I mostly agree here. The only thing I can't really say with any authority is whether or not the coins were ever "legally" available at the Mint because I'm not sure what the requisite protocols are to make them "legal" to sell. Is there ever paperwork filed? Is there an official transfer to the Exchequer or Cashier? I just don't know how that works.
This is all legal nonsense.
The fact of the matter is the mint is just a factory. They merely produce coins, not money. At no point does a coin somehow morph into "money". For ALL practical purposes a coin becomes money when it is legally presented to purchase something and is not fraudulently accepted. No wand is waved over them nor are the blessed by the powers that be.
As a factory there are many roads in and many roads out. Not only is product removed from this factory in countless ways but so too is garbage, equipment, men, and materiel. Product goes out in many ways and while each coin is dated it hardly proves it left the mint the year that is stamped on the coin. They often release new coins right with the old inadvertently and it could have even left the mint in 1932. Everything they mix in with the coinage isn't intentional and isn't a W-mint quarter.
We are only aware of the normal and typical ways that a 1933 double eagle
The coins weren’t immediately declared to be “stolen” and the hunt for them didn’t start 85 years ago.
By the way, are there any coins not traceable to George McCann? Why isn't this the story of a Mint insider trying to profit from inside information? Or outright theft by a Mint insider, depending on when he procured the coins.
I mostly agree here. The only thing I can't really say with any authority is whether or not the coins were ever "legally" available at the Mint because I'm not sure what the requisite protocols are to make them "legal" to sell. Is there ever paperwork filed? Is there an official transfer to the Exchequer or Cashier? I just don't know how that works.
This is all legal nonsense.
The fact of the matter is the mint is just a factory. They merely produce coins, not money. At no point does a coin somehow morph into "money". For ALL practical purposes a coin becomes money when it is legally presented to purchase something and is not fraudulently accepted. No wand is waved over them nor are the blessed by the powers that be.
As a factory there are many roads in and many roads out. Not only is product removed from this factory in countless ways but so too is garbage, equipment, men, and materiel. Product goes out in many ways and while each coin is dated it hardly proves it left the mint the year that is stamped on the coin. They often release new coins right with the old inadvertently and it could have even left the mint in 1932. Everything they mix in with the coinage isn't intentional and isn't a W-mint quarter.
We are only aware of the normal and typical ways that a 1933 double eagle
The coins weren’t immediately declared to be “stolen” and the hunt for them didn’t start 85 years ago.
By the way, are there any coins not traceable to George McCann? Why isn't this the story of a Mint insider trying to profit from inside information? Or outright theft by a Mint insider, depending on when he procured the coins.
None that I’m aware of. The coins that we’re seized were traced to Switt and he didn’t implicate McCann or anyone else.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@jmlanzaf said:
Would anyone feel differently if the people who bought the coins knew the executive order was coming and were trying to profit from the artificial rarity?
Nope, human nature. Hopefully, I'd be one to find out and trade on inside info if the 1933 coins were in some way made available to mint workers that did not involve stealing.
@jmlanzaf said:
Would anyone feel differently if the people who bought the coins knew the executive order was coming and were trying to profit from the artificial rarity?
Nope, human nature. Hopefully, I'd be one to find out and trade on inside info if the 1933 coins were in some way made available to mint workers that did not involve stealing.
I don't know. I hear a lot of complaining about greedy dealers. I've also heard complaining about bulk buyers on new Mint issues today. We hear complaints about coln doctors. It's hard to believe that people would excuse a government employee stealing a handful of coins fron the melting pot knowing he could make a mint (pun intended) selling them
Doubtful that Switt had possession of any '33's, all 20 of the knowns (without counting the 2 that McCann sent to the Smithsonian, of course) which have been traced to him, until as late as 1936 when he visited Max Berenstein in New York to sell him some '32's.
I don't believe Switt, in 1936, could have resisted showing any '33's he might have had to Barenstein. Switt did sell some '32's to Barenstein when he went to New York in 1936.
The Barenstein piece was one of the '33's seized by SS in 1944. Barenstein actually acquired his '33 from Switt in 1937 but had to pay through the nose to get it.
For the record, I haven't changed my opinion that justice was not served in the case of the Langbord 1933 Double Eagles. The family should have been allowed to keep the coins and dispose of them as they saw fit.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
@mr1874 said:
Doubtful that Switt had possession of any '33's, all 20 of the knowns (without counting the 2 that McCann sent to the Smithsonian, of course) which have been traced to him, until as late as 1936 when he visited Max Berenstein in New York to sell him some '32's.
I don't believe Switt, in 1936, could have resisted showing any '33's he might have had to Barenstein. Switt did sell some '32's to Barenstein when he went to New York in 1936.
The Barenstein piece was one of the '33's seized by SS in 1944. Barenstein actually acquired his '33 from Switt in 1937 but had to pay through the nose to get it.
For the record, I haven't changed my opinion that justice was not served in the case of the Langbord 1933 Double Eagles. The family should have been allowed to keep the coins and dispose of them as they saw fit.
Supposedly 1936 is the year McCann sold them to him. McCann is the reason that I find the attitude of some towards these coins to be curious. If the only person who managed to acquire any 33s was a Mint insider with access to them, it is incredibly unlikely they were ever "legally available" for exchange. Turning a blind eye to insider theft (apologies to insider2) is remarkable.
Well, it is possible that McCann did acquire '33's** legally** in 1933, on a gold for gold exchange basis. As we all know, being an "insider" can and often does have its advantages.
I have been pretty much on board with Q. David Bowers on 1933 Double Eagles. Government should have made them legal to own.
I posited the idea that, of the ten Langbord coins, they should be permitted direct ownership of, at the least, one of the 10 pieces, the piece of their choosing, the finest one in other words. Not too hard to figure that out, identifying the finest one.
What to do with the other nine?
How about locating an "appropriate" direct decendent of each of the nine individuals who had their '33's confiscated by Secret Service many years ago and giving that individual, if he or she can be identified, a '33? It would be the government admitting they were wrong to have confiscated '33's from their original owners in the first place. If there is no direct decendent to be identified, the '33 that would have been awarded goes to the Langbords, so the Langbords could end up owning more than one '33.
Bottom line: For the Langbords to get nothing is just plain wrong.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
I will never be in attendance at a future show that has The Mint showing off the ten 1933 Double Eagles that were once in the possession of the Langbord family.
Never.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
@mr1874 said:
Well, it is possible that McCann did acquire '33's** legally** in 1933, on a gold for gold exchange basis. As we all know, being an "insider" can and often does have its advantages.
I have been pretty much on board with Q. David Bowers on 1933 Double Eagles. Government should have made them legal to own.
I posited the idea that, of the ten Langbord coins, they should be permitted direct ownership of, at the least, one of the 10 pieces, the piece of their choosing, the finest one in other words. Not too hard to figure that out, identifying the finest one.
