I stand corrected on Germany occupying Egypt. Germany did occupy parts of North Africa until the allies drove them out in 1943 or 1944. The export license I believe was issued and the coin sent to Egypt not too long before the government started going after the other 1933 double eagles in the market.
The existence of the export license probably was the reason the government settled the Fenton case.
CaptainHenway: The bottom line is that the Mint has no proof that they were "stolen." It just sounds better to a jury than "exchanged for gold of equal weight without authorization."
Gov would have to convince jury that "stolen" equals "exchanged for gold of equal weight without authorization." I do see your point.
Consider,though,that McCann's swapping of coins was by no means an innocent act,was for personal gain.Twenty 1933 Double Eagles,while under the control of Cashier George McCann, left the Mint unlawfully and fell into private hands.
A tin can in the ground with 10 more 1933 D.E's is waiting to be "found?" Oh,we need a definition for "found" that will apply now.I could never be a lawyer...
Judge Sloviter,in her dissent notes,
"The Government has chosen not to rely on the characterization of the Golden Eagles as "contraband" and thus does not argue the application of 18 USC § 983(a)(1)(F),which provides that "The Government shall not be required to return contraband or other property that the person from whom the property was seized may not legally possess." Because gold may now be possessed,we will not try to determine whether the Golden Eagles were contraband at the time McCann and Switt illegally removed them from the Mint."
edited 5/1/15: Added the "§" symbol.Deleted sentence "Twenty Double Eagles left the Mint." Replaced with the more accurate,"Twenty 1933 Double Eagles,while under the control of Cashier George McCann, left the Mint unlawfully and fell into private hands.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Exchanging coins is spare change compared to taking dies and making coins that were not authorized. How many "rarities" went out the back door of the Mint? Why are they not concerned about the 1804 dollars made in the 1850s and 1870s and the 1913 nickels? I just never understood the selective reasoning, and they could never convince me with their arguments (they being the Mint lawyers in casual conversation)
Retired United States Mint guy, now working on an Everyman Type Set.
<< <i>Post after "last" post.I really need to attend to those yellow flowers that have sprung up in my lawn....
SanctionII: The government's issuance of an export license to allow a 1933 double eagle to be sent to Egypt was not a mistake. It was an intentional act/decision by the government. The decision to issue the export license was probably made with consideration of the politics of the time (WWII and Egypt being an ally that had recently had German occupiers forced out).
Mistake or not,can you agree with me that the export license is how the Gov got snookered?
My understanding is that Roosevelt and Farouk were both Philatelists.Farouk give Roosevelt some stamps,sheets of stamps.The President really enjoyed his stamp collection.
Nellie Tayloe Ross,Director of the Mint in 1944 has an application in front of her to export a specific gold coin,1933 Double Eagle, to Egypt for King Farouk:
Nellie Tayloe Ross:"I can't sign this thing."
Mr. Fahim: "Ms. Ross,can you please check with the President?"
Nellie Tayloe Ross:"Okay,but it will be awhile."
Mr. Fahim: "That's fine."
.....two hours later....
Nellie Tayloe Ross: "Here's your export license,Mr. Fahim.Have a safe trip back to Egypt." >>
I agree with Sanction II's characterization of the export license as an intentional/decisional act. That Fenton somehow " snookered " anyone is poor word choice. (My memory is not clear as to whether or not Fenton knew of the existence of the export license at the time he was face down on the floor at the Waldorf.)
The point is that such acts by officials given the statutory authority to make them carry a good bit of weight, but they are not always determinative in every case. I think what is telling is that both sides agreed to settle. Even with the export license, Fenton still might have lost the case had he pushed it to trial. Risks of litigation. I've lost slam dunk cases and won hopeless ones. No snooker (a game I haven't played since my misspent youth in the 60's) necessary.
BTW, am I the only one who sees a huge hearsay problem with the government's case? The records may be meticulous, but do they reflect what actually happened? I just can't see the ancient records exception being pushed as far as it was in the trial
Collector since adolescent days in the early 1960's. Mostly inactive now, but I enjoy coin periodicals and books and coin shows as health permits.
That Fenton somehow " snookered " anyone is poor word choice. (My memory is not clear as to whether or not Fenton knew of the existence of the export license at the time he was face down on the floor at the Waldorf.)
I agree.Poor word choice.Can i find a better word and later edit "snookered" out of my previous posts?The better word is escaping me at this time. I don't know what i was thinking when i went with that word,"snookered." Never did care much for the game.Straight pool was my game back in the day.
Maybe Frankel has some information about what Fenton knew or didn't know in her book.It's entirely possible Fenton didn't know about the export license.I would be amazed on finding that Fenton didn't know,however.
Is there such a thing as unwittingly diminishing another's,in this case the Gov's,ability to function properly?
I'm open to suggestions for a good word choice so I can cover up my misspeak here.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
The Government got "finessed" by Barry Berke's excellent legal work. They assumed they had already won, and did not bring their A Game to court. Berke did.
Berke likewise finessed the Langbords to victory.
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.
If my memory is correct, the 1944 export license allowing a single 1933 double eagle to be sent to Egypt was discovered and came to light during the discovery phase of the litigation between the government and Fenton [which I think was a civil forfeiture action filed by the government under the then current civil asset forfeiture laws to forfeit that coin to the government]. Mr. Fenton's lawyer, Mr. Berke, came across the export license when reviewing documents obtained/produced during discovery.
p.278 Tripp states, "As the case grumbled inexorably toward trial,Berke relied heavily on the Farouk provenance.He had discovered information that had been lost-unknown-for fifty years:that the Egyptian Legation had been provided an export license for the coin."
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>p.278 Tripp states, "As the case grumbled inexorably toward trial,Berke relied heavily on the Farouk provenance.He had discovered information that had been lost-unknown-for fifty years:that the Egyptian Legation had been provided an export license for the coin." >>
How did he discover it? I read the book when it first came out years ago, but unfortunately it was a public library copy. Anything else in the newer book?
Collector since adolescent days in the early 1960's. Mostly inactive now, but I enjoy coin periodicals and books and coin shows as health permits.
You use the word "finessed," Captain Henway,in reference to Mr. Berke's legal work in the Fenton case.
Berke and Fenton discovered a "smoking gun" that effectively "handcuffed" the Gov,severely diminishing Gov's ability to function properly to it's hoped end result,the recovery of the ex Farouk piece.
I think it's highly unlikely that a forfeiture action would have worked out for the Fenton/Burke team had the export license never been granted.
Fenton/Burke "lucked out." No finesse involved,in my opinion.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
I jumped ahead in my newly acquired book,Double Eagle by Alison Frankel,and found this on p.265 (parentheses mine):
"James Macallister,the Philadelphia dealer who'd bought five coins ('33 Doubles) from Switt,told agents (of the Secret Service) that Switt claimed to have owned twenty-five 1933 Saints."
If Switt was telling Macallister the truth about having owned twenty-five 1933 Saints,then my read of the above is that there are at least five '33's still out there waiting to be "found."
Any opinions about what the Gov should do,if anything,in the event that,in addition to the ten coins that the Langbord's discovered,one or more newly discovered '33 Saints sees the light of day?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
I went to the supermarket yesterday to buy some food and received a 1944 Wheat penny in change.I thought of this as at least mildly ironic since I had spent a large part of the day posting here,mostly about the export license for the ex Farouk coin which was granted in 1944.
"Here's a penny for your thoughts,mr1874?" lol
The coin was nice,about XF or so,with no problems.I asked the clerk if she wanted it.She said she did so I gave it to her.She tells me she has a some silver pennies from WWII that are "worth a lot of money."
I didn't have the heart to tell her.She was having a good day and I didn't want to spoil it for her.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
First,an apology is in order.I'm sorry,Steve,for characterizing your thinking about "maybe not 250 coins to the bag in every bag" and questioning the accuracy of scales in use at the Mint in 1933 as ludicrous.That was inappropriate of me to make that remark to you. Sometimes,i react in the heat of the moment about a subject i am passionate about without giving thought about my response enough time to sink fully into my noggin. I should have used the "Cancel" button instead of the "Reply to Thread" button.All ideas should be given their due without being so summarily dismissed as I did yours.My bad,i'm sorry.
