Joan Langbord passed away
SilverDaddy
Posts: 55 ✭✭
She was 96.
The '33 DE's always interested me. I got to see those ten coins several years ago at a coin show and was mesmerized. I read both Tripp's and Frankel's books more than once. Riveting stuff. Someone should really make a movie.
- - Mitch
3
Comments
that's a shame. and she never got to see them being the rightful owners
The family should have won
I just saw earlier tonight that some Langbord case materials were recently posted to the Newman Numismatic Portal.
https://nnp.wustl.edu/blog-post/535398
He who knows he has enough is rich.
The government LOST, according to the LAW, and then demanded and got an unjustified do-over
Sad. Her family should have gotten to keep those Saints. RIP :'(
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
My condolences to all involved 🙏
A fascinating piece of history. I read the book cover to cover in one sitting - still on my bookshelf. Her attorney advised her to turn them in, the government would seize, and Langbord would win in court. Lot of money spent on both sides.
I was always of the opinion that no theft occurred and that there was a window of time where an exchange could have been made.
The unanswered question has always been: Are there more out there?
There are a couple of books - which one did you read?
I’m under the impression that it’s known that one or more additional examples are still out there..
I’m also of the opinion that the Langbords should have prevailed.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I tried to put a small fund together to buy the legal one and then go to the Government and offer to rescind the agreement that none of the others would be legal in exchange for half the coins. Unfortunately, our max was about $15M
I read Double Eagle by Alison Frankel.
I went to the bank today and asked if I could exchange a 2025 bank roll of quarters for a 2026 roll. My favorite teller said well, I guess it would be ok.
Would you mind posting the title and author? Couldn't find it on goodreads
Many successful BST transactions with dozens of board members, references on request.
“Double Eagle” by Alison Frankel
It's interesting that the two books, Tripp's (2004) and Frankel's (2006), come at it from different angles. Tripp clearly thinks the coins were illegally switched, meticulously going through the evidence, while Frankel seems less interested in proving criminality. Her book also has the advantage of being published after the 10 Langbord Saints became known. Living in Philadelphia, I would sometimes walk by Langbord's shop and wonder what other coins she may have been given by her father.
To me, the unanswered question always was.....if Israel Switt (Joan's father) "stole" the coins, how come 70 years of accounting never showed a 10 ounce shortfall ? The coins were stolen....nobody steals something and puts back the same amount in equal value.
I read Tripp's stuff years ago, and have the original catalog at the auction where Weitzman bought the 1933 DE (EC here owns it today).
How can there be an illegally "switched coin" as per Tripp ? It was a standard practice to switch out coins as a new date/year was available.
And I recall he got caught with his pants down during the trial when the Froman Buffalo Letter was released. He also represented Sotheby's which had a HUGE incentive to not allow any other coins be legal since they may have had to make up any losses on the original sale.
You had a biased judge slant the facts toward the govt. I know it's a separate issue, but I see the same tactics when the DOJ/SEC try and stretch the definition of insider trading to cover free speech and good investment analysis. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down some prior convictions/guilty decisions when the government got too expansive (notably the DIRKS 1982 decision which still controls).
Same stuff happened with the 10 DEs.
Except in this case, and it was many more than 10. And it was a mint employee. (this would be the governments argument, you really need to read the two books on it).
I suspect most known 1932's came from the same source.
They had them once. They should have kept their hands closed and mouth/s shut. That was poor advice to turn them in. I don't know what connections they had, but there are folks out there who could probably have placed them discreetly. I could think of one person here I might turn to IF I had one or a 64 Peace buck.
They were probably switched out. My understanding is that the official assay that would monetize the coins didn't reach the coiner in time for him to officially release them to the cashier, so they were never available for exchange at the cashier's window. Thus Izzy probably didn't exchange them in the usual way. They weren't examined before melting because they probably didn't need to be. As far as the coiner was concerned they stayed locked in his cage and never left. If the bags had a seal it would have been tampered with. Perhaps the coiner was complicit and resealed the bag.
Why the 1964 D peace dollar was never brought to light ( if any exist )....
Right...nobody says the 1932's were illegal to own (except in bulk once EO 6102 was issued).
