As an aside, it's interesting that the 4 in the date appears to be lightly punched over a 1 on the Smithsonian coin and on the newly found piece, but not on the Boyd piece. Maybe the images are deceptive, but it sure looks like that to me.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
@coinlieutenant asked: "Not sure why you are upset about the discussion. If you don't like hypotheticals, then disengage."
In case you have not noticed, in the two years I've been on CU, I don't get upset at all about discussing ANYTHING. I say what I think and welcome rebuttals. I'm argumentative by nature and thoroughly enjoy pushing buttons to stir up a debate. I'll even disagree with you if I agree with you just to bring out more opinions. I guess that makes me a
@specialist Fair enough. Misinterpretation on my part. Back to the discussion. . You said above that if anyone asked where you got a coin you would tell them to pack sand etc. I would do the same but this is a special case. It is a major rarity in which a coin was stolen decades ago. Questions of how it was obtained are almost certainly outside the normal range of numismatic faux pas. Bottom line, IF this ever goes to trial, these questions and corroboration will be discussed, perhaps more aggressively by the prosecution than comparisons of the crappy picture with the new.
@Regulated said:
I think the Wild West part of the hobby is what makes it interesting. Imagine a world where everything was known and agreed upon by honorable, omniscient beings. It would be boring.
You mean like with third party grading and population reports and auction records for everything? Now that's a scary thought!
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
A mind is like a parachute ... It has to be open to work.
Sad thread.... And that can be said with a reasonable degree of scientific certainty given what is being seen here. Not a good picture of the Wolfson/DuPont coin... Self proclaimed experts still feel compelled to comment on a coin they have not seen in hand and are set to offer expert advise from a miserable image as to whether these two images are the same coin. Why is it that the premise must start from disproving this coin is not the Wolfson/DuPont coin?
Simply Pathetic...
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Mr. Switt left no information about the source of the coins and there were no notes in the safe deposit box explaining anything. Speculations by members here or elsewhere are pointless - they are not facts.
afford... You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
What is good to know is that to have a viable discussion that passes the straight face test about a rarity such as this is that one must have more to look than what has been provided. What is good to know and recognize is that a reasonable protocol should be established and followed in terms of opining on a coin such as this... And that clearly has not happened here nor did happen in another thread on this forum that involved a certain 1933-s Walking Liberty Half Dollar. I suspect you have a recollection of that thread.
It's actually great, refreshing and even reassuring that someone here is basically calling this BS... Not because a discussion can not be had, it just that if a meaningful discussion is going to be had it must be predicated on more that what has been produced here. Plain and simple...
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
@RogerB said:
The inheritors of the 10 1933 DE did not know how the coins were obtained. That information died with Mr. Switt and the others directly involved.
Really, so only the members here were able to piece that probable history together, and the relative weren't able to even though it was in their inherited safety despot box along with I assume a note or two or three. And how about some family stories that must have circulated from relatives. Come on, you know they would have always kept mum to the gov't re any of this, the least said the better and all.
There is as much proof that the coins were "stolen" as there is proof they were obtained legally from the mint cashier. And it's all circumstantial. At least that is my oversimplified understanding of the whole fiasco (RogerB correct me if I am wrong)
I would say they could possible be the same coins. For the theft event, well insurances payout. So win then and win now for the market to once again have the coins availabl for viewing.
But if the experts checked and said it’s not the same, then I trust them to make the call. They are the experts.
@coinkat said:
**** afford... You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts.****
What is good to know is that to have a viable discussion that passes the straight face test about a rarity such as this is that one must have more to look than what has been provided. What is good to know and recognize is that a reasonable protocol should be established and followed in terms of opining on a coin such as this... And that clearly has not happened here nor did happen in another thread on this forum that involved a certain 1933-s Walking Liberty Half Dollar. I suspect you have a recollection of that thread.
It's actually great, refreshing and even reassuring that someone here is basically calling this BS... Not because a discussion can not be had, it just that if a meaningful discussion is going to be had it must be predicated on more that what has been produced here. Plain and simple...
