<< <i>If a claim is made by the government that the coins are the one's stolen by the mint employee, it will be necessary to as best as humanly possible reconstruct what happened with/to the coins since they were stolen from the mint.
The metal cans that the coins were found in last year will be subjected to CSI like scrutiny to determine how old they are. If the metal cans date to back the time of the theft from the mint, that would make the required proof a little easier [i.e. the age of the cans demonstrate that the coins were stolen from the mint. placed into metal cans and buried around the time of the theft; and were left where they were buried until last year when the property owners found the cans while walking their dog]. If the metal cans date from the 1920's, 1930's or later, then tracing the history of the coins since they were stolen becomes more difficult [they passed through multiple hands before they were buried].
If instead of almost 1,500 coins only 200 were found, would the idea of linking them to the Walter Dimmick theft be less intriguing?
If instead of MS coins being found, only circulated coins were found, would that make the idea of linking them to the Walter Dimmick theft be less intriguing?
If the government PROVES that these coins are the ones Walter Dimmick stole from the mint, then it would be likely that the government may be required to do something similar to what the trial court in the Langbord case ruled the government must do [file a CAFRA forfeiture action against the coins]. If so, then the government attorneys handling any legal case against the almost 1500 coins found last year would likely get a complete copy of the Langbord lawsuit papers and use that as a starting point.
The outcome of the pending Langbord appeal in the 3rd Circuit DCA may have immediate impact on any new case involving these newly found coins.
Interesting, very interesting. >>
Fixed one item. Looks like Hazen took a day off to bury them. One thing isn't clear and that is how long after the coins were actually taken/missing was it discovered that they were missing. At any rate, it sounds like John and Mary could have smoe serious burrs under their Saddle Ridge. Can the Guvmint get some kind of injunction to halt the sale of the coins?
Occam's razor, guys. Don't make a simple story complex.
Dimmick was NOT a numismatist. This was not a date set. Since this case has been buried for 114 years we know nothing yet of the mint ledgers. they keep meticulous records. I have seen accounting from the Philadelphia mint of every $20 1932 that was purchased at the cashier's window. Mint bags are numbered. For all we know they could find records of the contents of the six missing bags. Thieves don't collect. If he did he would have taken more 1866-S'!
I'm not one to jump to conclusions but it's beyond conjecture to me that the puzzle pieces of both sides of this mystery fit together perfectly. Kiss them goodbye.
<< <i>Occam's razor, guys. Don't make a simple story complex.
Dimmick was NOT a numismatist. This was not a date set. Since this case has been buried for 114 years we know nothing yet of the mint ledgers. they keep meticulous records. I have seen accounting from the Philadelphia mint of every $20 1932 that was purchased at the cashier's window. Mint bags are numbered. For all we know they could find records of the contents of the six missing bags. Thieves don't collect. If he did he would have taken more 1866-S'!
I'm not one to jump to conclusions but it's beyond conjecture to me that the puzzle pieces of both sides of this mystery fit together perfectly. Kiss them goodbye. >>
I agree. I hope PCGS has collected payment already. I a sure this took some time to grade and photograph. I hope that if David Hall and Van Simmons rumors of buying coins was true after selling their CLCT stock, that they did not buy these coins.
<< <i>Occam's razor, guys. Don't make a simple story complex.
Dimmick was NOT a numismatist. This was not a date set. Since this case has been buried for 114 years we know nothing yet of the mint ledgers. they keep meticulous records. I have seen accounting from the Philadelphia mint of every $20 1932 that was purchased at the cashier's window. Mint bags are numbered. For all we know they could find records of the contents of the six missing bags. Thieves don't collect. If he did he would have taken more 1866-S'!
I'm not one to jump to conclusions but it's beyond conjecture to me that the puzzle pieces of both sides of this mystery fit together perfectly. Kiss them goodbye. >>
+1
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
My attorneys are preparing a class action suit, titled The Woodie Guthrie Plea.
As part of this class, all claimants are entitled to $1.44, payable in current FRN, except as head claimant I am to receive $20........in gold ..... my pick!!!
Evidence, to wit:
This land is your land, this land is my land From California to the New York Island From the Redwood Forest to the Gulf Stream waters This land was made for you and me.......
There was a big high wall there that tried to stop me; Sign was painted, it said private property; But on the back side it didn't say nothing; This land was made for you and me
These people appear to have been well advised so far. Keep in mind that they are not selling the coins until May, 2014. They have a large tax bill that will be due in April, 2014. Every United States Attorney's office in the country has at least one guy who specializes in tax cases. If I represented these folks, I would have certainly contacted that person early on and worked out a deal that covered the taxes and the possible US ownership interest early in the game. Keep in mind that I would have a hole card- the clients identity- and the government would know two things- they would know that if they wouldn't make a deal the coins would be trickled out sub rosa or melted and their ownership claim would be very hard to prove. My best guess is that there is already a deal in place whereby the government waits to get its taxes when the coins are sold plus a modest % for its potential theft claim. I doubt Amazon would have touched this deal without this sort of agreement being in place. That also explains the delay- it doesn't take a year to dip and grade even this quantity of coins.
