As I understand the CAFRA death penalty (aka the consequences of the failure of the government to timely file a CAFRA forfeiture action) is that the government:
1. would have to return the property (in this case the 10 1933 double eagles would have to be returned to the Langbords); and
2. would be barred from seeking, in the future, forfeiture of the property (the 10 coins in this case) based upon the facts constituting the offense giving rise to the barred forfeiture claim [in this case the claim that the 10 coins were stolen from the government in the 1930s].
The effect of this death penalty would be that for these 10 coins the government would be required to return same and would be barred from ever asserting ownership of same based past events. Thus if the 10 coins were sold by the Langbords, the buyers would obtain ownership free of any claim by the government to same. In addition to the effect of the CAFRA death penalty statute, general legal principles (including res judicata and collateral estoppel and claim splitting) would apply to prevent the government from seeking a second bite of the apple by bringing new litigation to obtain the 10 coins. The final judgment in the first case would operate as a bar to any second case. >>
I guess I forgot about that part. Would they be legal coins or token? I can't imagine the Government would grant them any favors. >>
As I understand the CAFRA death penalty (aka the consequences of the failure of the government to timely file a CAFRA forfeiture action) is that the government:
1. would have to return the property (in this case the 10 1933 double eagles would have to be returned to the Langbords); and
2. would be barred from seeking, in the future, forfeiture of the property (the 10 coins in this case) based upon the facts constituting the offense giving rise to the barred forfeiture claim [in this case the claim that the 10 coins were stolen from the government in the 1930s].
The effect of this death penalty would be that for these 10 coins the government would be required to return same and would be barred from ever asserting ownership of same based past events. Thus if the 10 coins were sold by the Langbords, the buyers would obtain ownership free of any claim by the government to same. In addition to the effect of the CAFRA death penalty statute, general legal principles (including res judicata and collateral estoppel and claim splitting) would apply to prevent the government from seeking a second bite of the apple by bringing new litigation to obtain the 10 coins. The final judgment in the first case would operate as a bar to any second case. >>
I guess I forgot about that part. Would they be legal coins or token? I can't imagine the Government would grant them any favors. >>
US Government; "Sorry, we melted those months ago."
<< <i>I guess I forgot about that part. Would they be legal coins or token? I can't imagine the Government would grant them any favors. >>
The second they go in PCGS plastic they are a coin. The government can call it anything they want, all the market cares about is the label on the holder.
<< <i>I guess I forgot about that part. Would they be legal coins or token? I can't imagine the Government would grant them any favors. >>
The second they go in PCGS plastic they are a coin. The government can call it anything they want, all the market cares about is the label on the holder. >>
PCGS might call them So Called Double Eagles! SCDE!
I would expect that the Langbord's really don't want all 1933s made legal. If twenty more showed up after the trial it could really crash their profits.
There's likely at least five more waiting to be "discovered." The owners are awaiting the final outcome of this case.
Langbords make deal with Gov makes a lot of sense even if they prevail in the case.I offered "the solution" many posts ago.Langbords keep one coin,the coin of their choosing and let the Gov keep the other nine.The nine go to the Smithsonian and that's where they live for the rest of time.Write it into the agreement.Gov blesses the Langbord coin as the 2nd example of 1933 Double that is legal to own and value is preserved for them.Gov blessing for the one coin should be worth more monetarily to the Langbords than no Gov blessing for any of the ten if they decide not to make a deal.
The owner of the ex Farouk piece is in relatively good shape,too, if a deal like this is made.This coin might even increase in value rather than having it's value seriously diluted by all ten Langbord coins going into the channels of numismatic commerce.
Everybody shakes hands and goes home with a smile on their face.Justice has prevailed.
Justice cannot be for one side alone, but must be for both. Eleanor Roosevelt
I must be dreaming....
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>There's likely at least five more waiting to be "discovered." The owners are awaiting the final outcome of this case.
Langbords make deal with Gov makes a lot of sense even if they prevail in the case.I offered "the solution" many posts ago.Langbords keep one coin,the coin of their choosing and let the Gov keep the other nine.The nine go to the Smithsonian and that's where they live for the rest of time.Write it into the agreement.Gov blesses the Langbord coin as the 2nd example of 1933 Double that is legal to own and value is preserved for them.Gov blessing for the one coin should be worth more monetarily to the Langbords than no Gov blessing for any of the ten if they decide not to make a deal.
The owner of the ex Farouk piece is in relatively good shape,too, if a deal like this is made.This coin might even increase in value rather than having it's value seriously diluted by all ten Langbord coins going into the channels of numismatic commerce.
Everybody shakes hands and goes home with a smile on their face.Justice has prevailed.
Justice cannot be for one side alone, but must be for both. Eleanor Roosevelt
I must be dreaming.... >>
If I am the Langbords, I would rather have the ten coins without the Government's "blessing" or "monetization" or whatever you want to call it, than one coin with that Government "blessing".