What to do with the other nine?
How about locating an "appropriate" direct decendent of each of the nine individuals who had their '33's confiscated by Secret Service many years ago and giving that individual, if he or she can be identified, a '33? It would be the government admitting they were wrong to have confiscated '33's from their original owners in the first place. If there is no direct decendent to be identified, the '33 that would have been awarded goes to the Langbords, so the Langbords could end up owning more than one '33.
Bottom line: For the Langbords to get nothing is just plain wrong.
Except if they are stolen goods, no one should ever benefit from the theft.
McCann did serve time for a different theft from the Mint. He was never prosecuted for the 33s because by 1944 the Statute of Limitations had expired.
Does the Government have documentation that the 1933 coins were never approved for circulation? Seems I recall from previous post here that the mint director issued a request to obtain 40 of the coins? What was the reason for the request and what happened to the 40 coins?
@BAJJERFAN said:
Does the Government have documentation that the 1933 coins were never approved for circulation? Seems I recall from previous post here that the mint director issued a request to obtain 40 of the coins? What was the reason for the request and what happened to the 40 coins?
Kind of backwards. Do you have any documentation that you are not a turtle?
What no one had is any documentation releasing the coins for sale.
@BAJJERFAN said:
Does the Government have documentation that the 1933 coins were never approved for circulation? Seems I recall from previous post here that the mint director issued a request to obtain 40 of the coins? What was the reason for the request and what happened to the 40 coins?
And given the number of coin dealers shopping at the back door to the mint, went do all of the 33s appear to come from McCann?
@BAJJERFAN said:
Does the Government have documentation that the 1933 coins were never approved for circulation? Seems I recall from previous post here that the mint director issued a request to obtain 40 of the coins? What was the reason for the request and what happened to the 40 coins?
Kind of backwards. Do you have any documentation that you are not a turtle?
What no one had is any documentation releasing the coins for sale.
I believe the 40 coins were for assay.
Were assay coins melted afterwards? Did McCann even have access to the cage where the coins were kept? I wonder if the 40 assay coins got returned and McCann traded for those.
I have just come across this thread and to say it is upsetting is an understatement.
A few simple facts —
Even today it is the government’s position that 1933 Double Eagles are illegal to own anywhere by anyone. You can not simply take one outside the US and sell it without consequences. If I or any member of my family were to sell them outside the US, we would have been arrested on our return.
As to burden of proof, by law, in order to take our coins the burden of proof was on the government to show the coins were stolen. In a “toss up”, the coins remain with us.
1933 Double Eagles were not immediately declared illegal to own. The coins were freely traded and advertised throughout the 1930s. Only in 1944 did the Mint first suggest that there was anything improper about owning a 1933. All of the Secret Service investigations took place in that period — over ten years after the coins were minted.
I am constantly amazed by people who suggest that we could have sold our coins illegally with no consequences. Even if we were interested (which we were not), how could we find a buyer and how could we trust the buyer or the dealer or broker involved? One phone call and you end up in prison. As my lawyer said, “ if you are not a full time criminal, you will likely not be successful in engaging in criminal activity.” Of course if I had only known about the totally trustworthy Insider 2, I would be rich today. Seriously?
It is my belief that from the outset of the trial, the Judge had pre-determined that my family acted improperly and he issued a series of unfavorable and improper rulings against us and in favor of the government. He even stopped the trial one day when he thought the government lawyer wasn’t doing a good enough job. He also particularly limited what Roger Burdette could and couldn’t testify to while giving David Tripp broad latitude.
Finally, on the question of whether or not the coins were stolen from the mint, I can say absolutely not. My grandfather was not a criminal and didn’t purchase stolen goods. He never snuck into or out of the mint and in fact was a valued customer there until he passed away. Someone at the mint provided him with the coins, most likely in a direct exchange when they were minted, it was something he regularly did and was perfectly normal practice at the time.
One additional thought. My family and I are real people with real feelings. My mother is now ninety and in fragile health. Perhaps you might consider that before posting.
Sorry to see our government resort to stealing from its citizens, rhl. The 1933 $20 mess must have been where the term 'fubar' must have been coined. I don't envision it happening, but I hope your property is returned
@rhl.... No doubt you were screwed by malicious prosecution. I feel bad that my old CU title was used by the crooks (i.e., the government) to beat down Roger.
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.
@rhl said:
I have just come across this thread and to say it is upsetting is an understatement.
A few simple facts —
Even today it is the government’s position that 1933 Double Eagles are illegal to own anywhere by anyone. You can not simply take one outside the US and sell it without consequences. If I or any member of my family were to sell them outside the US, we would have been arrested on our return.
As to burden of proof, by law, in order to take our coins the burden of proof was on the government to show the coins were stolen. In a “toss up”, the coins remain with us.
1933 Double Eagles were not immediately declared illegal to own. The coins were freely traded and advertised throughout the 1930s. Only in 1944 did the Mint first suggest that there was anything improper about owning a 1933. All of the Secret Service investigations took place in that period — over ten years after the coins were minted.
I am constantly amazed by people who suggest that we could have sold our coins illegally with no consequences. Even if we were interested (which we were not), how could we find a buyer and how could we trust the buyer or the dealer or broker involved? One phone call and you end up in prison. As my lawyer said, “ if you are not a full time criminal, you will likely not be successful in engaging in criminal activity.” Of course if I had only known about the totally trustworthy Insider 2, I would be rich today. Seriously?
It is my belief that from the outset of the trial, the Judge had pre-determined that my family acted improperly and he issued a series of unfavorable and improper rulings against us and in favor of the government. He even stopped the trial one day when he thought the government lawyer wasn’t doing a good enough job. He also particularly limited what Roger Burdette could and couldn’t testify to while giving David Tripp broad latitude.
Finally, on the question of whether or not the coins were stolen from the mint, I can say absolutely not. My grandfather was not a criminal and didn’t purchase stolen goods. He never snuck into or out of the mint and in fact was a valued customer there until he passed away. Someone at the mint provided him with the coins, most likely in a direct exchange when they were minted, it was something he regularly did and was perfectly normal practice at the time.
One additional thought. My family and I are real people with real feelings. My mother is now ninety and in fragile health. Perhaps you might consider that before posting.
I'm still astounded that the mint implies anyone could have simply walked in off the street and stolen 10 double eagles and then the mint wouldn't notice for many years.
People have no concept how closely gold inventories are managed. Even the slag, ingots and the furnaces themselves are smelted to retrieve gold. Floors are swept daily and every speck of gold is recovered. Year after year the books balance virtually to the pennyweight. The very idea that nearly ten ounces of gold walked out the door is an absurdity.
The government stole these coins in the name of bureaucracy and in maintenance of the status quo. It's very hard to believe the government could have won in a fair trial.