>>
Mr1874, I have enjoyed reading your posts on this huge thread (over 400 now). I can appreciate we having different views on whether or not the Government should keep the coins or return them. I can also appreciate how all of us sometimes get so passionate about something that we say things we probably should not. The fact that you recognized that and have responded to me tells me a lot about what a fine person you are. It would be nice if you chose to sign your first name on these threads so I could address you less formally. Thanks. Steve
From the Merriam-Webster's Collegiate® Dictionary,Eleventh Edition:
seize seez vb seized;seizing 1 : to lay hold of or take possession of by force 2 : ARREST 3 : UNDERSTAND 4 : to attack or overwhelm physically : AFFLICT Synonyms TAKE, GRASP, CLUTCH, SNATCH , GRAB
The act of seizing is called seizure.
The Langbords surrendered to the Gov the ten 1933 Doubles they found in their possession.Technically,the Gov did not seize the coins from the Langbords.See the simple definition of seize above.
"Seize the '33 Double" is what the Gov did when they caught wind that London dealer Stephen Fenton was coming into the United States with the ex Farouk Double hoping to make a sale.The Secret Service seized that Double,taking possession of it by force.Fenton was overwhelmed physically and the coin taken from him using physical force.
The Gov simply decided to keep for itself the ten coins that the Langbords surrendered voluntarily. After the coins were encapsulated,the Gov refused to return the coins to the Langbords,on the grounds that the ten 1933 Double coins the Langbords surrendered to them are stolen US Gov property and have always been stolen Government property.
We all know why the Gov kept the coins but when and where did a Government seizure of the ten Doubles from the Langbords occur?
I would maintain that no seizure of coins from the Langbords by the Gov ever occurred.
In another thread in here some time ago,someone asked why the Gov had the coins encapsulated.The answer is simple enough.The ten '33 Doubles (the Fort Knox Ten) are evidence.Encapsulating them allows easy organization of the coins so they can be easily distinguished one from the other.The coins were encapsulated for practical organizational reasons first.Other reason or reasons for encapsulation are secondary.TPG grade that an individual coin might receive was a secondary reason for encapsulation.
Does anyone have information about where and when the first printed ad or ads appeared offering a 1933 Double for sale? I vaguely recall in my past reading that an ad appeared in The Numismatist as early as 1937 offering a 1933 Double for sale.I'm not sure about this though.
Anyone with good information about first appearance of ad to sell '33 Double please share with us.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
The Langbords did not surrender the ten coins voluntarily. They asked the Mint to authenticate the coins for them.
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.
The trial court and the court of appeal have both determined that the government did seize the 10 double eagles (and not just in a technical, dictionary definition sense). If further requests for appellate review are granted it is possible that a higher court may determine that no seizure occurred.
gypsylea wrote: I read the book when it first came out years ago, but unfortunately it was a public library copy. Anything else in the newer book?
The newer book undoubtedly has information that Tripp didn't publish.For example,I don't recall reading in Tripp's book what Macallister told the Secret Service about Switt telling him that he (Switt) had owned twenty-five 1933 Doubles.
Both books are well-written.Frankel's book has history that Tripp's book doesn't.I'm putting off starting the thread about Frankel's book for awhile.I want to focus pretty much on just Frankel's book over the next days.
Books are mirrors: you only see in them what you already have inside you. D Carlos Ruiz Zafron, The Shadow of the Wind
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
The trial court and the court of appeal have both determined that the government did seize the 10 double eagles (and not just in a technical, dictionary definition sense). If further request for appellate review are granted it is possible that a higher court may determine that no seizure took occurred. >>
To add to what Sanction II said I believe the court said the seizure took place when they refused to give them back to the Langbords. Also, I am doubtful that a higher coin would find that the coins were not seized. IIRC even the government gave up on that line of reasoning, and did not make that argument in the last appeal.
The flow of this thread is misleading. In the history of the Mint, it was a standard practice for collectors, dealers and tourists to exchange old coins for new coins, at face value. Everyone thought of such exchanges as legitimate and ethical, even if records were not always kept. It is extremely likely that the parties involved honestly did not think that there was a need for ledger entries in such cases.
Sanction2: <<The existence of the export license probably was the reason the government settled the Fenton case>>
I doubt it. It was never documented that the Fenton 1933 and the Farouk 1933 are the same coin, and it might not be possible to prove that these two are the same coin. The Farouk 1933 could still be out there. Over the years, many scarce Double Eagles have surfaced in Europe.
A point that should be emphasized in this thread is that almost all coin experts who have reflected upon the history of the Philadelphia Mint are in agreement that there is no convincing evidence that any 1933 Double Eagles were stolen. If the Fenton case had gone to trial, many mainstream numismatists would have been willing to testify in Fenton's favor. Who would have testified on behalf of the Treasury Department?
1933 Double Eagles were made in the same way, according to the same rules, as 1931 and 1932 Double Eagles. 1931 and 1932 Double Eagles can probably be traced to Switt as well.
As for Frankel's book, how knowledgeable is Frankel about rare coins, the Philadelphia Mint, or the history of coin collecting? Personally, I was not impressed by her book. Did she ever write about coin-related topics before she started that book?
In my writings on the Switt-Langbord case, I cite R. W. Julian, Q. David Bowers and Roger Burdette. Why is Mr. 1974 so determined to read books by Tripp and Frankel, rather than remarks by them and me?
I suggest reading the section on 1933 Double Eagles in Bowers' paperback book on Double Eagles that was published by Whitman in 2003. My understanding is that QDB was willing to testify that there is not a reason to believe that any 1933 Double Eagles were ever stolen.
Who are the writers best qualified to analyze the Fenton and Switt-Langbord cases in the contexts of the history of the Philadelphia Mint and the history of coin collecting in the U.S.?
Also, on Dec. 28, 2010, I noted that Burdette "discovered that the Mint Cashier was provided with forty-three 1933 Double Eagles on March 4," 1933.
<< <i> A point that should be emphasized in this thread is that almost all coin experts who have reflected upon the history of the Philadelphia Mint are in agreement that there is no convincing evidence that any 1933 Double Eagles were stolen. If the Fenton case had gone to trial, many mainstream numismatists would have been willing to testify in Fenton's favor. Who would have testified on behalf of the Treasury Department? >>
While I'm happy for the Langbords at this point, the way this legal issue is going is somewhat unfortunate in that the current ruling really only affects their 10 coins. If mistakes hadn't been made in the jury trial, a ruling by the jury that some 1933 DEs could have legally left the mint via exchange at the cashier's window would have legitimized all 1933 DEs extant. As it sits, any other hidden coins are still in legal limbo, and the government lawyers won't make the same mistakes if other coins surface.
<< <i> A point that should be emphasized in this thread is that almost all coin experts who have reflected upon the history of the Philadelphia Mint are in agreement that there is no convincing evidence that any 1933 Double Eagles were stolen. If the Fenton case had gone to trial, many mainstream numismatists would have been willing to testify in Fenton's favor. Who would have testified on behalf of the Treasury Department? >>
While I'm happy for the Langbords at this point, the way this legal issue is going is somewhat unfortunate in that the current ruling really only affects their 10 coins. If mistakes hadn't been made in the jury trial, a ruling by the jury that some 1933 DEs could have legally left the mint via exchange at the cashier's window would have legitimized all 1933 DEs extant. As it sits, any other hidden coins are still in legal limbo, and the government lawyers won't make the same mistakes if other coins surface. >>
Correct. This U.S. Mint screwup only applies to the Langbord 10.
That said, If they are returned to the Langbords and sold at public auction, the Mint would be in a much weaker position trying to seize Coin #14 which we know is out there.
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.
My point regarding the export license and the government decision to settle the Fenton case needs to be clarified. When I stated the export license was probably "the" reason the case settled I should have said probably "a primary" reason. The Fenton coin has not been proven to be the Farouk coin. However the existence of the export license would be evidence at the Fenton trial that would have raised a hurdle to the government being able to win it's case for forfeiture (by proving what it had to prove and preventing Fenton from proving any affirmative defense).
In the history of the Mint, it was a standard practice for collectors, dealers and tourists to exchange old coins for new coins, at face value. Everyone thought of such exchanges as legitimate and ethical, even if records were not always kept. It is extremely likely that the parties involved honestly did not think that there was a need for ledger entries in such cases.
The entries for exchange were not always made,I agree.There are a few entries to be seen in the 1933 Daily Ledger for $10 exchanges, however.There are no entries in the Daily Ledger to be seen for $20 exchanges.
