Was the Fenton 1933 DE proven to be the Farouk coin?
Zoins
Posts: 34,119 ✭✭✭✭✭
Other than Fenton's testimony, was it ever proven that his 1933 double eagle was the Farouk coin?
If it's not 100% proven, can someone else with a 1933 double eagle come forward and claim his/her coin was the real Farouk coin?
If it's not 100% proven, can someone else with a 1933 double eagle come forward and claim his/her coin was the real Farouk coin?
Tagged:
0
Comments
My understanding is that this was never proven. There is some circumstantial evidence. I have read, though I have not verified, that a dealer who handled the Fenton 1933, before Fenton owned it, had also handled coins that were once owned by King Farouk. Even if true, this does not prove that the Fenton 1933 is the Farouk 1933 Double Eagle.
For example, I know a dealer who has spent a vast amount in total during the first three auctions of the Gene Gardner Collection and thus acquired many coins from the Gardner Collection. It does NOT follow logically that all of the coins in this dealer's inventory were formerly owned by Gene Gardner. This dealer acquires coins from other sources as well.
Zoins: <<If it's not 100% proven, can someone else with a 1933 double eagle come forward and claim his/her coin was the real Farouk coin? >>
Yes, though, I do not see why it should make any difference whether the Fenton 1933 Double Eagle is or is not the Farouk coin. Export permits were needed to export any U.S. gold coins during that time period, including 1924 and 1928 Double Eagles. It is likely that any 1933 Double Eagle would have been given a green light to leave the U.S. There was nothing particularly unusual about the Farouk 1933.
During the 1930s, 1933 Double Eagles were openly displayed at coin conventions and mentioned in The Numismatist, to which officials in the U.S. Treasury Department subscribed or received by being ANA members. Before the mid 1940s, no one gave any indication that there was a reason to believe that any 1933 Double Eagles were stolen. R. W. Julian and Q. David Bowers have, separately, discussed the acceptance of 1933 Double Eagles in the mainstream.
My pre-trial article on the Switt-Langbord case shared the NLG award for best article to be published on a web site:
The fate of the ten Switt-Langbord 1933 Doubles
My post-trial article includes comments by Q. David Bowers and David Ganz:
Analysis of the Verdict in the Switt-Langbord Case
It's sort of interesting if the Fenton coin is the Farouk coin because, as I recall, that was one of the reasons offered why the government settled. But I might be recalling this situation incorrectly, so let me ask: "Is my memory off?"
Thanks in advance.
<< <i>Analyst:
It's sort of interesting if the Fenton coin is the Farouk coin because, as I recall, that was one of the reasons offered why the government settled. But I might be recalling this situation incorrectly, so let me ask: "Is my memory off?"
Thanks in advance. >>
That was my thought as well. I thought it was an important consideration that the Fenton coin actually was, or could be, the Farouk coin. It would be good to hear more if this isn't the case.
<< <i>i thought the farouk coin had export papers with it. >>
A U.S. Export License was issued in 1944 for the Farouk 1933 Double Eagle, although that fact was only uncovered after Fenton's attorney began investigating the case. There was fairly convincing circumstantial evidence that the Fenton coin was the Farouk coin, but it wasn't conclusive, as neither the Export License nor the 1954 Sotheby's catalog of The Palace Collections of Egypt had photographs of the 1933 Double Eagle.
Ed. S.
(EJS)
<< <i>John Dannreuther in the E-Sylum last year. >>
That's a very nice article for summarizing the details around McCann and the Fenton coin.
Betts medals, colonial coins, US Mint medals, foreign coins found in early America, and other numismatic Americana
<< <i>As mentioned in the linked E-Sylum article, I have zero doubt that Fenton's 1933 $20 is the one that belonged to Farouk. The coins that showed up with it (including some things so unusual that they're literally one-of-a-kind) were enough to indicate to me that the entire group consisted of items that had been together since the 1954 Farouk sale. Feel free to put me down on the record on that. >>
Thanks for sharing your experiences, John. Knowing that you and J.D. viewed Fenton's group of coins and confirmed that they were ex-Farouk is compelling evidence.
