Langbords win!

[RWB]

Unfortunately, at present all of the arguments made on both boards amount to something like:

 

"Joe's TV in the family room was not working. Joe unplugged the toaster in the kitchen and stuck his wet finger in the outlet. Joe did not watch any more TV."

 

 

 

[Afterword]

With an absence of verifiable proof, only speculation is possible. And, considering when this all took place, what kind of verifiable proof could there be?

 

I suspect, short of traveling back in time and somehow witnessing the event, a degree of uncertainty will always exist.

 

[CaptHenway]

Does anybody know where I can (legally) download images of some or all of the Langbord 10 to use in an article I am writing? Likewise either one of the Smithsonian 2, or the Fenton 1?

 

Could also use a nice image of the Fenton 1 sale.

 

Thanks,

 

TD

[seventee]

With an absence of verifiable proof, only speculation is possible. And, considering when this all took place, what kind of verifiable proof could there be? I suspect, short of traveling back in time and somehow witnessing the event, a degree of uncertainty will always exist.

 

Another form of scientific reasoning that doesn't fit in with inductive or deductive reasoning is abductive. Abductive reasoning usually starts with an incomplete set of observations and proceeds to the likeliest possible explanation for the group of observations,according to Butte College. It is based on making and testing hypotheses using the best information available. It often entails making an educated guess after observing a phenomenon for which there is no clear explanation.

 

Abductive reasoning is useful for forming hypotheses to be tested. Abductive reasoning is often used by doctors who make a diagnosis based on test results and by jurors who make decisions based on the evidence presented to them.

bolding mine.

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

 

Call it an educated guess if you want.The fact is the jury was convinced enough to find for the Gov in the trial,Langbord v. United States Dept. of the Treasury,et al.

 

Anyone here know if a startling written memo from 1933 were to surface and be presented to the court would it change considerations in Langbord v. United States for the appeal court? What I'm talking about is vacating the decision of the first appeal court to return the coins to the Langbords simply because the Gov was naughty for missing paper filing deadlines.

 

A memo from the Secretary of the Treasury to the Cashier looking something like this:

 

March 13,1933

 

To:Cashier,United States Mint,Philadelphia

 

Effective immediately and in the spirit of our President Roosevelt's March 10 Executive Order 6073,you are hereby instructed to not pay out any gold coin to members of the public or to exchange any new gold coin for old for members of the public until further notice.

 

Signed

Secretary of the Treasury

 

Would the kind of thing above be admissible as evidence?

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

With an absence of verifiable proof, only speculation is possible. And, considering when this all took place, what kind of verifiable proof could there be? I suspect, short of traveling back in time and somehow witnessing the event, a degree of uncertainty will always exist.

 

Another form of scientific reasoning that doesn't fit in with inductive or deductive reasoning is abductive. Abductive reasoning usually starts with an incomplete set of observations and proceeds to the likeliest possible explanation for the group of observations,according to Butte College. It is based on making and testing hypotheses using the best information available. It often entails making an educated guess after observing a phenomenon for which there is no clear explanation.

 

Abductive reasoning is useful for forming hypotheses to be tested. Abductive reasoning is often used by doctors who make a diagnosis based on test results and by jurors who make decisions based on the evidence presented to them.

bolding mine.

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

 

Call it an educated guess if you want.The fact is the jury was convinced enough to find for the Gov in the trial,Langbord v. United States Dept. of the Treasury,et al.

 

Anyone here know if a startling written memo from 1933 were to surface and be presented to the court would it change considerations in Langbord v. United States for the appeal court? What I'm talking about is vacating the decision of the first appeal court to return the coins to the Langbords simply because the Gov was naughty for missing paper filing deadlines.

 

A memo from the Secretary of the Treasury to the Cashier looking something like this:

 

March 13,1933

 

To:Cashier,United States Mint,Philadelphia

 

Effective immediately and in the spirit of our President Roosevelt's March 10 Executive Order 6073,you are hereby instructed to not pay out any gold coin to members of the public or to exchange any new gold coin for old for members of the public until further notice.

 

Signed

Secretary of the Treasury

 

Would the kind of thing above be admissible as evidence?

 

While I understand the posit, abductive would be the least applicable to your quest, because it requires known observations that will facilitate a fill in the blanks methodology for any hypotheses. The only observation that exists is a story. A Physician arrives at a diagnoses based on known clinical observations, known scientific test methods, and known outcomes of thousands of Cases.

 

The Jury you refer to heard a story from the Government, heard innuendo from the Government, and heard titillating intrigue from the Government. What the Jury did not hear was any proof of a crime of any nature by anybody. What the Jury did not hear was why the Government would spend the time, effort and significant sums of taxpayer $ in this pursuit, and an explanation of the vested interest of the Government. Is your position that a crime was proven by the Government? The evidence presented for consideration by the jury did not prove a crime. To insinuate there was a crime based on the decision of the Jury, is without merit.

