Options
California man gives $2 million aluminum penny back to U.S. Mint
mrearlygold
Posts: 17,862 ✭✭✭
By Marty Graham
SAN DIEGO (Reuters) - A San Diego man who inherited from his father a 1974 aluminum penny valued at $2 million has surrendered it to the U.S. Mint to settle a lawsuit over ownership of the rare coin, a federal prosecutor said on Thursday.
Randall Lawrence, the son of a former Mint official, and Michael McConnell, the owner of a San Diego-area coin shop, sued the federal government in 2014 after it demanded the return of the penny.
Lawrence and McConnell had planned to display the coin at shows across the country and then sell it through an auction house, which estimated it would bring up to $2 million.
The pair turned it over to the Mint and relinquished all claims to ownership as part of a settlement, Laura Duffy, U.S. attorney for the Southern District of California, said in a statement.
The settlement "vindicates the government's position that items made at U.S. Mint facilities but not lawfully issued ... remain government property and are not souvenirs that government employees can merely remove and pass down to their heirs," Duffy said. She did not disclose further terms of the settlement.
The aluminum cent was proposed to the U.S. Congress in 1973, at a time when copper prices had increased dramatically, according to the Smithsonian Institution.
The Mint made about 1.6 million of the aluminum coins and distributed them to Congress in anticipation of approval. When lawmakers rejected it, the Mint reclaimed the aluminum cents and destroyed almost all of them, leaving one to the Smithsonian in Washington, where it remains.
Lawrence inherited one of the coins and a third aluminum penny turned up in the possession of a U.S. Capitol police officer, who said it was given to him by a member of Congress, according to the Professional Coin Grading Service website.
http://news.yahoo.com/california-man-gives-2-million-aluminum-penny-back-011849701.html
SAN DIEGO (Reuters) - A San Diego man who inherited from his father a 1974 aluminum penny valued at $2 million has surrendered it to the U.S. Mint to settle a lawsuit over ownership of the rare coin, a federal prosecutor said on Thursday.
Randall Lawrence, the son of a former Mint official, and Michael McConnell, the owner of a San Diego-area coin shop, sued the federal government in 2014 after it demanded the return of the penny.
Lawrence and McConnell had planned to display the coin at shows across the country and then sell it through an auction house, which estimated it would bring up to $2 million.
The pair turned it over to the Mint and relinquished all claims to ownership as part of a settlement, Laura Duffy, U.S. attorney for the Southern District of California, said in a statement.
The settlement "vindicates the government's position that items made at U.S. Mint facilities but not lawfully issued ... remain government property and are not souvenirs that government employees can merely remove and pass down to their heirs," Duffy said. She did not disclose further terms of the settlement.
The aluminum cent was proposed to the U.S. Congress in 1973, at a time when copper prices had increased dramatically, according to the Smithsonian Institution.
The Mint made about 1.6 million of the aluminum coins and distributed them to Congress in anticipation of approval. When lawmakers rejected it, the Mint reclaimed the aluminum cents and destroyed almost all of them, leaving one to the Smithsonian in Washington, where it remains.
Lawrence inherited one of the coins and a third aluminum penny turned up in the possession of a U.S. Capitol police officer, who said it was given to him by a member of Congress, according to the Professional Coin Grading Service website.
http://news.yahoo.com/california-man-gives-2-million-aluminum-penny-back-011849701.html
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
0
Comments
This does go to show why all of the 1964 Peace Dollars, if any exist, are still underground.
and not caring how long such litigation takes, even to the point of lengthening the process. Given that, I can understand the surrendering of the coin.
It does make every coin with any questionable origin go underground, as Bill Jones said.
It also gives the government the feeling that they can win any one of these cases, so be prepared to see more such seizure actions.
If you own any pattern coins, die trials, certain kinds of mint errors, beware.
And what about the 1804 restrike and 1823 restrike large cents?
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
Guess I better tell my fav Beijing dealer to hide his 10 bags of Al Cents before Sam comes for them.
But maybe I need to get another couple bags first ? Hmmmm.....
The original culprits in this were the Senators and Congressmen who took these things and did not return them. Some of those public officials probably profited from that. Yet, nothing is ever done to them.
