<< <i>Surely someone must know who it was that had a burr under their saddle regarding these coins and made it a point to go after them.
My understanding is that the burr was under saddle of Dr. Leland Howard,acting Director of the Mint. Mint Director Nellie Tayloe Ross had signed off on export of the Farouk '33 Double on March 11,1944.Then she vanished.I think she may have been put on administrative leave for this "oversight" of granting the export license to the Egyptians. Ms. Ross was taking "the fall?" Or was she just out sick for a time?
Here's what Q. David Bowers has to say:
"While the Farouk specimen was on its appointed way [to its new owner in Egypt],the coin and stamp columnist at the New York Herald-Tribune,Ernest Kehr,was wondering why the 1933 double eagle in the Flanagan collection was so rare that it rated special mention in the Stack's advertisements.He wrote the Mint Bureau asking how many had been actually issued.The letter wound up on the desk of Dr. Leland Howard,who could find no official distribution of the coins in question."
Note:The Mint's own "Timeline for the 1933 Double Eagle" indicates a memo was sent March 30,1944 by Dr. Howard,acting Mint Director, to Chief of United States Secret Service recounting events leading to granting of Export License to King Farouk. Explains awareness of illicit removal of 1933 Double Eagles from Mint in response to "routine inquiry regarding the number of such coins that had been placed in circulation."
Bowers continues,
"Dr. Howard,who seems to have had a general dislike of collectors,then notified the Secret Service of the Great Crime that had been perpetrated. This was clearly So Important that critical war-time investigations might have to be delayed while Special Agents investigated this Terrible Event. And so they did...."
from the Official Red Book:A Guide Book of Double Eagle Gold Coins written by Q. David Bowers,p.282 >>
So based on this account, if not for the writer at the New York Herald-Tribune, Ernest Kehr, neither the Mint nor Leland Howard, would not have known anything about "illicit removal of 1933 double eagles from the Mint". Then, Leland Howard comes up with according to our records, the 1933 double eagles were stolen. This, despite the failure of Mint records to show that any gold was missing. Amazing.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
One of the problems with mint data is it's designed not to account for each individual coin but rather to keep tabs on total coined gold. If they had tried the 1933 dies in 1932 as is customary the coins would have been recorded as 1932 issues and released in bags of 1932 coins. This is rarely a problem for the mint because these bags take weeks or even months rto work through the banking system so there's no big anomaly in getting a few la- ter dates in a bag of the previous year's coins.
There's no evidence any coins were stolen from the mint and it's improbable any were. By whatever means these were acquired it's a near certainty that they cost the original owner $20 each. It is most probably mint accounting at fault and not some nefarious or illegal ac- tivity. There may be numerous ways these could leave the mint without leaving any sort of specific paper trail. >>
Sam, what you say above makes a lot of sense to me. No crime has been committed. Shouldn't the Government have to PROVE some coins were stolen? Most likely an exchange took place. It probably took place because the people involved KNEW they could make money on the exchange. Nothing different than what happens in the financial markets every day. Steve
The Mint struck 445,000 of $20 in 1933 for circulation or international trade in either case at face value. That's nearly $9 million worth. To the Mint and the cashier they would have been no different than $20 of any other date in terms of payout to the public. Why do people think that the cashier would have doled them out like precious gems keeping a careful record of each one by date? How many bags of earlier date $20s were also at the cashier’s window at the same time as the 1933s? Wouldn’t the cashier have been concerned about keeping tabs of $20s paid out on a net basis, in the aggregate, without regard to the date of the coin since they were all only worth face value? And if someone exchanged old $20s for new ones, why would the cashier have done anything other than just toss the old coins into the inventory of coins on hand without regard to date since they would have all been worth the same and there would have been no net change in $20 on hand?
Contrast that to someone coming in and paying paper currency for gold, where the cashier would have to account for currency on hand and a reduction in $20 gold on hand, but even then why would the cashier have kept track of what dates were paid out?
Of course the swapping could have taken place much later, like in 1937 when it became known that the 1933s would be melted and therefor would become rare coins. By that time the Mint and Treasury were no longer authorized to pay out gold coin to the public.
The misappropriated '33's would have come from the two bags of '33's that were unsealed to remove coins to be sent off for inspection by the assay commission. Also,the two '33's that were sent to the Smithsonian to reside in the National Numismatic Collection in October,1934 would have come for the two bags only that were unsealed after March 15,1933 when the Cashier received the first shipment of new coins (in 100 bags/250 coins in each bag) from the Coiner.
The misappropriation of '33's occurred by swapping with another date,a common date like 1928, so no gold from '33 double production was found to be missing by total weight measure or by total coin number.They weren't checking dates on loose coins,those not in sealed bags in other words,prior to the great gold melt.
Four-hundred forty-five thousand 1933 dated coins in one-thousand-seven-hundred-eighty sealed bags (sealed since 1933) along with the remainder of 1933 survivors of those sent for assay were destined to be melted early in 1937.Some assay coins dated 1933 were destroyed years earlier and written records made attesting to the number of coins that met this fate. All 1933 dated doubles excepting the two sent to the Smithsonian,along with large quantities of double eagles from other years,were to be melted.
The melt commenced February,1937.The double eagle coins were audited prior to melt and it was discovered that one bag of 250 doubles dated 1928,face value $5,000, was missing.The 1928 dated coins were never recovered and no one was ever convicted of the theft.
Would the misappropriation of 1933 dated coins by swapping with coins from another year be an act of theft or stealing even though no gold by weight or number of coins was found to be missing,prior to the melt, other than the stolen bag of 1928 dated coins?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
The melt commenced February,1937.The double eagle coins were audited prior to melt and it was discovered that one bag of 250 doubles dated 1928,face value $5,000, was missing.The 1928 dated coins were never recovered and no one was ever convicted of the theft.
Would the misappropriation of 1933 dated coins by swapping with coins from another year be an act of theft or stealing even though no gold by weight or number of coins was found to be missing,prior to the melt, other than the stolen bag of 1928 dated coins? >>
Steven, Interesting "story" BUT not based on fact. Also, use of the words "misappropriation", "theft", "stealing" and "stolen" are apparently used by YOU to describe YOUR personal interpretation of what happened. I think Sam's explanation is more in line with how the cashiers office operated prior to the new laws issued by FDR. I DO believe that a mint employee, probably the cashier and "grandpa" Langbord arranged for the exchange of approximately 25 1933 double eagles for 25 earlier date double eagles with "grandpa" providing a nice tip to the cashier. All this would be perfectly legal among friends since both knew each other from previous visits. Steve
Regarding the "theft" or "misappropriation", when it was discovered that a bag of 1933 DEs were "missing", that means there was a bag of DEs with other dates that was extra. What no one speaks of is that the Mint had zero idea of what all the other dates were in what quantity, even though hundreds of thousands were melted. All that was kept track of was the quantity, never the dates. Notice there was no report of $5,000 being missing from the gold count.
What is an analogous situation is in the early 60's when the Mint decided to sell the huge inventory of silver dollars in bags. No one had any idea of what dates were in those bags. More than a few "key" coins became very common upon the release of those bags of coins. That is the mentality of the Mint, how much, not what date are in the bags. If someone switched out a bag of common dates for 1,000 CC Morgans, no one would have ever known by the inventory. Clearly, a bag of 1,000 is huge compared to 25 DEs which could easily have gone into a briefcase in an exchange.
The continued use of the term "stolen" is completely without merit IMHO, even though the Mint took that policy many, many years ago and it continues to this day. It is only through their attitude or ineptness (your choice) that these coins may be released due to the lack of required response to a legal requirement. I look forward to future developments in the courts, hopefully to a final decision before our heirs have to read about it in the paper. This has dragged on FAR too long IMHO.
Retired United States Mint guy, now working on an Everyman Type Set.
There's something I need to look into. In "Illegal Tender," Tripp says (P. 61 ff.) that a sealed bag was opened by the Cashier after the first delivery from the Coiner so that he could take out two coins for immediate assay by the Assayer in D.C. (a very reasonable quality control measure), and 25 coins (one per thousand of the first 25,000 coins struck over several days) for the Trial of the Pyx to be held in February of 1934.
I was always under the impression that Pyx coins were set aside on the production floor from each batch as they were struck in the interest of random selection, and not all taken from one bag after the finished coins were delivered to the Cashier. It would seem to me that taking all of the assay coins from one bag would make it a lot easier to miss potentially bad coins from several other batches.
I recently did an article for COINage on the 1974 Assay Commission which my friend Ken Hallenbeck was on, and in his memorabilia of the event he had an empty envelope which once held two 1973 dollars set aside on the day that they were struck. The production date is on the envelope.
Was the practice of setting aside coins for the Pyx different in 1933, or only different for gold coins, or was Tripp guessing at/ making up the procedure? The process of opening the bag and withdrawing the 2 and 25 coins is written as though from a first-hand account, but there is no documentation of it in the Notes section, only references to Mint procedures at other times in the 20th Century.
I guess I need to start with the 1934 Assay Commission report.
Any other input would be appreciated.
TD Edited to add: I am reliably informed that this non-randomized sampling of pyx coins was indeed standard operating procedure at the Mint in this era.
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.
