If... Someone came forward with a 1933 St. G and had a receipt from the bank of issue for the exchan

mrpaseo · May 30, 2005 12:31PM

How could the feds say it is not legal?

Ray

tradedollarnut · May 30, 2005 1:13PM

It's only a matter of time until they all are.... just gonna take some heavy lawyering.

mrearlygold · May 30, 2005 1:33PM

Did you say lobbying?

Tom

Coinosaurus · May 30, 2005 1:59PM

You could have a signature from FDR on the receipt and it would not matter.

The feds would still come to your house and seize the coin.

You would have to litigate and outspend the federal government to get your coin back. The feds would argue the circumstantial evidence that all 33s left the mint illegally (and there is a case to be made for this). You could have a bank receipt, but the feds would still argue that the 33 entered circulation illegally.

You MIGHT eventually get the coin back, IF you had a receipt from the mint. But not from a bank. You would also have to explain why you have a receipt and there isn't one in the mint records. Did you steal the mint records too??

Understand that the gubmint has signed a document which says that the Farouk $20 is the only one legal to own. Should the gubmint renege on that, they would face litigation from the current owner of that $20, whose investment would become devalued (although you could argue that the market could well absorb 2 33s at $7M apiece - in other words there might not be any damages here).

I'm not saying any of this logical. Just my opinion on what would happen.

tradedollarnut · May 30, 2005 2:20PM

Understand that the gubmint has signed a document which says that the Farouk $20 is the only one legal to own.

So ... what happens when the Farouk 1933 $20 finally surfaces?

monsterman · May 30, 2005 5:53PM

So ... what happens when the Farouk 1933 $20 finally surfaces? >>>

ok bruce you lost me.......fenton did bring that 33 into ny to sell to jay and it is the farouk 33 ( lacquer and all )...which the feds had asked to get back for years and he declined

monsterman

tradedollarnut · May 30, 2005 11:13PM

Conspiracy theory .... ooooooh!

PS - why would Farouk laquer gold coins?

ER · May 30, 2005 11:35PM

<< How could the feds say it is not legal?

Ray >>

'cause the feds say so.

Nap · May 30, 2005 11:47PM

Here's something else to ponder...

There were several confiscated over the years, some which may have been counterfiet but others probably real. Were they really melted down by the government? Or could they be sitting in some Secret Service archive somewhere, or elsewhere, waiting to be "rediscovered" some time in the next hundred years?

I'd say the chance of another "legal" one coming to light within the next decade is highly unlikely, but I would be very surprised if another did not obtain legal status at some point in the future.

coinguy1 · May 31, 2005 12:03AM

<< bruce you lost me.......fenton did bring that 33 into ny to sell to jay and it is the farouk 33 ( lacquer and all )...which the feds had asked to get back for years and he declined >>

MM - some who had seen the Farouk specimen many years ago have quietly opined that the one which was sold legally as such, is in fact a different coin. I don't recall having seen lacquer on the (auctioned) piece when it was on display.

mgoodm3 · May 31, 2005 12:55AM

Feds would seize it and melt it before you could do anything and say "too late"

Dahlonega · May 31, 2005 12:58AM

Wouldn't have any effect if you didn't collect moderns.

morgannut2 · May 31, 2005 1:20AM

First under the Coin Act of 1965 you can own mint coins from "the midnight mint" as long as the government did not claim they were stolen in a timely manner, after they became aware they existed. Next, there is no Federal "law" or title that you can't own these coins; it was an Executive order by FDR's Treasury Secretary under the deligated authority of Congress which has Constitutional control of all coinage matters. So given that another Agency "mistakenly" authorized the Farouk coin be exported, the entire illegality rests on the rather late complaint of theft in 1954 (?) at auction.

And of course the thief issue puts the USA on VERY thin ice, given the hundreds of millions of dollars in stolen ancient art objects residing in our museums without even valid export papers from Egypt. We (US) would be big time losers if the theft issue was upheld as valid.

So, in the case of another coin, it would be a court issue. Offer the coin through a joint auction of a US firm and one in a country without treaty obligations to turn it over. When Justice/Treasury trys to stop the sale. seek Federal remedy to sell it by way of the reciept you have in hand, or by Freedom of Information Act documents, and/or testimony, if someones still alive.

PerryHall · May 31, 2005 2:18AM

<< 

<< bruce you lost me.......fenton did bring that 33 into ny to sell to jay and it is the farouk 33 ( lacquer and all )...which the feds had asked to get back for years and he declined >>

MM - some who had seen the Farouk specimen many years ago have quietly opined that the one which was sold legally as such, is in fact a different coin. I don't recall having seen lacquer on the (auctioned) piece when it was on display. >>

Did Farouk lacquer coins? I knew he was notorious for hashly cleaning coins but never knew that he lacquered them. Also, wasn't lacquring coins mostly done on copper to keep them from turning brown?

TheRaven · May 31, 2005 2:34AM

The paperwork from the government authorizing the sale of the '33 Double Eagle does not call it the Farouk coin, as they avoided that phrase.....

If you had a dated bank receipt which said $20 Double Eagle that would be an interesting case that you would likely win in court. The bank records don't say anything about these coins going out however.....

Conder101 · May 31, 2005 1:23PM

How about a Treasury receipt from when they offered them to the collectors that they mailed circulars to offering coins for sale?

<< Feds would seize it and melt it before you could do anything and say "too late" >>

So you continue your litigation requesting that since the government destroyed your coin they must replace it with one of the two from the Smithsonian.

oreville · May 31, 2005 2:28PM

<< So you continue your litigation requesting that since the government destroyed your coin they must replace it with one of the two from the Smithsonian. >>

Which reminds me, where have those two been stored along with the rest of the money museum since the Smithsonian closed their exhibit?

morgannut2 · June 1, 2005 6:25AM

The 2 1933 Saints at the Smithsonian? I thought they were going to sell one to meet their budget for a few years!!

leothelyon · June 1, 2005 8:45AM

It may have been suggested that there was lacquer on the coin. Article The connection is there, whether or not it was true, I don't recall.

On another note, if the coin goes up for sale, if it grades higher, what will it fetch? But yet, it's not a Farouk coin and it just may be the 2nd coin to legally own. Would the value go higher or fall short of the Farouk coin? Would today's market play a role in it's hammer price?

Leo

If... Someone came forward with a 1933 St. G and had a receipt from the bank of issue for the exchan

Comments

The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!

My Jefferson Nickel Collection

Leave a Comment