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.>
Analyst,my thinking is that the Mint balancing the books from a previous year (1932) with new year (1933) stuff,if that's what happened,is highly irregular and flies in the face of sound accounting practice.We will see what RWB has when the case is resolved.On case resolution,should we expect to see an image of a copy of the written document that Burdette found?
BTW,I heartily recommend to anyone interested in the minting process that they read Burdette's well-written book,from Mine to Mint.I bought my copy from Wizard.
In my view, a "Langbord win" has the distinct potential to eventually disprove the theory that there are only one to five '33's still out there.It is plausible that there are far more than five more '33's waiting to be 'discovered.' Langbords win,time will tell all.Meanwhile,my impatience is growing.I caught myself recently crossing my fingers for a Langbord win on July 1.
On a side note,it occurred to me yesterday that I may have missed my true calling in life.Golfer Jason Day has been suffering from vertigo lately and he collapsed on the final hole of play (the 36th) yesterday (Friday) at the US Open.Nobody knew the cause of his problem with dizziness/unsteadiness,a problem which had been going on for some time we were hearing from the golf analysts on Fox.
I mentioned to my wife that Jason should be checked for Benign Paroxysmal Positional Vertigo (BPPV).BPPV can be easily fixed by performing the Epley maneuver.I know this because I fixed myself of BPPV,with wife's help as an assistant,by doing the Epley maneuver as seen on YouTube.
Later in the day,it was mentioned by one of the TV golf analysts that a local doctor had diagnosed Jason as having "BPV." I was glad to hear that.He should be just fine for golf today.You see,BPV has to do with rock crystals in one's ears that shift into the wrong place...the head starts spinning...balance is affected...one can fall,as Jason did,from an attack of BPV. Paroxysmal means "an attack characterized by suddenness."
Jason has got to be feeling mighty fine today.My prediction is that he could well go on to win the thing,the 2015 US Open.Time will tell.
"The reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen all at once." Albert Einstein
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>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.>
Analyst,my thinking is that the Mint balancing the books from a previous year (1932) with new year (1933) stuff,if that's what happened,is highly irregular and flies in the face of sound accounting practice.We will see what RWB has when the case is resolved.On case resolution,should we expect to see an image of a copy of the written document that Burdette found?
BTW,I heartily recommend to anyone interested in the minting process that they read Burdette's well-written book,from Mine to Mint.I bought my copy from Wizard.
In my view, a "Langbord win" has the distinct potential to eventually disprove the theory that there are only one to five '33's still out there.It is plausible that there are far more than five more '33's waiting to be 'discovered.' Langbords win,time will tell all.Meanwhile,my impatience is growing.I caught myself recently crossing my fingers for a Langbord win on July 1. >>
Why would it be irregular? If it makes a quantity of (now mostly) 1932 coins whole and fit to issue, this saves the Mint the expense of melting the 1932's.
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.
It would be interesting to learn what the various discussions were/are that have taken place or will take place among the various governmental agencies that lead up to whatever decision is made by the Solicitor General on whether or not to seek further appellate review in this case.
I suspect that this thread will generate a number of additional replies on and after 7-1-2015.
If the government chooses to not seek further appellate review, or seeks further appellate review but is unsuccessful the case will eventually return to the trial court level for the district court judge to have further proceedings consistent with the 4-17-2015 decision of the court of appeal.
These further proceedings would include:
1. having a judgment filed in favor of the Langbords;
2. the enforcement of the judgment (having the court get involved in causing the government to return possession of the 10 double eagles to the Langbords if it does not do so voluntarily); and
3. the Langbords likely seeking from the court an award of their recoverable costs of suit (which may include attorney fees if an award of such fees is authorized by statutory or case law).
If on the other hand the government seeks further appellate review and is successful in obtaining from the full panel of justices on the court of appeal a decision that vacates the 4-17-2015 decision on the appeal; or if the government is successful in obtaining from the US Supreme Court a decision that vacates the 4-17-2015 decision on the appeal then the case would remain unresolved and would continue its journey through the court system.
This continued journey could include:
1. immediate and further proceedings in the court of appeal;
2. immediate and further proceedings in the trial court, including possibly having a new trial on some or all of the claims and defenses in the case; and
3. further and new appeals to the court of appeal of new rulings and decisions issued by the trial court.
Many things have yet to take place before this case finally finishes its trip through the court system. At the end of the journey there will be a final result. Whether the final result will be considered "just" is purely in the eye of the beholder. Some will think it is and some will think it is not. Many will think that given the time, money and labor involved in getting a final result, the final result will never be "just".
My understanding is that,in years prior to 1933,there were plenty of coins at the Mint window for issue to the public.There was a surplus of '32's at the window end of 1932,in other words.Same for 1931.
On page 33 of "An Inside View of the Coin Hobby in the 1930's," edited by Q. David Bowers is a January 13,1933 letter from W.O. Woods,Treasurer to Senator David Walsh (Mass.).Woods is addressing a constituent of Walsh's request to provide more than the allotted amount of ten new (1932) one cent pieces to collector Walter P. Nichols of Melrose,Mass.
Woods states in the letter,"As you know,the Government's coins are manufactured for specific use as a medium of exchange,and for that purpose unlimited amounts may be obtained,but there is no law requiring the Treasury to furnish either new coins or coins of any particular year's mintage." Bolding is mine.
No legal requirement to provide a particular year (in this case,1933) of any coin denomination for collectors or members of the public is not the same as a desire or necessity to balance the books you say.Okay,consider this:
It makes sense to me that 1933 doubles wouldn't show up at the Mint window,if they ever did show up at the Mint window to allow old coin for new coin exchange,until the first run of '33 doubles pass assay.And i say that,nothwithstanding any consideration,any desire that the Mint might have to "balance the books" from 1932.
Was an assay test immediately conducted on the '33's that were produced starting March 2,1933? Could not a special assay test have shown the fresh '33's to be as defective as the defective '32's that Burdette alleges the new '33's were to replace?Does a record exist showing when the first special assay of 1933 doubles occurred? Replacing known-to-be-defective '32's with possibly defective '33's makes no sense to me.
Does "defective" mean the elemental composition of .900 gold-.100 copper that a double eagle is supposed to have is wrong as determined by special assay test of other coins in the run? What,other than the elemental composition being wrong,could "defective" possibly mean?
Too many questions as yet have not been answered to my satisfaction,CaptHenway.Unless and until convincing information comes out indicating to me that yes,indeed, Izzy could have lawfully obtained all of the 1933 doubles traced to him,i remain unconvinced that the twenty 1933 doubles known to have once existed or currently existing (excepting the two in the Smithsonian) were not stolen from the Mint.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
What evidence do you have that some 1933 $20's were stolen?
