<< <i>For those of you who are interested, David Tripp, in his book "Illegal Tender", chronicles the chain of custody of the 1933 double eagles.
As he demonstrates, even if the Mint could have paid out gold coins for a short period of time after the 1933 double eagles had been minted, the 1933 double eagles simply weren't available to be paid out - they were in a locked vault (or two), in storage. As I recall (I haven't read the book in a few years), Tripp believes that the 1933 double eagles were removed from the Mint by a Mint employee a few years after they were minted.
Now, whether Tripp's chain of custody is admissable in court and/or convincing to a judge or jury is another matter. >>
There is so much bias in that book it actually ruined the reading experience. I hate it when an author has an agenda and pretends to be objective.
<< <i>Thanks again for the updates - I enjoy every one of them.
Don't forget, "justice" often has nothing to do with the truth. Seeing the outcome develop will be most interesting. >>
I suppose 5 to each party would be a reasonable outcome, tho I hope the government loses. What would $10 or $15 million mean to Unka Sam when he pisses that much away every minute with nothing in return to show for it.
<< <i>I believe that the previous settlement, of selling a similar coin, with the Government
getting half the proceeds was fair and equitable. That settlement not only allowed
everyone to win, but it also allowed the Numismatic community and history to win. >>
I agree with the above Bear quote except regarding one point, how did the above saint holder acquire the coin ie did a distant relative steal it or did they acquire it through normal means? That to me is the essence of the situation at hand. >>
Realone, you are forgetting a scenario of you selling the coin to me and then years later claiming that I stole it from you. I would have to defend myself and you would have to defend yourself. If no paperwork exists (I paid cash), how are you going to prove that it was stolen and how am I going to prove that I paid for it?
<< <i>Like others have said, what worries me here is precedent. What about the 1913 Liberty Nickels? What about the 1894-S Dimes? What about all those Patterns? What would stop the Government from coming in and seizing them? >>
Apples to oranges. Proof specimens and patterns were not considered 'money' by the mint. The 94-S dimes are listed in the mintage figures. >>
But isn't one of the government's things is that these weren't monetized either?
This thread has generated lots of interesting replies.
I will toss out another aspect of the 1933 Double Eagle saga for people to ponder.
The dispute over the Fenton coin ended up in court, with hard fought litigation. For various reasons [both known, suspected and unknown by the masses] the Fenton case settled. You all know the settlement terms. The coin was "monetized" [whatever in the heck that means] sold at auction and the proceeds split.
The settlement supposedly came about mere days before the trial was to start. However, it would not surprise me to find out that settlement talks had been taking place for a substantial period of time prior to the trial date.
In any event, the settlement was reached, the coin was sold and the proceeds were split.
Fast forward to when the Langbords' 10 coins surfaced. A new legal dispute arose. Many of the same persons involved in the Fenton dispute are involved in the Langbord dispute [government employeesofficials; government lawyers; Mr. Berke and his lawfirm; and experts; and support staffinvestigators for these persons].
I am sure that much of the research, investigation and reports generated by the efforts of all persons involved in the Fenton case has been continuously supplemented and reviewed by the various persons involved in both cases. I can imagine that information produced, reviewed and discounted in the Fenton case has, on second glance, turned out to be much more important than it was thought to be the first time around. New information may make earlier information thought to be inaccurate and unimportant turn out to be accurate and very important.
The persons involved in both cases may, in hindsight and after reviewing new information, now believe that the Fenton case should have been handled differently [taken to trial or settled under different terms]. Second guessing the Fenton case, its outcome and the decisions made by them in the Fenton case may influence those same people now involved in the Langbord case in many different ways, resulting in decisions in the Langbord case being made by persons influenced by the Fenton case.
The details of the conversations, discussions and decisions made by the various participants in both the Fenton case and in the Langbord case will, most likely, never fully be known and understood. Being a fly on the wall during these conversations, discussions and decisions would be interesting.
In short, having some of the same people involved in both the Fenton case and in the Langbord case could very well result in a completely different outcome in the Langbord case than what would occur if the cast of players had no connection or involvement with the Fenton case.
The fly would also have to be knowledgeable about the archives and sound research procedures, as well as numismatic connections, in order to fully comprehend the conversation. The relevance of certain documents, as Sanction mentioned, depends on context and new discoveries can often move the investigation in unexpected directions. The present case should also be considered as independent of other coins and contexts (other than Fenton).
But isn't one of the government's things is that these weren't monetized either?
The “monetization” argument is meaningless and was invented by Treasury Department lawyers to mislead collectors and judges alike.
There was in fact a Treasury regulation which required a given mint, such as Philadelphia, not to pay out coins of a given year if those of a preceding year were on hand. In other words the year is 1928 and dimes have been struck at Philadelphia but 1927s are still on hand. When the 1927s were all gone, the Treasury formally (by letter) authorized the Mint to pay out the 1928s. When I was doing the archival research in March 1996 on the 1933 double eagles for the defense lawyers I saw several of these letters in the files.