Question/Do you not find it peculiar that not a single entry in the Daily Ledger is to be seen for exchange of old $20 for new,shiny '33 $20?
Twenty-two '33 Doubles are known to have left the Mint.The Farouk piece is one.It landed in Egypt in King Farouk's collection.The Langbords found ten in a safety deposit box.Nine Doubles were seized from wealthy collectors in the '40's and '50's.These coins were melted in 1956.Two '33 Doubles were sent to the Smithsonian October,1934.
1 Farouk+10Langbord+9 (James F. Bell, F.C.C. Boyd,Charles M. Williams,T. James Clark,L.G. Barnard, James Stack,Max Bernstein,Colonel J Flanagan,Louis Eliasberg)+2(Smithsonian National Numismatic Collection.)=22
Twenty-two 1933 Double Eagles are known to exist or have existed.There easily could be more '33 Doubles waiting to be found or discovered.Question/Do you agree with me on this,ie. 22 and could be more?
Tripp wrote his book before the Langbords discovered the ten 1933 Doubles in a safety box.All nine coins that were seized and subsequently melted in the '40's and '50's were traced by Tripp as having went through the hands of Israel Switt.The details about this can be found in Tripp's book.Israel Switt was Joan Langbord's father.
Question/Do you not think it odd that all twenty '33 Doubles "out of the knowns" were owned at one time by just one individual,Israel Switt?
There's three questions here for you to ponder,Analyst.
Now,I have said along that I am willing to change my mind about "window of opportunity." I need something more substantial than I've seen thus far,however, for that to happen.
One more question.
You say,Burdette "discovered that the Mint Cashier was provided with forty-three 1933 Double Eagles on March 4, 1933."
I read the entire 19 July 2011 article that I was directed to and remain unconvinced that 1933 Double Eagles somehow got comingled with 1932 Doubles on March 4,1933 and therefore could have been given out to the public.On March 2,1933 Double eagle production commenced.The first '33 Doubles were not delivered to the Cashier until March 15,1933. Do you offer an explanation for how the "comingling" could have happened given that the first '33 Doubles were all in the Coiner's control on March 4,1933?
edited 5/3/15-misspeak corrections.Joan Langbord's father,not grandfather,was Israel Switt. Also,all twenty '33 D.E.'s known to have gone into private hands can be linked to Israel Switt.Switt handled the Farouk piece in addition to the other nineteen (ten in the SDB+nine seized and melted).
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
I suggest reading the section on 1933 Double Eagles in Bowers' paperback book on Double Eagles that was published by Whitman in 2003.
I will do so and let you know what I think.My impression of QDB's remarks/analysis will probably be in another thread at a later time,though. Is the book expensive? I'm already in $50 for two books about Double Eagles and I don't even collect the blasted things!
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
I have some thoughts about "first offerings for sale of '33 Doubles" but before I can share those thoughts with you all need the correct answer to yet another question,
Does anyone have information about where and when the first printed ad or ads appeared offering a 1933 Double for sale?
I vaguely recall in my past reading that an ad appeared in The Numismatist as early as 1937 offering a 1933 Double for sale.I'm not sure about this though.
Anyone with good information about first appearance of ad to sell '33 Double please share with us.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>The last post I can see is Friday May 01, 2015 8:25 PM. Does anyone know why I can't see the most recent posts? >>
Now, after my post above, I can see what I missed. I must be in some sort of weird time warp. >>
For months now the forums have had an annoying glitch whereby for some reason they do not count certain postings in a thread. With 20 postings on a page, if they have 183 postings in a thread but the system only recognizes 178 of them, it will show only nine pages of replies because it thinks that the ninth page is not yet filled up.
Whenever this happens, check the location bar (?) at the top of your screen and see if it ends in a page number, let's say 13. Click past the end of it and backspace or delete the 3 and type in four or whatever you have to do to raise the page number by one. Then click on GO and it will take you to the hidden page.
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 bought both books new,in hardcover, with unclipped dust jacket.The books themselves have cost me about $20 apiece.Both books were bought through amazon.com,shipping about $5 apiece.The Tripp book has been in my library for about ten years.I received Frankel's book just recently.
Some of the other numismatic books I own have been signed by the author so I allow for the possibility of someday getting Illegal Tendersigned by Tripp and likewise,Double Eagle signed by Frankel.Don't know if this will ever happen but I do allow for the possibility.
Beat-up paperback books,although inexpensive,don't really work for me.I may not be able to afford the best quality coins but I can afford best quality book about a numismatic subject that interests me if the price for the new book isn't outrageous in my mind.
I should mention that both books were bought from a coin dealer I like and trust.
The Numismatist is a valuable numismatic research tool.Unfortunately,i'm not a member of ANA anymore so their library is not available to me.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>In the history of the Mint, it was a standard practice for collectors, dealers and tourists to exchange old coins for new coins, at face value. Everyone thought of such exchanges as legitimate and ethical, even if records were not always kept. It is extremely likely that the parties involved honestly did not think that there was a need for ledger entries in such cases.
The entries for exchange were not always made,I agree.There are a few entries to be seen in the 1933 Daily Ledger for $10 exchanges, however.There are no entries in the Daily Ledger to be seen for $20 exchanges.
Question/Do you not find it peculiar that not a single entry in the Daily Ledger is to be seen for exchange of old $20 for new,shiny '33 $20?
Twenty-two '33 Doubles are known to have left the Mint.The Farouk piece is one.It landed in Egypt in King Farouk's collection.The Langbords found ten in a safety deposit box.Nine Doubles were seized from wealthy collectors in the '40's and '50's.These coins were melted in 1956.Two '33 Doubles were sent to the Smithsonian October,1934.
1 Farouk+10Langbord+9 (James F. Bell, F.C.C. Boyd,Charles M. Williams,T. James Clark,L.G. Barnard, James Stack,Max Bernstein,Colonel J Flanagan,Louis Eliasberg)+2(Smithsonian National Numismatic Collection.)=22
Twenty-two 1933 Double Eagles are known to exist or have existed.There easily could be more '33 Doubles waiting to be found or discovered.Question/Do you agree with me on this,ie. 22 and could be more? >>
I would agree that if each $20 exchange was a separate transaction, no recorded transactions and 22 missing transactions would be unusual. However, the 1933's could have been exchanged in one or two transactions total. And one or two missing transactions wouldn't be unusual or unexpected.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
A new copy of An Official Red Book:A Guide Book of Double Eagle Gold Coins:A Complete History and Price Guide by Q. David Bowers is on its way to me.Not expensive at all,$18 to include shipping.
Mr. Bowers actually took the time to write me personally many years ago.I had some questions about 1894-S dime to ask him so composed a letter and sent it to him.I don't know if QDB still does this,answering personally that is,but I will say I was impressed that he did this for little ole me,a virtual nobody in the numismatic universe.
I'm in now $70 for three books about Double Eagles.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Two years ago,March 2013,I printed for myself a document off the US. Mint website that is entitled "Timeline for the 1933 Double Eagle."
There are three pages of dates and events listed starting March 4,1933 "Franklin Roosevelt Inaugurated" to July 30,2002 "Only 1933 Double Eagle "issued and monetized' by United States Government. Sold at public auction conducted by Sotheby's/Stack's in New York City."
March 15,1933-March 24,1933 "First 100,000 1933 Double Eagles struck" it says.This is incorrect.The first strikings were made March 2 and the researchers can show this from the Mint's own records.
Any "window of opportunity" for collectors to obtain '33 D.E.'s could absolutely start no earlier than March 2,1933. Any window of opportunity here could end no later than April 5,1933 when Roosevelt issued Executive Order 6102,requiring "return of all gold coin with specific exceptions," in the Mint's own words.
The following is an excerpt from Coin World Article first published in July 19,2011,1933 Double Eagle trial section of Coinworld.com:
"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."
QuestionThe coiner and assistant superintendent are discussing what happened in 1933 in a 1945 memo.Why are these two discussing something that supposedly happened some 12 years earlier?
Nellie Tayloe Ross (NTR) was Director of the Mint from May,1933 to April,1953.I'm getting from my reading that this lady,faithful and honest public servant that she might be,was naive about coin collecting/coin collectors of the day. NTR signed off on the Farouk coin (February 29, 1944) allowing it to leave the United States. A naïve mistake NTR made that soon came back to haunt her?