Was there a shortfall?
Was it reported and documented anywhere in 1933 (or in 1934 if the audit didn't take place until after the end of the calendar year)?
Seems like utter nonsense.
Dave Wnuck. Redbook contributor; long time PNG Member; listed on the PCGS Board of Experts. PM me with your email address to receive my e-newsletter, and visit DaveWcoins.com Find me on eBay at davewcoins
<< <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. >>
Then wouldn't it follow that by March 4th, that the 1933 DEs had already been monetized OR were expected to be? Seems like you couldn't officially issue them as replacements if they weren't officially coins.
What evidence do you have that some 1933 $20's were stolen?
My understanding is that the audit done just prior to the great gold coin melt in 1937 accounted for each and every of the 445,500 1933 doubles ever made,yet twenty coins eventually show up in private hands.What would you conclude?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>My understanding is that,in years prior to 1933,there were plenty of coins at the Mint window for issue to the public.There was a surplus of '32's at the window end of 1932,in other words.Same for 1931.
On page 33 of "An Inside View of the Coin Hobby in the 1930's," edited by Q. David Bowers is a January 13,1933 letter from W.O. Woods,Treasurer to Senator David Walsh (Mass.).Woods is addressing a constituent of Walsh's request to provide more than the allotted amount of ten new (1932) one cent pieces to collector Walter P. Nichols of Melrose,Mass.
Woods states in the letter,"As you know,the Government's coins are manufactured for specific use as a medium of exchange,and for that purpose unlimited amounts may be obtained,but there is no law requiring the Treasury to furnish either new coins or coins of any particular year's mintage." Bolding is mine.
No legal requirement to provide a particular year (in this case,1933) of any coin denomination for collectors or members of the public is not the same as a desire or necessity to balance the books you say.Okay,consider this:
It makes sense to me that 1933 doubles wouldn't show up at the Mint window,if they ever did show up at the Mint window to allow old coin for new coin exchange,until the first run of '33 doubles pass assay.And i say that,nothwithstanding any consideration,any desire that the Mint might have to "balance the books" from 1932.
Was an assay test immediately conducted on the '33's that were produced starting March 2,1933? Could not a special assay test have shown the fresh '33's to be as defective as the defective '32's that Burdette alleges the new '33's were to replace?Does a record exist showing when the first special assay of 1933 doubles occurred? Replacing known-to-be-defective '32's with possibly defective '33's makes no sense to me.
Does "defective" mean the elemental composition of .900 gold-.100 copper that a double eagle is supposed to have is wrong as determined by special assay test of other coins in the run? What,other than the elemental composition being wrong,could "defective" possibly mean?
Too many questions as yet have not been answered to my satisfaction,CaptHenway.Unless and until convincing information comes out indicating to me that yes,indeed, Izzy could have lawfully obtained all of the 1933 doubles traced to him,i remain unconvinced that the twenty 1933 doubles known to have once existed or currently existing (excepting the two in the Smithsonian) were not stolen from the Mint. >>
Defective could mean coins that were weakly struck, struck off-center, had gouges, dings, scratches, etc. that were deemed unacceptable for the intended use OR the whole thing was concocted as an excuse to get some 1933 DEs.
<< <i>What evidence do you have that some 1933 $20's were stolen?
My understanding is that the audit done just prior to the great gold coin melt in 1937 accounted for each and every of the 445,500 1933 doubles ever made,yet twenty coins eventually show up in private hands.What would you conclude? >>
Audited by checking dates, or audited by count and/or by weight?
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.
Too many questions as yet have not been answered to my satisfaction,CaptHenway.Unless and until convincing information comes out indicating to me that yes,indeed, Izzy could have lawfully obtained all of the 1933 doubles traced to him,i remain unconvinced that the twenty 1933 doubles known to have once existed or currently existing (excepting the two in the Smithsonian) were not stolen from the Mint. >>
What evidence do you have that some 1933 $20's were stolen?
Was there a shortfall?
Was it reported and documented anywhere in 1933 (or in 1934 if the audit didn't take place until after the end of the calendar year)?
Seems like utter nonsense. >>
Hi again Steven, (mr1874)
As you can see by your quote above, and Dave's quote to you in response, it is clear to me that there will never be a factual answer as to whether or not the coins were stolen. But it also seems to me, that we Americans like our freedoms as guaranteed by our constitution and so we tend to side with the PEOPLE when there is differences between the PEOPLE and the GOVERNMENT. JMHO. Steve
Bajjerfan Defective could mean coins that were weakly struck, struck off-center, had gouges, dings, scratches, etc. that were deemed unacceptable for the intended use OR the whole thing was concocted as an excuse to get some 1933 DEs.
The "whole thing was concocted" theory has some merit in the context of a cover-up.By 1944,Government was well aware that some 1933 doubles had gotten into private hands.This wasn't supposed to have happened since the audit in 1937 indicated that no 1933 doubles,the coin that was supposed to have never been officially issued,were unaccounted for.No gold from 1933 double production was found to be missing.Supposedly,every one of the 1933 doubles ever made,excepting the two Smithsonian pieces,were melted into gold bricks in 1937.
The mistaken granting of an export license for one 1933 double eagle to King Farouk in 1944 set the stage for Secret Service seizure of nine 1933 doubles found to be in private hands later in 1944 and years following. A 1945? attempt with a memo to cover-up the embarrassing-to-Government theft of '33 doubles sometime in the '30's is plausible.
It's like this,"if we (Mint officials) suggest (by a written memo) that a few '33's could have been mistakenly issued in 1933 by the '33's being innocently co-mingled with '32's then that gets us (the Mint) off the hook to some degree with the curious public and suspicious investigators.Who is going to be able to prove that it didn't actually happen the way we suggest that it might have happened?"
As for exactly how the 1937 audit was conducted,i don't know.Each sealed bag of 250 coins had a serial number? We do know that '33 doubles didn't start appearing in the marketplace until after the melt was completed in 1937.Tripp in "Illegal Tender" and Frankel in "Double Eagle" are both in agreement on when the first five '33's were sold by Switt to dealer James Macallister.
If Izzy obtained the 1933 doubles lawfully in 1933 why did he wait for four long years,until after the 1937 melt,to unload some of them?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
If Izzy obtained the 1933 doubles lawfully in 1933 why did he wait for four long years, until after the 1937 melt, to unload some of them? >>
If Sam Brown made the five 1913 liberty nickels unlawfully in 1913 why did he wait for over ten long years, until 1924 to unload (sell) them?
