Options
U.S. Mint Wants 1974-D Aluminum Cent Back
FredWeinberg
Posts: 5,724 ✭✭✭✭✭
This was just posted on both Coin World and Numismatic News Websites.
The Chief Counsel of the U.S. Mint Daniel Shaver has sent a letter to the
owner of the newly discovered 1974-Denver Aluminum Cent saying they
want it back - not issued legally, etc.
Sorry I can't do the links, but I'm sure someone else will do that........
I'm not entirely surprised at this action - disappointed, not surprised.
The Chief Counsel of the U.S. Mint Daniel Shaver has sent a letter to the
owner of the newly discovered 1974-Denver Aluminum Cent saying they
want it back - not issued legally, etc.
Sorry I can't do the links, but I'm sure someone else will do that........
I'm not entirely surprised at this action - disappointed, not surprised.
Retired Collector & Dealer in Major Mint Error Coins & Currency since the 1960's.Co-Author of Whitman's "100 Greatest U.S. Mint Error Coins", and the Error Coin Encyclopedia, Vols., III & IV. Retired Authenticator for Major Mint Errors
for PCGS. A 49+-Year PNG Member...A full numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022
for PCGS. A 49+-Year PNG Member...A full numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022
0
Comments
numismaticnews.com
coinworld.com
Erik
<< <i>With the troubles regarding the 1933 twenties, I was wondering why they didn't go after it.
Are patterns now threatened, or were they 'issued'?
edit: Guess I should ask, "other patterns", since the 74-D is a pattern, in the true sense.
I know the Mint 'traded' many, long ago, but I wonder if they'll start scrutinizing their 'list'. (!) >>
The simple answer is YES. Here is a quote from the article:
Lawrence cites "pattern" coins - experimental pieces illustrating a proposed coin design or embodying a proposed change in coin composition, size or shape - which were never issued as legal tender, but have been widely collected and sold without interference from the government.
Other rare coins - including the 1913 Liberty Head nickel, the 1894-S dime, and the 1943 copper penny - were never officially issued as tender, but the government has made no attempt to reclaim them, the complaint states.
"Now, after over a century, the government states, in effect, that none of these coins is legal to own.
"Without doubt, this is a radical position on the government's part. The government has made no effort to reclaim or recover any of the thousands of other non-legal tender coins produced by the Mint," the complaint states.
In the pursuit of Lawrence's aluminum penny, the government is "defying a century of precedent allowing and encouraging private ownership of such coins," Lawrence says.
If the government has the legal basis to reclaim some of the most valued coins in the numismatic community, it would be a disaster for collectors and the general public, Lawrence says.
"The government's successful claim to plaintiffs' aluminum cent would place a cloud over all non-legal tender coins because it would permit future seizures without warning or further justification. Inevitably, fear of such action would cause many important and historic coins to be exported or simply hidden, depriving numismatists and Americans generally of their beauty and educational value," the complaint states.
Lawrence and McConnell seek a declaratory judgment that the government has no legal claim to their 1974-D aluminum penny.
Lance.
<< <i>Plaintiffs have a good argument. I hope this gets put to bed quickly.
Lance. >>
No such thing with lawsuit and the government also for that matter
Erik
On the other hand, I hate the thought that a Mint employee (or his heirs) might get to collect a windfall profit, simply by taking what is not really theirs.
And it's silly that the consignors have resorted to the argument that confiscating the 74-D jeopardizes all other "unissued" rarities that have left the Mint. As far as I understand it, that is simply not true. The Mint abandoned their claims to such coins - at least the ones that have been in the marketplace for decades - long ago.
Time to negotiate a settlement, folks.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
I think there's one aspect, as written in the articles, that bears repeating: The person who came into possession of the coin was a MINT EMPLOYEE. It's pretty hard to imagine an easier basis for a case of "theft of government property" than that.
(Leaving open the possibility that it was presented as a gift, or award, or something like that, which may be difficult to prove....may be easy to prove. Depends on the circumstances.)
From Uncle Sam's point of view, I doubt they want to leave Mint employees, (or Defense Department, or FBI, or Social Security employees), with the impression that they can take what crosses their desk, and leave it to their heirs.
Full disclosure: I'm speaking as a Government employee....so take it for what it's worth.
It's a waste of money since if returned they will not gain revenue from them and they already have examples and could have kept more if they wanted more. At least in private hands the sellers pay tax and with each sale more taxes are paid along the way.
I hope this doesn't morph into going after other coins or whatever they did not intend to be issued.
<< <i>U.S. Mint Wants 1974-D Aluminum Cent Back >>
<< <i>It seems unfair that they never tracked or went after the politicians that never returned these coins but now they will keep track of private individuals and go after them if they don't return them. >>
Interesting point but I would change the word unfair to HYPOCRITICAL
known to have been stolen and improperly produced and issued are allowed to exist in
collections but anything made since 1933 is illegal to own despite its actual circumstances.
The government, obviously, needs to track down stolen property but it is not legitimate
to single out coins simply because they were produced after an arbitrary date or might be
stolen.
It's just wrong. It deprives people of legally obtained property and it deprives the hobby
of coins. Worst is it deprives the future of important coins and patterns.
How ironic that these aluminum coins were made by the US Mint back at a time that com-
mon sense still prevailed and these were patterns intended to manifest it in less expensive
metal.
IIRC, aren't the Sac mules in the same category??
<< <i>I strongly disappove of this action. It is institutionalized modern bashing. Old coins
known to have been stolen and improperly produced and issued are allowed to exist in
collections but anything made since 1933 is illegal to own despite its actual circumstances.
The government, obviously, needs to track down stolen property but it is not legitimate
to single out coins simply because they were produced after an arbitrary date or might be
stolen.
It's just wrong. It deprives people of legally obtained property and it deprives the hobby
of coins. Worst is it deprives the future of important coins and patterns.
How ironic that these aluminum coins were made by the US Mint back at a time that com-
mon sense still prevailed and these were patterns intended to manifest it in less expensive
metal. >>
+1
type2,CCHunter.
<< <i>On the other hand, I hate the thought that a Mint employee (or his heirs) might get to collect a windfall profit, simply by taking what is not really theirs.
IIRC, aren't the Sac mules in the same category?? >>
I thought the Mint tried to go after the Sac mules, but failed. Maybe Fred can chime in on that one. It's been so long ago that I do not recall the circumstances or outcome.
The 1856 FEs were not intended for release. Similar to the 74 aluminum cents, they were given to congress and the committee on coinage and the president and had no congressional approval to be released.
Statute of limitations and the doctrine of laches.
But then they just crank up the money machine when they need more.
The Mysterious Egyptian Magic Coin
Coins in Movies
Coins on Television
We got us a monopoly on our mistakes, boys.
1. appropriate;
2. desireable; and
3. even necessary.
As long as it is not happening to them (in which case it is completely wrong and unfair).
The century plus inaction by the government with respect to other suspect coins (patterns, 1913 V nickels, etc.) is of scant comfort and assurance to the persons who possess these coins today. The government can change its position whenever it chooses to do so and people effected by same have little practical chance of successfully fighting it.
Heck, even if a legal battle over ownership and possession of a suspect coin or pattern is waged and the government loses, there is nothing to prevent the government from launching a second assault against the owner/possessor of the item based upon other legal principals (taxation, seizure, levy and sale; or eminent domain; or ....).
is there not a statute of limitations with this type of stuff or was it discussed with the langbord case and i was absent that day?
.
E
It won't affect coin collecting much if any.
<< <i>…if this were my cent and the government tried to snatch it…right before they could get their hands on it...I would take my daughter to Sea World and let her run it through the "penny smashing" souvenir machine…she would make a real Shamu out of it
Erik >>
<< <i>Do you think we can do without the political insults to the president?
NO! He's made more then a mockery of politics and deserves every bit of it. Sorry you voted for him?
type2,CCHunter.
<< <i>
<< <i>I strongly disappove of this action. It is institutionalized modern bashing. Old coins
known to have been stolen and improperly produced and issued are allowed to exist in
collections but anything made since 1933 is illegal to own despite its actual circumstances.
The government, obviously, needs to track down stolen property but it is not legitimate
to single out coins simply because they were produced after an arbitrary date or might be
stolen.
It's just wrong. It deprives people of legally obtained property and it deprives the hobby
of coins. Worst is it deprives the future of important coins and patterns.
How ironic that these aluminum coins were made by the US Mint back at a time that com-
mon sense still prevailed and these were patterns intended to manifest it in less expensive
metal. >>
+1 >>
Make it +2
Our current administration has much better things to spend their time on than justifying their own existence by defying common sense.
Too bad they are still stuck on "organizing" than "leading".
“In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." - Thomas Jefferson
My digital cameo album 1950-64 Cameos - take a look!
<< <i>
<< <i>…if this were my cent and the government tried to snatch it…right before they could get their hands on it...I would take my daughter to Sea World and let her run it through the "penny smashing" souvenir machine…she would make a real Shamu out of it
Erik >>
That would be really immature and hypocritical if one were to also state that the government getting it would get rid of a numismatic treasure (like some are claiming with the 1933 DEs)......
If it were ill gotten gains that should never have been out, even if they were ultimately acquired "legitimately", that doesn't make it right.
Akin to someone stealing something, then selling it to someone else who didn't know it was stolen (though, in the case of the Aluminum cent, I think each owner along the way knew there could/would be issues if ownership were publicized.....)
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
On the rest of it: They're so late to the dance it's absolutely pathetic. Even if they try to go after some, they have ZERO chance of winning anything. But it is a concern to the coin market, because no new discoveries are gonna be announced anytime soon.
<< <i>It seems unfair that they never tracked or went after the politicians that never returned these coins but now they will keep track of private individuals and go after them if they don't return them.
It's a waste of money since if returned they will not gain revenue from them and they already have examples and could have kept more if they wanted more. At least in private hands the sellers pay tax and with each sale more taxes are paid along the way.
I hope this doesn't morph into going after other coins or whatever they did not intend to be issued. >>
I think in court it could be argued that since the US Treasury never went after the politicians that kept the 1974-P aluminum cents, the Mint has relinquished control over all of them.
What a bunch of bullies.
"If I say something in the woods and my wife isn't there to hear it.....am I still wrong?"
My Washington Quarter Registry set...in progress
type2,CCHunter.
<< <i>I think in court it could be argued that since the US Treasury never went after the politicians that kept the 1974-P aluminum cents, the Mint has relinquished control over all of them. >>
I'm sympathetic to the collectors but I don't get this logic. If the government ignores one thief, does that make it wrong for them to prosecute another? No, it just makes it wrong to not go after the first thief.
<< <i>Speaking purely as a citizen of the USA, I'm angry that taxpayer dollars will be spent chasing the 74-D, and that a victory by the USA would mean Uncle Sam foregoing the tax due on a private sale of the coin. Not to mention the charitable good that the consignors promise to do with their windfall gain. What a waste. What a disgrace.
On the other hand, I hate the thought that a Mint employee (or his heirs) might get to collect a windfall profit, simply by taking what is not really theirs.
And it's silly that the consignors have resorted to the argument that confiscating the 74-D jeopardizes all other "unissued" rarities that have left the Mint. As far as I understand it, that is simply not true. The Mint abandoned their claims to such coins - at least the ones that have been in the marketplace for decades - long ago.
Time to negotiate a settlement, folks. >>
No offense intended Andy but yours was the first post I found that talked about tax dollars being wasted.
