Are you saying that $5,000.00 worth of gold was missing and found stolen in 1937? I do not believe the gold records substantiate that assertion. Now there may have been issues regarding the dates in the bags not being correct, but it is my understanding that the gold records do not reflect any missing gold, thus no theft of gold. Different dates in the bags do not equal theft of gold. You could buy a nice house in 1937 for $5,000. That much missing gold would have created a MAJOR flap, even more than today.
The bag of 250 double eagles found to be missing in 1937 was a major flap,as you say.My reading of Tripp indicates to me that the Secret Service investigation that ensued was somewhat lame,however.The bag of 250 double eagles was found to be missing when George McCann,who had risen to the post of Cashier of the Mint,broke the seal on Cage 1 vault F for the last time in early February,1937,for hundreds of thousands of gold double eagles from various years of production had an appointment with the melting pot.
"A Secret Service investigation had immediately ensued. William Landvoight,a former Olympic athlete,then the Philadelphia Supervising Agent,led the inquiry,which concluded that the double eagles that had disappeared were probably struck in 1929.There had been thirty bags of them stored in one bin in Cage 1,and only twenty-nine were accounted for in 1937.Landvoight studied the pattern of dust on the floor and other bags in the cage and deduced that the missing bag had been taken in 1933.This despite the official record,which said that the contents of the cage had been fully intact as recently as October,1936."
Illegal Tender,p.117
October 20,1936 a new protective system was installed for Cage 1.According to Tripp,the cage was briefly opened,promptly closed,and resealed,"All in the same day.The records of the auditors indicated that nothing had been touched." Tripp describes the examination of the contents of Cage 1 in October,1936 as obviously "cursory and flawed."
How the bag had disappeared and who had taken it remains a mystery to this day.
"One of the oldest,most effective security devices was to make those responsible for oversights,mistakes,losses,and malfeasance in their department personally liable. In 1937,the missing bag of 1929 double eagles-thought to have disappeared in 1933-was charged to Edwin Dressel,even though he had not even been employed at the Philadelphia Mint until 1935.Dressel was distraught.
On assuming the superintendency,Dressel should have insisted that the Settlement Committee audit the holdings prior to his taking the reins of office,which was traditional procedure.Even though a full stocktaking would have been a gargantuan and costly task during the Depression,it would have saved Dressel considerable suffering.
Superintendent Dressel was not merely charged the $5,000 face value of the coins; the January,1934 gold revaluation had upped the ante from $20.67 to $35 an ounce,so he was on the hook for a whopping $8,465.62.Dressel was not an independently wealthy man,and it was an enormous sum of money for anyone at the time,especially a government employee.For eight years the charge had been a fearsome Damoclean sword dangling over Dressel's head from an ever-fraying thread.Finally,in 1945,at the urging of Nellie Tayloe Ross,a bill passed by both houses of Congress eliminated the superintendent's debt.
Even though Dressel had been expected to bear the financial responsibility,he was not the thief,not a suspect,and the actual culprit had never been conclusively identified.But as Strang continued to sift through the piles of documents,one individual,in retrospect,seemed to fit the bill:George A. McCann.Strang followed his career with interest."
Illegal Tender,p. 117-118.
Lame though the investigation may have been,Landvoight did determine that the bag of two-hundred-fifty 1929 double eagles was stolen in 1933.This determination fits very nicely with my latest theory of how 1933 double eagles left the Mint unlawfully.
If the facts don't fit the theory,change the facts.Albert Einstein
“I believe in intuitions and inspirations. I sometimes feel that I am right. I do not know that I am. When two expeditions of scientists, financed by the Royal Academy, went forth to test my theory of relativity, I was convinced that their conclusions would tally with my hypothesis. I was not surprised when the eclipse of May 29, 1919, confirmed my intuitions. I would have been surprised if I had been wrong. I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.” Albert Einstein- quoted in Saturday Evening Post interview (1929)
“Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.” For Einstein, honesty was fundamental. Attention to truth in small things reflected a person’s integrity on a larger scale.
A bag of coins was found missing years AFTER 1933, 250 coins. How does that translate into the 1993 DE's of which approximately 25 are believed to have escaped the melting pot? Dust marks on the floor are not particularly conclusive. The causal link is weak to the point of non existence IMHO. If Izzy traded coins with the cashier as a majority of people believe, then someone else had off with a bag of 250, possibly the cashier, but there is no conclusive evidence to link the two activities.
Retired United States Mint guy, now working on an Everyman Type Set.
Does anyone know how government lawyers get paid? If they get paid by the hour or week of course they will drag this out as long as possible to keep the paychecks coming. They may not care if they win or lose.
According to Tripp,each sealed bag in the Vault had a serial number.This tells me an audit would be done by checking off serial #'s which were consecutive one bag to the next.
I have read nowhere that the bags were marked by year produced.Secret Service Agent Landvoight might have only been able to determine from the count of bags left in the bin in Cage 1 and the discontinuity presented by a missing serial #, that a bag of double eagles,probably dated 1929,was missing and probably had been stolen.
There were no discrepencies in "1933 gold" found by audit,according to Tripp.That is where "no gold missing" comes from. Yet '33 doubles started to appear in private hands after the 1937 gold melt.
What I don't get is why the thief of the bag could not be identified and brought to justice.After all,a very limited number of employees had access to the vaults.I'm thinking more than one individual on the "inside" was involved with the thefts,both of the bag of 250,regardless of the year they were minted and the '33 doubles that never were available at the Mint window.
George McCann,the main suspect in the theft of the bag of 250,which most likely occurred in 1933 during the first "perfect storm" must have had help.McCann was one of the "Four Horsemen," finding favor in 1926 with the other three members of the powerful clique who had a "stranglehold" (Tripp) on the Mint.Head Bookkeeper Ralph Roland,Chief Clerk Fred Chaffin,and Assayer Chester "Doc" Ziegler were the other three "Horsemen."
Here's the story of what happened in 1926 as related by Tripp:
The former Cashier of the United States Mint at Philadelphia had been a veteran employee of the Mint who had first been employed in 1917 and had risen quickly through the ranks.Early in his career,as the fair-haired boy,he had found favor with three men (Roland,Chaffin,and Ziegler) who controlled the Philadelphia Mint according to their own pleasure...The ambitious McCann "was their whippersnapper or did their bidding."In 1926,however,as foreman of the Weigh Transfer Room,McCann "lost" ten thousand dollars of gold in his records in a month.John Carey,a bookkeeper,who aimed to become superintendent,caught the discrepancy and immediately reported it to the then Assistant Superintendent and Chief Clerk Fred Chaffin.Carey flatly called McCann "a crook."
But Carey had complained to the wrong man. Chaffin,one of McCann's patrons,called a meeting with Roland and Ziegler at their regular watering hole,a hotel on the corner of Catherine and Broad streets,far from the Mint itself. Carey,by some twist of fate,was the manager of this hotel and knew of the meeting-and of others. But McCann was exonerated. The loss of five hundred ounces of gold was put down to "wastage" and forgotten. McCann was now one of the "Four Horsemen,"-as Helen Moore,the assistant superintendent of the Philadelphia Mint called them in 1944-fully insulated,and his stock continued to rise."
Illegal Tender,p.118.
Unquestionably,the Philadelphia Mint in 1933 was home for a well-established,well-organized den of thieves.Consider this:Would a greedy Mint thief be content with providing to "outsiders" like Izzy Switt, '33 doubles at face value at the Mint window given the "inside" knowledge that after 1933 no more gold coins would be produced by the Mint?
“I believe in intuitions and inspirations. I sometimes feel that I am right. I do not know that I am. When two expeditions of scientists, financed by the Royal Academy, went forth to test my theory of relativity, I was convinced that their conclusions would tally with my hypothesis. I was not surprised when the eclipse of May 29, 1919, confirmed my intuitions. I would have been surprised if I had been wrong. I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.” Albert Einstein- quoted in Saturday Evening Post interview (1929)
“Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.” For Einstein, honesty was fundamental. Attention to truth in small things reflected a person’s integrity on a larger scale.
Point being that this guy is a writer, not a first hand witness. He certainly makes a portion of this up to illustrate the conclusions he wishes to portray in his book. Nobody could attest to what happened in the way he does. Frankly, I was aghast he was allowed to be an expert witness when a true expert who did research and portrayed just the facts was vilified by the government
Steven, the more you quote directly from the Tripp book his words, the more I agree with Bruce that Tripp is strictly a writer expressing his story as he wants it to be interpreted. What does Frankel have to say. I would hope those words are more convincing and more realistic. Steve
<< <i>Steven, the more you quote directly from the Tripp book his words, the more I agree with Bruce that Tripp is strictly a writer expressing his story as he wants it to be interpreted. What does Frankel have to say. I would hope those words are more convincing and more realistic. Steve >>
Exactly. The best evidence of this is Tripp referring to a document as an "orphan document". When questioned, he admitted he had applied that term to the document because its contents contradicted his explanation of what [he believed] happened.
One other point:
<< <i> 8. Upholding the 4-17-2015 decision of the court of appeal in favor of the Langbords will result in harsh consequences to the government by restricting/limiting its ability to recover/protect its property (which the government holds, "in trust for the people"); >>
Restricting/limiting the government's ability to recover/protect its property, is EXACTLY what the CAFRA statute was designed to do. CAFRA set the rules by which the government can recover its property. The government failed to follow those rules. Now they argue the rule results in "harsh consequences". Seems to me that they should have followed the rules, then they probably wouldn't be in this situation.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
<< <i>Steven, the more you quote directly from the Tripp book his words, the more I agree with Bruce that Tripp is strictly a writer expressing his story as he wants it to be interpreted. What does Frankel have to say. I would hope those words are more convincing and more realistic. Steve >>
Exactly. The best evidence of this is Tripp referring to a document as an "orphan document". When questioned, he admitted he had applied that term to the document because its contents contradicted his explanation of what [he believed] happened.
One other point:
<< <i> 8. Upholding the 4-17-2015 decision of the court of appeal in favor of the Langbords will result in harsh consequences to the government by restricting/limiting its ability to recover/protect its property (which the government holds, "in trust for the people"); >>
Restricting/limiting the government's ability to recover/protect its property, is EXACTLY what the CAFRA statute was designed to do. CAFRA set the rules by which the government can recover its property. The government failed to follow those rules. Now they argue the rule results in "harsh consequences". Seems to me that they should have followed the rules, then they probably wouldn't be in this situation. >>
You'd think they'd be more interested in trying to get back some of that military equipment that was stolen by ISIS. FWIW, I wonder why they don't have something akin to ONSTAR [an option in GM vehicles] where they can send a satellite signal to disable equipment captured by the enemy.
<< <i>Steven, the more you quote directly from the Tripp book his words, the more I agree with Bruce that Tripp is strictly a writer expressing his story as he wants it to be interpreted. What does Frankel have to say. I would hope those words are more convincing and more realistic. Steve >>
Exactly. The best evidence of this is Tripp referring to a document as an "orphan document". When questioned, he admitted he had applied that term to the document because its contents contradicted his explanation of what [he believed] happened.
One other point:
<< <i> 8. Upholding the 4-17-2015 decision of the court of appeal in favor of the Langbords will result in harsh consequences to the government by restricting/limiting its ability to recover/protect its property (which the government holds, "in trust for the people"); >>
Restricting/limiting the government's ability to recover/protect its property, is EXACTLY what the CAFRA statute was designed to do. CAFRA set the rules by which the government can recover its property. The government failed to follow those rules. Now they argue the rule results in "harsh consequences". Seems to me that they should have followed the rules, then they probably wouldn't be in this situation. >>
Exactly! THe Mint was given sound advice to follow the CAFRA rules, and they refused to do so. So they should lose.
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.
With all the money the Federal Government has wasted in the Middle Eastern wars, it galls me that they have wasted so much more money on these few $20 gold pieces.
We have virtually equipped the ISIS terrorists, and yet we squabble over this issue, which could be a revenue making for the government in the form of income taxes when these pieces change hands.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
The fact that the government failed to file in a timely manner under the CAFRA law, it seems to me, is the reason for the 3rd circuit court of appeals ruling. If the court NOW agrees to accept the government petition for a rehearing by all 13 judges it would seem to me that the court in whole disagrees with the panel's decision and therefore will ultimately rule in favor of the government. In the guide published by the 3rd circuit court of appeals which was linked here on July 1st by MsMorrisine, the guide says it is VERY unusual for it to accept the "en banc" unless there is unusual circumstances. IF CAFRA IS PART OF THE LAW AND IT WAS A FACT THAT THE GOVERNMENT FAILED TO FOLLOW THE LAW IN A TIMELY MANNER, then in my opinion, if the court now decides to rehear the arguments it is a clear indication they will ultimately side with the government in this case. The announcement by the court on whether or not they will accept the governments petition for a rehearing will be KEY. When might we expect that decision? Steve
Below is from the guide the court published in 2012.
<< <i>It is important to remember, however, that an appeal is not a probabilistic event. Statistics provide context, but reversal rates say little about the merits of any individual appeal.
Q. What is the likelihood that the Court will grant a petition for rehearing en banc? A. Low. In the year ending September 30, 2011, for example, the Third Circuit granted rehearing en banc in only three cases.
<< <i>The fact that the government failed to file in a timely manner under the CAFRA law, it seems to me, is the reason for the 3rd circuit court of appeals ruling. If the court NOW agrees to accept the government petition for a rehearing by all 13 judges it would seem to me that the court in whole disagrees with the panel's decision and therefore will ultimately rule in favor of the government. In the guide published by the 3rd circuit court of appeals which was linked here on July 1st by MsMorrisine, the guide says it is VERY unusual for it to accept the "en banc" unless there is unusual circumstances. IF CAFRA IS PART OF THE LAW AND IT WAS A FACT THAT THE GOVERNMENT FAILED TO FOLLOW THE LAW IN A TIMELY MANNER, then in my opinion, if the court now decides to rehear the arguments it is a clear indication they will ultimately side with the government in this case. The announcement by the court on whether or not they will accept the governments petition for a rehearing will be KEY. When might we expect that decision? Steve >>
It is hard to imagine that there are any highly unusual circumstances about this case that would warrant the expense of an "en banc" hearing or a hearing by the SCOTUS.
