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. >>
<< <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 >>
FWIW, the retired Mint employee that I spoke with said that employees were given the opportunity to purchase two coins at face value. I have never heard that the limit was five, not two, nor that the coins were given to the employees rather than sold.
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'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. >>
I had never heard that they were at the 1972 ANA either, but I was not at that show.
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'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. >>
I had never heard that they were at the 1972 ANA either, but I was not at that show. >>
This is interesting. Can anyone who was at the show confirm this?
If so, it would also be good for those that have 1st hand accounts of this to get in touch with RWB.
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..... >>
<< <i>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. >>
Regardless of how strongly I felt, I'd never bet my reputation on an old wives tale.
The ability to provide untraceable photographic evidence has existed since before 1964 yet, there is absolutely NO photographic evidence of these coins. NONE.
Produce that evidence and then maybe it will be open for discussion as to whether or not the coin pictured is authentic.
Folks certainly have a right to believe whatever they want but human nature dictates that if such a coin did exist, it would have made some type of appearance other than through coin collecting gossip.
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>The ability to provide untraceable photographic evidence has existed since before 1964 yet, there is absolutely NO photographic evidence of these coins. NONE. Produce that evidence and then maybe it will be open for discussion as to whether or not the coin pictured is authentic. Folks certainly have a right to believe whatever they want but human nature dictates that if such a coin did exist, it would have made some type of appearance other than through coin collecting gossip. >>
Ok, show a photo somewhere or claim you verified one, and see who is knocking on your door....
Anyone who actually knew about these would be foolish to show evidence/prove that they have seen one.
Just because no one has verified/photographed one, does not mean they do not exist, many examples 1870-S half dime, not seen until 1977 1870S dollars, first seen in 1914 I believe 1884-85 trade dollars, 1906 or 1907 1943D copper cent, breen claimed for years one existed, but it did not surface until early 1990s
<< <i>The ability to provide untraceable photographic evidence has existed since before 1964 yet, there is absolutely NO photographic evidence of these coins. NONE. Produce that evidence and then maybe it will be open for discussion as to whether or not the coin pictured is authentic. Folks certainly have a right to believe whatever they want but human nature dictates that if such a coin did exist, it would have made some type of appearance other than through coin collecting gossip. >>
Ok, show a photo somewhere or claim you verified one, and see who is knocking on your door....
Anyone who actually knew about these would be foolish to show evidence/prove that they have seen one.
Just because no one has verified/photographed one, does not mean they do not exist, many examples 1870-S half dime, not seen until 1977 1870S dollars, first seen in 1914 I believe 1884-85 trade dollars, 1906 or 1907 1943D copper cent, breen claimed for years one existed, but it did not surface until early 1990s
Kevin >>
I'll believe it when I see it Kevin. Until then, it simply does not exist.
Kinda like Big Foot?
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.
If I was the judge I would have some fun with this case, I would make the charges be filed in small claims court, after all it is just one cent.........
<< <i>If I was the judge I would have some fun with this case, I would make the charges be filed in small claims court, after all it is just one cent......... >>
Seems the subject extended beyond the 1974-D aluminum cent which is okay.
The 1964 Peace Dollar came up again... Maybe we should have a mini series on the greatest US coin mysteries of all-time. This would be one and close to the top. Based on what I have seen in numismatics, I am just not ready to concede that a 1964 Peace Dollar does not exist somewhere on the face of the earth.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>Seems the subject extended beyond the 1974-D aluminum cent which is okay.
The 1964 Peace Dollar came up again... Maybe we should have a mini series on the greatest US coin mysteries of all-time. This would be one and close to the top. Based on what I have seen in numismatics, I am just not ready to concede that a 1964 Peace Dollar does not exist somewhere on the face of the earth. >>
If so, I wouldn't be surprised if the owner is a member or lurker here.
First they came for the 1933's, and I did not speak out— Because I did not have a 1933. Then they came for the '74 aluminum's, and I did not speak out— Because I did not have a '74 alunimum. Then they came for the Patterns, and I did not speak out— Because I did not have a Pattern. Then they came for mine—and there was no one left to speak for me.
<< <i>The ability to provide untraceable photographic evidence has existed since before 1964 yet, there is absolutely NO photographic evidence of these coins. NONE. Produce that evidence and then maybe it will be open for discussion as to whether or not the coin pictured is authentic. Folks certainly have a right to believe whatever they want but human nature dictates that if such a coin did exist, it would have made some type of appearance other than through coin collecting gossip. >>
Ok, show a photo somewhere or claim you verified one, and see who is knocking on your door....
Anyone who actually knew about these would be foolish to show evidence/prove that they have seen one.
Just because no one has verified/photographed one, does not mean they do not exist, many examples 1870-S half dime, not seen until 1977 1870S dollars, first seen in 1914 I believe 1884-85 trade dollars, 1906 or 1907 1943D copper cent, breen claimed for years one existed, but it did not surface until early 1990s
Kevin >>
We are in agreement.