As Coinosaurus said, as soon as they are in PCGS plastic, that is all the market cares about. No buyer cares whether the coin he/she is buying is "monetized" or not.
The Langbords won in the Appeals Court, right now they are in the driver's seat, why would they settle for one coin?
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
Was reading up on Fort Knox bullion dep. on Wikpedia and w/in the description it was stated that these Gold pieces were/are being stored there. True? And how much does the legacy of these coins increase with the battle with the Mint?
Successful transactions:Tookybandit. "Everyone is equal, some are more equal than others".
<< <i>I guess I forgot about that part. Would they be legal coins or token? I can't imagine the Government would grant them any favors. >>
The second they go in PCGS plastic they are a coin. The government can call it anything they want, all the market cares about is the label on the holder. >>
They are already in plastic.
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>There's likely at least five more waiting to be "discovered." The owners are awaiting the final outcome of this case.
Langbords make deal with Gov makes a lot of sense even if they prevail in the case.I offered "the solution" many posts ago.Langbords keep one coin,the coin of their choosing and let the Gov keep the other nine.The nine go to the Smithsonian and that's where they live for the rest of time.Write it into the agreement.Gov blesses the Langbord coin as the 2nd example of 1933 Double that is legal to own and value is preserved for them.Gov blessing for the one coin should be worth more monetarily to the Langbords than no Gov blessing for any of the ten if they decide not to make a deal.
The owner of the ex Farouk piece is in relatively good shape,too, if a deal like this is made.This coin might even increase in value rather than having it's value seriously diluted by all ten Langbord coins going into the channels of numismatic commerce.
Everybody shakes hands and goes home with a smile on their face.Justice has prevailed.
Justice cannot be for one side alone, but must be for both. Eleanor Roosevelt
I must be dreaming.... >>
If I am the Langbords, I would rather have the ten coins without the Government's "blessing" or "monetization" or whatever you want to call it, than one coin with that Government "blessing".
As Coinosaurus said, as soon as they are in PCGS plastic, that is all the market cares about. No buyer cares whether the coin he/she is buying is "monetized" or not.
The Langbords won in the Appeals Court, right now they are in the driver's seat, why would they settle for one coin? >>
Agreed-- they cannot settle for one coin. The lawyers probably will want one or two as payment. This case has gone on long enough. Lawyers ain't cheap. "Monetized" means nothing, "legal to own" means everything. Of course the legalization of more 1933 double eagles will most likely mean a price drop, however, they will still be worth an awful lot of money.
As I understand the CAFRA death penalty (aka the consequences of the failure of the government to timely file a CAFRA forfeiture action) is that the government:
1. would have to return the property (in this case the 10 1933 double eagles would have to be returned to the Langbords); and
2. would be barred from seeking, in the future, forfeiture of the property (the 10 coins in this case) based upon the facts constituting the offense giving rise to the barred forfeiture claim [in this case the claim that the 10 coins were stolen from the government in the 1930s].
The effect of this death penalty would be that for these 10 coins the government would be required to return same and would be barred from ever asserting ownership of same based past events. Thus if the 10 coins were sold by the Langbords, the buyers would obtain ownership free of any claim by the government to same. In addition to the effect of the CAFRA death penalty statute, general legal principles (including res judicata and collateral estoppel and claim splitting) would apply to prevent the government from seeking a second bite of the apple by bringing new litigation to obtain the 10 coins. The final judgment in the first case would operate as a bar to any second case. >>
I guess I forgot about that part. Would they be legal coins or token? I can't imagine the Government would grant them any favors. >>
Token, coin, pattern?
That debate might live on >>
The government's argument about "monetization" is just stupid and is clearly just made up with no basis in law. The constitution gives congress the power to coin money, the 1933 were authorized by congress so as soon as they were struck they became coins.
Although, we will never know what position the courts will take on the monetization issue, unless their is a court case that brings the issue to them. I have trouble seeing any case actually litigating that issue. I guess if the Langbords or a future owner tried to spend them for $20, and the person on the receiving end refuses to accept them at face value, it could come before the court. Also, if someone without a Minnesota coin bullion dealer license, tried to sell them in Minnesota or to a Minnesotan license it could also come before the court. (The MN coin bullion dealer law only covers coins."
<< <i>I would expect that the Langbord's really don't want all 1933s made legal. If twenty more showed up after the trial it could really crash their profits.
There's likely at least five more waiting to be "discovered." The owners are awaiting the final outcome of this case.
Langbords make deal with Gov makes a lot of sense even if they prevail in the case.I offered "the solution" many posts ago.Langbords keep one coin,the coin of their choosing and let the Gov keep the other nine.The nine go to the Smithsonian and that's where they live for the rest of time.Write it into the agreement.Gov blesses the Langbord coin as the 2nd example of 1933 Double that is legal to own and value is preserved for them.Gov blessing for the one coin should be worth more monetarily to the Langbords than no Gov blessing for any of the ten if they decide not to make a deal.
