GoldFinger1969

I'll have to check it out....anybody discussing the theft of the bag of 1928 Saints ?

The Mint/government says the coins are "national treasures" -- as such, I think the Langbord's (and Switt) should be thanked/rewarded by splitting the 10 coins. Of course, if the government hadn't melted all of the Saints over the years into gold bars, had they saved a few dozen of each year/mint or a few hundred, then this whole issue would be moot. I don't think my argument is spurious, KB. I believe the facts and the evidence show that the stronger argument is that the coins were NOT obtained illegally though I grant you I can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt (and ditto for the government's position, too). The Mint and their attorney's kept saying the coins were "stolen" but that is ridiculous. Me personally....I think they were exchanged in late-1936 or early-1937 when it was clear all the coins were to be melted....I believe that the FMV of a 1933 back then was $250-$300 or so.....so it was a very nice score if you could obtain some 1933's for older dates. I think someone did -- was this ILLEGAL ? Maybe, maybe not. And if the exchange was done in 1933, almost certainly not. Would a Mint employee be punished for doing this exchange (assuming they didn't get higher-up permission) ? Probably....but would the recipient of the coins be in possession of stolen government property ? I don't think so. The government didn't care if a particular year or mint was in circulation.....they cared about the total gold balance held by the government. But "stolen" ? No way. Stolen means 10 ounces of gold was missing. The government's fail-proof records say that didn't happen. Of course, they once said that bag of 1928 Saints was all present and accounted for, too.

Right, an export license that the government didn't know about. So they are trying to get the coin back and throw Fenton in jail (criminal + civil penalties) and meanwhile he's done NOTHING wrong and the exculpatory document is in the government's hand -- and they don't know about it. Oh, and they got the 1st date of minting for the 1933's wrong, too. Oh yeah, someone stole an entire bag (250 coins @ $5,000) from The Vault. No leads, nobody ever nailed, coins never found. And THOSE are the guys you trust have "complete and thorough" records on the disbursement of the 1933's ? You don't think the fact that the coins had appreciated 100-fold in 11 years and the benefits were flowing to coin collectors and dealers, groups probably politically opposed to FDR (despite their geographic and demographic backgrounds) entered into the equation ? It's not that my mind is made up, KB. It's that the government's case pales in comparisions to the facts and they LIED from the time they got the coins from Roy Langbord for authentication. And as soon as they had the coins, they started reading Roy his Miranda Rights, apparently. The Farouk Coin "accidentally" got an export license, but we're supposed to believe that a legitimate -- or even quasi-legitimate (after April 12th, 1933) -- exchange didn't happen with Switt ? Unless the Mint can show me that he actually STOLE the coins -- a word (STOLE) they used repeatedly -- then no, my mind IS made up that the government is lying and I also think the government's could reverse its position on the coins if given information and a reason (note yesterday the government is going after Yale for discriminating against whites and Asian-Americans after decades of coercing such discrimation). Better late than never !!

A 1/10th ounce Kruggerand from 1982. I used it with my tuition refund from college !! Sorry, no pic available now.

When was gold set at $20.67/oz. ?

Bought at FUN earlier this year: Could not afford an MS67 but thought about stretching for an MS66+ or MS66 CAC...bought another Saint with the savings instead.

In other words....total BS. I'm not surprised.

The judges ruling according to various sources were key in determining what was and not allowed in the court room. And while I would grant you that the judge isn't the #1 factor, he's a close #2. And yes, Berke might have done a better job (the judge at one time warned him he was losing the jury with too many angles and legal arguments) but in the end if you say that 10 gold coins were stolen, you better be able to prove/show that 10 ounces of gold are missing. The Feds didn't. And that's my main beef with their arguments. That and their duplicitous lying about reaching a settlement with the Langbord's while never intending to pursue such a settlement. Hope you won your DOJ case. The government has been as devious and duplicitous in applying the 1964 CRA as they have the law with the Saints.

Well.....with a biased, lousy-reputation judge with an inflated sense of his own self worth leading the case....a jury of non-coin collectors not aware of numismatic or mint specifics....and sleazy federal prosecutors trolling on message board posters looking for "dirt" on witnesses....I'm not surprised. I'd be more likely to believe the government proved their case 51% of the way if they knew when the damn coins had 1st been struck (March 2nd, not March 15th as they kept insisting). And if they hadn't lost 250 1928 Saints without a clue, then spent lots of time and effort lobbying Congress to remove personal liability for the stolen coins. If the coins weren't worth $2,000 or so in 1944 when Howard was contacted by the reporter, nobody would have cared. This case is more about government incomeptence, jealousy, and envy than it is Mint procedures for distributing new coins.

Well, I disagree. Neither side could prove beyond a reasonable doubt HOW the coins were obtained, just like the Farouk Coin. They should have been split, IMO. A dangerous precedent has been set when you can't absolutely ascertain with 100% certitude how coins were received.

