<< <i>There's only so many who have the money for an item like this so the demand is limited even though the supply is definitely limited.The 1933 Double eagle is a wish coin for the masses.Anyone who buys one has a limited buyer audience when comes time to sell.
>>
mr1874, I'm sure you will agree there are at least 1,000 people in this country "who have the money for an item like this." Now if just 1% of those people had some interest in coins, collecting, or history, they could each buy one, don't you think? Steve >>
I think the number of people that could afford to send 8 Million on a coin is over 1000x what you said. However, I think the percentage that would have any interest in it would be about 1000x less than what you said (not even tradedollarnut is interested.)
In a perfect market you would find out at what price the number of people that were willing and able to spend that amount would equal 10. Of course it is more complicated than that because of the grade, and timing of the sale etc. I'm thinking the cleaned one is probably about a million, and the top one is probably in the 8 million range, the others would fall somewhere in between.
<< <i>In a prior reply to this thread someone said the en banc panel consists of 13 justices. >>
Thanks.
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> How big is that en banc panel? Would they need just a simple majority to uphold or overturn? >>
In every circuit except for the Ninth Circuit, an en banc panel usually consists of all of the active judges within that circuit who are not disqualified (i.e. recuse themselves from the case). There are 14 active judges on the Third Circuit, so I am not sure where people are getting 13 from. A simple majority rules, and if the panel consists of an even number of judges and there is a tie, the decision below is automatically affirmed. This is the way that most circuits operate.
<< <i>I think the number of people that could afford to send 8 Million on a coin is over 1000x what you said. However, I think the percentage that would have any interest in it would be about 1000x less than what you said (not even tradedollarnut is interested.) >>
Do you think TDN would post here to confirm if he had a true buyer's interest in a 1933 $20? I know I wouldn't....especially if it were outside my normal sphere on interest.
$20 MILL for the 10 specimens seems like it would leave plenty of room to make a profit. Now the top dozen or so Saint Gaudens sets have to start thinking they will have to spend some more money to "re-complete" their sets.
<< <i>$20 MILL for the 10 specimens seems like it would leave plenty of room to make a profit. >>
I agree, but it is interesting to note that the current Guide Book reports only 20 auction results over $2M. This coin would be comparable to the 1804 dollar in terms of population and notoriety, although the 1804 still gets the edge since many are locked in institutions, and the history goes back a lot further.
<< <i>What do we think each of the following Langbord 10 would go for:
1x NGC MS-66 2x NGC MS-65 6x NGC MS-64 1x NGC Uncirculated Details, Improperly Cleaned
Any thoughts on beans or crossing? The MS-66 isn't currently beaned.
Also, PCGS rated the Farouk coin a PCGS MS-65. Any thoughts if any of the Langbord 10 would cross higher than PCGS MS-65? >>
The PCGS grading of the so-called Farouk specimen was based upon the value of the coin, not the condition of the coin.
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.
$20 million for the lot of ten is probably a lot less than they would bring at auction, but a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
There would be no auction fees, and, so long as they are sold "as is," there would be no danger to the Langbords of the Mint tying them up for several more years through some new act of mendacity.
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>Such storied coins, $20 million for the lot is very cheap!
These may be the ultimate numismatic trophy.
Also, I am very glad the Langfords won their case. The coins may or may not have been obtained illegally, but there was no way to prove that. >>
I too WISH "the Langboards won their case". Unfortunately, we will NOT know for sure UNLESS and UNTIL the government physically returns the 10 1933 $20 double eagles to the Langboards. Steve
<< <i>Such storied coins, $20 million for the lot is very cheap!
These may be the ultimate numismatic trophy.
Also, I am very glad the Langfords won their case. The coins may or may not have been obtained illegally, but there was no way to prove that. >>
I too WISH "the Langboards won their case". Unfortunately, we will NOT know for sure UNLESS and UNTIL the government physically returns the 10 1933 $20 double eagles to the Langboards. Steve >>
Maybe the government will say; "sorry but we already melted those down... we'll give you these nice 2015 gold eagles instead."
While there are many opinions here, some by serious legal minds, it is going to be a while until we know what the end game will be. I think there is enough ambiguity that nothing is a slam dunk at this point. My hope is the coins are not lost to collectors forever. I care not that the Langbold's will profit, I am more about national treasures not being locked away in Ft. Knox or wherever the Mint has them today.
Retired United States Mint guy, now working on an Everyman Type Set.
<< <i>The coins may or may not have been obtained illegally, but there was no way to prove that. >>
Untrue. The jury ruled they were stolen, but the appeal set that aside since it came after the technical error of not filing the forfeiture notice.
I'm still not sure there isn't room to re-fight THAT battle. >>
I agree with the first statement, there is no legal way to prove the coins were stolen. It is important to note, that while the appeals court said they did not need to rule on any issue after the blown notice, they did say in a footnote that the trial judge also erred in allowing in double and triple hearsay. In other words the jury trial didn't prove anything.