The owner of the ex Farouk piece is in relatively good shape,too, if a deal like this is made.This coin might even increase in value rather than having it's value seriously diluted by all ten Langbord coins going into the channels of numismatic commerce.
Everybody shakes hands and goes home with a smile on their face.Justice has prevailed.
Justice cannot be for one side alone, but must be for both. Eleanor Roosevelt
I must be dreaming.... >>
The Government is in no position to deal. Anything would have to come from the Langbords and it's unlikely they'll cede anything.
<< <i>I wonder if the Mint or whomever will mark the coins in such a way that they will be distinguishable from other specimens that may come out of hiding. >>
No need. They have random bag marks and have been well photographed.
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.
For now, all 10 are in NGC holders, so they will be simple to keep track of. I do believe they will migrate to PCGS holders if coins are returned and sold in either retail environment or at auction. But as was previously said, there are enough markers on the 10 coins in question that they are forever marked. Any new coins making an appearance will most certainly be discernible IMHO.
Retired United States Mint guy, now working on an Everyman Type Set.
The Mint is no where near organized enough to do anything like that. This is an issue that the legal department and a variety of Directors / Asst Directors have been into, but they are so disorganized and have not had a true Director for many years. Long ago someone decided the coins were stolen and Treasury and the Mint have been pursuing that agenda for 70 years or more. It is not unlike the stupid policies regarding Cuba that both parties have embraced for many years.
Retired United States Mint guy, now working on an Everyman Type Set.
<< <i>If the Mint was po'd enough, they could make 1,000 more of them and sell them for $50,000 each. ;-) >>
I don't think that the Mint has the legal authority to make back-dated coins. And we all know that the Mint follows all laws very scrupulously, don't we?
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 the Mint was po'd enough, they could make 1,000 more of them and sell them for $50,000 each. ;-) >>
It's a funny thought, but would create a lot of distrust within the sales channel of current products. Can't see the Mint messing with that gravy train.
In 2009,I was hoping the Mint would make a 2009-S V.D.B. penny for collectors.Never happened of course.
Would the Mint be able to produce an exact replica,perfect in every detail,of the 1933 Double? Would it be possible for experts to distinguish same from an original with a high degree of confidence?
Surface measurements by energy dispersive x-ray spectroscopy of new 1933 dated stampings,revealing miniscule differences in elemental composition from the genuine,would be possibly one way to tell the old from the new.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>If the Mint was po'd enough, they could make 1,000 more of them and sell them for $50,000 each. ;-) >>
I don't think that the Mint has the legal authority to make back-dated coins. And we all know that the Mint follows all laws very scrupulously, don't we? >>
<< <i>If the Mint was po'd enough, they could make 1,000 more of them and sell them for $50,000 each. ;-) >>
I don't think that the Mint has the legal authority to make back-dated coins. And we all know that the Mint follows all laws very scrupulously, don't we? >>
For now, all 10 are in NGC holders, so they will be simple to keep track of. I do believe they will migrate to PCGS holders if coins are returned and sold in either retail environment or at auction. But as was previously said, there are enough markers on the 10 coins in question that they are forever marked. Any new coins making an appearance will most certainly be discernible IMHO.
In the You won thread,the piece I'm saving for myself and family would remain in the holder in which it currently resides.To crack it out would be destroying an important part of numismatic history.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>For now, all 10 are in NGC holders, so they will be simple to keep track of. I do believe they will migrate to PCGS holders if coins are returned and sold in either retail environment or at auction. But as was previously said, there are enough markers on the 10 coins in question that they are forever marked. Any new coins making an appearance will most certainly be discernible IMHO.
In the You won thread,the piece I'm saving for myself and family would remain in the holder in which it currently resides.To crack it out would be destroying an important part of numismatic history. >>
The NGC holders and cert numbers and be pedigreed to the US Mint. How many coins does the US Mint get slabbed?
<< <i>For now, all 10 are in NGC holders, so they will be simple to keep track of. I do believe they will migrate to PCGS holders if coins are returned and sold in either retail environment or at auction. But as was previously said, there are enough markers on the 10 coins in question that they are forever marked. Any new coins making an appearance will most certainly be discernible IMHO.
In the You won thread,the piece I'm saving for myself and family would remain in the holder in which it currently resides.To crack it out would be destroying an important part of numismatic history. >>
The NGC holders and cert numbers and be pedigreed to the US Mint. How many coins does the US Mint get slabbed? >>
Exactly. These slabs are golden!
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.
These coins are NOT in NGC holders. They were displayed in one large nondescript Capitol plastic holder with grades as assigned by NGC. No 1933 Saints on the NGC census.