A thief is a thief. A liar is a liar. A cheat is a cheat. An author is a story teller. A key is a key. Ex post facto law protects the win/ or should, (in my humblest opinion)… but I'm just a layman seeing it from the underdog's side of the underbelly of the hobby within the range of our own process, we call "due process of law". Who's good enough to interpret it without a pay check ?
A tradesman. Izzy Switt, I would contend did what he did for little or NO PAY. That dastardly coin dealing angel.
Aye, but for now… He made the best numismatic news ever. And I like him, for that alone.
The National Archives records are open to all. Go to College Park, show them your driver's license, and you can look for yourself.
This would be an expensive trip for me.Could I just have them mail me some copies of documents that I am most interest in? I would be most interested in copies of all pages in the Mint Daily Ledger,including the cover,for the years 1931,1932,1933,1934.
The copy and mailing costs might set me back a pretty penny but I would have something pretty nice,something no other collector has, for my numismatic library.
I could have them bound into four volumes...
Coinosaurus,you published an interesting document here awhile back and I've been meaning to ask you how you obtained it.It's a picture of a Smithsonian record from the '50's listing various numismatic items from the thirties being transferred from one area of the Smithsonian to another.The listing shows the two 1933 double eagles and the two 1932 double eagles that are contained in the National Collection.
Did you go to the National Archives website and find the Smithsonian listing there or did you find it some other place?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
CaptHenway Interesting thoughts about the Pyx box and procedures that might have been in place in 1933.Good luck in your quest for the truth. Mint has "Rules and Regulations" document to refer to according to Tripp? That might make for some interesting reading if it can be located.
My understanding is that the first assays done are the so-called "specials."The specials are done soon after the first delivery to ensure that coins reaching the public are of the purity and value guaranteed by the government.1933 doubles,as in doubles from previous years,would not be released to the public until they pass special assay.
The specials,two pieces only,are sent off to Washington,D.C. for testing by the chief assayer.If the specials fail assay, the entire first delivery of 25,000 coins would be sent to the Melting and Refining Department for destruction.
The assay process would push that first opportunity to acquire a '33 double lawfully past March 15,1933 downstream aways,how far past March 15 depending on how quickly the assayer in Washington D.C. does his job and how fast registered mail moves in 1933.Registered was probably very slow in 1933,alot slower than it is now.That's just speculation on my part though.I don't think considering a week in the mail from Philadelphia to Washington,D.C. for registered is too far-fetched.Do you?
It seems that the "window of opportunity" for a member of the public to acquire a 1933 double lawfully at the Mint window is getting narrower and narrower as we put the puzzle pieces together.
It's March twenty something before the assay results for the first 1933 doubles are known at the Mint?
April 5 and Executive Order 6102 is right around the corner...
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Steve Steven (mr1874), Interesting "story" BUT not based on fact. Also, use of the words "misappropriation", "theft", "stealing" and "stolen" are apparently used by YOU to describe YOUR personal interpretation of what happened. I think Sam's explanation is more in line with how the cashiers office operated prior to the new laws issued by FDR. I DO believe that a mint employee, probably the cashier and "grandpa" Langbord arranged for the exchange of approximately 25 1933 double eagles for 25 earlier date double eagles with "grandpa" providing a nice tip to the cashier. All this would be perfectly legal among friends since both knew each other from previous visits.
Tripp,Frankel and others use the same words I do except for "misappropriation." I don't have the wherewithal to look through the hundreds of pages of both books for the word if indeed Tripp and Frankel have used it.Misappropriation seems to me to be a very fitting word to use for what George McCann was doing so he could walk out the Mint door at the end of his workday with one or more '33 Double Eagles in his pocket.
Having said that,my interpretation of what happened doesn't really matter at the end of the day.I'm attempting to put the pieces of a very complex puzzle together using logic and common sense.I don't know any other way to do it.
It's interesting to me what Q. David Bowers has to say about logic and common sense as it applies to the story of the 1933 double eagle,
"Back to 1944: At the behest of self-appointed czar F. Leland Howard,Secret Service agents swooped down on collectors and dealers,seized all the 1933 double eagles they could find,including the one scheduled to be auctioned by Stack's,and interviewed dealers and others,and filed lengthy reports and correspondence amounting to hundreds of pages. Perhaps the nation's interest would have been better served if these agents had worked on against German espionage,for in this year Hitler was killing millions in concentration camps and elsewhere,and America was fighting the greatest war in its history.However,logic and common sensehave no place at all in the story of the 1933 double eagle,as you probably have figured out by now!"
from "Exposing F. Leland Howard" section of Official Red Book for Double Eagle Coins by Q.David Bowers,p283.
Here's an example to help expose the Appeal to Authority logical fallacy,
(1) Marilyn vos Savant says that no philosopher has ever successfully resolved the problem of evil.
Therefore: (2) No philosopher has ever successfully resolved the problem of evil.
This argument is fallacious because Marilyn vos Savant, though arguably an authority, is not an authority on the philosophy of religion. Her judgement that no philosopher has ever successfully resolved the problem of evil therefore carries little evidential weight; if there were a philosopher somewhere that had successfully resolved the problem then there’s a good chance that Marilyn vos Savant wouldn’t know about it. Her testimony is therefore insufficient to establish the conclusion of the argument.
With all due respect,Mr. Bowers,i have not figured out by now,as you say,that logic and common sense have no place in the story of the 1933 double eagle.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
The Mint now has an archivist. This is a new position (relatively) and I think you might do well to make contact with him. From what I have read there is a wealth of various information regarding Mint activities with regard to a wide variety of issues. I think you might do well to try and email or snail mail him. From what I have seen, he is open to sharing information. Perhaps not exactly everything you want, but the conversation might be very interesting.
In the past, very few if any Mint employees actually understood the coin market. In my years there, only a couple had a a handle on it. The only one who had any real power was cashiered for fooling around with a subordinate. Finally, there is someone who understands the hobby. None of the management has ever truly understood it, ever if they made gestures indicating an interest.
Retired United States Mint guy, now working on an Everyman Type Set.
<< <i>The Mint struck 445,000 of $20 in 1933 for circulation or international trade in either case at face value. That's nearly $9 million worth. To the Mint and the cashier they would have been no different than $20 of any other date in terms of payout to the public. Why do people think that the cashier would have doled them out like precious gems keeping a careful record of each one by date? How many bags of earlier date $20s were also at the cashier’s window at the same time as the 1933s? Wouldn’t the cashier have been concerned about keeping tabs of $20s paid out on a net basis, in the aggregate, without regard to the date of the coin since they were all only worth face value? And if someone exchanged old $20s for new ones, why would the cashier have done anything other than just toss the old coins into the inventory of coins on hand without regard to date since they would have all been worth the same and there would have been no net change in $20 on hand?
Contrast that to someone coming in and paying paper currency for gold, where the cashier would have to account for currency on hand and a reduction in $20 gold on hand, but even then why would the cashier have kept track of what dates were paid out?
Of course the swapping could have taken place much later, like in 1937 when it became known that the 1933s would be melted and therefor would become rare coins. By that time the Mint and Treasury were no longer authorized to pay out gold coin to the public.
This thread continues to have legs. More replies will likely be posted to this thread prior to, on and after the upcoming 6-1-2015 deadline for the government to file papers seeking further appellate court review of the 4-17-2015 decision of the 3rd District Court Of Appeal.
Anyone want to give a prediction of the post count for this thread as of midnight, 6-1-2015 (with predictions made on or before midnight on 5-31-2015 being the only ones that will count)?
Whoever makes the guess that is closest to the actual post count as of midnight on will be the winner and will win............................. nothing (other than the satisfaction that comes with making the winning prediction).
<< <i>This thread continues to have legs. More replies will likely be posted to this thread prior to, on and after the upcoming 6-1-2015 deadline for the government to file papers seeking further appellate court review of the 4-17-2015 decision of the 3rd District Court Of Appeal.
Anyone want to give a prediction of the post count for this thread as of midnight, 6-1-2015 (with predictions made on or before midnight on 5-31-2015 being the only ones that will count)?
Whoever makes the guess that is closest to the actual post count as of midnight on will be the winner and will win............................. nothing (other than the satisfaction that comes with making the winning prediction). >>
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 think that using a 6/1/15 deadline is perhaps the wrong time to guess a post count. Given that the Mint may file an appeal a few days before, that would change things earlier and thus mostly fewer posts after the initial firestorm of comments. I think a deadline for posts of 5/24/15 using a post date of 6/3/15 would give everyone a chance to guess based upon both what the Mint does and how much tra la is created on this board from it. Just MHO.
Maybe someone will create a poll here.
Retired United States Mint guy, now working on an Everyman Type Set.
SanctionII, May I make a suggestion that IF AND WHEN the Government files an appeal in this case that you create A NEW THREAD announcing it in the subject. If the government does not file an appeal by midnight on June 1st, 2015 that you create A NEW THREAD announcing that fact in the subject.
Until either of the above events occur we should all continue using THIS THREAD to discuss the Government vrs Langbords trial and SanctionII should decide the rules for deciding how many posts are made to THIS THREAD by whatever deadline he decides. It should be FUN. Steve
I took a look at the docket this afternoon on PACER.
The government has filed a motion for an order extending the deadline to file a petition for a rehearing by 30 days to 7-1-2015. The motion contains a statement that a decision whether to seek further review will be made by the Solicitor General of the United States.
The Solicitor General of the United States is the person who argues cases for the USA before the US Supreme Court.
