(3) Someone got the coins from the mint for Izzy? Didn't the mint director at the time authorize the exchange of 40 or so coins from the vault bags? Maybe she got them for Izzy?
Well,if she did make such an authorization it was for Izzy not the Langbords.If the mint director at the time did authorize the exchange from vault bags there should be a document showing this.
The only authorization for removal of coins from vault bags that I'm aware of is for assay.The 1933 coins,just like all of the dated coins that preceeded it,were subject to assay before there could be any kind of authorized release of coins to the public.
Once assay is passed then coins can be distributed unless mint director has had something important come down from POTUS,like an Executive Order,strongly indicating to her,if not saying directly,that government release of gold coin should probably not happen at this time.
Exchanges may have still happened March,April,or May 1933,but the exchanges would be at the window.However,there were no,none,nada,zilch 1933 Double Eagles to be exchanged for at the window.Some 1933 Eagles were released legally on the exchange basis,a mint tradition,as some have mentioned here.
Does anyone here think that mint tradition is limited to exchange of "old" for "new"? Are procedures that have been in place at the mint for many years suddenly abandoned in 1933? I don't think so.
There is an excellent book by David Tripp,"ILLEGAL TENDER" that I strongly recommend reading for anyone who is interested in the 1933 Double Eagle.It's a great read.Tripp has done a remarkable job putting the chronology of early 1933 events together in a coherent way.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
(1) Someone, not Izzy, got the coins legally from the Mint (2) Somehow, unknown and not through Izzy, the coins ended up in their SDB >>
(3) Someone got the coins from the mint for Izzy? Didn't the mint director at the time authorize the exchange of 40 or so coins from the vault bags? Maybe she got them for Izzy? >>
I'm wondering about the theory presented to the court. Exchanging the DEs coin for coin was presented before the jury.
I haven't read the Langbords putting forward the theory the Mint Director got the coins for Izzy at court. Is this in the court proceedings?
<< <i>(3) Someone got the coins from the mint for Izzy? Didn't the mint director at the time authorize the exchange of 40 or so coins from the vault bags? Maybe she got them for Izzy?
Well,if she did make such an authorization it was for Izzy not the Langbords.If the mint director at the time did authorize the exchange from vault bags there should be a document showing this.
The only authorization for removal of coins from vault bags that I'm aware of is for assay.The 1933 coins,just like all of the dated coins that preceeded it,were subject to assay before there could be any kind of authorized release of coins to the public. >>
The Mint didn't document everything they did in 1933 or previous years for that matter. There aren't any documents showing the release of 1933 $10 eagles, but no one is complaining about them.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
<< <i>(3) Someone got the coins from the mint for Izzy? Didn't the mint director at the time authorize the exchange of 40 or so coins from the vault bags? Maybe she got them for Izzy?
Well,if she did make such an authorization it was for Izzy not the Langbords.If the mint director at the time did authorize the exchange from vault bags there should be a document showing this.
The only authorization for removal of coins from vault bags that I'm aware of is for assay.The 1933 coins,just like all of the dated coins that preceeded it,were subject to assay before there could be any kind of authorized release of coins to the public. >>
The Mint didn't document everything they did in 1933 or previous years for that matter. There aren't any documents showing the release of 1933 $10 eagles, but no one is complaining about them. >>
Actually, one of the big differences between the 1933 DEs and 1933 eagles is that there are Mint receipts showing release of the latter.
<< <i>True - but there are many more examples known than the receipts show... >>
That's true. It appears some had receipts and some didn't, but because they can't be separated they are all considered legitimate, or at least saved from Government claims.
If there was at least one receipt for a DE, things would be easier for the DE. However, since there's not, an argument was made to convince the jury of this plausibility. Given the circumstantial evidence presented to the jury, I think the case could have went either way, but the jury ended up deciding the way they did.
<< <i>(3) Someone got the coins from the mint for Izzy? Didn't the mint director at the time authorize the exchange of 40 or so coins from the vault bags? Maybe she got them for Izzy?