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
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>These coins are NOT on the NGC census. See my remarks on the "You won" thread. >>
So where did the MS-66 and MS-65 grades come from if they were not slabbed?
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.
The only time I've seen these coins up close and personal was at a show where all 10 coins were displayed in one very unofficial "Capitol Plastics" style ten-coin custom holder with "unofficial" grades (no certs) noted underneath each coin. Including one "cleaned"
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
The 10 coins were shown to the jury during the summer 2015 trial in the lawsuit. Does anyone know if the coins we're still in the N G C holders when they were shown to the jury?
<< <i>If the Mint was po'd enough, they could make 1,000 more of them and sell them for $50,000 each. ;-) >>
Could they Really? I only ask because the US Mint could really care less. It's the Secret Service and the Justice Department that has had this bone in their teeth since the 40's. Not the US Mint.
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.
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 10 coins were shown to the jury during the summer 2015 trial in the lawsuit. Does anyone know if the coins we're still in the N G C holders when they were shown to the jury? >>
Would the exhibits used in the trial be available for viewing online somewhere?
<< <i>If the Mint was po'd enough, they could make 1,000 more of them and sell them for $50,000 each. ;-) >>
Could they Really? I only ask because the US Mint could really care less. It's the Secret Service and the Justice Department that has had this bone in their teeth since the 40's. Not the US Mint. >>
I think the mint is right in there, too.
the mint is the main agency that did not want to pursue judicial forfeiture proceedings and the hold ups around that is what eventually led to the appeals court to find in favor of the Langbords, and even the Fed District court gave the Fed Gov't the "do over" to pursue the forfeiture proceedings based upon their initial "misguided legal strategy" of "not doing that and just keeping them."
The Mint is right in there. Next time you're at a Mint counter at a show, ask them about the case and the coins. most of the long time employees follow the numis-press. I recall they felt quite strongly the coins were gov't property.
I worked at the Mint HQ until Sept 2010 and often talked with the lead attorney for the case on the Mint side. There was a pervasive belief among the lawyers (IMHO driven by a long history of Treasury perspective) that the coins were stolen. That was their story and they were sticking to it. I often asked why are the 1933 DE's being persecuted when the 1913 nickels were not. It all comes back to the Roosevelt and the bank crisis of the time when all the gold was melted. Many different administrations with many Mint Directors held the same position in lockstep, no matter which party they were for.
Remember, the Director of the Mint is a Plum Book position. Since Ed Moy, they have not filled the position directly. I find that interesting, given the current administration has been in power for over 6 years. IMHO it just means the Mint is a tiny backwater job that few want. Ed Moy hung around a long time, given that he was a Bush appointee. Sometimes group think takes over and continues, no matter who is running the show. One last thing, all the attorneys are GS-15s, with the exception of the lead attorney who is an SES employee. None of them are politically appointed.
Retired United States Mint guy, now working on an Everyman Type Set.
<< <i>I worked at the Mint HQ until Sept 2010 and often talked with the lead attorney for the case on the Mint side. There was a pervasive belief among the lawyers (IMHO driven by a long history of Treasury perspective) that the coins were stolen. That was their story and they were sticking to it. I often asked why are the 1933 DE's being persecuted when the 1913 nickels were not. It all comes back to the Roosevelt and the bank crisis of the time when all the gold was melted. Many different administrations with many Mint Directors held the same position in lockstep, no matter which party they were for.
Remember, the Director of the Mint is a Plum Book position. Since Ed Moy, they have not filled the position directly. I find that interesting, given the current administration has been in power for over 6 years. IMHO it just means the Mint is a tiny backwater job that few want. Ed Moy hung around a long time, given that he was a Bush appointee. Sometimes group think takes over and continues, no matter who is running the show. One last thing, all the attorneys are GS-15s, with the exception of the lead attorney who is an SES employee. None of them are politically appointed. >>
Are the lawyers more aggressive than the treasury or mint people or are they all pitbulls on the issue?
<< <i>I worked at the Mint HQ until Sept 2010 and often talked with the lead attorney for the case on the Mint side. There was a pervasive belief among the lawyers (IMHO driven by a long history of Treasury perspective) that the coins were stolen. That was their story and they were sticking to it. I often asked why are the 1933 DE's being persecuted when the 1913 nickels were not. It all comes back to the Roosevelt and the bank crisis of the time when all the gold was melted. Many different administrations with many Mint Directors held the same position in lockstep, no matter which party they were for.
Remember, the Director of the Mint is a Plum Book position. Since Ed Moy, they have not filled the position directly. I find that interesting, given the current administration has been in power for over 6 years. IMHO it just means the Mint is a tiny backwater job that few want. Ed Moy hung around a long time, given that he was a Bush appointee. Sometimes group think takes over and continues, no matter who is running the show. One last thing, all the attorneys are GS-15s, with the exception of the lead attorney who is an SES employee. None of them are politically appointed. >>
What did you do at the Mint?
