Illegal Money?

[TJ'S Coins]

Reading Mark Feld's post on the 1933 Double Eagle led me to think about the 1913 Liberty Nickel and the 1894 S Dimes. Why are these latter two legal to own, trade, etc,. while the 33 Double Eagles are not? What makes one legal and the other not?

 

[MarkFeld]

I just did a quick web search of 1913 Liberty nickels and found the quote below. Assuming it is correct, the 1913 Liberty Nickels were produced legally and given (legally) to one or more persons. In the case of the 1933 Saints, however, the claim by the government is that the coins were misappropriated or stolen.

 

" early January 1913," according, again, to Bowers in his catalog of the Eliasberg specimen, "it was perfectly legal to make a 1913 Liberty Head nickel at the Mint...under practices then inn effect at the Mint, all one had to do was to exchange another date of five-cent piece for a 1913 Liberty Head. Although none had been made in quantity for circulation, in early 1913 the Liberty Head motif was the standard design in use, the 'Buffalo' nickel not yet having been either perfected as to design or issued for circulation."

 

Bowers goes on to say, "The first 'experimental' Indian-Buffalo nickels were struck on January 7, 1913, but production for circulation did not take place until after February 15, as there were problems with the design. For someone in the Medal Department of the Mint to have struck a few 1913 Liberty Head nickels for cabinet purposes early in January 1913 would have been neither unusual nor illegal. The Liberty Head motif was the official design until it was replaced with the Indian-Buffalo motif, and this did not happen until well into February 1913."

 

Curiously, had the design difficulties not been ironed out, Liberty Head nickels might have been made in large quantities for circulation in 1913. As it was, "the Mint had been told to do nothing with the nickel denomination until the new Indian-Buffalo design was perfected."

 

(Bowers postulates an alternative source for the five 1913 nickels: they "could have been struck as test pieces in autumn 1912 when dies for the next years coinage were being made, and before it was decided not to use the design.")"

 

 

[ant]

what ever came of the ones found by a person and when they sent it to the usmint to get them verified they kept them.

[MarkFeld]

what ever came of the ones found by a person and when they sent it to the usmint to get them verified they kept them.

Here is some information on those 10 coins, which are the subject of a lawsuit:

 

See here

[TJ'S Coins]

Thanks for your research into this topic, Mark. (thumbs u

 

Is it accurate to say that the Mint followed different rules at various times. These determine whether a coin is legal or not. We know that the '33 Double Eagle is illegal since it was never released officially by the mint. Owning a copy is illegal such as the 10 coins in the lawsuit. The one that sold at auction several years ago is the only "33 in private hands because a settlement had been reached with the government regarding this coin that was once in the possession of Egyptian King Farouk.

 

If a 1964 Peace Dollar was found it seems that it would come under the same guidelines as the '33 Double Eagle. In other words it would not be legal to own. This could explain why no one has come forward with a legitimate but illegal specimen.

 

On the other hand there were no such regulations regarding the 1913 Liberty Nickel. Examples of that coin could be struck and owned by individuals as the five known specimens are currently.

 

I know there was a lot of experimenting with pattern or substitute metal planchet, or restrikes of a coins for friends, by mint employees in the 19th century. These were "legal" at the time but not today.

 

Am I on the right track with this understanding?

[MarkFeld]

The one that sold at auction several years ago is the only "33 in private hands because a settlement had been reached with the government regarding this coin that was once in the possession of Egyptian King Farouk.

The 1933 Saint that sold via public auction may not be the only one currently in private hands - in fact, I'd be shocked it there isn't one or more others out there - but for now, at least, it's the only one which is legal to own.

 

The information provided in Alison Frankel's book leaves little doubt that the Farouk coin and the one that sold in auction are one and the same. Interestingly, however, supposedly one or more individuals who had seen the Farouk coin, claim that it does not match the one which was the object of the lawsuit and sold at auction. Either way, as I understand it, the settlement involving the one legal 1933 Saint, did not include any determination that it was necessarily the Farouk coin. But, because of the export license that had been granted for the Farouk example and because circumstances made a good case for it being the Farouk coin, the government likely would have had a very tough time winning the lawsuit, had it gone forward.