What the government does not say, however, is the crux of the matter. This “monetization” regulation was not in the law but merely a departmental rule and has nothing whatsoever to do with the legality of the 1933s.
But isn't one of the government's things is that these weren't monetized either?
The “monetization” argument is meaningless and was invented by Treasury Department lawyers to mislead collectors and judges alike.
There was in fact a Treasury regulation which required a given mint, such as Philadelphia, not to pay out coins of a given year if those of a preceding year were on hand. In other words the year is 1928 and dimes have been struck at Philadelphia but 1927s are still on hand. When the 1927s were all gone, the Treasury formally (by letter) authorized the Mint to pay out the 1928s. When I was doing the archival research in March 1996 on the 1933 double eagles for the defense lawyers I saw several of these letters in the files.
What the government does not say, however, is the crux of the matter. This “monetization” regulation was not in the law but merely a departmental rule and has nothing whatsoever to do with the legality of the 1933s.
Denga >>
Thanks for the added insight. When you say "defense" I forgot who was suing who in the Fenton case. Were you on the team defending a claim being brought by the government?
Thanks for the added insight. When you say "defense" I forgot who was suing who in the Fenton case. Were you on the team defending a claim being brought by the government?
I was doing work originally for Jay Parrino’s lawyer but was then switched over to Fenton’s lawyer when Parrino was dropped from the case by the government.
The Fenton coin was seized by the government in 2-1996 in New York. If Denga was conducting archival research in 3-1996 for the defense lawyers [who at that time, I recall, were defending Fenton and Jay Parino in the criminal case filed against them (which was later dropped), since the government did not file the civil forfeiture action against the Fenton coin until much later], the defense team must have "ramped up" extremely fast. Quickly hiring Denga shows how things happen in the legal big leagues. Justice apparently is meted out quickly in the Big Apple and it brooks no delay.
I know I sound like a broken record when I post about this case, but both sides keep tap dancing/playing musical chairs around the "Prove it" and the "Who has the burden to prove what" issues. Eventually the music will stop and one side will grab the only remaining chair and sit in it while the other side is left standing, pulling their hair out and muttering "How in the h*ll are we going to prove our case?".
Assuming the case is not totally disposed of by the court granting summary judgment to one side or the other [meaning at least a portion of the case will proceed to trial] and assuming the court issues pretrial orders that place the burden of proof on the government, I can see this case being settled. If the court places the burden of proof on the Langbords, I do not see the case settling unless the Langbords just decide to give up [which the probably will not do].
But isn't one of the government's things is that these weren't monetized either?
The “monetization” argument is meaningless and was invented by Treasury Department lawyers to mislead collectors and judges alike.
There was in fact a Treasury regulation which required a given mint, such as Philadelphia, not to pay out coins of a given year if those of a preceding year were on hand. In other words the year is 1928 and dimes have been struck at Philadelphia but 1927s are still on hand. When the 1927s were all gone, the Treasury formally (by letter) authorized the Mint to pay out the 1928s. When I was doing the archival research in March 1996 on the 1933 double eagles for the defense lawyers I saw several of these letters in the files.
What the government does not say, however, is the crux of the matter. This “monetization” regulation was not in the law but merely a departmental rule and has nothing whatsoever to do with the legality of the 1933s.
Denga >>
Denga:
Was a letter issued related to the 1933 $20's by the Treasury to the Mint, regardless of whether it was a law or an administrative ruling?
Always took candy from strangers Didn't wanna get me no trade Never want to be like papa Working for the boss every night and day --"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
<< <i>tmot99 January 29, 2009 But isn't one of the government's things is that these weren't monetized either? The “monetization” argument is meaningless and was invented by Treasury Department lawyers to mislead collectors and judges alike. There was in fact a Treasury regulation which required a given mint, such as Philadelphia, not to pay out coins of a given year if those of a preceding year were on hand. In other words the year is 1928 and dimes have been struck at Philadelphia but 1927s are still on hand. When the 1927s were all gone, the Treasury formally (by letter) authorized the Mint to pay out the 1928s. When I was doing the archival research in March 1996 on the 1933 double eagles for the defense lawyers I saw several of these letters in the files. What the government does not say, however, is the crux of the matter. This “monetization” regulation was not in the law but merely a departmental rule and has nothing whatsoever to do with the legality of the 1933s. Denga >>
I know this is a made up word and that was my point. TDN was using the reasoning that proof specimens and patterns were not considered "money" to the Mint and therefore a totally different situation than the 1933 DEs. I was trying to relate them as saying that the Government used the "monetization" word to say that the 1933 were not "money" either.
