As some of you know, the mint has a few coins that are considered by them to be illegal. A short list includes: 1933 St. Gaudens (with one exception) 1964-D Peace Dollar 1974-P Aluminum Lincoln Cent Now the logic behind this conclusion is that these coins were never released through the federal reserve and therefore have no legal tender status, and remain mint property. Possession of these coins can result in fines and jail time. Now many will agree with this logic. But alas, the mint has an ever changing view on this subject. A few examples are as follows. 1894-S Barber Dime 24 minted under no authority. 1913 Liberty Head Nickel 5 minted under no authority. Now these coins are not alone, just the most famous. The point is, that the mint throughout its 200 plus years has set no permanent meaning to what is legal and what is not. Friends of the early mint were allowed to purchase several unique specimens without fear of prosecution. There are a considerable amount of less than legal tender coins in the market place. By these standards, (legal tender) how about these coins? Restrikes? Patterns? Uniques specimens? A nice list could me made of these types of coins that should have no legal status, yet grace a few numismatic cabinets. Since the Smithsonian Museum has the above mentioned coins in its holdings, why can't the general public be permitted this same honor? Opinions?
I certainly understand what you are saying and can't say I disagree with it. To my way of thinking the Mint purposely refuses to set strict guidelines so that they may retain a bit of flexibility if and when the need arises. At best the most anyone has ever been able to get out of them is a statement that a coin must be monetized and released through official channels in order for it to be considered legal to own. Such a statement leaves them quite a bit of leeway. As you say there are numerous examples - and new ones keep popping up on a regular basis. Like the 2000 dated Sacky that was put up for auction on ebay in December 1999. That one got approved. Or any of the experimental Sackys - "special rinse " - trial strike and others. It is said that a '74 aluminum cent traded hands at a show a couple of months ago. There are 8 of them unaccounted for. So these coins and others like them are on the market. Several of the grading companies have even offered to certify them if given the chance - and not report it to the authorities. What will happen in the future - who knows. But a precedent has been set with the '33 St. Gaudens. And should another of the great rarities become the center of attention - I have little doubt that similar outcome would come to pass. I guess time will tell. Meanwhile I'm not tellin anybody how many of these I have
Add to this group the 1976-no S Eisenhowers in proof sets punched out in 1974 for the president and 4 foreign dignataries. Supposedly all were returned to the mint and regular proof issues were given out, however, one was turned up in circulation in Washington, DC in 1977. A2J
Another good example is the recent mule coins,the most famous and controvercial being the Sacagawea Mule which still might be declaired illegal to own. Patterns have always been a part of oue collecting hobby,though they were never officially released. It sure would be nice to have the rules set down so that we would all know what's safe to own and what should be avoided by today's collector. ~ Jim
So far 3 of the Sacky mules have been classified by the Mint as leagl to own because they were able to trace the manner in which they were released. The determination on the others is still up in the air.
What about the new crushed coins? They are entering the market slowly. The complete set was offered on Ebay recently by a well known error dealer. The mint stated that because the coins were crushed, they are scrap, and therefore not coins at all. Will this logic change?
If you mean will the Mint change its mind - I doubt it. I also doubt there will be a repeat of the outrageous prices paid for these "things".
I for one hope not. But it is often the case in the mint for them to change their minds. As far as collecting this "trash", unfortunately I do see people paying too much again. As of today, a small group of people have access to the supply of this material. This will allow them to control the rate that this material enters into the market place. The latest prices set the bar a little high for it not to be repeated. While I am amazed at the offering of such material, I am not surprised at the price.
My opinion is that the federal reserve act is unconstitutional as are all legal tender laws. No branch of the federal government has any authority to declare possession of any kind of money a crime. The federal reserve is not federal and mainatins no national reserve. It's a cartel of privately owned banks with the unlawfully granted power to print fiat money backed by nothing and to laon it at interest to Congress. The only reason collectors can now buy US gold coins is because an earlier generation of Americans had the spine to defy a communist tyrant in the White House by hiding their gold coins so the tyrant couldn't melt them down and give the gold to the all time worst mass murdererin human history, Joseph Stalin. i hope that there are collectors holding examples of all the coins you listed and a pox on any federal agent who would arrest them for keeping what, under the Constitution, belongs to the bearer and not to any government agency. /rant
I think the 1933 St. Gaudens appears to be a win-win precedent. The government should let whoever owns the 64 Peace Dollars, 74 Aluminum Cents, etc., auction these off and split the proceeds! The government's portion could go to the Smithsonian or could be used to purchase some of the rarities for the Smithsonian.
I think the point Nd was making is that the coins he mentioned were not released by the Mint - even by accident. In the old days - it was common practice for some Mint employees to make side deals with friends or notable people. A person would ask for a coin - a pattern a Proof whatever - and the Mint employee would agree to get them one - for a price. Technically these coins were not legally issued or released. Therefore it is questionable if they are legal to own. But so far - the Mint has not done anything about it. There were times in the past though that the Mint did agree to make deals - say a collector had something he wasn't supposed to have. They offered him something else he could not get otherwise if he would return the given coin. Such things did happen. Either way - there are coins that are not legal to own that are owned by certain collectors. Will anything ever be done about it ? That remains to be seen.
Now it makes sense........... I was trying to figure out what the big deal was... I can see the logic in maybe seeing these coins as stolen or whatever. but barring that possibility, it seems ridulous to make it illegal to own them...........i mean......no ones going to construct a bomb with them or anything........
Well the mint over the years have come up with their own set of rules over what is legal and what is not. I have heard several times over the years that the 1964 Peace Dollar was made available for sale to mint employees. Then the mint changed their minds and demanded these coins be returned. It was pretty common practice in the early days of the mint for the director or chief engraver to make and give presentation coins to certain people. There are a handful of coins with mintages under 10. San Francisco has a few of these rarities. While I don't expect the mint to change its mind, I wish they would at least make the rules hard and fast.