In the 40s, what examination of the Mint records led them to ascertain that the coins were illegally removed from the Mint and that they would start to pursue their recovery?
<< <i>In the 40s, what examination of the Mint records led them to ascertain that the coins were illegally removed from the Mint and that they would start to pursue their recovery? >>
It was really what the records didn't show, the records did not show any '33 double eagles leaving the mint. The government maintains that the records were meticulous and this is proof the coins were stolen. The Langbords counter that the records were not that good, as evidenced by the fact that they show few (I believe 1) '33 $10 gold leaving the mint, while there are clearly more than one '33 eagles out there.
Meticulous records ? And they left the mint without a trace of evidence by way of legal EXCHANGE. That's what the freaking mint did back then. They exchanged some new for some old prior to the executive order (Supposition) being signed (window of opportunity). A common practice back in them days. (fact) My contention remains the same. If Izzy was a thief, he would have been arrested and charged with theft. But the mint doesn't keep meticulous records. They can't even tell us how many Cheerios Sacagawea dollars were minted for General Mills. Supposedly (no facts) there were 5500, but since fewer than 100 are known, maybe someone at General Mills stole the other 5400.
Oh wait, we know they all are not dated 1999. But we do know that the 1856 Flying Eagles were minted and distributed before the law authorizing small cents was passed BY LAW. How come there's no stink ? Because the GOLD was illegally taken from the people.
I should not convolute anything with respect to this case, but… let's not forget the Alamo.
I apologize if this was discussed before, but what might happen with the current owner of the "only 1933 $20 that could be in private hands"? I sense (s)he would take some kind of legal action because it's bound to drop its value
<< <i>I apologize if this was discussed before, but what might happen with the current owner of the "only 1933 $20 that could be in private hands"? I sense (s)he would take some kind of legal action because it's bound to drop its value >>
If the Government wasn't the buyer [some here believe it was] they may have guaranteed the value of it, who knows. BTW, who got the proceeds from the sale/auction?
<< <i>In the 40s, what examination of the Mint records led them to ascertain that the coins were illegally removed from the Mint and that they would start to pursue their recovery? >>
It was really what the records didn't show, the records did not show any '33 double eagles leaving the mint. The government maintains that the records were meticulous and this is proof the coins were stolen. The Langbords counter that the records were not that good, as evidenced by the fact that they show few (I believe 1) '33 $10 gold leaving the mint, while there are clearly more than one '33 eagles out there. >>
As I suggested several times previously, there should be a SOP for manufacturing these just like in prior years [tho as I recall none of the earlier issues were ever monetized]. One would expect that there would be a document that authorized release of the coins to the cashier for distribution.
The records did not show any 1933 DEs leaving the Mint. But what is MORE important, there was NO record of any missing gold. The MINT kept VERY detailed records of the gold, dates were less recorded. If 25 1933s got out, that would have been 1,000 dollars in missing gold, a HUGE sum in those days. Thus, it is MY belief that they were exchanged during the window of time that could have occurred. The Mint's claim of stolen is not supported by any loss in the records. Were they traded when they should not have been, most likely true. That is NOT stolen.
Retired United States Mint guy, now working on an Everyman Type Set.
<< <i>The records did not show any 1933 DEs leaving the Mint. But what is MORE important, there was NO record of any missing gold. The MINT kept VERY detailed records of the gold, dates were less recorded. If 25 1933s got out, that would have been 1,000 dollars in missing gold, a HUGE sum in those days. Thus, it is MY belief that they were exchanged during the window of time that could have occurred. The Mint's claim of stolen is not supported by any loss in the records. Were they traded when they should not have been, most likely true. That is NOT stolen. >>
Tripp deals with payout, but I have heard no reference to exchange so far
I wonder what would happen if the mint gave the Langbords back 10 1927 (Philadelphia) double eagles. After all, it's just the same type of exchange that supposedly started this mess, right?
edit: (oh, and this post is intended as sarcasm. I think, at least. But I'm not fully certain.)
<< <i>The records did not show any 1933 DEs leaving the Mint. But what is MORE important, there was NO record of any missing gold. The MINT kept VERY detailed records of the gold, dates were less recorded. If 25 1933s got out, that would have been 1,000 dollars in missing gold, a HUGE sum in those days. Thus, it is MY belief that they were exchanged during the window of time that could have occurred. The Mint's claim of stolen is not supported by any loss in the records. Were they traded when they should not have been, most likely true. That is NOT stolen. >>
This reminds me of the movie Dirty Harry where he breaks in and arrests the guy and the judge later says he has to let him go because his rights were violated. I imagine an appeal now is fruitless, they just have to watch the movie.
