<< <i>Perhaps at the core of Burdette’s testimony was a 1945 memo between coiner William Bartholomew and Helen Moore, the assistant superintendent of the Philadelphia Mint, which Burdette interpreted to show that 43 1933 coins were substituted for 1932 coins and used to balance the books with regards to 458.1 ounces of gold. These 43 1933 double eagles were allegedly comingled with 1932 double eagles on March 4, 1933, and went to the cashier. At this point, Burdette speculated, the pieces lost their distinction as 1933 double eagles and could have been given out. >>
As for why the testimony was so short, perhaps (a) the non-disputed material was covered by Tripp and did not need to be re-hashed and (b) that "Assistant U.S. Attorney Nancy Rue frequently objected on the grounds that Berke’s questions strayed from the subject that Burdette wrote his report on." Is Roger not allowed to discuss anything not in his report? >>
So does this mean that Izzy found out and asked the cashier to hand pick some out or McCann said "hey Izzy, smoeone threw smoe new eagles in mit da old ones; ya want to git some?" I expect both Izzy and McCann were unaware of the memo. Were either Bartholomew or Moore authorized to make that substitution?
<< <i>I expect both Izzy and McCann were unaware of the memo. >>
I expect they were unaware of the 1945 memo back in 1933
<< <i>Were either Bartholomew or Moore authorized to make that substitution? >>
Did they authorize it or were they merely documenting it 12 years after the fact? >>
So the memo stating that the coins were not authorized to be released was from 1945? I did not know that. Heck it may as well be from 2010. Maybe they can create a new memo that says that they were never even minted, then nail them the family counterfeiters.
For those that need a tidbit before getting the full story tomorrow:
"The one person who may have known how ten 1933 gold coins worth millions of dollars ended up in the hands of Philadelphia jeweler Israel Switt took the witness stand in federal court Tuesday - and said she had no idea.
That means a jury will have to rely on thick binders of Philadelphia Mint records from the 1930s and 1940s to determine if the rare $20 gold pieces were stolen, as the government insists, or are legitimately the property of Switt's descendants.
It was Switt's daughter, Joan Langbord, 81, who flatly said "I have no idea" how her father had obtained the 1933 double-eagle coins. A 1933 double eagle was sold in 2004 for $7.5 million, a record price for any coin.
Government attorneys say there was no legal way any of the coins could have been obtained from the Mint. "Israel Switt and some of his friends stole 1933 double eagles from the Philadelphia Mint," Assistant U.S. Attorney Jacqueline Romero said during closing arguments Tuesday.
The case is expected to go to the U.S. District Court jury on Wednesday."
The Philadelphia Mint: making coins since 1792. We make money by making money. Now in our 225th year thanks to no competition.
<< <i>Most interesting. The CU Forum is now in the record. Forumites, anything you want to say to the jury? >>
"Soylent Green Is People!!!!!!!!!!"
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
<< <i>Most interesting. The CU Forum is now in the record. Forumites, anything you want to say to the jury? >>
"Soylent Green Is People!!!!!!!!!!"
>>
Ha!
"Please help us keep these boards professional and informative…. And fun." - DW --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BONGO HURTLES ALONG THE RAIN SODDEN HIGHWAY OF LIFE ON UNDERINFLATED BALD RETREAD TIRES
<< <i>For those that need a tidbit before getting the full story tomorrow:
"The one person who may have known how ten 1933 gold coins worth millions of dollars ended up in the hands of Philadelphia jeweler Israel Switt took the witness stand in federal court Tuesday - and said she had no idea.
That means a jury will have to rely on thick binders of Philadelphia Mint records from the 1930s and 1940s to determine if the rare $20 gold pieces were stolen, as the government insists, or are legitimately the property of Switt's descendants.
It was Switt's daughter, Joan Langbord, 81, who flatly said "I have no idea" how her father had obtained the 1933 double-eagle coins. A 1933 double eagle was sold in 2004 for $7.5 million, a record price for any coin.
Government attorneys say there was no legal way any of the coins could have been obtained from the Mint. "Israel Switt and some of his friends stole 1933 double eagles from the Philadelphia Mint," Assistant U.S. Attorney Jacqueline Romero said during closing arguments Tuesday.
