Rhl
At what point did they ask. Your family must have made contact with them first. What were you asking the treasury office for? To give you their blessing that they were not interested in the coins? At what point did you tell them you had 10 ?
And by the way and you already know this your family got screwed. I hope you have a roll or more around
Short version of a long story— we contacted the Mint lawyers initially to tell them of our discovery. We said we knew ownership of the coins could be an issue and that we were open to resolve any problems the Mint might have in advance. We told them of the ten from the beginning. The Mint’s response was very positive to start with and there were a number of conversations on how any claims might be resolved. About three or four months into discussions, the Mint said that if the coins weren’t real it would be a waste of time to come to an agreement, and would we be open to having the coins authenticated? We agreed in writing to turn the coins over for the limited purpose of authentication and specifically reserved all our ownership rights.
And yes, things did not work out the way we hoped and the system was stacked against us. And no, we do not have a roll of 1933 DEs. We were honest from the beginning, you can see what resulted.
@rhl said:
Short version of a long story— we contacted the Mint lawyers initially to tell them of our discovery. We said we knew ownership of the coins could be an issue and that we were open to resolve any problems the Mint might have in advance. We told them of the ten from the beginning. The Mint’s response was very positive to start with and there were a number of conversations on how any claims might be resolved. About three or four months into discussions, the Mint said that if the coins weren’t real it would be a waste of time to come to an agreement, and would we be open to having the coins authenticated? We agreed in writing to turn the coins over for the limited purpose of authentication and specifically reserved all our ownership rights.
And yes, things did not work out the way we hoped and the system was stacked against us. And no, we do not have a roll of 1933 DEs. We were honest from the beginning, you can see what resulted.
This is what I mean about “rogue elements” of the government that contradict the words of other elements of the government. Ultimately you end up with a government that can’t be trusted when the right hand says one thing, and the left hand pursues a totally different policy.
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 ... ?
@rhl said:
Well the guys at the mint asked to authenticate our coins to see if they were not fakes so they at least claimed they weren’t certain if they were real. Of course, it all could have been part of their plan to take them and just keep them. Hmm......
So why did you tell them that you had 10? Why not 5? Did they hound the crap out of you about having more?
@rhl said:
Well the guys at the mint asked to authenticate our coins to see if they were not fakes so they at least claimed they weren’t certain if they were real. Of course, it all could have been part of their plan to take them and just keep them. Hmm......
So why did you tell them that you had 10? Why not 5? Did they hound the crap out of you about having more?
A little "reality" in an unreal situation --- beyond the comments of "rhl" most remarks in this and other threads related to the 1933 DE are filled with assumptions, guesses, speculation and outright falsehoods. "rhl" has clearly established circumstances and facts in prior threads, and it would be wise for members to return to, and read, his posts.
Thanks Roger, your efforts on my family’s behalf were much appreciated.
As to why we told the Mint the amount of all the coins we found, well the reason was both honest and practical. First, in the event of any litigation down the road we wanted to show that our behavior was clean, open and honest. Second, if we had told the Mint we had only found five coins and then reached a settlement in advance (which we thought was the most likely outcome), what would we then say about the other five? “ Whoops, we just found these!”?
@rhl said:
Thanks Roger, your efforts on my family’s behalf were much appreciated.
As to why we told the Mint the amount of all the coins we found, well the reason was both honest and practical. First, in the event of any litigation down the road we wanted to show that our behavior was clean, open and honest. Second, if we had told the Mint we had only found five coins and then reached a settlement in advance (which we thought was the most likely outcome), what would we then say about the other five? “ Whoops, we just found these!”?
You did the right thing. The U.S. Treasury did not.
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.
Seems that if US Mint employees were acting within the scope of their employment and some coins were exchanged, the Government should be bound by the consequences... and those few coins that were exchanged and knowingly released by Mint cannot be considered stolen. The elements of theft are simply not present.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
@coinkat said:
Seems that if US Mint employees were acting within the scope of their employment and some coins were exchanged, the Government should be bound by the consequences... and those few coins that were exchanged and knowingly released by Mint cannot be considered stolen. The elements of theft are simply not present.
The Mint says that no exchanges ever took place. They would, of course, say that.
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.
And while that may be their position, it does not seem to be supported based on what records exist- there was no shortfall of gold associated with this... or at least that is my understanding.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
RE: "The Mint says that no exchanges ever took place. They would, of course, say that."
And Mint and Secret Service records are unanimous that no 1933 coinage was ever reported missing.....from 1933 to today. Logic suggests if noting was missing then nothing was lost. Statement of this obvious situation by experts was not permitted.