@rhl said: "I have just come across this thread and to say it is upsetting is an understatement. A few simple facts ---
Of course if I had only known about the totally trustworthy Insider 2, I would be rich today. Seriously?
Well, the "totally trustworthy Insider 2" (whatever that means) has feelings too. And you have seriously hurt
them!
Seriously? Yes, seriously! Talk about a bungled opportunity and lost inheritance! My grandfather told us all the time, "You can't beat City Hall."
I'm on your side. IMO, the coins belong to your family. To say your family handled your inheritance in the way you did to guarantee you have nothing (no $$$$$$$$$$) except a footnote in numismatic lore (I'm jealous!) IS A FACT! I'm not going to repeat what ANY HONEST and INFORMED numismatist would have done with absolutely no chance of ever being sent to jail. Heck, If the government would have confiscated THE ONE COIN you should have sent them, at the least you could have melted the rest of them and satisfied your moral position expressed above.
@Insider2 said: @rhl said: "I have just come across this thread and to say it is upsetting is an understatement. A few simple facts ---
Of course if I had only known about the totally trustworthy Insider 2, I would be rich today. Seriously?
Well, the "totally trustworthy Insider 2" (whatever that means) has feelings too. And you have seriously hurt
them!
Seriously? Yes, seriously! Talk about a bungled opportunity and lost inheritance! My grandfather told us all the time, "You can't beat City Hall."
I'm on your side. IMO, the coins belong to your family. To say your family handled your inheritance in the way you did to guarantee you have nothing (no $$$$$$$$$$) except a footnote in numismatic lore (I'm jealous!) IS A FACT! I'm not going to repeat what ANY HONEST and INFORMED numismatist would have done with absolutely no chance of ever being sent to jail. Heck, If the government would have confiscated THE ONE COIN you should have sent them, at the least you could have melted the rest of them and satisfied your moral position expressed above.
I believe that many “honest and informed numismatists” would have done what the Langbord family did. They followed the legal advice of counsel, who was highly knowledgeable and very familiar with the history and legalities of 1933 Saints. They took their best chance of owning the coins legally, but lost because the deck was stacked too badly against them.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Insider2 said: @rhl said: "I have just come across this thread and to say it is upsetting is an understatement. A few simple facts ---
Of course if I had only known about the totally trustworthy Insider 2, I would be rich today. Seriously?
Well, the "totally trustworthy Insider 2" (whatever that means) has feelings too. And you have seriously hurt
them!
Seriously? Yes, seriously! Talk about a bungled opportunity and lost inheritance! My grandfather told us all the time, "You can't beat City Hall."
I'm on your side. IMO, the coins belong to your family. To say your family handled your inheritance in the way you did to guarantee you have nothing (no $$$$$$$$$$) except a footnote in numismatic lore (I'm jealous!) IS A FACT! I'm not going to repeat what ANY HONEST and INFORMED numismatist would have done with absolutely no chance of ever being sent to jail. Heck, If the government would have confiscated THE ONE COIN you should have sent them, at the least you could have melted the rest of them and satisfied your moral position expressed above.
I believe that many “honest and informed numismatists” would have done what the Langbord family did. They followed the legal advice of counsel, who was highly knowledgeable and very familiar with the history and legalities of 1933 Saints. They took their best chance of owning the coins legally, but lost because the deck was stacked too badly against them.
Well, IMHO they got seriously bad advice! Also in my opinion, sending all the coins in at the same time was uninformed. As you posted: The deck was stacked too badly against them and IMHO, any knowledgeable numismatist or lawyer would have told them that in the first place!
BAD SITUATION + BAD ADVICE = BAD OUTCOME! It is he way of the world.
@Insider2 said: @rhl said: "I have just come across this thread and to say it is upsetting is an understatement. A few simple facts ---
Of course if I had only known about the totally trustworthy Insider 2, I would be rich today. Seriously?
Well, the "totally trustworthy Insider 2" (whatever that means) has feelings too. And you have seriously hurt
them!
Seriously? Yes, seriously! Talk about a bungled opportunity and lost inheritance! My grandfather told us all the time, "You can't beat City Hall."
I'm on your side. IMO, the coins belong to your family. To say your family handled your inheritance in the way you did to guarantee you have nothing (no $$$$$$$$$$) except a footnote in numismatic lore (I'm jealous!) IS A FACT! I'm not going to repeat what ANY HONEST and INFORMED numismatist would have done with absolutely no chance of ever being sent to jail. Heck, If the government would have confiscated THE ONE COIN you should have sent them, at the least you could have melted the rest of them and satisfied your moral position expressed above.
I believe that many “honest and informed numismatists” would have done what the Langbord family did. They followed the legal advice of counsel, who was highly knowledgeable and very familiar with the history and legalities of 1933 Saints. They took their best chance of owning the coins legally, but lost because the deck was stacked too badly against them.
Well, IMHO they got seriously bad advice! Also in my opinion, sending all the coins in at the same time was uninformed. As you posted: The deck was stacked too badly against them and IMHO, any knowledgeable numismatist or lawyer would have told them that in the first place!
BAD SITUATION + BAD ADVICE = BAD OUTCOME! It is he way of the world.
If 1-9 coins (rather than all 10) had been offered for purposes of authenticity and the legal result the same, any remaining ones probably couldn’t have been sold legally, anyway. Sadly, I believe that if the Langbord family was determined to act lawfully, they were probably in a no-win situation, regardless of what course of action they took.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Insider2 said: @rhl said: "I have just come across this thread and to say it is upsetting is an understatement. A few simple facts ---
Of course if I had only known about the totally trustworthy Insider 2, I would be rich today. Seriously?
Well, the "totally trustworthy Insider 2" (whatever that means) has feelings too. And you have seriously hurt
them!
Seriously? Yes, seriously! Talk about a bungled opportunity and lost inheritance! My grandfather told us all the time, "You can't beat City Hall."
I'm on your side. IMO, the coins belong to your family. To say your family handled your inheritance in the way you did to guarantee you have nothing (no $$$$$$$$$$) except a footnote in numismatic lore (I'm jealous!) IS A FACT! I'm not going to repeat what ANY HONEST and INFORMED numismatist would have done with absolutely no chance of ever being sent to jail. Heck, If the government would have confiscated THE ONE COIN you should have sent them, at the least you could have melted the rest of them and satisfied your moral position expressed above.
I believe that many “honest and informed numismatists” would have done what the Langbord family did. They followed the legal advice of counsel, who was highly knowledgeable and very familiar with the history and legalities of 1933 Saints. They took their best chance of owning the coins legally, but lost because the deck was stacked too badly against them.
Well, IMHO they got seriously bad advice! Also in my opinion, sending all the coins in at the same time was uninformed. As you posted: The deck was stacked too badly against them and IMHO, any knowledgeable numismatist or lawyer would have told them that in the first place!
BAD SITUATION + BAD ADVICE = BAD OUTCOME! It is he way of the world.
