1933 St. Gaudens News

Supreme Court declines to hear the case involving 10 1933 double eagles
That means that the coins remain the property of the federal government and not the family who found them
By William T. Gibbs , Coin World
Published : 04/21/17

The U.S. Supreme Court will not take up the case involving ownership of 10 1933 Saint-Gaudens $20 double eagles, meaning the coins will remain the property of the federal government.

edited - copyright


http://www.coinworld.com/news/us-coins/2017/04/supreme-court-declines-1933-double-eagle-case.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I agree. They knew it was going to be a long legal battle. There was not a need to ever say they had 10 coins. The lawyers won.

 

At the very least the family should receive a hefty reward. Maybe 5-10 % of the estimated value. Which could be very hefty. But again, no good deed goes unpunished.

 

What a long tough struggle.
And the legal fees?

 

The families lawyer probably took it for the publicity and on contingency, as for the government lawyers, we paid them.

 

And that would amount to 40 dollars or so.

 

Sounds about right for our Treasury department. Then, the mint attempts to sell us one oz. coins (gold Lib.) for almost $1600

 

These coins have a special place in the lore of collecting. I would hope that some of them can be displayed from time to time so the public can see them.

But as far as ownership goes, the coins were swiped from the federal government. And legal pyrotechnics aside, all that happened here is that the legal owner of the coins reclaimed them.

 

What does this do to the "one" that was legally purchased for millions of dollars when it was thought there weren't any more out there ?

 

If it was in my possession, it sure wouldn't be in the US.

 

I don't think the feds can get that one.

 

Smart thing for the gov'mint to do would be place 3-5 in museums (Smithsonian already has two), and sell the rest. Would add quite a few million $ to federal coffers.

Cal

 

I got the impression that a good deed had nothing to do with this. The family wanted to have "their property" authenticated for possible sale. Arrogant or stupid or both?

 

I understand the government's point, it is their property. However, what is the harm of letting collectors own these? If I found one I'd keep my mouth shut!

 

The government has a vested interest in discouraging pilfering from the Mint. While it may not always be successful initially, maintaining legal ownership of unreleased coins (such as in this case through court action) is a way of doing that.

 

I still think of the guy that paid 7 or 8 million, a record then I believe, for the "only" one. Then find out there's a dozen more. Ouch.
(Correct me if I'm wrong about any of this.) Working with poor memory.

 

There are fourteen generally known to exist. Two exist in the Smithsonian and have for decades. There is the King Farouk coin, which is legally in private hands, and the ten Langbord coins, which the government has reclaimed. There is one in hands unknown to the general public and government; however, pictures of it have been published.

There are rumors of additional coins in private hands.

Cal

 

I'm still astounded that they even admitted to having more than one. What were they thinking?

Cal

 

As I said earlier, all I can think of is arrogance and/or stupidity. Greed in there perhaps? Even admitting to having one probably would have triggered an investigation to see if they had others. And sending them to the government for verification? DUH!