I can state with 100% certaintly that there are more than 13 specimens.
PNG member, numismatic dealer since 1965. Operates a retail store, also has exhibited at over 1000 shows. I firmly believe in numismatics as the world's greatest hobby, but recognize that this is a luxury and without collectors, we can all spend/melt our collections/inventories.
10 in question 2 at Smithsonian 1 legal to own 1 photographed and in Illegal Tender (oct 80 dated I believe)
9 were melted
Probably 3 or 4 more >>
Switt claimed he had 25 to begin with, which would mean 4 are still "somewhere". The book "Double Eagle" has the story of the one photographed in '80 (which came from Switt as well).
Collector and Researcher of Liberty Head Nickels. ANA LM-6053
Sorry if this was brought up in this thread, for I have not read every reply, but, and not to take the thread off its specific topic, but how is it legal to own an 1913 Liberty nickel but not a '33 Saint? The 1913 nickels were never released to the public just like the '33 Saint were never released to the public, so according to that arguement, the 1913 nickels should also be illegal to own.
<< <i>Sorry if this was brought up in this thread, for I have not read every reply, but, and not to take the thread off its specific topic, but how is it legal to own an 1913 Liberty nickel but not a '33 Saint? The 1913 nickels were never released to the public just like the '33 Saint were never released to the public, so according to that arguement, the 1913 nickels should also be illegal to own. >>
The government has no records of ever minting a 1913 Liberty Nickel, so how can they claim it left illegally? They have records of minting the 1933 Saints but there is no record of any being paid out in any fashion. Read the book "Illegal Tender", it is quite a story.
Also, there is a big difference between a gold coin and a non-legal tender coin (I am pretty sure nickels were also not legal tender until the 60's just as cents were not)
Collector and Researcher of Liberty Head Nickels. ANA LM-6053
Sorry if this was brought up in this thread, for I have not read every reply, but, and not to take the thread off its specific topic, but how is it legal to own an 1913 Liberty nickel but not a '33 Saint? The 1913 nickels were never released to the public just like the '33 Saint were never released to the public, so according to that arguement, the 1913 nickels should also be illegal to own.
The government's entire case against the 1933's is based on the rather fuzzy term 'monetization' - which has no legal definition. It's something that occurs through the Federal Reserve system ... which wasn't even in place when the 1913 Liberty nickels left the mint.
The photo was taken a few months after the coin was offered to me.
Retired Collector & Dealer in Major Mint Error Coins & Currency since the 1960's.Co-Author of Whitman's "100 Greatest U.S. Mint Error Coins", and the Error Coin Encyclopedia, Vols., III & IV. Retired Authenticator for Major Mint Errors for PCGS. A 50+ Year PNG Member.A full-time numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022.
There are almost certainly more 27-d $20's, but I cannot enumerate them at this time.
PNG member, numismatic dealer since 1965. Operates a retail store, also has exhibited at over 1000 shows. I firmly believe in numismatics as the world's greatest hobby, but recognize that this is a luxury and without collectors, we can all spend/melt our collections/inventories.
I agree with Sunnywood. But I also agree this may be the only "legal" rout they could have taken to sell themn without looking "suspicious". If I was the mint director, I would have melted them the minute I received them, just like the other 9. Then what could the Switt family do???
Same stories/same cases. Return them, they should not have been in existence nor should they have left the mint. The Farouk examle was RELEASED legally. Not these.
It was released from the Mint in the same manner as the others. If the government, by granting an export license, accidently granted it legal status ... why doesn't that legal status extend to every other coin released in the same manner at the same time?
For the sake of our legal system, I hope the coins are confiscated.
For the same reason, I hope they are not unless it is proven in a court of law that they were indeed stolen. Absent such proof, title should remain with the family as there is a very reasonable explanation for how they could have left the mint legally.
It should be up to the government to PROVE theft prior to being able to confiscate private property without just compensation.
<< <i>The government has no records of ever minting a 1913 Liberty Nickel, so how can they claim it left illegally? >>
Well since they have no records of them ever being made either they were made and left clandestinely, or they were made outside of the mint and are counterfeits. In either case they would be subject to seizure.
As to the 33 double eagles, the government claims they were never issued and were stolen. If the plaintiffs can show that it was POSSIBLE for them to have left the mint legally, then it would be up to the government to PROVE that they did not leave by those methods. If they can't prove that they did leave illegally, or that they didn't leave by a legal method, then it becomes possible that the coins WERE acquired legally and should be returned.
