1933 Double Eagles in the News

As I understand it, Roosevelt didn't RECALL gold, per se, he just made it illegal to own (as others have noted here already, the constitutionality of that is iffy). And, except for wedding rings, collectable coins, etc, this ban was supposedly broad.

That being said, if you could prove that a double eagle that you owned was collectable, you could keep it. So any that had legally entered circulation (as all dates and mintmarks had up to 1933), they were legal for ownership (both here and abroad). That means that when gold ownership was "legalized" in 1974, the gold coins overseas could come back (I have a friend who flew for the Air Force, and he said he used to buy double eagles for just over melt in Germany for a long time. Apparently, German banks had hordes of them). Or the ones in hiding in America could come out. It opened up a market that had been held down.

I say all of that because you are correct that the Mint argues that no 1933 double eagles ever got out legally. I believe there was only a window of a few days between the start of minting and Roosevelt's gold ban. In my argument (I'm in favor of Switt's heirs), that's enough time for "reasonable doubt."

On a sadder note, however, it was reported at the last meeting of the coin club of which I'm a member, that something like 35% of the gold coins ever minted by the United States were melted in the mass seizure of the early/mid 1930s.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Working in the Fed. Gov. For a long time I have to say I have seen many fired for stealing and for making shady deals. For every one that is caught I bet there is 5 more who are not. I have seen it all, some with great jobs. Just recently didn’t that Sandy Berger guy take some stuff out of the National Archives?

 

Just imagine how much stuff is being ripped off in Iraq.

363 Tons of US paper money, $100 bills flushed down there.

That's Tons.

 

They made one legal....why not the other 10 ? (there is another one somewhere in SA at the moment, note Double Eagle, the story of the world's most valuable coin)

 

Because they would lose money----you see when they made the last one legal the owner had to sell the coin and they split the money 50/50....the mint got over $3 million on that one---so I'm sure that if they make any more legal they will also have to be sold for 50/50....but that goes back to the start----when there is only ONE coin legal to own it is worth any price that is asked (in one way) and that price was over 7 million dollars---now when there is all at once 10 more, the price drops down to "nothing"....and I say that with " "'s.....it would still be worth thousands or many even a million...but the mint would never get that much money again....

Speedy

 

I have read this story,& legally,the U.S. Mints & the U.S. Government are on very shaky ground as far as this case goes.These coins were sent in to be authenticated by the original owner's heirs with the honourable intention of insuring them.I think that seizing them is both constitutionally & morally wrong.

Aidan.

 

Not really---if the coins were not bought in that one space of time then these are just as much illegal as dope----it would be if you sent the FBI a box filled with dope...and a note asking them to make a check and make sure that this dope was the Pure and real stuff, and if it was to send it back to you.
What these people have to do is PROVE that these coins were bought in that one space of time....I think the people should get the coins back...but I also understand why the Gov. did what they did and rightly so.

Speedy

 

Those 1933 coins were stolen and the owner wants them back.

Ask Steven Spielberg about stolen goods.

 

You've made this statement in another post and it wasn't true then and just because you are saying it again, doesn't make it any truer now. The government has classified any and all 1933 DE as stolen government property and it is irrelevant who turns up with one, they are all stolen. The only reason they agreed to split the sale of the last one was because it couldn't be proven that it wasn't the one that was released to the Egyptian collector by accident. The ground the government is standing on is pretty solid and very final in this matter.

 

Just out of curiosity, Aidan what are your credentials as a United States Constitutional Law scholar?

(Before you ask, mine are 40+ years of practice in the US Federal Courts, including 36 as a member of the bar of the Supreme Court.)

 

The one released to Egypt was released in 1944. Where was it in the previous 11 years? Simply because an entity, be it the government, a company, or an individual, declares something stolen doesn't make it stolen. And if the government can't prove or disprove that the one legalized coin was the one released to Egypt, how can they prove or disprove that one of the 10 the Langbord family provided is or isn't the released coin?

Not that I think that anyone's case is open and shut. So far, until the most recent CW, I'd heard only one side of the story (the Langbord's). Now, reading the government's response, I'm not so sure of who's right or wrong.

And before anybody asks, I'm not a lawyer. I'm a minister. My law experience is limited to Con Law classes in HS and college, my best man being a Federal Judge, and growing up the son of a politician in one of the most litigious states in the Union (Maryland). Which probably means, in all fairness, I know just enough to be dangerous, but not enough to comment intelligently.

 

Roy,I am basing my viewpoint on English common law,which is where both U.S. & New Zealand law are derived from.

Aidan.

 

Then fetch me a rum & coke, and don't be chintzy with the rum!

I seem to recall reading that the 1933 Saints were NEVER authorized to circulate or leave the mint, except as noted for the Smithsonian pieces and the Farouk coin. Any extant coins then would have to have been taken covertly out of the mint...stolen.
Am I wrong here? Can anyone reference official records that state otherwise? If they were allowed into circulation, even for 60 seconds "over the counter" at the mint, the government would not be so hardnosed about this. They would not have a case. But I believe the facts are that the coins were ordered melted and never authorized for release. If this is true, then they will undoubtedly win this fight.

Someone (one of the Franks, I think) stated earlier that Mr. Switt likely made a deal with the mint director. I think a far more credible story is that he made a deal with a mint employee! Remember, the mint has always kept immaculate and very thorough records, and there are no records of any groups of these coins being authorized to leave the building. If they WERE allowed to be removed, there would be forms fastidiously done in triplicate to document the order. Nowhere is there a bigger paperwork empire than the house of Uncle Sam.

tradernick

 

As I understand, the mint considered all double eagles to be equal, therefore a 1932 $20 held the same value as a 1933 $20. For the first few (three?) months of 1933, one could travel to the mint and exchange any date of double eagle for a 1933 $20, and I have heard that Switt may have done exactly this.

