Illegal US Coins??

[Keleum]

What coins if they exist are illegal to own, does anyone know the complete list.

 

Here's a start:

 

1933 Saints

1965 (1964 Year) Peace Dollar

[BillJones]

I believe that the aluminum cents that “disappeared” when they were loaned to members of Congress in the early 1980s are illegal. At the time Congress was considering legislation to change the composition of the cent.

 

Technically I think that all pattern coins might be viewed as illegal to own. The trouble is the mint established a precedent back in the last century when the agency traded a trunk full of patterns to collector William Wooden for two $50 gold pieces (half unions) that he owned. That made those patterns legal and own, and the vast majority of 19th century patterns that are now in numismatic circulation came from that block buster deal. Letter patterns that are dated in the ‘teens and later are on shaky legal ground.

 

[cpm9ball]

1849 Double Eagle?

 

Chris

[RWB]

Re: BillJones’ posting

The mint sold pattern and experimental coins on numerous occasions, both to the public and to members of congress and treasury officials. Others were given to officials or sold to them for face value as souvenirs. Neither the 1933 $20 nor the 1964-D dollars were pattern pieces. The 1974 Al cents certainly were pattern/experimental pieces.

 

One somewhat heretical approach, considers pattern pieces not as coins. Since they were prototypes and the design/alloy never approved as coin, they are really just beautiful pieces of scrap metal good only for their bullion value. The metric and Goloid sets were sold to members of congress for metal value not face (monetary) value. Other examples of this are recorded. 1895 alloy test pieces were given to members of congress by the handful.

 

The whole pattern/experimental piece field is so confused that the blanket exemption proposed by a member of congress is probably the best way to go. I don’t envision any court siding with a government seizure of these.

 

As far as the “trunks of patterns” supposedly given to Woodin, there is an updated exposition on this on the web site, USpatterns.com. No one knows what, how much, and from whom Woodin received his coins.

 

[PerryHall]

An argument can be made that the 1913 Liberty head nickels are illegal to own.

[Keleum]

Forgiving the gray-ness of my question, I was asking about those that are already determined to be illegal.

 

If I somehow managed to "find" another 1913 liberty head, would the gov't be entitled to confiscate it?

[cpm9ball]

Forgiving the gray-ness of my question, I was asking about those that are already determined to be illegal.

 

If I somehow managed to "find" another 1913 liberty head, would the gov't be entitled to confiscate it?

 

Very doubtful! There are probably several of them in China.

 

Chris

[okbustchaser]

Forgiving the gray-ness of my question, I was asking about those that are already determined to be illegal.

 

If I somehow managed to "find" another 1913 liberty head, would the gov't be entitled to confiscate it?

 

Yes, they would be. They are "entitled" to confiscate the current 5. The fact that they haven't doesn't take away their ability to declare them contraband and take them away never to be seen again.

[cpm9ball]

Forgiving the gray-ness of my question, I was asking about those that are already determined to be illegal.

 

If I somehow managed to "find" another 1913 liberty head, would the gov't be entitled to confiscate it?

 

Yes, they would be. They are "entitled" to confiscate the current 5. The fact that they haven't doesn't take away their ability to declare them contraband and take them away never to be seen again.

 

If the government confiscated one but not the others, wouldn't that leave them open for a big lawsuit? It seems that it would be the 1933 St. Gaudens case in reverse.

 

It would also seem that the fact that they have not chosen to take any legal action against the KNOWN owners of the 1913's........for how many years?.......that it would make their case seem awfully weak.

 

Chris

 

[Zoins]

One somewhat heretical approach, considers pattern pieces not as coins. Since they were prototypes and the design/alloy never approved as coin, they are really just beautiful pieces of scrap metal good only for their bullion value.

Is this similar to saying that coins are really just beautiful (or ugly) pieces of metal good only for their face value or bullion value, which ever is higher?

[World Colonial]

One somewhat heretical approach, considers pattern pieces not as coins. Since they were prototypes and the design/alloy never approved as coin, they are really just beautiful pieces of scrap metal good only for their bullion value.

Is this similar to saying that coins are really just beautiful (or ugly) pieces of metal good only for their face value or bullion value, which ever is higher?

 

Maybe this is related to the legal technicality of a coin being monetized? That is how I understand that the 1933 $20 is classified as not legal to own.

[Conder101]

1849 Double Eagle?

No, if and when the other 1849 double eagles come to light (one gold, one gilt copper) they will be legal to own.

[MarkFeld]

Forgiving the gray-ness of my question, I was asking about those that are already determined to be illegal.

 

If I somehow managed to "find" another 1913 liberty head, would the gov't be entitled to confiscate it?

 

Yes, they would be. They are "entitled" to confiscate the current 5. The fact that they haven't doesn't take away their ability to declare them contraband and take them away never to be seen again.

"Entitled" based upon what legal grounds?

[RWB]

zoins & world colonial:

 

During the primary era of pattern and experimental coins, a coin was only legal tender after the Secretary of the Treasury had approved the design for production. Many of the pattern issues show minor variations in design or legends that represent the “negotiation” between the coin designers, and the Secretary and/or mint director.

