I'm fairly certain that within a month or so, the Treasury will come out WITH a position - but I have no idea what it will be....but it will make the coin's legality known, once and for all.
Retired Collector & Dealer in Major Mint Error Coins & Currency since the 1960's.Co-Author of Whitman's "100 Greatest U.S. Mint Error Coins", and the Error Coin Encyclopedia, Vols., III & IV. Retired Authenticator for Major Mint Errors for PCGS. A 50+ Year PNG Member.A full-time numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022.
<< <i>As of last week, the Treasury's position was
"We have no Position at this time"
I'm fairly certain that within a month or so, the Treasury will come out WITH a position - but I have no idea what it will be....but it will make the coin's legality known, once and for all. >>
Cool, thanks for the update.
"If it's not fun, it's not worth it." - KeyMan64 Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
<< <i>As of last week, the Treasury's position was "We have no Position at this time." >>
They don't really need a "position." If they want to seize it, they will. Even if they allow it to be sold this time, there is no guarantee they won't show up later.
The coin will be worth more after it has traded a few times and potential buyers convince themselves Treasury won't pursue it.
You are also dealing with the market risk that more will come of the woodwork. A very tricky coin to put a price on.
<< <i>Ya know, San Francisco was making business strike cents in 1973 and 1974 also....................
>>
But so far as we know they were not involved in the aluminium cent striking so, Dan Carr can you make aluminium blanks and strike 1974-S cents? >>
A week ago most of us did not know that Denver was involved. I can't think of any good reason why it was. I can't think of any good reason why, if Denver was involved, San Francisco should not be. >>
The information on the Denver cents has been around for years. Perhaps people didn't believe Lantz's accounting of the 1974-D aluminum cents because they also didn't believe his accounting of the 1964-D Peace dollars? >>
Just because the information was available does not mean that most people were aware of it. It was news to me. >>
This looks like it might be legal to own. This coin was owned by Harry Edmond Lawrence, Deputy Superintendent of the Denver Mint, but the bigger argument may be that, there is no official record of this coin being struck, similar to the 1913 Liberty nickel: In Dec. 26, 2013, Tom Jurkowsky, director of the U.S. Mint’s Office of Corporate Communications wrote:
<< <i>Personally, I think it would be inappropriate to offer our opinion on the legality of possessing a 1974-D aluminum cent, since we have officially informed you that they were not minted in Denver. >>
So if the Mint doesn't recognize it then it might not care about ownership, just like the 1913 V nickel. If so, this would be great for collectors.
It's too bad Harry Lawrence passed away in 1980. It would have been amazing to have a signature insert. As it is, it would be nice if it had his provenance on it.
<< <i>This looks like it might be legal to own. This coin was owned by Harry Edmond Lawrence, Deputy Superintendent of the Denver Mint >>
Why would you think it would be legal to own. Because a government employee produced it and snuck it out for personal gain or his personal collection? Are you opening the door for more Mint employees to do the same????
<< <i>This looks like it might be legal to own. This coin was owned by Harry Edmond Lawrence, Deputy Superintendent of the Denver Mint >>
Why would you think it would be legal to own. Because a government employee produced it and snuck it out for personal gain or his personal collection? Are you opening the door for more Mint employees to do the same???? >>
I think this might be legal to own because the Mint has officially stated that these "were not minted in Denver". If PCGS and others think so, that's their business. Of course, the US government could claim these as counterfeit coins.
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>As of last week, the Treasury's position was
"We have no Position at this time"
I'm fairly certain that within a month or so, the Treasury will come out WITH a position - but I have no idea what it will be....but it will make the coin's legality known, once and for all. >>
Kudos to Fred for predicting a position.
It's curious that the following looks like a CoinFacts photo, but there's no PCGS CoinFacts or TrueView photo listed on the cert verification page.
After Tom Jurkowsky, director of the U.S. Mint’s Office of Corporate Communications said this was not a Mint issue back in Dec. 26, 2013, do we think this has become an issue because some have come forth and said this is indeed a US Mint issue?
<< <i>Tom Jurkowsky, director of the U.S. Mint’s Office of Corporate Communications: I think it would be inappropriate to offer our opinion on the legality of possessing a 1974-D aluminum cent, since we have officially informed you that they were not minted in Denver. >>
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.
Conder101 wrote the following regarding the 1974-P aluminum cent ATS back in Feb:
<< <i>As far as I know the Treasury has never said they are legal to own. They said that those who kept them did not have criminal intent. They have always maintained that the 74-P cents are still government property and are subject to seizure. The fact that they have never tried to seize the Toven specimen so far does not mean that they wouldn't if it ever come up for open auction, and someone brought it to their attention. >>
Given the experience with the Toven specimen, does it follow the 1974-D cent could have stayed in private hands if it wasn't put up for auction and the act of selling it spurred the Treasury into action?
Perhaps these coins could be the ultimate "collectors" coins if they could be cherished and passed on, but never openly sold.
<< <i>This looks like it might be legal to own. This coin was owned by Harry Edmond Lawrence, Deputy Superintendent of the Denver Mint >>
Why would you think it would be legal to own. Because a government employee produced it and snuck it out for personal gain or his personal collection? Are you opening the door for more Mint employees to do the same???? >>
Huh?
Are you implying that the 1913 Liberty Nickels are <gasp> illegal?
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
<< <i>Conder101 wrote the following regarding the 1974-P aluminum cent ATS back in Feb:
<< <i>As far as I know the Treasury has never said they are legal to own. They said that those who kept them did not have criminal intent. They have always maintained that the 74-P cents are still government property and are subject to seizure. The fact that they have never tried to seize the Toven specimen so far does not mean that they wouldn't if it ever come up for open auction, and someone brought it to their attention. >>
Given the experience with the Toven specimen, does it follow the 1974-D cent could have stayed in private hands if it wasn't put up for auction and the act of selling it spurred the Treasury into action?
Perhaps these coins could be the ultimate "collectors" coins if they could be cherished and passed on, but never openly sold. >>
If you rub the Treasury's nose in something, they will react in an adverse manner. This is often the case with other elements of society.
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>This looks like it might be legal to own. This coin was owned by Harry Edmond Lawrence, Deputy Superintendent of the Denver Mint >>
Why would you think it would be legal to own. Because a government employee produced it and snuck it out for personal gain or his personal collection? Are you opening the door for more Mint employees to do the same???? >>
Huh?
Are you implying that the 1913 Liberty Nickels are <gasp> illegal? >>
Apples to Oranges. The government officially struck the Aluminum cents and claim ownership. The government had nothing to do with the 1913 Nickels official or otherwise which makes it pretty hard to claim ownership.
Collector and Researcher of Liberty Head Nickels. ANA LM-6053
<< <i>This looks like it might be legal to own. This coin was owned by Harry Edmond Lawrence, Deputy Superintendent of the Denver Mint >>
Why would you think it would be legal to own. Because a government employee produced it and snuck it out for personal gain or his personal collection? Are you opening the door for more Mint employees to do the same???? >>
Huh?
Are you implying that the 1913 Liberty Nickels are <gasp> illegal? >>
Apples to Oranges. The government officially struck the Aluminum cents and claim ownership. The government had nothing to do with the 1913 Nickels official or otherwise which makes it pretty hard to claim ownership. >>
So are we to understand that it is your belief/contention that the 1913 Liberty 5C. were not struck on U.S. Mint equipment (government owned) using U.S. Mint blanks (government owned) by a U.S. Mint official, namely Samuel Brown (government employee) ?
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>This looks like it might be legal to own. This coin was owned by Harry Edmond Lawrence, Deputy Superintendent of the Denver Mint >>
Why would you think it would be legal to own. Because a government employee produced it and snuck it out for personal gain or his personal collection? Are you opening the door for more Mint employees to do the same???? >>
Huh?