I guess we'll never KNOW the answer to either of those questions, but I'll GUESS that it was because each of them wanted to wait some time after the act so the government wouldn't link the act to the sale.
So Steven, could you please tell me, what is YOUR rationale for the government allowing the trading of 1913 Liberty nickels as legal but NOT allowing the trading of 1933 doubles as legal? Steve
<< <i>It would be interesting to learn what the various discussions were/are that have taken place or will take place among the various governmental agencies that lead up to whatever decision is made by the Solicitor General on whether or not to seek further appellate review in this case. >>
Indeed. Oh, to be a fly on the wall as the voices of reason say "Give up," while the three-year-olds faction scream "NO! They're mine!!!"
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>Bajjerfan Defective could mean coins that were weakly struck, struck off-center, had gouges, dings, scratches, etc. that were deemed unacceptable for the intended use OR the whole thing was concocted as an excuse to get some 1933 DEs.
The "whole thing was concocted" theory has some merit in the context of a cover-up.By 1944,Government was well aware that some 1933 doubles had gotten into private hands.This wasn't supposed to have happened since the audit in 1937 indicated that no 1933 doubles,the coin that was supposed to have never been officially issued,were unaccounted for.No gold from 1933 double production was found to be missing.Supposedly,every one of the 1933 doubles ever made,excepting the two Smithsonian pieces,were melted into gold bricks in 1937.
The mistaken granting of an export license for one 1933 double eagle to King Farouk in 1944 set the stage for Secret Service seizure of nine 1933 doubles found to be in private hands later in 1944 and years following. A 1945? attempt with a memo to cover-up the embarrassing-to-Government theft of '33 doubles sometime in the '30's is plausible.
It's like this,"if we (Mint officials) suggest (by a written memo) that a few '33's could have been mistakenly issued in 1933 by the '33's being innocently co-mingled with '32's then that gets us (the Mint) off the hook to some degree with the curious public and suspicious investigators.Who is going to be able to prove that it didn't actually happen the way we suggest that it might have happened?"
As for exactly how the 1937 audit was conducted,i don't know.Each sealed bag of 250 coins had a serial number? We do know that '33 doubles didn't start appearing in the marketplace until after the melt was completed in 1937.Tripp in "Illegal Tender" and Frankel in "Double Eagle" are both in agreement on when the first five '33's were sold by Switt to dealer James Macallister.
If Izzy obtained the 1933 doubles lawfully in 1933 why did he wait for four long years,until after the 1937 melt,to unload some of them? >>
If it was concocted, it would have had to have been about the time that the 43 1933 DE coins were requested to be removed from the vault and used to replace defective 1932 DE coins. IIRC this was requested by the mint director who may or may not have had the authority to do so. Perhaps she had some foresight that the coins would not be monetized or maybe Izzy persuaded her to do the exchange. We don't know who exactly made the exchange do we?
The only legal issue at hand is did the Mint screw the pooch when it had the opportunity to try to seize the coins legally. The court says that it did screw up, and that therefor the Langbords get the coins. What happened in 1933 or 1936-37 is irrelevant to the case at hand.
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.
What happened in 1933 or 1936-37 is irrelevant to the case at hand.
Ohhh CaptHenway.Can I try to solve the mystery? My latest theory about what happened requires Langbords winning to some day prove.I'm starting to lean towards Gov giving up at this point.Indeed,it does look grim for Gov.Attorneys everywhere just shake their heads from side-to-side when asked how it looks for Gov to keep coins at this point.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
If Sam Brown made the five 1913 liberty nickels unlawfully in 1913 why did he wait for over ten long years, until 1924 to unload (sell) them?
Good question.Are you working on solving the mystery? I've got my hands full with the 1933 double eagles at this time.There is only one of me.
This has come up before.Someone wanting to talk about 1913 Nickels and why the gov doesn't seem to care about them.First,the 1913 Liberty Nickel was a clandestine issue.The 1933 Double Eagle was lawfully produced.
There are big differences in circumstances on how the two coins,the 1933 double eagle and the 1913 nickel,came to be.The government rationale for things cannot totally be understood by any one person so I hesitate to start a journey on what appears to me could be a slippery slope.
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.
NINE (9) 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.
EIGHT (8) 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.
SEVEN (7) 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)
When it's all said and done, I hope they publish Izzy's diary.
"My friends who see my collection sometimes ask what something costs. I tell them and they are in awe at my stupidity." (Baccaruda, 12/03).I find it hard to believe that he (Trump) rushed to some hotel to meet girls of loose morals, although ours are undoubtedly the best in the world. (Putin 1/17) Gone but not forgotten. IGWT, Speedy, Bear, BigE, HokieFore, John Burns, Russ, TahoeDale, Dahlonega, Astrorat, Stewart Blay, Oldhoopster, Broadstruck, Ricko.
The entertainment value is just too high, I hope it goes on forever. I'd like to see the Langbord's grandchildren receive these after the last US Mint is shuttered due to the termination of physical coinage.
When it's all said and done, I hope they publish Izzy's diary. [/]
In 1944,when Izzy was asked by a Secret Service Special Agent where he (Izzy) got the 1933 double coins from,Izzy answered, "I don't remember."
Izzy trivia question:How many different 1933 double eagles did Izzy boast of owning to Philadelphia coin dealer James Macallister? First correct answer is winner of two beers.It would be two six-packs for the prize but I already drank four of the beers,two out of each six-pack.
Izzy trivia fact: Philadelphia coin dealer James Macallister bought the first five of Izzy's 1933 doubles in 1937. How we know this is because Macallister kept written records of his purchases and sales.No records of purchases and sales were kept by Izzy even though he operated a jewelry shop in Philadelphia's "Jeweller's Row."
hiccup
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.
SIX (6) 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.
FIVE (5) 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.
FOUR (4) 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)
if 4.5 years is not an unreasonable time to file for civil asset forfeiture, then we have 51 more months of extensions!
There's some that would like to see the party go on and on.I'm not one of them.My prediction is that on July 1 the Government will be left with only one option.That option will be to surrender. 1
How much fun would it be to have a contest,"design a token" contest commemorating the Government surrender to Langbords on July 1,2015? The real surrender,of course,happens when the Gov physically turns the coins over to the Langbords.We could see some tantrums thrown in some quarters once it has sunk in that Langbords really did win.
edit: 1 It's not clear to me why I made this prediction other than my lack of understanding of how the legal process really works.Lesson learned. 8/3/15
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
I seriously doubt that Izzy would have any influence inside the Mint years 1944-45.Head Cashier George McCann,Izzy's contact inside the Mint,was outta the Mint,gone by 1941 after doing prison time.It's possible George McCann was fired from his job as Head Cashier for pilfering change.McCann's life was definitely on a downward spiral in the late '30's. A few years earlier,McCann was the main suspect in the theft of a whole bag of 250 double eagles that were under his control as Head Cashier.This theft of a bag ($5000 face) of 1928 dated double eagles was discovered during the audit that took place just prior to the great gold melt.The thief or thieves were never caught. The crime has gone unsolved.