<< <i>I wonder what would happen if the mint gave the Langbords back 10 1927 (Philadelphia) double eagles. After all, it's just the same type of exchange that supposedly started this mess, right?
edit: (oh, and this post is intended as sarcasm. I think, at least. But I'm not fully certain.) >>
That could work. As long as those 10 were 1927-D. The USTreasury would have to go out and round up 2/3 of the surviving specimens. That would be fun to watch.
If the UST wants them so badly, maybe they can trade one or both of the $50 Unions for them? 2 x $50 Unions ($100) for 10 x $20 Saints ($200) is a big WIN for the US govt. They double up!
In essence, a win for the Langbords is a win for THE HOBBY, and the people in it. This benefits the whole, not the elect. And maybe this is the crux since THE PEOPLE are represented by the elect.
mr1874, I'm sure you will agree there are at least 1,000 people in this country "who have the money for an item like this." Now if just 1% of those people had some interest in coins, collecting, or history, they could each buy one, don't you think? Steve
Oh,sure.Anyone with a million or two dollars who wants one would be able to buy one of the ten Langbord coins if they become available. How many well-heeled collectors are trying to assemble a complete set of $20 St. Gaudens in UNC? Less than 10?
The primary motivation for anyone who buys one of the ten 1933 D.E.'S is to make money? That is,rather than buying one of these to fill the 1933 slot for a D.E. collection,the lure of possibly making some big easy money is a stronger reason to buy one,don't you think?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
If 25 1933s got out, that would have been 1,000 dollars in missing gold, a HUGE sum in those days
No 1933 gold was found to be missing.The coins were likely "spirited" out of the mint by sticky-fingered cashier George McCann.Izzy obtained the 1933 D.E.'s from McCann.Substituting a common date like 1928 for each '33 swiped is a likely scenario.
Izzy was being a little less than forthright when the Secret Service asked him how he obtained the 1933 D.E.'s that were all linked to him.He said he,"couldn't remember."
edited to change: "FBI" to "Secret Service." No "1933" gold was found to be missing. 8/3/15
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>In essence, a win for the Langbords is a win for THE HOBBY, and the people in it. This benefits the whole, not the elect. And maybe this is the crux since THE PEOPLE are represented by the elect. >>
Agree.
Izzy found a way to get the coins. No way to prove it. Gov't illegally takes them back.
Two "wrongs" don't make a right. They make a great auction.
I would think the mint and Treasury Depatment wouldn't care what dates the coins in the bags were, but what amount was stored (in 1933). So a switched date would not upset the accounting. It was only later, in 1944, that the Government took interest in the date of the coins.
<< <i>In essence, a win for the Langbords is a win for THE HOBBY, and the people in it. This benefits the whole, not the elect. And maybe this is the crux since THE PEOPLE are represented by the elect. >>
I think it's a major victory for all modern coins. Older coins known to have been illegally made ot stolen have always been OK but most coins from 1933 onward have been treated as second class citizens. Even coins known to have left legally are subject to confiscation if they were minted after '32. Until the mid-'90's Madison Avenue used only '64 and ear- lier coins in advertising. Most price guides didn't list moderns or listed them all at the same price (close to face value).
Yes. It benefits the hobby but it benefits moderns especially. It's like legitimizing even coins made and saved in large numbers. Maybe next we'll have '64 peace dollars and '74 aluminum cents. Maybe the government will finally apologize for destroying the '69-S DDO Lincolns back in 1970.
It shouldn't be too long until we're allowed to melt our own pennies and nickels if we desire to do so. What's next? Will be allowed to own our own collections?
I just looked at information published by the Third Circuit Court Of Appeal concerning post decision procedures. If I understand things correctly it appears that a Petition For Rehearing by the Court Of Appeal must be filed within 45 days after the filing of the decision in the case.
<< <i>I just looked at information published by the Third Circuit Court Of Appeal concerning post decision procedures. If I understand things correctly it appears that a Petition For Rehearing by the Court Of Appeal must be filed within 45 days after the filing of the decision in the case. >>
Srsly. JFC. appeal, decision on appeal, appeal that decision.
<< <i>I just looked at information published by the Third Circuit Court Of Appeal concerning post decision procedures. If I understand things correctly it appears that a Petition For Rehearing by the Court Of Appeal must be filed within 45 days after the filing of the decision in the case. >>
I think it's a major victory for all modern coins.
I would take issue with your dividing line used for defining modern vs. classic.The modern era began in 1934.The last coins of the classic era are dated 1933.Out with the old,in with the new starting in 1934. This makes sense to me since no gold coins for regular circulation were produced starting in 1934,the beginning of the modern era.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>I apologize if this was discussed before, but what might happen with the current owner of the "only 1933 $20 that could be in private hands"? I sense (s)he would take some kind of legal action because it's bound to drop its value >>
Against whom would the legal action be taken?
Numismatist Ordinaire See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
Paper shufflers on both sides are responsible for this debacle and its not over yet.There's still lots more paper to shuffle.
I would be extremely disappointed if the government threw in the towel at this point.I expect more from my tax-paying dollar than letting this case be decided by one person on a three-judge appeal committee.