Coinkat meet realone, realone meet coinkat. His own facts? Heck he swims in his own ocean
RE: "There is as much proof that the coins were "stolen" as there is proof they were obtained legally from the mint cashier. And it's all circumstantial. At least that is my oversimplified understanding of the whole fiasco."
No one has ever located a report or complaint of any missing gold or gold coins from 1933, or from any of the multiple weighings of batches that were melted. (The data exist covering melting for the vault in which the 1933s and assay pieces were held.) There were no Secret Service reports/complaints of missing gold although there are reports concerning defalcation by Mint employees of silver coins from cash payroll envelopes. There is also a report of $5,000 (1 bag) of 1928 double eagles missing in 1937. A deep investigation never determined what occurred and Congress eventually released the Superintendent from liability.
As for being legally obtained from the Cashier or other authorized officer, there is no record at all. An exchange would have created no record under Mint rules of 1933. The same would have applied to the decades before 1934, also.
The Langboard case was the single biggest personal property grab I can recall. It bothers me to no end. There was zero evidence to support seizure. Only speculation
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Er, uh, so, why are you reading it if you feel that way? What do you bring as a contribution by saying this? Don't like it, don't read it..............
Not sure where to start in responding to you in that you may have stopped reading what I wrote after Sad thread... Had you read my responses contained in this thread in their entirety, your inquiry as to my contribution would be self evident. So let me take this opportunity to be clear to avoid any further misunderstanding-
In reviewing the intended investigative nature of this thread, two images of an 1854-s 5 Lib were provided. The Wolfson/DuPont coin image is from a catalog dating back to 1962. Hopefully I am not being to critical in describing that image as somewhat primitive in contrast to the so-called discovery coin. My point is that it is truly pathetic to entertain a comparison that is solely limited to these two images in an effort to determine whether these images could be the same coin. The investigative process requires more than this before speculation consumes any discussion... Especially with coin such as this on a coin forum that has an established reputation.
Further, the entire premise that for this newly found coin to be a discovery coin after being reviewed and graded by NGC, has to again be proven here and in the court of public opinion that it is not the Wolfson/DuPont coin seems to be disturbing on several obvious levels.
In many ways, this thread mirrors an earlier thread involving a 1933-s WLH. Except the stakes here seem higher given the rarity of 1854-s 5 Lib. So there should be at a minimum, some sense of respect to the owner, the coin and most importantly the process by which the investigation should be handled. And this thread just does not pass the straight face test.
So thank you for raising the question as to what my contribution is and my answer should clarify any doubts that you may have had.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
@specialist Fair enough. Misinterpretation on my part. Back to the discussion. . You said above that if anyone asked where you got a coin you would tell them to pack sand etc. I would do the same but this is a special case. It is a major rarity in which a coin was stolen decades ago. Questions of how it was obtained are almost certainly outside the normal range of numismatic faux pas. Bottom line, IF this ever goes to trial, these questions and corroboration will be discussed, perhaps more aggressively by the prosecution than comparisons of the crappy picture with the new.
Sorry I missed this. My reply to the attorney:
I bought the coin at my local flea market for $300 as a counterfeit from an old guy who tried to sell it to one of the vendors. I've gone back to the place several times looking for him to give him the good news and share the wealth. Asking around, no one who remembers him ever saw him before or since. I sure am sorry I cannot be more helpful.
With the amount of information sharing that has gone on in recent years in our community, I would hope that NGC would come forth with the exact methodology they used to determine it wasn't the stolen coin, even if other people poke holes in the process, at least the hobby would know. If they don't do that, I sincerely hope a DuPont heir sues them for that information, just so it's available. I don't care who wins or loses the case or if it's dismissed...I'd just like to see the discovery phase play out. Gasp! Oh, the horror!! I very much believe a decent attorney could at least get this to a discovery process.
My answer to the Dupont attorney suing the company:
"Well sir, I looked at the coin and it appeared perfectly genuine. Then I examined it using my stereo microscope and confirmed it was 100% genuine. I was aware that very few of these are known and that one was stolen. Next, I put our Director of Research on the trail. He is a very experienced numismatist with a wall of old auction catalogues. He looked up the sale in the original catalogue and followed with an Internet search. When he was finished, after a careful examination by some of the "best eyes" in the business, we determined that the newly discovered coin was a lower grade than the stolen specimen and we couldn't find any marks on either coin that matched. Anyone could clearly see that is the case.