If 1-9 coins (rather than all 10) had been offered for purposes of authenticity and the legal result the same, any remaining ones probably couldn’t have been sold legally, anyway. Sadly, I believe that if the Langbord family was determined to act lawfully, they were probably in a no-win situation, regardless of what course of action they took.
Hindsight is 20/20. I would have waited for government release documentation that has been proven successful like receipts (1933 eagles), export license (1933 double eagle) and auction sale (moon dust bag). Of course the latter two may not apply here and it may have been too long if a wait. I wonder if Izzy ever got a receipt like is available for the 1933 eagles. It would have been amazing to have a receipt with the coins, even though not all transactions had receipts.
@Insider2 said: @rhl said: "I have just come across this thread and to say it is upsetting is an understatement. A few simple facts ---
Of course if I had only known about the totally trustworthy Insider 2, I would be rich today. Seriously?
Well, the "totally trustworthy Insider 2" (whatever that means) has feelings too. And you have seriously hurt
them!
Seriously? Yes, seriously! Talk about a bungled opportunity and lost inheritance! My grandfather told us all the time, "You can't beat City Hall."
I'm on your side. IMO, the coins belong to your family. To say your family handled your inheritance in the way you did to guarantee you have nothing (no $$$$$$$$$$) except a footnote in numismatic lore (I'm jealous!) IS A FACT! I'm not going to repeat what ANY HONEST and INFORMED numismatist would have done with absolutely no chance of ever being sent to jail. Heck, If the government would have confiscated THE ONE COIN you should have sent them, at the least you could have melted the rest of them and satisfied your moral position expressed above.
I believe that many “honest and informed numismatists” would have done what the Langbord family did. They followed the legal advice of counsel, who was highly knowledgeable and very familiar with the history and legalities of 1933 Saints. They took their best chance of owning the coins legally, but lost because the deck was stacked too badly against them.
Well, IMHO they got seriously bad advice! Also in my opinion, sending all the coins in at the same time was uninformed. As you posted: The deck was stacked too badly against them and IMHO, any knowledgeable numismatist or lawyer would have told them that in the first place!
BAD SITUATION + BAD ADVICE = BAD OUTCOME! It is he way of the world.
If 1-9 coins (rather than all 10) had been offered for purposes of authenticity and the legal result the same, any remaining ones probably couldn’t have been sold legally, anyway. Sadly, I believe that if the Langbord family was determined to act lawfully, they were probably in a no-win situation, regardless of what course of action they took.
Hindsight is 20/20. I would have waited for government release documentation that has been proven successful like receipts (1933 eagles), export license (1933 double eagle) and auction sale (moon dust bag). Of course the latter two may not apply here and it may have been too long if a wait. I wonder if Izzy ever got a receipt like is available for the 1933 eagles. It would have been amazing to have a receipt with the coins, even though not all transactions had receipts.
The export license applied to only one 1933 Saint and I don’t think the moon dust bag would have any bearing on the case. Also, I’m pretty sure that if Mr. Switt had received a receipt for his 1933 Saints, he would have saved it. As you already noted, receipts weren’t issued all the time. So even with 20-20 hindsight, I don’t see that you came up with a more prudent course of action.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I remember reading that when Mrs. Langbord (Israel Switt's daughter) opened the safe deposit box and found the infamous double eagles she also found some Mexican gold coins and ancient Roman gold coins.
Considering the proximity to the Saints you are probably lucky the government didn’t try to snatch those up too for aiding and abetting
M
Walker Proof Digital Album 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......
If I may ask, were the Roman gold coins especially rare or "common".
Also, were the coins auctioned with the name "Switt" or "Langbord"?
Sometimes a famous name increases auction prices; see, for example, the Neil Armstrong Family coin sales.
Not particularly rare, I recall they didn’t bring a lot at auction. I don’t believe they were linked to my family. I think at that time our name was a lot less well known even in numismatic circles.
Except if they are stolen goods, no one should ever benefit from the theft.
The government failed to prove that any '33 D.E.'s were stolen from the Mint. Guilty unless and until proven innocent seems to be the way the justice system works anymore.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
My family’s case may be over, but to think that there aren’t other 1933 DEs out there is naive. The fact is a federal district and appeals court in only one circuit issued a ruling, Another case in another circuit could reach an entirely different conclusion. I believe even the Mint knows it got lucky with a low rated and I believe biased judge in Philadelphia. Probably why they settled with the owner of the 1933 that appeared a few years ago.
@rhl said:
My family’s case may be over, but to think that there aren’t other 1933 DEs out there is naive. The fact is a federal district and appeals court in only one circuit issued a ruling, Another case in another circuit could reach an entirely different conclusion. I believe even the Mint knows it got lucky with a low rated and I believe biased judge in Philadelphia. Probably why they settled with the owner of the 1933 that appeared a few years ago.
I thought that the settlement was largely due to the fact that the other example was supposedly the Farouk coin, for which an export license had been granted. Do you feel that did not play a large role in the outcome?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
There is a poster who keeps alluding to "coins for sale". Coins were never "for sale" in 1933. They were for distribution, until a certain executive order was signed ...AFTER their apparent "release" into commerce ( or collector/ dealer hands ) ; who could lawfully keep them in the aggregate of $200 ( any gold coins ). This legally left allowance for anyone to have one or ten .
Any claims of theft are assertions. Ex post facto.
@mr1874 said:
Doubtful that Switt had possession of any '33's, all 20 of the knowns (without counting the 2 that McCann sent to the Smithsonian, of course) which have been traced to him, until as late as 1936 when he visited Max Berenstein in New York to sell him some '32's.
I don't believe Switt, in 1936, could have resisted showing any '33's he might have had to Barenstein. Switt did sell some '32's to Barenstein when he went to New York in 1936.
The Barenstein piece was one of the '33's seized by SS in 1944. Barenstein actually acquired his '33 from Switt in 1937 but had to pay through the nose to get it.
For the record, I haven't changed my opinion that justice was not served in the case of the Langbord 1933 Double Eagles. The family should have been allowed to keep the coins and dispose of them as they saw fit.
Supposedly 1936 is the year McCann sold them to him. McCann is the reason that I find the attitude of some towards these coins to be curious. If the only person who managed to acquire any 33s was a Mint insider with access to them, it is incredibly unlikely they were ever "legally available" for exchange. Turning a blind eye to insider theft (apologies to insider2) is remarkable.
This brings to mind a few of our numismatic treasures in previous years. It wasn't until years later the 1913 Liberty nickels appeared. How did that happen ? Who was the witch of Wall Street ?
Or what about those 1856 Flying Eagle small cents ? Those were minted ( and distributed) before the law authorized their creation in Feb 1857.
I don't understand the government's inconsistency.
