Anybody have any comments on this? http://numismaster.com/ta/numis/Article.jsp?ad=article&ArticleId=4050 I always thought these folks got a raw deal from the government. Just my opinion though...other thoughts?
IMO - the Goverenment was right to seize them. The circumstances that led to the ONE being legalized are completely unrelated to allowing the Switt heirs to keep these.
What about the one that got away? The one that sold at auction. How can you leagalize one coin and not the rest?
That one WAS shipped to King Farouk as part of his 'collection' ~ i.e, the rules that applied to NOT having to turn the gold coins into the government. Ira Switt was here in the U.S., knew the rules, did NOT turn them in, and just left them for the family to keep and cash in at a later date.
Ok, so if the coin left the country in a collection that makes the coin legal? I don't get it. That coin should be as illegal as the ones found in the bank vault but the government deemed it worthy enough to re-monitize. I agree with your point that Ira knew the rules....I just think that the family, because of their honesty and straight fowardness in turning in the coins, should receive some form of compensation in return. Especially in light of the Farouk coin going for so much money. Maybe there lies the reason for not compensating....perhaps the Feds want to finance a project from the proceeds of some future auction of the coins? After all we don't need so many examples of one coin languishing in the Smithsonian.
Wrong is wrong ~ and there have been many threads and debates on this topic. It ranks right up with the second gunman on the grassy knoll. Folks pick a side and stand their ground.
Agreed...thanks for chewing this over with me. I know deep down it was wrong...it's just....man I'd like to get my hands on one of those coins.
Innocent till PROVEN guilty... is that not what this country is built upon? The US Mint contends that there was only 1 gold eagle sent aborad, and hence all the rest are illegal. Well, it took a lawsuit for the Mint to even go that far to say that. They were wrong once, and had to reverse their decision once... so far. They are illegaly contending these current eagles are issued un-lawfully. What happened to being innocent until a person was proven guilty? What happened to the Mint having to proove the cons were taken illegaly from storage into circulation? In the absence of proof on their part, the coins need to be returned.
I am with you on this one! I believe that Mr. Switt more than likely, legally traded other $20 Gold Double Eagles for the 1933 Gold Double Eagles. That this is the reason that they do not show up on a transaction receipt or log and that someone in the Mint unknowingly (did not know that they were not to be released) made the trade with Mr. Switt. A lot of the big time Coin Collectors that lived in the Philadelphia area or nearby, would regularly visit the Philadelphia Mint to purchase and/or trade for other coins that were just released. I would almost bet that if the Switt family prevails in their Lawsuit, gets the coins legalized and gets them back, that other genuine 1933 Gold Double Eagles will suddenly turn up! Frank
exactly - reasonable doubt. we do not know how Switt got these, and i doubt the mint can prove the coins came about in some illicit manner. If they can, then i woudl say yes, the mint could keep them and hopefully display them. but inthe absence of the mint proving the coins were obtained in an illegal manner.. give them back to the Switts.
That would be interesting! Sorta like stolen works of art that hang secretly somewhere until there's a fire and they are discovered. Just how many did get away? The story has always been that only 10 got away but do they really know how many got away or has the "ten" story just been their way of covering their butts? I'd like to see them prevail (Mrs. Langbord), just to see if there are more out there. That would be such an embarrassment to the government and I can't think of anyone who deserves it more, than them! :hammer: Ribbit :smile
Which rules? The rule allowing each person to hold up to $100 in gold (Got four family members?), or the rule allowing collectors to keep "rare or unusual coins" and defining rare and unusual to mean any 1933 and earlier?
