<< <i>Let's say that someone (today) were to steal $1,500,000 from a bank (unmarked bills). Two weeks later, in the general vicinity of the crime, a couple finds approximately $1,500,000 in cash. There ain't much doubt where the money came from. With 100 years in between there still should be little doubt were the money came from.
I realize that the passage of time leads to more intervening events, and the potential for another explanation, but the odds are overwhelming that the coins found are the stolen coins.
Any alternative explanation contains many more people involved, with knowledge of the events, and many more variables. >>
Except that odds aren't evidence and the evidence provided linking the 2 events is near ZERO. >>
When the legal standard is the preponderance of the evidence, or the greater weight of the evidence, the "odds" are the be-all-end-all. Saying there is no evidence is like saying that the $1,500,000 in cash located in the area from my previous post is not evidence. >>
The evidence has to show that they are the same coins and not just nearly equal dollar amounts.
Jack Trout (a historian and and collector of rare coins) told the San Francisco Chronicle that an 1866 Liberty $20 gold piece without the words “In God We Trust” was part of the buried stash, and the coin may fetch over $1 million at auction because it's so rare.
“This was someone’s private coin, created by the mint manager or someone with access to the inner workings of the Old Granite Lady (San Francisco Mint),” Trout told the newspaper. “It was likely created in revenge for the assassination of Lincoln the previous year (April 14, 1865). I don’t believe that coin ever left The Mint until the robbery. For it to show up as part of the treasure find links it directly to that inside job at the turn of the century at the San Francisco Mint.”
Maybe Jack Trout is wrong but maybe he's right. It seems that this adds another specific piece of circumstantial evidence. I don't want these to be stolen...I love rare coins...but I am pretty damn convinced they are.
Jack Trout (a historian and and collector of rare coins) told the San Francisco Chronicle that an 1866 Liberty $20 gold piece without the words “In God We Trust” was part of the buried stash, and the coin may fetch over $1 million at auction because it's so rare.
“This was someone’s private coin, created by the mint manager or someone with access to the inner workings of the Old Granite Lady (San Francisco Mint),” Trout told the newspaper. “It was likely created in revenge for the assassination of Lincoln the previous year (April 14, 1865). I don’t believe that coin ever left The Mint until the robbery. For it to show up as part of the treasure find links it directly to that inside job at the turn of the century at the San Francisco Mint.”
Maybe Jack Trout is wrong but maybe he's right. It seems that this adds another specific piece of circumstantial evidence. I don't want these to be stolen...I love rare coins...but I am pretty damn convinced they are.
BAJJERFAN - I'm afraid you are just wrong on that one. The government would need to convince the jury that it is more likely than not that the coins in question were stolen from the Mint. By your logic there could never be a conviction for stealing money unless you know the serial number on the bills or slab. 99% of any theft charges would be impossible if that was the standard.
The government would have evidence of the theft, what was taken, and that the $ was never recovered. They would also have evidence of the title of ownership on the property and eliminate to whatever extent possible that the coins did not belong to the prior owners. The government should easily meet their initial burden.
The finders would need to have a plausible explanation as to were the coins came from, or at a minimum, cast serious doubt that the coins in question were not the stolen coins.
For what it's worth, I'd put my money on the Feds if they decided to push the issue.
I still don't think the Feds will see a benefit in attempting to seize the coins.
Jack Trout (a historian and and collector of rare coins) told the San Francisco Chronicle that an 1866 Liberty $20 gold piece without the words “In God We Trust” was part of the buried stash, and the coin may fetch over $1 million at auction because it's so rare.
“This was someone’s private coin, created by the mint manager or someone with access to the inner workings of the Old Granite Lady (San Francisco Mint),” Trout told the newspaper. “It was likely created in revenge for the assassination of Lincoln the previous year (April 14, 1865). I don’t believe that coin ever left The Mint until the robbery. For it to show up as part of the treasure find links it directly to that inside job at the turn of the century at the San Francisco Mint.”
Maybe Jack Trout is wrong but maybe he's right. It seems that this adds another specific piece of circumstantial evidence. I don't want these to be stolen...I love rare coins...but I am pretty damn convinced they are.
<< <i>BAJJERFAN - I'm afraid you are just wrong on that one. The government would need to convince the jury that it is more likely than not that the coins in question were stolen from the Mint. By your logic there could never be a conviction for stealing money unless you know the serial number on the bills or slab. 99% of any theft charges would be impossible if that was the standard.
The government would have evidence of the theft, what was taken, and that the $ was never recovered. They would also have evidence of the title of ownership on the property and eliminate to whatever extent possible that the coins did not belong to the prior owners. The government should easily meet their initial burden.
The finders would need to have a plausible explanation as to were the coins came from, or at a minimum, cast serious doubt that the coins in question were not the stolen coins.
For what it's worth, I'd put my money on the Feds if they decided to push the issue.
I still don't think the Feds will see a benefit in attempting to seize the coins. >>
I never implied that they'd need to prove each date/mm for every coin, but I don't think that 1500 DEs would cut it either. The Dimmick theft is just one of several logical possibilities, but there has been nothing more substantial than coincidence up to this point. We don't know how detailed Mint records were nor do we know how thoroughly Kagin & Co. did their due diligence.
A fishing guide named Trout??? Sounds fishy to me. almost like a made up bogus name
That is kind of what I was thinking, except that the guy is real. Still there's something very fishy about Jack Trout. And how can a major news organization quote some guy off of the street as a credible source? Because he said he was a historian and collector of rare coins? Couldn't anyone on this forum then be quoted by ABC News?
I am still scratching my head by his logic: 1) the President is assassinated, 2) a manager at the San Francisco Mint is very angry, so he gets revenge by striking an 1866-S No Motto $20 (mintage was actually 120,000, with about 200 extant to this day), 3) therefore the coins were stolen and buried by the thief.
"And how can a major news organization quote some guy off of the street as a credible source?"
From my experience, museums and institutions (let alone newspapers/current media), major mind you and both sides of the pond, will print whatever "experts" tell them. Anything. No vetting, nothing. In some cases I have had to completely rewrite artifact tags that were factually error-laden despite being composed by curators and others who should know better. I once saw a major maritime museum in the UK state that a maiden voyage to NY was EAST. .
