I've wondered why the Langbords didn't take it upon themselves to have a TPG do the authenticating. >>
Because the Langbords would then have been at the mercy of whatever the TPG decided to do with them? A TPG encapsulation would not have helped the Langbords establish ownership.
I've wondered why the Langbords didn't take it upon themselves to have a TPG do the authenticating. >>
Because the Langbords would then have been at the mercy of whatever the TPG decided to do with them? A TPG encapsulation would not have helped the Langbords establish ownership. >>
Plus they would have shown up in the POP reports and raised eyebrows among other things.
I've wondered why the Langbords didn't take it upon themselves to have a TPG do the authenticating. >>
Because the Langbords would then have been at the mercy of whatever the TPG decided to do with them? A TPG encapsulation would not have helped the Langbords establish ownership. >>
I wonder if the TPG would have a duty to notify the Secret Service?
I've wondered why the Langbords didn't take it upon themselves to have a TPG do the authenticating. >>
Because the Langbords would then have been at the mercy of whatever the TPG decided to do with them? A TPG encapsulation would not have helped the Langbords establish ownership. >>
I wonder if the TPG would have a duty to notify the Secret Service? >>
Why? The coins were never reported as stolen. PCGS has said that they would grade them and stuff like a 1964 Peace dollar and return them to their owner/submitter.
I wonder if the TPG would have a duty to notify the Secret Service?
I'm thinking no.This is a good question for an attorney to ask the TPG.
The coins are not in the pop report? Seems like they should be since they have been deemed to be authentic.It shouldn't matter who owns them.
Because the Langbords would then have been at the mercy of whatever the TPG decided to do with them?
"At the mercy" considerations absolutely has some merit.I think I would have encapsulated the coins in my museum quality Coin World Premier holders and then approached the Mint with "information" and went from there.Of course,use an attorney to provide the information to the Mint of existence of the pieces.Send pictures of the pieces in their CW holders (3 for $5) without disclosing who has possession or where the pieces are located.The attorney has no duty to disclose who his clients are or where the pieces are located or does he?
Would it have been an unlawful act for the Langbords to have gotten the ten (authentic?) pieces off US soil until something satisfactory like an iron-clad agreement regarding disposition/settlement (provided the coins are deemed to be authentic by the Mint or a TPG,no matter) was worked out?
Why did the Langbords not ask for a "finders fee" right up front and let the Mint mull that over? I think I would have been much more cautious about any "understandings" prior to giving the pieces to the Mint for inspection.
The "finders fee" approach is worthy of consideration?
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
<< <i>I wonder if the TPG would have a duty to notify the Secret Service?
I'm thinking no.This is a good question for an attorney to ask the TPG.
The coins are not in the pop report? Seems like they should be since they have been deemed to be authentic.It shouldn't matter who owns them.
Because the Langbords would then have been at the mercy of whatever the TPG decided to do with them?
"At the mercy" considerations absolutely has some merit.I think I would have encapsulated the coins in my museum quality Coin World Premier holders and then approached the Mint with "information" and went from there.Of course,use an attorney to provide the information to the Mint of existence of the pieces.Send pictures of the pieces in their CW holders (3 for $5) without disclosing who has possession or where the pieces are located.The attorney has no duty to disclose who his clients are or where the pieces are located or does he?
Would it have been an unlawful act for the Langbords to have gotten the ten (authentic?) pieces off US soil until something satisfactory like an iron-clad agreement regarding disposition/settlement (provided the coins are deemed to be authentic by the Mint or a TPG,no matter) was worked out?
Why did the Langbords not ask for a "finders fee" right up front and let the Mint mull that over? I think I would have been much more cautious about any "understandings" prior to giving the pieces to the Mint for inspection.
The "finders fee" approach is worthy of consideration? >>
They would likely be required to report them only if there was a court order compelling them to do so.
The 10 that were graded should be in the NGC POP reports.
I've wondered why the Langbords didn't take it upon themselves to have a TPG do the authenticating. >>
Because the Langbords would then have been at the mercy of whatever the TPG decided to do with them? A TPG encapsulation would not have helped the Langbords establish ownership. >>
I wonder if the TPG would have a duty to notify the Secret Service? >>
Why? The coins were never reported as stolen. PCGS has said that they would grade them and stuff like a 1964 Peace dollar and return them to their owner/submitter. >>
Indeed. Where is there a police report?
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>To use a coin related term, What is the next key date in this ongoing saga? Is there a firm deadline for the next action? >>
Somewhere a page or two back S-II posted the voting guidelines.
I think we are looking at about 8 days from the langbords reply brief, or 13 days if an extension is voted.
I'm not sure how that rebuttal mess factors in, but my guess is no effect because the procedures aren't there for that.
My guess is that, after the majority of the judges have lost their amazement over the US' desperate moves, they will decide in the Langbords favor on the last day.... No extension.
Perhaps no later than July 30.
As S-II also posted a few pages back, a ruling either way won't fully end it any time soon
The mint would be all over you accusing you of extortion
That did occur to me,asking for a finders fee,could turn into accusations of extortion.That's why I hire an attorney for my good money. His job is to keep my arse out of jail while protecting my interests as a finder. All I would be looking for is some compensation for finding coins that I have learned are stolen from my readings in Double Eagle and Illegal Tender.
I firmly believe the Langbords deserve compensation,just not $40M or even $8M.It's too bad that egos got in the way of gov making a reasonable offer to the Langbords for the originally stolen coins they found in their possession.I think paying the Langbords $1M,tax free, would have been reasonable.Langbords reject an offer like that?Then we go into the litigation machine.
I've seen the letters from counsel for the Langbords to counsel for the Mint and am not impressed with the tenor of these letters.On careful reading of these letters,it's not hard to see why there is so much pizz off with attorneys at the Mint.
Pay the $1M to the Langbords and be done with it.At this point,however,there is no turning back.It's all or nothing.It's sad for me to think about that this is the way this dispute between Gov and Langbords is going to be going down.
Justice cannot be for one side alone, but must be for both. Eleanor Roosevelt
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
<< <i>The mint would be all over you accusing you of extortion
That did occur to me,asking for a finders fee,could turn into accusations of extortion.That's why I hire an attorney for my good money. His job is to keep my arse out of jail while protecting my interests as a finder. All I would be looking for is some compensation for finding coins that I have learned are stolen from my readings in Double Eagle and Illegal Tender.
I firmly believe the Langbords deserve compensation,just not $40M or even $8M.It's too bad that egos got in the way of gov making a reasonable offer to the Langbords for the originally stolen coins they found in their possession.I think paying the Langbords $1M,tax free, would have been reasonable.Langbords reject an offer like that?Then we go into the litigation machine.
I've seen the letters from counsel for the Langbords to counsel for the Mint and am not impressed with the tenor of these letters.On careful reading of these letters,it's not hard to see why there is so much pizz off with attorneys at the Mint.
Pay the $1M to the Langbords and be done with it.At this point,however,there is no turning back.It's all or nothing.It's sad for me to think about that this is the way this dispute between Gov and Langbords is going to be going down.
Justice cannot be for one side alone, but must be for both. Eleanor Roosevelt >>
If the Mint isn't offering rewards, one can't expect to get one. Finder's fees would apply to lost items, not stolen ones.
If the Mint isn't offering rewards, one can't expect to get one. Finder's fees would apply to lost items, not stolen ones
Call it what you want. Were the coins not found by the Langbords? I would want a decent-sized,substantial reward,with no jail time, for finding valuable stolen property like those ten 1933 double eagles the Langbords found.
I would direct my attorney to initially be making feeler inquiries about reward for finding, not immediately asserting rights of ownership to property that has been regarded as stolen by the gov for over eight decades.
The terms of the agreement that I have with my attorney would stipulate that if I go to jail over my attempts to collect a reward,attorney gets nothing.How about that as a provision of a contingent fee agreement?