<<If the government, by granting an export license, accidently granted it legal status ... why doesn't that legal status extend to every other coin released in the same manner at the same time?>>
Bruce, this is a surprising statement by you. Are you saying if one coin is released at that said time and manner, then ALL SHOULD BE??? ONLY ONE WAS ON THE LIST FOR EXPORT LICENSE!! That is an unintelligent comment. Clinton pardoned a few guys before his presidency ended. Does that in effect signify that EVERYONE SHOULD BE PARDEONED at that time and manner??? If one inmate makes parole, WHY SHOULDN'T ALL THE OTHERS GET PAROLE - same manner/ same time. Come on.
It's simple.
THEY'E NOT ON THE LIST.
Melt them and be done with it. I am a taxpayer, and they should be destroyed like the other 9. SAME TIME, SAME MANNER, SAME STORY.
The coins probably came out from someone with connections, as many numismatic items have. They absolutely were not stolen. How could Izzy Switt get in there and steal them?
This has happened many times in the past. Just because these coins got out doesn't make them illegal.
FYI, one of the coins is AU!!
If the mint does not try to settle this, I hope that they get their A** handed to them in court by a logical judge.
Remember that these are not the only extant specimens.
PNG member, numismatic dealer since 1965. Operates a retail store, also has exhibited at over 1000 shows. I firmly believe in numismatics as the world's greatest hobby, but recognize that this is a luxury and without collectors, we can all spend/melt our collections/inventories.
<< <i><<If the government, by granting an export license, accidently granted it legal status ... why doesn't that legal status extend to every other coin released in the same manner at the same time?>>
Bruce, this is a surprising statement by you. Are you saying if one coin is released at that said time and manner, then ALL SHOULD BE??? ONLY ONE WAS ON THE LIST FOR EXPORT LICENSE!! That is an unintelligent comment. Clinton pardoned a few guys before his presidency ended. Does that in effect signify that EVERYONE SHOULD BE PARDEONED at that time and manner??? If one inmate makes parole, WHY SHOULDN'T ALL THE OTHERS GET PAROLE - same manner/ same time. Come on.
It's simple.
THEY'E NOT ON THE LIST.
Melt them and be done with it. I am a taxpayer, and they should be destroyed like the other 9. SAME TIME, SAME MANNER, SAME STORY. >>
Lloyd - we are not talking about a crime here .... we're talking about coins that weren't 'monetized'. That's a word made up by our government to justify this witchhunt. Basically, they are claiming that it doesn't matter that the coins could have been legally switched at the mint, that since they didn't properly enter the public domain through the Federal Reserve system that they aren't really money. This entire premise is based upon a technicality and can be overcome by technicalities. IF by granting an export license for one coin they legitimized all the other coins, then so be it - that's for our legal system to determine.
Regulations that live by technicalities, die by technicalities.
<<we're talking about coins that weren't 'monetized'. That's a word made up by our government to justify this witchhunt.>>
Monetize(d) IS a word. "To establish as legal tender". Now I think the government has a better case. Any Double Eagle dated 1933 was NEVER monetized. No different than counterfeit money, 1964 peace dollars, monopoly money. The "error" of releasing the Farouk example is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT issue, than coins that were "secretly exchanged for other dates" - actual knowingly fraudulent. If they were legal to own, why were they SECRETLY exchanged at the mint?? Why did they have to be hidden in a safebox??
I don't think any PROOF is needed that they were stolen. Even if Switt's friend at the mint KNOWINGLY exchanged other dates in the bags for 1933's, why didn't he report it in the record books, or tell anyone else??
The same reason a bank teller wouldn't report that a few 100 dollar bills are missing from the vaults.
<< <i>Monetize(d) IS a word. "To establish as legal tender". Now I think the government has a better case. Any Double Eagle dated 1933 was NEVER monetized. No different than counterfeit money, 1964 peace dollars, monopoly money. The "error" of releasing the Farouk example is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT issue, than coins that were "secretly exchanged for other dates" - actual knowingly fraudulent. If they were legal to own, why were they SECRETLY exchanged at the mint?? Why did they have to be hidden in a safebox??
I don't think any PROOF is needed that they were stolen. Even if Switt's friend at the mint KNOWINGLY exchanged other dates in the bags for 1933's, why didn't he report it in the record books, or tell anyone else??
