Options
Prototype found - Treasury Dept a problem?
ModernDollarNut
Posts: 886
GENERIC QUESTION! A collector finds a prototype example of a modern coin, could even be a pattern.
If the existence of this prototype/pattern is publicized, is there danger of confiscation by the Treasury Department? Should the collector be alert for knocks on the door in the middle of the night???
If the existence of this prototype/pattern is publicized, is there danger of confiscation by the Treasury Department? Should the collector be alert for knocks on the door in the middle of the night???
Modern dollars are like children - before you know it they'll be all grown up.....
Questions about Ikes? Go to The IKE GROUP WEB SITE
Questions about Ikes? Go to The IKE GROUP WEB SITE
0
Comments
They know what you have & they know where you live...
From what I understand, this coin was never intended to be released to the public yet there it is!
What would the difference be?
Edited for Link Adjustment.
The name is LEE!
Questions about Ikes? Go to The IKE GROUP WEB SITE
Modern pattern and experimental pieces are struck by the U.S. Mint. These are circulated internal to the Bureau and the Treasury Dept. for testing and examination for suitability of use. On occasion, examples leave the custody of officials through mistake, oversight, gift, or loss. My opinion is that once such a piece leaves official custody, except by illegal means, the piece is in the public domain and can be possessed and disposed of as personal property.
The above is consistent with distribution of pattern and experimental pieces into the early nineteenth century.
We know from destruction lists that hundreds of experimental/pattern hubs and dies have been destroyed and that thousands of individual pieces have also been crushed or melted.
If the mint wished to be rational about experimental and pattern pieces, they would donate at least one example of each new version to the Smithsonian NNC. This would place them in safe keeping and make them available for future study.
I tend to favor RWB: common sense tells me that the occasional pattern/prototype that incidently/accidently gets into distribution channels would not be subject to confiscation.
A cluster of such items in the posession of an individual, with a history consistent with possibly suspicious entry into the private market-place, probably would be.
Does that make sense? Rob
Questions about Ikes? Go to The IKE GROUP WEB SITE
Weren't the 1856 FE Patterns? I recall back about a hundred years or so where there was speculation that the coin never hit the production floor but many many trial strikes were made.
The name is LEE!
>>>My Collection
Lee, I'll leave ancient history to you! For me, anything much before Ikes is shrouded in fog... Rob
Questions about Ikes? Go to The IKE GROUP WEB SITE
The existence of this specimen was first reported on the front page of Numismatic News in the Feb. 20, 2001, issue. The coin was reportedly in the hands of the family of a deceased Capitol Hill police officer who found the piece in 1973 "on the pavement while on duty in the basement of the House Office Building" where the officer believed it had been dropped by a Congressman.
ICG-Independent Coin Grading of Englewood, Colorado announced on 2005 July 1st that it had certified the first and only 1974 aluminum Lincoln aluminum cent. Submitted on behalf of the Toven family, ICG has graded the coin AU-58 and pedigreed it the Toven Specimen.
It has been reported the Secret Service is investigating and could demand forfeiture of the certified piece and any others that surface.
Anyone know if NGC or PCGS refused to grade it, since they would have been obliged to report to Secret Service when they were in possession of it. It will be interesting to watch developments.
1974 Aluminun cent
Box of 20
<< <i> My opinion is that once such a piece leaves official custody, except by illegal means, the piece is in the public domain and can be possessed and disposed of as personal property. >>
How would title legally pass from the US Treasury to a member of the public? A government official entrusted with custody of a piece while performing official government duties does not acquire title, anymore than an Air Force piolot acquires title to an F-16 by flying it.
CG
<< <i>Finally 1974-dated dies were used to strike a carefully controlled number (1.57 million) of aluminum alloy coins. All but few of which were destroyed after testing. >>
How do you carefully control 1,570,000 aluminum cents? I could understand 500 or maybe even 1,000 but 1.57 million?
The name is LEE!
<< <i>
<< <i> My opinion is that once such a piece leaves official custody, except by illegal means, the piece is in the public domain and can be possessed and disposed of as personal property. >>
How would title legally pass from the US Treasury to a member of the public? A government official entrusted with custody of a piece while performing official government duties does not acquire title, anymore than an Air Force piolot acquires title to an F-16 by flying it.
