GoldFinger1969

I found the information on die varieties very interesting but not my favorite part of the book, Roger. It was a bit overwhelming to absorb ALL the information you included in each year's review. However, I will be going back and re-reading sections and those on die varieties I will re-hit. I commend you for your in-depth analysis of Saints. I really hope the book spurs interest in Saints and collecting them (but only after I've been able to buy more for my collection at depressed prices ). Do you know from HA how many copies have been sold ? Or is that information proprietary ?

Ross, I take it from your avatar that you have a 2009 UHR ? I wanted to buy a graded one at FUN but believe it or not didn't find any good deals there. So I bought a modern proof Eagle and my older Saints.

Roger's book is THE AX on die varieties and Saints. I wonder if it will spur new details on that in any subsequent DE or Saint books by Bowers or Akers/Ambio's successor. To swing back to the 1933's just for a second.....did you finish Roger's book, in particular the 1933 section ? Thoughts ?

Ross, congratulations on having NGC recognize the die variety. Do you get credit ?

Congrats, what grade is your 1922-S and when did you get her ? I never understood how they made changes to an existing die using the tools of that era. Did they have really fine files....and do it uner a microscope or magnifying lens ? I mean, most of the changes to dies needed to be a fraction of a millimeter, maybe meaured in microns, and I didn't know we had stuff back then that fine. Certainly, I would think you'd need to have everything enlarged to see what you were doing on a die whose total size was under 2".

KBB, I have never said that Israel Switt was an angel. All I am saying is (1) he got mistreated when his 78 Double Eagles were confiscated (2) he had good reason not to like FDR's gold ban (my ancestors didn't, too) and (3) he clearly didn't break into the Philly Mint and steal the coins. Is it possible that he got them AFTER a nebulous deadline for doing coin-for-coin exchanges ? Sure, I can see that. But my point is even if that was the case, at worst it was a technical violation. Do you think if the Mint or Treasury or FDR himself were told that some guy in Philly gave 25 Saints with datemarks of 1932 and 1931 and got 25 1933's that they would have cared ? Not a bit. Had the Superintendent or head guy at the Philly Mint done this, or William Woodin (who allegedly had at LEAST 5 Sainits according to a dealer at that time), nobody would have batted an eye. Again, who was harmed ? The coins are called "national treasures" today by the Mint. Well, we wouldn't have them without Israel Switt and while I could make the case for 100% ownership, I think a 50-50 split along the lines of the Fenton/Farouk coin would have been a good and fair deal to ALL sides. Instead, the government is a bit full of itself and thinks it should dictate the terms. I disagree strongly.

Bingo, Mark.....OTOH, the Mint says that their records are perfect. OTOH, they clearly let some 1933's leave the Mint. Instead of admitting their records are flawed OR they undertook some coin-for-coin exchanges, they instead come up with the cockamamie "the coins were stolen" excuse. Except NO gold was taken in the aggregate since the books balanced (i.e., 10 ounces weren't missing). Meanwhile....a complete bag of 1928's (250 coins) WERE stolen and their reaction was simply to try and get the head of the Philly Mint off the hook for being personally liable. No interest in finding the thief, finding out how they got stolen, or finding the stolen coins. Just pass legislation to get Dessler off the hook and keep looking for those missing 1933's. Priorities !! Of course, the 1928's have never been worth more than their face value or bullion content. The 1933's were worth a multiple of face value in the 1930's and 1940's.

I think Berke the lawyer screwed up during the initial handover of the coins. He should have had it IN WRITING -- he's a lawyer, for crissakes -- unless they had a signed deal to split the coins or proceeds and that was signed. You don't hand over all the coins based on "feelings" regarding a repeat of the Fenton deal. You don't rely on "your gut" that the coins will be returned. If the Mint wouldn't have signed anything, that was a tell right there. In which case, give them 1 or 2 or 3 coins -- up to 5 -- and say the rest come out when a deal has been made. Had it been me, I would have probably already hidden 5 coins where they'd never find them. Regrettably, Stanton Langbord's faith in the government was misplaced and Israel Switt was proven right. That's why he hid the coins in the first place.