It is also true that the Mint records regarding 1933 Double Eagles are as stated by the Mint itself “ written in ink” with no “ crossouts” or mistakes and they perfectly account for every single coin.
The problem is that virtually all of the other Mint records are not perfect and without error. The government and its expert never explained when these books were created or how or when the daily count took place. To my biased eyes, the reason these records are “ perfect” is the same reason that Bernie Madoff’s books always showed constant profits.
And as Roger pointed out, although at trial the government expert was allowed to opine on any and all topics, we were cut off and limited in what we could present.
Finally, how records that show only nothing was missing can be definite evidence of a theft is still a mystery to me...
The probable answer to this is that older double eagles were exchanged for the 1933 double eagles. So far as the government was concerned, it still had the same amount of gold. No harm, no foul. The exchange of those coins was no different from what had been done in the past.
I have read that years ago coin dealers set aside rolls of new coins that they maintained in inventory to sell to their customers in the future. That’s how many of the Mint State coins we have today were initially preserved. I am sure that many Philadelphia area dealers got their coins from the mint. They simply exchanged old coins or paper money for new ones.
The only difference this time was that FDR issued his executive order. Years later, in the early 1940s, a grandstanding bureaucrat, whose name I don’t remember, and whose name should forever remain in obscurity, decided he’d make his mark by prosecuting the initial case against those who owned these coins.
This whole case was nothing but a massive waste of the tax payers’ money. Money was wasted to try it, and tax receipts were lost when the owners of these coins sold them for profits, now and in the future.
It’s one more small example of what is wrong with Washington. It is filled with unelected bureaucrats, with huge egos, who think that they are above the people, the Congress and the president. They are the stinking swamp, and the swamp needs to be drained. They are a threat to freedom and our natural rights.
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 ... ?
Retired Collector & Dealer in Major Mint Error Coins & Currency since the 1960's.Co-Author of Whitman's "100 Greatest U.S. Mint Error Coins", and the Error Coin Encyclopedia, Vols., III & IV. Retired Authenticator for Major Mint Errors for PCGS. A 50+ Year PNG Member.A full-time numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022.
It's a real shame that a Solomon-esque settlement couldn't be reached where half the proceeds would be given to the Smithsonian for the purposes of establishing a dedicated facility for the National Numismatic Collection. Now THAT would be a win-win.
John Feigenbaum Whitman Brands: President/CEO (www.greysheet.com; www.whitman.com) PNG: Executive Director (www.pngdealers.org)
@rhl said:
Thanks Roger, your efforts on my family’s behalf were much appreciated.
As to why we told the Mint the amount of all the coins we found, well the reason was both honest and practical. First, in the event of any litigation down the road we wanted to show that our behavior was clean, open and honest. Second, if we had told the Mint we had only found five coins and then reached a settlement in advance (which we thought was the most likely outcome), what would we then say about the other five? “ Whoops, we just found these!”?
Why would the "other five" ever have had to be divulged?
@rhl said:
Thanks Roger, your efforts on my family’s behalf were much appreciated.
As to why we told the Mint the amount of all the coins we found, well the reason was both honest and practical. First, in the event of any litigation down the road we wanted to show that our behavior was clean, open and honest. Second, if we had told the Mint we had only found five coins and then reached a settlement in advance (which we thought was the most likely outcome), what would we then say about the other five? “ Whoops, we just found these!”?
Why would the "other five" ever have had to be divulged?
This would have made a good story. First one coin is legalized. Then a family discovers they own ten more. In an attempt to discover if their coins are OK to own and given the same legal status they inform the government they own two coins. Two different outcomes:
Their coins are confiscated. OK, bad break and they disperse the other eight in private transactions.
Their coins are declared OK to own. Great. Now ANY more that turn up deserve the same treatment. They donate one to (???) for public display and keep the other. They disperse the remaining eight in private transactions.
"......It’s one more small example of what is wrong with Washington. It is filled with unelected bureaucrats, with huge egos, who think that they are above the people, the Congress and the president.......'
How true.
Case in point for me. I am handling a case for a client where i am enforcing a money judgment owed by a judgment debtor by having the Riverside County Sheriff levy upon and sell a parcel of real property owned by the judgment debtor in Palm Springs. The Sheriff received the papers sent by my office to open a Sheriff's file and proceeding to record a Notice Of Levy against the property. A month later a Sheriff's office employee contacted me and told me that for reasons based upon the wording of two state statutes dealing with enforcement of judgments the Sheriff's Office decided that it had to release the Notice Of Levy. I asked the person if I could have a couple of days to review those statutes and provide to the Sheriff's office a letter from me that sets forth my position on the matter. The Sheriff's office employee said yes [that was kind and considerate of her].
