Roger Burdette's Saint Gaudens Double Eagles Book 4 4

[GoldFinger1969]

2 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

True, IF you believe metals are a useful hedge. I do not.

We're not talking about PM's being a hedge against other financial investments, Kurt....I'm talking about using ETFs to hedge/lock-in the current price of the metal.  

I make no judgement on the wisdom of the purchase, I'm simply giving a factual analysis of locking in the current price.  It may turn out to be a great purchase or a lousy purchase.  I'm just talking about locking in the price and NOT paying the temporarily inflated premium.

[Henri Charriere]

37 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

It matters not. The cold hard truth is that the vast majority of precious metals investors/speculators get their teeth kicked in.

That's what happens to those who walk around with gold teeth and silver fillings 😉

[VKurtB]

Just now, GoldFinger1969 said:

We're not talking about PM's being a hedge against other financial investments, Kurt....I'm talking about using ETFs to hedge/lock-in the current price of the metal.  

I make no judgement on the wisdom of the purchase, I'm simply giving a factual analysis of locking in the current price.  It may turn out to be a great purchase or a lousy purchase.  I'm just talking about locking in the price and NOT paying the temporarily inflated premium.

Okay, fine. If your purpose is to lock in as close to published spot as possible, you’ve done as well as any small to medium market participant can.

[GoldFinger1969]

2 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

I find 1944 and 1928 irrelevant. The 21st century case stands on its own merits. 

Or de-merits. 

[GoldFinger1969]

Just now, VKurtB said:

Okay, fine. If your purpose is to lock in as close to published spot as possible, you’ve done as well as any small to medium market participant can.

Yes, I think we were talking different things....this premium on ASEs is at the heart of the matter.  I guess normally it's $1-$2 and now it's closer to $5-$7.  

As long as the SLV ETF tracks spot silver, it's a good "hedge" to buy the metal and not pay the inflated premium.

[VKurtB]

Just now, GoldFinger1969 said:

Or de-merits. 

An en banc circuit ruled and the SCOTUS denied certiorari. That’s about as clear as anything ever gets. 

[VKurtB]

Just now, GoldFinger1969 said:

Yes, I think we were talking different things....this premium on ASEs is at the heart of the matter.  I guess normally it's $1-$2 and now it's closer to $5-$7.  

As long as the SLV ETF tracks spot silver, it's a good "hedge" to buy the metal and not pay the inflated premium.

To even the biggest retail delivery buyer, the normal premium is about $3.25.

[GoldFinger1969]

Just now, VKurtB said:

An en banc circuit ruled and the SCOTUS denied certiorari. That’s about as clear as anything ever gets. 

SCOTUS was never going to get involved in a property dispute.  They deal with constitutional issues.  What's their hearing a case rate.....2% of all appeals ?  Probably a fraction of that.

It was always a Hail Mary.....a Hail Mary akin to the winless Tampa Bay Bucs of 1976 or 1977 backed up on their 1 yard line with 2 seconds left going up against the Pittsburgh Steelers defense. 

[VKurtB]

1 minute ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

SCOTUS was never going to get involved in a property dispute.  They deal with constitutional issues.  What's their hearing a case rate.....2% of all appeals ?  Probably a fraction of that.

It was always a Hail Mary.....a Hail Mary akin to the winless Tampa Bay Bucs of 1976 or 1977 backed up on their 1 yard line with 2 seconds left going up against the Pittsburgh Steelers defense. 

It was made a serious federal issue by implicating CAFRA. That made it ripe for SCOTUS review. What made it a Hail Mary was the vote count at the 3rd circuit en banc level.

Edited August 13, 2020 by VKurtB

[GoldFinger1969]

1 minute ago, VKurtB said:

To even the biggest retail delivery buyer, the normal premium is about $3.25.

Is it that high ?  I thought it was lower...maybe it's moved up as silver has appreciated $10-$12 in the last year or so.  I'll take your word for it as I only buy here or there.

Whatever it is, I guess it's inflated currently.  Probably will settle down when silver is less volatile and/or the Mint is able to churn out more coins.

