Options
What is your opinion of the 1933 gold confiscation/nationalization?
RWB
Posts: 8,082 ✭
..and why?
What do forum members think about this event of almost 80years ago, and how did it affect coin collecting? (This is opinion – no need to quote facts.)
(Updated title per suggestion. Thanks.)
What do forum members think about this event of almost 80years ago, and how did it affect coin collecting? (This is opinion – no need to quote facts.)
(Updated title per suggestion. Thanks.)
0
Comments
Everybody was reimbursed the full face value of their gold (except maybe the Langbords), so did anybody actually lose anything?
TD
The Mysterious Egyptian Magic Coin
Coins in Movies
Coins on Television
at this late date i doubt they would accept FV (tell ya what, $200 to call this whole mess off??)
www.brunkauctions.com
UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Lastly, dbldie55, wanna inform all of us why you think, and state, the Longboard family should be in prison?
<< <i>....so did anybody actually lose anything?
TD >>
The depression caused deflation in prices. After the confiscation of gold, FDR raised the price from $20.67 to $35.00, inflating the economy. The dollars they were paid for the gold they turned in, immediately lost over 1/3 or their value. So yes, everyone lost something.
<< <i>The Langbords were thieves.
The Langbords are related to an individual who may or may not have obtained coins from the mint legally. Either way, there is no evidence to indicate that THEY are thieves.
<< <i>
<< <i>....so did anybody actually lose anything?
TD >>
The depression caused deflation in prices. After the confiscation of gold, FDR raised the price from $20.67 to $35.00, inflating the economy. The dollars they were paid for the gold they turned in, immediately lost over 1/3 or their value. So yes, everyone lost something. >>
How did they lose 1/3 of their value?? Inflation didn't happen overnight. Without that move the government wouldn't have had any money to "prime the pump." You can argue the worth of the move to the nations economy, but the fact is FDR was trying something, unlike the previous administration. It had little effect on coin collecting at the time, a reduced number of the gold pieces turned in affected their populations and hence their cost now.
<< <i>
<< <i>The Langbords were thieves.
The Langbords are related to an individual who may or may not have obtained coins from the mint legally. Either way, there is no evidence to indicate that THEY are thieves. >>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>The Langbords were thieves.
The Langbords are related to an individual who may or may not have obtained coins from the mint legally. Either way, there is no evidence to indicate that THEY are thieves. >>
I'm curious, what did you find so amusing about that? Are you suggesting that you know the coins were stolen? And/or do you know the Langbords are thieves? If so, you apparently know things that no one else seems to.
Or was it something else that you thought was so funny?
The previous Republican Adminstrations had not helped by pushing gold back into circulation after WWI Democrats had pretty well removed it without fuss.
In late 1979, about 6 months before my wife and I married, we were outfitted with wedding bands by Israel Switt Jewelers on Jewelers row in Philly. My future father-in-law glowed how Izzy gave him the old gold price since that was his old cost rather than the new replacement cost.
When my wife's engagement ring (which I bought in New York City in 1977 at an antique dealer) broke in 1981, we brought it down to Izzy to totally redo her engagement ring (and also change it from white gold to yellow gold) and they suggested that we take it to Kellmer Jewelers only because they had a new design which they had heard of and felt my wife would love. They felt that it would be improper to copy their design. They even put in a good word for us and Kellmers gave us a 25% discount for a design my wife absolutely adored.
The Kellmer Jewelers spoke of Izzy as if he was a best friend to them. Believe me, Kellmer was so big, they didn't need our business.
As I saw first hand how close Switt was to the old Phllly Mint it was child'd play just to walk in and exchange gold coins for gold coins. He had to be on a first name basis with all of the employees.
Thief? No way. That was an honest man in my view. Just saving a priceless national treasure in my view!
We all know the history of fiat currencies. But somehow I doubt the single parent with no job, no prospects, and kids to support much cares about economic history. Multiple that by a few million and you know what FDR was up against.
The scary thing, though, is that once you've gone off gold and run up debt on the order of the GNP, there ain't no going back.
There were just enough people doing to save the hobby.