Six days later, March 6, 1944 "Letter from Associate Director of Smithsonian Institution to Mint Director Ross confirming that coin was shown to T. Belote who answered affirmatively that coin was of special interest to collectors prior to April 5,1933 and December 28,1933."
Twenty-two days later the Secret Service investigation commences, March 22,1944 "United States Secret Service first became aware of 1933 Double Eagles being advertised for sale. Investigation begins."
March 23-25,1944 "Stack's auction of Col. James W. Flanagan Collection,containing 1933 Double Eagle (lot 1681)."
Twenty-four days later, March 24,1944 "Secret Service Agents Jack Haley and Harry W. Strang seize 1933 Double Eagle (#1) from Stack's.Secret Service agents Haley and Strang seize a second 1933 Double Eagle (#2)from coin dealer Max Barenstein.
The next day, March 25,1944 Agents Haley and Strang interview Messrs. J.F. Bell,F.C.C. Boyd and Ira Reed in New York City. Bell immediately surrenders a 1933 Double Eagle (#3) to special agents.
March 30,1944 "Leland Howard,Acting director of US Mint sent memo to Chief of United States Secret Service recounting events leading to granting of Export License to King Farouk. Explains awareness of illicit removal of 1933 Double Eagles from Mint in response to "routine inquiry regarding the number of such coins that had been placed "in circulation."
no date shown "Acting Mint Director recounts first realization that no 1933 Double Eagles had ever been placed in circulation. Mint understood the situation only after the export license had been issued."
Acting Mint Director Leland Howard? What happened to NTR? Here we are a mere month after the export license was granted to King Farouk with three Secret Service seizures of 1933 Double Eagles having happened,and an "acting" Mint Director is being questioned about 1933 Double Eagles?
The snowball is rolling down the hill.It's getting bigger and bigger....
April 6,1944 "Chief of United States Secret Service receives written confirmation from the Treasury Department that their records "do not show that any payments of 1933 Double Eagles were authorized to be made by the United States Mint,Philadelphia,to any Federal Reserve Bank or Branch."
May 4,1944 "General Counsel to Treasury, re Farouk coin, "it would be proper to attempt by diplomatic representations to have the coin returned to the United States."
June 18,1944 "F.C.C. Boyd surrenders 1933 Double Eagle (#4)to Special Agent Strang."
Year 1945 The Mint chronology shows three more seizures of 1933 Double Eagles from their wealthy owners in 1945.Seven coins total have been seized by June,1945.
We have a memo between Mint officials from 1945 that Burdette discovered.The memo discusses 43 "pieces" used in 1933 to balance the books.
And what happened to NTR? Something here ain't right....
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
I would expect that the Langbord's really don't want all 1933s made legal. If twenty more showed up after the trial it could really crash their profits.
<< <i>I would expect that the Langbord's really don't want all 1933s made legal. If twenty more showed up after the trial it could really crash their profits. >>
the Langbords won on a technicality that the gov't will likely not duplicate.
anyway, there is not going to be such a thing as some are and some aren't here. What is at stake are the 10. The appeals court is making a decision on the case concerning 10. Unless a settlement between the parties says otherwise, the court is deciding on 0 or 10 and not in between.
<< <i>I would expect that the Langbord's really don't want all 1933s made legal. If twenty more showed up after the trial it could really crash their profits. >>
Unless they have MORE that we don't know about. Which is within the realm of possibility.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
This particular thread is like a vampire that just won't die; or like a cat with 9 lives.
Might as well toss out some additional grist for the mill and for "forum watercooler" discussion.
In lawsuits filed in the good old USA the general rule is that the "prevailing party" is entitled to recover his, her, its costs of suit from the non prevailing party (aka the winner of the case is awarded costs against the loser and the loser has to pay same). "Costs of suit" include items such as filing fees, process serving fees, witness fees, court reporter fees, expert fees, deposition transcript fees, etc.
In sunny California, under its state law this rule is in effect. In California "costs of suit" that can be recovered are listed in a statute and may [in certain limited situations I will mention below] include "reasonable attorney fees". The procedure present in California through which a prevailing party can seek and recover its costs of suit from the non prevailing party includes filing and serving a Memorandum Of Costs that specify and itemize each cost that one seeks to recover. If the losing party objects to the items of costs it must bring a motion for an order taxing [disallowing] the costs. However, if the prevailing party includes in the Memorandum Of Costs a claim for attorney fees as an item of costs, the prevailing party must bring a motion for an order awarding attorney fees as an item of costs.
In California obtaining an award of attorney fees as an item of costs awarded to the winner of the case against the loser of the case can be accomplished in the following circumstances:
1. A written contract exists between the parties to the lawsuit which has a provision that states that if a lawsuit is filed between the two sides over the contract the prevailing party is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney fees [for example a promissory note secured by a deed of trust or mortgage that has an attorney fee provision];
2. A statute exists that expressly provides for an award of attorney fees to the prevailing party in a lawsuit brought on the statute;
3. Extremely narrow circumstances recognized by published appellate court opinions (which I am not familiar with).
Federal law is similar to California law regarding the recovery of costs of suit by the prevailing party (winner) against the non prevailing party (loser).
In the event that the Langbord case eventually resolves itself with the court of appeal decision becoming final (thus the Langbords win and the government loses) the case would go back to the trial court for the trial court to issue a judgment in favor of the Langbords. The Langbords would likely be viewed as the prevailing party in the case. A future fight over what costs, if any, the Langbords would be entitled to recover [plus attorney fees if there is a statutory or other basis for same] from the government would be interesting and likely inevitable.
Your thoughts on prevailing party and costs of suit?
This whole thing was a ridiculous waste of our money.
Dave Wnuck. Redbook contributor; long time PNG Member; listed on the PCGS Board of Experts. PM me with your email address to receive my e-newsletter, and visit DaveWcoins.com Find me on eBay at davewcoins
Assuming the Langbords prevail, will the Government monetize or be required to monetize the coins? Will the coins be subject to forfeiture/seizure if they leave the possession of the Langbord family? If a collector obtains one, what is to stop the Government from pursuing surrender of the coin as not being legal to possess/own by the party that has it? Something to think about.
As I understand the CAFRA death penalty (aka the consequences of the failure of the government to timely file a CAFRA forfeiture action) is that the government:
1. would have to return the property (in this case the 10 1933 double eagles would have to be returned to the Langbords); and
2. would be barred from seeking, in the future, forfeiture of the property (the 10 coins in this case) based upon the facts constituting the offense giving rise to the barred forfeiture claim [in this case the claim that the 10 coins were stolen from the government in the 1930s].
The effect of this death penalty would be that for these 10 coins the government would be required to return same and would be barred from ever asserting ownership of same based past events. Thus if the 10 coins were sold by the Langbords, the buyers would obtain ownership free of any claim by the government to same. In addition to the effect of the CAFRA death penalty statute, general legal principles (including res judicata and collateral estoppel and claim splitting) would apply to prevent the government from seeking a second bite of the apple by bringing new litigation to obtain the 10 coins. The final judgment in the first case would operate as a bar to any second case.
<< <i>Assuming the Langbords prevail, will the Government monetize or be required to monetize the coins? Will the coins be subject to forfeiture/seizure if they leave the possession of the Langbord family? If a collector obtains one, what is to stop the Government from pursuing surrender of the coin as not being legal to possess/own by the party that has it? Something to think about. >>
As I understand the CAFRA death penalty (aka the consequences of the failure of the government to timely file a CAFRA forfeiture action) is that the government:
1. would have to return the property (in this case the 10 1933 double eagles would have to be returned to the Langbords); and
2. would be barred from seeking, in the future, forfeiture of the property (the 10 coins in this case) based upon the facts constituting the offense giving rise to the barred forfeiture claim [in this case the claim that the 10 coins were stolen from the government in the 1930s].
The effect of this death penalty would be that for these 10 coins the government would be required to return same and would be barred from ever asserting ownership of same based past events. Thus if the 10 coins were sold by the Langbords, the buyers would obtain ownership free of any claim by the government to same. In addition to the effect of the CAFRA death penalty statute, general legal principles (including res judicata and collateral estoppel and claim splitting) would apply to prevent the government from seeking a second bite of the apple by bringing new litigation to obtain the 10 coins. The final judgment in the first case would operate as a bar to any second case. >>
I guess I forgot about that part. Would they be legal coins or token? I can't imagine the Government would grant them any favors.