Edited to add: 500
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.
Comments
<< <i>
<< <i>Bajjerfan.
As I understand the CAFRA death penalty (aka the consequences of the failure of the government to timely file a CAFRA forfeiture action) is that the government:
1. would have to return the property (in this case the 10 1933 double eagles would have to be returned to the Langbords); and
2. would be barred from seeking, in the future, forfeiture of the property (the 10 coins in this case) based upon the facts constituting the offense giving rise to the barred forfeiture claim [in this case the claim that the 10 coins were stolen from the government in the 1930s].
The effect of this death penalty would be that for these 10 coins the government would be required to return same and would be barred from ever asserting ownership of same based past events. Thus if the 10 coins were sold by the Langbords, the buyers would obtain ownership free of any claim by the government to same. In addition to the effect of the CAFRA death penalty statute, general legal principles (including res judicata and collateral estoppel and claim splitting) would apply to prevent the government from seeking a second bite of the apple by bringing new litigation to obtain the 10 coins. The final judgment in the first case would operate as a bar to any second case. >>
I guess I forgot about that part. Would they be legal coins or token? I can't imagine the Government would grant them any favors. >>
Token, coin, pattern?
That debate might live on
<< <i>
<< <i>Bajjerfan.
As I understand the CAFRA death penalty (aka the consequences of the failure of the government to timely file a CAFRA forfeiture action) is that the government:
1. would have to return the property (in this case the 10 1933 double eagles would have to be returned to the Langbords); and
2. would be barred from seeking, in the future, forfeiture of the property (the 10 coins in this case) based upon the facts constituting the offense giving rise to the barred forfeiture claim [in this case the claim that the 10 coins were stolen from the government in the 1930s].
The effect of this death penalty would be that for these 10 coins the government would be required to return same and would be barred from ever asserting ownership of same based past events. Thus if the 10 coins were sold by the Langbords, the buyers would obtain ownership free of any claim by the government to same. In addition to the effect of the CAFRA death penalty statute, general legal principles (including res judicata and collateral estoppel and claim splitting) would apply to prevent the government from seeking a second bite of the apple by bringing new litigation to obtain the 10 coins. The final judgment in the first case would operate as a bar to any second case. >>
I guess I forgot about that part. Would they be legal coins or token? I can't imagine the Government would grant them any favors. >>
US Government; "Sorry, we melted those months ago."
<< <i>I guess I forgot about that part. Would they be legal coins or token? I can't imagine the Government would grant them any favors. >>
The second they go in PCGS plastic they are a coin. The government can call it anything they want, all the market cares about is the label on the holder.
<< <i>
<< <i>I guess I forgot about that part. Would they be legal coins or token? I can't imagine the Government would grant them any favors. >>
The second they go in PCGS plastic they are a coin. The government can call it anything they want, all the market cares about is the label on the holder. >>
PCGS might call them So Called Double Eagles! SCDE!
There's likely at least five more waiting to be "discovered." The owners are awaiting the final outcome of this case.
Langbords make deal with Gov makes a lot of sense even if they prevail in the case.I offered "the solution" many posts ago.Langbords keep one coin,the coin of their choosing and let the Gov keep the other nine.The nine go to the Smithsonian and that's where they live for the rest of time.Write it into the agreement.Gov blesses the Langbord coin as the 2nd example of 1933 Double that is legal to own and value is preserved for them.Gov blessing for the one coin should be worth more monetarily to the Langbords than no Gov blessing for any of the ten if they decide not to make a deal.
The owner of the ex Farouk piece is in relatively good shape,too, if a deal like this is made.This coin might even increase in value rather than having it's value seriously diluted by all ten Langbord coins going into the channels of numismatic commerce.
Everybody shakes hands and goes home with a smile on their face.Justice has prevailed.
Justice cannot be for one side alone, but must be for both.
Eleanor Roosevelt
I must be dreaming....
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>There's likely at least five more waiting to be "discovered." The owners are awaiting the final outcome of this case.
Langbords make deal with Gov makes a lot of sense even if they prevail in the case.I offered "the solution" many posts ago.Langbords keep one coin,the coin of their choosing and let the Gov keep the other nine.The nine go to the Smithsonian and that's where they live for the rest of time.Write it into the agreement.Gov blesses the Langbord coin as the 2nd example of 1933 Double that is legal to own and value is preserved for them.Gov blessing for the one coin should be worth more monetarily to the Langbords than no Gov blessing for any of the ten if they decide not to make a deal.
The owner of the ex Farouk piece is in relatively good shape,too, if a deal like this is made.This coin might even increase in value rather than having it's value seriously diluted by all ten Langbord coins going into the channels of numismatic commerce.
Everybody shakes hands and goes home with a smile on their face.Justice has prevailed.
