NGC certifies the 10 Langbord 1933 Saints

The Langbord Double Eagles didn't surface until 2005.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I think the 10 Langbord coins became public knowledge in 2005, whereas the auction of the one coin took place in 2002. I might be off by a bit on my dates, but clearly, the existence of the 10 coins was unknown at the time the auction took place.

 

No shortage of answers on that one!

 

Doesn't help a whole lot, just really gives background info of some things I already knew, but it is nice to refresh my memory.
So these surfaced after that one coin was bought for 7.59 million. Makes more sense...

Only thing I would have to add, is that a settlement would need to be reached on returning some, if not all coins, to the Lanbords. Is it really that big of a deal to the government... What would they do with this gold anyway, melt it? It has more numismatic purpose, and I think they should give that old law up... Yes, they weren't released by the government, but some 76 years later, they are still on the hunt and hungry for these coins to be in their possession?

 

I doubt it. If my memory serves me correctly, during the confiscations from decades ago, there were conversations with various parties which produced an estimate as to how many other examples had originally been obtained by Izzy Swift, and which were still unaccounted for. And I think that number was less than 15.

Also, if it were to be discovered that the family withheld some of the coins, they wouldn't be able to go into court with "clean hands" and be portrayed as innocent, law abiding citizens who have done nothing wrong.

Lastly, if they do have other 1933 Saints, think how difficult it would be for them to ever sell one clandestinely from this point, on.

 

What it does say in answer to your question of when is;

 

So coins found in 2003... Surfaced in 2005...
Must have been quite a long time or researching and pondering of whether to bring them to the public or not...

 

Depending on just what your definition of "surfaced" is. Here are the dates given by wiki;

In August 2005, the U.S. Secret Service announced the recovery of ten additional stolen 1933 Double Eagle gold coins[1] from the family of Philadelphia jeweler Israel Switt, the illicit coin dealer identified by the Secret Service as a party to the theft who admitted selling the first nine double eagles recovered a half century earlier. In September 2004, the coins' ostensible owner, Joan S. Langbord, voluntarily surrendered the 10 coins to the United States Secret Service. In July 2005, the coins were authenticated by the United States Mint, working with the Smithsonian Institution, as being genuine 1933 Double Eagles. Currently, the coins are held at Fort Knox under lock and key.

 

Yes, that seems clear now. My bad. Thanks for the clarification, Mark !

Which raises the question of "the government's language". What sort of discussion did they have about the uniqueness of the 2002 coin, since there were no others known with certainty to exist ? Apparently the notion of the possibility of other coins occurred to someone. Maybe there were rumors. Perhaps, for whatever reason, the buyers were concerned about the possibility of more turning up and diluting the value of their investment.

That is true with many of these 7 digit rarities.

For example, 1927-D Saints. Heritage alone shows two coins sold for more than $1 million, in spite of a mintage of 180,000. While that's a fairly low mintage for Saints, it certainly doesn't justify a tag of $1.89 million. The coin is spendy due to low survival rate; total population NGC + PCGS = 13.

Would buyer be eligible for rebate if a cache of 30 or 40 more were found and the value dropped ?

We can say "it's a far cry" 'twixt that and the 1933, and there's some merit to that. But there's not enough distance for me personally. But that's just me.

Can those with legal background give us some insight ?

 

I would bet that no guarantees or representations, whatsoever, have been made to buyers of 1927-D Saints. So there is no way they would be entitled to anything, regardless of how many additional examples surfaced. I wish I could find the language used by the government with respect to the 1933 Saint that was auctioned. I believe that if you were to read it, you'd agree that there is be plenty of "distance" involved.

 

There is a major difference between the two. The government has not tried to control the number of 1927-D's available. Both the government and the seller were apparently in the belief that there would never be another available to the public because the government had outlawed the 1933's. So, yes, "it's a far cry" 'twixt that and the 1933.

 

This would be my guess also. If the government did in fact assure the purchaser that it would be the only legal example...then I'm sure a lawsuit will ensue.

 

It is a bit unclear to me what the Fenton owner's cause of action would be, Mark. Is it a breach of contract against the government? Based on a warranty? Promissory estoppel? Unjust enrichment? Anything other than a breach of contract sounds a bit illusory to me and there are also government immunity issues (a plaintiff cannot just go into state court and sue the U.S. government).

I am not questioning your opinion because you know the facts and I do not. The owner of the Fenton piece is likely monitoring the Langbord litigation and may even have already raised his or her rights in communications with the government.

 

If the Langbord and/or other examples become legal to own, I believe that it could be fairly argued that the buyer of the Fenton coin relied to his detriment on representations that were made by the government as to the unique status of that particular coin. Said another/shorter way - breach of contract. I would be stunned if there haven't been discussions between an attorney for the owner of the Fenton coin and the government.

 

Per Numismatic news, they were not discovered until 2003 and the government was not contacted until 2004 per Wiki. Not too sure how much I credit Wiki, but I see no reason to doubt Numismatic News.

 

That sounds about right, but what point are you trying to make with respect to my post that preceded your? Thanks.

 

Sorry. I misread your quote.

 

Mark, I agree with you that the Fenton coin owner, if he has 7 million to spend on a coin, has a lawyer. That lawyer better be looking at the following issues: 1. statute of limitations (the auction was held in '02; many statute of limitations relating to contracts are 4 or 6 years, depending on the jurisdiction); 2. government immunities to many tort actions; 3. the terms of the contract between the seller and buyer. As you say, there is likely a fair argument but there are some possible hurdles.:whistle:

 

No problem. At least I'm not confused now. Thanks.

 

Agreed, Not to mention, the language used by the governemnt might have been ambiguous enough to keep them out of trouble.