Well,if she did make such an authorization it was for Izzy not the Langbords.If the mint director at the time did authorize the exchange from vault bags there should be a document showing this. >>
I believe there was a document presented in one of the other threads saying that she authorized removal of 40 or so coins. I'm not going to wade thru all of the threads to find it, but perhaps someone who is good at searching could.
<< <i>(3) Someone got the coins from the mint for Izzy? Didn't the mint director at the time authorize the exchange of 40 or so coins from the vault bags? Maybe she got them for Izzy?
Well,if she did make such an authorization it was for Izzy not the Langbords.If the mint director at the time did authorize the exchange from vault bags there should be a document showing this. >>
I believe there was a document presented in one of the other threads saying that she authorized removal of 40 or so coins. I'm not going to wade thru all of the threads to find it, but perhaps someone who is good at searching could. >>
The Mint didn't document everything they did in 1933 or previous years for that matter. There aren't any documents showing the release of 1933 $10 eagles, but no one is complaining about them >>>>>>>> exactly ! there are no document of the mints restriking coins for their friends, digging out old dies and "running off a few" to sell or give away as gifts, as was done probably since the walls of the mint were vertical, any 1933 DE's that left the mint had to have left with the help of people inside the mint, any blame should fall on the government's usual failure to police its own employees, and therefore any crime that cannot be proven should not be considered a crime. izzy could have broken into the mint in the middle of the night and stolen a hundred 1933 DE's OR >>>he could have bought them fom a dishonest mint employee, OR he could have got them at the window because an illiterate mint employee couldn't read if the bag said 1933 or 1931 or 1932 or 1850 because it is possible, that izzy bought them from someone who did not intent to "swindle" the mint, it is possible because as anyone that can read, will note, the mint was NOT the tightly run ship they claim to have been
regardless of how many posts I have, I don't consider myself an "expert" at anything
the mint denies that any 1933 DE's were legally released, is that the same mint that originally denied the existence of the 1974 aluminum cents ? the 1913 liberty nickel is an "unauthorized mint product" yet the secret service makes ZERO effort to confiscate those
regardless of how many posts I have, I don't consider myself an "expert" at anything
<< <i>The Mint didn't document everything they did in 1933 or previous years for that matter. There aren't any documents showing the release of 1933 $10 eagles, but no one is complaining about them >>>>>>>> exactly ! there are no document of the mints restriking coins for their friends, digging out old dies and "running off a few" to sell or give away as gifts, as was done probably since the walls of the mint were vertical, any 1933 DE's that left the mint had to have left with the help of people inside the mint, any blame should fall on the government's usual failure to police its own employees, and therefore any crime that cannot be proven should not be considered a crime. izzy could have broken into the mint in the middle of the night and stolen a hundred 1933 DE's OR >>>he could have bought them fom a dishonest mint employee, OR he could have got them at the window because an illiterate mint employee couldn't read if the bag said 1933 or 1931 or 1932 or 1850 because it is possible, that izzy bought them from someone who did not intent to "swindle" the mint, it is possible because as anyone that can read, will note, the mint was NOT the tightly run ship they claim to have been >>
Based on your post the government wins. If a dishonest employee took them from the mint or gave them to Izzy title does not pass. When the coins left the mint, and under what circumstance they left the mint, is the only incident with any significance.
The government states that the coins were never authorized to be circulated. At that point the burden essentially shifts to the hold of the coin to demonstrate that the coin was originally obtained in a legal manner. The mere "possibility" that some mystery person legally obtained the coin is nowhere close to meeting the burden.
As I mentioned earlier, this should have been litigated back in the 1940's when the first coins were confiscated. At that time, if they were legally obtained it would have been much easier to prove. That Izzy didn't do so at that time speaks volumes.
There aren't any documents showing the release of 1933 $10 eagles, but no one is complaining about them.