The same reason a bank teller wouldn't report that a few 100 dollar bills are missing from the vaults. >>
Lloyd, I agree with TDN on this one. At the time, the government considered any one double eagle the same value as any other double eagle. There was no crime report. When the 1933 $20's were melted, they got the exact amount of gold they expected to get. Your bank teller example isn't accurate; a more accurate example would be a bank teller found a bunch of $20 national bank notes in the vault and realized they had numismatic value, and therefore replaced them with regular $20's. At the time (1933) this would not have been a crime.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
By the way, did you notice in the photos posted above that the Government's display of "The Magnificent 10" refers to the ten objects on display as "elusive 1933 double eagles." This flies in the face of the Treasury's comments in conjunction with the prior sale of the "unique" monetized specimen. At that time, the official position was that without monetization, any such surviving objects were "mere chattel" and not coin of the realm. They were just lumps of gold struck by a press to have a certain design, but they were not $20 coins. Therefore, the Government has already violated its own assertion by calling these ten objects "1933 double eagles."
Yep, if I owned that $7.59 MM example, I'd already be filing suit.
Melt them and be done with it. I am a taxpayer, and they should be destroyed like the other 9. SAME TIME, SAME MANNER, SAME STORY.
I'm a tax payer as well. And I think it's stupid to melt something worth a million bucks based on speculation. The govt, the owners, and the hobby will benefit....a 3-way win-win. We're all glad Lloyd turned down his appointment as Mint Superintendant.
And one hides their 1933 Saints secretly in a Safe Deposit Box not because you necessarily fear you've done something wrong, because you rightly fear a government who can trample over your rights if they want. It wouldn't have mattered if a teller exchanged these for Izzy at the window. If the govt claims they were illegal, they'll come take them. I wonder if Clapp had records from the mint of all the year of issue coins he picked up there? If not, they could be subject to seizure as well since they might not have been issued via proper channels. Hey, the govt can claim anything they want.
<< <i>IF the DE's were obtained by legally exchanging other DE's for them....would that not "monetize" them at the moment of exchange? >>
Given that it was illegal to exchange Double Eagles at the time, I doubt this would make them legal now. Remember, gold ownership was against the law at the time and the mint was ordered to not pay any out.
Collector and Researcher of Liberty Head Nickels. ANA LM-6053
It was NOT illegal to switch double eagles at that time, it was standard practice as part of the day's business. And gold ownership was not against the law until FDR declared it in April. The '33 Saints were delivered in mid March and the three week window of opportunity existed until the first week in April.
<<The govt, the owners, and the hobby will benefit....>>
Not the guy that owns the single legal one.
About the melting. Don't worry - the government would have melted them by now. It IS good for the "Switt" family that they HAVE NOT melted them. Are they still unsure who rightly owns them??? Their display at ANA Denver said " Ownership of the American public".
Sunnywood, as usual makes a valid interesting point. If they are NOT monetized, then why can't the Switt heirs simply say they are just pieces of gold - give them back!!!
<<And I think it's stupid to melt something worth a million bucks based on speculation.>>
They did it before. And what does the value of them have to do with the legality or lawfulness of them?? So the government would make a few measly millions from their sale only to piss it away.
<< <i>It was NOT illegal to switch double eagles at that time, it was standard practice as part of the day's business. And gold ownership was not against the law until FDR declared it in April. The '33 Saints were delivered in mid March and the three week window of opportunity existed until the first week in April. >>
This was all examined by the Secret Service and there was no possible way this happened legally.
Collector and Researcher of Liberty Head Nickels. ANA LM-6053
Please, would you really believe that something was so just because the Secret Service says so (or the CIA with their lovely WMD weapons of mass destruction reports). To say that they were and are self serving would be understating the case.
Since the legal case against the first '33 was entered against the coin itself (almost as if it was a person), it only seems logical that such cases would not require proof that the person obtained it legally, but rather proof that he DID obtain it illegally; the analogy of innocent until proven guilty.
If the weights of melted coins was proper and there was a three week window of opportunity to exchange, then the government on that simple basis has a problem in "prosecuting" its case.
Love that Milled British (1830-1960) Well, just Love coins, period.
I'm not so sure how far to take what the SS and the government says, either (I wasn't bashing dbldie 55, he has a right to his opinion). They've been inconsistent at best over the years in enforcing their stance. They didn't actively start seizing '33 Saints until the 1940's, and they did an about face with the Fenton specimen.
I'm with Conder in that the burden of proof is with the government to prove that the '33 Saints in question left the Mint illegally. I don't think they can prove it, and I don't think they have a case. Does that mean that I think they will lose the case? No, they may very well win it. Anything's possible. That's what makes this so fascinating. I really hope it goes to trial. Any kind of out of court settlement, or attempt, will go a long way toward telling me just how strong a case the government thinks they have.
<< IF the DE's were obtained by legally exchanging other DE's for them....would that not "monetize" them at the moment of exchange? >>
Given that it was illegal to exchange Double Eagles at the time, I doubt this would make them legal now. Remember, gold ownership was against the law at the time and the mint was ordered to not pay any out.