It seems to be coming clearer and clearer that surrendering the coins was a really dumb move on the part of Barry Berke. Even if the Government isn't granted or loses an appeal, if the Government pursues "other remedies" there is no way that the Langbords will ever get the coins back. If they're lucky, they might get visitation rights.
The fiction is in believing it was business as usual at the Mint in 1933 and that Izzy (who else?) got himself to the Mint sometime in early April,1933 to buy (25?) 1933 double eagles for face value at the Mint window.
1. 1933 Double eagle production began March 2,1933. 2. FDR inaugurated as POTUS March 4,1933. 3. FDR issued Proclamation 2039,declaring a bank holiday March 6,1933. Proclamation 2039-bank holiday
"The first step FDR and Woodin took in replenishing the nation's gold supply was to staunch the flow from the Treasury and the Federal Reserve system.Instructions poured down through the system like a waterfall:from the president to the secretary of the treasury to the Mints and the Federal Reserve system.All were issued in the early morning hours of March 6.
The secretary of the treasury wrote to the director of the Mint Bureau,Robert J. Grant,a Coloradan who had served nearly ten years:"The President of the United States has issued a complete bank holiday in the United States for the period Monday,March 6,to Thursday,March 9,1933,both dates inclusive,subject to such exceptions as may be permitted under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury with the approval of the President.
During the continuance of such bank holiday,unless otherwise directed,you are requested to instruct all mint and assay offices to pay gold in any form only under license issued by the Secretary of the Treasury.This does not prohibit the deposit of gold and the usual payment therefor."
As instructed,Grant wired all the Mints and Assay Offices with a verbatim transcript of Woodin's communications. In effect,the Mint would continue to accept deposits of gold coins,bullion,and gold certificates,for which the depositor would be paid in paper currency or coins that were neither backed by,nor made of,gold.The Mint was prohibited from paying out gold in any form-coin,currency,or bullion-without written permission from the secretary of the treasury."
See Illegal Tender,Ch.3 "Gold Rush in Reverse"for more details.
I have read nowhere that the bags were marked by year produced.
I have misspoken the above seen in italics in an earlier post. I had read that the bags of 250 were marked by year and forgotten about it. Here Tripp describes the bagging process,
"Neat sturdy piles of ten pieces each were lined up like soldiers on parade.Each phalanx of twenty-five piles,250 pieces,would be destined to fill one heavy canvas bag.These sacks were printed with bold black lettering: the bag's serial number,the total face value of its contents ($5,000),the denomination (double eagle),place of manufacture (Philadelphia),and the date-1933.When each bag was filled,a stiff hemp cord was drawn about the neck and tightened sharply and repeatedly,like a garrote.A blob of dead gray lead was threaded onto the ends of the twine,slid into place like a bolo tie,and crimped to keep the bag shut.Tags with the date of the count and the scribbled initials of the clerk responsible were tied in place.The bag was tossed onto a dolly,and the counting began again."
Illegal Tender,p.60
4.March 8,1933(Wednesday)."Approximately twenty-two thousand 1933 double eagles had been made-not yet enough to pass on to the cashier."
Illegal Tender,p.61
5.March 15,1933(Wednesday). "...1933 Gold Delivery Number 7 was made from the Coiner (William Bartholomew) to the Cashier (Harry Powell):twenty-five thousand (in 100 bags of 250 each) shimmering new 1933 double eagles."
Illegal Tender,p.61
6.Cashier Powell opens one of the first bags at random and takes out two 1933 double eagles.These two pieces are to be sent by registered mail to the Assayer of the Bureau of the Mint in Washington,D.C. for special assay by Chief Assayer,Timothy J. Quirk. "Until they were tested and approved,the just-stuck coins were in limbo.Under the Mint's regulations,the coinage from which the samples were taken could not be released into circulation until the specials passed their test."
Illegal Tender,p.62
7."The first six special coins,representing the first three deliveries in March,were tested together by Assayer Quirk,and his report confirming they met the stipulated requirements was signed and forwarded from Washington to Philadelphia on March 29,1933(Wednesday).The day that report was physically received in Philadelphia was the first day that in normal circumstances the law would have permitted the issuance of 1933 double eagles."
Illegal Tender,p.62
8.April 5,1933(Wednesday).FDR issued his formal edict (Executive Order 6102) commanding the return of all privately held gold.Effectively,the Mint window is shut down for the tradition of trading old gold coin for new on this date. Any trade of old coin for new at the Mint window would be unlawful effective April 5 and thereafter. Executive Order 6102
It seems that Wednesdays in 1933 was a popular day for Mint business. Should Izzy not do otherwise,ie. make trade of old coins for new coins on a day other than a Wednesday? Would Izzy (who told Secret Service agents years later that he "don't remember" how he obtained 1933 doubles) have shown up at the Mint window on a Wednesday sometime after March 29,1933 (Wednesday) and April 5,1933 (Wednesday) to obtain (25?) 1933 double eagles?
“I believe in intuitions and inspirations. I sometimes feel that I am right. I do not know that I am. When two expeditions of scientists, financed by the Royal Academy, went forth to test my theory of relativity, I was convinced that their conclusions would tally with my hypothesis. I was not surprised when the eclipse of May 29, 1919, confirmed my intuitions. I would have been surprised if I had been wrong. I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.” Albert Einstein- quoted in Saturday Evening Post interview (1929)
“Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.” For Einstein, honesty was fundamental. Attention to truth in small things reflected a person’s integrity on a larger scale.
Chapter VIII. Petitions For Rehearing And Rehearing En Banc
Although counsel for the party that did not prevail tend to reflexively file a petitions for rehearing, it is important to recognize that petitions for rehearing, whether by the panel or by the Court en banc, are granted only in very rare and “exceptional” circumstances. Exceptional circumstances include instances in which the panel overlooked or misapprehended points of law or fact that truly affect the outcome of the appeal, where the panel opinion directly conflicts with another panel decision, or where a pivotal point of the case has been affected by a new precedential decision or by a new statute that could not have been cited in the briefs or at oral argument (and was not cited in the Court’s decision). Because such petitions are granted only rarely, counsel should balance the effort and expense involved in preparing the petition against the very high likelihood that the petition will be denied.
Timing. A petition for rehearing must be filed within 14 days (45 days in civil cases in which the United States is a party). Fed. R. App. P. 40(a)(1). That deadline can be extended for good cause.
Technical Requirements. A petition for rehearing must be filed electronically. Paper copies are not filed unless requested by the Clerk. Mind the 15-page limitation and the 14-point, double-space requirements. Fed. R. App. P. 40(b). Only one petition should be filed per party. The petition must include a copy of the Court’s decision (order, judgment, and opinion, if any) as an exhibit. LAR 40.0(a). If your petition relies on new decision or statute, attach a copy.
Substantive Requirements. A petition for rehearing must specify: (a) the point(s) of law or fact that the panel overlooked or misapprehended and that affected the outcome of the appeal; (b) the pivotal effect of a new precedential decision or statute; or (c) the issue of exceptional importance that calls out for en banc attention. In the Third Circuit, all petitions for rehearing are presumed to seek both panel and en banc rehearing unless the petition expressly requests only panel rehearing. Where the party is seeking rehearing en banc, the petition must contain this statement and its required citations:
<< <i>I express a belief, based on a reasoned and studied professional judgment, that the panel decision is contrary to decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit or the Supreme Court of the United States, and that consideration by the full court is necessary to secure and maintain uniformity of decisions in this court, i.e., the panel’s decision is contrary to the decision of this court or the Supreme Court in [citing specifically the case or cases], OR, that this appeal involves a question of exceptional importance, i.e., [set forth in one sentence].” >>
LAR 35.1. Also keep in mind that the Court ordinarily will not grant rehearing en banc either when: (a) the panel’s statement of the law is correct and the issue is solely the application of the law to the circumstances or the case; or (b) the only issue presented is one of state law. IOPs 9.3.2, 9.3.3.
Answer To A Petition For Rehearing. No response to a petition for rehearing is required and none will be accepted unless the Court directs that one be filed. Fed. R. App. P. 40(a)(3). Usually, no answer will be requested unless an active judge asks for one within 10 days of the filing of the petition. IOP 8.1. Often (but not necessarily), a petition will not be granted unless the Court gives the opposing party the opportunity to file an answer. If the Court requests an answer (typically due in 14 days), opposing counsel should explain in concise detail why the decision was correct, why rehearing would not alter the outcome of the case, or why the petition does not meet the standards for rehearing. If the movant is seeking rehearing en banc, the opposing party will want to argue that the petition does not meet the strict standards of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 35(a) and LAR 35.4. The answer is limited to 15 pages and must be in 14-point type, double-spaced. >>
With all the money the Federal Government has wasted in the Middle Eastern wars, it galls me that they have wasted so much more money on these few $20 gold pieces.
Where does "so much more money" come from? Do you really think more money has been spent (wasted?) by our Government to recover its stolen 1933 double eagles than our Government has spent (wasted?) on Middle Eastern Wars?
“I believe in intuitions and inspirations. I sometimes feel that I am right. I do not know that I am. When two expeditions of scientists, financed by the Royal Academy, went forth to test my theory of relativity, I was convinced that their conclusions would tally with my hypothesis. I was not surprised when the eclipse of May 29, 1919, confirmed my intuitions. I would have been surprised if I had been wrong. I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.” Albert Einstein- quoted in Saturday Evening Post interview (1929)
“Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.” For Einstein, honesty was fundamental. Attention to truth in small things reflected a person’s integrity on a larger scale.
<< <i>The fiction is in believing it was business as usual at the Mint in 1933 and that Izzy (who else?) got himself to the Mint sometime in early April,1933 to buy (25?) 1933 double eagles for face value at the Mint window. . . . .
8.April 5,1933(Wednesday).FDR issued his formal edict (Executive Order 6102) commanding the return of all privately held gold.Effectively,the Mint window is shut down for the tradition of trading old gold coin for new on this date. Any trade of old coin for new at the Mint window would be unlawful effective April 5 and thereafter. Executive Order 6102
It seems that Wednesdays in 1933 was a popular day for Mint business. Should Izzy not do otherwise,ie. make trade of old coins for new coins on a day other than a Wednesday? Would Izzy (who told Secret Service agents years later that he "don't remember" how he obtained 1933 doubles) have shown up at the Mint window on a Wednesday sometime after March 29,1933 (Wednesday) and April 5,1933 (Wednesday) to obtain (25?) 1933 double eagles? >>
According to this timeline, Mr. Switt could have shown up at the Mint any day from March 29 thru April 4 and legally traded old double eagles for 1933's. Which would make Mr. Switt's 1933 double eagles legal.
But because Mr. Tripp and you think this didn't happen, you call it "fiction" and say that Mr. Switt's 1933 double eagles were illegally obtained.
But where is the PROOF that this didn't happen? I believe there is no such proof. If Mr. Tripp had such proof, he would have produced it at the trial. If the government had such proof, they would have produced it at the trial.
Therefore in the absence of any proof to the contrary, we cannot assume or guess that a crime occurred, thus Mr. Switt's 1933 double eagles are legal.
Yes, I know Mr. Switt didn't have the greatest reputation, but without proof, you can't prove that a crime occurred.
EDITED TO ADD: Furthermore, Mr. Switt may have suspected that after the Bank Holiday, ownership of gold was going to be criminalized, so he had every incentive to get the gold as soon as it was available. He probably had Mr. McCann let him know when the 1933 double eagles arrived.
And, the 1933 eagles probably followed approximately the same timeframe. The 1933 eagles are legal because some of them were accompanied by Mint receipts. So if the 1933 eagles were paid out over the counter during the time window, isn't it logical to assume that some 1933 double eagles were paid out over the counter during the same time window?
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
<< <i>The day that report was physically received in Philadelphia was the first day that in normal circumstances the law would have permitted the issuance of 1933 double eagles." >>
On which day was that? Even in 1933 it couldn't have taken long to get from D.C. to Philly. Whether or not anyone had a pressing need to obtain 1933 dated coins ASAP is open to discussion.
According to this timeline, Mr. Switt could have shown up at the Mint any day from March 29 thru April 4 and legally traded old double eagles for 1933's. Which would make Mr. Switt's 1933 double eagles legal.
The day that report was physically received in Philadelphia was the first day that in normal circumstances the law would have permitted the issuance of 1933 double eagles.March 29 wouldn't have been the first day of the much speculated "window of opportunity." March 29,1933 was a Wednesday.Quirk's assay report would not have been received in Philadelphia until a few days later at the earliest.
Anyone here know if the Mint window was open on the weekends? After all,America was in the depths of the Great Depression and i can't see the Mint paying extra wages for someone to man the window on Saturday for a few,perhaps zero coin exchanges with the public.
As I see it,Izzy only has Monday,April 3 or Tuesday,April 4 to get himself to the Mint window for a possible,by no means guaranteed even if he did show up on either of these two days,lawful exchange of his (25?) old coins for new 1933 double eagle coins.
By the time early April,1933 rolled around,wouldn't the "Four Horsemen" (remember these scofflaws who were discussed in an earlier post?) have figured out that a golden opportunity was being presented for them to really cash in? FDR's Executive Order of April 5,1933 clinched it for them. Chaffin,Head Bookkeeper and one of the "Four Horsemen," could easily have instructed George McCann,who at the time was an assistant cashier and newest member of the "Four Horsemen," to make sure to not let go of any new doubles (including '32's) at the Mint window. McCann was the "whippersnapper," the one who would do the bidding of the other three,according to Tripp.
It's entirely possible that Horseman Doc Ziegler,Assayer at the Mint in Philadelphia,decided to sit on the '33 doubles for a time,and not issue instructions that '33's were good to go for immediate release even after passing special assay.Wouldn't Ziegler be among the first to get the assay report on the specials results from assayer Quirk in Washington?
FICTION.Here it is.Enjoy.This is some of my best work:
Monday,April 3,1933.Izzy is at the Mint window asking about '33 double eagles.Cashier to Izzy:"The '33's aren't available for distribution yet.The assay results from Washington for the '33's have not yet arrived." (Lie.The assay results had come in last Thursday or Friday.Doc didn't say what the exact day was,just that "results were in.")