CG >>
So, are you saying I have to give the F-16 back?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i> My opinion is that once such a piece leaves official custody, except by illegal means, the piece is in the public domain and can be possessed and disposed of as personal property. >>
How would title legally pass from the US Treasury to a member of the public? A government official entrusted with custody of a piece while performing official government duties does not acquire title, anymore than an Air Force piolot acquires title to an F-16 by flying it.
CG >>
So, are you saying I have to give the F-16 back? >>
No, but I hear the Navy is still looking for their missing submarine. Griv?
The Aluminum cents, just like the 1933 DE, had a bit of publicity surrounding the trial strikes and experimentation by the mint and as a result, many collectors were on look out just for such pieces. I do recall hearing about the 1974 Aluminum cents back in 1974 as the other story around the same time was the fact that San Francisco was going to stop production of cents, meaning, no 1975-S Lincolns. This caused a little bit of a stir and actually increased the sales of 1975 Proof Sets since the coin then became a Proof Only Issue.
But anyway, I wonder if the same scenario would hold true of a coin that few folks knew about or better yet, something that received little or no publicity?
Say, how did the pattern coins of the past make it into collector hands anyway??
The name is LEE!
it would consider them stolen no matter how they were actually ob-
tained. It's common now days for them to inadvertantly release
coins before being officially released. This could even account for
the '33 saints; they may have been in '32 double eagle bags.
Most of the '65 experimental pieces they've said are mint property
as well as the '74 aluminum cents and the '64 peace dollars. Other
than these, you could probably keep most stuff.
There is a lot of stuff that could be borderline.
They did not report it to the SS, as far as I know.
It's in a PCGS MS-62 holder; I had the coin in
my office raw, sent from PCGS to me for my
opinion.....cool coin, to say the least!
for PCGS. A 49+-Year PNG Member...A full numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022
How would title legally pass from the US Treasury to a member of the public? A government official entrusted with custody of a piece while performing official government duties does not acquire title, anymore than an Air Force piolot acquires title to an F-16 by flying it.
1. Quite a few government officials have authority to disburse or to delegate that authority.
2. Pattern and experimental pieces are not, in most instances, money.
When someone receives an experimental piece from a Treasury official, the presumption by the recipient must be that the official has, or has been given, authority to disburse the item. The recipient does not have the means to know the limits of the official’s authority. As implied earlier, the government must establish beyond reasonable doubt that the piece was illegally removed.
Examples:
Treasury official gives member of Congress an aluminum cent. The piece is now out of the custody of the executive departments and has been made a gift to the legislative department representative to do with as the member of Congress chooses (including loosing it on the way to work). (1974 aluminum experimental cent.)
A Treasury official receives an experimental silver dollar from the Philadelphia Mint and is permitted by a superior officer to purchase the item for $1 in currency. The piece is now personal property of the official. (1922 high relief Peace dollar.)
A member of the annual assay commission is given a silver medal by the Director of the Mint. The medal becomes the personal property of the recipient. (All assay commission medals given to members. If others were sold on approval of the Director, they too qualify.)
The Director of the Mint sends a copper specimen of a pattern design dollar to another mint official in response to a personal request. The item becomes the personal property of the official. (1877 copper Barber and Morgan dollar pattern pieces.)
The Secretary of the Treasury sends five experimental half dollar pieces to the wife of a friend and requests $2.50 in currency in exchange. The money is paid; the pieces become the personal property of the recipient. (1916 experimental half dollars.)
The Director of the Mint distributes sets of Goloid and metric pattern pieces to members of Congress and others requesting them in exchange for the bullion value of the pieces. The pattern pieces become the property of the recipients. (1879/1880 set including Goloid and metric dollars and $4 stella.)
There are many more examples covering multiple ways pattern and experimental pieces were disbursed. All of them fall within the initial response in the previous post.
The long-term practice by the Treasury Dept. has been to not contest private ownership of pattern and experimental pieces. When an attempt was made to seize piece from the Henry Linderman Estate, the United States Attorney for New York, found that the mint had misinterpreted both law and department regulations. There was, “...no statute provision, governing pattern pieces, and the like; that there is no statute provision governing the sale of pattern pieces, struck in any metal, whether adopted designs or not.”