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but the attorney's that will be or are handling this case get paid a specific salary REGARDLESS of what they work on. In other words, from a personnel standpoint, there is no waste as they are simply doing their jobs.
The only waste I would imagine would be in specific filing fee's as any other costs associated with generating this or that are already consumed in overhead.
Right?
I suppose the other way to look at it is as a waste of the courts "time" to hear other cases but again those costs are already built into the system.
Is it really a waste? Sure! It's only a "principal" that's being argued here in that they say its their property and was taken without authorization.
Say, is there any specific "documentation" regarding the 1964 SMS Sets that were in Director Adam's estate? Maybe those coins are all illegal as well?
The best I can guess is that someone really wants this coin for perhaps the National Collection. Other than that I see no real reason to pursue this. A government employee (a supervisor no less) kept one for his collection. Since there was no record of them being produced, maybe he thought it was ok to do so.
QUESTION: How can the US Treasury Department claim that this is their coin if no records exist of them being made? Wouldn't this fall under the same rules as the 1913 Liberty Nickel?
The name is LEE!
<< <i>On the other hand, I hate the thought that a Mint employee (or his heirs) might get to collect a windfall profit, simply by taking what is not really theirs.
IIRC, aren't the Sac mules in the same category?? >>
In addition to some of the "made to order" proof Eisenhower Dollar errors which were smuggled out of the facility since they would never fit into the packaging?
The name is LEE!
<< <i>Do you think we can do without the political insults to the president?
Thank You! Folks need to keep with the subject matter.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>While each case of the government (Fed, State and/or Local) taking action to seize property stands or falls on its own particular set of facts, it is more likely now than in years past that the mindset of large segments of the general public [and of governmental authorities, politicians, civil servants] regarding government seizure of property is that it is:
1. appropriate;
2. desireable; and
3. even necessary.
As long as it is not happening to them (in which case it is completely wrong and unfair).
The century plus inaction by the government with respect to other suspect coins (patterns, 1913 V nickels, etc.) is of scant comfort and assurance to the persons who possess these coins today. The government can change its position whenever it chooses to do so and people effected by same have little practical chance of successfully fighting it.
Heck, even if a legal battle over ownership and possession of a suspect coin or pattern is waged and the government loses, there is nothing to prevent the government from launching a second assault against the owner/possessor of the item based upon other legal principals (taxation, seizure, levy and sale; or eminent domain; or ....). >>
Hmmmm. Couldn't this coin be considered an "off metal error" similar to the 1974-D and 1977-D IKEs and Kennedy's. Aside from speculation on the Treasury Departments side of using aluminum for cent production and subsequently minting 1.5 MILLION at the Philadelphia Mint, it appears to me that these coins were made in error since no record exists of them being made.
Were there any records indicating that aluminum blanks had been sent to Denver?
Maybe the fella that said they have no record of them being made was talking out of his butt and really did not perform the due diligence required before making such a statement?
But whatever, it's outrageous that something as trivial as a "one cent coin" that has a value of "ONE CENT" (according to the government) would cause such actions.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>.
is there not a statute of limitations with this type of stuff or was it discussed with the langbord case and i was absent that day?
. >>
Statute of Limitation on "prosecution" of the thief but as far as I know there is no statute of limitation on getting back that which is rightfully yours.
For example: Say you owned a 1913 Liberty Nickel and someone stole it from you.
After 20 years, the thief dies and "your coin" is found within his/her estate. Would you not want it returned to you if you could prove, without a doubt, that the coin was yours?
The name is LEE!
<< <i>It's not right...and it stinks, but the government will do what the government wants to do.
It won't affect coin collecting much if any. >>
That really remains to be seen but the real question would be: Exactly what is the point since Pattern Collecting and other "unauthorized issues" have been publically traded for over 100 years without prosecution or forfeiture?
I just do not understand the WHY's behind this action since it is, only ONE CENT. (Technically)
The name is LEE!