TD
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 ability to provide untraceable photographic evidence has existed since before 1964 yet, there is absolutely NO photographic evidence of these coins. NONE. Produce that evidence and then maybe it will be open for discussion as to whether or not the coin pictured is authentic. Folks certainly have a right to believe whatever they want but human nature dictates that if such a coin did exist, it would have made some type of appearance other than through coin collecting gossip. >>
Ok, show a photo somewhere or claim you verified one, and see who is knocking on your door....
Anyone who actually knew about these would be foolish to show evidence/prove that they have seen one.
Just because no one has verified/photographed one, does not mean they do not exist, many examples 1870-S half dime, not seen until 1977 1870S dollars, first seen in 1914 I believe 1884-85 trade dollars, 1906 or 1907 1943D copper cent, breen claimed for years one existed, but it did not surface until early 1990s
Kevin >>
We are in agreement.
TD >>
I have no problem with 1964-D Peace Dollars existing and I've suggested ways to get one into the open (PCGS slabbing in say Paris or Hong Kong). I'm hoping someone does take PCGS up on their offer to get one authenticated
<< <i>I have no problem with 1964-D Peace Dollars existing and I've suggested ways to get one into the open (PCGS slabbing in say Paris or Hong Kong). I'm hoping someone does take PCGS up on their offer to get one authenticated >>
I heard rumors that had the 1933 Twenty trial been more towards the coins being returned, one of the 64Ds might have surfaced
<< <i>If I was the judge I would have some fun with this case, I would make the charges be filed in small claims court, after all it is just one cent......... >>
I have no problem with 1964-D Peace Dollars existing and I've suggested ways to get one into the open (PCGS slabbing in say Paris or Hong Kong). I'm hoping someone does take PCGS up on their offer to get one authenticated >>
<< <i>Perhaps a decent solution to all such coins would be an amnesty period and perhaps some form of tax. Get whats out there out in the open and move on. >>
The way to do this would be to get some Congressmen and Senators to get involved.
<< <i>First they came for the 1933's, and I did not speak out— Because I did not have a 1933. Then they came for the '74 aluminum's, and I did not speak out— Because I did not have a '74 alunimum. Then they came for the Patterns, and I did not speak out— Because I did not have a Pattern. Then they came for mine—and there was no one left to speak for me. >>
<< <i>First they came for the 1933's, and I did not speak out— Because I did not have a 1933. Then they came for the '74 aluminum's, and I did not speak out— Because I did not have a '74 alunimum. Then they came for the Patterns, and I did not speak out— Because I did not have a Pattern. Then they came for mine—and there was no one left to speak for me. >>
That says it, doesn't it? >>
Well, they actually didn't go for the 1974 aluminum cent, just the 1974-D aluminum cent.
And they also didn't go for Mint Director Baker's 1921/22 transitional Peace dollars.
So there does appear to be a line the Mint won't cross.
<< <i>First they came for the 1933's, and I did not speak out— Because I did not have a 1933. Then they came for the '74 aluminum's, and I did not speak out— Because I did not have a '74 alunimum. Then they came for the Patterns, and I did not speak out— Because I did not have a Pattern. Then they came for mine—and there was no one left to speak for me. >>
That says it, doesn't it? >>
Yes, most comparisons to the Third Reich say it, though just normally not what was intended.
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.
Interesting claim, that it was a "retirement present," along with other "error coins."
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
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.
Does anyone know how many have been returned vs. how many were actually "released" ? Not that this matters. I'm just curious if the desire to have it back has anything to do with man's desire to own a rare collectible (relative to it's production numbers).
U.S. District Judge William Q. Hayes wrote in his order that the men failed to offer sufficient facts to support conclusions that they are owners of the aluminum cent with a “legal right to have their coin sold at public auction.” >>
Does anyone have access to the suit and what arguments were made on ownership?
<< <i>Does anyone know how many have been returned vs. how many were actually "released" ? Not that this matters. I'm just curious if the desire to have it back has anything to do with man's desire to own a rare collectible (relative to it's production numbers). >>
Just found this CoinWorld article. Looks like we have Harry Bobay to thank for this coin!
<< <i>Mint records devoid
Until 2013, it was believed that all production of the experimental aluminum cents was conducted at the Philadelphia Mint.
After the existence of the 1974-D aluminum cent was made public in 2013, U.S. Mint officials conducted an exhaustive search of Mint records before informing Coin World on Dec. 26, 2013, that no documentary evidence was found that 1974-D aluminum cents were ever struck at the Denver facility.
However, Coin World was able to locate the die setter for the testing, Benito Martinez, who claimed he struck between 10 and 12 1974-D aluminum cents, one at a time, on planchets with upset rims that were supplied by the Philadelphia Mint.
Martinez told Coin World he struck the 1974-D aluminum cents with regular production dies under the supervision of Harry Bobay, a Denver Mint production foreman.
