Langbords win!

[Kurtdog]

The rhetoric certainly effected the outcome.

BTW, I just noticed, it's "affected" the outcome, not "effected" the outcome. It's just a diction thingy. A lot of people make that mistake. Well, some, anyway.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Thank you for your thoughts.

 

I choose not to decide the merits of a position based on my personal opinion of what constitutes "tasteful" commentary or phrasing and what does not in a Case of the nature that is being adjudicated. The Honorable Judge creates a dilemma: is he testifying and influencing the legal path of the decision (or future Appeals), based on dead cats? I would answer that it is always the cats. Would the Honorable Judge have been appeased if Mr. Burdette had chosen Zombies as the subject of the phrasing Mr. Burdette used to illustrate his humorous intent?

You're misunderstanding. The judge didn't say anything about that cat comment. That was Mr. Carr, not the judge.

 

In my opinion, the commentary by the Judge concerning the private little world that was thought by Mr Burdette would never come to light, was calculated to belittle and to intimate (wink wink nudge nudge) that Mr. Burdette was a social criminal, on the level of a Pimp hiding in the shadows of the alley when a Police Officer drives by, and the Pimp can't really hide because he suffers from flatulence and is discovered. It is inflammatory commentary designed to describe Mr. Burdette as a social deviate of some sort and is an excellent example of the rhetoric I refer to. Adding to the commentary the title of Numismatist of the Year was designed to attach a behavior level to Mr. Burdette that was expected and not fulfilled via internet commentary. I can picture the oohs and ahhhs of a Jury and the pointed look of the Mom stare directed at Mr. Burdette, via such hyperbole.

Again, FWIW, you're misunderstanding. Those comments were between the attorneys and the judge outside of the presence of the jury.

Thank you.

I was using cats as a continuing thematic. I can understand that you may not have made the connection.

The rhetoric certainly effected the outcome. The jury does not establish the decision of what can and can not be presented. It is possible that you may not understand the dynamic that a Judge choreographs and telegraphs and inserts into a Proceeding.

 

I am starting to feel that I will have to explain thematic cats until the end of the world.

I think I get this dynamic, now. Thank you for the explanation. It really helped in my understanding of what went on in this case. It's not that the trial judge didn't say anything about the cats comment in the presence of the jury. Hell, he wasn't even aware of the cats comment, so how in the hell could he say something about it? Your point is, he didn't have to say anything about it. Your description of what was going on in his mind in reference to the cats comment he never heard is the key to understanding that. If I understand you right, and, I have no reason to believe I don't, even though he was unaware of the cats comment, it was nonetheless choreographed and telegraphed by him to the jury, in much the same manner, let us just say, if you will, as was his side-bar admonishment on the proferred redirect of Mr. Burdette, which he also didn't say in the presence of the jury. The jury picked it up, and, understandably, that had a profound impact on the verdict. I understand that, now. If I'm misunderstanding it, of course, I trust you'll correct me. Thank you very much.

 

One could interpret that way, I suppose.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

The rhetoric certainly effected the outcome.

BTW, I just noticed, it's "affected" the outcome, not "effected" the outcome. It's just a diction thingy. A lot of people make that mistake. Well, some, anyway.

 

Thank you, but (sorry Mark) no.

Think poetic license for impact of word.

I will stick on 21.

[dcarr]

If I offended you by assuming that Art was the driving force, I offer apology.

 

"Art" certainly does play a big part in it, so no apology is necessary in the slightest.

 

[jom]

I'm curious about the written material for this situation.

 

1) Is there a place to read Roger's write up in 2010? Is it available online somewhere?

 

2) What is the name of the other books? Is it "Double Eagle" by Frankel? What is Tripp's book name?

 

3) Anyone have a quick synopsis of each of those books?

 

Thanks

 

jom

[Kurtdog]

Thank you for your thoughts.

 

I choose not to decide the merits of a position based on my personal opinion of what constitutes "tasteful" commentary or phrasing and what does not in a Case of the nature that is being adjudicated. The Honorable Judge creates a dilemma: is he testifying and influencing the legal path of the decision (or future Appeals), based on dead cats? I would answer that it is always the cats. Would the Honorable Judge have been appeased if Mr. Burdette had chosen Zombies as the subject of the phrasing Mr. Burdette used to illustrate his humorous intent?

You're misunderstanding. The judge didn't say anything about that cat comment. That was Mr. Carr, not the judge.