It's said that they found the coins in each can were separated by date. 1840s-50s in one can, 60s-70s in another 80s-90s in the rest. Why would thieves bother to separate coins by date? Also what's the statute of limitations on a case like this if it's proven that they were the coins from the robbery in 1900? Surely it's well passed and it's finders keepers. I have a feeling if the government ends up confiscating these, that we will never hear of another coin hoard find again as people will just keep quiet.
The government may not bother going after them as they get 47% as their tax anyway. Why bother going after the remaining? All the legal costs and ill will aren't worth it. Plus, these coins will be sold again and again and reap the government multiples of the original worth over time in new taxes. if these coins turn over every 5 years and coins go up 8%/yr, the government can make upwards of $1M in new taxes every year forever.
The stories get more crazy by the day based upon rumor and conjecture rather then facts.
Kagin's offices are located in Tiburon, not where the property was reportedly located where the coins were discovered which is in the Sierra Foothills. A lot closer to where I live.
The facts as I see them completely contradict this hoard being related to the Dimmick theft hoard, with the exception of being within a couple thousand dollars of the same amount. Nothing else fits or matches. Mixed denominations, wide array of dates, coins from CC, a couple of Philly's and the one Dahlonega $5. Coins seem to have been buried over a span of time not at once.
It will be interesting to see it all transpire over the next few months but I am going to be skeptical about the stories flying around. It seems in the rush to get stories out in our rapid information internet age accuracy and facts are casualties to make the news cycle.
<< <i>It's said that they found the coins in each can were separated by date. 1840s-50s in one can, 60s-70s in another 80s-90s in the rest. Why would thieves bother to separate coins by date? Also what's the statute of limitations on a case like this if it's proven that they were the coins from the robbery in 1900? Surely it's well passed and it's finders keepers. I have a feeling if the government ends up confiscating these, that we will never hear of another coin hoard find again as people will just keep quiet. >>
The statute of limitation would be for prosecuting the thief. I'm not aware of a time limit for the owner to reclaim their stolen property. I.E. if I stole your coin collection I can't say, well the five year statute of limitations is up so now their mine. Insurance claims for property recovered go back centuries.
Jack Trout (a historian and and collector of rare coins) told the San Francisco Chronicle that an 1866 Liberty $20 gold piece without the words “In God We Trust” was part of the buried stash, and the coin may fetch over $1 million at auction because it's so rare.
“This was someone’s private coin, created by the mint manager or someone with access to the inner workings of the Old Granite Lady (San Francisco Mint),” Trout told the newspaper. “It was likely created in revenge for the assassination of Lincoln the previous year (April 14, 1865). I don’t believe that coin ever left The Mint until the robbery. For it to show up as part of the treasure find links it directly to that inside job at the turn of the century at the San Francisco Mint.”
Maybe Jack Trout is wrong but maybe he's right. It seems that this adds another specific piece of circumstantial evidence. I don't want these to be stolen...I love rare coins...but I am pretty damn convinced they are.
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.
Still surprised there isn't more about the cans. Photographs of them all, more talk about the date and materials. Lid and construction type. Apart from the date(s) on the coins, the cans are the only other thing that can point to a possible time frame for burial.
Why is everyone quick to believe the story? Isn't it possible they indeed found 1500 coins but are only reporting less than that amount? How do we know they actually found them on their own property? The finder already admitted he has panned for gold and used a metal detector. Couldn't it be possible the finder is a treasure hunter who did some research on Dimmick and where he lived before heading out to search for the coins? Isn't that kinda what Tommy Thompson did before locating the Central America?
The only way to know where the coins were found would be for the Feds to intervene, make the finder's show them the location on their property with the can stuck in the tree.
<< <i>The government may not bother going after them as they get 47% as their tax anyway. Why bother going after the remaining? All the legal costs and ill will aren't worth it. Plus, these coins will be sold again and again and reap the government multiples of the original worth over time in new taxes. if these coins turn over every 5 years and coins go up 8%/yr, the government can make upwards of $1M in new taxes every year forever. >>
Now you're talking common sense which is mostly wasted on Government ears.
<< <i>BAJJERFAN - I'm afraid you are just wrong on that one. The government would need to convince the jury that it is more likely than not that the coins in question were stolen from the Mint. By your logic there could never be a conviction for stealing money unless you know the serial number on the bills or slab. 99% of any theft charges would be impossible if that was the standard.
The government would have evidence of the theft, what was taken, and that the $ was never recovered. They would also have evidence of the title of ownership on the property and eliminate to whatever extent possible that the coins did not belong to the prior owners. The government should easily meet their initial burden.
The finders would need to have a plausible explanation as to were the coins came from, or at a minimum, cast serious doubt that the coins in question were not the stolen coins.
For what it's worth, I'd put my money on the Feds if they decided to push the issue.
I still don't think the Feds will see a benefit in attempting to seize the coins. >>
Add to that the fact that the Feds combined with California are getting a take that is equivalent to what they got from the auction of the one legal 1933 Saint. A 50% "finders fee" to John and Mary is not out of line regardless.
<< <i>Still surprised there isn't more about the cans. Photographs of them all, more talk about the date and materials. Lid and construction type. Apart from the date(s) on the coins, the cans are the only other thing that can point to a possible time frame for burial.
Eric >>
So science can carbon date artifacts back millions of years, but no one can supply a date for a couple of cans made within the last two centuries?
<< <i>Still surprised there isn't more about the cans. Photographs of them all, more talk about the date and materials. Lid and construction type. Apart from the date(s) on the coins, the cans are the only other thing that can point to a possible time frame for burial.
Eric >>
So science can carbon date artifacts back millions of years, but no one can supply a date for a couple of cans made within the last two centuries? >>
Most of those designs go unchanged for years at a time and I doubt they'd ever have a lot code on them. Any code or manufacturer's logo was probably eroded away anyway.