According to Tripp,there is documentation of release of at least one 1933 Eagle.A Mr. Pomeranz of Philadelphia is on the daily record as having received a new one.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
if you are going to take one small segment of a response, and twist it to support your argument, why not re-write the entire response to mirror your point ?
regardless of how many posts I have, I don't consider myself an "expert" at anything
<< <i>The Mint didn't document everything they did in 1933 or previous years for that matter. There aren't any documents showing the release of 1933 $10 eagles, but no one is complaining about them >>>>>>>> exactly ! there are no document of the mints restriking coins for their friends, digging out old dies and "running off a few" to sell or give away as gifts, as was done probably since the walls of the mint were vertical, any 1933 DE's that left the mint had to have left with the help of people inside the mint, any blame should fall on the government's usual failure to police its own employees, and therefore any crime that cannot be proven should not be considered a crime. izzy could have broken into the mint in the middle of the night and stolen a hundred 1933 DE's OR >>>he could have bought them fom a dishonest mint employee, OR he could have got them at the window because an illiterate mint employee couldn't read if the bag said 1933 or 1931 or 1932 or 1850 because it is possible, that izzy bought them from someone who did not intent to "swindle" the mint, it is possible because as anyone that can read, will note, the mint was NOT the tightly run ship they claim to have been >>
The government states that the coins were never authorized to be circulated. >>
But can they prove it? It would be very cut and dried if they could.
<< <i>Make no mistake,the Langbord 1933 DE's are contraband.There is no ownership right to contraband.
I'm not worried about government seizing my contraband since I don't own,or rather,possess,any contraband.
>>
How would you do in proving each and every coin in your possession was legally removed from the mint?
Even a bill of sale wouldn't be sufficient if they claimed no such coin was legally transferred. Or that among the millions that left the mint, some were illegal.
<< <i>Thanks for the update..... I have yet to see, in this entire case, evidence that conclusively shows the coins were obtained illegally. I hope they win. Cheers, RickO >>
I guess what I'm not getting is why the 1913 liberty nickels are legal to own, but these aren't. Is striking a few examples without the mint knowing more legal than obtaining a regular issue that wasn't monetized? Keep in mind, I haven't read up on this subject, so maybe I'm missing a piece of the puzzle.
You Suck! Awarded 6/2008- 1901-O Micro O Morgan, 8/2008- 1878 VAM-123 Morgan, 9/2022 1888-O VAM-1B3 H8 Morgan | Senior Regional Representative- ANACS Coin Grading. Posted opinions on coins are my own, and are not an official ANACS opinion.
<< <i>I guess what I'm not getting is why the 1913 liberty nickels are legal to own, but these aren't. Is striking a few examples without the mint knowing more legal than obtaining a regular issue that wasn't monetized? Keep in mind, I haven't read up on this subject, so maybe I'm missing a piece of the puzzle. >>
As a rule only modern coins are affected by sanctions. 1804 dollars are known to have been illegally made and then stolen from the mint while 1933 $20's were made by the mint itself and it's not known how they left the mint. They look like early strikes so they could have even left in bags of 1932 coinage.
No one can prove that his state quarter or his 1893-S dollar were actually "monetized" so no coin is safe. Other than good faith what is stopping the mint from simply recalling every coin it ever made? If they can't deal with 1933 coins and moderns in good faith then why depend on it to protect our collections?
<< <i>No one can prove that his state quarter or his 1893-S dollar were actually "monetized" so no coin is safe. Other than good faith what is stopping the mint from simply recalling every coin it ever made? If they can't deal with 1933 coins and moderns in good faith then why depend on it to protect our collections? >>
The Treasury seems to use the standard that if there's a single, documented, officially released coin for general circulation (the Farouk DE doesn't count), then all are valid. For example, the 1933 eagles for which official Mint receipts are available are legal to own whether or not you have a receipt. Using this line of reasoning, I'm fairly sure SHQs and other coins that were generally circulated or have official release documentation are safe.
As for this case, it was a jury case so it was those 10 people that had to be convinced.
