1933 Double Eagles being displayed in Denver

aficionado · July 28, 2006 4:09AM

If I lived in Denver I'd go check it out. Aren't these those 10 that the family tried to get authenticated and the Govt kept them ?? That wasn't very smart.

"Coin collectors, history buffs and those who are simply curious will get a golden opportunity to see the 10 recently recovered 1933 Double Eagles at the American Numismatic Association’s World’s Fair of Money® in Denver August 16-19.

The United States Mint has secured these national treasures at Fort Knox until now. This will mark the first time the United States Mint will put the historic artifacts on display for their owners: the American people. The four-day event is open to the public and admission is free.

The 10 gold pieces were illegally removed from the United States Mint at Philadelphia more than 70 years ago. After United States Mint officials enlisted the assistance of the Secret Service and the Department of Justice, the Secret Service recovered the 10 Double Eagles in Philadelphia for the United States Mint in late 2004. The gold pieces were authenticated last year as genuine 1933 Double Eagles.

One 1933 Double Eagle surfaced in 1996 and was recovered by the Secret Service. Following a legal settlement, that gold piece was returned to the United States Mint and was subsequently issued and auctioned in New York City to an anonymous buyer for $7.5 million on July 30, 2002. The United States Department of the Treasury has said that it does not intend to monetize, issue or auction the 10 recently recovered 1933 Double Eagles.

United States Mint Acting Director David Lebryk will unveil the 10 fabled 1933 Double Eagles at the Opening Ceremony of the ANA’s World’s Fair of Money on Wednesday, August 16 in Denver. They will be a marquis exhibit of the Nation’s largest coin show which runs through Saturday, August 19.

What: Unveiling by the United States Mint of Ten 1933 Double Eagles at the Opening Ceremony of the ANA’s World’s Fair of Money

Who: United States Mint Acting Director David A. Lebryk

When: 9:45 a.m., Wednesday, August 16, 2006

Where: Colorado Convention Center, Hall C, 700 14th Street, Denver

"

FatMan · July 28, 2006 4:15AM

Modern Crap!

Watching the drama of determining ownership will be more entertaining than seeing the coins.

HonoluluDude · July 28, 2006 4:15AM

What ever happened to the family who owned those coins? I thought their lawyer was gonna fight for the ownership of them.

Russ · July 28, 2006 4:20AM

Thanks for the breaking news!

Russ, NCNE

mrearlygold · July 28, 2006 4:22AM

IGWT · July 28, 2006 4:23AM

If anyone is willing to risk detention, interrogation, and confiscation of photography equipment, I'd really appreciate it if you would take some pictures of the display and post them here after the show.

aficionado · July 28, 2006 4:24AM

<< Thanks for the breaking news!

Russ, NCNE >>

Your welcome

I did a search. I guess I should have put in ANA instead of DOUBLE EAGLE. Silly me.

ziggy29 · July 28, 2006 4:30AM

<< The 10 gold pieces were illegally removed from the United States Mint at Philadelphia more than 70 years ago. >>

That doesn't appear to be a statement of fact, but of the government's opinion despite evidence that shows they didn't necessarily leave the Mint illegally.

TheRaven · July 28, 2006 4:33AM

I am surprised that we have not heard more about the legal fight which will arise over these coins.....

The government case is 50/50 on these coins I believe.....

If they had an open and tight case they would have never agreed on the Fauouk coin.....

CaptHenway · July 28, 2006 4:38AM

The lawyer who did this is no fool. He must think he has a good chance of winning.
TD

lloydmincy · July 28, 2006 6:02AM

<<This will mark the first time the United States Mint will put the historic artifacts on display for their owners: the American people.>>

I've said it a million times. You will never see these leave the hands of the U.S. Government. They will NEVER be in private hands, and the lawyer and the Switt family will get nothing.

MrEureka · July 28, 2006 6:05AM

I've said it a million times. You will never see these leave the hands of the U.S. Government. They will NEVER be in private hands, and the lawyer and the Swift family will get nothing.

Sounds like it's time to post another Lloyd-the-genius-gambler-Mincy proposition bet thread!

MrEureka · July 28, 2006 6:07AM

Sounds like the Mint is already starting its marketing campaign!