Martinez said Bobay delivered the struck 1974-D aluminum cents and any unstruck planchets to the Coining Division office within the Denver Mint, with the belief the experimental pieces were being shipped back to U.S. Mint headquarters.
Would this coin have been more legal to own if the coin was released through normal channels and had been found in a bank roll or via another normal release channel?
<< <i>Would this coin have been more legal to own if the coin was released through normal channels and had been found in a bank roll or via another normal release channel? >>
That's hard to say. However, the Treasury might have taken less interest in it, perhaps none at all though that's a stretch, had it not been publicized as having walked out of the mint with a former employee.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
If Mint officials were unable to verify that that the cent in question was struck at the Denver Mint, as stated in the Coin World article, then it would stand to reason that this coin does not officially exist and therefore cannot be considered the property of the United States government. It is a fantasy piece that the government should have no claim to, putting them on par with 1913 Liberty nickels.
<< <i>If Mint officials were unable to verify that that the cent in question was struck at the Denver Mint, as stated in the Coin World article, then it would stand to reason that this coin does not officially exist and therefore cannot be considered the property of the United States government. It is a fantasy piece that the government should have no claim to, putting them on par with 1913 Liberty nickels. >>
That's approximately what the Mint said in the beginning - that they had no record of it. But then PCGS certified it saying it was government issue and CoinWorld interviewed a Mint employee that said he struck it.
<< <i>If Mint officials were unable to verify that that the cent in question was struck at the Denver Mint, as stated in the Coin World article, then it would stand to reason that this coin does not officially exist and therefore cannot be considered the property of the United States government. It is a fantasy piece that the government should have no claim to, putting them on par with 1913 Liberty nickels. >>
That's approximately what the Mint said in the beginning - that they had no record of it. But then PCGS certified it saying it was government issue and CoinWorld interviewed a Mint employee that said he struck it. >>
tada … and that is "KEY". and every series has a key.
Probably some bureaucrat somewhere is concerned that a court loss for the government will cost them a pretty penny.
Who is the employee that admitted to striking a 1974-D Aluminum cent without authorization? Seems to me said employee could be facing counterfeit charges.Maybe some other charges would be in order such as stealing government property.I would stay away from this coin even if I was able to pay the thousands of dollars it would take to buy it.
The problem is that there are some,probably more than we care to think about,out there who will glady pay a pretty penny for this flimsy penny.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>Does anyone know how many have been returned vs. how many were actually "released" ? Not that this matters. I'm just curious if the desire to have it back has anything to do with man's desire to own a rare collectible (relative to it's production numbers). >>
Just found this CoinWorld article. Looks like we have Harry Bobay to thank for this coin!
<< <i>Mint records devoid
Until 2013, it was believed that all production of the experimental aluminum cents was conducted at the Philadelphia Mint.
After the existence of the 1974-D aluminum cent was made public in 2013, U.S. Mint officials conducted an exhaustive search of Mint records before informing Coin World on Dec. 26, 2013, that no documentary evidence was found that 1974-D aluminum cents were ever struck at the Denver facility.
However, Coin World was able to locate the die setter for the testing, Benito Martinez, who claimed he struck between 10 and 12 1974-D aluminum cents, one at a time, on planchets with upset rims that were supplied by the Philadelphia Mint.
Martinez told Coin World he struck the 1974-D aluminum cents with regular production dies under the supervision of Harry Bobay, a Denver Mint production foreman.
Martinez said Bobay delivered the struck 1974-D aluminum cents and any unstruck planchets to the Coining Division office within the Denver Mint, with the belief the experimental pieces were being shipped back to U.S. Mint headquarters.
Bobay died in 1988. >>
>>
I would argue that the coin is an off metal error coin. Regardless of the mint employees claim that he made 10 Denver coins, there is no way for the government to prove that the suspect prized coin in question was one of those prototypes. The U.S. mint made is said to have produced 1,571,167 (Philidelphia ?) aluminum cents and they supposedly destroyed almost all of them before legal release. As such, a very strong and compelling arguement can be made that one of those 1,571,167 coins may have slipped out of Philidelphia through the normal mint production cycle as an unstruck blank or planchet and then made it's way to the Denver mint. To avoid confusing the Judge, I would avoid all of the other arguements with exception of maybe two. I would also point out that the Government has an unremarkable penchant for choosing winners and losers when it comes to recovery of stolen mint property and therefore, any pursuit of this particular coin through legal remedy would amount to no more than an arbitrary and capricious execution of the law. I would also argue that the governments actions amount to no more than an illegal attempt to take property without compesensation. In short, there is no way for the government to prove that the coin at issue is not a simple error coin. I would also do everything in my power to not let the Government have possession of the coin until all litigation and appeals were exhausted. I see a victory for the coins seller here.
If you saw my article on the piece in COINage, there was an aliminum coin from Nepal struck at the SFAO for Nepalese proof sets in 1973 and 1974 that essentially matches the specifications of this coin. We do know from the 1974-D 40% Ike dollars that the SFAO was shipping unfit Proof U.S. planchets to Denver in this era.