The most disturbing aspect of this story is that the Federal Government has become such a bully. The government has unlimited assets and now longer cares how much it spends on anything. Its power is unlimited, and as the courts become packed statist judges, the situation will only get worse because the courts will not curb government excesses.
The original culprits in this were the Senators and Congressmen who took these things and did not return them. Some of those public officials probably profited from that. Yet, nothing is ever done to them.
I think this one is more clear-cut than you propose here.
It was a mint employee who "acquired" the coin. Pretty easy to see that he didn't have any right to have it.
I am a government employee. And I assume you will agree that I have no right to take ownership of my government issued laptop? Same scenario in the big picture sense.
Not sure we should let our status as coin collectors cloud right and wrong so easily.
"Money does not care about speeches on morality. Capital asks whether the rules will remain the same tomorrow. With inflation, people assume price is the problem, and propose regulation—but price is simply the message." - Martin Armstrong
The most disturbing aspect of this story is that the Federal Government has become such a bully. The government has unlimited assets and now longer cares how much it spends on anything. Its power is unlimited, and as the courts become packed statist judges, the situation will only get worse because the courts will not curb government excesses.
The original culprits in this were the Senators and Congressmen who took these things and did not return them. Some of those public officials probably profited from that. Yet, nothing is ever done to them.
I think this one is more clear-cut than you propose here.
It was a mint employee who "acquired" the coin. Pretty easy to see that he didn't have any right to have it.
I am a government employee. And I assume you will agree that I have no right to take ownership of my government issued laptop? Same scenario in the big picture sense.
Not sure we should let our status as coin collectors cloud right and wrong so easily.
Not a government employee (any more), but I 100% agree with what you posted, TT.
I also think people let their views as coin collectors cloud themselves in this type of area.
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
Doesn't this mean that no US pattern coins should be privately held?
I don't think there is necessarily a direct correlation.
As I understand it, most (or many) patterns were traded for other coins for the mint cabinet, or were sold by the government via their employees for a profit....however meager.
Once those coins were a part of a legal transaction, then they are legal.....No?
In any case, once the government ignored any subsequent resale, (and they've been sold and re-sold many times over the years), it's pretty hard for them to claim they are suddenly illegal NOW.
Doesn't this mean that no US pattern coins should be privately held?
The government attorney's post-settlement comments don't have the force of law. But if they did, you would be correct.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Doesn't this mean that no US pattern coins should be privately held?
I don't think there is necessarily a direct correlation.
As I understand it, most (or many) patterns were traded for other coins for the mint cabinet, or were sold by the government via their employees for a profit....however meager.
Once those coins were a part of a legal transaction, then they are legal.....No?
No.
And, just because a mint employee sells a mint coin it does not mean the mint sold the coin or that the mint gave it to the employee.
I would agree that any pattern given out by the mint is a free market coin, unless the mint made effort to retreive the coin and was duped by the recipient.
"Money does not care about speeches on morality. Capital asks whether the rules will remain the same tomorrow. With inflation, people assume price is the problem, and propose regulation—but price is simply the message." - Martin Armstrong
Doesn't this mean that no US pattern coins should be privately held?
No. According what I have read, a very large number of the patterns that now in numismatic circulation were acquired via a trade between pattern coin collector and specialist, William Woodin, and the treasury. He gave them two 1877 fifty gold coins, that are unique in gold in exchange for thousands of U.S. patterns the mint had on hand. Some people didn't like the deal, but it was done via official government channels. Legal title was passed, the government has no case to take the owners of those patterns to court short of the passage of an ex post facto law.
Woodin later became the secretary of the treasury under Franklin D. Roosevelt, but soon had to resign for health reasons.
Maybe some employees did a hold of some of these pieces and handed them out, but I don't know if that happened. We do known these pieces were given to Senators and Congressmen. They failed to return an undisclosed number of them. I know about the story of the Senators and Congressmen. It was well publicized at the time it happened 30+ years ago. The mint employees' distribution is mere supposition.
The politicians who acted improperly have had nothing happen to them. It's only been subsequent owners who were guilty of not looking in the law.
