1933 Double Eagles in the News

http://news.aol.com/topnews/article...e/20061206103009990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

The family should have them , some higher up at the mint knew and gave permission for the coins to leave the mint way back when , just the gov`s way of trying to pocket someone else`s money again , that`s why they will not make pot legal - can`t tax it to put $$ in it`s pockets.

 

I wasn't aware the U.S. gov. got anything out of the sale except the $20 fee to monetize the coin? Can anyone confirm? One thing for sure, the legal 1933 $20 won't be for sale any time soon.

 

Mike:
Thanks for the news!
If the coins are illegal to own, per the government, shouldn't they be required to prove that they were stolen? Why is it that this guy is guilty unles proven innocent?
If the government was missing 20 or so ounces of gold, wouldn't they notice it?
Also, it was tradition in those days for 'customers' to go to the mint's office and be allowed to trade coins for the current year's coinage. So, if something is 'in the normal course of business' why is it assumed that the pieces were stolen?

Enough, let them have them back.

 

They definately received 1/2 the proceeds from the sale! It was a part of the settlement, as I wrote at the time, just offer to split the proceeds with the government and (apparently) they'll let you do anything.

 

I'm for the plaintiffs, but don't think they'll win. There is a law on the books that includes these 1933 gold coins.

Clinker

 

Quote from the above link:
"A handful escaped, however. Two were deliberately set aside and are at the Smithsonian Institution. The Mint has said any others in existence were obtained illegally, but agreed after a lengthy court battle to allow one of the coins to be sold at auction in 2002 for $7.59 million - the highest price ever paid for a coin - after its owner agreed to split the proceeds with the Mint."
Thumbs down!

 

From CNN's news:

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/07/30/double.eagle/

So, since they could not prove that this wans't King Farouk's coin, then it was accepted as his. Why can't one of the family's coins be the Farouk coin? Prove otherwise.

 

Wikipedia has an interesting article on this as well - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1933_U.S._20_dollar_gold_coin

 

As many deals were going on between certain Coin Collectors and the Mints before, during and after 1933, this Mr. Switt more than likely worked out a deal to obtain the coins through the Mint Director! (i.e. many Proof coins and Proof Sets were minted just for specific Coin Collectors, Government Officials and Foreign Dignitaries and sold to them or given to them as gifts but no other individual coins or sets were released for sale or circulation.) Mr. Switt may have obtained these ten (10) 1933 Double Eagles (as well as the other nine (9) that he sold and the U.S. Treasury tracked down and destroyed) through a deal with the Mint Director which should make them legal but the paperwork was long ago lost or misplaced. I think that the U.S. Treasury should transfer authority and protection of the coins to the Federal Marshalls Service until the Court battle is settled. If the coins are then found to be the legal property of Mr. Switt's heirs, then the Court should award his' heirs with the legal right to own and sell the coins. Also, the U.S. Treasury should be ordered by the Court to track down and pay the individuals or their' heirs that obtained the coins from Mr. Switt and amicable value for the coins that were seized and destroyed.


Frank

 

Frank:
I think that your problem is that you are a logical and fair individual, and you forget that we are dealing with the government, who is at this moment probably reading this posting along with you.
Our government has never been very objective. After all, how many people realize that FDR never had the legal authority to order the gold recall. It was a shame that there never was a lawsuit brought before the Supreme Court, he (FDR) probably would have lost, and we'd still have -- well, not gold coins, but 1933 double eagles.
The Other Frank

 

After Israel Swift's death and after the Auction of the Faruk coin, his son went through his dad's shop in Philly and found the 10 coins. (huntsman53, it was the Phily Mint's cashier. not the director)

Dumbarse (Swift's son) didn't follow the news (or do any research) to see that the US Secret Service had been confiscating 1933 Double Eagles since the 1940's. So he sent them to the Mint to be AUTHENTICATED. :desk: The Mint said, "yup, those are real 1933 double eagles. Thanks for sending them back." :headbang:

Actually, this legal battle has been brewing and festering for over a year.

To really educate one's self on the history behind ALL the 1933 double eagles and for a little bit on this matter, please read Double Eagle by Allison Frankel. It is an excellent read dealing with history and coins, together!


THANK GOODNESS there is still ONE 1933 still floating in private hands. :thumb:

 

If in fact it is stolen property then it should be returned to it's rightful oweners the U.S. MINT.

 

But, as the argument goes, they were legal to possess for almost a month in 1933. And, if there was a one-for-one exchange for these coins (with ones from 1928, for example), then they are not in fact stolen!

In fact, just because the Treasury has decreed in a certain way doesn't mean "that's the way it is." This should go to the courts and let them argue both sides.

After all, this government was founded on the protection of individual rights (especially property rights).

 

Nobody can be accused of Stealing anyhting with no report of a crime, no crime scene and no EVIDENCE of a crime.

Ruben

 

The mint has to prove that the coins were stolen---but in turn the guy has to prove that the coins wern't stolen---therefor you have a deadlock---he might get a few back but I wouldnt' count on it...I will say that either they will be melted and the guy gets the gold or the US Gov will sell the coins and split the total with the owners...but since there are soo many I doubt that the selling price would be anywhere near what the last one sold for---maybe even under 1 million.

Speedy

 

He doesn't have the right lawyer because this is an open and shut case of constitutional law.

First, he doesn't have to prove ANYTHING because we have a constitutional amdement which clearly says he is innocent until proven guilty, and then there is that other ammendment (the 5th) which says he MUST be secure in his pocessions and papers. Then there is the "takings" principle. They can't just take his damn coins, or accuse them of being stolen without a crime scene or a crime.

It just ticks me off. This is one of those cases when ALL the legal arguments should be just tossed aside and key constituional princilple need to be shoved down the courts throat, through the press if necessary, until they are upheld.


Ruben

 

Ruben:
I could not agree with you more! I have been shouting about this case and the previous one (with the Farouk coin) for years. Since, in the Farouk case, the government could not prove that the coin was NOT the Farouk coin, they settled, and the owner agreed to split the proceeds with the government. Those morons (the government) still insisted that the coin be 'monetized' by receiving an additional $20 in cash in order to 'legally monetize' the coin. $3.5 million wasn't enough for those idiots.
Sorry, but this really steams me. The fact that traditionally anyone could have gotten samples of the new year's coins from the mint, simply by exchanging coins, and legally getting new samples has been stated and then ignored.
If the coins were stolen, in this case a large number of them, where is the auditor's report stating that 10 or 20 ounces of gold is missing?
Where? No where, there is no such report. Is there any report of theft? No, Shortage? No.
Everything is a presumption of theft, or guilt.
Enough, leave them alone.

 

That isn't too hard to answer----when the mint re-called the coin more than likely they put all of the coins in a large pot and weighted it---to make sure they had the right ammount of gold---if I was betting I would bet that no one working at the mint went through every coin and looked to make sure it was the right date---therefor anyone could have put a 1927 dated piece in there and taken a 1933----the weight wouldn't be messed up and yet there would be a '33 out there.....

Speedy

 

Speedy:
exactly-- that is my point.
1) it was legal to exchange coins in those days
and 2) If the gold was all there, what, exactly, was stolen???