@mr1874 said:
Doubtful that Switt had possession of any '33's, all 20 of the knowns (without counting the 2 that McCann sent to the Smithsonian, of course) which have been traced to him, until as late as 1936 when he visited Max Berenstein in New York to sell him some '32's.
I don't believe Switt, in 1936, could have resisted showing any '33's he might have had to Barenstein. Switt did sell some '32's to Barenstein when he went to New York in 1936.
The Barenstein piece was one of the '33's seized by SS in 1944. Barenstein actually acquired his '33 from Switt in 1937 but had to pay through the nose to get it.
For the record, I haven't changed my opinion that justice was not served in the case of the Langbord 1933 Double Eagles. The family should have been allowed to keep the coins and dispose of them as they saw fit.
Supposedly 1936 is the year McCann sold them to him. McCann is the reason that I find the attitude of some towards these coins to be curious. If the only person who managed to acquire any 33s was a Mint insider with access to them, it is incredibly unlikely they were ever "legally available" for exchange. Turning a blind eye to insider theft (apologies to insider2) is remarkable.
This brings to mind a few of our numismatic treasures in previous years. It wasn't until years later the 1913 Liberty nickels appeared. How did that happen ? Who was the witch of Wall Street ?
Or what about those 1856 Flying Eagle small cents ? Those were minted ( and distributed) before the law authorized their creation in Feb 1857.
I don't understand the government's inconsistency.
And back to the original question : No !
The 1856 Flying Eagle cents are really patterns. I don't have an issue with those.
But I totally agree about the 1913 Liberty nickels. Those have shenanigans written all over them. And only the numismatic P.T. Barnum's hype (Max Mehl) turned them into collectibles.
As to the government and the 1913 Liberty nickels, I think part of the issue is that it was initially unclear if they even came from the Mint. I think the current numismatic position is that they were a Mint issue (shenanigans!), but I don't think it has always been clear since there is no record of them having been made for any reason.
I was not talking about the Fenton coin, I was referring to the 1933 claimed to have been “voluntarily” given to the Mint I believe in 2018. I have been told by reliable sources that the owner received a multi-million dollar tax credit for his coin.
@Insider2 said: @rhl said: "I have just come across this thread and to say it is upsetting is an understatement. A few simple facts ---
Of course if I had only known about the totally trustworthy Insider 2, I would be rich today. Seriously?
Well, the "totally trustworthy Insider 2" (whatever that means) has feelings too. And you have seriously hurt
them!
Seriously? Yes, seriously! Talk about a bungled opportunity and lost inheritance! My grandfather told us all the time, "You can't beat City Hall."
I'm on your side. IMO, the coins belong to your family. To say your family handled your inheritance in the way you did to guarantee you have nothing (no $$$$$$$$$$) except a footnote in numismatic lore (I'm jealous!) IS A FACT! I'm not going to repeat what ANY HONEST and INFORMED numismatist would have done with absolutely no chance of ever being sent to jail. Heck, If the government would have confiscated THE ONE COIN you should have sent them, at the least you could have melted the rest of them and satisfied your moral position expressed above.
I believe that many “honest and informed numismatists” would have done what the Langbord family did. They followed the legal advice of counsel, who was highly knowledgeable and very familiar with the history and legalities of 1933 Saints. They took their best chance of owning the coins legally, but lost because the deck was stacked too badly against them.
Well, IMHO they got seriously bad advice! Also in my opinion, sending all the coins in at the same time was uninformed. As you posted: The deck was stacked too badly against them and IMHO, any knowledgeable numismatist or lawyer would have told them that in the first place!
BAD SITUATION + BAD ADVICE = BAD OUTCOME! It is he way of the world.
If 1-9 coins (rather than all 10) had been offered for purposes of authenticity and the legal result the same, any remaining ones probably couldn’t have been sold legally, anyway. Sadly, I believe that if the Langbord family was determined to act lawfully, they were probably in a no-win situation, regardless of what course of action they took.
Hindsight is 20/20. I would have waited for government release documentation that has been proven successful like receipts (1933 eagles), export license (1933 double eagle) and auction sale (moon dust bag). Of course the latter two may not apply here and it may have been too long if a wait. I wonder if Izzy ever got a receipt like is available for the 1933 eagles. It would have been amazing to have a receipt with the coins, even though not all transactions had receipts.
The export license applied to only one 1933 Saint and I don’t think the moon dust bag would have any bearing on the case. Also, I’m pretty sure that if Mr. Switt had received a receipt for his 1933 Saints, he would have saved it. As you already noted, receipts weren’t issued all the time. So even with 20-20 hindsight, I don’t see that you came up with a more prudent course of action.
The examples aren't to say that these particular instances relate to the Lanbord situation but in all cases, there was some document that the government released the items. Because all examples have government documentation that seems to be a useful item in scenarios like this. So I would have waited till something like this appeared. Of course, I also mentioned that sometimes it may be just too long of a wait and you have to do something. I always thought a he-said, she-said case was hard to win and CARFA wasn't as important as it was made out to be. I hope this is more understandable now.
@Insider2 said: @rhl said: "I have just come across this thread and to say it is upsetting is an understatement. A few simple facts ---
Of course if I had only known about the totally trustworthy Insider 2, I would be rich today. Seriously?
Well, the "totally trustworthy Insider 2" (whatever that means) has feelings too. And you have seriously hurt
them!
Seriously? Yes, seriously! Talk about a bungled opportunity and lost inheritance! My grandfather told us all the time, "You can't beat City Hall."
I'm on your side. IMO, the coins belong to your family. To say your family handled your inheritance in the way you did to guarantee you have nothing (no $$$$$$$$$$) except a footnote in numismatic lore (I'm jealous!) IS A FACT! I'm not going to repeat what ANY HONEST and INFORMED numismatist would have done with absolutely no chance of ever being sent to jail. Heck, If the government would have confiscated THE ONE COIN you should have sent them, at the least you could have melted the rest of them and satisfied your moral position expressed above.
I believe that many “honest and informed numismatists” would have done what the Langbord family did. They followed the legal advice of counsel, who was highly knowledgeable and very familiar with the history and legalities of 1933 Saints. They took their best chance of owning the coins legally, but lost because the deck was stacked too badly against them.
Well, IMHO they got seriously bad advice! Also in my opinion, sending all the coins in at the same time was uninformed. As you posted: The deck was stacked too badly against them and IMHO, any knowledgeable numismatist or lawyer would have told them that in the first place!
BAD SITUATION + BAD ADVICE = BAD OUTCOME! It is he way of the world.
If 1-9 coins (rather than all 10) had been offered for purposes of authenticity and the legal result the same, any remaining ones probably couldn’t have been sold legally, anyway. Sadly, I believe that if the Langbord family was determined to act lawfully, they were probably in a no-win situation, regardless of what course of action they took.
