1933 Gold $20's housed in "ziploc" bags!

Leave it to the mint. Two numismatics were asked to examine and photograph the 10 - 1933 Gold $20 coins that recently turned up (Coin World September 19th edition)

When Mint officials presented the coins, they were housed in individual ziploc bags and all 10 were then stored in one larger ziploc bag!

Great commerical for "lock in freshness", but considering these coins are all worth at least $2 to $5 million each (since population levels have now increased), wouldn't you think they could have been better stored?

Tom Mulvaney (who was asked to examine and photograph the coins) brought some plastic slabs to give the coins better protection and the article doesn't state if mint officials replaced the ziploc bags with the plastic holders he brought. Leave it to a numismatist to think when handling coins!

Way to go US Mint...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

At least ...they weren't PVC bags.

That is, I've read more than once that bags sold to store food contain no PVC. I haven't actually done a chemical analysis myself.

 

I guess the mint figures "who cares....if they're verified, we're melting them"

 

Since they went to the trouble of putting them in individual bags (might this have been done by the previous “custodians”?), there’s hope that they are considering options that don’t include melting millions of dollars worth of coins into a ten troy ounce nugget worth $4490.

On the other hand, maybe the Mint won’t have a choice. I was reading something about the terms of the deal they made with the guy who turned in the previous 1933, and it may have included verbiage along the lines of “we can assure you that this will be the only 1933 Double Eagle we will ever legitimize.” This assumes 1) that there was an agreement to this effect, and 2) that the government cares anything at all about previous agreements it entered into.

Meanwhile, ziplocks aren’t very thick. I would think any luster could be ruined by two coins rubbing together through ziplocks.

 

This is very interesting. Actually, in my opinion, those items (they are not really coins since they were never monetized) belong to the mint. In actuality, they were stolen from the mint. The folks who sent them in to be verified are now filing suit to regain them. If I were the judge hearing that case, I would jail the people for receiving stolen property. I can not for the life of me imagine why they think they have any right to them. If the Mona Lisa disappeared today, and someone wanted it authenicated sixty or seventy years from now, would anyone have any doubt as to the ownership of it? Let's get real here. I'm a collector and would love to see those items be monetized and hit the market. If and when they ever do, the "heirs of Izzy Swit" should be disqualified from participating as potential buyers.

 

On the other hand, if they do have a claim, maybe they would have been smarter to just submit one for authentication, and see what happens.

Or maybe they've actually got another 90 of them.

 

The physcial/chemical property of Gold is a non corrosive......but imagine having ten of these and not being able to cash in on them...might as well turn em in..gotch ya Cowboy!! Give me back my Liberty...

RickieB

 

Right on sjnebay, The law is the law. It doesn't matter how much time has passed.

 

If you ment " potential sellers" I'm with you. But hey, if they have the means to buy them back at $2 million plus.....more power to them

 

Some of the old time collectors advise using freezer bags with a couple of new copper pennies. The pennies act kinda like a sacrificial anode, except for corrosive gases.

 

those are probably 'evidence' bags.

they were seized by the FBI, weren't they?

 

Its better than aluminum-lol

 

I've kept my basically worthless, albeit interesting, circulated world coins in ziploc bags for years. If the Mint is doing the same thing, is it a Fruedian slip into admitting the 1933's were actually circulated, and therefore legal? Hmmm........

 

<<This is very interesting. Actually, in my opinion, those items (they are not really coins since they were never monetized) belong to the mint. In actuality, they were stolen from the mint.>>

I think it might be difficult to prove this. On the other hand, I suppose the burden of proof is on the plaintiff.

<<If the Mona Lisa disappeared today, and someone wanted it authenicated sixty or seventy years from now, would anyone have any doubt as to the ownership of it?>>

If a few million Mona Lisas were painted, you might have a great deal of doubt as to who owned that particular one.

<<If I were the judge hearing that case, I would jail the people for receiving stolen property.>>

Good luck proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, to twelve jurors, that the owner of the coins incontrovertibly KNEW that they were stolen (if, in fact, you can prove they were stolen in the first place).

 

I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but my gut feeling is that the government officials overstepped their authority on this one, and that there is a better than 50% chance that the coins will be returned in time to the original owners; or they will be compensated for their loss.

 

Midas--
CoinWorld had a few changes from what you posted...it was Jeff Garrett that took the holders and yes...they let him place the coins in them...just wanted to add my 3 cents in here....

Speedy

 

None of these were ever legally released, therefore there was no legitimate way for anyone but the mint to own them.

 

<<None of these were ever legally released, therefore there was no legitimate way for anyone but the mint to own them.>>

Says who? Isn't it a he-said, she-said case? The Mint alleges that they were never officially released, but I have yet to see any proof that these ten coins were forcefully or clandestinely removed from the mint facility. Could there be another explanation, such as a cashier who legally sold them (like the 1964 peace dollars)? Could they have been authorized as "legal" by someone higher in the government and that documentation simply doesn't survive? I find it VERY difficult to believe that someone defeated the U.S. Mint's security (and did so without leaving ANY evidence).

The "they weren't released so they must have been stolen" does not PROVE anything. That's one logical conclusion, but one logical conclusion does not preclude other equally logical conclusions. Logical conclusions and assumptions and "they were stolen because we SAID that they were stolen" simply are not matters of law.

Does it strike anyone as odd that the authority who supposedly determines if coins are legally monetized happens to be a party to the dispute? Seems like it's a conflict of interest for a court to rely on the Mint's statements (as the authority who monetizes coins) when the Mint clearly has their own agenda.

If sell a coin to someone and later decide that I want the coin back, what court would just take my word that the coin was stolen? "

Your Honor, I want this coin back. It's really pretty."

"Did you sell it to the defendant?"

"No Your Honor, it was stolen."

"Very well, since you said so, judgement for the plaintiff."

 

Don't be all that sure of the fact that a receipt/bill of sale hasn't survived, as you put it. I kind of think someone, somewhere will eventually bring one forth and end all this contention of ownership at one time in history.
Not returning it when it was recalled, can be written off as just over sight.