 

In my opinion, the commentary by the Judge concerning the private little world that was thought by Mr Burdette would never come to light, was calculated to belittle and to intimate (wink wink nudge nudge) that Mr. Burdette was a social criminal, on the level of a Pimp hiding in the shadows of the alley when a Police Officer drives by, and the Pimp can't really hide because he suffers from flatulence and is discovered. It is inflammatory commentary designed to describe Mr. Burdette as a social deviate of some sort and is an excellent example of the rhetoric I refer to. Adding to the commentary the title of Numismatist of the Year was designed to attach a behavior level to Mr. Burdette that was expected and not fulfilled via internet commentary. I can picture the oohs and ahhhs of a Jury and the pointed look of the Mom stare directed at Mr. Burdette, via such hyperbole.

Again, FWIW, you're misunderstanding. Those comments were between the attorneys and the judge outside of the presence of the jury.

Thank you.

I was using cats as a continuing thematic. I can understand that you may not have made the connection.

The rhetoric certainly effected the outcome. The jury does not establish the decision of what can and can not be presented. It is possible that you may not understand the dynamic that a Judge choreographs and telegraphs and inserts into a Proceeding.

 

I am starting to feel that I will have to explain thematic cats until the end of the world.

I think I get this dynamic, now. Thank you for the explanation. It really helped in my understanding of what went on in this case. It's not that the trial judge didn't say anything about the cats comment in the presence of the jury. Hell, he wasn't even aware of the cats comment, so how in the hell could he say something about it? Your point is, he didn't have to say anything about it. Your description of what was going on in his mind in reference to the cats comment he never heard is the key to understanding that. If I understand you right, and, I have no reason to believe I don't, even though he was unaware of the cats comment, it was nonetheless choreographed and telegraphed by him to the jury, in much the same manner, let us just say, if you will, as was his side-bar admonishment on the proferred redirect of Mr. Burdette, which he also didn't say in the presence of the jury. The jury picked it up, and, understandably, that had a profound impact on the verdict. I understand that, now. If I'm misunderstanding it, of course, I trust you'll correct me. Thank you very much.

One could interpret that way, I suppose.

I knew it! You're just a clairvoyant type of guy.

[Kurtdog]

The rhetoric certainly effected the outcome.

BTW, I just noticed, it's "affected" the outcome, not "effected" the outcome. It's just a diction thingy. A lot of people make that mistake. Well, some, anyway.

Thank you, but (sorry Mark) no.

Think poetic license for impact of word.

I will stick on 21.

Well, I hate to encroach on Mark's job. I mean, he does it so well. Nonetheless, I have to point out, it's "stand" on 21, not "stick." Look it up.

[CaptHenway]

I'm curious about the written material for this situation.

 

1) Is there a place to read Roger's write up in 2010? Is it available online somewhere?

 

2) What is the name of the other books? Is it "Double Eagle" by Frankel? What is Tripp's book name?

 

3) Anyone have a quick synopsis of each of those books?

 

Thanks

 

jom

 

Tripp's book is "Illegal Tender."

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

The rhetoric certainly effected the outcome.

BTW, I just noticed, it's "affected" the outcome, not "effected" the outcome. It's just a diction thingy. A lot of people make that mistake. Well, some, anyway.

Thank you, but (sorry Mark) no.

Think poetic license for impact of word.

I will stick on 21.

Well, I hate to encroach on Mark's job. I mean, he does it so well. Nonetheless, I have to point out, it's "stand" on 21, not "stick." Look it up.

 

I am not interested in satisfying your appetite for hidden innuendos.

It is clear to me from your Posts that you have some dislike for me.

If you care to pm me with your specific disappointment, I may be able to better understand. That way we will not disrupt the other members.

 

Inserting Mark in your Post, with the obvious intent of belittlement, is somewhat childish.

My commentary concerning Mark in my Post relates to a many year use of the word "But" by me, and friendly banter between us. I have noticed your belittling manner toward Mark and others, and while you may choose to act in any manner you choose, the other targets of your internet ire and discourtesy can speak for themselves.

I choose to ignore your open Posts after this, so I do not encourage you.

PM me if you like, or not.

I wish you well.

[DaveG]

Anyone have a quick synopsis of each of those books?

 

 

jom,

 

Both books take very detailed looks at the subject. As I recall, Tripp focuses more on the political events of 1933 and mint operations while Frankel focuses more on Fenton and the presumed buyer and the legal case.

 

 

edited to add: I don't subscribe to Coin World anymore, so I don't know if RWB's 2010 article is available on their website's archive.

[MarkFeld]

Anyone have a quick synopsis of each of those books?

 

 

jom,

 

Both books take very detailed looks at the subject. As I recall, Tripp focuses more on the political events of 1933 and mint operations while Frankel focuses more on Fenton and the presumed buyer and the legal case.

