<< <i>The article by Loftus lost all credibility with me in the first paragraph, where he claims that the coins were confiscated. REALLY? The coins were VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED. Crap inaccurate journalism of the laziest form.
"The ruling could clear the way for the Mint to decide where to store or possibly display the coins, which have been kept at the U.S. Bullion Depository at Fort Knox, Ky., since being confiscated several years ago." >>
Are voluntarily surrendering property and having that property subsequently confiscated mutually exclusive? >>
I would say the answer to that question is no. Similar, imo, to turning oneself in and being apprehended.. >>
I think there may be legal definitions involved and it would be interesting to hear a lawyer's view on this. In some instances, confiscation can only be ordered by a court and in others confiscation only occurred after a seizure and subsequent approval of the seizure.
While turning oneself in and being apprehended may be mutually exclusive, turning oneself in and being arrested are not. >>
The Langbords did have benefit of counsel. I'm sure he didn't just hand them over without considerable thought. I think it would be foolish to ever expect the Government to play by the rules.
Let's face it...once the Feds ruled on the specifics govering the sale of that "special" initial '33 DE several years back, all of the others remaining in private hands essentially became "stolen" goods and either needed to be handled as such (sold/traded on the black coin/art market)...or kept locked in a safe deposit box for private enjoyment for all time everafter. Just the way it is. Anything else was naive in the extreme.
I think the fact that "Saint" Franklin Roosevelt issued the initial order has a lot of bearing on this case. The man is truly regarded as a saint in some circles and the cult continues. To me he was a great president during the Second World War and very much of a mixed bag during the Great Depression. He give people hope, but many of his policies prolonged the economic pain.
There was a government bureaucrat, whose name does not clutter my brain because he does not deserve to be there, who got the ball rolling on this, I believe in the early 1940s. He a made a career out chasing down these coins, and his brethren are still living off of his obsession.
This started out as an alleged theft of perhaps $400 in gold, and the government has spent millions chasing down and prosecuting people for having them. If the government had issued licenses to those who had them, the Feds would have collected millions in capital gains taxes by now, but intelligent government policies and behavior are too often oxymorons.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
<<He a made a career out chasing down these coins, and his brethren are still living off of his obsession. >>
I think the same could be said about many of the Rockefeller-era (and prior) drug laws that are still jailing people today...for the smallest of infractions.
Many rules, regulations and laws need to be reviewed for current relevancy in the present day.
<< <i>Frankly I am pleased. I realize I am in the minority with this one but I just hate it when someone in the business knowingly takes advantage of a situation and takes and keeps something that everyone else is either returning or following the rules. Sure they might have disagreed with the law back then but the law was the law and if they didn't like it they could have changed adminsitrations with their votes. But this gent played a well thought out game, he was investigated by the gov't, he fooled them into thinking the coins were sold and kept them and presumably directed the family in the future since the heirs acted as if they somehow found 10 priceless coins in their sdb not knowing how they got their.........yeah right. >>
Supposedly, US Treasury Secretary William Woodin (1933), an avid numismatist as well, had one of these in his collection. Did the SOT also obtain his "illegally" as Mr. Switt did? It was the Woodin's efforts that got the collector gold coin exemption inserted into the gold reserve act of 1934. Too bad he passed away in 1934 and wasn't around to lend support to the 1933 $20's. To be consistent with this finding all other US mint rarities that left "illegally" (ie not through proper channels and/or monentization) should also be confiscated. Curiously, Secretary Woodin around 1910-1912 had 2 rare $50 Union Patterns in his collection (1849 and 1877). He traded these back to the mint for a box-load of rare patterns and other desireable rarities. Is it really logical that those pair of nearly unique $50 Unions left the mint legally and with proper authorization?
<< <i>Supposedly, US Treasury Secretary William Woodin (1933), an avid numismatist as well, had one of these in his collection. Did the SOT also obtain his "illegally" as Mr. Switt did? It was the Woodin's efforts that got the collector gold coin exemption inserted into the gold reserve act of 1934. Too bad he passed away in 1934 and wasn't around to lend support to the 1933 $20's. To be consistent with this finding all other US mint rarities that left "illegally" (ie not through proper channels and/or monentization) should also be confiscated. Curiously, Secretary Woodin around 1910-1912 had 2 rare $50 Union Patterns in his collection (1849 and 1877). He traded these back to the mint for a box-load of rare patterns and other desireable rarities. Is it really logical that those pair of nearly unique $50 Unions left the mint legally and with proper authorization? >>
The Half Union story is actually very different than the 1933 DE story in that there's a paper trail and the people involved were willing to give the items back when the US wanted them.
The $50 Half Union patterns were initially obtained by Chief Coiner Louden Snowden through an arrangement with Director of Mints Piatt Andrews. Snowden later sold the patterns to Woodin for a then-record $10,000 per Half Union pattern. When the Federal government learned of this and threatened legal action to recover the patterns, Snowden traded a collection of patterns to Woodin to recover the Half Unions and return them to the Treasury.
Like the case of the 1933 DEs, the Federal government threatened legal action with the difference being the items were voluntarily returned. It also appears that Snowden was the source of the patterns traded to get the Half Unions back so the Treasury got the coins back without having to go to the courts or give anything away.
