Posted on 08/25/2005 9:52:28 AM PDT by LibWhacker
PHILADELPHIA - The U.S. Mint seized 10 Double Eagle gold coins from 1933, among the rarest and most valuable coins in the world, that were turned in by a jeweler seeking to determine their authenticity.
Joan S. Langbord plans a federal court lawsuit to try to recover them, her attorney, Barry H. Berke, said Wednesday. Langbord found the coins among the possessions of her father, longtime Philadelphia jeweler Israel Switt, who had acknowledged having sold some of the coins decades ago. She now operates her father's business.
David Lebryk, acting director of the Mint, had announced in a news release that the rare coins, which were never put in circulation, had been taken from the Mint "in an unlawful manner" in the mid-1930's and now were "recovered."
The coins, which are so rare that their value is almost beyond calculation, are public property, he said.
But Berke said Mint officials couldn't prove the coins had been stolen, or were subject to forfeiture.
In 2002, Sotheby's and numismatic firm Stack's auctioned off a 1933 Double Eagle coin for $7.59 million, the highest price ever paid for a coin. That Double Eagle, which is believed to have been part of a collection belonging to King Farouk of Egypt, surfaced when a coin dealer tried selling it to undercover Secret Service agents.
After a legal battle, the dealer was permitted to sell the coin at auction on the condition he split the proceeds with the Mint.
In its statement, the Mint said officials were still deciding what they would do with the seized coins, which are being held at Fort Knox. They said they had no plans to auction them but would consider saving "these historical artifacts" for public exhibits. Other double eagle coins seized in the past were melted down.
Double Eagles were first minted in 1850 with a face value of $20. The 445,500 coins minted in 1933 were never put into circulation because the nation went off the gold standard. All the coins were ordered melted down, but a handful are believed to have survived, including two handed over to the Smithsonian Institution.
Langbord declined to discuss how the coins might have come into the possession of her father, who operated an antiques and jewelry shop for 70 years and died in 1990 at 95.
The Mint contends Switt obtained a cache of the gold coins from his connections at the Mint just before they were to be reduced to bullion in 1937.
Switt admitted in 1944 that he had sold nine Double Eagle coins, but he was not charged in connection with those transactions, according to the Mint.
The family attorney said the coins were found recently, and Langbord and her son, Roy, notified the Mint of the discovery in September. Mint officials asked to authenticate the coins, then confiscated them after doing so, Berke said.
He contended Langbord and her son never relinquished their right to the coins.
If an employee of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing were
to be caught with illegally obtained US Currency off the
press, (as happened recently here in Ft Worth) they would be facing a lengthy stay in the Federal Resort. I can't see
any difference given that its gold coin rather than
currency which was lifted. If its taken illegally, its stolen, period. The collector was dumb, but lucky that he
isn't facing the same charges as the schmo who stuffed banknotes into his overalls.
Oops...140 was to you, sorry.
Unless gov't itself is the victim?
A prospectus for any of the major gold mining outfits will have this information, as will the government office that keeps track of these in major gold producing jurisdictions (e.g. Nevada). The cost of production has been declining for years because the models used for finding high concentrations have improved significantly over the last fifteen years. The gold mining companies adjust output to maximize the valuation of their assets (the reserves); that the market sags to a price only marginally over the cost of production when gold is dumped onto the market by non-mining sources shows the extent to which the mining companies control the price through supply manipulation. When the price is too low, they simply stop producing. Unlike many other industries, there is very little overhead or ramp up lag time to a mining site and the costs scale with production which makes this financially feasible. Because of this, they prefer to exploit only the most profitable sites even though they control a vast number of other sites that they will probably never exploit.
A lot of the new development sites are in South America, where the estimates for production costs are as low as $100 per ounce at some sites and most average around $125. The estimated production cost of new sites in Nevada are dropping as well, though still high by global standards (Nevada Dept of Mines reports ~$190/oz statewide average currently). I have some interest in this because I own extensive property and mineral rights on top of a new Barrick find in the old gold fields of Nevada that is currently being characterized but has not been announced.
