<< <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. >>
Ownership doesn't pass on stolen goods. This isn't to say they should change policy and start pursuing coins that were stolen centuries ago, merely that claiming a coin is stolen because it wasn't officially issued is tantamount to claiming they track every sin- gle coin they make and everyone that goes out the door. They have no such control over their product or every means by which their product might leave the premises.
All sorts of things turn up in mint bags and this even includes coins not yet issued. Are we supposed to discard coins we find because the mint has no record of issuing it? If they can't show it's stolen then it's just wrong to assume it's stolen. Are we really sup- posed to believe people are walking in off the street and grabbing handfuls of whatever is just lying around?
No! It's nonsense. The mint is embarrassed by their mistakes so they try to destroy them. This comes at great cost to hobby, the owners, and the future. It casts a pall on the entire hobby since very few can prove any of his coins were never stolen. Imagine trying to prove an ancient coin is legitimate and shouldn't be taken away and given to some claimant. Now you not only would have to show that it was never stolen but that it was legally sold in each instance.
Why are all the coins they chase post 1933? They've even destroyed coins in the past only later to learn they were not only real but legitimate to own. The DDO '69 cents are a case in point. The owners were never made whole.
<< <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". >>
I seriously doubt that the current "administration" is even aware of what is occurring since the Executive Branch of the Federal Government (i.e. The "Administration") is separate from the Judicial Branch of the Federal Government.
What Branch does the Treasury Department belong to anyway? Of course, the Secretary of the Treasury is on the President's Cabinet but I don't think Jacob J. Lew knows about this action either.
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
<< <i>I 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. >>
Ownership doesn't pass on stolen goods. This isn't to say they should change policy and start pursuing coins that were stolen centuries ago, merely that claiming a coin is stolen because it wasn't officially issued is tantamount to claiming they track every sin- gle coin they make and everyone that goes out the door. They have no such control over their product or every means by which their product might leave the premises.
All sorts of things turn up in mint bags and this even includes coins not yet issued. Are we supposed to discard coins we find because the mint has no record of issuing it? If they can't show it's stolen then it's just wrong to assume it's stolen. Are we really sup- posed to believe people are walking in off the street and grabbing handfuls of whatever is just lying around?
No! It's nonsense. The mint is embarrassed by their mistakes so they try to destroy them. This comes at great cost to hobby, the owners, and the future. It casts a pall on the entire hobby since very few can prove any of his coins were never stolen. Imagine trying to prove an ancient coin is legitimate and shouldn't be taken away and given to some claimant. Now you not only would have to show that it was never stolen but that it was legally sold in each instance.
Why are all the coins they chase post 1933? They've even destroyed coins in the past only later to learn they were not only real but legitimate to own. The DDO '69 cents are a case in point. The owners were never made whole. >>
I agree with you Sam.
A precedent has been set and hopefully the Courts will tell the Mint to go pound sand.
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
I remember seeing one at a dealer's table years ago. He had it on display on a velvet cover block of wood. I was interested enough to buy a zinc plated one to add to the other odds and ends of a Lincoln set.
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
The mint should switch to aluminum for 2015 and beyond.... and also start making a billion of the aluminum cents a year have the date 1974.. just for kicks.
No dog in this fight, obviously, but will enjoy the show.
The Mint should sell at auction all retrieved items, so as not to 'deprive the people of their numismatic art and history'. >>
I only disagree with this statement.
IF the goal is to preserve numismatic art and history, then SELLING them is the incorrect path. Those sold have the potential to "disappear" for generations. They should instead be placed in appropriate museums for display, and study as desired.
I realize this flies in the face of what many COLLECTORS might want. But in these rare cases, the mint shouldn't be acting for the benefit of collectors. The public, and the researchers have a clearer case for "ownership" of these rarities.
<< <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. >>
If government employees are busy doing this then more workers may need to be hired to handle other matters. Clearly this shouldn't cause much of an impact on overall labor (key word being shouldn't) however, to take the argument that "Well, they are salaried already so anything they work on is not a waste of money" is I believe incorrect. Obviously there are other factors as well, some of which you mentioned.
<< <i>I have a feeling, (with no insider knowledge), that MOST patterns are going to be left alone. I think the Mint/Govt would have a hard time explaining why they've watched them change hands for decades, and have changed their minds now. That angle is probably more driven by the current 1974D owners to generate support.
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. >>
If you are talking about patterns issued before 1917 you are most likely correct. I think that the last year for patterns that legally can be owned by the public is 1916 (I may be off by a year or two here). Patterns issued after 1916 that are not supposed to be in private hands.
I, personally, do not understand the governments stance on this, as they can collect taxes on capital gains every time one of these big ticket patterns is sold. They have nothing to lose and taxes to gain by legalizing all patterns. They issued them, why not let the public own them and gain funds in doing so? What harm is in the public owning patterns anyway? Just look at all the taxes they can collect by legalizing private ownership of 1933 double eagles alone. If they confiscate them and melt them down they get gold value only. As for the other coins mentioned, like 1913 v-nickels, please don't give them any ideas.
Why doesn't the government "find" a few bags of 1964-D peace dollars and sell them to the public? THEY CAN'T Lose if they do stuff like this. What are they afraid of?
IF the goal is to preserve numismatic art and history, then SELLING them is the incorrect path. Those sold have the potential to "disappear" for generations. They should instead be placed in appropriate museums for display, and study as desired.
I realize this flies in the face of what many COLLECTORS might want. But in these rare cases, the mint shouldn't be acting for the benefit of collectors. The public, and the researchers have a clearer case for "ownership" of these rarities. >>
If I find a Jefferson nickel struck on a struck Canadian nickel in a box of 2014 coins from my bank how can the mint make a case that it belongs to them? If Swit found a handful (or purchased a handful) of 1933 saints found in a bag of 32's or someone found the '74-D cent in a bag then how can these belond to the mint? If the mint sells or scraps a press with coins lodged inside then to whom do these coins belong? Just because a chain of ownership can't be established or proven is no indication that any sort of foul play was involved. Essentially there is the presumption of guilt on any party that has any coin that the mint is embarrassed to have issued. Will they someday is- sue a recall of all Jefferson nickels because he was a slave owner? Pre-1853 silver pur- ity wasn't authorized by Congress and are technically "illegal". Will these be recalled? Will a lawyer find a flaw in the Coinage Act of 1965 that leads to a recall of all coins made after that date?