 

The Government is held to a higher Standard on behalf of the People. They failed in their endeavor. They did achieve a good outline for another whodunit book, though.

[RWB]

Hmmmm....would it be a "Who Done It" or a "Who Didn't Done it" ?

[seventee]

damn.i lost my brilliant post to mrmcknowitall.oh well it is said things happen for a reason.I'm cool with it. Used to happen to me all the time on ebay Town Square threads.

 

The Government is held to a higher Standard on behalf of the People. They failed in their endeavor. They did achieve a good outline for another whodunit book, though

 

well,okay if that's how you feel.I guess we just have to agree to disagree to use an old-worn out cliché.Forget another book.The '33 Double Eagle story has all the elements of a numismatic thriller movie....

 

The story starts in Denver Colorado.It's December,1927...Camera slowly zooms out from roaring fireplace stacked high with logs and reveals a room full of festive people.

 

A wealthy banker and his wife are entertaining their friends in their lavish home.Much cheer abounds for Christmas is just around the corner.The Denver Banker invites his good banker friend (visiting from Philadelphia) to the study to view his coin collection,a collection of St. Gaudens $20 Double Eagle coins,a collection in which he takes a lot of pride.Cocktails in hand,they enter the banker's study.The banker takes a picture off the wall that conceals a safe where his Double Eagle collection resides.He removes two albums housing the collection from the safe.

 

The two take seats on the same side of the desk and proceed to view the banker's collection.

 

A fabulous collection it is.Every single date and mint of Double Eagle,starting in 1907, excepting the Ultra High Relief pattern pieces is present in the banker's collection.The banker tells his friend of his surprise of how difficult it was for him to obtain the last coin in his collection,the 1927 Denver mint example.

 

camera zooms in on last Double Eagle in the banker's collection,the '27-D, and then rolls out of focus...fade to black...

 

fade up from black...

 

The Philadelphia Mint...January 1933....a dapper well-dressed man ascends the stairs to enter the Mint building....

 

This is going to be a great movie....

 

 

 

[Kurtdog]

With an absence of verifiable proof, only speculation is possible. And, considering when this all took place, what kind of verifiable proof could there be? I suspect, short of traveling back in time and somehow witnessing the event, a degree of uncertainty will always exist.

 

Another form of scientific reasoning that doesn't fit in with inductive or deductive reasoning is abductive. Abductive reasoning usually starts with an incomplete set of observations and proceeds to the likeliest possible explanation for the group of observations,according to Butte College. It is based on making and testing hypotheses using the best information available. It often entails making an educated guess after observing a phenomenon for which there is no clear explanation.

 

Abductive reasoning is useful for forming hypotheses to be tested. Abductive reasoning is often used by doctors who make a diagnosis based on test results and by jurors who make decisions based on the evidence presented to them.

bolding mine.

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

 

Call it an educated guess if you want.The fact is the jury was convinced enough to find for the Gov in the trial,Langbord v. United States Dept. of the Treasury,et al.

 

Anyone here know if a startling written memo from 1933 were to surface and be presented to the court would it change considerations in Langbord v. United States for the appeal court? What I'm talking about is vacating the decision of the first appeal court to return the coins to the Langbords simply because the Gov was naughty for missing paper filing deadlines.

 

A memo from the Secretary of the Treasury to the Cashier looking something like this:

 

March 13,1933

 

To:Cashier,United States Mint,Philadelphia

 

Effective immediately and in the spirit of our President Roosevelt's March 10 Executive Order 6073,you are hereby instructed to not pay out any gold coin to members of the public or to exchange any new gold coin for old for members of the public until further notice.

 

Signed

Secretary of the Treasury

 

Would the kind of thing above be admissible as evidence?

While I understand the posit, abductive would be the least applicable to your quest, because it requires known observations that will facilitate a fill in the blanks methodology for any hypotheses. The only observation that exists is a story. A Physician arrives at a diagnoses based on known clinical observations, known scientific test methods, and known outcomes of thousands of Cases.

 

The Jury you refer to heard a story from the Government, heard innuendo from the Government, and heard titillating intrigue from the Government. What the Jury did not hear was any proof of a crime of any nature by anybody. What the Jury did not hear was why the Government would spend the time, effort and significant sums of taxpayer $ in this pursuit, and an explanation of the vested interest of the Government. Is your position that a crime was proven by the Government? The evidence presented for consideration by the jury did not prove a crime. To insinuate there was a crime based on the decision of the Jury, is without merit.

 

The Government is held to a higher Standard on behalf of the People. They failed in their endeavor. They did achieve a good outline for another whodunit book, though.

