<< <i>I do not recall the details, but the term "monetize" is of relatively recent creation.
It may have been a term that was created (or "coined") during the settlement of the Fenton case.
I do not recall in any prior discussions anyone indicating that the term "monetize" was in existence and in use back at the time that the 1933 double eagles were minted or in the 1940's. I do not recall anyone indicating that this term was used at any time from 1792-1932 either.
The term "monetize" sure has become part of the lexicon of this case.
Some people appear to place significant meaning to same when, in reality, it may not have any significance at all. >>
Well, here is something to think about. Trade Dollars were de-monetized in 1876. That is in officical gov't records because it had to be made a law. But there sure isn't much written about them being "monetized" in the first place. So is being "monetized" just a conferred de-facto occurrence when the coin is struck, or something else?
Is any familiar with the amount of time that the 3rd Circuit usually spends on cases like this? When can we expect a decision? In three or four months?
<< <i>I do not recall the details, but the term "monetize" is of relatively recent creation.
It may have been a term that was created (or "coined") during the settlement of the Fenton case.
I do not recall in any prior discussions anyone indicating that the term "monetize" was in existence and in use back at the time that the 1933 double eagles were minted or in the 1940's. I do not recall anyone indicating that this term was used at any time from 1792-1932 either.
The term "monetize" sure has become part of the lexicon of this case.
Some people appear to place significant meaning to same when, in reality, it may not have any significance at all. >>
Well, here is something to think about. Trade Dollars were de-monetized in 1876. That is in officical gov't records because it had to be made a law. But there sure isn't much written about them being "monetized" in the first place. So is being "monetized" just a conferred de-facto occurrence when the coin is struck, or something else? >>
Something else to think about: if there was no concept of monetization (or similar) until the mid-1900s, are pre-1933 patterns legal tender?
<< <i>I personally saw the US Mint create American Gold Eagles a year before the date shown on such AGE's!!
Kind of strange that the US Mint does this while arguing their case. >>
Yes, the 2000 P, Cheerios Dollars were struck in 1999, and likewise, the 1856 Flying Eagle Cents were struck before the law authorizing to be "small cents" was a law. Go figure how LAW works throughout the centuries. I can't make heads or tails of it when we are forced to see only one side.
Time to crack them babies out and get them properly graded at PCGS. And I like those 1913 V Nickels, too. They're for the collector. I'm sure the witch of wall street (Hetty Green) had little to do with her son E.H.R. acquiring the only ones the mint created. But , let us not convolute one of the most important cases in numismatic history, as it were.
<< <i>I personally saw the US Mint create American Gold Eagles a year before the date shown on such AGE's!!
Kind of strange that the US Mint does this while arguing their case. >>
But were they released in the year they were struck or the year they were dated for? I think we all know that 2015 ASEs are being struck now for 2015 release.
They aren't intended to be used for commerce or circulation so it really doesn't much matter when they were made IMO.
TwoSides: << ... let us not convolute one of the most important cases in numismatic history, as it were. >>
I do not understand how the posts after my post above are relevant to 1933 Double Eagles. In Feb. and in March 1933, and also later, thousands of 1933 Double Eagles were legally struck, certainly just as legal as 1931 or 1932 Double Eagles. In accordance with the traditions and practices of the Philadelphia Mint, anyone could have gone to the mint and traded old Double Eagles for new 1933 Double Eagles in exchanges that everyone involved would likely have regarded as legal, legitimate and ethical.
Also, FDR explicitly said that gold coins that were of interest to coin collectors were excluded from the gold recall order. 1931, 1932 and 1933 Double Eagles were all of interest to collectors seeking to complete sets of Saints.
