March 2nd, 1933: 1st 1933 Saint-Gaudens DEs are struck. The official Mint records and most previous sources do NOT cite March 2nd as the date of first striking, but March 15th. Roger Burdette uncovered this discrepancy from a letter dated 1945.
March 4th: 1933’s transferred to the Coiner, according to the record of the Coiner’s Balances
March 4th: FDR sworn in as president
March 5th: Last official gold shipment to Federal Reserve banks leaves the Mint
March 6th: Treasury Secretary Woodin (a coin collector) orders Mint Director Robert J. Grant to not "pay out" any more gold. Grant complies, with an addendum: ".....this does not prohibit the deposit of gold and the usual payment thereof."
March 7th: A wire is sent from an Asst Attorney General stating that Mint personnel could continue exchanging gold coins for gold coins.
March 15th: A letter is sent by Acting Director Mary M. O'Reilly (Mint Director Robert J. Grant was on leave) informing Lewis Froman of Buffalo, NY that he could deposit gold bullion directly at the Mint in exchange for gold coin because it "....neither increases nor depletes the stock of gold in the Treasury."
April 5th: FDR's Executive Order 6102 goes into effect.
April 12th: Last "legal" day to participate in coin-for-coin exchanges.
March 2nd, 1933: 1st 1933 Saint-Gaudens DEs are struck. The official Mint records and most previous sources do NOT cite March 2nd as the date of first striking, but March 15th. Roger Burdette uncovered this discrepancy from a letter dated 1945.
March 4th: 1933’s transferred to the Coiner, according to the record of the Coiner’s Balances
March 4th: FDR sworn in as president
March 5th: Last official gold shipment to Federal Reserve banks leaves the Mint
March 6th: Treasury Secretary Woodin (a coin collector) orders Mint Director Robert J. Grant to not "pay out" any more gold. Grant complies, with an addendum: ".....this does not prohibit the deposit of gold and the usual payment thereof."
March 7th: A wire is sent from an Asst Attorney General stating that Mint personnel could continue exchanging gold coins for gold coins.
March 15th: A letter is sent by Acting Director Mary M. O'Reilly (Mint Director Robert J. Grant was on leave) informing Lewis Froman of Buffalo, NY that he could deposit gold bullion directly at the Mint in exchange for gold coin because it "....neither increases nor depletes the stock of gold in the Treasury."
April 5th: FDR's Executive Order 6102 goes into effect.
April 12th: Last "legal" day to participate in coin-for-coin exchanges.
When was the assay report delivere to the coiner so that he could release the coins to the cashier?
I followed the Langbord lawsuit as it took place. My recollection is that the applicable CAFRA statutes (and/or regulations?) expressly set forth requirements that the government had to follow (which it did not); and expressly set forth the consequences of failing to meet those requirements (in summary the government would be precluded from asserting ownership of the 10 double eagles; thus providing ownership of same to the Langbords).
A very Draconian and harsh result.
The US District Court Judge handling the case determined that the government did not meet the requirements, but to avoid having the government be precluded from asserting ownership of the 10 double eagles and having them be awarded to the Langbords the court determined that the government should be given a do over/second chance. The court allowed the government an opportunity to comply with the CAFRA requirements (which it did) even though the time period to do so had previously expired.
Courts will at times choose to avoid a decision that is harsh by giving a litigant a do over/second chance. However, the recipient of such judicial favor is more likely to be a governmental entity or other large organization than it is to be an individual litigant.
The three justice panel hearing the Langbords' appeal of the district court judgment issued a decision overturning the judgment and finding in favor of the Langbords. The government filed papers seeking an En Banc rehearing before the entire Court Of Appeal. The En Banc panel agreed to hear the case and proceeded to overturn the decision of the 3 justice panel finding in favor of the government.
The Langbords then petitioned the US Supreme Court for review of the En Banc decision of the Court Of Appeal. The US Supreme Court denied the petition for review, thus ending the dispute over who the owner of the 10 double eagles is.
@BAJJERFAN said:
When was the assay report delivered to the coiner so that he could release the coins to the cashier?
Good question, I have to go over my notes or hit RWB's SG DE book. But I'm not sure if an Assay Report had to be delivered to the coiner before the coins could be released. I believe once the Coiner had them, they were no longer bullion pieces but legal tender coins. Again, I'm going off memory now as this timing of what happened from the end of the striking process to the coins being delivered to the Cashiers was always very tricky for me. I need to re-read FMTM once again.
FlyingAl....I think the government used the loaded term "stolen" to bias the jury. Clearly, the coins weren't stolen because there was no gold shortfall. But "stolen" is alot more useful a term than "illegally exchanged."
Let me give 3 more reasons I think the govt played hardass with the Langbord Ten:
(1) They were dragged kicking-and-screaming on the Farouk-Weitzman-EC 1933 Eagle and only because of the Export/Import Letter. Letting the Langbords keep some or all of the 1933's might have also invited a potential lawsuit.
(2) If the 1933's were worth $40-$50 in 1944, I doubt the Secret Service is spending time looking for numismatics and more time looking for Nazi spys. There was a little thing called World War II going on when Treasury/Secret Service decided that going after the coins was useful to the war effort. But with 1933's going for $500-$1,000 in the mid-1940's and then doubling and more by 1950, that explains why they went after them, IMO. They didn't like the fact that FDR, Fed, and monetary policy critics -- aka "Gold Bugs" -- were making more in a single transaction than G-men were making in 6 months.
