<< <i>Firstly, as an American, it's a pity that the justices do not see the violation of the sixth amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America; for the Republic, as a democracy and as dignified for HER people. And that is that basic right to a speedy trial. Secondly, it's a shame that the lawyers in this case have not invoked "ex post facto law", as grounds for a complete dismissal of the whole process; and restitution to make whole, the family being paraded through our court system by the actions of that same government. All for what ? This illegal seizure of private property ? And I don't know the record of Israel Switt , except that he, like many of our consituents, was vying for the FIFO order of law.
All these years and this time for coins minted by the U.S. Mint. Whether intended or not for commercial use, the facts (coin facts) are such that these pieces have been outside the walls of the minting facility where they were made since 1933 (except; according to some speculators who think they were stolen later and attribute these coins to that heist , and cannot nor will they SEE THEM [those coins] as collectibles, rather spectacles ) That's disgusting. But it sells newspaper, so it's all good. It writes books. That's good for reforestation, perhaps And soy ink is eco-friendly so we are not making a big carbon foot print or increasing global warming in this fight.
Government institution or not, the law is not violated where it is interpreted. And _ _ _ knows that takes time. How much time ? Only the rights of HER (American) citizens in this fiasco are violated. This is my opinion. I have no law degree or the money to fight the judicial, executive or legislative branches of our government.
And SHE is mine by birth right.
Hold your head up, Miss Liberty.
This message will self destruct before the close of business. Because it's not for the masses, but the few. The proud. The ignorant, or possibly dumbed down.
>>
How does using chemicals to grow soybeans make soy ink eco friendly? Typing this message required NO ink!
Does the Mint have a seize list? It seems to me that the 1933 double eagle would be removed from any lists of items to be seized when gold was made legal to own.
1933 Eagle-legal to own in 1933 1933 Double Eagle-illegal to own in 1933
1974 law-legal to own gold.
1933 Eagle-legal to own in 2015. 1933 Double Eagle-illegal to own in 2015.
What happened? The 1933 double eagle should have been made legal to own long ago.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
<< <i>Does the Mint have a seize list? It it seems to me that the 1933 double eagle would be removed from any lists of items to be seized when gold was made legal to own.
1933 Eagle-legal to own in 1933 1933 Double Eagle-illegal to own in 1933
1974 law-legal to own gold.
1933 Eagle-legal to own in 2015. 1933 Double Eagle-illegal to own in 2015.
What happened? The 1933 double eagle should have been made legal to own long ago. >>
Monetized is a word with no clear definition it seems.
What makes sense to me is this:The 1933 double eagles are all accounted for on the written record from 1933.Double eagle dated 1933 needs to be monetized to make the books balance.
"To keep this $20 as yours (1933 double eagle) that we (government) previously accounted for as having been melted as U.S. Government property,you must pay us $20 to acquire title to this property with rights of ownership to it."
The old cashier records should be noted by present day officials, "$20 missing,now recovered."
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
Actually,it would be a mistake to make any new entries on those cashier records 1933-34. Numismatic historical records are they,not to be altered.The original records should be copied and archived for researchers.The original records themselves belong in the Smithsonian.
I ran across this while looking for new information:
All known examples of the 1933 Double Eagle Coins:
U.S. National Numismatic Collection
1.&2. 1934-Two 1933 Double Eagle $20 gold coins were presented to the Smithsonian Institution, U.S. National Numismatic Collection,where they are today. One was said to have been donated by J.G. Macallister and Frederick C.C. Boyd in 1938...
lol don't believe everything you read on the internet
The two Smithsonian pieces were sent to them by registered mail in October,1934 from George McCann,United States Mint Cashier. Macallister and Boyd had absolutely nothing to do with the Smithsonian pieces. There should be entries to be seen in the Cashier records made by none other than George McCann himself showing that the two Smithsonian 1933 double eagle pieces came directly from the Mint.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
<< <i>Monetized is a word with no clear definition it seems.
What makes sense to me is this:The 1933 double eagles are all accounted for on the written record from 1933.Double eagle dated 1933 needs to be monetized to make the books balance.
"To keep this $20 as yours (1933 double eagle) that we (government) previously accounted for as having been melted as U.S. Government property,you must pay us $20 to acquire title to this property with rights of ownership to it."
The old cashier records should be noted by present day officials, "$20 missing,now recovered." >>
Simply defined, monetization is the process of producing money either by printing currency or striking coins. It's not rocket science. The only point of contention would be at which point in the process do the coins become real money.
When the coins passed assay? Which they did.
When delivered to the cashier? Which they probably don't do anymore.
When delivered to the Federal Reserve either physically or by paperwork transfer?
Where is the statement/declaration/paperwork officially monetizing the 1932 or earlier DEs?
BTW did the Smithsonian ever cough up the $40 to monetize their 2 coins or are they monetized by default or they aren't real coins yet?
<< <i>The numismatic community owes the government a huge thank you for not going after the Saddle Ridge coins.The Saddle Ridge coins most certainly were stolen from the San Francisco Mint. >>
I'd bet that the Kagins researched this possibility a lot more than you did.
I think of monetization in more of a symbolic sense than anything else.The ornate certificate of monetization that the ex Fenton coin has welcomes the piece into the fold,indeed,establishes it as a coin.The accounting part about balancing books,etc. many may not care about.
Most important thing about the monetization is that it amounts to government blessing the pieces.I'm thinking that the Langbord's will not be getting monetization services from the government if they win "the Coins."
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
<< <i>Oh I'm sure kagin did research the possibilities more than I did. Was the Secret Service called first thing? A police report is basic. >>
It's not incumbent upon the finder of a stash of coins to call the SS or anyone else for that matter. Did the U. S. Mint report/record the theft of gold coins matching anywhere close to the description of the coins in the SRH? Did the Mint contact the SS way back when?
Assuming that the finders of those coins were the owners of the property that the coins were found on, a search of the abstract for said property along with backgrounds of previous owners would probably suggest whether those coins may have had any direct connection to the Mint or people who worked there.
The process of monetization is one whereby coins with an inventory value of x are then treated as y with full value in terms of the Mint balance sheet. For example, it costs about twelve cents to make a quarter. All the bags of quarters are valued at that rate until the bag is moved into the FED Cage at that Mint. Then the value is twenty five cents each and the FED is sent a bill for the coins that are now theirs, not the Mints.
There was no need for this process when coins had the approximate value in precious metal that was on the face. Only when seniorage occurred from the profit of making coins did the concept of monetization come into play.
For political reasons, the Director of the Mint, Ms. Fore, used the term monetization to claim the $20 for the 1933 DE sold at auction. That was a strictly political move on her part, designed to perpetuate the illegality of all other 1933 DEs out there.
Retired United States Mint guy, now working on an Everyman Type Set.
I would get my 1933 fingerprinted using energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS) technology.No other 1933 Double Eagle known or that could become known in the future would show up exactly the same as mine on the test.The technology is there and smart people with enough money to buy an authentic 1933 double eagle should avail themselves of this technology.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
<< <i>I would get my 1933 fingerprinted using energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS) technology.No other 1933 Double Eagle known or that could become known in the future would show up exactly the same as mine on the test.The technology is there and smart people with enough money to buy an authentic 1933 double eagle should avail themselves of this technology. >>
Isn't that basically what a secure plus scan is? A topographic map of a coin?
<< <i>Does the Mint have a seize list? It seems to me that the 1933 double eagle would be removed from any lists of items to be seized when gold was made legal to own.
1933 Eagle-legal to own in 1933 1933 Double Eagle-illegal to own in 1933
1974 law-legal to own gold.