Tarmac · July 28, 2006 6:12AM

The coins were basically stolen by the FBI to "return to the American people".

Why was the Farouk coin not treated the same way?

The gov't should fall on one side or the other. Yes, the coins are legal or no they are not. Not an in between.

Maybe they should grant a 3 month amnesty and force out the remaining coins and remove the 70+yr clouds?

TheRaven · July 28, 2006 6:21AM

Why is the Farouk coin difference, because they got caught with there pants down with the export license which was issued for that coin.....

It really is an interesting story for those that have not read the two books on the topic.....

Julian · July 28, 2006 6:30AM

I've said it a million times. You will never see these leave the hands of the U.S. Government. They will NEVER be in private hands, and the lawyer and the Swift family will get nothing.

I think that this is a mis-guided statement.

There are a number of numismatists that disagree, Lloyd.

I, for one, would be happy to bet $100 that these will leave the US government hands and we can let Andy hold the money.

MrEureka · July 28, 2006 6:33AM

Why is the Farouk coin difference, because they got caught with there pants down with the export license which was issued for that coin

The export license didn't change the legal status of the coin. It's just that the Secret Service chose not to give Farouk a hard time for political reasons. However, they did pursue the coin once he was out of power, but the coin mysteriously managed to slip away.

As for the legality of owning the coins, IMHO it should boil down to whether or not the Mint Cashier was clearly instructed to NOT distribute any 33 double eagles. As far as I can tell, that was not the case. He may have known he was doing a friend a favor by releasing the coins, and he may even have been paid a bit on the side for the favor, but that in itself doesn't make it illegal to own the coins.

MrEureka · July 28, 2006 6:33AM

I, for one, would be happy to bet $100 that these will leave the US government hands and we can let Andy hold the money.

In that case, let's raise the stakes!

291fifth · July 28, 2006 6:47AM

<< <<This will mark the first time the United States Mint will put the historic artifacts on display for their owners: the American people.>>

I've said it a million times. You will never see these leave the hands of the U.S. Government. They will NEVER be in private hands, and the lawyer and the Swift family will get nothing. >>

Let's hope so. The working people of that era had to turn in their gold coins. This was an outstanding example of a connected political insider getting an advantage that the general public never had.

MrEureka · July 28, 2006 6:53AM

This was an outstanding example of a connected political insider getting an advantage that the general public never had.

Since when did jewelers and coin dealers become "political insiders"? Switt simply made a "friend" at the Mint, same as anybody else with a sack of money could have done. Isn't that the American way?

Mercury · July 28, 2006 6:54AM

I also don't think these coins will ever be released by the goverment. The press release clearly shows their intent "the owner: the American people" and to release them would violate the agreement they made with the owners of the one legal 1933.

Mercury

291fifth · July 28, 2006 6:54AM

<< This was an outstanding example of a connected political insider getting an advantage that the general public never had.

Since when did jewelers and coin dealers become "political insiders"? Switt simply made a "friend" at the Mint, same as anybody else with a sack of money could have done. Isn't that the American way? >>

I don't noe?

CaptHenway · July 28, 2006 6:58AM

<< I also don't think these coins will ever be released by the goverment. The press release clearly shows their intent "the owner: the American people" and to release them would violate the agreement they made with the owners of the one legal 1933.

Mercury >>

Since when has the government ever worried about honoring agreements????
TD

slumlord98 · July 28, 2006 7:09AM

Can't prove a thing, but I am convinced that within 5 years, these coins will be in the marketplace. As to whether the Langbords or the US Treasury does the selling, that depends on how much of a legal battle the Langbords can afford to wage. They have the right lawyer, but it takes deep pockets to wage a sustained battle with Uncle Sam.

MrEureka · July 28, 2006 7:26AM

They have the right lawyer, but it takes deep pockets to wage a sustained battle with Uncle Sam.

With a $20 million pot at the end of the rainbow, many lawyers would be happy to take this case on a contingency basis.

JapanJohn · July 28, 2006 7:27AM

I think if the Secret Service confiscates them with no intent to sell them, why display them? Somebody earlier up in this thread said something about the Government starting their marketing campaign. My thoughts exactly.

Personally I think it goes beyond reason to think that the family of the cashier at the mint just happens to find 10 '33 eagles.