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
<< <i>If the Mint isn't offering rewards, one can't expect to get one. Finder's fees would apply to lost items, not stolen ones
Call it what you want. Were the coins not found by the Langbords? I would want a decent-sized,substantial reward,with no jail time, for finding valuable stolen property like those ten 1933 double eagles the Langbords found.
I would direct my attorney to initially be making feeler inquiries about reward for finding, not immediately asserting rights of ownership to property that has been regarded as stolen by the gov for over eight decades.
The terms of the agreement that I have with my attorney would stipulate that if I go to jail over my attempts to collect a reward,attorney gets nothing.How about that as a provision of a contingent fee agreement? >>
Well, first, there is a lot of disagreement as to whether or not the 1933 double eagles are "valuable stolen property", for many reasons, such as the absence of a police report, the fact that all of the gold was accounted for, the "window" during which 1933's could have been legally purchased at the Mint, etc.
But, secondly, rather than take the theoretical $1 million offer for ten 1933 double eagles, why not take them to Europe and sell them there, the Langbords would net at least $1.5 million per coin in my opinion, total net = $15 million vs. the $1 million offer.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
<< <i>If the Mint isn't offering rewards, one can't expect to get one. Finder's fees would apply to lost items, not stolen ones
Call it what you want. Were the coins not found by the Langbords? I would want a decent-sized,substantial reward,with no jail time, for finding valuable stolen property like those ten 1933 double eagles the Langbords found.
I would direct my attorney to initially be making feeler inquiries about reward for finding, not immediately asserting rights of ownership to property that has been regarded as stolen by the gov for over eight decades.
The terms of the agreement that I have with my attorney would stipulate that if I go to jail over my attempts to collect a reward,attorney gets nothing.How about that as a provision of a contingent fee agreement? >>
The coins weren't reported as lost or missing either. Any reward or fee is totally voluntary on the part of the Government.
But, secondly, rather than take the theoretical $1 million offer for ten 1933 double eagles, why not take them to Europe and sell them there, the Langbords would net at least $1.5 million per coin in my opinion, total net = $15 million vs. the $1 million offer.
To possibly face charges of smuggling stolen government property out of the country,money laundering,and whatever other charges might stick? No thanks.I take my chances asking for a reward.It's a karma thing with the promise of a nice reward,not a get rich quick scheme that has all the potential to back-fire big time on me.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
Well, first, there is a lot of disagreement as to whether or not the 1933 double eagles are "valuable stolen property", for many reasons, such as the absence of a police report, the fact that all of the gold was accounted for, the "window" during which 1933's could have been legally purchased at the Mint, etc.
Absence of a police report from when? 1937? September 22,2004 when Roy Langbord made "the Coins" (ten 1933 double eagles) available to the government? Gold coins were found to be missing by the audit prior to the 1937 great gold melt;a whole bag of 250 double eagles (presumed to be not dated 1933) face value,$5,000.These coins were never recovered and are considered to have been stolen. An investigation by government police (Secret Service) ensued in 1937 in a failed attempt to find the bag of coins and the culprit(s) responsible. Someone here,I believe it was DeepCoin,stated that $5,000 could buy a house in 1937.
It is my belief that the stolen bag of 250 double eagles,presumed stolen in 1933 (according to the Secret Service) from Mint Vault F,Cage 1, are intimately connected to 1933 double eagles that the government assumed were all melted in 1937.
That theft of double eagles from the Mint occurred in the '30's is a fact.That a "window of opportunity" for legitimate exchange of old coin for new coin existed for a week or two after March 15,1933 (first delivery of 1933 double eagles Coiner to Cashier occurred on this date) is pure speculation.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
<< <i>But, secondly, rather than take the theoretical $1 million offer for ten 1933 double eagles, why not take them to Europe and sell them there, the Langbords would net at least $1.5 million per coin in my opinion, total net = $15 million vs. the $1 million offer.
To possibly face charges of smuggling stolen government property out of the country,money laundering,and whatever other charges might stick? No thanks.I take my chances asking for a reward.It's a karma thing with the promise of a nice reward,not a get rich quick scheme that has all the potential to back-fire big time on me. >>
The mint hunted these down claiming stolen property. You wouldn't get a check, you'd see a US v John Doe suit served instead.
<< <i>Well, first, there is a lot of disagreement as to whether or not the 1933 double eagles are "valuable stolen property", for many reasons, such as the absence of a police report, the fact that all of the gold was accounted for, the "window" during which 1933's could have been legally purchased at the Mint, etc.
Absence of a police report from when? 1937? September 22,2004 when Roy Langbord made "the Coins" (ten 1933 double eagles) available to the government? Gold coins were found to be missing by the audit prior to the 1937 great gold melt;a whole bag of 250 double eagles (presumed to be not dated 1933) face value,$5,000.These coins were never recovered and are considered to have been stolen. An investigation by government police (Secret Service) ensued in 1937 in a failed attempt to find the bag of coins and the culprit(s) responsible. Someone here,I believe it was DeepCoin,stated that $5,000 could buy a house in 1937.
It is my belief that the stolen bag of 250 double eagles,presumed stolen in 1933 (according to the Secret Service) from Mint Vault F,Cage 1, are intimately connected to 1933 double eagles that the government assumed were all melted in 1937.
That theft of double eagles from the Mint occurred in the '30's is a fact.That a "window of opportunity" for legitimate exchange of old coin for new coin existed for a week or two after March 15,1933 (first delivery of 1933 double eagles Coiner to Cashier occurred on this date) is pure speculation. >>
It is not a fact that 1933 double eagles were stolen. The alleged theft of some double eagles does not mean that 1933 double eagles were involved.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
The mint hunted these down claiming stolen property. You wouldn't get a check, you'd see a US v John Doe suit served instead.
I didn't steal the property.I didn't "knowingly receive" stolen property.Is it a crime to ask for a reward from the owner (previously known as "finders fee") for finding their stolen property? I would consider it rude and insulting in the extreme for anyone,not just gov,to have me jailed for asking for a reward for finding their stolen property.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
While we are on the subject of "stolen property" from the US Mint, what does the government call the five 1913 dated liberty head nickels that show up in 1920 in private hands and which three of those coins are today still owned by private individuals. WHY were these five coins NOT considered stolen in 1920 and then confiscated by the government? Steve
While we are on the subject of "stolen property" from the US Mint, what does the government call the five 1913 dated liberty head nickels that show up in 1920 in private hands and which three of those coins are today still owned by private individuals. WHY were these five coins NOT considered stolen in 1920 and then confiscated by the government? Steve
The Indian Head (Buffalo) nickel was introduced in February 1913, replacing the Liberty Head design.[2] These were the first official strikings of nickels in 1913, since United States Mint's official records list no Liberty Head nickels produced in that year. But in 1920 the numismatic community learned of five Liberty Head nickels dated 1913, all owned by Samuel Brown, a numismatist who attended the American Numismatic Association's annual convention in 1920 and displayed the coins there. He had previously placed an advertisement in the December 1919 issue of The Numismatist soliciting information on these coins, offering to pay US $500 for each[3] and ostensibly purchasing them as a result. But Brown had been a Mint employee in 1913, and many numismatic historians have concluded that he may have struck them himself (or had them struck) and taken them from the Mint.[1] If true, this was not a unique occurrence; such clandestine strikes were actually quite common in the 19th century, with the Class II and III 1804 silver dollars perhaps the best-known instance. Other numismatic authorities, such as Q. David Bowers, have questioned this scenario, and pointed out that there are several methods by which the coins could have been legitimately produced; e.g., they may have been lawfully issued by the Mint's Medal Department "for cabinet purposes," or could have been struck as trial pieces in late 1912 to test the following year's new coinage dies.[4] But Bowers did not entirely discount the private minting theory.[5]
The critical point in your post is that NO legitimate 1913 Liberty Nickels were struck in 1913. Who made them and how they got out are not relevant. Why does the Mint NOT chase these down and confiscate them? That is the point, not how they were made. The same is true for the later strikings of the 1804 Dollar. Again, the Mint chose selectively to go after the 1933 DEs, while allowing these other coins to trade at will.