The motion states that the case involves issues of substantial importance and complexity regarding ownership of the coins, the application of CAFRA to government efforts to recover property stolen from it and the availability of other remedies, including a declaratory judgment for the USA to recover stolen government property. The motion further states that the case impacts issues relevant to the work of the Civil and Criminal Divisions of the Department Of Justice, as well as agencies of the Treasury Dept. The motion further states that the government attorneys in the case have consulted with the above agencies and that their review of the matter is continuing.
It would not be surprising to see the motion granted and a 30 day extension given.
<< <i>I took a look at the docket this afternoon on PACER.
The government has filed a motion for an order extending the deadline to file a petition for a rehearing by 30 days to 7-1-2015. The motion contains a statement that a decision whether to seek further review will be made by the Solicitor General of the United States.
The Solicitor General of the United States is the person who argues cases for the USA before the US Supreme Court.
The motion states that the case involves issues of substantial importance and complexity regarding ownership of the coins, the application of CAFRA to government efforts to recover property stolen from it and the availability of other remedies, including a declaratory judgment for the USA to recover stolen government property. The motion further states that the case impacts issues relevant to the work of the Civil and Criminal Divisions of the Department Of Justice, as well as agencies of the Treasury Dept. The motion further states that the government attorneys in the case have consulted with the above agencies and that their review of the matter is continuing.
It would not be surprising to see the motion granted and a 30 day extension given. >>
And We the people(I am not in that We!) elected these fine folks who run our government.
I wonder if there is an underground school that teaches these career politicians about the Pied Piper!
:good luck; to all parties involved except for those representing government. They (we, the people) do not need luck. We have the strong arm of the law. Possession is nine tenths of that. So for me, I'll guess 910 in this new contest.
SanctionII, Given this new information requesting an extention to July 1st, and assuming you would like to continue having us use this thread to capture comments until a final decision is reached, I would now suggest you EDIT the title of this thread from "Langbords win" to something more appropriate to the ongoing situation. Thanks again for keeping us all informed of what's going on. Steve
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.
DeepCoin Regarding the "theft" or "misappropriation", when it was discovered that a bag of 1933 DEs were "missing", that means there was a bag of DEs with other dates that was extra. What no one speaks of is that the Mint had zero idea of what all the other dates were in what quantity, even though hundreds of thousands were melted. All that was kept track of was the quantity, never the dates. Notice there was no report of $5,000 being missing from the gold count....The continued use of the term "stolen" is completely without merit IMHO, even though the Mint took that policy many, many years ago and it continues to this day. It is only through their attitude or ineptness (your choice) that these coins may be released due to the lack of required response to a legal requirement. I look forward to future developments in the courts, hopefully to a final decision before our heirs have to read about it in the paper.This has dragged on FAR too long IMHO.
You know,DeepCoin,i really appreciate your posts here.You actually worked at the Philadelphia Mint.You have insight into the workings of the Mint that none of us here can have regardless of how many books we read or how deep into the archives we might be willing and able to explore.Thank you for sharing your observations and recollections with us.
While ATS in a thread with the same name as this one,i have come to appreciate the work of Roger Burdette (RBW) who has spent countless hours researching numismatic subjects.Burdette's discoveries of how the Mint really worked around 1933 have proven invaluable to this amateur sleuth,seeker of the truth,and sometimes pita who doesn't like to take no for an answer.Thank you Mr. Burdette.
I came across an post that I made a few weeks ago in this thread.Here it is,
Wednesday May 06, 2015 4:25 PM 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.
I've been reading that the x-ray spectroscopes that are available these days are point-and-shoot devices and can give answers about elemental composition of coins,among other things,in seconds, and do this without destroying the piece in the process.I can imagine that the desk-top versions are more expensive but might give higher accuracy readings than are possible with the hand-held unit.I don't know if this is true but it makes sense to me that it is true.You get what you pay for,in other words.
My thought here with respect to the Langbord 1933 double eagles is this,
Have the Langbord pieces been individually tested for elemental composition ie.,their gold fineness, by using a non-destructive test such as energy dispersive x-ray spectroscopy? I think it's possible that the Langbord Ten Ladies of Liberty might be able to tell an astonishing story about themselves,not getting hurt in the process, if given the opportunity.We might be able to tell if they all came from the same "run",for example? Or is the EDS test done routinely at the services for authentication purposes? I really don't know.The EDS test was done on the unique 1959-D wheat-back cent and the test showed that the metal composition of this mule was consistent with regular 1959-D cents with the Memorial reverse.
For the many scientific types around here, Primer on EDS
Questions for DeepCoin: Do you know how the Mint does assay testing of its precious metal composition issues these days? And,
Do you have any thoughts why the Mint(s) didn't make a 2009 V.D.B. or S V.D.B. out of bronze,with wheat ears reverse,for us penny collectors?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
The Court Of Appeal granted the motion of the government for a 30 day extension of the deadline for it to file a petition for rehearing. The new deadline is 7-1-2015.
<< <i>The Court Of Appeal granted the motion of the government for a 30 day extension of the deadline for it to file a petition for rehearing. The new deadline is 7-1-2015. >>
"Justice delayed is justice denied."
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
It is better to light a candle than curse the darkness...With the new day comes new strength and new thoughts...Justice cannot be for one side alone, but must be for both.
Eleanor Roosevelt
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
The Mint has a sophisticated laboratory at West Point that measures the precious metals at a high level of precision. I have not been there in quite a few years, but I do know they are very precise in their measurement, using the latest technology.
To your point regarding a 2009 SVDB penny, most of the Mint's products are conceived by a policy that typically includes a couple of commemoratives each year (all of which must be authorized by Congress). Other coins typically need a champion, i.e. Ed Moy the former Director pushed for a couple of gold sets when he was running the show.
Personally, I think they lost their way beginning with the State Quarters and beginning the trend of making series of coins, i.e. First Spouse, Presidential Dollars, etc. This created a huge number of products that have to be made each year just to keep the series going. While on my soapbox, somehow the State of Virginia thinks it owns the nickel and that Jefferson can never be replaced. Time to revert to the more classic (without replication) style of coins we had beginning in the early 20th Century. Just MHO.
Retired United States Mint guy, now working on an Everyman Type Set.
I would have payed the Mint,up to $50 or so, for 3 coin set of 1 cent pieces comprised of 2009 V.D.B. matte proof finish,2009 V.D.B. and 2009 S V.D.B that look like business strikes.The coins would look like Lincolns made in 1909 in most every detail except for the date.The S VDB could even have had the V.D.B. a little different than the plain V.D.B. CaptHenway could have advised them about this.
Oh,and in the case that some enterprising counterfeiter tries to alter one of the new 2009 S V.D.B's into a 1909 S V.D.B. (the goal being ill-gotten personal gain) there would be serious hurdles to overcome. Details about hurdles not publicly disclosed,of course.The major grading services would be privy to the diagnostics in the effort to foil the more clever counterfeiters.Edge inscription would be a nice touch.It would be very difficult for the counterfeiter to deal with incuse relief edge inscription,especially on the lowly penny.
We've got the Chronicles set and that's okay but i would gladly trade my Abe Dollar in the Chronicles set for the set of three pennies described above.
In "Langbords Win" thread ATS I got called out for publishing part of my outline script for a numismatic thriller movie i envision.The movie is centered around the story of the 1933 Double Eagle.I was informed by a poster there that i need to show some respect for people who were expecting to read the latest about the Langbord case without having to sort through "three pages of a Hollywood movie script." I did manage to publish the outline for the first scene over there before being called out,however.
The second scene starts with a shot of a dapper,well-dressed man ascending the steps of the Philadelphia Mint building.The date is January,1933.
My thoughts then turned to how expensive the set was going to be for my movie. A ton of money would be needed to build a set that is period accurate to what the inside of the Mint looked like in 1933.There would be nothing cheesy about any movie that i put my name onto.Cell phones wouldn't even be allowed for the workers to have on their person while shooting the movie lest one inadvertently gets left on the set for the sharper movie watchers to catch. Having to redo scenes because of discrepencies like this is frightful to think about.The expenses do need to be carefully controlled otherwise the movie,no matter how good,could easily fail as measured by the bottom line.The movie money backers need to make a profit so i would need to keep that in mind at all times as i direct my numismatic thriller,painstakingly, scene-by-scene.
I'm leaning heavily towards taking a haitus from making posts about the 1933 double eagle story in this thread. Duty calls to work on my movie. I would just check in here from time-to-time to read about how the case is going.Thank you Sanction for the updates.There's no need to change the name of this thread,Sanction.This thread is starting to achieve institution status,not only here but ATS as well.The upside to my not posting here is that the word count in here would definitely go down.
Sorry,Steve.The title of this thread should not be changed by Sanction,in my opinion.
Now,i just need to put my money (I got fitty bucks saved up for my movie,so far) where my mouth is and refrain from posting in here,at least until July 1 or so.It's not going to be easy for me,though...
Maybe i will start a separate thread here about my movie.There are plenty of good idea people over here.Think about how cool it would be see your name as a contributor to an epic Hollywood blockbuster movie.
Hawaii Five-O and 1913 Liberty Nickel move over.You ain't seen nothin yet...
BTW,i love the smilies ATS.They all work.Some of the "emotions" over here don't work properly.Balloons doesn't work...I could be doing something wrong,i suppose...