The most disturbing aspect of this story is that the Federal Government has become such a bully. The government has unlimited assets and now longer cares how much it spends on anything. Its power is unlimited, and as the courts become packed statist judges, the situation will only get worse because the courts will not curb government excesses.
The original culprits in this were the Senators and Congressmen who took these things and did not return them. Some of those public officials probably profited from that. Yet, nothing is ever done to them.
Spending levels have to be cut. They cannot continue to rise forever.
Free Trial
The most disturbing aspect of this story is that the Federal Government has become such a bully. The government has unlimited assets and now longer cares how much it spends on anything. Its power is unlimited, and as the courts become packed statist judges, the situation will only get worse because the courts will not curb government excesses.
The original culprits in this were the Senators and Congressmen who took these things and did not return them. Some of those public officials probably profited from that. Yet, nothing is ever done to them.
Spending levels have to be cut. They cannot continue to rise forever.
That's what you think.
The government can create money. It doesn't even have to print money any more. All they do is make computer entries because the government and the Federal Reserve. The government sells bonds to the Federal Reserve which creates money. That's the the "QE I" and "QE II" policy was all about. The National debt can go up until the government ruins its credit rating. Who knows when that will be, but when it happens we will all be in the tank.
There used to be user here who had the tag line "QE I, QE II ... Titanic." That was really good gallows humor.
The most disturbing aspect of this story is that the Federal Government has become such a bully. The government has unlimited assets and now longer cares how much it spends on anything. Its power is unlimited, and as the courts become packed statist judges, the situation will only get worse because the courts will not curb government excesses.
The original culprits in this were the Senators and Congressmen who took these things and did not return them. Some of those public officials probably profited from that. Yet, nothing is ever done to them.
I think this one is more clear-cut than you propose here.
It was a mint employee who "acquired" the coin. Pretty easy to see that he didn't have any right to have it.
I am a government employee. And I assume you will agree that I have no right to take ownership of my government issued laptop? Same scenario in the big picture sense.
Not sure we should let our status as coin collectors cloud right and wrong so easily.
If you did take ownership of your government issued laptop, I'm guessing they (the feds) would layout at least $500,000 dollars to get it back.
"A dog breaks your heart only one time and that is when they pass on". Unknown
By Marty Graham
SAN DIEGO (Reuters) - The pair turned it over to the Mint and relinquished all claims to ownership as part of a settlement, Laura Duffy, U.S. attorney for the Southern District of California, said in a statement.
Until the settlement is revealed, who knows what happened.
Could be "you won't go to jail for 180 days for possession of this coin if you give it to us"
Could be "here's a million bucks for your coin, see ya, thanks for stopping by".
Probably depends on legal representation the 'pair" had.
Did this guy get any money in the settlement?
Not a red cent
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
The 1974's were Philadelphia's, and they made like 1.2 million and supposedly got them back and melted, but some maybe escaped.
This one was a 1974-D, which was never authorized, no aluminums were made at Denver, so it would appear someone was "playing" and made a unique item, and it "flew" away.
That was the basis for the government getting it back, in that, it was a coin that was never authorized, never a pattern, never anything, so no one outside the mint could ever of had ownership, and no one inside the mint could have legally made it, so the coin in question was "illegally" made on government owned presses, using government owned dies, therefore belongs to the government.
The Mint made about 1.6 million of the aluminum coins and distributed them to Congress in anticipation of approval. When lawmakers rejected it, the Mint reclaimed the aluminum cents and destroyed almost all of them, leaving one to the Smithsonian in Washington, where it remains.
I know this is a stupid question, but why did the govt need to issue 1.6 MILLION coins to distribute to Congress, when there are only 535 members of congress?
At the most, they would only NEED 1,000 examples, so they could also give examples to the Pres, VP, Sec of Treas, Mint Director, and other (non-congressional) interested parties.
Completely typical govt WASTE!!!!!
Steve
Doesn't this mean that no US pattern coins should be privately held?
