<< <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. >>
Therein lies the problem, Nic. There was really only one thing wrong. That was the fact that these coins did leave the mint, and according to Tripp's book, "MOST PROBABLY" by a trusted mint employee. That's "hearsay" all the way. "most probably ?" The truth is, the coins which were already "melted" after confiscation is the travesty. Those which were minted were MOST LIKELY exchanged as all exchanges were made. We can apply ex post facto laws all we want, but we still have to go by known facts and the precedent which was already established prior to an executive order which LEGALLY ALLOWS for the ownership in the aggregate of $200 any U.S. Gold Coins minted and considered "collectible". Back then, Izzy was "MOST PROBABLY" eccentric like today's dealers. It's not a crime to get the coins to the market, despite any "fiascos".
Izzy was "under the radar". I don't see that he did wrong by numismatist's standards. And even by law, I don't see where Joan Langbord, et.al., should be punished by having their items withheld from them. Especially more than a decade, now. That's a little bit overreaching by our govt., in my opinion, and I am not in charge.
<< <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. >>
Wouldn't the mint cashier exchange coins only for other coins and not scrap gold?
The critical factor to me is there was NO LOSS of gold by the Mint during that time frame and they check it religiously. Trade for in kind gold is not "stealing", there was NO theft IMHO. That is the giant hole in the "theft" scenario.
Retired United States Mint guy, now working on an Everyman Type Set.
The Mint has no Proof that any 1849-O quarters were ever issued, but they exist.
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>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. >>
Wouldn't the mint cashier exchange coins only for other coins and not scrap gold? >>
I am sure that coins were exchanged for coins, not scrap gold or bullion.
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>The critical factor to me is there was NO LOSS of gold by the Mint during that time frame and they check it religiously. Trade for in kind gold is not "stealing", there was NO theft IMHO. That is the giant hole in the "theft" scenario. >>
Exactly. There may have been a misdemeanor or two along the way, but the statute of limitations on them expired a long time ago.
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.
Mistakes have been made on both sides.King Farouk was able to get his coin out of the United States because of a mistake. I just don't see where the justice is in awarding the Langbords all ten coins and,realistically,I don't think that is going to happen.
The stage was set well before the Langbord coins surfaced.Confiscation of 1933 DE's was occurring in the '40's and '50's.Was the government wrong in doing this? If so,why were there no attempts made by the rich collectors of the day to get their '33 D.E.'s back?
Too bad they didn't have metal detectors at the Mint in 1933.Do you all think that someone like employee George McCann would have raised some eyebrows caught with a bright and shiny $20 D.E. in his pocket as he was leaving work? $5 to $7,probably closer to $5,was average wages for a days work in 1933.
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.
They need to change 45 days to 45 minutes to speed this fiasco up a bit.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>Mistakes have been made on both sides.King Farouk was able to get his coin out of the United States because of a mistake. I just don't see where the justice is in awarding the Langbords all ten coins and,realistically,I don't think that is going to happen.
The stage was set well before the Langbord coins surfaced.Confiscation of 1933 DE's was occurring in the '40's and '50's.Was the government wrong in doing this? If so,why were there no attempts made by the rich collectors of the day to get their '33 D.E.'s back? >>
David Tripp's book lists various lawsuits by collectors trying to get their coins back. The last was not resolved until September of 1955.
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>Mistakes have been made on both sides.King Farouk was able to get his coin out of the United States because of a mistake. I just don't see where the justice is in awarding the Langbords all ten coins and,realistically,I don't think that is going to happen.
The stage was set well before the Langbord coins surfaced.Confiscation of 1933 DE's was occurring in the '40's and '50's.Was the government wrong in doing this? If so,why were there no attempts made by the rich collectors of the day to get their '33 D.E.'s back?
Too bad they didn't have metal detectors at the Mint in 1933.Do you all think that someone like employee George McCann would have raised some eyebrows caught with a bright and shiny $20 D.E. in his pocket as he was leaving work? $5 to $7,probably closer to $5,was average wages for a days work in 1933.
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.
They need to change 45 days to 45 minutes to speed this fiasco up a bit. >>
So how was an ordinary collector with 5 1924 saints in his pocket able to walk up to the cashier's window, exchange them for 5 non-1924 Saints and leave the premises unchecked?
<< <i>Mistakes have been made on both sides.King Farouk was able to get his coin out of the United States because of a mistake. I just don't see where the justice is in awarding the Langbords all ten coins and,realistically,I don't think that is going to happen.
The stage was set well before the Langbord coins surfaced.Confiscation of 1933 DE's was occurring in the '40's and '50's.Was the government wrong in doing this? If so,why were there no attempts made by the rich collectors of the day to get their '33 D.E.'s back?
Too bad they didn't have metal detectors at the Mint in 1933.Do you all think that someone like employee George McCann would have raised some eyebrows caught with a bright and shiny $20 D.E. in his pocket as he was leaving work? $5 to $7,probably closer to $5,was average wages for a days work in 1933.
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.
They need to change 45 days to 45 minutes to speed this fiasco up a bit. >>
So how was an ordinary collector with 5 1924 saints in his pocket able to walk up to the cashier's window, exchange them for 5 non-1924 Saints and leave the premises unchecked? >>
The deadline for doing that was April 12, 1933.
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>Mistakes have been made on both sides.King Farouk was able to get his coin out of the United States because of a mistake. I just don't see where the justice is in awarding the Langbords all ten coins and,realistically,I don't think that is going to happen.
The stage was set well before the Langbord coins surfaced.Confiscation of 1933 DE's was occurring in the '40's and '50's.Was the government wrong in doing this? If so,why were there no attempts made by the rich collectors of the day to get their '33 D.E.'s back?
Too bad they didn't have metal detectors at the Mint in 1933.Do you all think that someone like employee George McCann would have raised some eyebrows caught with a bright and shiny $20 D.E. in his pocket as he was leaving work? $5 to $7,probably closer to $5,was average wages for a days work in 1933.
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.
They need to change 45 days to 45 minutes to speed this fiasco up a bit. >>
So how was an ordinary collector with 5 1924 saints in his pocket able to walk up to the cashier's window, exchange them for 5 non-1924 Saints and leave the premises unchecked? >>
Here is a good article I ran across that I think explains it well.
So how was an ordinary collector with 5 1924 saints in his pocket able to walk up to the cashier's window, exchange them for 5 non-1924 Saints and leave the premises unchecked?
The collector would not have access to the cage and vault like cashier George McCann had.
David Tripp's book lists various lawsuits by collectors trying to get their coins back. The last was not resolved until September of 1955.
What was the government's argument about why the 1933 D.E. was illegal to be held by private hands? Do you have the page numbers for the list of lawsuits? These might be very interesting reading if trial transcripts can be located
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 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. >>
Wouldn't the mint cashier exchange coins only for other coins and not scrap gold? >>
I am sure that coins were exchanged for coins, not scrap gold or bullion. >>
Why do you say this? Not that I doubt you I am just curious.
I understand that bullion for coins trades were also allowed. Switt may have been a regular at coin for coin trades as well, because he was also dealt in coins.
Here is a segment I got from the article I just posted, the article quoted it from a book by Alison Frankel.
Frankel writes, “An Assistant Treasury Secretary telegraphed to the Mint on March 7 that it was, in fact, ‘authorized to exchange gold coins or bars in exchange for bullion received.’” Earlier in the trial, David Tripp, a paid witness for the U.S. Treasury Department, stated that this telegram is an “orphan.” Later, under cross-examination, Tripp admitted that Tripp himself assigned the term “orphan” to this document. It does make clear that gold coins could be legally exchanged, and thus released from the U.S. Mint, after March 7th and before as well.