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Mr. 1874: <<Do you offer an explanation for how the "comingling" could have happened given that the first '33 Doubles were all in the Coiner's control on March 4,1933?>>
By that time, there were tens of thousands of 1933 Double Eagles. It does not make sense to say that they were "all" in anyone's "control."
After R. W. Julian, Roger Burdette is the foremost researcher of U.S. Mint related archives and other original coin related, historical documents. Burdette found a document that indicates that 1933 Double Eagles were moved to the cashier's box to replace "defective" 1932 Double Eagles. This is very plausible and is consistent with the generally understood notion that most Mint employees did not care much about the dates on the coins. They were concerned about the total number of Double Eagles, regardless of dates, at the Mint. Tripp acknowledges that the books balanced. It was typical for Double Eagles of various years to be available to collectors or dealers who walked into the Mint.
Burdette testified under oath that he found such a document. Burdette has written three large books relating to the history of the U.S. Mint during the early 20th century. Furthermore, he is the primary author of book on Peace Dollars that was published by Whitman. He has also written a book about particular patterns and experimental pieces of the 1940s.
The foremost living researcher of the U.S. Mint from the beginning in 1793 is R. W. Julian and Julian has spoken highly of Burdette's skills, especially regarding Burdette's ability to locate historically important original documents.
Again, As I said in my column at the end of 2010, < Burdette discovered that the Mint Cashier was provided with forty-three 1933 Double Eagles on March 4 and these “balanced” the accounting of the production of 1932 Double Eagles as some 1932 Double Eagles were earlier found to be defective.>
The Court Of Appeal granted the motion of the government for a 30 day extension of the deadline for it to file a petition for rehearing. The new deadline is 7-1-2015.
25 DAYS TO GO UNTIL WEDNESDAY, JULY 1ST!!!(for the government to file an official request to dispute the Court of Appeals decision of April 17th)
The Court Of Appeal granted the motion of the government for a 30 day extension of the deadline for it to file a petition for rehearing. The new deadline is 7-1-2015.
18 DAYS TO GO UNTIL WEDNESDAY, JULY 1ST!!!(for the government to file an official request to dispute the Court of Appeals decision of April 17th)
This is also a story about Israel (Izzy) Switt and WHY the US Government has decided here in the 21st century to take a legal stand against his heirs when they failed to do the same in many similar situations in the past. For instance, why is it LEGAL now to own one of the 1913 Liberty head nickels that were produced at the US Mint without official authorization? Steve
<< <i>Mr. 1874: <<Do you offer an explanation for how the "comingling" could have happened given that the first '33 Doubles were all in the Coiner's control on March 4,1933?>>
By that time, there were tens of thousands of 1933 Double Eagles. It does not make sense to say that they were "all" in anyone's "control."
After R. W. Julian, Roger Burdette is the foremost researcher of U.S. Mint related archives and other original coin related, historical documents. Burdette found a document that indicates that 1933 Double Eagles were moved to the cashier's box to replace "defective" 1932 Double Eagles. This is very plausible and is consistent with the generally understood notion that most Mint employees did not care much about the dates on the coins. They were concerned about the total number of Double Eagles, regardless of dates, at the Mint. Tripp acknowledges that the books balanced. It was typical for Double Eagles of various years to be available to collectors or dealers who walked into the Mint.
Burdette testified under oath that he found such a document. Burdette has written three large books relating to the history of the U.S. Mint during the early 20th century. Furthermore, he is the primary author of book on Peace Dollars that was published by Whitman. He has also written a book about particular patterns and experimental pieces of the 1940s.
The foremost living researcher of the U.S. Mint from the beginning in 1793 is R. W. Julian and Julian has spoken highly of Burdette's skills, especially regarding Burdette's ability to locate historically important original documents.
Again, As I said in my column at the end of 2010, < Burdette discovered that the Mint Cashier was provided with forty-three 1933 Double Eagles on March 4 and these “balanced” the accounting of the production of 1932 Double Eagles as some 1932 Double Eagles were earlier found to be defective.>
I wonder if the 43 damaged 1932s were comingled with the remaining 1933s to balance out the weight. Seems like a misappropriation of the 1933s and not theft.
The Court Of Appeal granted the motion of the government for a 30 day extension of the deadline for it to file a petition for rehearing. The new deadline is 7-1-2015.
11 DAYS TO GO UNTIL WEDNESDAY, JULY 1ST!!!(for the government to file an official request to dispute the Court of Appeals decision of April 17th)
<< <i>Mr. 1874: <<Do you offer an explanation for how the "comingling" could have happened given that the first '33 Doubles were all in the Coiner's control on March 4,1933?>>
By that time, there were tens of thousands of 1933 Double Eagles. It does not make sense to say that they were "all" in anyone's "control."
After R. W. Julian, Roger Burdette is the foremost researcher of U.S. Mint related archives and other original coin related, historical documents. Burdette found a document that indicates that 1933 Double Eagles were moved to the cashier's box to replace "defective" 1932 Double Eagles. This is very plausible and is consistent with the generally understood notion that most Mint employees did not care much about the dates on the coins. They were concerned about the total number of Double Eagles, regardless of dates, at the Mint. Tripp acknowledges that the books balanced. It was typical for Double Eagles of various years to be available to collectors or dealers who walked into the Mint.
Burdette testified under oath that he found such a document. Burdette has written three large books relating to the history of the U.S. Mint during the early 20th century. Furthermore, he is the primary author of book on Peace Dollars that was published by Whitman. He has also written a book about particular patterns and experimental pieces of the 1940s.
The foremost living researcher of the U.S. Mint from the beginning in 1793 is R. W. Julian and Julian has spoken highly of Burdette's skills, especially regarding Burdette's ability to locate historically important original documents.
Again, As I said in my column at the end of 2010, < Burdette discovered that the Mint Cashier was provided with forty-three 1933 Double Eagles on March 4 and these “balanced” the accounting of the production of 1932 Double Eagles as some 1932 Double Eagles were earlier found to be defective.>
I wonder if the 43 damaged 1932s were comingled with the remaining 1933s to balance out the weight. Seems like a misappropriation of the 1933s and not theft. >>
Not likely. If they needed to be replaced for good cause they would have been melted. Why contaminate the 1933's with defective 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.
<< <i>Mr. 1874: <<Do you offer an explanation for how the "comingling" could have happened given that the first '33 Doubles were all in the Coiner's control on March 4,1933?>>
By that time, there were tens of thousands of 1933 Double Eagles. It does not make sense to say that they were "all" in anyone's "control."
After R. W. Julian, Roger Burdette is the foremost researcher of U.S. Mint related archives and other original coin related, historical documents. Burdette found a document that indicates that 1933 Double Eagles were moved to the cashier's box to replace "defective" 1932 Double Eagles. This is very plausible and is consistent with the generally understood notion that most Mint employees did not care much about the dates on the coins. They were concerned about the total number of Double Eagles, regardless of dates, at the Mint. Tripp acknowledges that the books balanced. It was typical for Double Eagles of various years to be available to collectors or dealers who walked into the Mint.
Burdette testified under oath that he found such a document. Burdette has written three large books relating to the history of the U.S. Mint during the early 20th century. Furthermore, he is the primary author of book on Peace Dollars that was published by Whitman. He has also written a book about particular patterns and experimental pieces of the 1940s.
The foremost living researcher of the U.S. Mint from the beginning in 1793 is R. W. Julian and Julian has spoken highly of Burdette's skills, especially regarding Burdette's ability to locate historically important original documents.
Again, As I said in my column at the end of 2010, < Burdette discovered that the Mint Cashier was provided with forty-three 1933 Double Eagles on March 4 and these “balanced” the accounting of the production of 1932 Double Eagles as some 1932 Double Eagles were earlier found to be defective.>
I wonder if the 43 damaged 1932s were comingled with the remaining 1933s to balance out the weight. Seems like a misappropriation of the 1933s and not theft. >>
Not likely. If they needed to be replaced for good cause they would have been melted. Why contaminate the 1933's with defective coins? >>
If the 1933s were never going to be issued why would it matter if there were defective 1932s mixed in? Do we know when this was supposedly done? Also it would seem that it would have been just as easy accountingwise to transfer them to some sort of defective coin account and subtract them from the final mintage.
Minor correction to MR1874's post that included a comment about me. I worked at HQ in Washington, but I travelled to Philadelphia often as at one point I ran the annual inventory from the IT side of things. I also spent time installing shipping hardware and software at West Point at a time when the Mint did its own fulfillment (for 5% of what it costs today, go figure). I have seen the inside of the operations from a control point of view as I also have an Accounting degree as well as being an IT guy.
Off topic, for a long time the people who really controlled the production operation at the Mint were was the Die Shop. Just an interesting aside to this long post, not trying to hijack it.
I look forward to the next Court decision and hope it FINALLY gets put to rest after all these years. Rooting for the Langbords here
Retired United States Mint guy, now working on an Everyman Type Set.
<< <i>Mr. 1874: <<Do you offer an explanation for how the "comingling" could have happened given that the first '33 Doubles were all in the Coiner's control on March 4,1933?>>
By that time, there were tens of thousands of 1933 Double Eagles. It does not make sense to say that they were "all" in anyone's "control."