No, I don't. I think they were honest and upfront and thought the govt would be amenable to a 50-50 settlement. And while I have no doubt that Israel Switt may have tried to unload the coins in Europe or in secret, I don't think the Langbord sons wanted to (and certainly not Joan Langbord). It appears the boys acted like their father (who has his own great story, a WW II hero): Stanton Langbord thought the government would do the right thing by the family. His father-in-law, Israel Switt, was apparently the complete opposite and didn't trust the government -- or the Mint. Here's another interesting factoid: Switt may have been hated by the Mint higher-ups, but he was a VIP at the Philly Mint through the 1960's (if he was suspected of being a thief, why wasn't he banned from the Mint ?). The Mint employees apparently gave little Joan free coins in the 1930's when her father took her into the Mint (wonder if the Secret Service is gonna come after those pennies, nickles, and dimes ? ). Switt took his 2 grandsons for tours many times in the 1960's. So the Mint employees apparently liked Israel Switt and his kid and grandkids -- it was the higher-ups who had it in for him.

On your other points.... (1) I think your March 15th date is solid, but I believe the coins could have been sent to the cashier before then. It really depends on if folks thought FDR was going to move on a ban quickly and folks wanted the coins in early-March instead of waiting until mid-March. (2) I agree with you on following laws, I just don't think any laws were broken, I think there were gray areas that occurred and the reaction (confiscation) has been an overreaction. There was never a "NO GOLD COINS LEAVE PHILLY MINT AFTER....." proclamation that would have led to a black/white line in the sand. (3) I'm not sold that McGann and Switt did something ILLEGAL or AGAINST THE RULES, though they may have conspired to take advantage of the mark-up on 1933's. But here's a question....if this wasn't "gold bootlegger" Israel Switt but a Catholic nun who collected coins, does anybody think the Secret Service and Mint employees back then would have cared ? I don't. (4) I agree that Weinman may be a nice guy but he's defending what to me are the Bad Boys (apologies to the 1980's Detroit Pistons ). The manner in which they got the coins from the Langbords -- "open" to a settlement, just wanting to authenticate the coins, etc. -- and then doing a 180.....that's sleazy and underhanded. And what about threatening to arrest Roy Langbord or reading him his Miranda Rights ? They must not have known he was a lawyer. Same thing they pulled on Fenton in the Waldorf sting. And booting Roger from the CCAC ? Wait, let me guess, they got "coin historian" David Tripp to replace him. (5) I agree, this story is fascinating which adds to the allure of the coins and is why we are typing here this evening. These are ultimately GOLD COINS....not plutonium rods that can be made into a bomb. Personally, I want the Mint to spend the $$$ and time on their website that crashes the next time they have a super-limited proof offering and it's gobbled up by the dealers and scalpers who can then sell it for 5-10x the Mint price.

Not at all, I love debating issues like this. Glad you chimed in, Ross !

