Would an authentic 1964 Peace dollar go through the same legal battles as the 1933 Saint?

braddick · November 28, 2005 4:26AM

Or, has the groundwork already been fought?

If it was declared legal to own and one was auctioned, what do you believe the closing cost would be? Also, if PCGS holdered it, would it then become a necessary coin in the Peace dollar Registry?

Julian · November 28, 2005 6:11AM

There will be a battle over this unless Treasury drops their case against the 33 double eagles.

My personal opinion is that all US coins should be legal, if they were made in the United States Mint.

Let the Mint police and the Secret Service deal with unauthorized strikings.

Longacre · November 28, 2005 6:13AM

I'm waiting to see how the Saints play out before I come forward with the '64 Peace.

coinguy1 · November 28, 2005 6:16AM

<< My personal opinion is that all US coins should be legal, if they were made in the United States Mint. >>

Julian, shouldn't we draw a distinction in the case of coins which are suspected and/or known to have been stolen/illegally removed from the Mint?

Darkmane · November 28, 2005 6:16AM

if the secret service was on its way to your house, and you owned a '33 double eagle, what would you do?

i'd pull out a nice video recorder, get some nice footage of the coin, and proceed to melt the sucker! better $500.00 in bullion than the united states with my coin!

UncleWiggly · November 28, 2005 6:17AM

Yes, the U.S. Marshal's office has already chased leads and rumors of leads.

Jerry

UncleWiggly · November 28, 2005 6:18AM

<< if the secret service was on its way to your house, and you owned a '33 double eagle, what would you do?

i'd pull out a nice video recorder, get some nice footage of the coin, and proceed to melt the sucker! better $500.00 in bullion than the united states with my coin! >>

What do you have against the United States?

Jerry

Julian · November 28, 2005 6:39AM

shouldn't we draw a distinction in the case of coins which are suspected and/or known to have been stolen/illegally removed from the Mint?

Many coins have been made before (1913 V nickel). How can we differentiate?

291fifth · November 28, 2005 6:41AM

The 1964-D Peace Dollar was never legally released. Some (one?) 1933 Double Eagles were apparently legally released, even though under questionable circumstances. The holder of a 1964-D Peace Dollar wouldn't have a
legal leg to stand on.

A story has been around for quite some time that mint employees in Denver were given the chance to buy two
1964-D Peace Dollars each. According to the story, some did, and were then told to return them when the
decision was made not to release them. Supposedly all the the coins were returned...but the question is, were the
coins returned really the 1964-D's or just some other Peace Dollar? This story has been around for some time. I don't know its original source. Perhaps it just a numismatic urban legend.

Does anyone have any facts?

tradedollarnut · November 28, 2005 7:38AM

My personal opinion is that IF a Denver mint employee was allowed to purchase a 1964-D peace dollar and then spent that same coin, the US government would have quite the battle on their hands from someone who accepted the coin in the course of business.

coinguy1 · November 28, 2005 7:46AM

<< My personal opinion is that IF a Denver mint employee was allowed to purchase a 1964-D peace dollar and then spent that same coin, the US government would have quite the battle on their hands from someone who accepted the coin in the course of business. >>

I agree. What if there were no (concrete/tangible) proof that the employee had been allowed to purchase the coin, though? Then it apparently comes down to whom has the burden of proof in such a case. Fairly or not, I think history tells us that it's usually the side claiming that they have obtained legally, that which the other side claims was obtained illegally.

Mark · November 28, 2005 7:49AM

TDN:

With your set of facts, I don't see how the mint could win. But the mint might argue that the coin was never officially "monetized," as they did in the case of the 1933 double eagle. I'd love to learn what that word actually means of it it's just something that the mint and/or attorneys made up in the 1933 double eagle case...

Mark

P.S.: Were the 1913 V Nickels ever officially monetized?

tradedollarnut · November 28, 2005 7:53AM

Were the 1913 V Nickels ever officially monetized?

No - nor were they required to be.... for a variety of reasons. First, they are proofs which are treated differently from circulation strike coinage. Second, I don't believe the Federal Reserve was created yet in 1913. And they are also minor coinage, which is treated differently than gold.

Here's some reading for you on 'monetization': Coin World Article

I like this part: Again, according to the Fed, "monetization" is not defined in federal statutes or regulations.

"Federal law provides that 'United States coins and currency' (including Federal Reserve notes) are 'legal tender,' but 'legal tender' itself is not further defined (31 U.S.C. §5103)," according to the Federal Reserve spokeswoman. "Federal law authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to mint and issue coins of specific denominations and metallic composition 'in amounts the Secretary decides are necessary to meet the needs of the United States' (31 U.S.C. § 5111(a)(1). Reserve Banks purchase coins from the Mint for face value. Circulating coins become money by two different methods. The great majority of circulating coins become money when the Reserve Banks, or armored carriers acting as their agents, accept delivery of newly issued coin at their docks. The Mint issues a small percentage of circulating coins directly to the public."

No Federal Statute or Regulation defines Monetization. Sounds to me like they made it up to justify confiscating the 1933's.

coinguy1 · November 28, 2005 7:58AM

<< First, they are proofs which are treated differently from circulation strike coinage. Second, I don't believe the Federal Reserve was created yet in 1913. >>

Talk about coincidences: "Congress created the Federal Reserve through a law passed in 1913, charging it with a responsibility to foster a sound banking system and a healthy economy". Also, many believe that the 1913 nickels are NOT Proofs.

tradedollarnut · November 28, 2005 8:02AM

Also, many believe that the 1913 nickels are NOT Proofs

PCGS says they are.

Mark · November 28, 2005 8:06AM

TDN:

Thanks for the link. It's an interesting story--I probably read it when it was written but I forgotten all the details. The gist, that there is no real definition of "monetization" for coinage, I recalled. I presume that's because coins are not a liability of the Fed unlike currency, which is (legally) a liability of the Fed.

Re the Federal Reserve: You are correct, the Fed didn't exist in 1913. The law that established the Fed was passed in Dec 1913 and the Fed begain operations in 1914.

And, of course as you know, I was yanking your chain re the 1913 nickels. (

) But, if there actually was some sort of true meaning for "monetization," I wonder if some other version of monetization was in effect in 1913? ...

Mark

fivecents · November 28, 2005 8:08AM

The US Goverment would confiscate the 1964-D Peace dollar, hold it in court for years and then let it be sold at auction making the current owner(s) split the money 50/50 with the US Goverment. Oh wait, that was what happened to the 1933 Saint 20$.

Yes.The 1964 Peace would go thru a lot of legal battles. The 1933 Saint was minted just one year after the last legal 20$ Saint was issued. The 1964-D Peace dollar was minted some 29 YEARS after the last legal Peace dollar was issued.

A twenty nine year gap within the Peace dollar series.....How cool is that.

ROBERTB · November 28, 2005 9:16AM

<< My personal opinion is that IF a Denver mint employee was allowed to purchase a 1964-D peace dollar and then spent that same coin, the US government would have quite the battle on their hands from someone who accepted the coin in the course of business. >>

Yes sir. Had I been one of those employees I'd have said sorry, they've been spent. Of course, they'd be at my house. They had no obligation to return them. They bought them fair and square with the intention of keeping them. This is a much different scenario than the saints.

Would an authentic 1964 Peace dollar go through the same legal battles as the 1933 Saint?

Comments

Leave a Comment