After R. W. Julian, Roger Burdette is the foremost researcher of U.S. Mint related archives and other original coin related, historical documents. Burdette found a document that indicates that 1933 Double Eagles were moved to the cashier's box to replace "defective" 1932 Double Eagles. This is very plausible and is consistent with the generally understood notion that most Mint employees did not care much about the dates on the coins. They were concerned about the total number of Double Eagles, regardless of dates, at the Mint. Tripp acknowledges that the books balanced. It was typical for Double Eagles of various years to be available to collectors or dealers who walked into the Mint.
Burdette testified under oath that he found such a document. Burdette has written three large books relating to the history of the U.S. Mint during the early 20th century. Furthermore, he is the primary author of book on Peace Dollars that was published by Whitman. He has also written a book about particular patterns and experimental pieces of the 1940s.
The foremost living researcher of the U.S. Mint from the beginning in 1793 is R. W. Julian and Julian has spoken highly of Burdette's skills, especially regarding Burdette's ability to locate historically important original documents.
Again, As I said in my column at the end of 2010, < Burdette discovered that the Mint Cashier was provided with forty-three 1933 Double Eagles on March 4 and these “balanced” the accounting of the production of 1932 Double Eagles as some 1932 Double Eagles were earlier found to be defective.>
I wonder if the 43 damaged 1932s were comingled with the remaining 1933s to balance out the weight. Seems like a misappropriation of the 1933s and not theft. >>
Not likely. If they needed to be replaced for good cause they would have been melted. Why contaminate the 1933's with defective coins? >>
If the 1933s were never going to be issued why would it matter if there were defective 1932s mixed in? Do we know when this was supposedly done? Also it would seem that it would have been just as easy accountingwise to transfer them to some sort of defective coin account and subtract them from the final mintage. >>
Because in March of 1933 nobody KNEW that the 1933 coins were never going to be issued, or the 1932's for that matter. You are looking at it from our point of view decades later. At the time it happened, the Mint was just doing due diligence to make sure that it had coins on hand that COULD be issued at any moment.
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>Surely someone must know who it was that had a burr under their saddle regarding these coins and made it a point to go after them.
My understanding is that the burr was under saddle of Dr. Leland Howard,acting Director of the Mint. Mint Director Nellie Tayloe Ross had signed off on export of the Farouk '33 Double on March 11,1944.Then she vanished.I think she may have been put on administrative leave for this "oversight" of granting the export license to the Egyptians. Ms. Ross was taking "the fall?" Or was she just out sick for a time?
Here's what Q. David Bowers has to say:
"While the Farouk specimen was on its appointed way [to its new owner in Egypt],the coin and stamp columnist at the New York Herald-Tribune,Ernest Kehr,was wondering why the 1933 double eagle in the Flanagan collection was so rare that it rated special mention in the Stack's advertisements.He wrote the Mint Bureau asking how many had been actually issued.The letter wound up on the desk of Dr. Leland Howard,who could find no official distribution of the coins in question."
Note:The Mint's own "Timeline for the 1933 Double Eagle" indicates a memo was sent March 30,1944 by Dr. Howard,acting Mint Director,
to Chief of United States Secret Service recounting events leading to granting of Export License to King Farouk. Explains awareness of illicit removal of 1933 Double Eagles from Mint in response to "routine inquiry regarding the number of such coins that had been placed in circulation."
Bowers continues,
"Dr. Howard,who seems to have had a general dislike of collectors,then notified the Secret Service of the Great Crime that had been perpetrated. This was clearly So Important that critical war-time investigations might have to be delayed while Special Agents investigated this Terrible Event. And so they did...."
from the Official Red Book:A Guide Book of Double Eagle Gold Coins written by Q. David Bowers,p.282 >>
So based on this account, if not for the writer at the New York Herald-Tribune, Ernest Kehr, neither the Mint nor Leland Howard, would not have known anything about "illicit removal of 1933 double eagles from the Mint". Then, Leland Howard comes up with according to our records, the 1933 double eagles were stolen. This, despite the failure of Mint records to show that any gold was missing. Amazing.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
<< <i>
One of the problems with mint data is it's designed not to account for each individual
coin but rather to keep tabs on total coined gold. If they had tried the 1933 dies in 1932
as is customary the coins would have been recorded as 1932 issues and released in bags
of 1932 coins. This is rarely a problem for the mint because these bags take weeks or even
months rto work through the banking system so there's no big anomaly in getting a few la-
ter dates in a bag of the previous year's coins.
There's no evidence any coins were stolen from the mint and it's improbable any were. By
whatever means these were acquired it's a near certainty that they cost the original owner
$20 each. It is most probably mint accounting at fault and not some nefarious or illegal ac-
tivity. There may be numerous ways these could leave the mint without leaving any sort
of specific paper trail. >>
Sam, what you say above makes a lot of sense to me. No crime has been committed. Shouldn't the Government have to PROVE some coins were stolen? Most likely an exchange took place. It probably took place because the people involved KNEW they could make money on the exchange. Nothing different than what happens in the financial markets every day. Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
Contrast that to someone coming in and paying paper currency for gold, where the cashier would have to account for currency on hand and a reduction in $20 gold on hand, but even then why would the cashier have kept track of what dates were paid out?
Of course the swapping could have taken place much later, like in 1937 when it became known that the 1933s would be melted and therefor would become rare coins. By that time the Mint and Treasury were no longer authorized to pay out gold coin to the public.
CG
The misappropriation of '33's occurred by swapping with another date,a common date like 1928, so no gold from '33 double production was found to be missing by total weight measure or by total coin number.They weren't checking dates on loose coins,those not in sealed bags in other words,prior to the great gold melt.
Four-hundred forty-five thousand 1933 dated coins in one-thousand-seven-hundred-eighty sealed bags (sealed since 1933) along with the remainder of 1933 survivors of those sent for assay were destined to be melted early in 1937.Some assay coins dated 1933 were destroyed years earlier and written records made attesting to the number of coins that met this fate. All 1933 dated doubles excepting the two sent to the Smithsonian,along with large quantities of double eagles from other years,were to be melted.
The melt commenced February,1937.The double eagle coins were audited prior to melt and it was discovered that one bag of 250 doubles dated 1928,face value $5,000, was missing.The 1928 dated coins were never recovered and no one was ever convicted of the theft.
Would the misappropriation of 1933 dated coins by swapping with coins from another year be an act of theft or stealing even though no gold by weight or number of coins was found to be missing,prior to the melt, other than the stolen bag of 1928 dated coins?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>
The melt commenced February,1937.The double eagle coins were audited prior to melt and it was discovered that one bag of 250 doubles dated 1928,face value $5,000, was missing.The 1928 dated coins were never recovered and no one was ever convicted of the theft.
Would the misappropriation of 1933 dated coins by swapping with coins from another year be an act of theft or stealing even though no gold by weight or number of coins was found to be missing,prior to the melt, other than the stolen bag of 1928 dated coins? >>
Steven,
Interesting "story" BUT not based on fact. Also, use of the words "misappropriation", "theft", "stealing" and "stolen" are apparently used by YOU to describe YOUR personal interpretation of what happened. I think Sam's explanation is more in line with how the cashiers office operated prior to the new laws issued by FDR. I DO believe that a mint employee, probably the cashier and "grandpa" Langbord arranged for the exchange of approximately 25 1933 double eagles for 25 earlier date double eagles with "grandpa" providing a nice tip to the cashier. All this would be perfectly legal among friends since both knew each other from previous visits.
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
What is an analogous situation is in the early 60's when the Mint decided to sell the huge inventory of silver dollars in bags. No one had any idea of what dates were in those bags. More than a few "key" coins became very common upon the release of those bags of coins. That is the mentality of the Mint, how much, not what date are in the bags. If someone switched out a bag of common dates for 1,000 CC Morgans, no one would have ever known by the inventory. Clearly, a bag of 1,000 is huge compared to 25 DEs which could easily have gone into a briefcase in an exchange.
The continued use of the term "stolen" is completely without merit IMHO, even though the Mint took that policy many, many years ago and it continues to this day. It is only through their attitude or ineptness (your choice) that these coins may be released due to the lack of required response to a legal requirement. I look forward to future developments in the courts, hopefully to a final decision before our heirs have to read about it in the paper. This has dragged on FAR too long IMHO.
I was always under the impression that Pyx coins were set aside on the production floor from each batch as they were struck in the interest of random selection, and not all taken from one bag after the finished coins were delivered to the Cashier. It would seem to me that taking all of the assay coins from one bag would make it a lot easier to miss potentially bad coins from several other batches.
I recently did an article for COINage on the 1974 Assay Commission which my friend Ken Hallenbeck was on, and in his memorabilia of the event he had an empty envelope which once held two 1973 dollars set aside on the day that they were struck. The production date is on the envelope.
Was the practice of setting aside coins for the Pyx different in 1933, or only different for gold coins, or was Tripp guessing at/ making up the procedure? The process of opening the bag and withdrawing the 2 and 25 coins is written as though from a first-hand account, but there is no documentation of it in the Notes section, only references to Mint procedures at other times in the 20th Century.
I guess I need to start with the 1934 Assay Commission report.
Any other input would be appreciated.
TD
Edited to add: I am reliably informed that this non-randomized sampling of pyx coins was indeed standard operating procedure at the Mint in this era.