1933 Eagle-legal to own in 2015. 1933 Double Eagle-illegal to own in 2015.
What happened? The 1933 double eagle should have been made legal to own long ago. >>
Two items:
(1) I thought the 1933 Double Eagle was legal to own in 1933, but became illegal sometime in the 1940s?
(2) The 1933 Eagles are different because there are cashier receipts showing gold-for-gold exchanges in 1933. There appear to be none for the 1933 Double Eagles. That's not saying every gold-for-gold exchange required a receipt, just that they exist for some 1933 Eagle transactions and for no 1933 Double Eagle transactions.
EDS checks elemental composition of the piece being tested.It's possible to do the test along a unique path so the machine would need to know the path parameters from the original test in order to do a comparison.The uniqueness of each piece is established at the sub atomic level by EDS.How easy is that to counterfeit?
As a security measure,my 1933 double would never be stored in the same place as my certificate of monetization with EDS plots,etc.The papers getting lost by themselves is not the end of the world.Papers can be replaced.The coin goes lost,a question that would soon come up is,"why do you have the coin but not the papers?"
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
Two items: (1) I thought the 1933 Double Eagle was legal to own in 1933, but became illegal sometime in the 1940s?
The 1933 Double Eagle simply was not available at the Mint window at any time in 1933 is my theory. Most were made after April 5,1933. It's decreed to be bullion,and subject to harsh hoarding rules, if made after April 5, 1933.It's "rare and unusual" if made before April 5. All 1933 Eagles ($10) were made before April 5,1933. All 1933 Eagles are legal to own because they were all made before April 5,1933.
There were offers to buy '33 doubles as early as 1936.Offers to sell seen in Numismatist magazine as early as 1937 IIRC. It appears that government really didn't care about 1933 double eagles in private hands until 1944.By then,some 1933 double coins were well-known to be in private hands so Secret Service was put to work after export license was mistakenly issued for the ex Farouk coin.Alot went down in 1944 regarding seizure of '33 double eagles.
(2) The 1933 Eagles are different because there are Cashier receipts showing gold-for-gold exchanges in 1933. There appear to be none for the 1933 Double Eagles. That's not saying every gold-for-gold exchange required a receipt, just that they exist for some transactions.
The Cashier Daily ledger shows some $10 trades IIRC.No record exists showing a single trade at the Mint window in 1933 for exchange of old double for new.There were probably some '32 doubles available at the Mint window early in '33 but no takers for these at that time. There is no law requiring the Mint to supply coins that bear the same date as the current year's production.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
In semi-related news apparently there is some guy in New York who claims to have one from this Uncle.
Supposedly they 'found' it in his estate or something. Guy is claiming to have paper work from William Ashbrook to McCann with Ashbrook asking McCann for paperwork.
With anything related to 1933 Double Eagles it is about 0.000000000000001% real and what a really odd coincidence huh? The Langbord case gets in the news again and suddenly this pops up. Just watch people there will be more. Get ready for 1 guy a week on Ebay trying to sell a 1933 $20 replica on Ebay buy not posting pictures of the revers with the big "COPY" on it.
Scam artists apparently watch the news.
When the the 1974-D Aluminum Cent hit the presses I had two people (One in South Bend and the other in Chicago) contact me with in a few months saying they had one.
<< <i>I really don't know if EDS is the same as Secure Scan or not.Fantastic if it is. >>
No. I looked it up and they're not the same. Frankly, I'm not sure I see any advantage to EDS. I wonder if most DEs would be so similar as to be indistinguishable from each other using EDS. Issues where large numbers were struck probably used different batches of alloy for one. The fact that these are plagued by copper spots leaves me to question just how uniform the composition of one of these DEs is.
<< <i>In semi-related news apparently there is some guy in New York who claims to have one from this Uncle.
Supposedly they 'found' it in his estate or something. Guy is claiming to have paper work from William Ashbrook to McCann with Ashbrook asking McCann for paperwork.
With anything related to 1933 Double Eagles it is about 0.000000000000001% real and what a really odd coincidence huh? The Langbord case gets in the news again and suddenly this pops up. Just watch people there will be more. Get ready for 1 guy a week on Ebay trying to sell a 1933 $20 replica on Ebay buy not posting pictures of the revers with the big "COPY" on it.
Scam artists apparently watch the news.
When the the 1974-D Aluminum Cent hit the presses I had two people (One in South Bend and the other in Chicago) contact me with in a few months saying they had one. >>
Well, Michael P. Lantz did say that Ernie Martinez made about 10 1974-D aluminum cents.
<< <i>In semi-related news apparently there is some guy in New York who claims to have one from this Uncle.
Supposedly they 'found' it in his estate or something. Guy is claiming to have paper work from William Ashbrook to McCann with Ashbrook asking McCann for paperwork.
With anything related to 1933 Double Eagles it is about 0.000000000000001% real and what a really odd coincidence huh? The Langbord case gets in the news again and suddenly this pops up. Just watch people there will be more. Get ready for 1 guy a week on Ebay trying to sell a 1933 $20 replica on Ebay buy not posting pictures of the revers with the big "COPY" on it.
Scam artists apparently watch the news.
When the the 1974-D Aluminum Cent hit the presses I had two people (One in South Bend and the other in Chicago) contact me with in a few months saying they had one. >>
Well, Michael P. Lantz did say that Ernie Martinez made about 10 1974-D aluminum cents. >>
I think over the years I have been offered each one about 4 times. Plus about 300 more from other years. Hell even many "Gold" pennies.
We do know that "specimen" examples of 1974 aluminum cents were struck and distributed to congress members and other ranking government officials. We also know that at least a dozen were not returned when requested.
Me at the Springfield coin show: 60 years into this hobby and I'm still working on my Lincoln set!
<< <i>We do know that "specimen" examples of 1974 aluminum cents were struck and distributed to congress members and other ranking government officials. We also know that at least a dozen were not returned when requested. >>
Why didn't the mint send the goon squad to retrieve them?
The next event (a hearing?) is scheduled at the "convenience of the court". Who knows what that means. Next week, next month, next year? Just have to wait and see. >>
Six days and 40 something posts ago, our OP made the above comment. As far as I'm concerned that is the most meaningful words written in the past week regarding this thread. Everyone is now "on vacation" regarding the case and I suspect the judges will come back in September to issue their judgement consistent with their decision to vacate the panel's ruling and to ultimately state that CAFRA does NOT apply to this case. Over the next several weeks or month or two we will see it all played out. I sure wish I am wrong with my conclusion. Steve
Yep. Any time this coin gets in the news it starts up.
Want to know something sort of odd. I personally cannot remember ANY instance where some idiot scam artist claiming to have a 1933 $20 was successful. I really can't.
Maybe this guy on CL of all places is a damn good actor and puts on a great 'performance' as this guy says.
No. I looked it up and they're not the same. Frankly, I'm not sure I see any advantage to EDS. I wonder if most DEs would be so similar as to be indistinguishable from each other using EDS. Issues where large numbers were struck probably used different batches of alloy for one. The fact that these are plagued by copper spots leaves me to question just how uniform the composition of one of these DEs is.
One use of EDS I was seeing is the possibility of identifying coins coming from different "batches." Do the Langbord pieces exhibit similiarities or differences in elemental composition where one could say,for example,"these five coins came from the same batch.The other five came from a different batch or batches.Here's why we think this..." I can see EDS being a wonderful investigative tool for the coin authenticator grader since the findings are scientific and would be hard to argue against even for the most creative litigator.
There could be copper spots to be seen that the naked eye,even the eye with some magnification can't see? I'm not sure how applicable EDS would be for authentication purposes. It seems that "uniqueness" could be established conclusively since the selected scan path for each coin tested is unique.In other words,go along a different path for the same coin and two identifiably different "results" would be apparent.