The case is expected to go to the U.S. District Court jury on Wednesday." >>
In the end, it seems like this whole deal was something of a letdown. What can thick binders of records show that isn't already known? All that is needed are a few documents showing that the 10 DEs were approved to be available for exchange. The document that RWB had uncovered was certainly helpful, but it doesn't seem definitive enough. I wonder what they used to cover the 43 coin shortfall when it came time to melt the 1933 DEs. Also I wonder if there wasn't a mistake and the 43 referred to in the memo weren't the 34 referred to as being removed earlier. Sounds like someone tried to make it look as tho it was McCann's doing.
At the time this all occurred, the management at the Mint was far more interested in making sure the quantity of double eagles was correct, rather than the composition of the quantity. That is why there was never an investigation regarding "stolen" coins as the books balanced. There is no way that a shortfall of $500 back in the early thirties during the depression would have been overlooked. Clearly the coins got out via a trade over the counter and were not stolen. I know this is repeating what has been said many times, but for the jury that does not care about numismatics, it would seem to me they can only view it in this light.
What happens after you take that position is still unclear to me, given all the legal twists and turns.
Retired United States Mint guy, now working on an Everyman Type Set.
<< <i>At the time this all occurred, the management at the Mint was far more interested in making sure the quantity of double eagles was correct, rather than the composition of the quantity. That is why there was never an investigation regarding "stolen" coins as the books balanced. There is no way that a shortfall of $500 back in the early thirties during the depression would have been overlooked. Clearly the coins got out via a trade over the counter and were not stolen. I know this is repeating what has been said many times, but for the jury that does not care about numismatics, it would seem to me they can only view it in this light.
What happens after you take that position is still unclear to me, given all the legal twists and turns. >>
As long as there was a window of opportunity to exchange gold or other gold coins for earlier double eagles, it is hard for the Government to prove the coins couldn't have been exchanged legally unless they can provide documents that expressly forbid release of ANY 1933 coins. I wonder if the Guv was asked about monetization? What was standard protocol when the 1932s were produced and released? Methinks there should be a similar trail for the 33s.
Excellent write-up of yesterday's testimony and closing arguments at coinworld.com Thank you to Steve Roach and Coin World for providing such a thorough review of the trial.
The Philadelphia Mint: making coins since 1792. We make money by making money. Now in our 225th year thanks to no competition.
<< <i>Judge Davis warned that such a technique could be ill-advised, adding that there were some “extremely offensive comments in the post.” Judge Davis added that the dialogue from which the Feb. 10, 2009, comment came was a “remarkable document” that included comments from the “2009 Numismatist of the Year,” providing a window into “their private little world which they never thought would come to light.” >>
Also a tip of the hat to Captain Henway as he has now been directly referenced.
Interestingly, I'm less convinced of the Langbord's right to these coins after reading all of the daily summaries...will be interesting to see how the jury rules when considering the totality of the information presented to them.
Any guesses on length of deliberation? I'm going to guess less than 8 hours.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
I would bet that we have a verdict this afternoon.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
I wonder when the gummint pulled their copy of that earlier thread, and how much stuff was edited in or out before then? I've been using this title for about a year.
EDITED TO ADD: It was after Nov. 1, 2010, when Don Willis messaged me with the information as to how to add my title.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Steve did an excellent job on the reporting! Unfortunately the governments probably going to win the case due to the hammering of our dear RWB. Switt probably knew that his coins were stolen and it is a travesty that the government seiized the coins (a horrible precedent!) but the last comment by the prosecution reminds me of Indiana Jones and is likely the truest statement of all..."these coins belong in a museum!)
First, yes indeed, thanks to CW for covering this trial and on such a timely basis.
Second, the last paragraph of the article regarding the closing statements - She told members of the jury that the “fate of a national treasure is in your hand,” saying that the Langbords “want you to reward them for theft.” She concluded by stating that the coins should be in a museum, not in the pockets of the Switt-Langbord family.
I think after following this trial via CW, that the the trail of evidence is convoluted and confusing for a jury. I think the jury will decide not based on "facts", but rather more on emotion. I think the gov.'s closing summary was effective to get the jury on their side, the Langbord's closing was less effective.
If one had to decide based on the CW summaries it would be very difficult. I do not think that the Government proved theft, only suggesting that they could have been stolen. There were no comments about monetization nor documents saying that the coins WERE NOT TO BE RELEASED. I believe other pertinent documentsts were either lost, destroyed or never created at all. What was happening in 1947 to bring up the issue of 43 of the 1933 DEs being used to make up an accounting shortfall of 1932 coins? Apparently no comments on whether or not the asst mint director had the authority to approve of such an action. Is that the same transfer that McCann said his name was there, but he didn't initial it?