This is a basic question of who owns our coins. Obviously we don't want coins stolen from the mint and we don't want to see a new flurry of "midnight minting" just because the mint will tolerate theft. But the definitions of "legal" and "illegal" are arbitrary and capricious. Worst though is that there is no need to establish that a coin was stolen or improperly released by the mint. They actually passed out the Philly version of this coin and then expected to get back all of them!! Many people simply have no interest in such matters and would make no attempt to keep track of them. It's also unfair to attempt to force compliance with a change of mind or change of procedure after the fact.
There may be no simple solution but common sense seems to suggest that vigorously pursuing and prosecuting for coins known to be stolen and ignoring as many of the rest as possible would be a step in the right direction. They have the waffle machine now for in-house destruction of "undesired" coins. There will continue to be accidents because it's impossible to make billions of coins and numerous trials and patterns and not have failures. Their job should be much more to continue to make improvements to product- tion and security and to try to stop the accidental issuance of such coins rather than to round up escapees. Older coins should be "grandfathered in" as legal to own after a cou- ple generations and coins that are stolen should be grandfathered in after a century (ex- cept when never previously bought or sold).
If they are going to take the stance that the '74-D is "illegal" they should at least justify that stance with something better than their estimation of the odds it was illegally issued.
I think that the last year for patterns that legally can be owned by the public is 1916 (I may be off by a year or two here). Patterns issued after 1916 that are not supposed to be in private hands.
That's a myth. There's nothing magical about the 1916 date, except that not many patterns were struck after 1916, and they tend to be very esoteric in nature.
Actually, the Mint stopped selling patterns in 1885. Very little exists for the period 1886-1915, and most remain in government hands. Then you get a series of 1916 patterns, quite a few of which made it into collectors' hands, and perhaps half of them circulated. And after 1916, the pickings get very slim.
And one more thing, which I stated earlier but which bears repeating. My contention is that the Mint abandoned any claims to virtually all patterns by allowing them to trade freely in the marketplace for decades. However, they have a claim - not necessarily a right - to 1974-P Aluminum cents and 1933 Double Eagles because they went after those coins virtually immediately, and they never let up. The 74-D was only recently discovered, so the Mint's claim has clearly not yet been abandoned.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
I have at least one of every forbidden coin out of the US Mint. I spent very little on each coin so anytime the coin gestapo wants to raid me they are welcome to do so.
I'll just get more from my friend in Beijing.
Oh and to the coin gestapo - grow up and go get a real job. Bunch of useless government sponges.
>>It's only because the person(s) currently holding the coin refuses to return it without a legal fight, that the US has to spend more than the cost of that letter, (wherein they asked for it's return,) to get it back.
The government is doing it's proscribed legal duty, while allowing for the civil processes to be played out, as is just and required by our tradition, custom, and laws.
The expensive court procedures need not happen at all... that they will happen is solely the choice of those who seek to establish title to the coin for themselves, rather than simply return it.<<
Agreed. Also agree with those who don't think it is right for a public servant to steal stuff.
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>Another example of potential unjust enrichment for the heirs of an insider.
It should be seized immediately. >>
Huh?
What about the 1964 SMS Sets which were in the estate of Eva Adams?
"These 1964 Special Strike Kennedy Half’s were first noticed in 1993 when they appeared in a Stacks auction. Apparently, the coins originated from Lester Merkin who was a well known coin dealer. His collection was later consigned to Stacks. It is also believed that Lester Merkin initially acquired the coins from a Mint employee or Eva Adams who was former Director of the U.S. Mint." - Jaime Hernandez, PCGSCoinFacts
Should these all be seized since there is no record of them being produced? Until 1993, nobody even knew they existed! Was Eva Adams an insider? Did she not get "enriched"?
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
<< <i>Another example of potential unjust enrichment for the heirs of an insider.
It should be seized immediately. >>
Huh?
What about the 1964 SMS Sets which were in the estate of Eva Adams?
"These 1964 Special Strike Kennedy Half’s were first noticed in 1993 when they appeared in a Stacks auction. Apparently, the coins originated from Lester Merkin who was a well known coin dealer. His collection was later consigned to Stacks. It is also believed that Lester Merkin initially acquired the coins from a Mint employee or Eva Adams who was former Director of the U.S. Mint." - Jaime Hernandez, PCGSCoinFacts
Should these all be seized since there is no record of them being produced? Until 1993, nobody even knew they existed! Was Eva Adams an insider? Did she not get "enriched"? >>
Are those similar enough to regular strikes that they could be authorized under the regular Congressional authorization. I don't think Congressional approval details the smoothness of surfaces, lack of knicks/scratches and the squareness and sharpness of edges, etc. that those are known for.
<< <i>The expensive court procedures need not happen at all... that they will happen is solely the choice of those who seek to establish title to the coin for themselves, rather than simply return it. >>
Ahhhh. I understand.
So its like, my father leaves ME a coin which is rightfully ASSUMED to be MINE so I sell it and the buyer discovers its real value then includes ME in the transaction, which gets publicized, then along comes the "government" to say that, even though we did not know it, the coin belongs to us to which I say, I'm sorry but I claimed first ownership and in order for you to get it you'll have to deal with me in a court of law and now it becomes MY FAULT that the "government" is going to spend money to take away what I believe is MINE??
Makes perfect sense.
IF you happen to live under a government who BELIEVES that just because they say it is so then it must be so.
I look forward to wasting my taxpayer dollars in this action.
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
Fact: The US Mint often strikes coins on wrong metal planchets and releases them into circulation unintentionally Fact: The US Mint stated the Denver mint struck NO aluminum cents as patterns
Conclusion: The coin is not a bonafide pattern, but rather an off metal striking that the Mint has no claim against.
<< <i>Another example of potential unjust enrichment for the heirs of an insider.
It should be seized immediately. >>
Huh?
What about the 1964 SMS Sets which were in the estate of Eva Adams?