IMHO, had the piece been originally promoted as a foreign planchet error, the government would not have tried to seize it.
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>If you saw my article on the piece in COINage, there was an aliminum coin from Nepal struck at the SFAO for Nepalese proof sets in 1973 and 1974 that essentially matches the specifications of this coin. We do know from the 1974-D 40% Ike dollars that the SFAO was shipping unfit Proof U.S. planchets to Denver in this era.
IMHO, had the piece been originally promoted as a foreign planchet error, the government would not have tried to seize it. >>
Another plus for the defense. Maybe this is why we do not have much published info about off metals available to us. Nobody wants their coins taken.
<< <i>If you saw my article on the piece in COINage, there was an aliminum coin from Nepal struck at the SFAO for Nepalese proof sets in 1973 and 1974 that essentially matches the specifications of this coin. We do know from the 1974-D 40% Ike dollars that the SFAO was shipping unfit Proof U.S. planchets to Denver in this era.
IMHO, had the piece been originally promoted as a foreign planchet error, the government would not have tried to seize it. >>
Another plus for the defense. Maybe this is why we do not have much published info about off metals available to us. Nobody wants their coins taken. >>
<< <i>If you saw my article on the piece in COINage, there was an aliminum coin from Nepal struck at the SFAO for Nepalese proof sets in 1973 and 1974 that essentially matches the specifications of this coin. We do know from the 1974-D 40% Ike dollars that the SFAO was shipping unfit Proof U.S. planchets to Denver in this era.
IMHO, had the piece been originally promoted as a foreign planchet error, the government would not have tried to seize it. >>
Another plus for the defense. Maybe this is why we do not have much published info about off metals available to us. Nobody wants their coins taken. >>
The Government does have a pretty good arguement in their favor. They can argue that the Mints deputy superintendent smuggled the coin away from the mint. If the coin was acquired by a mint employee, the origin of it's acquisition does become of issue. The Government can argue that the Mints deputy superintendent smuggled the coin away from the mint. However, short of some proof that the coin was taken illegally from the mint, well tough luck. Common sense says the coins existence in the hands of it's current owner is certainly suspect, but can the government prove it? Without proof, and all of these many years later, I seriously doubt it. The governments singling out of this particular coin for recovery does appear arbitrary and capricious. Unless we have changed our legal system from the presumption of innocence untill proven guilty, the government does not have a whole lot to stand on. We cannot just assume that the mere possession of the coin by the mints deputy superintendent means that the coin was illegally acquired by him. Even, if we reasonably suspect that to be the case.
I am fine with that. If it was not given to someone to keep it is a stolen item. They are lucky that theft charges don't also follow if the original thief is still alive.
U.S. District Judge William Q. Hayes wrote in his order that the men failed to offer sufficient facts to support conclusions that they are owners of the aluminum cent with a “legal right to have their coin sold at public auction.” >>
From the above, it seems like the judge placed the burden of proof on the plaintiffs. Was that a correct placement or should the burden of proof been on the defendants?
U.S. District Judge William Q. Hayes wrote in his order that the men failed to offer sufficient facts to support conclusions that they are owners of the aluminum cent with a “legal right to have their coin sold at public auction.” >>
From the above, it seems like the judge placed the burden of proof on the plaintiffs. Was that a correct placement or should the burden of proof been on the defendants? >>
I am not an attorney, and I am not sure what reasoning the Judge used. I do assume that the Judge can do pretty much whatever he thinks he can get away with. Civil law may allow him the lattitude to place the burdeon of proof elsewhere. But, what if the current owners fail to comply and keep the coin? Maybe the current owner gets to keep the coin and stay out of jail, but the Government can probably still seize the item if it ever shows up again? On it's face, it only seems right that the burdeon of proof of ownership in any theft case should be on the party that makes the accusation. If we do not do that, well guess what, I can claim to own all of your coins, or you, to own mine. If our legal system has not yet turned into a complete joke, the current owner should get to keep the con because the coin could have been a simple error. That fact alone should be sufficient, regardless of who claims to have found what where. But, this is America and our legal system seems to answer to the powerful of deep pockets. This will probably end up like the 1933 twenty dollar gold. The government will split the money with the owner, but not before wasting millions more of our dollars trying to make a point. After all, they are the same government that made over a million aluminum cent coins before deciding not to use them. Why change what don't work?
Comments
<< <i>
<< <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. >>
...Interesting to say the least
Erik
<< <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 >>
FWIW, the retired Mint employee that I spoke with said that employees were given the opportunity to purchase two coins at face value. I have never heard that the limit was five, not two, nor that the coins were given to the employees rather than sold.
<< <i>
<< <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. >>
I had never heard that they were at the 1972 ANA either, but I was not at that show.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <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. >>
I had never heard that they were at the 1972 ANA either, but I was not at that show. >>
This is interesting. Can anyone who was at the show confirm this?