Tuesday,April 4,1933.Izzy is at the Mint window again.Cashier to Izzy:"Doc has just started to review the assay results which came in moments before you got here.Check back tomorrow."(Lie: What Doc (the Assayer) really said was, "The '33's did pass assay but for the time being we're going to sit on 'em.Don't release.There's no money in it for us if we do exchanges at the window.")
Wednesday,April 5,1933.Izzy is at the Mint window for the third time this week.It's late in the day,around 4 p.m.Cashier to Izzy:"Sorry,Izzy.FDR's Executive Order 6102 which came down to us this morning expressly forbids us releasing any gold coins,old or new, even on an exchange basis." (The truth is being told here.Even liars occasionally tell the truth,especially if it's to their advantage.
The whiskey flowed freely at Catherine and Broad Street that evening. "Here's to 6102!,"the Horsemen exclaimed in unison.Noone at Catherine & Broad knew what "6102" meant but they didn't care.The whiskey was free for everyone there,compliments of the "Four Horsemen."
“I believe in intuitions and inspirations. I sometimes feel that I am right. I do not know that I am. When two expeditions of scientists, financed by the Royal Academy, went forth to test my theory of relativity, I was convinced that their conclusions would tally with my hypothesis. I was not surprised when the eclipse of May 29, 1919, confirmed my intuitions. I would have been surprised if I had been wrong. I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.” Albert Einstein- quoted in Saturday Evening Post interview (1929)
“Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.” For Einstein, honesty was fundamental. Attention to truth in small things reflected a person’s integrity on a larger scale.
March 29 - - letter sent from Washington. March 30 - - letter arrives at Mint in Philly. McCann is told that the 1933 double eagles are available for gold-to-gold exchange only. March 30 - - McCann calls Switt and tells him 1933 double eagles are available and come in and pick some up. March 30, or March 31 or April 3 or April 4 - - Switt goes to the Mint with 25 double eagles from earlier years and legally exchanges them for 1933 double eagles. April 5 - - the window closes.
My point is, this could have happened, and there is no proof otherwise. Switt could have obtained his 25 1933 double eagles legally, and there is no proof to the contrary.
Therefore, regardless of what the government lawyers say, or what Tripp says or writes, or what people here post, these 1933 double eagles CANNOT be proven to be obtained illegally. And, absent such proof, they are legal.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
RichieURich March 29 - - letter sent from Washington.etc.
McCann's loyalties were to the other three Horsemen,Richie.Izzy was an outsider.Why would McCann hand over '33 double eagles to Izzy for face value at the Mint window when there was realization among the Horsemen that there was some serious money to be made later off Izzy and possibly others?
The key to everything is patience. You get the chicken by hatching the egg, not by smashing it. Arnold H. Glasow
“I believe in intuitions and inspirations. I sometimes feel that I am right. I do not know that I am. When two expeditions of scientists, financed by the Royal Academy, went forth to test my theory of relativity, I was convinced that their conclusions would tally with my hypothesis. I was not surprised when the eclipse of May 29, 1919, confirmed my intuitions. I would have been surprised if I had been wrong. I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.” Albert Einstein- quoted in Saturday Evening Post interview (1929)
“Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.” For Einstein, honesty was fundamental. Attention to truth in small things reflected a person’s integrity on a larger scale.
March 29 - - letter sent from Washington. March 30 - - letter arrives at Mint in Philly. McCann is told that the 1933 double eagles are available for gold-to-gold exchange only. March 30 - - McCann calls Switt and tells him 1933 double eagles are available and come in and pick some up. March 30, or March 31 or April 3 or April 4 - - Switt goes to the Mint with 25 double eagles from earlier years and legally exchanges them for 1933 double eagles. April 5 - - the window closes.
My point is, this could have happened, and there is no proof otherwise. Switt could have obtained his 25 1933 double eagles legally, and there is no proof to the contrary.
Therefore, regardless of what the government lawyers say, or what Tripp says or writes, or what people here post, these 1933 double eagles CANNOT be proven to be obtained illegally. And, absent such proof, they are legal. >>
This is it in a nutshell. It COULD have happened.
I personally suspect that Switt obtained the coins in 1936-37 and provided McCann with 25 gold double eagles to balance the Mint's gold weight plus a cash bonus that McCann pocketed. However, the government never proved that. It just stamped its big feet and screeched "STOLEN!"
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.
Mint records destroyed during the Carter Administration might have told us alot more than we know or will ever know about what happened at the Mint in 1933.This is galling to me.
My view is that it still looks grim for Gov. to prevail in this case.en banc review is not likely.I heard this directly with my own ears from an attorney-at-law.If en banc review doesn't happen,a snowball has a better chance emerging from hell still intact as a snowball then Gov. has getting SCOTUS to hear the case,in my opinion.I'm thinking its over for Gov at the point of denial of en banc review.Langbords really do win.
Having said that,win or lose,no matter,Gov should do this one thing.Each of the ten Langbord coins AND the two coins in the Smithsonian should be fingerprinted.By fingerprinted I mean subjected to EDS testing.This testing would be a good thing to do for all parties concerned.
More '33's (Who knows how many? There could be hundreds more '33 doubles in existence) come out of the woodwork,get mixed in with the population of eleven currently existing '33's (other than the two in the Smithsonian) with no way other than photographs,which can be easily doctored,to tell them apart,has the potential for a fiasco of biblical proportions.
Permission should be sought to fingerprint the ex Farouk coin as well.Attorney says a motion is required by Gov,who is in current possession of the Langbord 10 to get EDS,a non-destructive test,accomplished.I recommend,with the blessing of all parties,that the coins get their EDS test done at the state-of-the-art Mint facility at West Point. Does the Mint have the ability to do EDS test? I would think so. I would be very surprised to learn that the Mint doesn't have the ability to do EDS testing. Doing EDS testing on all thirteen of the double eagles currently known to exist would be a Win-Win for both sides and the new owners,given that the Langbords win the coins and put them up for sale later.
Let the individual coins speak by doing the EDS test.The story that each of the Ladies of Liberty might tell by EDS could well knock our socks off.
Here's a link with some information on Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (EDS): EDS-Wikipedia
“I believe in intuitions and inspirations. I sometimes feel that I am right. I do not know that I am. When two expeditions of scientists, financed by the Royal Academy, went forth to test my theory of relativity, I was convinced that their conclusions would tally with my hypothesis. I was not surprised when the eclipse of May 29, 1919, confirmed my intuitions. I would have been surprised if I had been wrong. I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.” Albert Einstein- quoted in Saturday Evening Post interview (1929)
“Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.” For Einstein, honesty was fundamental. Attention to truth in small things reflected a person’s integrity on a larger scale.
<< <i>7."The first six special coins,representing the first three deliveries in March,were tested together by Assayer Quirk,and his report confirming they met the stipulated requirements was signed and forwarded from Washington to Philadelphia on March 29,1933(Wednesday).The day that report was physically received in Philadelphia was the first day that in normal circumstances the law would have permitted the issuance of 1933 double eagles." >>
So having completed the coining process and passing the quality control/assay, the coins were indeed monetized. Do the circumstances require that they MUST be issued or put into circulation to complete the process?
So having completed the coining process and passing the quality control/assay, the coins were indeed monetized. Do the circumstances require that they MUST be issued or put into circulation to complete the process?
DeepCoin?
“I believe in intuitions and inspirations. I sometimes feel that I am right. I do not know that I am. When two expeditions of scientists, financed by the Royal Academy, went forth to test my theory of relativity, I was convinced that their conclusions would tally with my hypothesis. I was not surprised when the eclipse of May 29, 1919, confirmed my intuitions. I would have been surprised if I had been wrong. I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.” Albert Einstein- quoted in Saturday Evening Post interview (1929)
“Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.” For Einstein, honesty was fundamental. Attention to truth in small things reflected a person’s integrity on a larger scale.
<< <i>Mint records destroyed during the Carter Administration might have told us alot more than we know or will ever know about what happened at the Mint in 1933.This is galling to me.
Let the individual coins speak by doing the EDS test.The story that each of the Ladies of Liberty might tell by EDS could well knock our socks off.
Here's a link with some information on Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (EDS): EDS-wikipedia >>
Perhaps they should have saved [if indeed they had them] any records pertinent to the 1933 DEs.
Also, what purpose would fingerprinting the coins serve?
CladKing: <<One of the problems with mint data is it's designed not to account for each individual coin but rather to keep tabs on total coined gold. If they had tried the 1933 dies in 1932 as is customary the coins would have been recorded as 1932 issues and released in bags of 1932 coins. ... There's no evidence any coins were stolen from the mint and it's improbable any were. By whatever means these were acquired it's a near certainty that they cost the original owner $20 each. ... There may be numerous ways these could leave the mint without leaving any sort of specific paper trail.>>
At the Philadelphia Mint, probably from the 1790s, certainly from the 1830s to the 1930s, it was, by tradition, considered perfectly legitimate and ethical for anyone to trade older coins for newly minted coins, without the need for precisely detailed records!
It is known that some 1933 Double Eagles were minted in FEBRUARY! Many more were minted in March and April 1933. They were not being minted to be promptly melted. On any business day in March 1933 and in early April, anyone could have traded older Double Eagles for 1933 Double Eagles. Many thousands of 1933 Double Eagles had been minted by early March.
Why are some forum members assuming that Switt personally visited the Mint? Collectors or other dealers could have legally obtained 1933 Double Eagles in March or early April 1933. In the mid 1930s, when economic times were very bad and seemingly getting worse, it became known that Switt was willing to pay a premium for better-date Saints and he could afford to inventory them, which most dealers could not afford to do.
Mr. 1974: <<Too many questions as yet have not been answered to my satisfaction, ... Unless and until convincing information comes out indicating to me that yes,indeed, Izzy could have lawfully obtained all of the 1933 doubles traced to him, I remain unconvinced that the twenty 1933 doubles known to have once existed or currently existing (excepting the two in the Smithsonian) were not stolen from the Mint.>>
There is no reason to believe that they were stolen!
As I have emphasized in numerous articles, there are many coins in the hands of collectors, including thousands that are PCGS certified, that left U.S. Mints without precise entries in cashier's ledgers. For example, R. W. Julian has pointed out that there are no entries in cashier's ledgers for ALL Proof Flying Eagle Cents. In accordance with the non-historical and untenable concept of "stolen" put forth by Tripp and current Treasury lawyers, ALL Proof Flying Eagle Cents were stolen as they were not "issued."
There are no surviving Mint records for 1870-S silver dollars. If one is to believe in the bizarre definition of "stolen" put forth by Tripp and certain lawyers, all extant 1870-S silver dollars are "stolen property" as well! Does Tripp think that the Treasury Department should seize these?
In my three part series on 1841 Quarter Eagles, I point out that all Proof coins during the 1840s were not distributed though the Mint Cashier and were not "monetized" in the misleading sense that the word was employed in regard to the Fenton case or in Tripp's book.
Perhaps they should have saved [if indeed they had them] any records pertinent to the 1933 DEs.Also, what purpose would fingerprinting the coins serve?
"Fingerprinting" by EDS would establish the uniqueness of each coin.I can't think of a better way to establish elemental compositional uniqueness of a coin than by scanning the piece along a unique path using EDS.US gold coins are supposed to contain two metals only,gold (AU) and copper (CU).The elemental composition of the coin should be able to be measured as slightly different from one area,one spot to another, as the coin is scanned over a unique path.
"One can keep the electron beam stationary on a spot or series of spots and generate spectra that will provide more localized elemental information or,have the electron beam follow a line drawn on the sample image and generate a plot of the relative proportions of previously identified elements along that spatial gradient."
From Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy on the SEM:A Primer by Bob Hafner.SEM stands for scanning electron microscope.
How do we know for sure that the Langbord coins are not counterfeits? More 1933 doubles show up.How do we know that these aren't counterfeits? A "baseline" is needed. In addition to uniqueness,it should be possible to determine by EDS whether the ten Langbord coins all came from the same "run," for example.
If a test like EDS or similar is not done,the Langbords sell them and the ten coins get into private hands the opportunity is forever gone for doing the EDS test to establish uniqueness.I'm simply saying don't miss the opportunity to EDS test the coins while they all together now,as we speak.Take advantage of the togetherness.
The plot of an EDS scan of a coin obtained by a skilled technician can be understood by the intelligent layman even though the science of why EDS works is very technical,and not well-understood,if understood at all,by most,myself included.
“I believe in intuitions and inspirations. I sometimes feel that I am right. I do not know that I am. When two expeditions of scientists, financed by the Royal Academy, went forth to test my theory of relativity, I was convinced that their conclusions would tally with my hypothesis. I was not surprised when the eclipse of May 29, 1919, confirmed my intuitions. I would have been surprised if I had been wrong. I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.” Albert Einstein- quoted in Saturday Evening Post interview (1929)
“Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.” For Einstein, honesty was fundamental. Attention to truth in small things reflected a person’s integrity on a larger scale.
It is known that some 1933 Double Eagles were minted in FEBRUARY!
Does there exist a written record from 1933 that shows 1933 Double Eagles were minted in February,1933?
“I believe in intuitions and inspirations. I sometimes feel that I am right. I do not know that I am. When two expeditions of scientists, financed by the Royal Academy, went forth to test my theory of relativity, I was convinced that their conclusions would tally with my hypothesis. I was not surprised when the eclipse of May 29, 1919, confirmed my intuitions. I would have been surprised if I had been wrong. I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.” Albert Einstein- quoted in Saturday Evening Post interview (1929)
“Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.” For Einstein, honesty was fundamental. Attention to truth in small things reflected a person’s integrity on a larger scale.
<< <i>Perhaps they should have saved [if indeed they had them] any records pertinent to the 1933 DEs.Also, what purpose would fingerprinting the coins serve?