I think it is time to accept their provenance such that it is and let them into the collecting community, be it museums, private hands, etc. I am most hopeful the government loses this case on ANY basis for a large variety of reasons. Just MHO.
Retired United States Mint guy, now working on an Everyman Type Set.
No, it is a choice made by the Mint officials. I know as I asked this very question to the lawyer leading the litigation for the Mint back when it all began. It is imbedded institutional behavior regarding the DEs, going back decades and decades. The inability to be flexible in their thinking is often profound within the government, especially when presented with conflicting behavior on their part. This has transpired regardless of the administration or party in charge. The Mint is such a backwater place they have not had a confirmed director since Moy left years ago.
Retired United States Mint guy, now working on an Everyman Type Set.
<< <i>No, it is a choice made by the Mint officials. I know as I asked this very question to the lawyer leading the litigation for the Mint back when it all began. It is imbedded institutional behavior regarding the DEs, going back decades and decades. The inability to be flexible in their thinking is often profound within the government, especially when presented with conflicting behavior on their part. This has transpired regardless of the administration or party in charge. The Mint is such a backwater place they have not had a confirmed director since Moy left years ago. >>
Richard, I agree with your comments above. AND, they have more relevance BECAUSE your comments are based on YOUR EXPERIENCE in dealing with these people over the years. It makes no sense in 2015 for the government to single out the 1933 DE's to prevent collectors from owning however many still exist. I too hope the courts rule for the Langbords and do so SOON. Steve
I too hope the courts rule for the Langbords and do so SOON.
Your wish for a Langbord victory very likely will happen,who knows when.I see a victory for either side as a hollow one though since no compromises have been made by either side to settle the dispute which has dragged on now for over 10 years.
My opinion is that the "party in the driver's seat" should extend the olive branch.Both sides have been in the driver's seat at various times over the last ten years.Have any olive branches been extended by one side to the other over the last 10 years? It appears to me that both sides have never left the "damn the torpedoes,full speed ahead" mode.
It's not travesty of justice anymore regardless of who "wins." There can be no justice in settling this dispute unless there is compromise.To me that is not a travesty,it is simply grotesque.
I think the best idea I have had was to allow the Langbords one coin of their choosing to dispose of as they please.Establish a foundation,the Langbord Foundation. Government and Langbords share ownership of the other nine pieces.The pieces would go to auction.A Langbord (David?) could head up the foundation.It's a paid position.Proceeds of the auctions,after foundation expenses and costs have been met,go to worthy organizations across the land.The numismatic community gets to truly bask in the glory of victory for "the Coins" are now available to collectors who have the money to pony up for one or more of them.
Langbords-WIN Government-WIN Numismatic community-WIN Worthy organizations across the land-WIN
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
Does the Mint have any records of 1913 Liberty nickels being made at all? Perhaps, it wasn't considered important and they have been in the collector community so long it would be difficult to get back?
It is interesting that the Mint didn't appear to have any records of the 1974-D aluminum cent and didn't even appear very interested in the coin until it went up for auction.
Anyone want to predict when the final and last court ruling by any court that has been or may in the future be involved in this case will be issued and filed?
Nov. 2, 2015, Supreme Court refuses to hear appeal. Game over.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
<< <i> My opinion is that the "party in the driver's seat" should extend the olive branch.Both sides have been in the driver's seat at various times over the last ten years.Have any olive branches been extended by one side to the other over the last 10 years? It appears to me that both sides have never left the "damn the torpedoes,full speed ahead" mode. >>
If I was the government or the Langbords I would only advertise a settlement offer on the PCGS US Coin Forum. Trying to reach such an agreement privately is a waste of time, not when there are so many helpers here to facilitate negotiations.
Here's some insight from David Tripp regarding government attitude about clandestine issues.From Illegal Tender,ch. 14,"A Clumsy Liar." Parenthesis,for clarification,are mine:
"The specter of conspiracy within the Mint having been raised by McKernan (Vault Custodian and Shipper),Strang (Secret Service agent) met with Superintendent Edwin Dressel and Helen Moore,the assistant superintendent,the next day (October 12,1944) to clarify this angle.
Mrs. Moore was direct about the tight,powerful clique of Chaffin,Roland,Ziegler,and McCann-the Four Horsemen. She admitted they had run things the way they liked.This was an open secret.No one challenged them.It was almost a mint tradition.Each generation had its own group that used the Mint as their factory for their products,their gain.Today,some consider them Robin Hoods,others thieves. Over a century earlier, Chief Coiner Franklin Peale had taken private commissions,while more recently,coin dealers such as John Haseltine,Stephen Nagy,and Henry Chapman had murky inside contacts who provided the unusual,the rare,the specially made coins-strictly illegal,but largely ignored by law enforcement.In the intervening years,a similar roster of corrupt employees had been producing and peddling unofficial metallic myths to line their pockets. Until 1885,this shadowy manufacture had been on a vast scale,but then the reins of authority had tightened,and these ventures had gone even deeper underground.
Some of the most valuable coins in the world owed their very existence not to great art,stunning history,and chance survival,but to Mint employees' after-hours legerdemain. The 1804 silver dollar was first made for diplomatic presentation in 1834 (thirty years after the date it bears) perhaps illegally but nevertheless officially. When word of their existence enthralled mid-nineteenth-century collectors the entrepreneurial underground workshop at the Mint got to work some twenty-five years later and illicitly made still more for private gain. Both the 1884 and 1885 trade dollars and the 1913 Liberty Head nickel,five examples of which had been illicitly made,quite probably not in 1913,were fabrications from the start,intended for collectors only. Hundreds,thousands,of others-including patterns,coins struck in the wrong metals,and complete fantasies-all led back through generation after generation of similarly enterprising cabals. Seldom,if ever,were the malfeasants prosecuted,and the coins themselves were eagerly,avidly,sought by collectors,who spent increasingly more and more money on them. The government's attitude,with an occasional half-hearted grumbling exception,had been one of benign neglect."
Illegal Tender,p.191
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
Tripp is absolutely wrong. The 1884 trade dollar was not intended as a fabrication from the start - it was a regularly scheduled production run that was pulled in the end
Which raises the question – if Tripp is so incorrect about this stated "fact" and so open to quoting incorrect "facts" what is to say which of his other so-called "facts" are incorrect and thus rendering his book a complete work of fiction ?
<< <i>Which raises the question – if Tripp is so incorrect about this stated "fact" and so open to quoting incorrect "facts" what is to say which of his other so-called "facts" are incorrect and thus rendering his book a complete work of fiction ? >>
Tripp is quite reputable. But, when it comes to 1884 trade dollars, I am going to listen a lot harder to what TDN says.
<< <i>Here's some insight from David Tripp regarding government attitude about clandestine issues.From Illegal Tender,ch. 14,"A Clumsy Liar." Parenthesis,for clarification,are mine:
"The specter of conspiracy within the Mint having been raised by McKernan (Vault Custodian and Shipper),Strang (Secret Service agent) met with Superintendent Edwin Dressel and Helen Moore,the assistant superintendent,the next day (October 12,1944) to clarify this angle.
Mrs. Moore was direct about the tight,powerful clique of Chaffin,Roland,Ziegler,and McCann-the Four Horsemen. She admitted they had run things the way they liked.This was an open secret.No one challenged them.It was almost a mint tradition.Each generation had its own group that used the Mint as their factory for their products,their gain.Today,some consider them Robin Hoods,others thieves. Over a century earlier, Chief Coiner Franklin Peale had taken private commissions,while more recently,coin dealers such as John Haseltine,Stephen Nagy,and Henry Chapman had murky inside contacts who provided the unusual,the rare,the specially made coins-strictly illegal,but largely ignored by law enforcement.In the intervening years,a similar roster of corrupt employees had been producing and peddling unofficial metallic myths to line their pockets. Until 1885,this shadowy manufacture had been on a vast scale,but then the reins of authority had tightened,and these ventures had gone even deeper underground.
