Mint Seek Return Of 1974-D Aluminum cent

Bummer.

I guess the Pattern Coin Defense is needed now.

How the heck do you prove that something was given to you as a gift??
Find workers that worked there when he did?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Weren't a lot of the "old patters" (19th century) actually sold to the public? I was under the understanding that this is why they are readily available yet no recent patters are. If that is the case, the "pattern defense" won't work.

 

Its because of the rariety, only 1 known, for the 74-D

 

well, I think its the rariety, only 1 known, but someone could get in trouble, and get some sanctions, against theses 2 guys, and their foolish lawyer, remember a hearing was already done on this matter, their tring to get back in front of the same judge, that demissed the case, briefs were filed, oral arguments were heard, judge won't be happy

 

I don't think it has anything to do with the rarity. The 1993 Double Eagles aren't as rare as the 1913 nickel and that hasn't stopped them.

 

There are some considerations that need to be made with the coin in question. According to the CoinWorld article, the Mint found no records authorizing the production of the aluminum cents at the Denver facility. The die setter who claimed to have made "10-12" of the aluminum cents at Denver said that the foreman told him to strike them. After striking, the coins and remaining planchets were given to the foreman, who died in 1988.

The problem lies in the fact that most of the "players" are deceased, leaving one man (Benito Martinez, the die setter) as the sole witness to attest to the striking of the coins. With no Mint records of the coins, either as issues nor test/pattern coins, the US Mint is claiming that the property is essentially stolen.

Any argument that the Mint doesn't have right to custody, due to the lack of records of production, are without merit, since the various scenarios boil out to either:

1) The coins were struck on planchets that were never authorized for Denver Mint cents.
OR
2) The coins are counterfeit.

In either case, the US Mint has a right to request a return of the coins, as neither case allows for the legal possession of the coins. Now, if it turns out the Mint lost the records over time, that's unfortunate, but without documentation of custody for the coins, the assumption is they weren't authorized.

The difference between the 1974-d and Toven cents are that the Mint did make the Toven cent. It's not really logical to argue precedent for ownership of the Denver cent based upon the Toven cent, since the Mint could simply turn around and tell the Toven family to return the coin or allow for the custodial transfer of ownership from the member of Congress.

All of that said, I don't think the Toven cent is legal to own, either. By his own admission, Toven attempted to return a dime to the member of Congress. The Congressperson then said something to the effect of "It's okay. You can keep it." Later, Toven realized that the "dime" was actually a penny and decided to stash it away, since it might be quite valuable. The moment that Toven realized it was possibly a valuable cent and not an ordinary dime, he should have gone back to the member of Congress and offered to return it a second time. After all, ownership of an ordinary dime was transferred/withdrawn, not ownership of a cent that was supposed to be reviewed and returned to the US Mint.

Back to the Denver cent, without documentation of an official order to strike the coins, the die setter effectively made unauthorized coins at the Mint. Since he claimed to be following the orders of a deceased foreman, reasonable doubt would be cast upon his guilt of counterfeiting. After all, if he was told by his boss to do it, he wouldn't have a lot of reason to be suspicious of the coins, which he assumed were returned to the Mint's HQ.

So, without record of the coins being minted officially, that leaves at least three potential individuals who authorized the striking of the coins without official documentation from the Mint:

1) Harry Bobay, Martinez's foreman at the Denver facility.
2) Harry Edmond Lawrence, the assistant/deputy superintendent of the Denver facility.
3) The superintendent of the Denver facility.

The problem with this is that all three are deceased, leaving no one to verify the authority to strike the coins, nor what happened to the coins & planchets after they were struck.

The assumption is that the US government owns the coins unless proof of transfer of custody exists.

This argument holds due to the rarity of the issue. If it's one of "10-12" that were struck, the die setter says that he gave them to his foreman, and there's no one alive to counter that statement, the assumption is that all examples are either property of the US Government or were destroyed by the Government. This isn't changed by the fact that the Government has sold pattern coins in the past, released errors into circulation, allowed release of test nickels, sold gold coins that later had counterfeit versions stolen, etc. The title held by the Government remains intact.