"Fingerprinting" by EDS would establish the uniqueness of each coin.I can't think of a better way to establish elemental compositional uniqueness of a coin than by scanning the piece along a unique path using EDS.US gold coins are supposed to contain two metals only,gold (AU) and copper (CU).The elemental composition of the coin should be able to be measured as slightly different from one area,one spot to another, as the coin is scanned over a unique path.
"One can keep the electron beam stationary on a spot or series of spots and generate spectra that will provide more localized elemental information or,have the electron beam follow a line drawn on the sample image and generate a plot of the relative proportions of previously identified elements along that spatial gradient."
From Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy on the SEM:A Primer by Bob Hafner.SEM stands for scanning electron microscope.
How do we know for sure that the Langbord coins are not counterfeits? More 1933 doubles show up.How do we know that these aren't counterfeits? A "baseline" is needed. In addition to uniqueness,it should be possible to determine by EDS whether the ten Langbord coins all came from the same "run," for example.
If a test like EDS or similar is not done,the Langbords sell them and the ten coins get into private hands the opportunity is forever gone for doing the EDS test to establish uniqueness.I'm simply saying don't miss the opportunity to EDS test the coins while they all together now,as we speak.Take advantage of the togetherness.
The plot of an EDS scan of a coin obtained by a skilled technician can be understood by the intelligent layman even though the science of why EDS works is very technical,and not well-understood,if understood at all,by most,myself included. >>
The mint has already authenticated the coins; they're not counterfeit.
Michael4692 Collectors Universe servers are up to the job of an occasional thread here growing out of control,as you say.The post count here is miniscule compared to some of the threads where I've posted elsewhere on the internet.The key to happy dealing with threads like this one is to ignore lengthy posts like i typically make.
Welcome aboard.Share your thoughts about 1933 double eagles with us.Which side are you pulling for to win? Langbords or Government?
“I believe in intuitions and inspirations. I sometimes feel that I am right. I do not know that I am. When two expeditions of scientists, financed by the Royal Academy, went forth to test my theory of relativity, I was convinced that their conclusions would tally with my hypothesis. I was not surprised when the eclipse of May 29, 1919, confirmed my intuitions. I would have been surprised if I had been wrong. I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.” Albert Einstein- quoted in Saturday Evening Post interview (1929)
“Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.” For Einstein, honesty was fundamental. Attention to truth in small things reflected a person’s integrity on a larger scale.
Bajjerfan The mint has already authenticated the coins; they're not counterfeit.
I thought it was NGC who did the authentication service for the Mint.It may be that the TPG's can currently do EDS testing which would help establish authenticity.I really don't know.
How would the Mint or the TPG's help establish authenticity for the ten Langbord pieces in the twenty oughts and teens? By old-fashioned specific gravity test?
“I believe in intuitions and inspirations. I sometimes feel that I am right. I do not know that I am. When two expeditions of scientists, financed by the Royal Academy, went forth to test my theory of relativity, I was convinced that their conclusions would tally with my hypothesis. I was not surprised when the eclipse of May 29, 1919, confirmed my intuitions. I would have been surprised if I had been wrong. I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.” Albert Einstein- quoted in Saturday Evening Post interview (1929)
“Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.” For Einstein, honesty was fundamental. Attention to truth in small things reflected a person’s integrity on a larger scale.
<< <i>Bajjerfan The mint has already authenticated the coins; they're not counterfeit.
I thought it was NGC who did the authentication service for the Mint.It may be that the TPG's can currently do EDS testing which would help establish authenticity.I really don't know.
I submit that "uniqueness" is a different animal than authenticity.Even a counterfeit example would have uniqueness but it would be a uniqueness,as exhibited by EDS,that most likely would set it apart from known to be authentic pieces.
How would the Mint or the TPG's help establish authenticity for the ten Langbord pieces in the twenty oughts and teens? By old-fashioned specific gravity test? >>
Sir
I do not know what the Mint did to authenticate the 10 1933 DEs. I also don't know if they have sophisticated equipment like EDS or ESCA/XPS, etc. [I suspect not and they may utilize a commercial laboratory when needed]. The reason we have this whole pickle is because Mr. Barry Berke advised the Langbords to submit the coins to the Mint for authentication with the disclaimer that the Langbords retained title to the coins. Well, the Mint disagreed and refused to return the coins thus confiscating them. The Langbords filed suit to get the coins back so here we are at this stage of the fight. NGC merely graded them.
They may have used a state of the art PM tester and maybe compared them against the ones in the Smithsonian.
Analyst It is known that some 1933 Double Eagles were minted in FEBRUARY! Many more were minted in March and April 1933. They were not being minted to be promptly melted. On any business day in March 1933 and in early April, anyone could have traded older Double Eagles for 1933 Double Eagles. Many thousands of 1933 Double Eagles had been minted by early March.
1933 Double Eagles minted in February? This is known by whom? Where is the evidence? Of course,even if double eagles were minted in February,that doesn't mean they were lawfully available for distribution sometime before a tiny window of opportunity might have presented itself in early April,1933.
Is there a written record that shows special assay of the first '33 doubles was done by Quirk in Washington at an earlier time than mid-March 1933? Wouldn't making sure the coins pass special assay before distribution to the public be as much a Mint tradition as doing the old coin for new coin exchanges?
Earlier,Analyst, you published that Burdette had discovered a 1945 Mint memo where forty-three 1933 double pieces were to replace some defective '32's and co-mingling of '32's and '33's could have occurred resulting in some '33's being innocently passed to members of the public at the Mint window.Wouldn't obviously defective '32's have been caught by the Coiner and rejected before bagging? Gold coins were hand counted according to Tripp:
"To make sure nothing,not a single piece,was missing,the entire output of the past three days' work was taken back upstairs and passed through the automatic weighing machines.About 750 pieces didn't pass muster and were tossed into the discard bins like undersized fingerlings.The shifting piles of glistening discs that had made the cut were returned to another of the Coiner's vaults,a substantial holding cell just off the Counting Room. Over the next two days,the coins were reviewed for quality control and then counted-not mechanically like the one-cent pieces but,because they were gold,by hand."
Illegal Tender,p.60
If '33 doubles were physically available and passed on to the public as early as March 4,1933,as is theorized by Burdette,before passing special assay by Chief Assayer Quirk in Washington,is it reasonable to conclude that '33 double eagles leaving the Mint under these circumstances is an unlawful activity and the coins would remain,in fact,government property regardless of who in the public might be in possession of same?
“I believe in intuitions and inspirations. I sometimes feel that I am right. I do not know that I am. When two expeditions of scientists, financed by the Royal Academy, went forth to test my theory of relativity, I was convinced that their conclusions would tally with my hypothesis. I was not surprised when the eclipse of May 29, 1919, confirmed my intuitions. I would have been surprised if I had been wrong. I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.” Albert Einstein- quoted in Saturday Evening Post interview (1929)
“Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.” For Einstein, honesty was fundamental. Attention to truth in small things reflected a person’s integrity on a larger scale.
<< <i>If '33 doubles were physically available and passed on to the public as early as March 4,1933,as is theorized by Burdette,before passing special assay by Chief Assayer Quirk in Washington,is it reasonable to conclude that '33 double eagles leaving the Mint under these circumstances is an unlawful activity and the coins would remain,in fact,government property regardless of who in the public might be in possession of same? >>
No, that is not reasonable to assume. If someone buys a coin from the Mint over the counter, that coin is now the property of the person who bought it, regardless of the status of the paperwork behind the scenes at the Mint. Otherwise, every purchaser would have to ask for copies of all relevant documentation proving that the coin(s) they were purchasing were legally issued. Which is ridiculous.
Bottom line, if you go to the store at the Mint and buy something, you now are the legal owner of it. And it has been that way since the Mint started selling coins to the public.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
"To make sure nothing,not a single piece,was missing,the entire output of the past three days' work was taken back upstairs and passed through the automatic weighing machines.About 750 pieces didn't pass muster and were tossed into the discard bins like undersized fingerlings.The shifting piles of glistening discs that had made the cut were returned to another of the Coiner's vaults,a substantial holding cell just off the Counting Room. Over the next two days,the coins were reviewed for quality control and then counted-not mechanically like the one-cent pieces but,because they were gold,by hand."
>>
Hi again Steven,
Above I have taken a quoted paragraph you put in your last thread today which I assume is in Tripp's book. I would like to ask you a few questions about the information in that paragraph.
(1) What were the days of the week and dates of the month and year referred to by Tripp as "the entire output of the past three days'work" ? (2) The substantial holding cell just off the Counting Room which was one of the Coiner's vaults, How does Tripp KNOW that was the holding cell that the good coins were put from that three day output? (3) What kinds of verification of the so called facts he portrays in the above paragraph does he support with documentation which YOU as a reader of the book could feel reasonably certain actually occurred as described?
As you can see, since I have never read his book and only can judge from what you and others say here, I want to ask you WHY you are so convinced that his "story" actually happened and is not "fiction" as others here say. I appreciate your comments. Steve
The mint in Philly is a manufacturing plant that produces coinage. Apparently in the 1930's and earlier the public could show up at the Cashier's Window at the Philly Mint and obtain coins (old or new) either by trading in other coins (10 silver dimes for 1 silver dollar, or a 1924 double eagle for a 1928 double eagle) or by trading currency for coins (a ten dollar bill for 10 silver dollars); etc.
Some have asked about whether the 10 1933 double eagles should/will be considered legal to own if they were obtained at the cashier's window before 4-5-1933 (or whatever other date is selected) since, according to some, they were not "Monetized" or since there were other procedures or paperwork behind the scenes at the Mint that were not followed or complied with. Some say that even if the 10 double eagles were obtained in good faith at the cashier's window by a member of the public, if the behind the scenes procedures and paperwork at the mint were not complied with (i.e. through a mistake made by a mint employee, or even through wrongful conduct by a mint employee) then the 10 double eagles should be considered "government property that is not legal for anyone other than the government to own".
Hypothetical for consideration.
At the Coors Brewery in Golden Colorado public tours are given. Members of the public can sample beer and can acquire beer directly from the factory that manufactures same. If today a person appears at the Coors Brewery and purchases a 12 pack of beer from the onsite retail store and takes the 12 pack home with him and puts it in the fridge. Does this person own the 12 pack? What if the 12 pack is one that has a new beer product that is packaged in a newly designed and newly labeled beer can which should not have been placed into the stock present in the onsite retail store (since it was created in a special production run that was to be kept in house for testing and evaluation purposes only and never released to the public before corporate management approves it as a new product line that is to be introduced into the market at a specific date and time next year)? Further what it the 12 pack was placed into the onsite retail store by a mistake made by an employee? Further, what if the 12 pack was placed into the retail store intentionally and wrongfully by an employee?
Does the person who acquired the 12 pack own it? If so, why?
Or does Coors still own it? If so why?
Further if the person who acquired the 12 pack own it, should not the person who acquires the 10 double eagles from the Cashier's window own them?
If not, why not? Is the answer different in the case of the 10 double eagles simply because the government is the manufacturer of the 10 double eagles instead of a non governmental manufacturer? If so, why?
mr1874 << If '33 doubles were physically available and passed on to the public as early as March 4,1933,as is theorized by Burdette,before passing special assay by Chief Assayer Quirk in Washington,is it reasonable to conclude that '33 double eagles leaving the Mint under these circumstances is an unlawful activity and the coins would remain,in fact,government property regardless of who in the public might be in possession of same? >>
RichieUrich No, that is not reasonable to assume. If someone buys a coin from the Mint over the counter, that coin is now the property of the person who bought it, regardless of the status of the paperwork behind the scenes at the Mint. Otherwise, every purchaser would have to ask for copies of all relevant documentation proving that the coin(s) they were purchasing were legally issued. Which is ridiculous.
Knowing exchange of new double eagle for old double eagle by a representative (cashier at the window) of the Mint,a legitimate manufacturer of coins,even though proper assay was not done in accordance with established Mint Rules and Regulations to help ensure that the product,in this case '33 double eagle,is merchantable or fit for sale,is fraud?
I know of a golf club manufacturer who has problems with counterfeiting of their product.They will seize and ultimately destroy the golf club from a person who sends the fraudulently produced golf club to them for modification.Of course,the legitimate manufacturer will not monetarily reimburse the hapless owner for whatever he spent for the counterfeit club.
Fraud vitiates everything it touches. (common law maxim) Nudd v. Burrows (1875) 91 U.S. 416. Fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it enters. Boyce’s Executors v. Grundy (1830) 28 U.S. 210. Fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents and even judgments. United States v. Throckmorton (1878) 98 JU.S. 61, 70.
“I believe in intuitions and inspirations. I sometimes feel that I am right. I do not know that I am. When two expeditions of scientists, financed by the Royal Academy, went forth to test my theory of relativity, I was convinced that their conclusions would tally with my hypothesis. I was not surprised when the eclipse of May 29, 1919, confirmed my intuitions. I would have been surprised if I had been wrong. I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.” Albert Einstein- quoted in Saturday Evening Post interview (1929)
“Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.” For Einstein, honesty was fundamental. Attention to truth in small things reflected a person’s integrity on a larger scale.
SanctionII, thank you for putting this in a better perspective. Much gets clouded by the fact that it is the government that produced the item. And the fact that a coin had a current date as opposed to an older date should have little bearing on anything once it is produced. As long as the coin is made in the current year and not a date before the current year. The Mint often begins coining various denominations in December and before in order to have "new" coins in January. This is a current practice, I cannot speak to 80 years ago and longer.
Retired United States Mint guy, now working on an Everyman Type Set.
<< <i>SanctionII, thank you for putting this in a better perspective. Much gets clouded by the fact that it is the government that produced the item. And the fact that a coin had a current date as opposed to an older date should have little bearing on anything once it is produced. As long as the coin is made in the current year and not a date before the current year. The Mint often begins coining various denominations in December and before in order to have "new" coins in January. This is a current practice, I cannot speak to 80 years ago and longer. >>
I believe it was in the '30's when the mint began the process of proving (trying) the dies before coining began in the year. I have little confidence in the source for this however. In any case the production of these new dies shows up in the previous year tallies. The coins themselves usually show up mixed in with the dates of the previous year. There have been numerous other cases where coins are released before or after the date.
So long as the books balance they aren't concerned with the date.
