1933 Double Eagles

I know I know I can't stay away no matter how many times I say I am going to. As a collector I hate to see or even think about any classic coin like this being melted down but it is at the owners discretion what they do with the coins once they are returned to their rightful owners. We all know they will in no way ever make another one "legal tender" like they did the Farouk coin because the only reason they did with that specific coin was because of the export loop hole it went through. I would love to see these donated for further generations to admire but I sure hope they do a better job of the display than they had them in at the Charlotte ANA coin show, don't remember the year they were on display but the way they displayed them was not very good and was almost impossible to take a picture of. But I am sure they will probably be melted down like was supposed to be their fate in 1933


I really do find it hard to believe that anyone on this forum could see these coins as anything but stolen property because of all the smart people we have on here. Some of the comments I have heard are some you would expect to hear from some anti-government whack jobs not someone that has the brains I have seen exhibited on this forum. I think its just the collector inside them that would love to think if they found a 1933 St Gaudens in grams sock drawer when she passed that they would be able to keep it and retire. The collector in them is clouding their judgment just as the anti-government whack jobs hatred of authority (usually any authority) clouds their judgment to where they would argue with a fence post if it was painted red/white/blue



I am glad you feel this way, send me a list of all your key date coins and denominations and I will pay you a visit and swap out all of you key dates with my common date of the same series and denomination and we will both be happy. You because you still have the same amount of coins you had when I arrived and me because I still have the same amount I came with and also don't have to worry about getting arrested since you would not think of the ones in my pocket when I left as yours or stolen property. But if you did call the cops you would be able to keep my coins plus get yours back even if I argued I paid for them with those coins because it is illegal to purchase stolen property and when that stolen property is confiscated you do not get the money back you paid for the stolen item

well the reason they took them out is because they KNEW there was a very very good chance (I'm guessing at least a 98% chance) because the embargo was no secret and they KNEW if it went through those they were trading for were going to be very very rare as they are because the embargo would not allow ANYONE ELSE to purchase any unless they got them from MR Swift himself. So since it was no secret they probably weren't ever going to be released for sale to collectors or anyone else they knew the ones traded for them were never going to be as rare as the (lets just throw a number out here) 20 he had swapped for illegally with the Mint employee. It wasn't like Enron stock where just a few high ups knew what was getting ready to happen so they could get out while they were ahead, it was common knowledge this was getting ready to happen so that scenario that the ones swapped (which were probably more bullion pieces than collector coins) doesn't make sense either

3. Even if the statute of limitations ran out, that is for prosecuting the wrongdoer, not for recovering the property itself. If I had stolen the US Constitution in 1950 I couldn't go sell it today. Even if the US would not be able to prosecute me because of the statute of limitations, they could still reclaim their missing property.

I do not know the truth about Switt's personal actions and do not pretend to.

In short logic would dictate:
A. Stolen property belongs to the original owner - no doubt. Therefore rock solid proof Switt stole them indicates they are the government's property.

B. If there was a law in place allowing a swapping of older coins of equal denomination for new ones coming off the presses - then anyone (Switt included) acting under the law and having the opportunity "paid" the government for their gold pieces and obtained ownership at that time.

Our cherished legal standard of, "Innocent until proven guilty" is on trial. This concept demands absolute proof of theft or the family keeps what was legally "paid" for. And justice (either way) must follow these guidelines.




According to this timeline, there were over 2 months it was legal to swap out the 1933s b/c the recall of gold coins did not occur until June 5th of that year. So let's do this vicariously:

YOU are a mint worker who knows he is allowed to swap out coins. You know the Brit's abandoned the gold standard in 1931, and Roosevelt's recent gold embargo in March - NOT a recall of coins, but a stopping of banks paying out gold - gets you wondering if the US will go off of the gold standard. Its reasonable to assume the coins in front of you might be destroyed and therefore will become novelty items. There is no chance of losing money since you can swap for equal value.

Question: What would YOU do? I think we all are in the same boat on this one.

In June (IF you swapped) all gold coins EXCEPT (Roosevelt's dictate) "gold coins having a recognized special value" are recalled. You know your legally swapped coins are definitely a novelty item of special value. You "paid" for them and realize you saved a few of them from melting - this is "recognized special value" for sure.

Question: Again I ask what would YOU do? Remember that boat?

I understand this is BEST case scenario for the family and they are hoping his was the case. We do not know for sure.

Personally I think Switt's reputation, and therefore probability, would say these were stolen and not legally swapped. But I was not there. Sometimes even a thief does legit business, especially when they know they can legally get ahead instead of taking a risk.

It would be sad to see the fruits of a criminal's work end up in victory after all these years. So if it was theft - I hope they can PROVE it. But if no proof of theft is found, the verdict had better go with the family otherwise government seizure of the coins might be theft () of legally obtained, private property and "Innocent until proven guilty" is thrown out the window.



BTW:

Will we be as passionate when the government does nothing to pursue the "thieves" of the "misplaced" trillions that have been happening in government circles/programs these last few years? These 1933s are worth millions, however,
1. millions are literally chicken feed compared to the amount of one trillion since:
One million seconds is 11 1/2 DAYS

One trillion seconds 11,574,074 days or 31,710 YEARS;

2. if the government does take these coins, I suspect in the future that sometime our grandkids will be reviewing this very same issue when families of past high-ranking politicians find a 1933 $20.00 coin in their safety deposit box.

biochemist6

Thanks for the clarification on the invalid points I made. I do not mind being wrong b/c it is an opportunity to learn - which is what has been the case thanks to you!

And just for clarification - this post is made in true appreciation - there is absolutely no sarcasm here at all. I make this statement b/c intent is sometimes hard to discern in written posts.

I still think my parting comment about them might be valid though - our grandkids will know

if it were someone in my family that inherited the coins, believe me I would be taking it to the last appeals court or supreme court available at my disposal just for the slim chance they (or we) may be able to keep the coins but even in that situation I believe I would still have to feel the same way I do now about who the rightful owners really is. Not saying if a judge declares we could keep them that I wouldn't do so because judges and even jurors have gotten things wrong before. Anytime you have a human factor somewhere in the equation there is a certain amount of error one can expect to happen and I would be praying for one of those errors to be in our favor through one of the courts. That is why I would fight it all the way to the top of the top courthouse in the country. The reason I am saying this is because I was asking myself if I would feel different if I was the one wanting to keep the coins. Trying to be as honest as I possibly can I think I would feel the same way but would be hoping for a wrong ruling in the case. Now I have no dog in the fight so all I can do is say what I feel is right and let it play out which ever way it will. Neither outcome will effect my day to day

Some very well thought out thought-provoking responses put up here in response to the OP. Lotsa insight and research.


Prompted me to do a little digging and believe he's 100% correct. This is what I found:

Standard of proof:The "standard of proof" is the level of proof required in a legal action to discharge the burden of proof, that is to convince the court that a given proposition is true.
STANDARDS:
1. beyond a reasonable doubt: the highest level of proof, used mainly in criminal trials.
2. clear and convincing evidence: an intermediate level of proof, used mainly in civil trials in the U.S
3. Preponderance of the evidence, also known as balance of probabilities is the standard required in most civil cases. The standard is met if the proposition is more likely to be true than not true. Effectively, the standard is satisfied if there is a greater than 50 percent chance that the proposition is true.

So....wherein doth lie the preponderance of evidence as seen by the court? Given these standards and the jury's previous decision, looks like game, set and match.



I do not know if that remark was directed at me but it felt like it and I took it personally. And for whatever reason, the author did not care to be more specific. I found it offensive. Just to be clear, I am a retired Navy Chief Petty Officer having served this country proudly for 20 years. That includes one year in-country service in Viet Nam. Bronze Star with V and Viet Nam Cross of Gallantry. If I have taken that remark awry then I offer my abject apologies. I can only suggest that any future such remarks be offered in a manner offering some semblance of specificity so as not to be wrongly taken. I have never engaged in detrimental, personal remarks here and never will. Further, I do not think such remarks aid or abet the community spirit which has so long been fostered here.