I would think the government's lab at West Point would have EDS technology but don't really know. I do know that I would seek this test out for my 1933 double if I'm lucky enough to find one with my metal detector. I don't underestimate for a nanosecond the ability of the gold coin counterfeiters to make a superbly executed 1933 double eagle counterfeit that will fool even world-class experts who are not using sophisticated tests and techniques.
IF one can establish a coin's uniqueness,that property or those properties that distinguish the coin from all others of the same kind,is there any better way to help thwart counterfeiting of extreme rarities than using an extreme test,a test such as EDS?
My 1933 double gets stolen at least I will be able to establish proof that a certain 1933 double with a unique EDS profile is my coin and unique with respect to all other 1933 double eagles.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
The date is August 18,2015.Judges are doing en banc review of the Langbord case.It is uncertain when the review will be completed.
At the bottom of a long-lost safety deposit box of an ancestor you find a canvas "double eagle" bag with a serial # indicating that the bag was once used in the Mint vault for storing $20 gold coins. Inside the bag are a number of double eagle gold pieces, all uncirculated, shiny as the day they were made,
The date is August 18,2015.Judges are doing en banc review of the Langbord case.It is uncertain when the review will be completed.
At the bottom of a long-lost safety deposit box of an ancestor you find a canvas "double eagle" bag with a serial # indicating that the bag was once used in the Mint vault for storing $20 gold coins. Inside the bag are a number of double eagle gold pieces, all uncirculated, shiny as the day they were made,
<< <i>No. I looked it up and they're not the same. Frankly, I'm not sure I see any advantage to EDS. I wonder if most DEs would be so similar as to be indistinguishable from each other using EDS. Issues where large numbers were struck probably used different batches of alloy for one. The fact that these are plagued by copper spots leaves me to question just how uniform the composition of one of these DEs is.
One use of EDS I was seeing is the possibility of identifying coins coming from different "batches." Do the Langbord pieces exhibit similiarities or differences in elemental composition where one could say,for example,"these five coins came from the same batch.The other five came from a different batch or batches.Here's why we think this..." I can see EDS being a wonderful investigative tool for the coin authenticator grader since the findings are scientific and would be hard to argue against even for the most creative litigator.
There could be copper spots to be seen that the naked eye,even the eye with some magnification can't see? I'm not sure how applicable EDS would be for authentication purposes. It seems that "uniqueness" could be established conclusively since the selected scan path for each coin tested is unique.In other words,go along a different path for the same coin and two identifiably different "results" would be apparent.
I would think the government's lab at West Point would have EDS technology but don't really know. I do know that I would seek this test out for my 1933 double if I'm lucky enough to find one with my metal detector. I don't underestimate for a nanosecond the ability of the gold coin counterfeiters to make a superbly executed 1933 double eagle counterfeit that will fool even world-class experts who are not using sophisticated tests and techniques.
IF one can establish a coin's uniqueness,that property or those properties that distinguish the coin from all others of the same kind,is there any better way to help thwart counterfeiting of extreme rarities than using an extreme test,a test such as EDS?
My 1933 double gets stolen at least I will be able to establish proof that a certain 1933 double with a unique EDS profile is my coin and unique with respect to all other 1933 double eagles. >>
You could go out and procure 10 random DEs and submit them to a commercial lab.
My guess is that the Langbord 10 all came from the same alloy lot, but that is no guarantee that their composition is 100% uniform within a single coin or among the 10 coins.
A smart counterfeiter would likely just melt down cheap versions of real coins to get their alloy.
A smart counterfeiter would likely just melt down cheap versions of real coins to get their alloy.
The irregularities or anomalies is what we seek to establish with the EDS test,BAJJER.One can scan points on the coin or do a continuous path to get readings.Getting the alloy percentages right is not the problem that the counterfeiter has. The problem the counterfeiter has is dealing with anomalies that he can't see. Even if the counterfeiter has an EDS machine how would the counterfeiter thief know how any one of the known 1933 double eagles will plot? Will there be a match of a previously done plot (scan path known only by the owner) done by the owner before his 1933 double eagle was stolen?
I'm thinking EDS, if done with proper controls in place, can be as conclusive to expose fraud with rare coins as DNA test of blood is to eliminate suspects in murder cases.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
That serial numbered bag is a collectible in its own right. The canvas bag for 250 double eagles dated 1928 and stolen in 1933 probably found its way into a Philadelphia PA landfill where it resides to this day.
Back to the hypothetical where that bag has been found by you at the bottom of a safety deposit box.Would government most likely be out of luck to recover any of the coins,except for the two '33's,of course?
My theory is that some of the coins in the stolen bag, all dated 1928,were used by McCann to swap for '33's out of the Pyx box. The original plan may not have been to swipe an entire bag of '28's. In other words,take what you need out of the bag and then replace with coins over time so that there are no discrepencies detected in 1928 gold settlement at melt. The audit at melt is mostly just a checking off of serial numbers on the sealed bags? McCann,as head cashier,was supervisor for the gold coin melts starting in 1934. It's hard for me to believe McCann couldn't have pulled off "spiriting" '33 double eagles out of the Mint with no one the wiser. I'm getting from my readings of Tripp in Illegal Tender and Frankel in Double Eagle that McCann was not the sharpest knife in the drawer,however.
A whole bag of 250 double eagles face value $5000 is swiped!? What a bone-headed, unelegant thing to do. The McCann-Switt caper could have been perfect,a simple, elegantly executed crime but greed got in the way big time.
The Mint wouldn't have cared about a few '33 double eagles leaving the Mint if that $5000 face value bag had not been stolen?
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
You are making a heroic assumption that Swift et al, stole a bag of 250 DEs. I do not believe those two events are correlated and there is zero evidence to link them. Trading over the counter with the cashier is MUCH different from stealing an entire bag of DEs.
Retired United States Mint guy, now working on an Everyman Type Set.
There is No evidence the theft of an entire bag of DEs is related to Swift, et al. Switching coins via the cashier is much different from stealing an entire bag.
Retired United States Mint guy, now working on an Everyman Type Set.
<< <i>A smart counterfeiter would likely just melt down cheap versions of real coins to get their alloy.
The irregularities or anomalies is what we seek to establish with the EDS test,BAJJER.One can scan points on the coin or do a continuous path to get readings.Getting the alloy percentages right is not the problem that the counterfeiter has. The problem the counterfeiter has is dealing with anomalies that he can't see. Even if the counterfeiter has an EDS machine how would the counterfeiter thief know how any one of the known 1933 double eagles will plot? Will there be a match of a previously done plot (scan path known only by the owner) done by the owner before his 1933 double eagle was stolen?
I'm thinking EDS, if done with proper controls in place, can be as conclusive to expose fraud with rare coins as DNA test of blood is to eliminate suspects in murder cases. >>
But you have offered nothing to show that EDS would be the analytical tool of choice for establishing what you want to establish. You just think it might work. Is it sensitive enough to detect minute differences in composition? That's why I suggested to go out and get 10 random DEs and see how they measure. I'm sure a commercial lab would be more than happy to advise you or run the tests for you.
Reconstruct the crime in an attempt to explain what could have happened and why is what this investigator tries to do.The investigator thinks outside the box from time-to-time. Putting oneself in the thief's shoes can sometimes lead to startling discoveries.
The bag of 250 double eagles was stolen in 1933 is the Secret Service conclusion of when the theft occurred.The first of the 1933 double eagles started to hit the melting pot late in 1934. By March 1937,the time of the great gold melt,all of the '33 double eagles were in brick form,excepting,of course,the Switt 20* and the Smithsonian 2.
Izzy was caught with a suitcase full of gold coins in August,1934 and charged with violations of the Gold Reserve Act of 1934. Izzy ended up forfeiting his $2000 in gold coin to the government.Talk about something that would give Izzy some reason to get back at the government, that loss of $2000 face value in gold coin had to leave Izzy really smarting.That's 'bout hundred ounces of gold right there. Ouch.