George McCann was in New Jersey in 1940 indicated by the 1940 Census.
Izzy would have gotten his hands on all of the known-to-exist or have existed 1933 double eagles that have been traced to him by the time of the gold melt in the early months of 1937.
The memo is from 1945 is my understanding so I can't even begin to imagine Izzy being involved with any shenanigans that might be taking place inside Mint walls in 1945.
"41" is not the correct answer.Go ahead and guess again.Each guesser gets ten chances to be right first.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>I seriously doubt that Izzy would have any influence inside the Mint years 1944-45.Head Cashier George McCann,Izzy's contact inside the Mint,was outta the Mint,gone by 1941 after doing prison time.It's possible George McCann was fired from his job as Head Cashier for pilfering change.McCann's life was definitely on a downward spiral in the late '30's. A few years earlier,McCann was the main suspect in the theft of a whole bag of 250 double eagles that were under his control as Head Cashier.This theft of a bag ($5000 face) of 1928 dated double eagles was discovered during the audit that took place just prior to the great gold melt.The thief or thieves were never caught. The crime has gone unsolved.
George McCann was in New Jersey in 1940 indicated by the 1940 Census.
Izzy would have gotten his hands on all of the known-to-exist or have existed 1933 double eagles that have been traced to him by the time of the gold melt in the early months of 1937.
The memo is from 1945 is my understanding so I can't even begin to imagine Izzy being involved with any shenanigans that might be taking place inside Mint walls in 1945.
"41" is not the correct answer.Go ahead and guess again.Each guesser gets ten chances to be right first. >>
I didn't know when the memo was written. I was thinking that Izzy could have had McCann do the swap and conjure up the memo.
I'm referring to the memo Burdette discovered.IIRC the memo was written in 1945.There has been an interpretation made that 43 new 1933 double eagles replaced defective 1932 coins and there was comingling that took place so some '33's left the mint innocently for now there was opportunity where previously there was none.
We will know more when the Langbord case is resolved.
Bajjerfan,you can guess again about how many different '33 Doubles Izzy boasted of owning.Both Tripp in Illegal Tender and Frankel in Double Eagle discuss the Izzy boast.
What would be the implications of many more,say three times more than the number "I own" that was boasted by Izzy to Macallister,suddenly showing up in the marketplace?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Seems odd they would do a gold material balance 12 years later.
That's one reason I'm thinking a coverup was attempted.I can imagine there was great fear amongst Mint employees in the mid '40's.The motive might be there to "fix" what appears to be a theft that occurred years earlier to make it appear that criminal activity involving "our own" is not what took place.I haven't seen the memo and won't be seeing the memo until the case is resolved but I suspect that the memo strongly suggests that "you all can relax..no theft by one our own occurred..co-mingling of different double eagle dates could have happened,okay?"
I have seeing this intriguing memo to look forward to.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
The Secret Service had interviewed Philadelphia coin dealer James Macallister who had bought five 1933 doubles from Switt in 1937.Macallister told agents that Izzy had made the claim,the boast,to him that he (Izzy) owned twenty-five different 1933 doubles. Macallister was asked where he thought Izzy got the coins from.Macallister told agents that Izzy was mostly vague when asked where the coins came from but had mumbled about some of the coins being bought from the public in his jewelry shop.
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.
THREE (3) 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 Secret Service had interviewed Philadelphia coin dealer James Macallister who had bought five 1933 doubles from Switt in 1937.Macallister told agents that Izzy had made the claim,the boast,to him that he (Izzy) owned twenty-five different 1933 doubles. Macallister was asked where he thought Izzy got the coins from.Macallister told agents that Izzy was mostly vague when asked where the coins came from but had mumbled about some of the coins being bought from the public in his jewelry shop. >>
Wouldn't McCann be a part of the public if he walked into Izzy's shop/store? Or McCann had others do it for him.
Well, here we are again, awaiting to see IF or WHEN the government will respond to the additional 30 day extension the Court of Appeals granted to them to file a petition objecting to the courts April 17, 2015 ruling. It seems to me that there is a deliberate attempt by the government to delay the process to the last possible moment. I assume SanctionII is watching the court website for the latest reports. Those of us following this thread DO appreciate all he has reported for us on this case over the past several YEARS!
Is it fair to assume that the government WILL make some official statement or comment no later than THIS WEDNESDAY, July 1st? If nothing is said by the government, is it fair to assume that the Court of Appeals will then make some public statement before the July 4th holiday weekend? I'd be interested to hear some legal opinion about how this USUALLY works from our lawyer experts on this forum. Thanks. Steve
If the Soliciter General (SG) does not give the go-ahead for the court to decide by vote whether the court will do an en banc review,that is essentially a surrender?
There could be more delays in store for us but I see Gov throwing in the towel at this point."Give the go-ahead" from the SG is not going to happen,in other words.
I expect that we will know on July 1 about that.Steve,how many days away is July 1?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
I could not imagine the government giving up at this point, they have too much invested. Not to mention the fact that the appeals court was split 2-1. Why wouldn't you go for it with the full appeals court, or appeal it to the Supreme court. I think the main question is do the government go to the full appeals court, or do they skip to the supreme court (if that is an option.)
<< <i>Well, here we are again, awaiting to see IF or WHEN the government will respond to the additional 30 day extension the Court of Appeals granted to them to file a petition objecting to the courts April 17, 2015 ruling. It seems to me that there is a deliberate attempt by the government to delay the process to the last possible moment. I assume SanctionII is watching the court website for the latest reports. Those of us following this thread DO appreciate all he has reported for us on this case over the past several YEARS!
Is it fair to assume that the government WILL make some official statement or comment no later than THIS WEDNESDAY, July 1st? If nothing is said by the government, is it fair to assume that the Court of Appeals will then make some public statement before the July 4th holiday weekend? I'd be interested to hear some legal opinion about how this USUALLY works from our lawyer experts on this forum. Thanks. Steve >>
I think it is fair to assume that Government will ask for [and be granted] yet another 30 days in which to file.
