<< <i>I have not read through the 50 pages of responses herein, so I apoligize in advance if I ask a question which was already asked.
Has anyone retrieved a copy of the transcripts from the trial or a list of what was entered into evidence?
I believe Dave Bowers was originally requested to be the expert witness for the defense, but he could not, and Roger Burdette was their expert. Has anyone asked Roger his thoughts on some of the more important points presented here?
On a coin such as a 1933 Twenty or 1964-D Peace Dollar being submitted to a third party grading service, not sure, but is the TPG service required to notify the secret service or other agency of such coins?
I remember when PCGS offered 10K or something like that for the opportunity to examine or photograph a 1964-D Peace Dollar, part of the request stated that PCGS representatives would agree to meet anywhere, to help protect the coin for seisure.
Kevin >>
I would think the trial transcripts and exhibits would be public record.
IIRC at the time discussed here Burdette's testimony was not a coup for the Langbords.
If you showed me a 33 DE, I would not feel compelled to report it so I doubt that PCGS is either unless they have a standing court order to do so.
<< <i>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
I think Tripp can be guilty of making some misspeak as much as any of us.I have corrected some of my own misspeak in this thread once I become aware of it. I've been bit in the arse before for incorrectly assuming things or being too lazy to "look it up" to verify before speaking.Verification can be very time-consuming so the temptation is there at times to just speak,relying on an incorrect (wrong) assumption or incorrect (wrong) recollection.I really don't think Tripp is in the business of deliberately trying to deceive folks in Illegal Tender,however.
Redbook (my only immediate source of information about trade dollars) says this about 1884 and 1885 Trade dollars, ...........................Mintage 1884 (b)...........(10) 1885 (b)........... (5)
(b) The trade dollars of 1884 and 1885 were unknown to collectors until 1908. None are listed in the Mint director's report,and numismatists believe that they are not part of the regular Mint issue.
A Guide Book of United States Coins 2014,p.225
tdn,is the Redbook being factual about 1884 and 1885 trade dollars or are they,at Redbook,guilty of misspeaking about the 1884 and 1885 trade dollars? After all,the two dates are lumped together in the same footnote for the Redbook's commentary about them. >>
1884 trade dollars were minted under the same authority and procedures as the other proof only dates and only after their production was it decided to end the series. All were destroyed except ten. 1885s were created on the sly and it shows in their production quality.
I wonder WHY the court had to approve the filing of the government's reply memorandum. The request was highly unusual I would think. I'm really wondering if this will lead to the court agreeing to rehear the case. I think it all boils down to whether or not the majority of the judges feel that the Langbords got their CAFRA when the district court was ordered to do the "redo". It all comes down to how the majority feel about CAFRA and how it does or does NOT play into the decision. JMHO. Steve
<< <i>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
I think Tripp can be guilty of making some misspeak as much as any of us.I have corrected some of my own misspeak in this thread once I become aware of it. I've been bit in the arse before for incorrectly assuming things or being too lazy to "look it up" to verify before speaking.Verification can be very time-consuming so the temptation is there at times to just speak,relying on an incorrect (wrong) assumption or incorrect (wrong) recollection.I really don't think Tripp is in the business of deliberately trying to deceive folks in Illegal Tender,however.
Redbook (my only immediate source of information about trade dollars) says this about 1884 and 1885 Trade dollars, ...........................Mintage 1884 (b)...........(10) 1885 (b)........... (5)
(b) The trade dollars of 1884 and 1885 were unknown to collectors until 1908. None are listed in the Mint director's report,and numismatists believe that they are not part of the regular Mint issue.
A Guide Book of United States Coins 2014,p.225
tdn,is the Redbook being factual about 1884 and 1885 trade dollars or are they,at Redbook,guilty of misspeaking about the 1884 and 1885 trade dollars? After all,the two dates are lumped together in the same footnote for the Redbook's commentary about them. >>
1884 trade dollars were minted under the same authority and procedures as the other proof only dates and only after their production was it decided to end the series. All were destroyed except ten. 1885s were created on the sly and it shows in their production quality. >>
So would I be correct in assuming you own at least one '64 and one '65?
<< <i> 1933 Double eagles started showing up in private hands soon after the great gold melt of 1937 was well underway.I find this very suspicious.If Izzy had obtained "the Coins" lawfully in 1933 why did he wait four years,until the melt was underway,to start unloading them? >>
Put yourself in Izzy's place, lets say you got 25 1933 double eagles right before the window closed. You now had the only 25 that are in private hands, with a half million in a government vault. Lets say further that you thought the government would eventually melt all the coins. Would you sell them immediately, or would you wait until the melt started in hopes of getting top dollar.
I could also see the scenario where Switt tried to sell them sooner, but no one wanted to buy them for the price Switt had on them. People might not want to spend a lot of money on a rare coin, when a know hoard is out there. But the melt starts, and the market dynamics change, and out come the '33 in private hands.
<< <i> 1933 Double eagles started showing up in private hands soon after the great gold melt of 1937 was well underway.I find this very suspicious.If Izzy had obtained "the Coins" lawfully in 1933 why did he wait four years,until the melt was underway,to start unloading them? >>
Put yourself in Izzy's place, lets say you got 25 1933 double eagles right before the window closed. You now had the only 25 that are in private hands, with a half million in a government vault. Lets say further that you thought the government would eventually melt all the coins. Would you sell them immediately, or would you wait until the melt started in hopes of getting top dollar.
I could also see the scenario where Switt tried to sell them sooner, but no one wanted to buy them for the price Switt had on them. People might not want to spend a lot of money on a rare coin, when a know hoard is out there. But the melt starts, and the market dynamics change, and out come the '33 in private hands. >>
Would it have been possible that Izzy got most of them during the melting period?
<< <i>Put yourself in Izzy's place, lets say you got 25 1933 double eagles right before the window closed. You now had the only 25 that are in private hands, with a half million in a government vault. Lets say further that you thought the government would eventually melt all the coins. >>
So, if Izzy got them legitimately with the idea that the remainder would be melted, wouldn't that be a significant incentive to properly document the transaction?