<< <i>So how was an ordinary collector with 5 1924 saints in his pocket able to walk up to the cashier's window, exchange them for 5 non-1924 Saints and leave the premises unchecked?
The collector would not have access to the cage and vault like cashier George McCann had.
David Tripp's book lists various lawsuits by collectors trying to get their coins back. The last was not resolved until September of 1955.
What was the government's argument about why the 1933 D.E. was illegal to be held by private hands? Do you have the page numbers for the list of lawsuits? These might be very interesting reading if trial transcripts can be located >>
The ordinary collector would present his coins to cashier who would in turn give him other dates. It wasn't a hep yersef situation. Were you checked going in and out or not?
<< <i>So how was an ordinary collector with 5 1924 saints in his pocket able to walk up to the cashier's window, exchange them for 5 non-1924 Saints and leave the premises unchecked?
The collector would not have access to the cage and vault like cashier George McCann had.
David Tripp's book lists various lawsuits by collectors trying to get their coins back. The last was not resolved until September of 1955.
What was the government's argument about why the 1933 D.E. was illegal to be held by private hands? Do you have the page numbers for the list of lawsuits? These might be very interesting reading if trial transcripts can be located >>
Start at P. 226 and work your way backwards. Also check the index.
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>So how was an ordinary collector with 5 1924 saints in his pocket able to walk up to the cashier's window, exchange them for 5 non-1924 Saints and leave the premises unchecked?
The collector would not have access to the cage and vault like cashier George McCann had.
David Tripp's book lists various lawsuits by collectors trying to get their coins back. The last was not resolved until September of 1955.
What was the government's argument about why the 1933 D.E. was illegal to be held by private hands? Do you have the page numbers for the list of lawsuits? These might be very interesting reading if trial transcripts can be located >>
The ordinary collector would present his coins to cashier who would in turn give him other dates. It wasn't a hep yersef situation. Were you checked going in and out or not? >>
I'm not sure I understand this checking in and out question. My understanding is you maybe go on a tour of the mint, stop at the cashiers window on the way out Exchange your double eagle for a new shinny one and then go home. There were also regulars (Maybe Switt was one of these) that just went right to the teller window and skipped the tour. This is from that article I linked to a couple of posts ago.
Not sure where you get that checking in and out thing. I mean I guess you can say the checking in and out is what the teller is doing, but it is clear he did not keep records for every transaction.
<< <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. >>
Wouldn't the mint cashier exchange coins only for other coins and not scrap gold? >>
I am sure that coins were exchanged for coins, not scrap gold or bullion. >>
Why do you say this? Not that I doubt you I am just curious. >>
Before April of 1933, if you deposited gold scrap or bullion you had to wait for it to be assayed before you got gold back, and even then there was no reason to expect that you would get back current dates rather than common dates. If the exchange window was still open you could then swap your common dates for current dates, but I have no idea how long you had to wait for settlement on your assay.
When McCann was swapping dates in 1936-37, it would have looked danged suspicious if somebody later opened a bag of $20's and found a gold bar or a bunch of old gold teeth, so we can safely assume that McCann swapped coins for coins.
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 am sure that coins were exchanged for coins, not scrap gold or bullion. >>
Why do you say this? Not that I doubt you I am just curious. >>
Before April of 1933, if you deposited gold scrap or bullion you had to wait for it to be assayed before you got gold back, and even then there was no reason to expect that you would get back current dates rather than common dates. If the exchange window was still open you could then swap your common dates for current dates, but I have no idea how long you had to wait for settlement on your assay.
When McCann was swapping dates in 1936-37, it would have looked danged suspicious if somebody later opened a bag of $20's and found a gold bar or a bunch of old gold teeth, so we can safely assume that McCann swapped coins for coins. >>
Very interesting, I wonder if there are any records of Switt depositing gold for Assay?
Also, I understand their is some evidence that 1933 DE's were available to the cashiers in '33, any chance they just paid someone like Switt with those after his Assay was completed? or would we expect to see a record if that happened?
The ordinary collector would present his coins to cashier who would in turn give him other dates. It wasn't a hep yersef situation. Were you checked going in and out or not?
My understanding is that prior to 1933,anyone who presented himself/herself at the Mint window could get a shiny new coin for an older one. There is a 1933 record of one 1933 Eagle coin leaving the Mint window with a Mr. Pomeranz.
Mint employees should be checked entering and leaving,no exceptions.Apparently this wasn't being done in 1933,however.
When McCann was swapping dates in 1936-37, it would have looked danged suspicious if somebody later opened a bag of $20's and found a gold bar or a bunch of old gold teeth, so we can safely assume that McCann swapped coins for coins.
Coins for coins would be the modus operandi.These coins were going to be melted anyway so McCann figured that no one was going to be checking dates.How easy it would have been for McCann to do the swaps over time,old coin for new coin,no one the wiser.Twenty 1933 D.E.'s were spirited out of the mint in this fashion.It's interesting that the 1937 final melt of 445,000 1933 D.E.'S included 900,000 other D.E.'s most dated 1928 and 1929.
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 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. >>
Wouldn't the mint cashier exchange coins only for other coins and not scrap gold? >>
I am sure that coins were exchanged for coins, not scrap gold or bullion. >>
Why do you say this? Not that I doubt you I am just curious. >>
Before April of 1933, if you deposited gold scrap or bullion you had to wait for it to be assayed before you got gold back, and even then there was no reason to expect that you would get back current dates rather than common dates. If the exchange window was still open you could then swap your common dates for current dates, but I have no idea how long you had to wait for settlement on your assay.
When McCann was swapping dates in 1936-37, it would have looked danged suspicious if somebody later opened a bag of $20's and found a gold bar or a bunch of old gold teeth, so we can safely assume that McCann swapped coins for coins. >>
If you assume that McCann really was the source of the Switt DE's as the government contends, of course I was talking about the possibility of Switt legally obtaining the coins in '33. If you think McCann did the swap, I don't think anyone thinks anyone would conclude he did it with scrap gold, there would just be no way for him to know he got the weight/purity right.
<< <i>So how was an ordinary collector with 5 1924 saints in his pocket able to walk up to the cashier's window, exchange them for 5 non-1924 Saints and leave the premises unchecked?
The collector would not have access to the cage and vault like cashier George McCann had.
David Tripp's book lists various lawsuits by collectors trying to get their coins back. The last was not resolved until September of 1955.
What was the government's argument about why the 1933 D.E. was illegal to be held by private hands? Do you have the page numbers for the list of lawsuits? These might be very interesting reading if trial transcripts can be located >>
The ordinary collector would present his coins to cashier who would in turn give him other dates. It wasn't a hep yersef situation. Were you checked going in and out or not? >>
I'm not sure I understand this checking in and out question. My understanding is you maybe go on a tour of the mint, stop at the cashiers window on the way out Exchange your double eagle for a new shinny one and then go home. There were also regulars (Maybe Switt was one of these) that just went right to the teller window and skipped the tour. This is from that article I linked to a couple of posts ago.
Not sure where you get that checking in and out thing. I mean I guess you can say the checking in and out is what the teller is doing, but it is clear he did not keep records for every transaction. >>
By checking in, wouldn't you have to at least go past a guard somewhere?