Twenty coins 1933 double eagles,perhaps as many as twenty-five,courtesy of George McCann head cashier,ready for an eager Izzy to distribute to collectors and dealers starting early in 1937 is what I'm seeing as this puzzle gets painstakingly pieced together.I will be constructing a time-line for McCann-Switt later.It should be easier to see how the events line up chronologically to help establish that crimes were committed at the Mint by McCann and most probably others.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
That serial numbered bag is a collectible in its own right. The canvas bag for 250 double eagles dated 1928 and stolen in 1933 probably found its way into a Philadelphia PA landfill where it resides to this day.
Back to the hypothetical where that bag has been found by you at the bottom of a safety deposit box.Would government most likely be out of luck to recover any of the coins,except for the two '33's,of course?
My theory is that some of the coins in the stolen bag, all dated 1928,were used by McCann to swap for '33's out of the Pyx box. The original plan may not have been to swipe an entire bag of '28's. In other words,take what you need out of the bag and then replace with coins over time so that there are no discrepencies detected in 1928 gold settlement at melt. The audit at melt is mostly just a checking off of serial numbers on the sealed bags? McCann,as head cashier,was supervisor for the gold coin melts starting in 1934. It's hard for me to believe McCann couldn't have pulled off "spiriting" '33 double eagles out of the Mint with no one the wiser. I'm getting from my readings of Tripp in Illegal Tender and Frankel in Double Eagle that McCann was not the sharpest knife in the drawer,however.
A whole bag of 250 double eagles face value $5000 is swiped!? What a bone-headed, unelegant thing to do. The McCann-Switt caper could have been perfect,a simple, elegantly executed crime but greed got in the way big time.
The Mint wouldn't have cared about a few '33 double eagles leaving the Mint if that $5000 face value bag had not been stolen? >>
Perhaps McCann-Switt, et al intended to accumulate a full bag of 33s.
<< <i>Reconstruct the crime in an attempt to explain what could have happened and why is what this investigator tries to do.The investigator thinks outside the box from time-to-time. Putting oneself in the thief's shoes can sometimes lead to startling discoveries.
The bag of 250 double eagles was stolen in 1933 is the Secret Service conclusion of when the theft occurred.The first of the 1933 double eagles started to hit the melting pot late in 1934. By March 1937,the time of the great gold melt,all of the '33 double eagles were in brick form,excepting,of course,the Switt 20* and the Smithsonian 2.
Izzy was caught with a suitcase full of gold coins in 1936 and charged with violations of the Gold Act of 1934. Izzy ended up forfeiting his $2000 in gold coin to the government.Talk about something that would give Izzy some reason to get back at the government, that loss of $2000 face value in gold coin in 1936 had to leave Izzy really smarting.That's 'bout hundred ounces of gold right there. Ouch.
Twenty coins 1933 double eagles,perhaps as many as twenty-five,courtesy of George McCann head cashier,ready for an eager Izzy to distribute to collectors and dealers starting early in 1937 is what I'm seeing as this puzzle gets painstakingly pieced together.I will be constructing a time-line for McCann-Switt later.It should be easier to see how the events line up chronologically to help establish that crimes were committed at the Mint by McCann and most probably others. >>
All of this is an interesting theory, but it is just that, only a theory. There is no evidence that McCann - Switt stole the bag of double eagles. If there were such evidence, the Mint would have produced it by now.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
Making off with a whole bag of '33's could have happened. It's not likely that a whole bag of '33's left the Mint but it is possible. My best theory limits the number of '33 doubles that escaped the Mint to 25, no more than 30. If this theory is correct,5 to 10 more '33 doubles could surface over the next years.
The things were smuggled out of the Mint in groups of 5.The swaps were quick.There were two keys to the Pyx box. It took both keys to open the box. One key-holder was the head cashier,George McCann. The other key holder to the Pyx box was the assayer, Chester "Doc" Ziegler. All of the '33's found in private hands would have come out of the Pyx box after 437 unused (not assayed) 33's came back from the Assay Commission in February,1934.
A very small number of people had access to the secure holding areas for the coins being produced by the Mint in 1933.
1934 timeline entries:
January 30,1934 President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signs into law the Gold Reserve Act of 1934.
February 1934 Four-hundred thirty-seven (437) unused 1933 double eagles are returned to the Mint from the Assay Commission. Nine (9) of the four-hundred-forty-six (446) pieces of 1933 double eagles sent to the Commission had been destroyed for assay by the Commission. At this point,four-hundred-seventy-one (471) 1933 double eagles are in the direct control of the Mint cashier.
19 March 1934 George McCann starts work as head Cashier of the Philadelphia Mint. McCann had been working as an assistant to the Cashier prior to his appointment to head Cashier.
22 August 1934 Israel Switt is caught with $2000 in gold coin (~100 oz. AGW),is arrested and prosecuted for violations of the Gold Reserve Act of 1934. Switt does no jail time but loses his license to trade in gold. Switt is fined $2000, the dollar amount of the gold found in his possession.
October 1934 Cashier McCann sends two (2) examples of 1933 double eagle coin to the Smithsonian. At this point,Cashier McCann is in direct control of four-hundred-sixty-nine (469) 1933 double eagles (471 minus 2).
Beginning Late 1934 The Mint begins to melt 1933 dated gold coins.1
1 source:1933 double eagle $20 gold coin by Mark Anning,Chatelaine Antiques,Copyright 2013. Needs verification with Mint records.The article by Anning was found by this writer to contain some serious misstatements.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
Bag of '28's stolen in 1933. Melt of '33's begins late in 1934. Melt of '33's is complete by March,1937. Izzy starts unloading his '33's early in 1937. I had thought about why Izzy would wait four years to start unloading his '33's if he had obtained them lawfully at the Mint window in 1933. There is a simple answer. Izzy did not have any '33 doubles in his possession until Summer 1936, at the earliest,after he had been to New York City in May of that year.
Izzy went to NYC in May,1936 and sold Max Barenstein some '31 and '32 doubles, half a dozen of each date. Barenstein ripped the pieces from Izzy paying only $40 for each coin.Then the street caught wind of Izzy getting ripped by a gloating Barenstein. It's unlikely Izzy had any '33's in May 1936 or he would not have been able to resist showing the prize date to Barenstein while in NYC. It appears these two had no great affection for each other.
When Izzy had his first five '33 doubles ready for sale he did not offer them to Barenstein. Izzy went to Philadelphia dealer James Macallister, offering Macallister '33 doubles for $500 each. Barenstein not only lost Izzy as a potential direct source for '33 double eagles, he also managed to get Izzy to raise the price on his '31's and '32's, after May 1936, for everyone. Max Barenstein is guilty of not being a very smart businessman pizzing Izzy off like he did,in this writer's opinion. Barenstein's solicitation ad for double eagles appeared in The Numismatist (February 1936) and can be seen on p.163 of Illegal Tender, BERNS ANTIQUE SHOP,71 East 59th Street,New York City. Proprietor,Max Barenstein,A. N. A. 4103.
No buy prices are shown in the ad for the various dates of double eagles wanted by Barenstein. Barenstein had managed to buy the '31's and '32's from Izzy for only $6 above melt per coin. The 1933 double that was seized from Barenstein by Secret Service on March 24 1944, was sold to him by Philadelphia dealer James Macallister who had purchased it from Izzy on February 16 1937. 1933 double eagle trade ,D-E No. 4,1 Switt to Macallister, Macallister to Barenstein on the same day,February 16 1937. Barenstein's 1933 double eagle was the second one seized by Secret Service in 1944.
