Numismatic Rarities Certainty Act of 2006

[gmarguli]

Legislation introduced on April 4 by Rep. Frank Lucas, R-Okla., seeks to clarify the law regarding ownership of coinage minted before 1933.

 

Owners of 1913 Liberty Head nickels and the 1885 Trade dollar get relief under terms of proposed legislation aimed at preventing government seizure of pre-1933 rare coins owned by collectors. Owners of 1933 double eagles and 1964 Peace dollars do not.

 

[...]Lucas’ bill would require the government to display at least some of the pieces it seizes and auction off extra coins not needed for display. The proceeds would go toward preservation and display of the Smithsonian’s collection, thought to contain more than 900,000 pieces.

 

Numismatic News Article

[Tradedollarnut]

Cool - an auction of the spare 1933's with proceeds to support display of the National Collection!

[TJ'S Coins]

A good idea but those '33 Double Eagles will be out of my price range. I'll sit back and enjoy the show

[Hoot]

Changing price structure for the 1933 Saints? jtryka will have one in no time flat.

 

I only wish the Act would include all coins up through 1964. That would be the only way we'll ever know if any of the fabled 1964 Peace dollars are extant. Also, the 10 1933 Saints should go back to the owners. What other extreme rarities may exist from 1933-1964?

 

Hoot

[jtryka]

I appreciate your confidence in me Hoot, but I'd like a 27-D before a 33! Also, I think the litigation on the Switt pieces will proceed regardless of this legislation, and the courts will likely have more of a say than Congress. I am somewhat suspicious though (perhaps it's my Mark Twain views of Congress) as to the motivation for this legislation. Is it possible there are some extreme rarities somewhere deep in the bowels of the Treasury or Mint hat may soon see the light of day, thus causing immense damage to the market for such rarities? I am thinking like a Bag of each of the branch mint Saints of the 1920s, or perhaps a mint bag of BU 1916 quarters or something insane like that (remember how rare the 1903-O Morgan used to be?). Call me paraniod, but I always get suspicious when someone knocks on my door and says, "We're from the government and we're here to help."

[zrlevin]

I appreciate your confidence in me Hoot, but I'd like a 27-D before a 33!

 

I'm just curious, but why is that? If given the option to have either at the same price, you'd take the 27D?

[jtryka]

I appreciate your confidence in me Hoot, but I'd like a 27-D before a 33!

 

I'm just curious, but why is that? If given the option to have either at the same price, you'd take the 27D?

 

Well, for now the 27-D is cheaper, though that might change with the fate of the Switt-10. Also, this coin is as rarer, and perhaps rarer than the 33. Rumor has it that Izzy Switt handled at least 25 1933 Saints, 10 of which were confiscated and melted in the 1940s, and 10 recently recovered, leaving 5 more out there. So perhaps there are 15 extant, excluding the 2 in the Smithsonian. There are at most 15 27-Ds out there, and more likely a dozen. Is it possible more might be discovered? Sure, but it seems less likely than another few 33s coming out of the woodwork. Another reason for the 27-D is that it's legal to own without question, no matter what happens with whatever 33s are out there or in the government's vaults, I think there may always be questions as to the legality of the 33. The final reason for the 27-D is that it was actually part of the circulation set. I don't know that there is any solid evidence that the 33 ever reached circulation. The US Mint says no, but I am sure Izzy Switt would say otherwise. With that question unresolved, I view the 33 as more like the matte proof issues of the early years, more of a specimen strike. So I would thus reserve buying a 33 until I started pursuing a set of the proofs. That's my line of reasoning anyhow, it may not make much sense to anyone else, but it works for me.

[Excaliber]

The proceeds would go toward preservation and display of the Smithsonian’s collection, thought to contain more than 900,000 pieces.

 

900,000! Holy Cow! I never realized that!

[zrlevin]

I appreciate your confidence in me Hoot, but I'd like a 27-D before a 33!

 

I'm just curious, but why is that? If given the option to have either at the same price, you'd take the 27D?

 

Well, for now the 27-D is cheaper, though that might change with the fate of the Switt-10. Also, this coin is as rarer, and perhaps rarer than the 33. Rumor has it that Izzy Switt handled at least 25 1933 Saints, 10 of which were confiscated and melted in the 1940s, and 10 recently recovered, leaving 5 more out there. So perhaps there are 15 extant, excluding the 2 in the Smithsonian. There are at most 15 27-Ds out there, and more likely a dozen. Is it possible more might be discovered? Sure, but it seems less likely than another few 33s coming out of the woodwork. Another reason for the 27-D is that it's legal to own without question, no matter what happens with whatever 33s are out there or in the government's vaults, I think there may always be questions as to the legality of the 33. The final reason for the 27-D is that it was actually part of the circulation set. I don't know that there is any solid evidence that the 33 ever reached circulation. The US Mint says no, but I am sure Izzy Switt would say otherwise. With that question unresolved, I view the 33 as more like the matte proof issues of the early years, more of a specimen strike. So I would thus reserve buying a 33 until I started pursuing a set of the proofs. That's my line of reasoning anyhow, it may not make much sense to anyone else, but it works for me.

 

Thanks for the great explanation!

 

The proceeds would go toward preservation and display of the Smithsonian’s collection, thought to contain more than 900,000 pieces.

 

900,000! Holy Cow! I never realized that!

 

My parents said they'd take me to see the exhibit this summer. I can't wait! Has anyone been there? How is it?

[jtryka]

I haven't been to the new one, but the old exhibit was just amazing in terms of the coins they had, however they were not presented in the best possible way (most were stuck to display boards with wax. Of course that was a minor consideration when standing in the presence of an 1849 double eagle and a 1933 Saint!

[dorancoins]

It's meaningless if coins from 1933 onwards are excluded. Still more government paranoia. Needs to "go back to the drawing board!"