Options
Why did the US mint confiscate the 1933 Saints and not the 1913 nickels?
fivecents
Posts: 11,207 ✭✭✭✭✭
And the 1804 proof dollars?
0
Comments
I am thinking Colonel E.H.R. Green did something above and beyond the call of duty that offered him some "special" payola for something. Hence, this was an above the table transaction and the coins were not sneaked out of the mint, which is what I think happened with the 1933 Saints.
I am sure someone knows the WHOLE story and I too am curious about this.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
A really interesting book on the subject is Million Dollar Nickels by Paul Montgomery, Mark Borckardt, and Ray Knight. They tend to push the theory that the nickels are illegal, the work of a 20th century midnight minter, which would lead to the question why the coins were not confiscated. Other collectors, including one on these boards, suggest that the nickels are the result of legal die trials and hence should never have been subject to confiscation. It's surely an interesting question...
Mark
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
I will have to go back to the redbook as I have never heard any story other than Green was granted the title. As for the nickels, he bought them like everything (and I mean everything) else.
Saved every penny she ever saw and would not buy heating oil or coal and ate cold oatmeal for like 30 yrs and fed Hugh Green the same.
Lack of heat led to frostbite for the Col. and he lost a leg.
When the witch died with a fortune of smoething like 3 million around 1930 the Honorary Col proceeded to spend the fortune on coins !
Yes, I am familiar with all the arguments about how 33s can be legal, don't bother repeating them. That's not the issue. The point is that the government didn't want the public thinking they could get away with anything in terms of gold. There was no such context surrounding the 1913 nickels.
<< <i>Why did the US mint confiscate the 1933 Saints and not the 1913 nickels? And the 1804 proof dollars? >>
At least two of them were struck at the behest of President Jackson. Their confiscation would not seem even remotely justifiable.
"1834 the U.S. Department of State wanted diplomatic gifts to present to the King of Siam and the Sultan of Muscat in recognition of trade treaties worked out with those two countries. President Jackson directed that a complete set of coins of the United States be assembled for presentation to each leader."
<< <i>Under the US Coinage act of 1965, all Mint made coins are legal tender absent a claim of theft made in a timely manner by the US Mint and/or Secret Service. >>
The Coinage act says all "US coins and currency", since the US didn't make the 1913 V nickel it is NOT legal tender. Also what is a timely manner for making a claim of theft? The government waited over eleven years before making any claim that any 1933 double eagles were stolen. During which time they were openly being bought, sold, and advertised.
<< <i>At least two of them were struck at the behest of President Jackson. Their confiscation would not seem even remotely justifiable. >>
Make that four, since Roberts took four sets of coins with him on his diplomatic mission. The other four "originals" were probably extras that were struck just in case there were flaws in the first four. Strike eight, select four. The seven restrikes on the other hand are a totally different matter. Confiscation of them could be justifiable.
That would be difficult to prove in a court of law, don't you think?
As with so many legal disputes that arise years, decades or even centuries after the facts giving rise to the dispute take place and after witnesses have died, problems of proof via competent, admissable evidence arise.
A very interesting and quite possibly dispositive legal issue for a court to decide in these types of cases is exactly which party to the lawsuit has the "burden of proof" in the case. Whoever has the "burden of proof" has the obligation to prove whatever they need to prove to convince the court to issue a ruling that changes the current status quo (since lawsuits involve a party asking the court to change the status quo by giving them something and taking something away from the other party).
In the event a court fight arises between the lady who gave the 10 1933 Saints to the Mint and the US Government, a ruling by the court on the issue of whether the coins were legally released from the Mint into the hands of the public (i.e. monetized) or whether they were not legally released and illegally taken from US Custody (theft of property which the govt can recover) coupled with a ruling on who has the "burden of proof" on this issue will largely determine who wins and who loses the case. When and if such a case happens, it sure will be interesting to watch and follow.
In that case, are patterns legal tender?
<< <i>In that case, are patterns legal tender? >>
Well first you have to decide, Are Patterns coins? If they are, then under the act of 1965 they are legal tender. If they are NOT coins then they are NOT legal tender because it only extended legel tender to coins and currency.
I don't consider patterns to be coins because they were never adopted or authorized to be struck as coins. They are merely a proposal. Therefor they are not legal tender.
1) Hetty Green died in 1916 at age 81. She was a ruthless investor who gained the name "Witch of Wall Street" and was renowned for her stinginess which she applied to everyone including her 2 children Edward and Sylvia.
2) her personal fortune was said to be between $100 million and $200 million of the time (in todays terms multiply by 12.8 or so) $1,280,000,000 to $2,560,000,000
3) the inheritance was split between "Col". Edward H.R. Green and his sister Sylvia
4) Col. Green collected stamps even more feverishly than he did coins. His most famous possession was the entire sheet of 100 "Inverted Jenny" Airmail stamps of May 1918 (one of which was placed in a locket) - (see The Inverted Jenny: Money, Mystery, Mania, by George Amick). A block of 4 of these stamps was in the news this week. He purchased the whole sheet (face value $24) for $20,000 which would be about $256,000 in today's money). The whole sheet had been purchased at a Post Office in Washington, D.C by a collector named W.T. Robey. Robey sold the sheet to stamp dealer Eugene Klein of Philadelphia for $15,000. Eugene Klein then sold the sheet for $20,000 to Colonel E. H. R. Green.
5) he bought all sorts of things and his spending was renowned and apparently limitless
6) He married a woman named Mabel Harlow. It was to Mabel that Edward Green gave the locket with a stamp inside.