Hindsight is 20/20. I would have waited for government release documentation that has been proven successful like receipts (1933 eagles), export license (1933 double eagle) and auction sale (moon dust bag). Of course the latter two may not apply here and it may have been too long if a wait. I wonder if Izzy ever got a receipt like is available for the 1933 eagles. It would have been amazing to have a receipt with the coins, even though not all transactions had receipts.
The export license applied to only one 1933 Saint and I don’t think the moon dust bag would have any bearing on the case. Also, I’m pretty sure that if Mr. Switt had received a receipt for his 1933 Saints, he would have saved it. As you already noted, receipts weren’t issued all the time. So even with 20-20 hindsight, I don’t see that you came up with a more prudent course of action.
The examples aren't to say that these particular instances relate to the Lanbord situation but in all cases, there was some document that the government released the items. Because all examples have government documentation that seems to be a useful item in scenarios like this. So I would have waited till something like this appeared. Of course, I also mentioned that sometimes it may be just too long of a wait and you have to do something. I always thought a he-said, she-said case was hard to win and CARFA wasn't as important as it was made out to be. I hope this is more understandable now.
It is more understandable now - thank you. But you’re advocating waiting for something which likely, never would have appeared.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Why do you think an export license only applies to one single example? When Jeep gets an export license for a truck, does it apply to only one single truck? The 1933 was deemed rare and collectible and therefore permitted for private ownership and export by the Mint and the Smithsonian.
@rhl said:
Why do you think an export license only applies to one single example? When Jeep gets an export license for a truck, does it apply to only one single truck? The 1933 was deemed rare and collectible and therefore permitted for private ownership and export by the Mint and the Smithsonian.
No, the export license was issued to Farouk's representative for the single Farouk coin so that his representative could take it out of the country. It was not a blanket license.
The 1933 was never deemed "rare and collectible" by the government until the Court forced them to accept the single Farouk coin as "legal tender".
@rhl said:
I was not talking about the Fenton coin, I was referring to the 1933 claimed to have been “voluntarily” given to the Mint I believe in 2018. I have been told by reliable sources that the owner received a multi-million dollar tax credit for his coin.
I had not heard the tax credit story. Interesting.
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.
@Insider2 said: @rhl said: "I have just come across this thread and to say it is upsetting is an understatement. A few simple facts ---
Of course if I had only known about the totally trustworthy Insider 2, I would be rich today. Seriously?
Well, the "totally trustworthy Insider 2" (whatever that means) has feelings too. And you have seriously hurt
them!
Seriously? Yes, seriously! Talk about a bungled opportunity and lost inheritance! My grandfather told us all the time, "You can't beat City Hall."
I'm on your side. IMO, the coins belong to your family. To say your family handled your inheritance in the way you did to guarantee you have nothing (no $$$$$$$$$$) except a footnote in numismatic lore (I'm jealous!) IS A FACT! I'm not going to repeat what ANY HONEST and INFORMED numismatist would have done with absolutely no chance of ever being sent to jail. Heck, If the government would have confiscated THE ONE COIN you should have sent them, at the least you could have melted the rest of them and satisfied your moral position expressed above.
I believe that many “honest and informed numismatists” would have done what the Langbord family did. They followed the legal advice of counsel, who was highly knowledgeable and very familiar with the history and legalities of 1933 Saints. They took their best chance of owning the coins legally, but lost because the deck was stacked too badly against them.
Well, IMHO they got seriously bad advice! Also in my opinion, sending all the coins in at the same time was uninformed. As you posted: The deck was stacked too badly against them and IMHO, any knowledgeable numismatist or lawyer would have told them that in the first place!
BAD SITUATION + BAD ADVICE = BAD OUTCOME! It is he way of the world.
If 1-9 coins (rather than all 10) had been offered for purposes of authenticity and the legal result the same, any remaining ones probably couldn’t have been sold legally, anyway. Sadly, I believe that if the Langbord family was determined to act lawfully, they were probably in a no-win situation, regardless of what course of action they took.
Hindsight is 20/20. I would have waited for government release documentation that has been proven successful like receipts (1933 eagles), export license (1933 double eagle) and auction sale (moon dust bag). Of course the latter two may not apply here and it may have been too long if a wait. I wonder if Izzy ever got a receipt like is available for the 1933 eagles. It would have been amazing to have a receipt with the coins, even though not all transactions had receipts.
The export license applied to only one 1933 Saint and I don’t think the moon dust bag would have any bearing on the case. Also, I’m pretty sure that if Mr. Switt had received a receipt for his 1933 Saints, he would have saved it. As you already noted, receipts weren’t issued all the time. So even with 20-20 hindsight, I don’t see that you came up with a more prudent course of action.
The examples aren't to say that these particular instances relate to the Lanbord situation but in all cases, there was some document that the government released the items. Because all examples have government documentation that seems to be a useful item in scenarios like this. So I would have waited till something like this appeared. Of course, I also mentioned that sometimes it may be just too long of a wait and you have to do something. I always thought a he-said, she-said case was hard to win and CARFA wasn't as important as it was made out to be. I hope this is more understandable now.
It is more understandable now - thank you. But you’re advocating waiting for something which likely, never would have appeared.
Yes, but it was unlikely to have 1933 double eagles appear. It's a tough situation which is why I can understand moving forward without that kind of evidence.
Jmlanzaf — I’m pretty familiar with the history. My understanding is that the Farouk coin was turned into the Mint for possible export who then sent it to the head of the Smithsonian numismatic collection who certified the coin was rare and collectible per the then current gold ownership regulations. It was then returned to the Mint and an export license granted.
As to an export license only being applicable to a single item, it is the general practice that when one item is reviewed and cleared for export, all identical items as a matter of course are granted the same status. There is nothing in the historical record that suggests that Farouk got special one off treatment. What is clear — only in 1944 did the Mint decide that possession of a 1933 DE was illegal.
@rhl said:
Jmlanzaf — I’m pretty familiar with the history. My understanding is that the Farouk coin was turned into the Mint for possible export who then sent it to the head of the Smithsonian numismatic collection who certified the coin was rare and collectible per the then current gold ownership regulations. It was then returned to the Mint and an export license granted.
As to an export license only being applicable to a single item, it is the general practice that when one item is reviewed and cleared for export, all identical items as a matter of course are granted the same status. There is nothing in the historical record that suggests that Farouk got special one off treatment. What is clear — only in 1944 did the Mint decide that possession of a 1933 DE was illegal.
The export license being applicable to all coins is interesting. Was it brought up in the case? I mostly heard the coin-for-coin exchange and CAFRA discussions.
Comments
By the way, are there any coins not traceable to George McCann? Why isn't this the story of a Mint insider trying to profit from inside information? Or outright theft by a Mint insider, depending on when he procured the coins.
https://coinbooks.org/esylum_v17n16a17.html
None that I’m aware of. The coins that we’re seized were traced to Switt and he didn’t implicate McCann or anyone else.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Nope, human nature. Hopefully, I'd be one to find out and trade on inside info if the 1933 coins were in some way made available to mint workers that did not involve stealing.
