Options
How to launder $30k in gold, in 1901
yosclimber
Posts: 5,033 ✭✭✭✭✭
We know the basic facts of the Saddle Ridge Hoard are:
1. about $30k face value, mostly $20s
2. latest date 1894, so it could not have been buried before 1894 (assuming it was all buried at the same time, which seems likely)
The main point people keep making to break the connection to the Dimmick 1900/1901 theft is that the dates are not entirely 1900-S or 1901-S.
But a thief knows this as well.
So they want to "launder" their money to make it not traceable to the source and date of the theft.
It would have been very simple to launder the $30k, though, for a thief who knows the vault is infrequently audited.
It is done by storing mixed-date coins in the mint's own vault.
Say it is 1/1/1901, and the thief knows the audit will happen on June 1.
Week 1: launder the first bag of 6
1/1 take a $5k bag home at closing time.
1/2 deposit the $5k in bank A., and withdraw $5k in cash. Deposit $5k cash in bank B, and withdraw $5k in gold. These should be mixed dates.
1/3 if any of the coins from bank B were dated after 1894, deposit them in bank A, and withdraw cash. Deposit cash in bank B, withdraw gold.
Keep repeating the process until all dates are 1894 or earlier. Say this is done by 1/4. Put the $5k in coins back in the mint bag.
1/5 at closing time, put the mixed date bag in a location in the back of the vault where it is unlikely to be accessed.
Weeks 2-6: launder the other bags.
At no time is more than one bag missing from the vault.
Friday night of Week 6 - do not return the latest bag to the mint, but instead take the other 5 mixed bags home.
Use 2 suitcases, each containing 2.5 bags.
Repackage the 6 bags as 6 cans (or more, depending on size of cans).
Burn the original mint bags.
Saturday: place 3 cans in each of suitcase. This about 48 pounds per suitcase - a balanced carry for someone reasonably strong.
Take a carriage to the train station.
Take the train out past Sacramento to a prechosen spot in the gold country.
Hire a horse and ride to the location. Bury the coins.
Burn the suitcases.
Return home.
The theory to escape prosecution might have been that the coins would not be found in the thief's possession.
Later they could be recovered and spent or deposited without being identifiable as 1900-S or 1901-S.
There is still a puzzle as to why he didn't dig them up after his stay in San Quentin.
1. about $30k face value, mostly $20s
2. latest date 1894, so it could not have been buried before 1894 (assuming it was all buried at the same time, which seems likely)
The main point people keep making to break the connection to the Dimmick 1900/1901 theft is that the dates are not entirely 1900-S or 1901-S.
But a thief knows this as well.
So they want to "launder" their money to make it not traceable to the source and date of the theft.
It would have been very simple to launder the $30k, though, for a thief who knows the vault is infrequently audited.
It is done by storing mixed-date coins in the mint's own vault.
Say it is 1/1/1901, and the thief knows the audit will happen on June 1.
Week 1: launder the first bag of 6
1/1 take a $5k bag home at closing time.
1/2 deposit the $5k in bank A., and withdraw $5k in cash. Deposit $5k cash in bank B, and withdraw $5k in gold. These should be mixed dates.
1/3 if any of the coins from bank B were dated after 1894, deposit them in bank A, and withdraw cash. Deposit cash in bank B, withdraw gold.
Keep repeating the process until all dates are 1894 or earlier. Say this is done by 1/4. Put the $5k in coins back in the mint bag.
1/5 at closing time, put the mixed date bag in a location in the back of the vault where it is unlikely to be accessed.
Weeks 2-6: launder the other bags.
At no time is more than one bag missing from the vault.
Friday night of Week 6 - do not return the latest bag to the mint, but instead take the other 5 mixed bags home.
Use 2 suitcases, each containing 2.5 bags.
Repackage the 6 bags as 6 cans (or more, depending on size of cans).
Burn the original mint bags.
Saturday: place 3 cans in each of suitcase. This about 48 pounds per suitcase - a balanced carry for someone reasonably strong.