<< <i>Put yourself in Izzy's place, lets say you got 25 1933 double eagles right before the window closed. You now had the only 25 that are in private hands, with a half million in a government vault. Lets say further that you thought the government would eventually melt all the coins. >>
So, if Izzy got them legitimately with the idea that the remainder would be melted, wouldn't that be a significant incentive to properly document the transaction? >>
there is always the chance the newly minted coins would not be viewed as "numismatically important" and subject to seizure
<< <i>Put yourself in Izzy's place, lets say you got 25 1933 double eagles right before the window closed. You now had the only 25 that are in private hands, with a half million in a government vault. Lets say further that you thought the government would eventually melt all the coins. >>
So, if Izzy got them legitimately with the idea that the remainder would be melted, wouldn't that be a significant incentive to properly document the transaction? >>
He probably didn't foresee that there would be an issue. If I recall correctly, he was a regular at the mint window, and if he never had a problem before, why would he think these would be a problem?
<< <i>Put yourself in Izzy's place, lets say you got 25 1933 double eagles right before the window closed. You now had the only 25 that are in private hands, with a half million in a government vault. Lets say further that you thought the government would eventually melt all the coins. >>
So, if Izzy got them legitimately with the idea that the remainder would be melted, wouldn't that be a significant incentive to properly document the transaction? >>
there is always the chance the newly minted coins would not be viewed as "numismatically important" and subject to seizure >>
"Numismatically" was important and is at the heart of the matter. NUMISMATIC is key. Numismatic is rudimentary. This is precisely WHY the Executive Order allowed for the ownership of the coins in the aggregate of $200. Because the POWERS that be understood the strength of this "trade" long before 1933. Whether the courts or God wish to accept this fact, is not my decision. But, the _ _ _ _ is what it is. And this _ _ _ _ came out in all it's glory with the dates "1933" appeared on them, after the fact.
So, here we are, still. Contentious from one side …. At the melting pot.
<< <i>I don't think there is a one in a billion chance he got them legitimately. >>
The point is, the government seized them illegitimately by deliberately refusing to follow the CAFRA rules.
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.
Here are some excerpts from an interesting article by David Ganz. Parts that are bolded are the work of yours truly.I've also made some entries entitled "My Notes.":
"There is no precise definition of what constitutes a "rare coin." Executive Order 6260 (issued by FDR on August 28, 1933) recalled all gold coins then in circulation, except "rare and unusual" coins, which were subsequently interpreted to mean as any U.S. gold coin minted prior to 1933. In Coin World Almanac (6th ed. 1990), it is noted that "[T]here are many factors which can make a particular issue coin rare. These include total mintage, the normal attrition of circulation, official and private meltings, and the level of collector interest at the time of issue." One could argue that subsequent collector interest is also a factor.
As to why "rare and unusual coin" was exempted, it probably didn't hurt that William H. Woodin was FDR's Secretary of the Treasury, and that the elfin man just happened to be a serious coin collector. He allowed everyday people to keep $100 in gold coin (it was the Depression, after all) and also allowed retention of "rare and unusual coins" having a "recognized special value to collectors". (As you will read below, it was actually acting secretary Dean Acheson who did the dirty deed)." ...
"Originally, the Treasury secretary had the right to issue regulations governing private gold ownership (including coins). That in substance was that "Gold coin of recognized special value to collectors of rare and unusual coin may be acquired and held, transported within the United States, or imported without the necessity of holding a license therefor. Such coin may be exported, however, only in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 54.25 of title 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations."
There were initial provisos as well (which changed over time):
"(b) Gold coin made prior to April 5, 1933, is considered to be of recognized special value to collectors of rare and unusual coin.
(c) Gold coin made subsequent to April 5, 1933, is presumed not to be of recognized special value to collectors of rare and unusual coin."
(Editor's note: This 1954 codification broadened and clarified the definition of "recognized special value to collectors of rare and unusual coin" to any gold coin minted.)
My note: All 1933 Eagles ($10) are "recognized to be of special value" since all 1933 Eagles were made prior to April 5,1933.What about 1933 double eagles,though? How would you tell whether a 1933 double eagle was made prior to or after April 5,1933? Answer: You wouldn't be able to tell. Since most of the 1933 double eagles were made after April 5,1933, all 1933 double eagles would be considered by government officials to not have recognized special value in 1933,when they were made,nor would any 1933 double eagle be considered by government as having recognized special value eleven years later in 1944. Was it ever government's intent to lawfully release for circulation 1933 double eagles? By appearances,the answer is an emphatic no.
Later changes included these:
"The current licensing policy will be retained for coins minted after January 1, 1934. Gold coins may still be detained at Customs stations for examination as to their authenticity. Counterfeit coins may not be imported and are subject to seizure. Restrikes, that is modern reproductions of gold coins bearing a much earlier date, will also not qualify for importation. Therefore, travelers and coin collectors should be especially careful that the coins they purchase abroad are genuine." (Please see original Treasury Department notice.)
Management of these gold coins was undertaken by the Office of Domestic Gold and Silver Operations of the Treasury Department. Dr. Leland Howard was the first director;..."
My Note: Dr. Leland Howard,as acting Mint director starting in March,1944, initiated the Secret Service confiscations of 1933 double eagles in private hands soon after learning that an export license had been granted (regarded by government as mistakenly granted) to the Egyptians for one 1933 double eagle by Nellie Tayloe Ross,Director of the Mint since May,1933.
Was there interest among rich collectors of the day to acquire a 1933 double for their collections? Certainly. The problem for collectors of the day is that government didn't consider '33 doubles as having "special value." Was the possibility there in 1933 to acquire a 1933 double eagle legally? Highly doubtful to no. It was not business as usual at the Mint in 1933.The Mint's business has never been to exclusively strike coins for collectors. After March 10,1933 (the date of EO 6073) and five days prior to the first delivery of '33 doubles from Coiner to Cashier,the 1933 Mint, in the rock-bottom depths of the Great Depression, would have been even less accomodating to coin collectors,especially rich ones who could afford to collect gold coins in the '30's,than it had been in previous years. My belief is that no window of opportunity to acquire a '33 double at the Mint window in 1933 was ever there. Belief that there was no window of opportunity to acquire a 1933 double eagle at the Mint window requires the belief that any 1933 double eagle that found its way into private hands did so unlawfully.