The Langbords voluntarily surrendered their 1933 D.E.'s.Were there no concerns with the Langbords and their legal team,considering the well-documented and storied history of the 1933 D.E. that there would be a problem getting the coins back after the coins were inspected for authenticity?
Didn't any of them read the book,Illegal Tender:Gold,Greed,and the Mystery of the Lost 1933 Double Eagle by David Tripp?Seems like if they had,someone on the Langbord side would have raised the serious question:Are we going to get the coins back?
Louis Eliasberg paid $1000 for an example of 1933 D.E. for his collection.His was one of nine confiscated.
"All the lawyers signed off with lightning speed,and on Friday,August 17,1956,Leland Howard sent orders to the Superintendent of the Philadelphia Mint that the coin Louis Eliasberg had voluntarily surrendered four years earlier was to be destroyed "by the Superintendent of the Melting and Refining Department,in the presence of the Assayer and the Superintendent of the Mint" Certification was to be forwarded to Washington upon completion.
Four days later,in the Treasury Building,the eight remaining 1933 double eagles,eight ounces of gold,each bearing the accursed date on the beautiful,historic design for which Theodore Roosevelt had fought,were turned over by the Secret Service to Mint technicians for melting.The coins had been "manufactured but not issued," stolen from the Mint,most probably by George McCann,one of its most trusted employees, and recovered from a who's who of wealthy collectors tumbled into the searing heat of the crucible and were gone,reduced to a golden puddle." Illegal Tender by David Tripp,p226.
I see a kind of poetic justice in melting nine of the Langbord coins.Having said that,let them keep one coin,the nicest one,for being so swell about letting the government look at their Double Eagle collection.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Obviously,I hold the view that Tripp's book,Illegal Tender,is not fiction.I admit that I never have entertained the possibility that Tripp's book is a work of fiction.
The fiction is believing in "Yes,there was supposed to be a window of opportunity in 1933 to acquire a 1933 D.E. legally at the cashier window of the Mint and that's why there are total twenty 1933 D.E.'s,counting the ex Farouk coin,that left the Mint.Because there was supposed to be a window of opportunity,all twenty 1933 D.E.'s that left the Mint,left so legally."
Of the twenty coins,one is ex Farouk,ten are Langbord.The other nine,to include Eliasbergs were melted on Tuesday,August 21,1956.
It seems to me that there would be at least one entry in the Mint's 1933 records that an old DE was exchanged for a bright and shiny new one.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>Obviously,I hold the view that Tripp's book,Illegal Tender,is not fiction.I admit that I never have entertained the possibility that Tripp's book is a work of fiction.
The fiction is believing in "Yes,there was supposed to be a window of opportunity in 1933 to acquire a 1933 D.E. legally at the cashier window of the Mint and that's why there are total twenty 1933 D.E.'s,counting the ex Farouk coin,that left the Mint.Because there was supposed to be a window of opportunity,all twenty 1933 D.E.'s that left the Mint,left so legally."
Of the twenty coins,one is ex Farouk,ten are Langbord.The other nine,to include Eliasbergs were melted on Tuesday,August 21,1956.
It seems to me that there would be at least one entry in the Mint's 1933 records that an old DE was exchanged for a bright and shiny new one. >>
If Izzy had all twenty and they were exchanged at once, there would either be an entry or there wouldn't. No 'at least one entry' in this instance. So let's look at all the other transactions at that time and count the entries vs known specimens. Obviously, entries were not the norm - but rather the exception!
It is not fiction that there was a legal window of opportunity to acquire the coins - that is well researched. It is not fiction that the Mint did not always record exchange transactions. It is not fiction that the coins exist. It's not fiction that the gold balanced so the coins were exchanged, not stolen.
I personally have a problem with the Government seizing property just because they say it's theirs....what's next? I require PROOF that the coins were illegally obtained, not the other way around...
<< <i>Obviously,I hold the view that Tripp's book,Illegal Tender,is not fiction.I admit that I never have entertained the possibility that Tripp's book is a work of fiction.
The fiction is believing in "Yes,there was supposed to be a window of opportunity in 1933 to acquire a 1933 D.E. legally at the cashier window of the Mint and that's why there are total twenty 1933 D.E.'s,counting the ex Farouk coin,that left the Mint.Because there was supposed to be a window of opportunity,all twenty 1933 D.E.'s that left the Mint,left so legally."
Of the twenty coins,one is ex Farouk,ten are Langbord.The other nine,to include Eliasbergs were melted on Tuesday,August 21,1956.
It seems to me that there would be at least one entry in the Mint's 1933 records that an old DE was exchanged for a bright and shiny new one. >>
If Izzy had all twenty and they were exchanged at once, there would either be an entry or there wouldn't. No 'at least one entry' in this instance. So let's look at all the other transactions at that time and count the entries vs known specimens. Obviously, entries were not the norm - but rather the exception! >>
I don't remember where I heard it (perhaps from the court case) but I understand Izzy Switt was a regular exchanging gold for coins at the mint. This is not surprising as I understand he owned a jewelry store in the area, so he likely had a lot of scrap gold to exchange.