"OK, I'm not taking sides in this fight. I can see arguments pro and con. I do know that Greg Weinman is the senior legal counsel for the Mint, not an IRS operative! He was probably and primarily responsible for providing the legal team on the case with the evidence the mint produced. He is NOT a numismatist or probably even a collector, which is why in his comments he remarked to the numismatic audience "...you probably know more about this than I do". The issues of the '33's and their legality are not coin issues, they are legal ones." He came from the IRS and I think he might have been at the Mint when they got the coins in 2005 under shady circumstances. Maybe he wasn't the Senior Counsel at that time. My point was coming from the IRS, he's not prone to compromise or recommend compromise. "Roger has more intimate knowledge of the trial, etc. but the evidence from all I have read (and I have read alot) is clear on a number of points: 1) Since there are no records of the 1933 coins leaving the mint directly (none missing from inventory), the only logical conclusion is that the coins were substituted at the Mint cashier's window: 33's for earlier dates. Until Roosevelt's inauguration, these were legal transactions. Almost immediately afterward, gold "outflows" were halted. There was a VERY narrow window when such transactions involving '33's could have occurred and been considered a legal transaction. Coins moved from the Coiner to the Cashier as early as March 15th, 1933, right in the midst of the period when gold coin payouts, either directly or in exchange for bullion, were being prohibited by executive decree, later codified in law. Clearly if any sort of swap happened any time after the spring of 1933, it was technically illegal." OK, I agree pretty much with everything you say here until the last sentence (more on that below). Also, the coin-for-coin exchanges appear to be valid until early-April 1933. And if the 1933's were struck on March 2nd as Roger showed, this was when Hoover was still president....if somebody (Switt ?) feared that FDR was going to ban gold or gold coins in a few days, couldn't someone have come in on March 2nd, 3rd, or 4th and done a coin-for-coin exchange then and there ? I believe the answer is yes. As for later exchanges....clearly, if you came in off the street, yes, prohibited. Did that necessarily apply to a Mint employee like McGann or anybody else ? I don't know....I've asked Roger about that, and it appears to be a gray area....suppose McGann or another employee told a higher-up "Hey, I want a few 1933's if they're the last ones, should I grab them now or later ?" and was told "You can grab them before any final melting, if it comes to that." Hypothetical, for sure. Impossible ? No way, IMO. Suppose McGann or another Mint employee had told a higher-up "I'm doing 25 coin-for-coins with the 1933's," got the approval, and then procastinated, never did it, and then did the switch in early-1937 ? Maybe they told a higher-up, or maybe it was someone with access (or someone who asked McGann for acces, or maybe it was McGann himself). Is that necessarily ILLEGAL ? The coins weren't worth a rich premium at that time. The gold books balanced. Who was harmed ? "2) McCann (the Mint cashier) and Switt MUST HAVE BEEN the participants in the swap transaction. No one really disputes this. I believe Switt has been linked to all of the 1933's ever seized by the secret service... the original 9, the farouk specimen, and the 10 langboard coins. Let's say for sake of argument that he HAD done the swap in March of 1933, when the only possibility of a legal transaction of that type might have occurred. Why then, under oath, did he disavow any knowledge of the source of the coins that had been traced to him in 1944, and state that he had no more of them? At the time, no one could prove that he was lying in any of his statements about the coins. The subsequent Langboard "discovery" of 10 additional coins proves his second statement at least, that he had no more, definitely was a lie." I agree, the MOST LIKELY is that Switt and McGann worked together. I think it is POSSIBLE and probably MOST LIKELY that they got the coins in March/April 1933...but it's possible that they did the switch in early-1937. Here's 2 thoughts: suppose Switt feared FDR was going to ban gold right away and got the coins when Hoover was still president (March 2nd-4th), or a bit later March/April 1937 ? Possible, maybe even the most likely scenario. But here's another.......suppose McGann got the coins at that time....held them for a few years....and Switt bought them from him in early-1937 ? As for Switt's testimony...he COULD be telling the truth, but I don't blame him for lying. He didn't like FDR....he didnt' like the gold ban...he had lost 78 Double Eagles without compensation. If he broke into the Mint and really did STEAL the coins, no sympathy. But if he managed to somehow get them with a bit of a conniving Mint employee -- guess what, without that action, we wouldn't have these "national treasures" today. They'd be part of a gold bar in Fort Knox today. "In my opinion, Switt's testimony is what directly destroyed any chance for legal status of the coins. Only he could have provided evidence or testimony of having legally sourced the coins he handled, and had he done so, history would have taken a different course. Did he chose not to because he was uncooperative, or because he knew the transaction was shady/illegal? He certainly knew the coins were valuable. He definitely lied that he did not have more and then hid (at least) 10 of them away in a safe deposit box for the rest of his life. And let's not forget the 9 collectors who purchased "his" coins that were forced to surrender them to the feds in the 40's and '50's. Their heirs might have benefited handsomely down the road. No one mentions them!" Can't argue with your logic here. Remember, this guy did nothing illegal and yet they looked into charging him with a crime (like they did Fenton in 1996 and maybe Roy Langbord in 2005); they confiscated (STOLE !!????) 78 Double Eagles because of a lapsed gold license. "I do not feel sorry for the Langboards. It would have been wrong for them to be enriched when other innocent parties and heirs were denied similar enrichment as a direct result of their grandfather's false testimony, if the coins in fact were procured legally. Don't get me wrong, I think it stinks that the coins are not legal to own. But I do think justice, was done in the case. No one has to agree with me." I don't feel sorry for them either, but as someone who's been screwed by the government's duplicity and double-dealing myself, I don't like it. And the hobby would be better off if the Langbord's got the coins, they were sold, and they generated lots of exceitment for us -- and revenues for the government. "One last point. Isreal Switt died in 1990. The ten Langboard coins were "discovered" thirteen years later in 2003 (one year after the $7.5 million "farouk specimen" sale). The coins were not included in the grandfather's estate obviously. They would have made headlines... (and most likely been confiscated then). Their serendipitous "discovery" suggests to me both calculated timing and additional "storytelling" on the part of the Langbords. I personally just can't believe that Joan didn't know of the coin's existence until 2003. She was alive through the coin's entire history and took over the family business. It's a shame we will probably never hear the full true story (because it would require admission of numerous falsehoods), but it probably would be a fascinating tale and might actually make the family some honest money from the whole affair." I agree this seems fishy. I believe they looked into the safe right about the time of the sale. But Joan Langbord wasn't a coin person and Roy was in NY and wasn't in-and-out of the safe. I'd need to know more about the size of the safe and the location of the coins. I believe they checked the SDB records and it did appear that Joan went to the boxes at suspiscious times. But it also could have been a coincidence. If the family knew about the coins, they probably shouldn't have kept them in a bank (if the Secret Service suspected, they could have seized the SDB) but in the family safes at the store on jewelers row. Again....I'm not saying Switt was an angel and that maybe the Langbord's had some knowledge about what they had (certainly, after 1990 when Switt died). But it's clear with 100% certainty that the coins would have been destroyed if not for Israel Switt. Another 50-50 split like the Fenton/Farouk coin would have been fair for all concerned (the government would have gotten 75% if you add in taxes) and benefitted the Mint, the Langobords, the Treasury, and the coin hobby.