There's lots of good information in Ganz's ten page article.
"About 174 million double eagles were minted between 1849 and 1933. Of these,67 million (or 39%) were melted by the Mint. The overwhelming majority of those were during the seven year period 1933-1939 (97.7 percent,in fact.)"
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
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 see this reference to date near the end of Ganz's article,
The modern era in gold ownership ....
"Let's look at this scenario:
It was a dark and stormy economy.Unemployment (including the discouraged workers) exceeded 18 percent. The stock market,in the midst of a trading session,suddenly lost steam and the Dow Jones Industrial Average went into a steep decline that made some wonder if it would-or could-ever come back. Gold was positively volatile."
The first three sentences sound a lot like a precursor to the Great Depression-and indeed,read like a pot boiler of the early 1930's. And all this might sound a lot like something that you'd read in the newspapers of the late 1920's,after the Crash that saw the Dow decline by 25%;but it turns out that it could be that day in May,2010 when the Dow plummeted by nearly 1,000 points at mid-day. Or that recent day in September,2011 when gold dropped over $100 an ounce and silver plummeted from $49 to $30."
Gold Seizure, Here's how it could happen and what you can do about it,Copyright 2011 by David L. Ganz
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Today the court granted the government's Petition For Rehearing En Banc and vacated the 4-17-2015 decision of the 3 Justice Panel that heard the appeal.
The court will set a disposition date. At the time a disposition date is set the court will determine if there will be oral argument and if so how much time will be allotted for same. If there will be oral argument the date and time of a hearing before the entire panel of Justices on the 3rd Circuit Court Of Appeals will be set. The court will notify the attorneys for both sides of the date and time of any hearing that may be set 7 days prior to the disposition date.
Nothing issued by the court indicates that any further legal briefs are to be filed.
Very interesting that the Petition was granted since historically very few of them are.
The case goes on and when it is finished no one can say with any certainty.
Today the court granted the government's Petition For Rehearing En Banc and vacated the 4-17-2015 decision of the 3 Justice Panel that heard the appeal.
The court will set a disposition date. At the time a disposition date is set the court will determine if there will be oral argument and if so how much time will be allotted for same. If there will be oral argument the date and time of a hearing before the entire panel of Justices on the 3rd Circuit Court Of Appeals will be set. The court will notify the attorneys for both sides of the date and time of any hearing that may be set 7 days prior to the disposition date.
Nothing issued by the court indicates that any further legal briefs are to be filed.
Very interesting that the Petition was granted since historically very few of them are.
The case goes on and when it is finished no one can say with any certainty. >>
Sorry to be so thick -- but does this mean that the Langbord's hard won victory has been taken away? So they are back to square one as of today?
Say it isn't so!
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
The 4-17-2015 decision of the 3 Justice panel of the court has been vacated. It is as if it never was issued.
The full panel of Justices on the court will issue its own decision in the case. Its decision could be 100% in favor of either party or or somewhere in the middle, including sending the case back to the trial court for a new trial on some or all issues.
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.
Seems like really bad news for the Langbords. From previous posts, the granting of that petition means that a majority of the justices wanted to hear it en blanc. Seems doubtful they would vote to hear it unless they wanted to overturn it.
Although even if the panel over turns the CAFRA finding, maybe they will still agree with the triple hearsay issue and send it back for a new trial without the made us stuff from the secret service and tripp entered as evidence.
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
So who could we as an interested group direct our concerns and complaints to about the handling of this case? Could an online petition against the government cause a presidential revue? Not that I think our current President would side with the Langfords or enough people would sign the petition.
the Road goes on Forever, to steal a quote from a song. It has been a long ride, but NEVER dull. Given the choices, it would be funny if they made them litigate it again without the heresay that was admitted. I do NOT have a feeling that finality is anywhere near at this time. Could be 2020.
Retired United States Mint guy, now working on an Everyman Type Set.
What is gov going to do with ten more 1933 Double eagles? Sock 'em away in the Smithsonian? Now is the time for gov to extend the olive branch to the Langbords since it appears gov is in the driver's seat at this time.
Regarding beliefs:
My beliefs come from careful readings of experts (Tripp,Frankel,and others,most recently,Ganz) on the history of the 1933 double eagle.I filter "the wheat from the chaff" of what I read in that area between my ears to arrive at any of my beliefs,or non-beliefs,as the case may be.The civil trial standard is "preponderance of the evidence." Am I wrong by using the same standard,the preponderance,to arrive at my beliefs about what I think happened with 1933 double eagles?
Gov wins,no olive branches involved,here's yet another idea what to do with "the Coins:"
Have a national lottery. A single chance to win costs,say,$10.You get eleven chances to win for $100. Let the ping-pong balls randomly flying around in the basket decide who gets "the Coins." It would be possible for a lucky winner to win more than one Coin by the lottery,although the odds are very much against it.How much money to put to pre-determined good uses could be generated by gov by having a lottery for "the Coins"? $50M? $100M?
I'm expert in the mathematics of probability and laws of chance.I whole-heartedly offer my expertise,without compensation other than expenses, to the government to sensibly conduct such a lottery as described above.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>So who could we as an interested group direct our concerns and complaints to about the handling of this case? Could an online petition against the government cause a presidential revue? Not that I think our current President would side with the Langfords or enough people would sign the petition. >>
While all of us find the case numismatically compelling, remember this is merely a drop of water in that swamp we call Washington, D.C.
If the CAFRA issue makes it all the way to the Supreme Court, this thing will get a lot more publicity and the politicians won't hesitate to weigh in.
If the CAFRA issue makes it all the way to the Supreme Court, this thing will get a lot more publicity and the politicians won't hesitate to weigh in.
Supreme Court hearing the Langbord-Gov dispute is extremely unlikely.
I've thought about "the lottery" for "the Coins" a little more.Forget having a ping-pong ball style drawing. Scratch tickets are the way to go. $100 minimum to play.You get eleven chances on your ticket.One of the eleven chances possible to reveal is a "second chance." A scratch instant winner indicates something like,"Congratulations! You are the winner of Coin NGC #xxxxxxx-xxx."