A tradesman. Izzy Switt, I would contend did what he did for little or NO PAY.
That dastardly coin dealing
Aye, but for now… He made the best numismatic news ever. And I like him, for that alone.
This would be an expensive trip for me.Could I just have them mail me some copies of documents that I am most interest in? I would be most interested in copies of all pages in the Mint Daily Ledger,including the cover,for the years 1931,1932,1933,1934.
The copy and mailing costs might set me back a pretty penny but I would have something pretty nice,something no other collector has, for my numismatic library.
I could have them bound into four volumes...
Coinosaurus,you published an interesting document here awhile back and I've been meaning to ask you how you obtained it.It's a picture of a Smithsonian record from the '50's listing various numismatic items from the thirties being transferred from one area of the Smithsonian to another.The listing shows the two 1933 double eagles and the two 1932 double eagles that are contained in the National Collection.
Did you go to the National Archives website and find the Smithsonian listing there or did you find it some other place?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Ummm.....
No.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Interesting thoughts about the Pyx box and procedures that might have been in place in 1933.Good luck in your quest for the truth.
Mint has "Rules and Regulations" document to refer to according to Tripp? That might make for some interesting reading if it can be located.
My understanding is that the first assays done are the so-called "specials."The specials are done soon after the first delivery to ensure that coins reaching the public are of the purity and value guaranteed by the government.1933 doubles,as in doubles from previous years,would not be released to the public until they pass special assay.
The specials,two pieces only,are sent off to Washington,D.C. for testing by the chief assayer.If the specials fail assay, the entire first delivery of 25,000 coins would be sent to the Melting and Refining Department for destruction.
The assay process would push that first opportunity to acquire a '33 double lawfully past March 15,1933 downstream aways,how far past March 15 depending on how quickly the assayer in Washington D.C. does his job and how fast registered mail moves in 1933.Registered was probably very slow in 1933,alot slower than it is now.That's just speculation on my part though.I don't think considering a week in the mail from Philadelphia to Washington,D.C. for registered is too far-fetched.Do you?
It seems that the "window of opportunity" for a member of the public to acquire a 1933 double lawfully at the Mint window is getting narrower and narrower as we put the puzzle pieces together.
It's March twenty something before the assay results for the first 1933 doubles are known at the Mint?
April 5 and Executive Order 6102 is right around the corner...
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Steven (mr1874),
Interesting "story" BUT not based on fact. Also, use of the words "misappropriation", "theft", "stealing" and "stolen" are apparently used by YOU to describe YOUR personal interpretation of what happened. I think Sam's explanation is more in line with how the cashiers office operated prior to the new laws issued by FDR. I DO believe that a mint employee, probably the cashier and "grandpa" Langbord arranged for the exchange of approximately 25 1933 double eagles for 25 earlier date double eagles with "grandpa" providing a nice tip to the cashier. All this would be perfectly legal among friends since both knew each other from previous visits.
Tripp,Frankel and others use the same words I do except for "misappropriation." I don't have the wherewithal to look through the hundreds of pages of both books for the word if indeed Tripp and Frankel have used it.Misappropriation seems to me to be a very fitting word to use for what George McCann was doing so he could walk out the Mint door at the end of his workday with one or more '33 Double Eagles in his pocket.
Having said that,my interpretation of what happened doesn't really matter at the end of the day.I'm attempting to put the pieces of a very complex puzzle together using logic and common sense.I don't know any other way to do it.
It's interesting to me what Q. David Bowers has to say about logic and common sense as it applies to the story of the 1933 double eagle,
"Back to 1944: At the behest of self-appointed czar F. Leland Howard,Secret Service agents swooped down on collectors and dealers,seized all the 1933 double eagles they could find,including the one scheduled to be auctioned by Stack's,and interviewed dealers and others,and filed lengthy reports and correspondence amounting to hundreds of pages. Perhaps the nation's interest would have been better served if these agents had worked on against German espionage,for in this year Hitler was killing millions in concentration camps and elsewhere,and America was fighting the greatest war in its history.However,logic and common sensehave no place at all in the story of the 1933 double eagle,as you probably have figured out by now!"
from "Exposing F. Leland Howard" section of Official Red Book for Double Eagle Coins by Q.David Bowers,p283.
Here's an example to help expose the Appeal to Authority logical fallacy,
(1) Marilyn vos Savant says that no philosopher has ever successfully resolved the problem of evil.
Therefore:
(2) No philosopher has ever successfully resolved the problem of evil.
This argument is fallacious because Marilyn vos Savant, though arguably an authority, is not an authority on the philosophy of religion. Her judgement that no philosopher has ever successfully resolved the problem of evil therefore carries little evidential weight; if there were a philosopher somewhere that had successfully resolved the problem then there’s a good chance that Marilyn vos Savant wouldn’t know about it. Her testimony is therefore insufficient to establish the conclusion of the argument.
With all due respect,Mr. Bowers,i have not figured out by now,as you say,that logic and common sense have no place in the story of the 1933 double eagle.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Cheers, ronO
The Mint now has an archivist. This is a new position (relatively) and I think you might do well to make contact with him. From what I have read there is a wealth of various information regarding Mint activities with regard to a wide variety of issues. I think you might do well to try and email or snail mail him. From what I have seen, he is open to sharing information. Perhaps not exactly everything you want, but the conversation might be very interesting.
In the past, very few if any Mint employees actually understood the coin market. In my years there, only a couple had a a handle on it. The only one who had any real power was cashiered for fooling around with a subordinate. Finally, there is someone who understands the hobby. None of the management has ever truly understood it, ever if they made gestures indicating an interest.
<< <i>The Mint struck 445,000 of $20 in 1933 for circulation or international trade in either case at face value. That's nearly $9 million worth. To the Mint and the cashier they would have been no different than $20 of any other date in terms of payout to the public. Why do people think that the cashier would have doled them out like precious gems keeping a careful record of each one by date? How many bags of earlier date $20s were also at the cashier’s window at the same time as the 1933s? Wouldn’t the cashier have been concerned about keeping tabs of $20s paid out on a net basis, in the aggregate, without regard to the date of the coin since they were all only worth face value? And if someone exchanged old $20s for new ones, why would the cashier have done anything other than just toss the old coins into the inventory of coins on hand without regard to date since they would have all been worth the same and there would have been no net change in $20 on hand?
Contrast that to someone coming in and paying paper currency for gold, where the cashier would have to account for currency on hand and a reduction in $20 gold on hand, but even then why would the cashier have kept track of what dates were paid out?
Of course the swapping could have taken place much later, like in 1937 when it became known that the 1933s would be melted and therefor would become rare coins. By that time the Mint and Treasury were no longer authorized to pay out gold coin to the public.
CG >>
+1
<< <i>The Mint has no Proof that any 1849-O quarters were ever issued, but they exist. >>
yeppers, got one of them myself!!
Anyone want to give a prediction of the post count for this thread as of midnight, 6-1-2015 (with predictions made on or before midnight on 5-31-2015 being the only ones that will count)?
Whoever makes the guess that is closest to the actual post count as of midnight on will be the winner and will win............................. nothing (other than the satisfaction that comes with making the winning prediction).
<< <i>This thread continues to have legs. More replies will likely be posted to this thread prior to, on and after the upcoming 6-1-2015 deadline for the government to file papers seeking further appellate court review of the 4-17-2015 decision of the 3rd District Court Of Appeal.
Anyone want to give a prediction of the post count for this thread as of midnight, 6-1-2015 (with predictions made on or before midnight on 5-31-2015 being the only ones that will count)?
Whoever makes the guess that is closest to the actual post count as of midnight on will be the winner and will win............................. nothing (other than the satisfaction that comes with making the winning prediction). >>
631
Edited to add: I'll take 666.
Maybe someone will create a poll here.
May I make a suggestion that IF AND WHEN the Government files an appeal in this case that you create A NEW THREAD announcing it in the subject. If the government does not file an appeal by midnight on June 1st, 2015 that you create A NEW THREAD announcing that fact in the subject.
Until either of the above events occur we should all continue using THIS THREAD to discuss the Government vrs Langbords trial and SanctionII should decide the rules for deciding how many posts are made to THIS THREAD by whatever deadline he decides. It should be FUN. Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
The government has filed a motion for an order extending the deadline to file a petition for a rehearing by 30 days to 7-1-2015. The motion contains a statement that a decision whether to seek further review will be made by the Solicitor General of the United States.
The Solicitor General of the United States is the person who argues cases for the USA before the US Supreme Court.
The motion states that the case involves issues of substantial importance and complexity regarding ownership of the coins, the application of CAFRA to government efforts to recover property stolen from it and the availability of other remedies, including a declaratory judgment for the USA to recover stolen government property. The motion further states that the case impacts issues relevant to the work of the Civil and Criminal Divisions of the Department Of Justice, as well as agencies of the Treasury Dept. The motion further states that the government attorneys in the case have consulted with the above agencies and that their review of the matter is continuing.
It would not be surprising to see the motion granted and a 30 day extension given.
<< <i>I took a look at the docket this afternoon on PACER.
The government has filed a motion for an order extending the deadline to file a petition for a rehearing by 30 days to 7-1-2015. The motion contains a statement that a decision whether to seek further review will be made by the Solicitor General of the United States.
The Solicitor General of the United States is the person who argues cases for the USA before the US Supreme Court.