 

[VKurtB]

4 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Is it that high ?  I thought it was lower...maybe it's moved up as silver has appreciated $10-$12 in the last year or so.  I'll take your word for it as I only buy here or there.

Whatever it is, I guess it's inflated currently.  Probably will settle down when silver is less volatile and/or the Mint is able to churn out more coins.

 

When it was lower, the quality was also much lower. They truly are beautifully produced pieces now. The Mint acceded to demands to make them a “numismatic worthy” product. Other than the W mint mark, many would be indistinguishable from the burnished variety.

Edited August 13, 2020 by VKurtB

[GoldFinger1969]

4 hours ago, VKurtB said:

An en banc circuit ruled and the SCOTUS denied certiorari. That’s about as clear as anything ever gets. 

Forget the legal arguments....do you believe, in light of the 50-50 split of the Farouk Coin, that the government was entitled to ALL 10 of the Switt-Langbord Coins ?  That's my problem with that whole case, not the legal mumbo-jumbo.

 

[VKurtB]

6 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Forget the legal arguments....do you believe, in light of the 50-50 split of the Farouk Coin, that the government was entitled to ALL 10 of the Switt-Langbord Coins ?  That's my problem with that whole case, not the legal mumbo-jumbo.

 

Yes, absolutely. Every one of the ten, plus whatever others remain out there, estimated at about 4. You realize, of course, that upon the end of the Langbord case, another 1933 Double Eagle was voluntarily surrendered by its holder/quasi-owner. I'm guessing maybe you wouldn't have done that.

Edited August 13, 2020 by VKurtB

[GoldFinger1969]

8 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

Yes, absolutely. Every one of the ten, plus whatever others remain out there, estimated at about 4. You realize, of course, that upon the end of the Langbord case, another 1933 Double Eagle was voluntarily surrendered by its holder/quasi-owner.

Well, I disagree.  Neither side could prove beyond a reasonable doubt HOW the coins were obtained, just like the Farouk Coin.  They should have been split, IMO.  A dangerous precedent has been set when you can't absolutely ascertain with 100% certitude how coins were received.

Edited August 13, 2020 by GoldFinger1969

[VKurtB]

Just now, GoldFinger1969 said:

Well, I disagree.  Neither side could prove beyond a reasonable doubt HOW the coins were obtained, just like the Farouk Coin.  They should have been split, IMO.  A dangersous precedent has been set when you can't absolutely ascertain with 100% certitude how coins were received.

Reasonable doubt isn't the standard, and it never was. It was not a criminal case, it was a civil case, and the standard is "preponderance", not "reasonable doubt". All the jury was asked was if it was "more likely than not" that the coins were obtained by dishonest means. That's all that had to be determined to have them retained by the government. Sorry if that's legal "mumbo jumbo" to your ears. It happens to be true.

[GoldFinger1969]

1 minute ago, VKurtB said:

Reasonable doubt isn't the standard, and it never was. It was not a criminal case, it was a civil case, and the standard is "preponderance", not "reasonable doubt". All the jury was asked was if it was "more likely than not" that the coins were obtained by dishonest means. That's all that had to be determined to have them retained by the government. Sorry if that's legal "mumbo jumbo" to your ears. It happens to be true.

Well.....with a biased, lousy-reputation judge with an inflated sense of his own self worth leading the case....a jury of non-coin collectors not aware of numismatic or mint specifics....and sleazy federal prosecutors trolling on message board posters looking for "dirt" on witnesses....I'm not surprised.

I'd be more likely to believe the government proved their case 51% of the way if they knew when the damn coins had 1st been struck (March 2nd, not March 15th as they kept insisting).  And if they hadn't lost 250 1928 Saints without a clue, then spent lots of time and effort lobbying Congress to remove personal liability for the stolen coins.

If the coins weren't worth $2,000 or so in 1944 when Howard was contacted by the reporter, nobody would have cared.   This case is more about government incomeptence, jealousy, and envy than it is Mint procedures for distributing new coins.

[VKurtB]

12 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Well.....with a biased, lousy-reputation judge with an inflated sense of his own self worth leading the case....a jury of non-coin collectors not aware of numismatic or mint specifics....and sleazy federal prosecutors trolling on message board posters looking for "dirt" on witnesses....I'm not surprised.