I'm not sure I understand this checking in and out question. My understanding is you maybe go on a tour of the mint, stop at the cashiers window on the way out Exchange your double eagle for a new shinny one and then go home. There were also regulars (Maybe Switt was one of these) that just went right to the teller window and skipped the tour. This is from that article I linked to a couple of posts ago.
Not sure where you get that checking in and out thing. I mean I guess you can say the checking in and out is what the teller is doing, but it is clear he did not keep records for every transaction. >>
By checking in, wouldn't you have to at least go past a guard somewhere? >>
I don't know the guard situation, but I think we do know that there was not a record of everyone that went to the casher's window.
I am not knowledgeable enough to be able to answer your question about what the entire appeals court panel would/could/should do in the event it chooses to overturn the decision of the 3 justice panel that issued the decision in the appeal one week ago. I do not handle federal appellate work.
However, I will comment generally. When cases are decided in a trial court the parties to the case have an absolute right to seek appellate review by the applicable Court Of Appeal [in both state court and in federal court cases]. Assuming the appealing party files the required paperwork in a timely manner the Court Of Appeal must heard and decide the appeal. The Court Of Appeal has no authority to refuse to act.
Once a case is decided by a Court Of Appeal, further appellate review [either by a rehearing before the entire Court Of Appeal or before a state Supreme Court or the US Supreme Court] is generally not a matter of right. In these types of further appellate review the appellate court that is asked to review the case has no obligation to do so. It can exercise its discretion to accept the case for review or not.
There is a body of law that describes not only the procedural rules that apply to situations where further appellate review is sought after an appeal is decided, but also describes the substantive law that applies. Appellate court practicioners are familiar with these procedural and substantive laws. In general further appellate review is rarely granted. In those cases where it is granted, the reviewing court that decides to accept the case does so for narrowly defined reasons and if after accepting the case for further review the reviewing court has a wide range of options that it can choose to follow in deciding the case [i.e. affirm the decision on the appeal, reverse the decision on the appeal and decide the case, reverse the decision on the appeal and order the case returned to the trial court with instructions to have further proceedings happen in the case, etc.].
Perhaps some other lawyers with federal appellate court experience can better answer your question.
I have some new thoughts about what to do with the Langbord 1933 D.E.'s currently in the possession of the U.S. government.
Let the Langbords keep one coin,the coin of their choosing.My idea about the Langbords getting to keep one coin hasn't changed.This leaves nine to do something with,all in NGC holders.I had been calling for all nine coins that remain after the Langbords chose theirs to be melted.
My new thoughts on what to do with the nine coins: Why not give them to the survivors of those individuals who had their 1933 D.E.'s confiscated long ago?
These individuals,all now deceased who had their 1933 D.E.'s confiscated are: James F. Bell F.C.C. Boyd Charles M. Williams T. James Clarke L.G. Barnard James Stack Max Barenstein Colonel James Flanagan Louis Eliasberg
The math is perfect for my proposed solution.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
I have an old thought about what to do, let the Langbolds keep all of them. They would then soon find their way into the collecting community and become a category similar to the 1804 Dollar. A very limited number, with varying grades, available to the collecting deep pockets. Your idea is interesting, but certainly not something that would ever happen, a nice fantasy.
Retired United States Mint guy, now working on an Everyman Type Set.
<< <i>I have some new thoughts about what to do with the Langbord 1933 D.E.'s currently in the possession of the U.S. government.
Let the Langbords keep one coin,the coin of their choosing.My idea about the Langbords getting to keep one coin hasn't changed.This leaves nine to do something with,all in NGC holders.I had been calling for all nine coins that remain after the Langbords chose theirs to be melted.
My new thoughts on what to do with the nine coins: Why not give them to the survivors of those individuals who had their 1933 D.E.'s confiscated long ago?
These individuals,all now deceased who had their 1933 D.E.'s confiscated are: James F. Bell F.C.C. Boyd Charles M. Williams T. James Clarke L.G. Barnard James Stack Max Barenstein Colonel James Flanagan Louis Eliasberg
The math is perfect for my proposed solution. >>
I appreciate all of your thoughts in and around the subject at hand. I do. These are amazing times and the '33 DE's are merely one of our "fabled, and obviously sordid tales which actually exist, as an authorized LOT of 10 x $20 = $200 ". With respect to the executive order and how our judicial system doesn't seem to work of late; it would not be right to steal from one person in order to "pay back" others who's coins were "illegally" taken by our government, then destroyed. Why should the Langbords have to suffer the damage done by our government, which I personally as an American citizen, believe 'erred in judgement with the STRONG ARM of interpreted laws" back in the "old days" ?
edit to add: Re: "confiscation". Lest we forget there was NEVER a confiscation with this Executive Order. There was a healthy exchange of "gold for paper". But the LAW and executive order could not have any impact whatsoever on COINS that were minted. The government never kept track of the "coins" by date. Collectors / numismatists/historians/doctors/dealers/ made THE NEWS of the day. And that captured the attention of politicians who were looking to wreak havoc on the hobby, once again.
<< <i>B]Why not give them to the survivors of those individuals who had their 1933 D.E.'s confiscated long ago?
These individuals,all now deceased who had their 1933 D.E.'s confiscated are: James F. Bell F.C.C. Boyd Charles M. Williams T. James Clarke L.G. Barnard James Stack Max Barenstein Colonel James Flanagan Louis Eliasberg
The math is perfect for my proposed solution. >>
Numismatic socialism?
Numismatist Ordinaire See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
To play the devli's advocate, why would the government care who owns the outstanding coins. Their agenda is to retrieve them from everyone. Spreading them out is just a different version of not winning for them. There is no incentive to distribute them. The mindset is to recover all of them in the mistaken idea that it is in the best interests of the government.
I STILL astounds me that the narrow mindedness of trying to recover the 1933 DEs stands alone and the clearly illegally made coins like the 1913 nickels and 1804 dollars that went out the back door are left completely alone. And I worked with these people! I knew the Mint's attorney who won awards based on this case.
Retired United States Mint guy, now working on an Everyman Type Set.
<< <i>I have some new thoughts about what to do with the Langbord 1933 D.E.'s currently in the possession of the U.S. government.
Let the Langbords keep one coin,the coin of their choosing.My idea about the Langbords getting to keep one coin hasn't changed.This leaves nine to do something with,all in NGC holders.I had been calling for all nine coins that remain after the Langbords chose theirs to be melted.
My new thoughts on what to do with the nine coins: Why not give them to the survivors of those individuals who had their 1933 D.E.'s confiscated long ago?
These individuals,all now deceased who had their 1933 D.E.'s confiscated are: James F. Bell F.C.C. Boyd Charles M. Williams T. James Clarke L.G. Barnard James Stack Max Barenstein Colonel James Flanagan Louis Eliasberg
The math is perfect for my proposed solution. >>
Correcting one wrong, the seizing of the first nine, by committing another wrong, seizing nine coins from the Langbords? I think not.
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.
Win-win for ALL parties is what "the solution" would do.
Some of the coins that go to the various estates of former 1933 D.E. owners would most likely soon go into the channels of numismatic commerce. Anyone who wants one,and has the money for it in 2015, would simply have to beat out other competitors to get the prize coin. Nothing new here.
Since neither the government nor the Langbords is able to PROVE that the coins were stolen,"the solution," in my opinion,would do a pretty good job of fixing it for ALL owners past and present.
The real challenge is for both parties,the Langbords and their legal team,the government and its lawyers, to set their egos aside and come up with something together that would really work like "the solution" that I propose.