Since Woodin was willing to part with the Half Union patterns, it seems like he would be willing to part with the 1933 DEs as well.
These 1933 DEs are different in that it's unknown how Switt came into possession of the coins and his heirs did/do not want to give the coins back.
BTW, the patterns are actually Half Unions, with a Half Union being $50 face value and a Union being $100 face value.
It is important to remember that the first confiscation happened in1944, many years after the coins were released. They had traded privately many times legally before then. I think Government hubris during the war is a factor in the reason the coins were and are considered illegal to own.
1. Doesn't the government have more important stuff to do? Seriously, this is all over $200 worth of coins? Since when did the government care about a coin's numismatic value?
2. It was incredibly naive to openly acknowledge the existence of the coins. There may or may not have been shady dealings behind how they obtained the coins, but I feel badly for the family.
3. If I did own a 1933 saint or a 1964-D peace dollar, I'd darn sure get rid of it before I died. There's no reason to hang that albatross around the necks of my kids.
4. Innocent until PROVEN guilty is becoming an anachronistic ideal.
<< <i>It is important to remember that the first confiscation happened in1944, many years after the coins were released. They had traded privately many times legally before then. I think Government hubris during the war is a factor in the reason the coins were and are considered illegal to own. >>
While the Secret Service began their investigation in 1944, the story is that it occurred because the a reporter contacted the Mint after seeing one in the then-upcoming Stack's Bowers auction. While the coins had traded privately before, the Mint and Secret Service may have been unaware of their existence until the public auction.
<< <i>1. Doesn't the government have more important stuff to do? Seriously, this is all over $200 worth of coins? Since when did the government care about a coin's numismatic value? >>
The government probably cares less about the numismatic value than the fact they believe the coins are government property.
<< <i>2. It was incredibly naive to openly acknowledge the existence of the coins. There may or may not have been shady dealings behind how they obtained the coins, but I feel badly for the family. >>
The Langbords had good legal counsel and placed their bets. The outcome may not have been what they wanted but I'm not sure I would say they were naive.
<< <i>4. Innocent until PROVEN guilty is becoming an anachronistic ideal. >>
They are innocent. If they were found guilty of stealing government property, they might have been incarcerated.
<< <i>4. Innocent until PROVEN guilty is becoming an anachronistic ideal. >>
This has become sadly true in court cases concerning government property and the income tax laws. When you are brought up on tax charges or subject to an audit you are definitely guilty unto you can prove yourself innocent. I think that is totally wrong when people have spend tens of thousands of dollars to defend themselves in a tax case than are left with that legal bill when they are proven innocent.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
<< <i>Frankly I am pleased. I realize I am in the minority with this one but I just hate it when someone in the business knowingly takes advantage of a situation and takes and keeps something that everyone else is either returning or following the rules. Sure they might have disagreed with the law back then but the law was the law and if they didn't like it they could have changed adminsitrations with their votes. But this gent played a well thought out game, he was investigated by the gov't, he fooled them into thinking the coins were sold and kept them and presumably directed the family in the future since the heirs acted as if they somehow found 10 priceless coins in their sdb not knowing how they got their.........yeah right. >>
Supposedly, US Treasury Secretary William Woodin (1933), an avid numismatist as well, had one of these in his collection. Did the SOT also obtain his "illegally" as Mr. Switt did? It was the Woodin's efforts that got the collector gold coin exemption inserted into the gold reserve act of 1934. Too bad he passed away in 1934 and wasn't around to lend support to the 1933 $20's. To be consistent with this finding all other US mint rarities that left "illegally" (ie not through proper channels and/or monentization) should also be confiscated. Curiously, Secretary Woodin around 1910-1912 had 2 rare $50 Union Patterns in his collection (1849 and 1877). He traded these back to the mint for a box-load of rare patterns and other desireable rarities. Is it really logical that those pair of nearly unique $50 Unions left the mint legally and with proper authorization? >>
Here's the problem: nobody can prove any of his coiuns were monetized. Every coin is illegal to own as soon as the government says it is. We don't own our pennies and nickels and we don't own any of the 18th and 19th century rarities. It's not only the obviously "illegal" coins they can confiscate like 1804 dollars or rare Greek coins dug up last week but any coin at all.
And it's spreading.
The public is a door mat and hindrance to the proper operation of government. There are no longer any rights but civil rights and even civil rights can't stand in the face of governmental expediency.
In ancient times officials were responsible for their own actions. If a defendent were punished despite being obviously innocent the judge served four times his sentence. Now they get pro- moted.
RealOne: <<Sure they might have disagreed with the law back then but the law was the law ...>>
There is not substantial evidence that any 1933 Double Eagles were ever stolen. From some point in the 19th century, or probably even in the 18th century, anyone could walk into the Philadelphia Mint and trade common dates for better dates, or just trade duplicates for coins that they wanted. It was a standard practice. The collectors and dealers, and the U.S. Mint personnel, involved in such trades were clearly under the impression that there was no legal requirement for receipts to be given. If a 1928 DE was traded for a 1933 DE, there was not a sale; it was just a gold for gold trade. The audits related to the amount of gold. The books balanced. To what law is RealOne referring?