Disclaimer: I have no experience with the law, and only a bit of common sense. Doesn't the mint have to prove that the coins were stolen, not the family prove the coins weren't stolen? IMO, this whole debate is a moot point since the government clearly won't reconcile with the Switt family, and the coins will almost certainly remain government property.

My $0.02,
09S

 

Reading right now a book titled "Double Eagle," by Alison Frankel. Highly recommend it, it's a very entertaining read, and not just for the information directly related to the 1933 double eagles.

As I understand it, the Treasury's case revolves around the fact that besides the two double eagles given to the Smithsonian, and arguably the one bought by King Farouk (since an export license was granted, it could be argued it left the country legally), no double eagles ever legally were issued or left the Mint, therefore any and all other 1933 double eagles are by default property of the United States Treasury. The onus isn't on the government to prove a theft in this case; if they were never legally issued then there was never a time when they weren't US property (think of it by this example: if your car goes missing and a week from now someone is driving around it who claims they bought it from someone they didn't know, the government needs to prove that he stole it in order to be charged and convicted of grand theft auto. However, even if he's not convicted, or even charged, the car is presumed to still belong to you unless someone can prove they legally acquired the car from you. If you never sold it or voluntarily turned over the title to anyone, it is presumed to still be yours. If anyone else wants to claim ownership of the car, the burden of proof is on them to prove they legally acquired the car from you, not on you to prove that they didn't.)

Everyone who brings up "innocent until proven guilty" is mistaking criminal law with civil property law. The descendants of Switt are not being accused of the theft of the double eagles. The government is merely asserting the double eagles are US governement property, and in the absense of evidence that shows that Switt acquired the double eagles from the Mint legally, they are presumed to still be property of the government. In this case the law by default favors the original property holders unless a legal transfer can be proved. Else like in my example, someone can drive off with your car, claim they bought it from you, and be legally alllowed to keep it unless you can prove they stole it from you.

I'm not a lawyer, but to me it sounds like the government has the stronger case here in this instance.

(Keep in mind this is not necessarily my opinion on the law, just my interpretation of the government's interpretation. I've heard good arguments on the other side too, and I'm presonally undecided right now...)

The theory of the three week window when the double eagles theoretically could have been purchased may be a defense, but other records seem to show that none were ever made avialable that way publicly (though it remains possible that Switt may have had connections with a mint employee to buy them unofficially, but still legally). Still that argument's a bit of a stretch.

 

The goverment is going to steal these for sure

 

This is pretty much the same way it was laid out in Illegal Tender by Davis Tripp. The government confiscates the coins and melts them, end of story period. Switt was thought to be the one that first got his hands on the original coins through someone in the mint. Too bad for him that he was never able to realize more than a small profit from his misdeeds.

 

Most of the evidence seems to point to the government as the victims of theft, not the perpetrators. Unless Switt's descendants can somehow prove that Israel Switt somehow acquired the double eagles legally, it looks like an open and shut case for the government. The only reason that the government decided to call to the one double eagle legal is there was good evidence that Customs allowed it to leave the country to go into King Farouk's collection. There is no such documentation in the case of these 10. It looks the government is holding all the cards in this case. (Note that in the Farouk double eagle the government compromised to split the sale only if it was conceded that the double eagle was government property.)

I'm trying to look at both sides of this, but besides some theory that there is no actual evidence for, there isn't any real proof that Israel Switt acquired the double eagles in some legal fashion, and unless Switt's family can come up with any, I'd have to say the government is in the right to keep them.

Though it might would be a bad precendent... there are many other rare US coins and patterns that probably were not legally made or left the mint illegally. There's pretty good evidence for example, that the 5 1913 Liberty Head nickels were not produced legally, and about half of the 1804 silver dollars are known to have been illegally restruck. Some wonder if the government by this line of reasoning would have the right to confiscate this too. However in these cases the crime broken wasn't really theft, but unauthorized mintages. Yhe 1933 double eagles were fully legal to mint, just not to have left the Mint, so the same arguments wouldn't necessarily hold.

Even though it seems to me the government is in the right, I'd still hope they'd preserve the double eagles rather than melt them down, it would be a shame to have them lost to history. The government doesn't seem willing to extend the same deal that they did for the first one, but why not? In the first case the coin was turned up after a government raid. These 10 were voluntarily given to the government to have them authenticated. Would seem at least fair to extend the same compromise, sell them and split the proceeds. Probably won't happen though, the one and only double eagle they declared legal they were pretty emphatic that they wouldn't declare any others legal. The government's position is that to do so would basically be to reward a theft and that it would weaken their authoity to be the only legal entity that can issue currency. It seems the reason the government was willing to compromise in the first case is that Fenton was willing to concede that, and there was good evidence, albeit accidentally, that the government allowed the double eagle to leave the country (mainly due to the ignorance of Customs agents who had no idea that it shouldn't). I just don't see any point of compromise in this case... but we'll see eventually I suppose. However I wouldn't bet much on the Switts' case.

 

if all those coins were indeed "stolen" from the mint like the gov claims, then wouldn't it be the same as you buying a car only to find out it's stolen?

but IMHO...after all this time the government should let sleeping dogs lie

 

nice pic