I don't know. I hear a lot of complaining about greedy dealers. I've also heard complaining about bulk buyers on new Mint issues today. We hear complaints about coln doctors. It's hard to believe that people would excuse a government employee stealing a handful of coins fron the melting pot knowing he could make a mint (pun intended) selling them
Doubtful that Switt had possession of any '33's, all 20 of the knowns (without counting the 2 that McCann sent to the Smithsonian, of course) which have been traced to him, until as late as 1936 when he visited Max Berenstein in New York to sell him some '32's.
I don't believe Switt, in 1936, could have resisted showing any '33's he might have had to Barenstein. Switt did sell some '32's to Barenstein when he went to New York in 1936.
The Barenstein piece was one of the '33's seized by SS in 1944. Barenstein actually acquired his '33 from Switt in 1937 but had to pay through the nose to get it.
For the record, I haven't changed my opinion that justice was not served in the case of the Langbord 1933 Double Eagles. The family should have been allowed to keep the coins and dispose of them as they saw fit.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
I forgot to answer the question as posed by the OP.
No.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Supposedly 1936 is the year McCann sold them to him. McCann is the reason that I find the attitude of some towards these coins to be curious. If the only person who managed to acquire any 33s was a Mint insider with access to them, it is incredibly unlikely they were ever "legally available" for exchange. Turning a blind eye to insider theft (apologies to insider2) is remarkable.
Well, it is possible that McCann did acquire '33's** legally** in 1933, on a gold for gold exchange basis. As we all know, being an "insider" can and often does have its advantages.
I have been pretty much on board with Q. David Bowers on 1933 Double Eagles. Government should have made them legal to own.
I posited the idea that, of the ten Langbord coins, they should be permitted direct ownership of, at the least, one of the 10 pieces, the piece of their choosing, the finest one in other words. Not too hard to figure that out, identifying the finest one.
What to do with the other nine?
How about locating an "appropriate" direct decendent of each of the nine individuals who had their '33's confiscated by Secret Service many years ago and giving that individual, if he or she can be identified, a '33? It would be the government admitting they were wrong to have confiscated '33's from their original owners in the first place. If there is no direct decendent to be identified, the '33 that would have been awarded goes to the Langbords, so the Langbords could end up owning more than one '33.
Bottom line: For the Langbords to get nothing is just plain wrong.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
I will never be in attendance at a future show that has The Mint showing off the ten 1933 Double Eagles that were once in the possession of the Langbord family.
Never.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Except if they are stolen goods, no one should ever benefit from the theft.
McCann did serve time for a different theft from the Mint. He was never prosecuted for the 33s because by 1944 the Statute of Limitations had expired.
Does the Government have documentation that the 1933 coins were never approved for circulation? Seems I recall from previous post here that the mint director issued a request to obtain 40 of the coins? What was the reason for the request and what happened to the 40 coins?
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
Kind of backwards. Do you have any documentation that you are not a turtle?
What no one had is any documentation releasing the coins for sale.
I believe the 40 coins were for assay.
And given the number of coin dealers shopping at the back door to the mint, went do all of the 33s appear to come from McCann?
Were assay coins melted afterwards? Did McCann even have access to the cage where the coins were kept? I wonder if the 40 assay coins got returned and McCann traded for those.
Anyways what's done is done.
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
I have just come across this thread and to say it is upsetting is an understatement.
A few simple facts —
Even today it is the government’s position that 1933 Double Eagles are illegal to own anywhere by anyone. You can not simply take one outside the US and sell it without consequences. If I or any member of my family were to sell them outside the US, we would have been arrested on our return.
As to burden of proof, by law, in order to take our coins the burden of proof was on the government to show the coins were stolen. In a “toss up”, the coins remain with us.
1933 Double Eagles were not immediately declared illegal to own. The coins were freely traded and advertised throughout the 1930s. Only in 1944 did the Mint first suggest that there was anything improper about owning a 1933. All of the Secret Service investigations took place in that period — over ten years after the coins were minted.
I am constantly amazed by people who suggest that we could have sold our coins illegally with no consequences. Even if we were interested (which we were not), how could we find a buyer and how could we trust the buyer or the dealer or broker involved? One phone call and you end up in prison. As my lawyer said, “ if you are not a full time criminal, you will likely not be successful in engaging in criminal activity.” Of course if I had only known about the totally trustworthy Insider 2, I would be rich today. Seriously?
It is my belief that from the outset of the trial, the Judge had pre-determined that my family acted improperly and he issued a series of unfavorable and improper rulings against us and in favor of the government. He even stopped the trial one day when he thought the government lawyer wasn’t doing a good enough job. He also particularly limited what Roger Burdette could and couldn’t testify to while giving David Tripp broad latitude.
Finally, on the question of whether or not the coins were stolen from the mint, I can say absolutely not. My grandfather was not a criminal and didn’t purchase stolen goods. He never snuck into or out of the mint and in fact was a valued customer there until he passed away. Someone at the mint provided him with the coins, most likely in a direct exchange when they were minted, it was something he regularly did and was perfectly normal practice at the time.
One additional thought. My family and I are real people with real feelings. My mother is now ninety and in fragile health. Perhaps you might consider that before posting.
Sorry to see our government resort to stealing from its citizens, rhl. The 1933 $20 mess must have been where the term 'fubar' must have been coined. I don't envision it happening, but I hope your property is returned
The government started stealing gold in 1933 and hasn't stopped yet.
Switt is a hero for saving items of great historical significance.
My Saint Set
@rhl.... No doubt you were screwed by malicious prosecution. I feel bad that my old CU title was used by the crooks (i.e., the government) to beat down Roger.
I'm still astounded that the mint implies anyone could have simply walked in off the street and stolen 10 double eagles and then the mint wouldn't notice for many years.
People have no concept how closely gold inventories are managed. Even the slag, ingots and the furnaces themselves are smelted to retrieve gold. Floors are swept daily and every speck of gold is recovered. Year after year the books balance virtually to the pennyweight. The very idea that nearly ten ounces of gold walked out the door is an absurdity.
The government stole these coins in the name of bureaucracy and in maintenance of the status quo. It's very hard to believe the government could have won in a fair trial.
@rhl said: "I have just come across this thread and to say it is upsetting is an understatement. A few simple facts ---
Of course if I had only known about the totally trustworthy Insider 2, I would be rich today. Seriously?
Well, the "totally trustworthy Insider 2" (whatever that means) has feelings too.
And you have seriously hurt
them!
Seriously? Yes, seriously! Talk about a bungled opportunity and lost inheritance! My grandfather told us all the time, "You can't beat City Hall."
