Langbord-Switt 1933 Double Eagle Case

No, you like to make unfounded accusations is all.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Okay whatever you say skippy.

 

38 year old male. What say you come back when you're no longer wet behind the ears? Then maybe we can talk, okay, Junior? I graduated college when you were two individual cells in two different people.

 

I was enjoying the civil conversation on this thread and topic, should have known someone would come along a disturb the pease, or is it piece.

 

Visualize whirled peas. "All we are saaaaa-ying is give peas a chance."

 

Okay internet tough guy you win. I give up. I'm not old enough or wise enough to engage the great and all knowing "VKB".

Actually I'm going to bed. Some of us 38 year old males have to work in the morning, and we don't get to spend our entire day at work playing on the internet.

 

The numbers constantly fluctuate. My latest check only shows Americans owning about 62%, China is down to about 6.4% and Japan now owns more than China at around 6.5%

 

In case you missed Doug's post on such, it is important to read.

The moderators will enforce this.

 

Why do you dislike Mr. Feld?

 

Good luck with that! If there ever is an adjudication, I suppose you could file an amicus brief, but I think it would drag you down to 13-2.

 

Any idea what would be considered unreasonable. The government never has made any real concerted effort to recover the 1974 aluminum cents. The Toven piece has been known in the numismatic community since 1998 and it has been through two grading services and written up in the press. Yet other than one comment back when they were going after the 1974 D aluminum cent where they said they wanted the 1974 P back they haven't really done anything. Would 16 years be considered an unreasonable delay? They have also never made any concerd attempt to recover the 1974 copper clad steel cents either. I think that one is pushing 20 years.

 

I don't dislike him. I don't know the gentleman personally. I do however dislike the way he has exhibited his complete lack of understanding of the law, yet he feels his opinion on this case needs to be given deference because "numismatic experts" have said 'thus and so' about it.

Allow me to digress, please. Look, there's "common man common sense" and then again there's "thinking like a lawyer" which is what law schools teach, not so much the law itself. These two thought processes frequently approach diametric opposition.

My more than 50 years as an active coin collector, more than 10 as an academically oriented numismatist, and 12 years working in and administering law have taught me that the modal personality types of coin people and that of being able to understand what law means, are nearly never compatible.

An entrepreneurial mind and a legal mind nearly never intersect. As it turns out, coin people have a nearly complete lack of "knowing what they don't know", and I find Mr. Feld to be a prototype.

 

Unsurprisingly, I disagree. I researched the matter extensively prior to buying my first overstrike Carr. I bought an Amero piece first without any hesitation, obviously. But I originally was wary of the overstrikes, so I conducted my own research. I am confident his overstrikes are on solid legal ground. Until it would be litigated, we can't know definitively, but I am untroubled. The key issue keeping the Carr overstrikes from being litigated is prosecutorial discretion on the criminal side, and finding someone with legal standing on the civil.

 

The epitome of the closest call imaginable is probably the 1974P aluminum cents. There has been a general lack of government interest. I suppose this is because going all banzai would implicate hammering members of Congress, something not without umm, fiscal risk. Capische? If there were ever to be a seizure, the first matter I'd argue would be a laches defense to the government's claim. Would it win? Man, close call. Every day that passes now makes it more likely a laches challenge works. The 1974-D seizure would clearly fail a laches defense, just as a 1913 V nickel seizure defense would clearly succeed with one.

 

But here is the fun question: Can the laches doctrine be applied to a governmental entity? Laches is merely the equitable, non-statutory analog of a statute of limitations or repose, and it is well established that the latter do not apply to sovereigns. I'm sure there is probably an exception for the government for laches too, but to be fair, I haven't looked for case law. There must be a fine line in the law somewhere.

@Conder101

 

Can laches be applied? Yes, I think it's clear because we're talking civil matters here. Also, the jury only had a preponderance standard to meet regarding whether the D.E.'s were stolen and were not being asked to criminally convict an individual with the beyond a reasonable doubt standard.

I think it would be cool to see a law school moot court do a "trial" of Switt and McCann. Must see "not on TV".

 

For someone who constantly corrects everyone's grammar and punctuation, what does "and I hope they both know I do" in this sentence mean?

You do what?

 

Not sure why it is so hard to stay on topic, but I had no problem understanding that sentence, and English is not my primary language. I believe that BOTH "RWB" and Mark Feld are blowhard charlatans, and I hope they both know I do > I hope they both know I believe that, etc.

Christian

 

It's clear you do not know the men or what they have done for the hobby.

 

It references the beginning of his sentence, where he states "I believe."