<< <i>Well, here we are again, awaiting to see IF or WHEN the government will respond to the additional 30 day extension the Court of Appeals granted to them to file a petition objecting to the courts April 17, 2015 ruling. It seems to me that there is a deliberate attempt by the government to delay the process to the last possible moment. I assume SanctionII is watching the court website for the latest reports. Those of us following this thread DO appreciate all he has reported for us on this case over the past several YEARS!
Is it fair to assume that the government WILL make some official statement or comment no later than THIS WEDNESDAY, July 1st? If nothing is said by the government, is it fair to assume that the Court of Appeals will then make some public statement before the July 4th holiday weekend? I'd be interested to hear some legal opinion about how this USUALLY works from our lawyer experts on this forum. Thanks. Steve >>
I think it is fair to assume that Government will ask for [and be granted] yet another 30 days in which to file. >>
Anyone know if this is possible, I was guessing there were limits to the number of extentions.
<< <i>I could not imagine the government giving up at this point, they have too much invested. Not to mention the fact that the appeals court was split 2-1. Why wouldn't you go for it with the full appeals court, or appeal it to the Supreme court. I think the main question is do the government go to the full appeals court, or do they skip to the supreme court (if that is an option.) >>
Comments
Analyst,my thinking is that the Mint balancing the books from a previous year (1932) with new year (1933) stuff,if that's what happened,is highly irregular and flies in the face of sound accounting practice.We will see what RWB has when the case is resolved.On case resolution,should we expect to see an image of a copy of the written document that Burdette found?
BTW,I heartily recommend to anyone interested in the minting process that they read Burdette's well-written book,from Mine to Mint.I bought my copy from Wizard.
In my view, a "Langbord win" has the distinct potential to eventually disprove the theory that there are only one to five '33's still out there.It is plausible that there are far more than five more '33's waiting to be 'discovered.' Langbords win,time will tell all.Meanwhile,my impatience is growing.I caught myself recently crossing my fingers for a Langbord win on July 1.
On a side note,it occurred to me yesterday that I may have missed my true calling in life.Golfer Jason Day has been suffering from vertigo lately and he collapsed on the final hole of play (the 36th) yesterday (Friday) at the US Open.Nobody knew the cause of his problem with dizziness/unsteadiness,a problem which had been going on for some time we were hearing from the golf analysts on Fox.
I mentioned to my wife that Jason should be checked for Benign Paroxysmal Positional Vertigo (BPPV).BPPV can be easily fixed by performing the Epley maneuver.I know this because I fixed myself of BPPV,with wife's help as an assistant,by doing the Epley maneuver as seen on YouTube.
Later in the day,it was mentioned by one of the TV golf analysts that a local doctor had diagnosed Jason as having "BPV." I was glad to hear that.He should be just fine for golf today.You see,BPV has to do with rock crystals in one's ears that shift into the wrong place...the head starts spinning...balance is affected...one can fall,as Jason did,from an attack of BPV. Paroxysmal means "an attack characterized by suddenness."
Jason has got to be feeling mighty fine today.My prediction is that he could well go on to win the thing,the 2015 US Open.Time will tell.
"The reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen all at once." Albert Einstein
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>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.>
Analyst,my thinking is that the Mint balancing the books from a previous year (1932) with new year (1933) stuff,if that's what happened,is highly irregular and flies in the face of sound accounting practice.We will see what RWB has when the case is resolved.On case resolution,should we expect to see an image of a copy of the written document that Burdette found?
BTW,I heartily recommend to anyone interested in the minting process that they read Burdette's well-written book,from Mine to Mint.I bought my copy from Wizard.
In my view, a "Langbord win" has the distinct potential to eventually disprove the theory that there are only one to five '33's still out there.It is plausible that there are far more than five more '33's waiting to be 'discovered.' Langbords win,time will tell all.Meanwhile,my impatience is growing.I caught myself recently crossing my fingers for a Langbord win on July 1. >>
Why would it be irregular? If it makes a quantity of (now mostly) 1932 coins whole and fit to issue, this saves the Mint the expense of melting the 1932's.
If the software ain't miscounting
If the government chooses to not seek further appellate review, or seeks further appellate review but is unsuccessful the case will eventually return to the trial court level for the district court judge to have further proceedings consistent with the 4-17-2015 decision of the court of appeal.
These further proceedings would include:
1. having a judgment filed in favor of the Langbords;
2. the enforcement of the judgment (having the court get involved in causing the government to return possession of the 10 double eagles to the Langbords if it does not do so voluntarily); and
3. the Langbords likely seeking from the court an award of their recoverable costs of suit (which may include attorney fees if an award of such fees is authorized by statutory or case law).
If on the other hand the government seeks further appellate review and is successful in obtaining from the full panel of justices on the court of appeal a decision that vacates the 4-17-2015 decision on the appeal; or if the government is successful in obtaining from the US Supreme Court a decision that vacates the 4-17-2015 decision on the appeal then the case would remain unresolved and would continue its journey through the court system.
This continued journey could include:
1. immediate and further proceedings in the court of appeal;
2. immediate and further proceedings in the trial court, including possibly having a new trial on some or all of the claims and defenses in the case; and
3. further and new appeals to the court of appeal of new rulings and decisions issued by the trial court.
Many things have yet to take place before this case finally finishes its trip through the court system. At the end of the journey there will be a final result. Whether the final result will be considered "just" is purely in the eye of the beholder. Some will think it is and some will think it is not. Many will think that given the time, money and labor involved in getting a final result, the final result will never be "just".
It would seem likely we might hear from the Government as to what they will do sometime this coming week. Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
On page 33 of "An Inside View of the Coin Hobby in the 1930's," edited by Q. David Bowers is a January 13,1933 letter from W.O. Woods,Treasurer to Senator David Walsh (Mass.).Woods is addressing a constituent of Walsh's request to provide more than the allotted amount of ten new (1932) one cent pieces to collector Walter P. Nichols of Melrose,Mass.
Woods states in the letter,"As you know,the Government's coins are manufactured for specific use as a medium of exchange,and for that purpose unlimited amounts may be obtained,but there is no law requiring the Treasury to furnish either new coins or coins of any particular year's mintage." Bolding is mine.
No legal requirement to provide a particular year (in this case,1933) of any coin denomination for collectors or members of the public is not the same as a desire or necessity to balance the books you say.Okay,consider this:
It makes sense to me that 1933 doubles wouldn't show up at the Mint window,if they ever did show up at the Mint window to allow old coin for new coin exchange,until the first run of '33 doubles pass assay.And i say that,nothwithstanding any consideration,any desire that the Mint might have to "balance the books" from 1932.