I researched the statutes and determined that those statutes on their faces did not apply to my specific case. I wrote a letter to the Sheriff's office explaining my view and position on the matter, including my legal analysis as to why the Sheriff's position was incorrect. I invited the Sheriff's office to have my letter reviewed by senior people in the Sheriff's office and to have it reviewed by the Riverside County Counsel's office (who acts as the attorney for the Sheriff's office) and to thereafter let me know if the Sheriff would or would not change its mind.
Well I prepared and sent the letter. I waited for response from the Sheriff's office. I received a phone call a couple of days ago from another person in the Sheriff's office. She would not tell me her full name; would not tell me her title/position in the Sheriff's office; told me that the Sheriff's office under no circumstances would have the County Counsel look at my letter; told me she is not an attorney; told me that my letter is completely wrong; initially was cordial and agreed to my request that she read statutes and review paperwork in the Sheriff's file along with me so i could point out specifically why my case fell outside of the scope of the statutes cited by the Sheriff; got hostile when I pointed things out to her; became agitated and verbally hostile with me when I asked why the Sheriff's office had a different view; eventually started telling me that I did not know what I am doing; and told me that it makes no difference what my letter says or what I say the position of the Sheriff is correct [even though it is arguably not]. After about 15 minutes of increasingly confrontational phone conversation I asked the person why it is that we have been spending 15 minutes on the phone arguing about this when I simply wanted to have a chance to explain why my client and i have a different opinion. She told me it was to let me know that I am wrong.
So, an unidentified employee of the Sheriff's office is right, my client and I are wrong and there is nothing that my client and i can realistically do to cause the Sheriff to change its mind. The upshot of this is that my client is now unable to complete the enforcement of its judgment through a sale of the judgment debtor's real property.
"......It’s one more small example of what is wrong with Washington. It is filled with unelected bureaucrats, with huge egos, who think that they are above the people, the Congress and the president.......'
How true.
Case in point for me. I am handling a case for a client where i am enforcing a money judgment owed by a judgment debtor by having the Riverside County Sheriff levy upon and sell a parcel of real property owned by the judgment debtor in Palm Springs. The Sheriff received the papers sent by my office to open a Sheriff's file and proceeding to record a Notice Of Levy against the property. A month later a Sheriff's office employee contacted me and told me that for reasons based upon the wording of two state statutes dealing with enforcement of judgments the Sheriff's Office decided that it had to release the Notice Of Levy. I asked the person if I could have a couple of days to review those statutes and provide to the Sheriff's office a letter from me that sets forth my position on the matter. The Sheriff's office employee said yes [that was kind and considerate of her].
I researched the statutes and determined that those statutes on their faces did not apply to my specific case. I wrote a letter to the Sheriff's office explaining my view and position on the matter, including my legal analysis as to why the Sheriff's position was incorrect. I invited the Sheriff's office to have my letter reviewed by senior people in the Sheriff's office and to have it reviewed by the Riverside County Counsel's office (who acts as the attorney for the Sheriff's office) and to thereafter let me know if the Sheriff would or would not change its mind.
Well I prepared and sent the letter. I waited for response from the Sheriff's office. I received a phone call a couple of days ago from another person in the Sheriff's office. She would not tell me her full name; would not tell me her title/position in the Sheriff's office; told me that the Sheriff's office under no circumstances would have the County Counsel look at my letter; told me she is not an attorney; told me that my letter is completely wrong; initially was cordial and agreed to my request that she read statutes and review paperwork in the Sheriff's file along with me so i could point out specifically why my case fell outside of the scope of the statutes cited by the Sheriff; got hostile when I pointed things out to her; became agitated and verbally hostile with me when I asked why the Sheriff's office had a different view; eventually started telling me that I did not know what I am doing; and told me that it makes no difference what my letter says or what I say the position of the Sheriff is correct [even though it is arguably not]. After about 15 minutes of increasingly confrontational phone conversation I asked the person why it is that we have been spending 15 minutes on the phone arguing about this when I simply wanted to have a chance to explain why my client and i have a different opinion. She told me it was to let me know that I am wrong.
So, an unidentified employee of the Sheriff's office is right, my client and I are wrong and there is nothing that my client and i can realistically do to cause the Sheriff to change its mind. The upshot of this is that my client is now unable to complete the enforcement of its judgment through a sale of the judgment debtor's real property.
Contact a news organization. Also contact a conservative TV/Radio host. Got to put the light on the roaches!
@rhl said:
Thanks Roger, your efforts on my family’s behalf were much appreciated.