****
Some points worth noting – from one who has actually read the Secret Service documents:
1) Gold ownerhsip was NOT illegal in March 1933.
2) It was legal in March 1933 to exchange the coins.
<< <i>dbldie55 Wednesday December 06, 2006 8:27 PM
<< IF the DE's were obtained by legally exchanging other DE's for them....would that not "monetize" them at the moment of exchange? >>
Given that it was illegal to exchange Double Eagles at the time, I doubt this would make them legal now. Remember, gold ownership was against the law at the time and the mint was ordered to not pay any out.
****
Some points worth noting – from one who has actually read the Secret Service documents:
1) Gold ownerhsip was NOT illegal in March 1933.
2) It was legal in March 1933 to exchange the coins.
Denga >>
But the SS found no evidence that any '33s could have been in any position to be exchanged. They had not been monitized at that time.
Collector and Researcher of Liberty Head Nickels. ANA LM-6053
<< <i>dbldie55 Wednesday December 06, 2006 8:27 PM
<< IF the DE's were obtained by legally exchanging other DE's for them....would that not "monetize" them at the moment of exchange? >>
Given that it was illegal to exchange Double Eagles at the time, I doubt this would make them legal now. Remember, gold ownership was against the law at the time and the mint was ordered to not pay any out.
****
Some points worth noting – from one who has actually read the Secret Service documents:
1) Gold ownerhsip was NOT illegal in March 1933.
2) It was legal in March 1933 to exchange the coins.
Denga >>
But the SS found no evidence that any '33s could have been in any position to be exchanged. They had not been monitized at that time. >>
That argument by the government that they "hadn't been monetized" is modern hogwash, and one of the weakest links in the Treasury's vendetta against these coins. A good lawyer could make a Treasury witness trying to defend this position on the witness stand look like a fool. Imagine the testimony: "Yes, this is a coin, but it isn't money because we haven't said it is yet!" TD
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.
<< dbldie55 Wednesday December 06, 2006 8:27 PM << IF the DE's were obtained by legally exchanging other DE's for them....would that not "monetize" them at the moment of exchange? >> Given that it was illegal to exchange Double Eagles at the time, I doubt this would make them legal now. Remember, gold ownership was against the law at the time and the mint was ordered to not pay any out. **** Some points worth noting – from one who has actually read the Secret Service documents:
1) Gold ownerhsip was NOT illegal in March 1933.
2) It was legal in March 1933 to exchange the coins.
Denga >>
***************** [from dbldie55] But the SS found no evidence that any '33s could have been in any position to be exchanged. They had not been monitized at that time. >>
************* That argument by the government that they "hadn't been monetized" is modern hogwash, and one of the weakest links in the Treasury's vendetta against these coins. A good lawyer could make a Treasury witness trying to defend this position on the witness stand look like a fool. Imagine the testimony: "Yes, this is a coin, but it isn't money because we haven't said it is yet!" TD
********************
Capt Henway has it absolutely correct. The "monetization" argument is Smoke and Mirrors designed to fool those who have not read the laws or appropriate documents.
I want to point out that Denga is, I believe, Bob Julian. He has done extensive research into this matter.
The more experienced numismatists on the board, including Tom De Lorey and myself have pointed out the nonsense term of "monetization". Coins are money. They have been getting out of the mint since 1792.
No one has ever tried to say that they were not money.
The coins were almost certainly exchanged with other dates. In March of 1933, there was no foul.
If the NY Times reporter had not questioned it, nothing would have ever happened and these coins along with many other coins would have quietly been accepted into the numismatic hobby!!
PNG member, numismatic dealer since 1965. Operates a retail store, also has exhibited at over 1000 shows. I firmly believe in numismatics as the world's greatest hobby, but recognize that this is a luxury and without collectors, we can all spend/melt our collections/inventories.
<< <i>Are they still unsure who rightly owns them??? Their display at ANA Denver said " Ownership of the American public". >>
Yes, the display at ANA in Denver did say "Ownership of the American public". However, I believe the Mint was pursuing a strategy of "say it loud, say it often, and maybe people will believe it." Just saying it, doesn't make it so. The display in Denver also said "the coins were stolen". Same strategy, another statement that hasn't been proven that they keep saying, hoping people will believe it.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
Yes, and as I pointed out earlier, the display ALSO called them "double eagles" ... so much for the notion that they haven't been monetized, and hence are not money. I believe the Treasury just conceded that point. However, I still don't think that Switt obtained the coins lawfully.
<< <i>This is a rather frivilous and unimportant matter in comparison to the things Congress should really be concerned about. >>
That is exactly the kind of thing the Congress WANTS to concern themselves with because they don't want to touch the serious things that they should be dealing with.