I'd be more likely to believe the government proved their case 51% of the way if they knew when the damn coins had 1st been struck (March 2nd, not March 15th as they kept insisting).  And if they hadn't lost 250 1928 Saints without a clue, then spent lots of time and effort lobbying Congress to remove personal liability for the stolen coins.

If the coins weren't worth $2,000 or so in 1944 when Howard was contacted by the reporter, nobody would have cared.   This case is more about government incomeptence, jealousy, and envy than it is Mint procedures for distributing new coins.

The facts were determined by a jury duly constituted under federal law. No judge had an impact. I have served as a jury foreman in that precise same courtroom. I have served as an expert witness in that same courthouse. I was the "in his professional capacity" defendant of a county that was sued by the USDOJ under the Civil Rights Act for the actions of my predecessor in that very same courtroom. I know my way around the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and its rules of court. I keep a copy of each decision in this case in my files, and I gently stroke the folder occasionally in reverence to the outcome. {Okay, I don't really do that, but I do think about doing it.}

Edited August 13, 2020 by VKurtB

[GoldFinger1969]

5 hours ago, VKurtB said:

The facts were determined by a jury duly constituted under federal law. No judge had an impact. I have served as a jury foreman in that precise same courtroom. I have served as an expert witness in that same courthouse. I was the "in his professional capacity" defendant of a county that was sued by the USDOJ under the Civil Rights Act for the actions of my predecessor in that very same courtroom. I know my way around the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and its rules of court. I keep a copy of each decision in this case in my files, and I gently stroke the folder occasionally in reverence to the outcome. {Okay, I don't really do that, but I do think about doing it.}

The judges ruling according to various sources were key in determining what was and not allowed in the court room.  And while I would grant you that the judge isn't the #1 factor, he's a close #2.  And yes, Berke might have done a better job (the judge at one time warned him he was losing the jury with too many angles and legal arguments) but in the end if you say that 10 gold coins were stolen, you better be able to prove/show that 10 ounces of gold are missing. 

The Feds didn't.  And that's my main beef with their arguments.  That and their duplicitous lying about reaching a settlement with the Langbord's while never intending to pursue such a settlement.

Hope you won your DOJ case.  The government has been as devious and duplicitous in applying the 1964 CRA as they have the law with the Saints.   

Edited August 14, 2020 by GoldFinger1969

[VKurtB]

13 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

The judges ruling according to various sources were key in determining what was and not allowed in the court room.  And while I would grant you that the judge isn't the #1 factor, he's a close #2.  And yes, Berke might have done a better job (the judge at one time warned him he was losing the jury with too many angles and legal arguments) but in the end if you say that 10 gold coins were stolen, you better be able to prove/show that 10 ounces of gold are missing. 

The Feds didn't.  And that's my main beef with their arguments.  That and their duplicitous lying about reaching a settlement with the Langbord's while never intending to pursue such a settlement.

Hope you won your DOJ case.  The government has been as devious and duplicitous in applying the 1964 CRA as they have the law with the Saints.   

No, we got crushed, and it fell to me personally to fix the problems with zero funding from the county. In fact, my budget was cut, but I was under court order to create bilingual ballots in a jurisdiction NOT covered under Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act. The judge admitted in his order, in writing, that he was legislating from the bench.

Edited August 14, 2020 by VKurtB

[GoldFinger1969]

1 minute ago, VKurtB said:

No, we got crushed, and it fell to me personally to fix the problems with zero funding from the county. In fact, my budget was cut, but I was under court order to create bilingual ballots in a jurisdiction NOT covered under Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act.

In other words....total BS.  I'm not surprised.

[VKurtB]

However, in the 2010 census, that jurisdiction became covered under Section 203. Our case was in 2001.

 

When the USDOJ tried the same thing against Philadelphia, Philly fought back and they won. My commissioners wussed out.

Edited August 14, 2020 by VKurtB

[kbbpll]

20 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Forget the legal arguments....do you believe, in light of the 50-50 split of the Farouk Coin, that the government was entitled to ALL 10 of the Switt-Langbord Coins ?  That's my problem with that whole case, not the legal mumbo-jumbo.