As Zoins and others have hinted, if the government wins this case, there are many other coins and patterns that could easily be seized as well. It is ridiculous to expect ledger entries to survive regarding all coin-for-coin exchanges at the Philadelphia Mint
My pre-trial article on the Switt-Langbord case shared the NLG award for best article to be published on a website:
<< <i>Something else to think about: if there was no concept of monetization (or similar) until the mid-1900s, are pre-1933 patterns legal tender? >>
With regards to patterns, and only with regards to patterns dated 1909 and earlier, this was settled over 100 years ago. If anyone would like more info on this, I can start a separate thread.
Thank you Analyst. Great writing and reporting and unbiased presentation of likely scenarios and facts. I've never believed the coins were stolen and have always considered Izzy Switt a man ahead of his time. He's kind of my HERO, as is E.H.R. Green. Plenty of us do not have the foresight and a lot of coins that come under the radar or escape the mint, and make the coin news, are the very coins that increase interest in the hobby, as a whole. I am a proponent of the hobby and pro-collector. And the PEOPLE would be best served if the officials would spin their tales and exert their energies elsewhere. But that's just a simpleton's point of view. I really believe these coins belong to the Langbords, even if the U.S. Treasury gets a "cut", and a few digs.
<< <i>Something else to think about: if there was no concept of monetization (or similar) until the mid-1900s, are pre-1933 patterns legal tender? >>
With regards to patterns, and only with regards to patterns dated 1909 and earlier, this was settled over 100 years ago. If anyone would like more info on this, I can start a separate thread. >>
Please do. I have some interesting comments on the legality of patterns after 1916 that I would post in such a thread.
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>Something else to think about: if there was no concept of monetization (or similar) until the mid-1900s, are pre-1933 patterns legal tender? >>
With regards to patterns, and only with regards to patterns dated 1909 and earlier, this was settled over 100 years ago. If anyone would like more info on this, I can start a separate thread. >>
Please do. I have some interesting comments on the legality of patterns after 1916 that I would post in such a thread. >>
I've never believed the coins were stolen and have always considered Izzy Switt a man ahead of his time. He's kind of my HERO, as is E.H.R. Green. Plenty of us do not have the foresight and a lot of coins that come under the radar or escape the mint, and make the coin news, are the very coins that increase interest in the hobby, as a whole.
Do you believe the US government acted improperly,even illegally, by seizing nine 1933 DE's in the possession of various individuals in the'40's and '50's?
I am a proponent of the hobby and pro-collector. And the PEOPLE would be best served if the officials would spin their tales and exert their energies elsewhere. But that's just a simpleton's point of view. I really believe these coins belong to the Langbords, even if the U.S. Treasury gets a "cut", and a few digs.
Don't sell yourself short by characterizing your view as the view of a simpleton.Attorneys for both sides have created an expensive,time-consuming nightmare for both the Langbords and the PEOPLE.Attorneys for both sides need to hammer out an agreement,a settlement,and put this case to rest.That's my view.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
I do not understand how the posts after my post above are relevant to 1933 Double Eagles. In Feb. and in March 1933, and also later, thousands of 1933 Double Eagles were legally struck, certainly just as legal as 1931 or 1932 Double Eagles. In accordance with the traditions and practices of the Philadelphia Mint, anyone could have gone to the mint and traded old Double Eagles for new 1933 Double Eagles in exchanges that everyone involved would likely have regarded as legal, legitimate and ethical.
>>
I have no reason to believe that "anyone could have gone to the mint and traded old Double Eagles for new 1933 Double Eagles. Never seen anything to even remotely think this was the case. Wonder why people like Eliasberg did not believe this to be the case?
Collector and Researcher of Liberty Head Nickels. ANA LM-6053
I do not understand how the posts after my post above are relevant to 1933 Double Eagles. In Feb. and in March 1933, and also later, thousands of 1933 Double Eagles were legally struck, certainly just as legal as 1931 or 1932 Double Eagles. In accordance with the traditions and practices of the Philadelphia Mint, anyone could have gone to the mint and traded old Double Eagles for new 1933 Double Eagles in exchanges that everyone involved would likely have regarded as legal, legitimate and ethical.