Yes, probably MORE than 10...maybe 25. But Switt was an honored guest for decades thereafter, if he was the scoundrel the govt makes him out to be, I doubt they'd let him get VIP tours and the like.
If protocol was that any early release was a crime, I'd agree that a switch was illegal. But nothing of the sort was prohibited. The government didn't like the Gold Guys making 40x on their investment in a bit over a decade. Had the coins been trading at $35 or $40 each, the Secret Service would have focused on Nazi spys.
Barry Berke's gambit to turn over the 10 Langbord 1933 $20's to the Treasury Department FOR AUTHENTICATION PURPOSES ONLY was a bold gamble that would have worked had our Justice system been honest and worked. It wasn't. and it didn't.
Because of the U.S. Government's history of SOMETIMES seizing property from its Citizens improperly and unjustly, rules have been set up that must be followed by the U.S. Government when it seizes property. In layman's language, the government must make certain declarations to a court within a very specific time frame, to allow the party or parties from whom the items in question were seized the opportunity to challenge, within another very specific time frame, the seizure in that court. It's called DUE PROCESS. Look it up.
I suspect that Berke properly guessed that once the Treasury Department had its greedy little hands on the coins it would shout "HA HA! WE GOT THEM!!!" and consider the matter closed, and never file the REQUIRED paperwork. That is exactly what happened. After the very specific time for them to do so expired, Berke sued for their return. A Judge ruled in their favor and ordered the coins returned.
The Treasury Department whined and pleaded to an Appeals Court, and somehow got a crooked do-over. It filed the paperwork and, based upon that long-overdue paperwork, got a ruling saying that they could keep the coins. Faced with an opponent that cheated and would not play by the rules, Berke and the Langbord Family gave up.
As to the merits of the Tripp and Frankel books, I liked them both and feel that you should read both to get two sides to the story. However, I think that it is worth knowing that Alison Frankel is the daughter of a lawyer who was a partner in the firm that employed Barry Berke when it beat the Treasury Dept. in the Farouk 1933 $20 case.
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/comment/11783911#Comment_11783911
(Far be it to get ahead anyhow) 🤔
I didn't know that, thanks CH.
I think Tripp has a bigger potential conflict, given that his employer (Sotheby's) could be on the hook if the 10 coins were ever released. Also, he seems to be an antiques guy not a pure/true numismatist, although maybe he was at one point in his life.
His position that the coins should go back to the govt put him in a distinct minority with most of the coin collecting world and especially the top numismatic researchers.
If you would make your coffee at home VS going out to Starbucks you could easily have afforded to do so.
Edited to add:
At least that is what a financial advisor on TikTok stated.
There were many different ways the issue could have been approached. Langbord pursued a curious route, and lost. Unsure why there was apparently no pretrial motions to exclude certain evidence and testimony (evidence from the Barnhard case, Switt’s gold forfeiture, and some opinions offered by Tripp, etc.…).
The District Court found : "the Mint records definitively refute Claimants’ speculation that a ‘33 Double Eagle–much less ten (10) or more of the coins–were either lawfully paid out between March and April of 1933 or dispensed by the Mint through innocent mistake."
Langbord was apparently taken by surprise at trial concerning statements posted here in 2008/9 by their own expert, which provided a real softball setup to attack/impeach his credibility—which the Government hammered home ( these included: “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”).
Decision was unfortunate from a numismatic perspective. Government was certainly aggressive, but that is par for the course. It legally prevailed, process was not corrupt. Case presented was speculative, and the jury did not find it persuasive.
For true diehards on the subject, first attachment is the District Court’s opinion second is the ultimate decision of the Third Circuit affirming. These set out the evidence/testimony, and other non-numismatic legal issues.
Thanks...I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding was that the initial rules of evidence and court decisions were heavily skewed in favor of the govt. Other judges/appeals were then bound by those rules.
Were there other "experts" that Barry Berke could have contacted who could authenticate the coins?
The authenticity of the coins wasn’t at issue.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
It wasn’t “poor advice” to act within the law. And the adverse ruling doesn’t change that.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Should never have turned them in..........
The pardon is for tyrants. They like to declare pardons on holidays, such as the birthday of the dictator, or Christ, or the Revolution. Dictators should be encouraged to keep it up. And we should be encouraged to remember that the promiscuous dispensation of clemency is not a sign of political liberality. It is instead one of those valuable, identifying marks of tyranny.
