1933 Double Eagle 1 1

[GoldFinger1969]

On 12/9/2022 at 10:27 PM, VKurtB said:

I’m saying that nobody had a 1933 until 1937. And then relatively all hell broke loose very rapidly. That tells me they were all in the Mint vault until melting began in 1937. 

All at the Mint...maybe.  Not necessarily the vault.  You couldn't get into the vault.

Except to steal 1928's......

[VKurtB]

On 12/9/2022 at 9:41 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

All at the Mint...maybe.  Not necessarily the vault.  You couldn't get into the vault.

Except to steal 1928's......

They HAD TO get into the vault in 1937, to commence the melting into the big bars. That’s when some other DE’s got swapped for 25 or so 1933’s - every one of which passed through Izzy Switt’s grubby little hands, EVEN the Farouk/Fenton example. 

Edited December 10, 2022 by VKurtB

[GoldFinger1969]

On 12/9/2022 at 10:45 PM, VKurtB said:

They HAD TO get into the vault in 1937, to commence the melting into the big bars. That’s when some other DE’s got swapped for 25 or so 1933’s - every one of which passed through Izzy Switt’s grubby little hands, EVEN the Farouk/Fenton example. 

You're just speculating.

If someone at the Philly Mint sold them to Switt, what crime did he commit ?  They could have been the personal property of the seller....could have been coins of numismatic value.  Someone in the Philly Mint might have come into the coins properly and or done a harmless exchange and then sold them to Switt or someone else.

Yeah, once the order to melt all coins was known, you'd probably want to get a few of whatever you could for every year.  I don't think that's a crime for all non-1933's or the 1933's, either.

By your own admission, you don't like U.S. gold coins, so I don't expect you to see things through the eyes of a collector of that age.

[VKurtB]

I’m NOT speculating. By sometime in May of 1933 EVERYONE KNEW that even coin for coin swaps were unambiguously illegal. To suggest otherwise is being intentionally dishonest. There was a very tiny window of time in Spring of 1933 when that garbage was even arguable. 

Edited December 10, 2022 by VKurtB

[GoldFinger1969]

On 12/9/2022 at 11:20 PM, VKurtB said:

I’m NOT speculating. By sometime in May of 1933 EVERYONE KNEW that even coin for coin swaps were unambiguously illegal. To suggest otherwise is being intentionally dishonest. There was a very tiny window of time in Spring of 1933 when that garbage was even arguable. 

No, they were generally not allowed after April 12, 1933.  But I don't see any legal dictum that states that -- it was most likely to prevent loss of gold from trade-ins from worn coins.

I agree that the government didn't want wide-scale availability to the public.  But I do not believe this applied to the usual perks and privileges afforded Mint workers, especially higher-ups.

I haven't seen too many primary sourced discussions of the gold-for-gold exchange policy aside from the Froman Letter.  But I've never heard of one that would indicate the policy was meant to absolutely prohibit ALL exchanges including those already promised to Mint personnel.  Or those that already took place but weren't distributed.

You keep harping on the "preponderance" argument and the civil course of action.  Since the government suffered no harm from an exchange but collectors and dealers did, I believe that unless you can tell me that there's an order or letter absolutely prohibiting distribution of the 1933 DEs before a certain date, no prohibition should be enforced.  Release dates were not black-and-white.

Nobody thought 1933s were NOT going to be used/distributed.  They minted the suckers up through May 1933 !! 

Edited December 10, 2022 by GoldFinger1969

[numisport]

Of course the government would suffer from exchange just as collectors and dealers would due to loss from worn coins. In an unrelated thought I've always thought it interesting that the Secret Service could be tasked with anything to do with the '33s since the agency wasn't even established until 1965. With that said do you trust any government agency with the truth after what the FBI did to us prior to the 2020 election ?

[Henri Charriere]

🐓:  1965?  That's a typo!  Shouldn't that have read 1865?

Q.A.  Surely, you don't suggest I tell him that!

