1933 Double Eagle has sold for $18,872,250

Discussion in 'US Coins Forum' started by Omegaraptor, Jun 8, 2021.

  1. charley

    charley Well-Known Member

    The commonality of the 3 pieces (stamps and coin), all owned by the same individual, was and is simply investment. It is not collecting, in the sense of a hobby, in either numismatic or philatelic pursuits.

    What does a coin piece, that has a bit of a taint, have to do with philatelic pieces that do not have a similar taint, if not investment?

    Nothing, except gossip value in both categories....stamps and coins and this CoinTalk Thread.

    No offense intended to anyone/any post. The simple takeaway is the owner of a stamp or coin can do what the owner wants to do with it. It is not up to anybody else (except first thing we do is drown all the lawyers that want to prove otherwise).
    GoldFinger1969 likes this.
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest

    to hide this ad.
  3. GoldFinger1969

    GoldFinger1969 Well-Known Member

    Weitzman wasn't a die-hard stamp or coin collector. But he liked the idea of collecting certain items that were 1-of-a-kind.

    Reminds me of that STAR TREK: TNG episode where some intergalactic dude is collecting rarities of all types including Data !

    KBBPLL Well-Known Member

    I understand your point, but the courts decided it was in fact the Farouk coin, and I imagine the "chain of custody" to Weitzman is fairly solid - he is after all the only owner after it was monetized. I don't see much risk for a TPG saying "this is the same coin the court monetized". Sure, Weitzman could have swapped it for another 1933, but then the "real" Farouk coin becomes illegal to own. Playing musical chairs with 1933s wouldn't do anybody any good. And isn't this the same issue as any provenance they put on a slab? How do you really know it was the same coin Eliasberg had?

    I don't know what evidence was presented in court to prove that this 1933 is in fact the one that got the export license ~90 years ago, but I think we can be certain that this is the same one that got legalized. As for why they didn't just slab it, or why CAC "stickers" something that isn't slabbed - yes, that sounds fishy, but I don't see anything nefarious. Maybe they just figured that somebody who pays $18.9 million for a coin wants to hold it in their hand and drool on it.
    GoldFinger1969 likes this.
  5. Jim Dale

    Jim Dale Well-Known Member

    With technology as it is today, special coins could have a micro-dot or some other way to identify the coin. I have one question that may have already been asked.. How and when was this coin "monetized"? Any why? Did it have to be "monetized" to be legally owned? Who "monetized" the coin, and why? Was he paid off? If a person or entity has the kind of resources to pay over $18 million for a coin, surely, he had the resources to have the coin "monetized".

    KBBPLL Well-Known Member

    It's a long sordid story. The coin popped up in London 40 years after disappearing from the Farouk collection after he was deposed. There was a sting operation, arrests, court case, settlement where the coin was monetized, and auction. The buyer even paid an extra $20 to the US Treasury to monetize it. There's a summary of the whole thing here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1933_double_eagle.
  7. charley

    charley Well-Known Member

    WHAT? How much did it go for at auction?

    Captcha collecting is fun.
  8. GoldFinger1969

    GoldFinger1969 Well-Known Member

    Weitzman apparently doesn't have the coin connections to pull something like that off, even if it COULD be done.

    But if there ever was a switch, it took place DECADES ago, long before Stuart Weitzman owned this coin.

    Going back further, Steve Fenton owned the coin and it was purchased from someone in the Egyptian military who presumably got the actual Farouk coin.

    Their are so few 1933 Saints floating around that it is hard to believe that someone had the opportunity to swap coins. And.....wouldn't you be more interested in swapping OUT OF the current coin -- with those leg gashes -- than keeping it ? :D

    My understanding is that the catalog from the auction where the Farouk Saint was pulled (at the Treasury's request) might not match up with the current coin but the pictures are very low-def and also might be stock pictures. There may or may not also be a picture in a book which leads to questions on provenance.

    Regardless...this is the only 1933 Saint LEGAL to own.

    For now.......:D
  9. GoldFinger1969

    GoldFinger1969 Well-Known Member

    Monetization was a term invented by the government to create the notion of Legal and Illegal 1933 Saints and other coins.

    What was done in 2003 was that the buyer had to pay $20 -- in paper currency -- to "legalize" a coin which was already legal tender and contained $20 (at the then-1933 price) in gold. This was added to the sales price at Sotheby's at the request of the U.S. Treasury and Mint.

    It was all a scam, because you could get Double Eagles by exchanging other gold coins of the same amount of gold and that was perfectly legal. Of course, you could also buy one for $20 in various bill denominations.

    There was no shortfall of gold bullion involving any 1933 Saints (there WAS of 1928 Saints as 250 were stolen) so the notion that they were "not legal" coins is government baloney. This was a government vendetta against a group of anti-FDR gold bugs who had something that had gone up 100-fold by the mid-1940's.
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2021
  10. baseball21

    baseball21 Well-Known Member

    No. If I was super rich I would keep the one I liked more and sell the other. Obviously no one will ever really no if it happened, it really doesn’t matter anyways if it did but if you can spend millions on a coin you could certainly keep the best for yourself
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2021
    GoldFinger1969 likes this.
  11. Jim Dale

    Jim Dale Well-Known Member

    I still don't understand how ownership of the coin was transferred from Farouk to an "Egyptian Army Officer"? Wouldn't he have to show how it was legally transferred to him? It still sounds like the coin is illegal to own because provenance was not legally transferred? Evidently, there was a lot of money to be shared by many people to legally transfer ownership to an "Egyptian Army Officer".
    eddiespin likes this.
  12. eddiespin

    eddiespin Fast Eddie

    This is all after the coin showed up. Of course we know where it went from there, nobody took their eyes off it.
    There's where this needs to be. A simple receipt would do wonders, here.
    GoldFinger1969 likes this.
  13. Bluntflame

    Bluntflame Well-Known Member

    Holy crap, that's a lot of moola.
    GoldFinger1969 likes this.
  14. GoldFinger1969

    GoldFinger1969 Well-Known Member

    Agreed, but I don't think that Nasser's revolutionaries were in the habit of giving receipts for coins and collectibles to Western Imperialists. :D

    Pretty sure they didn't take any smartphone pics, either. :D
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page