One can only hope that the gummint lawyers came off as smarmy and arrogant.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
As opposed to the family and their attorneys coming off as smarmy and arrogant?
"Yes the gummint acted heinously but daddy dearest stole these in good faith and did it flawlessly so we and our attorneys deserve to be wealthier than we already are, and we find this whole process quite droll".
Longacre...please translate my sentence into Connecticut-speak please.
<< <i>One can only hope that the gummint lawyers came off as smarmy and arrogant. >>
Or that the jury sees this whole thing as a big waste of time and federal money. Especially given all the current economic woes and waste from DC et all, and also that the mint has been selling gold to the public for years. If they kicked back a 'who cares' verdict against the feds I'd be happy.
The cookie jar comment is annoying and completely misses the point. What if you ate a cookie every day AND your mom told you it was OK to have a cookie before it disappeared?
If none of the coins was ever shown to be missing then it is wrong of the Government to say they were stolen. Since the proper weight of gold was apparently accounted for, the worst that can be said is that they were improperly released.
I hope "enough" was done by RWB and the Langbord Family/Attorneys. There is clearly a window of opportunity for these to have left the mint legally and I hope the jury can see that.
"If it's not fun, it's not worth it." - KeyMan64 Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
I still think that it is strange they use the term "stolen". There may have been an insider that got them for them, but that is a Mint problem with the insider. It's not like Switt broke into the Mint after hours and took them. There was obviously a mode to get them out of the Mint through a Mint employee. That might have been right or wrong at the time, but it would be the Mint employee that was at fault. And if equal money was exchanged for them, I don't know how Switt can be held accountable. All gold weight/value at that time was accounted for. I don't see any stealing going on. Just wrong dates given out, but I doubt that was a major concern at the time.
Stating these coins should be in a museum is spoken through the ignorance of a Non-Collector.These are collector coins and as such should be made available to collectors. The government should sell them if they win the case.
Romero's comment in closing arguments dimissing RWB as a "gentleman trained in music who's an IT person" seems to me to be a pretty good example of the smoke and mirrors tactics she accuses the other side of using. I hope the Langbord side was able to do enough to establish Roger's credibilty with a jury that presumably had no knowledge of him prior to this trial.
<< <i>"Stating these coins should be in a museum is spoken through the ignorance of a Non-Collector.These are collector coins and as such should be made available to collectors. The government should sell them if they win the case." >>
How about one of them being displayed at the Smithsonian for everyone to see, next to the 1849, as the first and last Double Eagles struck?
Good deals with: goldman86 mkman123 Wingsrule wondercoin segoja Tccuga OKCC LindeDad and others.
<< <i>I still think that it is strange they use the term "stolen". There may have been an insider that got them for them, but that is a Mint problem with the insider. It's not like Switt broke into the Mint after hours and took them. There was obviously a mode to get them out of the Mint through a Mint employee. That might have been right or wrong at the time, but it would be the Mint employee that was at fault. And if equal money was exchanged for them, I don't know how Switt can be held accountable. All gold weight/value at that time was accounted for. I don't see any stealing going on. Just wrong dates given out, but I doubt that was a major concern at the time. >>
Receiving "stolen Property" is still a crime and "ignorance" is not a valid defense. That said, from the CW summaries, I don't think the Gov't. proved within a 'preponderance' of the evidence that the coins were actually stolen, Cookie analogy aside. JMHO.
Cheers!
Kirk
"Please help us keep these boards professional and informative…. And fun." - DW --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BONGO HURTLES ALONG THE RAIN SODDEN HIGHWAY OF LIFE ON UNDERINFLATED BALD RETREAD TIRES
<< <i>I still think that it is strange they use the term "stolen". There may have been an insider that got them for them, but that is a Mint problem with the insider. It's not like Switt broke into the Mint after hours and took them. There was obviously a mode to get them out of the Mint through a Mint employee. That might have been right or wrong at the time, but it would be the Mint employee that was at fault. And if equal money was exchanged for them, I don't know how Switt can be held accountable. All gold weight/value at that time was accounted for. I don't see any stealing going on. Just wrong dates given out, but I doubt that was a major concern at the time. >>
Agreed. As I asked before, WHERE IS THE SHORTAGE???
TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
They talk about a cookie and then suddenly it is missing.
How about you take 10 freshly baked cookies from the jar and put 10 from last week's batch in the jar in their place. Or at least ask the cookie jar keeper to do it for you.