<< <i>If the NY Times reporter had not questioned it, nothing would have ever happened and these coins along with many other coins would have quietly been accepted into the numismatic hobby!! >>
They were accepted. Before the Treasury started going after them they were bought and sold and even advertised openly. There are ads in the Numismatic Scrapbook (One of the major numismatic publications of the time) in the early fourties offering them for sale.
<< <i>This is a rather frivilous and unimportant matter in comparison to the things Congress should really be concerned about. >>
That is exactly the kind of thing the Congress WANTS to concern themselves with because they don't want to touch the serious things that they should be dealing with.
<< <i>If the NY Times reporter had not questioned it, nothing would have ever happened and these coins along with many other coins would have quietly been accepted into the numismatic hobby!! >>
They were accepted. Before the Treasury started going after them they were bought and sold and even advertised openly. There are ads in the Numismatic Scrapbook (One of the major numismatic publications of the time) in the early fourties offering them for sale. >>
I am surprised to hear that 33 Saints where openly advertised, have never heard this before..... So something else we can blaim on the NY Times.....
Collection under construction: VG Barber Quarters & Halves
Comments
I firmly believe in numismatics as the world's greatest hobby, but recognize that this is a luxury and without collectors, we can all spend/melt our collections/inventories.
eBaystore
The Nations most Treasured Numismatic Specimens will never get melted, sold maybe thropugh legal channels, but never melted.
The name is LEE!
10 in question
2 at Smithsonian
1 legal to own
1 photographed and in Illegal Tender (oct 80 dated I believe)
9 where melted
Probably 3 or 4 more
<< <i>There probably are more then 13
10 in question
2 at Smithsonian
1 legal to own
1 photographed and in Illegal Tender (oct 80 dated I believe)
9 were melted
Probably 3 or 4 more >>
Switt claimed he had 25 to begin with, which would mean 4 are still "somewhere". The book "Double Eagle" has the story of the one photographed in '80 (which came from Switt as well).
<< <i>Sorry if this was brought up in this thread, for I have not read every reply, but, and not to take the thread off its specific topic, but how is it legal to own an 1913 Liberty nickel but not a '33 Saint? The 1913 nickels were never released to the public just like the '33 Saint were never released to the public, so according to that arguement, the 1913 nickels should also be illegal to own. >>
The government has no records of ever minting a 1913 Liberty Nickel, so how can they claim it left illegally? They have records of minting the 1933 Saints but there is no record of any being paid out in any fashion. Read the book "Illegal Tender", it is quite a story.
Also, there is a big difference between a gold coin and a non-legal tender coin (I am pretty sure nickels were also not legal tender until the 60's just as cents were not)
The government's entire case against the 1933's is based on the rather fuzzy term 'monetization' - which has no legal definition. It's something that occurs through the Federal Reserve system ... which wasn't even in place when the 1913 Liberty nickels left the mint.
<< <i>I can state with 100% certaintly that there are more than 13 specimens. >>
It's my opinion that there are more 1933's out in the world than 1927-D's.
in my hands!
It was mid-late 1979, as I recall.
The photo was taken a few months
after the coin was offered to me.
I know I do...no mater what, legal or illegal.
I firmly believe in numismatics as the world's greatest hobby, but recognize that this is a luxury and without collectors, we can all spend/melt our collections/inventories.
eBaystore
<< <i>I held the "Oct. 1980" coin raw,
in my hands!
It was mid-late 1979, as I recall.
The photo was taken a few months
after the coin was offered to me. >>
Cool Beans
For the sake of our legal system, I hope the coins are confiscated.
Same stories/same cases. Return them, they should not have been in existence nor should they have left the mint. The Farouk examle was RELEASED legally. Not these.
It was released from the Mint in the same manner as the others. If the government, by granting an export license, accidently granted it legal status ... why doesn't that legal status extend to every other coin released in the same manner at the same time?
For the same reason, I hope they are not unless it is proven in a court of law that they were indeed stolen. Absent such proof, title should remain with the family as there is a very reasonable explanation for how they could have left the mint legally.
It should be up to the government to PROVE theft prior to being able to confiscate private property without just compensation.
<< <i>The government has no records of ever minting a 1913 Liberty Nickel, so how can they claim it left illegally? >>
Well since they have no records of them ever being made either they were made and left clandestinely, or they were made outside of the mint and are counterfeits. In either case they would be subject to seizure.
As to the 33 double eagles, the government claims they were never issued and were stolen. If the plaintiffs can show that it was POSSIBLE for them to have left the mint legally, then it would be up to the government to PROVE that they did not leave by those methods. If they can't prove that they did leave illegally, or that they didn't leave by a legal method, then it becomes possible that the coins WERE acquired legally and should be returned.