The Fenton coin was seized by the government in 2-1996 in New York. If Denga was conducting archival research in 3-1996 for the defense lawyers [who at that time, I recall, were defending Fenton and Jay Parino in the criminal case filed against them (which was later dropped), since the government did not file the civil forfeiture action against the Fenton coin until much later], the defense team must have "ramped up" extremely fast. Quickly hiring Denga shows how things happen in the legal big leagues. Justice apparently is meted out quickly in the Big Apple and it brooks no delay.
I do not recall the exact day I was contacted but I purchased my airline ticket on March 5 and left on March 14 for Philadelphia. The delay was due to time spent in making the necessary arrangements with the archives people, hotels, etc.
Denga: Was a letter issued related to the 1933 $20's by the Treasury to the Mint, regardless of whether it was a law or an administrative ruling?
No. None was found and the government is telling the truth on this point although it does not mean anything.
Denga >>
I wonder if the absence of such a letter can show that there was not an intent by the goverment to release the 1933's, similar to the standard procedures that the goverment used in prior years related to prior year coinage. I would be interested to know whether in each of the previous years such a letter was issued. It may be possible for the government to argue that a rogue employee might have released the coins, with the knowledge that the SOP was to get an administrative approval first. Perhaps this takes the whole monetization issue off the table, and it comes down to whether it can be proven that the coins were released to circulation under regular and customary procedures.
Always took candy from strangers Didn't wanna get me no trade Never want to be like papa Working for the boss every night and day --"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
TDN was using the reasoning that proof specimens and patterns were not considered "money" to the Mint…
Patterns and experimental pieces were not money, that is correct. They were metallic samples of proposed money designs or proposed alloys. Proof examples of regular issue coinage were (and are) money and were included in the total mintage figures for each year.
Denga: Was a letter issued related to the 1933 $20's by the Treasury to the Mint, regardless of whether it was a law or an administrative ruling?
>>No. None was found and the government is telling the truth on this point although it does not mean anything.
Denga >>
I wonder if the absence of such a letter can show that there was not an intent by the goverment to release the 1933's, similar to the standard procedures that the goverment used in prior years related to prior year coinage. I would be interested to know whether in each of the previous years such a letter was issued. It may be possible for the government to argue that a rogue employee might have released the coins, with the knowledge that the SOP was to get an administrative approval first. Perhaps this takes the whole monetization issue off the table, and it comes down to whether it can be proven that the coins were released to circulation under regular and customary procedures.
I did not make a list of the authorizing letters that I saw, merely a few to make the point of their existence. It is my view, and I was scheduled to testify on this point at the trial which was not held, that the superintendent of the Philadelphia Mint could have legally switched the 1933s for coins of another date so long as the total weights matched. This would have been legal under the 1873 law and the FDR edicts but not customary.
Denga: Was a letter issued related to the 1933 $20's by the Treasury to the Mint, regardless of whether it was a law or an administrative ruling?
>>No. None was found and the government is telling the truth on this point although it does not mean anything.
Denga >>
I wonder if the absence of such a letter can show that there was not an intent by the goverment to release the 1933's, similar to the standard procedures that the goverment used in prior years related to prior year coinage. I would be interested to know whether in each of the previous years such a letter was issued. It may be possible for the government to argue that a rogue employee might have released the coins, with the knowledge that the SOP was to get an administrative approval first. Perhaps this takes the whole monetization issue off the table, and it comes down to whether it can be proven that the coins were released to circulation under regular and customary procedures.
I did not make a list of the authorizing letters that I saw, merely a few to make the point of their existence. It is my view, and I was scheduled to testify on this point at the trial which was not held, that the superintendent of the Philadelphia Mint could have legally switched the 1933s for coins of another date so long as the total weights matched. This would have been legal under the 1873 law and the FDR edicts but not customary.
Denga >>
Denga-- thanks for all of your comments, and I will try to stop asking you questions. However, if the scenario that you indicated above happened, I wonder how the Mint was able to reconcile their official mintage reports for the year(s) in question, which I believe become part of the official Mint records. If coins are switched among the various years, one could question how accurate the mintage reports are from the past. If those reports are considered reliable and accurate, I wonder what the 1933 report looked like, and how it was possible to account for a switch of a few coins between the 1933 year and the prior year. Lastly, is there anything in the law that indicates that weights of the coins should trump the issue dates and the related customary release procedures of the coins?
Always took candy from strangers Didn't wanna get me no trade Never want to be like papa Working for the boss every night and day --"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
Denga-- thanks for all of your comments, and I will try to stop asking you questions. However, if the scenario that you indicated above happened, I wonder how the Mint was able to reconcile their official mintage reports for the year(s) in question, which I believe become part of the official Mint records. If coins are switched among the various years, one could question how accurate the mintage reports are from the past. If those reports are considered reliable and accurate, I wonder what the 1933 report looked like, and how it was possible to account for a switch of a few coins between the 1933 year and the prior year. Lastly, is there anything in the law that indicates that weights of the coins should trump the issue dates and the related customary release procedures of the coins?