Illegal Tender,p.191 >>
And this proves what? In order to prove a theft, there needs to be direct evidence related to the theft. Not "Mr. Switt and Mr. McCann were bad guys." Not hearsay evidence like "I think Mr. McCann stole the coins."
I'm still waiting to see direct evidence related to the theft.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
<< <i>Here's some insight from David Tripp regarding government attitude about clandestine issues.From Illegal Tender,ch. 14,"A Clumsy Liar." Parenthesis,for clarification,are mine:
"The specter of conspiracy within the Mint having been raised by McKernan (Vault Custodian and Shipper),Strang (Secret Service agent) met with Superintendent Edwin Dressel and Helen Moore,the assistant superintendent,the next day (October 12,1944) to clarify this angle.
Mrs. Moore was direct about the tight,powerful clique of Chaffin,Roland,Ziegler,and McCann-the Four Horsemen. She admitted they had run things the way they liked.This was an open secret.No one challenged them.It was almost a mint tradition.Each generation had its own group that used the Mint as their factory for their products,their gain.Today,some consider them Robin Hoods,others thieves. Over a century earlier, Chief Coiner Franklin Peale had taken private commissions,while more recently,coin dealers such as John Haseltine,Stephen Nagy,and Henry Chapman had murky inside contacts who provided the unusual,the rare,the specially made coins-strictly illegal,but largely ignored by law enforcement.In the intervening years,a similar roster of corrupt employees had been producing and peddling unofficial metallic myths to line their pockets. Until 1885,this shadowy manufacture had been on a vast scale,but then the reins of authority had tightened,and these ventures had gone even deeper underground.
Illegal Tender,p.191 >>
And this proves what? In order to prove a theft, there needs to be direct evidence related to the theft. Not "Mr. Switt and Mr. McCann were bad guys." Not hearsay evidence like "I think Mr. McCann stole the coins."
I'm still waiting to see direct evidence related to the theft. >>
And we will never see that evidence. If the Mint had it, it would have produced it long ago at one trial or another. Instead they just decreed a fact, and now they are standing by that decree.
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.
And this proves what? In order to prove a theft, there needs to be direct evidence related to the theft. Not "Mr. Switt and Mr. McCann were bad guys." Not hearsay evidence like "I think Mr. McCann stole the coins."
Some of the readers here were asking why the Mint never has gone after the 1913 Nickels. I thought some insight from numismatic researcher David Tripp might be useful in answering this question.
Authorities accepted that "this is the way it is" here (at the Mint) prior to the "out-of-control" corruptness of the Mint in the '30's is what I'm getting from my read of Tripp. "Looking the other way" by authorities pretty much started to come to a screeching halt at the Mint in 1937 when it was discovered that a whole bag (250 coins,$5000 face value) of double eagles (not dated 1933) had been stolen from Vault F,Cage 1 (probably on March 5,1933). The theft wasn't discovered until the audit prior to the great gold melt early in 1937.
McCann,a Mint employee since 1917,was a prime suspect in the theft of the bag of double eagles but was never convicted for this theft.McCann was,however,sent to Lewisburg PA prison for a year and a day in 1941 for pilferage of change (the "defalcations" by McCann totaled $1200).
Tripp discusses many other individuals who the Mint had for employees during the corrupt and lawless '30's. I've thought about constructing a list of individuals who were Mint employees in the '30's with a short bio but have not yet done so. Here's a few of Tripp's comments about a '30's Mint employee which are of special interest to this conspiracy theorist. It's April,1944:
"Charles P. Rumpp, a former Mint employee,was a sad loser,sixty-six years old and an ex-con.The day after George McCann had been made an example and sentenced to prison for a year and a day,Rumpp had been sentenced to six months. For twenty years he had worked at the Mint and been trusted,but then unaccountably he had begun to steal: "I would take a little at a time,and I have never taken very much at any one time." Over three years he took a total of about $250.00,which left his life a shambles. He was fined $250,had to make good on the stolen amount,and was cast out from the Mint family. Now he was only too willing to help the two agents who had dug him up.
Rumpp had been the foreman of the Deposit and Weigh Room a decade earlier,in the spring of 1934,when the first of the gold coins were being reduced to gold bars. He remembered the men removing the gold stored from the big bullion vault,F-Cage 3-and that Edward McKernan,the Vault Custodian,and his assistant,Louis Frizzle,had been there as well.They had found five miscellaneous double eagles loose in a bin-unbagged,orphans.The three men did what they were supposed to do and turned the coins over to the Cashier,George McCann,but as far as Rumpp knew,"No subsequent accounting or disposition has been found of them."
Strang and Drescher (SS agents) took notes. Two days after Rumpp had been arrested back in 1940,he had made a second statement. Four years later,he readily confirmed to the two inquisitors what he had said then:"I can recall several instances which now look suspicious to me in the actions of Mr. McCann." Rumpp explained that "the employees of the Mint are so used to handling coin that they do not play with it in their hands." But McCann,"while standing at the boxes filled with uncurrent coin on the trucks,would be handling the coin."
It was not just an occasional idle instance:"He would tell me to phone him when the uncurrent coin were ready to be counted."
"It now occurs to me," Rumpp had said,in a simple,understated way,"as suspicious."
Illegal Tender,p.135-136
Later,the agents,accompanied by a Mint accountant with "original vault records clutched tightly under his arm," visited Louis Frizzle at his home in Delaware Gardens,New Jersey.Frizzle had taken charge of the vaults in October,1936,and the only substantive information he could offer was confirmation that he had been with McKernan and Rumpp when the five double eagles had turned up loose in 1934.He knew that they had been turned over to McCann but had no idea what had happened to them subsequently.Frizzle died two weeks later.
"Cashier Willard Boyce got in touch with Strang and Drescher again.His antipathy toward Ira Reed had apparently grown,and he again offered to set up the coin dealer.He was rebuffed,but something else he remembered about George McCann held the Federal agents glued to their hard wooden chairs.
Boyce recalled that "on at least one occasion he had seen McCann (then Cashier) come into the Deposit Weigh Room with a number of gold coins and weigh them."
Since the Mint's books balanced,and all the coins that had been struck were accounted for appropriately,Strang and Drescher wrote,"the 1933 Double Eagles which are known to have gotten into the hands of collectors,may have been substituted as to weight and value on the cashier's books,by Double Eagles of prior years mintage and having no numismatic value." The Cashier,McCann,would not "ordinarily have any occasion to weigh gold coins,especially a handful of them...unless he had been unduly interested in weights."
In other words,McCann might have palmed common twenty-dollar pieces while running his hands through piles of gold coins and later swapped them with the 1933 double eagles under his control. A quick switch. The books would balance. Just as important,the scales would balance. Any discrepencies discovered during the melting process would be minor and well within the acceptable range allowed for wastage.Pretty clever."
Illegal Tender,ch.10, "Working the List," p.137
George McCann,the Robin Hood of the 1930's Mint? No. George McCann was a thief who did prison time for his thievery while in the employ of the Mint.
Fiction? I don't think so.It is my firm belief that to think that any 1933 double eagle left the Mint lawfully during a "window of opportunity" to obtain one legally is the real wishful thinking.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
<< <i>Here's some insight from David Tripp regarding government attitude about clandestine issues.From Illegal Tender,ch. 14,"A Clumsy Liar." Parenthesis,for clarification,are mine:
"The specter of conspiracy within the Mint having been raised by McKernan (Vault Custodian and Shipper),Strang (Secret Service agent) met with Superintendent Edwin Dressel and Helen Moore,the assistant superintendent,the next day (October 12,1944) to clarify this angle.