1 See Illegal Tender,p. 132-133 for more information about Secret Service seizures of 1933 double eagles.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
The provenance of the "ex Fenton" piece from Secret Service notes:
D-E No. 10: February 23, 1944-Sold by Ira Reed, Philadelphia, to B. Max Mehl,Fort Worth Texas, then to Egyptian Legation on same date for forwarding to King Farouk of Egypt. (This may be Coin No. 1, whose whereabouts from Bell to Mehl is disputed.)
The coin that sold for more than $7.5M at auction to Anonymous in 2002 trail of possession is, Israel Switt-Ira Reed-B. Max Mehl-King Farouk-Stephen Fenton. Anonymous is the owner of the only 1933 double eagle that has been deemed legal to own.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
Comments
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>Firstly, as an American, it's a pity that the justices do not see the violation of the sixth amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America; for the Republic, as a democracy and as dignified for HER people. And that is that basic right to a speedy trial.
Secondly, it's a shame that the lawyers in this case have not invoked "ex post facto law", as grounds for a complete dismissal of the whole process; and restitution to make whole, the family being paraded through our court system by the actions of that same government.
All for what ? This illegal seizure of private property ? And I don't know the record of Israel Switt , except that he, like many of our consituents, was vying for the FIFO order of law.
All these years and this time for coins minted by the U.S. Mint. Whether intended or not for commercial use, the facts (coin facts) are such that these pieces have been outside the walls of the minting facility where they were made since 1933 (except; according to some speculators who think they were stolen later and attribute these coins to that heist , and cannot nor will they SEE THEM [those coins] as collectibles, rather spectacles ) That's disgusting. But it sells newspaper, so it's all good. It writes books. That's good for reforestation, perhaps
And soy ink is eco-friendly so we are not making a big carbon foot print or increasing global warming in this fight.
Government institution or not, the law is not violated where it is interpreted. And _ _ _ knows that takes time.
How much time ?
Only the rights of HER (American) citizens in this fiasco are violated.
This is my opinion. I have no law degree or the money to fight the judicial, executive or legislative branches of our government.
And SHE is mine by birth right.
Hold your head up, Miss Liberty.
This message will self destruct before the close of business. Because it's not for the masses, but the few. The proud. The ignorant, or possibly dumbed down.
How does using chemicals to grow soybeans make soy ink eco friendly? Typing this message required NO ink!
<< <i>
How does using chemicals to grow soybeans make soy ink eco friendly? Typing this message required NO ink!
And since when did Miss Liberty have man hands?
Secret Service investigated the stolen bag in 1937.The Secret Service became involved with '33 double eagles much later,1944.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
<< <i>I'm curious, did the govt ever file a police report on the 33 20's?
Secret Service investigated the stolen bag in 1937.The Secret Service became involved with '33 double eagles much later,1944. >>
I expect that the mint had no idea that any 1933 DEs were missing until they started showing up in the collector arena.
<< <i>
<< <i>
How does using chemicals to grow soybeans make soy ink eco friendly? Typing this message required NO ink!
And since when did Miss Liberty have man hands?
Who's on trial here ? You guys missed the real point.
1100 + 1
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
1933 Eagle-legal to own in 1933
1933 Double Eagle-illegal to own in 1933
1974 law-legal to own gold.
1933 Eagle-legal to own in 2015.
1933 Double Eagle-illegal to own in 2015.
What happened? The 1933 double eagle should have been made legal to own long ago.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
<< <i>Does the Mint have a seize list? It it seems to me that the 1933 double eagle would be removed from any lists of items to be seized when gold was made legal to own.
1933 Eagle-legal to own in 1933
1933 Double Eagle-illegal to own in 1933
1974 law-legal to own gold.
1933 Eagle-legal to own in 2015.
1933 Double Eagle-illegal to own in 2015.
What happened? The 1933 double eagle should have been made legal to own long ago. >>
Because it was never monetized?
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
<< <i>1100! >>
We MUST NOT LOSE SIGHT OF THE FACT.... that the Langbords won.
This is eternally momentous and life changing for all of us.
God bless the Langbords.
What makes sense to me is this:The 1933 double eagles are all accounted for on the written record from 1933.Double eagle dated 1933 needs to be monetized to make the books balance.
"To keep this $20 as yours (1933 double eagle) that we (government) previously accounted for as having been melted as U.S. Government property,you must pay us $20 to acquire title to this property with rights of ownership to it."
The old cashier records should be noted by present day officials, "$20 missing,now recovered."
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
I ran across this while looking for new information:
All known examples of the 1933 Double Eagle Coins:
U.S. National Numismatic Collection
1.&2. 1934-Two 1933 Double Eagle $20 gold coins were presented to the Smithsonian Institution, U.S. National Numismatic Collection,where they are today. One was said to have been donated by J.G. Macallister and Frederick C.C. Boyd in 1938...
lol don't believe everything you read on the internet
The two Smithsonian pieces were sent to them by registered mail in October,1934 from George McCann,United States Mint Cashier. Macallister and Boyd had absolutely nothing to do with the Smithsonian pieces. There should be entries to be seen in the Cashier records made by none other than George McCann himself showing that the two Smithsonian 1933 double eagle pieces came directly from the Mint.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
<< <i>Monetized is a word with no clear definition it seems.
What makes sense to me is this:The 1933 double eagles are all accounted for on the written record from 1933.Double eagle dated 1933 needs to be monetized to make the books balance.
"To keep this $20 as yours (1933 double eagle) that we (government) previously accounted for as having been melted as U.S. Government property,you must pay us $20 to acquire title to this property with rights of ownership to it."
The old cashier records should be noted by present day officials, "$20 missing,now recovered." >>
Simply defined, monetization is the process of producing money either by printing currency or striking coins. It's not rocket science. The only point of contention would be at which point in the process do the coins become real money.
When the coins passed assay? Which they did.
When delivered to the cashier? Which they probably don't do anymore.
When delivered to the Federal Reserve either physically or by paperwork transfer?
Where is the statement/declaration/paperwork officially monetizing the 1932 or earlier DEs?
BTW did the Smithsonian ever cough up the $40 to monetize their 2 coins or are they monetized by default or they aren't real coins yet?
<< <i>The numismatic community owes the government a huge thank you for not going after the Saddle Ridge coins.The Saddle Ridge coins most certainly were stolen from the San Francisco Mint. >>
I'd bet that the Kagins researched this possibility a lot more than you did.
Most important thing about the monetization is that it amounts to government blessing the pieces.I'm thinking that the Langbord's will not be getting monetization services from the government if they win "the Coins."
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
<< <i>Oh I'm sure kagin did research the possibilities more than I did. Was the Secret Service called first thing? A police report is basic. >>
It's not incumbent upon the finder of a stash of coins to call the SS or anyone else for that matter. Did the U. S. Mint report/record the theft of gold coins matching anywhere close to the description of the coins in the SRH? Did the Mint contact the SS way back when?
Assuming that the finders of those coins were the owners of the property that the coins were found on, a search of the abstract for said property along with backgrounds of previous owners would probably suggest whether those coins may have had any direct connection to the Mint or people who worked there.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
The process of monetization is one whereby coins with an inventory value of x are then treated as y with full value in terms of the Mint balance sheet. For example, it costs about twelve cents to make a quarter. All the bags of quarters are valued at that rate until the bag is moved into the FED Cage at that Mint. Then the value is twenty five cents each and the FED is sent a bill for the coins that are now theirs, not the Mints.
There was no need for this process when coins had the approximate value in precious metal that was on the face. Only when seniorage occurred from the profit of making coins did the concept of monetization come into play.
