The Mint really took it back...

Being gifted it wouldn't be theft. Why couldn't they have found it either? The million dollar copper cents are deemed okay by the mint they were never authorized and no one is crying about how they were stolen property

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Mint records are iffy in the 19th century, but not so in modern day history. The mint has records the Denver mint was NEVER given authority to strike this coin. NEVER. Yet the assistant superintendant of the mint evidently did anyway. Then he kept one and later on his relative tried to sell it. Given the mint asserts they NEVER gave authority to strike this piece, I would believe the defense would need to prove how they lawfully came into possession of it. Since they cannot, its theft of government property.

I cannot tell if you simply do not get how this is different than errors or are being intentionally obfusicant. An error is a manufacturing defect of a legally authorized coin. If the mint accidentally makes an error in manufacturing a legally authorized coin, and then transfers title of the coins to the Fed or a bank, then clear title has been obtained. An error coin has NOTHING to do with this discussion. The only way it could would be if a mint employee intentionally made the error and then snuck it out of the mint. If they snuck it out, (did not have the mint give legal title), then it would also be theft. However, since its an error of a legally produced coin PROVING it was theft would be very difficult, since one could always claim it was an error that was discovered in a legally obtained bag of coins.

Bottom line, if the mint never authorizes a coin to be struck, or never legally sold an example to anyone, then by definition its theft. The only reason the 1933 double eagle was allowed to be sold is that the US allowed its export to Egypt years ago, which clouded title. Should the 5 1913 liberty nickels be impounded also? I would claim they should be, but the mint has not chosen to pursue this for so long its hard to do so now. I would also say the same would be true of 1964 silver dollars. Any of those that comes to light should be immediately impounded, since by definition they would be stolen property.

 

Because most likely they, and their steel 1944 cents, were errors on the mint's part, and sold to the Fed in bags. Title would have passed due to this sale.

 

In the 18th and 19th mint records weren't iffy, they were atrocious. Their records in modern day while much better by comparison are still far from perfect. Maybe now they may have cleaned them up to be accurate (I seriously doubt they're accurate down to the last coin) but 40 years ago they were still sloppy and it was still before the days of computer backups and the ability to audit from a database.

In 1974 the Denver mint produced 4 billion regular cents this is nothing more than a cent made of aluminum. It is no different than the 1944 steel cents which were never authorized either. Off planchet errors have everything to do with this discussion and are hard evidence of the massive inconsistencies of the mint in picking and choosing what they feel like going after.

It has yet to be proven that the coin was stolen when many other explanations that would not be considered theft exist. You may be willing to find someone guilty without being proven but in this instance I am not when it certainly wouldn't be theft if it was in fact gifted to him like they claim. The case never went far enough for the court to actually come to a final conclusion on that claim but it should be noted that the initial ruling was that the story could in fact be plausible.

But yes off planchet strikes are entirely relevant as are the sac mules as clearly not a single one of them was ever authorized but they trade freely. A 1974 P aluminum cent is allowed to remain in private hands as well that was originally gifted to a congressmen. Sorry but if its okay if it was gifted to a congressman it is okay if it was gifted to an employee as well.

As a bit of a side note as well, since that one 74 D aluminum cent clearly exists you can almost certainly bet some of the others do as well.

 

Let's talk about off metal strikes though. If you are talking about a metal not used in the mint, then I would claim that piece is also illegal. All of the "off metal strikes" I am familiar with are wrong metal for that denomination, like a dime planchet with a cent strike. Such an error could occur in the mint. I used to be controller of a metal fabricator, so I know metals can get into wrong bins. However, for this cent someone had to intentionally bring in aluminum planchets, since they were not used in normal mint operations. Also, the strike pressure would be considerably different between copper and aluminum, so it appears someone adjusted that as well. This is why I say its illegal. Due to the metal not being a normal planchet in the mint, it was illegal done on purpose. You do not see me declaring a 1974 d cent struck on a dime planchet as illegal, as its legality is not easily proven or disproven. However, this cent, like a 1964d silver dollar, never was legally sold by the mint. That is why, to me, its still government property.

If someone tells me the mint DID have aluminum planchets, with the correct diameter for a cent, that they used in 1974 then I would change my mind. If the US mint struck medals or coins for another country using aluminum and that planchet was the same diameter as a cent planchet, then THAT information would cause me to fight on the side of the defendant in this case. Short of that, the planchet was brought in intentionally to create this piece, and that fact to me makes it illegal to own.

 

they should seize the 5 1913 v nickels then, too.

 

One in particular that comes to mind is a 1906 Indian Cent struck on a gold planchet which is not the only example of the completely wrong metal for a coin series.

http://www.coinlink.com/News/us-coins/unusual-items-1906-indian-cent-struck-in-gold/

They did in fact have aluminum planchets they were using as test strikes. Over a million were produced at Philly and some were then handed out as gifts to congressmen. Denver also produced some and given the necessary adjustments as you mentioned they very likely were told to give a quick trial of it even if no official document exists. Here is where the massive inconsistency occurs with their prosecution of it.

"The missing aluminum cents gained national attention on April 21, 1975 when syndicated "Washington Merry-Go-Round" newspaper columnist Jack Anderson reported that "some distinguished members of Congress may have sticky fingers." He wrote that 14 of the 1974-P aluminum cents were missing from Congressional committee members who received them in March 1974 but did not return them to the Treasury Department.

The Los Angeles Times and other newspapers later reported that 13 coins were missing and that only four of the coins had been returned by Congressmen and other government officials who had received them. Weinberg says the estimate today on the number of missing coins ranges from five to 13.

The United States government closed its investigation of any missing 1974 aluminum cents by February 1976 having found, in the government's own words "no evidence of criminal intent" by anyone possessing any of the coins, according to a February 21, 1976 story in Numismatic News."

They were perfectly happy letting some missing ones go because congressmen didn't want to return them but somehow the D version needs to be recalled. They set the precident allowing those missing pieces to go quietly into the night and now because the owner of the D version was not connected enough he gets targeted.

I don't want to continiously quote the entire article but it is certainly worth a read before forming an opinion on the D version. http://www.pcgs.com/news/pcgs-certifies-first-confirmed-1974d-aluminum-cent

Further down in the article from the quote they reference a letter that occured from an employee at the time who said all the Denver trial strikes were returned to Washington and had passed through several mint foreman's hands while at Denver. It wasn't a fly by night operation of one person making a random one and pocketing it.

 

Considering who the late owner was, it was definitely not found on the sidewalk. And the 1913 nickels must be past the point of no-return purely from a couple of considerations: even the government doesn't have unlimited time & money to keep their lawyers chasing down those nickels from private owners and public institutions. And wouldn't the statute of limitations expire at some point (although the Langbord gold $20 pieces are still being litigated).

Steve

 

So, I shouldn't tell anyone about mine............oops

 

No, the Mint will not destroy the coin as they understand it's perceived value. What they will do is store the coin in Ft. Knox along with the 1933 Saints, and the Gold Sacagawea's. Prior to that, they'll parade it around the country tauting it as one of the countries great numismatic treasure's like they did with the 1933 Saints. I do not believe that it will end up in the Smithsonian since its a "non-coin".

The Treasury Departments obsession with these collectibles is becoming increasingly serious and this particular coin should have never been offered on a public venue.

I cannot help but wonder why they haven't chased after the 1974 Aluminum Cent since folks know who owns it, ICG (AU-58) and PCGS (MS-62) have records of grading it with nationally published stories about it yet..........

Of course, maybe they've assigned a group of agents to track it's where abouts with a raid in mind?

 

You need not be an educated person to know right from wrong. " the golden rule" You need not be educated to know the difference between borrowed or stolen. But you do need to be smart enough to know that no matter what type of logic you choose, to be able distinguish between the two.