 

You seem to conveniently forget that an export license was granted for the Farouk coin. That's a big difference between that case and the Switt hanky-panky. Your mind is made up though.

[GoldFinger1969]

3 hours ago, kbbpll said:

You seem to conveniently forget that an export license was granted for the Farouk coin. That's a big difference between that case and the Switt hanky-panky. Your mind is made up though.

Right, an export license that the government didn't know about.  So they are trying to get the coin back and throw Fenton in jail (criminal + civil penalties) and meanwhile he's done NOTHING wrong and the exculpatory document is in the government's hand -- and they don't know about it. 

Oh, and they got the 1st date of minting for the 1933's wrong, too. 

Oh yeah, someone stole an entire bag (250 coins @ $5,000) from The Vault.  No leads, nobody ever nailed, coins never found. 

And THOSE are the guys you trust have "complete and thorough" records on the disbursement of the 1933's ?  You don't think the fact that the coins had appreciated 100-fold in 11 years and the benefits were flowing to coin collectors and dealers, groups probably politically opposed to FDR (despite their geographic and demographic backgrounds) entered into the equation ?

It's not that my mind is made up, KB.  It's that the government's case pales in comparisions to the facts and they LIED from the time they got the coins from Roy Langbord for authentication.  And as soon as they had the coins, they started reading Roy his Miranda Rights, apparently. 

The Farouk Coin "accidentally" got an export license, but we're supposed to believe that a legitimate -- or even quasi-legitimate (after April 12th, 1933) -- exchange didn't happen with Switt ?

Unless the Mint can show me that he actually STOLE the coins -- a word (STOLE) they used repeatedly -- then no, my mind IS made up that the government is lying and I also think the government's could reverse its position on the coins if given information and a reason (note yesterday the government is going after Yale for discriminating against whites and Asian-Americans after decades of coercing such discrimation).  

Better late than never !! 

Edited August 14, 2020 by GoldFinger1969

[kbbpll]

I really couldn't care less, but when you make a spurious argument, it might benefit someone else for you to be challenged on it. All this "what about blah blah blah" goes right over my head. There was no reason for the Switt coins to be split 50-50 like there was with the Farouk coin. The export license was a mistake that couldn't be undone. There was no such mitigating circumstance with the Switt coins. So, the short answer to your original question is, yes, I think the government was entitled to all 10 of them, given the outcome of the case, unless they were feeling really magnanimous, and they weren't.

[GoldFinger1969]

1 hour ago, kbbpll said:

I really couldn't care less, but when you make a spurious argument, it might benefit someone else for you to be challenged on it. All this "what about blah blah blah" goes right over my head. There was no reason for the Switt coins to be split 50-50 like there was with the Farouk coin. The export license was a mistake that couldn't be undone. There was no such mitigating circumstance with the Switt coins. So, the short answer to your original question is, yes, I think the government was entitled to all 10 of them, given the outcome of the case, unless they were feeling really magnanimous, and they weren't.

The Mint/government says the coins are "national treasures" -- as such, I think the Langbord's (and Switt) should be thanked/rewarded by splitting the 10 coins.  Of course, if the government hadn't melted all of the Saints over the years into gold bars, had they saved a few dozen of each year/mint or a few hundred, then this whole issue would be moot.

I don't think my argument is spurious, KB.  I believe the facts and the evidence show that the stronger argument is that the coins were NOT obtained illegally though I grant you I can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt (and ditto for the government's position, too).  The Mint and their attorney's kept saying the coins were "stolen" but that is ridiculous.

Me personally....I think they were exchanged in late-1936 or early-1937 when it was clear all the coins were to be melted....I believe that the FMV of a 1933 back then was $250-$300 or so.....so it was a very nice score if you could obtain some 1933's for older dates.  I think someone did -- was this ILLEGAL ?  Maybe, maybe not.  And if the exchange was done in 1933, almost certainly not.  Would a Mint employee be punished for doing this exchange (assuming they didn't get higher-up permission) ?  Probably....but would the recipient of the coins be in possession of stolen government property ?  I don't think so.  The government didn't care if a particular year or mint was in circulation.....they cared about the total gold balance held by the government.