You guys are on another planet. Let me tell you the only thing in the foregoing banter that makes any sense. It's this:

 

What I'm talking about is vacating the decision of the first appeal court to return the coins to the Langbords simply because the Gov was naughty for missing paper filing deadlines.

Two things. One, it's questionable whether this Third Circuit Court of Appeals construed this statute right. Two, even is this was a forfeiture, the purpose of the statute is to get the facts on the seized asset claim before the jury, which is, duh, what already happened.

 

This was an absurd holding. That's going to come out. You just sit back and watch and see...

 

[Conder101]

Anyone here know if a startling written memo from 1933 were to surface and be presented to the court would it change considerations in Langbord v. United States for the appeal court? What I'm talking about is vacating the decision of the first appeal court to return the coins to the Langbords simply because the Gov was naughty for missing paper filing deadlines.

 

A memo from the Secretary of the Treasury to the Cashier looking something like this:

 

March 13,1933

 

To:Cashier,United States Mint,Philadelphia

 

Effective immediately and in the spirit of our President Roosevelt's March 10 Executive Order 6073,you are hereby instructed to not pay out any gold coin to members of the public or to exchange any new gold coin for old for members of the public until further notice.

 

Signed

Secretary of the Treasury

Yes a memo like that would have changed a lot because it would have removed the "window of opportunity" for them to leave legally. Unfortunately I believe there is a memo something along those lines, but it is dated in April.

 

 

the purpose of the statute is to get the facts on the seized asset claim before the jury, which is, duh, what already happened.

From my reading of the statute it looks to me like the purpose of the statute is keep the government from seizing property without having good reason. That's why the property holder can appeal the seizure, why there is a deadline for the government to reply (they have to show they have good reason), and why there is the penalty to the government if they chose to ignore the appeal filing (having to return the property and not being able to continue trying to recover it.)

 

The whole thing seems to me to be a measure to keep the government from seizing property without good reason or as a punitive measure.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

damn.i lost my brilliant post to mrmcknowitall.oh well it is said things happen for a reason.I'm cool with it. Used to happen to me all the time on ebay Town Square threads.

 

The Government is held to a higher Standard on behalf of the People. They failed in their endeavor. They did achieve a good outline for another whodunit book, though

 

well,okay if that's how you feel.I guess we just have to agree to disagree to use an old-worn out cliché.Forget another book.The '33 Double Eagle story has all the elements of a numismatic thriller movie....

 

The story starts in Denver Colorado.It's December,1927...Camera slowly zooms out from roaring fireplace stacked high with logs and reveals a room full of festive people.

 

A wealthy banker and his wife are entertaining their friends in their lavish home.Much cheer abounds for Christmas is just around the corner.The Denver Banker invites his good banker friend (visiting from Philadelphia) to the study to view his coin collection,a collection of St. Gaudens $20 Double Eagle coins,a collection in which he takes a lot of pride.Cocktails in hand,they enter the banker's study.The banker takes a picture off the wall that conceals a safe where his Double Eagle collection resides.He removes two albums housing the collection from the safe.

 

The two take seats on the same side of the desk and proceed to view the banker's collection.

 

A fabulous collection it is.Every single date and mint of Double Eagle,starting in 1907, excepting the Ultra High Relief pattern pieces is present in the banker's collection.The banker tells his friend of his surprise of how difficult it was for him to obtain the last coin in his collection,the 1927 Denver mint example.

 

camera zooms in on last Double Eagle in the banker's collection,the '27-D, and then rolls out of focus...fade to black...

 

fade up from black...

 

The Philadelphia Mint...January 1933....a dapper well-dressed man ascends the stairs to enter the Mint building....

 

This is going to be a great movie....

 

 

 

 

I did not intend to upstage or minimize your thoughts and opinions. It was simply a very interesting logic exercise and I enjoyed the exchange.

 

My only comment would be concerning the cliche'. Tired and old it may be, yet the U.S. Supreme court still finds a modicum of merit in it, as recently as April 2015. The Government Executive in April 2015 Edition also discusses the issue as it applies to Civilian v. Military Agencies.

 

I guess we would have to consider that the Members of SCOTUS are a little tired and worn out, and not 21 anymore, so you may be right.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

It is a nice planet.

[RWB]

"The banker tells his friend of his surprise of how difficult it was for him to obtain the last coin in his collection,the 1927 Denver mint example."

 

Actually,it would have been very easy for the Denver coin collector to fill his 1927-D slot. All he had to do was walk to the Denver Mint anytime after August 25 and exchange a nice double eagle for one of the current date. This is something collectors had been doing for many years, and the mints encouraged coin collecting. The transaction in 1927 changed nothing in the Denver Mint's inventory so there was no purpose in keeping a record of such a trivial event.