My thoughts on the prevailing party (assuming it be the Langbords in this case) And even if they do not win, they have done no wrong by asking for the authentication of these pieces. Wherein, the law , in effect says : "These are ours" Then there was never a need to parade them around in holders from ATS after authentication, except for SHOW and STEAL. I suppose as a collector and regular Joe on the street, my opinion means nothing. However with respect to law, order, the precedent set and the injustices bestowed, if it were my grandfather or great grandfather, there might also be libel and slander lawsuits forthcoming.
There's no proof Israel Switt stole anything. And that's been why I've been a proponent of preservation, exactly how it was done. (we know the government would have destroyed them in earlier days) Being a dealer the past 6 years taught me more than I cared to learn in "dealing". And honesty is the best policy. Joan Langbord (in my opinion, as a layman) got ripped off. 1) by our government through having all the litigation, after voluntarily giving these coins up 2) by having her grandfather's name drug through the mud; labeled a criminal, as a thief , and 3) By adding a decade to her life with no resolve… from the onset, with no end in sight for an amicable resolution. At least not any time soon, as fair and speedy trials go.
In light of that, it's been fun pondering the "Who done it ? " And the man , to me , is a hero. Because he done it good.
Izzy Switt should be a household name in numismatics.
Comments
The existence of the export license probably was the reason the government settled the Fenton case.
The bottom line is that the Mint has no proof that they were "stolen." It just sounds better to a jury than "exchanged for gold of equal weight without authorization."
Gov would have to convince jury that "stolen" equals "exchanged for gold of equal weight without authorization." I do see your point.
Consider,though,that McCann's swapping of coins was by no means an innocent act,was for personal gain.Twenty 1933 Double Eagles,while under the control of Cashier George McCann, left the Mint unlawfully and fell into private hands.
A tin can in the ground with 10 more 1933 D.E's is waiting to be "found?" Oh,we need a definition for "found" that will apply now.I could never be a lawyer...
Judge Sloviter,in her dissent notes,
"The Government has chosen not to rely on the characterization of the Golden Eagles as "contraband" and thus does not argue the application of 18 USC § 983(a)(1)(F),which provides that "The Government shall not be required to return contraband or other property that the person from whom the property was seized may not legally possess." Because gold may now be possessed,we will not try to determine whether the Golden Eagles were contraband at the time McCann and Switt illegally removed them from the Mint."
edited 5/1/15: Added the "§" symbol.Deleted sentence "Twenty Double Eagles left the Mint." Replaced with the more accurate,"Twenty 1933 Double Eagles,while under the control of Cashier George McCann, left the Mint unlawfully and fell into private hands.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>Post after "last" post.I really need to attend to those yellow flowers that have sprung up in my lawn....
SanctionII:
The government's issuance of an export license to allow a 1933 double eagle to be sent to Egypt was not a mistake. It was an intentional act/decision by the government. The decision to issue the export license was probably made with consideration of the politics of the time (WWII and Egypt being an ally that had recently had German occupiers forced out).
Mistake or not,can you agree with me that the export license is how the Gov got snookered?
My understanding is that Roosevelt and Farouk were both Philatelists.Farouk give Roosevelt some stamps,sheets of stamps.The President really enjoyed his stamp collection.
Nellie Tayloe Ross,Director of the Mint in 1944 has an application in front of her to export a specific gold coin,1933 Double Eagle, to Egypt for King Farouk:
Nellie Tayloe Ross:"I can't sign this thing."
Mr. Fahim: "Ms. Ross,can you please check with the President?"
Nellie Tayloe Ross:"Okay,but it will be awhile."
Mr. Fahim: "That's fine."
.....two hours later....
Nellie Tayloe Ross: "Here's your export license,Mr. Fahim.Have a safe trip back to Egypt." >>
I agree with Sanction II's characterization of the export license as an intentional/decisional act. That Fenton somehow " snookered " anyone is poor word choice. (My memory is not clear as to whether or not Fenton knew of the existence of the export license at the time he was face down on the floor at the Waldorf.)
The point is that such acts by officials given the statutory authority to make them carry a good bit of weight, but they are not always determinative in every case. I think what is telling is that both sides agreed to settle. Even with the export license, Fenton still might have lost the case had he pushed it to trial. Risks of litigation. I've lost slam dunk cases and won hopeless ones. No snooker (a game I haven't played since my misspent youth in the 60's) necessary.
BTW, am I the only one who sees a huge hearsay problem with the government's case? The records may be meticulous, but do they reflect what actually happened? I just can't see the ancient records exception being pushed as far as it was in the trial
That Fenton somehow " snookered " anyone is poor word choice. (My memory is not clear as to whether or not Fenton knew of the existence of the export license at the time he was face down on the floor at the Waldorf.)
I agree.Poor word choice.Can i find a better word and later edit "snookered" out of my previous posts?The better word is escaping me at this time. I don't know what i was thinking when i went with that word,"snookered." Never did care much for the game.Straight pool was my game back in the day.
Maybe Frankel has some information about what Fenton knew or didn't know in her book.It's entirely possible Fenton didn't know about the export license.I would be amazed on finding that Fenton didn't know,however.
Is there such a thing as unwittingly diminishing another's,in this case the Gov's,ability to function properly?
I'm open to suggestions for a good word choice so I can cover up my misspeak here.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Berke likewise finessed the Langbords to victory.
"As the case grumbled inexorably toward trial,Berke relied heavily on the Farouk provenance.He had discovered information that had been lost-unknown-for fifty years:that the Egyptian Legation had been provided an export license for the coin."
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>p.278 Tripp states,
"As the case grumbled inexorably toward trial,Berke relied heavily on the Farouk provenance.He had discovered information that had been lost-unknown-for fifty years:that the Egyptian Legation had been provided an export license for the coin." >>
How did he discover it? I read the book when it first came out years ago, but unfortunately it was a public library copy. Anything else in the newer book?
Berke and Fenton discovered a "smoking gun" that effectively "handcuffed" the Gov,severely diminishing Gov's ability to function properly to it's hoped end result,the recovery of the ex Farouk piece.
I think it's highly unlikely that a forfeiture action would have worked out for the Fenton/Burke team had the export license never been granted.
Fenton/Burke "lucked out." No finesse involved,in my opinion.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
"James Macallister,the Philadelphia dealer who'd bought five coins ('33 Doubles) from Switt,told agents (of the Secret Service) that Switt claimed to have owned twenty-five 1933 Saints."
If Switt was telling Macallister the truth about having owned twenty-five 1933 Saints,then my read of the above is that there are at least five '33's still out there waiting to be "found."
Any opinions about what the Gov should do,if anything,in the event that,in addition to the ten coins that the Langbord's discovered,one or more newly discovered '33 Saints sees the light of day?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
"Here's a penny for your thoughts,mr1874?" lol
The coin was nice,about XF or so,with no problems.I asked the clerk if she wanted it.She said she did so I gave it to her.She tells me she has a some silver pennies from WWII that are "worth a lot of money."
I didn't have the heart to tell her.She was having a good day and I didn't want to spoil it for her.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>
First,an apology is in order.I'm sorry,Steve,for characterizing your thinking about "maybe not 250 coins to the bag in every bag" and questioning the accuracy of scales in use at the Mint in 1933 as ludicrous.That was inappropriate of me to make that remark to you. Sometimes,i react in the heat of the moment about a subject i am passionate about without giving thought about my response enough time to sink fully into my noggin. I should have used the "Cancel" button instead of the "Reply to Thread" button.All ideas should be given their due without being so summarily dismissed as I did yours.My bad,i'm sorry.
>>
Mr1874, I have enjoyed reading your posts on this huge thread (over 400 now). I can appreciate we having different views on whether or not the Government should keep the coins or return them. I can also appreciate how all of us sometimes get so passionate about something that we say things we probably should not. The fact that you recognized that and have responded to me tells me a lot about what a fine person you are. It would be nice if you chose to sign your first name on these threads so I could address you less formally. Thanks. Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
seize seez vb seized;seizing 1 : to lay hold of or take possession of by force 2 : ARREST 3 : UNDERSTAND 4 : to attack or overwhelm physically : AFFLICT Synonyms TAKE, GRASP, CLUTCH, SNATCH , GRAB
The act of seizing is called seizure.