Bruce, this is a surprising statement by you. Are you saying if one coin is released at that said time and manner, then ALL SHOULD BE??? ONLY ONE WAS ON THE LIST FOR EXPORT LICENSE!! That is an unintelligent comment. Clinton pardoned a few guys before his presidency ended. Does that in effect signify that EVERYONE SHOULD BE PARDEONED at that time and manner??? If one inmate makes parole, WHY SHOULDN'T ALL THE OTHERS GET PAROLE - same manner/ same time. Come on.
It's simple.
THEY'E NOT ON THE LIST.
Melt them and be done with it. I am a taxpayer, and they should be destroyed like the other 9. SAME TIME, SAME MANNER, SAME STORY.
The coins probably came out from someone with connections, as many numismatic items have. They absolutely were not stolen. How could Izzy Switt get in there and steal them?
This has happened many times in the past. Just because these coins got out doesn't make them illegal.
FYI, one of the coins is AU!!
If the mint does not try to settle this, I hope that they get their A** handed to them in court by a logical judge.
Remember that these are not the only extant specimens.
I firmly believe in numismatics as the world's greatest hobby, but recognize that this is a luxury and without collectors, we can all spend/melt our collections/inventories.
eBaystore
<< <i><<If the government, by granting an export license, accidently granted it legal status ... why doesn't that legal status extend to every other coin released in the same manner at the same time?>>
Bruce, this is a surprising statement by you. Are you saying if one coin is released at that said time and manner, then ALL SHOULD BE??? ONLY ONE WAS ON THE LIST FOR EXPORT LICENSE!! That is an unintelligent comment. Clinton pardoned a few guys before his presidency ended. Does that in effect signify that EVERYONE SHOULD BE PARDEONED at that time and manner??? If one inmate makes parole, WHY SHOULDN'T ALL THE OTHERS GET PAROLE - same manner/ same time. Come on.
It's simple.
THEY'E NOT ON THE LIST.
Melt them and be done with it. I am a taxpayer, and they should be destroyed like the other 9. SAME TIME, SAME MANNER, SAME STORY. >>
Lloyd - we are not talking about a crime here .... we're talking about coins that weren't 'monetized'. That's a word made up by our government to justify this witchhunt. Basically, they are claiming that it doesn't matter that the coins could have been legally switched at the mint, that since they didn't properly enter the public domain through the Federal Reserve system that they aren't really money. This entire premise is based upon a technicality and can be overcome by technicalities. IF by granting an export license for one coin they legitimized all the other coins, then so be it - that's for our legal system to determine.
Regulations that live by technicalities, die by technicalities.
Monetize(d) IS a word. "To establish as legal tender". Now I think the government has a better case. Any Double Eagle dated 1933 was NEVER monetized. No different than counterfeit money, 1964 peace dollars, monopoly money. The "error" of releasing the Farouk example is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT issue, than coins that were "secretly exchanged for other dates" - actual knowingly fraudulent. If they were legal to own, why were they SECRETLY exchanged at the mint?? Why did they have to be hidden in a safebox??
I don't think any PROOF is needed that they were stolen. Even if Switt's friend at the mint KNOWINGLY exchanged other dates in the bags for 1933's, why didn't he report it in the record books, or tell anyone else??
The same reason a bank teller wouldn't report that a few 100 dollar bills are missing from the vaults.
<< <i>Monetize(d) IS a word. "To establish as legal tender". Now I think the government has a better case. Any Double Eagle dated 1933 was NEVER monetized. No different than counterfeit money, 1964 peace dollars, monopoly money. The "error" of releasing the Farouk example is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT issue, than coins that were "secretly exchanged for other dates" - actual knowingly fraudulent. If they were legal to own, why were they SECRETLY exchanged at the mint?? Why did they have to be hidden in a safebox??
I don't think any PROOF is needed that they were stolen. Even if Switt's friend at the mint KNOWINGLY exchanged other dates in the bags for 1933's, why didn't he report it in the record books, or tell anyone else??
The same reason a bank teller wouldn't report that a few 100 dollar bills are missing from the vaults. >>
Lloyd, I agree with TDN on this one. At the time, the government considered any one double eagle the same value as any other double eagle. There was no crime report. When the 1933 $20's were melted, they got the exact amount of gold they expected to get. Your bank teller example isn't accurate; a more accurate example would be a bank teller found a bunch of $20 national bank notes in the vault and realized they had numismatic value, and therefore replaced them with regular $20's. At the time (1933) this would not have been a crime.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
Yep, if I owned that $7.59 MM example, I'd already be filing suit.
