Exhibit refused @ WFM

Julian

I have just emailed the ANA board and copied the two major numismatic publications the following:

I am troubled by the decision not to allow an exhibit at the WFM. We are numismatists and not law enforcement. There are many technically illegal numismatic items that I have handled, including a 1933 double eagle, that many others have both handled, as well, and that there are serious collectors for.
If you were concerned that the exhibit may have been confiscated, then you could have asked the exhibitor for a waiver of liability in that case.
I believe that the WFM decision should be reversed and that any numismatic exhibit be allowed.

If you agree, I would appreciate your support.

CoinRaritiesOnline

Um, Julian, could you explain a little bit more for us folks who are not "in the know"?

ianrussell

Love to know which coins they are concerned about.

- Ian

Julian

The exhibit was the Liberty dollars that the USG said were illegal. Regardless, they are numismatically important.

BigE

Might be too late now if it gets any press-----------------BigE

Julian

It already got some press. I would like to see the decision to allow all numismatic exhibits get the final press.

ianrussell

The Mint regularly displays coins that are illegal to own, right?

- Ian

JCMhouston

Do they automatically allow anything anyone wnts to exhibit? I would have thought they would have to have a screening process of some sort just to keep the number of exhibits down to a manageble number.

Julian

<< <i>Do they automatically allow anything anyone wnts to exhibit? I would have thought they would have to have a screening process of some sort just to keep the number of exhibits down to a manageble number. >>



I do not believe that they screen the exhibits. They have categories established and it is probably necessary to put that category down on your application. The title of the exhibit is probably necessary on the application, as well.

I do not believe that there is anything barred from the bourse, as long as it is numismatic.

seanq

I admit knowing little about these. Are they illegal to own, or illegal to spend, or was it illegal to manufacture them in the first place?


Sean Reynolds

Julian

USG says that they are illegal to own.

BAJJERFAN

<< <i>USG says that they are illegal to own. >>



If that is their position and you exhibit them, what would prevent the USG from seizing them? If twas me, I'd be sure that the coins never see the light of day again.

Julian

<< <i>

<< <i>USG says that they are illegal to own. >>



If that is their position and you exhibit them, what would prevent the USG from seizing them? If twas me, I'd be sure that the coins never see the light of day again. >>



There would be nothing that would prevent their seizure, but USG has better things to do than seize numismatic items, especially when they don't jeopardize anyone's well being.

ColonialCoinUnion

Isn't the issue one of liability? I.e. if the ANA allows an exhibit, and it is seized (however unlikely), would the exhibitor then be able to sue the ANA for not safeguarding it?

WTCG

If the exhibitor wants to display illegal items subject to confiscation then has them confiscated upon public display they don't have anybody to blame other than themselves for taking such a risk. The ANA does not want to be responsible if that happens which you can't blame them for.

MrEureka

On the surface, this makes no sense. I'd like to hear the ANA's explanation.

dlmtorts

I don't pretend to know who is right and who is wrong in this. But another rationale that could justify the ANA's position is this: Perhaps they don't want to be a party to displaying illegal items, and more importantly, perhaps they don't want to run the risk of receiving the bad publicity generated by having illegal items confiscated at their event. That could certainly be disruptive to the WFM.

claychaser

Well, if the show authorities will not allow "illegal" numismatic items, then where does this stop? Here's a few examples of what could be disallowed:

1. Coins struck by the Confederacy after seizing U.S. Mints, such as the "speared bud" 1861-O half dollars and southern gold coins after the seizures. These could be construed as being produced with stolen government property and stolen metal.

2. Error coins, as these were not officially released by the mint

3. Counterstamped coins, as these are defaced legal tender

4. Added: Contemporary counterfeits

The list could go on and on.

Julian

<< <i>Isn't the issue one of liability? I.e. if the ANA allows an exhibit, and it is seized (however unlikely), would the exhibitor then be able to sue the ANA for not safeguarding it? >>



Not if they asked for and received a signed waiver, John.

scotty1419

<< <i>
There would be nothing that would prevent their seizure, but USG has better things to do than seize numismatic items, especially when they don't jeopardize anyone's well being. >>



Please refer to the recent case for the 1933 Double Eagles

Dentuck

There's no such thing as bad publicity! Might get the local and national media on the
bourse floor if they see a seizure of coins as being dramatic breaking news. Just make
sure the seizure happens on the morning of the first day of the show, to take maximum
advantage of the resulting buzz.

RichR

Just because a private entity stamps up something called a "Liberty Dollar" for the primary goal of sticking it to Uncle Sam...and obviously succeeds in getting a reaction out of the government...what automatically makes these items...which for the sake of argument, I'll call silver rounds..."numismatically important"?