So we have to give most American land back to the "Native Americans"?
Not $35 -- the price after FDR seized the gold?
So we have to give back Manhattan Island?
(The last history I read on the "sale" of Manhattan Island said that the tribe that "sold" the island for a bucket of beads ripped off the colonists -- some *other* tribe actually had possession of the island.)
Or, maybe it's because these coins are rare and therefore worth a lot. Maybe it's because they originally belonged to the (evil) government.
Maybe it's because some sharp lawyer could make a case that since the Mint planned to destroy the coins anyway, someone taking the coins was functionally equivalent to "dumpster diving" (scavenging stuff from someone's trash), which is legal -- the Mint had publicly served notice that, basically, "we don't care to keep possession of these coins anymore". At most, the coins' current owners would owe the Mint a few ounces of melted gold as compensation for the salvage value of the coins. The defendants' position would be, "the Mint wanted raw gold instead of the coins, we're willing to fulfill that exchange for them."
I think the reactions you're seeing on this thread siding with the current holders of the coins is based on the fact that the Mint didn't *want* to keep the coins in the first place. So if someone else who does want them gets them, it's not really a "loss" for the Mint. *Now* the Mint suddenly decides that they'd love to have them...
The analogy is not exact, but it is similar to the case where someone throws out an item, someone else takes it home, then later the original owner tries to reclaim it. That aspect of this case makes it very different from one where the Mint always intended to retain possession of the coins (as coins), and then someone deprived the Mint of possession via robbery. In that latter case, there would be more sympathy for the Mint, and less for the current holders of the coins.
Several people have made comparisons to the Nazi loot, but wouldn't it be a very different case if the Nazis had instead taken confiscated art which the original owners were on the verge of intentionally destroying? The details matter.
See my previous post. The difference is that the Mint was going to destroy the coins anyway. That's their legal right, of course, but it does change the situation somewhat. The "thieves" in the case of the coins were in effect rescuing them from the trash can, not taking something that the Mint intended to keep and use (in which case theft of the item would deprive the Mint of the item's utility).
In some locales (mine included), it is illegal to pilfer people's garbage, even if it's set out on the curb for collection. (Sure, it's rare that anyone cares. But, the law is there if anyone wants to invoke it.)
So, even if we ignore the value of the melted-down gold, your whole argument about the mint being "on the verge of intentionally destroying" the coins seems rather weak. (Besides, the mint didn't even go so far as to toss the coins into the trash, let alone set them out for collection. ;)
No, it would not. As I see it, up until the time at which the destruction has occurred, the owner has the option of changing his mind about destroying it.
Similarly, I might want to rescue something valuable from my trash can which was discarded in haste or unintentionally.
Aw, shucks, JR - I've have been complimented before on being too clever by half, but I think they were just being generous! ;-)
BTW - do you own any land? If so, how do you know?
I honestly don't see how the plans to melt the coins
change the situation.
The injunction against taking the property of another
is not based on the speculative future disposition of
that item.
The rightful owner of an item has the right to
dispose of it as they please. That gold never ceased
being government property, regardless of its disposition.
The gold was removed illegally from the US Mint's custody,
but its rightful owner has always been the US Mint.
Aw, shucks, Hegemony, I thought I owned the land under my house, but I checked my mortgage and found out a couple banks own it AND my house!
Okay, okay, I understand where you're going.
And despite your self-deprecation re cleverness, you know where I was going.
Let's compromise, and avoid a FR pi$$ing match: You keep your land, no matter what. I got your back.
but people do that ,too.
Thanks my FRiend, I got you covered, also!
This has been a very interesting thread, and I find the whole topic of property ownership a fascinating one, and often not nearly so cut-and-dried as many on both sides of the issue seem to portray it.
The whole 'eminent domain' thing recently has put a sharp edge on the debate, IMHO. I guess it truly does depend on whose ox is being gored...
Class act. Thanks.
I am in error here. After checking the documentation I see that it was Vault F, Cage 1 where the coins were stolen from not Cage 3.
This is a FREE country?
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.