<< <i>the mint denies that any 1933 DE's were legally released, is that the same mint that originally denied the existence of the 1974 aluminum cents ? the 1913 liberty nickel is an "unauthorized mint product" yet the secret service makes ZERO effort to confiscate those >>
There is one big difference. "Saint" Franklin Roosevelt ordered that these coins should not be issued and had them melted. He had nothing to do with the other coins so they don't matter. Therefore these coins must be recovered since it was part of FDR's illegal Gold Surrender Order. He announced it before Congress voted to authorize it.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
Comments
Well,if she did make such an authorization it was for Izzy not the Langbords.If the mint director at the time did authorize the exchange from vault bags there should be a document showing this.
The only authorization for removal of coins from vault bags that I'm aware of is for assay.The 1933 coins,just like all of the dated coins that preceeded it,were subject to assay before there could be any kind of authorized release of coins to the public.
Once assay is passed then coins can be distributed unless mint director has had something important come down from POTUS,like an Executive Order,strongly indicating to her,if not saying directly,that government release of gold coin should probably not happen at this time.
Exchanges may have still happened March,April,or May 1933,but the exchanges would be at the window.However,there were no,none,nada,zilch 1933 Double Eagles to be exchanged for at the window.Some 1933 Eagles were released legally on the exchange basis,a mint tradition,as some have mentioned here.
Does anyone here think that mint tradition is limited to exchange of "old" for "new"? Are procedures that have been in place at the mint for many years suddenly abandoned in 1933? I don't think so.
There is an excellent book by David Tripp,"ILLEGAL TENDER" that I strongly recommend reading for anyone who is interested in the 1933 Double Eagle.It's a great read.Tripp has done a remarkable job putting the chronology of early 1933 events together in a coherent way.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
<< <i>Is the theory:
(1) Someone, not Izzy, got the coins legally from the Mint
(2) Somehow, unknown and not through Izzy, the coins ended up in their SDB >>
(3) Someone got the coins from the mint for Izzy? Didn't the mint director at the time authorize the exchange of 40 or so coins from the vault bags? Maybe she got them for Izzy? >>
I'm wondering about the theory presented to the court. Exchanging the DEs coin for coin was presented before the jury.
I haven't read the Langbords putting forward the theory the Mint Director got the coins for Izzy at court. Is this in the court proceedings?
<< <i>(3) Someone got the coins from the mint for Izzy? Didn't the mint director at the time authorize the exchange of 40 or so coins from the vault bags? Maybe she got them for Izzy?
Well,if she did make such an authorization it was for Izzy not the Langbords.If the mint director at the time did authorize the exchange from vault bags there should be a document showing this.
The only authorization for removal of coins from vault bags that I'm aware of is for assay.The 1933 coins,just like all of the dated coins that preceeded it,were subject to assay before there could be any kind of authorized release of coins to the public. >>
The Mint didn't document everything they did in 1933 or previous years for that matter. There aren't any documents showing the release of 1933 $10 eagles, but no one is complaining about them.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
<< <i>
<< <i>(3) Someone got the coins from the mint for Izzy? Didn't the mint director at the time authorize the exchange of 40 or so coins from the vault bags? Maybe she got them for Izzy?
Well,if she did make such an authorization it was for Izzy not the Langbords.If the mint director at the time did authorize the exchange from vault bags there should be a document showing this.
The only authorization for removal of coins from vault bags that I'm aware of is for assay.The 1933 coins,just like all of the dated coins that preceeded it,were subject to assay before there could be any kind of authorized release of coins to the public. >>
The Mint didn't document everything they did in 1933 or previous years for that matter. There aren't any documents showing the release of 1933 $10 eagles, but no one is complaining about them. >>
Actually, one of the big differences between the 1933 DEs and 1933 eagles is that there are Mint receipts showing release of the latter.
<< <i>True - but there are many more examples known than the receipts show... >>
That's true. It appears some had receipts and some didn't, but because they can't be separated they are all considered legitimate, or at least saved from Government claims.