Are you implying that the 1913 Liberty Nickels are <gasp> illegal? >>
Apples to Oranges. The government officially struck the Aluminum cents and claim ownership. The government had nothing to do with the 1913 Nickels official or otherwise which makes it pretty hard to claim ownership. >>
So are we to understand that it is your belief/contention that the 1913 Liberty 5C. were not struck on U.S. Mint equipment (government owned) using U.S. Mint blanks (government owned) by a U.S. Mint official, namely Samuel Brown (government employee) ? >>
Does not matter what I believe. If it could be proved it would be one thing (but good luck with that). Another thing is they have been openly sold for over 90 years and nothing has been done by the government, so I am sure there is legal precedence that these are legal to be sold.
There has never been a case of the government letting an aluminum cent be publicly sold and if there has, I am sure it will be used in this case.
Collector and Researcher of Liberty Head Nickels. ANA LM-6053
<< <i>Conder101 wrote the following regarding the 1974-P aluminum cent ATS back in Feb:
<< <i>As far as I know the Treasury has never said they are legal to own. They said that those who kept them did not have criminal intent. They have always maintained that the 74-P cents are still government property and are subject to seizure. The fact that they have never tried to seize the Toven specimen so far does not mean that they wouldn't if it ever come up for open auction, and someone brought it to their attention. >>
Given the experience with the Toven specimen, does it follow the 1974-D cent could have stayed in private hands if it wasn't put up for auction and the act of selling it spurred the Treasury into action?
Perhaps these coins could be the ultimate "collectors" coins if they could be cherished and passed on, but never openly sold. >>
If you rub the Treasury's nose in something, they will react in an adverse manner. This is often the case with other elements of society. >>
I get the feeling that this could have lived in private hands for some time if it wasn't put up for auction, e.g. private collection or museum. Not sure if that genie can be put back in the bottle or even if there would be a desire to as the current owner seems intent to auction it off.
<< <i>This looks like it might be legal to own. This coin was owned by Harry Edmond Lawrence, Deputy Superintendent of the Denver Mint >>
Why would you think it would be legal to own. Because a government employee produced it and snuck it out for personal gain or his personal collection? Are you opening the door for more Mint employees to do the same???? >>
Huh?
Are you implying that the 1913 Liberty Nickels are <gasp> illegal? >>
Apples to Oranges. The government officially struck the Aluminum cents and claim ownership. The government had nothing to do with the 1913 Nickels official or otherwise which makes it pretty hard to claim ownership. >>
Sorry, but the Liberty Nickels were in fact struck under the exact same circumstances as the 1974-D Coins. Specifically, using government equipment, supplies, and labor with no record of them ever being struck.
Technically, in the purest definition of the word, the 1913 Liberty Nickels are exactly the same as the 1974-D Lincoln Cent.
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
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>Conder101 wrote the following regarding the 1974-P aluminum cent ATS back in Feb:
<< <i>As far as I know the Treasury has never said they are legal to own. They said that those who kept them did not have criminal intent. They have always maintained that the 74-P cents are still government property and are subject to seizure. The fact that they have never tried to seize the Toven specimen so far does not mean that they wouldn't if it ever come up for open auction, and someone brought it to their attention. >>
Given the experience with the Toven specimen, does it follow the 1974-D cent could have stayed in private hands if it wasn't put up for auction and the act of selling it spurred the Treasury into action?
Perhaps these coins could be the ultimate "collectors" coins if they could be cherished and passed on, but never openly sold. >>
If you rub the Treasury's nose in something, they will react in an adverse manner. This is often the case with other elements of society. >>
I get the feeling that this could have lived in private hands for some time if it wasn't put up for auction, e.g. private collection or museum. Not sure if that genie can be put back in the bottle or even if there would be a desire to as the current owner seems intent to auction it off. >>
While this may be true, the facts of the matter is that the 1974 Cent does in fact exist, the US Mint and Treasury Department KNOWS that it exists, yet no action, that has been made public, has been taken to regain possession of the coin. As far as everybody is concerned it still belongs in the Toven Family.
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
The outcome affects everybody within the hobby and its not as if this isn't being discussed elsewhere. I'm sure that it will be in upcoming issues of Coin World.
Besides, what exactly is being revealed that has not already been revealed or discussed?
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
<< <i>Conder101 wrote the following regarding the 1974-P aluminum cent ATS back in Feb:
<< <i>As far as I know the Treasury has never said they are legal to own. They said that those who kept them did not have criminal intent. They have always maintained that the 74-P cents are still government property and are subject to seizure. The fact that they have never tried to seize the Toven specimen so far does not mean that they wouldn't if it ever come up for open auction, and someone brought it to their attention. >>
Given the experience with the Toven specimen, does it follow the 1974-D cent could have stayed in private hands if it wasn't put up for auction and the act of selling it spurred the Treasury into action?
Perhaps these coins could be the ultimate "collectors" coins if they could be cherished and passed on, but never openly sold. >>
If you rub the Treasury's nose in something, they will react in an adverse manner. This is often the case with other elements of society. >>
I get the feeling that this could have lived in private hands for some time if it wasn't put up for auction, e.g. private collection or museum. Not sure if that genie can be put back in the bottle or even if there would be a desire to as the current owner seems intent to auction it off. >>
The interstate commerce clause of the Constitution comes to mind here. Maybe the fed's jurisdiction is limited unless/until a transaction which spans state lines takes place.
<< <i>This looks like it might be legal to own. This coin was owned by Harry Edmond Lawrence, Deputy Superintendent of the Denver Mint >>
Why would you think it would be legal to own. Because a government employee produced it and snuck it out for personal gain or his personal collection? Are you opening the door for more Mint employees to do the same???? >>
Huh?
Are you implying that the 1913 Liberty Nickels are <gasp> illegal? >>
Apples to Oranges. The government officially struck the Aluminum cents and claim ownership. The government had nothing to do with the 1913 Nickels official or otherwise which makes it pretty hard to claim ownership. >>
Sorry, but the Liberty Nickels were in fact struck under the exact same circumstances as the 1974-D Coins. Specifically, using government equipment, supplies, and labor with no record of them ever being struck.
Technically, in the purest definition of the word, the 1913 Liberty Nickels are exactly the same as the 1974-D Lincoln Cent. >>
I wouldn't say the 1913 Liberty Nickel and 1974-D Lincoln Cents are the same at all. The 1974-D aluminum cents were sent through the official Mint chain of command to Mint headquarters according to Michael P. Lantz, a former employee at the Denver Mint (eventually Denver Mint Foreman), said approximately ten cent pieces were made by Ernie Martinez and delivered to Harry Bobay, general foreman. This doesn't sound anything like how the 1913 V nickels were made.
<< <i>Michael P. Lantz: "I personally didn't make any of the Denver aluminum cents, I was on the graveyard shift when they were stamped. A friend of mine, Ernie Martinez, die setter and later general foreman, stamped the aluminum cents on one of the Denver Mint's standard presses. When I talked to him last Sunday he told me that he stamped around 10 of them. One thing he recalled about them was that they 'finned' badly. After stamping the blanks he returned the finished aluminum cents to Harry Bobay, general foreman, who took them to the coining division office where they were shipped back to Mint headquarters in Washington, D.C. From there, who knows what happened to them." >>
I have to say it's interesting that the 3 people involved in this story all held the position of Denver Mint Foreman:
- Harry Bobay: Denver Mint General Foreman at the time of minting and received the coins - Ernie Martinez: Die setter who struck the coins and eventual Denver Mint Foreman - Michael P. Lantz: Graveyard shift at the time of minting but later Denver Mint Foreman. Relayed the story of origin.