<< <i>As mentioned in the linked E-Sylum article, I have zero doubt that Fenton's 1933 $20 is the one that belonged to Farouk. The coins that showed up with it (including some things so unusual that they're literally one-of-a-kind) were enough to indicate to me that the entire group consisted of items that had been together since the 1954 Farouk sale. Feel free to put me down on the record on that. >>
Great info. Thanks for posting that.
Preponderance of evidence establishes the ex Fenton piece as the ex Farouk piece in my mind.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Now, am I wrong to believe that Fenton represented the person or persons who owned the coin before the July 30, 2002 sale and that the person or persons who bought the coin at that auction is still the owner of the coin and has remained unknown to the collecting hobby since then? I'd appreciate some confirmation of this or some update as to who currently ACTUALLY owns the coin. Thanks. Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
<< <i>Is the ex Farouk ex Fenton piece in a TPG capsule? Appears to me to be a superb gem,the finest known,nicer than the NGC MS 66. The curls on Liberty's hair are struck up very boldly on the NGC MS 66,more boldly than the curls on the other nine pieces and curls are even bolder than those on the ex Farouk piece.
Preponderance of evidence establishes the ex Fenton piece as the ex Farouk piece in my mind. >>
Steven, Are you saying the ex Farouk piece is one of the ten pictured in the Langbord thread? I thought the ten coins pictured in the Langbord thread are the ten coins the Langbord's had found. I thought the ex Farouk coin is an eleventh example. Am I wrong? Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
Well, just Love coins, period.
Wow,the scientist in me just does not like to proof by association, regardless of who makes that assessment. While it is indirect supporting evidence, that is all it is - that is, that it is supported by the company of coins with it.
When the associations are numerous and hard to explain away what can be concluded,if anything? I have McCann swiping a whole bag of '28's so that he (McCann) can do the '33 swaps right,being mindful of coin weights. Mine is not a plausible scenario?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Government does not consider the two Smithsonian pieces to be coins.These two pieces are considered to be items of chattel.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Well, just Love coins, period.
Forget being on the same page, we're not even in the same chapter. I've been talking about theft of coin from the Mint and how it could have happened not the trading of rare coins among small circles of collectors and dealers.
Regarding theft: If it's plausible it's possible.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>If it's plausible it's possible. >>
But is it probable?
My opinion is that the swapping as I have described it is more likely to have occurred than Izzy obtaining '33 double eagles lawfully during a "window of opportunity" in 1933. I do acknowledge that a window of opportunity existed end of March 1933 (after it became known to the Mint that the first '33 doubles passed special assay) to April 5,1933 when EO 6102 came down.
Even though there was a window of opportunity,that does not mean that 1933 doubles were available to members of the public,including Izzy, at any time during the window. In any event,the window closed for good on April 5,1933.
Plausible,possible,probable. All three words work for me as I expound on my theory of how/when 1933 double eagles left the Mint.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Taking it a bit further...Why didn't Izzy just say "I acquired these 12 (or possibly more) 1933s and swapped them for 19xx's"?
Why didn't he advertise that he had examples of these rarities and offer them for sale? He was in the business of buying and selling coins, after all... so why the cloak and dagger?
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
<< <i>The talk here seems to be about the FENTON coin and the fact seems to point to the coin being the same one that King Farouk owned.
Now, am I wrong to believe that Fenton represented the person or persons who owned the coin before the July 30, 2002 sale and that the person or persons who bought the coin at that auction is still the owner of the coin and has remained unknown to the collecting hobby since then? I'd appreciate some confirmation of this or some update as to who currently ACTUALLY owns the coin. Thanks. Steve
I'd really appreciate if someone can answer my above question. Thanks. Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
<< <i>
<< <i>Is the ex Farouk ex Fenton piece in a TPG capsule? Appears to me to be a superb gem,the finest known,nicer than the NGC MS 66. The curls on Liberty's hair are struck up very boldly on the NGC MS 66,more boldly than the curls on the other nine pieces and curls are even bolder than those on the ex Farouk piece.