It's naive to believe many coins are stolen from the mint. Of course it happens and there is a long history of midnight minters but the mint has never been concerned with those coins, only with the '33 and later issues. They even confiscated several rare '69-S DDO cents and destroyed them because they bewlieved them to be counterfeit. Coins with known legan provenence like the '74 aluminum cent are subject to confiscation and destruction.
It would be nice if they simply grandfathered in as being legal all known rarities made since '33 and pursued coins that represent a current crime, malfeasance, or state of be- ing counterfeit. There seems no justification for pursuing the Saints beyond legitimizing FDR's gold confiscation after the fact. It's coin collectors who are paying the price. It's coin collectors who can't legally buy and sell numerous such coins. The mint might find that if they allowed such coins to be freely bought and sold it just might show evidence of a crime that could be prosecuted. Coins shouldn't be illegal, theft should.
<< <i>SanctionII, thank you for putting this in a better perspective. Much gets clouded by the fact that it is the government that produced the item. And the fact that a coin had a current date as opposed to an older date should have little bearing on anything once it is produced. As long as the coin is made in the current year and not a date before the current year. The Mint often begins coining various denominations in December and before in order to have "new" coins in January. This is a current practice, I cannot speak to 80 years ago and longer. >>
Unfortunately, the Government [and maybe the Mafia] is about the only entity that can use strongarm tactics and the goon squad if necessary to retrieve property which they believe is theirs. Coors could offer a nice incentive of $$ in order to get it back. If Coors could prove that the sales clerk conspired with the buyer, then that would be a different issue.
Is it reasonable to conclude that NEW COINS were exchanged and is it reasonable to conclude that they were exchanged before the Executive Order was signed into law and is it reasonable to conclude that these coins were, in fact, swapped out ? So then, it's reasonable to conclude they were not fraudulently obtained or acquired. Even if POLITICIANS cannot recall, it's acceptable in a court of law. But an investigator determines guilt or innocence based off Izzy not recalling "Who or HOW he obtained them". Maybe Izzy was protecting a Gman's job ?
Comments
The bag of 250 double eagles found to be missing in 1937 was a major flap,as you say.My reading of Tripp indicates to me that the Secret Service investigation that ensued was somewhat lame,however.The bag of 250 double eagles was found to be missing when George McCann,who had risen to the post of Cashier of the Mint,broke the seal on Cage 1 vault F for the last time in early February,1937,for hundreds of thousands of gold double eagles from various years of production had an appointment with the melting pot.
"A Secret Service investigation had immediately ensued. William Landvoight,a former Olympic athlete,then the Philadelphia Supervising Agent,led the inquiry,which concluded that the double eagles that had disappeared were probably struck in 1929.There had been thirty bags of them stored in one bin in Cage 1,and only twenty-nine were accounted for in 1937.Landvoight studied the pattern of dust on the floor and other bags in the cage and deduced that the missing bag had been taken in 1933.This despite the official record,which said that the contents of the cage had been fully intact as recently as October,1936."
Illegal Tender,p.117
October 20,1936 a new protective system was installed for Cage 1.According to Tripp,the cage was briefly opened,promptly closed,and resealed,"All in the same day.The records of the auditors indicated that nothing had been touched." Tripp describes the examination of the contents of Cage 1 in October,1936 as obviously "cursory and flawed."
How the bag had disappeared and who had taken it remains a mystery to this day.
"One of the oldest,most effective security devices was to make those responsible for oversights,mistakes,losses,and malfeasance in their department personally liable. In 1937,the missing bag of 1929 double eagles-thought to have disappeared in 1933-was charged to Edwin Dressel,even though he had not even been employed at the Philadelphia Mint until 1935.Dressel was distraught.
On assuming the superintendency,Dressel should have insisted that the Settlement Committee audit the holdings prior to his taking the reins of office,which was traditional procedure.Even though a full stocktaking would have been a gargantuan and costly task during the Depression,it would have saved Dressel considerable suffering.
Superintendent Dressel was not merely charged the $5,000 face value of the coins; the January,1934 gold revaluation had upped the ante from $20.67 to $35 an ounce,so he was on the hook for a whopping $8,465.62.Dressel was not an independently wealthy man,and it was an enormous sum of money for anyone at the time,especially a government employee.For eight years the charge had been a fearsome Damoclean sword dangling over Dressel's head from an ever-fraying thread.Finally,in 1945,at the urging of Nellie Tayloe Ross,a bill passed by both houses of Congress eliminated the superintendent's debt.
Even though Dressel had been expected to bear the financial responsibility,he was not the thief,not a suspect,and the actual culprit had never been conclusively identified.But as Strang continued to sift through the piles of documents,one individual,in retrospect,seemed to fit the bill:George A. McCann.Strang followed his career with interest."
Illegal Tender,p. 117-118.
Lame though the investigation may have been,Landvoight did determine that the bag of two-hundred-fifty 1929 double eagles was stolen in 1933.This determination fits very nicely with my latest theory of how 1933 double eagles left the Mint unlawfully.
If the facts don't fit the theory,change the facts.Albert Einstein
“I believe in intuitions and inspirations. I sometimes feel that I am right. I do not know that I am. When two expeditions of scientists, financed by the Royal Academy, went forth to test my theory of relativity, I was convinced that their conclusions would tally with my hypothesis. I was not surprised when the eclipse of May 29, 1919, confirmed my intuitions. I would have been surprised if I had been wrong. I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.” Albert Einstein- quoted in Saturday Evening Post interview (1929)
“Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.” For Einstein, honesty was fundamental. Attention to truth in small things reflected a person’s integrity on a larger scale.
the mint records were so immaculate, coins stolen in 1933 and in ___ (?) were not discovered stolen until years later.
I have read nowhere that the bags were marked by year produced.Secret Service Agent Landvoight might have only been able to determine from the count of bags left in the bin in Cage 1 and the discontinuity presented by a missing serial #, that a bag of double eagles,probably dated 1929,was missing and probably had been stolen.
There were no discrepencies in "1933 gold" found by audit,according to Tripp.That is where "no gold missing" comes from. Yet '33 doubles started to appear in private hands after the 1937 gold melt.
What I don't get is why the thief of the bag could not be identified and brought to justice.After all,a very limited number of employees had access to the vaults.I'm thinking more than one individual on the "inside" was involved with the thefts,both of the bag of 250,regardless of the year they were minted and the '33 doubles that never were available at the Mint window.
George McCann,the main suspect in the theft of the bag of 250,which most likely occurred in 1933 during the first "perfect storm" must have had help.McCann was one of the "Four Horsemen," finding favor in 1926 with the other three members of the powerful clique who had a "stranglehold" (Tripp) on the Mint.Head Bookkeeper Ralph Roland,Chief Clerk Fred Chaffin,and Assayer Chester "Doc" Ziegler were the other three "Horsemen."
Here's the story of what happened in 1926 as related by Tripp:
The former Cashier of the United States Mint at Philadelphia had been a veteran employee of the Mint who had first been employed in 1917 and had risen quickly through the ranks.Early in his career,as the fair-haired boy,he had found favor with three men (Roland,Chaffin,and Ziegler) who controlled the Philadelphia Mint according to their own pleasure...The ambitious McCann "was their whippersnapper or did their bidding."In 1926,however,as foreman of the Weigh Transfer Room,McCann "lost" ten thousand dollars of gold in his records in a month.John Carey,a bookkeeper,who aimed to become superintendent,caught the discrepancy and immediately reported it to the then Assistant Superintendent and Chief Clerk Fred Chaffin.Carey flatly called McCann "a crook."
But Carey had complained to the wrong man. Chaffin,one of McCann's patrons,called a meeting with Roland and Ziegler at their regular watering hole,a hotel on the corner of Catherine and Broad streets,far from the Mint itself. Carey,by some twist of fate,was the manager of this hotel and knew of the meeting-and of others. But McCann was exonerated. The loss of five hundred ounces of gold was put down to "wastage" and forgotten. McCann was now one of the "Four Horsemen,"-as Helen Moore,the assistant superintendent of the Philadelphia Mint called them in 1944-fully insulated,and his stock continued to rise."
Illegal Tender,p.118.
Unquestionably,the Philadelphia Mint in 1933 was home for a well-established,well-organized den of thieves.Consider this:Would a greedy Mint thief be content with providing to "outsiders" like Izzy Switt, '33 doubles at face value at the Mint window given the "inside" knowledge that after 1933 no more gold coins would be produced by the Mint?
“I believe in intuitions and inspirations. I sometimes feel that I am right. I do not know that I am. When two expeditions of scientists, financed by the Royal Academy, went forth to test my theory of relativity, I was convinced that their conclusions would tally with my hypothesis. I was not surprised when the eclipse of May 29, 1919, confirmed my intuitions. I would have been surprised if I had been wrong. I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.” Albert Einstein- quoted in Saturday Evening Post interview (1929)
“Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.” For Einstein, honesty was fundamental. Attention to truth in small things reflected a person’s integrity on a larger scale.
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
<< <i>Steven, the more you quote directly from the Tripp book his words, the more I agree with Bruce that Tripp is strictly a writer expressing his story as he wants it to be interpreted. What does Frankel have to say. I would hope those words are more convincing and more realistic. Steve
Exactly. The best evidence of this is Tripp referring to a document as an "orphan document". When questioned, he admitted he had applied that term to the document because its contents contradicted his explanation of what [he believed] happened.
One other point:
<< <i>
8. Upholding the 4-17-2015 decision of the court of appeal in favor of the Langbords will result in harsh consequences to the government by restricting/limiting its ability to recover/protect its property (which the government holds, "in trust for the people"); >>
Restricting/limiting the government's ability to recover/protect its property, is EXACTLY what the CAFRA statute was designed to do. CAFRA set the rules by which the government can recover its property. The government failed to follow those rules. Now they argue the rule results in "harsh consequences". Seems to me that they should have followed the rules, then they probably wouldn't be in this situation.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
<< <i>
<< <i>Steven, the more you quote directly from the Tripp book his words, the more I agree with Bruce that Tripp is strictly a writer expressing his story as he wants it to be interpreted. What does Frankel have to say. I would hope those words are more convincing and more realistic. Steve
Exactly. The best evidence of this is Tripp referring to a document as an "orphan document". When questioned, he admitted he had applied that term to the document because its contents contradicted his explanation of what [he believed] happened.
One other point:
<< <i>
8. Upholding the 4-17-2015 decision of the court of appeal in favor of the Langbords will result in harsh consequences to the government by restricting/limiting its ability to recover/protect its property (which the government holds, "in trust for the people"); >>
Restricting/limiting the government's ability to recover/protect its property, is EXACTLY what the CAFRA statute was designed to do. CAFRA set the rules by which the government can recover its property. The government failed to follow those rules. Now they argue the rule results in "harsh consequences". Seems to me that they should have followed the rules, then they probably wouldn't be in this situation. >>
You'd think they'd be more interested in trying to get back some of that military equipment that was stolen by ISIS. FWIW, I wonder why they don't have something akin to ONSTAR [an option in GM vehicles] where they can send a satellite signal to disable equipment captured by the enemy.
<< <i>
<< <i>Steven, the more you quote directly from the Tripp book his words, the more I agree with Bruce that Tripp is strictly a writer expressing his story as he wants it to be interpreted. What does Frankel have to say. I would hope those words are more convincing and more realistic. Steve
Exactly. The best evidence of this is Tripp referring to a document as an "orphan document". When questioned, he admitted he had applied that term to the document because its contents contradicted his explanation of what [he believed] happened.
One other point:
<< <i>
8. Upholding the 4-17-2015 decision of the court of appeal in favor of the Langbords will result in harsh consequences to the government by restricting/limiting its ability to recover/protect its property (which the government holds, "in trust for the people"); >>
Restricting/limiting the government's ability to recover/protect its property, is EXACTLY what the CAFRA statute was designed to do. CAFRA set the rules by which the government can recover its property. The government failed to follow those rules. Now they argue the rule results in "harsh consequences". Seems to me that they should have followed the rules, then they probably wouldn't be in this situation. >>
Exactly! THe Mint was given sound advice to follow the CAFRA rules, and they refused to do so. So they should lose.
We have virtually equipped the ISIS terrorists, and yet we squabble over this issue, which could be a revenue making for the government in the form of income taxes when these pieces change hands.
Below is from the guide the court published in 2012.
<< <i>It is important to remember, however, that an appeal is not a probabilistic
event. Statistics provide context, but reversal rates say little about the
merits of any individual appeal.
Q. What is the likelihood that the Court will grant a petition for rehearing en banc?
A. Low. In the year ending September 30, 2011, for example, the Third
Circuit granted rehearing en banc in only three cases.
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
<< <i>The fact that the government failed to file in a timely manner under the CAFRA law, it seems to me, is the reason for the 3rd circuit court of appeals ruling. If the court NOW agrees to accept the government petition for a rehearing by all 13 judges it would seem to me that the court in whole disagrees with the panel's decision and therefore will ultimately rule in favor of the government. In the guide published by the 3rd circuit court of appeals which was linked here on July 1st by MsMorrisine, the guide says it is VERY unusual for it to accept the "en banc" unless there is unusual circumstances. IF CAFRA IS PART OF THE LAW AND IT WAS A FACT THAT THE GOVERNMENT FAILED TO FOLLOW THE LAW IN A TIMELY MANNER, then in my opinion, if the court now decides to rehear the arguments it is a clear indication they will ultimately side with the government in this case. The announcement by the court on whether or not they will accept the governments petition for a rehearing will be KEY. When might we expect that decision? Steve
It is hard to imagine that there are any highly unusual circumstances about this case that would warrant the expense of an "en banc" hearing or a hearing by the SCOTUS.
It seems to be coming clearer and clearer that surrendering the coins was a really dumb move on the part of Barry Berke. Even if the Government isn't granted or loses an appeal, if the Government pursues "other remedies" there is no way that the Langbords will ever get the coins back. If they're lucky, they might get visitation rights.
1. 1933 Double eagle production began March 2,1933.