<< <i>Add to that the fact that the Feds combined with California are getting a take that is equivalent to what they got from the auction of the one legal 1933 Saint. A 50% "finders fee" to John and Mary is not out of line regardless >>
Different administration. John and Mary may well get Bubkes.
<< <i>BAJJERFAN - I'm afraid you are just wrong on that one. The government would need to convince the jury that it is more likely than not that the coins in question were stolen from the Mint. By your logic there could never be a conviction for stealing money unless you know the serial number on the bills or slab. 99% of any theft charges would be impossible if that was the standard.
The government would have evidence of the theft, what was taken, and that the $ was never recovered. They would also have evidence of the title of ownership on the property and eliminate to whatever extent possible that the coins did not belong to the prior owners. The government should easily meet their initial burden.
The finders would need to have a plausible explanation as to were the coins came from, or at a minimum, cast serious doubt that the coins in question were not the stolen coins.
For what it's worth, I'd put my money on the Feds if they decided to push the issue.
I still don't think the Feds will see a benefit in attempting to seize the coins. >>
Of course they could be from the Dimmick theft, but I've not seen enough documentation to declare them as such.
The rare coin expert who is helping a California couple sell $10 million in gold pieces they dug up said Tuesday that there is no way the mother lode came from a 1900 heist at the San Francisco Mint.
That theory has been floating around since the so-called Saddle Ridge Hoard — a cache of 1,427 coins minted between 1847 and 1894 and buried under a tree in cans — came to light last week.
But David McCarthy, senior numismatist for Kagin's, said it's about as likely as a three-dollar bill.
"It's provably incorrect," he told NBC News.
Even though the number and value of the coins swiped from a cashier's vault at the mint match the hoard, McCarthy reeled off a list of reasons they're not one and the same:
The mint's vault probably would have held bags containing coins from a single year with identical mint marks, but the hoard is much more diverse. The hoard contains many coins that were heavily circulated, but the mint would have melted down and reissued those, not stored them. There are 50 $10 gold coins in the hoard. Those were never mentioned in accounts of the mint heist, also known as the Dimmick Defalcation. The hoard's coins don't have what experts call "bag marks," which they would expect to see on coins that had been vaulted for any length of time. None of the hoard coins have dates after 1894, which would mean they would have been stored for six years at a minimum if they were from the mint job. "Who keeps 6-year-old inventory, especially of something that is not hard to get rid of?" McCarthy said. Based on where the coins were discovered a year ago, McCarthy thinks they were amassed by someone doing a lot of a business in gold and who buried each can as soon as it was filled up, possibly over a span of 20 years.
An unexpected death would explain why they were abandoned — only to be found by the anonymous couple walking their dog on their property a century later.
<< <i>Still surprised there isn't more about the cans. Photographs of them all, more talk about the date and materials. Lid and construction type. Apart from the date(s) on the coins, the cans are the only other thing that can point to a possible time frame for burial.
Eric >>
So science can carbon date artifacts back millions of years, but no one can supply a date for a couple of cans made within the last two centuries? >>
Most of those designs go unchanged for years at a time and I doubt they'd ever have a lot code on them. Any code or manufacturer's logo was probably eroded away anyway. >>
Lot code? I meant number and type of sizes, number of side ribs, basic construction type (side, pop-top, etc), lid closure type...
<< <i>Still surprised there isn't more about the cans. Photographs of them all, more talk about the date and materials. Lid and construction type. Apart from the date(s) on the coins, the cans are the only other thing that can point to a possible time frame for burial.
Eric >>
So science can carbon date artifacts back millions of years, but no one can supply a date for a couple of cans made within the last two centuries? >>
Most of those designs go unchanged for years at a time and I doubt they'd ever have a lot code on them. Any code or manufacturer's logo was probably eroded away anyway. >>
Lot code? I meant number and type of sizes, number of side ribs, basic construction type (side, pop-top, etc), lid closure type...
Eric >>
You think like me Eric. Obviously the printing is gone but metallurgical analysis could be very informative as well.
<< <i>Still surprised there isn't more about the cans. Photographs of them all, more talk about the date and materials. Lid and construction type. Apart from the date(s) on the coins, the cans are the only other thing that can point to a possible time frame for burial.
Eric >>
So science can carbon date artifacts back millions of years, but no one can supply a date for a couple of cans made within the last two centuries? >>
Most of those designs go unchanged for years at a time and I doubt they'd ever have a lot code on them. Any code or manufacturer's logo was probably eroded away anyway. >>
Lot code? I meant number and type of sizes, number of side ribs, basic construction type (side, pop-top, etc), lid closure type...
Eric >>
You think like me Eric. Obviously the printing is gone but metallurgical analysis could be very informative as well. >>
<< <i>Still surprised there isn't more about the cans. Photographs of them all, more talk about the date and materials. Lid and construction type. Apart from the date(s) on the coins, the cans are the only other thing that can point to a possible time frame for burial.
Eric >>
So science can carbon date artifacts back millions of years, but no one can supply a date for a couple of cans made within the last two centuries? >>
Most of those designs go unchanged for years at a time and I doubt they'd ever have a lot code on them. Any code or manufacturer's logo was probably eroded away anyway. >>
Lot code? I meant number and type of sizes, number of side ribs, basic construction type (side, pop-top, etc), lid closure type...
Eric >>
You think like me Eric. Obviously the printing is gone but metallurgical analysis could be very informative as well. >>
We need Ambro51, Oreville and Lord Marcovan.
Eric >>
You could just email Don Kagin and ask if they had the can metal analyzed. Generally, identifying marks would be stamped into the bottom during manufacture, but at this point would likely be of little value.
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.
Actually, Jack Trout's research could hold water. After all, the guy does have credibility within numismatic circles. Don't you remember when he covered the Harry Bass auctions in 1999, or the time he reported on the Mel Fisher treasure in 1985?
<< <i>Actually, Jack Trout's research could hold water. After all, the guy does have credibility within numismatic circles. Don't you remember when he covered the Harry Bass auctions in 1999, or the time he reported on the Mel Fisher treasure in 1985? >>
I have a couple of problems with some of the statements above by the Kagin's rep...
