If the 1933 double eagles are illegal...

RYK · February 20, 2007 3:25AM

why are the 1913 Liberty nickels, 1884 and 1885 trade dollars, and the like, also not illegal?

Perhaps this has been discussed to death in the past, but I cannot find a link to the discussion here. I have been reading Illegal Tender (the story of the 1933 double eagle), and this question is a recurring point of interest.

Longacre · February 20, 2007 3:27AM

You don't want to throw Tradedollarnut into the pokey, do you?

TwoSides2aCoin · February 20, 2007 3:28AM

The "illegality" that you speak of is illegal itself

This is a country by the people for the people ~

MajorDuty · February 20, 2007 3:29AM

I asked this same question.

The nickels were not officially minted.

mozeppa · February 20, 2007 3:30AM

<< The "illegality" that you speak of is illegal itself

This is a country by the people for the people ~ >>

......if you've got the money!

TwoSides2aCoin · February 20, 2007 3:31AM

<< 

<< The "illegality" that you speak of is illegal itself

This is a country by the people for the people ~ >>

......if you've got the money!

>>

Oh yeah, I forgot the most important ingredient

RYK · February 20, 2007 3:33AM

<< You don't want to throw Tradedollarnut into the pokey, do you?

>>

Of course not. Laura maybe...

JK

But seriously, the government case seems to hinge on the fact that the coins were never officially issued, and there are thousands of collector coins from a few hundred dollars to a few million dollars in value that were also never officially issued. Why pick on the 1933 double eagle?

MajorDuty · February 20, 2007 3:40AM

Well, speaking only for the nickels, not officially issued and not officially minted are two different deals here.

tradedollarnut · February 20, 2007 3:45AM

It has to do with 'monetization' and the Federal Reserve system - something that wasn't even in place until the latter part of 1913 so it cannot affect the coins you mentioned.

flaminio · February 20, 2007 3:46AM

<< why are the 1913 Liberty nickels, 1884 and 1885 trade dollars, and the like, also not illegal? >>

I wish someone would pardon all these various oddities, and settle it once and for all. There should be some sort of statute of limitations on it, anyway. Say, if the SS can't catch something within 30 years, it's free from confiscation. That way anything from the 1974-5 Aluminum cents and before becomes legal.

RWB · February 20, 2007 3:47AM

1933 double eagles can be associated with a set of documents about their origin and status, which, the Treasury contends, “prove” they were illegally removed from government custody. This documentation and the now-hearsay evidence of witnesses remains available. None of the other coins mentioned has any reliable documentation as to its production or removal – making it very tough to “prove” illegal activity. “Proving” something in the press or popular mindset is very different from legal “proof.”

RWB · February 20, 2007 3:52AM

During an informal hearing on an “amnesty” bill last year, one of the interesting things the Treasury Dept did was to attempt to confuse the issue by lumping 1933 $20 along with patterns, the other coins that have been mentioned. The 1933s are unique to themselves and not related to any other ‘unusual” numismatic items. This intentional confusion doomed the bill although it will be introduced again this session.

Utmost · February 20, 2007 3:57AM

<< I have been reading Illegal Tender >>

I was recently given that book as a gift. I have been enjoying it thoroughly.

tradedollarnut · February 20, 2007 4:01AM

<< You don't want to throw Tradedollarnut into the pokey, do you?

>>

No worries - once the government allowed a tax deduction to the Norwebs for their 1913 nickel donation to the Smithsonian, the coin's private ownership was legitimized.

Longacre · February 20, 2007 4:15AM

<< 

<< You don't want to throw Tradedollarnut into the pokey, do you?

>>

No worries - once the government allowed a tax deduction to the Norwebs for their 1913 nickel donation to the Smithsonian, the coin's private ownership was legitimized. >>

Very, very interesting. Just curious (and you don't have to answer if you don't want to)-- did you have a similar discussion with your legal advisor prior to your purchase, or was it not even a consideration?

19Lyds · February 20, 2007 4:20AM

I think the argument over the legality of the coins is valid but I also think the big deal about them is based on their metal content and the role that gold played in the US economy at the time the coins were pulled.