OK, I finally finished the entire video. Weinman is consistent, I'll give him that. He keeps repeating the Mint BS that the coins were stolen. He also calls Tripp a "numismatist expert" which I think is BS. He's not an expert...he's not Roger, or Bowers, or Julian. How many books has Tripp written ? How many coin articles ? He also says that Tripp went over EVERYTHING. Yeah...so much so that when he got shown the March 7th, 1933 letter authorizing exchanges, he called it an "orphan document." That's called CYA...Cover....Your..... Clearly, Tripp didn't go over anything. He got caught with his pants down. He also ignores the fact that the judge ruled out evidence favorable to the Langbords (I can't get the specifics because I can't find a trial transcript with the evidence list. Maybe a lawyer reading this can help me ? ). But I know that even lawyer Berke didn't do that great a job, because the clown judge even said so and he was clearly rigging the trial for the Mint. The Fenton/Farouk Coin was also "stolen property" according to him -- but they agreed to split the proceeds out of the goodness of their hearts. What BS....they would have LOST at trial thanks to the Treasury Export License document. And they feared a decision that would legalize ALL 1933 Saints. He says there isn't any ambiguity that they are stolen.....brazen. His statement on when the coins become "money" is not only wrong time-wise but wrong monetarily (this is at the 46:00 mark). Even I know what he is saying is wrong without reading FMTM or the 8-steps outlined by RWB. He says they were CLEARLY smuggled out (by George McGann).....but that implies they were NOT stolen. Just exchanged in an unorthodox manner. The audience really didn't challenge him except the guy at the end who brought up the 1913 Liberty Nickel. Good News, the Mint is too busy to steal those right now. Caveat Emptor.... Weinman kept saying "you probably know more than I do" on a host of other coins like the Liberty Nickel, the 1974 Aluminum Penny, etc....I'd say the same thing about his knowledge of the 1933 Saint-Gaudens, Mint practices, and the law.

But you don't think the possibility of debts or trade being settled in silver led Europeans to accelerate shipments/payments in gold ?