For political reasons, the Director of the Mint, Ms. Fore, used the term monetization to claim the $20 for the 1933 DE sold at auction. That was a strictly political move on her part, designed to perpetuate the illegality of all other 1933 DEs out there.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
<< <i>I would get my 1933 fingerprinted using energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS) technology.No other 1933 Double Eagle known or that could become known in the future would show up exactly the same as mine on the test.The technology is there and smart people with enough money to buy an authentic 1933 double eagle should avail themselves of this technology. >>
Isn't that basically what a secure plus scan is? A topographic map of a coin?
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
<< <i>Does the Mint have a seize list? It seems to me that the 1933 double eagle would be removed from any lists of items to be seized when gold was made legal to own.
1933 Eagle-legal to own in 1933
1933 Double Eagle-illegal to own in 1933
1974 law-legal to own gold.
1933 Eagle-legal to own in 2015.
1933 Double Eagle-illegal to own in 2015.
What happened? The 1933 double eagle should have been made legal to own long ago. >>
Two items:
(1) I thought the 1933 Double Eagle was legal to own in 1933, but became illegal sometime in the 1940s?
(2) The 1933 Eagles are different because there are cashier receipts showing gold-for-gold exchanges in 1933. There appear to be none for the 1933 Double Eagles. That's not saying every gold-for-gold exchange required a receipt, just that they exist for some 1933 Eagle transactions and for no 1933 Double Eagle transactions.
As a security measure,my 1933 double would never be stored in the same place as my certificate of monetization with EDS plots,etc.The papers getting lost by themselves is not the end of the world.Papers can be replaced.The coin goes lost,a question that would soon come up is,"why do you have the coin but not the papers?"
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
(1) I thought the 1933 Double Eagle was legal to own in 1933, but became illegal sometime in the 1940s?
The 1933 Double Eagle simply was not available at the Mint window at any time in 1933 is my theory. Most were made after April 5,1933. It's decreed to be bullion,and subject to harsh hoarding rules, if made after April 5, 1933.It's "rare and unusual" if made before April 5. All 1933 Eagles ($10) were made before April 5,1933. All 1933 Eagles are legal to own because they were all made before April 5,1933.
There were offers to buy '33 doubles as early as 1936.Offers to sell seen in Numismatist magazine as early as 1937 IIRC. It appears that government really didn't care about 1933 double eagles in private hands until 1944.By then,some 1933 double coins were well-known to be in private hands so Secret Service was put to work after export license was mistakenly issued for the ex Farouk coin.Alot went down in 1944 regarding seizure of '33 double eagles.
(2) The 1933 Eagles are different because there are Cashier receipts showing gold-for-gold exchanges in 1933. There appear to be none for the 1933 Double Eagles. That's not saying every gold-for-gold exchange required a receipt, just that they exist for some transactions.
The Cashier Daily ledger shows some $10 trades IIRC.No record exists showing a single trade at the Mint window in 1933 for exchange of old double for new.There were probably some '32 doubles available at the Mint window early in '33 but no takers for these at that time. There is no law requiring the Mint to supply coins that bear the same date as the current year's production.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
Supposedly they 'found' it in his estate or something. Guy is claiming to have paper work from William Ashbrook to McCann with Ashbrook asking McCann for paperwork.
With anything related to 1933 Double Eagles it is about 0.000000000000001% real and what a really odd coincidence huh? The Langbord case gets in the news again and suddenly this pops up. Just watch people there will be more. Get ready for 1 guy a week on Ebay trying to sell a 1933 $20 replica on Ebay buy not posting pictures of the revers with the big "COPY" on it.
Scam artists apparently watch the news.
When the the 1974-D Aluminum Cent hit the presses I had two people (One in South Bend and the other in Chicago) contact me with in a few months saying they had one.
<< <i>I really don't know if EDS is the same as Secure Scan or not.Fantastic if it is. >>
No. I looked it up and they're not the same. Frankly, I'm not sure I see any advantage to EDS. I wonder if most DEs would be so similar as to be indistinguishable from each other using EDS. Issues where large numbers were struck probably used different batches of alloy for one. The fact that these are plagued by copper spots leaves me to question just how uniform the composition of one of these DEs is.
<< <i>In semi-related news apparently there is some guy in New York who claims to have one from this Uncle.
Supposedly they 'found' it in his estate or something. Guy is claiming to have paper work from William Ashbrook to McCann with Ashbrook asking McCann for paperwork.
With anything related to 1933 Double Eagles it is about 0.000000000000001% real and what a really odd coincidence huh? The Langbord case gets in the news again and suddenly this pops up. Just watch people there will be more. Get ready for 1 guy a week on Ebay trying to sell a 1933 $20 replica on Ebay buy not posting pictures of the revers with the big "COPY" on it.
Scam artists apparently watch the news.
When the the 1974-D Aluminum Cent hit the presses I had two people (One in South Bend and the other in Chicago) contact me with in a few months saying they had one. >>
Well, Michael P. Lantz did say that Ernie Martinez made about 10 1974-D aluminum cents.
<< <i>
<< <i>In semi-related news apparently there is some guy in New York who claims to have one from this Uncle.
Supposedly they 'found' it in his estate or something. Guy is claiming to have paper work from William Ashbrook to McCann with Ashbrook asking McCann for paperwork.
With anything related to 1933 Double Eagles it is about 0.000000000000001% real and what a really odd coincidence huh? The Langbord case gets in the news again and suddenly this pops up. Just watch people there will be more. Get ready for 1 guy a week on Ebay trying to sell a 1933 $20 replica on Ebay buy not posting pictures of the revers with the big "COPY" on it.
Scam artists apparently watch the news.
When the the 1974-D Aluminum Cent hit the presses I had two people (One in South Bend and the other in Chicago) contact me with in a few months saying they had one. >>
Well, Michael P. Lantz did say that Ernie Martinez made about 10 1974-D aluminum cents. >>
I think over the years I have been offered each one about 4 times.
Plus about 300 more from other years.
Hell even many "Gold" pennies.
Those are my favorite.
60 years into this hobby and I'm still working on my Lincoln set!
<< <i>We do know that "specimen" examples of 1974 aluminum cents were struck and distributed to congress members and other ranking government officials. We also know that at least a dozen were not returned when requested. >>
Why didn't the mint send the goon squad to retrieve them?
<< <i>Nothing new as of yesterday.
The next event (a hearing?) is scheduled at the "convenience of the court". Who knows what that means. Next week, next month, next year? Just have to wait and see. >>
Six days and 40 something posts ago, our OP made the above comment. As far as I'm concerned that is the most meaningful words written in the past week regarding this thread. Everyone is now "on vacation" regarding the case and I suspect the judges will come back in September to issue their judgement consistent with their decision to vacate the panel's ruling and to ultimately state that CAFRA does NOT apply to this case. Over the next several weeks or month or two we will see it all played out. I sure wish I am wrong with my conclusion. Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
Oh my
Ha ha.
Yep. Any time this coin gets in the news it starts up.
Want to know something sort of odd. I personally cannot remember ANY instance where some idiot scam artist claiming to have a 1933 $20 was successful. I really can't.
Maybe this guy on CL of all places is a damn good actor and puts on a great 'performance' as this guy says.
One use of EDS I was seeing is the possibility of identifying coins coming from different "batches." Do the Langbord pieces exhibit similiarities or differences in elemental composition where one could say,for example,"these five coins came from the same batch.The other five came from a different batch or batches.Here's why we think this..." I can see EDS being a wonderful investigative tool for the coin authenticator grader since the findings are scientific and would be hard to argue against even for the most creative litigator.
There could be copper spots to be seen that the naked eye,even the eye with some magnification can't see? I'm not sure how applicable EDS would be for authentication purposes. It seems that "uniqueness" could be established conclusively since the selected scan path for each coin tested is unique.In other words,go along a different path for the same coin and two identifiably different "results" would be apparent.