The motion states that the case involves issues of substantial importance and complexity regarding ownership of the coins, the application of CAFRA to government efforts to recover property stolen from it and the availability of other remedies, including a declaratory judgment for the USA to recover stolen government property. The motion further states that the case impacts issues relevant to the work of the Civil and Criminal Divisions of the Department Of Justice, as well as agencies of the Treasury Dept. The motion further states that the government attorneys in the case have consulted with the above agencies and that their review of the matter is continuing.
It would not be surprising to see the motion granted and a 30 day extension given. >>
And We the people(I am not in that We!) elected these fine folks who run our government.
I wonder if there is an underground school that teaches these career politicians about the Pied Piper!
Given this new information requesting an extention to July 1st, and assuming you would like to continue having us use this thread to capture comments until a final decision is reached, I would now suggest you EDIT the title of this thread from "Langbords win" to something more appropriate to the ongoing situation. Thanks again for keeping us all informed of what's going on. Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
<< <i>Did the Court of Appeal have an opinion on whether the coins were stolen or not? >>
The ruling was primarily based upon the gov't taking too long to act.
They did doubt the stolen part
Regarding the "theft" or "misappropriation", when it was discovered that a bag of 1933 DEs were "missing", that means there was a bag of DEs with other dates that was extra. What no one speaks of is that the Mint had zero idea of what all the other dates were in what quantity, even though hundreds of thousands were melted. All that was kept track of was the quantity, never the dates. Notice there was no report of $5,000 being missing from the gold count....The continued use of the term "stolen" is completely without merit IMHO, even though the Mint took that policy many, many years ago and it continues to this day. It is only through their attitude or ineptness (your choice) that these coins may be released due to the lack of required response to a legal requirement. I look forward to future developments in the courts, hopefully to a final decision before our heirs have to read about it in the paper.This has dragged on FAR too long IMHO.
You know,DeepCoin,i really appreciate your posts here.You actually worked at the Philadelphia Mint.You have insight into the workings of the Mint that none of us here can have regardless of how many books we read or how deep into the archives we might be willing and able to explore.Thank you for sharing your observations and recollections with us.
While ATS in a thread with the same name as this one,i have come to appreciate the work of Roger Burdette (RBW) who has spent countless hours researching numismatic subjects.Burdette's discoveries of how the Mint really worked around 1933 have proven invaluable to this amateur sleuth,seeker of the truth,and sometimes pita who doesn't like to take no for an answer.Thank you Mr. Burdette.
I came across an post that I made a few weeks ago in this thread.Here it is,
Wednesday May 06, 2015 4:25 PM
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.
I've been reading that the x-ray spectroscopes that are available these days are point-and-shoot devices and can give answers about elemental composition of coins,among other things,in seconds, and do this without destroying the piece in the process.I can imagine that the desk-top versions are more expensive but might give higher accuracy readings than are possible with the hand-held unit.I don't know if this is true but it makes sense to me that it is true.You get what you pay for,in other words.
My thought here with respect to the Langbord 1933 double eagles is this,
Have the Langbord pieces been individually tested for elemental composition ie.,their gold fineness, by using a non-destructive test such as energy dispersive x-ray spectroscopy? I think it's possible that the Langbord Ten Ladies of Liberty might be able to tell an astonishing story about themselves,not getting hurt in the process, if given the opportunity.We might be able to tell if they all came from the same "run",for example? Or is the EDS test done routinely at the services for authentication purposes? I really don't know.The EDS test was done on the unique 1959-D wheat-back cent and the test showed that the metal composition of this mule was consistent with regular 1959-D cents with the Memorial reverse.
For the many scientific types around here,
Primer on EDS
Questions for DeepCoin: Do you know how the Mint does assay testing of its precious metal composition issues these days? And,
Do you have any thoughts why the Mint(s) didn't make a 2009 V.D.B. or S V.D.B. out of bronze,with wheat ears reverse,for us penny collectors?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>The Court Of Appeal granted the motion of the government for a 30 day extension of the deadline for it to file a petition for rehearing. The new deadline is 7-1-2015. >>
"Justice delayed is justice denied."
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
Eleanor Roosevelt
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
The Mint has a sophisticated laboratory at West Point that measures the precious metals at a high level of precision. I have not been there in quite a few years, but I do know they are very precise in their measurement, using the latest technology.
To your point regarding a 2009 SVDB penny, most of the Mint's products are conceived by a policy that typically includes a couple of commemoratives each year (all of which must be authorized by Congress). Other coins typically need a champion, i.e. Ed Moy the former Director pushed for a couple of gold sets when he was running the show.
Personally, I think they lost their way beginning with the State Quarters and beginning the trend of making series of coins, i.e. First Spouse, Presidential Dollars, etc. This created a huge number of products that have to be made each year just to keep the series going. While on my soapbox, somehow the State of Virginia thinks it owns the nickel and that Jefferson can never be replaced. Time to revert to the more classic (without replication) style of coins we had beginning in the early 20th Century. Just MHO.
Oh,and in the case that some enterprising counterfeiter tries to alter one of the new 2009 S V.D.B's into a 1909 S V.D.B. (the goal being ill-gotten personal gain) there would be serious hurdles to overcome. Details about hurdles not publicly disclosed,of course.The major grading services would be privy to the diagnostics in the effort to foil the more clever counterfeiters.Edge inscription would be a nice touch.It would be very difficult for the counterfeiter to deal with incuse relief edge inscription,especially on the lowly penny.
We've got the Chronicles set and that's okay but i would gladly trade my Abe Dollar in the Chronicles set for the set of three pennies described above.
In "Langbords Win" thread ATS I got called out for publishing part of my outline script for a numismatic thriller movie i envision.The movie is centered around the story of the 1933 Double Eagle.I was informed by a poster there that i need to show some respect for people who were expecting to read the latest about the Langbord case without having to sort through "three pages of a Hollywood movie script." I did manage to publish the outline for the first scene over there before being called out,however.
The second scene starts with a shot of a dapper,well-dressed man ascending the steps of the Philadelphia Mint building.The date is January,1933.
My thoughts then turned to how expensive the set was going to be for my movie. A ton of money would be needed to build a set that is period accurate to what the inside of the Mint looked like in 1933.There would be nothing cheesy about any movie that i put my name onto.Cell phones wouldn't even be allowed for the workers to have on their person while shooting the movie lest one inadvertently gets left on the set for the sharper movie watchers to catch. Having to redo scenes because of discrepencies like this is frightful to think about.The expenses do need to be carefully controlled otherwise the movie,no matter how good,could easily fail as measured by the bottom line.The movie money backers need to make a profit so i would need to keep that in mind at all times as i direct my numismatic thriller,painstakingly, scene-by-scene.
I'm leaning heavily towards taking a haitus from making posts about the 1933 double eagle story in this thread. Duty calls to work on my movie. I would just check in here from time-to-time to read about how the case is going.Thank you Sanction for the updates.There's no need to change the name of this thread,Sanction.This thread is starting to achieve institution status,not only here but ATS as well.The upside to my not posting here is that the word count in here would definitely go down.
Sorry,Steve.The title of this thread should not be changed by Sanction,in my opinion.
Now,i just need to put my money (I got fitty bucks saved up for my movie,so far) where my mouth is and refrain from posting in here,at least until July 1 or so.It's not going to be easy for me,though...
Maybe i will start a separate thread here about my movie.There are plenty of good idea people over here.Think about how cool it would be see your name as a contributor to an epic Hollywood blockbuster movie.
Hawaii Five-O and 1913 Liberty Nickel move over.You ain't seen nothin yet...
BTW,i love the smilies ATS.They all work.Some of the "emotions" over here don't work properly.Balloons doesn't work...I could be doing something wrong,i suppose...
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Mr. 1874: <<Do you offer an explanation for how the "comingling" could have happened given that the first '33 Doubles were all in the Coiner's control on March 4,1933?>>
By that time, there were tens of thousands of 1933 Double Eagles. It does not make sense to say that they were "all" in anyone's "control."
After R. W. Julian, Roger Burdette is the foremost researcher of U.S. Mint related archives and other original coin related, historical documents. Burdette found a document that indicates that 1933 Double Eagles were moved to the cashier's box to replace "defective" 1932 Double Eagles. This is very plausible and is consistent with the generally understood notion that most Mint employees did not care much about the dates on the coins. They were concerned about the total number of Double Eagles, regardless of dates, at the Mint. Tripp acknowledges that the books balanced. It was typical for Double Eagles of various years to be available to collectors or dealers who walked into the Mint.
Burdette testified under oath that he found such a document. Burdette has written three large books relating to the history of the U.S. Mint during the early 20th century. Furthermore, he is the primary author of book on Peace Dollars that was published by Whitman. He has also written a book about particular patterns and experimental pieces of the 1940s.
The foremost living researcher of the U.S. Mint from the beginning in 1793 is R. W. Julian and Julian has spoken highly of Burdette's skills, especially regarding Burdette's ability to locate historically important original documents.
Again, As I said in my column at the end of 2010, < Burdette discovered that the Mint Cashier was provided with forty-three 1933 Double Eagles on March 4 and these “balanced” the accounting of the production of 1932 Double Eagles as some 1932 Double Eagles were earlier found to be defective.>
Current Column:
The Marvelous Pogue Family Coin Collection, Part 4: 18th Century Rarities Lead First Auction
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>THE CLOCK IS TICKING:
The Court Of Appeal granted the motion of the government for a 30 day extension of the deadline for it to file a petition for rehearing. The new deadline is 7-1-2015.
