According to CoinWorld Aug 7th article--should or could the Mint confiscate

ABC123

the known 1913 Liberty Nickels as they have done with the newly found 1933 Gold Double Eagles ? I vote for equal treatment of all coin denominations !

tradedollarnut

No, they could not. They've abandoned any claim to the coins long ago.

IGWT

-- "No, they could not. They've abandoned any claim to the coins long ago." --

Has the gov't ever taken any official position with respect to the 1913 Liberty Head 5c; or, do you say that it has abandoned the claim simply by choosing not to pursue the coins up to this point in time?

tradedollarnut

<< <i>-- "No, they could not. They've abandoned any claim to the coins long ago." --

Has the gov't ever taken any official position with respect to the 1913 Liberty Head 5c; or, do say that it has abandoned the claim simply by chosing not to pursue the coins up to this point in time? >>



Yes - their official position is there's no record of the coin being struck so they have no reason to confiscate it.

MrEureka

their official position is there's no record of the coin being struck so they have no reason to confiscate it

Well that makes a lot of sense.

IGWT

-- "Yes - their official position is there's no record of the coin being struck so they have no reason to confiscate it." --

That's a joke, right? By that reasoning, I should burn my birth certificate to avoid paying income tax.

TorinoCobra71

No!, They should not!

TorinoCobra71

Boom

Yes, they should be confiscated and destroyed because they are not supposed to exist and are illegal as all get out. BUT let's face facts, the Govt like the taxes collected over and over again from the sales/ ownership of these coins.

Reminds me of the 3 monkeys. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. They turn their heads and stick their hands out to collect that dust!

I know one thing. If I owned one of those things for even a day I'd be scared sheetless than the Govt would come a knockin'. They ARE illegal and that's the bottom line.

ABC123

The Aug 7th article indicates that legislation, introduced to in effect make these types of coins legal to own, will most likely be DOA, which gives rise to the legality of ownership of these types of coins. Here comes Big Brother ?

Boom

Strange that you should bring this up as I have often thought about this very topic at great length.

The coins ARE illegal and to own such goods should, in theory, make the owner(s) accomplise(s) to a criminal act.

Think about it.

Gemini

Here's what Dave Bowers writes:

"In early January 1913," according, again, to Bowers in his catalog of the Eliasberg specimen, "it was perfectly legal to make a 1913 Liberty Head nickel at the Mint...under practices then inn effect at the Mint, all one had to do was to exchange another date of five-cent piece for a 1913 Liberty Head. Although none had been made in quantity for circulation, in early 1913 the Liberty Head motif was the standard design in use, the 'Buffalo' nickel not yet having been either perfected as to design or issued for circulation."

Bowers goes on to say, "The first 'experimental' Indian-Buffalo nickels were struck on January 7, 1913, but production for circulation did not take place until after February 15, as there were problems with the design. For someone in the Medal Department of the Mint to have struck a few 1913 Liberty Head nickels for cabinet purposes early in January 1913 would have been neither unusual nor illegal. The Liberty Head motif was the official design until it was replaced with the Indian-Buffalo motif, and this did not happen until well into February 1913."

tradedollarnut

The coins ARE illegal and to own such goods should, in theory, make the owner(s) accomplise(s) to a criminal act.

If you say it emphatically enough, does it become true?

ABC123

I think, Boom, in effect is saying, that it is conceivable that the owners or possesors of these coins might be charged with receiving stolen goods---Possibly, but IMO the Mint would not prosecute these collectors if they turned over the coin(s) and went quitely !

PerryHall

In response to your question, no --- the mint would never confiscate anything. The Secret Service of the Treasury Department is another issue. I'm surprised none of the other posters didn't pick up on this

tradedollarnut

<< <i>I think, Boom, in effect is saying, that it is conceivable that the owners or possesors of these coins might be charged with receiving stolen goods---Possibly, but IMO the Mint would not prosecute these collectors if they turned over the coin(s) and went quitely ! >>



I understand what he's saying ... but that doesn't make it any less stupider...