Think of it this way:

A famous painter dies at a relatively young age, and is known to have created 20 masterworks in their lifetime, all of which are in museums. For whatever reason, the artist liked to paint on the back of Someone comes along with a painting that looks similar in stroke and style to said painter and claims that it was gifted to their grandmother, who was a young lover of the artist, and passed down through their family. The family of the artist questions the legality of the painting, citing that all 20 known pieces that the artist made are on loan to museums worldwide, and the artist never told anyone in the family that they gave away one of their creations.

Now, while the story of the gift is somewhat romantic, it is still, without some documentation of transfer to establish a custodial start to provenance, a story. When the item goes up for auction, it might still receive a high price (if any auction house were to allow the consignment), even with the questions of origin, but market value has no bearing on legality of the piece itself.

 

By that logic all clipped planchet coins and off metal planchet coins are also all still government property and subject to seizure because no underweight planchets or coins struck on off metal (such as cent struck on dime planchets) were authorized either.

The real question as I see it is, is there ANY chance or possibility that a cent could have been struck on an aluminum planchet by accident? At the time San Francisco WAS striking coins on aluminum planchets of that size. These planchets were made by an outside firm. If this firm also made cent planchets (and I do not know if they did, this is just supposition on my part) then it could be possible for an aluminum planchet to have gotten mixed in with cent planchets sent to Denver. If so in that case this COULD be an off-metal error and legal.

As for the Toven coin, the Congressman had no legal right to give the coin to Toven as it did not belong to him either. He could not transfer ownership of something he did not own. As long as the Toven coin remains "private" and changes hands if ever privately, then it is probably safe. But if it is ever offered at public auction the government will probably try and recover it. If it is specifically brought to their attention. The 1933 double eagles traded hands openly for years and were even publicly advertised for sale for years before one went to public auction in 1944 and someone actually asked the government why such a recent gold coin was worth such a high premium. That brought it to their attention and started the confiscations.

 

That's not really what I meant, but I see your point. My point would be that the clipped and wrong planchet coins were released into circulation. If someone "finds" a 1974-d aluminum cent through circulation channels, that would change my opinion on the legality of possession, but, as the story has been presented, the coins, if we can call them that, still belong to the US government.

 

instead of hoarding copper cents people will hoard these aluminum cents if they are produced. I think that instead of changing the material of the cent they should think more about getting rid of the cent in today's economy it is not needed, there is only a desire by collectors to buy the latest slabbed ones.

 

I think you meant to say that they never released any.

Obviously they made them, or they would be fake [imaginary] coins.

 

Here is the cent the Smithsonian has in its collection:

http://collections.si.edu/search/tag/tagDoc.htm?recordID=nmah_1100391&hlterm=numismatics+america

 

his brother will soon be next to him

 

That's an interesting point since the US Mint never made any 1965 Dimes on 90% Silver planchet stock yet they exist. They also didn't make 1965 Washington Quarters in 90% Silver yet those exist.

Since there is no record of test strikes for a 1974 Lincoln in Aluminum at the Denver Facility, maybe this one is actually an error coin and legal to own through some quirky planchet problem??

 

it is very hard to amend a summons & complaint, after ever thing has been heard on this matter, now they need the defendant ok, and the courts, all because this matter was already decided

 

No I meant what I said. Officially according to all of their records they never made any. And their position is that they never made any, and they never intended to make any. (And it isn't the only coin they never officially made that actually exists.)

 

If the mint freely and openly admits that they didn't make it, how can they claim ownership?

 

Their equipment was used to make it. Conversion of government property for personal gain.

 

agreed, thats why the courts ruled for the defendant, its not like their tring to appeal the judges decision, their tring to amend the summons & complaint, I'd say if their not careful, judge could come down hard on theses 2 guys, and their foolish lawyer

 

Where is the cent now? What if the courts order the return of the coin and the possessor says it has been lost or stolen? Or how about the possessor simply refuses to return it. I suppose they would be arrested and incarcerated. Wouldn't that be something.

How long do you think the jail sentence is for such a "crime"?

 

not sure on how much time, but I know for sure 1 charge would be contempt