Justice cannot be for one side alone, but must be for both.
Eleanor Roosevelt
I must be dreaming.... >>
If I am the Langbords, I would rather have the ten coins without the Government's "blessing" or "monetization" or whatever you want to call it, than one coin with that Government "blessing".
As Coinosaurus said, as soon as they are in PCGS plastic, that is all the market cares about. No buyer cares whether the coin he/she is buying is "monetized" or not.
The Langbords won in the Appeals Court, right now they are in the driver's seat, why would they settle for one coin?
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
<< <i>
<< <i>I guess I forgot about that part. Would they be legal coins or token? I can't imagine the Government would grant them any favors. >>
The second they go in PCGS plastic they are a coin. The government can call it anything they want, all the market cares about is the label on the holder. >>
They are already in plastic.
<< <i>
<< <i>There's likely at least five more waiting to be "discovered." The owners are awaiting the final outcome of this case.
Langbords make deal with Gov makes a lot of sense even if they prevail in the case.I offered "the solution" many posts ago.Langbords keep one coin,the coin of their choosing and let the Gov keep the other nine.The nine go to the Smithsonian and that's where they live for the rest of time.Write it into the agreement.Gov blesses the Langbord coin as the 2nd example of 1933 Double that is legal to own and value is preserved for them.Gov blessing for the one coin should be worth more monetarily to the Langbords than no Gov blessing for any of the ten if they decide not to make a deal.
The owner of the ex Farouk piece is in relatively good shape,too, if a deal like this is made.This coin might even increase in value rather than having it's value seriously diluted by all ten Langbord coins going into the channels of numismatic commerce.
Everybody shakes hands and goes home with a smile on their face.Justice has prevailed.
Justice cannot be for one side alone, but must be for both.
Eleanor Roosevelt
I must be dreaming.... >>
If I am the Langbords, I would rather have the ten coins without the Government's "blessing" or "monetization" or whatever you want to call it, than one coin with that Government "blessing".
As Coinosaurus said, as soon as they are in PCGS plastic, that is all the market cares about. No buyer cares whether the coin he/she is buying is "monetized" or not.
The Langbords won in the Appeals Court, right now they are in the driver's seat, why would they settle for one coin? >>
Agreed-- they cannot settle for one coin. The lawyers probably will want one or two as payment. This case has gone on long enough. Lawyers ain't cheap. "Monetized" means nothing, "legal to own" means everything. Of course the legalization of more 1933 double eagles will most likely mean a price drop, however, they will still be worth an awful lot of money.
Bob
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Bajjerfan.
As I understand the CAFRA death penalty (aka the consequences of the failure of the government to timely file a CAFRA forfeiture action) is that the government:
1. would have to return the property (in this case the 10 1933 double eagles would have to be returned to the Langbords); and
2. would be barred from seeking, in the future, forfeiture of the property (the 10 coins in this case) based upon the facts constituting the offense giving rise to the barred forfeiture claim [in this case the claim that the 10 coins were stolen from the government in the 1930s].
The effect of this death penalty would be that for these 10 coins the government would be required to return same and would be barred from ever asserting ownership of same based past events. Thus if the 10 coins were sold by the Langbords, the buyers would obtain ownership free of any claim by the government to same. In addition to the effect of the CAFRA death penalty statute, general legal principles (including res judicata and collateral estoppel and claim splitting) would apply to prevent the government from seeking a second bite of the apple by bringing new litigation to obtain the 10 coins. The final judgment in the first case would operate as a bar to any second case. >>
I guess I forgot about that part. Would they be legal coins or token? I can't imagine the Government would grant them any favors. >>
Token, coin, pattern?
That debate might live on >>
The government's argument about "monetization" is just stupid and is clearly just made up with no basis in law. The constitution gives congress the power to coin money, the 1933 were authorized by congress so as soon as they were struck they became coins.
Although, we will never know what position the courts will take on the monetization issue, unless their is a court case that brings the issue to them. I have trouble seeing any case actually litigating that issue. I guess if the Langbords or a future owner tried to spend them for $20, and the person on the receiving end refuses to accept them at face value, it could come before the court. Also, if someone without a Minnesota coin bullion dealer license, tried to sell them in Minnesota or to a Minnesotan license it could also come before the court.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
<< <i>I would expect that the Langbord's really don't want all 1933s made legal. If twenty more showed up after the trial it could really crash their profits.
There's likely at least five more waiting to be "discovered." The owners are awaiting the final outcome of this case.
Langbords make deal with Gov makes a lot of sense even if they prevail in the case.I offered "the solution" many posts ago.Langbords keep one coin,the coin of their choosing and let the Gov keep the other nine.The nine go to the Smithsonian and that's where they live for the rest of time.Write it into the agreement.Gov blesses the Langbord coin as the 2nd example of 1933 Double that is legal to own and value is preserved for them.Gov blessing for the one coin should be worth more monetarily to the Langbords than no Gov blessing for any of the ten if they decide not to make a deal.