I think they were hoping for the same deal as the first one, a 50/50 split of proceeds between the Gov't and the Swifts.

Isn't there supposed to be a couple more of these floating around as well?

John

MrEureka · July 28, 2006 7:55AM

Personally I think it goes beyond reason to think that the family of the cashier at the mint just happens to find 10 '33 eagles.

Switt wasn't the Cashier. Switt was a jeweler and he also did some coin biz. He and/lor his partner did business with the Cashier at the Mint.

lloydmincy · July 28, 2006 8:06AM

Read the books. The government clearly implies NONE of these should have ever existed. The Farouk specimen was naively given an export release and should not have. These ten, like the other nine confiscated during the 30-40's, SHOULD be melted, but will just be used for displays and history. If the coin GURUS/shows/etc. didn't bug the U.S. to display them for historical purposes, they would just sit in the Smithsonian vaults for years. The U.S. displaying them has nothing to do with marketing them. If so, then why is the 1849 $20, the 1804 $'s etc., not up for sale??? The government will collect its tax money other ways vs. selling these.

I can't bet on this for one main reason. If the government never releases them for sale, when COULD I COLLECT ON MY WAGERS??? I would have to set a time frame, and then, everyone would forget....

MrEureka · July 28, 2006 8:21AM

The government clearly implies NONE of these should have ever existed.

They imply nothing. They claim the coins are stolen. Others disagree, or at least believe that the government can't prove the coins are stolen. Let it go to court. And let's bet!

BTW, with the right odds I'd be willing to bet that a settlement will be announced before yearend. Even longer odds, I'll bet the announcement will be made at ANA!

lloydmincy · July 28, 2006 8:35AM

I'll look for you in Denver, Andy!!!

You may need to give me collateral.

The government does imply they are illegal to own.

tradedollarnut · July 28, 2006 8:46AM

The government clearly implies NONE of these should have ever existed.

Well! That settles it then.

tradedollarnut · July 28, 2006 8:49AM

If the coins were stolen, where is the deficiency in gold in the cashier's cage? Oh, they weren't stolen they were nefariously switched. What was the incentive to nefariously switch coins that were soon to be released by the thousands? Ok, it wasn't nefarious ... but it was still illegal.

Was it? Hmmmm.....

TheRaven · July 28, 2006 1:24PM

The major problem the government could very well have in the future is that alot of there evidence will be inadmissable in court.....

It would be shocking if they announce these coins are know up for sale.....

intocoins · July 28, 2006 2:39PM

How is it that these coins are illegal and the 5 -1913 V nickels are not. It does'nt make sense, no pun intended.

Does anybody know what clandestinely mean?

MrEureka · July 28, 2006 4:36PM

How is it that these coins are illegal and the 5 -1913 V nickels are not.

The only decent argument is that the Feds never abandoned their rights to the 33s. As soon as they discovered that the coins escaped, they went after them.

roadrunner · July 29, 2006 1:38AM

I also agree that these coins will be legalized at some point. The fact that fantasy coins have been bought and sold in the market place for years sets precedent. The govt will rather have half of $20,000,000 than a 10 coin display in the Smithsonian. Of course the owner of the first 1933 will be looking for some compensation since the govt failed to live up to it bargain. They may have to give him a few million. They still end up ahead. The govt's case is weak and the facts are long gone. I think that tips the scales to the orig owners (possession being key). Just because the FEDs confiscated the others back in the 1940's doesn't mean they were legally right.
Lawyers didn't rule the world back then. Today they do. If they can sue McDonald's for $2 MILL on split coffee and win (at least the first time out), they can salvage the case for 1933 Saints, esp since one has already been monetized.

I find it very strange that these coins are now being displayed publicly before ownership has even been decided. In my mind, this may help the case for the orig owners. The mint sure has some kahunes. More public sentiment. It will also help to raise the value of the coins for both parties. With >10 coins out there, 11 people will now be able to complete sets of Saints (if they can find a 27d as well....the price of those will go up).

When the Lloyd Lotto is open for business please let me know.

roadrunner

tradedollarnut · July 29, 2006 2:36AM

The thing I like about the display is that it shows there's [hopefully] no intent to melt the coins. They recognize the importance of the ten.