 

[GoldFinger1969]

On 12/10/2022 at 10:59 AM, numisport said:

Of course the government would suffer from exchange just as collectors and dealers would due to loss from worn coins. In an unrelated thought I've always thought it interesting that the Secret Service could be tasked with anything to do with the '33s since the agency wasn't even established until 1965. With that said do you trust any government agency with the truth after what the FBI did to us prior to the 2020 election ?

I think it was the Treasury personnel or the predecessor of the Secret Service.

The articles on that period do use the phrase "Secret Service."

[GoldFinger1969]

On 12/10/2022 at 11:12 AM, Quintus Arrius said:

🐓:  1965?  That's a typo!  Shouldn't that have read 1865? Q.A.  Surely, you don't suggest I tell him that!

I should have known that from the re-make of "Wild Wild West" with Kevin Kline and Will Smith !! 

[Henri Charriere]

On 12/10/2022 at 11:17 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

I should have known that from the re-make of "Wild Wild West" with Kevin Kline and Will Smith !! 

[In fact, I do not believe the assasination of the President was a Federal crime until after J.F.K.] 

[numisport]

On 12/10/2022 at 11:12 AM, Quintus Arrius said:

🐓:  1965?  That's a typo!  Shouldn't that have read 1865?

Q.A.  Surely, you don't suggest I tell him that!

 

Oh my, thanks for the correction. If memory serves me right didn't the Switt family submit those 33's to the mint ? And then the Secret Service got involved ?

[Henri Charriere]

Not enough hours in the day to review the entire historical timeline on these coins, but I believe the referral by the family attorney was made in good faith, possibly by a family attorney was made after conferring with a TPGS (which reviewed the cache years later).  Frankly, I do not believe there was any around it.  I am sure there are those who are incensed they had chosen that route but if the entire lot was declared contraband, maybe they should have hit the USG auction block. After all, what good does sitting in a vault, in perpetuity, do anyone?  There are two schools of thought attendant to their disposition.  If they are not legal to own, they should be exhibited.  Throwing then into a depository serves no useful purpose. If that is the USGs posture, then they should be melted down and the gold either thrown into a cauldron, containing a similar fineness of gold, or used to Mint a new, smaller, Limited Edition gold coin dated 2033.  Everybody in favor, say aye!  

Edited December 10, 2022 by Quintus Arrius
Usual die polishing.

[GoldFinger1969]

On 12/10/2022 at 1:13 PM, numisport said:

Oh my, thanks for the correction. If memory serves me right didn't the Switt family submit those 33's to the mint ? And then the Secret Service got involved ?

Yup.  And by "involved" you mean STOLE them in violation of what was being discussed with the family.  Liars.  

Nothing changed from the 1930's and 1940's. 

[GoldFinger1969]

On 12/10/2022 at 4:25 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

Not enough hours in the day to review the entire historical timeline on these coins, but I believe the referral by the family attorney was made in good faith, possibly by a family attorney was made after conferring with a TPGS (which reviewed the cache years later).  Frankly, I do not believe there was any around it.  I am sure there are those who are incensed they had chosen that route but if the entire lot was declared contraband, maybe they should have hit the USG auction block. After all, what good does sitting in a vault, in perpetuity, do anyone?  There are two schools of thought attendant to their disposition.  If they are not legal to own, they should be exhibited.  Throwing then into a depository serves no useful purpose. If that is the USGs posture, then they should be melted down and the gold either thrown into a cauldron, containing a similar fineness of gold, or used to Mint a new, smaller, Limited Edition gold coin dated 2033.  

I would have given them 1 coin to verify and kept the other 9.   

Or gotten it in writing that the coins MUST be returned, pending a settlement similar to the Fenton-Farouk situation.

[VKurtB]

On 12/10/2022 at 3:25 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

Not enough hours in the day to review the entire historical timeline on these coins, but I believe the referral by the family attorney was made in good faith, possibly by a family attorney was made after conferring with a TPGS (which reviewed the cache years later).  Frankly, I do not believe there was any around it.  I am sure there are those who are incensed they had chosen that route but if the entire lot was declared contraband, maybe they should have hit the USG auction block. After all, what good does sitting in a vault, in perpetuity, do anyone?  There are two schools of thought attendant to their disposition.  If they are not legal to own, they should be exhibited.  Throwing then into a depository serves no useful purpose. If that is the USGs posture, then they should be melted down and the gold either thrown into a cauldron, containing a similar fineness of gold, or used to Mint a new, smaller, Limited Edition gold coin dated 2033.  Everybody in favor, say aye!  