By no means have the Langbords yet won the ten 1933 D.E.'s they found in their possession,notwithstanding the title of this thread.
Has it occurred to anyone,other than myself,that estate distribution of the 1933 D.E.'s to individuals whose coin was taken from them long ago by the government is what Izzy would have wanted?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>Win-win for ALL parties is what "the solution" would do.
Some of the coins that go to the various estates of former 1933 D.E. owners would most likely soon go into the channels of numismatic commerce. Anyone who wants one,and has the money for it in 2015, would simply have to beat out other competitors to get the prize coin. Nothing new here.
Since neither the government nor the Langbords is able to PROVE that the coins were stolen,"the solution," in my opinion,would do a pretty good job of fixing it for ALL owners past and present.
The real challenge is for both parties,the Langbords and their legal team,the government and its lawyers, to set their egos aside and come up with something together that would really work like "the solution" that I propose.
By no means have the Langbords yet won the ten 1933 D.E.'s they found in their possession,notwithstanding the title of this thread.
Has it occurred to anyone,other than myself,that estate distribution of the 1933 D.E.'s to individuals whose coin was taken from them long ago by the government is what Izzy would have wanted? >>
The only way this could be done fairly(If the Langfords agree) would be for the Goberment to compensate the Langford's for the 9 pieces that I whole heartedly believe they LEGALLY OWN!
<< <i>Win-win for ALL parties is what "the solution" would do.
Some of the coins that go to the various estates of former 1933 D.E. owners would most likely soon go into the channels of numismatic commerce. Anyone who wants one,and has the money for it in 2015, would simply have to beat out other competitors to get the prize coin. Nothing new here.
Since neither the government nor the Langbords is able to PROVE that the coins were stolen,"the solution," in my opinion,would do a pretty good job of fixing it for ALL owners past and present.
The real challenge is for both parties,the Langbords and their legal team,the government and its lawyers, to set their egos aside and come up with something together that would really work like "the solution" that I propose.
By no means have the Langbords yet won the ten 1933 D.E.'s they found in their possession,notwithstanding the title of this thread.
Has it occurred to anyone,other than myself,that estate distribution of the 1933 D.E.'s to individuals whose coin was taken from them long ago by the government is what Izzy would have wanted? >>
This has got to be one of the worst ideas I have heard. I also see no evidence that Izzy was a communist, so I don't see any reason he would have wanted this scenario. I can also see no logical reason for a settlement like this, the ten coins are either legally the Langbords, or they are legally the governments. I don't see any conceivable way that the prior government victims would have any claim to these. There is no reason at all they should or would be party to any possible settlement.
I think I have already wasted too much time on this idea.
Especially interesting chapter in Tripp's book,Illegal Tender , is Chapter 14 entitled, "A Clumsy Liar."
Cashier George McCann was interviewed by Secret Service Agent Harry Strang.McCann was asked how he thought the 1933 D.E.'s got into circulation.It's Tuesday,October 10,1944.Westmont,New Jersey.
"McCann could conceivably have claimed that he paid them out or exchanged them with collectors perfectly innocently over the counter,but he didn't.He might have said that the Secretary of the Treasury had requested them,but he didn't and the daily ledgers would belie such a claim.Instead he fell back on familiar territory.He "professed to have no knowledge" at all and again suggested Edward McKernan.McKernan had "carte blanche authority to enter the gold vault" and,according to McCann,held the only key to the Pyx Box."
Wednesday,October 11,1944.Philadelphia
"Agent Strang dutifully headed back to question former Vault Custodian and Shipper,Edward McKernan,anew....There were two keys,not one,and two locks to the Pyx Box,McKernan said,which was tradition.One was kept by the Cashier,the other by the Assayer. 1 One could not open the box without the other.McCann was one holder.The rule was ages old,and the same system was still in use.Strang checked.McCann was a clumsy liar."
Why didn't McCann claim that he paid out new (1933) double eagles or innocently exchange them with collectors over the counter? After all,this is mint tradition,right?
It seems that a smart McCann would come up with the lie that exchanges for new 1933 D.E.'s did happen in 1933.Speaking of proof,who would be able to prove he's lying about this? "Count the coins.You will find there's no gold missing," sayeth McCann and he would have been telling the truth for a change.
The twenty 1933 double eagles that found their way into circulation most likely would have been deemed by our government as legal to own if McCann had lied intelligently.
edit:1 The Mint Assayer at the time (since 1929) was Chester "Doc" Ziegler,one of the "Four Horseman." In Illegal Tender,Tripp discusses the "Four Horsemen on p.191. 8/3/15
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
I read both the Frankel book and the Tripp book. I thought that Tripp took the facts and slanted them to an predisposed position - towards the Governments side. The difference between reporting the facts and interpreting the facts can be enormous.
This has got to be one of the worst ideas I have heard. I also see no evidence that Izzy was a communist, so I don't see any reason he would have wanted this scenario. I can also see no logical reason for a settlement like this, the ten coins are either legally the Langbords, or they are legally the governments. I don't see any conceivable way that the prior government victims would have any claim to these. There is no reason at all they should or would be party to any possible settlement.
I don't quite get how evidence,or lack therof,that Izzy was a communist,has to do with the scenario.Izzy couldn't have felt bad,real bad,about all those 1933 D.E.'s that he handled being confiscated from their owners by the government? In 1944,Izzy had ten 1933 D.E.'s that he couldn't sell so maybe he hid them with the thought that his heirs would someday be in a position to correct the "wrong."
"If at first the idea is not absurd,then there is no hope for it." Albert Einstein
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
n 1944,Izzy had ten 1933 D.E.'s that he couldn't sell so maybe he hid them with the thought that his heirs would someday be in a position to correct the "wrong
I think this is very likely. After all, he's a coin dealer. Although I don't think he wanted to correct a wrong. He wanted to collect the money.
I read both the Frankel book and the Tripp book. I thought that Tripp took the facts and slanted them to an predisposed position - towards the Governments side. The difference between reporting the facts and interpreting the facts can be enormous
Which book did you find more convincing? I haven't read Frankel's book so today am going to order a copy for myself
If you have copy of Tripp's book available,I invite you to read on pages 191-192 about the tight,powerful clique of Chaffin,Ziegler,Roland and McCann that was in place at the Philadelphia Mint in 1933.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>I read both the Frankel book and the Tripp book. I thought that Tripp took the facts and slanted them to an predisposed position - towards the Governments side. The difference between reporting the facts and interpreting the facts can be enormous. >>
If something is a fact, it isn't open to interpretation, that's why it's a fact.
I think this is very likely. After all, he's a coin dealer. Although I don't think he wanted to correct a wrong. He wanted to collect the money.
Izzy may have wanted to collect the money but had to know in 1944 that he would never see the day when he could collect money by distributing the ten 1933 D.E.'s still in his possession.
EagleEye,if you're still around here could you give me the title to Frankel's book? I'm about to enter the vast library of Amazon.com.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>This has got to be one of the worst ideas I have heard. I also see no evidence that Izzy was a communist, so I don't see any reason he would have wanted this scenario. I can also see no logical reason for a settlement like this, the ten coins are either legally the Langbords, or they are legally the governments. I don't see any conceivable way that the prior government victims would have any claim to these. There is no reason at all they should or would be party to any possible settlement.