No. According what I have read, a very large number of the patterns that now in numismatic circulation were acquired via a trade between pattern coin collector and specialist, William Woodin, and the treasury. He gave them two 1877 fifty gold coins, that are unique in gold in exchange for thousands of U.S. patterns the mint had on hand. Some people didn't like the deal, but it was done via official government channels. Legal title was passed, the government has no case to take the owners of those patterns to court short of the passage of an ex post facto law.
Woodin later became the secretary of the treasury under Franklin D. Roosevelt, but soon had to resign for health reasons.
That's all true, but there is no inventory of what was traded to Woodin. So, you can't prove your pattern coin is legit. Therefore it belongs to the feds. See how the government thinks
Did this guy get any money in the settlement?
I wouldn't be surprised if they did get some money given that Judge William Q. Hayes stated:
it is plausible that a Mint official, with proper authority and in an authorized manner, allowed Harry Lawrence to keep the 1974-D aluminum cent. Drawing reasonable inferences, it is plausible that Harry Lawrence lawfully obtained possession of the aluminum cent, giving Plaintiffs superior claim of title to the aluminum cent.
Were there further court developments after the above?
The Mint made about 1.6 million of the aluminum coins and distributed them to Congress in anticipation of approval. When lawmakers rejected it, the Mint reclaimed the aluminum cents and destroyed almost all of them, leaving one to the Smithsonian in Washington, where it remains.
I know this is a stupid question, but why did the govt need to issue 1.6 MILLION coins to distribute to Congress, when there are only 535 members of congress?
At the most, they would only NEED 1,000 examples, so they could also give examples to the Pres, VP, Sec of Treas, Mint Director, and other (non-congressional) interested parties.
Completely typical govt WASTE!!!!!
Steve
The 1.6 million were not patterns, they were intended for circulation. They just didn't end up getting the authorization they thought they would have. BTW, do we know if the Mint thought they already had authorization when they struck the 1.6 million coins?
TommyType: "It was a mint employee who "acquired" the coin. Pretty easy to see that he didn't have any right to have it. ... I am a government employee. And I assume you will agree that I have no right to take ownership of my government issued laptop? Same scenario in the big picture sense."
This statement shows a mis-understanding of the culture of coin collecting and the history of the U.S. Mint. Patterns are not relevant to laptops, which the government does not manufacture and which are not given away for promotional purposes.
Throughout the history of the U.S. Mint, patterns were not sold; they were given away for free for constructive feedback and for promotional purposes. In the 19th century, it was common and acceptable for U.S. Mint employees to take them.
In the late 19th century, there was an investigation of some employees selling patterns to collectors, including illogical items that were made to please collectors, and not reporting the income. That is different. If patterns are legitimately made, then they were given away for free without strings attached.
When manufacturing companies make samples or prototypes and then distribute them to get attention for products or proposed products, such items generally become owned by the recipients. The cases where the items were 'top secret' are not relevant to the current topic.
Although the U.S. has become more of a service economy, in the past, it was common for an employee of a manufacturing company to be permitted to take samples or prototypes home. Indeed, they were often given away for free to neighbors, friends and journalists. The proposal to make cents out of aluminum was not a secret; U.S. Mint officials wanted journalists, politicians, friends, and others, to talk more about aluminum cents. They wanted people to become accustomed to the idea of using aluminum in coinage.
The fate of the ten Switt-Langbord 1933 Doubles
This statement shows a mis-understanding of the culture of coin collecting and the history of the U.S. Mint. Patterns are not relevant to laptops, which the government does not manufacture and which are not given away for promotional purposes.
This statement shows a mis-understanding of the place of coin collecting in a legal proceeding, and a mis-understanding of government ethics.
It's your choice to have a flexible scale of right and wrong based on your special interest group. I'll stick with my rather firm understanding of ethics as a government employee.
The facts are so clear in this one specific case, that it angers me that people throw misdirection, irrelevant historical cases, and twisted legal arguments into it as if they matter. Then tell me that *I* don't understand? Please.
The facts, as I understand them:
- The heirs of an official of the San Francisco mint, who was in office at the time of their production, is found to be in possession of an unreleased pattern coin. One that they have always claimed is illegal to own.
- At no time did he or his heirs claim that he bought the coin from a dealer, or found the coin in the gutter, or was mailed the coin by his Senator.
