Poll.....The 1933 Langbord Saints.....What to do ?

[thebeav]

I thought this could be an interesting one.....

 

Paul

[MarkFeld]

I'll vote "other" - work out a settlement which entails selling them publicly and splitting the proceeds, including compensating the owner of the one which was auctioned previously.

 

From what I have read, I believe that the coins were stolen or otherwise removed from the Mint, contrary to its policies/procedures. However, I don't think that either side can satisfactorily prove their case. I'd probably distribute 50% of the proceeds to the government and divide the other 50% between the Langbord family and the owner of the other 1933. I'd make sure that the later received enough so that his net cost in his example was no greater than the amount of the lowest price obtained for any of the other 10 examples.

 

The above opinions notwithstanding, I'm open to other viewpoints and negotiation.

[Revenant]

I think a 50/50 split can be used here, but since there's an even number of coins I don't think it should require that the coins be liquidated. 5 should go back to the family and 5 should stay with the government. What the government does with them is it's business.

 

I do think that the family should have to pay back inheritance taxes on those coins though since they were apparently illegally excluded from the proceedings of the will. Each one of those coins is probably worth more than the ~$900,000 value claimed as the value of the estate.

[TJ'S Coins]

I voted send them to various museums. Better more people see them as unique specimens than to have them melted or sitting in a government vault.

 

Given the rarity and the illegality by which these coins passed into private ownership. I have trouble with a compromise position. But then I also have trouble with the 1913 Liberty nickels being legal in private hands too.

 

Museum display would allow more of us to enjoy these remnants of a by-gone era.

[BillJones]

I voted, "give them to the family."

 

Who knows what went on in the early part of 1933? The mint used to have a policy of exchanging coins when people came to the mint. Franklin Roosevelt didn’t come to office until early March, and not January the way it is today. Perhaps old Izzy exchanged a $300 worth of gold for $300 face in 1933 double eagles before FDR was sworn in.

 

At any rate Franklin Roosevelt stole from the American people with his Gold Surrender Order. He took back their gold at $20.67 an ounce in then promptly increased its value to $35 an ounce by presidential fiat. I don’t have any sympathy for the government in this case.

 

And I don’t have enough sympathy for the guy who paid $7 million for the only “legal” 1933 gold double eagle. You pay your money, and you take your chance. Nobody has ever given me cash when I lost money on a coin. He didn’t buy any guarantees when he paid $7 mil for that coin. If he had done his homework he would have known that the government had confiscated, what was it, two or three other 1933 double eagles in the past and that the possibility existed that others could be out there.

 

As for the museums they can go fly a kite. Museums are sometimes the worst places for coins because many have a bad habit of cleaning them, while others hide the coins away in vaults where no one can see them. Just look at what the Smithsonian has done with the national coin collection. No one gets to see those coins unless they are insiders with connections or “children who need inspiration.” A long time collector such I has as much chance of seeing the coins I’d like to see in that collection as I would of ever owning a 1933 double eagle.

 

[Conder101]

He didn’t buy any guarantees when he paid $7 mil for that coin.

Actually he did. As part of the purchase agreement with the government there was a clause that the government would never legalize another specimen. If they do allow the Langbond's to kepp any of them or if they sell any of them they will then be open to a breach of contract suit from the buyer of the "Farouk" coin.

[BillJones]

He didn’t buy any guarantees when he paid $7 mil for that coin.

Actually he did. As part of the purchase agreement with the government there was a clause that the government would never legalize another specimen. If they do allow the Langbond's to kepp any of them or if they sell any of them they will then be open to a breach of contract suit from the buyer of the "Farouk" coin.

 

Well good for him! (thumbs u Let the fur fly! Lawyers don't have enough to do in this country anyway.

[michael]

From what I have read, I believe that the coins were stolen or otherwise removed from the Mint,YES

 

contrary to its policies/procedures. However, I don't think that either side can satisfactorily prove their case. I'd probably distribute 50% of the proceeds to the governmentYES

 

and divide the other 50% between the Langbord family and the owner of the other 1933.YES

 

I'd make sure that the later received enough so that his net cost in his example was no greater than the amount of the lowest price obtained for any of the other 10 examples.YES

 

 

yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Revenant]

Some people seem to think that making this other guy whole on his purchase should be placed at the family's feet. I think that making him whole should be a completely separate legal issue/transaction and that he should not be explicitly be given a cut of these new ones. The government is obligated to take care of him independently of this case.