But "stolen" ?  No way.  Stolen means 10 ounces of gold was missing.  The government's fail-proof records say that didn't happen.  Of course, they once said that bag of 1928 Saints was all present and accounted for, too. 

Edited August 14, 2020 by GoldFinger1969

[RWB]

FYI - The closing paragraphs from the Chapter on missing 1928 Double Eagles.

"The absence of a usable solution might have turned on what the agents did not do. They had no extensive investigation of the one man who could come and go as he pleased at any time of day or night: Superintendent Fres Styer. The investigations in 1937 and 1940 virtually ignored him, and by 1944 he was dead and not much of a witness. No review of his Estate was made nor were family members questioned. After all, Styer was a Federal officer, an attorney and a man of repute with political connections.

           " Did Styer have some involvement in the missing 1928 bag case? Special Agent Landvoigt pinpointed the theft to 1933 – while Styer was Superintendent. The 1933 double eagles might have been swapped out in 1933 – also while Styer was Superintendent. The 1933 double eagles were stored in the same place – Vault F, Cage #1 – as the missing 1928 bag. Maybe Styer swiped a full bag of 1933s and covered it by moving a bag of 1928s? We’ll never know unless something in Styer’s Estate contains a diary, memoranda, or even a conscious-relieving confession. But would even that make a difference today?

           " We’ll never know because Secret Service agents were focused on low-level workers and not senior management. We’ll never know because USSS botched two golden opportunities to question a key figure, and thus created a legacy of innuendo, assumption and false accusations."

[Zebo]

22 minutes ago, RWB said:

           " We’ll never know because Secret Service agents were focused on low-level workers and not senior management. We’ll never know because USSS botched two golden opportunities to question a key figure, and thus created a legacy of innuendo, assumption and false accusations."

Isn't that always the case.

[Henri Charriere]

As a social pariah being thisclose to being blackballed from this site, I would like to tell you once again how much I enjoy and appreciate your taking the time and trouble to post these tantalizing bits of little-known numismatic-related historical tidbits.  Great stuff!  Keep up the good work!

[VKurtB]

12 hours ago, RWB said:

FYI - The closing paragraphs from the Chapter on missing 1928 Double Eagles.

"The absence of a usable solution might have turned on what the agents did not do. They had no extensive investigation of the one man who could come and go as he pleased at any time of day or night: Superintendent Fres Styer. The investigations in 1937 and 1940 virtually ignored him, and by 1944 he was dead and not much of a witness. No review of his Estate was made nor were family members questioned. After all, Styer was a Federal officer, an attorney and a man of repute with political connections.

 

           " Did Styer have some involvement in the missing 1928 bag case? Special Agent Landvoigt pinpointed the theft to 1933 – while Styer was Superintendent. The 1933 double eagles might have been swapped out in 1933 – also while Styer was Superintendent. The 1933 double eagles were stored in the same place – Vault F, Cage #1 – as the missing 1928 bag. Maybe Styer swiped a full bag of 1933s and covered it by moving a bag of 1928s? We’ll never know unless something in Styer’s Estate contains a diary, memoranda, or even a conscious-relieving confession. But would even that make a difference today?

 

           " We’ll never know because Secret Service agents were focused on low-level workers and not senior management. We’ll never know because USSS botched two golden opportunities to question a key figure, and thus created a legacy of innuendo, assumption and false accusations."

 

"...golden opportunities..." [/snarf] I see what you did there.

[RWB]

GoldFinger1969 had asked about the 1928 DE and at the time all I could point to was the article i wrote for a Heritage Auction catalog. When considering the ties between the missing gold investigation, the 1940 theft of silver coin by McCann and Rumpp, and the 1944 investigation it seems that more deserved to be known by collectors about the 1928 gold.

To be clear, there is no firm evidence about either of the coins --1928 or 1933. There are lots of "mights" or "coulds" but not enough to do more than stumble around. The 1933s in particular have no evidence of anything, including theft, since no loss was ever reported or claimed.

I thank GoldFinger1969 for getting the wheels turning!

:)