25 DAYS TO GO UNTIL WEDNESDAY, JULY 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>THE CLOCK IS TICKING:
The Court Of Appeal granted the motion of the government for a 30 day extension of the deadline for it to file a petition for rehearing. The new deadline is 7-1-2015.
18 DAYS TO GO UNTIL WEDNESDAY, JULY 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
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
<< <i>Mr. 1874: <<Do you offer an explanation for how the "comingling" could have happened given that the first '33 Doubles were all in the Coiner's control on March 4,1933?>>
By that time, there were tens of thousands of 1933 Double Eagles. It does not make sense to say that they were "all" in anyone's "control."
After R. W. Julian, Roger Burdette is the foremost researcher of U.S. Mint related archives and other original coin related, historical documents. Burdette found a document that indicates that 1933 Double Eagles were moved to the cashier's box to replace "defective" 1932 Double Eagles. This is very plausible and is consistent with the generally understood notion that most Mint employees did not care much about the dates on the coins. They were concerned about the total number of Double Eagles, regardless of dates, at the Mint. Tripp acknowledges that the books balanced. It was typical for Double Eagles of various years to be available to collectors or dealers who walked into the Mint.
Burdette testified under oath that he found such a document. Burdette has written three large books relating to the history of the U.S. Mint during the early 20th century. Furthermore, he is the primary author of book on Peace Dollars that was published by Whitman. He has also written a book about particular patterns and experimental pieces of the 1940s.
The foremost living researcher of the U.S. Mint from the beginning in 1793 is R. W. Julian and Julian has spoken highly of Burdette's skills, especially regarding Burdette's ability to locate historically important original documents.
Again, As I said in my column at the end of 2010, < Burdette discovered that the Mint Cashier was provided with forty-three 1933 Double Eagles on March 4 and these “balanced” the accounting of the production of 1932 Double Eagles as some 1932 Double Eagles were earlier found to be defective.>
Current Column:
The Marvelous Pogue Family Coin Collection, Part 4: 18th Century Rarities Lead First Auction >>
I wonder if the 43 damaged 1932s were comingled with the remaining 1933s to balance out the weight. Seems like a misappropriation of the 1933s and not theft.
<< <i>THE CLOCK IS TICKING:
The Court Of Appeal granted the motion of the government for a 30 day extension of the deadline for it to file a petition for rehearing. The new deadline is 7-1-2015.
11 DAYS TO GO UNTIL WEDNESDAY, JULY 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>Mr. 1874: <<Do you offer an explanation for how the "comingling" could have happened given that the first '33 Doubles were all in the Coiner's control on March 4,1933?>>
By that time, there were tens of thousands of 1933 Double Eagles. It does not make sense to say that they were "all" in anyone's "control."
After R. W. Julian, Roger Burdette is the foremost researcher of U.S. Mint related archives and other original coin related, historical documents. Burdette found a document that indicates that 1933 Double Eagles were moved to the cashier's box to replace "defective" 1932 Double Eagles. This is very plausible and is consistent with the generally understood notion that most Mint employees did not care much about the dates on the coins. They were concerned about the total number of Double Eagles, regardless of dates, at the Mint. Tripp acknowledges that the books balanced. It was typical for Double Eagles of various years to be available to collectors or dealers who walked into the Mint.
Burdette testified under oath that he found such a document. Burdette has written three large books relating to the history of the U.S. Mint during the early 20th century. Furthermore, he is the primary author of book on Peace Dollars that was published by Whitman. He has also written a book about particular patterns and experimental pieces of the 1940s.
The foremost living researcher of the U.S. Mint from the beginning in 1793 is R. W. Julian and Julian has spoken highly of Burdette's skills, especially regarding Burdette's ability to locate historically important original documents.
Again, As I said in my column at the end of 2010, < Burdette discovered that the Mint Cashier was provided with forty-three 1933 Double Eagles on March 4 and these “balanced” the accounting of the production of 1932 Double Eagles as some 1932 Double Eagles were earlier found to be defective.>
Current Column:
The Marvelous Pogue Family Coin Collection, Part 4: 18th Century Rarities Lead First Auction >>
I wonder if the 43 damaged 1932s were comingled with the remaining 1933s to balance out the weight. Seems like a misappropriation of the 1933s and not theft. >>
Not likely. If they needed to be replaced for good cause they would have been melted. Why contaminate the 1933's with defective coins?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Mr. 1874: <<Do you offer an explanation for how the "comingling" could have happened given that the first '33 Doubles were all in the Coiner's control on March 4,1933?>>
By that time, there were tens of thousands of 1933 Double Eagles. It does not make sense to say that they were "all" in anyone's "control."
After R. W. Julian, Roger Burdette is the foremost researcher of U.S. Mint related archives and other original coin related, historical documents. Burdette found a document that indicates that 1933 Double Eagles were moved to the cashier's box to replace "defective" 1932 Double Eagles. This is very plausible and is consistent with the generally understood notion that most Mint employees did not care much about the dates on the coins. They were concerned about the total number of Double Eagles, regardless of dates, at the Mint. Tripp acknowledges that the books balanced. It was typical for Double Eagles of various years to be available to collectors or dealers who walked into the Mint.
Burdette testified under oath that he found such a document. Burdette has written three large books relating to the history of the U.S. Mint during the early 20th century. Furthermore, he is the primary author of book on Peace Dollars that was published by Whitman. He has also written a book about particular patterns and experimental pieces of the 1940s.
The foremost living researcher of the U.S. Mint from the beginning in 1793 is R. W. Julian and Julian has spoken highly of Burdette's skills, especially regarding Burdette's ability to locate historically important original documents.
Again, As I said in my column at the end of 2010, < Burdette discovered that the Mint Cashier was provided with forty-three 1933 Double Eagles on March 4 and these “balanced” the accounting of the production of 1932 Double Eagles as some 1932 Double Eagles were earlier found to be defective.>
Current Column:
The Marvelous Pogue Family Coin Collection, Part 4: 18th Century Rarities Lead First Auction >>
I wonder if the 43 damaged 1932s were comingled with the remaining 1933s to balance out the weight. Seems like a misappropriation of the 1933s and not theft. >>
Not likely. If they needed to be replaced for good cause they would have been melted. Why contaminate the 1933's with defective coins? >>
If the 1933s were never going to be issued why would it matter if there were defective 1932s mixed in? Do we know when this was supposedly done? Also it would seem that it would have been just as easy accountingwise to transfer them to some sort of defective coin account and subtract them from the final mintage.
Off topic, for a long time the people who really controlled the production operation at the Mint were was the Die Shop. Just an interesting aside to this long post, not trying to hijack it.
I look forward to the next Court decision and hope it FINALLY gets put to rest after all these years. Rooting for the Langbords here
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Mr. 1874: <<Do you offer an explanation for how the "comingling" could have happened given that the first '33 Doubles were all in the Coiner's control on March 4,1933?>>
By that time, there were tens of thousands of 1933 Double Eagles. It does not make sense to say that they were "all" in anyone's "control."
After R. W. Julian, Roger Burdette is the foremost researcher of U.S. Mint related archives and other original coin related, historical documents. Burdette found a document that indicates that 1933 Double Eagles were moved to the cashier's box to replace "defective" 1932 Double Eagles. This is very plausible and is consistent with the generally understood notion that most Mint employees did not care much about the dates on the coins. They were concerned about the total number of Double Eagles, regardless of dates, at the Mint. Tripp acknowledges that the books balanced. It was typical for Double Eagles of various years to be available to collectors or dealers who walked into the Mint.
Burdette testified under oath that he found such a document. Burdette has written three large books relating to the history of the U.S. Mint during the early 20th century. Furthermore, he is the primary author of book on Peace Dollars that was published by Whitman. He has also written a book about particular patterns and experimental pieces of the 1940s.
The foremost living researcher of the U.S. Mint from the beginning in 1793 is R. W. Julian and Julian has spoken highly of Burdette's skills, especially regarding Burdette's ability to locate historically important original documents.
Again, As I said in my column at the end of 2010, < Burdette discovered that the Mint Cashier was provided with forty-three 1933 Double Eagles on March 4 and these “balanced” the accounting of the production of 1932 Double Eagles as some 1932 Double Eagles were earlier found to be defective.>
Current Column:
The Marvelous Pogue Family Coin Collection, Part 4: 18th Century Rarities Lead First Auction >>
I wonder if the 43 damaged 1932s were comingled with the remaining 1933s to balance out the weight. Seems like a misappropriation of the 1933s and not theft. >>
Not likely. If they needed to be replaced for good cause they would have been melted. Why contaminate the 1933's with defective coins? >>
If the 1933s were never going to be issued why would it matter if there were defective 1932s mixed in? Do we know when this was supposedly done? Also it would seem that it would have been just as easy accountingwise to transfer them to some sort of defective coin account and subtract them from the final mintage. >>
Because in March of 1933 nobody KNEW that the 1933 coins were never going to be issued, or the 1932's for that matter. You are looking at it from our point of view decades later. At the time it happened, the Mint was just doing due diligence to make sure that it had coins on hand that COULD be issued at any moment.