• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Serious comment regarding Langbord v Treasury

16 posts in this topic

As an expert witness in this case, please understand that I cannot comment in any way on any aspect of Langbord v Treasury, or on anything that might be related, until after the trial is over.

 

Your indulgence is appreciated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know how long it takes for cherries to ripen, but those seem to be slow-maturing varieties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know how long it takes for cherries to ripen, but those seem to be slow-maturing varieties.

 

:roflmao:

 

Either that, or some members of their staff spent all their time sitting in the trees eating them.

 

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it's still winding its way through the system.

 

And Roger we expect an extensive behind the scenes accounting once it is all over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets say the us mint lets the Langbord Family sell the coins at auction and split the proceeds. The person that bought a coin in 2002 for $7.5 million is going to never

get even close to that amount for the coin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Schatzy, cases like these always need expert witnesses. The judge probably doesn't know a St. Gaudens from an Indian. Roger would provide excellent historical evidence, given his extensive research. I believe they also retained QDB as an expert witness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Schatzy, cases like these always need expert witnesses. The judge probably doesn't know a St. Gaudens from an Indian. Roger would provide excellent historical evidence, given his extensive research. I believe they also retained QDB as an expert witness.

 

Thanks......The US mint already determined they were authentic so I didn't really understand why one was needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it's still winding its way through the system.

 

And Roger we expect an extensive behind the scenes accounting once it is all over.

 

Only if he is allowed to discuss it when it finally ends. You know how the government is about keeping secrets.

 

If he is allowed to discuss it, I would like to be one of the first to ask for an autographed copy of his book about it..............You don't have to answer this if you think it best.

 

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Schatzy, cases like these always need expert witnesses. The judge probably doesn't know a St. Gaudens from an Indian. Roger would provide excellent historical evidence, given his extensive research. I believe they also retained QDB as an expert witness.

 

Thanks......The US mint already determined they were authentic so I didn't really understand why one was needed.

 

Jaime, a key point that is being argued over is when the 1933's were minted and if they may have had the opportunity to be released to the public. The feds case is based on the fact that none could have been released to the public as they were all destroyed (supposedly), and hence only removed from the mint illegally. Two were not destroyed and were supplied to the Smithsonian. The Farouk specimen apparently had an approved export license so it was allowed to be auctioned off. The feds contend all other specimens came through Israel Switt that were illegally removed from the mint. But Roger's research has shown that there was potential opportunity to release them to the public (even if the Switt samples were not public releases, no one will ever know this for sure), hence the argument that some may have left the mint legally. You can google this and see more detailed explanations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets say the us mint lets the Langbord Family sell the coins at auction and split the proceeds. The person that bought a coin in 2002 for $7.5 million is going to never

get even close to that amount for the coin.

I agree, although I would also bet that there are high end dealers lining up their whales to get them one of the Langbord coins at north of $4M in case the Langbord's prevail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two were not destroyed and were supplied to the Smithsonian.

I believe those two came from some of the confiscated Switt coins.

 

The Farouk specimen apparently had an approved export license so it was allowed to be auctioned off.

The Farouk coin also came from Switt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two were not destroyed and were supplied to the Smithsonian.

I believe those two came from some of the confiscated Switt coins.

 

On the Smithsonian web site (http://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/numismatics/doubleea/doubleea.htm) the last paragraph on the page is worded to indicate that the two in their collection were from those that were melted.

 

Scott

Link to comment
Share on other sites