<< <i>Is "confiscation" really the correct word? Confiscation implies the gold was taken away from the people, like the Western sheriff confiscating guns at the edge of town. >>
Confiscation is the correct term. People were not given a choice and were threatened with large fines and imprisonment.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
<< <i>My wife, her grandparents and her father (later on her mother too) were customers of Israel Switt Jewelers in Philly since the 1920's.
In late 1979, about 6 months before my wife and I married, we were outfitted with wedding bands by Israel Switt Jewelers on Jewelers row in Philly. My future father-in-law glowed how Izzy gave him the old gold price since that was his old cost rather than the new replacement cost.
When my wife's engagement ring (which I bought in New York City in 1977 at an antique dealer) broke in 1981, we brought it down to Izzy to totally redo her engagement ring (and also change it from white gold to yellow gold) and they suggested that we take it to Kellmer Jewelers only because they had a new design which they had heard of and felt my wife would love. They felt that it would be improper to copy their design. They even put in a good word for us and Kellmers gave us a 25% discount for a design my wife absolutely adored.
The Kellmer Jewelers spoke of Izzy as if he was a best friend to them. Believe me, Kellmer was so big, they didn't need our business.
As I saw first hand how close Switt was to the old Phllly Mint it was child'd play just to walk in and exchange gold coins for gold coins. He had to be on a first name basis with all of the employees.
Thief? No way. That was an honest man in my view. Just saving a priceless national treasure in my view! >>
Interesting take.
From what I recall from what I read about this, Izzy obtained the 1933s in the same manner he acquired prior years such as 1932 and 1931 -- through direct exchange with the Mint Cashier. So is it possible the U.S. Goverment and the public in general are "Blackballing" Switt simply because he was not the most friendly person in the world?
Now if you are in charge and the country's treasury gold supply is approaching zero - what would you do?
All that said, I would HATE to see a similar gold recall occur now--and can't believe any administration would seriously contemplate it, unless an acute industrial shortage of gold prevailed.
<< <i>Is "confiscation" really the correct word? Confiscation implies the gold was taken away from the people, like the Western sheriff confiscating guns at the edge of town.
Everybody was reimbursed the full face value of their gold (except maybe the Langbords), so did anybody actually lose anything?
TD >>
Yes, they did. They were forced to exchange a real, tangible asset for paper currency.
<< <i>SOCIALISM and GOVERNMENT INTRUSION at its finest!
Exactly
<< <i>I believe there was an exemption for numismatic gold at that time? >>
There was, but the dissemination of information wasn't that great in '33.
<< <i>
<< <i>I believe there was an exemption for numismatic gold at that time? >>
There was, but the dissemination of information wasn't that great in '33. >>
Also, IIRC, there were a few weeks where the situation on numismatic gold was unclear, even for those who got all the latest info.
What's to stop them from confiscating people's 401k's, the greatest source of untapped wealth, to get through another financial crisis. I'm sure they would be willing to credit your social security benefits dollar for dollar, so no one would really be "losing" anything, as some of you have argued.
It's a slippery slope, and unfortunately, we're already half way to the bottom. The fact that so many of you are ok with the government confiscation private property on a whim, is proof we're headed down the slope.
IMHO, as stated before, if Izzy Switt didn't think there was a legaliity issue, the coins would have surfaced before he died.
I've heard the 401k issue before and it is troubling and the logic does indeed sound "logical" from a governmental mindset point of view.
<< <i>
<< <i>Is "confiscation" really the correct word? Confiscation implies the gold was taken away from the people, like the Western sheriff confiscating guns at the edge of town.
Everybody was reimbursed the full face value of their gold (except maybe the Langbords), so did anybody actually lose anything?
TD >>
Yes, they did. They were forced to exchange a real, tangible asset for paper currency. >>
But at the time of the "forced exchange," assuming that my mother's mother had had a $20 coin in her pocketbook, she would not have been able to get any more or any less for the $20 coin than she could have than the $20 bill offered for it.
