A question about safety deposit boxes

I guess you and I just disagree about the chilling effect of this legislation. I have read from Bowers and other authors many coin dealers of this era would not touch gold, saying "its illegal". If coin dealers don't even realize its not illegal, what would normal people think? Banks might accept it for face value, but the point was no one wished to use it in transactions since there was this air of worry around the use of it. Look at the Treasury rule now on cents and nickels. Its not a law, has not been upheld in any court I have heard of, yet no smelter in this country openly defies it.

You have said before the restrictions were no big deal, there was plenty of gold people could keep. Yet, if that was the case, why did 99% of gold dated 1880-1933 residing in this country end up in bricks in Ft Knox? My opinion is simply the chilling effect of the law basically intimidated the masses into turning all of their gold in, whether they had the "right" to own it or not. Same would happen if the same law, (or a broader one covering silver), were passed today.

Just my opinion.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Darn, I'm only vulnerable to fire. You win.

Stash them there. Just without their knowing.:devil:

:too-funny::too-funny:

 

Certainly in 2006, there was a law against melting that made it as far as the Federal Register; whether it finally became part of USC, I don't know:

United States Mint Moves to Limit Exportation & Melting of Coins ​

Interim Rule Goes Into Effect Immediately

​

WASHINGTON — The United States Mint has implemented regulations to limit the exportation, melting, or treatment of one-cent (penny) and 5-cent (nickel) United States coins, to safeguard against a potential shortage of these coins in circulation. The United States Mint is soliciting public comment on the interim rule, which is being published in the Federal Register.


Prevailing prices of copper, nickel and zinc have caused the production costs of pennies and nickels to significantly exceed their respective face values. The United States Mint also has received a steady flow of inquiries from the public over the past several months concerning the metal value of these coins and whether it is legal to melt them.
"We are taking this action because the Nation needs its coinage for commerce," said Director Ed Moy. "We don't want to see our pennies and nickels melted down so a few individuals can take advantage of the American taxpayer. Replacing these coins would be an enormous cost to taxpayers."


Specifically, the new regulations prohibit, with certain exceptions, the melting or treatment of all one-cent and 5-cent coins. The regulations also prohibit the unlicensed exportation of these coins, except that travelers may take up to $5 in these coins out of the country, and individuals may ship up to $100 in these coins out of the country in any one shipment for legitimate coinage and numismatic purposes. In all essential respects, these regulations are patterned after the Department of the Treasury's regulations prohibiting the exportation, melting, or treatment of silver coins between 1967 and 1969, and the regulations prohibiting the exportation, melting, or treatment of one-cent coins between 1974 and 1978.


The new regulations authorize a fine of not more than $10,000, or imprisonment of not more than five years, or both, against a person who knowingly violates the regulations. In addition, by law, any coins exported, melted, or treated in violation of the regulation shall be forfeited to the United States Government.

[December 14, 2006]

 

Yes sir, a regulation. Is a departmental regulation the status of law? I thought laws had to be passed by the legislative bodies and signed by the executive branch. So, a department passes a regulation, I have not heard any cases challenging it, (even though in other cases the courts have ruled coins to be personal property), and now everyone obeys it. Heck, people even ask me if cleaning a cent would be illegal nowadays, or carving a hobo nickel.

So, just a minor governmental agency implementing a regulation has a chilling enough effect to change all of America. It just illustrates how big a chilling effect any such regulation, let alone Executive Order, would have.

 

I haven't been responding to your posts to necessarily discuss the affect of the Executive Orders. Rather, I have been addressing inaccurate statements or board based assertions in your posts. We have had two recent threads where these have been written so it may appear as though I am following you or nitpicking, but I am attempting to inject some information from the sources that are being discussed.

In the Cyprus thread you wrote that during the 1930s the US passed a law that made gold ownership illegal; this is wrong and I provided the correct Executive Order so it could be verified. You additionally stated that the public was forced to sell their gold to the government at a fixed price. Again, this is incorrect since there were very large exemptions that allowed all manner of folks to legally hold gold. Of course, those who brought gold to banks were paid a fixed price for gold, but gold was kept at a fixed price worldwide during this time and for generations prior. Lastly, you stated that anyone attempting to barter with gold was arrested, yet I can find no historical accounts that support this claim.

In this thread you have stated that gold was essentially illegal to use or sell and again this is not true. It could be used openly in commerce, but would be siphoned off by the banks upon deposit. You also state that 99% of all gold coinage dated 1880-1933 was melted and placed into For Knox. For that statement I would love to see supporting references because I have never read it anywhere prior to here and find it an amazing thing to assert.

I'm not attempting to be a Richard Cranium, but I have encountered myriad folks on various coin boards who state broad claims that follow lines such as Roosevelt emptied all the SDBs in the country; locked up thousands for using a quarter-eagle at the store; and raided the life savings of folks without compensation. I simply attempt to use the publicly available resources to show what the Executive Orders stated and to write what few known actions were taken against individuals.

 

Some 80 years later, it doesn't matter. What happened then has ABSOLUTELY no bearing on what may happen when hyperinflation comes. There's nothing to learn from the "past" in this case; just try to protect your purchasing power and weather a 10-year storm. It's the clueless, and those in abject denial, who will suffer most.

 

I would disagree with all of those things as well sir.

Regarding making gold illegal, it allowed small holdings of gold, or "numismatic" holdings, (undefined). You claim the amount allowed was large, yet Ft Knox was basically created by the melted down coins. Doesn't sound like the population was allowed to keep their gold much. Sure, a ditch digger couldn't afford 10 ounces, but many sure could and more, and yet not much was passed down. I have read articles in NN, ANA Journal, etc detailing how large the amount of late gold coins only survive because of European and Asian hordes. They say many dates may not exist at all if it were not for these coins brought back overseas in the late 70's.

Regarding pricing, "worldwide" it was not a static price, in markets allowed to float. This is why Nixon eventually had to close the gold window. However, you still would only give you face value. To me that is not allowing you to sell the gold at true market value.

Regarding the bartering issue, if you are not allowed to hold very much gold, and exceeded it, you were breaking the law. I do not believe I ever claimed I knew of someone being arrested.

The main point is the chilling effect of such an Executive Order. Like I said numerous writers have talked about how even some dealers refused to buy or sell gold. We have this today with just a stupid minor governmental agency's regulation. Because of this, no smelter in the country will pay you market value for copper cents. This is just a regulation, imagine what the population would do if it were an executive order or a law passed by Congress.

I do not think you are beng a richard sir, I simply believe we have vastly different opinions on the power of the fear induced by such regulations. We have an honest disagreement is how I view it.

 

They are not fdic insured

 

Neither is a house safe, especially if someone knows you have it so either comes prepared or simply performs a home invasion.

I read about one a few months ago, saying they robbed them of about $80,000 in PM and coins. Looking around my SDB, that not a whole lot of money in PM and coins nowadays. It might be more than I have, but not by a whole lot.

 

Looks to be an impasse. Can't trust a bank and it's hard to keep that much money in commodities in the house because of unscrupulous people. Nor is pulling a National Lampoons, and burying the cash in jars in the Las Vegas desert is safe anymore.

 

There's a big difference in a house safe, you can take out riders on anything in your house, with your homeowner insurance

 

Great example of why you should not try to apply information on the laws of State X to a situation in State Y.

The linked article would have been precisely correct in California when I started practicing law in the '60s; but since repeal of the the State Inheritance Tax decades ago, it absolutely doesn't apply.