As to why we told the Mint the amount of all the coins we found, well the reason was both honest and practical. First, in the event of any litigation down the road we wanted to show that our behavior was clean, open and honest. Second, if we had told the Mint we had only found five coins and then reached a settlement in advance (which we thought was the most likely outcome), what would we then say about the other five? “ Whoops, we just found these!”?
Why would the "other five" ever have had to be divulged?
This would have made a good story. First one coin is legalized. Then a family discovers they own ten more. In an attempt to discover if their coins are OK to own and given the same legal status they inform the government they own two coins. Two different outcomes:
Their coins are confiscated. OK, bad break and they disperse the other eight in private transactions.
Their coins are declared OK to own. Great. Now ANY more that turn up deserve the same treatment. They donate one to (???) for public display and keep the other. They disperse the remaining eight in private transactions.
If 5 coins were legalized [unlikely] then the Langbords still have 5 which IMO would be easier to sell by private placement. If 5 coins were confiscated [most likely] then the Langbords would still have 5. Now they got nuthin.
The Langboard family did what was honest and reasonable - absolutely as expected from my personal experience with every member of the family. In turn, their integrity was purloined and abused.
@BillJones said:
It takes the fun out ownership when you can't acknowledge you have it or can share with other collectors.
This case is more in an ever growing lists of ways the government finds to waste taxpayers' money. If they would spend some money on cracking down on those who distribute Chinese counterfeits, we would all be better off.
Disagree only because it may take some of the fun out of it, but not all. We're not talking stolen Picasso's than can only be enjoyed privately, but also having the added perverse thrill of illicit ownership.
The people with coins like this surely would get more of a kick out of sharing them, and in one instance the coin does have an owner who appreciates it numismatically. I have no idea in what SDB in what country the Dallas Bank (Browning) coin is located, but it sat in an SDB for likely 25+ years after Jeff died being, if touched at all, handled, not fondled.
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
So we should have held back some coins and sold them in a “private transaction”? ...How would that work exactly? Go up to people on the street and say “Hey buddy, got a few million for a coin?” How about sending a form letter to the Forbes 400? Or perhaps we can go to a coin dealer to arrange a sale? But of course, then what happens when the Secret Service comes through the door as they did to Stephen Fenton? As my lawyer wisely said, if you are not a professional criminal, engaging in criminal conduct pretty much always fails.
As to would we have done this again the same way knowing what we know now? Absolutely not. The Mint has made it 100 percent clear that if you go to them they can only be trusted to take your property and attempt to bludgeon you into submission.
Remember, this is just a story.... How would I dispose of the eight coins I kept after the government did not return the other two I found. More later.
@rhl said:
So we should have held back some coins and sold them in a “private transaction”? ...How would that work exactly? Go up to people on the street and say “Hey buddy, got a few million for a coin?” How about sending a form letter to the Forbes 400? Or perhaps we can go to a coin dealer to arrange a sale? But of course, then what happens when the Secret Service comes through the door as they did to Stephen Fenton? As my lawyer wisely said, if you are not a professional criminal, engaging in criminal conduct pretty much always fails.
As to would we have done this again the same way knowing what we know now? Absolutely not. The Mint has made it 100 percent clear that if you go to them they can only be trusted to take your property and attempt to bludgeon you into submission.
If you had them then selling them was always an option, but not a necessity; unless of course you needed the money. If I had one, I'd get more satisfaction just knowing I had it and Unka Sugar didn't. If I was looking to sell, I can think of several people here that I would contact to arrange to place it privately.
@TwoSides2aCoin said:
"Professional criminal " ? Now who brought politicians into this ?
Leave our girl out of this. Just because she has done traitorous and criminal actions her entire life, she is not a criminal until the "twelfth-of-NEVER" when she is charged, tried, and convicted!
So let me get this correct—if you had been in my famiy’s place, you think the smat thing to have done would have been to go to the Mint, tell them we have one coin and then if the Mint says the coin is their property and not legal to own, reach out to people on this forum to arrange “private placements” of the other nine? Seriously?
Folks have different moral standards and all here are posting in hindsight (very easy to do). Things would have been much different if you were allowed to keep the coins. You have already been praised for doing the "right thing" in the first place. You and your family are now a part of numismatic history!
I'm glad I did not need to make the choice. Fortunately, I know EXACTLY what I should have done but I'll never tell.
I believe they did what they thought was right. In hindsight, the two major things that I would have done differently are:
1) get the coins out of the country before contacting the US government
2) never ever relinquish possession
This would have allowed negotiations to proceed from a position of power rather than weakness. We’ll never know but I suspect in this situation the government may very well have taken a Fentonesque compromise.
