1933 $20 SG laws hypocritical?

LochNESS · June 26, 2012 7:04AM

Saw a TV special on the history of the 1933 $20 last night. Re-read this Numismaster article and noticed the following:

<< Presently, the [Langbord] coins are in Fort Knox, Ky., where they are in the secure gold depository facility along with the remnants of millions of gold coins struck prior to 1933, and then melted after a presidential order by FDR that essentially recalled all but numismatic pieces, then termed "rare and unusual" coins. >>

See the hypocracy? How could the Fed declare 1933 $20s illegal when the very law which made them "illegal" specifically excludes "rare and unusual coins?" By their very nature, every single coin that was recalled and melted became "rare and unusual" the very moment they began smelting.

I should've been a lawyer

Zoins · June 26, 2012 7:08AM

The government claims they were never legally released. Presumably rare and unusual coins still have to be obtained legally to qualify for the exemption.

I'm wondering what the Lanbord's chances are now.

Timbuk3 · June 26, 2012 7:29AM

Does'nt look good !!!

BillJones · June 26, 2012 7:32AM

<< I'm wondering what the Lanbord's chances are now. >>

ZERO

<< The government claims they were never legally released. Presumably rare and unusual coins still have to be obtained legally to qualify for the exemption. >>

Virtually every regular issue gold coin that is now in collectors' hands was issued legally. The exception would be if a mint employee somehow stole a coin from the mint before it was monetized. But since you couldn’t tell that coin from any other piece it’s a mute question. The trouble with the Lombard hoard is that the government claims that those 1933 double eagles got out of the illegally and the government convinced a jury of sheep that it was true.

There are other “illegal” like the 1913 Liberty nickels, but the owners of those coins, which are even more suspect than the 1933 double eagles, have never been hassled. The 1913 nickels were struck under totally unofficial circumstances; the 1933 double eagles were struck legally, but they were not issued legally according to the government.

LochNESS · June 26, 2012 7:47AM

I know of the premise that coins not released to circulation (1933s) aren't protected by that "rare and unusual coins" loophole. But I think it's a ridiculous concept. Every essai, prøbe and trial strike would be illegal if the world truly operated that way. No?

Zoins · June 26, 2012 7:56AM

<< I know of the premise that coins not released to circulation (1933s) aren't protected by that "rare and unusual coins" loophole. But I think it's a ridiculous concept. Every essai, prøbe and trial strike would be illegal if the world truly operated that way. No? >>

Actually... no. Many US patterns were sold legally by the Treasury Department to William H. Woodin. He purchased the two 1877 half union patterns for $10k each and then exchanged them with the Treasury Department for 2 chests of other patterns. Interestingly, he was the Secretary of the Treasury from March - December 1933.

SanctionII · June 26, 2012 8:10AM

Last time I looked the lawsuit still is not finished at the trial court level. Unless and until it is [through the filing of a judgment] the case remains in limbo. Once a judgment is filed either side [most likely the Langbord family] can file an appeal and force the US Court Of Appeals that covers Pennsylvania to review the case and determine whether or not the trial court judgment should be reversed.

So in short, the case is not over yet. Neither side has "Won" or "Lost" anything yet. The only thing that is likely is that the case will leave the trial court level and migrate to the appellate court level.

tradedollarnut · June 26, 2012 8:12AM

<< Last time I looked the lawsuit still is not finished at the trial court level. Unless and until it is [through the filing of a judgment] the case remains in limbo. Once a judgment is filed either side [most likely the Langbord family] can file an appeal and force the US Court Of Appeals that covers Pennsylvania to review the case and determine whether or not the trial court judgment should be reversed.

So in short, the case is not over yet. Neither side has "Won" or "Lost" anything yet. The only thing that is likely is that the case will leave the trial court level and migrate to the appellate court level. >>

My, what a speedy process of law we have...

SanctionII · June 26, 2012 8:27AM

A cornerstone of our justice system is due process [both procedural and substantive]. The process that is "due" is not necessarily speedy, particularly in the civil arena [as opposed to the criminal arena]. The Langbord case is an example of the absence of "speedy". It was filed a little over six and one half years ago on 12-20-2006.

On 12-20-2006 my youngest son was in the first semester of 7th grade. Last month he graduated from high school and is going to college in August.