[seventee]

Okay.Thanks for your observation here,RWB.

 

Scratch the lines out of the -script about difficulty obtaining '27-D.Substitute with....I'm drawing a blank right now but rest assured I will come up with lines that make more sense to the more intense movie watcher.

 

Note:No 27-D quarter eagles,half eagles,or eagles were struck.Some $20's struck but not very many,only 180,000.

 

Camera still zooms in on the '27-D at end of scene...ECU of date/mintmark....

roll out of focus and fade to black for segue into next scene...

 

August 25? Why so late before the '27-D $20's became available? Does it have to do with Denver mint being mostly busy earlier in the year striking lower denominations that the public actually used to buy things with?

 

I see Gov producing the highest denomination gold pieces,the $10's and $20's,as being mainly for transfers of large amounts between banks. For the public at large,the $10's and $20's were mainly for show? The average citizen could not afford to actually keep/collect $20 gold pieces?

 

One might have obtained a shiny new $20 gold piece as a novelty by trading an accumulation of pennies,nickels,dimes,quarters,halves,or dollars? Did it have to be gold for gold at the Mint window?

 

When I was a kid,I would go down to the bank every now and then and obtain a silver dollar for my dollar's worth of pennies,nickels,dimes.Eventually,I would spend the silver dollar so the dollar was a novelty item for me in those days,the early '60's.

 

I recall once choosing a really nice '34 Peace dollar from the few till dollars presented to me for trade.Mint luster,"S" mintmark. I had it for a few days and then spent it.

 

 

[World Colonial]

The Jury you refer to heard a story from the Government, heard innuendo from the Government, and heard titillating intrigue from the Government. What the Jury did not hear was any proof of a crime of any nature by anybody. What the Jury did not hear was why the Government would spend the time, effort and significant sums of taxpayer $ in this pursuit, and an explanation of the vested interest of the Government. Is your position that a crime was proven by the Government? The evidence presented for consideration by the jury did not prove a crime. To insinuate there was a crime based on the decision of the Jury, is without merit.

 

This is exactly how I see it. I wish I could have been on the jury. If I had been, I would require proof that the coins were illegally obtained. Illegally that is, under what I consider an unconsitutional executive order. I agree with you based upon the content of the posts I have read here and PCGS.

 

Apparently, no gold was missing according to the inventory records. Apparenlty, it was also common practice or at least hardly out of the ordinary for the public to exchange coins in person at the Philadelphia Mint. There was also a "window of opportunity" to make the exchange, particularly if I read correctly that Swift was located right near the Mint.

 

My conclusion is that it is entirely posssble and logical that the exchange could have occurred within this "window of opportunity". Whether it actually did or not is irrelevant because it isn't incumbent upon a defendant to prove their innocence or disprove their guilt.

 

If the premises I included are accurate, then the government cannot prove the coins were actually stolen or illegally obtained, only that they "might" have been. I consider the government's case completely baseless.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

The Jury you refer to heard a story from the Government, heard innuendo from the Government, and heard titillating intrigue from the Government. What the Jury did not hear was any proof of a crime of any nature by anybody. What the Jury did not hear was why the Government would spend the time, effort and significant sums of taxpayer $ in this pursuit, and an explanation of the vested interest of the Government. Is your position that a crime was proven by the Government? The evidence presented for consideration by the jury did not prove a crime. To insinuate there was a crime based on the decision of the Jury, is without merit.

 

This is exactly how I see it. I wish I could have been on the jury. If I had been, I would require proof that the coins were illegally obtained. Illegally that is, under what I consider an unconsitutional executive order. I agree with you based upon the content of the posts I have read here and PCGS.

 

Apparently, no gold was missing according to the inventory records. Apparenlty, it was also common practice or at least hardly out of the ordinary for the public to exchange coins in person at the Philadelphia Mint. There was also a "window of opportunity" to make the exchange, particularly if I read correctly that Swift was located right near the Mint.

 

My conclusion is that it is entirely posssble and logical that the exchange could have occurred within this "window of opportunity". Whether it actually did or not is irrelevant because it isn't incumbent upon a defendant to prove their innocence or disprove their guilt.

 

If the premises I included are accurate, then the government cannot prove the coins were actually stolen or illegally obtained, only that they "might" have been. I consider the government's case completely baseless.

 

I sense a problem. Either a major Volcano is going to erupt in CONUS, or a 40 day Flood is about to hit CONUS, or General Patton has been discovered alive, because there are no other logical explanations that will explain the phenomenon that you see something the same as me. I just had a minor MI, when I read your Post. You have to give a person gentle warnings on such occasions...you just can't put it out there. That is AFib territory, for goodness sake.