As for the Illegal Tender book, I think it is fair to discount its sources. It seems to mainly be based on a Secret Service report that uses double and triple hearsay from mint employees and others who were giving CYA testimony to the investigators.
Comments
<< <i>
<< <i>There's only so many who have the money for an item like this so the demand is limited even though the supply is definitely limited.The 1933 Double eagle is a wish coin for the masses.Anyone who buys one has a limited buyer audience when comes time to sell.
>>
mr1874, I'm sure you will agree there are at least 1,000 people in this country "who have the money for an item like this." Now if just 1% of those people had some interest in coins, collecting, or history, they could each buy one, don't you think? Steve
I think the number of people that could afford to send 8 Million on a coin is over 1000x what you said. However, I think the percentage that would have any interest in it would be about 1000x less than what you said (not even tradedollarnut is interested.)
In a perfect market you would find out at what price the number of people that were willing and able to spend that amount would equal 10. Of course it is more complicated than that because of the grade, and timing of the sale etc. I'm thinking the cleaned one is probably about a million, and the top one is probably in the 8 million range, the others would fall somewhere in between.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
<< <i>In a prior reply to this thread someone said the en banc panel consists of 13 justices. >>
Thanks.
<< <i>
How big is that en banc panel? Would they need just a simple majority to uphold or overturn? >>
In every circuit except for the Ninth Circuit, an en banc panel usually consists of all of the active judges within that circuit who are not disqualified (i.e. recuse themselves from the case). There are 14 active judges on the Third Circuit, so I am not sure where people are getting 13 from. A simple majority rules, and if the panel consists of an even number of judges and there is a tie, the decision below is automatically affirmed. This is the way that most circuits operate.
<< <i>I think the number of people that could afford to send 8 Million on a coin is over 1000x what you said. However, I think the percentage that would have any interest in it would be about 1000x less than what you said (not even tradedollarnut is interested.) >>
Do you think TDN would post here to confirm if he had a true buyer's interest in a 1933 $20? I know I wouldn't....especially if it were outside my normal sphere on interest.
$20 MILL for the 10 specimens seems like it would leave plenty of room to make a profit. Now the top dozen or so Saint Gaudens sets have to start thinking they will have to spend some more money to "re-complete" their sets.
<< <i>$20 MILL for the 10 specimens seems like it would leave plenty of room to make a profit. >>
I agree, but it is interesting to note that the current Guide Book reports only 20 auction results over $2M. This coin would be comparable to the 1804 dollar in terms of population and notoriety, although the 1804 still gets the edge since many are locked in institutions, and the history goes back a lot further.
1x NGC MS-66
2x NGC MS-65
6x NGC MS-64
1x NGC Uncirculated Details, Improperly Cleaned
Any thoughts on beans or crossing? The MS-66 isn't currently beaned.
Also, PCGS rated the Farouk coin a PCGS MS-65. Any thoughts if any of the Langbord 10 would cross higher than PCGS MS-65?
<< <i>What do we think each of the following Langbord 10 would go for:
1x NGC MS-66
2x NGC MS-65
6x NGC MS-64
1x NGC Uncirculated Details, Improperly Cleaned
Any thoughts on beans or crossing? The MS-66 isn't currently beaned.
Also, PCGS rated the Farouk coin a PCGS MS-65. Any thoughts if any of the Langbord 10 would cross higher than PCGS MS-65? >>
The PCGS grading of the so-called Farouk specimen was based upon the value of the coin, not the condition of the coin.
<< <i>
<< <i>What do we think each of the following Langbord 10 would go for:
1x NGC MS-66
2x NGC MS-65
6x NGC MS-64
1x NGC Uncirculated Details, Improperly Cleaned
Any thoughts on beans or crossing? The MS-66 isn't currently beaned.
Also, PCGS rated the Farouk coin a PCGS MS-65. Any thoughts if any of the Langbord 10 would cross higher than PCGS MS-65? >>
The PCGS grading of the so-called Farouk specimen was based upon the value of the coin, not the condition of the coin. >>
Isn't that standard practice for market grading?
These may be the ultimate numismatic trophy.
Also, I am very glad the Langfords won their case. The coins may or may not
have been obtained illegally, but there was no way to prove that.
There would be no auction fees, and, so long as they are sold "as is," there would be no danger to the Langbords of the Mint tying them up for several more years through some new act of mendacity.
Besides the normal coin guys, there's $50 billion+ in hedge fund dry powder right now.
<< <i>Such storied coins, $20 million for the lot is very cheap!
These may be the ultimate numismatic trophy.
