all except 24 coins."
Thanks for posting the document. Think Burdette's's inference that a bag of 1932's was topped off with 43 1933 DE's was found, for reason, not to be credible:
From the Trial Judge in Langbord:
Finally, Claimants' expert Roger Burdette posited a theory that forty-three (43) 1933 Double Eagles were taken from production before the '33 Double Eagles were counted, and these 43 coins were mixed-in with the '32 Double Eagles, perhaps in the cashier's office. (Tr. 219, at 31–45). Burdette formulated his theory by reading between the lines of a 1945 memo revealing a discussion between Philadelphia Mint officials. ( Id.). The memo concerned 458.1 ounces of extra gold coins that the Mint mutilated at the end of 1932. ( Id.). Burdette testified that the Mint turned this 458.1 ounces of mutilated gold into 43 unaccounted for '33 Double Eagles in order to make-up for 43 damaged '32 Double Eagles. ( Id.). However, the memo does not actually say this. (Tr. 220, at 24–28, 35). The memo does not even say “forty-three coins,” but rather says “forty-three pieces.” (Tr. 219, at 41). While “pieces” could mean “coins” to those in the industry, such an interpretation would make little sense in the context of the memo. Specifically, “forty-three pieces” was given as an answer to the question, “how many pieces does this 458.1 ounces represent?” ( Id.). A Double Eagle weighs just over an ounce, so 458.1 ounces would represent over four-hundred (400) coins, not just 43. (Tr. 219, at 83, 90–93).
The Government also cast doubt on Burdette's credibility. For example, in February of 2009, in reference to this litigation, Burdette posted the following message on a coin collectors' online forum: “I can muster all the hearsay, innuendo, assumption, gossip, rumor, illusion and insinuation you want to obfuscate the facts. And I can do it at only 300 dollars an hour, too.”
What do they think "43 pieces" was referring to if not coins -- M&M's ??
That trial judge was a bit out there.
I have to re-read it as I haven't gone over that memo in 4 years....but isn't the 458.1 ounces referring to 457 coins (DEs)....in other words, a bit extra gold but probably within the tolerance limit....457 coins would be a 500 bag LESS the 43 defective 1932s before they were replaced with 1933's, no ?
Don't forget about Izzy Switt's friend at the Mint, Mr. Mc Cann, who obtained XX number of Saints for him in exchange for a little extra pocket (drinking) money. Given how many were discovered by his heirs, I should think it reasonably safe to assume that Switt obtained more than the grouping that was found. How does this reconcile with the accounting on the 43-piece estimate?
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
It’s known that Switt had obtained more than the 10 coins which were found in the deposit box. The ones that were confiscated from collectors decades ago had also been traced to him. However, those combined numbers still don’t approach a total of 43.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
As I said above, the "43 coins" group may have moved sideways into a bag that was melted along with a lot of other coins.
There is no reason to believe that that (alleged) group had anything to do with the group that Switt handled.
"43 coins" is an example of inference stacking (pyramiding inferences).
Judge rejected it due to the inconsistent math upon which the whole chain of events depended. Perhaps the expert elsewhere offered support reconciling his math, or to otherwise support his individual inferences. If so, would welcome reading it. Otherwise, believe the “43 coins” theory lacks support, and i would not cite it.
The 1933 DE's were not a new type of coin....not a special commemorative...not an experimental coin or pattern. The same low-relief Saint pretty much since 1907.
The ONLY reason the coins were supposed to be "embargoed" after the fact is that a government bureaucrat named Leland Howard was pissed off that a coin with a $20 face value was being sold for $1,500 in the secondary market and making big bucks for people who didn't like his boss, FDR, who was vehemently anti-gold. The average salary in the 1930's and 1940's for Treasury and Secret Service mid-level guys was probably about $4,000 or so. These guys resented these gold bugs making nice coin. They stole Switt's suitcase of coins and NEVER even paid face value. The American Way, right ?
If the secondary value of the 1933's were only $25 (like the MCMVII HR a few years after their price plunged), nobody is going after them.
This was a POLITICAL attack by government types who think THEY have the right to make laws independent of Congress and the Courts. We see this today with rogue bureaucrats deciding what businesses to attack at the DoJ and FTC.
Remember, if Treasury had their way, the 1913 Liberty Nickel would also be confiscated.
It's funny how NO GOLD was missing despite the word "stolen" being used all the time during the Langbord Trial...and in the 1940's...no gold shortfall at all.
But when an entire bag -- 250 coins or $5,000 -- of 1928 DEs gets STOLEN out of Vault F at the Philly Mint....nothing much happens. Quickie investigation...nothing to see here....everybody knows how easy it is to walk out with a bag of 250 gold coins from a subterranean vault.
"Hey, forget the 250 missing 1928 DEs....another 1933 was allegedly sold by the Philly jeweler !! To the Batmobile......"
I believe Roger B. wasn't given a chance to give supporting documentation. Tripp was alowed to go on and on, but Roger got cut off repeatedly by the judge or the U.S. attorneys.
I was once called in as an expert witness on a tax preparer fraud case. The IRS was scared of my pending report to the court. So the IRS tried to make a deal to exclude me as an expert witness. The defense counsel objected. No matter, the Federal Judge sided with the IRS. So I believe that Roger was not allowed to properly testify.
From my studies of the Langbord matter (limited though they may be, particularly compared to those of some here), I should think he (very) conservatively had a minimum of 20 if not more- and not from the same bag referenced in the 43-coin theories. Remember this is the same guy who was supposedly melting a bag of hot Saints (not 33s) in his basement as agents were entering upstairs to ask about them.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
Based on what I've read, if I had to guess how many 1933's Mr. Switt originally had, my number would be 25.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.