550,000 tickets are printed.There are 6,050,000 total "to be scratched" spaces on the tickets,in other words.Only 10 of those spaces out of the over 6M total will reveal the ticket to be instantly "good for" a 1933 double eagle.It would be possible,although extremely unlikely, to win more than one coin on a ticket.Max. # of coins to win on one ticket is set by the printing company to be no more than two,however. Government pulls in up to $55M. Expenses for staffing,printing tickets,mailing,setting up website for players to monitor the game,etc. might be a few million dollars. The government profits from the ex Farouk coin should be ample to cover expenses.
Gov should get in touch with a company that prints scratch tickets for the states that have scratch games for details and costs.Consulting with state lottery officials would be a good idea.
Once the ticket is verified,the "Coin" or "Coins" are awarded to the lucky scratcher.Gov sets up a website where players can monitor the progress of the game.If 200,000 tickets are sold and,say only three winners of three coins have been verified,the website would report that seven coins are still available for winning on 350,000 tickets not yet sold.
The "immediate winner" game closes after a year has passed,or sooner,given all tickets have been sold.If there are one or more coins still up for grabs after the immediate game closes,then the holders of "second chance" tickets will be eligible to be in a drawing for the remaining coins.The tickets are bearer tickets. Lose the ticket,tough luck.Someone finding your lost winning ticket is their good fortune.Your dog eats the ticket,tough luck.Fail to get a would-be winner verified by a certain date will result in forfeiting rights to "the Coin" indicated on the ticket as having been won.
What fun! I would be good for buying a few hundred bucks worth of tickets for a chance to win a coin easily worth over $1M.
I would dearly like to see the proverbial olive branch extended to the Langbords first,notwithstanding how much fun it would be to have a lottery for "the Coins."
edited to correct factor of 10 math error.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i> What is gov going to do with ten more 1933 Double eagles? Sock 'em away in the Smithsonian? Now is the time for gov to extend the olive branch to the Langbords since it appears gov is in the driver's seat at this time.
Regarding beliefs:
My beliefs come from careful readings of experts (Tripp,Frankel,and others,most recently,Ganz) on the history of the 1933 double eagle.I filter "the wheat from the chaff" of what I read in that area between my ears to arrive at any of my beliefs,or non-beliefs,as the case may be.The civil trial standard is "preponderance of the evidence." Am I wrong by using the same standard,the preponderance,to arrive at my beliefs about what I think happened with 1933 double eagles?
Gov wins,no olive branches involved,here's yet another idea what to do with "the Coins:"
Have a national lottery. A single chance to win costs,say,$10.You get eleven chances to win for $100. Let the ping-pong balls randomly flying around in the basket decide who gets "the Coins." It would be possible for a lucky winner to win more than one Coin by the lottery,although the odds are very much against it.How much money to put to pre-determined good uses could be generated by gov by having a lottery for "the Coins"? $50M? $100M?
I'm expert in the mathematics of probability and laws of chance.I whole-heartedly offer my expertise,without compensation other than expenses, to the government to sensibly conduct such a lottery as described above.
Unfortunately my mind says that the majority of the full court does NOT accept the CAFRA law as being applicable in this case. Without that law it is hard for me to see the full court now faulting the district court rulings regarding hearsay, etc. and therefore providing any relief to the Langbords. I just hope the remainder of this action moves along swiftly. I really don't want to see this drag into 2016. Steve
Both the first judge and 2/3 of the appellate panel felt it applicable.
I notice on the appeal ruling it was marked "precedential."
I wonder if they want to "get a precedent off on the right foot" by having an en banc hearing to ensure consistency in the application of the law on the precedent.... ????
Steve, come on...I'm hoping this thing goes to 2026 or 2036, let alone 2016. I'm in the weird position of not wanting either side to win. Limbo, anyone?
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>Steve, come on...I'm hoping this thing goes to 2026 or 2036, let alone 2016. I'm in the weird position of not wanting either side to win. Limbo, anyone? >>
Winning or losing is all about PERCEPTION. What do the spectators think will happen? This spectator thinks the majority of the 3rd court of appeals, after reading all the writings, thinks the government has been wronged by the application of CAFRA and will now work their way thru correcting that wrong. My understanding is that VERY few panel decisions are reversed. I think the pressure was applied and the reversal of the panel decision is going to come out of the next phase. I just think it is a disservice to the Langbords to drag it out with more rehashing of the same facts. As Mr.1874 (Steven) said, the presented evidence about (stealing the coins, etc.) may be heresay to some of us, but when the government continues to say it, some of those judges (a majority) tend to believe it. Of course, I hope I am wrong, but I now think the tide has turned and we will see the process play out. Steve
I suspect that the en banc court took up the case because it was the gummint itself that asked it to do so. Let us hope that they do not rule in the gummint's favor for the same reason.
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.
There is the possibility that the export license was deliberately issued to the Egyptians by "manufactured mistake" in order to give Dr. Howard justification to seize in his effort to recover 1933 double eagles known to be held by various individuals in the states. Nellie Tayloe Ross was the fall gal. She did the deed and was then put on administrative leave for sake of appearances."Special value" or "special interest" is very vague terminology,wide open for interpretation. It is highly likely and most probable that considerable confusion about what to do about 1933 double eagles reigned at the Mint in 1944.
As early as 1937 there were advertisements offering 1933 double eagles for sale. Noone should be so naïve as to think that the first information about some 1933 double eagles finding their way into private hands was suddenly realized in 1944 when the Farouk piece walked into the Mint looking for an export license.Nellie Tayloe Ross,Director of the Mint since 1937,herself created the export form that was used for the Farouk coin. Why did gov wait until 1944 to send Secret Service after "the Coins" very soon (within a few weeks) after Dr. Howard "learned of" the "mistake" that had been made by Mrs. Ross?