Also, I am very glad the Langfords won their case. The coins may or may not
have been obtained illegally, but there was no way to prove that. >>
I too WISH "the Langboards won their case". Unfortunately, we will NOT know for sure UNLESS and UNTIL the government physically returns the 10 1933 $20 double eagles to the Langboards. Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
<< <i>
<< <i>Such storied coins, $20 million for the lot is very cheap!
These may be the ultimate numismatic trophy.
Also, I am very glad the Langfords won their case. The coins may or may not
have been obtained illegally, but there was no way to prove that. >>
I too WISH "the Langboards won their case". Unfortunately, we will NOT know for sure UNLESS and UNTIL the government physically returns the 10 1933 $20 double eagles to the Langboards. Steve
Maybe the government will say; "sorry but we already melted those down... we'll give you these nice 2015 gold eagles instead."
I don't know the precedents referenced
Going solely off the text in the opinions, there seems to be room for at least a court to want to hear the appeal of this appeal.
It may not be over.
<< <i>The coins may or may not
have been obtained illegally, but there was no way to prove that. >>
Untrue. The jury ruled they were stolen, but the appeal set that aside since it came after the technical error of not filing the forfeiture notice.
I'm still not sure there isn't room to re-fight THAT battle.
ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
<< <i>
<< <i>The coins may or may not
have been obtained illegally, but there was no way to prove that. >>
Untrue. The jury ruled they were stolen, but the appeal set that aside since it came after the technical error of not filing the forfeiture notice.
I'm still not sure there isn't room to re-fight THAT battle. >>
I agree with the first statement, there is no legal way to prove the coins were stolen. It is important to note, that while the appeals court said they did not need to rule on any issue after the blown notice, they did say in a footnote that the trial judge also erred in allowing in double and triple hearsay. In other words the jury trial didn't prove anything.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
<< <i>In the 40s, what examination of the Mint records led them to ascertain that the coins were illegally removed from the Mint and that they would start to pursue their recovery? >>
It was really what the records didn't show, the records did not show any '33 double eagles leaving the mint. The government maintains that the records were meticulous and this is proof the coins were stolen. The Langbords counter that the records were not that good, as evidenced by the fact that they show few (I believe 1) '33 $10 gold leaving the mint, while there are clearly more than one '33 eagles out there.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
And they left the mint without a trace of evidence by way of legal EXCHANGE. That's what the freaking mint did back then. They exchanged some new for some old prior to the executive order (Supposition) being signed (window of opportunity). A common practice back in them days. (fact)
My contention remains the same. If Izzy was a thief, he would have been arrested and charged with theft. But the mint doesn't keep meticulous records.
They can't even tell us how many Cheerios Sacagawea dollars were minted for General Mills. Supposedly (no facts) there were 5500, but since fewer than 100 are known, maybe someone at General Mills stole the other 5400.
Oh wait, we know they all are not dated 1999. But we do know that the 1856 Flying Eagles were minted and distributed before the law authorizing small cents was passed BY LAW.
I should not convolute anything with respect to this case, but… let's not forget the Alamo.
<< <i>I apologize if this was discussed before, but what might happen with the current owner of the "only 1933 $20 that could be in private hands"? I sense (s)he would take some kind of legal action because it's bound to drop its value >>
If the Government wasn't the buyer [some here believe it was] they may have guaranteed the value of it, who knows. BTW, who got the proceeds from the sale/auction?
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
<< <i>
<< <i>In the 40s, what examination of the Mint records led them to ascertain that the coins were illegally removed from the Mint and that they would start to pursue their recovery? >>
It was really what the records didn't show, the records did not show any '33 double eagles leaving the mint. The government maintains that the records were meticulous and this is proof the coins were stolen. The Langbords counter that the records were not that good, as evidenced by the fact that they show few (I believe 1) '33 $10 gold leaving the mint, while there are clearly more than one '33 eagles out there. >>
As I suggested several times previously, there should be a SOP for manufacturing these just like in prior years [tho as I recall none of the earlier issues were ever monetized]. One would expect that there would be a document that authorized release of the coins to the cashier for distribution.
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
<< <i>The records did not show any 1933 DEs leaving the Mint. But what is MORE important, there was NO record of any missing gold. The MINT kept VERY detailed records of the gold, dates were less recorded. If 25 1933s got out, that would have been 1,000 dollars in missing gold, a HUGE sum in those days. Thus, it is MY belief that they were exchanged during the window of time that could have occurred. The Mint's claim of stolen is not supported by any loss in the records. Were they traded when they should not have been, most likely true. That is NOT stolen. >>
Tripp deals with payout, but I have heard no reference to exchange so far
edit: (oh, and this post is intended as sarcasm. I think, at least. But I'm not fully certain.)
Ed. S.