RichUhrich: <<Exchanging one form of gold for another, in equal dollar amounts, was certainly legal in 1933. (Unless you rewrite the laws in the mid-1990's and attempt to apply them to 1933.) >>
Though I would have worded this point differently, Rich is on the right track. I wish to emphasize that it was a common practice, at the Philadelphia Mint, for collectors, dealers and tourists to trade U.S. gold coins for other U.S. gold coins. It should be added that coins that were desired by collectors were not subject to the gold recall. Certainly, exchanges of some Double Eagles for other Double Eagle at the U.S. Mint were legal up to some point in April 1933. It is likely that people who asked for receipts were usually tourists, rather than collectors or known dealers. Probably, some tourists wished to have the receipts as souvenirs of their trips to Philadelphia Mint, as tourists would be more likely than collectors to eventually spend gold coins acquired at the Mint. People interested in Double Eagles were probably serious collectors or dealers. During the Depression, there would only have been a handful of people in Philly who were interested and could afford them.
Double Eagles from the early 1930s are rare today because there were few people in the early 1930s who were interested, aware of Mint policies, and able to afford them. Anyone who could large numbers of Double Eagles from the 1920s could have easily traded them for Double Eagles dated in the 1930s.
BajjerFan: <<Even if the coins were exchanged for others, were they ever approved to be available for exchange either thru a paper trail with appropriate signatures/approvals (assuming this was done with previous coins in the series) or by sending a bucketful up to the cashier's room where they could be readily exchanged? >>
Please read my articles. There was no such process. Furthermore, there were hundreds of thousands of 1933 Double Eagles struck.The strikings were perfectly legal and widely known. These were first struck on March 2nd or earlier. After the coins were struck (and before the then shocking new policies that were effected at some point in April 1933), it was clearly acceptable, in terms of established practices, for old Double Eagles (or pairs of single Eagles) to be exchanged for 1933 Double Eagles. QDB argues that legal exchanges could have occurred after 1934. I am not so sure about that. I strongly maintain that the traditions and accepted practices of the Philadelphia Mint allowed, even encouraged, exchanges for 1933 Double Eagles in all of March and for a time in April 1933.
Every year, collectors and dealers obtained new coins in this manner. Often, there were no receipts for such trades.
EagleEye: <<It is important to remember that the first confiscation happened in1944, many years after the coins were released. They had traded privately many times legally before then. >>
Yes, they had been openly advertised and openly displayed. There is circumstantial evidence that U.S. Mint officials knew that they were being traded and openly displayed. For many years in the 1930s and early 1940s, no one seemed to think that there was anything illegal about 1933 Double Eagles. Indeed, the Director of the U.S. Mint wrote letters to the editor of The Numismatist during a time period when reports about open displays of 1933 Double Eagles were published in the The Numismatist. It seems likely that she was aware of the trading of 1933 Double Eagles.
In the first of my articles, mentioned below, I cited R. W. Julian in this regard. There is a link to a document that contains some of his statements. Even without such evidence, it stands to reason that some U.S. Mint officials would have been aware of events at ANA conventions and in coin markets. From 1934 to 1943, did anyone think that there was anything wrong with privately trading 1933 Double Eagles?
RWB's research indicated the first 1933 DEs were struck on March 2, 1933 and that 43 of the 1933 coins had been given to the Mint Cashier on March 4, 1933. I'm not sure if the documentation for the 43 coins said "43 1933 coins" or just "43 coins" but the former would be strong evidence. If the Mint Cashier had 43 coins on hand on March 4, 1933, they could have been traded before FDR's Executive Order 6102 which was signed on April 5, 1933.
Regarding the 1933 Eagles mentioned earlier, the primary difference between these coins and the 1933 DEs is that there are official records of 4 coins leaving the Mint including documentation of a coin-for-coin trade dated March 1, 1933. That being said, just because there's a record of a coin-for-coin trade for the 1933 Eagle, it doesn't follow that all legal exchanges had records. However, it does result in a vastly different status for the coins.
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.
Trying to post a youtube link. Any tricks to doing so?
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>RWB's research indicated the first 1933 DEs were struck on March 2, 1933 and that 43 of the 1933 coins had been given to the Mint Cashier on March 4, 1933. I'm not sure if the documentation for the 43 coins said "43 1933 coins" or just "43 coins" but the former would be strong evidence. If the Mint Cashier had 43 coins on hand on March 4, 1933, they could have been traded before FDR's Executive Order 6102 which was signed on April 5, 1933.
Regarding the 1933 Eagles mentioned earlier, the primary difference between these coins and the 1933 DEs is that there are official records of 4 coins leaving the Mint including documentation of a coin-for-coin trade dated March 1, 1933. That being said, just because there's a record of a coin-for-coin trade for the 1933 Eagle, it doesn't follow that all legal exchanges had records. However, it does result in a vastly different status for the coins. >>
I thought those 43 coins were removed at the request of the mint director. Did they go to her or were they destined for Izzy? IIRC 43 sounds like the number of coins that escaped and were subsequently rounded up and/or otherwise accounted for.