[RWB]

If you have good insurance, wheel over to my office....Well, don't do the MD stuff, but could assess your mental state after the MI - or during -----. And we have aspirin handy, too.

[DaveG]

IIRC, way back when the Langbord case was new, ATS boardmember Sanction II posited that the evidence wasn't particularly compelling and whichever side had to prove their case would lose.

 

That is, if the Government had to prove that the coins were stolen, there wasn't sufficient evidence to demonstrate that and if the Langbords had to prove that the coins weren't stolen, there wasn't sufficient evidence to demonstrate that, either.

 

If so, I suggest that applying any sort of logical analysis to the case wouldn't be worthwhile.

[CaptHenway]

Does anybody have a link to a picture I can use of the SOtheby sale of the so-called Farouk coin?

 

Real tight on deadline.

 

TD

[World Colonial]

IIRC, way back when the Langbord case was new, ATS boardmember Sanction II posited that the evidence wasn't particularly compelling and whichever side had to prove their case would lose.

 

That is, if the Government had to prove that the coins were stolen, there wasn't sufficient evidence to demonstrate that and if the Langbords had to prove that the coins weren't stolen, there wasn't sufficient evidence to demonstrate that, either.

 

If so, I suggest that applying any sort of logical analysis to the case wouldn't be worthwhile.

 

The Langbord's having to prove they obtained the coins legally is IRS logic. My understanding is that this wasn't even a forfeiture case but from the accounts I have read of actual forfeiture cases, the defendent has to prove they owned the property after the government seizes it. I consider both "" backwards and turning the concept of due process into a farce.

 

I haven't read up on the details but my interpretation of the posts here and on PCGS leads me to believe that the government was able to convince the jury that because the coins were hidden for such a long time, the family (supposedly) knew they were obtained illegally or weren't legal to own.

 

I mean, it isn't like the government would ever act out of pure spite (which is my interpretation of the government's behaviour) or arbitrarily. Sometimes people act guilty because they are and other times they act "guilty" even when they are not. In the latter, it is actually fear and there are a lot of people who are afraid of the government, logical or not.

[seventee]

Scratch December,1927 start of movie.The movie starts December,1932.

 

Christmas is just around the corner....

 

camera zooms out slowly from robustly burning fireplace in a Denver banker's lavish home...the wealthy banker and his wife are entertaining friends....there is much joviality in the air...smiling faces...animated conversations...there are kids there too....there is a hired Santa Claus for the kids to ask Santa what he is bringing them for Christmas....

 

Banker from Philadelphia is visiting and conversing with Denver banker...

during the course of the conversation subject turns to coin collecting...Denver banker has a collection of St. Gaudens $20 gold coins that he is very proud of and invites the other banker to his study to view his collection....

 

The two go to the study,cocktails in hand...Denver banker removes two albums from wall safe that is concealed behind a painting,a portrait of (tbd) on the wall..

They take seats on the same side of the banker's enormous desk and proceed to view the collection together...

 

The collection is fabulous and complete.The banker has every single mint and date combination of St. Gaudens $20 from 1907 thru 1932...only missing the two Ultra High Relief 1907's which the banker explains are pattern pieces and so are not considered important for "completeness" of the series.

 

The 1932 dated example from the Philadelphia mint is the last one (ECU of 1932 piece) in his collection and the Denver banker remarks to the other banker that he is looking forward to obtaining the next issue,a '33, for his collection.He states that most likely,no 33's will be produced by the Denver or San Francisco mint but that the Philadelphia mint might produce some '33's and make them available for collectors.

 

Denver banker puts the coin albums back into the safe and the two leave the study to partake in the festivities....

 

Santa is seated in his chair ready to listen to what the kids have to say about what they want for Christmas...Santa has been taking a few nips of hootch (discretely mind you...it is Prohibition,after all) so he's a little giddy and more rosy faced than usual...The banker's son is the first one to sit on Santa's lap and tell Santa what he wants for Christmas....tbd what banker's son tells Santa he wants for Christmas....

 

Camera zooms back into fireplace....opening credits.....slow dissolve to beginning of next scene....

 

January,1933.The Philadelphia Mint....a dapper well-dressed man ascends the steps and enters the Mint building...

 

to be continued...

 

tbd-to be determined

 

[RWB]

Ahhh...the joys of fiction!

[World Colonial]

I believe I saw this post before, maybe where you posted it on PCGS though I do not post there. Regardless, what does this fictional scenario have to do with this case?

 

If this is supposed to be an analogy to what might have happened in 1933, so what? Did the government prove this at the trial? If they presented it without proof, why should anyone believe it?