2. FDR inaugurated as POTUS March 4,1933.
3. FDR issued Proclamation 2039,declaring a bank holiday March 6,1933.
Proclamation 2039-bank holiday
"The first step FDR and Woodin took in replenishing the nation's gold supply was to staunch the flow from the Treasury and the Federal Reserve system.Instructions poured down through the system like a waterfall:from the president to the secretary of the treasury to the Mints and the Federal Reserve system.All were issued in the early morning hours of March 6.
The secretary of the treasury wrote to the director of the Mint Bureau,Robert J. Grant,a Coloradan who had served nearly ten years:"The President of the United States has issued a complete bank holiday in the United States for the period Monday,March 6,to Thursday,March 9,1933,both dates inclusive,subject to such exceptions as may be permitted under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury with the approval of the President.
During the continuance of such bank holiday,unless otherwise directed,you are requested to instruct all mint and assay offices to pay gold in any form only under license issued by the Secretary of the Treasury.This does not prohibit the deposit of gold and the usual payment therefor."
As instructed,Grant wired all the Mints and Assay Offices with a verbatim transcript of Woodin's communications. In effect,the Mint would continue to accept deposits of gold coins,bullion,and gold certificates,for which the depositor would be paid in paper currency or coins that were neither backed by,nor made of,gold.The Mint was prohibited from paying out gold in any form-coin,currency,or bullion-without written permission from the secretary of the treasury."
See Illegal Tender,Ch.3 "Gold Rush in Reverse"for more details.
I have read nowhere that the bags were marked by year produced.
I have misspoken the above seen in italics in an earlier post. I had read that the bags of 250 were marked by year and forgotten about it. Here Tripp describes the bagging process,
"Neat sturdy piles of ten pieces each were lined up like soldiers on parade.Each phalanx of twenty-five piles,250 pieces,would be destined to fill one heavy canvas bag.These sacks were printed with bold black lettering: the bag's serial number,the total face value of its contents ($5,000),the denomination (double eagle),place of manufacture (Philadelphia),and the date-1933.When each bag was filled,a stiff hemp cord was drawn about the neck and tightened sharply and repeatedly,like a garrote.A blob of dead gray lead was threaded onto the ends of the twine,slid into place like a bolo tie,and crimped to keep the bag shut.Tags with the date of the count and the scribbled initials of the clerk responsible were tied in place.The bag was tossed onto a dolly,and the counting began again."
Illegal Tender,p.60
4.March 8,1933(Wednesday)."Approximately twenty-two thousand 1933 double eagles had been made-not yet enough to pass on to the cashier."
Illegal Tender,p.61
5.March 15,1933(Wednesday). "...1933 Gold Delivery Number 7 was made from the Coiner (William Bartholomew) to the Cashier (Harry Powell):twenty-five thousand (in 100 bags of 250 each) shimmering new 1933 double eagles."
Illegal Tender,p.61
6.Cashier Powell opens one of the first bags at random and takes out two 1933 double eagles.These two pieces are to be sent by registered mail to the Assayer of the Bureau of the Mint in Washington,D.C. for special assay by Chief Assayer,Timothy J. Quirk. "Until they were tested and approved,the just-stuck coins were in limbo.Under the Mint's regulations,the coinage from which the samples were taken could not be released into circulation until the specials passed their test."
Illegal Tender,p.62
7."The first six special coins,representing the first three deliveries in March,were tested together by Assayer Quirk,and his report confirming they met the stipulated requirements was signed and forwarded from Washington to Philadelphia on March 29,1933(Wednesday).The day that report was physically received in Philadelphia was the first day that in normal circumstances the law would have permitted the issuance of 1933 double eagles."
Illegal Tender,p.62
8.April 5,1933(Wednesday).FDR issued his formal edict (Executive Order 6102) commanding the return of all privately held gold.Effectively,the Mint window is shut down for the tradition of trading old gold coin for new on this date. Any trade of old coin for new at the Mint window would be unlawful effective April 5 and thereafter.
Executive Order 6102
It seems that Wednesdays in 1933 was a popular day for Mint business. Should Izzy not do otherwise,ie. make trade of old coins for new coins on a day other than a Wednesday? Would Izzy (who told Secret Service agents years later that he "don't remember" how he obtained 1933 doubles) have shown up at the Mint window on a Wednesday sometime after March 29,1933 (Wednesday) and April 5,1933 (Wednesday) to obtain (25?) 1933 double eagles?
“I believe in intuitions and inspirations. I sometimes feel that I am right. I do not know that I am. When two expeditions of scientists, financed by the Royal Academy, went forth to test my theory of relativity, I was convinced that their conclusions would tally with my hypothesis. I was not surprised when the eclipse of May 29, 1919, confirmed my intuitions. I would have been surprised if I had been wrong. I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.” Albert Einstein- quoted in Saturday Evening Post interview (1929)
“Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.” For Einstein, honesty was fundamental. Attention to truth in small things reflected a person’s integrity on a larger scale.
<< <i>while desperately trying to hit 750 replies.... I find this
U.S. Court of Appeals For The Third Circuit Practice Guide
Chapter VIII. Petitions For Rehearing And Rehearing En Banc
Although counsel for the party that did not prevail tend to reflexively file a
petitions for rehearing, it is important to recognize that petitions for rehearing, whether
by the panel or by the Court en banc, are granted only in very rare and “exceptional”
circumstances. Exceptional circumstances include instances in which the panel
overlooked or misapprehended points of law or fact that truly affect the outcome of the
appeal, where the panel opinion directly conflicts with another panel decision, or where
a pivotal point of the case has been affected by a new precedential decision or by a new
statute that could not have been cited in the briefs or at oral argument (and was not
cited in the Court’s decision). Because such petitions are granted only rarely, counsel
should balance the effort and expense involved in preparing the petition against the
very high likelihood that the petition will be denied.
Timing.
A petition for rehearing must be filed within 14 days (45 days in civil
cases in which the United States is a party). Fed. R. App. P. 40(a)(1). That deadline can
be extended for good cause.
Technical Requirements.
A petition for rehearing must be filed electronically.
Paper copies are not filed unless requested by the Clerk. Mind the 15-page limitation
and the 14-point, double-space requirements. Fed. R. App. P. 40(b). Only one petition
should be filed per party. The petition must include a copy of the Court’s decision
(order, judgment, and opinion, if any) as an exhibit. LAR 40.0(a). If your petition relies
on new decision or statute, attach a copy.
Substantive Requirements.
A petition for rehearing must specify:
(a) the point(s) of law or fact that the panel overlooked or misapprehended and that affected
the outcome of the appeal; (b) the pivotal effect of a new precedential decision or
statute; or (c) the issue of exceptional importance that calls out for en banc attention. In
the Third Circuit, all petitions for rehearing are presumed to seek both panel and en
banc rehearing unless the petition expressly requests only panel rehearing.
Where the party is seeking rehearing en banc, the petition must contain this
statement and its required citations:
<< <i>I express a belief, based on a reasoned and studied professional judgment,
that the panel decision is contrary to decisions of the United States Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit or the Supreme Court of the United
States, and that consideration by the full court is necessary to secure and
maintain uniformity of decisions in this court, i.e., the panel’s decision is
contrary to the decision of this court or the Supreme Court in [citing
specifically the case or cases], OR, that this appeal involves a question of
exceptional importance, i.e., [set forth in one sentence].” >>
LAR 35.1. Also keep in mind that the Court ordinarily will not grant rehearing en banc
either when: (a) the panel’s statement of the law is correct and the issue is solely the
application of the law to the circumstances or the case; or (b) the only issue presented is
one of state law. IOPs 9.3.2, 9.3.3.
Answer To A Petition For Rehearing.
No response to a petition for rehearing is
required and none will be accepted unless the Court directs that one be filed. Fed. R.
App. P. 40(a)(3). Usually, no answer will be requested unless an active judge asks for
one within 10 days of the filing of the petition. IOP 8.1. Often (but not necessarily), a
petition will not be granted unless the Court gives the opposing party the opportunity
to file an answer. If the Court requests an answer (typically due in 14 days), opposing
counsel should explain in concise detail why the decision was correct, why rehearing
would not alter the outcome of the case, or why the petition does not meet the
standards for rehearing. If the movant is seeking rehearing en banc, the opposing party
will want to argue that the petition does not meet the strict standards of Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure 35(a) and LAR 35.4. The answer is limited to 15 pages and must be
in 14-point type, double-spaced. >>
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
Where does "so much more money" come from? Do you really think more money has been spent (wasted?) by our Government to recover its stolen 1933 double eagles than our Government has spent (wasted?) on Middle Eastern Wars?
“I believe in intuitions and inspirations. I sometimes feel that I am right. I do not know that I am. When two expeditions of scientists, financed by the Royal Academy, went forth to test my theory of relativity, I was convinced that their conclusions would tally with my hypothesis. I was not surprised when the eclipse of May 29, 1919, confirmed my intuitions. I would have been surprised if I had been wrong. I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.” Albert Einstein- quoted in Saturday Evening Post interview (1929)
“Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.” For Einstein, honesty was fundamental. Attention to truth in small things reflected a person’s integrity on a larger scale.
<< <i>The fiction is in believing it was business as usual at the Mint in 1933 and that Izzy (who else?) got himself to the Mint sometime in early April,1933 to buy (25?) 1933 double eagles for face value at the Mint window. . . . .
8.April 5,1933(Wednesday).FDR issued his formal edict (Executive Order 6102) commanding the return of all privately held gold.Effectively,the Mint window is shut down for the tradition of trading old gold coin for new on this date. Any trade of old coin for new at the Mint window would be unlawful effective April 5 and thereafter.
Executive Order 6102
It seems that Wednesdays in 1933 was a popular day for Mint business. Should Izzy not do otherwise,ie. make trade of old coins for new coins on a day other than a Wednesday? Would Izzy (who told Secret Service agents years later that he "don't remember" how he obtained 1933 doubles) have shown up at the Mint window on a Wednesday sometime after March 29,1933 (Wednesday) and April 5,1933 (Wednesday) to obtain (25?) 1933 double eagles? >>
According to this timeline, Mr. Switt could have shown up at the Mint any day from March 29 thru April 4 and legally traded old double eagles for 1933's. Which would make Mr. Switt's 1933 double eagles legal.
But because Mr. Tripp and you think this didn't happen, you call it "fiction" and say that Mr. Switt's 1933 double eagles were illegally obtained.
But where is the PROOF that this didn't happen? I believe there is no such proof. If Mr. Tripp had such proof, he would have produced it at the trial. If the government had such proof, they would have produced it at the trial.
Therefore in the absence of any proof to the contrary, we cannot assume or guess that a crime occurred, thus Mr. Switt's 1933 double eagles are legal.
Yes, I know Mr. Switt didn't have the greatest reputation, but without proof, you can't prove that a crime occurred.
EDITED TO ADD:
Furthermore, Mr. Switt may have suspected that after the Bank Holiday, ownership of gold was going to be criminalized, so he had every incentive to get the gold as soon as it was available. He probably had Mr. McCann let him know when the 1933 double eagles arrived.
And, the 1933 eagles probably followed approximately the same timeframe. The 1933 eagles are legal because some of them were accompanied by Mint receipts. So if the 1933 eagles were paid out over the counter during the time window, isn't it logical to assume that some 1933 double eagles were paid out over the counter during the same time window?
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
<< <i>The day that report was physically received in Philadelphia was the first day that in normal circumstances the law would have permitted the issuance of 1933 double eagles." >>
On which day was that? Even in 1933 it couldn't have taken long to get from D.C. to Philly. Whether or not anyone had a pressing need to obtain 1933 dated coins ASAP is open to discussion.
The day that report was physically received in Philadelphia was the first day that in normal circumstances the law would have permitted the issuance of 1933 double eagles.March 29 wouldn't have been the first day of the much speculated "window of opportunity." March 29,1933 was a Wednesday.Quirk's assay report would not have been received in Philadelphia until a few days later at the earliest.
Anyone here know if the Mint window was open on the weekends? After all,America was in the depths of the Great Depression and i can't see the Mint paying extra wages for someone to man the window on Saturday for a few,perhaps zero coin exchanges with the public.
As I see it,Izzy only has Monday,April 3 or Tuesday,April 4 to get himself to the Mint window for a possible,by no means guaranteed even if he did show up on either of these two days,lawful exchange of his (25?) old coins for new 1933 double eagle coins.
By the time early April,1933 rolled around,wouldn't the "Four Horsemen" (remember these scofflaws who were discussed in an earlier post?) have figured out that a golden opportunity was being presented for them to really cash in? FDR's Executive Order of April 5,1933 clinched it for them. Chaffin,Head Bookkeeper and one of the "Four Horsemen," could easily have instructed George McCann,who at the time was an assistant cashier and newest member of the "Four Horsemen," to make sure to not let go of any new doubles (including '32's) at the Mint window. McCann was the "whippersnapper," the one who would do the bidding of the other three,according to Tripp.
It's entirely possible that Horseman Doc Ziegler,Assayer at the Mint in Philadelphia,decided to sit on the '33 doubles for a time,and not issue instructions that '33's were good to go for immediate release even after passing special assay.Wouldn't Ziegler be among the first to get the assay report on the specials results from assayer Quirk in Washington?
FICTION.Here it is.Enjoy.This is some of my best work:
Monday,April 3,1933.Izzy is at the Mint window asking about '33 double eagles.Cashier to Izzy:"The '33's aren't available for distribution yet.The assay results from Washington for the '33's have not yet arrived." (Lie.The assay results had come in last Thursday or Friday.Doc didn't say what the exact day was,just that "results were in.")
Tuesday,April 4,1933.Izzy is at the Mint window again.Cashier to Izzy:"Doc has just started to review the assay results which came in moments before you got here.Check back tomorrow."(Lie: What Doc (the Assayer) really said was, "The '33's did pass assay but for the time being we're going to sit on 'em.Don't release.There's no money in it for us if we do exchanges at the window.")
Wednesday,April 5,1933.Izzy is at the Mint window for the third time this week.It's late in the day,around 4 p.m.Cashier to Izzy:"Sorry,Izzy.FDR's Executive Order 6102 which came down to us this morning expressly forbids us releasing any gold coins,old or new, even on an exchange basis." (The truth is being told here.Even liars occasionally tell the truth,especially if it's to their advantage.