<< <i>RWB's research indicated the first 1933 DEs were struck on March 2, 1933 and that 43 of the 1933 coins had been given to the Mint Cashier on March 4, 1933. I'm not sure if the documentation for the 43 coins said "43 1933 coins" or just "43 coins" but the former would be strong evidence. If the Mint Cashier had 43 coins on hand on March 4, 1933, they could have been traded before FDR's Executive Order 6102 which was signed on April 5, 1933.
Regarding the 1933 Eagles mentioned earlier, the primary difference between these coins and the 1933 DEs is that there are official records of 4 coins leaving the Mint including documentation of a coin-for-coin trade dated March 1, 1933. That being said, just because there's a record of a coin-for-coin trade for the 1933 Eagle, it doesn't follow that all legal exchanges had records. However, it does result in a vastly different status for the coins. >>
I thought those 43 coins were removed at the request of the mint director. Did they go to her or were they destined for Izzy? IIRC 43 sounds like the number of coins that escaped and were subsequently rounded up and/or otherwise accounted for. >>
According to Steve Roach's coverage of the trial the memo was between coiner William Bartholomew and Helen Moore, the assistant superintendent of the Philadelphia Mint. It discussed "43 pieces" which RWB interpreted to mean 43 1933 DEs went to the cashier and were thus available to the public. I'd love to see a photo of the actual memo. It would be interesting if those 43 pieces were the 1933 DEs that ended up with Izzy.
Here's an excerpt from Steve's article:
<< <i>Perhaps at the core of Burdette’s testimony was a 1945 memo between coiner William Bartholomew and Helen Moore, the assistant superintendent of the Philadelphia Mint, which Burdette interpreted to show that 43 1933 coins were substituted for 1932 coins and used to balance the books with regards to 458.1 ounces of gold. These 43 1933 double eagles were allegedly comingled with 1932 double eagles on March 4, 1933, and went to the cashier. At this point, Burdette speculated, the pieces lost their distinction as 1933 double eagles and could have been given out. [....]
Rue was relentless in suggesting that Burdette was more creative than factual in his theory that 1933 double eagles might have been included in the March 4, 1933, shipment to the cashier as the 1945 statement that Burdette relied upon said “43 pieces” and not double eagles. She added that if Burdette’s interpretation that “43 pieces” meant 43 1933 double eagles was true, it would compromise each document provided to Mint officials afterwards. >>
Bajjerfan: << I thought those 43 coins were removed at the request of the mint director. Did they go to her or were they destined for Izzy? IIRC 43 sounds like the number of coins that escaped and were subsequently rounded up and/or otherwise accounted for.>>
According to Burdette, these 1933 Double Eagles were not removed. Furthermore, there is no evidence of any kind of escape. Given the traditions of the Philadelphia Mint, it was legitimate for anyone to trade 1924, 1928, 1932 or any other U.S. Double Eagles for 1933 Double Eagles. It could have been done in plain sight and everyone around would then have thought that such trades were legitimate and ordinary.
Zoins: <Here's an excerpt from Steve's article> <<... these 43 1933 Double Eagles were allegedly comingled with 1932 Double Eagles on March 4, 1933, and went to the cashier. At this point, Burdette speculated, the pieces lost their distinction as 1933 Double Eagles and could have been given out. ... Rue was relentless in suggesting that Burdette was more creative than factual in his theory that 1933 double eagles might have been included in the March 4, 1933, shipment to the cashier as the 1945 statement that Burdette relied upon said “43 pieces” and not Double Eagles>>
While I have not seen the original documents, nor have I seen images of them, my communications with Burdette on this matter, which occurred prior to his involvement in this case, suggest that he was not speculating, not being creative, and was reporting facts. Steve’s use of the term “allegedly” is ridiculous and misleading. It was perfectly legitimate to mix 1933 Double Eagles with 1932 Double Eagles in the cashier’s box.
It is obvious that 1933 Double Eagles could easily have been given out in trades. There was no need for 1933 Double Eagles to have “lost their distinction,” though it is very plausible that releases of 1933 Double Eagles could have been erroneously recorded as releases of 1932 Double Eagles.
According to Burdette, some 1932 Double Eagles were “defective” and these were replaced with 1933 Double Eagles. Obviously, the term “pieces” in this context meant Double Eagles, as forty-three 1932 Double Eagles would not have been replaced with forty-three 1933 single Eagles or Quarter Eagles. Besides, tens of thousands of 1933 Double Eagles, and eventually hundreds of thousands of 1933 Double Eagles were minted. Burdette’s points were included in my articles in the past.
As I said in my column at the end of 2010, < Burdette 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.> In communications with me, Burdette makes clear that, on March 4, 1933, the Coining Department provided the Mint Cashier with forty three 1933 Double Eagles! These were thus right there in the cashier’s box and it was legitimate for anyone to trade older Double Eagles for 1933 Double Eagles. Traditionally, at the Philadelphia Mint, parties involved believed that it was not necessary to keep records of ‘coin for coin’ trades. Please read:
Assuming all 43 were 1933 DEs that were authorized to be removed from the vault, would any of them have ended up in the possession of Izzy or were others also removed from which IS obtained his? If they were moved to the cashier's area, doesn't it seem reasonable that others would have had them too? Perhaps when the 43 authorized coins were removed [and who knows where they eventually ended up] an additional unrecordeed quantity was removed and replaced at the same time.
