Great article about the 1933 DE's by RWB
Julian
Posts: 3,370 ✭✭✭
in this weeks, Coin World. I would urge you to read it, if you have any interest in the subject.
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.
eBaystore
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
0
Comments
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>I am having trouble logging into CW, but I will check it out soon. >>
They dont like you.
BST Transactions: DonnyJf, MrOrganic, Justanothercoinaddict, Fivecents, Slq, Jdimmick,
Robb, Tee135, Ibzman350, Mercfan, Outhaul, Erickso1, Cugamongacoins, Indiananationals, Wayne Herndon
Negative BST Transactions:
Ray
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
<< <i>I see RWB is back posting here. Maybe he'd be so kind as to give a condensed version to those of us tightwads that don't buy Coin World.
Ray >>
I'm glad to see RWB is active on the boards once again, along with RYK, Longacre, et. al. I probably missed a couple others, Sorry!
I'm anxious to read the article in CW though!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BONGO HURTLES ALONG THE RAIN SODDEN HIGHWAY OF LIFE ON UNDERINFLATED BALD RETREAD TIRES
<< <i>I agree with Julian. RWB has written an outstanding article, that includes many of the salient points of the two sides' arguments, AND presents the supporting logic and documentation. Kudos to RWB!
So whose side will it help?
<< <i>So whose side will it help? >>
Probably neither. I get the feeling this case is going to turn on some arcane point of the law which has nothing to do with common sense.
I just thought up a good idea for a reality show. Disputing parties would agree to arbitration, and after presenting their cases, the public would vote on the outcome which would be binding per the terms of the arbitration.
<< <i>
<< <i>So whose side will it help? >>
Probably neither. I get the feeling this case is going to turn on some arcane point of the law which has nothing to do with common sense.
I just thought up a good idea for a reality show. Disputing parties would agree to arbitration, and after presenting their cases, the public would vote on the outcome which would be binding per the terms of the arbitration. >>
Which side will it help? Based on my reading of RWB's article, I think it helps the Langbords. However, I agree with Coinosaurus that
<< <i>this case is going to turn on some arcane point of the law which has nothing to do with common sense. >>
Re: Coinosaurus's idea for a reality show, doesn't someone have to eat some disgusting insects or hang upside down over an alligator-infested river, or something like that? (Whose reality is that?)
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
<< <i>I see RWB is back posting here. Maybe he'd be so kind as to give a condensed version to those of us tightwads that don't buy Coin World.
Ray >>
I am glad to see that he is back.
TD
I agree.
I'm not a subscriber but luckily for me I was just sent a digital copy of this week's CW as part of a promotion.
Roger's article is a great read. Pretty darn informative.
"Inspiration exists, but it has to find you working" Pablo Picasso
IMHO it totally blows the government out of the water, with the comment from a Secret Service agent in the 1940s stating that the Cashier's Office records were so slipshod that he doubted if even the person who wrote them could understand them.
There is also a letter from 1920 transmitting a newly-struck 1920 $20 to the Connecticut Historical Society for their collection. In it the Mint official states that the coins were intended for the bullion reserves, so don't tell anybody about it!
Killer article!
TD
<< <i>
IMHO it totally blows the government out of the water, with the comment from a Secret Service agent in the 1940s stating that the Cashier's Office records were so slipshod that he doubted if even the person who wrote them could understand them.
There is also a letter from 1920 transmitting a newly-struck 1920 $20 to the Connecticut Historical Society for their collection. In it the Mint official states that the coins were intended for the bullion reserves, so don't tell anybody about it!
>>
I would not consider either of these events "controlling" in the sense that while they may accurately reflect contemporary practice, they do not necessarily reflect contemporary law, which may be altogether different (or more likely completely ambiguous).
Kudos again to RWB, and also Denga, who consulted on the article.
Way to go RWB!
“In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." - Thomas Jefferson
My digital cameo album 1950-64 Cameos - take a look!
Coinosaurus has made a distinction between contemporary practice and contemporary law. Both are areas that are relevant.
RWB's research will provide insight into contemporary practice [as will the work, research and efforts of the attorneys and experts hired by the Langbords and the government].
Denga has, in previous posts, provided information regarding the contemporary law [If I recall he states that federal statutes dating back to 1873 were in effect in 1933 when the 1933 double eagles were minted], which law [if I recall] seems to support the proposition that the 1933 double eagles were indeed "coins" instead of simply bullion.
Perhaps Denga and RWB would favor us with separate input.
The Coin World article focuses on several points mentioned in the current 1933 double eagle litigation. It refers to material which was felt to be of relevance and interest to coin collectors. Whether any of this is of interest to litigants is up to them.
The article does not, and as author, I do not support either of the litigants in any capacity. Further, nothing concerning the Coin World article was discussed with anyone associated with current litigation.
One suggestion for readers is that they look back at the excellent posts by SanctionII on questions involved in the double eagle litigation. These will help guide readers through some of the complexities of law and practice, as well as supplying knowledgeable, objective information not available elsewhere. SanctionII’s posts are the single most useful and accessible source of case information available to coin collectors. [Readers should be congratulating him on accomplishing something much more difficult than writing my little article!]
I can only hope the case is decided with a consideration for numismatic interests at a time of major changes in the U.S. Gold coinage situation, rather than an some obscure point of law.
Very, very informative. It presents information that is, to date, not available from a review of court filings in the Langbord case.
I am sure that the parties, lawyers and experts in the pending lawsuit have substantial information of the events, documents and law in existence in the 1930's [and relevant times before and after the 1930's]. However this information has not made it into the public record [court file] and may not do so until a trial is held.
The above said, the RWB CW Article reaffirms the notion that neither party to the lawsuit will be able to present evidence which definitively [or at least by a "preponderance of the evidence"] establish the manner in which the ten 1933 double eagles in question left the mint.
Absent any such proof, my initial impression of the case remains. Specifically, if the court decides that the events of the 1930's are "in play" at trial [as opposed to the court deciding the case based solely on the events taking place in the 2003-2006 time period], the party that the court places the burden of proof on [i.e. the court determines that the government has to prove the ten coins left the mint in an unauthorizesed manner; or alternatively the court determines that the Langbords have to prove that the ten coins left the mint in an authorized manner] will probably lose the case.
Thanks RWB for a great article.