If you tack on the additional time (about 27 months) from the time the Langbord family allowed the government to take possession of the ten double eagles (9-2004?) until the time that the suit was filed [during which time the Langbords had to wait for the government to take announce the coins were genuine and that the government would not return them; and during which time the Langbords had to jump through administrative hoops before they were legally allowed to file suit] my youngest son would have been in the first semester of 5th grade.

LochNESS · June 26, 2012 8:57AM

<< ... Neither side has "Won" or "Lost" anything yet. The only thing that is likely is that the case will leave the trial court level and migrate to the appellate court level. >>

The family lost the ability to hold and enjoy their double eagles during the years of this ordeal.

UNCOnly · June 26, 2012 8:59AM

<< Saw a TV special on the history of the 1933 $20 last night. Re-read this Numismaster article and noticed the following:

<< Presently, the [Langbord] coins are in Fort Knox, Ky., where they are in the secure gold depository facility along with the remnants of millions of gold coins struck prior to 1933, and then melted after a presidential order by FDR that essentially recalled all but numismatic pieces, then termed "rare and unusual" coins. >>

See the hypocracy? How could the Fed declare 1933 $20s illegal when the very law which made them "illegal" specifically excludes "rare and unusual coins?" By their very nature, every single coin that was recalled and melted became "rare and unusual" the very moment they began smelting.

I should've been a lawyer

>>

What a lot of people are forgetting is not only did FDR's Executive Order 6102 allow for the possession of a small amount of gold in jewelry or coinage, the Gold Reserve Act of 1934 outlawed the possession of of gold in any form by private citizens, and forced them to sell their gold to the U.S. Treasury, who in turn deposited it at Fort Knox and elsewhere.

Gold coins minted prior to this act fell under the confines of the act.

coin22lover · June 26, 2012 8:59AM

I've always wondered what possessed them to send them to the government in the first place.

Zoins · June 26, 2012 9:07AM

<< I've always wondered what possessed them to send them to the government in the first place. >>

Establishing legal ownership of the pieces would give them a lot of flexibility in what they could do with the pieces. For example, they could talk about them, display them at shows, offer them to other collectors, etc.

It also could have been part of the legal strategy created by their attorney Barry H. Berke, though this is speculative.If so, it would be interesting to hear the strategy one day.

LochNESS · June 26, 2012 9:13AM

@Zoins, so the fine line is between releasing coins and selling coins? It's OK for a dealer (or mint employee) to buy trial patterns from the mint, but it's not OK to own a legally-struck-for-circulation coin which the mint never officially released? Except the Farouk coin, of course, which they released and knew about.

I have a coin from Ecuador of which 35 were struck for circulation, but never released, or sold. Instead after the order was cancelled these 35 coins were given as gifts to dignitaries and politicians. Never "sold" by the minters to my knowledge. Does that make them illegal? Not according to the numismatic community. How is that different?

LindeDad · June 26, 2012 9:14AM

<< 

<< I've always wondered what possessed them to send them to the government in the first place. >>

Establishing legal ownership of the pieces would give them a lot of flexibility in what they could do with the pieces. For example, they could talk about them, display them at shows, offer them to other collectors, etc.

It also could have been part of the legal strategy created by their attorney Barry H. Berke, though this is speculative.If so, it would be interesting to hear the strategy one day. >>

Might of been smarter to of displayed them from a country that does not have ties with the US.

19Lyds · June 26, 2012 9:20AM

<< I've always wondered what possessed them to send them to the government in the first place. >>

Better to let the courts determine ownership than having the courts decide what your sentence would be for selling what appears to be stolen US Government Property.

Of course if they didn't get caught they'd still have to explain where that extra 70 or so milion dollars came from.

Their move was legally strategic and at the very least, the best method for determining authenticity.

mrpotatoheadd · June 26, 2012 9:25AM

<< How is that different? >>

In the case of the 1933 double eagles, it's different because the government is already on record claiming the coins are not legal to own. You don't really expect anyone in the government to come right out and say "Sorry- we were wrong about that" do you?