[cladking]

Other.

 

They should return their take on the first '33 plus the $20 cash and then give the other coins back to the family.

 

It's absurd to believe the Farouk coin wasn't paid for. And it's highly improbable the Langboard coins weren't paid for. It will be impossible to prove they were stolen.

[jgrinz]

My Thoughts ..

 

The precedent has been set for the legalization and sale of these 1933 - That is what should happen to these also.

 

There will be NO proof that they were stolen but were purchased by the Langbord family - the wrongdoers were not their family but the people they purchased them from. That will not be able to be proven either way.

 

The buyer of the first coin has no say or input as to what happens to these coins, but should be compensated his "just due" , knowing that he no longer owns the "only" one in existance.

This to be decided by the courts after the courts decision. If in fact, as Mark says, there is a exclusivity clause in the the sale of the first one.

 

The coins should be marked as legal tender and the 5 given back to the family as cash/coin when and if sold. The government gets how many coins it takes to pay their legal fees in cash when sold, (One) and the rest belong to US the U.S. citizen and should be put on display for its citizens to see.

 

On a side note - it also gives the government a little more credance that their PAPER money is 'kinda' backed by gold with these in their possesion.

[MarkFeld]

It's absurd to believe the Farouk coin wasn't paid for. And it's highly improbable the Langboard coins weren't paid for.

Why do you say that? Have you read either of the books on the subject?

[MarkFeld]

My Thoughts ..

 

The precedent has been set for the legalization and sale of these 1933 - That is what should happen to these also.

 

There will be NO proof that they were stolen but were purchased by the Langbord family - the wrongdoers were not their family but the people they purchased them from. That will not be able to be proven either way.

 

The buyer of the first coin has no say or input as to what happens to these coins, but should be compensated his "just due" , knowing that he no longer owns the "only" one in existance.

This to be decided by the courts after the courts decision. If in fact, as Mark says, there is a exclusivity clause in the the sale of the first one.

 

The coins should be marked as legal tender and the 5 given back to the family as cash/coin when and if sold. The government gets how many coins it takes to pay their legal fees in cash when sold, (One) and the rest belong to US the U.S. citizen and should be put on display for its citizens to see.

 

On a side note - it also gives the government a little more credance that their PAPER money is 'kinda' backed by gold with these in their possesion.

If there was a wrong doer (and I believe there was), it was indeed a/ their family member - Izzy Swift.

 

For the record, I wasn't the one who mentioned the exclusivity clause, but do recall some language included with the sale of the previous example which sounded as if it would protect the buyer in that regard.

[okbustchaser]

Melt the damn things and give the Langfords back their gold.

[Smilie Puss]

I would like to see them melted down and recycled into special 1/10 oz gold medals with date 1933-2009 using the same obverse and reverse as the St. Gaudens which the USMint would sell them by lottery for $500 to anyone interested in obtaining one. That way if you were lucky you could own a piece of history.

 

Otherwise, most collectors could never afford the Double Eagles to bid on even if they did come to auction. Put them in a Musem? This issue is already in the Smithsonian Instiution to view the orginal.

 

Give the first strike to the Langbord Family as a reward for turning the orginals over to the Mint in the first place. Its a win-win.

 

[World Colonial]

Other.

 

They should return their take on the first '33 plus the $20 cash and then give the other coins back to the family.

 

It's absurd to believe the Farouk coin wasn't paid for. And it's highly improbable the Langboard coins weren't paid for. It will be impossible to prove they were stolen.

 

That does not stop the government in certain circumstances. Just look at the IRS and the "asset forfeiture" laws. The government says you are guilty and you have to prove your innocense.

[thebeav]

Some really thought provoking and interesting responses folks.

Thank you for your input.....

Now, if the judge was smart, they would tune into this thread. I can't wait to see the outcome of this one. In this day and age, I'm afraid what that outcome might be.

 

It's hard for me to fathom, with national and world circumstances the way they are, we have a government that's concerned with digital television. It's mind boggling....

 

Paul