 

 

edited to add: I don't subscribe to Coin World anymore, so I don't know if RWB's 2010 article is available on their website's archive.

 

I read both books quite some time ago and enjoyed each of them. That said, I found Frankel's book to be quite riveting and more enjoyable.

[Kurtdog]

The rhetoric certainly effected the outcome.

BTW, I just noticed, it's "affected" the outcome, not "effected" the outcome. It's just a diction thingy. A lot of people make that mistake. Well, some, anyway.

Thank you, but (sorry Mark) no.

Think poetic license for impact of word.

I will stick on 21.

Well, I hate to encroach on Mark's job. I mean, he does it so well. Nonetheless, I have to point out, it's "stand" on 21, not "stick." Look it up.

I am not interested in satisfying your appetite for hidden innuendos.

It is clear to me from your Posts that you have some dislike for me.

If you care to pm me with your specific disappointment, I may be able to better understand. That way we will not disrupt the other members.

 

Inserting Mark in your Post, with the obvious intent of belittlement, is somewhat childish.

My commentary concerning Mark in my Post relates to a many year use of the word "But" by me, and friendly banter between us. I have noticed your belittling manner toward Mark and others, and while you may choose to act in any manner you choose, the other targets of your internet ire and discourtesy can speak for themselves.

I choose to ignore your open Posts after this, so I do not encourage you.

PM me if you like, or not.

I wish you well.

Oh, come on. I thought you were pulling Mark's leg in that precipitous reference to him, so I played along. I thought you'd take it like you're normal. How was I to know you were going to go lunatic on me for it?

 

OK, I wish you well, too. Now go harass somebody else with your clairvoyant insights. Thank you.

[jom]

Tripp's book is "Illegal Tender."

 

Both books take very detailed looks at the subject. As I recall, Tripp focuses more on the political events of 1933 and mint operations while Frankel focuses more on Fenton and the presumed buyer and the legal case.

edited to add: I don't subscribe to Coin World anymore, so I don't know if RWB's 2010 article is available on their website's archive.

 

I read both books quite some time ago and enjoyed each of them. That said, I found Frankel's book to be quite riveting and more enjoyable.

 

Thanks for the info....much appreciated!

 

jom

[seventee]

I have spent a good amount of time recently analyzing the Mint's "Timeline for the 1933 Double Eagle." I printed this document out for myself a few years ago and had forgotten about it but,thankfully,rediscovered it recently.I would like to share parts of it with you all here as I did ATS in "Langbords win" thread over there.The date bolded entries seen below are verbatim from usmint.gov:

 

First entry:

March 4,1933 "Franklin Roosevelt Inaugurated"

 

Second entry:

March 5,1933 "Last shipment of gold coin from the Mint"

 

Third entry:

March 6,1933 "Presidential Proclamation 2039 Declares Bank Holiday- Payment of Gold Coin Prohibited)"

 

Now it starts to get interesting,at least to me:

 

Fourth entry:

March 15,1933-March 24,1933 "First 100,000 1933 Double Eagles struck"

 

The Mint is incorrect in their timeline about the start date for striking of '33 Doubles.The first striking of 1933 Doubles was made March 2,1933.It's in the Mint's own record.Tripp and Burdette too, far as I know, both acknowledge that the first '33 Doubles were struck March 2.

 

April 5,1933 "Executive Order 6102 (Requires return of all gold coin with specific exceptions)

 

Conclusion:

A "window of opportunity" for a member of the public to lawfully acquire a shiny new '33 Double at the Mint window by exchanging old coin for new could not have begun earlier than March 2 (when '33 Double production commenced)and could not have ended later than April 5 (after Executive Order 6102).

 

There's not an earth-shattering revelation here.The conclusion above is unequivocal,however.

 

Now let's go to year 1944 on the Mint's timeline for the 1933 Double Eagle:

 

February 25,1944 "Royal Legation delivers 1933 Double Eagle to United States Mint with request for Export License."

 

February 29, 1944 "United States Treasury issues Egyptian Royal Legation Export License TGL-170 for 1933 Double Eagle."

 

The actual issue of the license was March 11,1944 according to Tripp (parentheses mine):

 

"Two weeks later,on March 11,1944,Mr. Fahim (of the Egyptian Legation) returned to the Mint offices,where the 1933 double eagle was returned to him along with the newly issued License TGL-11-170." Illegal Tender,p.83.

 

Nellie Tayloe Ross,Director of the Mint in 1944,had signed off on the '33 Double leaving the United States,destination Egypt,to reside in King Farouk's collection.Mrs. Ross did this only after consulting with Theodore Belote of the Smithsonian:

 

"Mrs. Ross asked if the coin that the Egyptian legation wished to export from the United States had been recognized as a coin of special value to coin collectors since before FDR's Executive Order of April 5,1933,which demanded the return of gold,and ever since." Illegal Tender,p.81.