Mrs. Moore was direct about the tight,powerful clique of Chaffin,Roland,Ziegler,and McCann-the Four Horsemen. She admitted they had run things the way they liked.This was an open secret.No one challenged them.It was almost a mint tradition.Each generation had its own group that used the Mint as their factory for their products,their gain.Today,some consider them Robin Hoods,others thieves. Over a century earlier, Chief Coiner Franklin Peale had taken private commissions,while more recently,coin dealers such as John Haseltine,Stephen Nagy,and Henry Chapman had murky inside contacts who provided the unusual,the rare,the specially made coins-strictly illegal,but largely ignored by law enforcement.In the intervening years,a similar roster of corrupt employees had been producing and peddling unofficial metallic myths to line their pockets. Until 1885,this shadowy manufacture had been on a vast scale,but then the reins of authority had tightened,and these ventures had gone even deeper underground.
Illegal Tender,p.191 >>
And this proves what? In order to prove a theft, there needs to be direct evidence related to the theft. Not "Mr. Switt and Mr. McCann were bad guys." Not hearsay evidence like "I think Mr. McCann stole the coins."
I'm still waiting to see direct evidence related to the theft. >>
And we will never see that evidence. If the Mint had it, it would have produced it long ago at one trial or another. Instead they just decreed a fact, and now they are standing by that decree. >>
This. Produce a/the document/documentation stating that the coins were NOT to be released for circulation.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Comments
<< <i>
I've wondered why the Langbords didn't take it upon themselves to have a TPG do the authenticating.
>>
Because the Langbords would then have been at the mercy of whatever the TPG decided to do with them? A TPG encapsulation would not have helped the Langbords establish ownership.
http://www.shieldnickels.net
<< <i>
<< <i>
I've wondered why the Langbords didn't take it upon themselves to have a TPG do the authenticating.
>>
Because the Langbords would then have been at the mercy of whatever the TPG decided to do with them? A TPG encapsulation would not have helped the Langbords establish ownership. >>
Plus they would have shown up in the POP reports and raised eyebrows among other things.
<< <i>
<< <i>
I've wondered why the Langbords didn't take it upon themselves to have a TPG do the authenticating.
>>
Because the Langbords would then have been at the mercy of whatever the TPG decided to do with them? A TPG encapsulation would not have helped the Langbords establish ownership. >>
I wonder if the TPG would have a duty to notify the Secret Service?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
I've wondered why the Langbords didn't take it upon themselves to have a TPG do the authenticating.
>>
Because the Langbords would then have been at the mercy of whatever the TPG decided to do with them? A TPG encapsulation would not have helped the Langbords establish ownership. >>
I wonder if the TPG would have a duty to notify the Secret Service? >>
Why? The coins were never reported as stolen. PCGS has said that they would grade them and stuff like a 1964 Peace dollar and return them to their owner/submitter.
I'm thinking no.This is a good question for an attorney to ask the TPG.
The coins are not in the pop report? Seems like they should be since they have been deemed to be authentic.It shouldn't matter who owns them.
Because the Langbords would then have been at the mercy of whatever the TPG decided to do with them?
"At the mercy" considerations absolutely has some merit.I think I would have encapsulated the coins in my museum quality Coin World Premier holders and then approached the Mint with "information" and went from there.Of course,use an attorney to provide the information to the Mint of existence of the pieces.Send pictures of the pieces in their CW holders (3 for $5) without disclosing who has possession or where the pieces are located.The attorney has no duty to disclose who his clients are or where the pieces are located or does he?
Would it have been an unlawful act for the Langbords to have gotten the ten (authentic?) pieces off US soil until something satisfactory like an iron-clad agreement regarding disposition/settlement (provided the coins are deemed to be authentic by the Mint or a TPG,no matter) was worked out?
Why did the Langbords not ask for a "finders fee" right up front and let the Mint mull that over? I think I would have been much more cautious about any "understandings" prior to giving the pieces to the Mint for inspection.
The "finders fee" approach is worthy of consideration?
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
<< <i>I wonder if the TPG would have a duty to notify the Secret Service?
I'm thinking no.This is a good question for an attorney to ask the TPG.
The coins are not in the pop report? Seems like they should be since they have been deemed to be authentic.It shouldn't matter who owns them.
Because the Langbords would then have been at the mercy of whatever the TPG decided to do with them?
"At the mercy" considerations absolutely has some merit.I think I would have encapsulated the coins in my museum quality Coin World Premier holders and then approached the Mint with "information" and went from there.Of course,use an attorney to provide the information to the Mint of existence of the pieces.Send pictures of the pieces in their CW holders (3 for $5) without disclosing who has possession or where the pieces are located.The attorney has no duty to disclose who his clients are or where the pieces are located or does he?
Would it have been an unlawful act for the Langbords to have gotten the ten (authentic?) pieces off US soil until something satisfactory like an iron-clad agreement regarding disposition/settlement (provided the coins are deemed to be authentic by the Mint or a TPG,no matter) was worked out?
Why did the Langbords not ask for a "finders fee" right up front and let the Mint mull that over? I think I would have been much more cautious about any "understandings" prior to giving the pieces to the Mint for inspection.
The "finders fee" approach is worthy of consideration? >>
They would likely be required to report them only if there was a court order compelling them to do so.
The 10 that were graded should be in the NGC POP reports.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
I've wondered why the Langbords didn't take it upon themselves to have a TPG do the authenticating.
>>
Because the Langbords would then have been at the mercy of whatever the TPG decided to do with them? A TPG encapsulation would not have helped the Langbords establish ownership. >>
I wonder if the TPG would have a duty to notify the Secret Service? >>
Why? The coins were never reported as stolen. PCGS has said that they would grade them and stuff like a 1964 Peace dollar and return them to their owner/submitter. >>
Indeed. Where is there a police report?
Duty?
The mint considers them stolen property.
What do you do if you have stolen property?
Then ask for a finders fee? For what the mint says is stolen property?
The mint would be all over you accusing you of extortion
<< <i>To use a coin related term, What is the next key date in this ongoing saga? Is there a firm deadline for the next action? >>
Somewhere a page or two back S-II posted the voting guidelines.
I think we are looking at about 8 days from the langbords reply brief, or 13 days if an extension is voted.
I'm not sure how that rebuttal mess factors in, but my guess is no effect because the procedures aren't there for that.
My guess is that, after the majority of the judges have lost their amazement over the US' desperate moves, they will decide in the Langbords favor on the last day.... No extension.
Perhaps no later than July 30.
As S-II also posted a few pages back, a ruling either way won't fully end it any time soon
<< <i>I think I would have encapsulated the coins in my museum quality Coin World Premier holders. >>
A most important decision. The Mint might react negatively to an off-brand holder, and that would just mess up your whole strategy.
That did occur to me,asking for a finders fee,could turn into accusations of extortion.That's why I hire an attorney for my good money. His job is to keep my arse out of jail while protecting my interests as a finder. All I would be looking for is some compensation for finding coins that I have learned are stolen from my readings in Double Eagle and Illegal Tender.
I firmly believe the Langbords deserve compensation,just not $40M or even $8M.It's too bad that egos got in the way of gov making a reasonable offer to the Langbords for the originally stolen coins they found in their possession.I think paying the Langbords $1M,tax free, would have been reasonable.Langbords reject an offer like that?Then we go into the litigation machine.
I've seen the letters from counsel for the Langbords to counsel for the Mint and am not impressed with the tenor of these letters.On careful reading of these letters,it's not hard to see why there is so much pizz off with attorneys at the Mint.
Pay the $1M to the Langbords and be done with it.At this point,however,there is no turning back.It's all or nothing.It's sad for me to think about that this is the way this dispute between Gov and Langbords is going to be going down.
Justice cannot be for one side alone, but must be for both. Eleanor Roosevelt
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
<< <i>The mint would be all over you accusing you of extortion
That did occur to me,asking for a finders fee,could turn into accusations of extortion.That's why I hire an attorney for my good money. His job is to keep my arse out of jail while protecting my interests as a finder. All I would be looking for is some compensation for finding coins that I have learned are stolen from my readings in Double Eagle and Illegal Tender.