Take a carriage to the train station.
Take the train out past Sacramento to a prechosen spot in the gold country.
Hire a horse and ride to the location. Bury the coins.
Burn the suitcases.
Return home.
The theory to escape prosecution might have been that the coins would not be found in the thief's possession.
Later they could be recovered and spent or deposited without being identifiable as 1900-S or 1901-S.
There is still a puzzle as to why he didn't dig them up after his stay in San Quentin.
0
Comments
Coin Rarities Online
Bury in dirt for a hundred years , then send them to PCGS for restoration.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>"1/1 take a $5k bag home at closing time." by my calculation, a $5000 bag of 20's would weigh roughly 300 lbs so it would make more sense to accumulate the stash a few pieces at a time, which would account for the variety of dates, or someone could have just bought one a year on their birthday etc, walking out of the mint carrying a $5000 bag of gold seems highly unlikely even in 1901 >>
The six bags, or $30,000 face, in gold stolen by Dimmick would weigh a total of approx. 110.27 avdp. pounds, not counting the weight of the bags and seals.
That said, any continuing effort to tie the Saddle Ridge Hoard to Dimmick, after the U.S. Mint has said that there is no connection, is nonsense!
if someone wanted to 'launder' $30K in gold coins,
they would simply have melted the darn coins.
There was no premium for them, and the approx.
4% loss from face to melt value would probably
not have been a factor to that person.
Like what has happened many hundreds and hundreds
of times over the past 2000 years, someone buried
their stash for whatever reason they had, and then
probably died before being about to come back to
dig the cans up.
Why do you think that you can buy ancient coins in
very large quantities for $10-$15 ?
The perplexing part is how these conspiracy theorists think that government confiscation is going to benefit them in any way. The government does not need to confiscate more wealth to give you more "entitlements." All it needs to do is issue more debt to sell the Federal Reserve System. They don't even have to print money any more, or turn silver into the silver dollars that no one wants.
Once and done.A hasty burial in a remote place that's not very far away from the SF mint.
Dimmick,while imprisoned,may have told someone he trusted where he initially hid the coins.The coins were buried near Saddle Ridge by a person other than Dimmick who died while Dimmick was in prison.The person never told Dimmick where the coins were buried.
I have this image sticking in my head.A person on horseback with miner's pick and shovel looking for spot to bury six cans containing thousands of dollars in stolen gold coin that he's been carrying around in his saddlebags.
Dimmick told the person to take a few thou for himself for burying the coins and then when he gets out of prison....
(to be continued)
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
that the burial site was about 160 miles from the
San Francisco Mint.
Seems like a LONG way to go to find a safe place to
bury gold coins, if they were from the SF Mint.
<< <i>The opinions expressed by many that the discovered coins likely belong to the government and should be turned over to or taken by the government is perplexing. These opinions may derive from jealousy, envy or a belief that resources (assets and income) are best controlled by and distributed/allocated by government. Hopefully the hoard of gold coins will remain in the private sector (where they can be bought and sold) instead of becoming public property that is locked away in a back room at the Smithsonian. >>
Quite right. Jealousy and/or envy. They don't have it, so they don't want anybody else to have it!
Dimmick instructed his accomplice to bury the coins in a remote location that could not be associated with either of them.
"The government will be suspicious of you because you've been visiting lucky me stuck in this hell-hole,so be very careful where and when you bury the coins," he tells his accomplice.
"Bury the coins somewhat close to navigable water but in a spot where the activity cannot be observed from the water.We will want more than one option for landing point for our boat after the coins have been recovered from the ground.We should prepare to possibly have to rebury the coins.Between us,we should be able to handle the weight,about a hundred pounds total.Don't write anything down that might tip off the government where you have buried the coins.Keep it in your head."
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
One thing that we shouldn't lose sight of -- this isn't the typical buried gold discovery. It's the largest cache of uncovered gold in the history of North America. Why shouldn't we allow the story to naturally unfold -- whether or not this hoard is eventually connected to the Dimmick heist?