And this specimen ended up with:
- Harry Edmond Lawrence: Denver Mint Deputy Superintendent
<< <i>Conder101 wrote the following regarding the 1974-P aluminum cent ATS back in Feb:
<< <i>As far as I know the Treasury has never said they are legal to own. They said that those who kept them did not have criminal intent. They have always maintained that the 74-P cents are still government property and are subject to seizure. The fact that they have never tried to seize the Toven specimen so far does not mean that they wouldn't if it ever come up for open auction, and someone brought it to their attention. >>
Given the experience with the Toven specimen, does it follow the 1974-D cent could have stayed in private hands if it wasn't put up for auction and the act of selling it spurred the Treasury into action?
Perhaps these coins could be the ultimate "collectors" coins if they could be cherished and passed on, but never openly sold. >>
If you rub the Treasury's nose in something, they will react in an adverse manner. This is often the case with other elements of society. >>
I get the feeling that this could have lived in private hands for some time if it wasn't put up for auction, e.g. private collection or museum. Not sure if that genie can be put back in the bottle or even if there would be a desire to as the current owner seems intent to auction it off. >>
The interstate commerce clause of the Constitution comes to mind here. Maybe the fed's jurisdiction is limited unless/until a transaction which spans state lines takes place. >>
That's an interesting observation that I could buy into.
<< <i>I wouldn't say the 1913 Liberty Nickel and 1974-D Lincoln Cents are the same at all. The 1974-D aluminum cents were sent through the official Mint chain of command to Mint headquarters according to Michael P. Lantz, a former employee at the Denver Mint (eventually Denver Mint Foreman), said approximately ten cent pieces were made by Ernie Martinez and delivered to Harry Bobay, general foreman. This doesn't sound anything like how the 1913 V nickels were made.
<< <i>Michael P. Lantz: "I personally didn't make any of the Denver aluminum cents, I was on the graveyard shift when they were stamped. A friend of mine, Ernie Martinez, die setter and later general foreman, stamped the aluminum cents on one of the Denver Mint's standard presses. When I talked to him last Sunday he told me that he stamped around 10 of them. One thing he recalled about them was that they 'finned' badly. After stamping the blanks he returned the finished aluminum cents to Harry Bobay, general foreman, who took them to the coining division office where they were shipped back to Mint headquarters in Washington, D.C. From there, who knows what happened to them." >>
>>
If that is actually the case, then why were there no records of the coins being minted in Denver?
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
<< <i>I wouldn't say the 1913 Liberty Nickel and 1974-D Lincoln Cents are the same at all. The 1974-D aluminum cents were sent through the official Mint chain of command to Mint headquarters according to Michael P. Lantz, a former employee at the Denver Mint (eventually Denver Mint Foreman), said approximately ten cent pieces were made by Ernie Martinez and delivered to Harry Bobay, general foreman. This doesn't sound anything like how the 1913 V nickels were made.
<< <i>Michael P. Lantz: "I personally didn't make any of the Denver aluminum cents, I was on the graveyard shift when they were stamped. A friend of mine, Ernie Martinez, die setter and later general foreman, stamped the aluminum cents on one of the Denver Mint's standard presses. When I talked to him last Sunday he told me that he stamped around 10 of them. One thing he recalled about them was that they 'finned' badly. After stamping the blanks he returned the finished aluminum cents to Harry Bobay, general foreman, who took them to the coining division office where they were shipped back to Mint headquarters in Washington, D.C. From there, who knows what happened to them." >>
>>
If that is actually the case, then why were there no records of the coins being minted in Denver? >>
<< <i>In 1978 Mint Director Stella Hackel ordered the destruction of large quantities of twentieth century Mint records, apparently for the sole purpose of erasing the historical record. >>
<< <i>Conder101 wrote the following regarding the 1974-P aluminum cent ATS back in Feb:
<< <i>As far as I know the Treasury has never said they are legal to own. They said that those who kept them did not have criminal intent. They have always maintained that the 74-P cents are still government property and are subject to seizure. The fact that they have never tried to seize the Toven specimen so far does not mean that they wouldn't if it ever come up for open auction, and someone brought it to their attention. >>
Given the experience with the Toven specimen, does it follow the 1974-D cent could have stayed in private hands if it wasn't put up for auction and the act of selling it spurred the Treasury into action?
Perhaps these coins could be the ultimate "collectors" coins if they could be cherished and passed on, but never openly sold. >>
If you rub the Treasury's nose in something, they will react in an adverse manner. This is often the case with other elements of society. >>
I get the feeling that this could have lived in private hands for some time if it wasn't put up for auction, e.g. private collection or museum. Not sure if that genie can be put back in the bottle or even if there would be a desire to as the current owner seems intent to auction it off. >>
The interstate commerce clause of the Constitution comes to mind here. Maybe the fed's jurisdiction is limited unless/until a transaction which spans state lines takes place. >>
That's an interesting observation that I could buy into. >>
But, did not the Toven coin cross state lines as well?
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
<< <i>Conder101 wrote the following regarding the 1974-P aluminum cent ATS back in Feb:
<< <i>As far as I know the Treasury has never said they are legal to own. They said that those who kept them did not have criminal intent. They have always maintained that the 74-P cents are still government property and are subject to seizure. The fact that they have never tried to seize the Toven specimen so far does not mean that they wouldn't if it ever come up for open auction, and someone brought it to their attention. >>
Given the experience with the Toven specimen, does it follow the 1974-D cent could have stayed in private hands if it wasn't put up for auction and the act of selling it spurred the Treasury into action?
Perhaps these coins could be the ultimate "collectors" coins if they could be cherished and passed on, but never openly sold. >>
If you rub the Treasury's nose in something, they will react in an adverse manner. This is often the case with other elements of society. >>
I get the feeling that this could have lived in private hands for some time if it wasn't put up for auction, e.g. private collection or museum. Not sure if that genie can be put back in the bottle or even if there would be a desire to as the current owner seems intent to auction it off. >>
The interstate commerce clause of the Constitution comes to mind here. Maybe the fed's jurisdiction is limited unless/until a transaction which spans state lines takes place. >>
That's an interesting observation that I could buy into. >>
But, did not the Toven coin cross state lines as well? >>
<< <i>I wouldn't say the 1913 Liberty Nickel and 1974-D Lincoln Cents are the same at all. The 1974-D aluminum cents were sent through the official Mint chain of command to Mint headquarters according to Michael P. Lantz, a former employee at the Denver Mint (eventually Denver Mint Foreman), said approximately ten cent pieces were made by Ernie Martinez and delivered to Harry Bobay, general foreman. This doesn't sound anything like how the 1913 V nickels were made.
<< <i>Michael P. Lantz: "I personally didn't make any of the Denver aluminum cents, I was on the graveyard shift when they were stamped. A friend of mine, Ernie Martinez, die setter and later general foreman, stamped the aluminum cents on one of the Denver Mint's standard presses. When I talked to him last Sunday he told me that he stamped around 10 of them. One thing he recalled about them was that they 'finned' badly. After stamping the blanks he returned the finished aluminum cents to Harry Bobay, general foreman, who took them to the coining division office where they were shipped back to Mint headquarters in Washington, D.C. From there, who knows what happened to them." >>
>>
If that is actually the case, then why were there no records of the coins being minted in Denver? >>
<< <i>In 1978 Mint Director Stella Hackel ordered the destruction of large quantities of twentieth century Mint records, apparently for the sole purpose of erasing the historical record. >>
>>
Damn you Stella! To me, the answer is simple.
Coins are produced as legal tender yet, the coins we collect are not nor ever will be used as legal tender whether they were legally obtained or not.
As such, I see no reason, since litigation could be excessive to retain ownership of said coins, why a blanket order could not be issued stating that these items which have found their way into the public domain, can be openly traded and sold without fear of prosecution.