@rhl said:
So let me get this correct—if you had been in my famiy’s place, you think the smat thing to have done would have been to go to the Mint, tell them we have one coin and then if the Mint says the coin is their property and not legal to own, reach out to people on this forum to arrange “private placements” of the other nine? Seriously?
I don't think that I ever said what you should have done, but rather what you could have done. For whatever reason/s you had at the time, you chose to declare the existence of all of the coins in your possession. Then you handed them over to the mint with the expectation that they would be returned because of some technical violation of CAFRA. Are there that many known counterfeits, that would lead someone to believe that the ones in your possession were all fakes? I don't recall that you ever stated your family's position on whether they wanted to keep the coins or sell them. Given all of the hassle that you went though to try to get ownership leads me to believe that you were interested in liquidating them. If it was ownership then there's no reason to have done anything other than own them. Of course as you got older you'd reach a point where you'd have to do something with them while you still could.
Now that it's over, and the outcome is known [and not unexpected] what would you have done differently?
Frankly, IMO the smart thing would have been to have never gone to the mint in the first place, but that's my take on it. Given the Government's position on these coins over the years, there is no way they'd ever legalize another, much less 10 more.
I'm sure that you and your attorney would have your own means of placing the coins if that was what you opted to do. I'm speaking about what I would do as a starter.
@rhl said:
So let me get this correct—if you had been in my famiy’s place, you think the smat thing to have done would have been to go to the Mint, tell them we have one coin and then if the Mint says the coin is their property and not legal to own, reach out to people on this forum to arrange “private placements” of the other nine? Seriously?
I don't think that I ever said what you should have done, but rather what you could have done. For whatever reason/s you had at the time, you chose to declare the existence of all of the coins in your possession. Then you handed them over to the mint with the expectation that they would be returned because of some technical violation of CAFRA. Are there that many known counterfeits, that would lead someone to believe that the ones in your possession were all fakes? I don't recall that you ever stated your family's position on whether they wanted to keep the coins or sell them.
Now that it's over, and the outcome is known [and not unexpected] what would you have done differently?
Frankly, IMO the smart thing would have been to have never gone to the mint in the first place, but that's my take on it.
I like Tradollar's suggestion better. I never thought of that one - only declaring two coins but the rest would have been in the US and subject to waterboarding me to find their location. . Get them out of the country.
@rhl said:
So let me get this correct—if you had been in my famiy’s place, you think the smat thing to have done would have been to go to the Mint, tell them we have one coin and then if the Mint says the coin is their property and not legal to own, reach out to people on this forum to arrange “private placements” of the other nine? Seriously?
I don't think that I ever said what you should have done, but rather what you could have done. For whatever reason/s you had at the time, you chose to declare the existence of all of the coins in your possession. Then you handed them over to the mint with the expectation that they would be returned because of some technical violation of CAFRA. Are there that many known counterfeits, that would lead someone to believe that the ones in your possession were all fakes? I don't recall that you ever stated your family's position on whether they wanted to keep the coins or sell them.
Now that it's over, and the outcome is known [and not unexpected] what would you have done differently?
Frankly, IMO the smart thing would have been to have never gone to the mint in the first place, but that's my take on it.
I like Tradollar's suggestion better. I never thought of that one - only declaring two coins but the rest would have been in the US and subject to waterboarding me to find their location. . Get them out of the country.
They could still waterboard you to bring them back. No matter where they are, they can put [or have someone else put] pressure on you to return them. Once you make it known that you have them, you're screwed. If that was such a hot idea, why didn't Barry Berke insist on it?
@rhl said:
So let me get this correct—if you had been in my famiy’s place, you think the smat thing to have done would have been to go to the Mint, tell them we have one coin and then if the Mint says the coin is their property and not legal to own, reach out to people on this forum to arrange “private placements” of the other nine? Seriously?
I'm not a high roller whale who plays in the 7 figure coin arena, so if I had one to sell I have no connections to go to. Over the years I have found that there are people here that I would trust if I was in a position to sell such a coin. I'm not telling you that that is what you should do if you were in the same position.
Comments
Rhl
At what point did they ask. Your family must have made contact with them first. What were you asking the treasury office for? To give you their blessing that they were not interested in the coins? At what point did you tell them you had 10 ?
And by the way and you already know this your family got screwed. I hope you have a roll or more around
Martin
Short version of a long story— we contacted the Mint lawyers initially to tell them of our discovery. We said we knew ownership of the coins could be an issue and that we were open to resolve any problems the Mint might have in advance. We told them of the ten from the beginning. The Mint’s response was very positive to start with and there were a number of conversations on how any claims might be resolved. About three or four months into discussions, the Mint said that if the coins weren’t real it would be a waste of time to come to an agreement, and would we be open to having the coins authenticated? We agreed in writing to turn the coins over for the limited purpose of authentication and specifically reserved all our ownership rights.