<< <i>The opinions expressed by many that the discovered coins likely belong to the government and should be turned over to or taken by the government is perplexing. These opinions may derive from jealousy, envy or a belief that resources (assets and income) are best controlled by and distributed/allocated by government. Hopefully the hoard of gold coins will remain in the private sector (where they can be bought and sold) instead of becoming public property that is locked away in a back room at the Smithsonian. >>
Heck, I'm jealous and envious and I don't think they belong to the government (unlike my feelings towards the 1933s...).
All this one is, imho, is a bunch of people who think they are detectives or knowitalls, and have too much free time on their hands and are trying to show everyone how smart and cool they are in coming up with ways in which they can rationalize this coming to happen.
All the buried ancient coins.....no one is having any conspiracy theory about those over the years...unlike this.
Best thing I have read so far is that the banking of the time was rife with issues and someone with means probably "banked" their own money......after that, anything could have happened (sickness (mental or physical), death via a bullet/accident, etc).
Now, back to my jealousy and drooling over the thoughts of ME being the one to find those coins!
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
I would like the people of the United States to have some of the coins.The finders would get to keep "half" of the hoard.We know that isn't going to happen though.
The government may have made a decision to not pursue any recovery of the suspected stolen coins for itself because of time,expense,and the distinct possibility being there of losing its case.After all,the couple who found the Saddle Ridge coins have never had a cloud of suspicion hanging over their heads.The Govenment reasons,lose the Saddle Ridge Case after reigning victorious in the Langbord Case? Why risk it?
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
<< <i>We know the basic facts of the Saddle Ridge Hoard are:
1. about $30k face value, mostly $20s
2. latest date 1894, so it could not have been buried before 1894 (assuming it was all buried at the same time, which seems likely)
The main point people keep making to break the connection to the Dimmick 1900/1901 theft is that the dates are not entirely 1900-S or 1901-S.
But a thief knows this as well.
So they want to "launder" their money to make it not traceable to the source and date of the theft.
It would have been very simple to launder the $30k, though, for a thief who knows the vault is infrequently audited.
It is done by storing mixed-date coins in the mint's own vault.
Say it is 1/1/1901, and the thief knows the audit will happen on June 1.
Week 1: launder the first bag of 6
1/1 take a $5k bag home at closing time.
1/2 deposit the $5k in bank A., and withdraw $5k in cash. Deposit $5k cash in bank B, and withdraw $5k in gold. These should be mixed dates.
1/3 if any of the coins from bank B were dated after 1894, deposit them in bank A, and withdraw cash. Deposit cash in bank B, withdraw gold.
Keep repeating the process until all dates are 1894 or earlier. Say this is done by 1/4. Put the $5k in coins back in the mint bag.
1/5 at closing time, put the mixed date bag in a location in the back of the vault where it is unlikely to be accessed.
Weeks 2-6: launder the other bags.
At no time is more than one bag missing from the vault.
Friday night of Week 6 - do not return the latest bag to the mint, but instead take the other 5 mixed bags home.
Use 2 suitcases, each containing 2.5 bags.
Repackage the 6 bags as 6 cans (or more, depending on size of cans).
Burn the original mint bags.
Saturday: place 3 cans in each of suitcase. This about 48 pounds per suitcase - a balanced carry for someone reasonably strong.
Take a carriage to the train station.
Take the train out past Sacramento to a prechosen spot in the gold country.
Hire a horse and ride to the location. Bury the coins.
Burn the suitcases.
Return home.
The theory to escape prosecution might have been that the coins would not be found in the thief's possession.
Later they could be recovered and spent or deposited without being identifiable as 1900-S or 1901-S.
There is still a puzzle as to why he didn't dig them up after his stay in San Quentin. >>
Say, you oughta write a book!
