@tradedollarnut said:
Not according to the information that I have
Is there some reason you cannot share the information that you have or is it that you feel you do not have adequate confirmation as to its validity? Regardless of whether CaptHenway's belief that the U.S. Treasury bought the coin or if it was purchased by a private party or other institution, there does seem to be a conflict of interest on the part of the U.S. Government in the current litigation given that it profited from the sale of a coin that it asserted was the only legal one.
Interesting development today--it is being reported that one of the two finalists for the Supreme Court vacancy is Judge Thomas Hardiman, the author of the en banc decision awarding possession of our coins to the government. Not sure about his other positions, but in our case he bent over backwards to find for the government and broaden their power to seize property
@tradedollarnut said:
Not according to the information that I have
Is there some reason you cannot share the information that you have or is it that you feel you do not have adequate confirmation as to its validity? Regardless of whether CaptHenway's belief that the U.S. Treasury bought the coin or if it was purchased by a private party or other institution, there does seem to be a conflict of interest on the part of the U.S. Government in the current litigation given that it profited from the sale of a coin that it asserted was the only legal one.
Does anyone think that the U.S. "profited" from the sale of that coin? If they were lucky they may have recovered a fraction of what they wasted on it over the years.
@rhl said:
Interesting development today--it is being reported that one of the two finalists for the Supreme Court vacancy is Judge Thomas Hardiman, the author of the en banc decision awarding possession of our coins to the government. Not sure about his other positions, but in our case he bent over backwards to find for the government and broaden their power to seize property
So we can assume that as author of the en banc opinion that he supported said opinion?
@tradedollarnut said:
Not according to the information that I have
Is there some reason you cannot share the information that you have or is it that you feel you do not have adequate confirmation as to its validity? Regardless of whether CaptHenway's belief that the U.S. Treasury bought the coin or if it was purchased by a private party or other institution, there does seem to be a conflict of interest on the part of the U.S. Government in the current litigation given that it profited from the sale of a coin that it asserted was the only legal one.
Does anyone think that the U.S. "profited" from the sale of that coin? If they were lucky they may have recovered a fraction of what they wasted on it over the years.
The U.S. "profited" from the sale in that it no longer had to waste millions chasing the coin.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@rhl said:
Interesting development today--it is being reported that one of the two finalists for the Supreme Court vacancy is Judge Thomas Hardiman, the author of the en banc decision awarding possession of our coins to the government. Not sure about his other positions, but in our case he bent over backwards to find for the government and broaden their power to seize property
So we can assume that as author of the en banc opinion that he supported said opinion?
Yes. Only someone who joined the majority would be allowed to write the opinion of the court. Of course, if he was relying on SCOTUS precedent, then it might be different as he could overrule SCOTUS precedent as a Supreme Court justice but not as a circuit judge. I don't recall there being any SCOTUS precedent on point that would fit the bill, but I haven't viewed the opinion in a long time.
Both Tripp and Frankel had pictures of the coin that I handled. I have the original picture. I do not know anything about the NYHS specimen.
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.
"if the records are immaculate, they must know exactly how many are missing."
Records, from what I have read on this case, are far from immaculate... IMO they have no clue how many are missing.... they originally said none... that tells the story right there. Cheers, RickO
The Secret Service and the Mint to the best of my knowledge are doing nothing to track down any other 1933 Doubke Eagles. During the litigation, I gave them the name of a person who had one and they did nothing to follow up. They also have no clue how many are out there. Only if you are a good citizen and believe that the government will do the right thing and tell them about your coin will they take it from you. Live and learn.
@rhl said:
The Secret Service and the Mint to the best of my knowledge are doing nothing to track down any other 1933 Doubke Eagles. During the litigation, I gave them the name of a person who had one and they did nothing to follow up. They also have no clue how many are out there. Only if you are a good citizen and believe that the government will do the right thing and tell them about your coin will they take it from you. Live and learn.
If you had said has one instead of had one, they may have followed up.
Just as long as the coin does not go public, then they seem to not pursue it.... just like the '64 Peace dollar..The coins are out there... Just do the deals quietly... Cheers, RickO
"Switt had cause to dislike the government. During the 1930s, he was arrested by authorities while carrying a suitcase full of U.S. gold coins to the Philadelphia Mint for melting. This was after Roosevelt in 1933 had issued an executive order limiting private ownership of U.S. gold coins.
Switt was never charged, but the contents of the suitcase were confiscated and melted without Switt ever being compensated, Roy said."
It looks like this isn't the first time that @rhl and his family have been cheated by the federal government. I am sorry for your loss.
As an attorney who actually knows the case personally, why do you think the jury and the trial court made the findings that it did? Was there any one moment that you thought was critical and stuck out to the jury? Were you surprised? Why were the Feds unwilling to settle with your family like they did for the Fenton coin?
I hope my questions don't appear to be nosey. I'm surprised that the government has repeatedly shown so much hostility to your family.
That was my first thought when I heard the nomination as well given that it came down to either Judge Hardiman or Judge Gorsuch. With nominee Gorsuch coming from a Western State where federal imposition is less welcome, one couldn't have asked for a better choice to have in the Supreme Court Justice mix for reviewing an issue that relates to the federal government's power to confiscate.
After the housecleaning in the Justice Department that has already started with a firing, it will be interesting to learn if the prospect of a settlement becomes a viable option.
@rhl said:
News update--Government has asked for and been granted more time to respond to our cert petition. Their new due date is March 8, 2017.
One can hope that this means they are spending the time on it because they are taking it seriously, instead of asserting "we made the rules and by rule the coins belong to the government."
Granting time is almost always procedural. Additionally it is almost always granted when requested - at least the first time for the particular filing. At least that is how it works for the appellate court I deal with. There is not much to be read into it one way or the other.
I realize it is useless to speculate... however, could the time granted be due to the fact that without the government response, it was felt that they would decide in favor of the Langbord's? Sort of a 'no contest' decision if they did not present their position. Cheers, RickO
The government was required to file a response by the Court, there was no longer an option to file nothing. One reason why an extension was requested could be the change in administration or it simply might be they wanted more time to draft their response. But it once again points out how time consuming and difficult it is to challenge the government.
Rhl you should have Burke file suit against government for 1974-D aluminum cent. If case is not an isolated one, scotus may have more incentive to take it up.
@rhl said:
Thanks. 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.
The idea that Switt must have been a thief because he owned the coins is laughable but the presumption they must have been stolen from the mint because there is no paper trail is the stuff absurdity.
I'm surprised no one has put two and two together and suggested Israel Switt personally stole the coins.
Does anyone know if the fact that we have new executive personnel and some new legislative personnel mean there are also some new judicial personnel at lower levels who need to get up to speed on the case because they have replaced others knowledgeable of the details? Just wondering. Steve
@tradedollarnut said:
Rhl you should have Burke file suit against government for 1974-D aluminum cent. If case is not an isolated one, scotus may have more incentive to take it up.
There is no way to jam it through before the disposition of the Langbord cert petition.
@tradedollarnut said:
Rhl you should have Burke file suit against government for 1974-D aluminum cent. If case is not an isolated one, scotus may have more incentive to take it up.
There is no way to jam it through before the disposition of the Langbord cert petition.
You can certainly make a case that this is a form of high level modern bashing. There are obviously numerous illegal coins from before 1932 but the government doesn't pursue any of them. They only pursue those minted since 1932 which is the year someone tried to purchase the San Francisco mintage of '31 cents.
Oddly enough almost every single coin they pursue in dated 1932 to 1964.
Question for the legal theorists: Would the Langbords benefit if their case is not heard before a new SCOTUS member is appointed? Right now, they would need 5 of 8 votes to win, later they would need 5 of 9. Better odds?
@tradedollarnut said:
Rhl you should have Burke file suit against government for 1974-D aluminum cent. If case is not an isolated one, scotus may have more incentive to take it up.
There is no way to jam it through before the disposition of the Langbord cert petition.
You can certainly make a case that this is a form of high level modern bashing. There are obviously numerous illegal coins from before 1932 but the government doesn't pursue any of them. They only pursue those minted since 1932 which is the year someone tried to purchase the San Francisco mintage of '31 cents.
Oddly enough almost every single coin they pursue in dated 1932 to 1964.
@howards said:
Question for the legal theorists: Would the Langbords benefit if their case is not heard before a new SCOTUS member is appointed? Right now, they would need 5 of 8 votes to win, later they would need 5 of 9. Better odds?
It would give them another justice to try to sway. Either way, they would need 5 votes.
Of related relevance to this thread, below is a posting from the 1861 Paquet Reverse Double Eagle thread:
@ Zoins - Very interesting to learn that, unlike the true to date 1861-S Paquet Reverse Double Eagles, the two known 1861-P Paquet Reverse Double Eagles are likely (at least in the opinion of Hodder, Ford and Rubin) restrikes that were struck in a subsequent year.
This would not be the first time that the U.S. Mint has used old dies to replicate a coin in later years while leaving the original date unaltered.
I have a $3 pattern in copper (PF-63) that is believed to have been actually struck in a year subsequent to the date shown on the coin. (It was the first rare coin I purchased so I have had it for a number of years and it was once in the collection of Pittman and is so attributed. Per Judd, it has a total population of 9.)
J. Hewitt Judd in his book, "United States Pattern Coins" has this to say about it:
" J-441; 1865 $3
Restrike made circa 1872"
Given that both the 1861-P Reverse Paquet Double Eagle and my 1865 $3 Pattern were coins of close date it is evident that coins of that era were being restruck. It would be very interesting to confirm when the 1861-P Reverse Paquet $20 was actually struck. Since David Hall notes the first reference to the coins existence to be March of 1865 that, or a year or two prior, may well be the year of their striking.
The question remains for the 1861-S Paquet Reverse Double Eagle, "What motivated this 'special numismatic issue?'" What were the circumstances that led to the two or more coins being restruck?
Was there some clandestine "restriking" that gave us the 1861-P Reverse Paquet Double Eagles as has been shown to be the case for some of the other rarities that have escaped from the U.S. Mint back in the same century? Would the arguments that the government has advanced in the Langford Case regarding the legality of the 1933 Double Eagles be applicable to the 1861-P Paquet Reverse Double Eagles that were never released for circulation (unlike the1861-S Paquet Reverse Double Eagles which had been released into circulation)? Is their legality even more so at stake if they were unauthorized restrikes?
We know, for example, that at least one other rarity was initially "restruck" for the purpose of providing gifts to foreign heads of state. The 1804 Dollar was first struck for the above referenced gifting purpose in 1834, apparently using altered1803 dies as there were no 1804 dollars struck with the date of 1804 in 1804, In addition there were subsequent true restrikes of the 1834-1804 Dollar in 1858 and 1876 - although arguably under suspicious circumstances.
Here is a link to the complete thread, including responses and added commentary to the above post:
NorthCoin: If so, do you have an opinion as to whether the U.S. Government could make the same claims to attempt to confiscate the 1861-P Paquets since they were also ordered to have been melted similar to the order that went out as to the already minted 1933 Double Eagles?
Although there is no solid evidence that any 1933 double eagles were stolen, other than the notion that there must be a clear entry in a Cashier's ledger or other accounting book of such coins being released, lawyers for the U.S. Treasury Department still managed to convince a jury that 1933 double eagles were stolen. Is there clear evidence that 1861 Philadelphia Mint Paquet double eagles were delivered by the Coiner to the Superintendent or the to Cashier as representative of the Superintendent? I do not know.
In my view, the lack of such an entry, if there is not one, does not indicate that anything was stolen. Moreover, as I said in post above, Philadelphia Paquet double eagles could have been included in a delivery of 1861 double eagles with the typical reverse design. If so, the Paquet pieces would probably not have been itemized.
The same people who think that 1933 double eagles were stolen might very well think that 1861 Paquet double eagles were stolen, too, in addition to thinking that a large number of other coins and patterns now in PCGS holders were stolen from the U.S. Mint shortly after being made. If the U.S. Supreme Court affirms the U.S. District Court decision in the Switt-Langbord case, this could be a horrid outcome for coin collectors as it would allow for a simplistic, counter-intuitive and untenable definition of the term stolen in regard to U.S. numismatic items and could place the titles of many items in jeopardy.
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 Double Eagles
My post-trial article includes comments by Q. David Bowers and David Ganz:
Analysis of the Verdict in the Switt-Langbord Case"
Those far reaching consequences need to be argued by the Langfords' attorneys in their briefing to attempt to convince the U.S. Supreme Court that the case merits its review.
Link to the complete thread and posting from Analyst:
Wow! I just read this entire thread from the beginning in one long sitting...
At a few times, folks asked about a Trump intervention. I should point out that one of Trump's cousins is/was a veteran numismatist who had a big name ancients collection as well as the "Mr. 1796" set of US coins (every die marriage of every 1796-dated coin). Trump's cousin is/was a member of the NYNC. I met him at one of the club meetings long ago, and he was like true numismatic nobility to me.
At the "Mr. 1796" auction in NYC, I saw Trump in the auction room briefly.
But, if I were to bet, I'd not put real money on Trump getting involved in this.
Btw, @rhl, I'm rooting for you to prevail for a number of reasons of which the primary is that I fear a government that forgets it works for We The People. Best of luck.
I'm wishing the Langbords all the best luck in the world on this one. To me, it is a slam dunk who is on the right side here. Hoping for a complete win!
Comments
we all have more than one circle of trust
Interesting development today--it is being reported that one of the two finalists for the Supreme Court vacancy is Judge Thomas Hardiman, the author of the en banc decision awarding possession of our coins to the government. Not sure about his other positions, but in our case he bent over backwards to find for the government and broaden their power to seize property
@rhl... That does not sound encouraging..... Cheers, RickO
So I guess that we as a community now are rooting for our new president to select ANYONE other than Hardiman.
Continued prayers for your success @rhl.
Does anyone think that the U.S. "profited" from the sale of that coin? If they were lucky they may have recovered a fraction of what they wasted on it over the years.
So we can assume that as author of the en banc opinion that he supported said opinion?
The U.S. "profited" from the sale in that it no longer had to waste millions chasing the coin.
Yes. Only someone who joined the majority would be allowed to write the opinion of the court. Of course, if he was relying on SCOTUS precedent, then it might be different as he could overrule SCOTUS precedent as a Supreme Court justice but not as a circuit judge. I don't recall there being any SCOTUS precedent on point that would fit the bill, but I haven't viewed the opinion in a long time.
Both Tripp and Frankel had pictures of the coin that I handled. I have the original picture. I do not know anything about the NYHS specimen.
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
expect a call from the SS
previous page comment also removed.
if the records are immaculate, they must know exactly how many are missing.
"if the records are immaculate, they must know exactly how many are missing."
Records, from what I have read on this case, are far from immaculate... IMO they have no clue how many are missing.... they originally said none... that tells the story right there. Cheers, RickO
The Secret Service and the Mint to the best of my knowledge are doing nothing to track down any other 1933 Doubke Eagles. During the litigation, I gave them the name of a person who had one and they did nothing to follow up. They also have no clue how many are out there. Only if you are a good citizen and believe that the government will do the right thing and tell them about your coin will they take it from you. Live and learn.
If you had said has one instead of had one, they may have followed up.
What a difference an "s" makes (lol)....no, I gave them the name of a person who I believe owned a 1933 DE at that time....AF ring a bell to anyone?
Just as long as the coin does not go public, then they seem to not pursue it.... just like the '64 Peace dollar..The coins are out there... Just do the deals quietly... Cheers, RickO
I enjoyed the interview article in coin world today. http://www.coinworld.com/news/us-coins/2017/01/roy-langbord-divulges-details-on-1933-double-eagles.html
"Switt had cause to dislike the government. During the 1930s, he was arrested by authorities while carrying a suitcase full of U.S. gold coins to the Philadelphia Mint for melting. This was after Roosevelt in 1933 had issued an executive order limiting private ownership of U.S. gold coins.
Switt was never charged, but the contents of the suitcase were confiscated and melted without Switt ever being compensated, Roy said."
It looks like this isn't the first time that @rhl and his family have been cheated by the federal government. I am sorry for your loss.
As an attorney who actually knows the case personally, why do you think the jury and the trial court made the findings that it did? Was there any one moment that you thought was critical and stuck out to the jury? Were you surprised? Why were the Feds unwilling to settle with your family like they did for the Fenton coin?
I hope my questions don't appear to be nosey. I'm surprised that the government has repeatedly shown so much hostility to your family.
@rhl
Different SCOTUS nominee. Phew....
That was my first thought when I heard the nomination as well given that it came down to either Judge Hardiman or Judge Gorsuch. With nominee Gorsuch coming from a Western State where federal imposition is less welcome, one couldn't have asked for a better choice to have in the Supreme Court Justice mix for reviewing an issue that relates to the federal government's power to confiscate.
After the housecleaning in the Justice Department that has already started with a firing, it will be interesting to learn if the prospect of a settlement becomes a viable option.
Well.. we can certainly hope this nomination will be confirmed in time to participate... Cheers, RickO
News update--Government has asked for and been granted more time to respond to our cert petition. Their new due date is March 8, 2017.
Justice delayed is justice denied....
One can hope that this means they are spending the time on it because they are taking it seriously, instead of asserting "we made the rules and by rule the coins belong to the government."
http://www.shieldnickels.net
It is absurd IMHO that the court granted the government more time. It has had plenty of time already (since October).
Granting time is almost always procedural. Additionally it is almost always granted when requested - at least the first time for the particular filing. At least that is how it works for the appellate court I deal with. There is not much to be read into it one way or the other.
I realize it is useless to speculate... however, could the time granted be due to the fact that without the government response, it was felt that they would decide in favor of the Langbord's? Sort of a 'no contest' decision if they did not present their position. Cheers, RickO
The government was required to file a response by the Court, there was no longer an option to file nothing. One reason why an extension was requested could be the change in administration or it simply might be they wanted more time to draft their response. But it once again points out how time consuming and difficult it is to challenge the government.
Rhl you should have Burke file suit against government for 1974-D aluminum cent. If case is not an isolated one, scotus may have more incentive to take it up.
The idea that Switt must have been a thief because he owned the coins is laughable but the presumption they must have been stolen from the mint because there is no paper trail is the stuff absurdity.
I'm surprised no one has put two and two together and suggested Israel Switt personally stole the coins.
Does anyone know if the fact that we have new executive personnel and some new legislative personnel mean there are also some new judicial personnel at lower levels who need to get up to speed on the case because they have replaced others knowledgeable of the details? Just wondering. Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
There is no way to jam it through before the disposition of the Langbord cert petition.
double post
You can certainly make a case that this is a form of high level modern bashing. There are obviously numerous illegal coins from before 1932 but the government doesn't pursue any of them. They only pursue those minted since 1932 which is the year someone tried to purchase the San Francisco mintage of '31 cents.
Oddly enough almost every single coin they pursue in dated 1932 to 1964.
Complain enough and maybe they go after the V nickels
Question for the legal theorists: Would the Langbords benefit if their case is not heard before a new SCOTUS member is appointed? Right now, they would need 5 of 8 votes to win, later they would need 5 of 9. Better odds?
http://www.shieldnickels.net
Fingers crossed. perhaps with the new SCOTUS membership, the 1974-D aluminum cent could be reviewed again.
Seems they didn't go after the 1942 aluminum cent sale for $126,500.00 in 2009. Is there any reason that coin would be treated differently?
It would give them another justice to try to sway. Either way, they would need 5 votes.
Likely be a decision on this before the new Justice is even confirmed... Cheers, RickO
Of related relevance to this thread, below is a posting from the 1861 Paquet Reverse Double Eagle thread:
@ Zoins - Very interesting to learn that, unlike the true to date 1861-S Paquet Reverse Double Eagles, the two known 1861-P Paquet Reverse Double Eagles are likely (at least in the opinion of Hodder, Ford and Rubin) restrikes that were struck in a subsequent year.
This would not be the first time that the U.S. Mint has used old dies to replicate a coin in later years while leaving the original date unaltered.
I have a $3 pattern in copper (PF-63) that is believed to have been actually struck in a year subsequent to the date shown on the coin. (It was the first rare coin I purchased so I have had it for a number of years and it was once in the collection of Pittman and is so attributed. Per Judd, it has a total population of 9.)
J. Hewitt Judd in his book, "United States Pattern Coins" has this to say about it:
" J-441; 1865 $3
Restrike made circa 1872"
Given that both the 1861-P Reverse Paquet Double Eagle and my 1865 $3 Pattern were coins of close date it is evident that coins of that era were being restruck. It would be very interesting to confirm when the 1861-P Reverse Paquet $20 was actually struck. Since David Hall notes the first reference to the coins existence to be March of 1865 that, or a year or two prior, may well be the year of their striking.
The question remains for the 1861-S Paquet Reverse Double Eagle, "What motivated this 'special numismatic issue?'" What were the circumstances that led to the two or more coins being restruck?
Was there some clandestine "restriking" that gave us the 1861-P Reverse Paquet Double Eagles as has been shown to be the case for some of the other rarities that have escaped from the U.S. Mint back in the same century? Would the arguments that the government has advanced in the Langford Case regarding the legality of the 1933 Double Eagles be applicable to the 1861-P Paquet Reverse Double Eagles that were never released for circulation (unlike the1861-S Paquet Reverse Double Eagles which had been released into circulation)? Is their legality even more so at stake if they were unauthorized restrikes?
We know, for example, that at least one other rarity was initially "restruck" for the purpose of providing gifts to foreign heads of state. The 1804 Dollar was first struck for the above referenced gifting purpose in 1834, apparently using altered1803 dies as there were no 1804 dollars struck with the date of 1804 in 1804, In addition there were subsequent true restrikes of the 1834-1804 Dollar in 1858 and 1876 - although arguably under suspicious circumstances.
Here is a link to the complete thread, including responses and added commentary to the above post:
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/975923/the-exciting-1861-paquet-reverse-twenty-dollar-liberties-again-in-the-news#latest
From the separate 1861 Paquet Reverse Double Eagle Thread:
"@Analyst said:
NorthCoin: If so, do you have an opinion as to whether the U.S. Government could make the same claims to attempt to confiscate the 1861-P Paquets since they were also ordered to have been melted similar to the order that went out as to the already minted 1933 Double Eagles?
Although there is no solid evidence that any 1933 double eagles were stolen, other than the notion that there must be a clear entry in a Cashier's ledger or other accounting book of such coins being released, lawyers for the U.S. Treasury Department still managed to convince a jury that 1933 double eagles were stolen. Is there clear evidence that 1861 Philadelphia Mint Paquet double eagles were delivered by the Coiner to the Superintendent or the to Cashier as representative of the Superintendent? I do not know.
In my view, the lack of such an entry, if there is not one, does not indicate that anything was stolen. Moreover, as I said in post above, Philadelphia Paquet double eagles could have been included in a delivery of 1861 double eagles with the typical reverse design. If so, the Paquet pieces would probably not have been itemized.
The same people who think that 1933 double eagles were stolen might very well think that 1861 Paquet double eagles were stolen, too, in addition to thinking that a large number of other coins and patterns now in PCGS holders were stolen from the U.S. Mint shortly after being made. If the U.S. Supreme Court affirms the U.S. District Court decision in the Switt-Langbord case, this could be a horrid outcome for coin collectors as it would allow for a simplistic, counter-intuitive and untenable definition of the term stolen in regard to U.S. numismatic items and could place the titles of many items in jeopardy.
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 Double Eagles
My post-trial article includes comments by Q. David Bowers and David Ganz:
Analysis of the Verdict in the Switt-Langbord Case"
Those far reaching consequences need to be argued by the Langfords' attorneys in their briefing to attempt to convince the U.S. Supreme Court that the case merits its review.
Link to the complete thread and posting from Analyst:
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/975923/the-exciting-1861-paquet-reverse-twenty-dollar-liberties-again-in-the-news#latest
Just to bring this KEY thread up to the top again in anticipation of next Wednesday when the Government responds. Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
There is nothing worse than a stacked deck in favor of the big guy...
The Mysterious Egyptian Magic Coin
Coins in Movies
Coins on Television
Wow! I just read this entire thread from the beginning in one long sitting...
At a few times, folks asked about a Trump intervention. I should point out that one of Trump's cousins is/was a veteran numismatist who had a big name ancients collection as well as the "Mr. 1796" set of US coins (every die marriage of every 1796-dated coin). Trump's cousin is/was a member of the NYNC. I met him at one of the club meetings long ago, and he was like true numismatic nobility to me.
At the "Mr. 1796" auction in NYC, I saw Trump in the auction room briefly.
But, if I were to bet, I'd not put real money on Trump getting involved in this.
Btw, @rhl, I'm rooting for you to prevail for a number of reasons of which the primary is that I fear a government that forgets it works for We The People. Best of luck.
EVP
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
drumroll
I'm wishing the Langbords all the best luck in the world on this one. To me, it is a slam dunk who is on the right side here. Hoping for a complete win!
So we will hear something on the 8th of March.. good, at least it will not be the 15th (Beware the Ides of March)...
Cheers, RickO