(EJS)
<< <i>The records did not show any 1933 DEs leaving the Mint. But what is MORE important, there was NO record of any missing gold. The MINT kept VERY detailed records of the gold, dates were less recorded. If 25 1933s got out, that would have been 1,000 dollars in missing gold, a HUGE sum in those days. Thus, it is MY belief that they were exchanged during the window of time that could have occurred. The Mint's claim of stolen is not supported by any loss in the records. Were they traded when they should not have been, most likely true. That is NOT stolen. >>
is my math bad or is
25 $20 coins only $500?
<< <i>I can hear Laura Sperber warming up her pen and the her checkbook now........ >>
yeah... to 98.6 degrees.
<< <i>I wonder what would happen if the mint gave the Langbords back 10 1927 (Philadelphia) double eagles. After all, it's just the same type of exchange that supposedly started this mess, right?
edit: (oh, and this post is intended as sarcasm. I think, at least. But I'm not fully certain.) >>
That could work. As long as those 10 were 1927-D. The USTreasury would have to go out and round up 2/3 of the surviving specimens. That would be fun to watch.
If the UST wants them so badly, maybe they can trade one or both of the $50 Unions for them? 2 x $50 Unions ($100) for 10 x $20 Saints ($200) is a big WIN for the US govt. They double up!
Oh,sure.Anyone with a million or two dollars who wants one would be able to buy one of the ten Langbord coins if they become available. How many well-heeled collectors are trying to assemble a complete set of $20 St. Gaudens in UNC? Less than 10?
The primary motivation for anyone who buys one of the ten 1933 D.E.'S is to make money? That is,rather than buying one of these to fill the 1933 slot for a D.E. collection,the lure of possibly making some big easy money is a stronger reason to buy one,don't you think?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
No 1933 gold was found to be missing.The coins were likely "spirited" out of the mint by sticky-fingered cashier George McCann.Izzy obtained the 1933 D.E.'s from McCann.Substituting a common date like 1928 for each '33 swiped is a likely scenario.
Izzy was being a little less than forthright when the Secret Service asked him how he obtained the 1933 D.E.'s that were all linked to him.He said he,"couldn't remember."
edited to change: "FBI" to "Secret Service." No "1933" gold was found to be missing.
8/3/15
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>In essence, a win for the Langbords is a win for THE HOBBY, and the people in it. This benefits the whole, not the elect. And maybe this is the crux since THE PEOPLE are represented by the elect. >>
Agree.
Izzy found a way to get the coins. No way to prove it. Gov't illegally takes them back.
Two "wrongs" don't make a right. They make a great auction.
My 1866 Philly Mint Set
<< <i>In essence, a win for the Langbords is a win for THE HOBBY, and the people in it. This benefits the whole, not the elect. And maybe this is the crux since THE PEOPLE are represented by the elect. >>
I think it's a major victory for all modern coins. Older coins known to have been illegally
made ot stolen have always been OK but most coins from 1933 onward have been treated
as second class citizens. Even coins known to have left legally are subject to confiscation
if they were minted after '32. Until the mid-'90's Madison Avenue used only '64 and ear-
lier coins in advertising. Most price guides didn't list moderns or listed them all at the same
price (close to face value).
Yes. It benefits the hobby but it benefits moderns especially. It's like legitimizing even
coins made and saved in large numbers. Maybe next we'll have '64 peace dollars and '74
aluminum cents. Maybe the government will finally apologize for destroying the '69-S
DDO Lincolns back in 1970.
It shouldn't be too long until we're allowed to melt our own pennies and nickels if we desire
to do so. What's next? Will be allowed to own our own collections?
<< <i>I just looked at information published by the Third Circuit Court Of Appeal concerning post decision procedures. If I understand things correctly it appears that a Petition For Rehearing by the Court Of Appeal must be filed within 45 days after the filing of the decision in the case. >>
Srsly. JFC. appeal, decision on appeal, appeal that decision.
SOMEBODY needs to decide, 45 days. JFC.
Good F-ing Grief.
Insane.
<< <i>I just looked at information published by the Third Circuit Court Of Appeal concerning post decision procedures. If I understand things correctly it appears that a Petition For Rehearing by the Court Of Appeal must be filed within 45 days after the filing of the decision in the case. >>
45 days is just a "wish."
four and a half years later is fine, too, right?
I would take issue with your dividing line used for defining modern vs. classic.The modern era began in 1934.The last coins of the classic era are dated 1933.Out with the old,in with the new starting in 1934. This makes sense to me since no gold coins for regular circulation were produced starting in 1934,the beginning of the modern era.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>I apologize if this was discussed before, but what might happen with the current owner of the "only 1933 $20 that could be in private hands"? I sense (s)he would take some kind of legal action because it's bound to drop its value >>
Against whom would the legal action be taken?
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
I would be extremely disappointed if the government threw in the towel at this point.I expect more from my tax-paying dollar than letting this case be decided by one person on a three-judge appeal committee.
The Langbords voluntarily surrendered their 1933 D.E.'s.Were there no concerns with the Langbords and their legal team,considering the well-documented and storied history of the 1933 D.E. that there would be a problem getting the coins back after the coins were inspected for authenticity?