The whiskey flowed freely at Catherine and Broad Street that evening. "Here's to 6102!,"the Horsemen exclaimed in unison.Noone at Catherine & Broad knew what "6102" meant but they didn't care.The whiskey was free for everyone there,compliments of the "Four Horsemen."
“I believe in intuitions and inspirations. I sometimes feel that I am right. I do not know that I am. When two expeditions of scientists, financed by the Royal Academy, went forth to test my theory of relativity, I was convinced that their conclusions would tally with my hypothesis. I was not surprised when the eclipse of May 29, 1919, confirmed my intuitions. I would have been surprised if I had been wrong. I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.” Albert Einstein- quoted in Saturday Evening Post interview (1929)
“Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.” For Einstein, honesty was fundamental. Attention to truth in small things reflected a person’s integrity on a larger scale.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
March 29 - - letter sent from Washington.
March 30 - - letter arrives at Mint in Philly. McCann is told that the 1933 double eagles are available for gold-to-gold exchange only.
March 30 - - McCann calls Switt and tells him 1933 double eagles are available and come in and pick some up.
March 30, or March 31 or April 3 or April 4 - - Switt goes to the Mint with 25 double eagles from earlier years and legally exchanges them for 1933 double eagles.
April 5 - - the window closes.
My point is, this could have happened, and there is no proof otherwise. Switt could have obtained his 25 1933 double eagles legally, and there is no proof to the contrary.
Therefore, regardless of what the government lawyers say, or what Tripp says or writes, or what people here post, these 1933 double eagles CANNOT be proven to be obtained illegally. And, absent such proof, they are legal.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
March 29 - - letter sent from Washington.etc.
McCann's loyalties were to the other three Horsemen,Richie.Izzy was an outsider.Why would McCann hand over '33 double eagles to Izzy for face value at the Mint window when there was realization among the Horsemen that there was some serious money to be made later off Izzy and possibly others?
The key to everything is patience. You get the chicken by hatching the egg, not by smashing it. Arnold H. Glasow
“I believe in intuitions and inspirations. I sometimes feel that I am right. I do not know that I am. When two expeditions of scientists, financed by the Royal Academy, went forth to test my theory of relativity, I was convinced that their conclusions would tally with my hypothesis. I was not surprised when the eclipse of May 29, 1919, confirmed my intuitions. I would have been surprised if I had been wrong. I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.” Albert Einstein- quoted in Saturday Evening Post interview (1929)
“Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.” For Einstein, honesty was fundamental. Attention to truth in small things reflected a person’s integrity on a larger scale.
<< <i>Here is my alternative scenario:
March 29 - - letter sent from Washington.
March 30 - - letter arrives at Mint in Philly. McCann is told that the 1933 double eagles are available for gold-to-gold exchange only.
March 30 - - McCann calls Switt and tells him 1933 double eagles are available and come in and pick some up.
March 30, or March 31 or April 3 or April 4 - - Switt goes to the Mint with 25 double eagles from earlier years and legally exchanges them for 1933 double eagles.
April 5 - - the window closes.
My point is, this could have happened, and there is no proof otherwise. Switt could have obtained his 25 1933 double eagles legally, and there is no proof to the contrary.
Therefore, regardless of what the government lawyers say, or what Tripp says or writes, or what people here post, these 1933 double eagles CANNOT be proven to be obtained illegally. And, absent such proof, they are legal. >>
This is it in a nutshell. It COULD have happened.
I personally suspect that Switt obtained the coins in 1936-37 and provided McCann with 25 gold double eagles to balance the Mint's gold weight plus a cash bonus that McCann pocketed. However, the government never proved that. It just stamped its big feet and screeched "STOLEN!"
My view is that it still looks grim for Gov. to prevail in this case.en banc review is not likely.I heard this directly with my own ears from an attorney-at-law.If en banc review doesn't happen,a snowball has a better chance emerging from hell still intact as a snowball then Gov. has getting SCOTUS to hear the case,in my opinion.I'm thinking its over for Gov at the point of denial of en banc review.Langbords really do win.
Having said that,win or lose,no matter,Gov should do this one thing.Each of the ten Langbord coins AND the two coins in the Smithsonian should be fingerprinted.By fingerprinted I mean subjected to EDS testing.This testing would be a good thing to do for all parties concerned.
More '33's (Who knows how many? There could be hundreds more '33 doubles in existence) come out of the woodwork,get mixed in with the population of eleven currently existing '33's (other than the two in the Smithsonian) with no way other than photographs,which can be easily doctored,to tell them apart,has the potential for a fiasco of biblical proportions.
Permission should be sought to fingerprint the ex Farouk coin as well.Attorney says a motion is required by Gov,who is in current possession of the Langbord 10 to get EDS,a non-destructive test,accomplished.I recommend,with the blessing of all parties,that the coins get their EDS test done at the state-of-the-art Mint facility at West Point. Does the Mint have the ability to do EDS test? I would think so. I would be very surprised to learn that the Mint doesn't have the ability to do EDS testing. Doing EDS testing on all thirteen of the double eagles currently known to exist would be a Win-Win for both sides and the new owners,given that the Langbords win the coins and put them up for sale later.
Let the individual coins speak by doing the EDS test.The story that each of the Ladies of Liberty might tell by EDS could well knock our socks off.
Here's a link with some information on Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (EDS):
EDS-Wikipedia
“I believe in intuitions and inspirations. I sometimes feel that I am right. I do not know that I am. When two expeditions of scientists, financed by the Royal Academy, went forth to test my theory of relativity, I was convinced that their conclusions would tally with my hypothesis. I was not surprised when the eclipse of May 29, 1919, confirmed my intuitions. I would have been surprised if I had been wrong. I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.” Albert Einstein- quoted in Saturday Evening Post interview (1929)
“Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.” For Einstein, honesty was fundamental. Attention to truth in small things reflected a person’s integrity on a larger scale.
<< <i>7."The first six special coins,representing the first three deliveries in March,were tested together by Assayer Quirk,and his report confirming they met the stipulated requirements was signed and forwarded from Washington to Philadelphia on March 29,1933(Wednesday).The day that report was physically received in Philadelphia was the first day that in normal circumstances the law would have permitted the issuance of 1933 double eagles." >>
So having completed the coining process and passing the quality control/assay, the coins were indeed monetized. Do the circumstances require that they MUST be issued or put into circulation to complete the process?
DeepCoin?
“I believe in intuitions and inspirations. I sometimes feel that I am right. I do not know that I am. When two expeditions of scientists, financed by the Royal Academy, went forth to test my theory of relativity, I was convinced that their conclusions would tally with my hypothesis. I was not surprised when the eclipse of May 29, 1919, confirmed my intuitions. I would have been surprised if I had been wrong. I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.” Albert Einstein- quoted in Saturday Evening Post interview (1929)
“Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.” For Einstein, honesty was fundamental. Attention to truth in small things reflected a person’s integrity on a larger scale.
<< <i>Mint records destroyed during the Carter Administration might have told us alot more than we know or will ever know about what happened at the Mint in 1933.This is galling to me.
Let the individual coins speak by doing the EDS test.The story that each of the Ladies of Liberty might tell by EDS could well knock our socks off.
Here's a link with some information on Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (EDS):
EDS-wikipedia >>
Perhaps they should have saved [if indeed they had them] any records pertinent to the 1933 DEs.
Also, what purpose would fingerprinting the coins serve?
CladKing: <<One of the problems with mint data is it's designed not to account for each individual coin but rather to keep tabs on total coined gold. If they had tried the 1933 dies in 1932 as is customary the coins would have been recorded as 1932 issues and released in bags of 1932 coins. ... There's no evidence any coins were stolen from the mint and it's improbable any were. By whatever means these were acquired it's a near certainty that they cost the original owner $20 each. ... There may be numerous ways these could leave the mint without leaving any sort of specific paper trail.>>
At the Philadelphia Mint, probably from the 1790s, certainly from the 1830s to the 1930s, it was, by tradition, considered perfectly legitimate and ethical for anyone to trade older coins for newly minted coins, without the need for precisely detailed records!
It is known that some 1933 Double Eagles were minted in FEBRUARY! Many more were minted in March and April 1933. They were not being minted to be promptly melted. On any business day in March 1933 and in early April, anyone could have traded older Double Eagles for 1933 Double Eagles. Many thousands of 1933 Double Eagles had been minted by early March.
Why are some forum members assuming that Switt personally visited the Mint? Collectors or other dealers could have legally obtained 1933 Double Eagles in March or early April 1933. In the mid 1930s, when economic times were very bad and seemingly getting worse, it became known that Switt was willing to pay a premium for better-date Saints and he could afford to inventory them, which most dealers could not afford to do.
Mr. 1974: <<Too many questions as yet have not been answered to my satisfaction, ... Unless and until convincing information comes out indicating to me that yes,indeed, Izzy could have lawfully obtained all of the 1933 doubles traced to him, I remain unconvinced that the twenty 1933 doubles known to have once existed or currently existing (excepting the two in the Smithsonian) were not stolen from the Mint.>>
There is no reason to believe that they were stolen!
As I have emphasized in numerous articles, there are many coins in the hands of collectors, including thousands that are PCGS certified, that left U.S. Mints without precise entries in cashier's ledgers. For example, R. W. Julian has pointed out that there are no entries in cashier's ledgers for ALL Proof Flying Eagle Cents. In accordance with the non-historical and untenable concept of "stolen" put forth by Tripp and current Treasury lawyers, ALL Proof Flying Eagle Cents were stolen as they were not "issued."
There are no surviving Mint records for 1870-S silver dollars. If one is to believe in the bizarre definition of "stolen" put forth by Tripp and certain lawyers, all extant 1870-S silver dollars are "stolen property" as well! Does Tripp think that the Treasury Department should seize these?
In my three part series on 1841 Quarter Eagles, I point out that all Proof coins during the 1840s were not distributed though the Mint Cashier and were not "monetized" in the misleading sense that the word was employed in regard to the Fenton case or in Tripp's book.
The Controversy over 1841 Quarter Eagles, Part 1
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
insightful10@gmail.com
"Fingerprinting" by EDS would establish the uniqueness of each coin.I can't think of a better way to establish elemental compositional uniqueness of a coin than by scanning the piece along a unique path using EDS.US gold coins are supposed to contain two metals only,gold (AU) and copper (CU).The elemental composition of the coin should be able to be measured as slightly different from one area,one spot to another, as the coin is scanned over a unique path.
"One can keep the electron beam stationary on a spot or series of spots and generate spectra that will provide more localized elemental information or,have the
electron beam follow a line drawn on the sample image and generate a plot of the relative proportions of previously identified elements along that spatial gradient."
From Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy on the SEM:A Primer by Bob Hafner.SEM stands for scanning electron microscope.
How do we know for sure that the Langbord coins are not counterfeits? More 1933 doubles show up.How do we know that these aren't counterfeits? A "baseline" is needed.
In addition to uniqueness,it should be possible to determine by EDS whether the ten Langbord coins all came from the same "run," for example.
If a test like EDS or similar is not done,the Langbords sell them and the ten coins get into private hands the opportunity is forever gone for doing the EDS test to establish uniqueness.I'm simply saying don't miss the opportunity to EDS test the coins while they all together now,as we speak.Take advantage of the togetherness.
The plot of an EDS scan of a coin obtained by a skilled technician can be understood by the intelligent layman even though the science of why EDS works is very technical,and not well-understood,if understood at all,by most,myself included.
“I believe in intuitions and inspirations. I sometimes feel that I am right. I do not know that I am. When two expeditions of scientists, financed by the Royal Academy, went forth to test my theory of relativity, I was convinced that their conclusions would tally with my hypothesis. I was not surprised when the eclipse of May 29, 1919, confirmed my intuitions. I would have been surprised if I had been wrong. I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.” Albert Einstein- quoted in Saturday Evening Post interview (1929)
“Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.” For Einstein, honesty was fundamental. Attention to truth in small things reflected a person’s integrity on a larger scale.
Does there exist a written record from 1933 that shows 1933 Double Eagles were minted in February,1933?
“I believe in intuitions and inspirations. I sometimes feel that I am right. I do not know that I am. When two expeditions of scientists, financed by the Royal Academy, went forth to test my theory of relativity, I was convinced that their conclusions would tally with my hypothesis. I was not surprised when the eclipse of May 29, 1919, confirmed my intuitions. I would have been surprised if I had been wrong. I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.” Albert Einstein- quoted in Saturday Evening Post interview (1929)
“Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.” For Einstein, honesty was fundamental. Attention to truth in small things reflected a person’s integrity on a larger scale.
<< <i>Perhaps they should have saved [if indeed they had them] any records pertinent to the 1933 DEs.Also, what purpose would fingerprinting the coins serve?
"Fingerprinting" by EDS would establish the uniqueness of each coin.I can't think of a better way to establish elemental compositional uniqueness of a coin than by scanning the piece along a unique path using EDS.US gold coins are supposed to contain two metals only,gold (AU) and copper (CU).The elemental composition of the coin should be able to be measured as slightly different from one area,one spot to another, as the coin is scanned over a unique path.
"One can keep the electron beam stationary on a spot or series of spots and generate spectra that will provide more localized elemental information or,have the
electron beam follow a line drawn on the sample image and generate a plot of the relative proportions of previously identified elements along that spatial gradient."
From Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy on the SEM:A Primer by Bob Hafner.SEM stands for scanning electron microscope.
How do we know for sure that the Langbord coins are not counterfeits? More 1933 doubles show up.How do we know that these aren't counterfeits? A "baseline" is needed.
In addition to uniqueness,it should be possible to determine by EDS whether the ten Langbord coins all came from the same "run," for example.
If a test like EDS or similar is not done,the Langbords sell them and the ten coins get into private hands the opportunity is forever gone for doing the EDS test to establish uniqueness.I'm simply saying don't miss the opportunity to EDS test the coins while they all together now,as we speak.Take advantage of the togetherness.
The plot of an EDS scan of a coin obtained by a skilled technician can be understood by the intelligent layman even though the science of why EDS works is very technical,and not well-understood,if understood at all,by most,myself included. >>
The mint has already authenticated the coins; they're not counterfeit.