I don't quite get how evidence,or lack therof,that Izzy was a communist,has to do with the scenario.Izzy couldn't have felt bad,real bad,about all those 1933 D.E.'s that he handled being confiscated from their owners by the government? In 1944,Izzy had ten 1933 D.E.'s that he couldn't sell so maybe he hid them with the thought that his heirs would someday be in a position to correct the "wrong."
"If at first the idea is not absurd,then there is no hope for it." Albert Einstein >>
No Izzy would not have felt bad at all, and communism is the only reason someone would want there heirs to give away Millions of dollars in coins to people who did not affectively fight for their property rights.
"Lovely sight, the Apocalypse! But absurdity, without limits? No Sir! there have to be certain limits..."
They are both good books, but each has its own slant. As has been previously noted David Tripp was the government's expert witness in the first Langbord trial, so they obviously thought that he agreed with them.
Alison Frankel has a connection to the law firm that Berry Berke works for:
I believe that her father is the partner in the firm by the name of Frankel, but I no longer have the source that would confirm this. There is a younger Frankel with the firm that I would guess is her brother.
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>I do believe that it was the requirement to respond to the seized asset claim that was the basis of the court decision >>
That is my understanding. The Mint refused to file the necessary paperwork to take custody of the coins because it thought it was God and did not have to.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Comments
<< <i>
<< <i>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.
Therein lies the problem, Nic. There was really only one thing wrong. That was the fact that these coins did leave the mint, and according to Tripp's book, "MOST PROBABLY" by a trusted mint employee. That's "hearsay" all the way. "most probably ?"
The truth is, the coins which were already "melted" after confiscation is the travesty. Those which were minted were MOST LIKELY exchanged as all exchanges were made. We can apply ex post facto laws all we want, but we still have to go by known facts and the precedent which was already established prior to an executive order which LEGALLY ALLOWS for the ownership in the aggregate of $200 any U.S. Gold Coins minted and considered "collectible". Back then, Izzy was "MOST PROBABLY" eccentric like today's dealers. It's not a crime to get the coins to the market, despite any "fiascos".
Izzy was "under the radar". I don't see that he did wrong by numismatist's standards. And even by law, I don't see where Joan Langbord, et.al., should be punished by having their items withheld from them. Especially more than a decade, now. That's a little bit overreaching by our govt., in my opinion, and I am not in charge.
Long story short, this is a long story.
<< <i>
<< <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. >>
Wouldn't the mint cashier exchange coins only for other coins and not scrap gold?
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <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. >>
Wouldn't the mint cashier exchange coins only for other coins and not scrap gold? >>
I am sure that coins were exchanged for coins, not scrap gold or bullion.
<< <i>The critical factor to me is there was NO LOSS of gold by the Mint during that time frame and they check it religiously. Trade for in kind gold is not "stealing", there was NO theft IMHO. That is the giant hole in the "theft" scenario. >>
Exactly. There may have been a misdemeanor or two along the way, but the statute of limitations on them expired a long time ago.
The stage was set well before the Langbord coins surfaced.Confiscation of 1933 DE's was occurring in the '40's and '50's.Was the government wrong in doing this? If so,why were there no attempts made by the rich collectors of the day to get their '33 D.E.'s back?
Too bad they didn't have metal detectors at the Mint in 1933.Do you all think that someone like employee George McCann would have raised some eyebrows caught with a bright and shiny $20 D.E. in his pocket as he was leaving work? $5 to $7,probably closer to $5,was average wages for a days work in 1933.
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.
They need to change 45 days to 45 minutes to speed this fiasco up a bit.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>Mistakes have been made on both sides.King Farouk was able to get his coin out of the United States because of a mistake. I just don't see where the justice is in awarding the Langbords all ten coins and,realistically,I don't think that is going to happen.
The stage was set well before the Langbord coins surfaced.Confiscation of 1933 DE's was occurring in the '40's and '50's.Was the government wrong in doing this? If so,why were there no attempts made by the rich collectors of the day to get their '33 D.E.'s back? >>
David Tripp's book lists various lawsuits by collectors trying to get their coins back. The last was not resolved until September of 1955.
<< <i>Mistakes have been made on both sides.King Farouk was able to get his coin out of the United States because of a mistake. I just don't see where the justice is in awarding the Langbords all ten coins and,realistically,I don't think that is going to happen.
The stage was set well before the Langbord coins surfaced.Confiscation of 1933 DE's was occurring in the '40's and '50's.Was the government wrong in doing this? If so,why were there no attempts made by the rich collectors of the day to get their '33 D.E.'s back?
Too bad they didn't have metal detectors at the Mint in 1933.Do you all think that someone like employee George McCann would have raised some eyebrows caught with a bright and shiny $20 D.E. in his pocket as he was leaving work? $5 to $7,probably closer to $5,was average wages for a days work in 1933.
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.
They need to change 45 days to 45 minutes to speed this fiasco up a bit. >>
So how was an ordinary collector with 5 1924 saints in his pocket able to walk up to the cashier's window, exchange them for 5 non-1924 Saints and leave the premises unchecked?
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
<< <i>
<< <i>Mistakes have been made on both sides.King Farouk was able to get his coin out of the United States because of a mistake. I just don't see where the justice is in awarding the Langbords all ten coins and,realistically,I don't think that is going to happen.
The stage was set well before the Langbord coins surfaced.Confiscation of 1933 DE's was occurring in the '40's and '50's.Was the government wrong in doing this? If so,why were there no attempts made by the rich collectors of the day to get their '33 D.E.'s back?
Too bad they didn't have metal detectors at the Mint in 1933.Do you all think that someone like employee George McCann would have raised some eyebrows caught with a bright and shiny $20 D.E. in his pocket as he was leaving work? $5 to $7,probably closer to $5,was average wages for a days work in 1933.
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.
They need to change 45 days to 45 minutes to speed this fiasco up a bit. >>
So how was an ordinary collector with 5 1924 saints in his pocket able to walk up to the cashier's window, exchange them for 5 non-1924 Saints and leave the premises unchecked? >>
The deadline for doing that was April 12, 1933.
<< <i>
<< <i>Mistakes have been made on both sides.King Farouk was able to get his coin out of the United States because of a mistake. I just don't see where the justice is in awarding the Langbords all ten coins and,realistically,I don't think that is going to happen.
The stage was set well before the Langbord coins surfaced.Confiscation of 1933 DE's was occurring in the '40's and '50's.Was the government wrong in doing this? If so,why were there no attempts made by the rich collectors of the day to get their '33 D.E.'s back?
Too bad they didn't have metal detectors at the Mint in 1933.Do you all think that someone like employee George McCann would have raised some eyebrows caught with a bright and shiny $20 D.E. in his pocket as he was leaving work? $5 to $7,probably closer to $5,was average wages for a days work in 1933.
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.
They need to change 45 days to 45 minutes to speed this fiasco up a bit. >>
So how was an ordinary collector with 5 1924 saints in his pocket able to walk up to the cashier's window, exchange them for 5 non-1924 Saints and leave the premises unchecked? >>
Here is a good article I ran across that I think explains it well.
http://www.coinweek.com/featured-news/coin-rarities-related-topics-the-fate-of-ten-switt-langbord-1933-double-eagles-20-gold-coins/
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
The collector would not have access to the cage and vault like cashier George McCann had.
David Tripp's book lists various lawsuits by collectors trying to get their coins back. The last was not resolved until September of 1955.
What was the government's argument about why the 1933 D.E. was illegal to be held by private hands? Do you have the page numbers for the list of lawsuits? These might be very interesting reading if trial transcripts can be located
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <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. >>
Wouldn't the mint cashier exchange coins only for other coins and not scrap gold? >>
I am sure that coins were exchanged for coins, not scrap gold or bullion. >>
Why do you say this? Not that I doubt you I am just curious.