The switching of coins would not affect the mint reports at all. The number of coins struck is not always the number released and coins are occasionally melted for various reasons after being struck.
My point about the matching weights has to do with one of the edicts issued by FDR. The mints were permitted to pay out gold but the amount on hand could not decrease. While one could argue the legality of the FDR rule, the superintendent could have been in trouble had it been flouted.
It might be helpful for readers to have a little more information on how gold double eagles were handled at the mint through 1933.
After the .900 fine bars were rolled to the correct thickness, blanks were cut to a specified diameter. These were tumbled with one of several different materials to deburr the blanks. They were then sent to the upsetting machine which raised the outer part of the blank and also ensured the blanks were round, and the edges even. The result was called a planchet.
Planchets were annealed to soften the alloy for striking, then sent to the women Selectors who weighed each planchet and scrapped off a bit of gold is a planchet was over weight. All under weight planchets were sent back to be melted. At this point the total reject rate was approximately 35% of all blanks cut. Correct planchets next went to a weak nitric acid bath to remove surface stains and oxidation. Lastly, they were tumbled dry in warm corncob dust and/or hardwood sawdust.)
Dry planchets went to the coining department where they were lightly oiled and fed into the presses and struck. (Oiling helped prevent planchets from sticking in the feeder tubes.)
After striking the Selectors again wiped, weighed and inspected each new double eagle. On average they rejected from 5% to 15% of the pieces as outside of weight tolerance, or otherwise defective. The remaining good pieces were counted into stacks of 250 and weighed again. At this point the Coiner certified to the Superintendent that “X” pieces had been struck and that all conformed to the coinage laws. The Superintendent customarily accepted this count. The struck metal pieces were now legal tender coins – they conformed to all specifications. But they were not ready for release.
Next, one piece was selected from each 1,000 coins, sealed in a dated envelope including the delivery number and placed in the mint’s Pyx box for use by the Annual Assay Commission. Two pieces from each delivery were also selected and sent to Mint HQ for Special Assay. The remaining coins were restacked and recounted, then placed in small bags containing $5,000 face of the new coins.
Special Assay coins were received in Washington (in Philadelphia at earlier times) and immediately assayed. A telegram was then sent back to the mint stating if the assay results were satisfactory or deficient. If satisfactory, all coins in that delivery were moved to a holding vault awaiting release instructions. If unsatisfactory, additional assays were made both at the mint and at mint HQ. If the any of the results were inconclusive or deficient, then all coins in that delivery were destroyed.
Assay Commission (pyx) coins were held for the annual meeting of the commission. Commission acted as observers and certifiers as mint staff assayed a selection of the coins. They were also direct participants in opening the Pyx boxes, matching the envelopes against the list of submissions, and counting all coins. In handling the coins, it is likely the members, particularly William Ashbrook who had been on many Assay Commissions and was a “reformed” coin collector, would have noticed substitutions. Commission members also helped with weighing coins individually and in groups of 50 or 100 pieces. If everything was satisfactory, undamaged assay coins were commonly placed in circulation through Mint HQ, although this was clearly not done in 1934. As with Special Assay coins, any that were melted were debited to the specific mint but not deducted from total mintage (they had been correctly struck and accepted). Seigniorage was credited so that bullion and coinage books balanced. Results of the Annual Assay had no effect on release of coins – that had taken place during the year after approval of the Special Assay.
Satisfactory completion of the Special Assay was the final step in producing gold coins to tight standards. Multiple documents scattered throughout mint records show the destruction of many thousands of coins (gold and silver) due to striking defects or out-of-tolerance alloy. (Charles Barber was particularly aggressive in melting defective coins – just the opposite of his father’s lackadaisical approach to quality. George Morgan and John Sinnock seemed to be less demanding than Barber, also.) The 1933 double eagles went through all normal process steps and were ready for release into circulation if the Treasurer so directed. Note that the Treasurer’s order might not have been in writing – many instructions were given verbally and these did not always show up in other records until later – or sometimes never (as with many experimental pieces).
Four hundred forty-six 1933 double eagles are listed as among the 1933-dated coins received by the Annual Assay Commission on February 14, 1934. This is correct for the total mintage of 445,500 pieces (one assay coin per each 1,000 or fraction).
When and how examples of the 1933 $20 left mint custody I will leave to others to determine. However, it appears they did not come from the pyx coins prior to February 14, 1934 when the Assay Commission met.
Two coins were transferred to the Smithsonian in 1934, but I don't know the date. They could easily have come from the Assay Commission since the commission only destroyed a few of the hundreds of pieces reserved during any calendar year.
