| Author |
 Replies: 30 / Views: 5,104 |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
5464 Posts |
Very good point Crazyb0!
PWC
Edited by USSID18
09/18/2018 11:59 am
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
17884 Posts |
Quote:Another favorite besides this 64 SMS is the 82D copper Lincoln Cent. Now EVERYONE is looking for them... In 35 years, no others had been found, only one. A fluke? Indeed, or a "mint-assisted error" or a darn good fabrication. First the mint tried to make sure there would be no 82 D small date copper cents so if more exist it would be darn few of them. (Lets be generous and say there were ten of them) For 34 years almost NO ONE was looking for them. Today, if there are nine more hypothetical specimens they are mixed in among over 290 BILLION cents struck since 1982. And most of those are tied up in change jars and not available for searching. So you have about a 1 in 70 billion chance of finding one, IF you had all the cents struck since 1982 to look through. Your odds of winning the lottery are about 270 times better than finding an 82 small date copper cent. If you had all of them available for searching, and you could search a bag an hour (5000 coins) It would take you over 6,000 years to go through all of them. Edited by Conder101
09/18/2018 4:19 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1479 Posts |
Mint director Eva Adams alledgly squirreled away (pilfered? stole?) 12-15 sets of SMS type sets dated 1964. These coins supposedly were sold in lot to a private dealer by her estate (in KS. we say the family) whom offered them at auction in the early 1990's. I was able to find out that the sets that were busted up sold for a very affordable price of $2-4,000 back then for the cents and higher for the clads. The remaining full sets havn't appeared to the best of my knowledge at auction since.
Lets face it big money collectors have these sets and they stay under the radar probably assuming the coins are in fact the property of the US Government and probably assume the coins could under existing Federal Statues CFR47 be confiscated as such.
So crazbo even though you have a tyrannical opionion regarding these type of mint "amazing rare mint goodies "issues I agree with you 100%. Lets face it there is questionable coins on the market in today's marvels of the mint showcases. In my opionion after reading about the 64 SMS coins I conclude they were pilfered. The Uniformed Code of Military Justice UCMJ of which all branches of the Military adhere and CFR47 which all civilian government employees adhere to categorizes pilfering as stealing.
IMO they are fraudulently acquired and should be seized by the Treasury.
To add insult to injury the PCGS registry set for Lincoln Cents has the 1964 SMS cent in it? Bahhumbug.
#timesupcointheifs
|
|
Rest in Peace
10197 Posts |
Quote:
IMO they are fraudulently acquired and should be seized by the Treasury. Very astute point Cammy. I remember hearing a "story" about (13) 1933 St Gaudens $20 gold pieces found in an attic among a relatives belongings in the '60's if I remember correctly. Supposedly found their way from a former mint employee who indeed "pilfered" the coins. These wound up being "confiscated" by the gubmint according to the 1933 gold turn in laws...without due compensation I might add. That is gubmint robbery at it's best...well, second best. Income and Social Security taxes came into effect not long after that...that is #1! But that is the law. I think too, some other coin errors such as "Mint-assisted" errors, those that can only occur by a little human help per se, should be considered under this same umbrella. Those coins are gubmint property, weren't intended for circulation at all, only a collectable or a "prank". AND, the culprit should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law...but that too we know will never happen now, will it?   |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
62064 Posts |
The examples I've found images on are are first strikes. No die wear present on them. The example posted is not one of them. Die wear and coin wear is two totally different subjects.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
 United States
12477 Posts |
Has the legality of owning 1964 SMS coins ever been questioned by the Treasury? They have been graded and sold without question, so it does not appear they are concerned about "pilfering."  In Memory of Crazyb0 12-26-1951 to 7-27-2020
In Memory of Tootallious 3-31-1964 to 4-15-2020
In Memory of T-BOP 10-12-1949 to 1-19-2024
|
|
Valued Member
United States
254 Posts |
One must not forget that we the people are actually owners of America and in my opinion the gold confiscation was unconstitutional
Edited by Giwalsh
09/18/2018 9:42 pm
|
|
Valued Member
United States
254 Posts |
And I'm a veteran and a elected politician
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1479 Posts |
Now of course if I owned one well mow that's different. I would take a more linnet opionion on the matter and make the exception  |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
12057 Posts |
There was a good article on the 1964 SMS awhile back -- perhaps in the Numismatist -- that included some excellent close-up photos of unique design differences and die markers that are only found on the 1964 SMS issues. It was a fascinating look into how the Mint was "thinking" back in the early '60s when they decided to declare war against coin collectors.