Was an assay test immediately conducted on the '33's that were produced starting March 2,1933? Could not a special assay test have shown the fresh '33's to be as defective as the defective '32's that Burdette alleges the new '33's were to replace?Does a record exist showing when the first special assay of 1933 doubles occurred?
Replacing known-to-be-defective '32's with possibly defective '33's makes no sense to me.
Does "defective" mean the elemental composition of .900 gold-.100 copper that a double eagle is supposed to have is wrong as determined by special assay test of other coins in the run? What,other than the elemental composition being wrong,could "defective" possibly mean?
Too many questions as yet have not been answered to my satisfaction,CaptHenway.Unless and until convincing information comes out indicating to me that yes,indeed,
Izzy could have lawfully obtained all of the 1933 doubles traced to him,i remain unconvinced that the twenty 1933 doubles known to have once existed or currently existing (excepting the two in the Smithsonian) were not stolen from the Mint.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Was there a shortfall?
Was it reported and documented anywhere in 1933 (or in 1934 if the audit didn't take place until after the end of the calendar year)?
Seems like utter nonsense.
<< <i>
<< <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. >>
Then wouldn't it follow that by March 4th, that the 1933 DEs had already been monetized OR were expected to be? Seems like you couldn't officially issue them as replacements if they weren't officially coins.
My understanding is that the audit done just prior to the great gold coin melt in 1937 accounted for each and every of the 445,500 1933 doubles ever made,yet twenty coins eventually show up in private hands.What would you conclude?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>My understanding is that,in years prior to 1933,there were plenty of coins at the Mint window for issue to the public.There was a surplus of '32's at the window end of 1932,in other words.Same for 1931.
On page 33 of "An Inside View of the Coin Hobby in the 1930's," edited by Q. David Bowers is a January 13,1933 letter from W.O. Woods,Treasurer to Senator David Walsh (Mass.).Woods is addressing a constituent of Walsh's request to provide more than the allotted amount of ten new (1932) one cent pieces to collector Walter P. Nichols of Melrose,Mass.
Woods states in the letter,"As you know,the Government's coins are manufactured for specific use as a medium of exchange,and for that purpose unlimited amounts may be obtained,but there is no law requiring the Treasury to furnish either new coins or coins of any particular year's mintage." Bolding is mine.
No legal requirement to provide a particular year (in this case,1933) of any coin denomination for collectors or members of the public is not the same as a desire or necessity to balance the books you say.Okay,consider this:
It makes sense to me that 1933 doubles wouldn't show up at the Mint window,if they ever did show up at the Mint window to allow old coin for new coin exchange,until the first run of '33 doubles pass assay.And i say that,nothwithstanding any consideration,any desire that the Mint might have to "balance the books" from 1932.
Was an assay test immediately conducted on the '33's that were produced starting March 2,1933? Could not a special assay test have shown the fresh '33's to be as defective as the defective '32's that Burdette alleges the new '33's were to replace?Does a record exist showing when the first special assay of 1933 doubles occurred?
Replacing known-to-be-defective '32's with possibly defective '33's makes no sense to me.
Does "defective" mean the elemental composition of .900 gold-.100 copper that a double eagle is supposed to have is wrong as determined by special assay test of other coins in the run? What,other than the elemental composition being wrong,could "defective" possibly mean?
Too many questions as yet have not been answered to my satisfaction,CaptHenway.Unless and until convincing information comes out indicating to me that yes,indeed,
Izzy could have lawfully obtained all of the 1933 doubles traced to him,i remain unconvinced that the twenty 1933 doubles known to have once existed or currently existing (excepting the two in the Smithsonian) were not stolen from the Mint. >>
Defective could mean coins that were weakly struck, struck off-center, had gouges, dings, scratches, etc. that were deemed unacceptable for the intended use OR the whole thing was concocted as an excuse to get some 1933 DEs.
<< <i>What evidence do you have that some 1933 $20's were stolen?
My understanding is that the audit done just prior to the great gold coin melt in 1937 accounted for each and every of the 445,500 1933 doubles ever made,yet twenty coins eventually show up in private hands.What would you conclude? >>
Audited by checking dates, or audited by count and/or by weight?
<< <i>
Too many questions as yet have not been answered to my satisfaction,CaptHenway.Unless and until convincing information comes out indicating to me that yes,indeed,
Izzy could have lawfully obtained all of the 1933 doubles traced to him,i remain unconvinced that the twenty 1933 doubles known to have once existed or currently existing (excepting the two in the Smithsonian) were not stolen from the Mint. >>
What evidence do you have that some 1933 $20's were stolen?
Was there a shortfall?
Was it reported and documented anywhere in 1933 (or in 1934 if the audit didn't take place until after the end of the calendar year)?
Seems like utter nonsense. >>
Hi again Steven, (mr1874)
As you can see by your quote above, and Dave's quote to you in response, it is clear to me that there will never be a factual answer as to whether or not the coins were stolen. But it also seems to me, that we Americans like our freedoms as guaranteed by our constitution and so we tend to side with the PEOPLE when there is differences between the PEOPLE and the GOVERNMENT. JMHO. Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
Defective could mean coins that were weakly struck, struck off-center, had gouges, dings, scratches, etc. that were deemed unacceptable for the intended use OR the whole thing was concocted as an excuse to get some 1933 DEs.
The "whole thing was concocted" theory has some merit in the context of a cover-up.By 1944,Government was well aware that some 1933 doubles had gotten into private hands.This wasn't supposed to have happened since the audit in 1937 indicated that no 1933 doubles,the coin that was supposed to have never been officially issued,were unaccounted for.No gold from 1933 double production was found to be missing.Supposedly,every one of the 1933 doubles ever made,excepting the two Smithsonian pieces,were melted into gold bricks in 1937.
The mistaken granting of an export license for one 1933 double eagle to King Farouk in 1944 set the stage for Secret Service seizure of nine 1933 doubles found to be in private hands later in 1944 and years following. A 1945? attempt with a memo to cover-up the embarrassing-to-Government theft of '33 doubles sometime in the '30's is plausible.
It's like this,"if we (Mint officials) suggest (by a written memo) that a few '33's could have been mistakenly issued in 1933 by the '33's being innocently co-mingled with '32's then that gets us (the Mint) off the hook to some degree with the curious public and suspicious investigators.Who is going to be able to prove that it didn't actually happen the way we suggest that it might have happened?"