Since the Sacagawea Mule fiasco, the US Mint has implemented HARD guidelines and policies to prevent its employees from removing coins from their facilities. It only syands to reason that future pilferage has been stopped so why not an order as of the 1st of January?
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
The outcome affects everybody within the hobby and its not as if this isn't being discussed elsewhere. I'm sure that it will be in upcoming issues of Coin World.
Besides, what exactly is being revealed that has not already been revealed or discussed? >>
I'm more worried about the 1913 nickels.
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.
The outcome affects everybody within the hobby and its not as if this isn't being discussed elsewhere. I'm sure that it will be in upcoming issues of Coin World.
Besides, what exactly is being revealed that has not already been revealed or discussed? >>
I think the discussion is useful so far because many collectors have been trying to figure out why certain coins are treated one way and others another.
The 1976 government statement of "no evidence of criminal intent" regarding the 1974 Philadelphia cents is almost 40 years old so it's good to get more clarification around what that means for the hobby.
For example, if it does come down to interstate commerce, then perhaps 1964-D Peace dollars could come out in the open, be certified, recognized, held in collections and museums, as long as they weren't used in interstate commerce. I think having some of these coins known and out in the open would be huge for the hobby.
Here is the argument of the government per the article linked in another thread:
"The U.S. Mint sent Lawrence a letter in February, "demanding the return of their aluminum cent. The letter stated that the government takes the position that, because Congress never issued an aluminum cent as legal tender, any aluminum cent remains property of the federal government, regardless of how long it has been in private hands," according to the complaint."
Does this mean that a coin struck on a planchet not intended for that denomination is illegal to own? For example, there are tons of Lincoln cents on ebay right now that were struck on a dime planchet. This is the incorrect composition for the Lincoln cent so by the governments argument it would be illegal to own.
My argument would be that 1974 D Lincoln cents were issued as legal tender and the type of metal makes no difference. Coins are released to circulation all the time with the wrong metal. Why is this coin any different?
If the govt gets this coin, they at least will have a slabbed coin to put in the Smithsonian.......I was shocked when I saw all the pretty and rare coins that were raw and sitting on metal prongs in some pics that posters had posted!!
Successful Buying and Selling transactions with:
Many members on this forum that now it cannot fit in my signature. Please ask for entire list.
<< <i>Here is the argument of the government per the article linked in another thread:
"The U.S. Mint sent Lawrence a letter in February, "demanding the return of their aluminum cent. The letter stated that the government takes the position that, because Congress never issued an aluminum cent as legal tender, any aluminum cent remains property of the federal government, regardless of how long it has been in private hands," according to the complaint."
Does this mean that a coin struck on a planchet not intended for that denomination is illegal to own? For example, there are tons of Lincoln cents on ebay right now that were struck on a dime planchet. This is the incorrect composition for the Lincoln cent so by the governments argument it would be illegal to own.
My argument would be that 1974 D Lincoln cents were issued as legal tender and the type of metal makes no difference. Coins are released to circulation all the time with the wrong metal. Why is this coin any different? >>
I think the difference is "means of acquisition".
Those that left the mint by mistake, well, that's tough luck for the mint. The first recipient was either lucky, or diligent in their search of mint bags, with no illegal activity suggested or assumed.
Those that were removed from the mint by some other means, (carried out by employees, for example), are tainted from day one. Controls intended to prevent their release were circumvented, so the Mint, (or Justice Department), feels there is legal standing to do something about it.
Of course, it all comes down to a matter of proof....which is why the courts are involved.
<< <i>Here is the argument of the government per the article linked in another thread:
"The U.S. Mint sent Lawrence a letter in February, "demanding the return of their aluminum cent. The letter stated that the government takes the position that, because Congress never issued an aluminum cent as legal tender, any aluminum cent remains property of the federal government, regardless of how long it has been in private hands," according to the complaint."
Does this mean that a coin struck on a planchet not intended for that denomination is illegal to own? For example, there are tons of Lincoln cents on ebay right now that were struck on a dime planchet. This is the incorrect composition for the Lincoln cent so by the governments argument it would be illegal to own.
My argument would be that 1974 D Lincoln cents were issued as legal tender and the type of metal makes no difference. Coins are released to circulation all the time with the wrong metal. Why is this coin any different? >>
I think the difference is "means of acquisition".
Those that left the mint by mistake, well, that's tough luck for the mint. The first recipient was either lucky, or diligent in their search of mint bags, with no illegal activity suggested or assumed.
Those that were removed from the mint by some other means, (carried out by employees, for example), are tainted from day one. Controls intended to prevent their release were circumvented, so the Mint, (or Justice Department), feels there is legal standing to do something about it.
Of course, it all comes down to a matter of proof....which is why the courts are involved. >>
Good points! I guess my next question would be can the mint really prove that the aluminum cent was not in a mint bag since they have no record of it ever being minted? I would argue that the government would have to be able to prove that this cent was taken illegally. I think they will have a hard time proving this beyond a shadow of a doubt especially considering that other 1974 cents were allowed to remain in private hands and the case was closed.
<< <i>Here is the argument of the government per the article linked in another thread:
"The U.S. Mint sent Lawrence a letter in February, "demanding the return of their aluminum cent. The letter stated that the government takes the position that, because Congress never issued an aluminum cent as legal tender, any aluminum cent remains property of the federal government, regardless of how long it has been in private hands," according to the complaint."
Does this mean that a coin struck on a planchet not intended for that denomination is illegal to own? For example, there are tons of Lincoln cents on ebay right now that were struck on a dime planchet. This is the incorrect composition for the Lincoln cent so by the governments argument it would be illegal to own.
My argument would be that 1974 D Lincoln cents were issued as legal tender and the type of metal makes no difference. Coins are released to circulation all the time with the wrong metal. Why is this coin any different? >>
I think the difference is "means of acquisition".
Those that left the mint by mistake, well, that's tough luck for the mint. The first recipient was either lucky, or diligent in their search of mint bags, with no illegal activity suggested or assumed.
Those that were removed from the mint by some other means, (carried out by employees, for example), are tainted from day one. Controls intended to prevent their release were circumvented, so the Mint, (or Justice Department), feels there is legal standing to do something about it.
Of course, it all comes down to a matter of proof....which is why the courts are involved. >>
Would there have been more of an argument to keep the coin if it was found in a mint bag vs. say in the collection of the former Deputy Superintendent of the Denver Mint?
<< <i>Here is the argument of the government per the article linked in another thread:
"The U.S. Mint sent Lawrence a letter in February, "demanding the return of their aluminum cent. The letter stated that the government takes the position that, because Congress never issued an aluminum cent as legal tender, any aluminum cent remains property of the federal government, regardless of how long it has been in private hands," according to the complaint."
Does this mean that a coin struck on a planchet not intended for that denomination is illegal to own? For example, there are tons of Lincoln cents on ebay right now that were struck on a dime planchet. This is the incorrect composition for the Lincoln cent so by the governments argument it would be illegal to own.
My argument would be that 1974 D Lincoln cents were issued as legal tender and the type of metal makes no difference. Coins are released to circulation all the time with the wrong metal. Why is this coin any different? >>
I think the difference is "means of acquisition".
Those that left the mint by mistake, well, that's tough luck for the mint. The first recipient was either lucky, or diligent in their search of mint bags, with no illegal activity suggested or assumed.
Those that were removed from the mint by some other means, (carried out by employees, for example), are tainted from day one. Controls intended to prevent their release were circumvented, so the Mint, (or Justice Department), feels there is legal standing to do something about it.
Of course, it all comes down to a matter of proof....which is why the courts are involved. >>
The owner said that his father left a bag of coins that his father had "accumulated" from the Denver Mint which included "error coins".
Whether they were "given" to H.E.Lawrence or whether H.E.Lawrence was simply saving them from destruction (uhhh error coins destined for destruction) is unknown.