 

Belote answered that (paraphrasing) "Yes,the 1933 Double was recognized as having special interest to collectors." Here's the Mint's timeline entry for this:

 

March 6,1944 "Letter from Associate Director of Smithsonian Institution to Mint Director Ross confirming that coin was shown to T. Belote who answered affirmatively that coin was of special interest to collectors prior to April 5,1933 and December 28,1933." (parentheses mine)

 

The license was not signed off on by NTR until consulting with T. Belote so the Mint timeline is wrong here.The export license was issued after,not before,NTR consulted with T. Belote. Further,Tripp maintains that Belote was wrong about '33 Doubles having special interest to collectors in 1933.Tripp states that,

 

"In years past,up to 1916,specially struck samples of the nation's coinage,called cabinet coins or proofs,could be purchased by collectors from the Mint at a modest cost above face value. For a double eagle the added charge was twenty-five cents. However, all of the nearly half-million 1933 double eagles had been struck with the intention of their being circulated as spending money,not as special,collectible,"souvenir coins" with added value.

If the double eagles had been issued in 1933-like the millions of 1933 one-cent pieces that were released-they would have been worth nothing more than face value-twenty dollars,just as the 1933 pennies were worth only one cent."

 

Illegal Tender,chapter 6,"A Double Eagle Flies to Cairo," p.82

 

This single post is getting lengthy so I'm ending this post at this point.There is more analysis of events of 1944 coming from me and I will post more later.

 

Questions\ Do you agree or disagree with Tripp about 1933 Doubles not having special interest to collectors in 1933,specifically, special interest prior to April 5,1933? Does a distinction need to be made between what constitutes

"special value" and what constitutes "special interest?"

 

ATS the Langbord win thread is approaching 500 posts! I started a "You won." thread over there so I invite you all over there to come on over and take a "look see."

 

I'm a neophyte over here.This is my third post.Can anyone here tell me how I can edit a post? Sometimes I will edit my post (like I do ATS) to make corrections,especially if I determine that I have misspoken on something that I consider important for folks to understand correctly.Also, I will edit to correct spelling errors,bad sentence structure,bad word choice,etc.

 

The grass has grown two inches since I started this post...

 

I'll be back...

[RWB]

Item #2 is wrong.

 

If you are a coin collector, then each new date/mint is of special interest: i.e.: subject to someone - anyone - willing to pay more than face value.

 

The EOs referred to hoarding - read the originals!

 

I don't think it's fair to Tripp or Frankel to try and make complete sense out of incomplete, obsolete and dramatized material published years ago.

[seventee]

MarkFeld

Welcome. I have seen some of your posts on the other forum.

 

Regardless of the answers to your above questions, if the coins were exchanged for other Saints of a different date or dates, there was no theft involved.

 

There is no evidence or report that there was any shortage of Saints.

 

Such exchanges were legal and not particularly unusual. Additionally, it is known that not all of the exchanges were recorded.

 

After you have read Alison Frankel's book on the subject, I think you might have a different impression regarding what might have occurred. That is, if you're open minded about it. ;\)

 

I intend to read Frankel's book in full.I've just read some parts of it so don't have a good handle on her "leanings" in my mind.I will say that I think Tripp definitely has "leanings" toward the Gov side of the story of what happened.

 

I just received in the mail a third book on Double Eagles,the Official Red Book by Q. David Bowers.I notice he tells "The Story of the 1933 Double Eagle" starting on p.276 of his book.I undoubtedly will have an impression of Mr. Bowers "leanings" after reading his story about the 1933 Double Eagle.

 

I'm not in denial about leanings existing.Leanings most assuredly exist so one needs to put on the leanings filter to try and establish in one's mind what the real truth is. I am open-minded enough to change my mind about things. And I'm not afraid to admit that I have been wrong about something if another can demonstrate where I am wrong.

 

MrFeld here is a question for you to ponder regarding exchanges.I've asked this question ATS and will ask it here:

 

Twenty-two 1933 Double Eagles are known to exist or have existed.Two pieces are known to have unquestionably left the Mint lawfully.These two are in the Smithsonian National Numismatic Collection.All of the other twenty,

nine of which were seized from their owners in the '40's and '50's and have been melted,have been directly linked to Israel Switt as him having owned at one time. Switt is the known source,outside of the Mint, for all eleven 1933 Double Eagles known to currently exist,the ex Farouk piece and the ten pieces Gov "seized" from the Langbords.There is a very real possibility that there are more '33 Doubles out there,just waiting to be found.These would be in addition to the eleven known. My estimation from my reading is that there are at least five more '33's waiting to surface.