"The mint's vault probably would have held bags containing coins from a single year with identical mint marks, but the hoard is much more diverse."
"The hoard contains many coins that were heavily circulated, but the mint would have melted down and reissued those, not stored them."
The answer to both of those is...not necessarily. I know banks- then as now-had bags of mixed date coins from depositors, etc. and the Mint could easily have been in possession of same, perhaps having been traded to them for new product, not an uncommon occurrence.
"There are 50 $10 gold coins in the hoard. Those were never mentioned in accounts of the mint heist, also known as the Dimmick Defalcation." The fact that they can't be found in old accounts isn't proof positive that they weren't part of the heist... but laying that aside, it's also possible that the thieves converted some $20s into smaller denominations at some point.
"The hoard's coins don't have what experts call "bag marks," which they would expect to see on coins that had been vaulted for any length of time." THIS is the statement I have a big problem with. So these are all MS70 coins? Doubt it. Once something is put in a vault and stays there it isn't going to pick up a lot of bagmarks...so this statement makes me think the guy's just reaching now. Odd coming from a senior numismatist.
"None of the hoard coins have dates after 1894, which would mean they would have been stored for six years at a minimum if they were from the mint job. "Who keeps 6-year-old inventory, especially of something that is not hard to get rid of?" McCarthy said"
Who does that? Um....that would be...THE U.S. MINT. Two words....GSA hoard.
<< <i>Actually, Jack Trout's research could hold water. After all, the guy does have credibility within numismatic circles. Don't you remember when he covered the Harry Bass auctions in 1999, or the time he reported on the Mel Fisher treasure in 1985? >>
...I say that outside of fly fishing a river the guy doesn't know "jack trout" about this gold coin hoard
<< <i> Even though the number and value of the coins swiped from a cashier's vault at the mint match the hoard >>
The media can't even get that aspect of the story right. Different face value, different quantity of coins, and different denominations than the Dimmick heist. "Sort of maybe kinda close" doesn't cut it when you have the particulars of the Dimmick theft in writing.
"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)
<< <i>Actually, Jack Trout's research could hold water. After all, the guy does have credibility within numismatic circles. Don't you remember when he covered the Harry Bass auctions in 1999, or the time he reported on the Mel Fisher treasure in 1985? >>
<< <i> Even though the number and value of the coins swiped from a cashier's vault at the mint match the hoard >>
The media can't even get that aspect of the story right. Different face value, different quantity of coins, and different denominations than the Dimmick heist. "Sort of maybe kinda close" doesn't cut it when you have the particulars of the Dimmick theft in writing. >>
Correct. There is no "match."
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> The fact that they can't be found in old accounts isn't proof positive that they weren't part of the heist... but laying that aside, it's also possible that the thieves converted some $20s into smaller denominations at some point. >>
Well if it's "possible" then it certainly must be the case. Let's pack up the coins right away and ship to the government.
By this logic, any hoard ever found should be the property of the government. Cuz you know, Dimmick could have swapped the coins he stole for something else.
"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)
<< <i> The fact that they can't be found in old accounts isn't proof positive that they weren't part of the heist... but laying that aside, it's also possible that the thieves converted some $20s into smaller denominations at some point. >>
Well if it's "possible" then it certainly must be the case. Let's pack up the coins right away and ship to the government.
By this logic, any hoard ever found should be the property of the government. Cuz you know, Dimmick could have swapped the coins he stole for something else. >>
Or, space aliens might have transmogrified them into used coins of different dates!!!!!
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> Even though the number and value of the coins swiped from a cashier's vault at the mint match the hoard >>
The media can't even get that aspect of the story right. Different face value, different quantity of coins, and different denominations than the Dimmick heist. "Sort of maybe kinda close" doesn't cut it when you have the particulars of the Dimmick theft in writing. >>
Do we know the specifics of the denominations of the heist? The coins found are "substantially similar" to that of the heist as best the information is available. I don't think that can be rationally argued. If I steal 10 $100 bills and you find 9 $100's a twenty and a five on me the next day that isn't probative? The arguments that "prove" this isn't the heist property make no sense and certainly don't prove anything.
Release the property description and by the end of the week we'd have a very good idea as to what happened.
<< <i> The fact that they can't be found in old accounts isn't proof positive that they weren't part of the heist... but laying that aside, it's also possible that the thieves converted some $20s into smaller denominations at some point. >>
Well if it's "possible" then it certainly must be the case. Let's pack up the coins right away and ship to the government.
By this logic, any hoard ever found should be the property of the government. Cuz you know, Dimmick could have swapped the coins he stole for something else. >>
Sigh. Right, that's what I was saying. Not. Funny that's the only thing I stated you chose to poke fun at. Nowhere did I say anything about packing up the coins. What I said was entirely plausible. I'm just saying that this guy's statements aren't really helping his cause.
Selective paraphrasing, ridicule and mockery are what you learn not to use in high school speech & debate unless one likes to have the second to the last laugh.
Dimmick worked at the Mint and was able to steal what he wanted slowly over a period of time - he was the last guy out of the vault. Why on earth would he need to "convert" the 20s he stole into smaller coins before he buried them? He could have stolen smaller denominations if that was his intent.
"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)
<< <i>Selective paraphrasing, ridicule and mockery are what you learn not to use in high school speech & debate unless one likes to have the second to the last laugh. >>
Apologies if anyone was offended, but I didn't paraphrase anything -- I directly quoted a statement that I found highly implausible, as indeed I find much of the "Saddle Ridge = Dimmick" theory simply grasping at straws.
"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)
The time has come for our Congress to step up and lend their immense wisdom to this national controversy. I say pack up all the Coins and the cans and allow the various Congressmen to examine the evidence for 30 days. At the proper time, call in all the major players and grill all of them under the bright glare of the CNN cameras. Hopefully all the evidence will not have dissapeared like so many 1974 Aluminum Cents.
We want and deserve the truth about this very serious matter. If needed we want Mark McGuire to advocate for the mysterious couple and tearfully swear that no they never used PEDs and that they indeed did find these Coins in a bunch of rusty cans.