As early as 1937,Mint officials might have been very much aware that King Farouk would eventually be looking for an illegal-to-own 1933 double eagle for his collection.Even though there never was any gov intent to officially release '33 doubles for circulation,the gov may have become painfully aware as early as 1937 that some of "the Coins" had been illegally spirited out of the Mint by one or more of their sticky-fingered employees.
When the theft of an entire bag of 250 double eagles was discovered,that set the ball in motion for gov to eventually try to recover '33 double eagles,in addition to trying to recover the stolen bag.If the theft of the bag had never happened,gov might well have "looked the other way" about some '33 doubles getting into private hands. We all have 1930's Mint employee greed to thank for the present state of affairs about 1933 double eagles.In 1937,with the theft of the bag of 250 double eagles,the Mint finally said,"Enough is enough! We're tired of being ripped off!"
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Comments
<< <i>I have not read through the 50 pages of responses herein, so I apoligize in advance if I ask a question which was already asked.
Has anyone retrieved a copy of the transcripts from the trial or a list of what was entered into evidence?
I believe Dave Bowers was originally requested to be the expert witness for the defense, but he could not, and Roger Burdette was their expert.
Has anyone asked Roger his thoughts on some of the more important points presented here?
On a coin such as a 1933 Twenty or 1964-D Peace Dollar being submitted to a third party grading service, not sure, but is the TPG service required to notify the secret service or other agency of such coins?
I remember when PCGS offered 10K or something like that for the opportunity to examine or photograph a 1964-D Peace Dollar, part of the request stated that PCGS representatives would agree to meet anywhere, to help protect the coin for seisure.
Kevin >>
I would think the trial transcripts and exhibits would be public record.
IIRC at the time discussed here Burdette's testimony was not a coup for the Langbords.
If you showed me a 33 DE, I would not feel compelled to report it so I doubt that PCGS is either unless they have a standing court order to do so.
<< <i>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
I think Tripp can be guilty of making some misspeak as much as any of us.I have corrected some of my own misspeak in this thread once I become aware of it.
I've been bit in the arse before for incorrectly assuming things or being too lazy to "look it up" to verify before speaking.Verification can be very time-consuming so the temptation is there at times to just speak,relying on an incorrect (wrong) assumption or incorrect (wrong) recollection.I really don't think Tripp is in the business of deliberately trying to deceive folks in Illegal Tender,however.
Redbook (my only immediate source of information about trade dollars) says this about 1884 and 1885 Trade dollars,
...........................Mintage
1884 (b)...........(10)
1885 (b)........... (5)
(b) The trade dollars of 1884 and 1885 were unknown to collectors until 1908. None are listed in the Mint director's report,and numismatists believe that they are not part of the regular Mint issue.
A Guide Book of United States Coins 2014,p.225
tdn,is the Redbook being factual about 1884 and 1885 trade dollars or are they,at Redbook,guilty of misspeaking about the 1884 and 1885 trade dollars? After all,the two dates are lumped together in the same footnote for the Redbook's commentary about them. >>
1884 trade dollars were minted under the same authority and procedures as the other proof only dates and only after their production was it decided to end the series. All were destroyed except ten. 1885s were created on the sly and it shows in their production quality.
It will be very interesting to see if the Petition For Rehearing is granted or not.
Maybe the court will decide by next Monday.
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
I can't believe they approved it.
I guess the clock starts with day 1 tomorrow
end of next week? maybe the week after?
(it was "by the court" and signed by one of the judges finding in favor of the Langbords.)
<< <i>Holy Schmuck Batman!
I can't believe they approved it.
I guess the clock starts with day 1 tomorrow
end of next week? maybe the week after?
(it was "by the court" and signed by one of the judges finding in favor of the Langbords.) >>
ooops
If I were the Langbords' Atty, I'd file a reply to the reply of equal page count.
I guess the clock will start the day after that is approved.
<< <i>
<< <i>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
I think Tripp can be guilty of making some misspeak as much as any of us.I have corrected some of my own misspeak in this thread once I become aware of it.
I've been bit in the arse before for incorrectly assuming things or being too lazy to "look it up" to verify before speaking.Verification can be very time-consuming so the temptation is there at times to just speak,relying on an incorrect (wrong) assumption or incorrect (wrong) recollection.I really don't think Tripp is in the business of deliberately trying to deceive folks in Illegal Tender,however.
Redbook (my only immediate source of information about trade dollars) says this about 1884 and 1885 Trade dollars,
...........................Mintage
1884 (b)...........(10)
1885 (b)........... (5)
(b) The trade dollars of 1884 and 1885 were unknown to collectors until 1908. None are listed in the Mint director's report,and numismatists believe that they are not part of the regular Mint issue.
A Guide Book of United States Coins 2014,p.225
tdn,is the Redbook being factual about 1884 and 1885 trade dollars or are they,at Redbook,guilty of misspeaking about the 1884 and 1885 trade dollars? After all,the two dates are lumped together in the same footnote for the Redbook's commentary about them. >>
1884 trade dollars were minted under the same authority and procedures as the other proof only dates and only after their production was it decided to end the series. All were destroyed except ten. 1885s were created on the sly and it shows in their production quality. >>
So would I be correct in assuming you own at least one '64 and one '65?
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
<< <i>
1933 Double eagles started showing up in private hands soon after the great gold melt of 1937 was well underway.I find this very suspicious.If Izzy had obtained "the Coins" lawfully in 1933 why did he wait four years,until the melt was underway,to start unloading them? >>
Put yourself in Izzy's place, lets say you got 25 1933 double eagles right before the window closed. You now had the only 25 that are in private hands, with a half million in a government vault. Lets say further that you thought the government would eventually melt all the coins. Would you sell them immediately, or would you wait until the melt started in hopes of getting top dollar.
I could also see the scenario where Switt tried to sell them sooner, but no one wanted to buy them for the price Switt had on them. People might not want to spend a lot of money on a rare coin, when a know hoard is out there. But the melt starts, and the market dynamics change, and out come the '33 in private hands.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
<< <i>
<< <i>
1933 Double eagles started showing up in private hands soon after the great gold melt of 1937 was well underway.I find this very suspicious.If Izzy had obtained "the Coins" lawfully in 1933 why did he wait four years,until the melt was underway,to start unloading them? >>
Put yourself in Izzy's place, lets say you got 25 1933 double eagles right before the window closed. You now had the only 25 that are in private hands, with a half million in a government vault. Lets say further that you thought the government would eventually melt all the coins. Would you sell them immediately, or would you wait until the melt started in hopes of getting top dollar.