 

I have read all of your posts on PCGS on this topic and while you have claimed to be open to seeing this case objectively, seems to me you have already concluded that the goverment is properly entitled to own the coins, presumably because of the book or books you read. I believe the opposite from reading your posts and those of others both here and on PCGS because from what I can see, the government didn't prove anything.

[seventee]

I believe I saw this post before, maybe where you posted it on PCGS though I do not post there. Regardless, what does this fictional scenario have to do with this case?

 

If this is supposed to be an analogy to what might have happened in 1933, so what? Did the government prove this at the trial? If they presented it without proof, why should anyone believe it?

 

I have read all of your posts on PCGS on this topic and while you have claimed to be open to seeing this case objectively, seems to me you have already concluded that the goverment is properly entitled to own the coins, presumably because of the book or books you read. I believe the opposite from reading your posts and those of others both here and on PCGS because from what I can see, the government didn't prove anything.

 

I'm writing a movie,a numismatic thriller.Have any ideas for a title?

 

I haven't posted any of my movie material ATS.You all can say you saw it here first when I step up to the podium at The Academy to accept my awards.

 

I am open-minded about the subject.In fact,I'm saying now that Tripp is wrong about there being no special interest in 1933 Doubles.There most certainly was special interest in 1933 Doubles,interest among rich collectors of the day that is. An average member of the public had no special interest in $20 coins other than wishing he had one to spend on food or rent or a new pair of shoes.We are not talking about average people when we consider who has special interest in 1933 Double eagles.Among rich coin collectors is where the special interest is.Tripp doesn't sufficiently establish this fact in his book,Illegal Tender,in my opinion.

 

The rich collectors of the '30's were not limited to having just special interest in the coins of the day.One gets a sense of influential collectors "looking for special favors." I refer the reader to reading and study of the letters in An Inside View of the Coin Hobby in the 1930's: The Walter P. Nichols File,Edited by Q. David Bowers.

 

On p.33 of this book (I now have four books loaded with fiction and information about '33 Double eagles) there is a very interesting letter to be seen.Here it is:

Within the letter body,bolding is mine,italicized and bolded is my note.

 

TREASURY DEPARTMENT

Office of Treasurer of the United States

Washington, D.C.

 

January 13,1933

 

Honorable David I. Walsh,

United States Senate,

Washington, D.C.

 

My dear Senator:

 

I have your letter of January 10 enclosing a letter to you from Mr. Walter P. Nichols of Melrose,Massachusetts,with further reference to obtaining an additional quantity of new one-cent pieces.

 

As you know,the Government's coins are manufactured for specific use as a medium of exchange,and for that purpose unlimited amounts may be obtained,

but there is no law requiring the Treasury to furnish either new coins or coins of any particular year's mintage.

 

The Treasury's policy with respect to coins,which was adopted many years ago in the interest of economy,has been outlined in previous correspondence. In recent years the volume of excess used coins in the hands of Federal Reserve banks and branches has steadily increased to the point where the matter of adequate storage space now presents a serious problem. Moreover,during a period of curtailed expenditures it would appear to be inadvisable to issue new coins when an overabundance of circulated is available.

 

I'm thinking "circulated" refers to "issued coins" in addition to coins that have become worn from circulating through hands.For example,in 1933,1932 and previous years coinage was issued so it would be considered circulating or circulated coinage regardless of actual physical wear that might be present on some of the pieces.A "Brilliant Uncirculated" 1932 Double would be considered

"circulated" or "not new" in 1933 in Treasury Department parlance,in other words.

 

The Department accommodates coin collectors by furnishing a few pieces of the available new coins for their collections,but it does not feel that it would be justified in establishing a precedent by supplying one hundred pieces of each mint's coinage to any one person when it is uniformly limiting the number to ten pieces. Obviously it would be unjust to grant one request and not all, and to grant all requests received for new coins would result in a substantial increase in cost to the Government over the present procedure......if the amounts requested were supplied to all applicants,the aggregate would be considerable.

 

Mr. Nichols' letter is returned herewith as requested.

 

Very truly yours

W.O. Woods

Treasurer

 

Ed. Note:The preceding letter represents one of several efforts made by Senator David I. Walsh on behalf of his constituent,Walter P. Nichols.

 

Nichols ended up receiving,for his collection,ten 1932 one-cent pieces,ten 1932-D one cent pieces,and four new 1932 quarters from each of the three mints.

 

So here we have a collector trying to use a Senator's influence to get his way.Several efforts,not just one or two, were made according to the editor.

 

Is there a sense that the Treasurer, by his noting "there is no law," was kind of peeved? Was Nichols trying to bully the Treasury to get his way?

 

"There is no law requiring the Treasury to furnish either new coins or coins of any particular year's mintage...it would appear to be inadvisable to issue new coins when an overabundance of circulated is available."

 

Hold these thoughts.I may feel the need to expand on them.