Forget the legal arguments....do you believe, in light of the 50-50 split of the Farouk Coin, that the government was entitled to ALL 10 of the Switt-Langbord Coins ? That's my problem with that whole case, not the legal mumbo-jumbo.

Is it that high ? I thought it was lower...maybe it's moved up as silver has appreciated $10-$12 in the last year or so. I'll take your word for it as I only buy here or there. Whatever it is, I guess it's inflated currently. Probably will settle down when silver is less volatile and/or the Mint is able to churn out more coins.

SCOTUS was never going to get involved in a property dispute. They deal with constitutional issues. What's their hearing a case rate.....2% of all appeals ? Probably a fraction of that. It was always a Hail Mary.....a Hail Mary akin to the winless Tampa Bay Bucs of 1976 or 1977 backed up on their 1 yard line with 2 seconds left going up against the Pittsburgh Steelers defense.

Yes, I think we were talking different things....this premium on ASEs is at the heart of the matter. I guess normally it's $1-$2 and now it's closer to $5-$7. As long as the SLV ETF tracks spot silver, it's a good "hedge" to buy the metal and not pay the inflated premium.

Or de-merits.

We're not talking about PM's being a hedge against other financial investments, Kurt....I'm talking about using ETFs to hedge/lock-in the current price of the metal. I make no judgement on the wisdom of the purchase, I'm simply giving a factual analysis of locking in the current price. It may turn out to be a great purchase or a lousy purchase. I'm just talking about locking in the price and NOT paying the temporarily inflated premium.

Yes, I am aware of that....but since the trial judge had pretty much determined who was going to win -- "Heads the government wins, Tails the Langbord's lose" -- the CAFRA decision was pretty much irrelevant, IMO. I think it is pretty clear that personal and professional animus to dealers -- who were suddently in possession of coins worth 100x face value and equal to an entire year's salary at the Mint (or a good portion) -- explains the 1944 obsession in tracking down the 1933's. That and being embarassed by having an entire bag (250 coins) of 1928's get swiped from right under their noses. Regardless of that particular section (< 5 pages) and one's view on the Switt-Langbord 1933's.....I think the rest of the book is outstanding and especially the die and variety information was fascinating.

I'm assuming this isn't a speculation, just someone who wants to hold silver or gold at the current prices. That's all we're discussing....not whether it's going to turn out to be a good investment/speculation or not. Since silver coins especially are detached from the price of silver via the premium and since that premium can be highly volatile at times, buying SLV is a good way to hedge. Nothing more, nothing less.

I think the price guides dating back to the mid-1970's were spectacular in the book. Seeing the TREND over multiple decades was more important to me than whether the recent quotes (up to 2015) were very close to FMV or just in the ballpark -- or sometimes not even near the off-ramp to the ball park. I'll post back when I check the book and the Saint years you cited, but don't forget that the prices in the book I believe come from Heritage's own archives. PCGS and NGC, as I understand it, will try and use actual sales from HA/Stacks/other online/etc....they may "massage" the final figures or not. Do you throw out outliers that are high and/or low ? There's alot that can go into determining a price, since no 2 coins are exactly alike, and as you stated, sometimes coins don't trade that often.

Well, we can agree that Roger's book is THE BIBLE on Saints.

Great thoughts Q....yes, a great thread, hopefully I can report back using the book to help me select some Saints down the line. If gold continues to rise, and then steadies, it will be very interesting to see how Saints react price-wise.

If the buyer was going to buy COINS at $31 or $32 a coin....but the price (with silver at $30/oz).......was $35 or $37 or some outrageous number......this is a good hedge. You locked in the metal at a price you wanted to buy the coins at. If silver is $30/oz. and ASE's are $31 or $32 normally.....but instead they sell for $35-$37.....then buy the ETF (SLV) and don't buy the coins until the PREMIUM normalizes. Whatever happens to the bulk of the price move in the coins (excluding the premium) will be reflected in the ETF. So again....you're hedged. I guess we can tell who's the financial and ETF guy on this thread, huh ?

(1) Whatever the premium is...$1, $2, $5....I'm just talking about it expanding because of either a silver spike or a production problem at The Mint. And using an ETF to lock-in and hedge. (2) Yes, but you made $10 a share on the ETF so the "net cost" of the coins is $31 or whatever is spot plus the normal premium. (3) Yes, that's a hedge....regardless of whether silver (or SLV) moves up $10/ounce.....you're locked in at $31/ounce or whatever the price was.

I just used it as an example, Kurt. I don't buy ASEs regularly so I don't know what a "normal" or "inflated" premium to spot silver is. I'm just saying buy SLV (or GLD) is a good way to lock in the current price of a PM in a simple, cost-effective manner....that's all.

501(c)-3's, clubs, charitable and professional organizations -- they all need endowments and foundations to support themselves during the lean times. I'm on the board of a tax-exempt that will suffere a 75-90% drop in income this year and we are all volunteers.