They HAVE BEEN publicly exhibited and likely will be again. They sit where the original Magna Carta did during World War 2. They are just in safekeeping. 

[VKurtB]

On 12/10/2022 at 3:32 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Yup.  And by "involved" you mean STOLE them in violation of what was being discussed with the family.  Liars.  

Nothing changed from the 1930's and 1940's. 

You can’t steal what you already own. This was the specific question before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals en banc. 

Edited December 11, 2022 by VKurtB

[GoldFinger1969]

On 12/11/2022 at 2:48 PM, VKurtB said:

They HAVE BEEN publicly exhibited and likely will be again. They sit where the original Magna Carta did during World War 2. They are just in safekeeping. 

They go out about every 6 years or so. 

I guess the Mint doesn't want the story to get out about how they obtained them.  Might ruffle some feathers. 

[VKurtB]

On 12/11/2022 at 3:34 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

They go out about every 6 years or so. 

I guess the Mint doesn't want the story to get out about how they obtained them.  Might ruffle some feathers. 

Only on the part of dewy eyed ideologues who do analysis with their wannahappen. 

[zadok]

On 12/11/2022 at 2:50 PM, VKurtB said:

You can’t steal what you already own. This was the specific question before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals en banc. 

...true but 3CCA was complicit in this miscarriage....

[zadok]

On 12/11/2022 at 7:52 PM, VKurtB said:

Only on the part of dewy eyed ideologues who do analysis with their wannahappen. 

yea but eventually this court decision will be ammended/modified...discussions continue....

[GoldFinger1969]

On 12/11/2022 at 11:31 PM, zadok said:

yea but eventually this court decision will be ammended/modified...discussions continue....

Either that or contact Pusssy Galore and her squad to make an assault. 

Where's Odd Job when you need him ? 

Edited December 12, 2022 by GoldFinger1969

[zadok]

On 12/12/2022 at 12:14 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Either that or contact Galore and her squad to make an assault. 

Where's Odd Job when you need him ? 

...think she has moved on to "golder" pastures....

[numisport]

On 12/10/2022 at 4:25 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

Not enough hours in the day to review the entire historical timeline on these coins, but I believe the referral by the family attorney was made in good faith, possibly by a family attorney was made after conferring with a TPGS (which reviewed the cache years later).  Frankly, I do not believe there was any around it.  I am sure there are those who are incensed they had chosen that route but if the entire lot was declared contraband, maybe they should have hit the USG auction block. After all, what good does sitting in a vault, in perpetuity, do anyone?  There are two schools of thought attendant to their disposition.  If they are not legal to own, they should be exhibited.  Throwing then into a depository serves no useful purpose. If that is the USGs posture, then they should be melted down and the gold either thrown into a cauldron, containing a similar fineness of gold, or used to Mint a new, smaller, Limited Edition gold coin dated 2033.  Everybody in favor, say aye!  

Aye !

[VKurtB]

On 12/11/2022 at 10:29 PM, zadok said:

...true but 3CCA was complicit in this miscarriage....

Not complicit. They WERE THE DECIDERS, ultimately. And the Supreme Court denied cert. 

[VKurtB]

On 12/11/2022 at 10:31 PM, zadok said:

yea but eventually this court decision will be ammended/modified...discussions continue....

No chance, ZERO, that will ever happen. No other circuit can get venue, and the case is precedential. This is over over. FINAL!!!

Edited December 12, 2022 by VKurtB

[zadok]

On 12/12/2022 at 5:34 PM, VKurtB said:

No chance, ZERO, that will ever happen. No other circuit can get venue, and the case is precedential. This is over over. FINAL!!!

...time will tell if we live long nuf...nothing if ever zero, final or never....

[VKurtB]

On 12/12/2022 at 5:22 PM, zadok said:

...time will tell if we live long nuf...nothing if ever zero, final or never....