"These 1964 Special Strike Kennedy Half’s were first noticed in 1993 when they appeared in a Stacks auction. Apparently, the coins originated from Lester Merkin who was a well known coin dealer. His collection was later consigned to Stacks. It is also believed that Lester Merkin initially acquired the coins from a Mint employee or Eva Adams who was former Director of the U.S. Mint." - Jaime Hernandez, PCGSCoinFacts
Should these all be seized since there is no record of them being produced? Until 1993, nobody even knew they existed! Was Eva Adams an insider? Did she not get "enriched"? >>
Are those similar enough to regular strikes that they could be authorized under the regular Congressional authorization. I don't think Congressional approval details the smoothness of surfaces, lack of knicks/scratches and the squareness and sharpness of edges, etc. that those are known for. >>
Congressional authorization is only part of the process. As stated in the "Million Dollar Nickel", the coin must be delivered to and signed for by the Federal Reserve Bank for delivery to the public which is the last step of the "monetization" process. These SMS coins obviously had not.
Again, since there is no record of a special run of striking these coins (with the exception of those coins destined for the NNC) should they not also be confiscated?
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
<< <i>Another example of potential unjust enrichment for the heirs of an insider.
It should be seized immediately. >>
Huh?
What about the 1964 SMS Sets which were in the estate of Eva Adams?
"These 1964 Special Strike Kennedy Half’s were first noticed in 1993 when they appeared in a Stacks auction. Apparently, the coins originated from Lester Merkin who was a well known coin dealer. His collection was later consigned to Stacks. It is also believed that Lester Merkin initially acquired the coins from a Mint employee or Eva Adams who was former Director of the U.S. Mint." - Jaime Hernandez, PCGSCoinFacts
Should these all be seized since there is no record of them being produced? Until 1993, nobody even knew they existed! Was Eva Adams an insider? Did she not get "enriched"? >>
Are those similar enough to regular strikes that they could be authorized under the regular Congressional authorization. I don't think Congressional approval details the smoothness of surfaces, lack of knicks/scratches and the squareness and sharpness of edges, etc. that those are known for. >>
Congressional authorization is only part of the process. As stated in the "Million Dollar Nickel", the coin must be delivered to and signed for by the Federal Reserve Bank for delivery to the public which is the last step of the "monetization" process. These SMS coins obviously had not.
Again, since there is no record of a special run of striking these coins (with the exception of those coins destined for the NNC) should they not also be confiscated? >>
I don't know much about these pieces. Does the Mint consider these special strikings? Or is it mostly collectors and TPGs that do?
<< <i>Another example of potential unjust enrichment for the heirs of an insider.
It should be seized immediately. >>
Huh?
What about the 1964 SMS Sets which were in the estate of Eva Adams?
"These 1964 Special Strike Kennedy Half’s were first noticed in 1993 when they appeared in a Stacks auction. Apparently, the coins originated from Lester Merkin who was a well known coin dealer. His collection was later consigned to Stacks. It is also believed that Lester Merkin initially acquired the coins from a Mint employee or Eva Adams who was former Director of the U.S. Mint." - Jaime Hernandez, PCGSCoinFacts
Should these all be seized since there is no record of them being produced? Until 1993, nobody even knew they existed! Was Eva Adams an insider? Did she not get "enriched"? >>
Even if Mint director Adams had them triple struck for a presentation, 1964 Kennedy half dollars are an authorized issue of the US Mint.
The record of their production is easy to find, they are included in the mintage figures of that year. >>
Well, in that case, so are Lincoln Cents.
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
<< <i>Another example of potential unjust enrichment for the heirs of an insider.
It should be seized immediately. >>
Huh?
What about the 1964 SMS Sets which were in the estate of Eva Adams?
"These 1964 Special Strike Kennedy Half’s were first noticed in 1993 when they appeared in a Stacks auction. Apparently, the coins originated from Lester Merkin who was a well known coin dealer. His collection was later consigned to Stacks. It is also believed that Lester Merkin initially acquired the coins from a Mint employee or Eva Adams who was former Director of the U.S. Mint." - Jaime Hernandez, PCGSCoinFacts
Should these all be seized since there is no record of them being produced? Until 1993, nobody even knew they existed! Was Eva Adams an insider? Did she not get "enriched"? >>
Are those similar enough to regular strikes that they could be authorized under the regular Congressional authorization. I don't think Congressional approval details the smoothness of surfaces, lack of knicks/scratches and the squareness and sharpness of edges, etc. that those are known for. >>
Congressional authorization is only part of the process. As stated in the "Million Dollar Nickel", the coin must be delivered to and signed for by the Federal Reserve Bank for delivery to the public which is the last step of the "monetization" process. These SMS coins obviously had not.
Again, since there is no record of a special run of striking these coins (with the exception of those coins destined for the NNC) should they not also be confiscated? >>
I don't know much about these pieces. Does the Mint consider these special strikings? Or is it mostly collectors and TPGs that do? >>
Unknown since there is no record of their existence. Just what came out of Eva Adams Estate.
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
<< <i>Fact: The US Mint often strikes coins on wrong metal planchets and releases them into circulation unintentionally Fact: The US Mint stated the Denver mint struck NO aluminum cents as patterns
Conclusion: The coin is not a bonafide pattern, but rather an off metal striking that the Mint has no claim against. >>
Exactly like the other "error" coins which HE Lawrence possessed and passed to his son.
It seems fairly straightforward.
Well, except for the part where the initial 10 or 12 were struck. Where'd the planchets come from since Philadelphia nor the Treasury have no record of Denver Strikes being scheduled to occur. (Maybe a handful was picked up on a visit to Philadelphia?)
The dies were self evident.
Were the 10 or 12 "actually" shipped to Washington? If so, where are the records?
Were these strikings actually authorized?
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
So that means the '72 aluminum cent that I have personally held, either does not exist, was struck by error or was pilfered from the mint. Darn.... Cheers, RickO
If the hobby believes the 1974-D aluminum cent is an error coin and not an experimental pattern, it may be good to get clarification from the hobby's leading experts including PCGS (updating the cert report, insert, and press release) and other experts like Fred earlier rather than later.