Perhaps politically important for some...but numismatically important, highly doubtful.

mingot

<< <i>

<< <i>Isn't the issue one of liability? I.e. if the ANA allows an exhibit, and it is seized (however unlikely), would the exhibitor then be able to sue the ANA for not safeguarding it? >>



Not if they asked for and received a signed waiver, John. >>



Which I would then have to pay a lawyer to make sure was air tight enough that you can't come back and try to recover damages from me anyway.

I know the ANA probably has more money than me, but if it was a private show, and I was running it, I would probably tell you "nah, don't feel like dicking around with a lawyer, sorry."

telephoto1

I am all about freedom of expression but this is kind of a non issue imo. The ANA has the right to accept or reject exhibits at their discretion; it's their show...and given the current administration's recent activities, they likely don't need any more bad pub, and allowing exhibits of coins that have been adjudicated illegal to own might be looked upon as such. If they did, then by that same logic, anyone who makes counterfeits should be allowed to exhibit as well. Perhaps some Chinese scammers can place an exhibit of their fake Trades, Morgans, etc. at the next ANA.

That said, I am curious...did Von Nothaus ever exhibit these himself and/or set up to sell them at any ANA shows?
If he did, then I could conceivably understand a would-be exhibitor getting upset and wanting to play the "hypocrite" card with the ANA.

stevkc

<< <i>Well, if the show authorities will not allow "illegal" numismatic items, then where does this stop? Here's a few examples of what could be disallowed:

1. Coins struck by the Confederacy after seizing U.S. Mints, such as the "speared bud" 1861-O half dollars and southern gold coins after the seizures. These could be construed as being produced with stolen government property and stolen metal.

2. Error coins, as these were not officially released by the mint

3. Counterstamped coins, as these are defaced legal tender

4. Added: Contemporary counterfeits

The list could go on and on. >>



What makes these things so numismatically significant? Don't see the big deal.

I don't know enough about #1 to comment, but #2--error coins are not illegal to own, assuming that they were obtained by legal means and not stolen from the Mint. If the Mint released them for circulation, there's no problem.
#3--Defaced legal tender is not illegal either. You can deface your money all you want, as long as the intent is not to commit fraud.

dcarr

<< <i>The exhibit was the Liberty dollars that the USG said were illegal. Regardless, they are numismatically important. >>



It is my understanding that one person in the US Government has inticated that the Liberty Dollars might be considered contraband and subject to seizure. Prior statements from other government officials contradict that. So I don't think the US Government's position on private ownership of these coins is really known at this point.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

edix2001

I think our club would be proud to exhibit such a display in early December at the Money Show of the Southwest:
2011 MSSW exhibitor application

Julian

IMHO, anything that is or was money, as well as medals and tokens are numismatic.

There are even notes that look like money, but are not, that are numismatic.

PerryHall

<< <i>Well, if the show authorities will not allow "illegal" numismatic items, then where does this stop? Here's a few examples of what could be disallowed:

1. Coins struck by the Confederacy after seizing U.S. Mints, such as the "speared bud" 1861-O half dollars and southern gold coins after the seizures. These could be construed as being produced with stolen government property and stolen metal.

2. Error coins, as these were not officially released by the mint

3. Counterstamped coins, as these are defaced legal tender

4. Added: Contemporary counterfeits

The list could go on and on. >>



Lesher Referendum Dollars would be in the same category as these coins. Also, what about the 1913 Liberty nickels?

claychaser

<< <i>

<< <i>Well, if the show authorities will not allow "illegal" numismatic items, then where does this stop? Here's a few examples of what could be disallowed:

1. Coins struck by the Confederacy after seizing U.S. Mints, such as the "speared bud" 1861-O half dollars and southern gold coins after the seizures. These could be construed as being produced with stolen government property and stolen metal.

2. Error coins, as these were not officially released by the mint

3. Counterstamped coins, as these are defaced legal tender

4. Added: Contemporary counterfeits

The list could go on and on. >>



What makes these things so numismatically significant? Don't see the big deal.

I don't know enough about #1 to comment, but #2--error coins are not illegal to own, assuming that they were obtained by legal means and not stolen from the Mint. If the Mint released them for circulation, there's no problem.
#3--Defaced legal tender is not illegal either. You can deface your money all you want, as long as the intent is not to commit fraud. >>




On the Confederate coins, there are several advanced collectors that colect these not only for the Vivil War historical significance, and several others that collect Liberty Seated silver coins and and gold coins by die varieties. The coins struck by the Confederacy are significant on both counts. Not commenting on 2 or 3, but for the contemporary counterfeits, this is another set of collectors who just have fun with their hobby. Isn;t that what it is all about?