I would think the government's lab at West Point would have EDS technology but don't really know. I do know that I would seek this test out for my 1933 double if I'm lucky enough to find one with my metal detector. I don't underestimate for a nanosecond the ability of the gold coin counterfeiters to make a superbly executed 1933 double eagle counterfeit that will fool even world-class experts who are not using sophisticated tests and techniques.
IF one can establish a coin's uniqueness,that property or those properties that distinguish the coin from all others of the same kind,is there any better way to help thwart counterfeiting of extreme rarities than using an extreme test,a test such as EDS?
My 1933 double gets stolen at least I will be able to establish proof that a certain 1933 double with a unique EDS profile is my coin and unique with respect to all other 1933 double eagles.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
The date is August 18,2015.Judges are doing en banc review of the Langbord case.It is uncertain when the review will be completed.
At the bottom of a long-lost safety deposit box of an ancestor you find a canvas "double eagle" bag with a serial # indicating that the bag was once used in the Mint vault for storing $20 gold coins. Inside the bag are a number of double eagle gold pieces, all uncirculated, shiny as the day they were made,
1928- 55 pcs.
1929-3 pcs.
1931-6 pcs.
1932-6 pcs.
1933-2 pcs.
You are an heir of the individual who was Mint assayer during the late '20's to the mid '30's. WWYD on making a discovery such as this?
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
<< <i>HYPOTHETICAL:
The date is August 18,2015.Judges are doing en banc review of the Langbord case.It is uncertain when the review will be completed.
At the bottom of a long-lost safety deposit box of an ancestor you find a canvas "double eagle" bag with a serial # indicating that the bag was once used in the Mint vault for storing $20 gold coins. Inside the bag are a number of double eagle gold pieces, all uncirculated, shiny as the day they were made,
1928- 55 pcs.
1929-3 pcs.
1931-6 pcs.
1932-6 pcs.
1933-2 pcs.
You are an heir of the individual who was Mint assayer during the late '20's to the mid '30's. WWYD on making a discovery such as this? >>
KMMS Keep My Mouf SHUT!!
<< <i>No. I looked it up and they're not the same. Frankly, I'm not sure I see any advantage to EDS. I wonder if most DEs would be so similar as to be indistinguishable from each other using EDS. Issues where large numbers were struck probably used different batches of alloy for one. The fact that these are plagued by copper spots leaves me to question just how uniform the composition of one of these DEs is.
One use of EDS I was seeing is the possibility of identifying coins coming from different "batches." Do the Langbord pieces exhibit similiarities or differences in elemental composition where one could say,for example,"these five coins came from the same batch.The other five came from a different batch or batches.Here's why we think this..." I can see EDS being a wonderful investigative tool for the coin authenticator grader since the findings are scientific and would be hard to argue against even for the most creative litigator.
There could be copper spots to be seen that the naked eye,even the eye with some magnification can't see? I'm not sure how applicable EDS would be for authentication purposes. It seems that "uniqueness" could be established conclusively since the selected scan path for each coin tested is unique.In other words,go along a different path for the same coin and two identifiably different "results" would be apparent.
I would think the government's lab at West Point would have EDS technology but don't really know. I do know that I would seek this test out for my 1933 double if I'm lucky enough to find one with my metal detector. I don't underestimate for a nanosecond the ability of the gold coin counterfeiters to make a superbly executed 1933 double eagle counterfeit that will fool even world-class experts who are not using sophisticated tests and techniques.
IF one can establish a coin's uniqueness,that property or those properties that distinguish the coin from all others of the same kind,is there any better way to help thwart counterfeiting of extreme rarities than using an extreme test,a test such as EDS?
My 1933 double gets stolen at least I will be able to establish proof that a certain 1933 double with a unique EDS profile is my coin and unique with respect to all other 1933 double eagles. >>
You could go out and procure 10 random DEs and submit them to a commercial lab.
My guess is that the Langbord 10 all came from the same alloy lot, but that is no guarantee that their composition is 100% uniform within a single coin or among the 10 coins.
A smart counterfeiter would likely just melt down cheap versions of real coins to get their alloy.
The irregularities or anomalies is what we seek to establish with the EDS test,BAJJER.One can scan points on the coin or do a continuous path to get readings.Getting the alloy percentages right is not the problem that the counterfeiter has. The problem the counterfeiter has is dealing with anomalies that he can't see. Even if the counterfeiter has an EDS machine how would the counterfeiter thief know how any one of the known 1933 double eagles will plot? Will there be a match of a previously done plot (scan path known only by the owner) done by the owner before his 1933 double eagle was stolen?
I'm thinking EDS, if done with proper controls in place, can be as conclusive to expose fraud with rare coins as DNA test of blood is to eliminate suspects in murder cases.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
That serial numbered bag is a collectible in its own right. The canvas bag for 250 double eagles dated 1928 and stolen in 1933 probably found its way into a Philadelphia PA landfill where it resides to this day.
Back to the hypothetical where that bag has been found by you at the bottom of a safety deposit box.Would government most likely be out of luck to recover any of the coins,except for the two '33's,of course?
My theory is that some of the coins in the stolen bag, all dated 1928,were used by McCann to swap for '33's out of the Pyx box. The original plan may not have been to swipe an entire bag of '28's. In other words,take what you need out of the bag and then replace with coins over time so that there are no discrepencies detected in 1928 gold settlement at melt. The audit at melt is mostly just a checking off of serial numbers on the sealed bags? McCann,as head cashier,was supervisor for the gold coin melts starting in 1934. It's hard for me to believe McCann couldn't have pulled off "spiriting" '33 double eagles out of the Mint with no one the wiser. I'm getting from my readings of Tripp in Illegal Tender and Frankel in Double Eagle that McCann was not the sharpest knife in the drawer,however.
A whole bag of 250 double eagles face value $5000 is swiped!? What a bone-headed, unelegant thing to do. The McCann-Switt caper could have been perfect,a simple, elegantly executed crime but greed got in the way big time.
The Mint wouldn't have cared about a few '33 double eagles leaving the Mint if that $5000 face value bag had not been stolen?
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
<< <i>A smart counterfeiter would likely just melt down cheap versions of real coins to get their alloy.
The irregularities or anomalies is what we seek to establish with the EDS test,BAJJER.One can scan points on the coin or do a continuous path to get readings.Getting the alloy percentages right is not the problem that the counterfeiter has. The problem the counterfeiter has is dealing with anomalies that he can't see. Even if the counterfeiter has an EDS machine how would the counterfeiter thief know how any one of the known 1933 double eagles will plot? Will there be a match of a previously done plot (scan path known only by the owner) done by the owner before his 1933 double eagle was stolen?
I'm thinking EDS, if done with proper controls in place, can be as conclusive to expose fraud with rare coins as DNA test of blood is to eliminate suspects in murder cases. >>
But you have offered nothing to show that EDS would be the analytical tool of choice for establishing what you want to establish. You just think it might work. Is it sensitive enough to detect minute differences in composition? That's why I suggested to go out and get 10 random DEs and see how they measure. I'm sure a commercial lab would be more than happy to advise you or run the tests for you.
The bag of 250 double eagles was stolen in 1933 is the Secret Service conclusion of when the theft occurred.The first of the 1933 double eagles started to hit the melting pot late in 1934. By March 1937,the time of the great gold melt,all of the '33 double eagles were in brick form,excepting,of course,the Switt 20* and the Smithsonian 2.
Izzy was caught with a suitcase full of gold coins in August,1934 and charged with violations of the Gold Reserve Act of 1934. Izzy ended up forfeiting his $2000 in gold coin to the government.Talk about something that would give Izzy some reason to get back at the government, that loss of $2000 face value in gold coin had to leave Izzy really smarting.That's 'bout hundred ounces of gold right there. Ouch.