There's a big difference between base metal minor coinage and gold. There's a big difference between proofs and circulation strikes as well. And there wasn't even an operating Federal Reserve to 'monetize' coinage in 1913, either.

cladking

It shouldn't matter when a coin was struck or what material it's made of. The
secret service should have to prove it was stolen in order to confiscate it. They
have tight security in place to prevent this sort of activity and should concentrate
on this rather than guessing what was made and or released intentionally.

dbldie55

I am still waiting the the other 14 missing 1913 nickels to show up.

coinguy1

<< <i>-- "Yes - their official position is there's no record of the coin being struck so they have no reason to confiscate it." --

That's a joke, right? By that reasoning, I should burn my birth certificate to avoid paying income tax. >>

That's an unfair, though amusing analogy. There were presumably records of your birth certificate having existed (even if you're really old ), whereas there were no records of the coins having been struck.

IGWT

<< <i>

<< <i>-- "Yes - their official position is there's no record of the coin being struck so they have no reason to confiscate it." --

That's a joke, right? By that reasoning, I should burn my birth certificate to avoid paying income tax. >>

That's an unfair, though amusing analogy. There were presumably records of your birth certificate having existed (even if you're really old ), whereas there were no records of the coins having been struck. >>



Well, I was shooting more for humor than fairness, but the analogy works. The existence of the coins themselves -- regardless of any record -- is evidence enough that they were struck.

dbldie55

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>-- "Yes - their official position is there's no record of the coin being struck so they have no reason to confiscate it." --

That's a joke, right? By that reasoning, I should burn my birth certificate to avoid paying income tax. >>

That's an unfair, though amusing analogy. There were presumably records of your birth certificate having existed (even if you're really old ), whereas there were no records of the coins having been struck. >>



Well, I was shooting more for humor than fairness, but the analogy works. The existence of the coins themselves -- regardless of any record -- is evidence enough that they were struck. >>



There are a lot of coins struck outside of the mint. Are you saying that the Mint should have control over all of these?

tradedollarnut

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>-- "Yes - their official position is there's no record of the coin being struck so they have no reason to confiscate it." --

That's a joke, right? By that reasoning, I should burn my birth certificate to avoid paying income tax. >>

That's an unfair, though amusing analogy. There were presumably records of your birth certificate having existed (even if you're really old ), whereas there were no records of the coins having been struck. >>



Well, I was shooting more for humor than fairness, but the analogy works. The existence of the coins themselves -- regardless of any record -- is evidence enough that they were struck. >>



That is true, but what is lacking is evidence for what purpose they were struck. It would have been perfectly legal [for instance] for Barber to strike 5 proof nickels and present them to his friend Brown in gratitude for services rendered. Proofs were treated as medals and minor coinage was not subject to stringent control.

It is a mistake to apply the standards of today to the Mint of yesteryear.

IGWT

-- “That is true, but what is lacking is evidence for what purpose they were struck. It would have been perfectly legal [for instance] for Barber to strike 5 proof nickels and present them to his friend Brown in gratitude for services rendered. Proofs were treated as medals and minor coinage was not subject to stringent control.

It is a mistake to apply the standards of today to the Mint of yesteryear.” –

Perhaps it would not have been unusual, but I don’t know enough to agree that it would have been “perfectly legal.” Wasn’t Peale relieved of his duties as Chief Coiner 50 years earlier in part because he treated the U.S. Mint as his own private medal factory?

Conder101

While it may have ben legal to make Liberty Head nickels in 1913, orders had come from the Treasury in Dec 1912 that they were NOT going to make any nickels until the new Buffalo design was ready. So the 1913 phildelphia dies were destroyed in mid Dec 1912, and the San Francisco dies were destroyed Dec 26th 1912. There were no dies to use in 1913.



<< <i>It would have been perfectly legal [for instance] for Barber to strike 5 proof nickels and present them to his friend Brown in gratitude for services rendered. Proofs were treated as medals and minor coinage was not subject to stringent control. >>


True, but the 1913 nickels are not proofs, just prooflike uncs from brand new dies.