Comments
<< <i>For those of you who are interested, David Tripp, in his book "Illegal Tender", chronicles the chain of custody of the 1933 double eagles.
As he demonstrates, even if the Mint could have paid out gold coins for a short period of time after the 1933 double eagles had been minted, the 1933 double eagles simply weren't available to be paid out - they were in a locked vault (or two), in storage. As I recall (I haven't read the book in a few years), Tripp believes that the 1933 double eagles were removed from the Mint by a Mint employee a few years after they were minted.
Now, whether Tripp's chain of custody is admissable in court and/or convincing to a judge or jury is another matter. >>
There is so much bias in that book it actually ruined the reading experience. I hate it when an author has an agenda and pretends to be objective.
What about the 1913 Liberty Nickels?
What about the 1894-S Dimes?
What about all those Patterns?
What would stop the Government from coming in and seizing them?
Oh a thought struck me....is not OJ serving time for trying to get his "stolen" property back? Oh my mistake his route was with violence.
getting half the proceeds was fair and equitable. That settlement not only allowed
everyone to win, but it also allowed the Numismatic community and history to win.
Camelot
<< <i>Thanks again for the updates - I enjoy every one of them.
Don't forget, "justice" often has nothing to do with the truth. Seeing the outcome develop will be most interesting. >>
I suppose 5 to each party would be a reasonable outcome, tho I hope the government loses. What would $10 or $15 million mean to Unka Sam when he pisses that much away every minute with nothing in return to show for it.
<< <i>
<< <i>I believe that the previous settlement, of selling a similar coin, with the Government
getting half the proceeds was fair and equitable. That settlement not only allowed
everyone to win, but it also allowed the Numismatic community and history to win. >>
I agree with the above Bear quote except regarding one point, how did the above saint holder acquire the coin ie did a distant relative steal it or did they acquire it through normal means? That to me is the essence of the situation at hand. >>
Realone, you are forgetting a scenario of you selling the coin to me and then years later claiming that I stole it from you. I would have to defend myself and you would have to defend yourself. If no paperwork exists (I paid cash), how are you going to prove that it was stolen and how am I going to prove that I paid for it?
<< <i>Like others have said, what worries me here is precedent.
What about the 1913 Liberty Nickels?
What about the 1894-S Dimes?
What about all those Patterns?
What would stop the Government from coming in and seizing them?
Apples to oranges. Proof specimens and patterns were not considered 'money' by the mint. The 94-S dimes are listed in the mintage figures.
<< <i>
<< <i>Like others have said, what worries me here is precedent. What about the 1913 Liberty Nickels? What about the 1894-S Dimes? What about all those Patterns? What would stop the Government from coming in and seizing them?
Apples to oranges. Proof specimens and patterns were not considered 'money' by the mint. The 94-S dimes are listed in the mintage figures. >>
But isn't one of the government's things is that these weren't monetized either?
I will toss out another aspect of the 1933 Double Eagle saga for people to ponder.
The dispute over the Fenton coin ended up in court, with hard fought litigation. For various reasons [both known, suspected and unknown by the masses] the Fenton case settled. You all know the settlement terms. The coin was "monetized" [whatever in the heck that means] sold at auction and the proceeds split.
The settlement supposedly came about mere days before the trial was to start. However, it would not surprise me to find out that settlement talks had been taking place for a substantial period of time prior to the trial date.
In any event, the settlement was reached, the coin was sold and the proceeds were split.
Fast forward to when the Langbords' 10 coins surfaced. A new legal dispute arose. Many of the same persons involved in the Fenton dispute are involved in the Langbord dispute [government employeesofficials; government lawyers; Mr. Berke and his lawfirm; and experts; and support staffinvestigators for these persons].
I am sure that much of the research, investigation and reports generated by the efforts of all persons involved in the Fenton case has been continuously supplemented and reviewed by the various persons involved in both cases. I can imagine that information produced, reviewed and discounted in the Fenton case has, on second glance, turned out to be much more important than it was thought to be the first time around. New information may make earlier information thought to be inaccurate and unimportant turn out to be accurate and very important.
The persons involved in both cases may, in hindsight and after reviewing new information, now believe that the Fenton case should have been handled differently [taken to trial or settled under different terms]. Second guessing the Fenton case, its outcome and the decisions made by them in the Fenton case may influence those same people now involved in the Langbord case in many different ways, resulting in decisions in the Langbord case being made by persons influenced by the Fenton case.
The details of the conversations, discussions and decisions made by the various participants in both the Fenton case and in the Langbord case will, most likely, never fully be known and understood. Being a fly on the wall during these conversations, discussions and decisions would be interesting.
In short, having some of the same people involved in both the Fenton case and in the Langbord case could very well result in a completely different outcome in the Langbord case than what would occur if the cast of players had no connection or involvement with the Fenton case.