The Philadelphia Mint: making coins since 1792. We make money by making money. Now in our 225th year thanks to no competition.
Interesting to me is the comment about the coins belonging in a museum. Except for two of the many coins previously seized by our government, their track record is to melt these coins.
<< <i>Interesting to me is the comment about the coins belonging in a museum. Except for two of the many coins previously seized by our government, their track record is to melt these coins. >>
I think the government would melt them. However, if they do win, I hope they auction them off to at least pay for the darn taxpayer expense of taking this thing to trial. It just wouldn't be right for citizens to get screwed twice...the Langbords and all of the other taxpayers!
"If it's not fun, it's not worth it." - KeyMan64 Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
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.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
I have to admit though-- when I read Coin World's (excellent, BTW) report on the Government lawyer's summation -- which was all folksy and easy for a layman to understand -- and compared it to CW's report on the Langbord attorney's summation (which seemed technical, convoluted & not at all clear to someone who may have only paid half attention during the trial), I had my first bad feeling about the likely verdict.
Comments
<< <i>I found this part of Steve Roach's Coin World article especially interesting:
<< <i>Perhaps at the core of Burdette’s testimony was a 1945 memo between coiner William Bartholomew and Helen Moore, the assistant superintendent of the Philadelphia Mint, which Burdette interpreted to show that 43 1933 coins were substituted for 1932 coins and used to balance the books with regards to 458.1 ounces of gold. These 43 1933 double eagles were allegedly comingled with 1932 double eagles on March 4, 1933, and went to the cashier. At this point, Burdette speculated, the pieces lost their distinction as 1933 double eagles and could have been given out. >>
As for why the testimony was so short, perhaps (a) the non-disputed material was covered by Tripp and did not need to be re-hashed and (b) that "Assistant U.S. Attorney Nancy Rue frequently objected on the grounds that Berke’s questions strayed from the subject that Burdette wrote his report on." Is Roger not allowed to discuss anything not in his report? >>
So does this mean that Izzy found out and asked the cashier to hand pick some out or McCann said "hey Izzy, smoeone threw smoe new eagles in mit da old ones; ya want to git some?" I expect both Izzy and McCann were unaware of the memo. Were either Bartholomew or Moore authorized to make that substitution?
<< <i>I expect both Izzy and McCann were unaware of the memo. >>
I expect they were unaware of the 1945 memo back in 1933
<< <i>Were either Bartholomew or Moore authorized to make that substitution? >>
Did they authorize it or were they merely documenting it 12 years after the fact?
<< <i>
<< <i>I expect both Izzy and McCann were unaware of the memo. >>
I expect they were unaware of the 1945 memo back in 1933
<< <i>Were either Bartholomew or Moore authorized to make that substitution? >>
Did they authorize it or were they merely documenting it 12 years after the fact? >>
So the memo stating that the coins were not authorized to be released was from 1945? I did not know that. Heck it may as well be from 2010. Maybe they can create a new memo that says that they were never even minted, then nail them the family counterfeiters.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I expect both Izzy and McCann were unaware of the memo. >>
I expect they were unaware of the 1945 memo back in 1933
<< <i>Were either Bartholomew or Moore authorized to make that substitution? >>
Did they authorize it or were they merely documenting it 12 years after the fact? >>
So the memo stating that the coins were not authorized to be released was from 1945? >>
Umm, no. The memo giving a plausible explanation for legal exchange of the coins was from 1945.
"The one person who may have known how ten 1933 gold coins worth millions of dollars ended up in the hands of Philadelphia jeweler Israel Switt took the witness stand in federal court Tuesday - and said she had no idea.
That means a jury will have to rely on thick binders of Philadelphia Mint records from the 1930s and 1940s to determine if the rare $20 gold pieces were stolen, as the government insists, or are legitimately the property of Switt's descendants.
It was Switt's daughter, Joan Langbord, 81, who flatly said "I have no idea" how her father had obtained the 1933 double-eagle coins. A 1933 double eagle was sold in 2004 for $7.5 million, a record price for any coin.
Government attorneys say there was no legal way any of the coins could have been obtained from the Mint. "Israel Switt and some of his friends stole 1933 double eagles from the Philadelphia Mint," Assistant U.S. Attorney Jacqueline Romero said during closing arguments Tuesday.
The case is expected to go to the U.S. District Court jury on Wednesday."