This whole thing just stinks.
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
Comments
position was
"We have no Position at this time"
I'm fairly certain that within a month
or so, the Treasury will come out
WITH a position - but I have no idea
what it will be....but it will make the
coin's legality known, once and for all.
Michael Kittle Rare Coins --- 1908-S Indian Head Cent Grading Set --- No. 1 1909 Mint Set --- Kittlecoins on Facebook --- Long Beach Table 448
<< <i>As of last week, the Treasury's
position was
"We have no Position at this time"
I'm fairly certain that within a month
or so, the Treasury will come out
WITH a position - but I have no idea
what it will be....but it will make the
coin's legality known, once and for all. >>
Cool, thanks for the update.
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
<< <i>As of last week, the Treasury's position was "We have no Position at this time." >>
They don't really need a "position." If they want to seize it, they will. Even if they allow it to be sold this time, there is no guarantee they won't show up later.
The coin will be worth more after it has traded a few times and potential buyers convince themselves Treasury won't pursue it.
You are also dealing with the market risk that more will come of the woodwork. A very tricky coin to put a price on.
Looks undergraded. .
<< <i>Very cool!
Story at Coinweek.com
Not that it really matters but the cert info says its in a standard holder, but the pic shows it in a secure holder.
My Early Large Cents
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Ya know, San Francisco was making business strike cents in 1973 and 1974 also....................
But so far as we know they were not involved in the aluminium cent striking so, Dan Carr can you make aluminium blanks and strike 1974-S cents? >>
A week ago most of us did not know that Denver was involved. I can't think of any good reason why it was. I can't think of any good reason why, if Denver was involved, San Francisco should not be. >>
The information on the Denver cents has been around for years. Perhaps people didn't believe Lantz's accounting of the 1974-D aluminum cents because they also didn't believe his accounting of the 1964-D Peace dollars?
Just because the information was available does not mean that most people were aware of it. It was news to me. >>
That's true. Many people still aren't aware of half cents, half dollars, and Eisenhower dollars.
<< <i>Personally, I think it would be inappropriate to offer our opinion on the legality of possessing a 1974-D aluminum cent, since we have officially informed you that they were not minted in Denver. >>
So if the Mint doesn't recognize it then it might not care about ownership, just like the 1913 V nickel. If so, this would be great for collectors.
It's too bad Harry Lawrence passed away in 1980. It would have been amazing to have a signature insert. As it is, it would be nice if it had his provenance on it.
<< <i>This looks like it might be legal to own. This coin was owned by Harry Edmond Lawrence, Deputy Superintendent of the Denver Mint >>
Why would you think it would be legal to own. Because a government employee produced it and snuck it out for personal gain or his personal collection? Are you opening the door for more Mint employees to do the same????
<< <i>
<< <i>This looks like it might be legal to own. This coin was owned by Harry Edmond Lawrence, Deputy Superintendent of the Denver Mint >>
Why would you think it would be legal to own. Because a government employee produced it and snuck it out for personal gain or his personal collection? Are you opening the door for more Mint employees to do the same???? >>
I think this might be legal to own because the Mint has officially stated that these "were not minted in Denver". If PCGS and others think so, that's their business. Of course, the US government could claim these as counterfeit coins.
<< <i>As of last week, the Treasury's
position was
"We have no Position at this time"
I'm fairly certain that within a month
or so, the Treasury will come out
WITH a position - but I have no idea
what it will be....but it will make the
coin's legality known, once and for all. >>
Kudos to Fred for predicting a position.
It's curious that the following looks like a CoinFacts photo, but there's no PCGS CoinFacts or TrueView photo listed on the cert verification page.
<< <i>Tom Jurkowsky, director of the U.S. Mint’s Office of Corporate Communications: I think it would be inappropriate to offer our opinion on the legality of possessing a 1974-D aluminum cent, since we have officially informed you that they were not minted in Denver. >>
linky1
linky2
<< <i>As far as I know the Treasury has never said they are legal to own. They said that those who kept them did not have criminal intent. They have always maintained that the 74-P cents are still government property and are subject to seizure. The fact that they have never tried to seize the Toven specimen so far does not mean that they wouldn't if it ever come up for open auction, and someone brought it to their attention. >>
Given the experience with the Toven specimen, does it follow the 1974-D cent could have stayed in private hands if it wasn't put up for auction and the act of selling it spurred the Treasury into action?
Perhaps these coins could be the ultimate "collectors" coins if they could be cherished and passed on, but never openly sold.
<< <i>
<< <i>This looks like it might be legal to own. This coin was owned by Harry Edmond Lawrence, Deputy Superintendent of the Denver Mint >>
Why would you think it would be legal to own. Because a government employee produced it and snuck it out for personal gain or his personal collection? Are you opening the door for more Mint employees to do the same???? >>
Huh?
Are you implying that the 1913 Liberty Nickels are <gasp> illegal?
The name is LEE!
<< <i>Conder101 wrote the following regarding the 1974-P aluminum cent ATS back in Feb:
<< <i>As far as I know the Treasury has never said they are legal to own. They said that those who kept them did not have criminal intent. They have always maintained that the 74-P cents are still government property and are subject to seizure. The fact that they have never tried to seize the Toven specimen so far does not mean that they wouldn't if it ever come up for open auction, and someone brought it to their attention. >>
Given the experience with the Toven specimen, does it follow the 1974-D cent could have stayed in private hands if it wasn't put up for auction and the act of selling it spurred the Treasury into action?
Perhaps these coins could be the ultimate "collectors" coins if they could be cherished and passed on, but never openly sold. >>
If you rub the Treasury's nose in something, they will react in an adverse manner. This is often the case with other elements of society.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>This looks like it might be legal to own. This coin was owned by Harry Edmond Lawrence, Deputy Superintendent of the Denver Mint >>
Why would you think it would be legal to own. Because a government employee produced it and snuck it out for personal gain or his personal collection? Are you opening the door for more Mint employees to do the same???? >>
Huh?
Are you implying that the 1913 Liberty Nickels are <gasp> illegal? >>
Apples to Oranges. The government officially struck the Aluminum cents and claim ownership. The government had nothing to do with the 1913 Nickels official or otherwise which makes it pretty hard to claim ownership.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>This looks like it might be legal to own. This coin was owned by Harry Edmond Lawrence, Deputy Superintendent of the Denver Mint >>
Why would you think it would be legal to own. Because a government employee produced it and snuck it out for personal gain or his personal collection? Are you opening the door for more Mint employees to do the same???? >>
Huh?
Are you implying that the 1913 Liberty Nickels are <gasp> illegal? >>
Apples to Oranges. The government officially struck the Aluminum cents and claim ownership. The government had nothing to do with the 1913 Nickels official or otherwise which makes it pretty hard to claim ownership. >>
So are we to understand that it is your belief/contention that the 1913 Liberty 5C. were not struck on U.S. Mint equipment (government owned) using U.S. Mint blanks (government owned) by a U.S. Mint official, namely Samuel Brown (government employee) ?
"Everything is on its way to somewhere. Everything." - George Malley, Phenomenon
http://www.american-legacy-coins.com
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>This looks like it might be legal to own. This coin was owned by Harry Edmond Lawrence, Deputy Superintendent of the Denver Mint >>
Why would you think it would be legal to own. Because a government employee produced it and snuck it out for personal gain or his personal collection? Are you opening the door for more Mint employees to do the same???? >>
Huh?
Are you implying that the 1913 Liberty Nickels are <gasp> illegal? >>
Apples to Oranges. The government officially struck the Aluminum cents and claim ownership. The government had nothing to do with the 1913 Nickels official or otherwise which makes it pretty hard to claim ownership. >>
So are we to understand that it is your belief/contention that the 1913 Liberty 5C. were not struck on U.S. Mint equipment (government owned) using U.S. Mint blanks (government owned) by a U.S. Mint official, namely Samuel Brown (government employee) ?