<< <i>So that means the '72 aluminum cent that I have personally held, either does not exist, was struck by error or was pilfered from the mint. Darn.... Cheers, RickO >>
<< <i>Another example of potential unjust enrichment for the heirs of an insider.
It should be seized immediately. >>
Huh?
What about the 1964 SMS Sets which were in the estate of Eva Adams?
"These 1964 Special Strike Kennedy Half’s were first noticed in 1993 when they appeared in a Stacks auction. Apparently, the coins originated from Lester Merkin who was a well known coin dealer. His collection was later consigned to Stacks. It is also believed that Lester Merkin initially acquired the coins from a Mint employee or Eva Adams who was former Director of the U.S. Mint." - Jaime Hernandez, PCGSCoinFacts
Should these all be seized since there is no record of them being produced? Until 1993, nobody even knew they existed! Was Eva Adams an insider? Did she not get "enriched"? >>
Even if Mint director Adams had them triple struck for a presentation, 1964 Kennedy half dollars are an authorized issue of the US Mint.
The record of their production is easy to find, they are included in the mintage figures of that year. >>
Well, in that case, so are Lincoln Cents. >>
One issue here seems to be that Congress may have specifically rejected (not authorized) the aluminum cents so there's less of a question on whether they were authorized or not. There was a Mint proposal and the cents were rejected in part to due to lobbying from the copper mining and vending machine industries.
Interestingly, the 1933 DEs and 1964-D Peace dollars also have situations where they were commented on and rejected by the executive / legislative branches of the Federal government.
First, if we are to believe the now credible story that (roughly) ten pieces were struck in Denver and (roughly) ten (minus one) pieces were shipped back East, then it's unlikely that the pieces struck in Denver were completely unauthorized. Of course, that doesn't mean that anyone at the Mint or Treasury Department today knows about anything about any such authorization.
Second, it sounds like the Director of the Denver Mint didn't realize he had a very valuable coin in his possession. To him, the coin was probably just a neat souvenir, no big deal.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
It looks like there is a misunderstanding about this court case. The government did not take anybody to court!
Here is what apparently happened. The mint sent Lawrence a letter demanding that he return the coin. It is actually Lawrence who initiated the court action. He started a lawsuit that asks the court for a declaratory judgment which says that the coin is rightfully his. Lawrence is the plaintiff. The government is the defendant. Lawrence and McConnell are suing the Dept of Treasury and the Bureau of the Mint.
I am not attorney, but I think it's interesting that Lawrence's father was a mint employee. I wonder if Lawrence has many more of these coins.
<< <i>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. >>
Just UFB. Never ceases to amaze me. Are there not other things for the Govt. to be worrying about?
If I were the owner of the coin and received that letter from the government demanding it be turned over to them, you can bet that the coin would suddenly and mysteriously be lost, stolen, destroyed, or accidently spent.
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 found some helpful information with respect to Treasury's coin collection policy (Coin World; June, 5 2006):
Anita Eve, Assistant U.S. Attorney, stated to Coin World on May 19, 2005 that "[t]wo of the ten known examples [of double-denomination State quarter/Sacagawea dollar mule error coins] are exempt from possible forfeiture . . . because investigators already have determined they were released through normal circulation channels".Text
"-and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." President Lincoln
It seems to me that we the people own the government. So, once it's made it belongs to we the people. Quit wasting money trying to take it away from an individual that is part of we the people! As far as the possession of it by a mint employee, he may have left a cent in its place. An even trade! Without proof that it was taken without compensation taking it from them should be considered theft by our government.
Also, the mint could drop all errors in a container and sell them at $20 plus metal value. It beats melting them. The errors could be sold by lottery and you get whatever is picked up to be sent to you whether it is a cent or a gold buffalo.
<< <i>It belongs to the taxpayers and should be on display at the Smithsonian. >>
No. It does not belong to the taxpayers since the US Mint is not run off of tax payer dollars. It is self sufficient due to collector coins sales and Seigniorage.
Granted, the Smithsonian should have one in their collection but only if the current owner wants to gift it to them.
I really get tired of reading that the government wants this coin back and the government wants that coin back simply because they DO NOT apply the "LAW" equally in all cases. If they did, then perhaps it would be a different story but they don't.
As for the 1974-"D" Aluminum cent, they didn't even know it existed until this coin showed up!
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
The 1974 Alum cent was given as examples to Congress members, and would be the same as the 1856 FE cents.
The article is wrong, 1894-S dimes were authorized, legally distributed.
Most of the 1943 copper cents and 44 steel cents are error coins that were legally distributed by mistake. The 1943-D was purposefully struck my a Mint employee as a novelty, and kept until his death, where it was sold by his family.
The 1913 nickel was illegally struck and distributed.
The 1964-D Peace dollars were never legally distributed, but 5 each were given to mint employees at Denver, then requested back. One of the Mint employees kept his 5, turned in 1934 peace dollars instead and sold them for $5K each around 1972
We have many patterns that left the Mint under "not legal" circumstances, for example, several 1916 merc patterns were taken by the Mint Director Woolley, who was later robbed, and these coins subsequently entered circulation. Secretary of the Treasury illegally kept a unique 1916 Standing lib quarter pattern
The list goes on and on for coins removed from the Mint by Mint employees or government officials
I'm glad that with all that's going on in the world that the Govt chooses to spend the portion of my earnings which they confiscate on such pressing matters as this.
<< <i>The 1974 Alum cent was given as examples to Congress members, and would be the same as the 1856 FE cents.
The article is wrong, 1894-S dimes were authorized, legally distributed.
Most of the 1943 copper cents and 44 steel cents are error coins that were legally distributed by mistake. The 1943-D was purposefully struck my a Mint employee as a novelty, and kept until his death, where it was sold by his family.
The 1913 nickel was illegally struck and distributed.
The 1964-D Peace dollars were never legally distributed, but 5 each were given to mint employees at Denver, then requested back. One of the Mint employees kept his 5, turned in 1934 peace dollars instead and sold them for $5K each around 1972
We have many patterns that left the Mint under "not legal" circumstances, for example, several 1916 merc patterns were taken by the Mint Director Woolley, who was later robbed, and these coins subsequently entered circulation. Secretary of the Treasury illegally kept a unique 1916 Standing lib quarter pattern
The list goes on and on for coins removed from the Mint by Mint employees or government officials
Kevin >>
I'll say bulls*** to your reference on the 64 Peace Dollars Kevin. Read Roger's Peace Dollar book.