The removal of gold bullion from the general public was a question of National Security in preserving the shattered remains of what was left of our economy after the Great Depression. Obviously times have changed since then but laws are laws and until they get rescinded the coins will remain illegal to own.

RichieURich · February 20, 2007 4:43AM

I understand that when the 1933 double eagles were melted, the government got exactly the amount of gold they expected to get from melting that quantity of double eagles. No theft there.

I believe it has been established by the government's own actions in confiscating gold coinage that any one double eagle was equal in value to any other double eagle. (By confiscating them, they basically stated that all had equal value.) Therefore, switching 1931 double eagles for 1933 double eagles was not illegal.

If there indeed was a theft at the Philadelphia Mint during the 1930's, where is the police report about the theft? You can't prove stolen property without a theft, and you can't prove theft without a police report of the theft.

I do believe, that the Mint/Secret Service is attempting to prove its case in the press or popular mindset, which is very different from legal “proof.” The reason they're doing so is they know they do not have legal proof and they're trying to intimidate the Switt heirs into surrendering, and/or prejudice the potential jury pool should this legal case ever come to trial. For example, the Mint displayed the 1933 double eagles at ANA Denver stating "they were stolen".

Writersblock · February 20, 2007 6:54AM

<< No worries - once the government allowed a tax deduction to the Norwebs for their 1913 nickel donation to the Smithsonian, the coin's private ownership was legitimized >>

Yes, that 1913's status was legitimized. Just like the sale of the "Farouk" 1933 double eagle legitimized that specimen. But they don't do anything for the other specimens. And in the case of the 1913, it wound up in government hands anyway.

MajorDuty · February 20, 2007 7:39AM

<< Just like the sale of the "Farouk" 1933 double eagle legitimized that specimen. >>

If that's the case then Fenton would not have been arrested AFTER he obtained Farouk's Double Eagle.

kwmorgan · February 20, 2007 7:44AM

I'm waiting for a 1964-D Peace dollar to show up along with the corresponding firestorm.

Writersblock · February 20, 2007 7:52AM

<< If that's the case then Fenton would not have been arrested AFTER he obtained Farouk's Double Eagle. >>

Fenton was arrested before the sale of the "Farouk" coin. We're talking about the July 2002 sale for 7+million that legitimized it. Before that sale, as far as the government was concerned, it wasn't legitimate. And my point still stands, legitimizing one specimen of a questionable coin does nothing as far as legitimizing the other questionable pieces.

RichieURich · February 20, 2007 7:54AM

<< I'm waiting for a 1964-D Peace dollar to show up along with the corresponding firestorm. >>

I've spoken about this to several experts and several have told me that there a few of the 1964-D Peace dollars out there, in hiding, probably awaiting amnesty.

seatedcollector · February 20, 2007 7:58AM

IMO, the mint has had a HO for the 33 saints since they were minted, unless i am wrong, the mint which is essentially owned by the american public, and tax payer money was used to create the damn things in the first place, every american who has ever paid into the federal tax "program" should have a say in the outcome of those coins, i vote to leave the people alone, give them thier coins back and legalize anything that ever left any of the US mints. does the statute of limitaions not apply to the US mint ? as a taxpaying US citizen, i vote that the mint stop wasting tax payer money to chase after a "crime" that happened almost 75 years ago. there is no way the US mint can prove "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that absolutely NO 1933 coins slipped out of the cash tray, at the time they were made, there was no reason to treat them differently than any other coin made. greed will be thier biggest hurdle. they legalized one coin so they could share in the proceeds this coin is legal, but those arent ever wonder where the money comes from that is wasted on chasing around coins that may or may not have left the mint illegally ? it comes straight out of your pocket maybe the government should spend a little money on producing a paper dollar that lasts as long as those stupid dollar coins that will never circulate. i guess its always easier to waste someone else's money

tradedollarnut · February 20, 2007 8:54AM

<< 

<< 

<< You don't want to throw Tradedollarnut into the pokey, do you?

>>

No worries - once the government allowed a tax deduction to the Norwebs for their 1913 nickel donation to the Smithsonian, the coin's private ownership was legitimized. >>

Very, very interesting. Just curious (and you don't have to answer if you don't want to)-- did you have a similar discussion with your legal advisor prior to your purchase, or was it not even a consideration? >>

Not even a consideration. The coins are legal and the mint has no basis for confiscating them.