To the average citizen it just did not matter. Grandpa was a middle class tool and die man in Detroit when the Depression hit. At one point he went 18 months without drawing a paycheck. They had NO cash. Fortunately, they owned five acres of land. Grandma had grown up on a farm, and had been cultivating the land before times got hard. They ate vegetables, canned vegetables and traded vegetables with the local market for a little meat now and them. Clothes were hand made, then mended. Shoes were mended, then mended again. The manipulation of gold just did not affect them.
As to the effect of the "forced exchange" on collectors, just think what would have happened had people NOT been hiding gold from the government. Look at what happened to the pre-1834 gold when the denominations were reduced by approx. 9.38% in net weight. Darn near everything got burned, by citizens as well as the Mint. With the government raising the price of gold in dollars by about 69.3% in 1933, virtually all of the old stuff would have gotten burned.
TD
<< <i>..and why?
What do forum members think about this event of almost 80years ago, and how did it affect coin collecting? (This is opinion – no need to quote facts.)
(Updated title per suggestion. Thanks.) >>
This was something that FDR felt needed to be done to rescue the country's economy and I'd hate to venture where we might be had this not occured. Any number of things might have happened.
I don't think it had a serious effect on coin collecting since at the time, most folks were poor and could barely afford to collect nickels much less gold coins. It seems to me that the biggest issue out of the gold recall act was the existance of a few 1933 Dbl Eagles which by all rights should not exist but obviously, some do and for whatever reason, the US Government has a burr under its saddle to gather these up regardless of cost.
To me, thats just stupid.
The stupididty rolls out even further when you consider the fact that lessor coins, which were obtained illegally, are traded on the open market on a regular basis.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>I believe there was an exemption for numismatic gold at that time? >>
Yes, and we can thank Tresury Sec. William Woodin for that. It certainly helped that he was a big time numismatist.
Subjects, eh? I think we were considered "enemies" at one point as he relied on the "Trading with the Enemy Act".
<< <i>On the one hand FDR did what was needed for the country, on the other gold appreciated roughly 32% from 1933 to 1934, so in effect he stole quite a bit of money from people. >>
No he didn't, if he hadn't had taken the gold, the price wouldn't have gone up!
<< <i>I'm not an economist, so it's difficult to say if it was the right thing or not. I do think it was sad for collectors who had to turn in their gold. On the other hand, in desperate times, one often has to try a lot of things. Some of them work and some of them don't. I think only Lincoln rivals FDR in his overall foresight, wisdom, and independence in saving a truly horrible situation--not just the Depression, but World War II as well. Ultimately, the World War II pulled us out of the Depression, but FDR's measures before that eased untold suffering across the nation, just as the much-criticized bail-outs and stimulus funds have done in the last year. People are quick to decry the evils of "socialism", but our society wouldn't exist without it. Examples of socialism: the military, the Interstate Highway System, public education, all law enforcement--not to mention better-known examples such as Social Security and Medicare.
All that said, I would HATE to see a similar gold recall occur now--and can't believe any administration would seriously contemplate it, unless an acute industrial shortage of gold prevailed. >>
No collectors had to turn in their gold, numismatic gold was exempted.
<< <i>
<< <i>On the one hand FDR did what was needed for the country, on the other gold appreciated roughly 32% from 1933 to 1934, so in effect he stole quite a bit of money from people. >>
No he didn't, if he hadn't had taken the gold, the price wouldn't have gone up! >>
No, with Americans unable to own gold, the price should have gone down.
<< <i>
This was something that FDR felt needed to be done to rescue the country's economy and I'd hate to venture where we might be had this not occured. >>
Exactly why the government portrays everything as a "crisis". It's gets people comfortable with giving up their freedom. c.f. health care.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>On the one hand FDR did what was needed for the country, on the other gold appreciated roughly 32% from 1933 to 1934, so in effect he stole quite a bit of money from people. >>
No he didn't, if he hadn't had taken the gold, the price wouldn't have gone up! >>
No, with Americans unable to own gold, the price should have gone down. >>
The price was set by the government at $35 an ounce in '34, or maybe '35, that was the point of confiscating it, then they could set the price higher, which gave them more money. I'm afraid you've lost me.