I firmly believe the Langbords deserve compensation,just not $40M or even $8M.It's too bad that egos got in the way of gov making a reasonable offer to the Langbords for the originally stolen coins they found in their possession.I think paying the Langbords $1M,tax free, would have been reasonable.Langbords reject an offer like that?Then we go into the litigation machine.
I've seen the letters from counsel for the Langbords to counsel for the Mint and am not impressed with the tenor of these letters.On careful reading of these letters,it's not hard to see why there is so much pizz off with attorneys at the Mint.
Pay the $1M to the Langbords and be done with it.At this point,however,there is no turning back.It's all or nothing.It's sad for me to think about that this is the way this dispute between Gov and Langbords is going to be going down.
Justice cannot be for one side alone, but must be for both. Eleanor Roosevelt >>
If the Mint isn't offering rewards, one can't expect to get one. Finder's fees would apply to lost items, not stolen ones.
Call it what you want. Were the coins not found by the Langbords? I would want a decent-sized,substantial reward,with no jail time, for finding valuable stolen property like those ten 1933 double eagles the Langbords found.
I would direct my attorney to initially be making feeler inquiries about reward for finding, not immediately asserting rights of ownership to property that has been regarded as stolen by the gov for over eight decades.
The terms of the agreement that I have with my attorney would stipulate that if I go to jail over my attempts to collect a reward,attorney gets nothing.How about that as a provision of a contingent fee agreement?
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
<< <i>If the Mint isn't offering rewards, one can't expect to get one. Finder's fees would apply to lost items, not stolen ones
Call it what you want. Were the coins not found by the Langbords? I would want a decent-sized,substantial reward,with no jail time, for finding valuable stolen property like those ten 1933 double eagles the Langbords found.
I would direct my attorney to initially be making feeler inquiries about reward for finding, not immediately asserting rights of ownership to property that has been regarded as stolen by the gov for over eight decades.
The terms of the agreement that I have with my attorney would stipulate that if I go to jail over my attempts to collect a reward,attorney gets nothing.How about that as a provision of a contingent fee agreement?
Well, first, there is a lot of disagreement as to whether or not the 1933 double eagles are "valuable stolen property", for many reasons, such as the absence of a police report, the fact that all of the gold was accounted for, the "window" during which 1933's could have been legally purchased at the Mint, etc.
But, secondly, rather than take the theoretical $1 million offer for ten 1933 double eagles, why not take them to Europe and sell them there, the Langbords would net at least $1.5 million per coin in my opinion, total net = $15 million vs. the $1 million offer.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
<< <i>If the Mint isn't offering rewards, one can't expect to get one. Finder's fees would apply to lost items, not stolen ones
Call it what you want. Were the coins not found by the Langbords? I would want a decent-sized,substantial reward,with no jail time, for finding valuable stolen property like those ten 1933 double eagles the Langbords found.
I would direct my attorney to initially be making feeler inquiries about reward for finding, not immediately asserting rights of ownership to property that has been regarded as stolen by the gov for over eight decades.
The terms of the agreement that I have with my attorney would stipulate that if I go to jail over my attempts to collect a reward,attorney gets nothing.How about that as a provision of a contingent fee agreement?
The coins weren't reported as lost or missing either. Any reward or fee is totally voluntary on the part of the Government.
To possibly face charges of smuggling stolen government property out of the country,money laundering,and whatever other charges might stick? No thanks.I take my chances asking for a reward.It's a karma thing with the promise of a nice reward,not a get rich quick scheme that has all the potential to back-fire big time on me.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
Absence of a police report from when? 1937? September 22,2004 when Roy Langbord made "the Coins" (ten 1933 double eagles) available to the government? Gold coins were found to be missing by the audit prior to the 1937 great gold melt;a whole bag of 250 double eagles (presumed to be not dated 1933) face value,$5,000.These coins were never recovered and are considered to have been stolen. An investigation by government police (Secret Service) ensued in 1937 in a failed attempt to find the bag of coins and the culprit(s) responsible. Someone here,I believe it was DeepCoin,stated that $5,000 could buy a house in 1937.
It is my belief that the stolen bag of 250 double eagles,presumed stolen in 1933 (according to the Secret Service) from Mint Vault F,Cage 1, are intimately connected to 1933 double eagles that the government assumed were all melted in 1937.
That theft of double eagles from the Mint occurred in the '30's is a fact.That a "window of opportunity" for legitimate exchange of old coin for new coin existed for a week or two after March 15,1933 (first delivery of 1933 double eagles Coiner to Cashier occurred on this date) is pure speculation.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
<< <i>But, secondly, rather than take the theoretical $1 million offer for ten 1933 double eagles, why not take them to Europe and sell them there, the Langbords would net at least $1.5 million per coin in my opinion, total net = $15 million vs. the $1 million offer.
To possibly face charges of smuggling stolen government property out of the country,money laundering,and whatever other charges might stick? No thanks.I take my chances asking for a reward.It's a karma thing with the promise of a nice reward,not a get rich quick scheme that has all the potential to back-fire big time on me. >>
The mint hunted these down claiming stolen property. You wouldn't get a check, you'd see a US v John Doe suit served instead.
Wishful thinking.
<< <i>Well, first, there is a lot of disagreement as to whether or not the 1933 double eagles are "valuable stolen property", for many reasons, such as the absence of a police report, the fact that all of the gold was accounted for, the "window" during which 1933's could have been legally purchased at the Mint, etc.
Absence of a police report from when? 1937? September 22,2004 when Roy Langbord made "the Coins" (ten 1933 double eagles) available to the government? Gold coins were found to be missing by the audit prior to the 1937 great gold melt;a whole bag of 250 double eagles (presumed to be not dated 1933) face value,$5,000.These coins were never recovered and are considered to have been stolen. An investigation by government police (Secret Service) ensued in 1937 in a failed attempt to find the bag of coins and the culprit(s) responsible. Someone here,I believe it was DeepCoin,stated that $5,000 could buy a house in 1937.
It is my belief that the stolen bag of 250 double eagles,presumed stolen in 1933 (according to the Secret Service) from Mint Vault F,Cage 1, are intimately connected to 1933 double eagles that the government assumed were all melted in 1937.
That theft of double eagles from the Mint occurred in the '30's is a fact.That a "window of opportunity" for legitimate exchange of old coin for new coin existed for a week or two after March 15,1933 (first delivery of 1933 double eagles Coiner to Cashier occurred on this date) is pure speculation. >>
It is not a fact that 1933 double eagles were stolen. The alleged theft of some double eagles does not mean that 1933 double eagles were involved.
I didn't steal the property.I didn't "knowingly receive" stolen property.Is it a crime to ask for a reward from the owner (previously known as "finders fee") for finding their stolen property? I would consider it rude and insulting in the extreme for anyone,not just gov,to have me jailed for asking for a reward for finding their stolen property.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
The Indian Head (Buffalo) nickel was introduced in February 1913, replacing the Liberty Head design.[2] These were the first official strikings of nickels in 1913, since United States Mint's official records list no Liberty Head nickels produced in that year. But in 1920 the numismatic community learned of five Liberty Head nickels dated 1913, all owned by Samuel Brown, a numismatist who attended the American Numismatic Association's annual convention in 1920 and displayed the coins there. He had previously placed an advertisement in the December 1919 issue of The Numismatist soliciting information on these coins, offering to pay US $500 for each[3] and ostensibly purchasing them as a result. But Brown had been a Mint employee in 1913, and many numismatic historians have concluded that he may have struck them himself (or had them struck) and taken them from the Mint.[1] If true, this was not a unique occurrence; such clandestine strikes were actually quite common in the 19th century, with the Class II and III 1804 silver dollars perhaps the best-known instance. Other numismatic authorities, such as Q. David Bowers, have questioned this scenario, and pointed out that there are several methods by which the coins could have been legitimately produced; e.g., they may have been lawfully issued by the Mint's Medal Department "for cabinet purposes," or could have been struck as trial pieces in late 1912 to test the following year's new coinage dies.[4] But Bowers did not entirely discount the private minting theory.[5]
wikipedia on 1913 Liberty nickel
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
I think it is time to accept their provenance such that it is and let them into the collecting community, be it museums, private hands, etc. I am most hopeful the government loses this case on ANY basis for a large variety of reasons. Just MHO.