Didn't any of them read the book,Illegal Tender:Gold,Greed,and the Mystery of the Lost 1933 Double Eagle by David Tripp?Seems like if they had,someone on the Langbord side would have raised the serious question:Are we going to get the coins back?
Louis Eliasberg paid $1000 for an example of 1933 D.E. for his collection.His was one of nine confiscated.
"All the lawyers signed off with lightning speed,and on Friday,August 17,1956,Leland Howard sent orders to the Superintendent of the Philadelphia Mint that the coin Louis Eliasberg had voluntarily surrendered four years earlier was to be destroyed "by the Superintendent of the Melting and Refining Department,in the presence of the Assayer and the Superintendent of the Mint" Certification was to be forwarded to Washington upon completion.
Four days later,in the Treasury Building,the eight remaining 1933 double eagles,eight ounces of gold,each bearing the accursed date on the beautiful,historic design for which Theodore Roosevelt had fought,were turned over by the Secret Service to Mint technicians for melting.The coins had been "manufactured but not issued," stolen from the Mint,most probably by George McCann,one of its most trusted employees,
and recovered from a who's who of wealthy collectors tumbled into the searing heat of the crucible and were gone,reduced to a golden puddle."
Illegal Tender by David Tripp,p226.
I see a kind of poetic justice in melting nine of the Langbord coins.Having said that,let them keep one coin,the nicest one,for being so swell about letting the government look at their Double Eagle collection.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Ohhhhh, it's fiction created by someone's imagination? Imagine that... ;-)
The fiction is believing in "Yes,there was supposed to be a window of opportunity in 1933 to acquire a 1933 D.E. legally at the cashier window of the Mint and that's why there are total twenty 1933 D.E.'s,counting the ex Farouk coin,that left the Mint.Because there was supposed to be a window of opportunity,all twenty 1933 D.E.'s that left the Mint,left so legally."
Of the twenty coins,one is ex Farouk,ten are Langbord.The other nine,to include Eliasbergs were melted on Tuesday,August 21,1956.
It seems to me that there would be at least one entry in the Mint's 1933 records that an old DE was exchanged for a bright and shiny new one.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>Obviously,I hold the view that Tripp's book,Illegal Tender,is not fiction.I admit that I never have entertained the possibility that Tripp's book is a work of fiction.
The fiction is believing in "Yes,there was supposed to be a window of opportunity in 1933 to acquire a 1933 D.E. legally at the cashier window of the Mint and that's why there are total twenty 1933 D.E.'s,counting the ex Farouk coin,that left the Mint.Because there was supposed to be a window of opportunity,all twenty 1933 D.E.'s that left the Mint,left so legally."
Of the twenty coins,one is ex Farouk,ten are Langbord.The other nine,to include Eliasbergs were melted on Tuesday,August 21,1956.
It seems to me that there would be at least one entry in the Mint's 1933 records that an old DE was exchanged for a bright and shiny new one. >>
If Izzy had all twenty and they were exchanged at once, there would either be an entry or there wouldn't. No 'at least one entry' in this instance. So let's look at all the other transactions at that time and count the entries vs known specimens. Obviously, entries were not the norm - but rather the exception!
I personally have a problem with the Government seizing property just because they say it's theirs....what's next? I require PROOF that the coins were illegally obtained, not the other way around...
<< <i>
<< <i>Obviously,I hold the view that Tripp's book,Illegal Tender,is not fiction.I admit that I never have entertained the possibility that Tripp's book is a work of fiction.
The fiction is believing in "Yes,there was supposed to be a window of opportunity in 1933 to acquire a 1933 D.E. legally at the cashier window of the Mint and that's why there are total twenty 1933 D.E.'s,counting the ex Farouk coin,that left the Mint.Because there was supposed to be a window of opportunity,all twenty 1933 D.E.'s that left the Mint,left so legally."
Of the twenty coins,one is ex Farouk,ten are Langbord.The other nine,to include Eliasbergs were melted on Tuesday,August 21,1956.
It seems to me that there would be at least one entry in the Mint's 1933 records that an old DE was exchanged for a bright and shiny new one. >>
If Izzy had all twenty and they were exchanged at once, there would either be an entry or there wouldn't. No 'at least one entry' in this instance. So let's look at all the other transactions at that time and count the entries vs known specimens. Obviously, entries were not the norm - but rather the exception! >>
I don't remember where I heard it (perhaps from the court case) but I understand Izzy Switt was a regular exchanging gold for coins at the mint. This is not surprising as I understand he owned a jewelry store in the area, so he likely had a lot of scrap gold to exchange.
As for the Illegal Tender book, I think it is fair to discount its sources. It seems to mainly be based on a Secret Service report that uses double and triple hearsay from mint employees and others who were giving CYA testimony to the investigators.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.