With a national sports hero on their side I'm sure the mystery couple will prevail. All will be well and we can finally snatch up the booty off of Amazon. Anyone that cant afford the Amazon offerings may be able to snatch a few bargains off ebay after the Congressional spring cleanings that may reveal a few coins that may show up in a few closets and desks.
Comments
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Let's say that someone (today) were to steal $1,500,000 from a bank (unmarked bills). Two weeks later, in the general vicinity of the crime, a couple finds approximately $1,500,000 in cash. There ain't much doubt where the money came from. With 100 years in between there still should be little doubt were the money came from.
I realize that the passage of time leads to more intervening events, and the potential for another explanation, but the odds are overwhelming that the coins found are the stolen coins.
Any alternative explanation contains many more people involved, with knowledge of the events, and many more variables. >>
Except that odds aren't evidence and the evidence provided linking the 2 events is near ZERO. >>
When the legal standard is the preponderance of the evidence, or the greater weight of the evidence, the "odds" are the be-all-end-all. Saying there is no evidence is like saying that the $1,500,000 in cash located in the area from my previous post is not evidence. >>
The evidence has to show that they are the same coins and not just nearly equal dollar amounts.
Jack Trout (a historian and and collector of rare coins) told the San Francisco Chronicle that an 1866 Liberty $20 gold piece without the words “In God We Trust” was part of the buried stash, and the coin may fetch over $1 million at auction because it's so rare.
“This was someone’s private coin, created by the mint manager or someone with access to the inner workings of the Old Granite Lady (San Francisco Mint),” Trout told the newspaper. “It was likely created in revenge for the assassination of Lincoln the previous year (April 14, 1865). I don’t believe that coin ever left The Mint until the robbery. For it to show up as part of the treasure find links it directly to that inside job at the turn of the century at the San Francisco Mint.”
Maybe Jack Trout is wrong but maybe he's right. It seems that this adds another specific piece of circumstantial evidence. I don't want these to be stolen...I love rare coins...but I am pretty damn convinced they are.
Text
<< <i>UH OH! From ABC News...
Jack Trout (a historian and and collector of rare coins) told the San Francisco Chronicle that an 1866 Liberty $20 gold piece without the words “In God We Trust” was part of the buried stash, and the coin may fetch over $1 million at auction because it's so rare.
“This was someone’s private coin, created by the mint manager or someone with access to the inner workings of the Old Granite Lady (San Francisco Mint),” Trout told the newspaper. “It was likely created in revenge for the assassination of Lincoln the previous year (April 14, 1865). I don’t believe that coin ever left The Mint until the robbery. For it to show up as part of the treasure find links it directly to that inside job at the turn of the century at the San Francisco Mint.”
Maybe Jack Trout is wrong but maybe he's right. It seems that this adds another specific piece of circumstantial evidence. I don't want these to be stolen...I love rare coins...but I am pretty damn convinced they are.
Text
Hey Saint; you left off this piece
"Northern California fishing guide Jack Trout"
A fishing guide named Trout??? Sounds fishy to me. almost like a made up bogus name
The government would have evidence of the theft, what was taken, and that the $ was never recovered. They would also have evidence of the title of ownership on the property and eliminate to whatever extent possible that the coins did not belong to the prior owners. The government should easily meet their initial burden.
The finders would need to have a plausible explanation as to were the coins came from, or at a minimum, cast serious doubt that the coins in question were not the stolen coins.
For what it's worth, I'd put my money on the Feds if they decided to push the issue.
I still don't think the Feds will see a benefit in attempting to seize the coins.
The fact that he plays with worms doesn't add to the coin story.
Text
<< <i>UH OH! From ABC News...
Jack Trout (a historian and and collector of rare coins) told the San Francisco Chronicle that an 1866 Liberty $20 gold piece without the words “In God We Trust” was part of the buried stash, and the coin may fetch over $1 million at auction because it's so rare.
“This was someone’s private coin, created by the mint manager or someone with access to the inner workings of the Old Granite Lady (San Francisco Mint),” Trout told the newspaper. “It was likely created in revenge for the assassination of Lincoln the previous year (April 14, 1865). I don’t believe that coin ever left The Mint until the robbery. For it to show up as part of the treasure find links it directly to that inside job at the turn of the century at the San Francisco Mint.”
Maybe Jack Trout is wrong but maybe he's right. It seems that this adds another specific piece of circumstantial evidence. I don't want these to be stolen...I love rare coins...but I am pretty damn convinced they are.
Text
So who stole the NGC MS62 that just sold for $200k-ish? Or the multitude of AU specimens known - were those all stolen as well? /eyeroll
<< <i>BAJJERFAN - I'm afraid you are just wrong on that one. The government would need to convince the jury that it is more likely than not that the coins in question were stolen from the Mint. By your logic there could never be a conviction for stealing money unless you know the serial number on the bills or slab. 99% of any theft charges would be impossible if that was the standard.
The government would have evidence of the theft, what was taken, and that the $ was never recovered. They would also have evidence of the title of ownership on the property and eliminate to whatever extent possible that the coins did not belong to the prior owners. The government should easily meet their initial burden.
The finders would need to have a plausible explanation as to were the coins came from, or at a minimum, cast serious doubt that the coins in question were not the stolen coins.
For what it's worth, I'd put my money on the Feds if they decided to push the issue.
I still don't think the Feds will see a benefit in attempting to seize the coins. >>
I never implied that they'd need to prove each date/mm for every coin, but I don't think that 1500 DEs would cut it either. The Dimmick theft is just one of several logical possibilities, but there has been nothing more substantial than coincidence up to this point. We don't know how detailed Mint records were nor do we know how thoroughly Kagin & Co. did their due diligence.
That is kind of what I was thinking, except that the guy is real. Still there's something very fishy about Jack Trout. And how can a major news organization quote some guy off of the street as a credible source? Because he said he was a historian and collector of rare coins? Couldn't anyone on this forum then be quoted by ABC News?
I am still scratching my head by his logic: 1) the President is assassinated, 2) a manager at the San Francisco Mint is very angry, so he gets revenge by striking an 1866-S No Motto $20 (mintage was actually 120,000, with about 200 extant to this day), 3) therefore the coins were stolen and buried by the thief.