BTW, banks were only open from 9 to 3 back then which kind of narrows the window of opportunity for hauling around $5,000 in gold coins not to mention the fact that US Mint hours of Operation were probably much longer than that 6 hour window.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>Ah yes....another movie plot..... soon there will be as many theories as there are coins in the hoard.... I must say though, this one is well thought through... Cheers, RickO >>
Well thought through for today's scenario but not how things operated back in 1901.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>"1/1 take a $5k bag home at closing time." by my calculation, a $5000 bag of 20's would weigh roughly 300 lbs so it would make more sense to accumulate the stash a few pieces at a time, which would account for the variety of dates, or someone could have just bought one a year on their birthday etc, walking out of the mint carrying a $5000 bag of gold seems highly unlikely even in 1901 >>
I think your 300lb calculations are just a we bit off. By my calculation its around 22.5 lbs.
33.4 grams (per coins) * 250 (coins) = 8,350 grams
8,211.3 grams = 22 Troy pounds
8,584.6 grams = 23 Troy pounds
Grams to Troy pound page
The name is LEE!
<< <i>
<< <i>"1/1 take a $5k bag home at closing time." by my calculation, a $5000 bag of 20's would weigh roughly 300 lbs so it would make more sense to accumulate the stash a few pieces at a time, which would account for the variety of dates, or someone could have just bought one a year on their birthday etc, walking out of the mint carrying a $5000 bag of gold seems highly unlikely even in 1901 >>
The six bags, or $30,000 face, in gold stolen by Dimmick would weigh a total of approx. 110.27 avdp. pounds, not counting the weight of the bags and seals.
That said, any continuing effort to tie the Saddle Ridge Hoard to Dimmick, after the U.S. Mint has said that there is no connection, is nonsense! >>
Certainly.
But it makes for good fiction!
The name is LEE!
<< <i>Quite right. Jealousy and/or envy. They don't have it, so they don't want anybody else to have it!
I would like the people of the United States to have some of the coins. The finders would get to keep "half" of the hoard. We know that isn't going to happen though.
The government may have made a decision to not pursue any recovery of the suspected stolen coins for itself because of time, expense, and the distinct possibility being there of losing its case. After all, the couple who found the Saddle Ridge coins have never had a cloud of suspicion hanging over their heads. The Government reasons, lose the Saddle Ridge Case after reigning victorious in the Langbord Case? Why risk it? >>
You are going to get your wish. The government is going to get half the money through taxes. If they care at all about the coins they can use that money to buy up to half of them. You win!
<< <i>Quite right. Jealousy and/or envy. They don't have it, so they don't want anybody else to have it!
I would like the people of the United States to have some of the coins.The finders would get to keep "half" of the hoard.We know that isn't going to happen though.
The government may have made a decision to not pursue any recovery of the suspected stolen coins for itself because of time,expense,and the distinct possibility being there of losing its case.After all,the couple who found the Saddle Ridge coins have never had a cloud of suspicion hanging over their heads.The Govenment reasons,lose the Saddle Ridge Case after reigning victorious in the Langbord Case? Why risk it? >>
Why do you want "the people of the United States to have some of the coins" when the vast majority of them don't care about numismatic items beyond what they could get if they sold them? What is this obsession you have with authorizing the government to redistribute other people's property beyond the tax laws that are already in place?
Do you want some of the coins confiscated so that they could put them in a state run or sponsored museum? Having been a collector for over 55 years, I can tell you that museums like the Smithsonian have not been collector friendly. Most of their holdings have been locked away from the eyes of interested collectors for decades. What has happened to due process and property rights?
<< <i>Quite right. Jealousy and/or envy. They don't have it, so they don't want anybody else to have it!
I would like the people of the United States to have some of the coins.The finders would get to keep "half" of the hoard.We know that isn't going to happen though.
The government may have made a decision to not pursue any recovery of the suspected stolen coins for itself because of time,expense,and the distinct possibility being there of losing its case.After all,the couple who found the Saddle Ridge coins have never had a cloud of suspicion hanging over their heads.The Govenment reasons,lose the Saddle Ridge Case after reigning victorious in the Langbord Case? Why risk it? >>
Government concerns over time and expense? You're joking right?