>>
I have no reason to believe that "anyone could have gone to the mint and traded old Double Eagles for new 1933 Double Eagles. Never seen anything to even remotely think this was the case. Wonder why people like Eliasberg did not believe this to be the case? >>
What is the situation with the 1933 Eagles where there are receipts to demonstrate the legality of those pieces. Do the receipts support gold for gold trades?
In 1932 would the cashier at the Mint window have exchanged a bright and shiny 1932 DE for 200 silver dimes or 2000 pennies or did it have to be gold for gold at the window?
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
<< <i>In 1932 would the cashier at the Mint window have exchanged a bright and shiny 1932 DE for 200 silver dimes or 2000 pennies or did it have to be gold for gold at the window? >>
A $20 Gold Certificate or Federal Reserve Note (the Series 1928 or earlier FRN's were redeemable in gold) would have worked. I suspect that silver or minor coins would have been accepted, but do not know that for a fact.
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.
DblDi55: <<I have no reason to believe that "anyone could have gone to the mint and traded old Double Eagles for new 1933 Double Eagles. >>
I put forth the reasons in my articles.
Plus, QDB makes the point in numerous articles and in his book on Double Eagles (Atlanta: Whitman, 2003). Indeed, both DblDi55 and Mr. 1874 should read what QDB wrote about 1933 Double Eagles in that book. It may be available by mail from the ANA library. Moreover, Tripp acknowledge that there is evidence of people obtaining 1933 Eagles ($10 coins) in this manner. It is widely accepted that1931 and 1932 Double Eagles were obtained in this manner. These are very rare.
Also, DblDi55's point above about Eliasberg is misleading. We would have to know about the details of his life in order to know why Eliasberg did not have BOTH the time and the motivation to travel to the Philadelphia Mint in March 1933 to obtain 1933 Double Eagles. If Eliasberg was especially interested in contemporary issues at the time, he probably figured that he could wait until the summer when he was on vacation. Some people do not plan leisure trips during the winter.
Mr. 1874 :<<Do you believe the US government acted improperly,even illegally, by seizing nine 1933 DE's in the possession of various individuals in the'40's and '50's?>>
Yes, there was not solid evidence that these were stolen.
1) The owners of such coins felt they had no choice other than to believe that they were stolen after government officials asserted that they were so.
2) According to www.FOIA.gov, <<Enacted on July 4, 1966, and taking effect one year later, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) provides that any person has a right, enforceable in court, to obtain access to federal agency records, except to the extent that such records (or portions of them) are protected from public disclosure by one of nine exemptions or by one of three special law enforcement record exclusions. >>
So, in the 1940s and the 1950s, the owners of the 1933 Double Eagles could not access many of the records of the Philadelphia Mint. Also, according to R. W. Julian, many such records were destroyed in the 1970s, which may have contained details of perfectly legal distributions of 1933 Double Eagles.
3) More is known to collectors now about the history of the U.S. Mint than was known to collectors in the 1940s and early 1950s. Research by QDB, Breen, R. W. Julian Taxay, RWB, and others shows that collectors obtained coins at face by trading common coins for rarer coins at the Philadelphia Mint.
Zoins:<<What is the situation with the 1933 Eagles where there are receipts to demonstrate the legality of those pieces. Do the receipts support gold for gold trades? >>
If I remember correctly, Tripp, the only researcher who says that 1933 DEs were stolen, acknowledges that at least four receipts were issued for coin-for-coin trades to visitors for 1933 Eagles ($10 coins), though Tripp wrongly suggests that the other surviving 1933 Eagles ($10 coins) were stolen.
The most obvious explanation is that, while collectors and dealers, would not have wanted such receipts, tourists would. as the receipts are souvenirs of a trip to the Mint. A tourist would have known that he would be more likely, than a dedicated collector, to just spend a 1933 Eagle (or DE) and thus the receipt would be the emotional reminder of the visit, something to put in a scrapbook.