<< <i>Most interesting. The CU Forum is now in the record. Forumites, anything you want to say to the jury? >>
"Soylent Green Is People!!!!!!!!!!"
<< <i>
<< <i>Most interesting. The CU Forum is now in the record. Forumites, anything you want to say to the jury? >>
"Soylent Green Is People!!!!!!!!!!"
Ha!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BONGO HURTLES ALONG THE RAIN SODDEN HIGHWAY OF LIFE ON UNDERINFLATED BALD RETREAD TIRES
<< <i>For those that need a tidbit before getting the full story tomorrow:
"The one person who may have known how ten 1933 gold coins worth millions of dollars ended up in the hands of Philadelphia jeweler Israel Switt took the witness stand in federal court Tuesday - and said she had no idea.
That means a jury will have to rely on thick binders of Philadelphia Mint records from the 1930s and 1940s to determine if the rare $20 gold pieces were stolen, as the government insists, or are legitimately the property of Switt's descendants.
It was Switt's daughter, Joan Langbord, 81, who flatly said "I have no idea" how her father had obtained the 1933 double-eagle coins. A 1933 double eagle was sold in 2004 for $7.5 million, a record price for any coin.
Government attorneys say there was no legal way any of the coins could have been obtained from the Mint. "Israel Switt and some of his friends stole 1933 double eagles from the Philadelphia Mint," Assistant U.S. Attorney Jacqueline Romero said during closing arguments Tuesday.
The case is expected to go to the U.S. District Court jury on Wednesday." >>
In the end, it seems like this whole deal was something of a letdown. What can thick binders of records show that isn't already known? All that is needed are a few documents showing that the 10 DEs were approved to be available for exchange. The document that RWB had uncovered was certainly helpful, but it doesn't seem definitive enough. I wonder what they used to cover the 43 coin shortfall when it came time to melt the 1933 DEs. Also I wonder if there wasn't a mistake and the 43 referred to in the memo weren't the 34 referred to as being removed earlier. Sounds like someone tried to make it look as tho it was McCann's doing.
What happens after you take that position is still unclear to me, given all the legal twists and turns.
<< <i>Most interesting. The CU Forum is now in the record. Forumites, anything you want to say to the jury? >>
These coins are dreck
<< <i>At the time this all occurred, the management at the Mint was far more interested in making sure the quantity of double eagles was correct, rather than the composition of the quantity. That is why there was never an investigation regarding "stolen" coins as the books balanced. There is no way that a shortfall of $500 back in the early thirties during the depression would have been overlooked. Clearly the coins got out via a trade over the counter and were not stolen. I know this is repeating what has been said many times, but for the jury that does not care about numismatics, it would seem to me they can only view it in this light.
What happens after you take that position is still unclear to me, given all the legal twists and turns. >>
As long as there was a window of opportunity to exchange gold or other gold coins for earlier double eagles, it is hard for the Government to prove the coins couldn't have been exchanged legally unless they can provide documents that expressly forbid release of ANY 1933 coins. I wonder if the Guv was asked about monetization? What was standard protocol when the 1932s were produced and released? Methinks there should be a similar trail for the 33s.
<< <i>Big Brother is indeed watching... >>
No, I watch Big Brother!!!
Thank you to Steve Roach and Coin World for providing such a thorough review of the trial.
<< <i>Judge Davis warned that such a technique could be ill-advised, adding that there were some “extremely offensive comments in the post.” Judge Davis added that the dialogue from which the Feb. 10, 2009, comment came was a “remarkable document” that included comments from the “2009 Numismatist of the Year,” providing a window into “their private little world which they never thought would come to light.” >>
Also a tip of the hat to Captain Henway as he has now been directly referenced.
Interestingly, I'm less convinced of the Langbord's right to these coins after reading all of the daily summaries...will be interesting to see how the jury rules when considering the totality of the information presented to them.
Any guesses on length of deliberation? I'm going to guess less than 8 hours.
.
Hey Elliot Mess!!!!!!!!!! Quote DIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
.
EDITED TO ADD: It was after Nov. 1, 2010, when Don Willis messaged me with the information as to how to add my title.
Unfortunately the governments probably going to win the case due to the hammering of our dear RWB. Switt probably knew that his coins were stolen and it is a travesty that the government seiized the coins (a horrible precedent!) but the last comment by the prosecution reminds me of Indiana Jones and is likely the truest statement of all..."these coins belong in a museum!)