(3) An entire bag of 1928 Saints was stolen from the Philly Mint, 250 DEs. REALLY stolen...not exchanged for another year. It's gotten little attention compared to a single 1933. A bill holding the Philly Superintendent harmless legally and financially wasn't passed until 1944 or so. No leads on how an entire bag of DEs -- large and bulky, too -- could disasppear. I think this embarassment is another reason they went so hard after the "stolen" 1933's.
Comments
1933 Saint-Gaudens Double Eagle Timeline:
March 2nd, 1933: 1st 1933 Saint-Gaudens DEs are struck. The official Mint records and most previous sources do NOT cite March 2nd as the date of first striking, but March 15th. Roger Burdette uncovered this discrepancy from a letter dated 1945.
March 4th: 1933’s transferred to the Coiner, according to the record of the Coiner’s Balances
March 4th: FDR sworn in as president
March 5th: Last official gold shipment to Federal Reserve banks leaves the Mint
March 6th: Treasury Secretary Woodin (a coin collector) orders Mint Director Robert J. Grant to not "pay out" any more gold. Grant complies, with an addendum: ".....this does not prohibit the deposit of gold and the usual payment thereof."
March 7th: A wire is sent from an Asst Attorney General stating that Mint personnel could continue exchanging gold coins for gold coins.
March 15th: A letter is sent by Acting Director Mary M. O'Reilly (Mint Director Robert J. Grant was on leave) informing Lewis Froman of Buffalo, NY that he could deposit gold bullion directly at the Mint in exchange for gold coin because it "....neither increases nor depletes the stock of gold in the Treasury."
April 5th: FDR's Executive Order 6102 goes into effect.
April 12th: Last "legal" day to participate in coin-for-coin exchanges.
When was the assay report delivere to the coiner so that he could release the coins to the cashier?
RIP Mrs. Langbord.
I followed the Langbord lawsuit as it took place. My recollection is that the applicable CAFRA statutes (and/or regulations?) expressly set forth requirements that the government had to follow (which it did not); and expressly set forth the consequences of failing to meet those requirements (in summary the government would be precluded from asserting ownership of the 10 double eagles; thus providing ownership of same to the Langbords).
A very Draconian and harsh result.
The US District Court Judge handling the case determined that the government did not meet the requirements, but to avoid having the government be precluded from asserting ownership of the 10 double eagles and having them be awarded to the Langbords the court determined that the government should be given a do over/second chance. The court allowed the government an opportunity to comply with the CAFRA requirements (which it did) even though the time period to do so had previously expired.
Courts will at times choose to avoid a decision that is harsh by giving a litigant a do over/second chance. However, the recipient of such judicial favor is more likely to be a governmental entity or other large organization than it is to be an individual litigant.
The three justice panel hearing the Langbords' appeal of the district court judgment issued a decision overturning the judgment and finding in favor of the Langbords. The government filed papers seeking an En Banc rehearing before the entire Court Of Appeal. The En Banc panel agreed to hear the case and proceeded to overturn the decision of the 3 justice panel finding in favor of the government.
The Langbords then petitioned the US Supreme Court for review of the En Banc decision of the Court Of Appeal. The US Supreme Court denied the petition for review, thus ending the dispute over who the owner of the 10 double eagles is.
Good question, I have to go over my notes or hit RWB's SG DE book. But I'm not sure if an Assay Report had to be delivered to the coiner before the coins could be released. I believe once the Coiner had them, they were no longer bullion pieces but legal tender coins. Again, I'm going off memory now as this timing of what happened from the end of the striking process to the coins being delivered to the Cashiers was always very tricky for me. I need to re-read FMTM once again.
FlyingAl....I think the government used the loaded term "stolen" to bias the jury. Clearly, the coins weren't stolen because there was no gold shortfall. But "stolen" is alot more useful a term than "illegally exchanged."
Let me give 3 more reasons I think the govt played hardass with the Langbord Ten:
(1) They were dragged kicking-and-screaming on the Farouk-Weitzman-EC 1933 Eagle and only because of the Export/Import Letter. Letting the Langbords keep some or all of the 1933's might have also invited a potential lawsuit.
(2) If the 1933's were worth $40-$50 in 1944, I doubt the Secret Service is spending time looking for numismatics and more time looking for Nazi spys. There was a little thing called World War II going on when Treasury/Secret Service decided that going after the coins was useful to the war effort.
But with 1933's going for $500-$1,000 in the mid-1940's and then doubling and more by 1950, that explains why they went after them, IMO. They didn't like the fact that FDR, Fed, and monetary policy critics -- aka "Gold Bugs" -- were making more in a single transaction than G-men were making in 6 months.
(3) An entire bag of 1928 Saints was stolen from the Philly Mint, 250 DEs. REALLY stolen...not exchanged for another year.
It's gotten little attention compared to a single 1933. A bill holding the Philly Superintendent harmless legally and financially wasn't passed until 1944 or so. No leads on how an entire bag of DEs -- large and bulky, too -- could disasppear. I think this embarassment is another reason they went so hard after the "stolen" 1933's.