Best,
Sunnywood
Sunnywood's Rainbow-Toned Morgans (Retired)
Sunnywood's Barber Quarters (Retired)
Melt them and be done with it. I am a taxpayer, and they should be destroyed like the other 9. SAME TIME, SAME MANNER, SAME STORY.
I'm a tax payer as well. And I think it's stupid to melt something worth a million bucks based on speculation. The govt, the owners, and the hobby will benefit....a 3-way win-win. We're all glad Lloyd turned down his appointment as Mint Superintendant.
And one hides their 1933 Saints secretly in a Safe Deposit Box not because you necessarily fear you've done something wrong, because you rightly fear a government who can trample over your rights if they want. It wouldn't have mattered if a teller exchanged these for Izzy at the window. If the govt claims they were illegal, they'll come take them. I wonder if Clapp had records from the mint of all the year of issue coins he picked up there? If not, they could be subject to seizure as well since they might not have been issued via proper channels. Hey, the govt can claim anything they want.
roadrunner
<< <i>IF the DE's were obtained by legally exchanging other DE's for them....would that not "monetize" them at the moment of exchange? >>
Given that it was illegal to exchange Double Eagles at the time, I doubt this would make them legal now. Remember, gold ownership was against the law at the time and the mint was ordered to not pay any out.
Not the guy that owns the single legal one.
About the melting. Don't worry - the government would have melted them by now. It IS good for the "Switt" family that they HAVE NOT melted them. Are they still unsure who rightly owns them??? Their display at ANA Denver said " Ownership of the American public".
Sunnywood, as usual makes a valid interesting point. If they are NOT monetized, then why can't the Switt heirs simply say they are just pieces of gold - give them back!!!
They did it before. And what does the value of them have to do with the legality or lawfulness of them?? So the government would make a few measly millions from their sale only to piss it away.
<< <i>It was NOT illegal to switch double eagles at that time, it was standard practice as part of the day's business. And gold ownership was not against the law until FDR declared it in April. The '33 Saints were delivered in mid March and the three week window of opportunity existed until the first week in April.
This was all examined by the Secret Service and there was no possible way this happened legally.
Since the legal case against the first '33 was entered against the coin itself (almost as if it was a person), it only seems logical that such cases would not require proof that the person obtained it legally, but rather proof that he DID obtain it illegally; the analogy of innocent until proven guilty.
If the weights of melted coins was proper and there was a three week window of opportunity to exchange, then the government on that simple basis has a problem in "prosecuting" its case.
Well, just Love coins, period.
I'm with Conder in that the burden of proof is with the government to prove that the '33 Saints in question left the Mint illegally. I don't think they can prove it, and I don't think they have a case. Does that mean that I think they will lose the case? No, they may very well win it. Anything's possible. That's what makes this so fascinating. I really hope it goes to trial. Any kind of out of court settlement, or attempt, will go a long way toward telling me just how strong a case the government thinks they have.
Why, because they could get a few million dollars in some type of settlement.....
Would be nice if Congress just passed something and cleared the matter up before hand (not likely).....
<< <i>Just like the Fenton case, if the government is not convinced they are going to win the case I see them settling.....
Why, because they could get a few million dollars in some type of settlement.....
Would be nice if Congress just passed something and cleared the matter up before hand (not likely)..... >>
This is a rather frivilous and unimportant matter in comparison to the things Congress should really be concerned about.
Plus they already have that coin clarification bill in there hands, with a modification of a date here and there the problem is solved.....
<< IF the DE's were obtained by legally exchanging other DE's for them....would that not "monetize" them at the moment of exchange? >>
Given that it was illegal to exchange Double Eagles at the time, I doubt this would make them legal now. Remember, gold ownership was against the law at the time and the mint was ordered to not pay any out.
****
Some points worth noting – from one who has actually read the Secret Service documents:
1) Gold ownerhsip was NOT illegal in March 1933.
2) It was legal in March 1933 to exchange the coins.
Denga
<< <i>dbldie55 Wednesday December 06, 2006 8:27 PM
<< IF the DE's were obtained by legally exchanging other DE's for them....would that not "monetize" them at the moment of exchange? >>
Given that it was illegal to exchange Double Eagles at the time, I doubt this would make them legal now. Remember, gold ownership was against the law at the time and the mint was ordered to not pay any out.
****
Some points worth noting – from one who has actually read the Secret Service documents:
1) Gold ownerhsip was NOT illegal in March 1933.
2) It was legal in March 1933 to exchange the coins.
Denga >>
But the SS found no evidence that any '33s could have been in any position to be exchanged. They had not been monitized at that time.