The 1910 attempt to prosecute John Haseltine for selling off-metal patterns failed on similar grounds. The matter has not been tested in any court at any time.
Note: the 1933 double eagles are not pattern or experimental pieces. Their situation is very different since they are regular issue coins alleged to have been stolen by a Treasury employee.
<< <i>What did you find? >>
dam, beat me to it
Go BIG or GO HOME. ©Bill
Questions about Ikes? Go to The IKE GROUP WEB SITE
<< <i>When someone receives an experimental piece from a Treasury official, the presumption by the recipient must be that the official has, or has been given, authority to disburse the item. The recipient does not have the means to know the limits of the official’s authority. >>
How does the receipt of a pattern or any other government property for the purpose of evaluation carry any presumption that the coin is anything other than the property of the government? Lets say that instead of a coin it was a prototype $1,000 bill or a $10,000 T-bill in bearer form. Do you really think that the recipient can just put the money in his pocket based on some "presumption" that the government worker he got it from (for government purposes) has a right to give away the government's money or other property?
CG
<< <i>How does the receipt of a pattern or any other government property for the purpose of evaluation carry any presumption that the coin is anything other than the property of the government? Lets say that instead of a coin it was a prototype $1,000 bill or a $10,000 T-bill in bearer form. Do you really think that the recipient can just put the money in his pocket based on some "presumption" that the government worker he got it from (for government purposes) has a right to give away the government's money or other property? >>
I think the phrase that has been added to your statement is for the purpose of evaluation which RWB never incinuated nor stated. That is a bleed over from the 1974 Aluminum Cent web page.
The name is LEE!
CG
<< <i>The question posed by the OP concerned a prototype of a modern coin, and not any of the 19th and early 20th century examples that Roger listed. And I suspect that some of the practices of 19th century Mint directors would likely land them in jail if done today--such as ordering clandestine restrikes and specimen strikings for their personal collection or for resale.
CG >>
Heck, spanking my child could get me thrown in jail today where as 30 years ago it was an acceptable form of discipline but I do understand your statement.
Do you suppose those Sacajawea Mules were purposely created and if so, has the Treasury Department been doing any midnight raids?
The name is LEE!
Questions about Ikes? Go to The IKE GROUP WEB SITE
Coin Rarities Online
<< <i>PCGS did certify the 1974 Aluminum Cent.
They did not report it to the SS, as far as I know.
It's in a PCGS MS-62 holder; I had the coin in
my office raw, sent from PCGS to me for my
opinion.....cool coin, to say the least! >>
HRH has already said here that if someone sent them a coin like a 1964 Peace Dollar that they would slab it and return it to the submitter.
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
Just for the heck of it, I checked the Red Book (2007 p 333) and it does have something to say. It states:
A 1910 court case (John W. Haseltine) set the precedent that pre 1887 patterns are legal to own. Then it says " Today, pattern coins can be legally held." I don't know why they are making that statement. Now your question could be - is it a stolen regular issue? is it counterfeit? which could cause unwanted attention. Somebody once found some genuine 1969 S cent doubled dies which the government confiscated for some time (1969 Philly's of like ilk were known counterfeits). The governmwnt was even known to confiscate series 1928 Federal Reserve Notes in the old days because they said redeemable in gold.
Maybe you can get a diplomat to exhibit it. Perhaps you could become an honorary counsel for Monaco or something. Nobody bothered King Farouk for his 1933 $20 when he was alive.
2. Every time seizure has been proposed, the government has declined to pursue the case. (see Linderman, also archive documents indicating Treasury’s full knowledge and support of R. Coulton Davis and others in private ownership of pattern and experimental pieces.)
3. The Treasury and Mint have a long-established pattern of behavior regarding pattern and experimental pieces which, I believe, would make successful prosecution extremely unlikely. (If readers need more examples, go through my three research books covering 1905-1921, then add the archival material from 1870s-1880s, 1895, 1932, 1938, 1942-43, 1964-65, etc., etc.)