Collectors Universe servers are up to the job of an occasional thread here growing out of control,as you say.The post count here is miniscule compared to some of the threads where I've posted elsewhere on the internet.The key to happy dealing with threads like this one is to ignore lengthy posts like i typically make.
Welcome aboard.Share your thoughts about 1933 double eagles with us.Which side are you pulling for to win? Langbords or Government?
“I believe in intuitions and inspirations. I sometimes feel that I am right. I do not know that I am. When two expeditions of scientists, financed by the Royal Academy, went forth to test my theory of relativity, I was convinced that their conclusions would tally with my hypothesis. I was not surprised when the eclipse of May 29, 1919, confirmed my intuitions. I would have been surprised if I had been wrong. I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.” Albert Einstein- quoted in Saturday Evening Post interview (1929)
“Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.” For Einstein, honesty was fundamental. Attention to truth in small things reflected a person’s integrity on a larger scale.
The mint has already authenticated the coins; they're not counterfeit.
I thought it was NGC who did the authentication service for the Mint.It may be that the TPG's can currently do EDS testing which would help establish authenticity.I really don't know.
How would the Mint or the TPG's help establish authenticity for the ten Langbord pieces in the twenty oughts and teens? By old-fashioned specific gravity test?
“I believe in intuitions and inspirations. I sometimes feel that I am right. I do not know that I am. When two expeditions of scientists, financed by the Royal Academy, went forth to test my theory of relativity, I was convinced that their conclusions would tally with my hypothesis. I was not surprised when the eclipse of May 29, 1919, confirmed my intuitions. I would have been surprised if I had been wrong. I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.” Albert Einstein- quoted in Saturday Evening Post interview (1929)
“Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.” For Einstein, honesty was fundamental. Attention to truth in small things reflected a person’s integrity on a larger scale.
<< <i>Bajjerfan
The mint has already authenticated the coins; they're not counterfeit.
I thought it was NGC who did the authentication service for the Mint.It may be that the TPG's can currently do EDS testing which would help establish authenticity.I really don't know.
I submit that "uniqueness" is a different animal than authenticity.Even a counterfeit example would have uniqueness but it would be a uniqueness,as exhibited by EDS,that most likely would set it apart from known to be authentic pieces.
How would the Mint or the TPG's help establish authenticity for the ten Langbord pieces in the twenty oughts and teens? By old-fashioned specific gravity test? >>
Sir
I do not know what the Mint did to authenticate the 10 1933 DEs. I also don't know if they have sophisticated equipment like EDS or ESCA/XPS, etc. [I suspect not and they may utilize a commercial laboratory when needed]. The reason we have this whole pickle is because Mr. Barry Berke advised the Langbords to submit the coins to the Mint for authentication with the disclaimer that the Langbords retained title to the coins. Well, the Mint disagreed and refused to return the coins thus confiscating them. The Langbords filed suit to get the coins back so here we are at this stage of the fight. NGC merely graded them.
They may have used a state of the art PM tester and maybe compared them against the ones in the Smithsonian.
It is known that some 1933 Double Eagles were minted in FEBRUARY! Many more were minted in March and April 1933. They were not being minted to be promptly melted. On any business day in March 1933 and in early April, anyone could have traded older Double Eagles for 1933 Double Eagles. Many thousands of 1933 Double Eagles had been minted by early March.
1933 Double Eagles minted in February? This is known by whom? Where is the evidence? Of course,even if double eagles were minted in February,that doesn't mean they were lawfully available for distribution sometime before a tiny window of opportunity might have presented itself in early April,1933.
Is there a written record that shows special assay of the first '33 doubles was done by Quirk in Washington at an earlier time than mid-March 1933? Wouldn't making sure the coins pass special assay before distribution to the public be as much a Mint tradition as doing the old coin for new coin exchanges?
Earlier,Analyst, you published that Burdette had discovered a 1945 Mint memo where forty-three 1933 double pieces were to replace some defective '32's and co-mingling of '32's and '33's could have occurred resulting in some '33's being innocently passed to members of the public at the Mint window.Wouldn't obviously defective '32's have been caught by the Coiner and rejected before bagging? Gold coins were hand counted according to Tripp:
"To make sure nothing,not a single piece,was missing,the entire output of the past three days' work was taken back upstairs and passed through the automatic weighing machines.About 750 pieces didn't pass muster and were tossed into the discard bins like undersized fingerlings.The shifting piles of glistening discs that had made the cut were returned to another of the Coiner's vaults,a substantial holding cell just off the Counting Room. Over the next two days,the coins were reviewed for quality control and then counted-not mechanically like the one-cent pieces but,because they were gold,by hand."
Illegal Tender,p.60
If '33 doubles were physically available and passed on to the public as early as March 4,1933,as is theorized by Burdette,before passing special assay by Chief Assayer Quirk in Washington,is it reasonable to conclude that '33 double eagles leaving the Mint under these circumstances is an unlawful activity and the coins would remain,in fact,government property regardless of who in the public might be in possession of same?
“I believe in intuitions and inspirations. I sometimes feel that I am right. I do not know that I am. When two expeditions of scientists, financed by the Royal Academy, went forth to test my theory of relativity, I was convinced that their conclusions would tally with my hypothesis. I was not surprised when the eclipse of May 29, 1919, confirmed my intuitions. I would have been surprised if I had been wrong. I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.” Albert Einstein- quoted in Saturday Evening Post interview (1929)
“Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.” For Einstein, honesty was fundamental. Attention to truth in small things reflected a person’s integrity on a larger scale.
<< <i>If '33 doubles were physically available and passed on to the public as early as March 4,1933,as is theorized by Burdette,before passing special assay by Chief Assayer Quirk in Washington,is it reasonable to conclude that '33 double eagles leaving the Mint under these circumstances is an unlawful activity and the coins would remain,in fact,government property regardless of who in the public might be in possession of same? >>
No, that is not reasonable to assume. If someone buys a coin from the Mint over the counter, that coin is now the property of the person who bought it, regardless of the status of the paperwork behind the scenes at the Mint. Otherwise, every purchaser would have to ask for copies of all relevant documentation proving that the coin(s) they were purchasing were legally issued. Which is ridiculous.
Bottom line, if you go to the store at the Mint and buy something, you now are the legal owner of it. And it has been that way since the Mint started selling coins to the public.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
<< <i>
"To make sure nothing,not a single piece,was missing,the entire output of the past three days' work was taken back upstairs and passed through the automatic weighing machines.About 750 pieces didn't pass muster and were tossed into the discard bins like undersized fingerlings.The shifting piles of glistening discs that had made the cut were returned to another of the Coiner's vaults,a substantial holding cell just off the Counting Room. Over the next two days,the coins were reviewed for quality control and then counted-not mechanically like the one-cent pieces but,because they were gold,by hand."
>>
Hi again Steven,
Above I have taken a quoted paragraph you put in your last thread today which I assume is in Tripp's book. I would like to ask you a few questions about the information in that paragraph.
(1) What were the days of the week and dates of the month and year referred to by Tripp as "the entire output of the past three days'work" ?
(2) The substantial holding cell just off the Counting Room which was one of the Coiner's vaults, How does Tripp KNOW that was the holding cell that the good coins were put from that three day output?
(3) What kinds of verification of the so called facts he portrays in the above paragraph does he support with documentation which YOU as a reader of the book could feel reasonably certain actually occurred as described?
As you can see, since I have never read his book and only can judge from what you and others say here, I want to ask you WHY you are so convinced that his "story" actually happened and is not "fiction" as others here say. I appreciate your comments. Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
Some have asked about whether the 10 1933 double eagles should/will be considered legal to own if they were obtained at the cashier's window before 4-5-1933 (or whatever other date is selected) since, according to some, they were not "Monetized" or since there were other procedures or paperwork behind the scenes at the Mint that were not followed or complied with. Some say that even if the 10 double eagles were obtained in good faith at the cashier's window by a member of the public, if the behind the scenes procedures and paperwork at the mint were not complied with (i.e. through a mistake made by a mint employee, or even through wrongful conduct by a mint employee) then the 10 double eagles should be considered "government property that is not legal for anyone other than the government to own".
Hypothetical for consideration.
At the Coors Brewery in Golden Colorado public tours are given. Members of the public can sample beer and can acquire beer directly from the factory that manufactures same. If today a person appears at the Coors Brewery and purchases a 12 pack of beer from the onsite retail store and takes the 12 pack home with him and puts it in the fridge. Does this person own the 12 pack? What if the 12 pack is one that has a new beer product that is packaged in a newly designed and newly labeled beer can which should not have been placed into the stock present in the onsite retail store (since it was created in a special production run that was to be kept in house for testing and evaluation purposes only and never released to the public before corporate management approves it as a new product line that is to be introduced into the market at a specific date and time next year)? Further what it the 12 pack was placed into the onsite retail store by a mistake made by an employee? Further, what if the 12 pack was placed into the retail store intentionally and wrongfully by an employee?
Does the person who acquired the 12 pack own it? If so, why?
Or does Coors still own it? If so why?
Further if the person who acquired the 12 pack own it, should not the person who acquires the 10 double eagles from the Cashier's window own them?
If not, why not? Is the answer different in the case of the 10 double eagles simply because the government is the manufacturer of the 10 double eagles instead of a non governmental manufacturer? If so, why?
<< If '33 doubles were physically available and passed on to the public as early as March 4,1933,as is theorized by Burdette,before passing special assay by Chief Assayer Quirk in Washington,is it reasonable to conclude that '33 double eagles leaving the Mint under these circumstances is an unlawful activity and the coins would remain,in fact,government property regardless of who in the public might be in possession of same? >>
RichieUrich
No, that is not reasonable to assume. If someone buys a coin from the Mint over the counter, that coin is now the property of the person who bought it, regardless of the status of the paperwork behind the scenes at the Mint. Otherwise, every purchaser would have to ask for copies of all relevant documentation proving that the coin(s) they were purchasing were legally issued. Which is ridiculous.
Knowing exchange of new double eagle for old double eagle by a representative (cashier at the window) of the Mint,a legitimate manufacturer of coins,even though proper assay was not done in accordance with established Mint Rules and Regulations to help ensure that the product,in this case '33 double eagle,is merchantable or fit for sale,is fraud?
I know of a golf club manufacturer who has problems with counterfeiting of their product.They will seize and ultimately destroy the golf club from a person who sends the fraudulently produced golf club to them for modification.Of course,the legitimate manufacturer will not monetarily reimburse the hapless owner for whatever he spent for the counterfeit club.
Fraud vitiates everything it touches. (common law maxim) Nudd v. Burrows (1875) 91 U.S. 416.
Fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it enters. Boyce’s Executors v. Grundy (1830) 28 U.S. 210.
Fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents and even judgments. United States v. Throckmorton (1878) 98 JU.S. 61, 70.
“I believe in intuitions and inspirations. I sometimes feel that I am right. I do not know that I am. When two expeditions of scientists, financed by the Royal Academy, went forth to test my theory of relativity, I was convinced that their conclusions would tally with my hypothesis. I was not surprised when the eclipse of May 29, 1919, confirmed my intuitions. I would have been surprised if I had been wrong. I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.” Albert Einstein- quoted in Saturday Evening Post interview (1929)
“Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.” For Einstein, honesty was fundamental. Attention to truth in small things reflected a person’s integrity on a larger scale.
What recource does Coors have if the person who purchased the 12 pack of beer drank it all up? Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
<< <i>SanctionII, thank you for putting this in a better perspective. Much gets clouded by the fact that it is the government that produced the item. And the fact that a coin had a current date as opposed to an older date should have little bearing on anything once it is produced. As long as the coin is made in the current year and not a date before the current year. The Mint often begins coining various denominations in December and before in order to have "new" coins in January. This is a current practice, I cannot speak to 80 years ago and longer. >>
I believe it was in the '30's when the mint began the process of proving (trying) the
dies before coining began in the year. I have little confidence in the source for this
however. In any case the production of these new dies shows up in the previous year
tallies. The coins themselves usually show up mixed in with the dates of the previous
year. There have been numerous other cases where coins are released before or after
the date.
So long as the books balance they aren't concerned with the date.
It's naive to believe many coins are stolen from the mint. Of course it happens and
there is a long history of midnight minters but the mint has never been concerned with
those coins, only with the '33 and later issues. They even confiscated several rare '69-S
DDO cents and destroyed them because they bewlieved them to be counterfeit. Coins
with known legan provenence like the '74 aluminum cent are subject to confiscation and
destruction.
It would be nice if they simply grandfathered in as being legal all known rarities made
since '33 and pursued coins that represent a current crime, malfeasance, or state of be-
ing counterfeit. There seems no justification for pursuing the Saints beyond legitimizing
FDR's gold confiscation after the fact. It's coin collectors who are paying the price. It's
coin collectors who can't legally buy and sell numerous such coins. The mint might find
that if they allowed such coins to be freely bought and sold it just might show evidence
of a crime that could be prosecuted. Coins shouldn't be illegal, theft should.
<< <i>SanctionII,
What recource does Coors have if the person who purchased the 12 pack of beer drank it all up? Steve
The can is probably worth more than the beer.
<< <i>SanctionII, thank you for putting this in a better perspective. Much gets clouded by the fact that it is the government that produced the item. And the fact that a coin had a current date as opposed to an older date should have little bearing on anything once it is produced. As long as the coin is made in the current year and not a date before the current year. The Mint often begins coining various denominations in December and before in order to have "new" coins in January. This is a current practice, I cannot speak to 80 years ago and longer. >>
Unfortunately, the Government [and maybe the Mafia] is about the only entity that can use strongarm tactics and the goon squad if necessary to retrieve property which they believe is theirs. Coors could offer a nice incentive of $$ in order to get it back. If Coors could prove that the sales clerk conspired with the buyer, then that would be a different issue.
Only one recourse I can see (but not one that would lead to any positive result).
"Recycling"
That's reasonable to assume, isn't it ?
Give them to the Egyptians!
The Mysterious Egyptian Magic Coin
Coins in Movies
Coins on Television