Preponderance of evidence establishes the ex Fenton piece as the ex Farouk piece in my mind. >>
Steven, Are you saying the ex Farouk piece is one of the ten pictured in the Langbord thread? I thought the ten coins pictured in the Langbord thread are the ten coins the Langbord's had found. I thought the ex Farouk coin is an eleventh example. Am I wrong? Steve
Steven, I'd really appreciate if you would answer this question for me. Thanks. Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
The famous ex Farouk piece is not among the ten pictured.You thought right.The ten coins pictured are the ten coins the Langbords found.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Kellogg: << Apparently each side felt that the opposing side's case had some merit and therefore felt that a 50/50 split of the Stack's/Sotheby's auction consignor profit was an acceptable compromise. >>
Although I do not know Fenton's financial situation, it is plausible that he settled because of mounting legal fees for a case that had gone on for years. Most coin dealers cannot afford to spend fortunes on legal fees. For 1933 Double Eagle isssues, the Treasury Department was and still is spending money from taxpayers.
Shamika: <<I do not believe it was proven to be the Farouk coin. >>
Kellogg: << A U.S. Export License was issued in 1944 for the Farouk 1933 Double Eagle, ... There was fairly convincing circumstantial evidence that the Fenton coin was the Farouk coin, but it wasn't conclusive, as neither the Export License nor the 1954 Sotheby's catalog of The Palace Collections of Egypt had photographs of the 1933 Double Eagle. >>
My understanding, partly from conversations with QDB, is that it was never proven that the Fenton coin and the Farouk coin are the same. Was the Farouk 1933 ever photographed during the 1940s or 1950s?
As I said in my post above, I am aware of so called circumstantial evidence. It may NOT be "fairly convincing"!
It may be true that a dealer who was known to handle some of the Farouk coins and/or patterns also handled the Fenton 1933 Double Eagle. Even if so, this is hardly even circumstantial evidence. It does not make sense to conclude that all of the coins that this dealer handled came from one source. Could someone who had a 1933 Double Eagle have contacted him after hearing that he handled some Farouk coins? Alternately, it is possible that he had the 1933 DE in his possession before picking up some Farouk coins from another source?
Also, if it is not the Farouk coin, whoever had it in the 1980s or early 1990s might have wanted people to think it is the Farouk coin. The Farouk pedigree has value. There were many wonderful gold coins in the Farouk Collection.
JD (in th e-sylum): <<If anyone has read David Tripp's book (Illegal Tender), they would know that the 1933 double eagles almost certainly were "converted" by the Mint Cashier George McCann in 1936 (swapped $500 in gold for the 25 1933 coins). Pretty good evidence. They all were sold into the market by a single source, Israel Switt, who sold the first ones to James Macallister, others to Ira Reed and Abe Kosoff, and possibly other dealers/collectors.>>
This statement is unsubstantiated and, in my opinion, counter-educational. There is no evidence of a connection between Switt and McCann. As far as I know, there is no evidence that Switt and McCann ever even had a conversation. There might not even be any evidence that Switt and McCann were ever in the same room together. Switt made a market in better date Saints. He handled many of the 1931 and 1932 Saints that have been auctioned over the past decades. Switt handled better date Liberty Head Double Eagles, too. Would anyone think Switt got those from McCann as well?
As for McCann's "unexplained income." There is not a reason to believe that it had anything to do with 1933 Double Eagles. There are a wide variety of activities in which McCann could have been involved. There is no evidence, as far as I know, of any kind of relationship between McCann and Switt. During the 1930s, some of the few people who had money frequently deposited and withdrew substantial sums from bank accounts. There were no credit cards of the kind most people have now and checks were often refused during the Great Depression.
Pistareen: <<I have zero doubt that Fenton's 1933 $20 is the one that belonged to Farouk. The coins that showed up with it (including some things so unusual that they're literally one-of-a-kind) were enough to indicate to me that the entire group consisted of items that had been together since the 1954 Farouk sale. Feel free to put me down on the record on that.>>
This statement is not well reasoned, IMO. The people involved had a motive to represent that 1933 Double Eagle as the Farouk coin, as the Farouk pedigree provides a story and adds value.
If someone in Europe had a 1933 DE, he would have a motive to ask someone who handled Farouk coins to sell it for him.
Yes, there a good chance that the Fenton and Farouk 1933 Double Eagles are the same. This point is far from being proven. Since I was a kid, I have heard rumors of 1933 Double Eagles being around. It could be true that the owner of each of them would have had a motive to represent his at the Farouk coin, or at least subtly suggest!
Importantly, what difference does it make whether it is the Farouk coin? In the 1930s or early 1940s, any 1933 DE submitted would probably have received an export license. 1933 Double Eagles were displayed at coin shows. As far as I know, no one thought of them as being illegal.
My pre-trial article on the Switt-Langbord case shared the NLG award for best article to be published on a web site:
The fate of the ten Switt-Langbord 1933 Doubles
My post-trial article includes comments by Q. David Bowers and David Ganz:
Analysis of the Verdict in the Switt-Langbord Case
1) The Tripp book, in my opinion, is little more than a government trial brief.
2) I personally read the Secret Service records, at the request of one of the attorneys, and there was not
a shred of evidence connecting McCann to any theft of 1933 double eagles. All the government ever had
against McCann was hot air and innuendo.
3) Carl Carlson photographed a 1933 double eagle in the early 1980s. Carl was told that the coin had
been flown in from Europe just for the day and was to be returned the following day by courier. My view
has always been that the coin was already in a U.S. private collection and Carl was told that story to
throw off any future problems for the owner.
4) I was still, in the summer of 2000, scheduled to be the lead witness for Fenton. In mid-summer I received
a phone call from an old friend, Harry Forman, telling me that a Mint lawyer had asked him to find out from
me how I was going to testify! Harry thought the whole thing was hilarious but it did indicate the state of
mind at the Mint. It was a clear indication that the government was nervous about the whole matter.
Since the Fenton 1933 Double Eagle case was settled before it went to a jury trial, neither side had the opportunity to present their case in court. Thus, neither side was 'proven' in a court of law.
Nonetheless, I have to believe that the strength of Mr. Fenton's anticipated legal argument had the Government concerned. How else can one explain the Government agreeing to an out-of-court settlement -- given their unlimited legal and financial resources?
Your question about a possible photograph of the Farouk 1933 Double Eagle during the 1940s or 1950s is an interesting one.
I believe that it is possible that King Farouk had some of his collection photographed. If so, The 1933 Double Eagle would have been an obvious candidate. Admittedly, this is speculation on my part -- based on my opinion that King Farouk was a better numismatist than is widely believed. Unfortunately, I have no insight into what material is contained in the Egyptian archives -- for the Farouk era. It would make an interesting subject of additional research.
A picture is worth a thousand words. Consider this photograph of King Farouk in his 'coin room.' Note that he is holding the coin by the edge -- as any good numismatist would do.
<< <i>A picture is worth a thousand words. Consider this photograph of King Farouk in his 'coin room.' Note that he is holding the coin by the edge -- as any good numismatist would do.
Great post.
Original export paper with the coin would pretty much conclusively establish the ex Fenton coin as the ex Farouk coin.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>Anyone know what happened to the export license papers for the Farouk coin?.....
Original export paper with the coin would pretty much conclusively establish the ex Fenton coin as the ex Farouk coin. >>
The original export license paperwork is probably buried in the Egyptian archives -- or may have been discarded and is thus lost to history. In any case, I do not believe that anything short of a photograph of the Farouk coin would conclusively tie the Fenton coin to the export license.
The Government settled out of court because of the mistakenly-issued export license?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>Nonetheless, I have to believe that the strength of Mr. Fenton's anticipated legal argument had the Government concerned. How else can one explain the Government agreeing to an out-of-court settlement -- given their unlimited legal and financial resources?
The Government settled out of court because of the mistakenly-issued export license? >>
That is my understanding of the situation.
The agreement required the coin be put up for auction. A mysterious bidder with deep pockets then purchased the coin. I suspect that the Gummint agreed to the deal with the full intention of then buying the coin at auction no matter what it cost, to once and for all get full possession of this coin it had waster millions of dollars chasing over the years. And besides, they got half of the proceeds from the auction back!
Then came the Langbord 10...........
<< <i>
<< <i>A picture is worth a thousand words. Consider this photograph of King Farouk in his 'coin room.' Note that he is holding the coin by the edge -- as any good numismatist would do.
Great post.
Great photo and post. Never expected to see a photo like that. I'm glad it exists.
<< <i>Has anyone viewed the 2 Smithsonian 1933 double eagle in hand? If so, what is the condition of those coins (are they coins?; or are they bullion because they have not been monetized?; or have they been monetized?) And how do they measure up to the Fenton coin and the Langbord coins? >>
The Smithsonian calls these "20 dollar gold coins". Here are photos from the Smithsonian website. I haven't seen these in hand but perhaps someone has on their private tours. How do these photos compare to the Langbord coins?