Charles Krauthammer
You do something honest and shouldn't get that....
I thought that that was the reason for turning them in.
Except that banks don't normally keep track of coins by year of issue, It's pot luck as to what they get in the rolls.
I wonder if Barry Berke read the Tripp and Frankel books before advising the Langbords to surrender them.
May she rest in peace.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
As I said above, the Langbords turned then over to the Treasury while ostensibly asking if they were genuine, but without formally giving title to them to the Treasury. If nothing else this gave them a great defense against any possible future charges against them for concealing the coins, because they were showing good faith.
That started the clock ticking for the Treasury to either A: return the coins along with a nice letter saying that yes, these are genuine, or B: seize the coins and file the necessary paperwork required by law for the seizure of the coins. I believe that their lawyer was gambling that they would do neither, which is exactly what happened. The lawyer then sued for their return, on the grounds that the Treasury department had failed to obey the law regarding governmental seizures. They won the suit and the government was ordered to return the coins to the Langbords.
Unfortunately, the government then cheated and got a friendly Federal judge to give them a do-over, which they won.
By the same token it wasn't right that the Government should forfeit the coins over procedural issues if the coins were indeed stolen. Stolen is stolen and failure to follow CAFRA doesn't change that.
Ultimately, any experts would just be offering an opinion and the goal was to be able to have clear title to the coins.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
There was no proof that the coins were stolen.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Deleted
IIRC there is no proof that the coins were legally available for exchange at the cashier's window. The COA never reached the coiner in time for that to happen. Can ANYONE refute that? So how could he have gotten them legally? Even if he exchanged other coins for them he still would have gotten them improperly.
If you read between the lines in the District Court’s opinion—attached above--- Court found Langbord’s version not credible.
Langbord had some tough facts to overcome. Izzy was the source of the known examples which escaped, and were subject to confiscation in the 1940s and after (the Farouk example escaping the melting pot). Opinion details Izzy asking $500 per piece circa late 1930s. Dates Izzy’s family alleged they accessed the safe deposit box did not line up with the Langbord’s timeline of events (box was also not probated after Izzy’s death—might not have needed to be—but not in their favor). The “Window of Opportunity Theory” was found to be speculative, and contrary to the records produced at trial.
Switt himself seems to have changed his story how the coins were obtained (citations omitted):
"At the time the Secret Service interviewed Switt in the 1940s, he claimed to have no more '33 Double Eagles in his possession. However, in the early 1970s, Switt asked his friend Harry Forman, a big-time coin dealer, whether Forman had a customer for a '33 Double Eagle. Switt did not admit that he had one of these coins, but said he thought he knew where he could get one. In addition, Switt insisted that Forman sell the coin to a non-U.S. buyer. As Forman tells it, he told Switt that he did not want to get involved. Switt replied that the coins were legitimate, explaining that he traded 1931 Double Eagles for the 1933's at the Federal Reserve. Remember, Switt had previously told the Secret Service that he could not recall where he got the coins but had acquired them in various collections.
In 1977, Switt called his grandson Roy Langbord and asked Roy to do him a favor. Specifically, Switt asked Roy to find out the value of a 1933 $20 gold piece. Switt did not tell Roy why he wanted this information, nor did he say whether he had one of these coins. Switt suggested that Roy check on the price with Stack's in New York City. Roy did so, but the coin was not listed in the auction house's price guide. Roy testified that he then asked a Stack's representative about the coin's value. The representative replied that '33 Double Eagles were not publicly traded, but he would estimate the value at about $250,000. Roy called Switt that night and passed along the information."
Tough set of facts. Especially given that Izzy's version went from not recalling how he obtained them in the 1940s-- to his 1970s sales pitch that an exchanged happened —at the Fed-- not the Mint. Izzy was not charged by the U.S. Attorney in the 1940s expressly due to the statute of limitations.
Personally, I would have preferred the opposite result. Plain fact of the matter is that there were too many issues to overcome--- without something more than theoretical possibilities.
Seems another ’33 was voluntarily surrendered in 2018. Have not found much about that. If anyone knows details, be much appreciated to learn more.