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
I'll say bulls*** to your reference on the 64 Peace Dollars Kevin. Read Roger's Peace Dollar book. >>
Your right, because it is in writing in a book, must be true.....
On this one, I would bet my reputation on, there are 5 that were removed from the Denver Mint, they were shown and offered for sale at the 1972 ANA, they were sold for 5K a piece. They will stay hidden so long as there is a belief that they will be confiscated.
Comments
<< <i>
<< <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. >>
Ownership doesn't pass on stolen goods. This isn't to say they should change policy
and start pursuing coins that were stolen centuries ago, merely that claiming a coin is
stolen because it wasn't officially issued is tantamount to claiming they track every sin-
gle coin they make and everyone that goes out the door. They have no such control
over their product or every means by which their product might leave the premises.
All sorts of things turn up in mint bags and this even includes coins not yet issued. Are
we supposed to discard coins we find because the mint has no record of issuing it? If
they can't show it's stolen then it's just wrong to assume it's stolen. Are we really sup-
posed to believe people are walking in off the street and grabbing handfuls of whatever
is just lying around?
No! It's nonsense. The mint is embarrassed by their mistakes so they try to destroy them.
This comes at great cost to hobby, the owners, and the future. It casts a pall on the entire
hobby since very few can prove any of his coins were never stolen. Imagine trying to
prove an ancient coin is legitimate and shouldn't be taken away and given to some claimant.
Now you not only would have to show that it was never stolen but that it was legally sold
in each instance.
Why are all the coins they chase post 1933? They've even destroyed coins in the past only
later to learn they were not only real but legitimate to own. The DDO '69 cents are a case
in point. The owners were never made whole.
<< <i>
<< <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". >>
I seriously doubt that the current "administration" is even aware of what is occurring since the Executive Branch of the Federal Government (i.e. The "Administration") is separate from the Judicial Branch of the Federal Government.
What Branch does the Treasury Department belong to anyway? Of course, the Secretary of the Treasury is on the President's Cabinet but I don't think Jacob J. Lew knows about this action either.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <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. >>
Ownership doesn't pass on stolen goods. This isn't to say they should change policy
and start pursuing coins that were stolen centuries ago, merely that claiming a coin is
stolen because it wasn't officially issued is tantamount to claiming they track every sin-
gle coin they make and everyone that goes out the door. They have no such control
over their product or every means by which their product might leave the premises.
All sorts of things turn up in mint bags and this even includes coins not yet issued. Are
we supposed to discard coins we find because the mint has no record of issuing it? If
they can't show it's stolen then it's just wrong to assume it's stolen. Are we really sup-
posed to believe people are walking in off the street and grabbing handfuls of whatever
is just lying around?
No! It's nonsense. The mint is embarrassed by their mistakes so they try to destroy them.
This comes at great cost to hobby, the owners, and the future. It casts a pall on the entire
hobby since very few can prove any of his coins were never stolen. Imagine trying to
prove an ancient coin is legitimate and shouldn't be taken away and given to some claimant.
Now you not only would have to show that it was never stolen but that it was legally sold
in each instance.
Why are all the coins they chase post 1933? They've even destroyed coins in the past only
later to learn they were not only real but legitimate to own. The DDO '69 cents are a case
in point. The owners were never made whole. >>
I agree with you Sam.
A precedent has been set and hopefully the Courts will tell the Mint to go pound sand.
The name is LEE!
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
No dog in this fight, obviously, but will enjoy the show.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>
The Mint should sell at auction all retrieved items, so as not to 'deprive the people of their numismatic art and history'. >>
I only disagree with this statement.
IF the goal is to preserve numismatic art and history, then SELLING them is the incorrect path. Those sold have the potential to "disappear" for generations. They should instead be placed in appropriate museums for display, and study as desired.
I realize this flies in the face of what many COLLECTORS might want. But in these rare cases, the mint shouldn't be acting for the benefit of collectors. The public, and the researchers have a clearer case for "ownership" of these rarities.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>
<< <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. >>
If government employees are busy doing this then more workers may need to be hired to handle other matters. Clearly this shouldn't cause much of an impact on overall labor (key word being shouldn't) however, to take the argument that "Well, they are salaried already so anything they work on is not a waste of money" is I believe incorrect. Obviously there are other factors as well, some of which you mentioned.
<< <i>I have a feeling, (with no insider knowledge), that MOST patterns are going to be left alone. I think the Mint/Govt would have a hard time explaining why they've watched them change hands for decades, and have changed their minds now. That angle is probably more driven by the current 1974D owners to generate support.
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. >>
If you are talking about patterns issued before 1917 you are most likely correct. I think that the last year for patterns that legally can be owned by the public is 1916 (I may be off by a year or two here). Patterns issued after 1916 that are not supposed to be in private hands.
I, personally, do not understand the governments stance on this, as they can collect taxes on capital gains every time one of these big ticket patterns is sold. They have nothing to lose and taxes to gain by legalizing all patterns. They issued them, why not let the public own them and gain funds in doing so? What harm is in the public owning patterns anyway? Just look at all the taxes they can collect by legalizing private ownership of 1933 double eagles alone. If they confiscate them and melt them down they get gold value only. As for the other coins mentioned, like 1913 v-nickels, please don't give them any ideas.
Why doesn't the government "find" a few bags of 1964-D peace dollars and sell them to the public? THEY CAN'T Lose if they do stuff like this. What are they afraid of?
Bob
<< <i>
IF the goal is to preserve numismatic art and history, then SELLING them is the incorrect path. Those sold have the potential to "disappear" for generations. They should instead be placed in appropriate museums for display, and study as desired.