As for exactly how the 1937 audit was conducted,i don't know.Each sealed bag of 250 coins had a serial number? We do know that '33 doubles didn't start appearing in the marketplace until after the melt was completed in 1937.Tripp in "Illegal Tender" and Frankel in "Double Eagle" are both in agreement on when the first five '33's were sold by Switt to dealer James Macallister.
If Izzy obtained the 1933 doubles lawfully in 1933 why did he wait for four long years,until after the 1937 melt,to unload some of them?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>
If Izzy obtained the 1933 doubles lawfully in 1933 why did he wait for four long years, until after the 1937 melt, to unload some of them? >>
If Sam Brown made the five 1913 liberty nickels unlawfully in 1913 why did he wait for over ten long years, until 1924 to unload (sell) them?
I guess we'll never KNOW the answer to either of those questions, but I'll GUESS that it was because each of them wanted to wait some time after the act so the government wouldn't link the act to the sale.
So Steven, could you please tell me, what is YOUR rationale for the government allowing the trading of 1913 Liberty nickels as legal but NOT allowing the trading of 1933 doubles as legal? Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
<< <i>It would be interesting to learn what the various discussions were/are that have taken place or will take place among the various governmental agencies that lead up to whatever decision is made by the Solicitor General on whether or not to seek further appellate review in this case. >>
Indeed. Oh, to be a fly on the wall as the voices of reason say "Give up," while the three-year-olds faction scream "NO! They're mine!!!"
<< <i>
If Izzy obtained the 1933 doubles lawfully in 1933 why did he wait for four long years, until after the 1937 melt, to unload some of them? >>
Maybe he had no way to prove it.
<< <i>Bajjerfan
Defective could mean coins that were weakly struck, struck off-center, had gouges, dings, scratches, etc. that were deemed unacceptable for the intended use OR the whole thing was concocted as an excuse to get some 1933 DEs.
The "whole thing was concocted" theory has some merit in the context of a cover-up.By 1944,Government was well aware that some 1933 doubles had gotten into private hands.This wasn't supposed to have happened since the audit in 1937 indicated that no 1933 doubles,the coin that was supposed to have never been officially issued,were unaccounted for.No gold from 1933 double production was found to be missing.Supposedly,every one of the 1933 doubles ever made,excepting the two Smithsonian pieces,were melted into gold bricks in 1937.
The mistaken granting of an export license for one 1933 double eagle to King Farouk in 1944 set the stage for Secret Service seizure of nine 1933 doubles found to be in private hands later in 1944 and years following. A 1945? attempt with a memo to cover-up the embarrassing-to-Government theft of '33 doubles sometime in the '30's is plausible.
It's like this,"if we (Mint officials) suggest (by a written memo) that a few '33's could have been mistakenly issued in 1933 by the '33's being innocently co-mingled with '32's then that gets us (the Mint) off the hook to some degree with the curious public and suspicious investigators.Who is going to be able to prove that it didn't actually happen the way we suggest that it might have happened?"
As for exactly how the 1937 audit was conducted,i don't know.Each sealed bag of 250 coins had a serial number? We do know that '33 doubles didn't start appearing in the marketplace until after the melt was completed in 1937.Tripp in "Illegal Tender" and Frankel in "Double Eagle" are both in agreement on when the first five '33's were sold by Switt to dealer James Macallister.
If Izzy obtained the 1933 doubles lawfully in 1933 why did he wait for four long years,until after the 1937 melt,to unload some of them? >>
If it was concocted, it would have had to have been about the time that the 43 1933 DE coins were requested to be removed from the vault and used to replace defective 1932 DE coins. IIRC this was requested by the mint director who may or may not have had the authority to do so. Perhaps she had some foresight that the coins would not be monetized or maybe Izzy persuaded her to do the exchange. We don't know who exactly made the exchange do we?
What happened in 1933 or 1936-37 is irrelevant to the case at hand.
Ohhh CaptHenway.Can I try to solve the mystery? My latest theory about what happened requires Langbords winning to some day prove.I'm starting to lean towards Gov giving up at this point.Indeed,it does look grim for Gov.Attorneys everywhere just shake their heads from side-to-side when asked how it looks for Gov to keep coins at this point.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Good question.Are you working on solving the mystery? I've got my hands full with the 1933 double eagles at this time.There is only one of me.
This has come up before.Someone wanting to talk about 1913 Nickels and why the gov doesn't seem to care about them.First,the 1913 Liberty Nickel was a clandestine issue.The 1933 Double Eagle was lawfully produced.
There are big differences in circumstances on how the two coins,the 1933 double eagle and the 1913 nickel,came to be.The government rationale for things cannot totally be understood by any one person so I hesitate to start a journey on what appears to me could be a slippery slope.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <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.
NINE (9) 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>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.
EIGHT (8) 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>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.
SEVEN (7) 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
In 1944,when Izzy was asked by a Secret Service Special Agent where he (Izzy) got the 1933 double coins from,Izzy answered, "I don't remember."
Izzy trivia question:How many different 1933 double eagles did Izzy boast of owning to Philadelphia coin dealer James Macallister? First correct answer is winner of two beers.It would be two six-packs for the prize but I already drank four of the beers,two out of each six-pack.
Izzy trivia fact: Philadelphia coin dealer James Macallister bought the first five of Izzy's 1933 doubles in 1937. How we know this is because Macallister kept written records of his purchases and sales.No records of purchases and sales were kept by Izzy even though he operated a jewelry shop in Philadelphia's "Jeweller's Row."
hiccup
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <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.
SIX (6) 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>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.
FIVE (5) 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>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.
FOUR (4) 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
There's some that would like to see the party go on and on.I'm not one of them.My prediction is that on July 1 the Government will be left with only one option.That option will be to surrender. 1
How much fun would it be to have a contest,"design a token" contest commemorating the Government surrender to Langbords on July 1,2015? The real surrender,of course,happens when the Gov physically turns the coins over to the Langbords.We could see some tantrums thrown in some quarters once it has sunk in that Langbords really did win.
edit: 1 It's not clear to me why I made this prediction other than my lack of understanding of how the legal process really works.Lesson learned.
8/3/15
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
How many different 1933 double eagles did Izzy boast of owning to Philadelphia coin dealer James Macallister?
Up to ten guesses are allowed so don't think you've lost just because of one bad guess.
These are the brewskys,down below staying chilled at 38 degrees:
_______________________
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>MsMorrisine why not take a shot at this trivia question.You could win two 4 Packs of brewsky for being first with the correct answer:
How many different 1933 double eagles did Izzy boast of owning to Philadelphia coin dealer James Macallister?
Up to ten guesses are allowed so don't think you've lost just because of one bad guess.
These are the brewskys,down below staying chilled at 38 degrees:
_________________________
_________________________ >>
41? Was the directive to exchange the 43 1932s for 43 1933s actually instigated by Izzy?
The crime has gone unsolved.
George McCann was in New Jersey in 1940 indicated by the 1940 Census.
Izzy would have gotten his hands on all of the known-to-exist or have existed 1933 double eagles that have been traced to him by the time of the gold melt in the early months of 1937.
The memo is from 1945 is my understanding so I can't even begin to imagine Izzy being involved with any shenanigans that might be taking place inside Mint walls in 1945.
"41" is not the correct answer.Go ahead and guess again.Each guesser gets ten chances to be right first.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>I seriously doubt that Izzy would have any influence inside the Mint years 1944-45.Head Cashier George McCann,Izzy's contact inside the Mint,was outta the Mint,gone by 1941 after doing prison time.It's possible George McCann was fired from his job as Head Cashier for pilfering change.McCann's life was definitely on a downward spiral in the late '30's. A few years earlier,McCann was the main suspect in the theft of a whole bag of 250 double eagles that were under his control as Head Cashier.This theft of a bag ($5000 face) of 1928 dated double eagles was discovered during the audit that took place just prior to the great gold melt.The thief or thieves were never caught.
The crime has gone unsolved.
George McCann was in New Jersey in 1940 indicated by the 1940 Census.
Izzy would have gotten his hands on all of the known-to-exist or have existed 1933 double eagles that have been traced to him by the time of the gold melt in the early months of 1937.
The memo is from 1945 is my understanding so I can't even begin to imagine Izzy being involved with any shenanigans that might be taking place inside Mint walls in 1945.
"41" is not the correct answer.Go ahead and guess again.Each guesser gets ten chances to be right first. >>
I didn't know when the memo was written. I was thinking that Izzy could have had McCann do the swap and conjure up the memo.
We will know more when the Langbord case is resolved.
Bajjerfan,you can guess again about how many different '33 Doubles Izzy boasted of owning.Both Tripp in Illegal Tender and Frankel in Double Eagle discuss the Izzy boast.
What would be the implications of many more,say three times more than the number "I own" that was boasted by Izzy to Macallister,suddenly showing up in the marketplace?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>I'm referring to "Burdette's memo." IIRC the memo was written in 1945.We will know more when the Langbord case is resolved. >>
Seems odd they would do a gold material balance 12 years later.
That's one reason I'm thinking a coverup was attempted.I can imagine there was great fear amongst Mint employees in the mid '40's.The motive might be there to "fix" what appears to be a theft that occurred years earlier to make it appear that criminal activity involving "our own" is not what took place.I haven't seen the memo and won't be seeing the memo until the case is resolved but I suspect that the memo strongly suggests that "you all can relax..no theft by one our own occurred..co-mingling of different double eagle dates could have happened,okay?"
I have seeing this intriguing memo to look forward to.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
I think the car with the two jato units flew 300 feet before hitting the rock embankment.
The Secret Service had interviewed Philadelphia coin dealer James Macallister who had bought five 1933 doubles from Switt in 1937.Macallister told agents that Izzy had made the claim,the boast,to him that he (Izzy) owned twenty-five different 1933 doubles. Macallister was asked where he thought Izzy got the coins from.Macallister told agents that Izzy was mostly vague when asked where the coins came from but had mumbled about some of the coins being bought from the public in his jewelry shop.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <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.
THREE (3) 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>The answer is 25.
The Secret Service had interviewed Philadelphia coin dealer James Macallister who had bought five 1933 doubles from Switt in 1937.Macallister told agents that Izzy had made the claim,the boast,to him that he (Izzy) owned twenty-five different 1933 doubles. Macallister was asked where he thought Izzy got the coins from.Macallister told agents that Izzy was mostly vague when asked where the coins came from but had mumbled about some of the coins being bought from the public in his jewelry shop. >>
Wouldn't McCann be a part of the public if he walked into Izzy's shop/store? Or McCann had others do it for him.
Is it fair to assume that the government WILL make some official statement or comment no later than THIS WEDNESDAY, July 1st? If nothing is said by the government, is it fair to assume that the Court of Appeals will then make some public statement before the July 4th holiday weekend? I'd be interested to hear some legal opinion about how this USUALLY works from our lawyer experts on this forum. Thanks. Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
There could be more delays in store for us but I see Gov throwing in the towel at this point."Give the go-ahead" from the SG is not going to happen,in other words.
I expect that we will know on July 1 about that.Steve,how many days away is July 1?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
<< <i>Well, here we are again, awaiting to see IF or WHEN the government will respond to the additional 30 day extension the Court of Appeals granted to them to file a petition objecting to the courts April 17, 2015 ruling. It seems to me that there is a deliberate attempt by the government to delay the process to the last possible moment. I assume SanctionII is watching the court website for the latest reports. Those of us following this thread DO appreciate all he has reported for us on this case over the past several YEARS!
Is it fair to assume that the government WILL make some official statement or comment no later than THIS WEDNESDAY, July 1st? If nothing is said by the government, is it fair to assume that the Court of Appeals will then make some public statement before the July 4th holiday weekend? I'd be interested to hear some legal opinion about how this USUALLY works from our lawyer experts on this forum. Thanks. Steve
I think it is fair to assume that Government will ask for [and be granted] yet another 30 days in which to file.
<< <i>
<< <i>Well, here we are again, awaiting to see IF or WHEN the government will respond to the additional 30 day extension the Court of Appeals granted to them to file a petition objecting to the courts April 17, 2015 ruling. It seems to me that there is a deliberate attempt by the government to delay the process to the last possible moment. I assume SanctionII is watching the court website for the latest reports. Those of us following this thread DO appreciate all he has reported for us on this case over the past several YEARS!
Is it fair to assume that the government WILL make some official statement or comment no later than THIS WEDNESDAY, July 1st? If nothing is said by the government, is it fair to assume that the Court of Appeals will then make some public statement before the July 4th holiday weekend? I'd be interested to hear some legal opinion about how this USUALLY works from our lawyer experts on this forum. Thanks. Steve
I think it is fair to assume that Government will ask for [and be granted] yet another 30 days in which to file. >>
Anyone know if this is possible, I was guessing there were limits to the number of extentions.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
<< <i>I could not imagine the government giving up at this point, they have too much invested. Not to mention the fact that the appeals court was split 2-1. Why wouldn't you go for it with the full appeals court, or appeal it to the Supreme court. I think the main question is do the government go to the full appeals court, or do they skip to the supreme court (if that is an option.) >>
Why would the SCOTUS even hear the case?