[jtryka]

Has the government ever proven that none left the mint legally? After all, some 400,000 were minted weeks and months in advance of the executive order by FDR, so it seems to me some of them could have been issued at the window of the Philly mint.

[MarkFeld]

Has the government ever proven that none left the mint legally? After all, some 400,000 were minted weeks and months in advance of the executive order by FDR, so it seems to me some of them could have been issued at the window of the Philly mint.

I think it comes down to who has the burden to prove what, and that is still unknown at this time.

 

While the possibility of a hypothetically legal exchange of gold for gold at the mint window has been raised, it is my understanding that no records of such an exchange exist. And the presumption (whether one wants to agree with/accept it or not) is, that any specimens which left the mint were misappropriated/stolen. In addition to that, the circumstantial evidence of shenanigans on the part of Izzy Swift and his buddy at the mint, is extremely strong. Also, it appears that all of the 1933 Saints which appeared on the market over time, originated with Swift.

[Oldtrader3]

It mentions in the article that any person could, during (3) weeks in March, 1933, walk up to the window in the Philadelphia mint and exchange an older gold $20 gold coins or bullion for a 1933 Saint without any accounting record having being kept of the transaction. Therefore, no one can say for certain how many 1933 Saints were obtained by this coin or bullion exchange, without written record, because of then current Mint policies. If that is true, the Treasury Department has a weak case because, as stated, no one is alive to present testimony for the Mint's case. We will see which way the trial judgment goes.

[MarkFeld]

It mentions in the article that any person could, during (3) weeks in March, 1933, walk up to the window in the Philadelphia mint and exchange an older gold $20 gold coins or bullion for a 1933 Saint without any accounting record having being kept of the transaction. Therefore, no one can say for certain how many 1933 Saints were obtained by this coin or bullion exchange, without written record, because of then current Mint policies. If that is true, the Treasury Department has a weak case because, as stated, no one is alive to present testimony for the Mint's case. We will see which way the trial judgment goes.

While hypothetically, it appears that 1933 Saints might have been able to be obtained legally, there is nothing to indicate that that occurred. For example, if Swift had obtained the coins legally, he almost certainly would have behaved very differently than has been said about him. And there is no indication that anyone other than him obtained such coins through someone at the mint. On the other hand, if other 1933 Saints turned up and were not traced back to Swift, I believe that their owner(s) would have a better (though I suspect still not good) chance against the government.

[DaveG]

David Tripp's book about the 1933 Double Eagles, "Illegal Tender", traces the chain of custody of the 1933 Double Eagles.

 

He makes a pretty convincing case that the 1933 Double Eagles were never available to be paid out at the Mint prior to Pres. Roosevelt's Executive Order, but were, instead, removed surreptitiously by a Mint employee at a later date.

[MarkFeld]

David Tripp's book about the 1933 Double Eagles, "Illegal Tender", traces the chain of custody of the 1933 Double Eagles.

 

He makes a pretty convincing case that the 1933 Double Eagles were never available to be paid out at the Mint prior to Pres. Roosevelt's Executive Order, but were, instead, removed surreptitiously by a Mint employee at a later date.

Ditto for Alison Frankel's book.

[just-john]

My Motto ==Always be nice to mint employees

[Conder101]

The 1933 Saint that sold via public auction may not be the only one currently in private hands - in fact, I'd be shocked it there isn't one or more others out there - but for now, at least, it's the only one which is legal to own.

There is at least one more and I think it is possible as many as four more may still be out there. There is a 1980 dated photo of one that does not match the Farouk, Smithsonian, or Swift coins. There were some accounts that Swift had 25 coins at one time (Swift never admitted to this but the reports were from others.) Swift admitted to nine and the treasury recovered eight, plus the Farouk coin which accounted for all of the coins Swift admitted to. Two of these went to the Smithsonian. Then Eliasberg turned in the tenth of the nine coins. Then the Swift family turned in ten. That makes twenty coins Plus the one in the 1980 photo makes 21. If the reports of Swift originally having 25 are correct then there could be 4 others.

 

No one addressed the 1894 S dime. That one is legal to own because it was a regular issue coin and recorded and accounted for in the records.