Do you have any idea how much "time and expense" is being used/spent regarding the 10 1933 Saints?
The name is LEE!
<< <i>Quite right. Jealousy and/or envy. They don't have it, so they don't want anybody else to have it!
I would like the people of the United States to have some of the coins.The finders would get to keep "half" of the hoard.We know that isn't going to happen though.
The government may have made a decision to not pursue any recovery of the suspected stolen coins for itself because of time,expense,and the distinct possibility being there of losing its case.After all,the couple who found the Saddle Ridge coins have never had a cloud of suspicion hanging over their heads.The Govenment reasons,lose the Saddle Ridge Case after reigning victorious in the Langbord Case? Why risk it? >>
The Government is free to buy them on the open market just like anyone else, but if I was selling they'd need a shill buyer cuz I'd refuse to sell to them.
<< <i>Not only is it nonsense, but as mentioned above,
if someone wanted to 'launder' $30K in gold coins,
they would simply have melted the darn coins.
There was no premium for them, and the approx.
4% loss from face to melt value would probably
not have been a factor to that person.
>>
The only issue here is that unless the coins were pure gold, someone with a lot of gold coinage alloy mite have some splainin to do. Steal it right the first time and you won't have any laundering to do.
<< <i>Quite right. Jealousy and/or envy. They don't have it, so they don't want anybody else to have it!
I would like the people of the United States to have some of the coins.The finders would get to keep "half" of the hoard.We know that isn't going to happen though.
The government may have made a decision to not pursue any recovery of the suspected stolen coins for itself because of time,expense,and the distinct possibility being there of losing its case.After all,the couple who found the Saddle Ridge coins have never had a cloud of suspicion hanging over their heads.The Govenment reasons,lose the Saddle Ridge Case after reigning victorious in the Langbord Case? Why risk it? >>
Let's have the government establish a legal precedent by seizing 50% of your net worth for no reason whatsoever. Sound fair?
came from are getting huge.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>How to launder ?
Bury in dirt for a hundred years , then send them to PCGS for restoration. >>
They used hot water, but no soap.
<< <i>
<< <i>The opinions expressed by many that the discovered coins likely belong to the government and should be turned over to or taken by the government is perplexing. These opinions may derive from jealousy, envy or a belief that resources (assets and income) are best controlled by and distributed/allocated by government. Hopefully the hoard of gold coins will remain in the private sector (where they can be bought and sold) instead of becoming public property that is locked away in a back room at the Smithsonian. >>
Quite right. Jealousy and/or envy. They don't have it, so they don't want anybody else to have it! >>
+2
<< <i>Seems some have just lost sight of how much money $30K was in 1901. If $5K in gold or cash was deposited in a bank then, it would be it would be like depositing 500K- possibly more today. It would raise eye brows >>
You are hinting what I was going to post to the original post!
Laundering...swaping that many gold coins time and time again? Really! Just how many banks were in the area at the time...especially that had that many 20's to swap out time and time again!
I tried to keep the description as simple as possible.
If $5000 was too large a sum to deposit/withdraw and would create suspicion, then it could be divided among a larger number of A and B banks.
I don't know how many banks were in SF in 1901, but I'm thinking it was lots larger than 2. :-)
But I agree, by 1901 not many banks might have bags of $20s. I was thinking more in the 1849-64 time frame.
[5/7/2014 edit:]
In new post to a different thread, DaveG noted that in 1901, paper money was rarely used in San Francisco -
gold and silver were the standard form of money which was used.
So this refutes the "scarcity of 20s" critique.
<< <i>While this isn't from the National Archives, it does shed some light on commercial practices of the time:
The following is from a brochure on San Francisco prepared by the Santa Fe Railroad, dated 1901:
"This [the San Francisco Mint] is the largest mint in the United States, and visitors are admitted to view the process of coining, and the immense stores of money in the vaults every day (except Sundays and holidays), between the hours of 9 and 11L30 a.m..