LochNESS · June 26, 2012 9:39AM

<< What a lot of people are forgetting is not only did FDR's Executive Order 6102 allow for the possession of a small amount of gold in jewelry or coinage, the Gold Reserve Act of 1934 outlawed the possession of of gold in any form by private citizens, and forced them to sell their gold to the U.S. Treasury, who in turn deposited it at Fort Knox and elsewhere.

Gold coins minted prior to this act fell under the confines of the act. >>

And my 1915 1/4 eagle is what, illegal? because it falls under the confines of the act?

BillJones · June 26, 2012 9:40AM

<< Except the Farouk coin, of course, which they released and knew about. >>

The Farouk coin only became legal when the winner of the auction paid the treasury $20 for it to monitize it. The government "winked" in Farouk had it.

LochNESS · June 26, 2012 9:41AM

<< 

<< How is that different? >>

In the case of the 1933 double eagles, it's different because the government is already on record claiming the coins are not legal to own. You don't really expect anyone in the government to come right out and say "Sorry- we were wrong about that" do you? >>

I had my hopes up

LochNESS · June 26, 2012 9:43AM

<< 

<< Except the Farouk coin, of course, which they released and knew about. >>

The Farouk coin only became legal when the winner of the auction paid the treasury $20 for it to monitize it. The government "winked" in Farouk had it. >>

Here's a GREAT idea: let's all take a field trip to our nearest mint, and offer them cold hard cash for any/all patterns and trial strikes they have as monetization!

19Lyds · June 26, 2012 11:36AM

<< 

<< 

<< Except the Farouk coin, of course, which they released and knew about. >>

The Farouk coin only became legal when the winner of the auction paid the treasury $20 for it to monitize it. The government "winked" in Farouk had it. >>

Here's a GREAT idea: let's all take a field trip to our nearest mint, and offer them cold hard cash for any/all patterns and trial strikes they have as monetization! >>

Good Luck! You cannot even get into the mint without being on an official Tour and even then your activities are strictly limited.

The US Mint no longer deals directly with the public. Not even in a collector status. Even Mint Workers go through metal detectors when they leave the production floor.

Zoins · June 26, 2012 11:49AM

<< 

<< 

<< 

<< Except the Farouk coin, of course, which they released and knew about. >>

The Farouk coin only became legal when the winner of the auction paid the treasury $20 for it to monitize it. The government "winked" in Farouk had it. >>

Here's a GREAT idea: let's all take a field trip to our nearest mint, and offer them cold hard cash for any/all patterns and trial strikes they have as monetization! >>

Good Luck! You cannot even get into the mint without being on an official Tour and even then your activities are strictly limited.

The US Mint no longer deals directly with the public. Not even in a collector status. Even Mint Workers go through metal detectors when they leave the production floor. >>

Moonlight minting isn't what it used to be. It seems like you have to make them and float them into circulation like the Wisconsin SHQs.

LochNESS · June 26, 2012 11:57AM

@19Lyds, I was just kidding but I really appreciate your thoughtful reply. I've taken some of those tours. It's really quite fascinating. The Bureau of Engraving and Printing was my favorite though (in D.C.) if you ever get the chance take that tour!

ziggy29 · June 26, 2012 12:10PM

Legal arguments aside, the game is rigged. I'd love to go to arbitration using someone I was hiring and more or less controlled myself.

LochNESS · June 26, 2012 12:20PM

I dunno, there have been plenty of examples of different branches in government disagreeing and overturning each other. It may not be that rigged. But it's certainly not fair

Coinosaurus · June 26, 2012 12:27PM

In this case, the law is what a jury says it is. Hard to see a conspiracy behind that, even if you disagree with them.

ziggy29 · June 26, 2012 12:40PM

<< In this case, the law is what a jury says it is. Hard to see a conspiracy behind that, even if you disagree with them. >>

Except when one side has unlimited financial resources to present their case, bankrolled by taxpayers like yours truly. That would be like saying there's no "conspiracy" in the outcome of a game between a Class-A minor league baseball team and the New York Yankees, because in that case, the "score" is simply whichever team scores more runs.

roadrunner · June 26, 2012 10:44PM

Actually... no. Many US patterns were sold legally by the Treasury Department to William H. Woodin. He purchased the two 1877 half union patterns for $10k each and then exchanged them with the Treasury Department for 2 chests of other patterns. Interestingly, he was the Secretary of the Treasury from March - December 1933.