Anyone wanting to read about King Farouk and his collections check out Double Eagle by Alison Frankel:
"He had his stable of more than 100 cars painted red,then banned the color for all other cars in Egypt so police would know not to stop him as he sped along the highway between Cairo and Alexandria. (Once when the teenaged Farouk crashed his red MG into a tree outside Cairo,the Cairo police helped him find a replacement before his mother found out.) Farouk never read the newspaper and refused to study with the British tutor whom High Commissioner Miles Lampson had installed in the royal entourage.He spent his days smoking,gossiping,and eating.
And collecting. The tentative young man who had charmed shopkeepers in London quickly turned into a voracious accumulator,one who piled up possessions as maniacly as he slurped down dozens of oysters for breakfast. On a trip to Switzerland in 1937,he bought medals,watches and cuckoo clocks. He brought home boxes full of foreign coins. He amassed beer-bottle tops, razor blades, matchboxes, and playing cards, which his friend Pulli, the onetime palace electrician,stored in his own rooms. Farouk indulged his every fancy. If he coveted something in a friend's home, he demanded that it be given to him. Friends took to hiding their finest possessions before Farouk arrived for a visit."
Double Eagle,p.111
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Analyst (as cited by Kellogg): <My understanding, partly from conversations with QDB, is that it was never proven that the Fenton coin and the Farouk coin are the same. Was the Farouk 1933 ever photographed during the 1940s or 1950s?>
Kellogg: <<Since the Fenton 1933 Double Eagle case was settled before it went to a jury trial, neither side had the opportunity to present their case in court. Thus, neither side was 'proven' in a court of law. >>
There were many depositions and pre-trial motions. My understanding is that there was not substantial evidence that the Fenton 1933 Double Eagle was the Farouk 1933. As I already indicated, QDB was involved and I discussed the matter with him. I have additional sources.
Kellogg: Nonetheless, I have to believe that the strength of Mr. Fenton's anticipated legal argument had the Government concerned.
Please read my above posts again. It really does not make any difference whether the Fenton piece is the Farouk piece. As far as I know, during the 1930s and the early 1940s, no one believed that any 1933 Double Eagles were stolen. When they were openly displayed at coin events in the 1930s, no one said that any were stolen or implied as much.
According to R. W. Julian, there is circumstantial evidence that U.S. Mint officials were aware that 1933 Double Eagles were openly displayed and traded during the late 1930s and early 1940s. Such activity was not a secret and no one thought that there was any reason for 1933 Double Eagles to be kept secret.
There was not a reason to believe any 1933 Double Eagles were stolen. In my opinion, there is not a solid reason now. There are thousand of classic U.S. coins in PCGS holders for which there never were accurate entries in a cashier's ledger.
Also, any 1933 Double Eagle that was submitted for an export permit would have received one. There is nothing distinctive about the Farouk piece.
Kellogg: How else can one explain the Government agreeing to an out-of-court settlement -- given their unlimited legal and financial resources?
At the time, as far as I know, all pertinent coin experts were in agreement that there is not solid evidence that 1933 Double Eagles were stolen. During the late 1990s or early 2000s, would one pertinent coin expert have testified that any 1933 Double Eagles were stolen? QDB was prepared to testify that ALL 1933 Double Eagles are legal to own by private individuals, not just the Farouk coin.
My pre-trial article on the Switt-Langbord case shared the NLG award for best article to be published on a web site. Kellogg's questions are answered perhaps by statements from R. W. Julian in that article.
The fate of the ten Switt-Langbord 1933 Doubles
My post-trial article includes comments by Q. David Bowers and David Ganz:
Analysis of the Verdict in the Switt-Langbord Case
QDB was prepared to testify that ALL 1933 Double Eagles are legal to own by private individuals, not just the Farouk coin.
Why didn't he testify? What was the basis of QDB's argument that ALL 1933 Double Eagles are legal to own by private individuals? The Farouk coin was made legal because of the pesky export license,the license Nellie Tayloe Ross mistakenly issued to the Egyptians in 1944.
I would pay handsome money for the original export license. Even a copy of it would be wonderful. Has anyone ever seen it? It would have Ross' signature as Mint Director and perhaps a Mr. Fahim's signature from the Egyptian Legation.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein