Finished the book titled Double Eagle It is a must read.

oldgoldlover

It was extremely interesting, even if coins are not your thing. I points out any interesting facts and shows just how inept the feds can be and lazy as they did not go after any 1933 DE coins until the mid 1940s. Talk about some morons.

The feds said the 1933s were stolen and made a witch hunt out of it. Keep in mind the 1913 V nickels and 1804 dollars were taken by mint officials and since then been seen at auctions many times and the feds never there to get them. These coins were never monetized and are no more legal to own than the 1933. These coins were taken by high ranking mint officials for themselves and that is just as much a theft as the 1933s that are still out (11) known excluding the Farouk coin.

If a 1913 five cent Liberty nickels were taken out by the mint director why is he not as guilty as the mint clerk that got the 1933 DEs for Isral Swit? Why do the Feds look the other way when the dollars and nickels were removed and are still openly sold with great coverage. What about the three 1894 Barber dimes the mint director took and gave one to his daughter. Same crime as taking the 1933s.

FDR, the president that took us off the gold standard, had a habit of having a stamp engraver make a plate for ten stamps and then destroy the plate? He was notorious for doing this when in office as he keep all the stamps for his collection.

I recommend the book as it is great reading and the amount of research done by the author was unbelievable.

ricko

@oldgoldlover.... Which book are you referring to? The James Twining book? Cheers, RickO

tradedollarnut

The answer to your questions regarding the 1913 and 1804 involves the lack of a Federal Reserve Bank and also the difference between a circulation strike and a proof coin

oldgoldlover

@ricko said:
@oldgoldlover.... Which book are you referring to? The James Twining book? Cheers, RickO

The book Double Eagle was written by Alison Frankel and is available from the Smithsonian for $6.99. Best buy I found there as the author put a tremendous amount of research into the book and it really tells about the coin dealers of the 30s and 40s. Very interesting reading even if coins are not your thing but I doubt that is an issue for those reading this thread.

oldgoldlover

@tradedollarnut said:
The answer to your questions regarding the 1913 and 1804 involves the lack of a Federal Reserve Bank and also the difference between a circulation strike and a proof coin

Stealing is stealing from the govt. no matter what the grade or absence of the FRB. Also the feds went after the 1933 coins well after they were stolen and sold and in fact displayed at shows for about ten years prior to the witch hunt. There are ten more 1933s Swit's heirs have that may well hit the market. The book was written prior to the jury handing down their verdict.

Justacommeman

In this case the goverment did the stealing

m

7Jaguars

A member of this board, Gritsman also wrote a fictional book entitled: "Double Eagle". It targets young adults & is a wholesome but entertaining book featuring Confederate Double Eagle(s).

logger7

Local library has a copy, I should try to read through it.

RogerB

Much of it is fiction or half-of-the-story. That is normal for dramatizations.

Justacommeman

@RogerB said:
Much of it is fiction or half-of-the-story. That is normal for dramatizations.

It reads as fiction with giant leaps of faith

m

oldgoldlover

@Justacommeman said:
In this case the goverment did the stealing

m

Cannot agree. It was government employees that lifted the coins from the government. Absence of a Federal Reserve had nothing to do with it. > @RogerB said:

Much of it is fiction or half-of-the-story. That is normal for dramatizations.

What do you disagree with ( major issues) in the book? From what I have seen on the documentary on the Smithsonian channel about the history of the $20 1933 coin the publication is accurate.

With regard to Farouk, the sting and the dealers, the book is much closer to spot. If it were just half the story no one would read the book as it is long as it is.

Is it written to seem more interesting, of course but a half story or largely fiction it is not.

RogerB

To paraphrase: "half story or largely fiction it is...."
Both books depend heavily on incomplete and one-sided Secret Service agent reports. The internal Mint reports including the finding that nothing was missing were omitted from the books. Presentations of main characters in the dramatization were altered to fit the story line, not facts. The TV dramatization was based on the book, not the actual record , and was not prepared by Smithsonian, but by Discovery Channel which paid to use the SI name and certain resources.

The Farouk material is better because it was taken from press reports and knowledgeable participants.

Both books are works of fiction, although the Frankel version is clearly better than Tripp's. Ms. Frankel's background in law and in translating legal arguments into readable exposition gave her version better flow and story development. [The present writer was a consultant to Ms Frankel for parts of the book.] Maybe if they were written today, with our better knowledge of people and events, the fiction label might be much smaller.

Analyst

@RogerB: Much of it is fiction or half-of-the-story. That is normal for dramatizations.

Commeman: It reads as fiction with giant leaps of faith

Yes, while it is true that there are no very clear entries regarding 1933 Double Eagles in the Cashier's ledger (or equivalent record book), this is a mis-represented technicality. There is no evidence that any 1933 Double Eagles were stolen, as far as I know. Importantly, there are logical reasons to theorize that all 1933 Double Eagles left the mint in manners that were considered sensible, legitimate and ethical at the time.

I contend that the arguments put forth by government lawyers in both the Fenton and Switt-Langbord cases, and by the government's sole coin community witness in the Switt-Langbord case, are logically flawed and inconsistent with the traditions of the Philadelphia Mint. Again I say, throughout the history of the Philadelphia Mint, it was common for collectors, dealers or other visitors to trade old coins for new coins, or to trade common date coins for scarcer coins. 1931, 1932 and 1933 double eagles, and 1870-S silver dollars, are rare dates.

It is fair to conclude that the people involved in such coin-for-coin trades or exchanges honestly did not think that there was a legal requirement to record each coin-for-coin trade in a Cashier' ledger or equivalent 'accounting book.'