The Langbords surrendered to the Gov the ten 1933 Doubles they found in their possession.Technically,the Gov did not seize the coins from the Langbords.See the simple definition of seize above.
"Seize the '33 Double" is what the Gov did when they caught wind that London dealer Stephen Fenton was coming into the United States with the ex Farouk Double hoping to make a sale.The Secret Service seized that Double,taking possession of it by force.Fenton was overwhelmed physically and the coin taken from him using physical force.
The Gov simply decided to keep for itself the ten coins that the Langbords surrendered voluntarily. After the coins were encapsulated,the Gov refused to return the coins to the Langbords,on the grounds that the ten 1933 Double coins the Langbords surrendered to them are stolen US Gov property and have always been stolen Government property.
We all know why the Gov kept the coins but when and where did a Government seizure of the ten Doubles from the Langbords occur?
I would maintain that no seizure of coins from the Langbords by the Gov ever occurred.
In another thread in here some time ago,someone asked why the Gov had the coins encapsulated.The answer is simple enough.The ten '33 Doubles (the Fort Knox Ten) are evidence.Encapsulating them allows easy organization of the coins so they can be easily distinguished one from the other.The coins were encapsulated for practical organizational reasons first.Other reason or reasons for encapsulation are secondary.TPG grade that an individual coin might receive was a secondary reason for encapsulation.
Does anyone have information about where and when the first printed ad or ads appeared offering a 1933 Double for sale? I vaguely recall in my past reading that an ad appeared in The Numismatist as early as 1937 offering a 1933 Double for sale.I'm not sure about this though.
Anyone with good information about first appearance of ad to sell '33 Double please share with us.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
The trial court and the court of appeal have both determined that the government did seize the 10 double eagles (and not just in a technical, dictionary definition sense). If further requests for appellate review are granted it is possible that a higher court may determine that no seizure occurred.
I read the book when it first came out years ago, but unfortunately it was a public library copy. Anything else in the newer book?
The newer book undoubtedly has information that Tripp didn't publish.For example,I don't recall reading in Tripp's book what Macallister told the Secret Service about Switt telling him that he (Switt) had owned twenty-five 1933 Doubles.
Both books are well-written.Frankel's book has history that Tripp's book doesn't.I'm putting off starting the thread about Frankel's book for awhile.I want to focus pretty much on just Frankel's book over the next days.
Books are mirrors: you only see in them what you already have inside you.
D Carlos Ruiz Zafron, The Shadow of the Wind
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>mr1874
The trial court and the court of appeal have both determined that the government did seize the 10 double eagles (and not just in a technical, dictionary definition sense). If further request for appellate review are granted it is possible that a higher court may determine that no seizure took occurred. >>
To add to what Sanction II said I believe the court said the seizure took place when they refused to give them back to the Langbords. Also, I am doubtful that a higher coin would find that the coins were not seized. IIRC even the government gave up on that line of reasoning, and did not make that argument in the last appeal.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
Sanction2: <<The existence of the export license probably was the reason the government settled the Fenton case>>
I doubt it. It was never documented that the Fenton 1933 and the Farouk 1933 are the same coin, and it might not be possible to prove that these two are the same coin. The Farouk 1933 could still be out there. Over the years, many scarce Double Eagles have surfaced in Europe.
A point that should be emphasized in this thread is that almost all coin experts who have reflected upon the history of the Philadelphia Mint are in agreement that there is no convincing evidence that any 1933 Double Eagles were stolen. If the Fenton case had gone to trial, many mainstream numismatists would have been willing to testify in Fenton's favor. Who would have testified on behalf of the Treasury Department?
1933 Double Eagles were made in the same way, according to the same rules, as 1931 and 1932 Double Eagles. 1931 and 1932 Double Eagles can probably be traced to Switt as well.
As for Frankel's book, how knowledgeable is Frankel about rare coins, the Philadelphia Mint, or the history of coin collecting? Personally, I was not impressed by her book. Did she ever write about coin-related topics before she started that book?
In my writings on the Switt-Langbord case, I cite R. W. Julian, Q. David Bowers and Roger Burdette. Why is Mr. 1974 so determined to read books by Tripp and Frankel, rather than remarks by them and me?
I suggest reading the section on 1933 Double Eagles in Bowers' paperback book on Double Eagles that was published by Whitman in 2003. My understanding is that QDB was willing to testify that there is not a reason to believe that any 1933 Double Eagles were ever stolen.
Who are the writers best qualified to analyze the Fenton and Switt-Langbord cases in the contexts of the history of the Philadelphia Mint and the history of coin collecting in the U.S.?
Also, on Dec. 28, 2010, I noted that Burdette "discovered that the Mint Cashier was provided with forty-three 1933 Double Eagles on March 4," 1933.
See The Ten Leading Topics of 2010
Analysis of the Verdict in the Switt-Langbord Case
My pre-trial article on the Switt-Langbord case shared the NLG award for best article to be published on a web site:
The fate of the ten Switt-Langbord 1933 Doubles
<< <i>
A point that should be emphasized in this thread is that almost all coin experts who have reflected upon the history of the Philadelphia Mint are in agreement that there is no convincing evidence that any 1933 Double Eagles were stolen. If the Fenton case had gone to trial, many mainstream numismatists would have been willing to testify in Fenton's favor. Who would have testified on behalf of the Treasury Department?
>>
While I'm happy for the Langbords at this point, the way this legal issue is going is somewhat unfortunate in that the current ruling really only affects their 10 coins. If mistakes hadn't been made in the jury trial, a ruling by the jury that some 1933 DEs could have legally left the mint via exchange at the cashier's window would have legitimized all 1933 DEs extant. As it sits, any other hidden coins are still in legal limbo, and the government lawyers won't make the same mistakes if other coins surface.
<< <i>
<< <i>
A point that should be emphasized in this thread is that almost all coin experts who have reflected upon the history of the Philadelphia Mint are in agreement that there is no convincing evidence that any 1933 Double Eagles were stolen. If the Fenton case had gone to trial, many mainstream numismatists would have been willing to testify in Fenton's favor. Who would have testified on behalf of the Treasury Department?
>>
While I'm happy for the Langbords at this point, the way this legal issue is going is somewhat unfortunate in that the current ruling really only affects their 10 coins. If mistakes hadn't been made in the jury trial, a ruling by the jury that some 1933 DEs could have legally left the mint via exchange at the cashier's window would have legitimized all 1933 DEs extant. As it sits, any other hidden coins are still in legal limbo, and the government lawyers won't make the same mistakes if other coins surface. >>
Correct. This U.S. Mint screwup only applies to the Langbord 10.
That said, If they are returned to the Langbords and sold at public auction, the Mint would be in a much weaker position trying to seize Coin #14 which we know is out there.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
<< <i>The last post I can see is Friday May 01, 2015 8:25 PM. Does anyone know why I can't see the most recent posts? >>
Now, after my post above, I can see what I missed. I must be in some sort of weird time warp.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
My point regarding the export license and the government decision to settle the Fenton case needs to be clarified. When I stated the export license was probably "the" reason the case settled I should have said probably "a primary" reason. The Fenton coin has not been proven to be the Farouk coin. However the existence of the export license would be evidence at the Fenton trial that would have raised a hurdle to the government being able to win it's case for forfeiture (by proving what it had to prove and preventing Fenton from proving any affirmative defense).
The entries for exchange were not always made,I agree.There are a few entries to be seen in the 1933 Daily Ledger for $10 exchanges,
however.There are no entries in the Daily Ledger to be seen for $20 exchanges.
Question/Do you not find it peculiar that not a single entry in the Daily Ledger is to be seen for exchange of old $20 for new,shiny '33 $20?
Twenty-two '33 Doubles are known to have left the Mint.The Farouk piece is one.It landed in Egypt in King Farouk's collection.The Langbords found ten in a safety deposit box.Nine Doubles were seized from wealthy collectors in the '40's and '50's.These coins were melted in 1956.Two '33 Doubles were sent to the Smithsonian October,1934.
1 Farouk+ 10Langbord+9 (James F. Bell, F.C.C. Boyd,Charles M. Williams,T. James Clark,L.G. Barnard,
James Stack,Max Bernstein,Colonel J Flanagan,Louis Eliasberg)+2(Smithsonian National Numismatic Collection.)=22
Twenty-two 1933 Double Eagles are known to exist or have existed.There easily could be more '33 Doubles waiting to be found or discovered.Question/Do you agree with me on this,ie. 22 and could be more?