Member ANA - EAC - TNA - SSDC - CCT #890 "Most of the things worth doing in the world had been declared impossible before they were done." -- Louis D. Brandeis |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
12477 Posts |
Quote:
One must not forget that we the people are actually owners of America and in my opinion the gold confiscation was unconstitutional Ownership of anything has been long debated. The "confiscation" of gold is often misunderstood as to what FDR actually called for. No person in the country (even non-citizens) was required to relinquish their entire holding of gold, in any form, by FDR's Executive Order 6102 or its associated subsequent orders. The order was vaguely presented to the public, so many thought they were required to turn over everything (tricky, for sure). At the same time, many had a sense of patriotism that is much more difficult to find today, and those people gave everything anyway because they truly wanted to help the country recover from the depression. They believed that their contribution would help. It actually did, but maybe not in the way it should have. The vaguish recall of gold was essentially a bail-out for the Fed. The Mint was stocked and ready to mint gold coins (such as the 1933 double eagle), but the Fed couldn't afford to purchase them. I agree that it was unconsitutional in nature, but many people freely turning over gold for fiat to help the country is another case, entirely. Ultimately, the US recovered through its affairs in the mid-40s. In Memory of Crazyb0 12-26-1951 to 7-27-2020
In Memory of Tootallious 3-31-1964 to 4-15-2020
In Memory of T-BOP 10-12-1949 to 1-19-2024
|
|
Valued Member
United States
52 Posts |
I bring up another extremely well known coin that shouldn't exist the 1943 bronze cent, it shouldn't exist but several of them have surfaced, been graded and sold without interference
|
|
Pillar of the Community
5464 Posts |
Quote:
Ownership of anything has been long debated. The "confiscation" of gold is often misunderstood as to what FDR actually called for. No person in the country (even non-citizens) was required to relinquish their entire holding of gold, in any form, by FDR's Executive Order 6102 or its associated subsequent orders.
The order was vaguely presented to the public, so many thought they were required to turn over everything (tricky, for sure). At the same time, many had a sense of patriotism that is much more difficult to find today, and those people gave everything anyway because they truly wanted to help the country recover from the depression. They believed that their contribution would help. It actually did, but maybe not in the way it should have. The vaguish recall of gold was essentially a bail-out for the Fed. The Mint was stocked and ready to mint gold coins (such as the 1933 double eagle), but the Fed couldn't afford to purchase them.
I agree that it was unconsitutional in nature, but many people freely turning over gold for fiat to help the country is another case, entirely. Ultimately, the US recovered through its affairs in the mid-40s.  |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
17884 Posts |
Quote:
Income and Social Security taxes came into effect not long after that.. Income taxes started in 1916. Quote:
my opinion the gold confiscation was unconstitutional It was constitutional because it wasn't confiscation. The law that was used to provide the basis for the gold call in had been legally passed by Congress years before, and everyone that turned in their gold was paid for it in full. And as mentioned there were legal "loopholes" that would allow you to keep your gold. Possibly more on a questionable ground would have been the governments abrogating the terms of contracts between private individuals that called for payment in gold. What gives the government the right to unilaterally change the terms of a legal contract that they are NOT a party of? Of course with no gold available, how would you be able to satisfy the terms of the contracts? |
|
Moderator
 United States
189053 Posts |
Thank your for correcting the misinformation, Conder. |
| |
Replies: 30 / Views: 5,104 |
First Page
Posted 09/18/2018 4:16 pm