Limited resources? Nickels are not made of gold?
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
<< <i>No, it is a choice made by the Mint officials. I know as I asked this very question to the lawyer leading the litigation for the Mint back when it all began. It is imbedded institutional behavior regarding the DEs, going back decades and decades. The inability to be flexible in their thinking is often profound within the government, especially when presented with conflicting behavior on their part. This has transpired regardless of the administration or party in charge. The Mint is such a backwater place they have not had a confirmed director since Moy left years ago. >>
Richard, I agree with your comments above. AND, they have more relevance BECAUSE your comments are based on YOUR EXPERIENCE in dealing with these people over the years. It makes no sense in 2015 for the government to single out the 1933 DE's to prevent collectors from owning however many still exist. I too hope the courts rule for the Langbords and do so SOON. Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
Your wish for a Langbord victory very likely will happen,who knows when.I see a victory for either side as a hollow one though since no compromises have been made by either side to settle the dispute which has dragged on now for over 10 years.
My opinion is that the "party in the driver's seat" should extend the olive branch.Both sides have been in the driver's seat at various times over the last ten years.Have any olive branches been extended by one side to the other over the last 10 years? It appears to me that both sides have never left the "damn the torpedoes,full speed ahead" mode.
It's not travesty of justice anymore regardless of who "wins." There can be no justice in settling this dispute unless there is compromise.To me that is not a travesty,it is simply grotesque.
I think the best idea I have had was to allow the Langbords one coin of their choosing to dispose of as they please.Establish a foundation,the Langbord Foundation.
Government and Langbords share ownership of the other nine pieces.The pieces would go to auction.A Langbord (David?) could head up the foundation.It's a paid position.Proceeds of the auctions,after foundation expenses and costs have been met,go to worthy organizations across the land.The numismatic community gets to truly bask in the glory of victory for "the Coins" are now available to collectors who have the money to pony up for one or more of them.
Langbords-WIN
Government-WIN
Numismatic community-WIN
Worthy organizations across the land-WIN
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
It is interesting that the Mint didn't appear to have any records of the 1974-D aluminum cent and didn't even appear very interested in the coin until it went up for auction.
Where are the old trial transcripts and news articles?
Nov. 2, 2015, Supreme Court refuses to hear appeal. Game over.
<< <i>
My opinion is that the "party in the driver's seat" should extend the olive branch.Both sides have been in the driver's seat at various times over the last ten years.Have any olive branches been extended by one side to the other over the last 10 years? It appears to me that both sides have never left the "damn the torpedoes,full speed ahead" mode.
>>
If I was the government or the Langbords I would only advertise a settlement offer on the PCGS US Coin Forum. Trying to reach such an agreement privately is a waste of time, not when there are so many helpers here to facilitate negotiations.
"The specter of conspiracy within the Mint having been raised by McKernan (Vault Custodian and Shipper),Strang (Secret Service agent) met with Superintendent Edwin Dressel and Helen Moore,the assistant superintendent,the next day (October 12,1944) to clarify this angle.
Mrs. Moore was direct about the tight,powerful clique of Chaffin,Roland,Ziegler,and McCann-the Four Horsemen. She admitted they had run things the way they liked.This was an open secret.No one challenged them.It was almost a mint tradition.Each generation had its own group that used the Mint as their factory for their products,their gain.Today,some consider them Robin Hoods,others thieves. Over a century earlier, Chief Coiner Franklin Peale had taken private commissions,while more recently,coin dealers such as John Haseltine,Stephen Nagy,and Henry Chapman had murky inside contacts who provided the unusual,the rare,the specially made coins-strictly illegal,but
largely ignored by law enforcement.In the intervening years,a similar roster of corrupt employees had been producing and peddling unofficial metallic myths to line their pockets. Until 1885,this shadowy manufacture had been on a vast scale,but then the reins of authority had tightened,and these ventures had gone even deeper underground.
Some of the most valuable coins in the world owed their very existence not to great art,stunning history,and chance survival,but to Mint employees' after-hours legerdemain. The 1804 silver dollar was first made for diplomatic presentation in 1834 (thirty years after the date it bears) perhaps illegally but nevertheless officially. When word of their existence enthralled mid-nineteenth-century collectors the entrepreneurial underground workshop at the Mint got to work some twenty-five years later and illicitly made still more for private gain. Both the 1884 and 1885 trade dollars and the 1913 Liberty Head nickel,five examples of which had been illicitly made,quite probably not in 1913,were fabrications from the start,intended for collectors only. Hundreds,thousands,of others-including patterns,coins struck in the wrong metals,and complete fantasies-all led back through generation after generation of similarly enterprising cabals. Seldom,if ever,were the malfeasants prosecuted,and the coins themselves were eagerly,avidly,sought by collectors,who spent increasingly more and more money on them. The government's attitude,with an occasional half-hearted grumbling exception,had been one of benign neglect."
Illegal Tender,p.191
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
it has to be proof because it is a non-fiction book someone published, right?
<< <i>Which raises the question – if Tripp is so incorrect about this stated "fact" and so open to quoting incorrect "facts" what is to say which of his other so-called "facts" are incorrect and thus rendering his book a complete work of fiction ? >>
Tripp is quite reputable. But, when it comes to 1884 trade dollars, I am going to listen a lot harder to what TDN says.
<< <i>Here's some insight from David Tripp regarding government attitude about clandestine issues.From Illegal Tender,ch. 14,"A Clumsy Liar." Parenthesis,for clarification,are mine:
"The specter of conspiracy within the Mint having been raised by McKernan (Vault Custodian and Shipper),Strang (Secret Service agent) met with Superintendent Edwin Dressel and Helen Moore,the assistant superintendent,the next day (October 12,1944) to clarify this angle.
Mrs. Moore was direct about the tight,powerful clique of Chaffin,Roland,Ziegler,and McCann-the Four Horsemen. She admitted they had run things the way they liked.This was an open secret.No one challenged them.It was almost a mint tradition.Each generation had its own group that used the Mint as their factory for their products,their gain.Today,some consider them Robin Hoods,others thieves. Over a century earlier, Chief Coiner Franklin Peale had taken private commissions,while more recently,coin dealers such as John Haseltine,Stephen Nagy,and Henry Chapman had murky inside contacts who provided the unusual,the rare,the specially made coins-strictly illegal,but
largely ignored by law enforcement.In the intervening years,a similar roster of corrupt employees had been producing and peddling unofficial metallic myths to line their pockets. Until 1885,this shadowy manufacture had been on a vast scale,but then the reins of authority had tightened,and these ventures had gone even deeper underground.
Illegal Tender,p.191 >>
And this proves what? In order to prove a theft, there needs to be direct evidence related to the theft. Not "Mr. Switt and Mr. McCann were bad guys." Not hearsay evidence like "I think Mr. McCann stole the coins."
I'm still waiting to see direct evidence related to the theft.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
<< <i>
<< <i>Here's some insight from David Tripp regarding government attitude about clandestine issues.From Illegal Tender,ch. 14,"A Clumsy Liar." Parenthesis,for clarification,are mine:
"The specter of conspiracy within the Mint having been raised by McKernan (Vault Custodian and Shipper),Strang (Secret Service agent) met with Superintendent Edwin Dressel and Helen Moore,the assistant superintendent,the next day (October 12,1944) to clarify this angle.