Q. David Bowers has repeatedly pointed out that public forms published by the U.S. Mint before 1930 made clear that anyone could trade common date Saints for rare date Saints. Even in the absence of such U.S. Mint forms, someone who understands the history of coin collecting could easily deduce, with specific evidence, that such coin-for-coin trades involving 1933 Double Eagles were considered legitimate and were likely to have occurred.

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

oldgoldlover

If none were monetized and wound up in individual hands I call this theft from the U.S. treasury. The Swit family owns ten now but they were obtained at a time when we were going off the gold standard and no of the 1933s DEs approved for released. How else could a jeweler get that many without someone stealing them and selling them to Swit?

oldgoldlover

@RogerB said:
To paraphrase: "half story or largely fiction it is...."
Both books depend heavily on incomplete and one-sided Secret Service agent reports. The internal Mint reports including the finding that nothing was missing were omitted from the books. Presentations of main characters in the dramatization were altered to fit the story line, not facts. The TV dramatization was based on the book, not the actual record , and was not prepared by Smithsonian, but by Discovery Channel which paid to use the SI name and certain resources.

The Farouk material is better because it was taken from press reports and knowledgeable participants.

Both books are works of fiction, although the Frankel version is clearly better than Tripp's. Ms. Frankel's background in law and in translating legal arguments into readable exposition gave her version better flow and story development. [The present writer was a consultant to Ms Frankel for parts of the book.] Maybe if they were written today, with our better knowledge of people and events, the fiction label might be much smaller.

With the all the foul ups by the Feds I find it hard to believe any govt. agency would openly let the public know just how bad they handled it. Today it would be covered up much better.

Cannot comment on the Tripp book as I only read Frankel's book. Is it buttered up a bit? Of course but the underlying story is correct based on govt. documents and testimony. Much of the story came out in the trial and the sting is not in question as the Feds got the coin and all parties involved in the sell.

RogerB

No one in the government had anything to do with either fictional account.

Analyst

OldGoldLover: If none were monetized and wound up in individual hands I call this theft from the U.S. treasury.

Before forming an opinion on the matter, it would make sense to have some understanding of the history and traditions of the Philadelphia Mint.

(A) Before the Fenton 1933 Double Eagle case, I am not aware of anyone using the term 'Monetization' in regard to classic U.S. coins, in the 20th century or in the 19th century. Clearly, there are many U.S. coins, including all 1849-O quarters, 1841 quarter eagles and 1870-S silver dollars, for which there are no surviving, clear entries in a Cashier's ledger (or equivalent accounting book). Indeed, there are thousands of coins and patterns in PCGS holders that were not subject to any such 'Monetization' in terms of discussions since 1996 and not subject to any kind of formal clearly, RECORDED delivery from the Coiner to the Superintendent or Cashier. Yet, is universally accepted all such items were NOT stolen from the U.S. Mint, and are legal to own. Such a "Monetization" procedure is clearly not a requirement for a U.S. Mint product being legal to own.

(B) It may be true that a Philadelphia Mint clerk in March 1933 made an accounting error or forgot to enter some information that could easily have been entered. This does not mean that anything was stolen.

(C) I, QDB and others have repeatedly stated, it was the policy of the Philadelphia Mint, for many decades, probably 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 probably honestly believed that there was no legal requirement to keep such records. It is sort of like trading three old rolls for three rolls of new Lincoln Cents at a bank; it is unlikely that the teller will ask for ID from a known customer. When I was a kid, no teller insisted upon a form being filled out to trade rolls of pennies. There was no paperwork, as far as I knew. Would someone seriously think that rolls of Lincoln Cents were -stolen- if a record is not kept by a bank cashier of trades of Lincoln Cent rolls by a frequent visitor to the respective bank branch?

(D) QDB has made clear that anyone could have walked into the Philadelphia Mint in March 1933 and traded old double eagles for 1933 double eagles. My research suggests that it would have been legal to do so during the first week or two of April as well.

(E) David Tripp mentions in his book that visitors to the Philadelphia Mint and traded for 1933 tens (single eagles), presumably an old eagle or $10 in change for a new 1933. He provided an example of a tourist who did so.

(F) It is logical to conclude that a tourist would be far more likely to ask for a receipt then a collector or a dealer. A non-collecting tourist may know that he would probably spend the 1933 ten (single eagle) at some point, and then the receipt could serve as a souvenir of his trip to the Philadelphia Mint. A collector or a dealer would be focused on the coin and would not feel a need to have a receipt as a souvenir and would typically not ask for one. After all, we are talking about obtaining new coins at FACE VALUE.

(G) Tripp acknowledges that the books balanced in the sense that the total number of double eagles was as it should have been, thus old double eagles were traded for new double eagles. In my view, such trades of old coins for new coins were considered to be legal and ethical by coin collectors and mint employees, probably since the 1790s!

(H) A numismatic item may legally leave the Philadelphia Mint, regardless of whether it is technically a coin in some monetary sense. Patterns, including the Ultra High Relief Saints in the Charles Barber estate, come to mind. Whether they are coins or not, it is extremely likely that all surviving 1933 double eagles legally left the mint. While it is possible that there could have been misconduct regarding accounting, I am unaware of evidence of any thefts of 1933 double eagles.

The fate of the ten Switt-Langbord 1933 Double Eagles

Analysis of the Verdict in the Switt-Langbord Case

1630Boston

Interesting perspectives on history

CaptHenway

Frankel's book is a good read. However, I wish she had disclosed that her father (who died in 2002) was a partner in the law firm that Barry Berke worked for when he represented first Fenton and later the Langbords. This probably got her good inside information, but it may have biased her reporting of the story.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_E._Frankel