- Near as I can tell, their biggest defense is that it was gifted to him by a supervisor, or higher up.
So, what I DO understand is that a government employee is not allowed to "acquire" government material, for personal use or profit. Nor, by extension, pass that material onto friends, neighbors, or relatives. And that's pretty much where this story ends!
So, why do we toss in for confusion the samples shown to Senators? Why do we care if 18th century coins were sold by the mint and/or mint employees? Why does it matter that the US government produced the coin, as opposed to procured it from another manufacturer?
I contend that NONE of that matters, and it's all just a smoke screen thrown up by numismatists to justify their desire to have the coin released into the hobby.
If anyone ever actually SAID that, I would at least appreciate their honesty and integrity. But instead, we play the game that "it's just so complicated".
Maybe the 18th century coins were complicated. Maybe the 1804 Dollars were monetized a long time ago. Maybe the recent "error" coins will never be tracked to their source.
But THIS COIN is not complicated. Don't tell me "You don't understand" just because you find it more useful to the hobby to pretend it's complicated.
And for all of you complaining about government lawyers, doing the job the were paid to do, why aren't you complaining about this mint official who (either intentionally, or by accident), is attempting to illegally profit from HIS job?
Tell me you disagree with me, fine. I won't complain. Tell me I don't understand, well, expect me to be a bit angry.
Allow me to add some other scenarios. Let's say:
- Instead of an unreleased pattern, this mint official is found to have 10 bags of 1974 quarters. Is that OK? Do we let his family keep them?
- He has a working press in his basement, put together by discarded parts from the mint. Perfectly acceptable?
- And if we just say, "Oh, keep the coin", what's the justification for prosecuting/firing an employee who starts his own version of Dunder-Miflin copier paper by selling government bought paper? "Oh, just keep it."
Did this guy get any money in the settlement?
I wouldn't be surprised if they did get some money given that Judge William Q. Hayes stated:
it is plausible that a Mint official, with proper authority and in an authorized manner, allowed Harry Lawrence to keep the 1974-D aluminum cent. Drawing reasonable inferences, it is plausible that Harry Lawrence lawfully obtained possession of the aluminum cent, giving Plaintiffs superior claim of title to the aluminum cent.
Were there further court developments after the above?
Again, they didn't get a penny or a plumb nickel. Just the promise to drop the matter completely. No harm, no foul
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
- The heirs of an official of the San Francisco mint, who was in office at the time of their production, is found to be in possession of an unreleased pattern coin. One that they have always claimed is illegal to own.
The government didn't even knew this coin existed until it surfaced a few years ago. They only knew about the Philadelphia pieces. And they certainly didn't claim that the Denver pieces were illegal to own until after they learned of the coin's existence.
This matters because the circumstances of manufacture and distribution - official or unofficial - were different for the two different issues.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Understood that there are two sides to this issue. My question is this; Has the government made any attempt to locate and/or retrieve any of the coins that were dispersed by to various congressmen, senators, etc. I understand the concept of government property. But a penny? Some people have too much time on their hands. And we pay them for it.
As I remember it, the 1974 aluminum cents were provided to legislators as prototypes for their examination. The Mint then requested their return, I believe 14 were not returned. The Mint knew the recipients of the aluminum cents, and they know who returned them. Therefore, they know who still had them in 1974. Nothing was ever done to the 14 legislators who did not return the 1974 aluminum cents.
The coin that the Mint just obtained is different in that it is a 1974-D aluminum cent, which as far as we know, exists in just this one example, and was not given out as a prototype.
It certainly seems like selective enforcement to demand the return of the 1974-D aluminum cent, but do nothing to obtain the return of the very similar 1974 Philadelphia Mint aluminum cents. I guess the Mint didn't want to go up against the politicians, but an ordinary Joe doesn't get that favor.
As I understand it, PCGS has authenticated and encapsulated a 1974 Philadelphia Mint aluminum cent, but no example has ever been offered at public sale.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
As I understand it, PCGS has authenticated and encapsulated a 1974 Philadelphia Mint aluminum cent, but no example has ever been offered at public sale.