From my experience, museums and institutions (let alone newspapers/current media), major mind you and both sides of the pond, will print whatever "experts" tell them. Anything. No vetting, nothing. In some cases I have had to completely rewrite artifact tags that were factually error-laden despite being composed by curators and others who should know better. I once saw a major maritime museum in the UK state that a maiden voyage to NY was EAST.
Eric
BTW, our friends at CAC posted that article so I guess I'm not the only one whose eye it caught.
Let's just see how the chips fall.
Plus, these coins will be sold again and again and reap the government multiples of the original worth over time in new taxes.
if these coins turn over every 5 years and coins go up 8%/yr, the government can make upwards of $1M in new taxes every year forever.
Kagin's offices are located in Tiburon, not where the property was reportedly located where the coins were discovered which is in the Sierra Foothills. A lot closer to where I live.
The facts as I see them completely contradict this hoard being related to the Dimmick theft hoard, with the exception of being within a couple thousand dollars of the same amount. Nothing else fits or matches. Mixed denominations, wide array of dates, coins from CC, a couple of Philly's and the one Dahlonega $5. Coins seem to have been buried over a span of time not at once.
It will be interesting to see it all transpire over the next few months but I am going to be skeptical about the stories flying around. It seems in the rush to get stories out in our rapid information internet age accuracy and facts are casualties to make the news cycle.
Website-Americana Rare Coin Inc
<< <i>It's said that they found the coins in each can were separated by date. 1840s-50s in one can, 60s-70s in another 80s-90s in the rest. Why would thieves bother to separate coins by date? Also what's the statute of limitations on a case like this if it's proven that they were the coins from the robbery in 1900? Surely it's well passed and it's finders keepers. I have a feeling if the government ends up confiscating these, that we will never hear of another coin hoard find again as people will just keep quiet. >>
The statute of limitation would be for prosecuting the thief. I'm not aware of a time limit for the owner to reclaim their stolen property. I.E. if I stole your coin collection I can't say, well the five year statute of limitations is up so now their mine. Insurance claims for property recovered go back centuries.
<< <i>UH OH! From ABC News...
Jack Trout (a historian and and collector of rare coins) told the San Francisco Chronicle that an 1866 Liberty $20 gold piece without the words “In God We Trust” was part of the buried stash, and the coin may fetch over $1 million at auction because it's so rare.
“This was someone’s private coin, created by the mint manager or someone with access to the inner workings of the Old Granite Lady (San Francisco Mint),” Trout told the newspaper. “It was likely created in revenge for the assassination of Lincoln the previous year (April 14, 1865). I don’t believe that coin ever left The Mint until the robbery. For it to show up as part of the treasure find links it directly to that inside job at the turn of the century at the San Francisco Mint.”
Maybe Jack Trout is wrong but maybe he's right. It seems that this adds another specific piece of circumstantial evidence. I don't want these to be stolen...I love rare coins...but I am pretty damn convinced they are.
Text
See my new thread about sloppy journalism.
Eric
The only way to know where the coins were found would be for the Feds to intervene, make the finder's show them the location on their property with the can stuck in the tree.
Just saying....
They call me "Pack the Ripper"
Eric
<< <i>The government may not bother going after them as they get 47% as their tax anyway. Why bother going after the remaining? All the legal costs and ill will aren't worth it.
Plus, these coins will be sold again and again and reap the government multiples of the original worth over time in new taxes.
if these coins turn over every 5 years and coins go up 8%/yr, the government can make upwards of $1M in new taxes every year forever. >>
Now you're talking common sense which is mostly wasted on Government ears.
<< <i>BAJJERFAN - I'm afraid you are just wrong on that one. The government would need to convince the jury that it is more likely than not that the coins in question were stolen from the Mint. By your logic there could never be a conviction for stealing money unless you know the serial number on the bills or slab. 99% of any theft charges would be impossible if that was the standard.
The government would have evidence of the theft, what was taken, and that the $ was never recovered. They would also have evidence of the title of ownership on the property and eliminate to whatever extent possible that the coins did not belong to the prior owners. The government should easily meet their initial burden.
The finders would need to have a plausible explanation as to were the coins came from, or at a minimum, cast serious doubt that the coins in question were not the stolen coins.
For what it's worth, I'd put my money on the Feds if they decided to push the issue.
I still don't think the Feds will see a benefit in attempting to seize the coins. >>
Add to that the fact that the Feds combined with California are getting a take that is equivalent to what they got from the auction of the one legal 1933 Saint. A 50% "finders fee" to John and Mary is not out of line regardless.
<< <i>Still surprised there isn't more about the cans. Photographs of them all, more talk about the date and materials. Lid and construction type. Apart from the date(s) on the coins, the cans are the only other thing that can point to a possible time frame for burial.
Eric >>
So science can carbon date artifacts back millions of years, but no one can supply a date for a couple of cans made within the last two centuries?
<< <i>
<< <i>Still surprised there isn't more about the cans. Photographs of them all, more talk about the date and materials. Lid and construction type. Apart from the date(s) on the coins, the cans are the only other thing that can point to a possible time frame for burial.
Eric >>
So science can carbon date artifacts back millions of years, but no one can supply a date for a couple of cans made within the last two centuries? >>
Most of those designs go unchanged for years at a time and I doubt they'd ever have a lot code on them. Any code or manufacturer's logo was probably eroded away anyway.
<< <i>Add to that the fact that the Feds combined with California are getting a take that is equivalent to what they got from the auction of the one legal 1933 Saint. A 50% "finders fee" to John and Mary is not out of line regardless >>
Different administration. John and Mary may well get Bubkes.
<< <i>BAJJERFAN - I'm afraid you are just wrong on that one. The government would need to convince the jury that it is more likely than not that the coins in question were stolen from the Mint. By your logic there could never be a conviction for stealing money unless you know the serial number on the bills or slab. 99% of any theft charges would be impossible if that was the standard.