Besides, why would anyone take an extreme rarity and wear it down so it would be less valuable? Why indeed?
PS I wonder if the experts authenticating coins at our host would do anything differently if they had slabbed the coin.
My answer to the Dupont attorney suing the company:
"Well sir, I looked at the coin and it appeared perfectly genuine. Then I examined it using my stereo microscope and confirmed it was 100% genuine. I was aware that very few of these are known and that one was stolen. Next, I put our Director of Research on the trail. He is a very experienced numismatist with a wall of old auction catalogues. He looked up the sale in the original catalogue and followed with an Internet search. When he was finished, after a careful examination by some of the "best eyes" in the business, we determined that the newly discovered coin was a lower grade than the stolen specimen and we couldn't find any marks on either coin that matched. Anyone could clearly see that is the case.
Besides, why would anyone take an extreme rarity and wear it down so it would be less valuable? Why indeed?
PS I wonder if the experts authenticating coins at our host would do anything differently if they had slabbed the coin.
@CoinHusker said:
<< <i>Can you give us the outline of the heist? >>
>
Well, it's about a Palm Beach attorney, Harold Gray and his nearly 37 year long search to recover the coins stolen from his client, Willis H. duPont, 7,000 coins in total, including a 1866 "no motto" silver dollar.
To quote:
"Gone were 7,000 coins including the famous 1866 "no motto" set, the prized Linderman and Cohen 1804 silver dollar, and a number of gold coins struck by private and territorial mints. One of the more notable specimens of the latter was a token from the Colonial days, the "brasher doubloon" of 1787."
It's a 5 page article and as I said, it's an interesting read.
My answer to the Dupont attorney suing the company:
"Well sir, I looked at the coin and it appeared perfectly genuine. Then I examined it using my stereo microscope and confirmed it was 100% genuine. I was aware that very few of these are known and that one was stolen. Next, I put our Director of Research on the trail. He is a very experienced numismatist with a wall of old auction catalogues. He looked up the sale in the original catalogue and followed with an Internet search. When he was finished, after a careful examination by some of the "best eyes" in the business, we determined that the newly discovered coin was a lower grade than the stolen specimen and we couldn't find any marks on either coin that matched. Anyone could clearly see that is the case.
Besides, why would anyone take an extreme rarity and wear it down so it would be less valuable? Why indeed?
PS I wonder if the experts authenticating coins at our host would do anything differently if they had slabbed the coin.
You know what they say about assumptions.... Anyway, I thought both my testimonies to attorneys was perfectly clear.
Coin authentication is not witchcraft. Either is comparing two coins. Unfortunately, when comparing two coins, it is best to use the actual coins rather than one coin plus an image. However, these days, in many cases, the quality of images on the Internet is good enough to match the tiny characteristics we see on coins. If the Dupont coin had been imaged today - piece of cake. Even with an older, sharp, black-and-white photo in a 2X2 format, something would remain on the coin for any expert to match after the crooks altered its appearance. I doubt more than five folks posting here have ever examined a coin under high magnification. It is a different world.
As someone posted above, we don't know what the family provided to the insurance company or police. We also don't know how or what the grading company used to reach their opinion. I also don't think anyone POSTING here rather than LURKING was invited to that party.
Obviously you didn't answer my question! I will make it clear! Are you saying the heirs of the Dupont's have filed a claim against the newly discovered coin?????
My answer to the Dupont attorney suing the company:
"Well sir, I looked at the coin and it appeared perfectly genuine. Then I examined it using my stereo microscope and confirmed it was 100% genuine. I was aware that very few of these are known and that one was stolen. Next, I put our Director of Research on the trail. He is a very experienced numismatist with a wall of old auction catalogues. He looked up the sale in the original catalogue and followed with an Internet search. When he was finished, after a careful examination by some of the "best eyes" in the business, we determined that the newly discovered coin was a lower grade than the stolen specimen and we couldn't find any marks on either coin that matched. Anyone could clearly see that is the case.