My guess is that they would have left the 1974-D aluminum cent to the heir if it wasn't going to be put up for sale, similar to their stance on the Toven specimen.
It's also surprising that they haven't claimed the 1943 aluminum cent.
Did this guy get any money in the settlement?
I wouldn't be surprised if they did get some money given that Judge William Q. Hayes stated:
it is plausible that a Mint official, with proper authority and in an authorized manner, allowed Harry Lawrence to keep the 1974-D aluminum cent. Drawing reasonable inferences, it is plausible that Harry Lawrence lawfully obtained possession of the aluminum cent, giving Plaintiffs superior claim of title to the aluminum cent.
Were there further court developments after the above?
Again, they didn't get a penny or a plumb nickel. Just the promise to drop the matter completely. No harm, no foul
mark
Was this disclosed as part of the settlement? The article quoted Laura Duffy, U.S. attorney for the Southern District of California, but didn't mention it.
Did this guy get any money in the settlement?
I wouldn't be surprised if they did get some money given that Judge William Q. Hayes stated:
it is plausible that a Mint official, with proper authority and in an authorized manner, allowed Harry Lawrence to keep the 1974-D aluminum cent. Drawing reasonable inferences, it is plausible that Harry Lawrence lawfully obtained possession of the aluminum cent, giving Plaintiffs superior claim of title to the aluminum cent.
Were there further court developments after the above?
Again, they didn't get a penny or a plumb nickel. Just the promise to drop the matter completely. No harm, no foul
mark
Was this disclosed as part of the settlement? The article quoted Laura Duffy, U.S. attorney for the Southern District of California, but didn't mention it.
From the "former owners" lips ; )
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
I doubt if he got anything. The threat was you could spend a fortune in legal fees and still lose.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
The most disturbing aspect of this story is that the Federal Government has become such a bully. The government has unlimited assets and now longer cares how much it spends on anything. Its power is unlimited, and as the courts become packed statist judges, the situation will only get worse because the courts will not curb government excesses.
The original culprits in this were the Senators and Congressmen who took these things and did not return them. Some of those public officials probably profited from that. Yet, nothing is ever done to them.
Spending levels have to be cut. They cannot continue to rise forever.
That's what you think.
The government can create money. It doesn't even have to print money any more. All they do is make computer entries because the government and the Federal Reserve. The government sells bonds to the Federal Reserve which creates money. That's the the "QE I" and "QE II" policy was all about. The National debt can go up until the government ruins its credit rating. Who knows when that will be, but when it happens we will all be in the tank.
There used to be user here who had the tag line "QE I, QE II ... Titanic." That was really good gallows humor.
I know all that. However, despite all the tricks, spending levels have to be cut. In fact, they will be cut.
Free Trial
Give that civilian a cookie. It's the right thing to do while we are under martial law.
and we havent seen anything yet
coinzip.com
I would have donated the coin to a non profit organization that offers help to US Veterans....
Hopefully not this one:
Wounded Warrior Scandal - Execs fired...
Dream on.
Have you not listened to the promises that have been made during the current political campaign? Both of the candidates of the party that is going to win this election hands down are committed to spending more money on social programs than ever before. They are going to throw open the border and give health and welfare benefits illegal aliens. They are going to wipe out college debts and give students a free college education.
They are not going to address the huge actuarial issues with Social Security and Medicaid in a meaningful way. They are going redistribute income and raise taxes to pay for it. The military is going to have to spend more or go into retreat because the threats to our nation are becoming greater not less. They are going to make government much larger and more intrusive. This is what they have promised. This is what most of the American people want because they believe the government owes them more benefits.
They will face little opposition in the fall because the opposing party is going to nominate someone who is unelectable. The opposing party has destroyed all of their viable candidates with stupid debates and negative advertising. The opposition candidates are ego tripping for their own ambitions and don't give a damn about the welfare of the country. They have settled on a egotistical, celebrity reality show host who could well split the opposition party in two. You don't have to wait until November to know what is going to happen.
Given the demographics of the Electoral College with a huge number of electoral votes in one party states, the chances for defeating the big spenders are long, even under the best of circumstances. With all of the opposition candidates mortally wounded politically, or unelectable, it's over.