I understand that bullion for coins trades were also allowed. Switt may have been a regular at coin for coin trades as well, because he was also dealt in coins.
Here is a segment I got from the article I just posted, the article quoted it from a book by Alison Frankel.
Frankel writes, “An Assistant Treasury Secretary telegraphed to the Mint on March 7 that it was, in fact, ‘authorized to exchange gold coins or bars in exchange for bullion received.’” Earlier in the trial, David Tripp, a paid witness for the U.S. Treasury Department, stated that this telegram is an “orphan.” Later, under cross-examination, Tripp admitted that Tripp himself assigned the term “orphan” to this document. It does make clear that gold coins could be legally exchanged, and thus released from the U.S. Mint, after March 7th and before as well.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
<< <i>So how was an ordinary collector with 5 1924 saints in his pocket able to walk up to the cashier's window, exchange them for 5 non-1924 Saints and leave the premises unchecked?
The collector would not have access to the cage and vault like cashier George McCann had.
David Tripp's book lists various lawsuits by collectors trying to get their coins back. The last was not resolved until September of 1955.
What was the government's argument about why the 1933 D.E. was illegal to be held by private hands? Do you have the page numbers for the list of lawsuits? These might be very interesting reading if trial transcripts can be located >>
The ordinary collector would present his coins to cashier who would in turn give him other dates. It wasn't a hep yersef situation. Were you checked going in and out or not?
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
<< <i>So how was an ordinary collector with 5 1924 saints in his pocket able to walk up to the cashier's window, exchange them for 5 non-1924 Saints and leave the premises unchecked?
The collector would not have access to the cage and vault like cashier George McCann had.
David Tripp's book lists various lawsuits by collectors trying to get their coins back. The last was not resolved until September of 1955.
What was the government's argument about why the 1933 D.E. was illegal to be held by private hands? Do you have the page numbers for the list of lawsuits? These might be very interesting reading if trial transcripts can be located >>
Start at P. 226 and work your way backwards. Also check the index.
<< <i>
<< <i>So how was an ordinary collector with 5 1924 saints in his pocket able to walk up to the cashier's window, exchange them for 5 non-1924 Saints and leave the premises unchecked?
The collector would not have access to the cage and vault like cashier George McCann had.
David Tripp's book lists various lawsuits by collectors trying to get their coins back. The last was not resolved until September of 1955.
What was the government's argument about why the 1933 D.E. was illegal to be held by private hands? Do you have the page numbers for the list of lawsuits? These might be very interesting reading if trial transcripts can be located >>
The ordinary collector would present his coins to cashier who would in turn give him other dates. It wasn't a hep yersef situation. Were you checked going in and out or not? >>
I'm not sure I understand this checking in and out question. My understanding is you maybe go on a tour of the mint, stop at the cashiers window on the way out Exchange your double eagle for a new shinny one and then go home. There were also regulars (Maybe Switt was one of these) that just went right to the teller window and skipped the tour. This is from that article I linked to a couple of posts ago.
Not sure where you get that checking in and out thing. I mean I guess you can say the checking in and out is what the teller is doing, but it is clear he did not keep records for every transaction.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <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. >>
Wouldn't the mint cashier exchange coins only for other coins and not scrap gold? >>
I am sure that coins were exchanged for coins, not scrap gold or bullion. >>
Why do you say this? Not that I doubt you I am just curious. >>
Before April of 1933, if you deposited gold scrap or bullion you had to wait for it to be assayed before you got gold back, and even then there was no reason to expect that you would get back current dates rather than common dates. If the exchange window was still open you could then swap your common dates for current dates, but I have no idea how long you had to wait for settlement on your assay.
When McCann was swapping dates in 1936-37, it would have looked danged suspicious if somebody later opened a bag of $20's and found a gold bar or a bunch of old gold teeth, so we can safely assume that McCann swapped coins for coins.
>>
>>
I am sure that coins were exchanged for coins, not scrap gold or bullion. >>
Why do you say this? Not that I doubt you I am just curious. >>
Before April of 1933, if you deposited gold scrap or bullion you had to wait for it to be assayed before you got gold back, and even then there was no reason to expect that you would get back current dates rather than common dates. If the exchange window was still open you could then swap your common dates for current dates, but I have no idea how long you had to wait for settlement on your assay.
When McCann was swapping dates in 1936-37, it would have looked danged suspicious if somebody later opened a bag of $20's and found a gold bar or a bunch of old gold teeth, so we can safely assume that McCann swapped coins for coins. >>
Very interesting, I wonder if there are any records of Switt depositing gold for Assay?
Also, I understand their is some evidence that 1933 DE's were available to the cashiers in '33, any chance they just paid someone like Switt with those after his Assay was completed? or would we expect to see a record if that happened?
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
My understanding is that prior to 1933,anyone who presented himself/herself at the Mint window could get a shiny new coin for an older one.
There is a 1933 record of one 1933 Eagle coin leaving the Mint window with a Mr. Pomeranz.
Mint employees should be checked entering and leaving,no exceptions.Apparently this wasn't being done in 1933,however.
When McCann was swapping dates in 1936-37, it would have looked danged suspicious if somebody later opened a bag of $20's and found a gold bar or a bunch of old gold teeth, so we can safely assume that McCann swapped coins for coins.
Coins for coins would be the modus operandi.These coins were going to be melted anyway so McCann figured that no one was going to be checking dates.How easy it would have been for McCann to do the swaps over time,old coin for new coin,no one the wiser.Twenty 1933 D.E.'s were spirited out of the mint in this fashion.It's interesting that the 1937 final melt of 445,000 1933 D.E.'S included 900,000 other D.E.'s most dated 1928 and 1929.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <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. >>
Wouldn't the mint cashier exchange coins only for other coins and not scrap gold? >>
I am sure that coins were exchanged for coins, not scrap gold or bullion. >>
Why do you say this? Not that I doubt you I am just curious. >>
Before April of 1933, if you deposited gold scrap or bullion you had to wait for it to be assayed before you got gold back, and even then there was no reason to expect that you would get back current dates rather than common dates. If the exchange window was still open you could then swap your common dates for current dates, but I have no idea how long you had to wait for settlement on your assay.
When McCann was swapping dates in 1936-37, it would have looked danged suspicious if somebody later opened a bag of $20's and found a gold bar or a bunch of old gold teeth, so we can safely assume that McCann swapped coins for coins. >>
If you assume that McCann really was the source of the Switt DE's as the government contends, of course I was talking about the possibility of Switt legally obtaining the coins in '33. If you think McCann did the swap, I don't think anyone thinks anyone would conclude he did it with scrap gold, there would just be no way for him to know he got the weight/purity right.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>So how was an ordinary collector with 5 1924 saints in his pocket able to walk up to the cashier's window, exchange them for 5 non-1924 Saints and leave the premises unchecked?
The collector would not have access to the cage and vault like cashier George McCann had.
David Tripp's book lists various lawsuits by collectors trying to get their coins back. The last was not resolved until September of 1955.
What was the government's argument about why the 1933 D.E. was illegal to be held by private hands? Do you have the page numbers for the list of lawsuits? These might be very interesting reading if trial transcripts can be located >>
The ordinary collector would present his coins to cashier who would in turn give him other dates. It wasn't a hep yersef situation. Were you checked going in and out or not? >>
I'm not sure I understand this checking in and out question. My understanding is you maybe go on a tour of the mint, stop at the cashiers window on the way out Exchange your double eagle for a new shinny one and then go home. There were also regulars (Maybe Switt was one of these) that just went right to the teller window and skipped the tour. This is from that article I linked to a couple of posts ago.