Second, the last paragraph of the article regarding the closing statements - She told members of the jury that the “fate of a national treasure is in your hand,” saying that the Langbords “want you to reward them for theft.” She concluded by stating that the coins should be in a museum, not in the pockets of the Switt-Langbord family.
I think after following this trial via CW, that the the trail of evidence is convoluted and confusing for a jury. I think the jury will decide not based on "facts", but rather more on emotion. I think the gov.'s closing summary was effective to get the jury on their side, the Langbord's closing was less effective.
"Yes the gummint acted heinously but daddy dearest stole these in good faith and did it flawlessly so we and our attorneys deserve to be wealthier than we already are, and we find this whole process quite droll".
Longacre...please translate my sentence into Connecticut-speak please.
On to the settlement!
<< <i>One can only hope that the gummint lawyers came off as smarmy and arrogant. >>
Or that the jury sees this whole thing as a big waste of time and federal money. Especially given all the current economic woes and waste from DC et all, and also that the mint has been selling gold to the public for years. If they kicked back a 'who cares' verdict against the feds I'd be happy.
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
Stating these coins should be in a museum is spoken through the ignorance of a Non-Collector.These are collector coins and as such should be made available to collectors. The government should sell them if they win the case.
Stewart
<< <i>"Stating these coins should be in a museum is spoken through the ignorance of a Non-Collector.These are collector coins and as such should be made available to collectors. The government should sell them if they win the case." >>
How about one of them being displayed at the Smithsonian for everyone to see, next to the 1849, as the first and last Double Eagles struck?
my early American coins & currency: -- http://yankeedoodlecoins.com/
<< <i>I still think that it is strange they use the term "stolen". There may have been an insider that got them for them, but that is a Mint problem with the insider. It's not like Switt broke into the Mint after hours and took them. There was obviously a mode to get them out of the Mint through a Mint employee. That might have been right or wrong at the time, but it would be the Mint employee that was at fault. And if equal money was exchanged for them, I don't know how Switt can be held accountable. All gold weight/value at that time was accounted for. I don't see any stealing going on. Just wrong dates given out, but I doubt that was a major concern at the time. >>
Receiving "stolen Property" is still a crime and "ignorance" is not a valid defense. That said, from the CW summaries, I don't think the Gov't. proved within a 'preponderance' of the evidence that the coins were actually stolen, Cookie analogy aside. JMHO.
Cheers!
Kirk
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BONGO HURTLES ALONG THE RAIN SODDEN HIGHWAY OF LIFE ON UNDERINFLATED BALD RETREAD TIRES
<< <i>I still think that it is strange they use the term "stolen". There may have been an insider that got them for them, but that is a Mint problem with the insider. It's not like Switt broke into the Mint after hours and took them. There was obviously a mode to get them out of the Mint through a Mint employee. That might have been right or wrong at the time, but it would be the Mint employee that was at fault. And if equal money was exchanged for them, I don't know how Switt can be held accountable. All gold weight/value at that time was accounted for. I don't see any stealing going on. Just wrong dates given out, but I doubt that was a major concern at the time. >>
Agreed. As I asked before, WHERE IS THE SHORTAGE???
TD
They talk about a cookie and then suddenly it is missing.
How about you take 10 freshly baked cookies from the jar and put 10 from last week's batch in the jar in their place. Or at least ask the cookie jar keeper to do it for you.
<< <i>All this cookie talk, I expect Bear to chime in >>
Bear is more of a honey bear or picnic basket thief or jelly donut connoisseur ...cookie jars, I'm not so sure.
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
<< <i>Interesting to me is the comment about the coins belonging in a museum. Except for two of the many coins previously seized by our government, their track record is to melt these coins. >>
I think the government would melt them. However, if they do win, I hope they auction them off to at least pay for the darn taxpayer expense of taking this thing to trial. It just wouldn't be right for citizens to get screwed twice...the Langbords and all of the other taxpayers!
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
William T. Gibbs, News Editor
Coin World
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
Surprising as well to me.....
William T. Gibbs, News Editor
Coin World
<< <i>Very disappointing.....
Surprising as well to me..... >>
+1
I have to admit though-- when I read Coin World's (excellent, BTW) report on the Government lawyer's summation -- which was all folksy and easy for a layman to understand -- and compared it to CW's report on the Langbord attorney's summation (which seemed technical, convoluted & not at all clear to someone who may have only paid half attention during the trial), I had my first bad feeling about the likely verdict.
Coin Rarities Online