<< <i>
<< <i>dbldie55 Wednesday December 06, 2006 8:27 PM
<< IF the DE's were obtained by legally exchanging other DE's for them....would that not "monetize" them at the moment of exchange? >>
Given that it was illegal to exchange Double Eagles at the time, I doubt this would make them legal now. Remember, gold ownership was against the law at the time and the mint was ordered to not pay any out.
****
Some points worth noting – from one who has actually read the Secret Service documents:
1) Gold ownerhsip was NOT illegal in March 1933.
2) It was legal in March 1933 to exchange the coins.
Denga >>
But the SS found no evidence that any '33s could have been in any position to be exchanged. They had not been monitized at that time. >>
That argument by the government that they "hadn't been monetized" is modern hogwash, and one of the weakest links in the Treasury's vendetta against these coins. A good lawyer could make a Treasury witness trying to defend this position on the witness stand look like a fool. Imagine the testimony:
"Yes, this is a coin, but it isn't money because we haven't said it is yet!"
TD
That would be terrible.....
<< dbldie55 Wednesday December 06, 2006 8:27 PM
<< IF the DE's were obtained by legally exchanging other DE's for them....would that not "monetize" them at the moment of exchange? >>
Given that it was illegal to exchange Double Eagles at the time, I doubt this would make them legal now. Remember, gold ownership was against the law at the time and the mint was ordered to not pay any out.
****
Some points worth noting – from one who has actually read the Secret Service documents:
1) Gold ownerhsip was NOT illegal in March 1933.
2) It was legal in March 1933 to exchange the coins.
Denga >>
*****************
[from dbldie55]
But the SS found no evidence that any '33s could have been in any position to be exchanged. They had not been monitized at that time. >>
*************
That argument by the government that they "hadn't been monetized" is modern hogwash, and one of the weakest links in the Treasury's vendetta against these coins. A good lawyer could make a Treasury witness trying to defend this position on the witness stand look like a fool. Imagine the testimony:
"Yes, this is a coin, but it isn't money because we haven't said it is yet!"
TD
********************
Capt Henway has it absolutely correct. The "monetization" argument is Smoke and Mirrors designed to fool those who have not read the laws or appropriate documents.
Denga
The more experienced numismatists on the board, including Tom De Lorey and myself have pointed out the nonsense term of "monetization". Coins are money. They have been getting out of the mint since 1792.
No one has ever tried to say that they were not money.
The coins were almost certainly exchanged with other dates. In March of 1933, there was no foul.
If the NY Times reporter had not questioned it, nothing would have ever happened and these coins along with many other coins would have quietly been accepted into the numismatic hobby!!
I firmly believe in numismatics as the world's greatest hobby, but recognize that this is a luxury and without collectors, we can all spend/melt our collections/inventories.
eBaystore
<< <i>Are they still unsure who rightly owns them??? Their display at ANA Denver said " Ownership of the American public". >>
Yes, the display at ANA in Denver did say "Ownership of the American public". However, I believe the Mint was pursuing a strategy of "say it loud, say it often, and maybe people will believe it." Just saying it, doesn't make it so. The display in Denver also said "the coins were stolen". Same strategy, another statement that hasn't been proven that they keep saying, hoping people will believe it.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
Best,
Sunnywood
Sunnywood's Rainbow-Toned Morgans (Retired)
Sunnywood's Barber Quarters (Retired)
<< <i>This is a rather frivilous and unimportant matter in comparison to the things Congress should really be concerned about. >>
That is exactly the kind of thing the Congress WANTS to concern themselves with because they don't want to touch the serious things that they should be dealing with.
<< <i>If the NY Times reporter had not questioned it, nothing would have ever happened and these coins along with many other coins would have quietly been accepted into the numismatic hobby!! >>
They were accepted. Before the Treasury started going after them they were bought and sold and even advertised openly. There are ads in the Numismatic Scrapbook (One of the major numismatic publications of the time) in the early fourties offering them for sale.
<< <i>
<< <i>This is a rather frivilous and unimportant matter in comparison to the things Congress should really be concerned about. >>
That is exactly the kind of thing the Congress WANTS to concern themselves with because they don't want to touch the serious things that they should be dealing with.
<< <i>If the NY Times reporter had not questioned it, nothing would have ever happened and these coins along with many other coins would have quietly been accepted into the numismatic hobby!! >>
They were accepted. Before the Treasury started going after them they were bought and sold and even advertised openly. There are ads in the Numismatic Scrapbook (One of the major numismatic publications of the time) in the early fourties offering them for sale. >>
I am surprised to hear that 33 Saints where openly advertised, have never heard this before..... So something else we can blaim on the NY Times.....