Twenty coins 1933 double eagles,perhaps as many as twenty-five,courtesy of George McCann head cashier,ready for an eager Izzy to distribute to collectors and dealers starting early in 1937 is what I'm seeing as this puzzle gets painstakingly pieced together.I will be constructing a time-line for McCann-Switt later.It should be easier to see how the events line up chronologically to help establish that crimes were committed at the Mint by McCann and most probably others.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
<< <i>KMMS Keep My Mouf SHUT!!
That serial numbered bag is a collectible in its own right. The canvas bag for 250 double eagles dated 1928 and stolen in 1933 probably found its way into a Philadelphia PA landfill where it resides to this day.
Back to the hypothetical where that bag has been found by you at the bottom of a safety deposit box.Would government most likely be out of luck to recover any of the coins,except for the two '33's,of course?
My theory is that some of the coins in the stolen bag, all dated 1928,were used by McCann to swap for '33's out of the Pyx box. The original plan may not have been to swipe an entire bag of '28's. In other words,take what you need out of the bag and then replace with coins over time so that there are no discrepencies detected in 1928 gold settlement at melt. The audit at melt is mostly just a checking off of serial numbers on the sealed bags? McCann,as head cashier,was supervisor for the gold coin melts starting in 1934. It's hard for me to believe McCann couldn't have pulled off "spiriting" '33 double eagles out of the Mint with no one the wiser. I'm getting from my readings of Tripp in Illegal Tender and Frankel in Double Eagle that McCann was not the sharpest knife in the drawer,however.
A whole bag of 250 double eagles face value $5000 is swiped!? What a bone-headed, unelegant thing to do. The McCann-Switt caper could have been perfect,a simple, elegantly executed crime but greed got in the way big time.
The Mint wouldn't have cared about a few '33 double eagles leaving the Mint if that $5000 face value bag had not been stolen? >>
Perhaps McCann-Switt, et al intended to accumulate a full bag of 33s.
<< <i>Reconstruct the crime in an attempt to explain what could have happened and why is what this investigator tries to do.The investigator thinks outside the box from time-to-time. Putting oneself in the thief's shoes can sometimes lead to startling discoveries.
The bag of 250 double eagles was stolen in 1933 is the Secret Service conclusion of when the theft occurred.The first of the 1933 double eagles started to hit the melting pot late in 1934. By March 1937,the time of the great gold melt,all of the '33 double eagles were in brick form,excepting,of course,the Switt 20* and the Smithsonian 2.
Izzy was caught with a suitcase full of gold coins in 1936 and charged with violations of the Gold Act of 1934. Izzy ended up forfeiting his $2000 in gold coin to the government.Talk about something that would give Izzy some reason to get back at the government, that loss of $2000 face value in gold coin in 1936 had to leave Izzy really smarting.That's 'bout hundred ounces of gold right there. Ouch.
Twenty coins 1933 double eagles,perhaps as many as twenty-five,courtesy of George McCann head cashier,ready for an eager Izzy to distribute to collectors and dealers starting early in 1937 is what I'm seeing as this puzzle gets painstakingly pieced together.I will be constructing a time-line for McCann-Switt later.It should be easier to see how the events line up chronologically to help establish that crimes were committed at the Mint by McCann and most probably others. >>
All of this is an interesting theory, but it is just that, only a theory. There is no evidence that McCann - Switt stole the bag of double eagles. If there were such evidence, the Mint would have produced it by now.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
The things were smuggled out of the Mint in groups of 5.The swaps were quick.There were two keys to the Pyx box. It took both keys to open the box. One key-holder was the head cashier,George McCann. The other key holder to the Pyx box was the assayer, Chester "Doc" Ziegler. All of the '33's found in private hands would have come out of the Pyx box after 437 unused (not assayed) 33's came back from the Assay Commission in February,1934.
A very small number of people had access to the secure holding areas for the coins being produced by the Mint in 1933.
1934 timeline entries:
January 30,1934 President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signs into law the Gold Reserve Act of 1934.
February 1934 Four-hundred thirty-seven (437) unused 1933 double eagles are returned to the Mint from the Assay Commission. Nine (9) of the four-hundred-forty-six (446) pieces of 1933 double eagles sent to the Commission had been destroyed for assay by the Commission. At this point,four-hundred-seventy-one (471) 1933 double eagles are in the direct control of the Mint cashier.
19 March 1934 George McCann starts work as head Cashier of the Philadelphia Mint. McCann had been working as an assistant to the Cashier prior to his appointment to head Cashier.
22 August 1934 Israel Switt is caught with $2000 in gold coin (~100 oz. AGW),is arrested and prosecuted for violations of the Gold Reserve Act of 1934. Switt does no jail time but loses his license to trade in gold. Switt is fined $2000, the dollar amount of the gold found in his possession.
October 1934 Cashier McCann sends two (2) examples of 1933 double eagle coin to the Smithsonian. At this point,Cashier McCann is in direct control of four-hundred-sixty-nine (469) 1933 double eagles (471 minus 2).
Beginning Late 1934 The Mint begins to melt 1933 dated gold coins.1
1 source:1933 double eagle $20 gold coin by Mark Anning,Chatelaine Antiques,Copyright 2013. Needs verification with Mint records.The article by Anning was found by this writer to contain some serious misstatements.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
Izzy went to NYC in May,1936 and sold Max Barenstein some '31 and '32 doubles, half a dozen of each date. Barenstein ripped the pieces from Izzy paying only $40 for each coin.Then the street caught wind of Izzy getting ripped by a gloating Barenstein. It's unlikely Izzy had any '33's in May 1936 or he would not have been able to resist showing the prize date to Barenstein while in NYC. It appears these two had no great affection for each other.
When Izzy had his first five '33 doubles ready for sale he did not offer them to Barenstein. Izzy went to Philadelphia dealer James Macallister, offering Macallister '33 doubles for $500 each. Barenstein not only lost Izzy as a potential direct source for '33 double eagles, he also managed to get Izzy to raise the price on his '31's and '32's, after May 1936, for everyone. Max Barenstein is guilty of not being a very smart businessman pizzing Izzy off like he did,in this writer's opinion. Barenstein's solicitation ad for double eagles appeared in The Numismatist (February 1936) and can be seen on p.163 of Illegal Tender, BERNS ANTIQUE SHOP,71 East 59th Street,New York City. Proprietor,Max Barenstein,A. N. A. 4103.
No buy prices are shown in the ad for the various dates of double eagles wanted by Barenstein. Barenstein had managed to buy the '31's and '32's from Izzy for only $6 above melt per coin. The 1933 double that was seized from Barenstein by Secret Service on March 24 1944, was sold to him by Philadelphia dealer James Macallister who had purchased it from Izzy on February 16 1937. 1933 double eagle trade ,D-E No. 4,1 Switt to Macallister, Macallister to Barenstein on the same day,February 16 1937. Barenstein's 1933 double eagle was the second one seized by Secret Service in 1944.
1 See Illegal Tender,p. 132-133 for more information about Secret Service seizures of 1933 double eagles.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
D-E No. 10:
February 23, 1944-Sold by Ira Reed, Philadelphia, to B. Max Mehl,Fort Worth Texas, then to Egyptian Legation on same date for forwarding to King Farouk of Egypt. (This may be Coin No. 1, whose whereabouts from Bell to Mehl is disputed.)
The coin that sold for more than $7.5M at auction to Anonymous in 2002 trail of possession is, Israel Switt-Ira Reed-B. Max Mehl-King Farouk-Stephen Fenton. Anonymous is the owner of the only 1933 double eagle that has been deemed legal to own.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.