 

Opening scene of movie I'm trying to establish special interest by a wealthy collector (in December,1932) to acquire a '33 Double for his collection.That's mostly what the first scene is about.I'm still thinking about what I'm going to have the Banker's son telling Santa what he wants for Christmas.

 

What do you think about my opening scene having a discretely imbibing Santa at the banker's Christmas party?

 

As a side note,the adults who are drinking alcoholic beverages at the party,including Santa, are not doing so in the spirit and intent of the Eighteenth Amendment which established Prohibition.The Volstead Act was repealed a year later,December,1933.Strictly speaking,the consumption of alcoholic beverages was not illegal by the Volstead Act but the imbibing adults are all guilty of supporting gangster suppliers like Al Capone.The banker had to get the booze for the party from somebody engaging in illegal activity,right?

[RWB]

Collectors have requested "special favors" for 2+ centuries, but don't read the Nichols book as a pervasive practice....of course, in fiction it doesn't matter. Neither should you presume that all patterns and experimental pieces were made to sell to collectors at handsome profits. Much of that is unsubstantiated, as are "branch mint proofs" and "Zerbe proofs" and other silliness.

[DaveG]

mr1874,

 

If you're seriously interested in writing something about the period, I suggest you get a lot more familiar with the period before you do so. 1932 was a pretty tough year. Also, one had to have a pretty serious reason to travel from Philadelphia to Denver in those days - the train trip probably took a full 24 hours or more and it wasn't inexpensive.

 

What do you think about my opening scene having a discretely imbibing Santa at the banker's Christmas party?

 

I guess it depends on who is playing Santa - if you can't answer the question "why is Santa drinking?", then delete it. In general, upper class affairs were more formal then than they are now.

 

 

As a side note,the adults who are drinking alcoholic beverages at the party,including Santa, are not doing so in the spirit and intent of the Eighteenth Amendment which established Prohibition.The Volstead Act was repealed a year later,December,1933.Strictly speaking,the consumption of alcoholic beverages was not illegal by the Volstead Act but the imbibing adults are all guilty of supporting gangster suppliers like Al Capone.The banker had to get the booze for the party from somebody engaging in illegal activity,right?

 

In general, pretty much everyone patronized a bootlegger during Prohibition - that's how organized crime got so powerful. Everyone knew it was illegal and everyone did it. I guess it was like buying weed in California or Colorado a few years ago

[World Colonial]

Fair enough, but no, I am don't have any suggestions.

 

Since I didn't follow the case at all and have only read the posts here and on PCGS, I'm not fully familiar with the significance of "special interest" but I don't see that it is that important anyway much less conclusive. Maybe it is supposed to be indicative of intent, I do not know.

 

Regardless, if one or more of the three conditons I listed cannot be proved by the government, seems to me that this "special interest" is irrelevant.

[Kurtdog]

I believe I saw this post before, maybe where you posted it on PCGS though I do not post there. Regardless, what does this fictional scenario have to do with this case?

 

If this is supposed to be an analogy to what might have happened in 1933, so what? Did the government prove this at the trial? If they presented it without proof, why should anyone believe it?

 

I have read all of your posts on PCGS on this topic and while you have claimed to be open to seeing this case objectively, seems to me you have already concluded that the goverment is properly entitled to own the coins, presumably because of the book or books you read. I believe the opposite from reading your posts and those of others both here and on PCGS because from what I can see, the government didn't prove anything.

 

I'm writing a movie,a numismatic thriller.Have any ideas for a title?

 

I haven't posted any of my movie material ATS.You all can say you saw it here first when I step up to the podium at The Academy to accept my awards.

 

I am open-minded about the subject.In fact,I'm saying now that Tripp is wrong about there being no special interest in 1933 Doubles.There most certainly was special interest in 1933 Doubles,interest among rich collectors of the day that is. An average member of the public had no special interest in $20 coins other than wishing he had one to spend on food or rent or a new pair of shoes.We are not talking about average people when we consider who has special interest in 1933 Double eagles.Among rich coin collectors is where the special interest is.Tripp doesn't sufficiently establish this fact in his book,Illegal Tender,in my opinion.

 

The rich collectors of the '30's were not limited to having just special interest in the coins of the day.One gets a sense of influential collectors "looking for special favors." I refer the reader to reading and study of the letters in An Inside View of the Coin Hobby in the 1930's: The Walter P. Nichols File,Edited by Q. David Bowers.

 

On p.33 of this book (I now have four books loaded with fiction and information about '33 Double eagles) there is a very interesting letter to be seen.Here it is:

Within the letter body,bolding is mine,italicized and bolded is my note.

 

TREASURY DEPARTMENT

Office of Treasurer of the United States

Washington, D.C.