The government would have evidence of the theft, what was taken, and that the $ was never recovered. They would also have evidence of the title of ownership on the property and eliminate to whatever extent possible that the coins did not belong to the prior owners. The government should easily meet their initial burden.
The finders would need to have a plausible explanation as to were the coins came from, or at a minimum, cast serious doubt that the coins in question were not the stolen coins.
For what it's worth, I'd put my money on the Feds if they decided to push the issue.
I still don't think the Feds will see a benefit in attempting to seize the coins. >>
Of course they could be from the Dimmick theft, but I've not seen enough documentation to declare them as such.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/bunch-bullion-dealer-says-gold-coin-hoard-not-heist-n44256
<< <i>Good article on why the coins are probably not from the Dimmick theft.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/bunch-bullion-dealer-says-gold-coin-hoard-not-heist-n44256 >>
Thanks for sharing. Sounds pretty much the same as the arguments made here on the forum. Though not everyone is persuaded...
That theory has been floating around since the so-called Saddle Ridge Hoard — a cache of 1,427 coins minted between 1847 and 1894 and buried under a tree in cans — came to light last week.
But David McCarthy, senior numismatist for Kagin's, said it's about as likely as a three-dollar bill.
"It's provably incorrect," he told NBC News.
Even though the number and value of the coins swiped from a cashier's vault at the mint match the hoard, McCarthy reeled off a list of reasons they're not one and the same:
The mint's vault probably would have held bags containing coins from a single year with identical mint marks, but the hoard is much more diverse.
The hoard contains many coins that were heavily circulated, but the mint would have melted down and reissued those, not stored them.
There are 50 $10 gold coins in the hoard. Those were never mentioned in accounts of the mint heist, also known as the Dimmick Defalcation.
The hoard's coins don't have what experts call "bag marks," which they would expect to see on coins that had been vaulted for any length of time.
None of the hoard coins have dates after 1894, which would mean they would have been stored for six years at a minimum if they were from the mint job. "Who keeps 6-year-old inventory, especially of something that is not hard to get rid of?" McCarthy said.
Based on where the coins were discovered a year ago, McCarthy thinks they were amassed by someone doing a lot of a business in gold and who buried each can as soon as it was filled up, possibly over a span of 20 years.
An unexpected death would explain why they were abandoned — only to be found by the anonymous couple walking their dog on their property a century later.
"You can't take it with you," he said.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Still surprised there isn't more about the cans. Photographs of them all, more talk about the date and materials. Lid and construction type. Apart from the date(s) on the coins, the cans are the only other thing that can point to a possible time frame for burial.
Eric >>
So science can carbon date artifacts back millions of years, but no one can supply a date for a couple of cans made within the last two centuries? >>
Most of those designs go unchanged for years at a time and I doubt they'd ever have a lot code on them. Any code or manufacturer's logo was probably eroded away anyway. >>
Lot code?
I meant number and type of sizes, number of side ribs, basic construction type (side, pop-top, etc), lid closure type...
Eric
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Still surprised there isn't more about the cans. Photographs of them all, more talk about the date and materials. Lid and construction type. Apart from the date(s) on the coins, the cans are the only other thing that can point to a possible time frame for burial.
Eric >>
So science can carbon date artifacts back millions of years, but no one can supply a date for a couple of cans made within the last two centuries? >>
Most of those designs go unchanged for years at a time and I doubt they'd ever have a lot code on them. Any code or manufacturer's logo was probably eroded away anyway. >>
Lot code?
I meant number and type of sizes, number of side ribs, basic construction type (side, pop-top, etc), lid closure type...
Eric >>
You think like me Eric. Obviously the printing is gone but metallurgical analysis could be very informative as well.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Still surprised there isn't more about the cans. Photographs of them all, more talk about the date and materials. Lid and construction type. Apart from the date(s) on the coins, the cans are the only other thing that can point to a possible time frame for burial.
Eric >>
So science can carbon date artifacts back millions of years, but no one can supply a date for a couple of cans made within the last two centuries? >>
Most of those designs go unchanged for years at a time and I doubt they'd ever have a lot code on them. Any code or manufacturer's logo was probably eroded away anyway. >>
Lot code?
I meant number and type of sizes, number of side ribs, basic construction type (side, pop-top, etc), lid closure type...
Eric >>
You think like me Eric. Obviously the printing is gone but metallurgical analysis could be very informative as well. >>
We need Ambro51, Oreville and Lord Marcovan.
Eric
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Still surprised there isn't more about the cans. Photographs of them all, more talk about the date and materials. Lid and construction type. Apart from the date(s) on the coins, the cans are the only other thing that can point to a possible time frame for burial.
Eric >>
So science can carbon date artifacts back millions of years, but no one can supply a date for a couple of cans made within the last two centuries? >>
Most of those designs go unchanged for years at a time and I doubt they'd ever have a lot code on them. Any code or manufacturer's logo was probably eroded away anyway. >>
Lot code?
I meant number and type of sizes, number of side ribs, basic construction type (side, pop-top, etc), lid closure type...
Eric >>
You think like me Eric. Obviously the printing is gone but metallurgical analysis could be very informative as well. >>
We need Ambro51, Oreville and Lord Marcovan.
Eric >>
You could just email Don Kagin and ask if they had the can metal analyzed. Generally, identifying marks would be stamped into the bottom during manufacture, but at this point would likely be of little value.
<< <i>Good article on why the coins are probably not from the Dimmick theft.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/bunch-bullion-dealer-says-gold-coin-hoard-not-heist-n44256 >>
linkified
Actually, Jack Trout's research could hold water. After all, the guy does have credibility within numismatic circles. Don't you remember when he covered the Harry Bass auctions in 1999, or the time he reported on the Mel Fisher treasure in 1985?
<< <i>Actually, Jack Trout's research could hold water. After all, the guy does have credibility within numismatic circles. Don't you remember when he covered the Harry Bass auctions in 1999, or the time he reported on the Mel Fisher treasure in 1985? >>
Weren't those red herrings?
Eric
"The mint's vault probably would have held bags containing coins from a single year with identical mint marks, but the hoard is much more diverse."