If so, it would also be good for those that have 1st hand accounts of this to get in touch with RWB.
<< <i>
<< <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..... >>
<< <i>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. >>
Regardless of how strongly I felt, I'd never bet my reputation on an old wives tale.
The ability to provide untraceable photographic evidence has existed since before 1964 yet, there is absolutely NO photographic evidence of these coins. NONE.
Produce that evidence and then maybe it will be open for discussion as to whether or not the coin pictured is authentic.
Folks certainly have a right to believe whatever they want but human nature dictates that if such a coin did exist, it would have made some type of appearance other than through coin collecting gossip.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>The ability to provide untraceable photographic evidence has existed since before 1964 yet, there is absolutely NO photographic evidence of these coins. NONE.
Produce that evidence and then maybe it will be open for discussion as to whether or not the coin pictured is authentic.
Folks certainly have a right to believe whatever they want but human nature dictates that if such a coin did exist, it would have made some type of appearance other than through coin collecting gossip. >>
Ok, show a photo somewhere or claim you verified one, and see who is knocking on your door....
Anyone who actually knew about these would be foolish to show evidence/prove that they have seen one.
Just because no one has verified/photographed one, does not mean they do not exist, many examples
1870-S half dime, not seen until 1977
1870S dollars, first seen in 1914 I believe
1884-85 trade dollars, 1906 or 1907
1943D copper cent, breen claimed for years one existed, but it did not surface until early 1990s
Kevin
<< <i>
<< <i>The ability to provide untraceable photographic evidence has existed since before 1964 yet, there is absolutely NO photographic evidence of these coins. NONE.
Produce that evidence and then maybe it will be open for discussion as to whether or not the coin pictured is authentic.
Folks certainly have a right to believe whatever they want but human nature dictates that if such a coin did exist, it would have made some type of appearance other than through coin collecting gossip. >>
Ok, show a photo somewhere or claim you verified one, and see who is knocking on your door....
Anyone who actually knew about these would be foolish to show evidence/prove that they have seen one.
Just because no one has verified/photographed one, does not mean they do not exist, many examples
1870-S half dime, not seen until 1977
1870S dollars, first seen in 1914 I believe
1884-85 trade dollars, 1906 or 1907
1943D copper cent, breen claimed for years one existed, but it did not surface until early 1990s
Kevin >>
I'll believe it when I see it Kevin. Until then, it simply does not exist.
Kinda like Big Foot?
The name is LEE!
Coin Club Benefit auctions ..... View the Lots
<< <i>If I was the judge I would have some fun with this case, I would make the charges be filed in small claims court, after all it is just one cent.........
But the PCGS Price Guide says it's worth $500k
The 1964 Peace Dollar came up again... Maybe we should have a mini series on the greatest US coin mysteries of all-time. This would be one and close to the top. Based on what I have seen in numismatics, I am just not ready to concede that a 1964 Peace Dollar does not exist somewhere on the face of the earth.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>Seems the subject extended beyond the 1974-D aluminum cent which is okay.
The 1964 Peace Dollar came up again... Maybe we should have a mini series on the greatest US coin mysteries of all-time. This would be one and close to the top. Based on what I have seen in numismatics, I am just not ready to concede that a 1964 Peace Dollar does not exist somewhere on the face of the earth. >>
If so, I wouldn't be surprised if the owner is a member or lurker here.
Because I did not have a 1933.
Then they came for the '74 aluminum's, and I did not speak out—
Because I did not have a '74 alunimum.
Then they came for the Patterns, and I did not speak out—
Because I did not have a Pattern.
Then they came for mine—and there was no one left to speak for me.
--------T O M---------
-------------------------
<< <i>
<< <i>The ability to provide untraceable photographic evidence has existed since before 1964 yet, there is absolutely NO photographic evidence of these coins. NONE.
Produce that evidence and then maybe it will be open for discussion as to whether or not the coin pictured is authentic.
Folks certainly have a right to believe whatever they want but human nature dictates that if such a coin did exist, it would have made some type of appearance other than through coin collecting gossip. >>
Ok, show a photo somewhere or claim you verified one, and see who is knocking on your door....
Anyone who actually knew about these would be foolish to show evidence/prove that they have seen one.
Just because no one has verified/photographed one, does not mean they do not exist, many examples
1870-S half dime, not seen until 1977
1870S dollars, first seen in 1914 I believe
1884-85 trade dollars, 1906 or 1907
1943D copper cent, breen claimed for years one existed, but it did not surface until early 1990s
Kevin >>
We are in agreement.
TD
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>The ability to provide untraceable photographic evidence has existed since before 1964 yet, there is absolutely NO photographic evidence of these coins. NONE.
Produce that evidence and then maybe it will be open for discussion as to whether or not the coin pictured is authentic.
Folks certainly have a right to believe whatever they want but human nature dictates that if such a coin did exist, it would have made some type of appearance other than through coin collecting gossip. >>
Ok, show a photo somewhere or claim you verified one, and see who is knocking on your door....