Yes, that 1913's status was legitimized.

It doesn't work that way.

MajorDuty · February 20, 2007 9:13AM

<< 

<< If that's the case then Fenton would not have been arrested AFTER he obtained Farouk's Double Eagle. >>

Fenton was arrested before the sale of the "Farouk" coin. We're talking about the July 2002 sale for 7+million that legitimized it. Before that sale, as far as the government was concerned, it wasn't legitimate. And my point still stands, legitimizing one specimen of a questionable coin does nothing as far as legitimizing the other questionable pieces. >>

I'm talking when he was arrested before that sale.

roadrunner · February 20, 2007 9:28AM

If Steve McGarrett, Dano, and Chin could have one in their possession, they must be legal.

roadrunner

Curley · February 20, 2007 9:57AM

So, if the 1913 nickels weren't "officially minted" doesn't it follow that they were "unofficially counterfeited" and equally subject to confiscation?! And I am certain that the use of a non-issuing year as the date does not qualify the coin for non-conterfeit status.

What say you?

tradedollarnut · February 20, 2007 10:20AM

The government long ago abandoned any such claims thru not pursuing the coins when they were brought to light. Accepting one as a donation just furthered its accepted status.

Sunnywood · February 20, 2007 11:07AM

Yeah, we have been through all this stuff before. I think it unlikely that the government would ever pursue the extremely famous 1913 nickels, which have been publicly displayed, sold, auctioned, etc. for decades. However, I do disagree with TDN's position with respect to the legality. I believe that should some lunatic political appointee find a reason to do so, there is definitely a legal basis for confiscating those coins, and others of illegal, counterfeit, "unofficial," or other origin.

For you lawyers out there, I think with respect to coins like the 1913 nickels, 19th c. patterns, etc., there is an equitable argument of laches that could be used to successfully enjoin the Government from confiscating the coins. For you non-lawyers, "equity" was a system of redress parallel to "law" in the English system from which our common law derives. We have remnants of "equity" in our system, for example injunctive relief, or the concept of "equitable title" once a contract to purchase a home has been signed, but the legal closing has not occurred. "Laches" are the equity equivalent of statutes of limitations ... the basic notion is that after a sufficient length of time has passed, it would be contrary to norms of equity for the Government to now assert its rights.

I also believe Switt was a complicit thief and the ten 1933 DE's should be retained by the government. However, I think the government should have destroyed them if it was claiming they were illegal chattel. Parading them around the country as "rare 1933 double eagles" completely unndermined the Governement's claims and arguments.

Anyway, there sure would be fireworks if some lunatic official decided to confiscate patterns and 1913 nickels ...

Best,
Sunnywood

BaronVonBaugh · February 20, 2007 11:13AM

It makes no real difference to me. the only way I could afford one is if the smithsonian gave it to me.

tradedollarnut · February 20, 2007 11:39AM

Sunnywood: I think there is ample precedent that the government has effectively abandoned its claims to the coins, if any. There is also no real proof they were minted nefariously.

And in the end, granting a tax credit for one specimen legitimizes all specimens.

Writersblock · February 21, 2007 1:32AM

<< I'm talking when he was arrested before that sale. >>

Ahh, but that was BEFORE the coin was "legitimized". At that time the coin was still "illegal"

ziggy29 · February 21, 2007 1:35AM

<< And in the end, granting a tax credit for one specimen legitimizes all specimens. >>

What if the government granted a tax credit for donating the legal Farouk-Fenton piece? Does that make all those Izzy Switt pieces legit?

tradedollarnut · February 21, 2007 1:41AM

<< 

<< And in the end, granting a tax credit for one specimen legitimizes all specimens. >>

What if the government granted a tax credit for donating the legal Farouk-Fenton piece? Does that make all those Izzy Switt pieces legit? >>

It's a different situation. The government has always pursued the 1933's - thus no abandonment of claim. And they went thru the motions of legitimizing that one certain coin. So the answer to your question is no , not any more than they are already legit [which I think they are 100%].

If the 1933 double eagles are illegal...

Comments

Leave a Comment