If there was at least one receipt for a DE, things would be easier for the DE. However, since there's not, an argument was made to convince the jury of this plausibility. Given the circumstantial evidence presented to the jury, I think the case could have went either way, but the jury ended up deciding the way they did.
<< <i>(3) Someone got the coins from the mint for Izzy? Didn't the mint director at the time authorize the exchange of 40 or so coins from the vault bags? Maybe she got them for Izzy?
Well,if she did make such an authorization it was for Izzy not the Langbords.If the mint director at the time did authorize the exchange from vault bags there should be a document showing this. >>
I believe there was a document presented in one of the other threads saying that she authorized removal of 40 or so coins. I'm not going to wade thru all of the threads to find it, but perhaps someone who is good at searching could.
<< <i>
<< <i>(3) Someone got the coins from the mint for Izzy? Didn't the mint director at the time authorize the exchange of 40 or so coins from the vault bags? Maybe she got them for Izzy?
Well,if she did make such an authorization it was for Izzy not the Langbords.If the mint director at the time did authorize the exchange from vault bags there should be a document showing this. >>
I believe there was a document presented in one of the other threads saying that she authorized removal of 40 or so coins. I'm not going to wade thru all of the threads to find it, but perhaps someone who is good at searching could. >>
The easiest way may be to ask RWB ATS
<< <i>The Mint didn't document everything they did in 1933 or previous years for that matter. There aren't any documents showing the release of 1933 $10 eagles, but no one is complaining about them >>>>>>>> exactly ! there are no document of the mints restriking coins for their friends, digging out old dies and "running off a few" to sell or give away as gifts, as was done probably since the walls of the mint were vertical, any 1933 DE's that left the mint had to have left with the help of people inside the mint, any blame should fall on the government's usual failure to police its own employees, and therefore any crime that cannot be proven should not be considered a crime. izzy could have broken into the mint in the middle of the night and stolen a hundred 1933 DE's OR >>>he could have bought them fom a dishonest mint employee, OR he could have got them at the window because an illiterate mint employee couldn't read if the bag said 1933 or 1931 or 1932 or 1850 because it is possible, that izzy bought them from someone who did not intent to "swindle" the mint, it is possible because as anyone that can read, will note, the mint was NOT the tightly run ship they claim to have been >>
Based on your post the government wins. If a dishonest employee took them from the mint or gave them to Izzy title does not pass. When the coins left the mint, and under what circumstance they left the mint, is the only incident with any significance.
The government states that the coins were never authorized to be circulated. At that point the burden essentially shifts to the hold of the coin to demonstrate that the coin was originally obtained in a legal manner. The mere "possibility" that some mystery person legally obtained the coin is nowhere close to meeting the burden.
As I mentioned earlier, this should have been litigated back in the 1940's when the first coins were confiscated. At that time, if they were legally obtained it would have been much easier to prove. That Izzy didn't do so at that time speaks volumes.
According to Tripp,there is documentation of release of at least one 1933 Eagle.A Mr. Pomeranz of Philadelphia is on the daily record as having received a new one.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
<< <i>
<< <i>The Mint didn't document everything they did in 1933 or previous years for that matter. There aren't any documents showing the release of 1933 $10 eagles, but no one is complaining about them >>>>>>>> exactly ! there are no document of the mints restriking coins for their friends, digging out old dies and "running off a few" to sell or give away as gifts, as was done probably since the walls of the mint were vertical, any 1933 DE's that left the mint had to have left with the help of people inside the mint, any blame should fall on the government's usual failure to police its own employees, and therefore any crime that cannot be proven should not be considered a crime. izzy could have broken into the mint in the middle of the night and stolen a hundred 1933 DE's OR >>>he could have bought them fom a dishonest mint employee, OR he could have got them at the window because an illiterate mint employee couldn't read if the bag said 1933 or 1931 or 1932 or 1850 because it is possible, that izzy bought them from someone who did not intent to "swindle" the mint, it is possible because as anyone that can read, will note, the mint was NOT the tightly run ship they claim to have been >>
The government states that the coins were never authorized to be circulated. >>
But can they prove it? It would be very cut and dried if they could.