The fly would also have to be knowledgeable about the archives and sound research procedures, as well as numismatic connections, in order to fully comprehend the conversation. The relevance of certain documents, as Sanction mentioned, depends on context and new discoveries can often move the investigation in unexpected directions. The present case should also be considered as independent of other coins and contexts (other than Fenton).
But isn't one of the government's things is that these weren't monetized either?
The “monetization” argument is meaningless and was invented by Treasury Department lawyers
to mislead collectors and judges alike.
There was in fact a Treasury regulation which required a given mint, such as Philadelphia, not to
pay out coins of a given year if those of a preceding year were on hand. In other words the year
is 1928 and dimes have been struck at Philadelphia but 1927s are still on hand. When the 1927s
were all gone, the Treasury formally (by letter) authorized the Mint to pay out the 1928s. When I was
doing the archival research in March 1996 on the 1933 double eagles for the defense lawyers I saw
several of these letters in the files.
What the government does not say, however, is the crux of the matter. This “monetization” regulation
was not in the law but merely a departmental rule and has nothing whatsoever to do with the legality
of the 1933s.
Denga
<< <i>tmot99 January 29, 2009
But isn't one of the government's things is that these weren't monetized either?
The “monetization” argument is meaningless and was invented by Treasury Department lawyers
to mislead collectors and judges alike.
There was in fact a Treasury regulation which required a given mint, such as Philadelphia, not to
pay out coins of a given year if those of a preceding year were on hand. In other words the year
is 1928 and dimes have been struck at Philadelphia but 1927s are still on hand. When the 1927s
were all gone, the Treasury formally (by letter) authorized the Mint to pay out the 1928s. When I was
doing the archival research in March 1996 on the 1933 double eagles for the defense lawyers I saw
several of these letters in the files.
What the government does not say, however, is the crux of the matter. This “monetization” regulation
was not in the law but merely a departmental rule and has nothing whatsoever to do with the legality
of the 1933s.
Denga >>
Thanks for the added insight. When you say "defense" I forgot who was suing who in the Fenton case. Were you on the team defending a claim being brought by the government?
Thanks for the added insight. When you say "defense" I forgot who was suing who in the Fenton case. Were you on the team defending a claim being brought by the government?
I was doing work originally for Jay Parrino’s lawyer but was then switched over to Fenton’s lawyer
when Parrino was dropped from the case by the government.
Denga
I know I sound like a broken record when I post about this case, but both sides keep tap dancing/playing musical chairs around the "Prove it" and the "Who has the burden to prove what" issues. Eventually the music will stop and one side will grab the only remaining chair and sit in it while the other side is left standing, pulling their hair out and muttering "How in the h*ll are we going to prove our case?".
Assuming the case is not totally disposed of by the court granting summary judgment to one side or the other [meaning at least a portion of the case will proceed to trial] and assuming the court issues pretrial orders that place the burden of proof on the government, I can see this case being settled. If the court places the burden of proof on the Langbords, I do not see the case settling unless the Langbords just decide to give up [which the probably will not do].
<< <i>tmot99 January 29, 2009
But isn't one of the government's things is that these weren't monetized either?
The “monetization” argument is meaningless and was invented by Treasury Department lawyers
to mislead collectors and judges alike.
There was in fact a Treasury regulation which required a given mint, such as Philadelphia, not to
pay out coins of a given year if those of a preceding year were on hand. In other words the year
is 1928 and dimes have been struck at Philadelphia but 1927s are still on hand. When the 1927s
were all gone, the Treasury formally (by letter) authorized the Mint to pay out the 1928s. When I was
doing the archival research in March 1996 on the 1933 double eagles for the defense lawyers I saw
several of these letters in the files.
What the government does not say, however, is the crux of the matter. This “monetization” regulation
was not in the law but merely a departmental rule and has nothing whatsoever to do with the legality
of the 1933s.
Denga >>
Denga:
Was a letter issued related to the 1933 $20's by the Treasury to the Mint, regardless of whether it was a law or an administrative ruling?
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
<< <i>tmot99 January 29, 2009 But isn't one of the government's things is that these weren't monetized either? The “monetization” argument is meaningless and was invented by Treasury Department lawyers to mislead collectors and judges alike. There was in fact a Treasury regulation which required a given mint, such as Philadelphia, not to pay out coins of a given year if those of a preceding year were on hand. In other words the year is 1928 and dimes have been struck at Philadelphia but 1927s are still on hand. When the 1927s were all gone, the Treasury formally (by letter) authorized the Mint to pay out the 1928s. When I was doing the archival research in March 1996 on the 1933 double eagles for the defense lawyers I saw several of these letters in the files. What the government does not say, however, is the crux of the matter. This “monetization” regulation was not in the law but merely a departmental rule and has nothing whatsoever to do with the legality of the 1933s. Denga >>
I know this is a made up word and that was my point. TDN was using the reasoning that proof specimens and patterns were not considered "money" to the Mint and therefore a totally different situation than the 1933 DEs. I was trying to relate them as saying that the Government used the "monetization" word to say that the 1933 were not "money" either.