 

While hypothetically, it appears that 1933 Saints might have been able to be obtained legally, there is nothing to indicate that that occurred.

But if you are going to accuse someone of having stolen them or that they were stolen, you're going to have to prove that they DIDN'T use that method, or prove what method they DID use. Otherwise ther is the chance that he might have gotten them legally.

 

While the possibility of a hypothetically legal exchange of gold for gold at the mint window has been raised, it is my understanding that no records of such an exchange exist.

It would be interesting to know what kind of cash room records do exist. Not just for that particular period but from others as well. Were like kind exchanges recorded for other periods? Were dates of the coins recorded or just X numder of double eagles or $X in double eagles etc I doubt if the records were that detailed because all that mattered was that the cash drawers balanced. Without seeing what kind of records they kept I can easily see recording gold for silver, silver for gold, slver for paper, and gold for paper, but it would not surprise me at all if there are no records of gold for gold silver for silver and like denomination exchanges recorded. (That's why I want to see the records from other periods as well, so you can determine what the standard procedures were. If you see like kind exchanges recorded in say 1932 and early 1933 but none in the period when we know there were 1933 double eagles in the cash room that would be a good indication none occurred. But if we don't see any in 1932 then that would be a strong indication that they didn't record such exchanges and you can't use the fact that there are no records for when the 1933 double eagles in the cash room as proof that no exchanges were made.

[MarkFeld]

The 1933 Saint that sold via public auction may not be the only one currently in private hands - in fact, I'd be shocked it there isn't one or more others out there - but for now, at least, it's the only one which is legal to own.

There is at least one more and I think it is possible as many as four more may still be out there. There is a 1980 dated photo of one that does not match the Farouk, Smithsonian, or Swift coins. There were some accounts that Swift had 25 coins at one time (Swift never admitted to this but the reports were from others.) Swift admitted to nine and the treasury recovered eight, plus the Farouk coin which accounted for all of the coins Swift admitted to. Two of these went to the Smithsonian. Then Eliasberg turned in the tenth of the nine coins. Then the Swift family turned in ten. That makes twenty coins Plus the one in the 1980 photo makes 21. If the reports of Swift originally having 25 are correct then there could be 4 others.

 

No one addressed the 1894 S dime. That one is legal to own because it was a regular issue coin and recorded and accounted for in the records.

 

While hypothetically, it appears that 1933 Saints might have been able to be obtained legally, there is nothing to indicate that that occurred.

But if you are going to accuse someone of having stolen them or that they were stolen, you're going to have to prove that they DIDN'T use that method, or prove what method they DID use. Otherwise ther is the chance that he might have gotten them legally.

 

While the possibility of a hypothetically legal exchange of gold for gold at the mint window has been raised, it is my understanding that no records of such an exchange exist.

It would be interesting to know what kind of cash room records do exist. Not just for that particular period but from others as well. Were like kind exchanges recorded for other periods? Were dates of the coins recorded or just X numder of double eagles or $X in double eagles etc I doubt if the records were that detailed because all that mattered was that the cash drawers balanced. Without seeing what kind of records they kept I can easily see recording gold for silver, silver for gold, slver for paper, and gold for paper, but it would not surprise me at all if there are no records of gold for gold silver for silver and like denomination exchanges recorded. (That's why I want to see the records from other periods as well, so you can determine what the standard procedures were. If you see like kind exchanges recorded in say 1932 and early 1933 but none in the period when we know there were 1933 double eagles in the cash room that would be a good indication none occurred. But if we don't see any in 1932 then that would be a strong indication that they didn't record such exchanges and you can't use the fact that there are no records for when the 1933 double eagles in the cash room as proof that no exchanges were made.

I'd also like to see whatever cash/exchange records there are.

 

While I can certainly understand and appreciate that others might disagree, I do think it is fair to operate on the presumption that any 1933 Saints which escaped, did so either accidentally or illegally, and either way, they should be returned to the mint. I'm not opposed to that presumption being overcome by credible evidence, however. Could Swift have obtained the coins legally? Perhaps. Is there a reasonable liklihood that he did so? My vote is no.