Besides, why would anyone take an extreme rarity and wear it down so it would be less valuable? Why indeed?
PS I wonder if the experts authenticating coins at our host would do anything differently if they had slabbed the coin.
You know what they say about assumptions.... Anyway, I thought both my testimonies to attorneys was perfectly clear.
Coin authentication is not witchcraft. Either is comparing two coins. Unfortunately, when comparing two coins, it is best to use the actual coins rather than one coin plus an image. However, these days, in many cases, the quality of images on the Internet is good enough to match the tiny characteristics we see on coins. If the Dupont coin had been imaged today - piece of cake. Even with an older, sharp, black-and-white photo in a 2X2 format, something would remain on the coin for any expert to match after the crooks altered its appearance. I doubt more than five folks posting here have ever examined a coin under high magnification. It is a different world.
As someone posted above, we don't know what the family provided to the insurance company or police. We also don't know how or what the grading company used to reach their opinion. I also don't think anyone POSTING here rather than LURKING was invited to that party.
@CoinHusker said:
<< <i>Can you give us the outline of the heist? >>
>
Well, it's about a Palm Beach attorney, Harold Gray and his nearly 37 year long search to recover the coins stolen from his client, Willis H. duPont, 7,000 coins in total, including a 1866 "no motto" silver dollar.
To quote:
"Gone were 7,000 coins including the famous 1866 "no motto" set, the prized Linderman and Cohen 1804 silver dollar, and a number of gold coins struck by private and territorial mints. One of the more notable specimens of the latter was a token from the Colonial days, the "brasher doubloon" of 1787."
It's a 5 page article and as I said, it's an interesting read.
I wonder if his law firm had any documents that would be useful. We may never know.
I worked with Mr. Grey after I recovered the Linderman 1804 Dollar. Does anybody know who has replaced him as the family's coin front man?
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 think any pro-active recovery effort of any DuPont coins died with Mr. Grey. I think there is no interest in any DuPont family member to recover the coins at this point.
@amwldcoin said: "I assume this is BS as you make it sound like it is happening. You should make this very clear which it is!"
@amwldcoin said: "Obviously you didn't answer my question! I will make it clear! Are you saying the heirs of the Dupont's have filed a claim against the newly discovered coin?????
The ONLY THING very obvious to me is that you might be making ASSUMPTIONS and the back and forth discussion in this thread may have you and others here very confused! Read the thread again. I don't think anyone posting has stated ANYTHING FOR A FACT other than NGC certified a previously unknown specimen of a rare coin.
The BS you write about might be my opinion of a typical way a TPGS would treat the coin and a how I should answer any questions about the coin if I were involved, WHICH I AM NOT.
@EagleEye said:
I think any pro-active recovery effort of any DuPont coins died with Mr. Grey. I think there is no interest in any DuPont family member to recover the coins at this point.
Interesting that Insider2 is the only one to "like" the above post. Verrrry interrresting!
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
My answer to the Dupont attorney suing the company:
"Well sir, I looked at the coin and it appeared perfectly genuine. Then I examined it using my stereo microscope and confirmed it was 100% genuine. I was aware that very few of these are known and that one was stolen. Next, I put our Director of Research on the trail. He is a very experienced numismatist with a wall of old auction catalogues. He looked up the sale in the original catalogue and followed with an Internet search. When he was finished, after a careful examination by some of the "best eyes" in the business, we determined that the newly discovered coin was a lower grade than the stolen specimen and we couldn't find any marks on either coin that matched. Anyone could clearly see that is the case.
Besides, why would anyone take an extreme rarity and wear it down so it would be less valuable? Why indeed?
PS I wonder if the experts authenticating coins at our host would do anything differently if they had slabbed the coin.
Implied, but not said - as implied in the PS, it probably bothers some that it was NGC and not PCGS authenticating the coin. Would we even be having this discussion if the "Discovery Coin" was a higher grade than the DuPont one?
If the present owner has any interest in selling the coin, having it cross to PCGS would likely add to the confidence level of potential buyers and for that reason alone help to enhance the coin's marketability.