I realize this flies in the face of what many COLLECTORS might want. But in these rare cases, the mint shouldn't be acting for the benefit of collectors. The public, and the researchers have a clearer case for "ownership" of these rarities. >>
If I find a Jefferson nickel struck on a struck Canadian nickel in a box of 2014 coins
from my bank how can the mint make a case that it belongs to them? If Swit found
a handful (or purchased a handful) of 1933 saints found in a bag of 32's or someone
found the '74-D cent in a bag then how can these belond to the mint? If the mint sells
or scraps a press with coins lodged inside then to whom do these coins belong? Just
because a chain of ownership can't be established or proven is no indication that any
sort of foul play was involved. Essentially there is the presumption of guilt on any party
that has any coin that the mint is embarrassed to have issued. Will they someday is-
sue a recall of all Jefferson nickels because he was a slave owner? Pre-1853 silver pur-
ity wasn't authorized by Congress and are technically "illegal". Will these be recalled?
Will a lawyer find a flaw in the Coinage Act of 1965 that leads to a recall of all coins
made after that date?
This is a basic question of who owns our coins. Obviously we don't want coins stolen
from the mint and we don't want to see a new flurry of "midnight minting" just because
the mint will tolerate theft. But the definitions of "legal" and "illegal" are arbitrary and
capricious. Worst though is that there is no need to establish that a coin was stolen or
improperly released by the mint. They actually passed out the Philly version of this coin
and then expected to get back all of them!! Many people simply have no interest in
such matters and would make no attempt to keep track of them. It's also unfair to
attempt to force compliance with a change of mind or change of procedure after the fact.
There may be no simple solution but common sense seems to suggest that vigorously
pursuing and prosecuting for coins known to be stolen and ignoring as many of the rest
as possible would be a step in the right direction. They have the waffle machine now for
in-house destruction of "undesired" coins. There will continue to be accidents because
it's impossible to make billions of coins and numerous trials and patterns and not have
failures. Their job should be much more to continue to make improvements to product-
tion and security and to try to stop the accidental issuance of such coins rather than to
round up escapees. Older coins should be "grandfathered in" as legal to own after a cou-
ple generations and coins that are stolen should be grandfathered in after a century (ex-
cept when never previously bought or sold).
If they are going to take the stance that the '74-D is "illegal" they should at least justify
that stance with something better than their estimation of the odds it was illegally issued.
That's a myth. There's nothing magical about the 1916 date, except that not many patterns were struck after 1916, and they tend to be very esoteric in nature.
Actually, the Mint stopped selling patterns in 1885. Very little exists for the period 1886-1915, and most remain in government hands. Then you get a series of 1916 patterns, quite a few of which made it into collectors' hands, and perhaps half of them circulated. And after 1916, the pickings get very slim.
And one more thing, which I stated earlier but which bears repeating. My contention is that the Mint abandoned any claims to virtually all patterns by allowing them to trade freely in the marketplace for decades. However, they have a claim - not necessarily a right - to 1974-P Aluminum cents and 1933 Double Eagles because they went after those coins virtually immediately, and they never let up. The 74-D was only recently discovered, so the Mint's claim has clearly not yet been abandoned.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
wants to raid me they are welcome to do so.
I'll just get more from my friend in Beijing.
Oh and to the coin gestapo - grow up and go get a real job. Bunch of useless government sponges.
It should be seized immediately.
<< <i>Another example of potential unjust enrichment for the heirs of an insider.
It should be seized immediately. >>
I tend to agree with this view.
Coin Rarities Online
The government is doing it's proscribed legal duty, while allowing for the civil processes to be played out, as is just and required by our tradition, custom, and laws.
The expensive court procedures need not happen at all... that they will happen is solely the choice of those who seek to establish title to the coin for themselves, rather than simply return it.<<
Agreed. Also agree with those who don't think it is right for a public servant to steal stuff.
<< <i>Another example of potential unjust enrichment for the heirs of an insider.
It should be seized immediately. >>
Huh?
What about the 1964 SMS Sets which were in the estate of Eva Adams?
"These 1964 Special Strike Kennedy Half’s were first noticed in 1993 when they appeared in a Stacks auction. Apparently, the coins originated from Lester Merkin who was a well known coin dealer. His collection was later consigned to Stacks. It is also believed that Lester Merkin initially acquired the coins from a Mint employee or Eva Adams who was former Director of the U.S. Mint." - Jaime Hernandez, PCGSCoinFacts
Should these all be seized since there is no record of them being produced? Until 1993, nobody even knew they existed! Was Eva Adams an insider? Did she not get "enriched"?
The name is LEE!
<< <i>
<< <i>Another example of potential unjust enrichment for the heirs of an insider.
It should be seized immediately. >>
Huh?
What about the 1964 SMS Sets which were in the estate of Eva Adams?
"These 1964 Special Strike Kennedy Half’s were first noticed in 1993 when they appeared in a Stacks auction. Apparently, the coins originated from Lester Merkin who was a well known coin dealer. His collection was later consigned to Stacks. It is also believed that Lester Merkin initially acquired the coins from a Mint employee or Eva Adams who was former Director of the U.S. Mint." - Jaime Hernandez, PCGSCoinFacts
Should these all be seized since there is no record of them being produced? Until 1993, nobody even knew they existed! Was Eva Adams an insider? Did she not get "enriched"? >>
Are those similar enough to regular strikes that they could be authorized under the regular Congressional authorization. I don't think Congressional approval details the smoothness of surfaces, lack of knicks/scratches and the squareness and sharpness of edges, etc. that those are known for.
<< <i>The expensive court procedures need not happen at all... that they will happen is solely the choice of those who seek to establish title to the coin for themselves, rather than simply return it. >>
Ahhhh. I understand.
So its like, my father leaves ME a coin which is rightfully ASSUMED to be MINE so I sell it and the buyer discovers its real value then includes ME in the transaction, which gets publicized, then along comes the "government" to say that, even though we did not know it, the coin belongs to us to which I say, I'm sorry but I claimed first ownership and in order for you to get it you'll have to deal with me in a court of law and now it becomes MY FAULT that the "government" is going to spend money to take away what I believe is MINE??
Makes perfect sense.
IF you happen to live under a government who BELIEVES that just because they say it is so then it must be so.
I look forward to wasting my taxpayer dollars in this action.
The name is LEE!
Fact: The US Mint stated the Denver mint struck NO aluminum cents as patterns
Conclusion: The coin is not a bonafide pattern, but rather an off metal striking that the Mint has no claim against.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Another example of potential unjust enrichment for the heirs of an insider.
