Known Provenance and Legality of Owning 1933 Double Eagles

There are 14 of the 1933 double eagles known to exist: 2 in the Smithsonian; the 10 Langbord coins, which are now firmly in the grasp of the U.S. Treasury Dept.; the Farouk coin, which is legally and privately held; and one coin known to exist in private hands, but the government doesn't appear to know whose hands. There are rumors of others in private hands, but at least there are pictures of the one.

The government undoubtedly knows the name of the person who acquired the Farouk coin in the Stacks auction. Fast forward 20 or more years though, and this coin could exchange hands multiple times without the government knowing the ownership trail. Possibly there could be no traceable documents of the coin changing hands.

So, at some distant date, suppose two 1933 DEs surface in separate private hands and both owners claim it's the Farouk coin. Would the government be able to prove one is and one isn't the Farouk coin? There are high resolution photos of the Farouk coin, but would they be good enough to distinguish it from the non-Farouk coin? This could be difficult if there are decades of toning and new nicks or even wear on both coins. After decades, the provenance and originally of the photos of the Farouk coin could be challenged too. The old film and paper photos could have degenerated or disappeared, or were low resolution from the outset. Digital photos are easy to alter.

Maybe the government would take the Solomon approach and demand one-half of each coin.

Legal ownership was established for the Farouk coin, and the government may eventually have to allow it for more than one coin if it can't clearly distinguish newly appearing coins from the Farouk coin. They won't have the advantage they had with the Langbord coins in that those coins could not be confused with the Farouk coin. Suppose a single coin surfaces and the government doesn't think it looks quite like the Farouk coin, but the owner claims it is the Farouk coin. What then? Who would have the burden of proof, and would a judge and jury be able to decide?

Of course if the Farouk coin remains in the public eye by being displayed frequently or gets donated or sold to a museum fairly soon while its provenance is still traceable, then the whole issue of future identity is put to rest.

Cal

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

The recent case has set the precedent that the burden of proof is entirely on the owner

 

The government owns 12 of the 14, isn't that good enough?!.. Wait, who am I kidding.

I would think the high res images would be sufficient if it show any nicks or abrasions. If the future coin doesn't have those nicks or abrasions and has been inspected and deemed to have not been doctored then it's not the Farouk

 

If I had one in the United States, it would be my own little secret for sure.

 

I had not heard about this 14th coin. Can you provide any links to these stories and pictures?

 

I dunno how true it is but I've seen people posting before questioning whether or not the Farouk coin is really the Farouk one or if someone swapped out an inferior example of it. The CU thread about the recent case has a lot of side stories about their existence and remaining ones

 

It's discussed and there's a picture in this book: Double Eagle: The Epic Story of the World's Most Valuable Coin by Alison Frankel.

Cal

 

In the Langbord case, there was no issue as to whether any of the coins was the Farouk coin. None were. So in the future, it would be a legal issue as to whether a coin that comes to light is or isn't the Farouk coin. Assuming the Farouk coin had been out of sight for decades, there probably would be considerable legal debate about whether the government would have to prove the coin isn't the Farouk coin or the owner would have to prove it is the Farouk coin. Generally the burden of proof for ownership lies with the non-possessor. But in this case, ???

Cal

 

So you keep yours outside the US? Switzerland, huh?

 

Doesn't matter that the Farouk coin wasn't involved, it set the clear precedent that it is up to the owners to prove they're allowed to have it and if not they lose it. If there is a question over whether or not it's the Farouk coin the government can take it and the owner will likely lose the court battle based on the precedent. You almost certainly won't see another one come to light in the USA after that case and how it was handled. My guess would be that if the Farouk coin were to be sold it would be done privately and/or overseas.

You're right generally the burden of proof isn't on the owner, but the government claims to be the owner with these and shifts the burden of proof and the court decision was fine with that. That precedent that was set is the reason why so many people were so disappointed over that case

 

Tell that to PCGS

 

So secure service is just a joke then?

 

I could download a secure service picture of a coin, go onto Adobe Photoshop a change the mintmark of the picture

 

Not sure what you're saying. But if PCGS gets a high value raw coin in and one of its certs of the same year/mint has been tagged for theft they can check the raw coin against the True View pics. That's one of the main original selling points of the Secure Service.

 

I mean for personal use I could get the True View picture, edit it on the computer (change the mint mark, create a double die) And brag to everyone about this cool coin pic that I have.

 

Um, I think Secure Service is separate from photographic imaging, whether called TrueView or simply provided as an additional benefit of Secure Service. Secure Service involves laser scanning, and I don't think PCGS releases those data files. I'm curious as to what wavelength(s), intensity, resolution and angles are used, but haven't been able to find out.

Link: https://www.pcgs.com/secure

Cal