California federal judge rules against government in 1974-D aluminum cent case

That's a very good question. As a numismatist, I would absolutely LOVE to own a pattern coin, but I don't think they should ever have left the government hands. Perhaps they could be displayed in a museum on loan from the feds, but I don't think they should've walked out of the mint. Of course, name me the mint director and/or present me with free pattern coins and perhaps I'd be singing a different tune.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

This is why these types of litigation are so important to coin collectors. If the right ruling comes along, then these "patterns" could be subject to confiscation and/or litigation.

 

That's why I've only ever shown one of the ones that I own, I'm just waiting for that day that the government decides to confiscate all of the pattern coins, 1913 liberty nickels, proof restrikes of the 1850s and 1860s and countless other rarities. Technical none of these should be in private hands but many have publicly traded for large sums for years now. Take the Stella's as a prime example.

This is the only pattern that I've ever shown. It was purchased at a public auction so the man already knows that I have it. My former avatar the J-1671.

 

They spent your tax dollars to produce these coins, next the Fed's always had high dollar lawyer's on the payroll so why not let them earn their money.
I keep seeing posted here the word gift.... how can you give away something that's not yours to give away?
So if I take your car and have it re keyed ,and then give your car to your neighbor , that's ok?
These coins should of never left the mint. By any means or for any reason other then to enter the system as coinage for commerce .

 

"For that matter how is any pattern coin legal to own?" I thought the "Coinage Act of 1965" took care of that.

 

I wouldn't say that I am really familiar with this act, but I'm not aware of any part of it that legalizes the ownership of pattern pieces. I would be interested in knowing more about that if you have a link or reference.

 

I don't see any prohibition to owning pattern coins. The act can be found here:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-79/pdf/STATUTE-79-Pg254.pdf

 

I also don't see where it legalizes their ownership either. How is the 74 aluminum cent any different than any other pattern?

 

Section 102 of the "Coinage Act of 1965":

All coins and currencies of the United States (including
Federal Reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal Reserve banks
and national banking associations), regardless of when coined or
issued, shall be legal tender for all debts, public and private, public
charges, taxes, duties, and dues.

Coined or issued, so just the fact that the US Mint manufactured (coined) the item whether a “pattern piece”, regular issue, collector coin or commemorative with a face value then it is “legal tender”.

Edited to add: Ownership is a different question, how is any coin owned by anyone?

 

Actually, the US Mint does not spend tax dollars as they are the only branch of government that produces enough profit for self sustainment AND they add a sizeable sum to the general fund every year to offset the deficit.

As for the legality of the coins in question, these were never even supposed to have been minted as they were never accounted for AND the Denver Mint was not authorized to produce them. At least, the Denver Mint was NOT a part of the trial program.

I expect that this particular coin was minted by direct order of someone high up on the management chain. Possibly thinking that the alloy would be approved and simply "gave" this one and other "collectibles" to the Assistant Superintendent as a retirement gift.

The laws weren't so freaking "stiff" back then not to mention the fact that the "superintendent(s)" of the various mints could pretty much do whatever they wanted as duly appointed representatives of the Treasury Department.

 

A pattern is not a coin, it is a trial piece. The grey area is the problem. The government has overlooked this for years, but if they start singling out individual pieces, they may set a precedent that could lead to problems for other patterns out on the market.

 

Good Point.

 

Who says that a "pattern" is not a coin? If it has a face value and manufactured by a branch of the US Mint then it is a coin.

 

I'm pretty sure that the mint is not the only branch which turns a profit.

 

How can a pattern be a coin if it has no monetary value and was never released by the fed?

 

The Ketchup Board?

 

The Ketchup Board?

 

The Ketchup Board?

 

sheesh a triple triple post

 

The government wants it back. There is no principled distinction between your patterns and the 1974 aluminum cents or other rare coins such as the 1913 Liberty Head Nickel, 1933 Double Eagle, the novodel pieces, etc. Nor has there been a clear standard for determining what is subject to confiscation, all the more reason that I felt the government should have lost the case with the 1933 Saints recently. As long as there is a plausible explanation for the coin's release with unlawfulness, IMHO, the government should not prevail. But unfortunately, the government and judges don't care what my opinion is on the subject matter.

 

With the exception of the “Martha Washington Test Pieces”, I think you will find that most US coins that are considered “Patterns” have a face value on them and are “legal Tender”.

“The coinage act of 1965” monetized all coins minted by our government, Trade dollars, half cents and “Patterns” coins fall into this category as “Legal Tender”.

Like I said earlier, ownership is a different question and like any US coin (or any other item that someone wants to say was stolen) the burden of proof would be on the complainant to establish that they still were the rightful owners of the item to the exclusion of all others that looked the same.

Getting back to the 1974-D Aluminum cent, I guess the government could argue that “The Coinage Act of 1965” only applies to coins manufactured prior to the enactment of the law. But to say that all “Patterns” have no monetary value when they are “Legal Tender” is just erroneous.

I have to wonder if in 1965 when the Government was changing the metal composition of some of our coinage, if this is why they started using the “Martha Washington” design without having a face value on the item.