My pre-trial article on the Switt-Langbord case shared the NLG award for best article to be published on a website:
Comments
<< <i>I do not recall the details, but the term "monetize" is of relatively recent creation.
It may have been a term that was created (or "coined"
I do not recall in any prior discussions anyone indicating that the term "monetize" was in existence and in use back at the time that the 1933 double eagles were minted or in the 1940's. I do not recall anyone indicating that this term was used at any time from 1792-1932 either.
The term "monetize" sure has become part of the lexicon of this case.
Some people appear to place significant meaning to same when, in reality, it may not have any significance at all. >>
Well, here is something to think about. Trade Dollars were de-monetized in 1876. That is in officical gov't records because it had to be made a law. But there sure isn't much written about them being "monetized" in the first place. So is being "monetized" just a conferred de-facto occurrence when the coin is struck, or something else?
<< <i>
<< <i>I do not recall the details, but the term "monetize" is of relatively recent creation.
It may have been a term that was created (or "coined"
I do not recall in any prior discussions anyone indicating that the term "monetize" was in existence and in use back at the time that the 1933 double eagles were minted or in the 1940's. I do not recall anyone indicating that this term was used at any time from 1792-1932 either.
The term "monetize" sure has become part of the lexicon of this case.
Some people appear to place significant meaning to same when, in reality, it may not have any significance at all. >>
Well, here is something to think about. Trade Dollars were de-monetized in 1876. That is in officical gov't records because it had to be made a law. But there sure isn't much written about them being "monetized" in the first place. So is being "monetized" just a conferred de-facto occurrence when the coin is struck, or something else? >>
Something else to think about: if there was no concept of monetization (or similar) until the mid-1900s, are pre-1933 patterns legal tender?
Kind of strange that the US Mint does this while arguing their case.
<< <i>I personally saw the US Mint create American Gold Eagles a year before the date shown on such AGE's!!
Kind of strange that the US Mint does this while arguing their case. >>
Yes, the 2000 P, Cheerios Dollars were struck in 1999, and likewise, the 1856 Flying Eagle Cents were struck before the law authorizing to be "small cents" was a law. Go figure how LAW works throughout the centuries. I can't make heads or tails of it when we are forced to see only one side.
Time to crack them babies out and get them properly graded at PCGS.
And I like those 1913 V Nickels, too. They're for the collector. I'm sure the witch of wall street (Hetty Green) had little to do with her son E.H.R. acquiring the only ones the mint created.
But , let us not convolute one of the most important cases in numismatic history, as it were.
With respect.
Good day.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>I personally saw the US Mint create American Gold Eagles a year before the date shown on such AGE's!!
Kind of strange that the US Mint does this while arguing their case. >>
But were they released in the year they were struck or the year they were dated for? I think we all know that 2015 ASEs are being struck now for 2015 release.
They aren't intended to be used for commerce or circulation so it really doesn't much matter when they were made IMO.
TwoSides: << ... let us not convolute one of the most important cases in numismatic history, as it were. >>
I do not understand how the posts after my post above are relevant to 1933 Double Eagles. In Feb. and in March 1933, and also later, thousands of 1933 Double Eagles were legally struck, certainly just as legal as 1931 or 1932 Double Eagles. In accordance with the traditions and practices of the Philadelphia Mint, anyone could have gone to the mint and traded old Double Eagles for new 1933 Double Eagles in exchanges that everyone involved would likely have regarded as legal, legitimate and ethical.
Also, FDR explicitly said that gold coins that were of interest to coin collectors were excluded from the gold recall order. 1931, 1932 and 1933 Double Eagles were all of interest to collectors seeking to complete sets of Saints.
As Zoins and others have hinted, if the government wins this case, there are many other coins and patterns that could easily be seized as well. It is ridiculous to expect ledger entries to survive regarding all coin-for-coin exchanges at the Philadelphia Mint
My pre-trial article on the Switt-Langbord case shared the NLG award for best article to be published on a website:
The fate of the ten Switt-Langbord 1933 Doubles
My post-trial article includes comments by QDB and David Ganz:
Analysis of the Verdict in the Switt-Langbord Case
<< <i>Something else to think about: if there was no concept of monetization (or similar) until the mid-1900s, are pre-1933 patterns legal tender? >>
With regards to patterns, and only with regards to patterns dated 1909 and earlier, this was settled over 100 years ago. If anyone would like more info on this, I can start a separate thread.
I've never believed the coins were stolen and have always considered Izzy Switt a man ahead of his time. He's kind of my HERO, as is E.H.R. Green. Plenty of us do not have the foresight and a lot of coins that come under the radar or escape the mint, and make the coin news, are the very coins that increase interest in the hobby, as a whole.
I am a proponent of the hobby and pro-collector. And the PEOPLE would be best served if the officials would spin their tales and exert their energies elsewhere. But that's just a simpleton's point of view. I really believe these coins belong to the Langbords, even if the U.S. Treasury gets a "cut", and a few digs.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>
<< <i>Something else to think about: if there was no concept of monetization (or similar) until the mid-1900s, are pre-1933 patterns legal tender? >>
With regards to patterns, and only with regards to patterns dated 1909 and earlier, this was settled over 100 years ago. If anyone would like more info on this, I can start a separate thread. >>
Please do. I have some interesting comments on the legality of patterns after 1916 that I would post in such a thread.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Something else to think about: if there was no concept of monetization (or similar) until the mid-1900s, are pre-1933 patterns legal tender? >>
With regards to patterns, and only with regards to patterns dated 1909 and earlier, this was settled over 100 years ago. If anyone would like more info on this, I can start a separate thread. >>
Please do. I have some interesting comments on the legality of patterns after 1916 that I would post in such a thread. >>
Go for it you two.
Do you believe the US government acted improperly,even illegally, by seizing nine 1933 DE's in the possession of various individuals in the'40's and '50's?
I am a proponent of the hobby and pro-collector. And the PEOPLE would be best served if the officials would spin their tales and exert their energies elsewhere. But that's just a simpleton's point of view. I really believe these coins belong to the Langbords, even if the U.S. Treasury gets a "cut", and a few digs.
Don't sell yourself short by characterizing your view as the view of a simpleton.Attorneys for both sides have created an expensive,time-consuming nightmare for both the Langbords and the PEOPLE.Attorneys for both sides need to hammer out an agreement,a settlement,and put this case to rest.That's my view.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
<< <i>
I do not understand how the posts after my post above are relevant to 1933 Double Eagles. In Feb. and in March 1933, and also later, thousands of 1933 Double Eagles were legally struck, certainly just as legal as 1931 or 1932 Double Eagles. In accordance with the traditions and practices of the Philadelphia Mint, anyone could have gone to the mint and traded old Double Eagles for new 1933 Double Eagles in exchanges that everyone involved would likely have regarded as legal, legitimate and ethical.
>>
I have no reason to believe that "anyone could have gone to the mint and traded old Double Eagles for new 1933 Double Eagles. Never seen anything to even remotely think this was the case. Wonder why people like Eliasberg did not believe this to be the case?
<< <i>
<< <i>
I do not understand how the posts after my post above are relevant to 1933 Double Eagles. In Feb. and in March 1933, and also later, thousands of 1933 Double Eagles were legally struck, certainly just as legal as 1931 or 1932 Double Eagles. In accordance with the traditions and practices of the Philadelphia Mint, anyone could have gone to the mint and traded old Double Eagles for new 1933 Double Eagles in exchanges that everyone involved would likely have regarded as legal, legitimate and ethical.