And yes, things did not work out the way we hoped and the system was stacked against us. And no, we do not have a roll of 1933 DEs. We were honest from the beginning, you can see what resulted.
This is what I mean about “rogue elements” of the government that contradict the words of other elements of the government. Ultimately you end up with a government that can’t be trusted when the right hand says one thing, and the left hand pursues a totally different policy.
So why did you tell them that you had 10? Why not 5? Did they hound the crap out of you about having more?
Ah, because HE IS HONEST!
A little "reality" in an unreal situation --- beyond the comments of "rhl" most remarks in this and other threads related to the 1933 DE are filled with assumptions, guesses, speculation and outright falsehoods. "rhl" has clearly established circumstances and facts in prior threads, and it would be wise for members to return to, and read, his posts.
Thanks Roger, your efforts on my family’s behalf were much appreciated.
As to why we told the Mint the amount of all the coins we found, well the reason was both honest and practical. First, in the event of any litigation down the road we wanted to show that our behavior was clean, open and honest. Second, if we had told the Mint we had only found five coins and then reached a settlement in advance (which we thought was the most likely outcome), what would we then say about the other five? “ Whoops, we just found these!”?
You did the right thing. The U.S. Treasury did not.
Seems that if US Mint employees were acting within the scope of their employment and some coins were exchanged, the Government should be bound by the consequences... and those few coins that were exchanged and knowingly released by Mint cannot be considered stolen. The elements of theft are simply not present.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
The Mint says that no exchanges ever took place. They would, of course, say that.
And while that may be their position, it does not seem to be supported based on what records exist- there was no shortfall of gold associated with this... or at least that is my understanding.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
RE: "The Mint says that no exchanges ever took place. They would, of course, say that."
And Mint and Secret Service records are unanimous that no 1933 coinage was ever reported missing.....from 1933 to today. Logic suggests if noting was missing then nothing was lost. Statement of this obvious situation by experts was not permitted.
It is also true that the Mint records regarding 1933 Double Eagles are as stated by the Mint itself “ written in ink” with no “ crossouts” or mistakes and they perfectly account for every single coin.
The problem is that virtually all of the other Mint records are not perfect and without error. The government and its expert never explained when these books were created or how or when the daily count took place. To my biased eyes, the reason these records are “ perfect” is the same reason that Bernie Madoff’s books always showed constant profits.
And as Roger pointed out, although at trial the government expert was allowed to opine on any and all topics, we were cut off and limited in what we could present.
Finally, how records that show only nothing was missing can be definite evidence of a theft is still a mystery to me...
The probable answer to this is that older double eagles were exchanged for the 1933 double eagles. So far as the government was concerned, it still had the same amount of gold. No harm, no foul. The exchange of those coins was no different from what had been done in the past.
I have read that years ago coin dealers set aside rolls of new coins that they maintained in inventory to sell to their customers in the future. That’s how many of the Mint State coins we have today were initially preserved. I am sure that many Philadelphia area dealers got their coins from the mint. They simply exchanged old coins or paper money for new ones.
The only difference this time was that FDR issued his executive order. Years later, in the early 1940s, a grandstanding bureaucrat, whose name I don’t remember, and whose name should forever remain in obscurity, decided he’d make his mark by prosecuting the initial case against those who owned these coins.
This whole case was nothing but a massive waste of the tax payers’ money. Money was wasted to try it, and tax receipts were lost when the owners of these coins sold them for profits, now and in the future.
It’s one more small example of what is wrong with Washington. It is filled with unelected bureaucrats, with huge egos, who think that they are above the people, the Congress and the president. They are the stinking swamp, and the swamp needs to be drained. They are a threat to freedom and our natural rights.
......and the ongoing story......
Somewhere King Farouk is laughing.
The Mysterious Egyptian Magic Coin
Coins in Movies
Coins on Television
Where is the "Drain the Swamp" emoji ?
It's a real shame that a Solomon-esque settlement couldn't be reached where half the proceeds would be given to the Smithsonian for the purposes of establishing a dedicated facility for the National Numismatic Collection. Now THAT would be a win-win.
Whitman Brands: President/CEO (www.greysheet.com; www.whitman.com)
PNG: Executive Director (www.pngdealers.org)
Why would the "other five" ever have had to be divulged?