Anyone who actually knew about these would be foolish to show evidence/prove that they have seen one.
Just because no one has verified/photographed one, does not mean they do not exist, many examples
1870-S half dime, not seen until 1977
1870S dollars, first seen in 1914 I believe
1884-85 trade dollars, 1906 or 1907
1943D copper cent, breen claimed for years one existed, but it did not surface until early 1990s
Kevin >>
We are in agreement.
TD >>
I have no problem with 1964-D Peace Dollars existing and I've suggested ways to get one into the open (PCGS slabbing in say Paris or Hong Kong). I'm hoping someone does take PCGS up on their offer to get one authenticated
<< <i>I have no problem with 1964-D Peace Dollars existing and I've suggested ways to get one into the open (PCGS slabbing in say Paris or Hong Kong). I'm hoping someone does take PCGS up on their offer to get one authenticated
I heard rumors that had the 1933 Twenty trial been more towards the coins being returned, one of the 64Ds might have surfaced
<< <i>
<< <i>If I was the judge I would have some fun with this case, I would make the charges be filed in small claims court, after all it is just one cent.........
But the PCGS Price Guide says it's worth $500k
The PGCS Price Guide is an opinion not a fact..... Judges tend to lean toward facts.
Coin Club Benefit auctions ..... View the Lots
<< <i>
I have no problem with 1964-D Peace Dollars existing and I've suggested ways to get one into the open (PCGS slabbing in say Paris or Hong Kong). I'm hoping someone does take PCGS up on their offer to get one authenticated
The Lanbords in their best Elmer Fudd voices
be vwery vwery careful..................
We have such stupid asses in the government with nothing better to do it's not even funny.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
Menomonee Falls Wisconsin USA
http://www.pcgs.com/SetRegistr...dset.aspx?s=68269&ac=1">Musky 1861 Mint Set
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
<< <i>Perhaps a decent solution to all such coins would be an amnesty period and perhaps some form of tax. Get whats out there out in the open and move on. >>
The way to do this would be to get some Congressmen and Senators to get involved.
<< <i>First they came for the 1933's, and I did not speak out—
Because I did not have a 1933.
Then they came for the '74 aluminum's, and I did not speak out—
Because I did not have a '74 alunimum.
Then they came for the Patterns, and I did not speak out—
Because I did not have a Pattern.
Then they came for mine—and there was no one left to speak for me. >>
That says it, doesn't it?
<< <i>
<< <i>First they came for the 1933's, and I did not speak out—
Because I did not have a 1933.
Then they came for the '74 aluminum's, and I did not speak out—
Because I did not have a '74 alunimum.
Then they came for the Patterns, and I did not speak out—
Because I did not have a Pattern.
Then they came for mine—and there was no one left to speak for me. >>
That says it, doesn't it? >>
Well, they actually didn't go for the 1974 aluminum cent, just the 1974-D aluminum cent.
And they also didn't go for Mint Director Baker's 1921/22 transitional Peace dollars.
So there does appear to be a line the Mint won't cross.
<< <i>
<< <i>First they came for the 1933's, and I did not speak out—
Because I did not have a 1933.
Then they came for the '74 aluminum's, and I did not speak out—
Because I did not have a '74 alunimum.
Then they came for the Patterns, and I did not speak out—
Because I did not have a Pattern.
Then they came for mine—and there was no one left to speak for me. >>
That says it, doesn't it? >>
Yes, most comparisons to the Third Reich say it, though just normally not what was intended.
Ed. S.
(EJS)
linky1
<< <i>Has this been posted here? Seems they lost their case:
linky1 >>
Link leads nowhere
linky 2
Interesting claim, that it was a "retirement present," along with other "error coins."
<< <i>
<< <i>Has this been posted here? Seems they lost their case:
linky1 >>
Link leads nowhere >>
Fixed it.
<< <i>Lawsuit dismissed in fight over rare coin
U.S. District Judge William Q. Hayes wrote in his order that the men failed to offer sufficient facts to support conclusions that they are owners of the aluminum cent with a “legal right to have their coin sold at public auction.” >>
Does anyone have access to the suit and what arguments were made on ownership?
<< <i>Does anyone know how many have been returned vs. how many were actually "released" ? Not that this matters. I'm just curious if the desire to have it back has anything to do with man's desire to own a rare collectible (relative to it's production numbers). >>
Just found this CoinWorld article. Looks like we have Harry Bobay to thank for this coin!
<< <i>Mint records devoid
Until 2013, it was believed that all production of the experimental aluminum cents was conducted at the Philadelphia Mint.
After the existence of the 1974-D aluminum cent was made public in 2013, U.S. Mint officials conducted an exhaustive search of Mint records before informing Coin World on Dec. 26, 2013, that no documentary evidence was found that 1974-D aluminum cents were ever struck at the Denver facility.
However, Coin World was able to locate the die setter for the testing, Benito Martinez, who claimed he struck between 10 and 12 1974-D aluminum cents, one at a time, on planchets with upset rims that were supplied by the Philadelphia Mint.
Martinez told Coin World he struck the 1974-D aluminum cents with regular production dies under the supervision of Harry Bobay, a Denver Mint production foreman.
Martinez said Bobay delivered the struck 1974-D aluminum cents and any unstruck planchets to the Coining Division office within the Denver Mint, with the belief the experimental pieces were being shipped back to U.S. Mint headquarters.
Bobay died in 1988. >>
<< <i>Would this coin have been more legal to own if the coin was released through normal channels and had been found in a bank roll or via another normal release channel? >>
That's hard to say. However, the Treasury might have taken less interest in it, perhaps none at all though that's a stretch, had it not been publicized as having walked out of the mint with a former employee.
Mister Carr
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>This penny represents one less aluminum pull-tab.It belongs in the Smithsonian.Give it back to the Mint. >>
Gotta love the way the government looks at money.
17+ Trillion dollars in debt and counting.
But, we have the resources to litigate over coins.
Probably some bureaucrat somewhere is concerned that a court loss for the government will cost them a pretty penny.
<< <i>If Mint officials were unable to verify that that the cent in question was struck at the Denver Mint, as stated in the Coin World article, then it would stand to reason that this coin does not officially exist and therefore cannot be considered the property of the United States government. It is a fantasy piece that the government should have no claim to, putting them on par with 1913 Liberty nickels. >>
That's approximately what the Mint said in the beginning - that they had no record of it. But then PCGS certified it saying it was government issue and CoinWorld interviewed a Mint employee that said he struck it.
<< <i>
<< <i>If Mint officials were unable to verify that that the cent in question was struck at the Denver Mint, as stated in the Coin World article, then it would stand to reason that this coin does not officially exist and therefore cannot be considered the property of the United States government. It is a fantasy piece that the government should have no claim to, putting them on par with 1913 Liberty nickels. >>
That's approximately what the Mint said in the beginning - that they had no record of it. But then PCGS certified it saying it was government issue and CoinWorld interviewed a Mint employee that said he struck it. >>
tada … and that is "KEY". and every series has a key.
Who is the employee that admitted to striking a 1974-D Aluminum cent without authorization? Seems to me said employee could be facing counterfeit charges.Maybe some other charges would be in order such as stealing government property.I would stay away from this coin even if I was able to pay the thousands of dollars it would take to buy it.
The problem is that there are some,probably more than we care to think about,out there who will glady pay a pretty penny for this flimsy penny.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>Who is the employee that admitted to striking a 1974-D Aluminum cent without authorization? >>
Nobody. The person who admitted to striking the coins said he did so under supervision. His supervisor, however, passed away in 1988.
Additionally, many Mint records, possibly up to the late 1970s were destroyed so it may be understandable if they are missing records.
<< <i>
<< <i>Does anyone know how many have been returned vs. how many were actually "released" ? Not that this matters. I'm just curious if the desire to have it back has anything to do with man's desire to own a rare collectible (relative to it's production numbers). >>
Just found this CoinWorld article. Looks like we have Harry Bobay to thank for this coin!
<< <i>Mint records devoid
Until 2013, it was believed that all production of the experimental aluminum cents was conducted at the Philadelphia Mint.
After the existence of the 1974-D aluminum cent was made public in 2013, U.S. Mint officials conducted an exhaustive search of Mint records before informing Coin World on Dec. 26, 2013, that no documentary evidence was found that 1974-D aluminum cents were ever struck at the Denver facility.
However, Coin World was able to locate the die setter for the testing, Benito Martinez, who claimed he struck between 10 and 12 1974-D aluminum cents, one at a time, on planchets with upset rims that were supplied by the Philadelphia Mint.
Martinez told Coin World he struck the 1974-D aluminum cents with regular production dies under the supervision of Harry Bobay, a Denver Mint production foreman.
Martinez said Bobay delivered the struck 1974-D aluminum cents and any unstruck planchets to the Coining Division office within the Denver Mint, with the belief the experimental pieces were being shipped back to U.S. Mint headquarters.
Bobay died in 1988. >>
>>
I would argue that the coin is an off metal error coin.
Regardless of the mint employees claim that he made 10 Denver coins, there is no way for the government to prove that the suspect prized coin in question was one of those prototypes.
The U.S. mint made is said to have produced 1,571,167 (Philidelphia ?) aluminum cents and they supposedly destroyed almost all of them before legal release.
As such, a very strong and compelling arguement can be made that one of those 1,571,167 coins may have slipped out of Philidelphia through the normal mint production cycle as an unstruck blank or planchet and then made it's way to the Denver mint.
To avoid confusing the Judge, I would avoid all of the other arguements with exception of maybe two.