I could also see the scenario where Switt tried to sell them sooner, but no one wanted to buy them for the price Switt had on them. People might not want to spend a lot of money on a rare coin, when a know hoard is out there. But the melt starts, and the market dynamics change, and out come the '33 in private hands. >>
Would it have been possible that Izzy got most of them during the melting period?
<< <i>Put yourself in Izzy's place, lets say you got 25 1933 double eagles right before the window closed. You now had the only 25 that are in private hands, with a half million in a government vault. Lets say further that you thought the government would eventually melt all the coins. >>
So, if Izzy got them legitimately with the idea that the remainder would be melted, wouldn't that be a significant incentive to properly document the transaction?
<< <i>
<< <i>Put yourself in Izzy's place, lets say you got 25 1933 double eagles right before the window closed. You now had the only 25 that are in private hands, with a half million in a government vault. Lets say further that you thought the government would eventually melt all the coins. >>
So, if Izzy got them legitimately with the idea that the remainder would be melted, wouldn't that be a significant incentive to properly document the transaction? >>
there is always the chance the newly minted coins would not be viewed as "numismatically important" and subject to seizure
<< <i>
<< <i>Put yourself in Izzy's place, lets say you got 25 1933 double eagles right before the window closed. You now had the only 25 that are in private hands, with a half million in a government vault. Lets say further that you thought the government would eventually melt all the coins. >>
So, if Izzy got them legitimately with the idea that the remainder would be melted, wouldn't that be a significant incentive to properly document the transaction? >>
He probably didn't foresee that there would be an issue. If I recall correctly, he was a regular at the mint window, and if he never had a problem before, why would he think these would be a problem?
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Put yourself in Izzy's place, lets say you got 25 1933 double eagles right before the window closed. You now had the only 25 that are in private hands, with a half million in a government vault. Lets say further that you thought the government would eventually melt all the coins. >>
So, if Izzy got them legitimately with the idea that the remainder would be melted, wouldn't that be a significant incentive to properly document the transaction? >>
there is always the chance the newly minted coins would not be viewed as "numismatically important" and subject to seizure >>
"Numismatically" was important and is at the heart of the matter. NUMISMATIC is key. Numismatic is rudimentary. This is precisely WHY the Executive Order allowed for the ownership of the coins in the aggregate of $200. Because the POWERS that be understood the strength of this "trade" long before 1933. Whether the courts or God wish to accept this fact, is not my decision. But, the _ _ _ _ is what it is. And this _ _ _ _ came out in all it's glory with the dates "1933" appeared on them, after the fact.
So, here we are, still. Contentious from one side …. At the melting pot.
<< <i>I don't think there is a one in a billion chance he got them legitimately. >>
The point is, the government seized them illegitimately by deliberately refusing to follow the CAFRA rules.
"There is no precise definition of what constitutes a "rare coin." Executive Order 6260 (issued by FDR on August 28, 1933) recalled all gold coins then in circulation, except "rare and unusual" coins, which were subsequently interpreted to mean as any U.S. gold coin minted prior to 1933. In Coin World Almanac (6th ed. 1990), it is noted that "[T]here are many factors which can make a particular issue coin rare. These include total mintage, the normal attrition of circulation, official and private meltings, and the level of collector interest at the time of issue." One could argue that subsequent collector interest is also a factor.
As to why "rare and unusual coin" was exempted, it probably didn't hurt that William H. Woodin was FDR's Secretary of the Treasury, and that the elfin man just happened to be a serious coin collector. He allowed everyday people to keep $100 in gold coin (it was the Depression, after all) and also allowed retention of "rare and unusual coins" having a "recognized special value to collectors". (As you will read below, it was actually acting secretary Dean Acheson who did the dirty deed)."
...
"Originally, the Treasury secretary had the right to issue regulations governing private gold ownership (including coins). That in substance was that "Gold coin of recognized special value to collectors of rare and unusual coin may be acquired and held, transported within the United States, or imported without the necessity of holding a license therefor. Such coin may be exported, however, only in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 54.25 of title 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations."
There were initial provisos as well (which changed over time):
"(b) Gold coin made prior to April 5, 1933, is considered to be of recognized special value to collectors of rare and unusual coin.
(c) Gold coin made subsequent to April 5, 1933, is presumed not to be of recognized special value to collectors of rare and unusual coin."
(Editor's note: This 1954 codification broadened and clarified the definition of "recognized special value to collectors of rare and unusual coin" to any gold coin minted.)
My note: All 1933 Eagles ($10) are "recognized to be of special value" since all 1933 Eagles were made prior to April 5,1933.What about 1933 double eagles,though? How would you tell whether a 1933 double eagle was made prior to or after April 5,1933? Answer: You wouldn't be able to tell. Since most of the 1933 double eagles were made after April 5,1933, all 1933 double eagles would be considered by government officials to not have recognized special value in 1933,when they were made,nor would any 1933 double eagle be considered by government as having recognized special value eleven years later in 1944. Was it ever government's intent to lawfully release for circulation 1933 double eagles? By appearances,the answer is an emphatic no.
Later changes included these:
"The current licensing policy will be retained for coins minted after January 1, 1934. Gold coins may still be detained at Customs stations for examination as to their authenticity. Counterfeit coins may not be imported and are subject to seizure. Restrikes, that is modern reproductions of gold coins bearing a much earlier date, will also not qualify for importation. Therefore, travelers and coin collectors should be especially careful that the coins they purchase abroad are genuine." (Please see original Treasury Department notice.)
Management of these gold coins was undertaken by the Office of Domestic Gold and Silver Operations of the Treasury Department. Dr. Leland Howard was the first director;..."
My Note: Dr. Leland Howard,as acting Mint director starting in March,1944, initiated the Secret Service confiscations of 1933 double eagles in private hands soon after learning that an export license had been granted (regarded by government as mistakenly granted) to the Egyptians for one 1933 double eagle by Nellie Tayloe Ross,Director of the Mint since May,1933.