This would have made a good story. First one coin is legalized. Then a family discovers they own ten more. In an attempt to discover if their coins are OK to own and given the same legal status they inform the government they own two coins. Two different outcomes:
Their coins are confiscated.
OK, bad break and they disperse the other eight in private transactions.
Their coins are declared OK to own. Great. Now ANY more that turn up deserve the same treatment. They donate one to (???) for public display and keep the other. They disperse the remaining eight in private transactions.
BillJones said:
"......It’s one more small example of what is wrong with Washington. It is filled with unelected bureaucrats, with huge egos, who think that they are above the people, the Congress and the president.......'
How true.
Case in point for me. I am handling a case for a client where i am enforcing a money judgment owed by a judgment debtor by having the Riverside County Sheriff levy upon and sell a parcel of real property owned by the judgment debtor in Palm Springs. The Sheriff received the papers sent by my office to open a Sheriff's file and proceeding to record a Notice Of Levy against the property. A month later a Sheriff's office employee contacted me and told me that for reasons based upon the wording of two state statutes dealing with enforcement of judgments the Sheriff's Office decided that it had to release the Notice Of Levy. I asked the person if I could have a couple of days to review those statutes and provide to the Sheriff's office a letter from me that sets forth my position on the matter. The Sheriff's office employee said yes [that was kind and considerate of her].
I researched the statutes and determined that those statutes on their faces did not apply to my specific case. I wrote a letter to the Sheriff's office explaining my view and position on the matter, including my legal analysis as to why the Sheriff's position was incorrect. I invited the Sheriff's office to have my letter reviewed by senior people in the Sheriff's office and to have it reviewed by the Riverside County Counsel's office (who acts as the attorney for the Sheriff's office) and to thereafter let me know if the Sheriff would or would not change its mind.
Well I prepared and sent the letter. I waited for response from the Sheriff's office. I received a phone call a couple of days ago from another person in the Sheriff's office. She would not tell me her full name; would not tell me her title/position in the Sheriff's office; told me that the Sheriff's office under no circumstances would have the County Counsel look at my letter; told me she is not an attorney; told me that my letter is completely wrong; initially was cordial and agreed to my request that she read statutes and review paperwork in the Sheriff's file along with me so i could point out specifically why my case fell outside of the scope of the statutes cited by the Sheriff; got hostile when I pointed things out to her; became agitated and verbally hostile with me when I asked why the Sheriff's office had a different view; eventually started telling me that I did not know what I am doing; and told me that it makes no difference what my letter says or what I say the position of the Sheriff is correct [even though it is arguably not]. After about 15 minutes of increasingly confrontational phone conversation I asked the person why it is that we have been spending 15 minutes on the phone arguing about this when I simply wanted to have a chance to explain why my client and i have a different opinion. She told me it was to let me know that I am wrong.
So, an unidentified employee of the Sheriff's office is right, my client and I are wrong and there is nothing that my client and i can realistically do to cause the Sheriff to change its mind. The upshot of this is that my client is now unable to complete the enforcement of its judgment through a sale of the judgment debtor's real property.
Contact a news organization. Also contact a conservative TV/Radio host. Got to put the light on the roaches!
Unless the owner's name is D. Carr I find this highly suspect.
peacockcoins
If 5 coins were legalized [unlikely] then the Langbords still have 5 which IMO would be easier to sell by private placement. If 5 coins were confiscated [most likely] then the Langbords would still have 5. Now they got nuthin.
They have their integrity.
The Langboard family did what was honest and reasonable - absolutely as expected from my personal experience with every member of the family. In turn, their integrity was purloined and abused.
I don't know them personally, but I expect that they've always had that.
Disagree only because it may take some of the fun out of it, but not all. We're not talking stolen Picasso's than can only be enjoyed privately, but also having the added perverse thrill of illicit ownership.
The people with coins like this surely would get more of a kick out of sharing them, and in one instance the coin does have an owner who appreciates it numismatically. I have no idea in what SDB in what country the Dallas Bank (Browning) coin is located, but it sat in an SDB for likely 25+ years after Jeff died being, if touched at all, handled, not fondled.
If you could do this again would you do the same thing you did being honest?
There is NO WAY I would do what you did I guess your much more better than me. I will admit I am a bad person.
33 Saint? 64-D Peace? They're out there.
It must be grinding the gut of the owners because they can't flash them around.
Pete
So we should have held back some coins and sold them in a “private transaction”? ...How would that work exactly? Go up to people on the street and say “Hey buddy, got a few million for a coin?” How about sending a form letter to the Forbes 400? Or perhaps we can go to a coin dealer to arrange a sale? But of course, then what happens when the Secret Service comes through the door as they did to Stephen Fenton? As my lawyer wisely said, if you are not a professional criminal, engaging in criminal conduct pretty much always fails.