I would also point out that the Government has an unremarkable penchant for choosing winners and losers when it comes to recovery of stolen mint property and therefore, any pursuit of this particular coin through legal remedy would amount to no more than an arbitrary and capricious execution of the law.
I would also argue that the governments actions amount to no more than an illegal attempt to take property without compesensation.
In short, there is no way for the government to prove that the coin at issue is not a simple error coin.
I would also do everything in my power to not let the Government have possession of the coin until all litigation and appeals were exhausted.
I see a victory for the coins seller here.
IMHO, had the piece been originally promoted as a foreign planchet error, the government would not have tried to seize it.
<< <i>If you saw my article on the piece in COINage, there was an aliminum coin from Nepal struck at the SFAO for Nepalese proof sets in 1973 and 1974 that essentially matches the specifications of this coin. We do know from the 1974-D 40% Ike dollars that the SFAO was shipping unfit Proof U.S. planchets to Denver in this era.
IMHO, had the piece been originally promoted as a foreign planchet error, the government would not have tried to seize it. >>
Another plus for the defense.
Maybe this is why we do not have much published info about off metals available to us.
Nobody wants their coins taken.
<< <i>
<< <i>If you saw my article on the piece in COINage, there was an aliminum coin from Nepal struck at the SFAO for Nepalese proof sets in 1973 and 1974 that essentially matches the specifications of this coin. We do know from the 1974-D 40% Ike dollars that the SFAO was shipping unfit Proof U.S. planchets to Denver in this era.
IMHO, had the piece been originally promoted as a foreign planchet error, the government would not have tried to seize it. >>
Another plus for the defense.
Maybe this is why we do not have much published info about off metals available to us.
Nobody wants their coins taken. >>
Aluminum Cents
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>If you saw my article on the piece in COINage, there was an aliminum coin from Nepal struck at the SFAO for Nepalese proof sets in 1973 and 1974 that essentially matches the specifications of this coin. We do know from the 1974-D 40% Ike dollars that the SFAO was shipping unfit Proof U.S. planchets to Denver in this era.
IMHO, had the piece been originally promoted as a foreign planchet error, the government would not have tried to seize it. >>
Another plus for the defense.
Maybe this is why we do not have much published info about off metals available to us.
Nobody wants their coins taken. >>
Aluminum Cents >>
The Government does have a pretty good arguement in their favor.
They can argue that the Mints deputy superintendent smuggled the coin away from the mint.
If the coin was acquired by a mint employee, the origin of it's acquisition does become of issue.
The Government can argue that the Mints deputy superintendent smuggled the coin away from the mint.
However, short of some proof that the coin was taken illegally from the mint, well tough luck.
Common sense says the coins existence in the hands of it's current owner is certainly suspect, but can the government prove it?
Without proof, and all of these many years later, I seriously doubt it.
The governments singling out of this particular coin for recovery does appear arbitrary and capricious.
Unless we have changed our legal system from the presumption of innocence untill proven guilty, the government does not have a whole lot to stand on.
We cannot just assume that the mere possession of the coin by the mints deputy superintendent means that the coin was illegally acquired by him.
Even, if we reasonably suspect that to be the case.
Richard
my car art & My Ebay stuff
<< <i>Lawsuit dismissed in fight over rare coin
U.S. District Judge William Q. Hayes wrote in his order that the men failed to offer sufficient facts to support conclusions that they are owners of the aluminum cent with a “legal right to have their coin sold at public auction.” >>
From the above, it seems like the judge placed the burden of proof on the plaintiffs. Was that a correct placement or should the burden of proof been on the defendants?
<< <i>
<< <i>Lawsuit dismissed in fight over rare coin
U.S. District Judge William Q. Hayes wrote in his order that the men failed to offer sufficient facts to support conclusions that they are owners of the aluminum cent with a “legal right to have their coin sold at public auction.” >>
From the above, it seems like the judge placed the burden of proof on the plaintiffs. Was that a correct placement or should the burden of proof been on the defendants? >>
I am not an attorney, and I am not sure what reasoning the Judge used.
I do assume that the Judge can do pretty much whatever he thinks he can get away with.
Civil law may allow him the lattitude to place the burdeon of proof elsewhere.
But, what if the current owners fail to comply and keep the coin?
Maybe the current owner gets to keep the coin and stay out of jail, but the Government can probably still seize the item if it ever shows up again?
On it's face, it only seems right that the burdeon of proof of ownership in any theft case should be on the party that makes the accusation.
If we do not do that, well guess what, I can claim to own all of your coins, or you, to own mine.
If our legal system has not yet turned into a complete joke, the current owner should get to keep the con because the coin could have been a simple error.
That fact alone should be sufficient, regardless of who claims to have found what where.
But, this is America and our legal system seems to answer to the powerful of deep pockets.
This will probably end up like the 1933 twenty dollar gold.
The government will split the money with the owner, but not before wasting millions more of our dollars trying to make a point.
After all, they are the same government that made over a million aluminum cent coins before deciding not to use them.
Why change what don't work?