To respond directly to the original question: If it wasn’t stolen, it’s yours. (But, if you send it back, they'll keep it.)
These were (and in some instances still are) actions within the authority of the Mint Director and/or Secretary of the Treasury. The only stipulation was that the mint had to be reimbursed for precious metal plus time and materials if applicable. It seems unreasonable to imply impropriety ("clandestine") when we simply may not know where the authorizing documents are. [Were the 1909 Washington nickels "clandestine" because we didn't know how they were created? Recent research has now shown how and why they were authorized and prepared, but that doesn’t change the pattern pieces - only the label stuck on them by our previously-incomplete knowledge.]
This same sort of titillation-by-innuendo has been applied to any number of numismatic items. A “whispered” case in point is John Sinnock’s sandblast proof commemorative half dollars. They have been called “illegal,” “clandestine,” “private delicacies,” and so on – always suggesting that the engraver was doing this for personal profit and up to no good. Yet, reality is that the engraving department routinely made a small number of approval pieces on a medal press of new commemorative coin designs. Some of these were sandblasted because that was felt to be the way to best show the medal-like characteristics of the designs. These pieces were then sent to Washington for final approval by the director and Secretary of the Treasury. Once approved and shipped back to Philadelphia, Sinnock could have purchased an example of his die cutting work, just as could someone in the director’s office. No clandestine work was done and as long as he paid for the coin there was nothing improper.
Further, Mint and Treasury officials routinely presented examples of new coins, including commemoratives, to government and sponsoring officials. Sometimes, reimbursement of the face value was requested, but in many other instances we don’t know who paid for the coin. (Where Red Cloud and other Native American chiefs who were handed a new Buffalo nickel by President Taft on February 22nd, 1913, also asked to give Taft a nickel in payment?)
OK--the carpel tunnel stuff is acting up - the end.
For the record, the coin that Rob is referring to is the 1971-S Prototype I found in Feb 2008 at the Long Beach Coin Show.
It was sold to a private collector who had some resources for an undisclosed amount.
After a LOT of research and a LOT of conversations with established member of the Numismatic Community, the coins Sold on January 14th, 2022, in a Heritage Auction for $264,000.
https://coins.ha.com/itm/proof-eisenhower-dollars/1971-s-1-eisenhower-dollar-prototype-specimen-67-pcgs-r8/a/1341-4650.s?ic4=GalleryView-Thumbnail-071515
How about them apples??
The name is LEE!
Haven’t seen you in a while 19Lyds.
Welcome back
Congratulations on your find and numismatic work.
Don’t be a stranger.
Good to hear from you @19Lyds
Have you found any other interesting Ikes lately?
Whatever you do, don't answer your lanline.
Pete
the govt if they think it's needed will get back coins that were not suppose to be in the public's hands but only if they think it's needed
Coins for sale at link below
https://photos.google.com/album/AF1QipP4PBdXHyY3jaCIhcyZwTqHFUghNBdD4kFaDpRZ
Nope. I've been out of it for about 3 years.
The name is LEE!
I hope it was nothing serious sir. Welcome back.
Great coin! Congrats on the discovery!
Here's the TrueView:
It depends on the coin. The 1971-S Prototype Ike found by @19Lyds appears to be ok.
The following Harry Lawrence 1974-D aluminum cent was returned to the US government:
There is no simple answer. Only coins made since 1933 might be "illegal" and all coins are now the property of the US Mint which allows collectors to freely buy and sell most coins. Most of the coins that they don't like are well known even though in some cases )like the '64 peace dollar) no examples may exist.
I would hardly hesitate to publish or alert the numismatic community to any find of a prototype. However, there is a danger that it will catch some bureaucrat's attention and be confiscated. While no real reason is necessary it is more likely to get attention if the existence of the coin could be interpreted to show a lack of perfection in the security, operations, or policies of any US government organ.
Chances are good that if it wasn't obviously stolen or illegally made it will trade freely and even \if it was that it would be OK.
2004 D Wisconsin Extra Leaf Quarters: Legal to own if we know that they were intentionally altered ? Confiscation Material ?
There was an OIG Investigation back in 2006. It reported no illegal goings on. Comments.