I'm on your side. IMO, the coins belong to your family. To say your family handled your inheritance in the way you did to guarantee you have nothing (no $$$$$$$$$$) except a footnote in numismatic lore (I'm jealous!) IS A FACT! I'm not going to repeat what ANY HONEST and INFORMED numismatist would have done with absolutely no chance of ever being sent to jail. Heck, If the government would have confiscated THE ONE COIN you should have sent them, at the least you could have melted the rest of them and satisfied your moral position expressed above.
I believe that many “honest and informed numismatists” would have done what the Langbord family did. They followed the legal advice of counsel, who was highly knowledgeable and very familiar with the history and legalities of 1933 Saints. They took their best chance of owning the coins legally, but lost because the deck was stacked too badly against them.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Well, IMHO they got seriously bad advice! Also in my opinion, sending all the coins in at the same time was uninformed. As you posted: The deck was stacked too badly against them and IMHO, any knowledgeable numismatist or lawyer would have told them that in the first place!
BAD SITUATION + BAD ADVICE = BAD OUTCOME! It is he way of the world.
If 1-9 coins (rather than all 10) had been offered for purposes of authenticity and the legal result the same, any remaining ones probably couldn’t have been sold legally, anyway. Sadly, I believe that if the Langbord family was determined to act lawfully, they were probably in a no-win situation, regardless of what course of action they took.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Hindsight is 20/20. I would have waited for government release documentation that has been proven successful like receipts (1933 eagles), export license (1933 double eagle) and auction sale (moon dust bag). Of course the latter two may not apply here and it may have been too long if a wait. I wonder if Izzy ever got a receipt like is available for the 1933 eagles. It would have been amazing to have a receipt with the coins, even though not all transactions had receipts.
The export license applied to only one 1933 Saint and I don’t think the moon dust bag would have any bearing on the case. Also, I’m pretty sure that if Mr. Switt had received a receipt for his 1933 Saints, he would have saved it. As you already noted, receipts weren’t issued all the time. So even with 20-20 hindsight, I don’t see that you came up with a more prudent course of action.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I remember reading that when Mrs. Langbord (Israel Switt's daughter) opened the safe deposit box and found the infamous double eagles she also found some Mexican gold coins and ancient Roman gold coins.
I wonder what happened to those coins.
The Mysterious Egyptian Magic Coin
Coins in Movies
Coins on Television
Sold at auction years ago.
Considering the proximity to the Saints you are probably lucky the government didn’t try to snatch those up too for aiding and abetting
M
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......
If I may ask, were the Roman gold coins especially rare or "common".
Also, were the coins auctioned with the name "Switt" or "Langbord"?
Sometimes a famous name increases auction prices; see, for example, the Neil Armstrong Family coin sales.
The Mysterious Egyptian Magic Coin
Coins in Movies
Coins on Television
Not particularly rare, I recall they didn’t bring a lot at auction. I don’t believe they were linked to my family. I think at that time our name was a lot less well known even in numismatic circles.
Everybody has an opinion, but it's over. Time to move on.
Except if they are stolen goods, no one should ever benefit from the theft.
The government failed to prove that any '33 D.E.'s were stolen from the Mint. Guilty unless and until proven innocent seems to be the way the justice system works anymore.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
My family’s case may be over, but to think that there aren’t other 1933 DEs out there is naive. The fact is a federal district and appeals court in only one circuit issued a ruling, Another case in another circuit could reach an entirely different conclusion. I believe even the Mint knows it got lucky with a low rated and I believe biased judge in Philadelphia. Probably why they settled with the owner of the 1933 that appeared a few years ago.
I thought that the settlement was largely due to the fact that the other example was supposedly the Farouk coin, for which an export license had been granted. Do you feel that did not play a large role in the outcome?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
There is a poster who keeps alluding to "coins for sale". Coins were never "for sale" in 1933. They were for distribution, until a certain executive order was signed ...AFTER their apparent "release" into commerce ( or collector/ dealer hands ) ; who could lawfully keep them in the aggregate of $200 ( any gold coins ). This legally left allowance for anyone to have one or ten .
Any claims of theft are assertions. Ex post facto.
This brings to mind a few of our numismatic treasures in previous years. It wasn't until years later the 1913 Liberty nickels appeared. How did that happen ? Who was the witch of Wall Street ?
Or what about those 1856 Flying Eagle small cents ? Those were minted ( and distributed) before the law authorized their creation in Feb 1857.
I don't understand the government's inconsistency.
And back to the original question : No !
The 1856 Flying Eagle cents are really patterns. I don't have an issue with those.
But I totally agree about the 1913 Liberty nickels. Those have shenanigans written all over them. And only the numismatic P.T. Barnum's hype (Max Mehl) turned them into collectibles.
As to the government and the 1913 Liberty nickels, I think part of the issue is that it was initially unclear if they even came from the Mint. I think the current numismatic position is that they were a Mint issue (shenanigans!), but I don't think it has always been clear since there is no record of them having been made for any reason.
I was not talking about the Fenton coin, I was referring to the 1933 claimed to have been “voluntarily” given to the Mint I believe in 2018. I have been told by reliable sources that the owner received a multi-million dollar tax credit for his coin.
The examples aren't to say that these particular instances relate to the Lanbord situation but in all cases, there was some document that the government released the items. Because all examples have government documentation that seems to be a useful item in scenarios like this. So I would have waited till something like this appeared. Of course, I also mentioned that sometimes it may be just too long of a wait and you have to do something. I always thought a he-said, she-said case was hard to win and CARFA wasn't as important as it was made out to be. I hope this is more understandable now.
It is more understandable now - thank you. But you’re advocating waiting for something which likely, never would have appeared.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Why do you think an export license only applies to one single example? When Jeep gets an export license for a truck, does it apply to only one single truck? The 1933 was deemed rare and collectible and therefore permitted for private ownership and export by the Mint and the Smithsonian.
No, the export license was issued to Farouk's representative for the single Farouk coin so that his representative could take it out of the country. It was not a blanket license.
The 1933 was never deemed "rare and collectible" by the government until the Court forced them to accept the single Farouk coin as "legal tender".
I had not heard the tax credit story. Interesting.
Yes, but it was unlikely to have 1933 double eagles appear. It's a tough situation which is why I can understand moving forward without that kind of evidence.
Jmlanzaf — I’m pretty familiar with the history. My understanding is that the Farouk coin was turned into the Mint for possible export who then sent it to the head of the Smithsonian numismatic collection who certified the coin was rare and collectible per the then current gold ownership regulations. It was then returned to the Mint and an export license granted.
As to an export license only being applicable to a single item, it is the general practice that when one item is reviewed and cleared for export, all identical items as a matter of course are granted the same status. There is nothing in the historical record that suggests that Farouk got special one off treatment. What is clear — only in 1944 did the Mint decide that possession of a 1933 DE was illegal.
The export license being applicable to all coins is interesting. Was it brought up in the case? I mostly heard the coin-for-coin exchange and CAFRA discussions.