So if a member here takes a coin from "your collection", and gives it to another as a gift.....you're ok fine with that?

 

Wow. If that's the absolute case then virtually every error coin ever produced should be confiscated since by definition, they should ever have been released.
This specifically should address certain "manufactured Proof Coins" which were smuggled out of the US Mint in San Francisco since the coins them selves would have never made it through the packaging process!

The coin was "given" to the recipient by the US Mint in Denver along with other error coins "not authorized for circulation" but kept around anyway.

Exactly where is the line drawn between "authorized" and "unauthorized" as it seems to me that the line is intentionally "obscured" depending upon circumstance.

Does the US Mint at Denver (they are the one's that gave the coin) NOT have the "authority" to issue US Coins? Is every single piece produced by "the facility" individually "authorized" for release?

IMO, the US Mint at Denver has the authority to "release" certain coins to the US Public as legal tender and this particular coin along with other "non-releasable coins" (i.e. errors) was presented to a retiring employee as a "gift". Of course, folks can argue the letter of the so called law with the specific interpretation of "it should not have happened" but the fact remains that it "DID" happen and as such was completely legal under all interpretations.

 

Ya mean like this one??

http://www.pcgs.com/News/The-Unique-1976-Philadelphia-Eisenhower-Dollar

This coin was not "authorized for release".

What about this one?

http://coins.ha.com/itm/errors/1973...7-and-pr67-rb-ngc-total-2-coins-/a/454-3523.s

You really believe that this would have fit into the Proof Packaging?

What about this one?

http://coins.ha.com/itm/errors/1973...Item-Auction-Archive-BrowseThisAuction-120115

You think this would have fit into the proof packaging much less made it past Quality Control?

 

Lee I'm seeing a vision of what your avatar looks like....I think you need to put on an Abba album and chill. You all are trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill.
It is a cut and dry case. A person gave another person stolen goods. The owner of said goods wants them back.
It matters not if Cain killed Able as that has nothing to do with this case..... just the facts matter. Plain and simple..... it has nothing to do with any other case. Even through they could be similar they have no merit in this case.

 

For normal federal theft yes which would be something like a 5 year window. However with coins the government essentially takes the position that coins are property of the government and we just get to use them. They may not be able to prosecute any one of the theft (not that that have anywhere close to the proof to do so anyway) but they can try and repossess any issue at any time.

Likely what they're doing (if they aren't just completely winging what to go after is) is picking the ones they feel are most winnable to build precedent before going after others.

It's not at all, you just decided it was even though every fact and the the law would disagree. If something doesn't fit the picture you want to paint you are just ignoring it and saying doesn't matter when the reality is it actually does matter. Moral high horses and the golden rule are not legal precedents or arguments, the other examples 19lyds posted would be considered evidence and relevant since it shows how the mint has treated similar circumstances before.

 

Sometimes I sadden at how the US Mint has restricted error coins/pattern coins/coins they don't want circulating in the collector community (and consequently getting collectors mad at them), but then issuing expensive modern commems and expecting that collectors buy them

 

You didn't actually read the article, did you?

 

I am guessing the mint must be holding a gun to collector's heads, or twisting their arms to buy; if they didn't no one would ever purchase such things, right? Demand and the fact that there's a market surely wouldn't have anything to do with it....

 

Poppycock ! It's time for you to be awarded an Iggy! You been here at CT since January 16. And so far have brought nothing to this party but an appetite to argue,and be a self appointed know it all attitude !
My late mother would sum you up with these words.......
"You sound like a person who can't swim who falls overboard and instead of calling for help .......you scream for more water"! Save your reply your on ignore .

 

I am sorry that facts are offensive to you. Please carry on riding the moral high horse. In my experience people who present a moral superiority attitude are often the ones with the most questionable moral actions in their personal lives. Everyone else has been capable of actually discussing the issue with actual facts not such hard hitting legal precedent like the golden rule