 

There were a few entries,separate entries made in the Daily Ledger for exchange of old coin for new '33 Eagle coins.The '33 Eagles started to be made early in 1933.The Gov has no beef, has never had a beef,with anyone in possession of a '33 Eagle coin.The Eagle coin was "issued" and one can see this by noting the few entries for $10 gold coin exchange that were made in the 1933 Daily Ledger.Now,here's my question(actually a series of questions):

 

Do you not think it peculiar that not a single entry can be seen in the Mint's 1933 Daily Ledger for exchange of old $20 gold coin for new $20 coin?

Is there an entry,any entry, to be seen in the 1932 Daily Ledger for exchanges of old gold $20 coin for new 1932 $20 gold coin? How about 1931? Any entry,even a single one, in the 1931 Daily Ledger for exchange of old $20 coin for new 1931 $20 coin?

 

1931 and 1932 entries? I don't know. If I were to find that no entry,not a single one, was made in the 1932 Daily Ledger for exchange of old $20 gold for new 1932 $20 gold piece,I would lean heavily towards not thinking it peculiar that there's not a single entry to be seen in the 1933 Daily Ledger for $20 exchange.

Same for 1931.

 

Anyone who has thoughts about what I am seeing as "peculiar" in 1933 with regard to $20 gold exchanges is welcome to voice those thoughts here.

 

What say you Mr Feld?

[MarkFeld]

MarkFeld

Welcome. I have seen some of your posts on the other forum.

 

Regardless of the answers to your above questions, if the coins were exchanged for other Saints of a different date or dates, there was no theft involved.

 

There is no evidence or report that there was any shortage of Saints.

 

Such exchanges were legal and not particularly unusual. Additionally, it is known that not all of the exchanges were recorded.

 

After you have read Alison Frankel's book on the subject, I think you might have a different impression regarding what might have occurred. That is, if you're open minded about it. ;\)

 

I intend to read Frankel's book in full.I've just read some parts of it so don't have a good handle on her "leanings" in my mind.I will say that I think Tripp definitely has "leanings" toward the Gov side of the story of what happened.

 

I just received in the mail a third book on Double Eagles,the Official Red Book by Q. David Bowers.I notice he tells "The Story of the 1933 Double Eagle" starting on p.276 of his book.I undoubtedly will have an impression of Mr. Bowers "leanings" after reading his story about the 1933 Double Eagle.

 

I'm not in denial about leanings existing.Leanings most assuredly exist so one needs to put on the leanings filter to try and establish in one's mind what the real truth is. I am open-minded enough to change my mind about things. And I'm not afraid to admit that I have been wrong about something if another can demonstrate where I am wrong.

 

MrFeld here is a question for you to ponder regarding exchanges.I've asked this question ATS and will ask it here:

 

Twenty-two 1933 Double Eagles are known to exist or have existed.Two pieces are known to have unquestionably left the Mint lawfully.These two are in the Smithsonian National Numismatic Collection.All of the other twenty,

nine of which were seized from their owners in the '40's and '50's and have been melted,have been directly linked to Israel Switt as him having owned at one time. Switt is the known source,outside of the Mint, for all eleven 1933 Double Eagles known to currently exist,the ex Farouk piece and the ten pieces Gov "seized" from the Langbords.There is a very real possibility that there are more '33 Doubles out there,just waiting to be found.These would be in addition to the eleven known. My estimation from my reading is that there are at least five more '33's waiting to surface.

 

There were a few entries,separate entries made in the Daily Ledger for exchange of old coin for new '33 Eagle coins.The '33 Eagles started to be made early in 1933.The Gov has no beef, has never had a beef,with anyone in possession of a '33 Eagle coin.The Eagle coin was "issued" and one can see this by noting the few entries for $10 gold coin exchange that were made in the 1933 Daily Ledger.Now,here's my question(actually a series of questions):

 

Do you not think it peculiar that not a single entry can be seen in the Mint's 1933 Daily Ledger for exchange of old $20 gold coin for new $20 coin?

Is there an entry,any entry, to be seen in the 1932 Daily Ledger for exchanges of old gold $20 coin for new 1932 $20 gold coin? How about 1931? Any entry,even a single one, in the 1931 Daily Ledger for exchange of old $20 coin for new 1931 $20 coin?

