1933 Double Eagle update in Coin World
RWB
Posts: 8,082 ✭
For those following the saga (“soap opera”?) of the 1933 Double Eagles, there are two new research articles in the September 6, 2010 issue of Coin World (page 5) that might be of interest. (Edition available to on-line subscribers.)
The new information not only shows that production of the coins began much earlier than thought, but that some were removed from initial production and probably put in the Cashier’s safe.
The research was conducted as objective investigation, and the documents “tell their own story.”
The new information not only shows that production of the coins began much earlier than thought, but that some were removed from initial production and probably put in the Cashier’s safe.
The research was conducted as objective investigation, and the documents “tell their own story.”
0
Comments
Thanks for the heads up Roger. Look forward to reading all about it.
P.S. I looked at the court docket this morning and there is still no ruling [or any other activity] in the case.
Perhaps Izzy Switt obtained his coins in a surreptitious manner, but perhaps he didn't. It does not seem like a stretch to believe that he paid full value for them and obtained them in a perfectly acceptable/legal manner.
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
With a name like Izzy Swift it does not seem he acquired these coins in a Kosher fashion.
It is a little like having a name like Bernie MADOFF. Chute,he really made off !!!
Stewart
BTW, it's Izzy Switt
I enjoyed the article. This puts me even more behind the Langbord's in the litigation.
“In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." - Thomas Jefferson
My digital cameo album 1950-64 Cameos - take a look!
<< <i>Excellent article.
BTW, it's Izzy Switt >>
Edited, with apologies, as I was mistaken.
Stuart
Collect 18th & 19th Century US Type Coins, Silver Dollars, $20 Gold Double Eagles and World Crowns & Talers with High Eye Appeal
"Luck is what happens when Preparation meets Opportunity"
Or do you think that the experts have formulated their opinions based solely upon:
1. their own knowledge and experience; and
2. their review of documents and other information provided to them by the attorneys that hired them?
I suspect the latter and that as a result, information contained in newly discovered documents [brought to the light of day by researchers like RWB who perform their own hunt for and research of documents contained in federal archives] that have not been previously seen by the court, the attorneys, the experts and/or the parties to the lawsuit may cause some people to rejoice, some people to cringe in anguish and some people to just shake their heads and wish it was all over.
My initial view of this case has not changed. Whoever the court assigns the burden of proof to at trial in this case will lose the case. Neither side can "prove" by legally admissible evidence how the ten coins left the mint. The Lanbords can not prove the ten coins left the mint legally and the government can not prove that they left the mint illegally.
Congress and the president [Clinton] passed CAFRA and in doing so placed the burden of proof on the government in asset forfeiture cases. Rightfully so IMO if one considers that private property is and should continue to be a foundation of our country, society and culture.
How long had the gummint known about this information? Could it have any influence on the court's eight month stall???
TD
The documents mentioned in the CW articles are apparently from 1944/45 and 1947, but before the Barnard case went to trial. The papers do not appear to have been handled from that time until I located them a couple of months ago. It is unlikely that either side in the current case has seen them or was aware of them. The documents were in a seemingly unrelated archive file.
As to influence, it is probable all involved will see the articles during the next few days.
The courts have always said that the coins were stolen goods.
The Mysterious Egyptian Magic Coin
Coins in Movies
Coins on Television
<< <i>How long had the gummint known about this information? Could it have any influence on the court's eight month stall???
The documents mentioned in the CW articles are apparently from 1944/45 and 1947, but before the Barnard case went to trial. The papers do not appear to have been handled from that time until I located them a couple of months ago. It is unlikely that either side in the current case has seen them or was aware of them. The documents were in a seemingly unrelated archive file.
As to influence, it is probable all involved will see the articles during the next few days. >>
Roger, curiously, what does it feel like to discover/see documents relating to matters of such historical numismatic significance? Do you get goosebumps? Do you read and re-read them, thinking, is this really what I think it is? And so on. Thanks.
<< <i>The US government has won several of these cases since the 1940's.
The courts have always said that the coins were stolen goods. >>
With new evidence such as what RWB has discovered, this is a completely different case than the cases in the 1940's and early 1950's. Plus, I would not say that the settlement reached in the Fenton case was a complete "win" for the government. However, the government has a huge "home-field advantage" in that it is one party in the litigation, and the courts are run by the government.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
Well, just Love coins, period.
<< <i>maybe will see a quick response now on the lawsuit in general
Nah......the losing side will drag out ad infinitum.......and if the new ones are legalized you have to wonder when the current owner will step into the fray......doubt anything we say here will make any difference, but you have to admit the whole thing is really interesting.......
<< <i>So will the amicus attorneys be able to present this new data? That may "push" the court a little (I am absolutely NOT an attorney, thank god) I would think. >>
I don't see why that information couldn't be used.
Only the Barnard case ever went to trial - 1947. Court ruled in the government's favor. (Based on the evidence presented and the puny defense, the ruling seems reasonable to me.)
re: Roger, curiously, what does it feel like to discover/see documents relating to matters of such historical numismatic significance? Do you get goosebumps? Do you read and re-read them, thinking, is this really what I think it is? And so on. Thanks.
At the time these things (and others on other subjects) were located, they were little more than "key word blurs" that I copied or photographed. About the only reaction was "fascinating" as Mr. Spock would say. I copy first, then organize and analyze.
The analysis is where things get interesting. This is where I start to understand what the documents say, how they relate to each other and how they relate to material from other sources. This is the “light bulb” stage, although sometimes it is a “burn out,” or “dim bulb,” too. Only after the pieces are understood and connected do I get excited about a discovery – because that is the point at which it becomes “really real.”
The most important thing is getting to the facts – or as much of them as still exist – and bringing them to the attention of collectors and hobby professionals.
Which format do you use for document reproduction- photography, scan to paper or scan to flash drive (a capability the Philly facility sadly lacks)? If you photograph docs, what sort of camera do you use?
Free Trial
You'd think it would be obvious but for some reason few people do this. It amazes me. You would go to all the trouble to write a book or aticle, but not be able to retrace your steps if you wanted to double-check something later? It's sort of like you don't even respect your own work.
I guess if you believe that some of the documents were made up or fabricated then there is not much use repeating all of the false information in them, or bothering to note where you found them.
I use a Nikon D-70s w/35mm f1.4 lens and ISO at 1600. Everything is set manually and the color balance is approximate – most archives have mixed light sources.
When possible, I prefer to photocopy letters and memoranda. At home, I run the sheets through a laser printer and add the document source and location to the header of each page. This lets me later rearrange sheets without losing the source information.
If the archivists will not permit photocopying (as with books, presscopy pages and very fragile originals), I photograph the pages using the camera hand held. Later, I have to correct perspective on the photographed pages, and electronically (Photoshop) add document source and location.
I tend to prefer paper copies because they are simpler or correlate and rearrange than electronic files, particularly when electronic documents can’t be OCR’d. I hate adding a bunch of metadata.
<< <i>Well if RWB's research does indeed destroy the government's case, I say he should receive a 1933 Double Eagle.
I'll drink to that!!!