The owner of the ex Farouk piece is in relatively good shape,too, if a deal like this is made.This coin might even increase in value rather than having it's value seriously diluted by all ten Langbord coins going into the channels of numismatic commerce.
Everybody shakes hands and goes home with a smile on their face.Justice has prevailed.
Justice cannot be for one side alone, but must be for both.
Eleanor Roosevelt
I must be dreaming.... >>
The Government is in no position to deal. Anything would have to come from the Langbords and it's unlikely they'll cede anything.
27 DAYS TO GO UNTIL MONDAY, JUNE 1ST!!!(for the government to file an official request to dispute the Court of Appeals decision of April 17th)
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
<< <i>I wonder if the Mint or whomever will mark the coins in such a way that they will be distinguishable from other specimens that may come out of hiding. >>
No need. They have random bag marks and have been well photographed.
The Mint is no where near organized enough to do anything like that. This is an issue that the legal department and a variety of Directors / Asst Directors have been into, but they are so disorganized and have not had a true Director for many years. Long ago someone decided the coins were stolen and Treasury and the Mint have been pursuing that agenda for 70 years or more. It is not unlike the stupid policies regarding Cuba that both parties have embraced for many years.
<< <i>If the Mint was po'd enough, they could make 1,000 more of them and sell them for $50,000 each. ;-) >>
I don't think that the Mint has the legal authority to make back-dated coins. And we all know that the Mint follows all laws very scrupulously, don't we?
<< <i>If the Mint was po'd enough, they could make 1,000 more of them and sell them for $50,000 each. ;-) >>
It's a funny thought, but would create a lot of distrust within the sales channel of current products. Can't see the Mint messing with that gravy train.
Would the Mint be able to produce an exact replica,perfect in every detail,of the 1933 Double? Would it be possible for experts to distinguish same from an original with a high degree of confidence?
Surface measurements by energy dispersive x-ray spectroscopy of new 1933 dated stampings,revealing miniscule differences in elemental composition from the genuine,would be possibly one way to tell the old from the new.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>
<< <i>If the Mint was po'd enough, they could make 1,000 more of them and sell them for $50,000 each. ;-) >>
I don't think that the Mint has the legal authority to make back-dated coins. And we all know that the Mint follows all laws very scrupulously, don't we? >>
Re-strikes
Congress could aid and abet here, though.
<< <i>If the Mint was po'd enough, they could make 1,000 more of them and sell them for $50,000 each. ;-) >>
I wonder what they'd do if they just happened to find a few bags hidden away that escaped the smelter.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>If the Mint was po'd enough, they could make 1,000 more of them and sell them for $50,000 each. ;-) >>
I don't think that the Mint has the legal authority to make back-dated coins. And we all know that the Mint follows all laws very scrupulously, don't we? >>
Re-strikes >>
1804 dollars
In the You won thread,the piece I'm saving for myself and family would remain in the holder in which it currently resides.To crack it out would be destroying an important part of numismatic history.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>For now, all 10 are in NGC holders, so they will be simple to keep track of. I do believe they will migrate to PCGS holders if coins are returned and sold in either retail environment or at auction. But as was previously said, there are enough markers on the 10 coins in question that they are forever marked. Any new coins making an appearance will most certainly be discernible IMHO.
In the You won thread,the piece I'm saving for myself and family would remain in the holder in which it currently resides.To crack it out would be destroying an important part of numismatic history. >>
The NGC holders and cert numbers and be pedigreed to the US Mint. How many coins does the US Mint get slabbed?
<< <i>This U.S. Mint screwup only applies to the Langbord 10. >>
I'm not 100% convinced it's a screwup. What if someone at the Mint was pro-collector and wanted these to be collectible and in private hands
<< <i>
<< <i>For now, all 10 are in NGC holders, so they will be simple to keep track of. I do believe they will migrate to PCGS holders if coins are returned and sold in either retail environment or at auction. But as was previously said, there are enough markers on the 10 coins in question that they are forever marked. Any new coins making an appearance will most certainly be discernible IMHO.
In the You won thread,the piece I'm saving for myself and family would remain in the holder in which it currently resides.To crack it out would be destroying an important part of numismatic history. >>
The NGC holders and cert numbers and be pedigreed to the US Mint. How many coins does the US Mint get slabbed? >>
Exactly. These slabs are golden!
<< <i>These coins are NOT on the NGC census. See my remarks on the "You won" thread. >>
So where did the MS-66 and MS-65 grades come from if they were not slabbed?