@EagleEye said:
I think any pro-active recovery effort of any DuPont coins died with Mr. Grey. I think there is no interest in any DuPont family member to recover the coins at this point.
Interesting that Insider2 is the only one to "like" the above post. Verrrry interrresting!
I know that "Insider" has a very complicated, unusual, and frequently misunderstood, personality.
I LIKE the fact that Rick has added an interesting point to the discussion. The family may not care anymore. Was an insurance claim paid for the stolen coins? I LIKE the fact that Rick's post may lead to additional revelations.
I do not like crooks, thieves, coin doctors, or LIMA BEANS!
@RogerB said:
RE: "There is as much proof that the coins were "stolen" as there is proof they were obtained legally from the mint cashier. And it's all circumstantial. At least that is my oversimplified understanding of the whole fiasco."
No one has ever located a report or complaint of any missing gold or gold coins from 1933, or from any of the multiple weighings of batches that were melted. (The data exist covering melting for the vault in which the 1933s and assay pieces were held.) There were no Secret Service reports/complaints of missing gold although there are reports concerning defalcation by Mint employees of silver coins from cash payroll envelopes. There is also a report of $5,000 (1 bag) of 1928 double eagles missing in 1937. A deep investigation never determined what occurred and Congress eventually released the Superintendent from liability.
As for being legally obtained from the Cashier or other authorized officer, there is no record at all. An exchange would have created no record under Mint rules of 1933. The same would have applied to the decades before 1934, also.
So it sounds like what you are saying it that the coins may have been legally obtained from the mint cashier, but if they were there is no record of such.
Perhaps a jeweler went to the cashiers window and legally purchased a few newly minted $20 to make into pennants for the 1933 Christmas season. As soon as he heard the coins would not be issued, he put them away. We know the rest of the story.
FYI - US Mint gold operations were entirely normal until May and almost normal, except for payout for deposits, through June 30, 1933. There was no "stop work" or any other order and no instructions for the Mints until Mary O'Reilly inquired.
Also, FRBs had no facilities or expertise in handling gold in any form except coins and certificates.
With all the back and forth...I thought it might be prudent to make this clear...I have been following the thread...thought it was a what if...but thought it best to make it clear!
No offense....but you just entered the "Prick" category with me!
@Insider2 said: @amwldcoin said: "I assume this is BS as you make it sound like it is happening. You should make this very clear which it is!"
@amwldcoin said: "Obviously you didn't answer my question! I will make it clear! Are you saying the heirs of the Dupont's have filed a claim against the newly discovered coin?????
The ONLY THING very obvious to me is that you might be making ASSUMPTIONS and the back and forth discussion in this thread may have you and others here very confused! Read the thread again. I don't think anyone posting has stated ANYTHING FOR A FACT other than NGC certified a previously unknown specimen of a rare coin.
The BS you write about might be my opinion of a typical way a TPGS would treat the coin and a how I should answer any questions about the coin if I were involved, WHICH I AM NOT.
@amwldcoin said: "With all the back and forth...I thought it might be prudent to make this clear...I have been following the thread...thought it was a what if...but thought it best to make it clear! No offense....but you just entered the "Prick" category with me!"
LOL, I've been called worse.
The entire thread has been very clear to me as I was very good at English comprehension in grade school. I'm sorry my posts to refute other members about any possible answers demanded of the finder or NGC including any subsequent court trials may have been confusing. It's lucky that you became involved to help those who were confused by my posts.
While the tone of your questions to me was rather "pricky:"
"I assume this is BS as you make it sound like it is happening. You should make this very clear which it is!"
"Obviously you didn't answer my question! I will make it clear! Are you saying the heirs of the Dupont's have filed a claim against the newly discovered coin?????"
@Elmhurst said:
Did NGC ask the owner to explain and document its provenance?
The submitter probably didn't check the "Call me and I'll tell you the STORY that goes with this submission." box on the form so there would be no reason for them to ask.
Comments
As an aside, it's interesting that the 4 in the date appears to be lightly punched over a 1 on the Smithsonian coin and on the newly found piece, but not on the Boyd piece. Maybe the images are deceptive, but it sure looks like that to me.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Dude! Off topic!!