"Most of the 1933 Double Eagles were melted into gold bars, but some escaped destruction and have surfaced over the years. One sold at a Sotheby's auction in 2002 for $7.6 million."
So, did the US Government go after the purchaser or the auction house?
<< <i>"Most of the 1933 Double Eagles were melted into gold bars, but some escaped destruction and have surfaced over the years. One sold at a Sotheby's auction in 2002 for $7.6 million."
So, did the US Government go after the purchaser or the auction house? >>
I was going to make a snide comment, but I'll just give you a link instead LINK
"It's far easier to fight for principles, than to live up to them." Adlai Stevenson
Comments
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>The article by Loftus lost all credibility with me in the first paragraph, where he claims that the coins were confiscated. REALLY?
The coins were VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED. Crap inaccurate journalism of the laziest form.
"The ruling could clear the way for the Mint to decide where to store or possibly display the coins, which have been kept at the U.S. Bullion Depository at Fort Knox, Ky., since being confiscated several years ago." >>
Are voluntarily surrendering property and having that property subsequently confiscated mutually exclusive? >>
I would say the answer to that question is no. Similar, imo, to turning oneself in and being apprehended.. >>
I think there may be legal definitions involved and it would be interesting to hear a lawyer's view on this. In some instances, confiscation can only be ordered by a court and in others confiscation only occurred after a seizure and subsequent approval of the seizure.
While turning oneself in and being apprehended may be mutually exclusive, turning oneself in and being arrested are not. >>
The Langbords did have benefit of counsel. I'm sure he didn't just hand them over without considerable thought. I think it would be foolish to ever expect the Government to play by the rules.
There was a government bureaucrat, whose name does not clutter my brain because he does not deserve to be there, who got the ball rolling on this, I believe in the early 1940s. He a made a career out chasing down these coins, and his brethren are still living off of his obsession.
This started out as an alleged theft of perhaps $400 in gold, and the government has spent millions chasing down and prosecuting people for having them. If the government had issued licenses to those who had them, the Feds would have collected millions in capital gains taxes by now, but intelligent government policies and behavior are too often oxymorons.
I think the same could be said about many of the Rockefeller-era (and prior) drug laws that are still jailing people today...for the smallest of infractions.
Many rules, regulations and laws need to be reviewed for current relevancy in the present day.
<< <i>Frankly I am pleased. I realize I am in the minority with this one but I just hate it when someone in the business knowingly takes advantage of a situation and takes and keeps something that everyone else is either returning or following the rules. Sure they might have disagreed with the law back then but the law was the law and if they didn't like it they could have changed adminsitrations with their votes. But this gent played a well thought out game, he was investigated by the gov't, he fooled them into thinking the coins were sold and kept them and presumably directed the family in the future since the heirs acted as if they somehow found 10 priceless coins in their sdb not knowing how they got their.........yeah right. >>
Supposedly, US Treasury Secretary William Woodin (1933), an avid numismatist as well, had one of these in his collection. Did the SOT also obtain his "illegally" as Mr. Switt did?
It was the Woodin's efforts that got the collector gold coin exemption inserted into the gold reserve act of 1934. Too bad he passed away in 1934 and wasn't around to lend support to
the 1933 $20's. To be consistent with this finding all other US mint rarities that left "illegally" (ie not through proper channels and/or monentization) should also be confiscated. Curiously, Secretary Woodin around 1910-1912 had 2 rare $50 Union Patterns in his collection (1849 and 1877). He traded these back to the mint for a box-load of rare patterns and other desireable rarities. Is it really logical that those pair of nearly unique $50 Unions left the mint legally and with proper authorization?
<< <i>Supposedly, US Treasury Secretary William Woodin (1933), an avid numismatist as well, had one of these in his collection. Did the SOT also obtain his "illegally" as Mr. Switt did?
It was the Woodin's efforts that got the collector gold coin exemption inserted into the gold reserve act of 1934. Too bad he passed away in 1934 and wasn't around to lend support to
the 1933 $20's. To be consistent with this finding all other US mint rarities that left "illegally" (ie not through proper channels and/or monentization) should also be confiscated. Curiously, Secretary Woodin around 1910-1912 had 2 rare $50 Union Patterns in his collection (1849 and 1877). He traded these back to the mint for a box-load of rare patterns and other desireable rarities. Is it really logical that those pair of nearly unique $50 Unions left the mint legally and with proper authorization? >>
The Half Union story is actually very different than the 1933 DE story in that there's a paper trail and the people involved were willing to give the items back when the US wanted them.
The $50 Half Union patterns were initially obtained by Chief Coiner Louden Snowden through an arrangement with Director of Mints Piatt Andrews. Snowden later sold the patterns to Woodin for a then-record $10,000 per Half Union pattern. When the Federal government learned of this and threatened legal action to recover the patterns, Snowden traded a collection of patterns to Woodin to recover the Half Unions and return them to the Treasury.