MrEureka · July 29, 2006 2:49AM

Of course the owner of the first 1933 will be looking for some compensation since the govt failed to live up to it bargain

The Feds promised nothing with respect to other 33's. They simply reasserted their claim that all other specimens were also stolen.

So (if the ten coins are "legalized") the only thing the Feds will have failed to "live up to" will be, perhaps, the buyer's expectations.

roadrunner · July 29, 2006 2:55AM

Andy, I thought the agreement was this would be the only one allowed to be monetized. Or was that just puffery used by the auction house at the time? I mean who would be nuts enough to bid $7 MIL knowing that it was rumored since the 1940's that others were still out there. It would be like bidding $7 MILL for a 1964-D
Peace Dollar knowing full well that others are probably out there.

roadrunner

MrEureka · July 29, 2006 3:01AM

I thought the agreement was this would be the only one allowed to be monetized.

I don't have the catalog so I can't check the terms of sale. Maybe someone else can help.

However, my recollection is that they stated that they had no intention to legalize or monetize any others. That wouldn't obligate them to stick with that decision for eternity, nor could any reasonable person think that it would.

tradedollarnut · July 29, 2006 3:07AM

From the Catalog:

Rarity: Effectively Unique. This is the only 1933 Double Eagle monetized and issued by the US Mint. It is also the only example that the US Government has authorized, or ever intends to authorize, for private ownership.

....

A Certificate of Transfer will accompany this lot, attesting to its unique status.

MrEureka · July 29, 2006 3:09AM

...or ever intends to authorize...

Clearly written by an attorney! (It says "intends to", not "will".)

lloydmincy · July 29, 2006 6:20AM

<>

<<on display for their owners: The American people.>>

I think ownership has been decided.

BTW, you guys sound awfully hopeful. You make it sound like the government would really like to get into a mess over a measly $10,000,000 (estimate) extra revenue from the sale of these. 10 million is a lot for anyone of us, but it is a blip on the radar screen for the government.
Again, my case in point is: If they were truly interested in selling them, why have they not offered to sale so many of the artifacts sitting in the Smithsonian vaults, including Lilly's gold collection and all the patterns, ultra rarities, etc...

And don't try to tell me these are "more special" than the other coins in the vaults - the 1849 $20, 1822 Half Eagles. All of us on these forums love the story and history and beauty of coins. MOST people and government officials have no idea even what they are. Or don't really care. During the law case for the legal one, government officials had to really do there research to figure out what the big deal was about them.

Most U.S. Citizens know who Brad and Angolina is vs. a double eagle.

roadrunner · July 29, 2006 6:59AM

If so, then why is the 1849 $20, the 1804 $'s etc., not up for sale??? The government will collect its tax money other ways vs. selling these.

Those are national treasures and have belonged to the US Govt since long before you and I were born. They don't need the money of course since they can print it at will. But the 1933's don't belong to them as it has not been authoritatively decided by a court.
That's the big difference. Confiscation by the US Mint is hardly any sort of proof. Their stick just happens to be bigger right now.

When the Lotto trust fund is set up we'll proceed. Hopefully the ANA won't have any new announcement or we'll lose the chance to bet

The US govt gets into "messes" all the time for peanuts...or even nothing but principle. This is one has a $10 MILL pay day. Besides, it lets the "little" people have a chance to win one over the big G.
The hobby would do well by having these 10 coins. They will be resold time and time again in the future = taxes paid to Uncle G.
This is a win win for all. Hiding them (when ownership is not certain)
in the Smithsonian vaults or in Fort Knox would be a waste and a crime. The Switts would probably have been happy with 50% from the start. What good are 10 gold objects sitting in the bank when they can't be resold. Old Izzy would have been tickled knowing those could fetch a MILL or more each for his heirs someday. If the govt doesn't want to be hassled what the heck are they taking them out of Fort Knox for and showing them at a convention? You could say the same thing for the $50 Union that is coming out of hiberation. There's a plan here for the $20's. They aren't just doing it for love of collectors. Let the litigation begin.

roadrunner

jpkinla · July 29, 2006 9:14AM

GREAT! Now I am going to have two slots to fill in my Saint set......

1933 Double Eagles being displayed in Denver

Comments

Leave a Comment