Does not matter what I believe. If it could be proved it would be one thing (but good luck with that). Another thing is they have been openly sold for over 90 years and nothing has been done by the government, so I am sure there is legal precedence that these are legal to be sold.
There has never been a case of the government letting an aluminum cent be publicly sold and if there has, I am sure it will be used in this case.
<< <i>
<< <i>Conder101 wrote the following regarding the 1974-P aluminum cent ATS back in Feb:
<< <i>As far as I know the Treasury has never said they are legal to own. They said that those who kept them did not have criminal intent. They have always maintained that the 74-P cents are still government property and are subject to seizure. The fact that they have never tried to seize the Toven specimen so far does not mean that they wouldn't if it ever come up for open auction, and someone brought it to their attention. >>
Given the experience with the Toven specimen, does it follow the 1974-D cent could have stayed in private hands if it wasn't put up for auction and the act of selling it spurred the Treasury into action?
Perhaps these coins could be the ultimate "collectors" coins if they could be cherished and passed on, but never openly sold. >>
If you rub the Treasury's nose in something, they will react in an adverse manner. This is often the case with other elements of society. >>
I get the feeling that this could have lived in private hands for some time if it wasn't put up for auction, e.g. private collection or museum. Not sure if that genie can be put back in the bottle or even if there would be a desire to as the current owner seems intent to auction it off.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>This looks like it might be legal to own. This coin was owned by Harry Edmond Lawrence, Deputy Superintendent of the Denver Mint >>
Why would you think it would be legal to own. Because a government employee produced it and snuck it out for personal gain or his personal collection? Are you opening the door for more Mint employees to do the same???? >>
Huh?
Are you implying that the 1913 Liberty Nickels are <gasp> illegal? >>
Apples to Oranges. The government officially struck the Aluminum cents and claim ownership. The government had nothing to do with the 1913 Nickels official or otherwise which makes it pretty hard to claim ownership. >>
Sorry, but the Liberty Nickels were in fact struck under the exact same circumstances as the 1974-D Coins. Specifically, using government equipment, supplies, and labor with no record of them ever being struck.
Technically, in the purest definition of the word, the 1913 Liberty Nickels are exactly the same as the 1974-D Lincoln Cent.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Conder101 wrote the following regarding the 1974-P aluminum cent ATS back in Feb:
<< <i>As far as I know the Treasury has never said they are legal to own. They said that those who kept them did not have criminal intent. They have always maintained that the 74-P cents are still government property and are subject to seizure. The fact that they have never tried to seize the Toven specimen so far does not mean that they wouldn't if it ever come up for open auction, and someone brought it to their attention. >>
Given the experience with the Toven specimen, does it follow the 1974-D cent could have stayed in private hands if it wasn't put up for auction and the act of selling it spurred the Treasury into action?
Perhaps these coins could be the ultimate "collectors" coins if they could be cherished and passed on, but never openly sold. >>
If you rub the Treasury's nose in something, they will react in an adverse manner. This is often the case with other elements of society. >>
I get the feeling that this could have lived in private hands for some time if it wasn't put up for auction, e.g. private collection or museum. Not sure if that genie can be put back in the bottle or even if there would be a desire to as the current owner seems intent to auction it off. >>
While this may be true, the facts of the matter is that the 1974 Cent does in fact exist, the US Mint and Treasury Department KNOWS that it exists, yet no action, that has been made public, has been taken to regain possession of the coin. As far as everybody is concerned it still belongs in the Toven Family.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>Discretion, people!!! >>
Why?
The outcome affects everybody within the hobby and its not as if this isn't being discussed elsewhere. I'm sure that it will be in upcoming issues of Coin World.
Besides, what exactly is being revealed that has not already been revealed or discussed?
The name is LEE!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Conder101 wrote the following regarding the 1974-P aluminum cent ATS back in Feb:
<< <i>As far as I know the Treasury has never said they are legal to own. They said that those who kept them did not have criminal intent. They have always maintained that the 74-P cents are still government property and are subject to seizure. The fact that they have never tried to seize the Toven specimen so far does not mean that they wouldn't if it ever come up for open auction, and someone brought it to their attention. >>
Given the experience with the Toven specimen, does it follow the 1974-D cent could have stayed in private hands if it wasn't put up for auction and the act of selling it spurred the Treasury into action?
Perhaps these coins could be the ultimate "collectors" coins if they could be cherished and passed on, but never openly sold. >>
If you rub the Treasury's nose in something, they will react in an adverse manner. This is often the case with other elements of society. >>
I get the feeling that this could have lived in private hands for some time if it wasn't put up for auction, e.g. private collection or museum. Not sure if that genie can be put back in the bottle or even if there would be a desire to as the current owner seems intent to auction it off. >>
The interstate commerce clause of the Constitution comes to mind here. Maybe the fed's jurisdiction is limited unless/until a transaction which spans state lines takes place.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>This looks like it might be legal to own. This coin was owned by Harry Edmond Lawrence, Deputy Superintendent of the Denver Mint >>
Why would you think it would be legal to own. Because a government employee produced it and snuck it out for personal gain or his personal collection? Are you opening the door for more Mint employees to do the same???? >>
Huh?
Are you implying that the 1913 Liberty Nickels are <gasp> illegal? >>
Apples to Oranges. The government officially struck the Aluminum cents and claim ownership. The government had nothing to do with the 1913 Nickels official or otherwise which makes it pretty hard to claim ownership. >>
Sorry, but the Liberty Nickels were in fact struck under the exact same circumstances as the 1974-D Coins. Specifically, using government equipment, supplies, and labor with no record of them ever being struck.
Technically, in the purest definition of the word, the 1913 Liberty Nickels are exactly the same as the 1974-D Lincoln Cent. >>
I wouldn't say the 1913 Liberty Nickel and 1974-D Lincoln Cents are the same at all. The 1974-D aluminum cents were sent through the official Mint chain of command to Mint headquarters according to Michael P. Lantz, a former employee at the Denver Mint (eventually Denver Mint Foreman), said approximately ten cent pieces were made by Ernie Martinez and delivered to Harry Bobay, general foreman. This doesn't sound anything like how the 1913 V nickels were made.
<< <i>Michael P. Lantz: "I personally didn't make any of the Denver aluminum cents, I was on the graveyard shift when they were stamped. A friend of mine, Ernie Martinez, die setter and later general foreman, stamped the aluminum cents on one of the Denver Mint's standard presses. When I talked to him last Sunday he told me that he stamped around 10 of them. One thing he recalled about them was that they 'finned' badly. After stamping the blanks he returned the finished aluminum cents to Harry Bobay, general foreman, who took them to the coining division office where they were shipped back to Mint headquarters in Washington, D.C. From there, who knows what happened to them." >>
- Harry Bobay: Denver Mint General Foreman at the time of minting and received the coins
- Ernie Martinez: Die setter who struck the coins and eventual Denver Mint Foreman
- Michael P. Lantz: Graveyard shift at the time of minting but later Denver Mint Foreman. Relayed the story of origin.
And this specimen ended up with:
- Harry Edmond Lawrence: Denver Mint Deputy Superintendent
This coin has quite a provenance.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Conder101 wrote the following regarding the 1974-P aluminum cent ATS back in Feb:
<< <i>As far as I know the Treasury has never said they are legal to own. They said that those who kept them did not have criminal intent. They have always maintained that the 74-P cents are still government property and are subject to seizure. The fact that they have never tried to seize the Toven specimen so far does not mean that they wouldn't if it ever come up for open auction, and someone brought it to their attention. >>
Given the experience with the Toven specimen, does it follow the 1974-D cent could have stayed in private hands if it wasn't put up for auction and the act of selling it spurred the Treasury into action?
Perhaps these coins could be the ultimate "collectors" coins if they could be cherished and passed on, but never openly sold. >>
If you rub the Treasury's nose in something, they will react in an adverse manner. This is often the case with other elements of society. >>
I get the feeling that this could have lived in private hands for some time if it wasn't put up for auction, e.g. private collection or museum. Not sure if that genie can be put back in the bottle or even if there would be a desire to as the current owner seems intent to auction it off. >>
The interstate commerce clause of the Constitution comes to mind here. Maybe the fed's jurisdiction is limited unless/until a transaction which spans state lines takes place. >>
That's an interesting observation that I could buy into.
<< <i>I wouldn't say the 1913 Liberty Nickel and 1974-D Lincoln Cents are the same at all. The 1974-D aluminum cents were sent through the official Mint chain of command to Mint headquarters according to Michael P. Lantz, a former employee at the Denver Mint (eventually Denver Mint Foreman), said approximately ten cent pieces were made by Ernie Martinez and delivered to Harry Bobay, general foreman. This doesn't sound anything like how the 1913 V nickels were made.
<< <i>Michael P. Lantz: "I personally didn't make any of the Denver aluminum cents, I was on the graveyard shift when they were stamped. A friend of mine, Ernie Martinez, die setter and later general foreman, stamped the aluminum cents on one of the Denver Mint's standard presses. When I talked to him last Sunday he told me that he stamped around 10 of them. One thing he recalled about them was that they 'finned' badly. After stamping the blanks he returned the finished aluminum cents to Harry Bobay, general foreman, who took them to the coining division office where they were shipped back to Mint headquarters in Washington, D.C. From there, who knows what happened to them." >>
>>
If that is actually the case, then why were there no records of the coins being minted in Denver?
The name is LEE!
<< <i>
<< <i>I wouldn't say the 1913 Liberty Nickel and 1974-D Lincoln Cents are the same at all. The 1974-D aluminum cents were sent through the official Mint chain of command to Mint headquarters according to Michael P. Lantz, a former employee at the Denver Mint (eventually Denver Mint Foreman), said approximately ten cent pieces were made by Ernie Martinez and delivered to Harry Bobay, general foreman. This doesn't sound anything like how the 1913 V nickels were made.
<< <i>Michael P. Lantz: "I personally didn't make any of the Denver aluminum cents, I was on the graveyard shift when they were stamped. A friend of mine, Ernie Martinez, die setter and later general foreman, stamped the aluminum cents on one of the Denver Mint's standard presses. When I talked to him last Sunday he told me that he stamped around 10 of them. One thing he recalled about them was that they 'finned' badly. After stamping the blanks he returned the finished aluminum cents to Harry Bobay, general foreman, who took them to the coining division office where they were shipped back to Mint headquarters in Washington, D.C. From there, who knows what happened to them." >>
>>
If that is actually the case, then why were there no records of the coins being minted in Denver? >>
Possibly something like this from PCGS or other reason:
<< <i>In 1978 Mint Director Stella Hackel ordered the destruction of large quantities of twentieth century Mint records, apparently for the sole purpose of erasing the historical record. >>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Conder101 wrote the following regarding the 1974-P aluminum cent ATS back in Feb:
<< <i>As far as I know the Treasury has never said they are legal to own. They said that those who kept them did not have criminal intent. They have always maintained that the 74-P cents are still government property and are subject to seizure. The fact that they have never tried to seize the Toven specimen so far does not mean that they wouldn't if it ever come up for open auction, and someone brought it to their attention. >>
Given the experience with the Toven specimen, does it follow the 1974-D cent could have stayed in private hands if it wasn't put up for auction and the act of selling it spurred the Treasury into action?
Perhaps these coins could be the ultimate "collectors" coins if they could be cherished and passed on, but never openly sold. >>
If you rub the Treasury's nose in something, they will react in an adverse manner. This is often the case with other elements of society. >>
I get the feeling that this could have lived in private hands for some time if it wasn't put up for auction, e.g. private collection or museum. Not sure if that genie can be put back in the bottle or even if there would be a desire to as the current owner seems intent to auction it off. >>
The interstate commerce clause of the Constitution comes to mind here. Maybe the fed's jurisdiction is limited unless/until a transaction which spans state lines takes place. >>
That's an interesting observation that I could buy into. >>
But, did not the Toven coin cross state lines as well?
The name is LEE!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Conder101 wrote the following regarding the 1974-P aluminum cent ATS back in Feb:
<< <i>As far as I know the Treasury has never said they are legal to own. They said that those who kept them did not have criminal intent. They have always maintained that the 74-P cents are still government property and are subject to seizure. The fact that they have never tried to seize the Toven specimen so far does not mean that they wouldn't if it ever come up for open auction, and someone brought it to their attention. >>
Given the experience with the Toven specimen, does it follow the 1974-D cent could have stayed in private hands if it wasn't put up for auction and the act of selling it spurred the Treasury into action?
Perhaps these coins could be the ultimate "collectors" coins if they could be cherished and passed on, but never openly sold. >>
If you rub the Treasury's nose in something, they will react in an adverse manner. This is often the case with other elements of society. >>
I get the feeling that this could have lived in private hands for some time if it wasn't put up for auction, e.g. private collection or museum. Not sure if that genie can be put back in the bottle or even if there would be a desire to as the current owner seems intent to auction it off. >>
The interstate commerce clause of the Constitution comes to mind here. Maybe the fed's jurisdiction is limited unless/until a transaction which spans state lines takes place. >>
That's an interesting observation that I could buy into. >>
But, did not the Toven coin cross state lines as well? >>
Was it for commerce like an auction?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I wouldn't say the 1913 Liberty Nickel and 1974-D Lincoln Cents are the same at all. The 1974-D aluminum cents were sent through the official Mint chain of command to Mint headquarters according to Michael P. Lantz, a former employee at the Denver Mint (eventually Denver Mint Foreman), said approximately ten cent pieces were made by Ernie Martinez and delivered to Harry Bobay, general foreman. This doesn't sound anything like how the 1913 V nickels were made.
<< <i>Michael P. Lantz: "I personally didn't make any of the Denver aluminum cents, I was on the graveyard shift when they were stamped. A friend of mine, Ernie Martinez, die setter and later general foreman, stamped the aluminum cents on one of the Denver Mint's standard presses. When I talked to him last Sunday he told me that he stamped around 10 of them. One thing he recalled about them was that they 'finned' badly. After stamping the blanks he returned the finished aluminum cents to Harry Bobay, general foreman, who took them to the coining division office where they were shipped back to Mint headquarters in Washington, D.C. From there, who knows what happened to them." >>
>>
If that is actually the case, then why were there no records of the coins being minted in Denver? >>
Possibly something like this from PCGS or other reason:
<< <i>In 1978 Mint Director Stella Hackel ordered the destruction of large quantities of twentieth century Mint records, apparently for the sole purpose of erasing the historical record. >>
>>
Damn you Stella!
To me, the answer is simple.
Coins are produced as legal tender yet, the coins we collect are not nor ever will be used as legal tender whether they were legally obtained or not.
As such, I see no reason, since litigation could be excessive to retain ownership of said coins, why a blanket order could not be issued stating that these items which have found their way into the public domain, can be openly traded and sold without fear of prosecution.
Since the Sacagawea Mule fiasco, the US Mint has implemented HARD guidelines and policies to prevent its employees from removing coins from their facilities. It only syands to reason that future pilferage has been stopped so why not an order as of the 1st of January?
The name is LEE!
<< <i>
<< <i>Discretion, people!!! >>
Why?
The outcome affects everybody within the hobby and its not as if this isn't being discussed elsewhere. I'm sure that it will be in upcoming issues of Coin World.