Like the case of the 1933 DEs, the Federal government threatened legal action with the difference being the items were voluntarily returned. It also appears that Snowden was the source of the patterns traded to get the Half Unions back so the Treasury got the coins back without having to go to the courts or give anything away.
Since Woodin was willing to part with the Half Union patterns, it seems like he would be willing to part with the 1933 DEs as well.
These 1933 DEs are different in that it's unknown how Switt came into possession of the coins and his heirs did/do not want to give the coins back.
BTW, the patterns are actually Half Unions, with a Half Union being $50 face value and a Union being $100 face value.
1. Doesn't the government have more important stuff to do? Seriously, this is all over $200 worth of coins? Since when did the government care about a coin's numismatic value?
2. It was incredibly naive to openly acknowledge the existence of the coins. There may or may not have been shady dealings behind how they obtained the coins, but I feel badly for the family.
3. If I did own a 1933 saint or a 1964-D peace dollar, I'd darn sure get rid of it before I died. There's no reason to hang that albatross around the necks of my kids.
4. Innocent until PROVEN guilty is becoming an anachronistic ideal.
5. What I think doesn't matter.
<< <i>It is important to remember that the first confiscation happened in1944, many years after the coins were released. They had traded privately many times legally before then. I think Government hubris during the war is a factor in the reason the coins were and are considered illegal to own. >>
While the Secret Service began their investigation in 1944, the story is that it occurred because the a reporter contacted the Mint after seeing one in the then-upcoming Stack's Bowers auction. While the coins had traded privately before, the Mint and Secret Service may have been unaware of their existence until the public auction.
<< <i>1. Doesn't the government have more important stuff to do? Seriously, this is all over $200 worth of coins? Since when did the government care about a coin's numismatic value? >>
The government probably cares less about the numismatic value than the fact they believe the coins are government property.
<< <i>2. It was incredibly naive to openly acknowledge the existence of the coins. There may or may not have been shady dealings behind how they obtained the coins, but I feel badly for the family. >>
The Langbords had good legal counsel and placed their bets. The outcome may not have been what they wanted but I'm not sure I would say they were naive.
<< <i>4. Innocent until PROVEN guilty is becoming an anachronistic ideal. >>
They are innocent. If they were found guilty of stealing government property, they might have been incarcerated.
<< <i>4. Innocent until PROVEN guilty is becoming an anachronistic ideal. >>
This has become sadly true in court cases concerning government property and the income tax laws. When you are brought up on tax charges or subject to an audit you are definitely guilty unto you can prove yourself innocent. I think that is totally wrong when people have spend tens of thousands of dollars to defend themselves in a tax case than are left with that legal bill when they are proven innocent.
<< <i>
<< <i>Frankly I am pleased. I realize I am in the minority with this one but I just hate it when someone in the business knowingly takes advantage of a situation and takes and keeps something that everyone else is either returning or following the rules. Sure they might have disagreed with the law back then but the law was the law and if they didn't like it they could have changed adminsitrations with their votes. But this gent played a well thought out game, he was investigated by the gov't, he fooled them into thinking the coins were sold and kept them and presumably directed the family in the future since the heirs acted as if they somehow found 10 priceless coins in their sdb not knowing how they got their.........yeah right. >>
Supposedly, US Treasury Secretary William Woodin (1933), an avid numismatist as well, had one of these in his collection. Did the SOT also obtain his "illegally" as Mr. Switt did?
It was the Woodin's efforts that got the collector gold coin exemption inserted into the gold reserve act of 1934. Too bad he passed away in 1934 and wasn't around to lend support to
the 1933 $20's. To be consistent with this finding all other US mint rarities that left "illegally" (ie not through proper channels and/or monentization) should also be confiscated. Curiously, Secretary Woodin around 1910-1912 had 2 rare $50 Union Patterns in his collection (1849 and 1877). He traded these back to the mint for a box-load of rare patterns and other desireable rarities. Is it really logical that those pair of nearly unique $50 Unions left the mint legally and with proper authorization? >>
Here's the problem: nobody can prove any of his coiuns were monetized. Every coin is illegal
to own as soon as the government says it is. We don't own our pennies and nickels and we
don't own any of the 18th and 19th century rarities. It's not only the obviously "illegal" coins
they can confiscate like 1804 dollars or rare Greek coins dug up last week but any coin at all.
And it's spreading.
The public is a door mat and hindrance to the proper operation of government. There are no
longer any rights but civil rights and even civil rights can't stand in the face of governmental
expediency.
In ancient times officials were responsible for their own actions. If a defendent were punished
despite being obviously innocent the judge served four times his sentence. Now they get pro-
moted.
There is not substantial evidence that any 1933 Double Eagles were ever stolen. From some point in the 19th century, or probably even in the 18th century, anyone could walk into the Philadelphia Mint and trade common dates for better dates, or just trade duplicates for coins that they wanted. It was a standard practice. The collectors and dealers, and the U.S. Mint personnel, involved in such trades were clearly under the impression that there was no legal requirement for receipts to be given. If a 1928 DE was traded for a 1933 DE, there was not a sale; it was just a gold for gold trade. The audits related to the amount of gold. The books balanced. To what law is RealOne referring?