It may be noted here that in San Francisco and California generally, little paper money of any kind is in circulation, all business transactions being conducted with gold and silver coin. Paper money is apt to be regarded with the same suspicion which follows the offer of a twenty-dollar gold piece in most of the States of the Union. So the gold and silver piled up in the mint, and the work of turning out the coins do not strike the average Californian as they do the Easterner. But the figures of coinage will impress anybody, for from $25,000,000 to $35,000,000 in "good hard coin" is turned out by this mint annually. The nickel is the smallest coin in general use in San Francisco, copper cents having no circulation whatever, except in a limited use for the purchase of postage stamps, so the coinage of the San Francisco Mint is practically all silver and gold.
Down at the United State Sub-Treasury, on Commercial street, above Montgomery, are to be seen other piles of gold and silver, and here is carried the only considerable store of paper money in the State.
>>
http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=26&threadid=913669&STARTPAGE=2
I'd prefer a simpler theory where the mint already had bags of mixed date $20s.
But people seem to think they only had output bags of current dated coins.
Among any SF mint experts here, what was the raw gold input for the mint?
Did they get commercial bars, mix with copper and then make their planchets?
Or did they take in circulated gold coins? Both?
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
Just a quick story- One of my College Profs worked on the McCarthy campaign during the 1968 New Hampshire primary. He knocked on a door- a very old man answered the door. The prof made the McCarthy pitch and man responded that the Democrats caused the Depression. The prof pointed out Hoover was a not a Democrat and the man responded... I know that. I am referring to Cleveland and the Depression of 1893...
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>Seems some significant economic history has been left out of the entire discussion. And that would be the panic of 1893 and the Depression that followed. I suspect there were some bank failures. The likely1894 burial date for hiding and storing gold could just a reflection of how serious the economic downturn was at the time.
Just a quick story- One of my College Profs worked on the McCarthy campaign during the 1968 New Hampshire primary. He knocked on a door- a very old man answered the door. The prof made the McCarthy pitch and man responded that the Democrats caused the Depression. The prof pointed out Hoover was a not a Democrat and the man responded... I know that. I am referring to Cleveland and the Depression of 1893... >>
I did suggest the Panic of 1893 as a possible reason why the hoard was buried near the bottom of P. 18 of the main thread. I still think that is highly likely.
TD
<< <i>
<< <i>Seems some significant economic history has been left out of the entire discussion. And that would be the panic of 1893 and the Depression that followed. I suspect there were some bank failures. The likely1894 burial date for hiding and storing gold could just a reflection of how serious the economic downturn was at the time.
Just a quick story- One of my College Profs worked on the McCarthy campaign during the 1968 New Hampshire primary. He knocked on a door- a very old man answered the door. The prof made the McCarthy pitch and man responded that the Democrats caused the Depression. The prof pointed out Hoover was a not a Democrat and the man responded... I know that. I am referring to Cleveland and the Depression of 1893... >>
I did suggest the Panic of 1893 as a possible reason why the hoard was buried near the bottom of P. 18 of the main thread. I still think that is highly likely.
TD >>
The Panic of 1893 isn't logical considering it appears the accumulation of the coins started before that, maybe the hiding but not the hoarding. I think it a little hypocritical to admonish people for speculating about them being connected to a robbery through lose circumstantial connections and then partaking in equally unfunded speculation. Everybody gets to make up a story or nobody does.
Truth is nobody knows anything about these coins and unless the owners come forward so property records can be unearthed it is unlikely that we ever will.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Seems some significant economic history has been left out of the entire discussion. And that would be the panic of 1893 and the Depression that followed. I suspect there were some bank failures. The likely1894 burial date for hiding and storing gold could just a reflection of how serious the economic downturn was at the time.
Just a quick story- One of my College Profs worked on the McCarthy campaign during the 1968 New Hampshire primary. He knocked on a door- a very old man answered the door. The prof made the McCarthy pitch and man responded that the Democrats caused the Depression. The prof pointed out Hoover was a not a Democrat and the man responded... I know that. I am referring to Cleveland and the Depression of 1893... >>
I did suggest the Panic of 1893 as a possible reason why the hoard was buried near the bottom of P. 18 of the main thread. I still think that is highly likely.
TD >>
The Panic of 1893 isn't logical considering it appears the accumulation of the coins started before that, maybe the hiding but not the hoarding. I think it a little hypocritical to admonish people for speculating about them being connected to a robbery through lose circumstantial connections and then partaking in equally unfunded speculation. Everybody gets to make up a story or nobody does.
Truth is nobody knows anything about these coins and unless the owners come forward so property records can be unearthed it is unlikely that we ever will. >>
The property records should have been thoroughly searched by the finders' attorneys. I'm sure they did so and probably found nothing that would encumber their discovery.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Seems some significant economic history has been left out of the entire discussion. And that would be the panic of 1893 and the Depression that followed. I suspect there were some bank failures. The likely1894 burial date for hiding and storing gold could just a reflection of how serious the economic downturn was at the time.
Just a quick story- One of my College Profs worked on the McCarthy campaign during the 1968 New Hampshire primary. He knocked on a door- a very old man answered the door. The prof made the McCarthy pitch and man responded that the Democrats caused the Depression. The prof pointed out Hoover was a not a Democrat and the man responded... I know that. I am referring to Cleveland and the Depression of 1893... >>
I did suggest the Panic of 1893 as a possible reason why the hoard was buried near the bottom of P. 18 of the main thread. I still think that is highly likely.
TD >>
The Panic of 1893 isn't logical considering it appears the accumulation of the coins started before that, maybe the hiding but not the hoarding. I think it a little hypocritical to admonish people for speculating about them being connected to a robbery through lose circumstantial connections and then partaking in equally unfunded speculation. Everybody gets to make up a story or nobody does.
Truth is nobody knows anything about these coins and unless the owners come forward so property records can be unearthed it is unlikely that we ever will. >>
The property records should have been thoroughly searched by the finders' attorneys. I'm sure they did so and probably found nothing that would encumber their discovery. >>
One can only assume they decided to keep silent as to minimize the claims on the property. Without details it makes it hard to fabricate a claim meaning the sale goes through smoother and quicker.
I don't care what story is supposed to be true, these were somebody's coins.
<< <i>I believe it a law in CALIFORNIA that this find needed to be published and have never seen any evidence offered as to where or when it wad published. Until I see the publication, IMO, the hoard ownership will remain clouded.
I don't care what story is supposed to be true, these were somebody's coins. >>
So why haven't they been arrested like you said they would be last week? Does the law state that it has to be reported even if found on private property? Since they retained an attorney/s don't you suppose that they took care of that detail.
<< <i>
<< <i>I believe it a law in CALIFORNIA that this find needed to be published and have never seen any evidence offered as to where or when it wad published. Until I see the publication, IMO, the hoard ownership will remain clouded.
I don't care what story is supposed to be true, these were somebody's coins. >>
So why haven't they been arrested like you said they would be last week? Does the law state that it has to be reported even if found on private property? Since they retained an attorney/s don't you suppose that they took care of that detail. >>
He doesn't care.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>Please show me where I said they should be arrested and please don't ever put your words in my mouth. >>
First off I never said should, I said would.
My error. I went back and and looked and here is what you said.
<< <i>I recently had a conversation with a friend of mine. He has been following this event. Three of his officers were fired because they didn't report $600 in cash on the sidewalk while on foot patrol. His dismissals held up through the appeals court. The law in California requires found money or treasure to be reported to the police for a claim of ownership.
My friend is the former chief of a city in SoCal.
It's game over. The coins will be seized shortly in all probability. >>
So I'll ask properly then, why haven't the coins been seized yet?