1964-D Peace Dollar $10,000.00 Reward

Because, according the goobers, these things were never supposed to exist. They were all supposed to be melted.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

remember to send me one if you get 2. ok?

 

interesting. yet its like saying its illeagle to own a 1913 V nickel. or a 1909 s vdb cent.

 

Almost the same clause in legislation passed in 1933

73d Congress Sess I Chs 48, 49 June 5,6 1933 pg 133

All coins and currencies of the United States (including Federal Reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal Reserve banks and national banking associations) heretofore or hereafter coined or issued, shall be legal tender for all debts, public and private, public charges, taxes, duties, and dues

So half cents became legal tender in 1933 and the trade dollar regained it's legal tender status.


Still being legal tender has nothing to do with being legal to own.

 

Perhaps there is a way to distinguish "legal to own" from "illegal to own".

Many pattern coins, including the 1974 aluminum cent, were transferred from government to private hands through legal channels. Granted, the transferers may have expected the transferees to return them on demand, but absent a specific statutory requirement to do so, the latter could legally retain them, and also legally transfer them to others.

According to the government, there was never a circumstance whereby a 1933 $20 gold piece (excepting the one owned by King Farouk), or a 1964 D silver dollar could have been legally transferred to a private party.

Pattern coins, favor coins (like the 1913 Liberty Head nickel), restrikes and the like, may have dubious origins, but there is no obvious reason to declare all of them illegal to own. The government claim that this not the case for the two specific coins being discussed in no way affects the legal status of all the others.

 

I see that some people are not big enough to admit when they are wrong! :foot-mouth:

First, the “Coinage Act of 1965” in Section 102 states clearly, “All coins and currencies of the United States, regardless of when coined or issued, shall be legal tender for all debts, public and private.....” The key point I want to make at this time is “regardless of when coined or issue” (just one or the other but both is not required.) As long as the US Mint coined the item it does not matter if they issued it to collectors or for commerce, it is legal tender.

Second, you say: “There is a huge difference between monetizing a coin and making a coin legal tender.” Are you series? Maybe you should check your facts. I will call your attention, just to keep it simple; I will link a web page here for the online Merriam – Webster dictionary defining what the word “monetize” means: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monetize .

You will notice that according to the dictionary, MONETIZE means: “to coin into money; also : to establish as legal tender” Imagine that, “To establish as legal tender” is to monetize?

Third, you say: “But it must be issued by the mint! If it was not, then it was not monetized.” I hope it is understandable the verbage used in Section 102 of the “Coinage Act of 1965” uses the word or between coined and issue so only one has to be established not both.

Ownership is a different subject.

So here ends the lesson: :devil:

 

For the record, the 1974 aluminum cent was manufacture or coined after the "Coinage Act of 1965". I know that the Secret Service says they will confiscate any 1974 aluminum cent found but I notice that they didn’t go after the one donated to the Smithsonian. Just because an employee of the Government says something doesn’t make it true. If I remember correctly, President Obama said the mandatory health insurance wasn’t a tax but the Supreme Court said it was.

As far as the ’33 double eagles are concerned, the case is still in the appeal process and like I said before:

About the first sentence in my last post, you just made my point, again. :devil:

 

1st I never thought this would get so deep!! to me that a good thing as Knowledge is being shared !!!
2nd Hey Maybe we can talk 1 real or more real 1964-D that never got melted out that 1 Big If too!:devil:

I recall Izzy saying in the 1st SS interview February ?? day I can not recall as the so many reports Facts that can not be proved.Why the Jury said No ???? 140+pages or a book for them just evidence.
If their a new Court action they can take or afford?> Real page my be here @ this link if you can dig better or find a missing page.?:yes:. http://www.loc.gov/index.html

 

Jello, the 1933 double eagles were not struck until late Feb and continued through I believe Mid April (It is interesting that mintage continued even after it was no longer legal for them to be distributed.)

Caleb, you seem to stressing strongly that they would be "monitized" and/or legal tender simply because they were coined. No argument to that, but for them to be legal to OWN thy would have to be issued, probably officially issued in some form. The 1964-D peace dollar was struck and so it is legal tender, but it was not issued and so is not legal to own. As to this comment

Why should they go after it, it is still in government hands. The Government owns the Smithsonian.

 

As I said before, “ownership is a different subject.”

Who says it was not issued? Tom DeLorey started a thread over on PCGS’ message board which is kind of interesting. http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=26&threadid=886005

So were the 1964-D Peace dollars issued, even for a few hours? We may never know, but it is fun to think about.

As to this comment

This is a whole different story. Were the 1974 aluminum cents dispersed by mint officials? How were they handed out? Why does the Government still think they have ownership (hopefully not just because they say so)? If the members of the House of Representatives and U.S. Senate were required to turn the coins back in, why were there no prosecutions for “misappropriation of property” or “theft” for the members that did not?

If the 1974 aluminum cents were just handed out to members of Congress and other dignitaries for the purpose of seeing if the color change and composition would be acceptable with no written or implied condition that they had to be returned to the Government, then I say they were issued. The fact that the Government did not seek any prosecutions at the time weakens their position.

 

please explain with examples if you can. what if a country gets some of its coins minted overseas?

 

In order for them to have been issued they would have had to of left the mint premises. The mint claims they never left the building.

 

I don't think that I'm the one letting the facts get in the way? But I guess you are saying that the Superintendent of the Denver Mint at the time didn’t know what was going on. :devil:

 

Well we know that isn't true.

Two 1964-D Peace dollars were returned to the Mint from Washington in the spring of 1970 for destruction. So if they never left the building, how did they get to Washington DC? :devil:

 

Galaxy Quest Nebulizer? :devil:

 

Ah, I knew there was a reasonable explanation. Thanks for clearing that up Ken

 

no no it was the transporter device that was not working at the time