The Fenton coin was seized by the government in 2-1996 in New York. If Denga was conducting archival research in 3-1996 for the defense lawyers [who at that time, I recall, were defending Fenton and Jay Parino in the criminal case filed against them (which was later dropped), since the government did not file the civil forfeiture action against the Fenton coin until much later], the defense team must have "ramped up" extremely fast. Quickly hiring Denga shows how things happen in the legal big leagues. Justice apparently is meted out quickly in the Big Apple and it brooks no delay.
I do not recall the exact day I was contacted but I purchased my airline ticket on March 5 and
left on March 14 for Philadelphia. The delay was due to time spent in making the necessary
arrangements with the archives people, hotels, etc.
Denga
Denga: Was a letter issued related to the 1933 $20's by the Treasury to the Mint, regardless of whether it was a law or an administrative ruling?
No. None was found and the government is telling the truth on this point although it does not mean anything.
Denga
<< <i>Longacre January 29, 2009 5:13 PM (NEW!)
Denga: Was a letter issued related to the 1933 $20's by the Treasury to the Mint, regardless of whether it was a law or an administrative ruling?
No. None was found and the government is telling the truth on this point although it does not mean anything.
Denga >>
I wonder if the absence of such a letter can show that there was not an intent by the goverment to release the 1933's, similar to the standard procedures that the goverment used in prior years related to prior year coinage. I would be interested to know whether in each of the previous years such a letter was issued. It may be possible for the government to argue that a rogue employee might have released the coins, with the knowledge that the SOP was to get an administrative approval first. Perhaps this takes the whole monetization issue off the table, and it comes down to whether it can be proven that the coins were released to circulation under regular and customary procedures.
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
Patterns and experimental pieces were not money, that is correct. They were metallic samples of proposed money designs or proposed alloys.
Proof examples of regular issue coinage were (and are) money and were included in the total mintage figures for each year.
Longacre January 29, 2009 5:13 PM (NEW!)
Denga: Was a letter issued related to the 1933 $20's by the Treasury to the Mint, regardless of whether it was a law or an administrative ruling?
>>No. None was found and the government is telling the truth on this point although it does not mean anything.
Denga >>
I wonder if the absence of such a letter can show that there was not an intent by the goverment to release the 1933's, similar to the standard procedures that the goverment used in prior years related to prior year coinage. I would be interested to know whether in each of the previous years such a letter was issued. It may be possible for the government to argue that a rogue employee might have released the coins, with the knowledge that the SOP was to get an administrative approval first. Perhaps this takes the whole monetization issue off the table, and it comes down to whether it can be proven that the coins were released to circulation under regular and customary procedures.
I did not make a list of the authorizing letters that I saw, merely a few to make the point of their existence.
It is my view, and I was scheduled to testify on this point at the trial which was not held, that the superintendent
of the Philadelphia Mint could have legally switched the 1933s for coins of another date so long as the total
weights matched. This would have been legal under the 1873 law and the FDR edicts but not customary.
Denga
<< <i>Longacre January 29, 2009
Longacre January 29, 2009 5:13 PM (NEW!)
Denga: Was a letter issued related to the 1933 $20's by the Treasury to the Mint, regardless of whether it was a law or an administrative ruling?
>>No. None was found and the government is telling the truth on this point although it does not mean anything.
Denga >>
I wonder if the absence of such a letter can show that there was not an intent by the goverment to release the 1933's, similar to the standard procedures that the goverment used in prior years related to prior year coinage. I would be interested to know whether in each of the previous years such a letter was issued. It may be possible for the government to argue that a rogue employee might have released the coins, with the knowledge that the SOP was to get an administrative approval first. Perhaps this takes the whole monetization issue off the table, and it comes down to whether it can be proven that the coins were released to circulation under regular and customary procedures.
I did not make a list of the authorizing letters that I saw, merely a few to make the point of their existence.
It is my view, and I was scheduled to testify on this point at the trial which was not held, that the superintendent
of the Philadelphia Mint could have legally switched the 1933s for coins of another date so long as the total
weights matched. This would have been legal under the 1873 law and the FDR edicts but not customary.
Denga >>
Denga-- thanks for all of your comments, and I will try to stop asking you questions.
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
Denga-- thanks for all of your comments, and I will try to stop asking you questions. However, if the scenario that you indicated above happened, I wonder how the Mint was able to reconcile their official mintage reports for the year(s) in question, which I believe become part of the official Mint records. If coins are switched among the various years, one could question how accurate the mintage reports are from the past. If those reports are considered reliable and accurate, I wonder what the 1933 report looked like, and how it was possible to account for a switch of a few coins between the 1933 year and the prior year. Lastly, is there anything in the law that indicates that weights of the coins should trump the issue dates and the related customary release procedures of the coins?