Yup, that's him. I take it you live in PA ? Or maybe you just travelled there. He'd be alot nicer if he lobbied his associates at the Mint to return the 10 1933 Saints to the Langbords. I don't think he was there when they were seized or during the trial....but he came from the IRS and is now one of their defenders. And his assertions in his presentation are presented as FACTS when in fact key points are more likely SPECULATIONS. I'm going through his talk with Roger's book and other info I have on the 1933's to see where he is on solid ground and where he is making it up. I'll say one thing...these guys at the Mint keep saying the 10 coins were "stolen" which is really annoying bordering on the "do you want to get punched ?" annoyance. The coins weren't STOLEN, they got out somewhere via an exchange in either early-1933 or maybe as late as 1937 once it was apparent that all coins were to be melted (I'm not sure about the necessarily illegality of doing an exchange at that late date if you were a Mint employee and maybe were given permission by a higher-up). The Mint now says that the 10 won't be destroyed because they are "national treasures." Well, we wouldn't have these national treasures if not for Israel Switt. The Mint was arrogant and brazen with the Farouk/Fenton coin and the've acted the same way with the Switt-Langbord 10. Rant off....

I guess your name changed, I got a bit confused. Thanks for the heads-up, that portal is fantastic, I'll definitely check it out. Right now, I am seeing some guy from the U.S. Mint talk about the 1933 Saints but it is taking me forever to watch it as I keep having to run to the bathroom to throw up.

Ross.....off-topic since you alluded to it, my astronomy club has had Alan Stern, the New Horizons lead scientist, a few times to talk about the probe. You can find his talk and tons of other NEAF talks here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZ03kS2hnMqta3Goq8u_2Pg

In Bowers' book on Double Eagles his year-by-year Gold/Silver Highlights (p. 150) mentions that the Free Silver movement in 1877 spooked Europeans and that this was what led to the large importaion of Liberty and Saint coins to European banks in the decades to follow. Agree ?

Thanks Mark.....this makes sense... since I'm not familiar with this coin type I wasn't aware of the change in the grade and the impact that it could make on the market value. So maybe the current ask is legit, it's the change in the grade that we should be suspicious of. Or maybe not. I'll leave it to the Barber experts.

I get where you are coming from, but is it Heritages -- or any auction company's -- business to say a price is too high or too low ? The only qualm I have is if the same coin sold for a fraction of the current asking price and it appears that folks are mistaken as to the nature of the item. I'm assuming that nothing else has changed, like the coin suddenly achieving rarity status or something like that. FWIW, nobody seems interested at the current price. POST-EDIT: I was unaware when I typed the above that the coin had a new grade designation making it much more valuable. See post below.

Welcome, Raj, glad to hear from you. Yes, Roger deserves major kudos for his spectacular book on Saint-Gaudens Double Eagles. I'm not into die varieties (yet) myself -- I'm still learning the basics and learning other things surrounding Saints -- but I would have interest in your talk. I'm not sure if I can get out to ANA Pittsburgh, so hopefully you can post the PowerPoint presentation and any slides here or somewhere if it's not available at the ANA website. And I do agree with you...the die varieties among Saints ARE very interesting and a nice thing to consider collecting, beyond the major types. Have you read/finished Roger's book cover-to-cover ? Took me a bit over a month.

Fascinating, and makes sense. Thanks, Roger.

I see where you are coming from, it's just to me that when MOST coins that are collected have tens of thousands available or hundreds of thousands and often millions....when you get total available at a few dozen or 100-150 tops, that's pretty rare. Like the Saints you cited. But agreed...it's a matter of perspective and you focus on another area so I get it.

Interesting, thanks for the post Roger....and obviously, it's a GOLD to silver ratio (not the other way). I guess silver was under $1 for most of that time. BTW, why are the miners having so much difficulty making money at $20.67/oz. ? Are they able to make $$$ on other PM's ? Usually, mines have multiple metals....so unless you're a pure gold mine, you made other money on other PMs and that helped defray costs that you attribute to gold (much like natgas can be sold as associated gas when produced in oil wells). Maybe there were too many miners still hoping for riches post the 1849 Gold Rush ? I'm not sure, never really researched this period. Just seems strange that most PM prices were flattish over many decades but only gold miners would struggle.

If by "rare" you mean < 10 coins available or even a few dozen....then you are talking 6 or 7-figures to buy these coins regardless of condition and that to me means that 99.999% of collectors will never have interest in buying one.