 

For example, the Amazonian design patterns by William Barber have everything on them that was necessary for a real coin, and were made of the correct alloy in correct weight. But because the design was never approved by the Sec of Treasury, the pieces were never legal tender and were worth only their metal value, not their face value. The Goloid coin sets had denominations on the various pieces, but were sold at bullion value, not face value.

 

Further, even approved designs were not considered coins until the Coiner accepted them. Only at that point, did they cease to be struck bullion and become legal tender worth their face value. This is the point in the minting process where the Mint Bureau booked its seigniorage – “X” dollars in silver bullion now became “X+N%” dollars in real coin. (Defective pieces were never counted as coins; and still are not – see the waffled pieces the mint sells as scrap.)

 

This is not the same as the “cooked up” monetization nonsense from the mint in justifying sale of one 1933 $20 but not others. The 1933s were “coins” the moment the Philadelphia Mint Coiner approved them.

 

[okbustchaser]

"Entitled" based upon what legal grounds?

 

Same "legal" grounds used to confiscate the 1933 double eagles last year. I.E., we are the government and therefore we have the right to take your property without due process.

[MarkFeld]

"Entitled" based upon what legal grounds?

 

Same "legal" grounds used to confiscate the 1933 double eagles last year. I.E., we are the government and therefore we have the right to take your property without due process.

Stated THAT way, nothing would be immune form confiscation. However, I don't think comparing a 1913 Liberty nickel to a 1933 Saint is "comparing apples to apples".

[okbustchaser]

How is it not "comparing apples to apples"? Supposedly, neither item was ever issued by the mint and thereby monetized. How would it be any different if the mint suddenly decided to pursue the owners of the nickels in the same way that they have the Saints?

 

It is my opinion (and yes, admittedly an opinion of a non-lawyer) that a better case could be made to declare the nickels--never even officially minted--contraband then could ever be made against ownership of the 1933 Saints which were an official mint product and supposedly were available for a short time--even if one was legally required to return it afther the gold recall.

[MarkFeld]

How is it not "comparing apples to apples"? Supposedly, neither item was ever issued by the mint and thereby monetized. How would it be any different if the mint suddenly decided to pursue the owners of the nickels in the same way that they have the Saints?

 

It is my opinion (and yes, admittedly an opinion of a non-lawyer) that a better case could be made to declare the nickels--never even officially minted--contraband then could ever be made against ownership of the 1933 Saints which were an official mint product and supposedly were available for a short time--even if one was legally required to return it afther the gold recall.

To me, a major difference is that the circumstances surrounding the production of the 1933 Saints are known, whereas the same cannot be said with respect to the 1913 nickels. There is also the long established and very different pattern of behavior on the part of the government with respect to the 1913 nickels as compared to the 1933 Saints.

[RWB]

1933 double eagles were regular issues. The were struck under correctly documented procedures and differed only in the date from double eagles dated 1932 or 1908, etc. They were officially “coins” the moment the Philadelphia Mint Coiner accepted them. There was, and is not, any so-called “monetization” process of magical wizardry. Had the anti-hoarding and other provisions of the March 5, 1933 executive order or the March 9 Emergency Banking Act not occurred, they could have been released for circulation through the Federal Reserve Banks.

 

The 1933 $20 also has one judicial decision sustaining the government’s claim that double eagles of that date were stolen property. [united States v. Barnard, 73 Fed. Supp. 531, United States District Court, Western District, Tennessee, on July 22, 1947.]

 

The 1913 Liberty nickels were never officially produced and not accepted by the Coiner of the Philadelphia Mint – at least so far as we know. The Liberty design was abandoned on December 18, 1912 when Secretary MacVeagh approved the Buffalo nickel. From that point forward, any Liberty nickel dated 1913 (or 1914, or 1915) was, by definition, clandestinely produced. On February 24, 1913, Superintendent John Landis recommended destroying the old Liberty dies (presumably ones dated “1913” made the previous fall, as was normal procedure).

 

Wide publicity over many decades combined with the government’s failure to make any claim to the 1913 nickels (or pattern coins) suggest that no court would side with the government at this late date.

 

(A final note – the 1910 seizure of Haseltine’s pattern coins was not approved by the Attorney General or the Solicitor for the Treasury Dept. Mint Director Andrew acted on his own and without mint or treasury legal advice. His “case” fell apart because the treasury dept. had long before determined that they could not prosecute owners of pattern pieces or confiscate the coins. He also ignored the explicit administrative order waiving restrictions on distribution and ownership issued in 1907 by Treasury Secretary Coretlyou on presidential instruction. How and why this whole fiasco played out may never be known. I present my own hypothesis in a section of Renaissance of American Coinage 1909-1915.)

 

[Zoins]

Thanks for the posts RWB. Very informative as always!

 

I agree that the circumstances around the 1913 V nickels and 1933 Saints are very different.