The switching of coins would not affect the mint reports at all. The number of coins struck
is not always the number released and coins are occasionally melted for various reasons
after being struck.
My point about the matching weights has to do with one of the edicts issued by FDR. The
mints were permitted to pay out gold but the amount on hand could not decrease. While
one could argue the legality of the FDR rule, the superintendent could have been in
trouble had it been flouted.
Denga
If mint records show a release of double eagles in 1933 it would be impossible to prove these were not legally released.
If the mint records show that no DE were legally released in 1933 then they need to be returned.
farouk comes to mind.
After the .900 fine bars were rolled to the correct thickness, blanks were cut to a specified diameter. These were tumbled with one of several different materials to deburr the blanks. They were then sent to the upsetting machine which raised the outer part of the blank and also ensured the blanks were round, and the edges even. The result was called a planchet.
Planchets were annealed to soften the alloy for striking, then sent to the women Selectors who weighed each planchet and scrapped off a bit of gold is a planchet was over weight. All under weight planchets were sent back to be melted. At this point the total reject rate was approximately 35% of all blanks cut. Correct planchets next went to a weak nitric acid bath to remove surface stains and oxidation. Lastly, they were tumbled dry in warm corncob dust and/or hardwood sawdust.)
Dry planchets went to the coining department where they were lightly oiled and fed into the presses and struck. (Oiling helped prevent planchets from sticking in the feeder tubes.)
After striking the Selectors again wiped, weighed and inspected each new double eagle. On average they rejected from 5% to 15% of the pieces as outside of weight tolerance, or otherwise defective. The remaining good pieces were counted into stacks of 250 and weighed again. At this point the Coiner certified to the Superintendent that “X” pieces had been struck and that all conformed to the coinage laws. The Superintendent customarily accepted this count. The struck metal pieces were now legal tender coins – they conformed to all specifications. But they were not ready for release.
Next, one piece was selected from each 1,000 coins, sealed in a dated envelope including the delivery number and placed in the mint’s Pyx box for use by the Annual Assay Commission. Two pieces from each delivery were also selected and sent to Mint HQ for Special Assay. The remaining coins were restacked and recounted, then placed in small bags containing $5,000 face of the new coins.
Special Assay coins were received in Washington (in Philadelphia at earlier times) and immediately assayed. A telegram was then sent back to the mint stating if the assay results were satisfactory or deficient. If satisfactory, all coins in that delivery were moved to a holding vault awaiting release instructions. If unsatisfactory, additional assays were made both at the mint and at mint HQ. If the any of the results were inconclusive or deficient, then all coins in that delivery were destroyed.
Assay Commission (pyx) coins were held for the annual meeting of the commission. Commission acted as observers and certifiers as mint staff assayed a selection of the coins. They were also direct participants in opening the Pyx boxes, matching the envelopes against the list of submissions, and counting all coins. In handling the coins, it is likely the members, particularly William Ashbrook who had been on many Assay Commissions and was a “reformed” coin collector, would have noticed substitutions. Commission members also helped with weighing coins individually and in groups of 50 or 100 pieces. If everything was satisfactory, undamaged assay coins were commonly placed in circulation through Mint HQ, although this was clearly not done in 1934. As with Special Assay coins, any that were melted were debited to the specific mint but not deducted from total mintage (they had been correctly struck and accepted). Seigniorage was credited so that bullion and coinage books balanced. Results of the Annual Assay had no effect on release of coins – that had taken place during the year after approval of the Special Assay.
Satisfactory completion of the Special Assay was the final step in producing gold coins to tight standards. Multiple documents scattered throughout mint records show the destruction of many thousands of coins (gold and silver) due to striking defects or out-of-tolerance alloy. (Charles Barber was particularly aggressive in melting defective coins – just the opposite of his father’s lackadaisical approach to quality. George Morgan and John Sinnock seemed to be less demanding than Barber, also.) The 1933 double eagles went through all normal process steps and were ready for release into circulation if the Treasurer so directed. Note that the Treasurer’s order might not have been in writing – many instructions were given verbally and these did not always show up in other records until later – or sometimes never (as with many experimental pieces).
Four hundred forty-six 1933 double eagles are listed as among the 1933-dated coins received by the Annual Assay Commission on February 14, 1934. This is correct for the total mintage of 445,500 pieces (one assay coin per each 1,000 or fraction).
When and how examples of the 1933 $20 left mint custody I will leave to others to determine. However, it appears they did not come from the pyx coins prior to February 14, 1934 when the Assay Commission met.
Denga might know the transfer date.
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
Bleak House, The Sequel