It should be seized immediately. >>
Huh?
What about the 1964 SMS Sets which were in the estate of Eva Adams?
"These 1964 Special Strike Kennedy Half’s were first noticed in 1993 when they appeared in a Stacks auction. Apparently, the coins originated from Lester Merkin who was a well known coin dealer. His collection was later consigned to Stacks. It is also believed that Lester Merkin initially acquired the coins from a Mint employee or Eva Adams who was former Director of the U.S. Mint." - Jaime Hernandez, PCGSCoinFacts
Should these all be seized since there is no record of them being produced? Until 1993, nobody even knew they existed! Was Eva Adams an insider? Did she not get "enriched"? >>
Are those similar enough to regular strikes that they could be authorized under the regular Congressional authorization. I don't think Congressional approval details the smoothness of surfaces, lack of knicks/scratches and the squareness and sharpness of edges, etc. that those are known for. >>
Congressional authorization is only part of the process. As stated in the "Million Dollar Nickel", the coin must be delivered to and signed for by the Federal Reserve Bank for delivery to the public which is the last step of the "monetization" process. These SMS coins obviously had not.
Again, since there is no record of a special run of striking these coins (with the exception of those coins destined for the NNC) should they not also be confiscated?
The name is LEE!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Another example of potential unjust enrichment for the heirs of an insider.
It should be seized immediately. >>
Huh?
What about the 1964 SMS Sets which were in the estate of Eva Adams?
"These 1964 Special Strike Kennedy Half’s were first noticed in 1993 when they appeared in a Stacks auction. Apparently, the coins originated from Lester Merkin who was a well known coin dealer. His collection was later consigned to Stacks. It is also believed that Lester Merkin initially acquired the coins from a Mint employee or Eva Adams who was former Director of the U.S. Mint." - Jaime Hernandez, PCGSCoinFacts
Should these all be seized since there is no record of them being produced? Until 1993, nobody even knew they existed! Was Eva Adams an insider? Did she not get "enriched"? >>
Are those similar enough to regular strikes that they could be authorized under the regular Congressional authorization. I don't think Congressional approval details the smoothness of surfaces, lack of knicks/scratches and the squareness and sharpness of edges, etc. that those are known for. >>
Congressional authorization is only part of the process. As stated in the "Million Dollar Nickel", the coin must be delivered to and signed for by the Federal Reserve Bank for delivery to the public which is the last step of the "monetization" process. These SMS coins obviously had not.
Again, since there is no record of a special run of striking these coins (with the exception of those coins destined for the NNC) should they not also be confiscated? >>
I don't know much about these pieces. Does the Mint consider these special strikings? Or is it mostly collectors and TPGs that do?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Another example of potential unjust enrichment for the heirs of an insider.
It should be seized immediately. >>
Huh?
What about the 1964 SMS Sets which were in the estate of Eva Adams?
"These 1964 Special Strike Kennedy Half’s were first noticed in 1993 when they appeared in a Stacks auction. Apparently, the coins originated from Lester Merkin who was a well known coin dealer. His collection was later consigned to Stacks. It is also believed that Lester Merkin initially acquired the coins from a Mint employee or Eva Adams who was former Director of the U.S. Mint." - Jaime Hernandez, PCGSCoinFacts
Should these all be seized since there is no record of them being produced? Until 1993, nobody even knew they existed! Was Eva Adams an insider? Did she not get "enriched"? >>
Even if Mint director Adams had them triple struck for a presentation, 1964 Kennedy half dollars are an authorized issue of the US Mint.
The record of their production is easy to find, they are included in the mintage figures of that year. >>
Well, in that case, so are Lincoln Cents.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Another example of potential unjust enrichment for the heirs of an insider.
It should be seized immediately. >>
Huh?
What about the 1964 SMS Sets which were in the estate of Eva Adams?
"These 1964 Special Strike Kennedy Half’s were first noticed in 1993 when they appeared in a Stacks auction. Apparently, the coins originated from Lester Merkin who was a well known coin dealer. His collection was later consigned to Stacks. It is also believed that Lester Merkin initially acquired the coins from a Mint employee or Eva Adams who was former Director of the U.S. Mint." - Jaime Hernandez, PCGSCoinFacts
Should these all be seized since there is no record of them being produced? Until 1993, nobody even knew they existed! Was Eva Adams an insider? Did she not get "enriched"? >>
Are those similar enough to regular strikes that they could be authorized under the regular Congressional authorization. I don't think Congressional approval details the smoothness of surfaces, lack of knicks/scratches and the squareness and sharpness of edges, etc. that those are known for. >>
Congressional authorization is only part of the process. As stated in the "Million Dollar Nickel", the coin must be delivered to and signed for by the Federal Reserve Bank for delivery to the public which is the last step of the "monetization" process. These SMS coins obviously had not.
Again, since there is no record of a special run of striking these coins (with the exception of those coins destined for the NNC) should they not also be confiscated? >>
I don't know much about these pieces. Does the Mint consider these special strikings? Or is it mostly collectors and TPGs that do? >>
Unknown since there is no record of their existence. Just what came out of Eva Adams Estate.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>Fact: The US Mint often strikes coins on wrong metal planchets and releases them into circulation unintentionally
Fact: The US Mint stated the Denver mint struck NO aluminum cents as patterns
Conclusion: The coin is not a bonafide pattern, but rather an off metal striking that the Mint has no claim against. >>
Exactly like the other "error" coins which HE Lawrence possessed and passed to his son.
It seems fairly straightforward.
Well, except for the part where the initial 10 or 12 were struck. Where'd the planchets come from since Philadelphia nor the Treasury have no record of Denver Strikes being scheduled to occur. (Maybe a handful was picked up on a visit to Philadelphia?)
The dies were self evident.
Were the 10 or 12 "actually" shipped to Washington? If so, where are the records?
Were these strikings actually authorized?
The name is LEE!
<< <i>So that means the '72 aluminum cent that I have personally held, either does not exist, was struck by error or was pilfered from the mint. Darn.... Cheers, RickO >>
You held a Denver coin?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Another example of potential unjust enrichment for the heirs of an insider.
It should be seized immediately. >>
Huh?
What about the 1964 SMS Sets which were in the estate of Eva Adams?
"These 1964 Special Strike Kennedy Half’s were first noticed in 1993 when they appeared in a Stacks auction. Apparently, the coins originated from Lester Merkin who was a well known coin dealer. His collection was later consigned to Stacks. It is also believed that Lester Merkin initially acquired the coins from a Mint employee or Eva Adams who was former Director of the U.S. Mint." - Jaime Hernandez, PCGSCoinFacts
Should these all be seized since there is no record of them being produced? Until 1993, nobody even knew they existed! Was Eva Adams an insider? Did she not get "enriched"? >>
Even if Mint director Adams had them triple struck for a presentation, 1964 Kennedy half dollars are an authorized issue of the US Mint.
The record of their production is easy to find, they are included in the mintage figures of that year. >>
Well, in that case, so are Lincoln Cents. >>
One issue here seems to be that Congress may have specifically rejected (not authorized) the aluminum cents so there's less of a question on whether they were authorized or not. There was a Mint proposal and the cents were rejected in part to due to lobbying from the copper mining and vending machine industries.
Interestingly, the 1933 DEs and 1964-D Peace dollars also have situations where they were commented on and rejected by the executive / legislative branches of the Federal government.
First, if we are to believe the now credible story that (roughly) ten pieces were struck in Denver and (roughly) ten (minus one) pieces were shipped back East, then it's unlikely that the pieces struck in Denver were completely unauthorized. Of course, that doesn't mean that anyone at the Mint or Treasury Department today knows about anything about any such authorization.
Second, it sounds like the Director of the Denver Mint didn't realize he had a very valuable coin in his possession. To him, the coin was probably just a neat souvenir, no big deal.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Here is what apparently happened. The mint sent Lawrence a letter demanding that he return the coin. It is actually Lawrence who initiated the court action. He started a lawsuit that asks the court for a declaratory judgment which says that the coin is rightfully his. Lawrence is the plaintiff. The government is the defendant. Lawrence and McConnell are suing the Dept of Treasury and the Bureau of the Mint.
I am not attorney, but I think it's interesting that Lawrence's father was a mint employee. I wonder if Lawrence has many more of these coins.
<< <i>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. >>
Just UFB. Never ceases to amaze me. Are there not other things for the Govt. to be worrying about?
Anita Eve, Assistant U.S. Attorney, stated to Coin World on May 19, 2005 that "[t]wo of the ten known examples [of double-denomination State quarter/Sacagawea dollar mule error coins] are exempt from possible forfeiture . . . because investigators already have determined they were released through normal circulation channels".Text
It seems to me that we the people own the government. So, once it's made it belongs to we the people. Quit wasting money trying to take it away from an
individual that is part of we the people! As far as the possession of it by a mint employee, he may have left a cent in its place. An even trade! Without proof
that it was taken without compensation taking it from them should be considered theft by our government.
Also, the mint could drop all errors in a container and sell them at $20 plus metal value. It beats melting them. The errors could be sold by lottery and you get
whatever is picked up to be sent to you whether it is a cent or a gold buffalo.
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
<< <i>It belongs to the taxpayers and should be on display at the Smithsonian. >>
No. It does not belong to the taxpayers since the US Mint is not run off of tax payer dollars. It is self sufficient due to collector coins sales and Seigniorage.
Granted, the Smithsonian should have one in their collection but only if the current owner wants to gift it to them.
I really get tired of reading that the government wants this coin back and the government wants that coin back simply because they DO NOT apply the "LAW" equally in all cases. If they did, then perhaps it would be a different story but they don't.
As for the 1974-"D" Aluminum cent, they didn't even know it existed until this coin showed up!
The name is LEE!
So has anything happened with this ?
The article is wrong, 1894-S dimes were authorized, legally distributed.
Most of the 1943 copper cents and 44 steel cents are error coins that were legally distributed by mistake.
The 1943-D was purposefully struck my a Mint employee as a novelty, and kept until his death, where it was sold by his family.
The 1913 nickel was illegally struck and distributed.
The 1964-D Peace dollars were never legally distributed, but 5 each were given to mint employees at Denver, then requested back.
One of the Mint employees kept his 5, turned in 1934 peace dollars instead and sold them for $5K each around 1972
We have many patterns that left the Mint under "not legal" circumstances, for example, several 1916 merc patterns were taken by the Mint Director Woolley, who was later robbed, and these coins subsequently entered circulation. Secretary of the Treasury illegally kept a unique 1916 Standing lib quarter pattern
The list goes on and on for coins removed from the Mint by Mint employees or government officials
Kevin
<< <i>The 1974 Alum cent was given as examples to Congress members, and would be the same as the 1856 FE cents.
The article is wrong, 1894-S dimes were authorized, legally distributed.
Most of the 1943 copper cents and 44 steel cents are error coins that were legally distributed by mistake.
The 1943-D was purposefully struck my a Mint employee as a novelty, and kept until his death, where it was sold by his family.
The 1913 nickel was illegally struck and distributed.
The 1964-D Peace dollars were never legally distributed, but 5 each were given to mint employees at Denver, then requested back.
One of the Mint employees kept his 5, turned in 1934 peace dollars instead and sold them for $5K each around 1972
We have many patterns that left the Mint under "not legal" circumstances, for example, several 1916 merc patterns were taken by the Mint Director Woolley, who was later robbed, and these coins subsequently entered circulation. Secretary of the Treasury illegally kept a unique 1916 Standing lib quarter pattern
The list goes on and on for coins removed from the Mint by Mint employees or government officials
Kevin >>
I'll say bulls*** to your reference on the 64 Peace Dollars Kevin. Read Roger's Peace Dollar book.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>Kevin >>
I'll say bulls*** to your reference on the 64 Peace Dollars Kevin. Read Roger's Peace Dollar book. >>
Your right, because it is in writing in a book, must be true.....
On this one, I would bet my reputation on, there are 5 that were removed from the Denver Mint, they were shown and offered for sale at the 1972 ANA, they were sold for 5K a piece.
They will stay hidden so long as there is a belief that they will be confiscated.
$1
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5