Mrs. Moore was direct about the tight,powerful clique of Chaffin,Roland,Ziegler,and McCann-the Four Horsemen. She admitted they had run things the way they liked.This was an open secret.No one challenged them.It was almost a mint tradition.Each generation had its own group that used the Mint as their factory for their products,their gain.Today,some consider them Robin Hoods,others thieves. Over a century earlier, Chief Coiner Franklin Peale had taken private commissions,while more recently,coin dealers such as John Haseltine,Stephen Nagy,and Henry Chapman had murky inside contacts who provided the unusual,the rare,the specially made coins-strictly illegal,but
largely ignored by law enforcement.In the intervening years,a similar roster of corrupt employees had been producing and peddling unofficial metallic myths to line their pockets. Until 1885,this shadowy manufacture had been on a vast scale,but then the reins of authority had tightened,and these ventures had gone even deeper underground.
Illegal Tender,p.191 >>
And this proves what? In order to prove a theft, there needs to be direct evidence related to the theft. Not "Mr. Switt and Mr. McCann were bad guys." Not hearsay evidence like "I think Mr. McCann stole the coins."
I'm still waiting to see direct evidence related to the theft. >>
And we will never see that evidence. If the Mint had it, it would have produced it long ago at one trial or another. Instead they just decreed a fact, and now they are standing by that decree.
Some of the readers here were asking why the Mint never has gone after the 1913 Nickels. I thought some insight from numismatic researcher David Tripp might be useful in answering this question.
Authorities accepted that "this is the way it is" here (at the Mint) prior to the "out-of-control" corruptness of the Mint in the '30's is what I'm getting from my read of Tripp.
"Looking the other way" by authorities pretty much started to come to a screeching halt at the Mint in 1937 when it was discovered that a whole bag (250 coins,$5000 face value) of double eagles (not dated 1933) had been stolen from Vault F,Cage 1 (probably on March 5,1933). The theft wasn't discovered until the audit prior to the great gold melt early in 1937.
McCann,a Mint employee since 1917,was a prime suspect in the theft of the bag of double eagles but was never convicted for this theft.McCann was,however,sent to Lewisburg PA prison for a year and a day in 1941 for pilferage of change (the "defalcations" by McCann totaled $1200).
Tripp discusses many other individuals who the Mint had for employees during the corrupt and lawless '30's. I've thought about constructing a list of individuals who were Mint employees in the '30's with a short bio but have not yet done so. Here's a few of Tripp's comments about a '30's Mint employee which are of special interest to this conspiracy theorist. It's April,1944:
"Charles P. Rumpp, a former Mint employee,was a sad loser,sixty-six years old and an ex-con.The day after George McCann had been made an example and sentenced to prison for a year and a day,Rumpp had been sentenced to six months. For twenty years he had worked at the Mint and been trusted,but then unaccountably he had begun to steal: "I would take a little at a time,and I have never taken very much at any one time." Over three years he took a total of about $250.00,which left his life a shambles. He was fined $250,had to make good on the stolen amount,and was cast out from the Mint family. Now he was only too willing to help the two agents who had dug him up.
Rumpp had been the foreman of the Deposit and Weigh Room a decade earlier,in the spring of 1934,when the first of the gold coins were being reduced to gold bars. He remembered the men removing the gold stored from the big bullion vault,F-Cage 3-and that Edward McKernan,the Vault Custodian,and his assistant,Louis Frizzle,had been there as well.They had found five miscellaneous double eagles loose in a bin-unbagged,orphans.The three men did what they were supposed to do and turned the coins over to the Cashier,George McCann,but as far as Rumpp knew,"No subsequent accounting or disposition has been found of them."
Strang and Drescher (SS agents) took notes. Two days after Rumpp had been arrested back in 1940,he had made a second statement. Four years later,he readily confirmed to the two inquisitors what he had said then:"I can recall several instances which now look suspicious to me in the actions of Mr. McCann." Rumpp explained that "the employees of the Mint are so used to handling coin that they do not play with it in their hands." But McCann,"while standing at the boxes filled with uncurrent coin on the trucks,would be handling the coin."
It was not just an occasional idle instance:"He would tell me to phone him when the uncurrent coin were ready to be counted."
"It now occurs to me," Rumpp had said,in a simple,understated way,"as suspicious."
Illegal Tender,p.135-136
Later,the agents,accompanied by a Mint accountant with "original vault records clutched tightly under his arm," visited Louis Frizzle at his home in Delaware Gardens,New Jersey.Frizzle had taken charge of the vaults in October,1936,and the only substantive information he could offer was confirmation that he had been with McKernan and Rumpp when the five double eagles had turned up loose in 1934.He knew that they had been turned over to McCann but had no idea what had happened to them subsequently.Frizzle died two weeks later.
"Cashier Willard Boyce got in touch with Strang and Drescher again.His antipathy toward Ira Reed had apparently grown,and he again offered to set up the coin dealer.He was rebuffed,but something else he remembered about George McCann held the Federal agents glued to their hard wooden chairs.
Boyce recalled that "on at least one occasion he had seen McCann (then Cashier) come into the Deposit Weigh Room with a number of gold coins and weigh them."
Since the Mint's books balanced,and all the coins that had been struck were accounted for appropriately,Strang and Drescher wrote,"the 1933 Double Eagles which are known to have gotten into the hands of collectors,may have been substituted as to weight and value on the cashier's books,by Double Eagles of prior years mintage and having no numismatic value." The Cashier,McCann,would not "ordinarily have any occasion to weigh gold coins,especially a handful of them...unless he had been unduly interested in weights."
In other words,McCann might have palmed common twenty-dollar pieces while running his hands through piles of gold coins and later swapped them with the 1933 double eagles under his control. A quick switch. The books would balance. Just as important,the scales would balance. Any discrepencies discovered during the melting process would be minor and well within the acceptable range allowed for wastage.Pretty clever."
Illegal Tender,ch.10, "Working the List," p.137
George McCann,the Robin Hood of the 1930's Mint? No. George McCann was a thief who did prison time for his thievery while in the employ of the Mint.
Fiction? I don't think so.It is my firm belief that to think that any 1933 double eagle left the Mint lawfully during a "window of opportunity" to obtain one legally is the real wishful thinking.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
but Tripp does not say he was prosecuted for the 1933 "theft." Ditto for Switt.
So what does that say?
And read the passage McCann "might" have palmed coins. he's guessing.
If you are looking for proof, you haven't found it yet.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Here's some insight from David Tripp regarding government attitude about clandestine issues.From Illegal Tender,ch. 14,"A Clumsy Liar." Parenthesis,for clarification,are mine:
"The specter of conspiracy within the Mint having been raised by McKernan (Vault Custodian and Shipper),Strang (Secret Service agent) met with Superintendent Edwin Dressel and Helen Moore,the assistant superintendent,the next day (October 12,1944) to clarify this angle.
Mrs. Moore was direct about the tight,powerful clique of Chaffin,Roland,Ziegler,and McCann-the Four Horsemen. She admitted they had run things the way they liked.This was an open secret.No one challenged them.It was almost a mint tradition.Each generation had its own group that used the Mint as their factory for their products,their gain.Today,some consider them Robin Hoods,others thieves. Over a century earlier, Chief Coiner Franklin Peale had taken private commissions,while more recently,coin dealers such as John Haseltine,Stephen Nagy,and Henry Chapman had murky inside contacts who provided the unusual,the rare,the specially made coins-strictly illegal,but
largely ignored by law enforcement.In the intervening years,a similar roster of corrupt employees had been producing and peddling unofficial metallic myths to line their pockets. Until 1885,this shadowy manufacture had been on a vast scale,but then the reins of authority had tightened,and these ventures had gone even deeper underground.
Illegal Tender,p.191 >>
And this proves what? In order to prove a theft, there needs to be direct evidence related to the theft. Not "Mr. Switt and Mr. McCann were bad guys." Not hearsay evidence like "I think Mr. McCann stole the coins."
I'm still waiting to see direct evidence related to the theft. >>
And we will never see that evidence. If the Mint had it, it would have produced it long ago at one trial or another. Instead they just decreed a fact, and now they are standing by that decree. >>
This. Produce a/the document/documentation stating that the coins were NOT to be released for circulation.