 

1931 and 1932 entries? I don't know. If I were to find that no entry,not a single one, was made in the 1932 Daily Ledger for exchange of old $20 gold for new 1932 $20 gold piece,I would lean heavily towards not thinking it peculiar that there's not a single entry to be seen in the 1933 Daily Ledger for $20 exchange.

Same for 1931.

 

Anyone who has thoughts about what I am seeing as "peculiar" in 1933 with regard to $20 gold exchanges is welcome to voice those thoughts here.

 

What say you Mr Feld?

 

No, mr1874, I don't think it's peculiar.

 

I don't know what percent of the time entries for such exchanges were made, but we know that they weren't always made. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if Mr. Switt obtained all of his pieces - whatever the number - in a single transaction. And if he did, that means only a single exchange went unrecorded.

[seventee]

RWB

Item #2 is wrong.

 

If you are a coin collector, then each new date/mint is of special interest: i.e.: subject to someone - anyone - willing to pay more than face value.

 

The EOs referred to hoarding - read the originals!

 

I don't think it's fair to Tripp or Frankel to try and make complete sense out of incomplete, obsolete and dramatized material published years ago.

 

Item #2 could be wrong.I'm assuming that you are referring to item #2 on the Mint's timeline for the 1933 Double Eagle.That entry is March 5,1933 "Last shipment of gold coin from the Mint."

 

What would be the correct date for last shipment then?

 

Actually,I am starting to lean away from Tripp on the "did collectors of gold coins in 1933 have "special interest" in the 1933 $20 piece prior to April 5,1933" question.I'm thinking they did.Now,the average citizen in those days was not a collector of $20 gold pieces. Average citizen in 1933 that got ahold of a new $20 gold coin regardless of date would spend it for essential things like food,rent/mortgage payment,etc.

 

I'm a metal detectorist otherwise known as a "dirt fisherman." I've been a detectorist since the mid '70's.I have found very,very few coins in the ground that are dated in the early '30's.To be more exact,if my memory is serving me well here,I have found three 1932 dated pennies over forty years of metal detecting. No '31's.No '33's.Ordinary citizens of that time simply didn't have much money for essentials much less coin collecting. How much "special interest" would the average citizen have for a Double Eagle coin,any Double Eagle coin,in 1933? I think it's safe to say zero.

 

I will be keenly interested to read Frankel's remarks about collector "special interest" if she has made any.I have already read what Tripp has to say about this and like I said,I'm starting to lean away from Tripp on this one.

[seventee]

MarkFeld

No, mr1874, I don't think it's peculiar.

 

I don't know what percent of the time entries for such exchanges were made, but we know that they weren't always made. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if Mr. Switt obtained all of his pieces - whatever the number - in a single transaction. And if he did, that means only a single exchange went unrecorded.

 

I would be shocked to see evidence that Switt obtained all twenty '33 Doubles lawfully in a single transaction at the Mint Window prior to April 5,1933.

 

Thanks for answering my post about what I see as "peculiar," Mr. Feld.

 

[RWB]

mr1874:

Your questions for Mark Field indicate that you do not understand how the US Mints operated. Likewise for most of the ones posted on PCGS. Don't feel bad - very, very few do, which is why there are experts and others.

 

I cannot give you the answers you want at this time. You will have to do meaningful research yourself or be patient until the case has been concluded.

 

If you want to understand "of special interest" simply look at the hundreds of pre-1934 auctions and compare price to face value and collector motivation.

 

 

[MarkFeld]

MarkFeld

No, mr1874, I don't think it's peculiar.

 

I don't know what percent of the time entries for such exchanges were made, but we know that they weren't always made. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if Mr. Switt obtained all of his pieces - whatever the number - in a single transaction. And if he did, that means only a single exchange went unrecorded.

 

I would be shocked to see evidence that Switt obtained all twenty '33 Doubles lawfully in a single transaction at the Mint Window prior to April 5,1933.

 

Thanks for answering my post about what I see as "peculiar," Mr. Feld.

 

You won't see direct evidence that he obtained them, at all. Nor will you see direct evidence that he or anyone else stole them. And in the absence of the latter, I believe that legally, the coins should be returned to the family.

[Afterword]

 

You won't see direct evidence that he obtained them, at all. Nor will you see direct evidence that he or anyone else stole them. And in the absence of the latter, I believe that legally, the coins should be returned to the family.

 

 

 

 

 

Indubitably.

[seventee]

My thought has been that an inductive reasoning approach would be useful in helping to solve the mystery of how twenty Double Eagles fell into private hands at some time in the '30's.

 

I haven't yet ruled out the possibility that a "window of opportunity" was indeed there for a private citizen to exchange old gold $20 for new from March 15-April 5 1933. In fact, the inductive approach that I speak of and have been trying to use to solve "the mystery" demands that I allow for the possibility of a window of opportunity rather than immediately ruling it out because I have become predisposed to David Tripp's or Alison Frankel's theft theory.