 

January 13,1933

 

Honorable David I. Walsh,

United States Senate,

Washington, D.C.

 

My dear Senator:

 

I have your letter of January 10 enclosing a letter to you from Mr. Walter P. Nichols of Melrose,Massachusetts,with further reference to obtaining an additional quantity of new one-cent pieces.

 

As you know,the Government's coins are manufactured for specific use as a medium of exchange,and for that purpose unlimited amounts may be obtained,

but there is no law requiring the Treasury to furnish either new coins or coins of any particular year's mintage.

 

The Treasury's policy with respect to coins,which was adopted many years ago in the interest of economy,has been outlined in previous correspondence. In recent years the volume of excess used coins in the hands of Federal Reserve banks and branches has steadily increased to the point where the matter of adequate storage space now presents a serious problem. Moreover,during a period of curtailed expenditures it would appear to be inadvisable to issue new coins when an overabundance of circulated is available.

 

I'm thinking "circulated" refers to "issued coins" in addition to coins that have become worn from circulating through hands.For example,in 1933,1932 and previous years coinage was issued so it would be considered circulating or circulated coinage regardless of actual physical wear that might be present on some of the pieces.A "Brilliant Uncirculated" 1932 Double would be considered

"circulated" or "not new" in 1933 in Treasury Department parlance,in other words.

 

The Department accommodates coin collectors by furnishing a few pieces of the available new coins for their collections,but it does not feel that it would be justified in establishing a precedent by supplying one hundred pieces of each mint's coinage to any one person when it is uniformly limiting the number to ten pieces. Obviously it would be unjust to grant one request and not all, and to grant all requests received for new coins would result in a substantial increase in cost to the Government over the present procedure......if the amounts requested were supplied to all applicants,the aggregate would be considerable.

 

Mr. Nichols' letter is returned herewith as requested.

 

Very truly yours

W.O. Woods

Treasurer

 

Ed. Note:The preceding letter represents one of several efforts made by Senator David I. Walsh on behalf of his constituent,Walter P. Nichols.

 

Nichols ended up receiving,for his collection,ten 1932 one-cent pieces,ten 1932-D one cent pieces,and four new 1932 quarters from each of the three mints.

 

So here we have a collector trying to use a Senator's influence to get his way.Several efforts,not just one or two, were made according to the editor.

 

Is there a sense that the Treasurer, by his noting "there is no law," was kind of peeved? Was Nichols trying to bully the Treasury to get his way?

 

"There is no law requiring the Treasury to furnish either new coins or coins of any particular year's mintage...it would appear to be inadvisable to issue new coins when an overabundance of circulated is available."

 

Hold these thoughts.I may feel the need to expand on them.

 

Opening scene of movie I'm trying to establish special interest by a wealthy collector (in December,1932) to acquire a '33 Double for his collection.That's mostly what the first scene is about.I'm still thinking about what I'm going to have the Banker's son telling Santa what he wants for Christmas.

 

What do you think about my opening scene having a discretely imbibing Santa at the banker's Christmas party?

 

As a side note,the adults who are drinking alcoholic beverages at the party,including Santa, are not doing so in the spirit and intent of the Eighteenth Amendment which established Prohibition.The Volstead Act was repealed a year later,December,1933.Strictly speaking,the consumption of alcoholic beverages was not illegal by the Volstead Act but the imbibing adults are all guilty of supporting gangster suppliers like Al Capone.The banker had to get the booze for the party from somebody engaging in illegal activity,right?

Why don't you have a little respect and start a separate thread on that? I see new pages added to this thread and I pop in here thinking I'm going to read the latest on this case and it takes me three pages to figure out I'm reading about some Hollywood production in the works. And don't speak bad about Al Capone. My grandfather and great-grandfather would give you a sock in the kisser for that.

[RWB]

So....! That's where my extra socks go! Al Capone put them in his safe for Geraldo Somebody to open.....You learn all kinds of good stuff on the imterget.

 

 

[Kurtdog]

So....! That's where my extra socks go! Al Capone put them in his safe for Geraldo Somebody to open.....You learn all kinds of good stuff on the imterget.

Well ain't you a punny little thing?

 

OK, you want to play like that, I got one. Speaking about making movies, when is your book coming out? Go to any coin forum, just look at all the customers you'll have. Even got the title for you: "How the Dumb Jury Got It Wrong," by expert witness, RWB. Subtitle: "An Insider's Perspective." Or, if you think that big word, "Perspective," may be too intellectually-challenging and alienate some of your slower readers, just use, "Look." I'd stick with the big word, though, because big words make one look smart.

 

Put me down for a First Edition, provided it's autographed.

[RWB]

Maybe it will be an "imterget"-inspired sensation like "The Martian."