Having just read a large number of the cases referring to this issue, I'm quite confused how you arrived at that conclusion. I was rather unfamiliar with this case before reading the opinions of the court, so I suppose I'm seeing the issue as the court and the court alone saw it. I'm not sure if the coins were not stolen as @MFeld attests, but I do note that the court notes that a jury attests they were.
What do you mean by "friendly federal judge"? The 3 judge panel of the 3rd Circuit, the en banc panel of the 3rd Circuit, or the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania?
I have to read the jury verdict and requisite documents still, but at this time I see no legal reason why it would have been reasonable to return the double eagles to the Langbords from the decisions I have read so far. Perhaps someone can shed light on why that should have been the case.
Show me the police report that says they were "stolen."
Is CAFRA a "law," or just a "suggestion?"
Back then we were still a government of law, so CAFRA should have prevailed. Look at how Miranda Rights work, or are supposed to work.
CAFRA did prevail. The district court ruled the government failed to provide the necessary due process to satisfy it, and ordered the government to provide the documents necessary to satisfy the law.
A violation of CAFRA does not require the government to return the coins, as the district court so eloquently put it "[o]ur holding does not imply that the Government will be required to return the coins immediately. Indeed Plaintiffs concede that return is not required if the Government promptly initiates a judicial forfeiture proceeding. (Pls.' Mot. Summ. J. Due Process & Illegal Seizure 24). Also, it is well established that HN17 'illegal seizure of property does not immunize it from forfeiture as long as the government can sustain the forfeiture claim with independent evidence." Langbord v. United States Dep't of the Treasury, 645 F. Supp. 2d 381, 394 (E.D. Pa. 2009) (quoting United States v. Pierre, 484 F.3d 75, 87 (1st Cir. 2007)).
Interesting account of the first confiscation in 1944 –and photo--from the The Stack Family Library Sale, January 9, 2010
Open question, to me, is why no fuller investigation was done concerning the circumstances surrounding the licensed export of the Farouk example a very short time before the first seizure. Were then stalled wartime negotiations over an oil export duty Farouk was set to impose in early 1944:
The Acting Secretary of State to the Minister in Egypt (Kirk)
Washington, February 29, 1944—5 p.m.
Stettinius
The export duty went away --perhaps coincidentally--just after the license for the DE was granted--"by accident." If the license was not an error, might be alternative arguments for other '33s....
Obviously there wasn't one nor is there always a corresponding police report for every item that is stolen. Do you believe that the mint authorities make a police report for every item that turns up missing?
There was NO evidence that the coins were stolen which is what the government asserted during the trial and used that phrase repeatedly. Ergo, the Langbords should have been allowed to keep them.
There was NO formal prohibition stating that brand new Double Eagles were not supposed to be released until April 1st or Memorial Day or July 4th. If you had a friendly teller or contact at the Philly Mint, they could help you out. It was well known that local collectors as well as those from NY/Boston would come down to Philly to get the coins and sometimes jump any official "soft" date for their release. And Philly employees sometimes assisted and took the coins northward, as detailed by QDB. It was well-known by the late-1920's that Philly Mint employees would assist prominent dealers and collectors in getting specific coins including brand-new ones.
You also had the 42 1933's that were mixed in with a batch of 1932's.
You also didn't have perfect records of the 1931's and 1932's being released but nobody has said they were not legal. Ditto the 1933 $10 Indian Eagles.
The Mint struck 445,500 1933 Double Eagles. Even after EO 6102, they kept striking them. They struck them as late as June, I believe....NOBODY during that time was thinking they wouldn't be released at some point, because why the hell were they still striking them ?
It's possible that someone helped exchange the coins during those months...or anytime up to and including early-1937 when they were assigned to the melting pot and savvy collectors may have known this was their Last Chance to get them before they were all destroyed.
I was under the impression the government stated that since there was no way the coins could have left the mint legally, the coins were stolen and thus the property of the government. This is what the en banc 3rd Circuit focuses on, and what the jury found.
There is a difference between what might have happened and what was proven in a court of law. Ultimately, what is proven in a court of law is what matters. The people who needed to be convinced were the jurors and the justices of the en banc 3rd Circuit. Neither were convinced, so legally the coins are 1) stolen, and 2) the property of the United States (and always have been).