 

March 15,1933 would be the earliest date that any member of the public would be able to lawfully do exchange of old $20 gold coin for new $20 gold coin.Why is that?

 

The Mint records show that no 1933 Doubles were available to the Cashier for distribution or issuance to the public until March 15. In other words,given that none are available,none can be issued. Until the March 15 delivery from the Coiner to the Cashier of 25,000 1933 dated $20 pieces (100 bags of 250 each) occurred,there were zero quantity 1933 Doubles available for the Cashier to issue.

 

Therefore,In my mind at this time ,the frame of a possible "window of opportunity" has just shrunk by 13 days.I have accomplished this by using inductive reasoning.

 

Unless new,credible information comes out indicating that the Coiner supplied the Cashier some "hot off the press" '33 Doubles at some time between March 2 (when production started) and March 15 (when first delivery was made to the Cashier) I can not conclude otherwise about the frame of a possible window of opportunity.

 

Double Eagle by Alison Frankel has this on the front dust cover,

 

"Stolen from the U.S. Mint,shipped to Egypt,hidden for forty years,seized in a Secret Service sting,and finally sold in a record-setting auction...."

 

What I will be doing later is comparing Frankel's "stolen" theory to Tripp's using inductive reasoning.

 

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I am interested in another aspect, mr1874 (a good year, BTW).

 

Why not a book on the relentless pursuit by the Government in this matter, and the incredible waste of time and effort and public money? Would it be to establish legal precedent in other issues of greater concern to the Government? That would be an interesting subject to pursue; the reasons for the actions of the Government in this matter. Deductive reasoning of "Why" may yield a more satisfying pursuit.

 

There is a basic flaw in the Government position: there is no proof of guilt. There is innuendo. I do not detect the possibility of reaching a truthful conclusion by deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning has a place in many facets of human endeavor, but (sorry Mark), I don't think the Langbord issue is a logical use of deductive reasoning, since the reasoning is being culled from a mountain of innuendo and rhetoric, that serves no purpose other than to allow the Government to hypothesize guilt by innocence.

[RWB]

..."occurred, there were zero quantity 1933 Doubles available for the Cashier to issue."

 

Deductive reasoning is based on having facts. As noted previously, you (individually, not collectively) do no know how the mints operated or produced coins.

 

It is better to be patient.

 

(PS: I understand there are many questions. I cannot answer them until the case is over. However, if someone wants to collect questions for later response, that is OK. Maybe Mr.Mcknowitall and/or mr1874 would like to collaborate with Mark, the Capt or others in formulating questions for response sometime in the future?)

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

..."occurred, there were zero quantity 1933 Doubles available for the Cashier to issue."

 

Deductive reasoning is based on having facts. As noted previously, you (individually, not collectively) do no know how the mints operated or produced coins.

 

It is better to be patient.

 

(PS: I understand there are many questions. I cannot answer them until the case is over. However, if someone wants to collect questions for later response, that is OK. Maybe Mr.Mcknowitall and/or mr1874 would like to collaborate with Mark, the Capt or others in formulating questions for response sometime in the future?)

 

 

 

I think you may have meant to direct your reply to mr.1874, as the quote you use is not me as the source, and I assume the "you....mints operated" comment is directed at mr1874.

 

Having said that and only for the purpose to avoid confusion or misinterpretation of your Post by others, I would reply to your Post that maybe some...if not all... of those questions should have been settled before the Case started. That would have been an excellent time for patience and an opportunity for the Government to avoid accusations of theft without any proof; a 'book" has already been written many times in our History..

 

 

 

 

[RWB]

Yes....I was referring to the previous poster, mr1874. (Sometimes my old computer and browser lag a little -- depends on the gerbil and whether he/she has had their morning coffee.)

 

What "should" have been done and what "was" done are a matter of temporal perspective and opinion....but it creates a very good set of questions.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Yes....I was referring to the previous poster, mr1874. (Sometimes my old computer and browser lag a little -- depends on the gerbil and whether he/she has had their morning coffee.)

 

What "should" have been done and what "was" done are a matter of temporal perspective and opinion....but it creates a very good set of questions.

 

I certainly agree with woulda/shoula, and you are absolutely correct that an opinion is just that, and no more. My thought was and is, after reading the Threads at both locations, that the emphasis of priority that is absent from the commentary is the Government accusation of a crime without proof, and in my opinion is and should be the question asked by all. It wasn't. It became more about the numismatic/Mint worlds, and the accusation of crime was sort of left to the dusty winds.