RichUhrich: <<Exchanging one form of gold for another, in equal dollar amounts, was certainly legal in 1933. (Unless you rewrite the laws in the mid-1990's and attempt to apply them to 1933.) >>
Though I would have worded this point differently, Rich is on the right track. I wish to emphasize that it was a common practice, at the Philadelphia Mint, for collectors, dealers and tourists to trade U.S. gold coins for other U.S. gold coins. It should be added that coins that were desired by collectors were not subject to the gold recall. Certainly, exchanges of some Double Eagles for other Double Eagle at the U.S. Mint were legal up to some point in April 1933. It is likely that people who asked for receipts were usually tourists, rather than collectors or known dealers. Probably, some tourists wished to have the receipts as souvenirs of their trips to Philadelphia Mint, as tourists would be more likely than collectors to eventually spend gold coins acquired at the Mint. People interested in Double Eagles were probably serious collectors or dealers. During the Depression, there would only have been a handful of people in Philly who were interested and could afford them.
Double Eagles from the early 1930s are rare today because there were few people in the early 1930s who were interested, aware of Mint policies, and able to afford them. Anyone who could large numbers of Double Eagles from the 1920s could have easily traded them for Double Eagles dated in the 1930s.
BajjerFan: <<Even if the coins were exchanged for others, were they ever approved to be available for exchange either thru a paper trail with appropriate signatures/approvals (assuming this was done with previous coins in the series) or by sending a bucketful up to the cashier's room where they could be readily exchanged? >>
Please read my articles. There was no such process. Furthermore, there were hundreds of thousands of 1933 Double Eagles struck.The strikings were perfectly legal and widely known. These were first struck on March 2nd or earlier. After the coins were struck (and before the then shocking new policies that were effected at some point in April 1933), it was clearly acceptable, in terms of established practices, for old Double Eagles (or pairs of single Eagles) to be exchanged for 1933 Double Eagles. QDB argues that legal exchanges could have occurred after 1934. I am not so sure about that. I strongly maintain that the traditions and accepted practices of the Philadelphia Mint allowed, even encouraged, exchanges for 1933 Double Eagles in all of March and for a time in April 1933.
Every year, collectors and dealers obtained new coins in this manner. Often, there were no receipts for such trades.
EagleEye: <<It is important to remember that the first confiscation happened in1944, many years after the coins were released. They had traded privately many times legally before then. >>
Yes, they had been openly advertised and openly displayed. There is circumstantial evidence that U.S. Mint officials knew that they were being traded and openly displayed. For many years in the 1930s and early 1940s, no one seemed to think that there was anything illegal about 1933 Double Eagles. Indeed, the Director of the U.S. Mint wrote letters to the editor of The Numismatist during a time period when reports about open displays of 1933 Double Eagles were published in the The Numismatist. It seems likely that she was aware of the trading of 1933 Double Eagles.
In the first of my articles, mentioned below, I cited R. W. Julian in this regard. There is a link to a document that contains some of his statements. Even without such evidence, it stands to reason that some U.S. Mint officials would have been aware of events at ANA conventions and in coin markets. From 1934 to 1943, did anyone think that there was anything wrong with privately trading 1933 Double Eagles?
The fate of the ten Switt-Langbord 1933 Doubles
My Analysis of the Verdict in the Switt-Langbord Case, with comments by QDB and David Ganz
Regarding the 1933 Eagles mentioned earlier, the primary difference between these coins and the 1933 DEs is that there are official records of 4 coins leaving the Mint including documentation of a coin-for-coin trade dated March 1, 1933. That being said, just because there's a record of a coin-for-coin trade for the 1933 Eagle, it doesn't follow that all legal exchanges had records. However, it does result in a vastly different status for the coins.
<edited out>
Trying to post a youtube link. Any tricks to doing so?
<< <i>Trying to post a youtube link. Any tricks to doing so? >>
I don't think so.
<< <i>RWB's research indicated the first 1933 DEs were struck on March 2, 1933 and that 43 of the 1933 coins had been given to the Mint Cashier on March 4, 1933. I'm not sure if the documentation for the 43 coins said "43 1933 coins" or just "43 coins" but the former would be strong evidence. If the Mint Cashier had 43 coins on hand on March 4, 1933, they could have been traded before FDR's Executive Order 6102 which was signed on April 5, 1933.
Regarding the 1933 Eagles mentioned earlier, the primary difference between these coins and the 1933 DEs is that there are official records of 4 coins leaving the Mint including documentation of a coin-for-coin trade dated March 1, 1933. That being said, just because there's a record of a coin-for-coin trade for the 1933 Eagle, it doesn't follow that all legal exchanges had records. However, it does result in a vastly different status for the coins. >>
I thought those 43 coins were removed at the request of the mint director. Did they go to her or were they destined for Izzy? IIRC 43 sounds like the number of coins that escaped and were subsequently rounded up and/or otherwise accounted for.
<< <i>
<< <i>RWB's research indicated the first 1933 DEs were struck on March 2, 1933 and that 43 of the 1933 coins had been given to the Mint Cashier on March 4, 1933. I'm not sure if the documentation for the 43 coins said "43 1933 coins" or just "43 coins" but the former would be strong evidence. If the Mint Cashier had 43 coins on hand on March 4, 1933, they could have been traded before FDR's Executive Order 6102 which was signed on April 5, 1933.