Tripp wrote his book before the Langbords discovered the ten 1933 Doubles in a safety box.All nine coins that were seized and subsequently melted in the '40's and '50's were traced by Tripp as having went through the hands of Israel Switt.The details about this can be found in Tripp's book.Israel Switt was Joan Langbord's father.
Question/Do you not think it odd that all twenty '33 Doubles "out of the knowns" were owned at one time by just one individual,Israel Switt?
There's three questions here for you to ponder,Analyst.
Now,I have said along that I am willing to change my mind about "window of opportunity." I need something more substantial than I've seen thus far,however, for that to happen.
One more question.
You say,Burdette "discovered that the Mint Cashier was provided with forty-three 1933 Double Eagles on March 4, 1933."
I read the entire 19 July 2011 article that I was directed to and remain unconvinced that 1933 Double Eagles somehow got comingled with 1932 Doubles on March 4,1933 and therefore could have been given out to the public.On March 2,1933 Double eagle production commenced.The first '33 Doubles were not delivered to the Cashier until March 15,1933. Do you offer an explanation for how the "comingling" could have happened given that the first '33 Doubles were all in the Coiner's control on March 4,1933?
edited 5/3/15-misspeak corrections.Joan Langbord's father,not grandfather,was Israel Switt. Also,all twenty '33 D.E.'s known to have gone into private hands can be linked to Israel Switt.Switt handled the Farouk piece in addition to the other nineteen (ten in the SDB+nine seized and melted).
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
I will do so and let you know what I think.My impression of QDB's remarks/analysis will probably be in another thread at a later time,though.
Is the book expensive? I'm already in $50 for two books about Double Eagles and I don't even collect the blasted things!
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
It does not surprise me one dealer scored a group
Does anyone have information about where and when the first printed ad or ads appeared offering a 1933 Double for sale?
I vaguely recall in my past reading that an ad appeared in The Numismatist as early as 1937 offering a 1933 Double for sale.I'm not sure about this though.
Anyone with good information about first appearance of ad to sell '33 Double please share with us.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
One doesn't need to have ad copy ready before making a purchase for re-sale
<< <i>I'm already in $50 for two books about Double Eagles and I don't even collect the blasted things! >>
Why on earth would you pay that much.
Frankel book $3.69
Tripp book $3.14
<< <i>
<< <i>The last post I can see is Friday May 01, 2015 8:25 PM. Does anyone know why I can't see the most recent posts? >>
Now, after my post above, I can see what I missed. I must be in some sort of weird time warp.
For months now the forums have had an annoying glitch whereby for some reason they do not count certain postings in a thread. With 20 postings on a page, if they have 183 postings in a thread but the system only recognizes 178 of them, it will show only nine pages of replies because it thinks that the ninth page is not yet filled up.
Whenever this happens, check the location bar (?) at the top of your screen and see if it ends in a page number, let's say 13. Click past the end of it and backspace or delete the 3 and type in four or whatever you have to do to raise the page number by one. Then click on GO and it will take you to the hidden page.
TD
I bought both books new,in hardcover, with unclipped dust jacket.The books themselves have cost me about $20 apiece.Both books were bought through amazon.com,shipping about $5 apiece.The Tripp book has been in my library for about ten years.I received Frankel's book just recently.
Some of the other numismatic books I own have been signed by the author so I allow for the possibility of someday getting Illegal Tendersigned by Tripp and likewise,Double Eagle signed by Frankel.Don't know if this will ever happen but I do allow for the possibility.
Beat-up paperback books,although inexpensive,don't really work for me.I may not be able to afford the best quality coins but I can afford best quality book about a numismatic subject that interests me if the price for the new book isn't outrageous in my mind.
I should mention that both books were bought from a coin dealer I like and trust.
The Numismatist is a valuable numismatic research tool.Unfortunately,i'm not a member of ANA anymore so their library is not available to me.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>In the history of the Mint, it was a standard practice for collectors, dealers and tourists to exchange old coins for new coins, at face value. Everyone thought of such exchanges as legitimate and ethical, even if records were not always kept. It is extremely likely that the parties involved honestly did not think that there was a need for ledger entries in such cases.
The entries for exchange were not always made,I agree.There are a few entries to be seen in the 1933 Daily Ledger for $10 exchanges,
however.There are no entries in the Daily Ledger to be seen for $20 exchanges.
Question/Do you not find it peculiar that not a single entry in the Daily Ledger is to be seen for exchange of old $20 for new,shiny '33 $20?
Twenty-two '33 Doubles are known to have left the Mint.The Farouk piece is one.It landed in Egypt in King Farouk's collection.The Langbords found ten in a safety deposit box.Nine Doubles were seized from wealthy collectors in the '40's and '50's.These coins were melted in 1956.Two '33 Doubles were sent to the Smithsonian October,1934.
1 Farouk+ 10Langbord+9 (James F. Bell, F.C.C. Boyd,Charles M. Williams,T. James Clark,L.G. Barnard,
James Stack,Max Bernstein,Colonel J Flanagan,Louis Eliasberg)+2(Smithsonian National Numismatic Collection.)=22
Twenty-two 1933 Double Eagles are known to exist or have existed.There easily could be more '33 Doubles waiting to be found or discovered.Question/Do you agree with me on this,ie. 22 and could be more? >>
I would agree that if each $20 exchange was a separate transaction, no recorded transactions and 22 missing transactions would be unusual. However, the 1933's could have been exchanged in one or two transactions total. And one or two missing transactions wouldn't be unusual or unexpected.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
Mr. Bowers actually took the time to write me personally many years ago.I had some questions about 1894-S dime to ask him so composed a letter and sent it to him.I don't know if QDB still does this,answering personally that is,but I will say I was impressed that he did this for little ole me,a virtual nobody in the numismatic universe.
I'm in now $70 for three books about Double Eagles.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
http://www.coinbooks.org/esylum_v17n16a17.html
He was one of the pre-auction graders of the Farouk/Fenton specimen, which he says could definitively be traced to Farouk.
There are three pages of dates and events listed starting March 4,1933 "Franklin Roosevelt Inaugurated" to July 30,2002 "Only 1933 Double Eagle "issued and monetized' by United States Government. Sold at public auction conducted by Sotheby's/Stack's in New York City."
March 15,1933-March 24,1933 "First 100,000 1933 Double Eagles struck" it says.This is incorrect.The first strikings were made March 2 and the researchers can show this from the Mint's own records.
Any "window of opportunity" for collectors to obtain '33 D.E.'s could absolutely start no earlier than March 2,1933. Any window of opportunity here could end no later than April 5,1933 when Roosevelt issued Executive Order 6102,requiring "return of all gold coin with specific exceptions," in the Mint's own words.
The following is an excerpt from Coin World Article first published in July 19,2011,1933 Double Eagle trial section of Coinworld.com:
"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."
QuestionThe coiner and assistant superintendent are discussing what happened in 1933 in a 1945 memo.Why are these two discussing something that supposedly happened some 12 years earlier?
Nellie Tayloe Ross (NTR) was Director of the Mint from May,1933 to April,1953.I'm getting from my reading that this lady,faithful and honest public servant that she might be,was naive about coin collecting/coin collectors of the day. NTR signed off on the Farouk coin (February 29, 1944) allowing it to leave the United States. A naïve mistake NTR made that soon came back to haunt her?
Six days later,
March 6, 1944 "Letter from Associate Director of Smithsonian Institution to Mint Director Ross confirming that coin was shown to T. Belote who answered affirmatively that coin was of special interest to collectors prior to April 5,1933 and December 28,1933."
Twenty-two days later the Secret Service investigation commences,
March 22,1944 "United States Secret Service first became aware of 1933 Double Eagles being advertised for sale. Investigation begins."
March 23-25,1944 "Stack's auction of Col. James W. Flanagan Collection,containing 1933 Double Eagle (lot 1681)."
Twenty-four days later,
March 24,1944 "Secret Service Agents Jack Haley and Harry W. Strang seize 1933 Double Eagle (#1) from Stack's.Secret Service agents Haley and Strang seize a second 1933 Double Eagle (#2)from coin dealer Max Barenstein.
