Langbord case: What are those 1933 Saint-Gaudens double eagles worth?

Don't ever try to sell something that's not yours !

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

In a civil suit the evidence standard is not beyond a reasonable doubt

 

If I had to guess...

The "Farouk" coin, had these not been made legal, would be worth $14 Mill today.

But with these 10, that changes everything.

Sooo.....

MS66: $10 Million.

MS65: $5-6 Million each (Farouk coin + 2 Switt coins)

MS64: $1 Million each (6 of em)

Details coin: $350-400K.

 

Conder, here's your statement I replied to, emphasis, supplied...

Here's the Third Circuit Opinion, emphasis, supplied...

"One 1933 double eagle was sold to King Farouk of Egypt, a coin collector, in 1944. This coin had been unlawfully smuggled out of the Mint [...]."

In your words, the Farouk coin was a Switt coin. In the Third Circuit's words, the Farouk coin was unlawfully smuggled out of the Mint. Switt sold the coin, which was unlawfully smuggled out of the Mint, to Farouk. Switt was either somehow involved in the smuggling, or, at the very least, was in receipt of the smuggled coins, and that's what the District Court jury found. What, about that, do you fail to comprehend?

 

But the Treasury Export letter was the Smoking Gun that it may NOT have been unlawfully smuggled out. We just don't know.

Conder, the Treasury Dept. and Secret Service were not obsessed with illegal currency in the 1930's and certainly not the 1940's (something more important was going on over in Europe then ). So it wasn't until they became aware that there might be a few dozen 1933 DEs that they started to pursue it.

The ads for a 1933 DE were 1-time things. It may have escaped scrutiny from the Treasury/SS but I can tell you 1933 DEs were NOT showing up at coin shows and were NOT widely traded except in secret. Everyone knew all the 1933's were supposed to have been melted down.

 

The majority opinion footnoted that even without the CAFRA appeal, there were other failures by the district court leaving grounds for appeal.

 

Like I said, they won on appeal because they lost the original case.
What other failures I don't know them

 

The Government screwed up when it issued the export license. The Government didn't know the coin was smuggled. From the Opinion...

"One 1933 double eagle was sold to King Farouk of Egypt, a coin collector, in 1944. This coin had been unlawfully smuggled out of the Mint, but the Government “had improvidently issued an export license,” which muddied the issue of who rightfully possessed the coin."

 

Exactly...and if the Treasury didn't know about the Export License, who's to say they knew about the unofficial exchanges taking place prior to official releases ?

It is ridiculous to say that pre-release exchanges took place every year for decades but suddenly in 1933 nobody wanted to get the jump on the new releases.

 

"Pre-release exchanges" of coins never intended to be released. That's a hot one. You boys don't know when you're beat, do you?

I got one for you. Tell us precisely where this Court of Appeals got this Farouk coin "had been unlawfully smuggled out of the Mint." Do you believe it just made that fact up? Perhaps you believe that's what courts of appeal do, make facts up? Tell us if you believe you can how this Court of Appeals could represent that as fact. I don't know about anybody else, but I'd love to hear it.

 

I have no bone in the fight, Eddie. But if you are familiar with Mint distribution policies of the 1920's and 1930's you would know it was quite common to get a jump on official releases for:

1. Mint employees.
2. Preferred clients and customers like Izzy Switt.
3. Tour groups at the Mint

You simply gave a DE for an earlier year and the exchange was done. There are official records of this being done, BTW.

I'm confused -- are you saying that simply because the Court Of Appeals says the coin was stolen -- or not stolen -- that certifies it as such ?

The only relevant part of the Court's decision is their decision on ownership. They can state in the decision that Major League Baseball games last 8 innings and that doesn't make it a fact. The legal term is that it is called "dicta." It's irrelevant to the decision.

The Court cannot prove that the coin was smuggled out or was NOT smuggled out.

But the evidence is indisputable that coins were allowed to be exchanged from the Mint before the official release date. We know it happened for many years prior to 1933. It was easy money for guys like Izzy Switt and bigtime coin collectors in Philly and New York and Boston didn't mind paying $35 for a $20 brand-new Saint-Gaudens DE if their collections needed it. These guys were millionaires (wealthy by standards of the 1930's) and the premium paid was peanuts to them.

 

They had there go to guys makes sense

 

Goldfinger, have you ever been in a court of appeals? There's no place for a jury to sit. That finding was off the trial transcript in the District Court and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals is concluded by it.

This Opinion is conditioned on possession as the trigger for the statute, and the Court proceeded to apply the statute, accordingly. Here, again, is the link to the Opinion: http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/124574p.pdf. That's questionable in this case. Again, read the Dissent, and I trust you'll see that.

Better, still, supposing, instead of a coin, this were the original U.S. Constitution. The smugglers give it back for the expressed purpose of authenticating it. Does the U.S. have to proceed under a forfeiture statute to retain custody of it? What do you think?

You guys are rehashing a jury finding. You can do that all day long. The jury saw the evidence, it made its findings, and it returned its verdict. The Landbords and their attorneys had their shot. We move on. That's how it works.

 

The Landbords and their attorneys lost the first one with the jury and won it back on Appeal the coins are there's on with the sale

 

Well, there's something called an APPEAL. Forget this CAFRA thing, if they appeal the original 2011 decision I think they can win.

It all depends on the standard of proof needed.

 

They threw out the trial for "this CAFRA thing." They threw out the very trial CAFRA is supposed to get for the parties. How screwed up is that?

 

Let's hope both sides agree to a settlement....the whole country wins.

 

Well, I'm thinking you may be right, they may get their settlement. Right now, it doesn't look like it. There's no way the U.S. Mint is going to hand these coins over. But what's supposed to happen with these coins? They're supposed to be melted. But do you think the U.S. Mint is going to do that, now? No way. But say the U.S. Mint auctions them. While probably 99.99% of the numismatic community still believes the Landbord's own them, that's probably not a great move from a public relations standpoint. That's why I wouldn't be surprised if you're right, and they reach some kind of half-assed agreement. Then again, a jury found they were smuggled, so who knows?

 

Will the Government try to protect the value of the King Farouk coin ?