"Gold Seizure" by David L. Ganz
Was there interest among rich collectors of the day to acquire a 1933 double for their collections? Certainly. The problem for collectors of the day is that government didn't consider '33 doubles as having "special value." Was the possibility there in 1933 to acquire a 1933 double eagle legally? Highly doubtful to no. It was not business as usual at the Mint in 1933.The Mint's business has never been to exclusively strike coins for collectors. After March 10,1933 (the date of EO 6073) and five days prior to the first delivery of '33 doubles from Coiner to Cashier,the 1933 Mint, in the rock-bottom depths of the Great Depression, would have been even less accomodating to coin collectors,especially rich ones who could afford to collect gold coins in the '30's,than it had been in previous years. My belief is that no window of opportunity to acquire a '33 double at the Mint window in 1933 was ever there. Belief that there was no window of opportunity to acquire a 1933 double eagle at the Mint window requires the belief that any 1933 double eagle that found its way into private hands did so unlawfully.
There's lots of good information in Ganz's ten page article.
"About 174 million double eagles were minted between 1849 and 1933. Of these,67 million (or 39%) were melted by the Mint. The overwhelming majority of those were during the seven year period 1933-1939 (97.7 percent,in fact.)"
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
The modern era in gold ownership
....
"Let's look at this scenario:
It was a dark and stormy economy.Unemployment (including the discouraged workers) exceeded 18 percent. The stock market,in the midst of a trading session,suddenly lost steam and the Dow Jones Industrial Average went into a steep decline that made some wonder if it would-or could-ever come back. Gold was positively volatile."
The first three sentences sound a lot like a precursor to the Great Depression-and indeed,read like a pot boiler of the early 1930's. And all this might sound a lot like something that you'd read in the newspapers of the late 1920's,after the Crash that saw the Dow decline by 25%;but it turns out that it could be that day in May,2010 when the Dow plummeted by nearly 1,000 points at mid-day. Or that recent day in September,2011 when gold dropped over $100 an ounce and silver plummeted from $49 to $30."
Gold Seizure, Here's how it could happen and what you can do about it,Copyright 2011 by David L. Ganz
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Today the court granted the government's Petition For Rehearing En Banc and vacated the 4-17-2015 decision of the 3 Justice Panel that heard the appeal.
The court will set a disposition date. At the time a disposition date is set the court will determine if there will be oral argument and if so how much time will be allotted for same. If there will be oral argument the date and time of a hearing before the entire panel of Justices on the 3rd Circuit Court Of Appeals will be set. The court will notify the attorneys for both sides of the date and time of any hearing that may be set 7 days prior to the disposition date.
Nothing issued by the court indicates that any further legal briefs are to be filed.
Very interesting that the Petition was granted since historically very few of them are.
The case goes on and when it is finished no one can say with any certainty.
The Langbords need an answer to unjust enrichment, which I think lies in the construction of the time limits in CAFRA.
<< <i>Just looked at the case docket.
Today the court granted the government's Petition For Rehearing En Banc and vacated the 4-17-2015 decision of the 3 Justice Panel that heard the appeal.
The court will set a disposition date. At the time a disposition date is set the court will determine if there will be oral argument and if so how much time will be allotted for same. If there will be oral argument the date and time of a hearing before the entire panel of Justices on the 3rd Circuit Court Of Appeals will be set. The court will notify the attorneys for both sides of the date and time of any hearing that may be set 7 days prior to the disposition date.
Nothing issued by the court indicates that any further legal briefs are to be filed.
Very interesting that the Petition was granted since historically very few of them are.
The case goes on and when it is finished no one can say with any certainty. >>
Sorry to be so thick -- but does this mean that the Langbord's hard won victory has been taken away? So they are back to square one as of today?
Say it isn't so!
The 4-17-2015 decision of the 3 Justice panel of the court has been vacated. It is as if it never was issued.
The full panel of Justices on the court will issue its own decision in the case. Its decision could be 100% in favor of either party or or somewhere in the middle, including sending the case back to the trial court for a new trial on some or all issues.
Although even if the panel over turns the CAFRA finding, maybe they will still agree with the triple hearsay issue and send it back for a new trial without the made us stuff from the secret service and tripp entered as evidence.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
<< <i>Oh, felgerkarb!!!!! >>
+1
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
<< <i><< Oh, felgerkarb!!!!! >>
+1 >>
+2
We may all be dead before this case is settled.
Jim
Regarding beliefs:
My beliefs come from careful readings of experts (Tripp,Frankel,and others,most recently,Ganz) on the history of the 1933 double eagle.I filter "the wheat from the chaff" of what I read in that area between my ears to arrive at any of my beliefs,or non-beliefs,as the case may be.The civil trial standard is "preponderance of the evidence." Am I wrong by using the same standard,the preponderance,to arrive at my beliefs about what I think happened with 1933 double eagles?
Gov wins,no olive branches involved,here's yet another idea what to do with "the Coins:"
Have a national lottery. A single chance to win costs,say,$10.You get eleven chances to win for $100. Let the ping-pong balls randomly flying around in the basket decide who gets "the Coins." It would be possible for a lucky winner to win more than one Coin by the lottery,although the odds are very much against it.How much money to put to pre-determined good uses could be generated by gov by having a lottery for "the Coins"? $50M? $100M?
I'm expert in the mathematics of probability and laws of chance.I whole-heartedly offer my expertise,without compensation other than expenses, to the government to sensibly conduct such a lottery as described above.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Said one lawyer to the other : "It's about beer thirty, isn't it ? "
<< <i>So who could we as an interested group direct our concerns and complaints to about the handling of this case? Could an online petition against the government cause a presidential revue? Not that I think our current President would side with the Langfords or enough people would sign the petition. >>
While all of us find the case numismatically compelling, remember this is merely a drop of water in that swamp we call Washington, D.C.
If the CAFRA issue makes it all the way to the Supreme Court, this thing will get a lot more publicity and the politicians won't hesitate to weigh in.
