1933 St Gaudens Double Eagles

Nope, the coins were clearly made through unauthorized use of government property and that property was taken away without authorization making them stolen government property. (There was no way a 1913 V nickel could legally be made and kept.) Even though over a hundred years have passed they are still government property. The government could seize them, the current holders could sue for their return and THEN (under the laws cited in the Lanbord decision) the government has 90 days to file a forfeiture claim with the court in order to keep them. That 90 day deadline does not start until AFTER the current holder appeals the seizure. The current holders can't be prosecuted for the theft (although an argument could be made for receiving stolen property) because the statute of limitations for that has expired. But if the government wanted to go to court and argue they were stolen they would have a much stronger case than they do on the 1933 double eagles and if they are determined to be stolen they would still be government property.

Conder101, thanks for the clarification regarding the 1913 V nickels. I misremembered things, so I was wrong.


If freedom and liberty are ideology, then consider me guilty. Nothing wrong with it in my opinion. Just because it went on from Roosevelt to Nixon, that doesn't make it right. Throughout history people have owned gold and decided themselves what it's worth, so it's not a new concept in the big scheme of history. Kings/tryants have tried to control the precious metals markets so they can get a cut and exercise power over people. It was not done for the benefit of people, but rather at their expense. If someone has a problem with me owning a piece of metal that doesn't harm them or me, then something's wrong with them.

Which should illustrate why tying an economy to one commodity has definite pitfalls. Sure, fiat currencies are subject to be manipulated by those in power, but changes in commodity prices caused by seemingly insignificant events can wreck an otherwise stable economy. We can control abuse by those in power if we choose to. We can't control commodity markets near as easily.

I look at it this way. Does digging something out of the ground and then storing it in a vault somewhere that I can't withdraw from make any more sense than fiat money? Not in my opinion.

hard to say who is in the right here as the coins may have been stolen, purchased, or swapped for previous year double eagles; with or without the knowledge of the person in authority.

i can see either side ending with the coins as a benefit to the coin community, and certainly the advertisment of the case from news sites has helped to spread interest and awareness. just another notch in the belt of the most controversial coin

These coins have always been a fascinating story. A much better book in my opinion on the whole 1933 Double Eagle fiasco is titled "Illegal Tender, Gold Greed and the Mystery of the Lost 1933 Double Eagle." Author is David Tripp. It lays out a very well documented and convincing argument based on mint records of the production, storage, distribution for assay testing (in which 9 of the 446 sent were destroyed in testing the remaining 437 returned and accounted for) and subsequent melting of the entire 1933 $20 production run. At no point were any released to the public. The King Farouk specimen is unique in that it was issued an export permit by the US government by an agency that was unaware of the special circumstances of the coin. It was on this ground that the court case for the one example sold in 2002 was based.

FWIW, the order to return the coins was vacated and the case is back before the 3rd circuit for an en banc hearing

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
________
No. 12-4574
_________
ROY LANGBORD; DAVID LANGBORD; JOAN LANGBORD
Plaintiffs-Appellants
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY; UNITED STATES
BUREAU OF THE MINT; SECRETARY OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF THE TREASURY; ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY; DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES
MINT; CHIEF COUNSEL UNITED STATES MINT; DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE
UNITED STATES MINT; JOHN DOE NOS. 1 TO 10 "JOHN DOE" BEING
FICTIONAL FIRST AND LAST NAMES; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendants-Appellees
_________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Third Party Plaintiff
v.
TEN 1933 DOUBLE EAGLE GOLD PIECES; ROY LANGBORD; DAVID
LANGBORD; JOAN LANGBORD
Third Party Defendants
ROY LANGBORD, DAVID LANGBORD, JOAN LANGBORD
Appellants

On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(District Court No. 2:06-cv-05315)
District Judge: Honorable Legrome D. Davis

PRESENT: McKEE, Chief Judge, AMBRO, FUENTES, SMITH, FISHER,
CHAGARES, JORDAN, HARDIMAN, VANASKIE, SHWARTZ,
KRAUSE, SLOVITER1 and RENDELL2 Circuit Judges

ORDER
A majority of the active judges having voted for rehearing en banc in the above
captioned case, it is ordered that the petition for rehearing is GRANTED. The Clerk of this Court shall list the case for rehearing en banc at the convenience of the Court. The opinion and judgment entered April 17, 2015 are hereby vacated.

By the Court,
s/ Theodore A. McKee
Chief Circuit Judge
Date: July 28, 2015

https://goccf.com/t/236672

If I had remembered this topic was here I would have linked back to it from the new one.