The sequester, which should be made permanent, as been the only thing that has slowed government spending at all. That's going by the boards because the government can't "survive" with less spending. That's the political reality.
And I should add that the opposition party is as guilty of overspending as the winning party.
Given the way those coins got into numismatic circulation, I suppose the government was justified in its actions.
This does go to show why all of the 1964 Peace Dollars, if any exist, are still underground.
I totally agree. We'll never ever know if there is in fact one out there in private hands.
Tommy Type asserted that a U.S. Mint employee ending up with possession of a pattern is equivalent to a government employee stealing a government-issued laptop computer. This assertion is ridiculous and is possibly slanderous. Throughout the 19th century and during many instances in the 20th century, U.S. Mint employees were evidently permitted to keep patterns, especially openly discussed patterns for which the U.S. Treasury wished to receive publicity.
TommyType: "The heirs of an official of the San Francisco mint, who was in office at the time of their production, is found to be in possession of an unreleased pattern coin. One that they have always claimed is illegal to own."
Thousands of U.S. patterns that are PCGS certified now were never released in the sense that regular issues coins are "released." The claim that something is "illegal to own" does not mean that it is "illegal to own." There have been many cases where prosecutors argued that it is illegal to own mainstream pornography, such as material found in Playboy magazine. Some arguments by law enforcement officials are clearly wrong.
TommyType: "-Near as I can tell, their biggest defense is that it was gifted to him by a supervisor, or higher up."
Distributed would be a better term than "gifted." Nonetheless, this is how many patterns in the 19th century were distributed and many of these are in PCGS holders now while being owned by collectors in the present. Before recent cases, there was near-unanimous agreement, as far as I know, that such patterns were legally held.
TommyType: " I'll stick with my rather firm understanding of ethics as a government employee."
Saying that the holder of the 1974-D aluminum cent has "stolen property" because of a lack of documentation would be the same as saying that most of the owners of PCGS certified patterns are guilty of trafficking in stolen property as well, as there were rarely records of patterns being "issued." Consider all the items found in the Charles Barber estate, including Ultra High Relief Saints. It is misleading and ridiculous to say that all such patterns were "stolen" in the sense that unreturned government-issued laptops would be regarded as having been "stolen." Does TommyType really understand the horrid implications of his analogy, if it was to be taken seriously?
TommyType: "Why does it matter that the US government produced the coin, as opposed to procured it from another manufacturer?"
It is of central importance for reasons that I already explained. Aluminum cents in the 20th century served purposes similar to seriously considered patterns (not fantasy pieces) in the 19th century. Part of the point of patterns is give them out for free to gain attention and receive feedback.
TommyType: " Instead of an unreleased pattern, this mint official is found to have 10 bags of 1974 quarters. Is that OK? Do we let his family keep them? "
Not relevant, it is known that 1974 aluminum cent patterns were distributed to gain attention. Given that it was a radical new alloy for U.S. coinage that could not be fairly interpreted in excellent pictures of high resolution images, there is every reason to believe that 1974 aluminum cent patterns served the same purposes as many distributed patterns in the 19th century, to introduce people to the new concept, generate attention among people who are interested, draw attention to the Mint and the new plan, and influence politicians. Giving patterns to U.S. Mint employees for free was, historically, part of such a process.
Due to advances in technology, especially relating to photography, patterns were less useful in the late 20th century than they were in the 19th century. In sum, however, 1974 aluminum cent patterns were similar in nature to analogous patterns in the 19th century.
To attain an understanding, there is a need to learn about the traditions and policies of the Philadelphia Mint. In addition to my articles, I recommend reading pertinent works by Q. David Bowers. I encourage TommyType to contact QDB who may have more success in explaining why past policies indicate that 1974 aluminum cents were likely to have been legally obtained by people who have them now. Among other works, read the Judd book on patterns (Whitman) and the section on 1933 Double Eagles in QDB's guide to Double Eagles that was published in 2003 or so (whitmanbooks.com).