Methinks you don’t appreciate precedents in our federal courts that don’t have an organized political opposition. Unlike the Supreme Court, which is NOT BOUND by precedent, only GUIDED, the Circuit Courts ARE BOUND by existing precedent. The 3rd circuit went to special ends to declare this case precedential. 

Edited December 13, 2022 by VKurtB

[Henri Charriere]

On 12/12/2022 at 5:34 PM, VKurtB said:

No chance, ZERO, that will ever happen. No other circuit can get venue, and the case is precedential. This is over over. FINAL!!!

As a matter of law, this is true.  Certiorari denied is very often misconstrued  to mean "the Court upholds or agrees with one side over the other" and simply decides to let a decision stand without comment.

There are, however, rare instances where the Court revisits an old case and a decision whose time had come.

As Justice Louis D. Brandeis used to say, "the most important thing we do is not doing." In short, the Court must sit and wait for issues to be presented to it in lawsuits.

In two notable instances, the Court reconsidered previous decisions--and changed its mind.  Thus, Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) overruled Betts v. Brady (1942) and Powell v. Alabama (1932) regarding the right of a defendant to be represented by counsel in all criminal matters, and more recently, Brown v. Board of Education... (1954) overruled the separate-but-equal doctrine as set forth in Plessy v. Ferguson (1976).

As Justice Robert H. Jackson said, [The U.S.S.Ct.] is a substantially passive instrument to be moved only by the initiative of litigants.... It's jurisdiction--the reach of the Court's power--is limited by the Constitution itself, by statutes and by the Court's own precedents.  The first question to be asked is whether this case is within the Court's jurisdiction.  The decisions which the Supreme Court can and does reexamine are those involving federal law.  What such law lies in the balance here were cert. to be granted and appealed to the High Court, which could conceivably become the Supreme Law of the Land?

My understanding is this was a civil matter.  Unless some heretofore unanticipated evidence were to suddenly emerge resulting in a cataclysmic shift in the trajectory of this matter, I view the matter as closed. I have no opinion on the matter one way or the other.

 

[VKurtB]

On 12/12/2022 at 6:06 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

As a matter of law, this is true.  Certiorari denied is very often misconstrued  to mean "the Court upholds or agrees with one side over the other" and simply decides to let a decision stand without comment.

There are, however, rare instances where the Court revisits an old case and a decision whose time had come.

As Justice Louis D. Brandeis used to say, "the most important thing we do is not doing." In short, the Court must sit and wait for issues to be presented to it in lawsuits.

In two notable instances, the Court reconsidered previous decisions--and changed its mind.  Thus, Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) overruled Betts v. Brady (1942) and Powell v. Alabama (1932) regarding the right of a defendant to be represented by counsel in all criminal matters, and more recently, Brown v. Board of Education... (1954) overruled the separate-but-equal doctrine as set forth in Plessy v. Ferguson (1976).

As Justice Robert H. Jackson said, [The U.S.S.Ct.] is a substantially passive instrument to be moved only by the initiative of litigants.... It's jurisdiction--the reach of the Court's power--is limited by the Constitution itself, by statutes and by the Court's own precedents.  The first question to be asked is whether this case is within the Court's jurisdiction.  The decisions which the Supreme Court can and does reexamine are those involving federal law.  What such law lies in the balance here were cert. to be granted and appealed to the High Court, which could conceivably become the Supreme Law of the Land?

My understanding is this was a civil matter.  Unless some heretofore unanticipated evidence were to suddenly emerge resulting in a cataclysmic shift in the trajectory of this matter, I view the matter as closed. I have no opinion on the matter one way or the other.

 

That’s because you can ANALYZE. Most numismatists cannot. All they can manage is to ADVOCATE. They think a certain way because that’s the outcome they want. That’s the kind of thing that gets you booted from a petit jury during voir dire. 

[rrantique]

On 12/11/2022 at 11:14 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Either that or contact Pusssy Galore and her squad to make an assault. 

Where's Odd Job when you need him ? 

I THOUHT oDDJOB was in prison

Edited December 13, 2022 by rrantique
oddjob