Thank William Woodin for getting some collector coins exempted from FDR's executive order. If not for Woodin being Johnny on the spot nothing would have been spared.
Oddly, they declared just about every US gold coin ever minted as "rare and unsual,"......even 1924 $20 Saints and 1904 $20 Libs. Unfortunately, William H. Woodin died in
May 1934 and wasn't around to help fight the confiscation of the 1933's beginning later than decade. WHW even owned a $20 1933 Saint. Was it ever made public how he
had acquired his specimen? With the Secretary of the Treasury owning one of these controversial coins it would have been important to hear his voice on the subject. One would
think he acquired it through proper channels. Having made the treasure chest swap of patterns with the US Mint over 20 yrs earlier he certainly knew the right people.

WillieBoyd2 · June 26, 2012 11:21PM

Might of been smarter to of displayed them from a country that does not have ties with the US.

Then one can visit them in North Korea?

MacCrimmon · June 26, 2012 11:32PM

<< Actually... no. Many US patterns were sold legally by the Treasury Department to William H. Woodin. He purchased the two 1877 half union patterns for $10k each and then exchanged them with the Treasury Department for 2 chests of other patterns. Interestingly, he was the Secretary of the Treasury from March - December 1933.

Thank William Woodin for getting some collector coins exempted from FDR's executive order. If not for Woodin being Johnny on the spot nothing would have been spared.
Oddly, they declared just about every US gold coin ever minted as "rare and unsual,"......even 1924 $20 Saints and 1904 $20 Libs. Unfortunately, William H. Woodin died in
May 1934 and wasn't around to help fight the confiscation of the 1933's beginning later than decade. WHW even owned a $20 1933 Saint. Was it ever made public how he
had acquired his specimen? With the Secretary of the Treasury owning one of these controversial coins it would have been important to hear his voice on the subject. One would
think he acquired it through proper channels. Having made the treasure chest swap of patterns with the US Mint over 20 yrs earlier he certainly knew the right people. >>

Probably someone named Iggy!

Analyst · September 8, 2012 9:38AM

LochNess: <<Here's a GREAT idea: let's all take a field trip to our nearest mint, and offer them cold hard cash for any/all patterns and trial strikes they have as monetization! >>

Although I realize that LochNess is being humorous here, the issue of <monetization> should be addressed. The concept of “monetization” that government lawyers introduced in the Fenton case is just not consistent with the history of the U.S. Mint. R. W. Julian has pointed out, as examples, that all Proof Flying Eagle Cents, all pre-1878 Proof Indian Cents and many other Proof coins of the 19th century were not subject to any “monetization” procedures, yet these were openly sold to collectors by the U.S. Mint. Would Treasury Dept. lawyers now say that every single Proof Flying Eagle Cent was ‘stolen’? Besides, 1894-S dimes were handled differently. Hopefully, no one would seriously argue that all these were ‘stolen.’ How about the multiple Ultra High Relief Saints in Charles Barber’s estate?

Also, there are many U.S. coins for which U.S. Mint records do not exist at all. Please see my recent three part series on 1841 Quarter Eagles.

CoinOsaurus: <<In this case, the law is what a jury says it is>>

There is a reasonable chance that an appeals court will overturn the jury verdict and allow for a new trial. The judge permitted Treasury Department lawyers to make negative remarks about the personalities of members of the Switt-Langbord family and of Roger Burdette, the expert witness for the Switt-Langbord family. IMO, the personalities of these people are not relevant to the lack of evidence that any 1933 Double Eagles were stolen. Moreover, was Burdette allowed to explain that he found documents that indicate 1933 Double Eagles were available at the cashier’s window? It is possible that personalities and emotions became the focus, not the law? Will lawyers for the Switt-Langbord family now argue that some of the evidence and testimony that was allowed was irrelevant and inflammatory?

The fate of the ten Switt-Langbord 1933 Doubles

My analysis of the Verdict in the Switt-Langbord Case, with comments by QDB and David Ganz

The Controversy over 1841 Quarter Eagles, Part 1

Part 2, Casual Collecting in the 1840s

The Controversy over 1841 Quarter Eagles, Part 3, The physical characteristics of Proof coins

1933 $20 SG laws hypocritical?

Comments

Leave a Comment