The Switt-Langbord case is relevant in that, throughout the history of the Philadelphia Mint, it was generally believed, by almost all concerned, that many items were legally released without entries in a Cashier's Ledger. This is a point that I fear that TommyType really does not understand.
The fate of the ten Switt-Langbord 1933 Double Eagles
My post-trial article includes comments by Q. David Bowers and David Ganz:
Analysis of the Verdict in the Switt-Langbord Case
I won't quote your post, but suffice it to say I reject it in it's entirety.
Your historical description of past mint practices are no doubt interesting. And I have no reason to doubt them. However, they create no precedent for government employees in the more recent era, and the fact that the choice to not prosecute was made at some point in the past, it does not nullify current rules and laws....or the rules and laws in place at the time of this coins acquisition. (Which weren't much different than today).
The "out" that past patterns have in their favor is that at some point SOMEONE decided not to pursue them. It might have been because they didn't care, it might be because they were protecting representatives of the mint, it might be because times were different, it might be because the provenance was just too difficult to untagle. As a result, they have changed hands many times, and have achieved the status of "legality". I'm fine with that, since there is no way to "punish" the initial wrongdoing. They are dead, gone, forgotten. However, I don't blame the current mint/government lawyers for trying to prevent any NEW oddities.
But I assure you, whether the government produced it, bought it, or found it in a hole, government employees are NOT allowed to receive personal enrichment from those items. And as a tax payer, YOU should appreciate that. The difference you seem to be hanging on is that "it happened in the past". Yes it did...and by current standards, it would be wrong, and grounds for termination.
You are also ignoring the difference, pointed out by several, that there is a difference between the 1974, and 1974D coins. The 1974D was not distributed, (as far as we know), to anyone. Any items that exist were most certainly taken from the mint.
As to the defense that it was awarded to an employee, I would contend that the supervisor ALSO had no right to "award" government property. So the improper employee action just transfers from one person to another, but the infraction remains, and the coin remains government property. It doesn't create the act of "monetization" in my mind.
Now, it certainly appears that this individual had no intention to profit from this coin during his lifetime. It seems to have been stored in his "box of memories", and only came to light when his heirs attempted to sell it. In short, it was something like a retiree keeping his favorite stapler when he left office. Hardly a criminal, jail inducing, infraction. In that light, I'm not surprised that nothing beyond return of the item is being demanded. (However, if that favorite stapler becomes a $million collectable, I would hope someone would take notice then, too?) In any case, I'm not contending this gentleman was evil, or worthy of our scorn. He had something he shouldn't have had. Return it, and we get to the "no harm, no foul" status.
But don't tell me I don't understand federal rules. And don't try to tell me a manufactured item has a different status from a purchased item! (Coins may be the most noticeable item manufactured by the government, and maybe are the only ones mass produced, but they certainly aren't the only items). If the government owns it by purchase, gift, recovery, or manufacture, an employee is not allowed to take ownership of it. They won't even sell old laptops or computers, or desks to employees, because it creates the illusion of improper gain. Heck, until Pres. Bush the 2nd signed a specific rule allowing it, we weren't even allowed to keep frequent flyer miles on government purchased tickets, even when we were the ones sitting on the flight!
So, in short, historical equivalents are interesting. But they don't create a precedent. A coin, until placed into circulation, is government property. It was produced with government funds, government material, and by government employees. It is owned by the government....or more to the point, by you/me/us as the citizens of the United States. Part of every government employees job, whether stated explicitly or not, is to protect those assets, and to NOT personally profit from them. Period.
I believe we will have to agree to disagree, and I see no point in drawing this discussion out any further than it has. You choose to intentionally ignore the most basic fact that is pertinent here: A government employee took ownership of government property. Period. If the coin collecting community wants to convince themselves differently, I will sit back and observe. But I see it as self serving, and protecting a highly questionable transaction just because you would like to have the coin...if not for yourself, but for the market place.
My stance is pretty simple: Now that we know it exists, put it in a museum. ANA, Smithsonian, Denver Mint, whatever. Make it available to study, photograph, whatever. Just don't set the unsavory precedent that a government employee, (or his heirs), should be allowed to profit, as long as he has a special interest group watching his back. It's just wrong policy.