@specialist Fair enough. Misinterpretation on my part. Back to the discussion.
. You said above that if anyone asked where you got a coin you would tell them to pack sand etc. I would do the same but this is a special case. It is a major rarity in which a coin was stolen decades ago. Questions of how it was obtained are almost certainly outside the normal range of numismatic faux pas. Bottom line, IF this ever goes to trial, these questions and corroboration will be discussed, perhaps more aggressively by the prosecution than comparisons of the crappy picture with the new.
siliconvalleycoins.com
You mean like with third party grading and population reports and auction records for everything? Now that's a scary thought!
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
The inheritors of the 10 1933 DE did not know how the coins were obtained. That information died with Mr. Switt and the others directly involved.
A mind is like a parachute ... It has to be open to work.
Sad thread.... And that can be said with a reasonable degree of scientific certainty given what is being seen here. Not a good picture of the Wolfson/DuPont coin... Self proclaimed experts still feel compelled to comment on a coin they have not seen in hand and are set to offer expert advise from a miserable image as to whether these two images are the same coin. Why is it that the premise must start from disproving this coin is not the Wolfson/DuPont coin?
Simply Pathetic...
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
_along with I assume a note or two or three. _
See, there’s the rub....
Mr. Switt left no information about the source of the coins and there were no notes in the safe deposit box explaining anything. Speculations by members here or elsewhere are pointless - they are not facts.
afford... You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
What is good to know is that to have a viable discussion that passes the straight face test about a rarity such as this is that one must have more to look than what has been provided. What is good to know and recognize is that a reasonable protocol should be established and followed in terms of opining on a coin such as this... And that clearly has not happened here nor did happen in another thread on this forum that involved a certain 1933-s Walking Liberty Half Dollar. I suspect you have a recollection of that thread.
It's actually great, refreshing and even reassuring that someone here is basically calling this BS... Not because a discussion can not be had, it just that if a meaningful discussion is going to be had it must be predicated on more that what has been produced here. Plain and simple...
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
There was and is no motivation for the owners to lie or withhold information. To baselessly insinuate otherwise is disingenuous to all concerned.
You can have all the imaginings and speculations you wish, but none of them are facts.
A final thought. Most of the material members have posted on the 1933 DE subject is false or complete fabrication.
There is as much proof that the coins were "stolen" as there is proof they were obtained legally from the mint cashier. And it's all circumstantial. At least that is my oversimplified understanding of the whole fiasco (RogerB correct me if I am wrong)
I would say they could possible be the same coins. For the theft event, well insurances payout. So win then and win now for the market to once again have the coins availabl for viewing.
But if the experts checked and said it’s not the same, then I trust them to make the call. They are the experts.
Best place to buy !
Bronze Associate member
Coinkat meet realone, realone meet coinkat. His own facts? Heck he swims in his own ocean
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
RE: "There is as much proof that the coins were "stolen" as there is proof they were obtained legally from the mint cashier. And it's all circumstantial. At least that is my oversimplified understanding of the whole fiasco."
No one has ever located a report or complaint of any missing gold or gold coins from 1933, or from any of the multiple weighings of batches that were melted. (The data exist covering melting for the vault in which the 1933s and assay pieces were held.) There were no Secret Service reports/complaints of missing gold although there are reports concerning defalcation by Mint employees of silver coins from cash payroll envelopes. There is also a report of $5,000 (1 bag) of 1928 double eagles missing in 1937. A deep investigation never determined what occurred and Congress eventually released the Superintendent from liability.
As for being legally obtained from the Cashier or other authorized officer, there is no record at all. An exchange would have created no record under Mint rules of 1933. The same would have applied to the decades before 1934, also.
The Langboard case was the single biggest personal property grab I can recall. It bothers me to no end. There was zero evidence to support seizure. Only speculation
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Where's this guy when you need him?
Er, uh, so, why are you reading it if you feel that way? What do you bring as a contribution by saying this? Don't like it, don't read it..............
SH
spacehayduke...