Supreme Court hearing the Langbord-Gov dispute is extremely unlikely.
I've thought about "the lottery" for "the Coins" a little more.Forget having a ping-pong ball style drawing. Scratch tickets are the way to go. $100 minimum to play.You get eleven chances on your ticket.One of the eleven chances possible to reveal is a "second chance." A scratch instant winner indicates something like,"Congratulations! You are the winner of Coin NGC #xxxxxxx-xxx."
550,000 tickets are printed.There are 6,050,000 total "to be scratched" spaces on the tickets,in other words.Only 10 of those spaces out of the over 6M total will reveal the ticket to be instantly "good for" a 1933 double eagle.It would be possible,although extremely unlikely, to win more than one coin on a ticket.Max. # of coins to win on one ticket is set by the printing company to be no more than two,however. Government pulls in up to $55M. Expenses for staffing,printing tickets,mailing,setting
up website for players to monitor the game,etc. might be a few million dollars. The government profits from the ex Farouk coin should be ample to cover expenses.
Gov should get in touch with a company that prints scratch tickets for the states that have scratch games for details and costs.Consulting with state lottery officials would be a good idea.
Once the ticket is verified,the "Coin" or "Coins" are awarded to the lucky scratcher.Gov sets up a website where players can monitor the progress of the game.If 200,000 tickets are sold and,say only three winners of three coins have been verified,the website would report that seven coins are still available for winning on 350,000 tickets not yet sold.
The "immediate winner" game closes after a year has passed,or sooner,given all tickets have been sold.If there are one or more coins still up for grabs after the immediate game closes,then the holders of "second chance" tickets will be eligible to be in a drawing for the remaining coins.The tickets are bearer tickets. Lose the ticket,tough luck.Someone finding your lost winning ticket is their good fortune.Your dog eats the ticket,tough luck.Fail to get a would-be winner verified by a certain date will result in forfeiting rights to "the Coin" indicated on the ticket as having been won.
What fun! I would be good for buying a few hundred bucks worth of tickets for a chance to win a coin easily worth over $1M.
I would dearly like to see the proverbial olive branch extended to the Langbords first,notwithstanding how much fun it would be to have a lottery for "the Coins."
edited to correct factor of 10 math error.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>
Regarding beliefs:
My beliefs come from careful readings of experts (Tripp,Frankel,and others,most recently,Ganz) on the history of the 1933 double eagle.I filter "the wheat from the chaff" of what I read in that area between my ears to arrive at any of my beliefs,or non-beliefs,as the case may be.The civil trial standard is "preponderance of the evidence." Am I wrong by using the same standard,the preponderance,to arrive at my beliefs about what I think happened with 1933 double eagles?
Gov wins,no olive branches involved,here's yet another idea what to do with "the Coins:"
Have a national lottery. A single chance to win costs,say,$10.You get eleven chances to win for $100. Let the ping-pong balls randomly flying around in the basket decide who gets "the Coins." It would be possible for a lucky winner to win more than one Coin by the lottery,although the odds are very much against it.How much money to put to pre-determined good uses could be generated by gov by having a lottery for "the Coins"? $50M? $100M?
I'm expert in the mathematics of probability and laws of chance.I whole-heartedly offer my expertise,without compensation other than expenses, to the government to sensibly conduct such a lottery as described above.
You're preaching to the wrong choir.
<< <i>I don't think there is a one in a billion chance he got them legitimately. >>
Maybe, but how many of our great coins that we now have came out of the Mint legitimately, I am sure we can make a long list of those we know did not.
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
I notice on the appeal ruling it was marked "precedential."
I wonder if they want to "get a precedent off on the right foot" by having an en banc hearing to ensure consistency in the application of the law on the precedent.... ????
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>Steve, come on...I'm hoping this thing goes to 2026 or 2036, let alone 2016. I'm in the weird position of not wanting either side to win. Limbo, anyone? >>
Winning or losing is all about PERCEPTION. What do the spectators think will happen? This spectator thinks the majority of the 3rd court of appeals, after reading all the writings, thinks the government has been wronged by the application of CAFRA and will now work their way thru correcting that wrong. My understanding is that VERY few panel decisions are reversed. I think the pressure was applied and the reversal of the panel decision is going to come out of the next phase. I just think it is a disservice to the Langbords to drag it out with more rehashing of the same facts. As Mr.1874 (Steven) said, the presented evidence about (stealing the coins, etc.) may be heresay to some of us, but when the government continues to say it, some of those judges (a majority) tend to believe it. Of course, I hope I am wrong, but I now think the tide has turned and we will see the process play out. Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
<< <i>Roger has stated that he cannot comment on the case until after it is finished in the courts. >>
Wonderful! This would be something truly worth reading vs. the U.S. Government's repeated attempts to rehash hearsay, and innuendo, etc. as truth.
As early as 1937 there were advertisements offering 1933 double eagles for sale. Noone should be so naïve as to think that the first information about some 1933 double eagles finding their way into private hands was suddenly realized in 1944 when the Farouk piece walked into the Mint looking for an export license.Nellie Tayloe Ross,Director of the Mint since 1937,herself created the export form that was used for the Farouk coin. Why did gov wait until 1944 to send Secret Service after "the Coins" very soon (within a few weeks) after Dr. Howard "learned of" the "mistake" that had been made by Mrs. Ross?
As early as 1937,Mint officials might have been very much aware that King Farouk would eventually be looking for an illegal-to-own 1933 double eagle for his collection.Even though there never was any gov intent to officially release '33 doubles for circulation,the gov may have become painfully aware as early as 1937 that some of "the Coins" had been illegally spirited out of the Mint by one or more of their sticky-fingered employees.
When the theft of an entire bag of 250 double eagles was discovered,that set the ball in motion for gov to eventually try to recover '33 double eagles,in addition to trying to recover the stolen bag.If the theft of the bag had never happened,gov might well have "looked the other way" about some '33 doubles getting into private hands. We all have 1930's Mint employee greed to thank for the present state of affairs about 1933 double eagles.In 1937,with the theft of the bag of 250 double eagles,the Mint finally said,"Enough is enough! We're tired of being ripped off!"
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein