That is the family store. My mother still puts the window display in and out virtually every day. The store has been in the same spot in the heart of Philadelphia's main jewelry district since the 1920s. Many of the fixtures and display cases still in use were built by hand by my grandfather.
Interesting story about those graded coins. The Treasury has no authority to have our coins graded while this lawsuit is going on. We were in fact never informed or consented to it happening. The news appeared on a website and was then quickly taken down. When we asked the government for an explanation, we never received a substantive answer. To this day no one outside those who ordered this done know why and for what purpose this extraordinary and improper action was taken. Our tax dollars at work.
Having Mr. Langbord posting to this thread and providing first hand information adds a new dynamic to forums discussions of this case. Hard to believe that the 10 year anniversary on the filing of the lawsuit is about 30 days away.
I tend to agree with an earlier post. SCOTUS grants about 2-3 percents of petitions for certiorari. My firm was opposing one at the end of September 2016 (it was denied) and of 72 cases on the same SCOTUS conference (the internal meetings where SCOTUS decides petitions for certiorari), only one was granted. The main ground for granting certiorari is a split among the circuits on an important legal issue (which is not present here). SCOTUS tends to deny certiorari where (i) the issues involved are mostly factual; or (ii) the issues involved are of a limited value in terms of national precedent (meaning changing the the outcome would only affect a very limited number of people). I too agree that the Langbords got a raw deal and wish them luck but the odds appear to be long here.
@Julian said:
The 1933 DE (ex. a very prominent collection) that I handled was sold to a Dallas collector in about 1976. After he passed away the coin went to a minority partner in the collection and was subsequently sold into a prominent collection of DE. I had tried to get the coin into a western collection in the early 1980's, who wanted to trade a fancy yellow diamond. Unfortunately, the diamond turned out to be irradiated and not worth nearly as much as what was needed. That client then decided against trying to add it to his collection.
Is that the rogue piece illustrated in one of the 1933 double eagle books, or one of the rumored others?
I think that it is pictured in both books, as I provided the pictures to both of the authors. One of my colleagues who co-owned the coin the first time also raised the question of whether the Fenton coin was indeed the Farouk specimen, as the one that we had came from a VERY close customer of Abe Kosoff, who very well might have had the access to the removed 1933 from Farouk, as he was a prominent bidder at the original sale in 1954. As I remember it, any photos from the Farouk sale were inadequate to compare with this coin. I do have excellent photos that were taken by the daughter of the person with the irradiated diamond.
PNG member, numismatic dealer since 1965. Operates a retail store, also has exhibited at over 1000 shows. I firmly believe in numismatics as the world's greatest hobby, but recognize that this is a luxury and without collectors, we can all spend/melt our collections/inventories.
It is also surprising (but not unexpected) that the government's highly paid expert witness never passed on whatever information he had about this coin to the people who were his principal source of income for a number of years--i.e. the Treasury/Mint.
@Analyst said: Julian: ... having owned and sold a 1933 DE once and almost sold it a second time ...
Please explain, which 1933 DE?
Martin: rhl. I'm sorry we the people have taken this to the extream. Your coins should be returned to you along with an apology
TDN: I do wish they mentioned the fact that no gold was missing therefore how could the coins be stolen
The people who did the counting were interested in the totals. 1933 Double Eagles could have been listed as 1932 Double Eagles by accident or because the people involved just did not care as to the dates on the coins.
In Feb. and in March 1933, and also later, thousands of 1933 Double Eagles were legally struck, certainly just as legal as 1931 or 1932 Double Eagles. In accordance with the traditions and practices of the Philadelphia Mint, anyone could have gone to the Mint and traded old Double Eagles for new 1933 Double Eagles in exchanges that everyone involved would likely have regarded as legal, legitimate and ethical. There were such trades for 1931 and 1932 Double Eagles, and the legality of these has never been subject to question, as far as I know.
Even the government's lone coin community witness acknowledges that 1933 single Eagles ($10 coins), in the hands of collectors now, were distributed by trades of old coins for new 1933 Eagles ($10 coins). He provided an example of one such trade.
Also, FDR explicitly said that gold coins that were of interest to coin collectors were excluded from the gold recall order. 1931, 1932 and 1933 Double Eagles were all of interest to collectors seeking to complete sets of Saints. Although 1933 DEs receive more publicity, 1931 and 1932 Double Eagles are rare coins of interest to collectors, then and now.
RHL: Our side has been watching here also since the beginning. It's been hard not to respond to some of the untrue and misguided things that have been posted ( sometimes repeatedly) over the years.
I hope that people on your "side" and on all other sides read the articles that I wrote in 2011.
My pre-trial article on the Switt-Langbord case shared the NLG award for best article to be published on a web site.
If the coiner didn't deliver them, then how did the cashier happen to have scores of newly minted 1933 DEs in an open bag in his vault as asserted to on the bottom of page 6 of the "Petition"? We know the sample coins passed assay on a Friday IIRC, but the results weren't delivered to coiner the for several more days.
@Julian said:
The 1933 DE (ex. a very prominent collection) that I handled was sold to a Dallas collector in about 1976. After he passed away the coin went to a minority partner in the collection and was subsequently sold into a prominent collection of DE. I had tried to get the coin into a western collection in the early 1980's, who wanted to trade a fancy yellow diamond. Unfortunately, the diamond turned out to be irradiated and not worth nearly as much as what was needed. That client then decided against trying to add it to his collection.
Is that the rogue piece illustrated in one of the 1933 double eagle books, or one of the rumored others?
I think that it is pictured in both books, as I provided the pictures to both of the authors. One of my colleagues who co-owned the coin the first time also raised the question of whether the Fenton coin was indeed the Farouk specimen, as the one that we had came from a VERY close customer of Abe Kosoff, who very well might have had the access to the removed 1933 from Farouk, as he was a prominent bidder at the original sale in 1954. As I remember it, any photos from the Farouk sale were inadequate to compare with this coin. I do have excellent photos that were taken by the daughter of the person with the irradiated diamond.
Carl Carlson once told me that he had photographed a 1933 DE for a client, but under the terms of their agreement kept no negatives or prints. Don't know which coin this was.
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.
Not sure about the question bajjerfan. But let me point out a major flaw with some prominent historical analysis of the 1933 DE story. In the 1930s, the Philadelphia Mint was basically a manufacturing plant that was run by an autocratic management team-- the so- called "Four Horsemen." During an earlier investigation of the Mint by the Secret Service, they concluded that the Mint's procedures and record keeping in particular was so poor as to be almost totally unreliable. On the other hand, when talking about the manufacturing and handling of the 1933 Double Eagles those supporting the government consistently look to operations manuals, rules and procedures and records and claim they flawlessly describe everything that occurred. For those who hold that position, I always ask one simple question--when were the " perfect" records you are relying on actually written? The same day? The next day? The same week? Month? Year? And then I like to point out that the most recent set of perfect books and records i am aware of belonged to Bernie Madoff.
All of the relevant updates including when the petition is circulated for conference will be included on the linked docket sheet. It will also state when a decision has been made.
Mr. Langbord,
I am very happy that you have chosen to communicate with us on this coin forum. One question I have is as follows: I assume you have NOT communicated on the internet or other forums for the past ten years because you had a pending legal case and it was inappropriate to comment while the case is active. Given the fact that you have now petitioned for certiorari, do the rules change? I do welcome your comments and perspectives, but I wonder what the "rules" are. I appreciate your response. Thanks. Steve
Up until now it was thought that any discussion of the case might have a negative impact with first our trial and then the appeals judges. However, now since we are asking the Suoreme Court to possibly hear our case, any public attention and interest that might encourage the Court to grant cert is welcome. And on a personal note, it has been very hard to read some of the things posted here and not respond.
I have been a complete outsider to this whole case, reading about it in the numismatic press. From my perspective, it seems to me that past internet comments by your "expert" witness in the original trial are what really swayed the jury in the government's favor. The research by this expert and the information they presented may have been valid, but their credibility was entirely shot down. This basically rendered you without any benefit from your expert witness (and may have even been an overall detriment to your case). I don't know how the supreme court works exactly, but perhaps you can get them to review the case on the grounds that the original jury based their decision on the personality defects of the expert witness and not on the relevant facts or merits of that expert's testimony. I'm curious as to your thoughts on this.
Here are links to the two Coin World reports that I am referring to (on the first one, you may have to scroll past the blank space to see the text):
@rhl said:
Not sure about the question bajjerfan. But let me point out a major flaw with some prominent historical analysis of the 1933 DE story. In the 1930s, the Philadelphia Mint was basically a manufacturing plant that was run by an autocratic management team-- the so- called "Four Horsemen." During an earlier investigation of the Mint by the Secret Service, they concluded that the Mint's procedures and record keeping in particular was so poor as to be almost totally unreliable. On the other hand, when talking about the manufacturing and handling of the 1933 Double Eagles those supporting the government consistently look to operations manuals, rules and procedures and records and claim they flawlessly describe everything that occurred. For those who hold that position, I always ask one simple question--when were the " perfect" records you are relying on actually written? The same day? The next day? The same week? Month? Year? And then I like to point out that the most recent set of perfect books and records i am aware of belonged to Bernie Madoff.
Was the cashier free to remove coins of current manufacture from the assembly line "so to speak" even before they were approved to be released by the coiner? IIRC the coins were approved by the assayer, but the results were not conveyed to the coiner in time to beat the order from above not to distribute or exchange the coins.
Dcarr-- I'm sorry you are having issues with Roger Burdette, but I can tell you that we were more than satisfied with his research skills and his efforts on our behalf. His testimony and his past internet comments did not in my opinion sway the jury in the government's favor. In fact, Roger's testimony was severely limited by the trial judge to certain numismatic areas, while the government expert was given free reign to testify on accounting, secret service procedures, the history of the Great Depression, mint manufacturering, etc. if anyone is interested, judges are rated like college professors by lawyers and courthouse staff, check out the ratings and comments on our distinguished jurist and you might get a sense why the trial turned out the way it did.
@rhl said:
Dcarr-- I'm sorry you are having issues with Roger Burdette, but I can tell you that we were more than satisfied with his research skills and his efforts on our behalf. His testimony and his past internet comments did not in my opinion sway the jury in the government's favor. In fact, Roger's testimony was severely limited by the trial judge to certain numismatic areas, while the government expert was given free reign to testify on accounting, secret service procedures, the history of the Great Depression, mint manufacturering, etc. if anyone is interested, judges are rated like college professors by lawyers and courthouse staff, check out the ratings and comments on our distinguished jurist and you might get a sense why the trial turned out the way it did.
Based on those Coin World articles, it does seem to me like it would have had a significant effect on the jury.
But perhaps not - I wasn't there, of course. It is good to know your thoughts regarding that, thanks.
I won't bring up the subject any further.
Bajjerfan-- I believe you are falling down the rabbit hole opened by some of the so called "experts" on my family's coins. The fact is no one knows what actually happened at the mint in 1932/1933. We do know that procedures were sometimes followed and sometimes ignored. We also know that at that time the mint's principal concern was making sure the weight of gold coinage balanced and not the year of manufacture. And we certainly know that their record keeping was problematic. Remember, the Mint records show no coins were even missing! I have heard convincing stories that it was common practice for collectors to receive newly minted coins from the mint and that substituting one year for another was perfectly acceptable so long as the weights balanced. I know that my grandfather was at the mint on an almost daily basis during this period and remained a vip at the mint through the 1960s when he took my brother and me on annual private tours. The one thing I know for certain is that the government, the experts, posters here pro and con, Secret Service and even me and my family at the end of the day do not know when, how and under what circumstances any 1933 Double Eagles left the mint.
Julian: As I remember it, any photos from the Farouk sale were inadequate to compare with this coin.
My understanding is that, if clear pictures were taken of the Farouk coin during the 1950s, they have not been available to numismatists in the United States. Indeed, I am not aware of any evidence that quality pictures of the Farouk coin ever existed.
Julian: One of my colleagues who co-owned the coin the first time also raised the question of whether the Fenton coin was indeed the Farouk specimen, as the one that we had came from a VERY close customer of Abe Kosoff, who very well might have had the access to the removed 1933 from Farouk, as he was a prominent bidder at the original sale in 1954.
In one book, it is stated that a dealer who handled the Fenton 1933, before Fenton owned it, had also handled some coins and/or patterns that were previously in the Farouk Collection. Even if this point is true, it would not come close to demonstrating that the Fenton 1933 and the Farouk 1933 are the same.
A collector during some period from the 1960s to the 1990s may have owned some Farouk pieces and a 1933 DE that was never owned by Farouk. Also, if the owner of a 1933 DE wished to give the impression that his 1933 DE was the Farouk coin, then he may have contracted with an agent who he knew handled some coins or patterns that were formerly owned by Farouk. Some of the patterns owned by Farouk are fairly easy to identify.
BajerFan: If the coiner didn't deliver them, then how did the cashier happen to have scores of newly minted 1933 DEs in an open bag in his vault as asserted to on the bottom of page 6 of the "Petition"? We know the sample coins passed assay on a Friday IIRC, but the results weren't delivered to coiner the for several more days.
I did not say that the coiner did not deliver them.
The coiner may have delivered them without keeping meticulous records, as I already suggested.
Before Burdette became involved in the case, Roger indicated to me that he "discovered that the Mint Cashier was provided with forty-three 1933 Double Eagles on March 4 and these 'balanced' the accounting of the production of 1932 Double Eagles as some 1932 Double Eagles were earlier found to be defective." (This was in an article of mine in 2010.)
There are thousands of U.S. coins in PCGS holders for which there are no surviving entries of coiner's deliveries in cashier's ledgers. It does not make sense to say that all those are not really coins, were stolen and are now government property. Although there is a record of one 1870-S dollar being earmarked for a "cornerstone," there are no records of any others. Would anyone seriously say that all 1870-S silver dollars are now stolen property?
BajerFan ignored my points regarding the traditions and policies of the Philadelphia Mint. It was always understood that collectors could trade old coins for new coins, and common coins for scarcer coins. Please read again my post above and my articles.
@rhl said:
Bajjerfan-- I believe you are falling down the rabbit hole opened by some of the so called "experts" on my family's coins. The fact is no one knows what actually happened at the mint in 1932/1933. We do know that procedures were sometimes followed and sometimes ignored. We also know that at that time the mint's principal concern was making sure the weight of gold coinage balanced and not the year of manufacture. And we certainly know that their record keeping was problematic. Remember, the Mint records show no coins were even missing! I have heard convincing stories that it was common practice for collectors to receive newly minted coins from the mint and that substituting one year for another was perfectly acceptable so long as the weights balanced. I know that my grandfather was at the mint on an almost daily basis during this period and remained a vip at the mint through the 1960s when he took my brother and me on annual private tours. The one thing I know for certain is that the government, the experts, posters here pro and con, Secret Service and even me and my family at the end of the day do not know when, how and under what circumstances any 1933 Double Eagles left the mint.
I was just sort of repeating the same thinking I'd espoused in previous threads on the topic. Seems to me there must have been some sort of protocol for production even back then. Coins get struck, coins get submitted for approval process of analysis, etc. Once approved, the coiner transfers the coins to the Fed at which point they become "monetized" and are legal for trade, exchange, etc. Would be a big boost to your cause if you could find documentation that says the 1933 coins went through the proper channels and were approved for exchange by the cashier. Another poster to earlier threads on the topic [but hasn't shown up here] says the paperwork shows that the coins never completed the process through to the "monetization" stage. FWIW, I'm on your side in hoping that the coins get returned to your family.
A few thoughts. It is undisputed that "monetization" with regard to Double Eagles was a fiction created by the Mint as part of the sales hype for the Fenton auction. It never existed in the 1930s. My understanding is that when coins were ready they were simply released. No paper, no proclamation. Yes, it would be great if there was some sort of official receipt, it would be even better if there was videotape, but neither existed in the 1930s.
@rhl said:
A few thoughts. It is undisputed that " monetization" with regard to Double Esgles was a fiction created by the Mint as part of the sales hype for the Fenton auction. It never existed in the 1930s. My understanding is that when coins were ready they were simply released. No paper, no proclamation. Yes, it would be great if there was some sort of official receipt, it would be even better if there was videotape but neither existed in the 1930s.
Didn't the U.S. Government have a vested interest in the auction sale of the single 1933 Double Eagle that was, as you point out, by their definition subject to "monetization?" The U.S. Government shared in the proceeds from the auction sale.
It has always surprised me that some type of compromise was not worked out by the U.S. Government to get their piece of the action on your coins in some similar manner such as splitting the coins. What behind the scenes role, suspected or disclosed, does the current unknown (to the public anyway) owner of the subject 1933 DE have? Does the U.S. Government feel it has some fiduciary obligation to that individual to not dilute the value of his coin? Is the Government concerned that it may become obligated to pay back to the buyer the huge profit it made from the auction sale by having promoted the sale under false pretenses of their having been a "monetization?"
FWIW, I do recall that the current owner did make the comment once your set of coins came into public discussion of something to the effect of, "Do I now have to buy these coins as well?"
Given the U.S. Government's own conflict of interest disqualification of the government's own attorneys might be a point to be argued on appeal in conjunction with whatever points have been preserved. The matter should have been handed over to independent counsel and the government's failure to do so may fall into a category similar to fraud where there may be an exception to having had to raise the point specifically on appeal.
@dcarr said:
I have been a complete outsider to this whole case, reading about it in the numismatic press. From my perspective, it seems to me that past internet comments by your "expert" witness in the original trial are what really swayed the jury in the government's favor. The research by this expert and the information they presented may have been valid, but their credibility was entirely shot down. This basically rendered you without any benefit from your expert witness (and may have even been an overall detriment to your case). I don't know how the supreme court works exactly, but perhaps you can get them to review the case on the grounds that the original jury based their decision on the personality defects of the expert witness and not on the relevant facts or merits of that expert's testimony. I'm curious as to your thoughts on this.
Here are links to the two Coin World reports that I am referring to (on the first one, you may have to scroll past the blank space to see the text):
@rhl said:
A few thoughts. It is undisputed that "monetization" with regard to Double Eagles was a fiction created by the Mint as part of the sales hype for the Fenton auction. It never existed in the 1930s. My understanding is that when coins were ready they were simply released. No paper, no proclamation. Yes, it would be great if there was some sort of official receipt, it would be even better if there was videotape, but neither existed in the 1930s.
Monetization is simply the process of coining money. It was in use [tho not singled out as such] for years before being introduced in connection with the "Fenton" coin. The fact that monetization was necessary would suggest that the 1933 DEs never completed the process to make them legal tender.
@rhl...what do you think of my oft-posted theory that the Government bought back the Fenton piece just to get it off the market?
TD
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 have heard nothing to suggest the government purchased the Fenton coin. As to "monetization" being necessary to complete the sale of the Fenton piece, trust me, that was a modern day marketing tool created to add to the auction's excitement. There was certainly no such notification or documentation required in the 1920s or 1930s. If it was, there are a whole lot of illegal, stolen coins out there lol.
I saw this thread several days ago but just had not clicked on it until today. Being interested in finding a possible update in this thread today and having followed the case from the beginning the best that a complete outsider has been able to do, I am most pleased to find Mr. Langbord participating here! Wow, what a blessing! Thank you for being here.
I still find it incomprehensible that there is no definitive proof that any of these coins were stolen and yet the government has still been able to take them. Then on top of that, it is so difficult to understand how the court is able to completely ignore CAFRA. Some things are just beyond my understanding, or so it seems. I do hope things are resolved in your favor, sooner rather than later!
"If it's not fun, it's not worth it." - KeyMan64 Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
@keyman64 said:
I saw this thread several days ago but just had not clicked on it until today. Being interested in finding a possible update in this thread today and having followed the case from the beginning the best that a complete outsider has been able to do, I am most pleased to find Mr. Langbord participating here! Wow, what a blessing! Thank you for being here.
I still find it incomprehensible that there is no definitive proof that any of these coins were stolen and yet the government has still been able to take them. Then on top of that, it is so difficult to understand how the court is able to completely ignore CAFRA. Some things are just beyond my understanding, or so it seems. I do hope things are resolved in your favor, sooner rather than later!
They probably shouldn't have referred to them as being "stolen" way back when, since In retrospect it provides a situation more difficult to prove than something like "improperly removed" from the mint. In 1937, had they checked the coins prior to melting they may have indeed declared them stolen or improperly removed.
Is it possible that Donald J Trump is a collector of coins? If so, he might be able to strike a "deal" with the members of the Supreme Court to actually reopen the Langbord case.
Steve
As much as I might like that idea, I don't think the executive branch makes "deals" with the Supreme Court. Of course, in the new world we seem to be living in today, who knows what might be possible.lol
@rhl said:
As much as I might like that idea, I don't think the executive branch makes "deals" with the Supreme Court. Of course, in the new world we seem to be living in today, who knows what might be possible.lol
Could he simply give an executive order that the coins be returned to the Langbords?
@rhl said:
As much as I might like that idea, I don't think the executive branch makes "deals" with the Supreme Court. Of course, in the new world we seem to be living in today, who knows what might be possible.lol
Could he simply give an executive order that the coins be returned to the Langbords?
Maybe he could just "pardon" the coins.
Successful transactions:Tookybandit. "Everyone is equal, some are more equal than others".
i suppose the government could just make things up and "pardon" our coins, it wouldn't be that different from making up "monetization" or "orphan documents". Lol
I certainly wish you the best of good luck in this case.....I believe it is a classic example of government over reach and, IMO, they have not proved their case - no matter what the verdicts have been. Cheers, RickO
He could ( our new pres ) sign an executive order to repeal the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. It might not fix every injustice but could set a precedent more influential than The New Deal .... and wouldn't that be liberating ?
@rhl said:
i suppose the government could just make things up and "pardon" our coins, it wouldn't be that different from making up "monetization" or "orphan documents". Lol
Or the "making up" (printing of unlimited paper currency) to suit whatever needs they deem necessary, for war and the like. Point being it's their call, in an ideological sense/speaking.
Successful transactions:Tookybandit. "Everyone is equal, some are more equal than others".
May I respectfully suggest that we leave politics out of this very specific thread?
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.
Again, as much as my family would be appreciative, I don't see the US government repealing the Federal Reserve act just for us...lol
On a more serious note, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that none of the prolific "experts" on our case that post here have answered the simple question as to when the Mint's "perfect" 1933 DE records were created. At the start of each day? The end of the day? Weekly? Monthly? Or perhaps, years later?
BajjerFan: I was just sort of repeating the same thinking I'd espoused in previous threads on the topic.
I honestly believe that I have thoroughly answered Bajjerfan's questions and addressed the points that he raised.
As I, QDB and others have repeatedly stated, it was the policy of the Philadelphia Mint, for many decades, perhaps since the 1790s, to allow anyone to trade old coins for new coins, at face value. Furthermore, records of such coin-for-coin trades were often not kept or did not survive. Those involved honestly believed that there was no legal requirement to keep such records. It is sort of like trading ten old rolls for ten rolls of new Lincoln Cents at a bank; it is unlikely that the teller is going to ask for ID and fill out a form. Would someone seriously think that rolls of Lincoln Cents were -stolen- if a record is not kept by the bank cashier of trades of Lincoln Cent rolls?
BajjerFan: Seems to me there must have been some sort of protocol for production even back then.
Before the mid 1850s, there were no entries in a cashier's ledger for ALMOST ALL of the Proof coins struck, since 1818! There are many PCGS graded U.S. coins for which there were no entries in a cashier's ledger and minimal (if any) surviving records. There are no records of 1870-S silver dollars or half dimes being minted AND released. Would anyone seriously suggest that 1870-S silver dollars are not really coins, because there were no entries for 1870-S dollars in a cashier's ledger?
The concept of "monetization" (or ledger-entry requirments) that government lawyers introduced in the Fenton case is just not consistent with the history of the U.S. Mint. R. W. Julian has pointed out, as examples, that all Proof Flying Eagle Cents, all pre-1878 Proof Indian Cents and many other Proof coins of the 19th century were not entered into Cashier's ledgers or otherwise "delivered" by the coiner to the cashier's office. Would Treasury Dept. lawyers now say that every single known Proof Flying Eagle Cent, 1856 to 1858, was ‘stolen’?
In my three part series on 1841 Quarter Eagles, I point out that all Proof coins during the 1840s were distributed without written records. Yet, no one thought they were 'stolen'!
RHL: We also know that at that time the mint's principal concern was making sure the weight of gold coinage balanced and not the year of manufacture. ... Remember, the Mint records show no coins were even missing!
I have been making similar statements for more than five years. It seems extremely likely that most (or all?) U.S. Mint officials were concerned about the total number of double eagles on the premises, not the 'dates' or years on the coins.
Insightful10@gmail.com
"In order to understand the scarce coins that you own or see, you must learn about coins that you cannot afford." -Me
I just looked at the Supreme Court docket for the Petition and note that the Government's response to the Petition must be filed by 12-5-2016, which if I recall correctly is exactly 10 years from the day that the Langbords filed their complaint against the government in the federal district court in Philly.
@SanctionII said:
I just looked at the Supreme Court docket for the Petition and note that the Government's response to the Petition must be filed by 12-5-2016, which if I recall correctly is exactly 10 years from the day that the Langbords filed their complaint against the government in the federal district court in Philly.
Interesting coincidence.
That's just depressing that this has dragged on this long.
"If it's not fun, it's not worth it." - KeyMan64 Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
Welcome, RHL, to the Forums and good luck with your Petition.
I have read the Petition and to my admittedly untrained legal eye, it looks good to me.
For those who don't want to read the 35 page Petition, my summary of it is as follows:
Congress passed the CAFRA law to set the rules for government action to acquire property it claims belongs to it.
The CAFRA law was intended by Congress to apply to all such forfeiture actions.
In this case, the government contends that the CAFRA law doesn't apply, because the government says so.
In this case, the government contends the coins were stolen and remain government property, because the government says so.
The government and the court state that this is not a forfeiture action despite the fact that the government stated they intended to keep the coins and not return them to the Langbords. This, the government contends, is not a forfeiture because the government says so.
The government did not comply with the CAFRA law, and the Langbords therefore claim that the coins should be returned to them.
If the CAFRA law can be nullified by the government merely stating "the CAFRA law doesn't apply in this case", then the CAFRA law has been basically eliminated, not by Congress which wrote the law, but by the court.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
RHL - we've had endless speculation in this forum about how to handle the sudden discovery of these coins. Ie. make one public and hide the rest in Switzerland, etc. Was there ever any question that you would reveal all the coins, engage Berke and attempt to leverage the previous litigation from the Fenton coin?
Of course my family considered our options on what to do after we found our 1933 Double Eagles. Understand though at the beginning none of us really knew much about the history and the legal controversy surrounding our find. It took some time to even have an opportunity to speak with Barry Berke.
As to why we informed the Mint of our discovery, there were two principal underlying reasons. First, my father, a decorated World War II veteran who grew up under FDR, Truman, and Eisenhower, truly believed that the US Government, when confronted by honest citizens acting openly, would ultimately do the right thing and treat us fairly. Second, my family and my lawyers believed that by talking directly with the Mint, the worst that would happen would be that we would have to go to Court to defend our rights and property. None of us expected the tactics we were confronted with including threats, bullying, delays, misrepresentations and a general "do anything we can to win" attitude on the part of the US Government.
One other thing I wanted to make clear. For the many here who said "why didn't we just
sell the coins on the black market?", I ask a simple question--as someone who does not deal in the buying and selling of questionable goods, how do you even find the black market? Should we have stood on a street corner and asked shady looking people"Hey pal, you wanna buy a million dollar coin?" Gone on Craig's list? Set up a table at a swap meet? As a very wise friend said to me, people who are not criminals tend to be very unsuccessful when they attempt to engage in criminal activities.
@RHL..... Interesting... the circumstances you describe are very much the way I imagined the initial discovery and decision process to have proceeded.... an honest, straightforward approach to a situation that was discovered and just wished to be put right. I do not claim to be psychic (that is my wife's territory - and it is frightening at times), but I am happy that is how it originally transpired. And yes, the black market is not for amateurs ... Cheers, RickO
Comments
Images from past postings.
Good Luck, Hope you Win !
Fresh. History will show I am FOR the people.
That is the family store. My mother still puts the window display in and out virtually every day. The store has been in the same spot in the heart of Philadelphia's main jewelry district since the 1920s. Many of the fixtures and display cases still in use were built by hand by my grandfather.
As an addendum I meant I am for the owners keeping what is theirs, not for "The People" vs. our very own.
Interesting story about those graded coins. The Treasury has no authority to have our coins graded while this lawsuit is going on. We were in fact never informed or consented to it happening. The news appeared on a website and was then quickly taken down. When we asked the government for an explanation, we never received a substantive answer. To this day no one outside those who ordered this done know why and for what purpose this extraordinary and improper action was taken. Our tax dollars at work.
Having Mr. Langbord posting to this thread and providing first hand information adds a new dynamic to forums discussions of this case. Hard to believe that the 10 year anniversary on the filing of the lawsuit is about 30 days away.