I may be all wet, but if all this comes through without a hitch, something very much like that happened.
Collector since adolescent days in the early 1960's. Mostly inactive now, but I enjoy coin periodicals and books and coin shows as health permits.
<< <i>These people appear to have been well advised so far. Keep in mind that they are not selling the coins until May, 2014. They have a large tax bill that will be due in April, 2014. Every United States Attorney's office in the country has at least one guy who specializes in tax cases. If I represented these folks, I would have certainly contacted that person early on and worked out a deal that covered the taxes and the possible US ownership interest early in the game. Keep in mind that I would have a hole card- the clients identity- and the government would know two things- they would know that if they wouldn't make a deal the coins would be trickled out sub rosa or melted and their ownership claim would be very hard to prove. My best guess is that there is already a deal in place whereby the government waits to get its taxes when the coins are sold plus a modest % for its potential theft claim. I doubt Amazon would have touched this deal without this sort of agreement being in place. That also explains the delay- it doesn't take a year to dip and grade even this quantity of coins.
I may be all wet, but if all this comes through without a hitch, something very much like that happened. >>
While I am not an accountant...I wouldn't think they owed any taxes until they sell some of the coins!
<< <i>These people appear to have been well advised so far. Keep in mind that they are not selling the coins until May, 2014. They have a large tax bill that will be due in April, 2014. Every United States Attorney's office in the country has at least one guy who specializes in tax cases. If I represented these folks, I would have certainly contacted that person early on and worked out a deal that covered the taxes and the possible US ownership interest early in the game. Keep in mind that I would have a hole card- the clients identity- and the government would know two things- they would know that if they wouldn't make a deal the coins would be trickled out sub rosa or melted and their ownership claim would be very hard to prove. My best guess is that there is already a deal in place whereby the government waits to get its taxes when the coins are sold plus a modest % for its potential theft claim. I doubt Amazon would have touched this deal without this sort of agreement being in place. That also explains the delay- it doesn't take a year to dip and grade even this quantity of coins.
I may be all wet, but if all this comes through without a hitch, something very much like that happened. >>
While I am not an accountant...I wouldn't think they owed any taxes until they sell some of the coins! >>
Indeed. IMHO, the only tax liability for 2013 would be on the face value received.
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.
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.
Sorry, the leading case on point is taught to every Income Tax I student in law school, Cesarini v US, and it says taxable income in the year of possession. Of course, if there is a potential government interest, that would be a factor that could affect the timing, but that just means there is one more thing on the table to negotiate. Keep in mind that not all the smart people in the world are confined to this forum- its not all that hard to figure out potential pitfalls that have been identified by contributors here and there is little in life that can't be negotiated upfront
Edited to add- Amazon has lots of lawyers, and at least in the past I know Kagin had some good ones.
Collector since adolescent days in the early 1960's. Mostly inactive now, but I enjoy coin periodicals and books and coin shows as health permits.
We aren't talking "legal" here. Their lawyers are fleas to the Feds. This is the Department of the Treasury. Their rules are "nice try" and facing off with them is like arguing a speeding ticket on the Kennedy Expressway at 1:00 AM with a Chicago cop who had a crappy day.
I hope I'm wrong but I predict a "forfeiture decree" and the coins will either be in contempt or in Treasury hands for a nice 10 year losing battle. These are FEDS. Beaurocratic, Greedy FEDS.
Mr. Citizen, "You have been heard. Now stand aside and STFU". The end.
I think it is far more likely that this hoard was actually buried in the 1930's to avoid having to turn them in to the government. Look at the photo of the cans. Do they look like they were buried 120 years ago?
My guess is that it was a coin collection of sorts, though not one as most on this board would have collected it. It may have been assembled in the late 19th century and then passed down within a family.
I doubt it has anything to do with the robbery at the San Francisco Mint. The mix of coins just doesn't fit that robbery.
<< <i>I think it is far more likely that this hoard was actually buried in the 1930's to avoid having to turn them in to the government. Look at the photo of the cans. Do they look like they were buried 120 years ago?
My guess is that it was a coin collection of sorts, though not one as most on this board would have collected it. It may have been assembled in the late 19th century and then passed down within a family.
I doubt it has anything to do with the robbery at the San Francisco Mint. The mix of coins just doesn't fit that robbery. >>
I agree with you! Definately looks like the group was put together with the scrutiny of a collector!
<< <i>I think it is far more likely that this hoard was actually buried in the 1930's to avoid having to turn them in to the government. Look at the photo of the cans. Do they look like they were buried 120 years ago?
My guess is that it was a coin collection of sorts, though not one as most on this board would have collected it. It may have been assembled in the late 19th century and then passed down within a family.
I doubt it has anything to do with the robbery at the San Francisco Mint. The mix of coins just doesn't fit that robbery. >>
Which is why the government has a much harder case to prove than the 1933 Saints. Which is why their claim is very capable of being settled. These folks are likely sleeping very well at night knowing they are probably going to end up with a very significant % of whatever the coins bring, taxes paid and no outstanding claims. Which is another reason you might want the Feds to assert- and be compensated for - a claim. If a private claimant showed up, you'd have them in there with you fighting it off
Collector since adolescent days in the early 1960's. Mostly inactive now, but I enjoy coin periodicals and books and coin shows as health permits.
Any California lawyers know whether there would be an applicable statute of limitation that would moot any loss to the finders even if these are stolen goods? Likewise what the current law is in California regarding ownership by finders of treasure?
I heard something on the radio today about Gold miners trading dust for Coins at the USMint. I was thinking that this was how an accumulation like this could happen. An active miner operating over decades could convert their raw Gold into Coin and stash excess Coin in the ground. If as someone else mentioned, there might have been a building over the burial site at one time , then the location would have been very secure. Bury your stash under some loose floorboards and no one would know or see.
If after several decades, the person met an untimely end, that would explain why the coins remained burried.
<< <i>Any California lawyers know whether there would be an applicable statute of limitation that would moot any loss to the finders even if these are stolen goods? Likewise what the current law is in California regarding ownership by finders of treasure? >>
All good questions, though I don't think a state statute would defeat a claim by the US if they asserted one.
Collector since adolescent days in the early 1960's. Mostly inactive now, but I enjoy coin periodicals and books and coin shows as health permits.
Things like this...hiding a hoard in the dirt...happen because so many believe we'll be around later to sort it out. On a much smaller scale and in a different way a lot of us are guilty of the same thing. Lance.
<<All good questions, though I don't think a state statute would defeat a claim by the US if they asserted one.
>>
The Feds would have to be very creative to assert jurisdiction on private land in California. Not that they would not try. But it would be fun to watch two starving dogs fight it out.......
The CNN article says "The coins, in $5, $10 and $20 denominations, date from 1847 to 1894. Most were minted in San Francisco." There are obviously NON-San Francisco coins in the hoard, since the SF mint didn't even open until 1854. Why would the SF mint have non-SF coins? Unless the government can show evidence of what particular coins were stolen by Dimmick, to me it's probably "game over." Add to that the fact that Dimmick's theft happened several (7?) years after the more recent of these particular coins is dated. Just because someone found a hoard of money that "sort of close" in face value to an amount someone stole doesn't mean it the hoard is stolen. It could well be someone else's hoard assembled over the years.
"Men who had never shown any ability to make or increase fortunes for themselves abounded in brilliant plans for creating and increasing wealth for the country at large." Fiat Money Inflation in France, Andrew Dickson White (1912)
Kind of a technicality, but I wonder if they pay taxes on finding the coins ($27,000 face), the fair market value of the coins, or the FMV of the gold content.
When sold, they'll pay taxes on earnings possibly on the coins?
Seems interesting for tax purposes.
-D
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
-Aristotle
Dum loquimur fugerit invida aetas. Carpe diem quam minimum credula postero.
Edited to add- Amazon has lots of lawyers, and at least in the past I know Kagin had some good ones. >>
Supposedly so do the Langbords, but the difference is that the Government doesn't have John and Mary's coins: YET!! >>
Totally different deal, IMO. You can come up with a plausible alternate source other than a thief. No question where the 1933's originated I'm not sure how the Langbords could have come out any better than they did, if the appeal is denied, except melt the coins. Do you think Amazon's and Kagin's lawyers never heard of the Longbord case?
Collector since adolescent days in the early 1960's. Mostly inactive now, but I enjoy coin periodicals and books and coin shows as health permits.
<<When sold, they'll pay taxes on earnings possibly on the coins?
Seems interesting for tax purposes. >>
So what if they never sold the coins. They were part of the property when they purchased it, even if they did not know of their existence. Just the discovery does not create a taxable event in this circumstance. The coins are not "income", they are only an asset.
<< <i>Kind of a technicality, but I wonder if they pay taxes on finding the coins ($27,000 face), the fair market value of the coins, or the FMV of the gold content.
When sold, they'll pay taxes on earnings possibly on the coins?
Seems interesting for tax purposes.
-D >>
Fair market value, which is defined as the amount a willing buyer would pay a willing seller, each being in possession of all material facts and neither being under a compulsion to buy or sell.
Collector since adolescent days in the early 1960's. Mostly inactive now, but I enjoy coin periodicals and books and coin shows as health permits.
Here's what we know, and don't know, that could sway this:
--The fact that NON-SF coins were found in the hoard seems to undermine the argument that these are coins Dimmick stole from the SF mint. I would assume the SF mint would most likely only be holding SF mint coins before shipping them out to banks, etc. (Someone else who knows more in this area, please feel free to correct me). --Same for the date range, which starts 50+ years before Dimmick gets on the scene in S.F. Again, did the SF hold 50+ year old non-SF mint coins? Why? Seems odd. --There don't seem to be any coins close to the time Dimmick committed the theft (1901?) - the most recent coin is 1894. Again, what kinds of coins would the SF mint have in 1901? Presumably coins minted that year.
But we don't know: --Are there any identifying marks on the containers these coins were found in, that could identify when specifically the containers were made? For example if the containers were dated 1930s, that to me suggests no involvement by Dimmick. --Did Dimmick perhaps drop his business card in the bottom of the container?
"Men who had never shown any ability to make or increase fortunes for themselves abounded in brilliant plans for creating and increasing wealth for the country at large." Fiat Money Inflation in France, Andrew Dickson White (1912)
If the identities ( and location ) of these people ever got out, I believe a modern day Gold Rush would happen again. This is something I'm sure they are aware of and dont want.
On the other hand, some posers could pop up and charge admission to those that might want to poke around on their fake Treasure Ranch. Might be some money in a fraud like that.
<< <i>Would'nt the coin dealers involved in this been fully aware of a possible Dimmick connection thereby advising the couple accordingly? >>
Not so sure that the possible Dimmick connection was even considered by anyone until after the publicity regarding the Hoard came out. Below is a reporting from yesterday suggesting that the Dimmick theft was an obscure story that took some digging within the last day or so to piece together. Of significance, when these investigative reporters contacted
the U.S. Mint itself they were assured there was no connection to any theft of which they were aware. Had those acting on behalf of the Hoard finders made a similar inquiry they would have likely been told the same thing.
Quoting from the Mashable.com posting:
"Considering that these coins had probably been buried for more than a century, we dug through microfiche files from old California newspapers, ones that were in print in the 19th century, like the San Jose Mercury News. Luckily, Google has been digitizing a tremendous amount of dead-tree media, including out-of-print books, magazines and newspapers.
A search on Books.google.com for “stole,” “1000,” “gold,” “coins,” “from” “San Francisco.” brings up a curious note from an the Bulletin of The American Iron and Steel Association, an industry newsletter published every two weeks by an organization now known as the American Iron and Steel Institute.
Tucked into the Aug. 10, 1901 issue, between political and financial notes and the latest obituaries was this little tidbit:
“The sum of $30,000 in gold coin has recently been stolen from the vault of the cashier of the San Francisco Mint. No trace has been found of the missing gold.”"
And here was the response to Mashable's investigative reporters when they contacted the U.S. Mint themselves even after the Hoard story first broke:
"When we contacted the U.S. Mint to see if they have any records of such a theft, Adam Stump deputy director, Office of Corporate Communications quickly deflated our balloon, “We have no information linking those coins to any thefts at any United States Mint facility. Surviving agency records from the San Francisco Mint have been retired to the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA), under Record Group 104. Access to the records is under NARA’s jurisdiction: http://www.archives.gov/”"
<< <i>I think it is far more likely that this hoard was actually buried in the 1930's to avoid having to turn them in to the government. Look at the photo of the cans. Do they look like they were buried 120 years ago?
My guess is that it was a coin collection of sorts, though not one as most on this board would have collected it. It may have been assembled in the late 19th century and then passed down within a family.
I doubt it has anything to do with the robbery at the San Francisco Mint. The mix of coins just doesn't fit that robbery. >>
I'm inclined to think this is the more likely situation too.
<< <i>I think it is far more likely that this hoard was actually buried in the 1930's to avoid having to turn them in to the government. Look at the photo of the cans. Do they look like they were buried 120 years ago?
My guess is that it was a coin collection of sorts, though not one as most on this board would have collected it. It may have been assembled in the late 19th century and then passed down within a family.
I doubt it has anything to do with the robbery at the San Francisco Mint. The mix of coins just doesn't fit that robbery. >>
I'm inclined to think this is the more likely situation. Hard to believe the Government wouldn't already have their hands in the pie if there was a chance it was the Dimmick heist. >>
Could they prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this is the Dimmick gold? I would say 99% sure it is, but 1% is a reasonable doubt. They will still take 39% in taxes and CA gets their tax take too.
<< <i>I think it is far more likely that this hoard was actually buried in the 1930's to avoid having to turn them in to the government. Look at the photo of the cans. Do they look like they were buried 120 years ago?
My guess is that it was a coin collection of sorts, though not one as most on this board would have collected it. It may have been assembled in the late 19th century and then passed down within a family.
I doubt it has anything to do with the robbery at the San Francisco Mint. The mix of coins just doesn't fit that robbery. >>
I'm inclined to think this is the more likely situation. Hard to believe the Government wouldn't already have their hands in the pie if there was a chance it was the Dimmick heist. >>
Could they prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this is the Dimmick gold? I would say 99% sure it is, but 1% is a reasonable doubt. They will still take 39% in taxes and CA gets their tax take too. >>
I'm pretty sure the standard of proof in this situation would not be "beyond a reasonable doubt." It's probably "by the preponderance of the evidence." And, 1% doubt, in a legal sense, is not "reasonable doubt." (Although defense attorneys will try to make the real definition seem that way)
Typical Jury Instruction - "The State must prove all of the essential elements of the crime charged by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, if you have a reasonable doubt that the Defendant committed the crime, then you must find the Defendant not guilty. The State is not required to prove guilt beyond all doubt, but beyond a reasonable doubt. You should find the Defendant guilty only if you have a firm and abiding conviction of the Defendant's guilt based on a full and fair consideration of the evidence presented in the case and not from any other source."
I wouldn't have said anything to anyone. I would have fled the country and maybe,maybe slab a few of the precious coins before leaving. This would take a lot of research to find the proper country as well as a safe mode of transportation to get there so the authorities and or customs of that country wouldn't try to fill their pockets too. Then tell the state and federal crimminals to kiss my _ _ _
I found it interesting that the coins were sorted by date. 1840-50s in the first can, and so on. Sure Dimmick could have sorted the bags afterwards but it leads me to believe someone assembled these over time.
Maybe a gold minder who traded in his gold findings at the bank (hence the UNC coins) and ferreted them away, slowly amassing a huge collection. I could see someone living out in the hills with not much to spend money on able to do something like this. What I'm not so sure about is how much access one would have to a bank passing out such clean UNC coins.
in the June issue of Numismatist about Walter Dimmick and the San Francisco Mint. It seems old Walt went to work for the Mint in 1898 and soon became entrusted with the keys to everything. Then, in 1901 an audit revealed a $30,000 shortage in $20 Double Eagles, 6 bags in all. Dimmick was tried and convicted and served 9 years at San Quentin, but the gold was never recovered.
In 1903, a farmer in Santa Rosa reportedly unearthed a bag of gold coins beside a creek on his land, but no follow-up to this story has been found.
- Taken from a Collector's Society posting from May 25th, 2006.
The Philadelphia Mint: making coins since 1792. We make money by making money. Now in our 225th year thanks to no competition.
Comments
<< <i>If a claim is made by the government that the coins are the one's stolen by the mint employee, it will be necessary to as best as humanly possible reconstruct what happened with/to the coins since they were stolen from the mint.
The metal cans that the coins were found in last year will be subjected to CSI like scrutiny to determine how old they are. If the metal cans date to back the time of the theft from the mint, that would make the required proof a little easier [i.e. the age of the cans demonstrate that the coins were stolen from the mint. placed into metal cans and buried around the time of the theft; and were left where they were buried until last year when the property owners found the cans while walking their dog]. If the metal cans date from the 1920's, 1930's or later, then tracing the history of the coins since they were stolen becomes more difficult [they passed through multiple hands before they were buried].
If instead of almost 1,500 coins only 200 were found, would the idea of linking them to the Walter Dimmick theft be less intriguing?
If instead of MS coins being found, only circulated coins were found, would that make the idea of linking them to the Walter Dimmick theft be less intriguing?
If the government PROVES that these coins are the ones Walter Dimmick stole from the mint, then it would be likely that the government may be required to do something similar to what the trial court in the Langbord case ruled the government must do [file a CAFRA forfeiture action against the coins]. If so, then the government attorneys handling any legal case against the almost 1500 coins found last year would likely get a complete copy of the Langbord lawsuit papers and use that as a starting point.
The outcome of the pending Langbord appeal in the 3rd Circuit DCA may have immediate impact on any new case involving these newly found coins.
Interesting, very interesting. >>
Fixed one item. Looks like Hazen took a day off to bury them. One thing isn't clear and that is how long after the coins were actually taken/missing was it discovered that they were missing. At any rate, it sounds like John and Mary could have smoe serious burrs under their Saddle Ridge. Can the Guvmint get some kind of injunction to halt the sale of the coins?
<< <i>This hoard sounds more like a coin collection than a typical hoard.
The diversity of dates and the grades of most pieces. It's almost what I'd expect to see in a collection put together by a numismatist. >>
Which is why I asked if the bag could have been intentionally put together by Dimmick. Seems too diverse to be a happenstance assembly.
Dimmick was NOT a numismatist. This was not a date set. Since this case has been buried for 114 years we know nothing yet of the mint ledgers. they keep meticulous records. I have seen accounting from the Philadelphia mint of every $20 1932 that was purchased at the cashier's window. Mint bags are numbered. For all we know they could find records of the contents of the six missing bags. Thieves don't collect. If he did he would have taken more 1866-S'!
I'm not one to jump to conclusions but it's beyond conjecture to me that the puzzle pieces of both sides of this mystery fit together perfectly. Kiss them goodbye.
Publicity before this is over will far exceed the value of any 2 or 3 Super Bowl ads.
<< <i>Occam's razor, guys. Don't make a simple story complex.
Dimmick was NOT a numismatist. This was not a date set. Since this case has been buried for 114 years we know nothing yet of the mint ledgers. they keep meticulous records. I have seen accounting from the Philadelphia mint of every $20 1932 that was purchased at the cashier's window. Mint bags are numbered. For all we know they could find records of the contents of the six missing bags. Thieves don't collect. If he did he would have taken more 1866-S'!
I'm not one to jump to conclusions but it's beyond conjecture to me that the puzzle pieces of both sides of this mystery fit together perfectly. Kiss them goodbye.
I agree. I hope PCGS has collected payment already. I a sure this took some time to grade and photograph. I hope that if David Hall and Van Simmons rumors of buying coins was true after selling their CLCT stock, that they did not buy these coins.
<< <i>Occam's razor, guys. Don't make a simple story complex.
Dimmick was NOT a numismatist. This was not a date set. Since this case has been buried for 114 years we know nothing yet of the mint ledgers. they keep meticulous records. I have seen accounting from the Philadelphia mint of every $20 1932 that was purchased at the cashier's window. Mint bags are numbered. For all we know they could find records of the contents of the six missing bags. Thieves don't collect. If he did he would have taken more 1866-S'!
I'm not one to jump to conclusions but it's beyond conjecture to me that the puzzle pieces of both sides of this mystery fit together perfectly. Kiss them goodbye.
+1
As part of this class, all claimants are entitled to $1.44, payable in current FRN, except as head claimant I am to receive $20........in gold ..... my pick!!!
Evidence, to wit:
This land is your land, this land is my land
From California to the New York Island
From the Redwood Forest to the Gulf Stream waters
This land was made for you and me.......
There was a big high wall there that tried to stop me;
Sign was painted, it said private property;
But on the back side it didn't say nothing;
This land was made for you and me
Quite prima facie, eh?
I may be all wet, but if all this comes through without a hitch, something very much like that happened.
<< <i>These people appear to have been well advised so far. Keep in mind that they are not selling the coins until May, 2014. They have a large tax bill that will be due in April, 2014. Every United States Attorney's office in the country has at least one guy who specializes in tax cases. If I represented these folks, I would have certainly contacted that person early on and worked out a deal that covered the taxes and the possible US ownership interest early in the game. Keep in mind that I would have a hole card- the clients identity- and the government would know two things- they would know that if they wouldn't make a deal the coins would be trickled out sub rosa or melted and their ownership claim would be very hard to prove. My best guess is that there is already a deal in place whereby the government waits to get its taxes when the coins are sold plus a modest % for its potential theft claim. I doubt Amazon would have touched this deal without this sort of agreement being in place. That also explains the delay- it doesn't take a year to dip and grade even this quantity of coins.
I may be all wet, but if all this comes through without a hitch, something very much like that happened. >>
While I am not an accountant...I wouldn't think they owed any taxes until they sell some of the coins!
<< <i>
<< <i>These people appear to have been well advised so far. Keep in mind that they are not selling the coins until May, 2014. They have a large tax bill that will be due in April, 2014. Every United States Attorney's office in the country has at least one guy who specializes in tax cases. If I represented these folks, I would have certainly contacted that person early on and worked out a deal that covered the taxes and the possible US ownership interest early in the game. Keep in mind that I would have a hole card- the clients identity- and the government would know two things- they would know that if they wouldn't make a deal the coins would be trickled out sub rosa or melted and their ownership claim would be very hard to prove. My best guess is that there is already a deal in place whereby the government waits to get its taxes when the coins are sold plus a modest % for its potential theft claim. I doubt Amazon would have touched this deal without this sort of agreement being in place. That also explains the delay- it doesn't take a year to dip and grade even this quantity of coins.
I may be all wet, but if all this comes through without a hitch, something very much like that happened. >>
While I am not an accountant...I wouldn't think they owed any taxes until they sell some of the coins! >>
Indeed. IMHO, the only tax liability for 2013 would be on the face value received.
<< <i>Sounds like a Smiler Grogan job. >>
Didn't he kick the bucket?
Edited to add- Amazon has lots of lawyers, and at least in the past I know Kagin had some good ones.
This is turning into a very interesting story!
We aren't talking "legal" here. Their lawyers are fleas to the Feds. This is the Department of the Treasury. Their rules are "nice try" and facing off with them is like arguing a speeding ticket on the Kennedy Expressway at 1:00 AM with a Chicago cop who had a crappy day.
I hope I'm wrong but I predict a "forfeiture decree" and the coins will either be in contempt or in Treasury hands for a nice 10 year losing battle. These are FEDS. Beaurocratic, Greedy FEDS.
Mr. Citizen, "You have been heard. Now stand aside and STFU". The end.
My guess is that it was a coin collection of sorts, though not one as most on this board would have collected it. It may have been assembled in the late 19th century and then passed down within a family.
I doubt it has anything to do with the robbery at the San Francisco Mint. The mix of coins just doesn't fit that robbery.
Revisit this in 3 months, 6 months and a year and we'll see what happens.
Again...Kiss them goodbye.
<< <i>I think it is far more likely that this hoard was actually buried in the 1930's to avoid having to turn them in to the government. Look at the photo of the cans. Do they look like they were buried 120 years ago?
My guess is that it was a coin collection of sorts, though not one as most on this board would have collected it. It may have been assembled in the late 19th century and then passed down within a family.
I doubt it has anything to do with the robbery at the San Francisco Mint. The mix of coins just doesn't fit that robbery. >>
I agree with you! Definately looks like the group was put together with the scrutiny of a collector!
<< <i>I think it is far more likely that this hoard was actually buried in the 1930's to avoid having to turn them in to the government. Look at the photo of the cans. Do they look like they were buried 120 years ago?
My guess is that it was a coin collection of sorts, though not one as most on this board would have collected it. It may have been assembled in the late 19th century and then passed down within a family.
I doubt it has anything to do with the robbery at the San Francisco Mint. The mix of coins just doesn't fit that robbery. >>
Which is why the government has a much harder case to prove than the 1933 Saints. Which is why their claim is very capable of being settled. These folks are likely sleeping very well at night knowing they are probably going to end up with a very significant % of whatever the coins bring, taxes paid and no outstanding claims. Which is another reason you might want the Feds to assert- and be compensated for - a claim. If a private claimant showed up, you'd have them in there with you fighting it off
I heard something on the radio today about Gold miners trading dust for Coins at the USMint. I was thinking that this was how
an accumulation like this could happen. An active miner operating over decades could convert their raw Gold into Coin and stash
excess Coin in the ground. If as someone else mentioned, there might have been a building over the burial site at one time , then
the location would have been very secure. Bury your stash under some loose floorboards and no one would know or see.
If after several decades, the person met an untimely end, that would explain why the coins remained burried.
Happens all the time in buried treasure lore.
<< <i>Any California lawyers know whether there would be an applicable statute of limitation that would moot any loss to the finders even if these are stolen goods? Likewise what the current law is in California regarding ownership by finders of treasure? >>
All good questions, though I don't think a state statute would defeat a claim by the US if they asserted one.
Can you see someone digging for Gold all day long for their entire life and building up a monster stash of newly minted SF Gold?
One day they just up n die , leaving a big stash burried in their Gold Field burried bank account.
Lance.
<< <i>
Edited to add- Amazon has lots of lawyers, and at least in the past I know Kagin had some good ones. >>
Supposedly so do the Langbords, but the difference is that the Government doesn't have John and Mary's coins: YET!!
>>
The Feds would have to be very creative to assert jurisdiction on private land in California. Not that they would not try. But it would be fun to watch two starving dogs fight it out.......
OINK
When sold, they'll pay taxes on earnings possibly on the coins?
Seems interesting for tax purposes.
-D
-Aristotle
Dum loquimur fugerit invida aetas. Carpe diem quam minimum credula postero.
-Horace
Too bad for the Feds that the coins do not serial numbers, like paper currency does. The Gold is totally fungible whether as coin or as melt.
OINK
<< <i>
<< <i>
Edited to add- Amazon has lots of lawyers, and at least in the past I know Kagin had some good ones. >>
Supposedly so do the Langbords, but the difference is that the Government doesn't have John and Mary's coins: YET!! >>
Totally different deal, IMO. You can come up with a plausible alternate source other than a thief. No question where the 1933's originated I'm not sure how the Langbords could have come out any better than they did, if the appeal is denied, except melt the coins. Do you think Amazon's and Kagin's lawyers never heard of the Longbord case?
Seems interesting for tax purposes.
>>
So what if they never sold the coins. They were part of the property when they purchased it, even if they did not know of their existence. Just the discovery does not create a taxable event in this circumstance. The coins are not "income", they are only an asset.
OINK
<< <i>Kind of a technicality, but I wonder if they pay taxes on finding the coins ($27,000 face), the fair market value of the coins, or the FMV of the gold content.
When sold, they'll pay taxes on earnings possibly on the coins?
Seems interesting for tax purposes.
-D >>
Fair market value, which is defined as the amount a willing buyer would pay a willing seller, each being in possession of all material facts and neither being under a compulsion to buy or sell.
--The fact that NON-SF coins were found in the hoard seems to undermine the argument that these are coins Dimmick stole from the SF mint. I would assume the SF mint would most likely only be holding SF mint coins before shipping them out to banks, etc. (Someone else who knows more in this area, please feel free to correct me).
--Same for the date range, which starts 50+ years before Dimmick gets on the scene in S.F. Again, did the SF hold 50+ year old non-SF mint coins? Why? Seems odd.
--There don't seem to be any coins close to the time Dimmick committed the theft (1901?) - the most recent coin is 1894. Again, what kinds of coins would the SF mint have in 1901? Presumably coins minted that year.
But we don't know:
--Are there any identifying marks on the containers these coins were found in, that could identify when specifically the containers were made? For example if the containers were dated 1930s, that to me suggests no involvement by Dimmick.
--Did Dimmick perhaps drop his business card in the bottom of the container?
The Mysterious Egyptian Magic Coin
Coins in Movies
Coins on Television
sure they are aware of and dont want.
On the other hand, some posers could pop up and charge admission to those that might want to poke around on
their fake Treasure Ranch. Might be some money in a fraud like that.
<< <i>
<< <i>Sounds like a Smiler Grogan job. >>
Didn't he kick the bucket? >>
They were buried under a big W.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Sounds like a Smiler Grogan job. >>
Didn't he kick the bucket? >>
They were buried under a big W. >>
That's mad!
Eric
<< <i>Would'nt the coin dealers involved in this been fully aware of a possible Dimmick connection thereby advising the couple accordingly? >>
Not so sure that the possible Dimmick connection was even considered by anyone until after the publicity regarding the Hoard came out. Below is a reporting from yesterday suggesting that the Dimmick theft was an obscure story that took some digging within the last day or so to piece together. Of significance, when these investigative reporters contacted
the U.S. Mint itself they were assured there was no connection to any theft of which they were aware. Had those acting on behalf of the Hoard finders made a similar inquiry they would have likely been told the same thing.
Quoting from the Mashable.com posting:
"Considering that these coins had probably been buried for more than a century, we dug through microfiche files from old California newspapers, ones that were in print in the 19th century, like the San Jose Mercury News. Luckily, Google has been digitizing a tremendous amount of dead-tree media, including out-of-print books, magazines and newspapers.
A search on Books.google.com for “stole,” “1000,” “gold,” “coins,” “from” “San Francisco.” brings up a curious note from an the Bulletin of The American Iron and Steel Association, an industry newsletter published every two weeks by an organization now known as the American Iron and Steel Institute.
Tucked into the Aug. 10, 1901 issue, between political and financial notes and the latest obituaries was this little tidbit:
“The sum of $30,000 in gold coin has recently been stolen from the vault of the cashier of the San Francisco Mint. No trace has been found of the missing gold.”"
And here was the response to Mashable's investigative reporters when they contacted the U.S. Mint themselves even after the Hoard story first broke:
"When we contacted the U.S. Mint to see if they have any records of such a theft, Adam Stump deputy director, Office of Corporate Communications quickly deflated our balloon, “We have no information linking those coins to any thefts at any United States Mint facility. Surviving agency records from the San Francisco Mint have been retired to the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA), under Record Group 104. Access to the records is under NARA’s jurisdiction: http://www.archives.gov/”"
http://www.usmint.gov/kids/coinnews/mintfacilities/sfo/
<< <i>I think it is far more likely that this hoard was actually buried in the 1930's to avoid having to turn them in to the government. Look at the photo of the cans. Do they look like they were buried 120 years ago?
My guess is that it was a coin collection of sorts, though not one as most on this board would have collected it. It may have been assembled in the late 19th century and then passed down within a family.
I doubt it has anything to do with the robbery at the San Francisco Mint. The mix of coins just doesn't fit that robbery. >>
I'm inclined to think this is the more likely situation too.
<< <i>
<< <i>I think it is far more likely that this hoard was actually buried in the 1930's to avoid having to turn them in to the government. Look at the photo of the cans. Do they look like they were buried 120 years ago?
My guess is that it was a coin collection of sorts, though not one as most on this board would have collected it. It may have been assembled in the late 19th century and then passed down within a family.
I doubt it has anything to do with the robbery at the San Francisco Mint. The mix of coins just doesn't fit that robbery. >>
I'm inclined to think this is the more likely situation. Hard to believe the Government wouldn't already have their hands in the pie if there was a chance it was the Dimmick heist. >>
Could they prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this is the Dimmick gold? I would say 99% sure it is, but 1% is a reasonable doubt. They will still take 39% in taxes and CA gets their tax take too.
Eric
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I think it is far more likely that this hoard was actually buried in the 1930's to avoid having to turn them in to the government. Look at the photo of the cans. Do they look like they were buried 120 years ago?
My guess is that it was a coin collection of sorts, though not one as most on this board would have collected it. It may have been assembled in the late 19th century and then passed down within a family.
I doubt it has anything to do with the robbery at the San Francisco Mint. The mix of coins just doesn't fit that robbery. >>
I'm inclined to think this is the more likely situation. Hard to believe the Government wouldn't already have their hands in the pie if there was a chance it was the Dimmick heist. >>
Could they prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this is the Dimmick gold? I would say 99% sure it is, but 1% is a reasonable doubt. They will still take 39% in taxes and CA gets their tax take too. >>
I'm pretty sure the standard of proof in this situation would not be "beyond a reasonable doubt." It's probably "by the preponderance of the evidence." And, 1% doubt, in a legal sense, is not "reasonable doubt." (Although defense attorneys will try to make the real definition seem that way)
Typical Jury Instruction - "The State must prove all of the essential elements of the crime charged by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, if you have a reasonable doubt that the Defendant committed the crime, then you must find the Defendant not guilty. The State is not required to prove guilt beyond all doubt, but beyond a reasonable doubt. You should find the Defendant guilty only if you have a firm and abiding conviction of the Defendant's guilt based on a full and fair consideration of the evidence presented in the case and not from any other source."
Then tell the state and federal crimminals to kiss my _ _ _
Maybe a gold minder who traded in his gold findings at the bank (hence the UNC coins) and ferreted them away, slowly amassing a huge collection. I could see someone living out in the hills with not much to spend money on able to do something like this. What I'm not so sure about is how much access one would have to a bank passing out such clean UNC coins.
In 1903, a farmer in Santa Rosa reportedly unearthed a bag of gold coins beside a creek on his land, but no follow-up to this story has been found.
- Taken from a Collector's Society posting from May 25th, 2006.