<< <i>
<< <i>The government states that the coins were never authorized to be circulated. >>
But can they prove it? It would be very cut and dried if they could. >>
From the jury's perspective, it was proved unanimously. Public opinion is a separate matter.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>The government states that the coins were never authorized to be circulated. >>
But can they prove it? It would be very cut and dried if they could. >>
From the jury's perspective, it was proved unanimously. Public opinion is a separate matter. >>
Correct. Proving the old adage, never trust anything important to a jury.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
<< <i>More likely they could/would seize it without cause and the onus would be on YOU to prove you got it legally. >>
That's pretty much how it works today in the gool old USA. Google "asset forfeiture" or "civil forfeiture" if you need examples.
<< <i>Make no mistake,the Langbord 1933 DE's are contraband.There is no ownership right to contraband.
I'm not worried about government seizing my contraband since I don't own,or rather,possess,any contraband.
>>
How would you do in proving each and every coin in your possession was legally removed from the mint?
Even a bill of sale wouldn't be sufficient if they claimed no such coin was legally transferred. Or that among the
millions that left the mint, some were illegal.
The fence's daughter kept the goods.
Hmm...
"The Fence's Daughter"
Sounds like a title for a movie about this case.
The Mysterious Egyptian Magic Coin
Coins in Movies
Coins on Television
<< <i>Thanks for the update..... I have yet to see, in this entire case, evidence that conclusively shows the coins were obtained illegally. I hope they win. Cheers, RickO >>
<< <i>I guess what I'm not getting is why the 1913 liberty nickels are legal to own, but these aren't. Is striking a few examples without the mint knowing more legal than obtaining a regular issue that wasn't monetized? Keep in mind, I haven't read up on this subject, so maybe I'm missing a piece of the puzzle. >>
Arbitrary law application & enforcement?
Although, be careful what you wish for...
<< <i>
Arbitrary law application & enforcement?
Although, be careful what you wish for... >>
As a rule only modern coins are affected by sanctions. 1804 dollars are known to have been illegally made and then stolen from the mint while 1933 $20's were made by the mint itself and it's not known how they left the mint. They look like early strikes so they could have even left in bags of 1932 coinage.
No one can prove that his state quarter or his 1893-S dollar were actually "monetized" so no coin is safe. Other than good faith what is stopping the mint from simply recalling every coin it ever made? If they can't deal with 1933 coins and moderns in good faith then why depend on it to protect our collections?
<< <i>Make no mistake,the Langbord 1933 DE's are contraband..
I'd say there are questions about that. Personally, I hope the appeal is successful.
My icon IS my coin. It is a gem 1949 FBL Franklin.
<< <i>No one can prove that his state quarter or his 1893-S dollar were actually "monetized" so no coin is safe. Other than good faith what is stopping the mint from simply recalling every coin it ever made? If they can't deal with 1933 coins and moderns in good faith then why depend on it to protect our collections? >>
The Treasury seems to use the standard that if there's a single, documented, officially released coin for general circulation (the Farouk DE doesn't count), then all are valid. For example, the 1933 eagles for which official Mint receipts are available are legal to own whether or not you have a receipt. Using this line of reasoning, I'm fairly sure SHQs and other coins that were generally circulated or have official release documentation are safe.
As for this case, it was a jury case so it was those 10 people that had to be convinced.
<< <i>the mint denies that any 1933 DE's were legally released, is that the same mint that originally denied the existence of the 1974 aluminum cents ? the 1913 liberty nickel is an "unauthorized mint product" yet the secret service makes ZERO effort to confiscate those >>
There is one big difference. "Saint" Franklin Roosevelt ordered that these coins should not be issued and had them melted. He had nothing to do with the other coins so they don't matter. Therefore these coins must be recovered since it was part of FDR's illegal Gold Surrender Order. He announced it before Congress voted to authorize it.