I tend to agree with an earlier post. SCOTUS grants about 2-3 percents of petitions for certiorari. My firm was opposing one at the end of September 2016 (it was denied) and of 72 cases on the same SCOTUS conference (the internal meetings where SCOTUS decides petitions for certiorari), only one was granted. The main ground for granting certiorari is a split among the circuits on an important legal issue (which is not present here). SCOTUS tends to deny certiorari where (i) the issues involved are mostly factual; or (ii) the issues involved are of a limited value in terms of national precedent (meaning changing the the outcome would only affect a very limited number of people). I too agree that the Langbords got a raw deal and wish them luck but the odds appear to be long here.
I think that it is pictured in both books, as I provided the pictures to both of the authors. One of my colleagues who co-owned the coin the first time also raised the question of whether the Fenton coin was indeed the Farouk specimen, as the one that we had came from a VERY close customer of Abe Kosoff, who very well might have had the access to the removed 1933 from Farouk, as he was a prominent bidder at the original sale in 1954. As I remember it, any photos from the Farouk sale were inadequate to compare with this coin. I do have excellent photos that were taken by the daughter of the person with the irradiated diamond.
I firmly believe in numismatics as the world's greatest hobby, but recognize that this is a luxury and without collectors, we can all spend/melt our collections/inventories.
eBaystore
It is also surprising (but not unexpected) that the government's highly paid expert witness never passed on whatever information he had about this coin to the people who were his principal source of income for a number of years--i.e. the Treasury/Mint.
If the coiner didn't deliver them, then how did the cashier happen to have scores of newly minted 1933 DEs in an open bag in his vault as asserted to on the bottom of page 6 of the "Petition"? We know the sample coins passed assay on a Friday IIRC, but the results weren't delivered to coiner the for several more days.
Carl Carlson once told me that he had photographed a 1933 DE for a client, but under the terms of their agreement kept no negatives or prints. Don't know which coin this was.
Not sure about the question bajjerfan. But let me point out a major flaw with some prominent historical analysis of the 1933 DE story. In the 1930s, the Philadelphia Mint was basically a manufacturing plant that was run by an autocratic management team-- the so- called "Four Horsemen." During an earlier investigation of the Mint by the Secret Service, they concluded that the Mint's procedures and record keeping in particular was so poor as to be almost totally unreliable. On the other hand, when talking about the manufacturing and handling of the 1933 Double Eagles those supporting the government consistently look to operations manuals, rules and procedures and records and claim they flawlessly describe everything that occurred. For those who hold that position, I always ask one simple question--when were the " perfect" records you are relying on actually written? The same day? The next day? The same week? Month? Year? And then I like to point out that the most recent set of perfect books and records i am aware of belonged to Bernie Madoff.
The petition was assigned case number 16-612. The docket sheet is linked below:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/16-612.htm
All of the relevant updates including when the petition is circulated for conference will be included on the linked docket sheet. It will also state when a decision has been made.
Welcome rhl, been following this case the whole time and hope the right hands, your family, get these back.
Mr. Langbord,
I am very happy that you have chosen to communicate with us on this coin forum. One question I have is as follows: I assume you have NOT communicated on the internet or other forums for the past ten years because you had a pending legal case and it was inappropriate to comment while the case is active. Given the fact that you have now petitioned for certiorari, do the rules change? I do welcome your comments and perspectives, but I wonder what the "rules" are. I appreciate your response. Thanks. Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
Now this is a interesting matter! I can't wait to see the outcome on this one... "Get them coins back"
Up until now it was thought that any discussion of the case might have a negative impact with first our trial and then the appeals judges. However, now since we are asking the Suoreme Court to possibly hear our case, any public attention and interest that might encourage the Court to grant cert is welcome. And on a personal note, it has been very hard to read some of the things posted here and not respond.
I have been a complete outsider to this whole case, reading about it in the numismatic press. From my perspective, it seems to me that past internet comments by your "expert" witness in the original trial are what really swayed the jury in the government's favor. The research by this expert and the information they presented may have been valid, but their credibility was entirely shot down. This basically rendered you without any benefit from your expert witness (and may have even been an overall detriment to your case). I don't know how the supreme court works exactly, but perhaps you can get them to review the case on the grounds that the original jury based their decision on the personality defects of the expert witness and not on the relevant facts or merits of that expert's testimony. I'm curious as to your thoughts on this.
Here are links to the two Coin World reports that I am referring to (on the first one, you may have to scroll past the blank space to see the text):
coinworld.com/news/us-coins/2011/07/1933-double-eagle-trial-roger-burdette-takes-.html
coinworld.com/news/us-coins/2011/07/1933-double-eagle-trial-sides-finish-their-ca.html
Was the cashier free to remove coins of current manufacture from the assembly line "so to speak" even before they were approved to be released by the coiner? IIRC the coins were approved by the assayer, but the results were not conveyed to the coiner in time to beat the order from above not to distribute or exchange the coins.
Dcarr-- I'm sorry you are having issues with Roger Burdette, but I can tell you that we were more than satisfied with his research skills and his efforts on our behalf. His testimony and his past internet comments did not in my opinion sway the jury in the government's favor. In fact, Roger's testimony was severely limited by the trial judge to certain numismatic areas, while the government expert was given free reign to testify on accounting, secret service procedures, the history of the Great Depression, mint manufacturering, etc. if anyone is interested, judges are rated like college professors by lawyers and courthouse staff, check out the ratings and comments on our distinguished jurist and you might get a sense why the trial turned out the way it did.
Based on those Coin World articles, it does seem to me like it would have had a significant effect on the jury.
But perhaps not - I wasn't there, of course. It is good to know your thoughts regarding that, thanks.
I won't bring up the subject any further.
Bajjerfan-- I believe you are falling down the rabbit hole opened by some of the so called "experts" on my family's coins. The fact is no one knows what actually happened at the mint in 1932/1933. We do know that procedures were sometimes followed and sometimes ignored. We also know that at that time the mint's principal concern was making sure the weight of gold coinage balanced and not the year of manufacture. And we certainly know that their record keeping was problematic. Remember, the Mint records show no coins were even missing! I have heard convincing stories that it was common practice for collectors to receive newly minted coins from the mint and that substituting one year for another was perfectly acceptable so long as the weights balanced. I know that my grandfather was at the mint on an almost daily basis during this period and remained a vip at the mint through the 1960s when he took my brother and me on annual private tours. The one thing I know for certain is that the government, the experts, posters here pro and con, Secret Service and even me and my family at the end of the day do not know when, how and under what circumstances any 1933 Double Eagles left the mint.