The next day,
March 25,1944 Agents Haley and Strang interview Messrs. J.F. Bell,F.C.C. Boyd and Ira Reed in New York City. Bell immediately surrenders a 1933 Double Eagle (#3) to special agents.
March 30,1944 "Leland Howard,Acting director of US Mint sent memo to Chief of United States Secret Service recounting events leading to granting of Export License to King Farouk. Explains awareness of illicit removal of 1933 Double Eagles from Mint in response to "routine inquiry regarding the number of such coins that had been placed "in circulation."
no date shown "Acting Mint Director recounts first realization that no 1933 Double Eagles had ever been placed in circulation. Mint understood the situation only after the export license had been issued."
Acting Mint Director Leland Howard? What happened to NTR? Here we are a mere month after the export license was granted to King Farouk with three Secret Service seizures of 1933 Double Eagles having happened,and an "acting" Mint Director is being questioned about 1933 Double Eagles?
The snowball is rolling down the hill.It's getting bigger and bigger....
April 6,1944 "Chief of United States Secret Service receives written confirmation from the Treasury Department that their records "do not show that any payments of 1933 Double Eagles were authorized to be made by the United States Mint,Philadelphia,to any Federal Reserve Bank or Branch."
May 4,1944 "General Counsel to Treasury, re Farouk coin, "it would be proper to attempt by diplomatic representations to have the coin returned to the United States."
June 18,1944 "F.C.C. Boyd surrenders 1933 Double Eagle (#4)to Special Agent Strang."
Year 1945 The Mint chronology shows three more seizures of 1933 Double Eagles from their wealthy owners in 1945.Seven coins total have been seized by June,1945.
We have a memo between Mint officials from 1945 that Burdette discovered.The memo discusses 43 "pieces" used in 1933 to balance the books.
And what happened to NTR? Something here ain't right....
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>I would expect that the Langbord's really don't want all 1933s made legal. If twenty more showed up after the trial it could really crash their profits. >>
the Langbords won on a technicality that the gov't will likely not duplicate.
anyway, there is not going to be such a thing as some are and some aren't here. What is at stake are the 10. The appeals court is making a decision on the case concerning 10. Unless a settlement between the parties says otherwise, the court is deciding on 0 or 10 and not in between.
<< <i>I would expect that the Langbord's really don't want all 1933s made legal. If twenty more showed up after the trial it could really crash their profits. >>
Unless they have MORE that we don't know about. Which is within the realm of possibility.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
Might as well toss out some additional grist for the mill and for "forum watercooler" discussion.
In lawsuits filed in the good old USA the general rule is that the "prevailing party" is entitled to recover his, her, its costs of suit from the non prevailing party (aka the winner of the case is awarded costs against the loser and the loser has to pay same). "Costs of suit" include items such as filing fees, process serving fees, witness fees, court reporter fees, expert fees, deposition transcript fees, etc.
In sunny California, under its state law this rule is in effect. In California "costs of suit" that can be recovered are listed in a statute and may [in certain limited situations I will mention below] include "reasonable attorney fees". The procedure present in California through which a prevailing party can seek and recover its costs of suit from the non prevailing party includes filing and serving a Memorandum Of Costs that specify and itemize each cost that one seeks to recover. If the losing party objects to the items of costs it must bring a motion for an order taxing [disallowing] the costs. However, if the prevailing party includes in the Memorandum Of Costs a claim for attorney fees as an item of costs, the prevailing party must bring a motion for an order awarding attorney fees as an item of costs.
In California obtaining an award of attorney fees as an item of costs awarded to the winner of the case against the loser of the case can be accomplished in the following circumstances:
1. A written contract exists between the parties to the lawsuit which has a provision that states that if a lawsuit is filed between the two sides over the contract the prevailing party is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney fees [for example a promissory note secured by a deed of trust or mortgage that has an attorney fee provision];
2. A statute exists that expressly provides for an award of attorney fees to the prevailing party in a lawsuit brought on the statute;
3. Extremely narrow circumstances recognized by published appellate court opinions (which I am not familiar with).
Federal law is similar to California law regarding the recovery of costs of suit by the prevailing party (winner) against the non prevailing party (loser).
In the event that the Langbord case eventually resolves itself with the court of appeal decision becoming final (thus the Langbords win and the government loses) the case would go back to the trial court for the trial court to issue a judgment in favor of the Langbords. The Langbords would likely be viewed as the prevailing party in the case. A future fight over what costs, if any, the Langbords would be entitled to recover [plus attorney fees if there is a statutory or other basis for same] from the government would be interesting and likely inevitable.
Your thoughts on prevailing party and costs of suit?
This whole thing was a ridiculous waste of our money.
It sounds like a fight for atty fees.
I'd just file for plain costs.
You think the Mint(gub'mint) would negotiate on atty fees after all this??? I don't know. They've fought everything else though.
As I understand the CAFRA death penalty (aka the consequences of the failure of the government to timely file a CAFRA forfeiture action) is that the government:
1. would have to return the property (in this case the 10 1933 double eagles would have to be returned to the Langbords); and
2. would be barred from seeking, in the future, forfeiture of the property (the 10 coins in this case) based upon the facts constituting the offense giving rise to the barred forfeiture claim [in this case the claim that the 10 coins were stolen from the government in the 1930s].
The effect of this death penalty would be that for these 10 coins the government would be required to return same and would be barred from ever asserting ownership of same based past events. Thus if the 10 coins were sold by the Langbords, the buyers would obtain ownership free of any claim by the government to same. In addition to the effect of the CAFRA death penalty statute, general legal principles (including res judicata and collateral estoppel and claim splitting) would apply to prevent the government from seeking a second bite of the apple by bringing new litigation to obtain the 10 coins. The final judgment in the first case would operate as a bar to any second case.
<< <i>Assuming the Langbords prevail, will the Government monetize or be required to monetize the coins? Will the coins be subject to forfeiture/seizure if they leave the possession of the Langbord family? If a collector obtains one, what is to stop the Government from pursuing surrender of the coin as not being legal to possess/own by the party that has it? Something to think about. >>
I've wondered the same thing.
<< <i>Bajjerfan.
As I understand the CAFRA death penalty (aka the consequences of the failure of the government to timely file a CAFRA forfeiture action) is that the government:
1. would have to return the property (in this case the 10 1933 double eagles would have to be returned to the Langbords); and
2. would be barred from seeking, in the future, forfeiture of the property (the 10 coins in this case) based upon the facts constituting the offense giving rise to the barred forfeiture claim [in this case the claim that the 10 coins were stolen from the government in the 1930s].
The effect of this death penalty would be that for these 10 coins the government would be required to return same and would be barred from ever asserting ownership of same based past events. Thus if the 10 coins were sold by the Langbords, the buyers would obtain ownership free of any claim by the government to same. In addition to the effect of the CAFRA death penalty statute, general legal principles (including res judicata and collateral estoppel and claim splitting) would apply to prevent the government from seeking a second bite of the apple by bringing new litigation to obtain the 10 coins. The final judgment in the first case would operate as a bar to any second case. >>
I guess I forgot about that part. Would they be legal coins or token? I can't imagine the Government would grant them any favors.
My thoughts on the prevailing party (assuming it be the Langbords in this case)
And even if they do not win, they have done no wrong by asking for the authentication of these pieces. Wherein, the law , in effect says : "These are ours" Then there was never a need to parade them around in holders from ATS after authentication, except for SHOW and STEAL. I suppose as a collector and regular Joe on the street, my opinion means nothing. However with respect to law, order, the precedent set and the injustices bestowed, if it were my grandfather or great grandfather, there might also be libel and slander lawsuits forthcoming.
There's no proof Israel Switt stole anything. And that's been why I've been a proponent of preservation, exactly how it was done. (we know the government would have destroyed them in earlier days)
Being a dealer the past 6 years taught me more than I cared to learn in "dealing".
And honesty is the best policy. Joan Langbord (in my opinion, as a layman) got ripped off. 1) by our government through having all the litigation, after voluntarily giving these coins up 2) by having her grandfather's name drug through the mud; labeled a criminal, as a thief , and 3) By adding a decade to her life with no resolve… from the onset, with no end in sight for an amicable resolution. At least not any time soon, as fair and speedy trials go.
In light of that, it's been fun pondering the "Who done it ? " And the man , to me , is a hero. Because he done it good.
Izzy Switt should be a household name in numismatics.