Posted on 03/27/2009 4:06:06 PM PDT by JoeProBono
“Likely she ripped off someone’s coin collection.”
Even a thief - especially a thief - should know the value of what they’re ripping off.
I remember the last time (years ago) I visited my local coin shop was the day I realized he was fencing stolen coins. At least the punks knew to take stolen silver dollars to an expert back then.
Nice! In the 1970s I used to see the old silver certificates (I think all of them were $5 bills, but there may have been a few $10s), but the last one I saw circulating was coming to me in change at the grocery store, perhaps 15 years ago. The cashier did a double-take. I shouldn’t have explained what it was, and saved it. He set it aside and bought it himself.
There was a gal on the Antique Road show channel that said her dad was the accountant for the Yankees (?) and she brought in a signed (and cancelled) check with Willie May’s paycheck from his rookie year. Her Dad had kept it. She also had a couple of postcards from him to her dad.
The guys said the check with the postcard would go for something unbelievable - $10,000? or something. He asked her if he had kept any of the other cancelled checks.
She said “Oh yes, 5 Willie Mays, and a bunch from the other players too!”
He said the other 4 would be reduced in value (not as rare after the first one) - but STILL!!
Not the highest rung on the ladder, is she?
I mean, old checks? Who would have thought?
No, each $20 Double Eagle contains approx. 1 troy ounce of Au and weighs a bit over an ounce. So yeah, each coin is worth 50x face value.
To your: “If the woman is that stupid she deserves to be taken.”
I wrote: “There’s so much wrong with that statement I don’t know where to begin”
To which you responded: “Take your time.”
Ok then, in my opinion:
Your statement “If the woman is that stupid she deserves to be taken” implies that people may justifiably prey upon other people, pluck them like pigeons, shear them like sheep, take undue advantage of them, or be otherwise dishonest with them. And of course your words imply approval of “taking” someone who “deserves” to be taken and further imply that you yourself might be willing to “take” someone who “deserves” to be taken.
That reflects badly on Christians and Christianity given that your homepage boldly declares you as a born again Christian. You might counter with Matthew 7:12, (“…whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them…) and argue that you would willingly be done unto as you are willing to do unto others, but given what we are discussing that might not reflect well on your psychological state.
It also reflects badly on the Right given that your homepage boldly declares you as “Right”. There are already enough people who say that Republicans, Conservatives, those on the Right, want to take advantage of those they call less fortunate. There’s no need to bolster their side.
Of course it reflects badly on FreeRepublic as you posted your statement here as a member.
Finally, it reflects badly on your credibility and honesty. I’ve referenced your homepage, but I can’t necessarily believe the truth of what you wrote there because for all I know you might have written with the view that anybody who would trust what you wrote deserves to be taken.
Well, I did figure out where to begin, and perhaps I could go on, and after re-reading what I've written here I might improve upon it. But I have no interest in continuing. I wouldn’t have gone this far without the challenge of your “Take your time”.
First, I’d like to say - you have way to much time on your hands.
Second, I noticed that the other posters who ragged on this woman didn’t get a response from you.
Third, oh well.
As you can see, double eagles carry a bit of a premium over the spot price of gold, but nothing like a 15 fold one.
"Please excuse the lateness of my reply", I've been away for a while. :-)
If you carefully read what they said, you will see that they clearly stated that each coin was worth 50x$280, not 50x$20. They might have meant to say 50x$20, and simply fumbled their English, but it's more likely that they fumbled the numbers, because they are innumerate like almost all reporters.
"Please excuse the lateness of my reply", I've been away for a while. :-)
However. your link shows coins dated 2009 (or recently minted coins) in which case they are worth approximately 50 times the $20 face value. A quick check on "real" $20 double eagles, dated the years mentioned in the article, show prices closer to twice the value of the gold content, approximately 90-100 times face value.
My link shows a coin minted in 1904, and talks about coins minted from the mid-19th to early 20th centuries.
...and the price mentioned in the article was 700 times face value, not 90-100.
Just based on the price of the gold in the coins, each one is worth 50 times that — or more. The oldest of the coins was minted in 1875 and the most recent was 1927.
But the search has thus far stalled with little to go on, aside from a bank surveillance photo that shows a woman with short, dark hair who's about 5-foot-6, medium build and most likely in her mid-20s to early 30s.
While the coins have not been appraised, at today's gold prices, each would be worth at least $923, a far cry from the $20 each the woman collected, according to Rob Brough, Zions Bank's executive vice president over marketing and communications,
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.