Not sure where you get that checking in and out thing. I mean I guess you can say the checking in and out is what the teller is doing, but it is clear he did not keep records for every transaction. >>
By checking in, wouldn't you have to at least go past a guard somewhere?
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
I'm not sure I understand this checking in and out question. My understanding is you maybe go on a tour of the mint, stop at the cashiers window on the way out Exchange your double eagle for a new shinny one and then go home. There were also regulars (Maybe Switt was one of these) that just went right to the teller window and skipped the tour. This is from that article I linked to a couple of posts ago.
Not sure where you get that checking in and out thing. I mean I guess you can say the checking in and out is what the teller is doing, but it is clear he did not keep records for every transaction. >>
By checking in, wouldn't you have to at least go past a guard somewhere? >>
I don't know the guard situation, but I think we do know that there was not a record of everyone that went to the casher's window.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
I am not knowledgeable enough to be able to answer your question about what the entire appeals court panel would/could/should do in the event it chooses to overturn the decision of the 3 justice panel that issued the decision in the appeal one week ago. I do not handle federal appellate work.
However, I will comment generally. When cases are decided in a trial court the parties to the case have an absolute right to seek appellate review by the applicable Court Of Appeal [in both state court and in federal court cases]. Assuming the appealing party files the required paperwork in a timely manner the Court Of Appeal must heard and decide the appeal. The Court Of Appeal has no authority to refuse to act.
Once a case is decided by a Court Of Appeal, further appellate review [either by a rehearing before the entire Court Of Appeal or before a state Supreme Court or the US Supreme Court] is generally not a matter of right. In these types of further appellate review the appellate court that is asked to review the case has no obligation to do so. It can exercise its discretion to accept the case for review or not.
There is a body of law that describes not only the procedural rules that apply to situations where further appellate review is sought after an appeal is decided, but also describes the substantive law that applies. Appellate court practicioners are familiar with these procedural and substantive laws. In general further appellate review is rarely granted. In those cases where it is granted, the reviewing court that decides to accept the case does so for narrowly defined reasons and if after accepting the case for further review the reviewing court has a wide range of options that it can choose to follow in deciding the case [i.e. affirm the decision on the appeal, reverse the decision on the appeal and decide the case, reverse the decision on the appeal and order the case returned to the trial court with instructions to have further proceedings happen in the case, etc.].
Perhaps some other lawyers with federal appellate court experience can better answer your question.
Let the Langbords keep one coin,the coin of their choosing.My idea about the Langbords getting to keep one coin hasn't changed.This leaves nine to do something with,all in NGC holders.I had been calling for all nine coins that remain after the Langbords chose theirs to be melted.
My new thoughts on what to do with the nine coins:
Why not give them to the survivors of those individuals who had their 1933 D.E.'s confiscated long ago?
These individuals,all now deceased who had their 1933 D.E.'s confiscated are:
James F. Bell
F.C.C. Boyd
Charles M. Williams
T. James Clarke
L.G. Barnard
James Stack
Max Barenstein
Colonel James Flanagan
Louis Eliasberg
The math is perfect for my proposed solution.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>I have some new thoughts about what to do with the Langbord 1933 D.E.'s currently in the possession of the U.S. government.
Let the Langbords keep one coin,the coin of their choosing.My idea about the Langbords getting to keep one coin hasn't changed.This leaves nine to do something with,all in NGC holders.I had been calling for all nine coins that remain after the Langbords chose theirs to be melted.
My new thoughts on what to do with the nine coins:
Why not give them to the survivors of those individuals who had their 1933 D.E.'s confiscated long ago?
These individuals,all now deceased who had their 1933 D.E.'s confiscated are:
James F. Bell
F.C.C. Boyd
Charles M. Williams
T. James Clarke
L.G. Barnard
James Stack
Max Barenstein
Colonel James Flanagan
Louis Eliasberg
The math is perfect for my proposed solution. >>
I appreciate all of your thoughts in and around the subject at hand. I do. These are amazing times and the '33 DE's are merely one of our "fabled, and obviously sordid tales which actually exist, as an authorized LOT of 10 x $20 = $200 ".
With respect to the executive order and how our judicial system doesn't seem to work of late; it would not be right to steal from one person in order to "pay back" others who's coins were "illegally" taken by our government, then destroyed. Why should the Langbords have to suffer the damage done by our government, which I personally as an American citizen, believe 'erred in judgement with the STRONG ARM of interpreted laws" back in the "old days" ?
edit to add:
Re: "confiscation". Lest we forget there was NEVER a confiscation with this Executive Order. There was a healthy exchange of "gold for paper".
But the LAW and executive order could not have any impact whatsoever on COINS that were minted. The government never kept track of the "coins" by date. Collectors / numismatists/historians/doctors/dealers/ made THE NEWS of the day. And that captured the attention of politicians who were looking to wreak havoc on the hobby, once again.
What excites the people, the entity has to quash.
<< <i>B]Why not give them to the survivors of those individuals who had their 1933 D.E.'s confiscated long ago?
These individuals,all now deceased who had their 1933 D.E.'s confiscated are:
James F. Bell
F.C.C. Boyd
Charles M. Williams
T. James Clarke
L.G. Barnard
James Stack
Max Barenstein
Colonel James Flanagan
Louis Eliasberg
The math is perfect for my proposed solution. >>
Numismatic socialism?
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
No.A settlement.Recompense or return in kind.
Reparations?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
I STILL astounds me that the narrow mindedness of trying to recover the 1933 DEs stands alone and the clearly illegally made coins like the 1913 nickels and 1804 dollars that went out the back door are left completely alone. And I worked with these people! I knew the Mint's attorney who won awards based on this case.
<< <i>I have some new thoughts about what to do with the Langbord 1933 D.E.'s currently in the possession of the U.S. government.
Let the Langbords keep one coin,the coin of their choosing.My idea about the Langbords getting to keep one coin hasn't changed.This leaves nine to do something with,all in NGC holders.I had been calling for all nine coins that remain after the Langbords chose theirs to be melted.
My new thoughts on what to do with the nine coins:
Why not give them to the survivors of those individuals who had their 1933 D.E.'s confiscated long ago?
These individuals,all now deceased who had their 1933 D.E.'s confiscated are:
James F. Bell
F.C.C. Boyd
Charles M. Williams
T. James Clarke
L.G. Barnard
James Stack
Max Barenstein
Colonel James Flanagan
Louis Eliasberg
The math is perfect for my proposed solution. >>
Correcting one wrong, the seizing of the first nine, by committing another wrong, seizing nine coins from the Langbords? I think not.
Some of the coins that go to the various estates of former 1933 D.E. owners would most likely soon go into the channels of numismatic commerce. Anyone who wants one,and has the money for it in 2015, would simply have to beat out other competitors to get the prize coin. Nothing new here.
Since neither the government nor the Langbords is able to PROVE that the coins were stolen,"the solution," in my opinion,would do a pretty good job of fixing it for ALL owners past and present.
The real challenge is for both parties,the Langbords and their legal team,the government and its lawyers, to set their egos aside and come up with something together that would really work like "the solution" that I propose.
By no means have the Langbords yet won the ten 1933 D.E.'s they found in their possession,notwithstanding the title of this thread.