As to would we have done this again the same way knowing what we know now? Absolutely not. The Mint has made it 100 percent clear that if you go to them they can only be trusted to take your property and attempt to bludgeon you into submission.
Can one imagine the fun if Great Britain's King Edward VIII got one of these?
The Mysterious Egyptian Magic Coin
Coins in Movies
Coins on Television
Remember, this is just a story.... How would I dispose of the eight coins I kept after the government did not return the other two I found. More later.
If you had them then selling them was always an option, but not a necessity; unless of course you needed the money. If I had one, I'd get more satisfaction just knowing I had it and Unka Sugar didn't. If I was looking to sell, I can think of several people here that I would contact to arrange to place it privately.
@BAJJERFAN said: "If I was looking to sell, I can think of several people here that I would contact to arrange to place it privately."
Thanks, You saved me a lot of time.
For a little "cut," I don't think there are many top professionals in the business who would skip the chance to place one of these coins privately.
"Professional criminal " ? Now who brought politicians into this ?
YW. Always glad to help a fellow forumite.
Leave our girl out of this. Just because she has done traitorous and criminal actions her entire life, she is not a criminal until the "twelfth-of-NEVER" when she is charged, tried, and convicted!
"Placing one privately" is a good way to sell a fake or a copy.
The Mysterious Egyptian Magic Coin
Coins in Movies
Coins on Television
There is plenty of intrig surrounding the Edward VIII patterns...
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
So let me get this correct—if you had been in my famiy’s place, you think the smat thing to have done would have been to go to the Mint, tell them we have one coin and then if the Mint says the coin is their property and not legal to own, reach out to people on this forum to arrange “private placements” of the other nine? Seriously?
Folks have different moral standards and all here are posting in hindsight (very easy to do). Things would have been much different if you were allowed to keep the coins. You have already been praised for doing the "right thing" in the first place. You and your family are now a part of numismatic history!
I'm glad I did not need to make the choice. Fortunately, I know EXACTLY what I should have done but I'll never tell.
I believe they did what they thought was right. In hindsight, the two major things that I would have done differently are:
1) get the coins out of the country before contacting the US government
2) never ever relinquish possession
This would have allowed negotiations to proceed from a position of power rather than weakness. We’ll never know but I suspect in this situation the government may very well have taken a Fentonesque compromise.
I don't think that I ever said what you should have done, but rather what you could have done. For whatever reason/s you had at the time, you chose to declare the existence of all of the coins in your possession. Then you handed them over to the mint with the expectation that they would be returned because of some technical violation of CAFRA. Are there that many known counterfeits, that would lead someone to believe that the ones in your possession were all fakes? I don't recall that you ever stated your family's position on whether they wanted to keep the coins or sell them. Given all of the hassle that you went though to try to get ownership leads me to believe that you were interested in liquidating them. If it was ownership then there's no reason to have done anything other than own them. Of course as you got older you'd reach a point where you'd have to do something with them while you still could.
Now that it's over, and the outcome is known [and not unexpected] what would you have done differently?
Frankly, IMO the smart thing would have been to have never gone to the mint in the first place, but that's my take on it. Given the Government's position on these coins over the years, there is no way they'd ever legalize another, much less 10 more.
I'm sure that you and your attorney would have your own means of placing the coins if that was what you opted to do. I'm speaking about what I would do as a starter.
I like Tradollar's suggestion better. I never thought of that one - only declaring two coins but the rest would have been in the US and subject to waterboarding me to find their location.
. Get them out of the country.
They could still waterboard you to bring them back. No matter where they are, they can put [or have someone else put] pressure on you to return them. Once you make it known that you have them, you're screwed. If that was such a hot idea, why didn't Barry Berke insist on it?
I'm not a high roller whale who plays in the 7 figure coin arena, so if I had one to sell I have no connections to go to. Over the years I have found that there are people here that I would trust if I was in a position to sell such a coin. I'm not telling you that that is what you should do if you were in the same position.
@BAJJERFAN said: "If that was such a hot idea, why didn't Barry Berke insist on it?
Perhaps because he (?) was under the direction of his client or perhaps he was not as wise as you, me, and the member
who thought of it!
PS There would be no waterboarding or anything else going on as I only told them about the TWO PIECES I surrendered.
Yeah, trust me
to place it for you on the QT. Next, I don't know you, what 1933 $20 they are all accounted for and illegal to own. 
@tootellthetruth does not seem to be around anymore.
I wouldn't walk up to anyone here at a show and just turn the coin over to be sold.