Not sure where to start in responding to you in that you may have stopped reading what I wrote after Sad thread... Had you read my responses contained in this thread in their entirety, your inquiry as to my contribution would be self evident. So let me take this opportunity to be clear to avoid any further misunderstanding-
In reviewing the intended investigative nature of this thread, two images of an 1854-s 5 Lib were provided. The Wolfson/DuPont coin image is from a catalog dating back to 1962. Hopefully I am not being to critical in describing that image as somewhat primitive in contrast to the so-called discovery coin. My point is that it is truly pathetic to entertain a comparison that is solely limited to these two images in an effort to determine whether these images could be the same coin. The investigative process requires more than this before speculation consumes any discussion... Especially with coin such as this on a coin forum that has an established reputation.
Further, the entire premise that for this newly found coin to be a discovery coin after being reviewed and graded by NGC, has to again be proven here and in the court of public opinion that it is not the Wolfson/DuPont coin seems to be disturbing on several obvious levels.
In many ways, this thread mirrors an earlier thread involving a 1933-s WLH. Except the stakes here seem higher given the rarity of 1854-s 5 Lib. So there should be at a minimum, some sense of respect to the owner, the coin and most importantly the process by which the investigation should be handled. And this thread just does not pass the straight face test.
So thank you for raising the question as to what my contribution is and my answer should clarify any doubts that you may have had.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I think I heard there was a diary in the box with the coins. LOL.
@specialist Fair enough. Misinterpretation on my part. Back to the discussion.
. You said above that if anyone asked where you got a coin you would tell them to pack sand etc. I would do the same but this is a special case. It is a major rarity in which a coin was stolen decades ago. Questions of how it was obtained are almost certainly outside the normal range of numismatic faux pas. Bottom line, IF this ever goes to trial, these questions and corroboration will be discussed, perhaps more aggressively by the prosecution than comparisons of the crappy picture with the new.
Sorry I missed this. My reply
to the attorney:
I bought the coin at my local flea market for $300 as a counterfeit from an old guy who tried to sell it to one of the vendors. I've gone back to the place several times looking for him to give him the good news and share the wealth. Asking around, no one who remembers him ever saw him before or since. I sure am sorry I cannot be more helpful.
With the amount of information sharing that has gone on in recent years in our community, I would hope that NGC would come forth with the exact methodology they used to determine it wasn't the stolen coin, even if other people poke holes in the process, at least the hobby would know. If they don't do that, I sincerely hope a DuPont heir sues them for that information, just so it's available. I don't care who wins or loses the case or if it's dismissed...I'd just like to see the discovery phase play out. Gasp! Oh, the horror!! I very much believe a decent attorney could at least get this to a discovery process.
Oops, I'm still laughing.
My answer to the Dupont attorney suing the company:
"Well sir, I looked at the coin and it appeared perfectly genuine. Then I examined it using my stereo microscope and confirmed it was 100% genuine. I was aware that very few of these are known and that one was stolen. Next, I put our Director of Research on the trail. He is a very experienced numismatist with a wall of old auction catalogues. He looked up the sale in the original catalogue and followed with an Internet search. When he was finished, after a careful examination by some of the "best eyes" in the business, we determined that the newly discovered coin was a lower grade than the stolen specimen and we couldn't find any marks on either coin that matched. Anyone could clearly see that is the case.
Besides, why would anyone take an extreme rarity and wear it down so it would be less valuable?
Why indeed? 
PS I wonder if the experts authenticating coins at our host would do anything differently if they had slabbed the coin.
I assume this is BS as you make it sound like it is happening. You should make this very clear which it is!
2005 post: Anyone else see the story about "The Great Coin Heist" in Reader's Digest this month?
>
It seems Harold Grey died in 2011:
Harold ‘Hal’ Gray
I wonder if his law firm had any documents that would be useful. We may never know.
You know what they say about assumptions....
Anyway, I thought both my testimonies to attorneys was perfectly clear.