MrEureka

I don't know enough about #1 to comment, but #2--error coins are not illegal to own, assuming that they were obtained by legal means and not stolen from the Mint. If the Mint released them for circulation, there's no problem.

Arguably, all 1913 Liberty Nickels, some 1804 Dollars and the majority of patterns were "stolen" from the Mint. A battle may be on the horizon. The ANA may think it wise not to go near the Liberty Dollar mess right now, since the government does (for reasons I do not understand) really seem to care about them. Better to stay on the government's good side. Of course, the ANA's reason may have nothing to do with this. I have no clue where they're coming from.

RYK

I personally have no problem with the ANA refusing the exhibit.

pruebas

<< <i>That said, I am curious...did Von Nothaus ever exhibit these himself and/or set up to sell them at any ANA shows? >>

IIRC he had a table and sold these at the Milwaukee ANA.

Artist

Not trying to turn this into a political thread, but I seem to recall the Liberty Dollar program got raided just as they were attempted to release a pile of coins bearing the likeness of Ron Paul.

My own, non-partisan observation, is that both main stream political camps seem more beholden to Wall Street than the public, while Ron Paul's ideas are a definite departure from the red-blue status quo - as such, I am not surprised that our government would seek to suppress the Liberty Dollar issue, when they are a such powerful, tangible embodiment of Mr. Paul's advocacy for PM-backed currency. I am not so much of conspiracy theorist as to suspect any coordination between the government & the ANA, but since the government deems these coins as contraband, then I can at least appreciate that ANA may just want to avoid controversy.

TPRC

While everything you have said, Julian, makes sense, if I had to guess, I would guess that the ANA felt there was a risk of seizure and a risk that that seizure, during the show, could disrupt the show itself. That risk, however, small, probably swayed the ANA.

I guess I could foresee a situation where the USG, in carrying out its "seizure" decided that it needed to "secure" a large area, such as the entire show, for a period of time. I guess I could also foresee, the ANA, as the show promoter, getting itself into the mess since it is the promoter, and presumably makes money or gets some other benefit from promoting "illegal" coins. I'm not sure if that puts them in violation of any criminal laws, but it sure could muck things up for them. And a waiver of liability would not be enough, since they could incur lots of legal fees simply handling it all. So they would need, in addition, to be indemnified and held harmless, which is something I'm guessing the exhibitor would never do, nor should they.

The ANA probably contacted the USG and the USG said, in words or effect, we're the USG, we will not give you permission, those coins are illegal to own and subject to confiscation...in other words, proceed at your peril.
So, while I agree with just about everything you've said, including that the coins should be exhibited, I'm not sure the ANA acted imprudently here.

I do think that the ANA ought to be proactive in seeking to allow those coins (and any other coins or numismatic material for that matter) to be exhibited.

rawmorgan

From what I have read the ownership of these "Liberty Dollars" is not an issue. You may own them as a collectable, you will however run into trouble if you try and pass it off as genuine US coins. That being said, the creation of these "coins" was to circumvent the use of US currency through a network of "Liberty Merchants." These merchants would redeem these "dollars" for goods. Are they numismatic? Short answer, yes in the way that "militia" currency is numismatic. The "Liberty Dollar" just got better press and was more available. Is it money? No. Do they belong at an ANA convention? At this time no and by themselves no, as part of an exhibit on privatly minted "currency" in the United States maybe.

Just my opinion.

Apparently they are subject to seizure



Text

abitofthisabitofthat

<< <i>I have just emailed the ANA board and copied the two major numismatic publications the following:

I am troubled by the decision not to allow an exhibit at the WFM. We are numismatists and not law enforcement. There are many technically illegal numismatic items that I have handled, including a 1933 double eagle, that many others have both handled, as well, and that there are serious collectors for.
If you were concerned that the exhibit may have been confiscated, then you could have asked the exhibitor for a waiver of liability in that case.
I believe that the WFM decision should be reversed and that any numismatic exhibit be allowed.

If you agree, I would appreciate your support. >>



I would suspect that the ANA weighed the risks posed by allowing this exhibit, and opted not to proceed. Sounds prudent, and I have no issues with it. Just because something is numismatic, does not mean the ANA has to allow someone to exhibit it. They can, and should, use discretion. If someone wanted to put out a display of brothel tokens (which some may find offensive), as an example, the ANA may wish to prohibit it. Their show, their call.

telephoto1

<< <i>

<< <i>That said, I am curious...did Von Nothaus ever exhibit these himself and/or set up to sell them at any ANA shows? >>

IIRC he had a table and sold these at the Milwaukee ANA. >>



If true then I can understand the exhibitor being upset that they got refused... that would mean a type of double standard implying that these pieces are just fine when ANA is making money from them (via table fees, etc.) but not so fine when they aren't.

But, all that said- the bottom line as stated earlier is that they have the right to refuse or pull exhibits at their discretion... as I recall it's so stated in the exhibit application/rules.

Bochiman

I think that the decision was likely the correct one.
Why should an organization, that is trying to re-establish its footing after all the problems, and the ongoing issues, put its neck on the line for something like this?
It isn't earth shattering. It isn't a game-changer.

If they did show it, and there were problems, MORE people would be up in arms about "why did you show it????" and there would be a waste of money in lawyer fees.

Liberty dollars.....not something that I believe the ANA should get worked up about and I agree with their decision.

GregL

I spoke with Mark Lighterman (the National Exhibit Coordinator) about this topic.

Based on the Mint's statement that the Liberty Dollars were counterfeit, the ANA exhibit leadership requested that the exhibitor provide a letter from the US Mint or the US District Attorney in Charlotte (where the previous litigation was based) stating that the exhibited coins would not be confiscated. The exhibitor was unable to provide that documentation.

As US Mint Police were in attendance in Chicago, a decision was made to not allow that exhibit to put into place. If the decision was made by the government to confiscate the Liberty Dollars as counterfeits, it was also possible for the Mint Police to shut down the bourse floor and examine the contents of any dealers case. Any altered or counterfeit coin would be subject to seizure. Overall, not a good publicity move for the ANA or numismatics in general.

Feel free to debate that decision, but the downside on not allowing the exhibit was small. The downside on allowing the exhibit was much larger.

Greg

claychaser

<< <i>I spoke with Mark Lighterman (the National Exhibit Coordinator) about this topic.

Based on the Mint's statement that the Liberty Dollars were counterfeit, the ANA exhibit leadership requested that the exhibitor provide a letter from the US Mint or the US District Attorney in Charlotte (where the previous litigation was based) stating that the exhibited coins would not be confiscated. The exhibitor was unable to provide that documentation.

As US Mint Police were in attendance in Chicago, a decision was made to not allow that exhibit to put into place. If the decision was made by the government to confiscate the Liberty Dollars as counterfeits, it was also possible for the Mint Police to shut down the bourse floor and examine the contents of any dealers case. Any altered or counterfeit coin would be subject to seizure. Overall, not a good publicity move for the ANA or numismatics in general.

Feel free to debate that decision, but the downside on not allowing the exhibit was small. The downside on allowing the exhibit was much larger.

Greg >>



Greg - thanks for clearing this up. Based on this information, the ANA made absolutely the a correct decision.

Bochiman

I agree with Claychaser and was thinking along the same lines with my earlier post......it just doesn't make sense to put a lot of risk there, particularly for other dealers and their booths, in order to accomodate a small subset of folks. Not with something like the ANA (it isn't a private, for-profit, group)

jamesfsm

Or, heaven forfend, they could ban the display of my Carr Peace Dollar variety set (I like the quad struck Variety 5 best.)

Caleb

<< <i>Or, heaven forfend, they could ban the display of my Carr Peace Dollar variety set (I like the quad struck Variety 5 best.) >>



Are they altered coins? If so then they should be subject to seizure and maybe one day they will

coinlieutenant

Im sure that this was a CYA decision from the ANA. No other way to explain it. They just didn't want to deal with the possible repercussions...

JupitarCoins

<< <i>I spoke with Mark Lighterman (the National Exhibit Coordinator) about this topic.

Based on the Mint's statement that the Liberty Dollars were counterfeit, the ANA exhibit leadership requested that the exhibitor provide a letter from the US Mint or the US District Attorney in Charlotte (where the previous litigation was based) stating that the exhibited coins would not be confiscated. The exhibitor was unable to provide that documentation.

As US Mint Police were in attendance in Chicago, a decision was made to not allow that exhibit to put into place. If the decision was made by the government to confiscate the Liberty Dollars as counterfeits, it was also possible for the Mint Police to shut down the bourse floor and examine the contents of any dealers case. Any altered or counterfeit coin would be subject to seizure. Overall, not a good publicity move for the ANA or numismatics in general.

Feel free to debate that decision, but the downside on not allowing the exhibit was small. The downside on allowing the exhibit was much larger.

Greg >>





Thanks Greg, your explanation say's it all.