7) There are numerous anecdotes and stories about Col. Green (such as 2 entire railroad cars for him and his wife to travel from Texas to Florida)
8) Col. Green died in 1936 leaving what was left of his fortune (approximately $30 million to his sister Sylvia). Mabel received little or nothing.
9) It is said that the Governor of Texas conferred the honorary title of "Colonel" top Edward Green.
Collecting since the 1980's
Morgan Dollars Circ. Strikes
- Basic Set - Varieties - Prooflike Basic Set - Date Set
- Carson City - Early S Mint Short Set - Mintmark Type Set
Morgan Dollars Proof
- Basic Set - Varieties
Peace Circ.
Conder101
Master Collector
Posts: 9298
Joined: Feb 2001
Wednesday November 09, 2005 6:57 PM (NEW!)
<< Under the US Coinage act of 1965, all Mint made coins are legal tender absent a claim of theft made in a timely manner by the US Mint and/or Secret Service. >>
The Coinage act says all "US coins and currency", since the US didn't make the 1913 V nickel it is NOT legal tender. Also what is a timely manner for making a claim of theft? The government waited over eleven years before making any claim that any 1933 double eagles were stolen. During which time they were openly being bought, sold, and advertised.
<< At least two of them were struck at the behest of President Jackson. Their confiscation would not seem even remotely justifiable. >>
Make that four, since Roberts took four sets of coins with him on his diplomatic mission. The other four "originals" were probably extras that were struck just in case there were flaws in the first four. Strike eight, select four. The seven restrikes on the other hand are a totally different matter. Confiscation of them could be justifiable.
politics and timing
<< <i>What would happen if someone came forward and said they had one 1964-D Peace dollar? Maybe just showed a pciture of it? What would they do? >>
The Secret service would show up at your door with a search warrant and a bad attitude.
The US goverment should refund their share (50%) of the auction price to the winning bidder of the first 1933 $20. The other 10 1933 Saints should be returned to the original owner. I think the way the goverment has handled ALL the 1933 Saints was wrong.
From the US mint's own website, investigation into the sale of 1933 double eagles began on March 22, 1944, and within 3 days three specimens from three different prominent collectors or dealers had been confiscated.
Read about it here.
The entire investigation was done in all of a day and a half during wartime before Secret Service confiscation began? Doubtful. Most likely there was considerable preparation for this seizure, planned to coincide with the Flanagan collection sale. There were definitely ulterior motives behind this confiscation and the whole story is surely still waiting to be uncovered.
As for 1913 nickels and countless patterns which left the mint legally or otherwise, if there were such a precedent for confiscation, no doubt there would be government interest in reobtaining the coins. I bet if someone came forward with an 1877 $50 gold half union, the government would be interested. Without such a record on the 1913 nickels, and given the nature of today's litigatous society, it'd be more trouble than it is worth for the government to attempt to confiscate said pieces. Plus, it does not bode well with public image to go after collectibles.
As for the 1804 Dollars, the “Original” pieces, which were struck circa 1834 were officially issued. The restrikes (circa the 1850s) came in two batches. There were the pieces that the U.S. struck, and at least one point declared to be “original” coins from 1804. Those pieces were used as trading bait with collectors at the time. And there is a good chance the mint director at the time got a piece of the action too because he did some other illegal and unethical stuff at the mint.
The second batch of 1804 dollar restrikes were produced quite literally at the midnight hour when everyone was off work. There was a Philadelphia coin dealer who fenced these coins until the government got wise and confiscated them. All but one was melted. That piece was struck over a Swiss shooting taler, and it is now in the Smithsonian collection. It’s the only surviving example of the “clandestine” 1804 restrike dollars.
In sum the 1913 nickel survived because the first famous owner had political clout. The 1804 dollars survived because they had official or quasi-official sanction.
For whatever reason the government has always claimed that the 1933 double eagle was never officially issued although the 1933 eagle, which could have had similar problems, has never been challenged.
The only coins the government gives a darn about are gold [ie: half unions and 1933]. They never did care about minor coinage - especially proofs. And you simply cannot apply the standards of today to the mint of yesteryear retroactively. Besides, there's a little thing called proof that's required before you go around siezing things....
Click on this link to read a brief Life of Col. E. H. R. Green
He was an eccentric and led a life that some may criticize. He was a renowned womanizer and more.
He has found a place for himself in history books and that is something that is not true for many people.
The fact is that he has found a place for himself in history books and that is something that is not true for many people.
As far as the USSS is concerned and seizing coins, if a compromise was reached for the Steve Fenton coin (the one sold in July 2002 at the Sotheby’s And Stack’s Auction), there must have been more grounds and convenience to reach a settlement than has been made public.
In view of the shameful amounts of money squandered to investigate and pursue an issue based on principle (which by all accounts caused no monetary loss to the U.S. Government) some legal eagle must have realized that in the long run the whole issue was just costing more and more money.
If somebody is wondering whether I am suggesting that there was pragmatism involved, the answer is yes. And I think it was about time too.
Criticizing the practices of 70 years ago or 100 years ago or 150 years ago based on today's interpretation of morals is a complete waste of time and energy that could be more constructively spent for other causes. That's my 5 cents.
Collecting since the 1980's
Morgan Dollars Circ. Strikes
- Basic Set - Varieties - Prooflike Basic Set - Date Set
- Carson City - Early S Mint Short Set - Mintmark Type Set
Morgan Dollars Proof
- Basic Set - Varieties
Peace Circ.