Julian:
My understanding is that, if clear pictures were taken of the Farouk coin during the 1950s, they have not been available to numismatists in the United States. Indeed, I am not aware of any evidence that quality pictures of the Farouk coin ever existed.
Julian:
In one book, it is stated that a dealer who handled the Fenton 1933, before Fenton owned it, had also handled some coins and/or patterns that were previously in the Farouk Collection. Even if this point is true, it would not come close to demonstrating that the Fenton 1933 and the Farouk 1933 are the same.
A collector during some period from the 1960s to the 1990s may have owned some Farouk pieces and a 1933 DE that was never owned by Farouk. Also, if the owner of a 1933 DE wished to give the impression that his 1933 DE was the Farouk coin, then he may have contracted with an agent who he knew handled some coins or patterns that were formerly owned by Farouk. Some of the patterns owned by Farouk are fairly easy to identify.
BajerFan:
I did not say that the coiner did not deliver them.
The coiner may have delivered them without keeping meticulous records, as I already suggested.
Before Burdette became involved in the case, Roger indicated to me that he "discovered that the Mint Cashier was provided with forty-three 1933 Double Eagles on March 4 and these 'balanced' the accounting of the production of 1932 Double Eagles as some 1932 Double Eagles were earlier found to be defective." (This was in an article of mine in 2010.)
There are thousands of U.S. coins in PCGS holders for which there are no surviving entries of coiner's deliveries in cashier's ledgers. It does not make sense to say that all those are not really coins, were stolen and are now government property. Although there is a record of one 1870-S dollar being earmarked for a "cornerstone," there are no records of any others. Would anyone seriously say that all 1870-S silver dollars are now stolen property?
BajerFan ignored my points regarding the traditions and policies of the Philadelphia Mint. It was always understood that collectors could trade old coins for new coins, and common coins for scarcer coins. Please read again my post above and my articles.
The fate of the ten Switt-Langbord 1933 Double Eagles
Analysis of the Verdict in the Switt-Langbord Case
I was just sort of repeating the same thinking I'd espoused in previous threads on the topic. Seems to me there must have been some sort of protocol for production even back then. Coins get struck, coins get submitted for approval process of analysis, etc. Once approved, the coiner transfers the coins to the Fed at which point they become "monetized" and are legal for trade, exchange, etc. Would be a big boost to your cause if you could find documentation that says the 1933 coins went through the proper channels and were approved for exchange by the cashier. Another poster to earlier threads on the topic [but hasn't shown up here] says the paperwork shows that the coins never completed the process through to the "monetization" stage. FWIW, I'm on your side in hoping that the coins get returned to your family.
A few thoughts. It is undisputed that "monetization" with regard to Double Eagles was a fiction created by the Mint as part of the sales hype for the Fenton auction. It never existed in the 1930s. My understanding is that when coins were ready they were simply released. No paper, no proclamation. Yes, it would be great if there was some sort of official receipt, it would be even better if there was videotape, but neither existed in the 1930s.
Didn't the U.S. Government have a vested interest in the auction sale of the single 1933 Double Eagle that was, as you point out, by their definition subject to "monetization?" The U.S. Government shared in the proceeds from the auction sale.
It has always surprised me that some type of compromise was not worked out by the U.S. Government to get their piece of the action on your coins in some similar manner such as splitting the coins. What behind the scenes role, suspected or disclosed, does the current unknown (to the public anyway) owner of the subject 1933 DE have? Does the U.S. Government feel it has some fiduciary obligation to that individual to not dilute the value of his coin? Is the Government concerned that it may become obligated to pay back to the buyer the huge profit it made from the auction sale by having promoted the sale under false pretenses of their having been a "monetization?"
FWIW, I do recall that the current owner did make the comment once your set of coins came into public discussion of something to the effect of, "Do I now have to buy these coins as well?"
Given the U.S. Government's own conflict of interest disqualification of the government's own attorneys might be a point to be argued on appeal in conjunction with whatever points have been preserved. The matter should have been handed over to independent counsel and the government's failure to do so may fall into a category similar to fraud where there may be an exception to having had to raise the point specifically on appeal.
SCOTUS review is limited to the questions presented and those fairly implicit therein. All of the questions seemed to address the CAFRA aspect only.
Monetization is simply the process of coining money. It was in use [tho not singled out as such] for years before being introduced in connection with the "Fenton" coin. The fact that monetization was necessary would suggest that the 1933 DEs never completed the process to make them legal tender.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetization
@rhl...what do you think of my oft-posted theory that the Government bought back the Fenton piece just to get it off the market?
TD
Nope
I have heard nothing to suggest the government purchased the Fenton coin. As to "monetization" being necessary to complete the sale of the Fenton piece, trust me, that was a modern day marketing tool created to add to the auction's excitement. There was certainly no such notification or documentation required in the 1920s or 1930s. If it was, there are a whole lot of illegal, stolen coins out there lol.
I saw this thread several days ago but just had not clicked on it until today. Being interested in finding a possible update in this thread today and having followed the case from the beginning the best that a complete outsider has been able to do, I am most pleased to find Mr. Langbord participating here! Wow, what a blessing! Thank you for being here.
I still find it incomprehensible that there is no definitive proof that any of these coins were stolen and yet the government has still been able to take them. Then on top of that, it is so difficult to understand how the court is able to completely ignore CAFRA. Some things are just beyond my understanding, or so it seems. I do hope things are resolved in your favor, sooner rather than later!
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
They probably shouldn't have referred to them as being "stolen" way back when, since In retrospect it provides a situation more difficult to prove than something like "improperly removed" from the mint. In 1937, had they checked the coins prior to melting they may have indeed declared them stolen or improperly removed.