Coin authentication is not witchcraft. Either is comparing two coins. Unfortunately, when comparing two coins, it is best to use the actual coins rather than one coin plus an image. However, these days, in many cases, the quality of images on the Internet is good enough to match the tiny characteristics we see on coins. If the Dupont coin had been imaged today - piece of cake. Even with an older, sharp, black-and-white photo in a 2X2 format, something would remain on the coin for any expert to match after the crooks altered its appearance. I doubt more than five folks posting here have ever examined a coin under high magnification.
It is a different world.
As someone posted above, we don't know what the family provided to the insurance company or police. We also don't know how or what the grading company used to reach their opinion. I also don't think anyone POSTING here rather than LURKING was invited to that party.
Obviously you didn't answer my question! I will make it clear! Are you saying the heirs of the Dupont's have filed a claim against the newly discovered coin?????
I worked with Mr. Grey after I recovered the Linderman 1804 Dollar. Does anybody know who has replaced him as the family's coin front man?
TD
I think any pro-active recovery effort of any DuPont coins died with Mr. Grey. I think there is no interest in any DuPont family member to recover the coins at this point.
@amwldcoin said: "I assume this is BS as you make it sound like it is happening. You should make this very clear which it is!"
@amwldcoin said: "Obviously you didn't answer my question! I will make it clear! Are you saying the heirs of the Dupont's have filed a claim against the newly discovered coin?????
The ONLY THING very obvious to me is that you might be making ASSUMPTIONS and the back and forth discussion in this thread may have you and others here very confused! Read the thread again. I don't think anyone posting has stated ANYTHING FOR A FACT other than NGC certified a previously unknown specimen of a rare coin.
The BS you write about might be my opinion of a typical way a TPGS would treat the coin and a how I should answer any questions about the coin if I were involved, WHICH I AM NOT.
Interesting that Insider2 is the only one to "like" the above post. Verrrry interrresting!
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Implied, but not said - as implied in the PS, it probably bothers some that it was NGC and not PCGS authenticating the coin. Would we even be having this discussion if the "Discovery Coin" was a higher grade than the DuPont one?
If the present owner has any interest in selling the coin, having it cross to PCGS would likely add to the confidence level of potential buyers and for that reason alone help to enhance the coin's marketability.
I know that "Insider" has a very complicated, unusual, and frequently misunderstood, personality.
I LIKE the fact that Rick has added an interesting point to the discussion. The family may not care anymore. Was an insurance claim paid for the stolen coins? I LIKE the fact that Rick's post may lead to additional revelations.
I do not like crooks, thieves, coin doctors, or LIMA BEANS!
I thought those green beans CAC has been plastering on coin holders were Lima Beans? What is not to like about getting beaned?
So it sounds like what you are saying it that the coins may have been legally obtained from the mint cashier, but if they were there is no record of such.
There is no record of shortage or theft. Ergo, there was nothing missing, Hence, nothing was stolen.
She hot?
FYI - US Mint gold operations were entirely normal until May and almost normal, except for payout for deposits, through June 30, 1933. There was no "stop work" or any other order and no instructions for the Mints until Mary O'Reilly inquired.
Also, FRBs had no facilities or expertise in handling gold in any form except coins and certificates.
With all the back and forth...I thought it might be prudent to make this clear...I have been following the thread...thought it was a what if...but thought it best to make it clear!
No offense....but you just entered the "Prick" category with me!
@amwldcoin said: "With all the back and forth...I thought it might be prudent to make this clear...I have been following the thread...thought it was a what if...but thought it best to make it clear! No offense....but you just entered the "Prick" category with me!"
LOL, I've been called worse.
The entire thread has been very clear to me as I was very good at English comprehension in grade school. I'm sorry my posts to refute other members about any possible answers demanded of the finder or NGC including any subsequent court trials may have been confusing. It's lucky that you became involved to help those who were confused by my posts.
While the tone of your questions to me was rather "pricky:"
"I assume this is BS as you make it sound like it is happening. You should make this very clear which it is!"
"Obviously you didn't answer my question! I will make it clear! Are you saying the heirs of the Dupont's have filed a claim against the newly discovered coin?????"
I didn't mind.
Did NGC ask the owner to explain and document its provenance?
The submitter probably didn't check the "Call me and I'll tell you the STORY that goes with this submission." box on the form so there would be no reason for them to ask.