>>
I have no reason to believe that "anyone could have gone to the mint and traded old Double Eagles for new 1933 Double Eagles. Never seen anything to even remotely think this was the case. Wonder why people like Eliasberg did not believe this to be the case? >>
What is the situation with the 1933 Eagles where there are receipts to demonstrate the legality of those pieces. Do the receipts support gold for gold trades?
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
<< <i>In 1932 would the cashier at the Mint window have exchanged a bright and shiny 1932 DE for 200 silver dimes or 2000 pennies or did it have to be gold for gold at the window? >>
A $20 Gold Certificate or Federal Reserve Note (the Series 1928 or earlier FRN's were redeemable in gold) would have worked. I suspect that silver or minor coins would have been accepted, but do not know that for a fact.
TD
DblDi55: <<I have no reason to believe that "anyone could have gone to the mint and traded old Double Eagles for new 1933 Double Eagles. >>
I put forth the reasons in my articles.
Plus, QDB makes the point in numerous articles and in his book on Double Eagles (Atlanta: Whitman, 2003). Indeed, both DblDi55 and Mr. 1874 should read what QDB wrote about 1933 Double Eagles in that book. It may be available by mail from the ANA library. Moreover, Tripp acknowledge that there is evidence of people obtaining 1933 Eagles ($10 coins) in this manner. It is widely accepted that1931 and 1932 Double Eagles were obtained in this manner. These are very rare.
Also, DblDi55's point above about Eliasberg is misleading. We would have to know about the details of his life in order to know why Eliasberg did not have BOTH the time and the motivation to travel to the Philadelphia Mint in March 1933 to obtain 1933 Double Eagles. If Eliasberg was especially interested in contemporary issues at the time, he probably figured that he could wait until the summer when he was on vacation. Some people do not plan leisure trips during the winter.
Mr. 1874 :<<Do you believe the US government acted improperly,even illegally, by seizing nine 1933 DE's in the possession of various individuals in the'40's and '50's?>>
Yes, there was not solid evidence that these were stolen.
1) The owners of such coins felt they had no choice other than to believe that they were stolen after government officials asserted that they were so.
2) According to www.FOIA.gov, <<Enacted on July 4, 1966, and taking effect one year later, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) provides that any person has a right, enforceable in court, to obtain access to federal agency records, except to the extent that such records (or portions of them) are protected from public disclosure by one of nine exemptions or by one of three special law enforcement record exclusions. >>
So, in the 1940s and the 1950s, the owners of the 1933 Double Eagles could not access many of the records of the Philadelphia Mint. Also, according to R. W. Julian, many such records were destroyed in the 1970s, which may have contained details of perfectly legal distributions of 1933 Double Eagles.
3) More is known to collectors now about the history of the U.S. Mint than was known to collectors in the 1940s and early 1950s. Research by QDB, Breen, R. W. Julian Taxay, RWB, and others shows that collectors obtained coins at face by trading common coins for rarer coins at the Philadelphia Mint.
Zoins:<<What is the situation with the 1933 Eagles where there are receipts to demonstrate the legality of those pieces. Do the receipts support gold for gold trades? >>
If I remember correctly, Tripp, the only researcher who says that 1933 DEs were stolen, acknowledges that at least four receipts were issued for coin-for-coin trades to visitors for 1933 Eagles ($10 coins), though Tripp wrongly suggests that the other surviving 1933 Eagles ($10 coins) were stolen.
The most obvious explanation is that, while collectors and dealers, would not have wanted such receipts, tourists would. as the receipts are souvenirs of a trip to the Mint. A tourist would have known that he would be more likely, than a dedicated collector, to just spend a 1933 Eagle (or DE) and thus the receipt would be the emotional reminder of the visit, something to put in a scrapbook.
My pre-trial article on the Switt-Langbord case shared the NLG award for best article to be published on a website:
The fate of the ten Switt-Langbord 1933 Doubles
My post-trial article includes comments by QDB and David Ganz:
Analysis of the Verdict in the Switt-Langbord Case