Has it occurred to anyone,other than myself,that estate distribution of the 1933 D.E.'s to individuals whose coin was taken from them long ago by the government is what Izzy would have wanted?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Neither party would need to admit to wrong-doing.Write it into the agreement to settle this case.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>Win-win for ALL parties is what "the solution" would do.
Some of the coins that go to the various estates of former 1933 D.E. owners would most likely soon go into the channels of numismatic commerce. Anyone who wants one,and has the money for it in 2015, would simply have to beat out other competitors to get the prize coin. Nothing new here.
Since neither the government nor the Langbords is able to PROVE that the coins were stolen,"the solution," in my opinion,would do a pretty good job of fixing it for ALL owners past and present.
The real challenge is for both parties,the Langbords and their legal team,the government and its lawyers, to set their egos aside and come up with something together that would really work like "the solution" that I propose.
By no means have the Langbords yet won the ten 1933 D.E.'s they found in their possession,notwithstanding the title of this thread.
Has it occurred to anyone,other than myself,that estate distribution of the 1933 D.E.'s to individuals whose coin was taken from them long ago by the government is what Izzy would have wanted? >>
The only way this could be done fairly(If the Langfords agree) would be for the Goberment to compensate the Langford's for the 9 pieces that I whole heartedly believe they LEGALLY OWN!
<< <i>Win-win for ALL parties is what "the solution" would do.
Some of the coins that go to the various estates of former 1933 D.E. owners would most likely soon go into the channels of numismatic commerce. Anyone who wants one,and has the money for it in 2015, would simply have to beat out other competitors to get the prize coin. Nothing new here.
Since neither the government nor the Langbords is able to PROVE that the coins were stolen,"the solution," in my opinion,would do a pretty good job of fixing it for ALL owners past and present.
The real challenge is for both parties,the Langbords and their legal team,the government and its lawyers, to set their egos aside and come up with something together that would really work like "the solution" that I propose.
By no means have the Langbords yet won the ten 1933 D.E.'s they found in their possession,notwithstanding the title of this thread.
Has it occurred to anyone,other than myself,that estate distribution of the 1933 D.E.'s to individuals whose coin was taken from them long ago by the government is what Izzy would have wanted? >>
This has got to be one of the worst ideas I have heard. I also see no evidence that Izzy was a communist, so I don't see any reason he would have wanted this scenario. I can also see no logical reason for a settlement like this, the ten coins are either legally the Langbords, or they are legally the governments. I don't see any conceivable way that the prior government victims would have any claim to these. There is no reason at all they should or would be party to any possible settlement.
I think I have already wasted too much time on this idea.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Cashier George McCann was interviewed by Secret Service Agent Harry Strang.McCann was asked how he thought the 1933 D.E.'s got into circulation.It's Tuesday,October 10,1944.Westmont,New Jersey.
"McCann could conceivably have claimed that he paid them out or exchanged them with collectors perfectly innocently over the counter,but he didn't.He might have said that the Secretary of the Treasury had requested them,but he didn't and the daily ledgers would belie such a claim.Instead he fell back on familiar territory.He "professed to have no knowledge" at all and again suggested Edward McKernan.McKernan had "carte blanche authority to enter the gold vault" and,according to McCann,held the only key to the Pyx Box."
Wednesday,October 11,1944.Philadelphia
"Agent Strang dutifully headed back to question former Vault Custodian and Shipper,Edward McKernan,anew....There were two keys,not one,and two locks to the Pyx Box,McKernan said,which was tradition.One was kept by the Cashier,the other by the Assayer. 1 One could not open the box without the other.McCann was one holder.The rule was ages old,and the same system was still in use.Strang checked.McCann was a clumsy liar."
Why didn't McCann claim that he paid out new (1933) double eagles or innocently exchange them with collectors over the counter? After all,this is mint tradition,right?
It seems that a smart McCann would come up with the lie that exchanges for new 1933 D.E.'s did happen in 1933.Speaking of proof,who would be able to prove he's lying about this? "Count the coins.You will find there's no gold missing," sayeth McCann and he would have been telling the truth for a change.
The twenty 1933 double eagles that found their way into circulation most likely would have been deemed by our government as legal to own if McCann had lied intelligently.
edit:1 The Mint Assayer at the time (since 1929) was Chester "Doc" Ziegler,one of the "Four Horseman." In Illegal Tender,Tripp discusses the "Four Horsemen on p.191.
8/3/15
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
I don't quite get how evidence,or lack therof,that Izzy was a communist,has to do with the scenario.Izzy couldn't have felt bad,real bad,about all those 1933 D.E.'s that he handled being confiscated from their owners by the government? In 1944,Izzy had ten 1933 D.E.'s that he couldn't sell so maybe he hid them with the thought that his heirs would someday be in a position to correct the "wrong."
"If at first the idea is not absurd,then there is no hope for it." Albert Einstein
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
I think this is very likely. After all, he's a coin dealer. Although I don't think he wanted to correct a wrong. He wanted to collect the money.
Which book did you find more convincing? I haven't read Frankel's book so today am going to order a copy for myself
If you have copy of Tripp's book available,I invite you to read on pages 191-192 about the tight,powerful clique of Chaffin,Ziegler,Roland and McCann that was in place at the Philadelphia Mint in 1933.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>I read both the Frankel book and the Tripp book. I thought that Tripp took the facts and slanted them to an predisposed position - towards the Governments side. The difference between reporting the facts and interpreting the facts can be enormous. >>
If something is a fact, it isn't open to interpretation, that's why it's a fact.
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
Izzy may have wanted to collect the money but had to know in 1944 that he would never see the day when he could collect money by distributing the ten 1933 D.E.'s still in his possession.
EagleEye,if you're still around here could you give me the title to Frankel's book? I'm about to enter the vast library of Amazon.com.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Double Eagle...
I just pulled my copy out to read again.
Edited for messed up link, it should be good now.
<< <i>This has got to be one of the worst ideas I have heard. I also see no evidence that Izzy was a communist, so I don't see any reason he would have wanted this scenario. I can also see no logical reason for a settlement like this, the ten coins are either legally the Langbords, or they are legally the governments. I don't see any conceivable way that the prior government victims would have any claim to these. There is no reason at all they should or would be party to any possible settlement.
I don't quite get how evidence,or lack therof,that Izzy was a communist,has to do with the scenario.Izzy couldn't have felt bad,real bad,about all those 1933 D.E.'s that he handled being confiscated from their owners by the government? In 1944,Izzy had ten 1933 D.E.'s that he couldn't sell so maybe he hid them with the thought that his heirs would someday be in a position to correct the "wrong."
"If at first the idea is not absurd,then there is no hope for it." Albert Einstein >>
No Izzy would not have felt bad at all, and communism is the only reason someone would want there heirs to give away Millions of dollars in coins to people who did not affectively fight for their property rights.
"Lovely sight, the Apocalypse! But absurdity, without limits? No Sir! there have to be certain limits..."
- Louis-Ferdinand Celine, Normance
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Alison Frankel has a connection to the law firm that Berry Berke works for:
linky
I believe that her father is the partner in the firm by the name of Frankel, but I no longer have the source that would confirm this. There is a younger Frankel with the firm that I would guess is her brother.
<< <i>I do believe that it was the requirement to respond to the seized asset claim that was the basis of the court decision >>
That is my understanding. The Mint refused to file the necessary paperwork to take custody of the coins because it thought it was God and did not have to.