I think it's legal to have a few 1933 $20 double-eagles...

PhillyJoe

"Under Executive Order of The President issued April 5, 1933 all persons are required to deliver on or before May 1, 1933 all gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates......"

"....except the following:

a)such amount of gold...required for customary use in industry, profession, art...

b)gold coin and gold certificates in an amount not exceeding in the aggregate $100 belonging to any one person and gold coins having a recognized special value to collectors of rare and unusual coins.

c)gold coin and bullion earmarked for foreign government...."


Doesn't this allow the Philadelphia idiots-who-turned-in-their-double-eagles-to-the Mint to legally own at least 5 ($100 face) per person?

Joe

michael

maybe................

with a smart/saavy attorney
and a million dollars in legal fees
and a few years spent in the courts seeing who can hold out the longest
and huge public opinion on your side


time will tell

LanLord

I think the stumbling block is that the mint swars they were never monitized and released to the public, therefore they are stolen property.

We would need some form of document that shows that they were released prior to the May 1, 1933 date.

nwcs

The 1933 $10 eagles are legal, I don't see why the $20s aren't.

ziggy29

<< <i>The 1933 $10 eagles are legal, I don't see why the $20s aren't. >>

My understanding is that Mint records verify that some 1933-dated $10 eagles did in fact leave the mint before FDR's mandate, those coins were monetized and therefore, all '33 Eagles are considered legal because there's no way to differentiate between the ones that left legally and any that may have been smuggled out later.

The Saints, on the other hand, supposedly have no mint records that say any ever left even though it's likely possible some could have left legally.

If it can even be demonstrated that one anonymous $20 coin dated 1933 left the Mint legally, and before FDR put the kibosh on them, the case against private ownership is all but dead, IMO.

coinpage

US Mints posts images of one of the coins:

morgannut2

In the history of the Mint, the word "monetized" was never used. It is an artifact of moden lawsuits. They say the eagles were issued, but the Saints weren't. Therefore they conclude they were stolen, rather than having replacement coins submitted in exchange. The problem of coarse is the books balanced, so the Saint's had to have been released/issued--no one bothered to tell Franklin, he was pissed, so they lied.

oldshep

For any and all who are interested, there is a great book by David Tripp called "Illegal Tender, gold,Greed and the mystery of the lost 1933 Double Eagle".

The coins were all melted except for 2 that were givin to the Smithsonian and one that was accedently sold to King Farouk of Egypt. oh yeah there were 11 coins stolen by the Cashier of the Mint - all but one were retrieved by the secret service. there was discovered in the 60's held by a private party that was allowed to be sold at auction through an agreement reached with the government. A stipulation was added to the agreement.."This settlement shall not be deemed to have any precedential significance or affect, legal or otherwise. on any other coin of the United States, including any other 1933 double eagle that might exist." "If another 1933 appeared it would be siezed. The Governments position was crystalline."

It was purchased at a dramatic auction at Southerby/Stack on July 30th 2002 for a hammer price of $6,600,000 plus 15% buyers premium and an extra $20 to pay the treasury back!!!!!! A total of 7,590,000. The purchaser was anonymous.

The book is a terrific read!

Shep

1jester

<< <i>US Mints posts images of one of the coins:


>>



Awesome! I wonder what this coin would grade? It puts the King Farouk example to shame.

Barry

After the others are legalized, the next lawsuit will be by the fool, I mean individual, who owns the only currently legal specimen. Breach of contract by Uncle Sam.

ddink

<< <i>This settlement shall not be deemed to have any precedential significance or affect, legal or otherwise >>



I wouldn't think that clause would be enforceable, however, possession is 9/10ths of the law--99/100ths when you are the government and have the coins locked up in Fort Knox =(

Conder101

I think they will decide that the coins were monitized all along and therefore there is no breach of contract. The contract says that they will not monitize any MORE of them. If they were monitized all along then deciding that they are legal doesn't monitize more of them.

Newmismatist

<< <i> I'd bet this issue will end up in the Supreme court. >>

Not likely - but an interesting argument would be the 1913 Lib Nickels - No record of them ever being authorized coins. Of course, the Feds could take the position that the 1913 Libs were not legally issued and seize them too - If that happened there's be 5 very unhappy collectors!



<< <i> These will be legal to won one day-they have already set a precedent. >>

Even less likely, and the precedent is exactly the opposite. Everyone forgets that in the late 30s/early 40s the Feds confiscated 8-10 of these coins and made it stick.



<< <i> I hope they hurry up-I would buy at least 5 of them! >>

Wouldn't we all!

A correction to this comment above:

<< <i>one that was accedently sold to King Farouk of Egypt >>

- there was no accident - from memory, Farouk wanted a 33 Saint - we wanted access to the Suez canal (a WWII connection here?) - in any event the US Government issued an export license for that coin so that Farouk could have it for his collection. That was how Steve Fenton was able to negotiate his deal with the Feds and that's why the Feds limited the monitization of that ONE coin. And, take note - there was only ONE export license issued - so that argument can't be used a 2nd time. The current owners will have to Prove that the coins were lawfully released - and the source of that proof is the Feds - and they say not.

Maybe the owners could cut a deal that they auction those coins and contribute the proceeds to Hurricane Katrina relief - With the deficits we're running and the 100 billion dollar cost of Katrina, maybe the Feds could use the money.

oreville

Just a silly question!

What about all the Carson City Silver Dollars that were found in the US Mint facility?

Were these also not monetized all those years?

Did President Nixon, Congress or the US Mint specifically monetize them for sale by the GSA in the early 1970's?

billboat

Newmismatist

Here's a link to the whole story -

1933 Double Eagle History Link

If you read it carefully, you'll see that whoever had those 10 1933 Saints is going to have a hard time getting those coins back. One of the collectors who had purchased 1 of the 1933 Double Eagles refused to turn his coin over to the Federal Govt. In a 1947 published decision, a Federal judge ruled that Mr. Barnard could NOT keep the 1933 Saint and ruled that it belonged to the U.S. "Since the gold piece was stolen, or, through fraudulent breach of trust, taken from the Philadelphia Mint," [Mr. Barnard] ... cannot maintain ownership."

The recent auction of the purported Farouk coin did not change that case law - In fact, Mr. Fenton had to agree that title to that coin belonged to the US and then as part of the settlement (which would apply to that coin only), the Govtmt issued the coin so that THAT coin become a properly issued coin that could be legally owned.

richbeat

There was a very interesting article in the December 2002 COINage written by Tom DeLorey, entitled "Saint Gaudens 'Saints:' Vindicated!" So as to not skew or twist any of the information written in the article, here are some of the most interesting excerpts:

"George McCann, the Mint official accused of taking 10 1933 $20's in 1937 from the coins left over from the 1934 Assay Commission was accountable for the coins in his care. Stealing 10 such coins would have left his accounts $200 short, a significant sum in the 1930's. Instead, it can safely be assumed that the official exchanged 10 common $20 gold pieces for the 1933 coins that he knew to be rarer, and that when the Mint finally got around to melting down the leftover Assay coins it was not a cent's worth worse off than it would have been if the 10 1933 coins themselves had been converted into bars."

"What is more important is the exciting news that a second batch of 1933 $20's also left the Mint, quietly but apparently legally, in the possession of Secretary of the Treasury William H. Woodin in 1933."

"Numismatic researcher Robert W. Julian has now clearly established, in a copyrighted story that appeared in the October 1, 2002 issue of Numismatic News, that a legitimate window of opportunity for exchanging older date $20 gold pieces for 1933 $20's existed between the date that 1933 $20's were first struck, March 15, 1933, and the Executive Order of April 5, 1933, that called for American citizens to surrender all gold other than numismatic holdings, plus up to $100 face value in common gold coin."

"Julian also points out that on March 13, the Treasury 'ordered that Federal Reserve banks release such gold as was needed for ordinary commercial affairs. This meant that gold remained in daily use throughout March and was not called in as seems to be commonly believed.' "

"The first delivery of 1933 $20 gold pieces took place on March 15. For the next three weeks, anybody with the clout could have gone to the Mint and exchanged another $20 gold piece for a 1933 $20. No bookkeeping record would have been necessary, because no transaction had taken place. The status quo had been maintained."

"When interviewed, Stephen K. Nagy of Philadelphia, a well-known authority on coins and antiques, advised agents that when the late Mr. Woodin was Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Nagy visited him at Washington, and during this visit Mr. Woodin exhibited to Mr. Nagy five 1933 $20 gold coins making an offer to let Nagy have one, if he so desired. Mr. Nagy, so he stated, declined this offer but discussed the coins with Mr. Woodin asking him whether he had more than the five, to which Mr. Woodin replied with a wink of the eye."