<< <i>These coins are NOT on the NGC census. See my remarks on the "You won" thread. >>
Maybe NGC isn't including them in the census because they are not "coins" because they haven't been "monetized" yet.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
<< <i>THE CLOCK IS TICKING:
25 DAYS TO GO UNTIL MONDAY, JUNE 1ST!!!(for the government to file an official request to dispute the Court of Appeals decision of April 17th)
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>If the Mint was po'd enough, they could make 1,000 more of them and sell them for $50,000 each. ;-) >>
Could they Really? I only ask because the US Mint could really care less. It's the Secret Service and the Justice Department that has had this bone in their teeth since the 40's. Not the US Mint.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>In 2009, I was hoping the Mint would make a 2009-S V.D.B. penny for collectors. Never happened of course. >>
They really screwed up by not producing that one!
But then, wasn't Ed Moy steering the ship at that point in time?
The name is LEE!
<< <i>
<< <i>If the Mint was po'd enough, they could make 1,000 more of them and sell them for $50,000 each. ;-) >>
I wonder what they'd do if they just happened to find a few bags hidden away that escaped the smelter. >>
I'm sure that they'd simply "melt" them.
I mean, it's not like they haven't done some really stupid things in the past......................Oh whatever.
The name is LEE!
Linky 1
Linky 2
<< <i>The 10 coins were shown to the jury during the summer 2015 trial in the lawsuit. Does anyone know if the coins we're still in the N G C holders when they were shown to the jury? >>
Would the exhibits used in the trial be available for viewing online somewhere?
<< <i>
<< <i>If the Mint was po'd enough, they could make 1,000 more of them and sell them for $50,000 each. ;-) >>
Could they Really? I only ask because the US Mint could really care less. It's the Secret Service and the Justice Department that has had this bone in their teeth since the 40's. Not the US Mint. >>
I think the mint is right in there, too.
the mint is the main agency that did not want to pursue judicial forfeiture proceedings and the hold ups around that is what eventually led to the appeals court to find in favor of the Langbords, and even the Fed District court gave the Fed Gov't the "do over" to pursue the forfeiture proceedings based upon their initial "misguided legal strategy" of "not doing that and just keeping them."
The Mint is right in there. Next time you're at a Mint counter at a show, ask them about the case and the coins. most of the long time employees follow the numis-press. I recall they felt quite strongly the coins were gov't property.
<< <i>I resuscitated a couple old threads that discussed the NGC slabbing.
Linky 1
Linky 2 >>
looks like claimed ownership added at lot more than a point to them.
Remember, the Director of the Mint is a Plum Book position. Since Ed Moy, they have not filled the position directly. I find that interesting, given the current administration has been in power for over 6 years. IMHO it just means the Mint is a tiny backwater job that few want. Ed Moy hung around a long time, given that he was a Bush appointee. Sometimes group think takes over and continues, no matter who is running the show. One last thing, all the attorneys are GS-15s, with the exception of the lead attorney who is an SES employee. None of them are politically appointed.
<< <i>I worked at the Mint HQ until Sept 2010 and often talked with the lead attorney for the case on the Mint side. There was a pervasive belief among the lawyers (IMHO driven by a long history of Treasury perspective) that the coins were stolen. That was their story and they were sticking to it. I often asked why are the 1933 DE's being persecuted when the 1913 nickels were not. It all comes back to the Roosevelt and the bank crisis of the time when all the gold was melted. Many different administrations with many Mint Directors held the same position in lockstep, no matter which party they were for.
Remember, the Director of the Mint is a Plum Book position. Since Ed Moy, they have not filled the position directly. I find that interesting, given the current administration has been in power for over 6 years. IMHO it just means the Mint is a tiny backwater job that few want. Ed Moy hung around a long time, given that he was a Bush appointee. Sometimes group think takes over and continues, no matter who is running the show. One last thing, all the attorneys are GS-15s, with the exception of the lead attorney who is an SES employee. None of them are politically appointed. >>
Are the lawyers more aggressive than the treasury or mint people or are they all pitbulls on the issue?
<< <i>I worked at the Mint HQ until Sept 2010 and often talked with the lead attorney for the case on the Mint side. There was a pervasive belief among the lawyers (IMHO driven by a long history of Treasury perspective) that the coins were stolen. That was their story and they were sticking to it. I often asked why are the 1933 DE's being persecuted when the 1913 nickels were not. It all comes back to the Roosevelt and the bank crisis of the time when all the gold was melted. Many different administrations with many Mint Directors held the same position in lockstep, no matter which party they were for.
Remember, the Director of the Mint is a Plum Book position. Since Ed Moy, they have not filled the position directly. I find that interesting, given the current administration has been in power for over 6 years. IMHO it just means the Mint is a tiny backwater job that few want. Ed Moy hung around a long time, given that he was a Bush appointee. Sometimes group think takes over and continues, no matter who is running the show. One last thing, all the attorneys are GS-15s, with the exception of the lead attorney who is an SES employee. None of them are politically appointed. >>
What did you do at the Mint?
Edited to add: 500