Regarding the 1933 Eagles mentioned earlier, the primary difference between these coins and the 1933 DEs is that there are official records of 4 coins leaving the Mint including documentation of a coin-for-coin trade dated March 1, 1933. That being said, just because there's a record of a coin-for-coin trade for the 1933 Eagle, it doesn't follow that all legal exchanges had records. However, it does result in a vastly different status for the coins. >>
I thought those 43 coins were removed at the request of the mint director. Did they go to her or were they destined for Izzy? IIRC 43 sounds like the number of coins that escaped and were subsequently rounded up and/or otherwise accounted for. >>
According to Steve Roach's coverage of the trial the memo was between coiner William Bartholomew and Helen Moore, the assistant superintendent of the Philadelphia Mint. It discussed "43 pieces" which RWB interpreted to mean 43 1933 DEs went to the cashier and were thus available to the public. I'd love to see a photo of the actual memo. It would be interesting if those 43 pieces were the 1933 DEs that ended up with Izzy.
Here's an excerpt from Steve's article:
<< <i>Perhaps at the core of Burdette’s testimony was a 1945 memo between coiner William Bartholomew and Helen Moore, the assistant superintendent of the Philadelphia Mint, which Burdette interpreted to show that 43 1933 coins were substituted for 1932 coins and used to balance the books with regards to 458.1 ounces of gold. These 43 1933 double eagles were allegedly comingled with 1932 double eagles on March 4, 1933, and went to the cashier. At this point, Burdette speculated, the pieces lost their distinction as 1933 double eagles and could have been given out. [....]
Rue was relentless in suggesting that Burdette was more creative than factual in his theory that 1933 double eagles might have been included in the March 4, 1933, shipment to the cashier as the 1945 statement that Burdette relied upon said “43 pieces” and not double eagles. She added that if Burdette’s interpretation that “43 pieces” meant 43 1933 double eagles was true, it would compromise each document provided to Mint officials afterwards. >>
According to Burdette, these 1933 Double Eagles were not removed. Furthermore, there is no evidence of any kind of escape. Given the traditions of the Philadelphia Mint, it was legitimate for anyone to trade 1924, 1928, 1932 or any other U.S. Double Eagles for 1933 Double Eagles. It could have been done in plain sight and everyone around would then have thought that such trades were legitimate and ordinary.
Zoins: <Here's an excerpt from Steve's article> <<... these 43 1933 Double Eagles were allegedly comingled with 1932 Double Eagles on March 4, 1933, and went to the cashier. At this point, Burdette speculated, the pieces lost their distinction as 1933 Double Eagles and could have been given out. ... Rue was relentless in suggesting that Burdette was more creative than factual in his theory that 1933 double eagles might have been included in the March 4, 1933, shipment to the cashier as the 1945 statement that Burdette relied upon said “43 pieces” and not Double Eagles>>
While I have not seen the original documents, nor have I seen images of them, my communications with Burdette on this matter, which occurred prior to his involvement in this case, suggest that he was not speculating, not being creative, and was reporting facts. Steve’s use of the term “allegedly” is ridiculous and misleading. It was perfectly legitimate to mix 1933 Double Eagles with 1932 Double Eagles in the cashier’s box.
It is obvious that 1933 Double Eagles could easily have been given out in trades. There was no need for 1933 Double Eagles to have “lost their distinction,” though it is very plausible that releases of 1933 Double Eagles could have been erroneously recorded as releases of 1932 Double Eagles.
According to Burdette, some 1932 Double Eagles were “defective” and these were replaced with 1933 Double Eagles. Obviously, the term “pieces” in this context meant Double Eagles, as forty-three 1932 Double Eagles would not have been replaced with forty-three 1933 single Eagles or Quarter Eagles. Besides, tens of thousands of 1933 Double Eagles, and eventually hundreds of thousands of 1933 Double Eagles were minted. Burdette’s points were included in my articles in the past.
As I said in my column at the end of 2010, < Burdette 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.> In communications with me, Burdette makes clear that, on March 4, 1933, the Coining Department provided the Mint Cashier with forty three 1933 Double Eagles! These were thus right there in the cashier’s box and it was legitimate for anyone to trade older Double Eagles for 1933 Double Eagles. Traditionally, at the Philadelphia Mint, parties involved believed that it was not necessary to keep records of ‘coin for coin’ trades. Please read:
[L=The Ten Leading Topics of 2010]http://www.coinweek.com/commentary/opinion/coin-rarities-related-topics-the-ten-leading-topics-of-2010/[/L]
The fate of the ten Switt-Langbord 1933 Doubles
My Analysis of the Verdict in the Switt-Langbord Case, with comments by QDB and David Ganz
So, did the US Government go after the purchaser or the auction house?
<< <i>"Most of the 1933 Double Eagles were melted into gold bars, but some escaped destruction and have surfaced over the years. One sold at a Sotheby's auction in 2002 for $7.6 million."
So, did the US Government go after the purchaser or the auction house? >>
I was going to make a snide comment, but I'll just give you a link instead LINK