Besides, what exactly is being revealed that has not already been revealed or discussed? >>
I'm more worried about the 1913 nickels.
<< <i>
<< <i>Discretion, people!!! >>
Why?
The outcome affects everybody within the hobby and its not as if this isn't being discussed elsewhere. I'm sure that it will be in upcoming issues of Coin World.
Besides, what exactly is being revealed that has not already been revealed or discussed? >>
I think the discussion is useful so far because many collectors have been trying to figure out why certain coins are treated one way and others another.
The 1976 government statement of "no evidence of criminal intent" regarding the 1974 Philadelphia cents is almost 40 years old so it's good to get more clarification around what that means for the hobby.
For example, if it does come down to interstate commerce, then perhaps 1964-D Peace dollars could come out in the open, be certified, recognized, held in collections and museums, as long as they weren't used in interstate commerce. I think having some of these coins known and out in the open would be huge for the hobby.
"The U.S. Mint sent Lawrence a letter in February, "demanding the return of their aluminum cent. The letter stated that the government takes the position that, because Congress never issued an aluminum cent as legal tender, any aluminum cent remains property of the federal government, regardless of how long it has been in private hands," according to the complaint."
Does this mean that a coin struck on a planchet not intended for that denomination is illegal to own? For example, there are tons of Lincoln cents on ebay right now that were struck on a dime planchet. This is the incorrect composition for the Lincoln cent so by the governments argument it would be illegal to own.
My argument would be that 1974 D Lincoln cents were issued as legal tender and the type of metal makes no difference. Coins are released to circulation all the time with the wrong metal. Why is this coin any different?
Many members on this forum that now it cannot fit in my signature. Please ask for entire list.
<< <i>Here is the argument of the government per the article linked in another thread:
"The U.S. Mint sent Lawrence a letter in February, "demanding the return of their aluminum cent. The letter stated that the government takes the position that, because Congress never issued an aluminum cent as legal tender, any aluminum cent remains property of the federal government, regardless of how long it has been in private hands," according to the complaint."
Does this mean that a coin struck on a planchet not intended for that denomination is illegal to own? For example, there are tons of Lincoln cents on ebay right now that were struck on a dime planchet. This is the incorrect composition for the Lincoln cent so by the governments argument it would be illegal to own.
My argument would be that 1974 D Lincoln cents were issued as legal tender and the type of metal makes no difference. Coins are released to circulation all the time with the wrong metal. Why is this coin any different? >>
I think the difference is "means of acquisition".
Those that left the mint by mistake, well, that's tough luck for the mint. The first recipient was either lucky, or diligent in their search of mint bags, with no illegal activity suggested or assumed.
Those that were removed from the mint by some other means, (carried out by employees, for example), are tainted from day one. Controls intended to prevent their release were circumvented, so the Mint, (or Justice Department), feels there is legal standing to do something about it.
Of course, it all comes down to a matter of proof....which is why the courts are involved.
<< <i>Ultimately, the proposal was rejected in Congress, due mainly to the efforts of the copper-mining and vending machine industries >>
<< <i>
<< <i>Here is the argument of the government per the article linked in another thread:
"The U.S. Mint sent Lawrence a letter in February, "demanding the return of their aluminum cent. The letter stated that the government takes the position that, because Congress never issued an aluminum cent as legal tender, any aluminum cent remains property of the federal government, regardless of how long it has been in private hands," according to the complaint."
Does this mean that a coin struck on a planchet not intended for that denomination is illegal to own? For example, there are tons of Lincoln cents on ebay right now that were struck on a dime planchet. This is the incorrect composition for the Lincoln cent so by the governments argument it would be illegal to own.
My argument would be that 1974 D Lincoln cents were issued as legal tender and the type of metal makes no difference. Coins are released to circulation all the time with the wrong metal. Why is this coin any different? >>
I think the difference is "means of acquisition".
Those that left the mint by mistake, well, that's tough luck for the mint. The first recipient was either lucky, or diligent in their search of mint bags, with no illegal activity suggested or assumed.
Those that were removed from the mint by some other means, (carried out by employees, for example), are tainted from day one. Controls intended to prevent their release were circumvented, so the Mint, (or Justice Department), feels there is legal standing to do something about it.
Of course, it all comes down to a matter of proof....which is why the courts are involved. >>
Good points! I guess my next question would be can the mint really prove that the aluminum cent was not in a mint bag since they have no record of it ever being minted? I would argue that the government would have to be able to prove that this cent was taken illegally. I think they will have a hard time proving this beyond a shadow of a doubt especially considering that other 1974 cents were allowed to remain in private hands and the case was closed.
<< <i>
<< <i>Here is the argument of the government per the article linked in another thread:
"The U.S. Mint sent Lawrence a letter in February, "demanding the return of their aluminum cent. The letter stated that the government takes the position that, because Congress never issued an aluminum cent as legal tender, any aluminum cent remains property of the federal government, regardless of how long it has been in private hands," according to the complaint."
Does this mean that a coin struck on a planchet not intended for that denomination is illegal to own? For example, there are tons of Lincoln cents on ebay right now that were struck on a dime planchet. This is the incorrect composition for the Lincoln cent so by the governments argument it would be illegal to own.
My argument would be that 1974 D Lincoln cents were issued as legal tender and the type of metal makes no difference. Coins are released to circulation all the time with the wrong metal. Why is this coin any different? >>
I think the difference is "means of acquisition".
Those that left the mint by mistake, well, that's tough luck for the mint. The first recipient was either lucky, or diligent in their search of mint bags, with no illegal activity suggested or assumed.
Those that were removed from the mint by some other means, (carried out by employees, for example), are tainted from day one. Controls intended to prevent their release were circumvented, so the Mint, (or Justice Department), feels there is legal standing to do something about it.
Of course, it all comes down to a matter of proof....which is why the courts are involved. >>
Would there have been more of an argument to keep the coin if it was found in a mint bag vs. say in the collection of the former Deputy Superintendent of the Denver Mint?
<< <i>
<< <i>Here is the argument of the government per the article linked in another thread:
"The U.S. Mint sent Lawrence a letter in February, "demanding the return of their aluminum cent. The letter stated that the government takes the position that, because Congress never issued an aluminum cent as legal tender, any aluminum cent remains property of the federal government, regardless of how long it has been in private hands," according to the complaint."
Does this mean that a coin struck on a planchet not intended for that denomination is illegal to own? For example, there are tons of Lincoln cents on ebay right now that were struck on a dime planchet. This is the incorrect composition for the Lincoln cent so by the governments argument it would be illegal to own.
My argument would be that 1974 D Lincoln cents were issued as legal tender and the type of metal makes no difference. Coins are released to circulation all the time with the wrong metal. Why is this coin any different? >>
I think the difference is "means of acquisition".
Those that left the mint by mistake, well, that's tough luck for the mint. The first recipient was either lucky, or diligent in their search of mint bags, with no illegal activity suggested or assumed.
Those that were removed from the mint by some other means, (carried out by employees, for example), are tainted from day one. Controls intended to prevent their release were circumvented, so the Mint, (or Justice Department), feels there is legal standing to do something about it.
Of course, it all comes down to a matter of proof....which is why the courts are involved. >>
The owner said that his father left a bag of coins that his father had "accumulated" from the Denver Mint which included "error coins".
Whether they were "given" to H.E.Lawrence or whether H.E.Lawrence was simply saving them from destruction (uhhh error coins destined for destruction) is unknown.
This whole thing just stinks.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>Would this coin be legal if it was found in say a sold surplus coin press? >>
Sure. Why not?
The name is LEE!
<< <i>
<< <i>Would this coin be legal if it was found in say a sold surplus coin press? >>
Sure. Why not? >>
Just wondering if this was discovered in another way, it would have been more acceptable to own from the Treasury's perspective.