[seventee]

Thank you all for your comments.

 

I feel the need to clarify something.The kind of reasoning I'm trying to use in an attempt to solve "the mystery" is "inductive" not "deductive."

 

There is a difference.

 

Inductive reasoning is sometimes referred to as "bottom-up" logic.Deductive reasoning is sometimes referred to as "top-down" logic.Each kind of reasoning has its place.The two kinds of reasoning are often confused.

 

In deductive reasoning, if something is true of a class of things in general, it is also true for all members of that class. For example, "All men are mortal. Harold is a man. Therefore, Harold is mortal." For deductive reasoning to be sound, the hypothesis must be correct. It is assumed that the premises, "All men are mortal" and "Harold is a man" are true. Therefore, the conclusion is logical and true.

 

Inductive reasoning is the opposite of deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning makes broad generalizations from specific observations. "In inductive inference, we go from the specific to the general. We make many observations, discern a pattern, make a generalization, and infer an explanation or a theory," ..."In science there is a constant interplay between inductive inference (based on observations) and deductive inference (based on theory), until we get closer and closer to the 'truth,' which we can only approach but not ascertain with complete certainty."

 

Even if all of the premises are true in a statement, inductive reasoning allows for the conclusion to be false. Here’s an example: "Harold is a grandfather. Harold is bald. Therefore, all grandfathers are bald." The conclusion does not follow logically from the statements.

 

Inductive reasoning has its place in the scientific method. Scientists use it to form hypotheses and theories. Deductive reasoning allows them to apply the theories to specific situations.

 

I cut and pasted the information above about inductive vs. deductive.Interested persons might want to check out this site for more on this subject:

http://www.livescience.com/21569-deduction-vs-induction.html

 

Anyone here know if the Gov owns the holders that the ten '33's are in? If Gov owns the holders (Gov paid the fees for encapsulation?) I can easily imagine Gov's position as wanting to keep the holders in the event they have to hand the coins back to the Langbords.

 

pop 'em,put 'em each in a big saflip,and then,hand 'em over?

 

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Thank you all for your comments.

 

I feel the need to clarify something.The kind of reasoning I'm trying to use in an attempt to solve "the mystery" is "inductive" not "deductive."

 

There is a difference.

 

Inductive reasoning is sometimes referred to as "bottom-up" logic.Deductive reasoning is sometimes referred to as "top-down" logic.Each kind of reasoning has its place.The two kinds of reasoning are often confused.

 

In deductive reasoning, if something is true of a class of things in general, it is also true for all members of that class. For example, "All men are mortal. Harold is a man. Therefore, Harold is mortal." For deductive reasoning to be sound, the hypothesis must be correct. It is assumed that the premises, "All men are mortal" and "Harold is a man" are true. Therefore, the conclusion is logical and true.

 

Inductive reasoning is the opposite of deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning makes broad generalizations from specific observations. "In inductive inference, we go from the specific to the general. We make many observations, discern a pattern, make a generalization, and infer an explanation or a theory," ..."In science there is a constant interplay between inductive inference (based on observations) and deductive inference (based on theory), until we get closer and closer to the 'truth,' which we can only approach but not ascertain with complete certainty."

 

Even if all of the premises are true in a statement, inductive reasoning allows for the conclusion to be false. Here’s an example: "Harold is a grandfather. Harold is bald. Therefore, all grandfathers are bald." The conclusion does not follow logically from the statements.

 

Inductive reasoning has its place in the scientific method. Scientists use it to form hypotheses and theories. Deductive reasoning allows them to apply the theories to specific situations.

 

I cut and pasted the information above about inductive vs. deductive.Interested persons might want to check out this site for more on this subject:

http://www.livescience.com/21569-deduction-vs-induction.html

 

Anyone here know if the Gov owns the holders that the ten '33's are in? If Gov owns the holders (Gov paid the fees for encapsulation?) I can easily imagine Gov's position as wanting to keep the holders in the event they have to hand the coins back to the Langbords.

 

pop 'em,put 'em each in a big saflip,and then,hand 'em over?

 

 

There is no need to explain. For myself, I understood, and am of the opinion that inductive would fail; since you had addressed inductive, I was addressing deductive and the reasons deductive would not work at this time, either. I think Mr. RWB understood, via his deductive based on fact commentary.

 

Other than that, I think everything else is understood.

 

Reaching conclusion by reverse elimination also has its place, but the threshold questions have never been addressed....criminality, theft, deceit and the proof of same, and the Mint methods that occurred ...that would maybe allow such an attempt. Until that is all deciphered, it is a method of illogical logic.