Is it possible that Donald J Trump is a collector of coins? If so, he might be able to strike a "deal" with the members of the Supreme Court to actually reopen the Langbord case.
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
As much as I might like that idea, I don't think the executive branch makes "deals" with the Supreme Court. Of course, in the new world we seem to be living in today, who knows what might be possible.lol
Could he simply give an executive order that the coins be returned to the Langbords?
Maybe he could just "pardon" the coins.
i suppose the government could just make things up and "pardon" our coins, it wouldn't be that different from making up "monetization" or "orphan documents". Lol
I certainly wish you the best of good luck in this case.....I believe it is a classic example of government over reach and, IMO, they have not proved their case - no matter what the verdicts have been. Cheers, RickO
He could ( our new pres ) sign an executive order to repeal the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. It might not fix every injustice but could set a precedent more influential than The New Deal .... and wouldn't that be liberating ?
Or the "making up" (printing of unlimited paper currency) to suit whatever needs they deem necessary, for war and the like. Point being it's their call, in an ideological sense/speaking.
May I respectfully suggest that we leave politics out of this very specific thread?
Again, as much as my family would be appreciative, I don't see the US government repealing the Federal Reserve act just for us...lol
On a more serious note, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that none of the prolific "experts" on our case that post here have answered the simple question as to when the Mint's "perfect" 1933 DE records were created. At the start of each day? The end of the day? Weekly? Monthly? Or perhaps, years later?
BajjerFan:
I honestly believe that I have thoroughly answered Bajjerfan's questions and addressed the points that he raised.
As I, QDB and others have repeatedly stated, it was the policy of the Philadelphia Mint, for many decades, perhaps since the 1790s, to allow anyone to trade old coins for new coins, at face value. Furthermore, records of such coin-for-coin trades were often not kept or did not survive. Those involved honestly believed that there was no legal requirement to keep such records. It is sort of like trading ten old rolls for ten rolls of new Lincoln Cents at a bank; it is unlikely that the teller is going to ask for ID and fill out a form. Would someone seriously think that rolls of Lincoln Cents were -stolen- if a record is not kept by the bank cashier of trades of Lincoln Cent rolls?
BajjerFan:
Before the mid 1850s, there were no entries in a cashier's ledger for ALMOST ALL of the Proof coins struck, since 1818! There are many PCGS graded U.S. coins for which there were no entries in a cashier's ledger and minimal (if any) surviving records. There are no records of 1870-S silver dollars or half dimes being minted AND released. Would anyone seriously suggest that 1870-S silver dollars are not really coins, because there were no entries for 1870-S dollars in a cashier's ledger?
The concept of "monetization" (or ledger-entry requirments) that government lawyers introduced in the Fenton case is just not consistent with the history of the U.S. Mint. R. W. Julian has pointed out, as examples, that all Proof Flying Eagle Cents, all pre-1878 Proof Indian Cents and many other Proof coins of the 19th century were not entered into Cashier's ledgers or otherwise "delivered" by the coiner to the cashier's office. Would Treasury Dept. lawyers now say that every single known Proof Flying Eagle Cent, 1856 to 1858, was ‘stolen’?
In my three part series on 1841 Quarter Eagles, I point out that all Proof coins during the 1840s were distributed without written records. Yet, no one thought they were 'stolen'!
The Controversy over 1841 Quarter Eagles, Part 1
RHL:
I have been making similar statements for more than five years. It seems extremely likely that most (or all?) U.S. Mint officials were concerned about the total number of double eagles on the premises, not the 'dates' or years on the coins.
Insightful10@gmail.com
I just looked at the Supreme Court docket for the Petition and note that the Government's response to the Petition must be filed by 12-5-2016, which if I recall correctly is exactly 10 years from the day that the Langbords filed their complaint against the government in the federal district court in Philly.
Interesting coincidence.
That's just depressing that this has dragged on this long.
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
Welcome, RHL, to the Forums and good luck with your Petition.
I have read the Petition and to my admittedly untrained legal eye, it looks good to me.
For those who don't want to read the 35 page Petition, my summary of it is as follows:
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
Rich - thanks for summarizing.
RHL - we've had endless speculation in this forum about how to handle the sudden discovery of these coins. Ie. make one public and hide the rest in Switzerland, etc. Was there ever any question that you would reveal all the coins, engage Berke and attempt to leverage the previous litigation from the Fenton coin?
Of course my family considered our options on what to do after we found our 1933 Double Eagles. Understand though at the beginning none of us really knew much about the history and the legal controversy surrounding our find. It took some time to even have an opportunity to speak with Barry Berke.
As to why we informed the Mint of our discovery, there were two principal underlying reasons. First, my father, a decorated World War II veteran who grew up under FDR, Truman, and Eisenhower, truly believed that the US Government, when confronted by honest citizens acting openly, would ultimately do the right thing and treat us fairly. Second, my family and my lawyers believed that by talking directly with the Mint, the worst that would happen would be that we would have to go to Court to defend our rights and property. None of us expected the tactics we were confronted with including threats, bullying, delays, misrepresentations and a general "do anything we can to win" attitude on the part of the US Government.
One other thing I wanted to make clear. For the many here who said "why didn't we just
sell the coins on the black market?", I ask a simple question--as someone who does not deal in the buying and selling of questionable goods, how do you even find the black market? Should we have stood on a street corner and asked shady looking people"Hey pal, you wanna buy a million dollar coin?" Gone on Craig's list? Set up a table at a swap meet? As a very wise friend said to me, people who are not criminals tend to be very unsuccessful when they attempt to engage in criminal activities.
@RHL..... Interesting... the circumstances you describe are very much the way I imagined the initial discovery and decision process to have proceeded.... an honest, straightforward approach to a situation that was discovered and just wished to be put right. I do not claim to be psychic (that is my wife's territory - and it is frightening at times), but I am happy that is how it originally transpired. And yes, the black market is not for amateurs ... Cheers, RickO