"The hoard contains many coins that were heavily circulated, but the mint would have melted down and reissued those, not stored them."
The answer to both of those is...not necessarily. I know banks- then as now-had bags of mixed date coins from depositors, etc. and the Mint could easily have been in possession of same, perhaps having been traded to them for new product, not an uncommon occurrence.
"There are 50 $10 gold coins in the hoard. Those were never mentioned in accounts of the mint heist, also known as the Dimmick Defalcation."
The fact that they can't be found in old accounts isn't proof positive that they weren't part of the heist... but laying that aside, it's also possible that the thieves converted some $20s into smaller denominations at some point.
"The hoard's coins don't have what experts call "bag marks," which they would expect to see on coins that had been vaulted for any length of time."
THIS is the statement I have a big problem with. So these are all MS70 coins? Doubt it. Once something is put in a vault and stays there it isn't going to pick up a lot of bagmarks...so this statement makes me think the guy's just reaching now. Odd coming from a senior numismatist.
"None of the hoard coins have dates after 1894, which would mean they would have been stored for six years at a minimum if they were from the mint job. "Who keeps 6-year-old inventory, especially of something that is not hard to get rid of?" McCarthy said"
Who does that? Um....that would be...THE U.S. MINT. Two words....GSA hoard.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
<< <i>Actually, Jack Trout's research could hold water. After all, the guy does have credibility within numismatic circles. Don't you remember when he covered the Harry Bass auctions in 1999, or the time he reported on the Mel Fisher treasure in 1985? >>
...I say that outside of fly fishing a river the guy doesn't know "jack trout" about this gold coin hoard
Erik
<< <i>
Even though the number and value of the coins swiped from a cashier's vault at the mint match the hoard >>
The media can't even get that aspect of the story right. Different face value, different quantity of coins, and different denominations than the Dimmick heist. "Sort of maybe kinda close" doesn't cut it when you have the particulars of the Dimmick theft in writing.
<< <i>
<< <i>Actually, Jack Trout's research could hold water. After all, the guy does have credibility within numismatic circles. Don't you remember when he covered the Harry Bass auctions in 1999, or the time he reported on the Mel Fisher treasure in 1985? >>
Weren't those red herrings?
Eric >>
That's one school of thought
<< <i>
<< <i>
Even though the number and value of the coins swiped from a cashier's vault at the mint match the hoard >>
The media can't even get that aspect of the story right. Different face value, different quantity of coins, and different denominations than the Dimmick heist. "Sort of maybe kinda close" doesn't cut it when you have the particulars of the Dimmick theft in writing. >>
Correct. There is no "match."
<< <i>
The fact that they can't be found in old accounts isn't proof positive that they weren't part of the heist... but laying that aside, it's also possible that the thieves converted some $20s into smaller denominations at some point. >>
Well if it's "possible" then it certainly must be the case. Let's pack up the coins right away and ship to the government.
By this logic, any hoard ever found should be the property of the government. Cuz you know, Dimmick could have swapped the coins he stole for something else.
<< <i>
<< <i>
The fact that they can't be found in old accounts isn't proof positive that they weren't part of the heist... but laying that aside, it's also possible that the thieves converted some $20s into smaller denominations at some point. >>
Well if it's "possible" then it certainly must be the case. Let's pack up the coins right away and ship to the government.
By this logic, any hoard ever found should be the property of the government. Cuz you know, Dimmick could have swapped the coins he stole for something else. >>
Or, space aliens might have transmogrified them into used coins of different dates!!!!!
<< <i>
<< <i>
Even though the number and value of the coins swiped from a cashier's vault at the mint match the hoard >>
The media can't even get that aspect of the story right. Different face value, different quantity of coins, and different denominations than the Dimmick heist. "Sort of maybe kinda close" doesn't cut it when you have the particulars of the Dimmick theft in writing. >>
Do we know the specifics of the denominations of the heist? The coins found are "substantially similar" to that of the heist as best the information is available. I don't think that can be rationally argued. If I steal 10 $100 bills and you find 9 $100's a twenty and a five on me the next day that isn't probative? The arguments that "prove" this isn't the heist property make no sense and certainly don't prove anything.
Release the property description and by the end of the week we'd have a very good idea as to what happened.
<< <i>
<< <i>
The fact that they can't be found in old accounts isn't proof positive that they weren't part of the heist... but laying that aside, it's also possible that the thieves converted some $20s into smaller denominations at some point. >>
Well if it's "possible" then it certainly must be the case. Let's pack up the coins right away and ship to the government.
By this logic, any hoard ever found should be the property of the government. Cuz you know, Dimmick could have swapped the coins he stole for something else. >>
Sigh. Right, that's what I was saying. Not.
Funny that's the only thing I stated you chose to poke fun at. Nowhere did I say anything about packing up the coins. What I said was entirely plausible. I'm just saying that this guy's statements aren't really helping his cause.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
<< <i>Selective paraphrasing, ridicule and mockery are what you learn not to use in high school speech & debate unless one likes to have the second to the last laugh. >>
Apologies if anyone was offended, but I didn't paraphrase anything -- I directly quoted a statement that I found highly implausible, as indeed I find much of the "Saddle Ridge = Dimmick" theory simply grasping at straws.
Where was Dimmick from?
Where did he live?
Where did his relatives live?
Maybe the coins were loot hidden by the Knights of the Golden Circle
controversy. I say pack up all the Coins and the cans and allow the various Congressmen to examine
the evidence for 30 days. At the proper time, call in all the major players and grill all of them under the
bright glare of the CNN cameras. Hopefully all the evidence will not have dissapeared like so many 1974
Aluminum Cents.
We want and deserve the truth about this very serious matter. If needed we want Mark McGuire to advocate
for the mysterious couple and tearfully swear that no they never used PEDs and that they indeed did find
these Coins in a bunch of rusty cans.
With a national sports hero on their side I'm sure the mystery couple will prevail. All will be well and we can
finally snatch up the booty off of Amazon. Anyone that cant afford the Amazon offerings may be able to
snatch a few bargains off ebay after the Congressional spring cleanings that may reveal a few coins that may
show up in a few closets and desks.