1933 Gold!

Sorry if it sounds like I'm defending Switt...I'm not! (He was indeed convicted for his suitcase of OLD gold coins) I'm just making a point. I do believe he was probably a "shady" character. But the point is ...this is America where you are innocent until proven guilty in a Court of Law! As far as the 1933's go...I don't believe this has happened.

I know about the export license for the Farouk specimen (it didn't stop the government from trying to get the coin back) For some time nobody knew where the coin was! In fact that coin WAS indeed seized when it showed up in the United States some 40 years later! (doesn't seem like they were too worried about the export license) So why did they settle out of court? Both sides were probably afraid of losing a substantial sum of money! If the Export license (issued 50 years ago) was the deciding factor on legalizing the Farouk coin, then that essentially says that the coins were legal to own 50 years ago (and could theoretically open up a new can of worms for the government in wrongful seizure suits). This only helps the familys (owner of the other coins) case.

Let's be just a little reasonable about this! It"s the 1930's and I had gold that I was going to melt down, and somebody replaced it with same amount of gold that I later melted down...then yes I would let it go! I didn't lose anything! Especially since I don't have any proof of who or how it was swapped out! It would be a different story if somebody actually stole the gold (then I would actually have lost out). To the mint in the 1930's, gold was gold. The coins had no numismatic value to them. If they can prove theft then they have a case for return of the stolen goods. If they can prove that the mints cashier exchanged the coins for other coins, then why did the buyer of the Farouk coin have to pay the $20.00 face? The Farouk coin went through Switts hands and now it's legal to own. I think if this goes to court, the family has a chance of keeping the coins! I think the government will try to settle out of court so they can profit from the coins (as was done with the Farouk coin). I'm done with this topic also. Like I said, I'm not defending Switt, he probably was as shady as they come! I personally did not know the man and wont pass judgement.

The funny thing about this is that by stealing the coin from the government (and I agree that that is what happened), the object was made to be vastly more valuable than otherwise. I'm afraid my heart says let them keep ownership of it, or better, have half ownership with the government so if it's sold the US gets half the money.

The people who had possession may not be guilty of the act of obtaining the items but they are guilty of having possession of something that was never legal to own. What I am saying is they were obtained illegally and don't belong to the people who have the coins because of that fact. Everyone that thinks the coins belong to the switt family really need to read up on the subject and read the facts. The bottom line is they were never legal to own and was never supposed to leave the mint and since that is a fact they will never be legal to own unless the Govt gives up possession. If you have a pound of marijuana which is just as illegal to have possession of as these coins are, you are saying they should be able to keep their illegal product? Illegal to own is illegal to own no matter what the item is and these were always illegal to own. how these coins came to be is They were still being minted after Roosevelt put the ban on them and NONE were minted before that date so these were NEVER legal to own. When something was never legal to own you can't have possession legally so there is no proving guilt, they are guilty of having possession of illegal items no ifs and or buts about it. If you want to get down to the facts they should be charged with possession of illegal items instead of being rewarded just because one of the heirs is the one who obtained the items illegally. I find it rather disturbing that anyone could actually think any other way about these and also have to wonder if these were not coins would you be so passionate about it. I also ask myself would you be so willing to take the heirs side if these were stolen from someone in your family. Most people think well the Govt has plenty of money and these don't mean anything to them but as I said would they feel the same way if they belonged to their family when they were obtained illegally

hhbkiddo,

Makes lots of sense, but there is a single, critical ommission. The Double Eagles of 1933 were never approved for release. Many wonder why they were created in the first place with FDR's Executive Order coming prior to their production. The mint director mandated that they not be released and were sealed and set aside separate from other double eagles. It took a conscious, illegal act (probably by head cashier George McCann who had done business with Switt previously) to use these coins for exchange and replace them with prior year coins to maintain correct numbers and weight. This is what we call "original sin" and you know how the rest of the story unfolds.

you are missing the point, the law was passed and then after that these coins were minted. I don't know if the word never got to the mint or what ever but its documented they were minted AFTER it was passed and once they did get word or for what ever reason they ceased making any more and then gathered all of the coins they had minted AFTER the bill passed and sealed them up and put them in what they thought was a safe place until they got further orders what to do with them. In a perfect world these wouldn't have been minted at all but something happened and they were but just because they were minted doesn't mean someone can come and exchange another coin for those that were minted After the fact they were illegal to own. It wouldn't take a genius to figure out that the 1933 St Gaudens coins werent supposed to be minted and if you had some of them they would increase in value because if they weren't supposed to be minted they knew they would probably melt them down instead of leaving all that gold in useless coins. Since they were never supposed to leave the mint and they were minted AFTER the bill had passed to make them illegal to OWN no matter how the guy got them they are still illegal to own., same as my scenario above with marijuana, just because you can acquire it doesn't mean you have the right to keep it


Have you ever read about this case in question? the reason I ask is you keep saying "coin" it is not one coin

Latest News:


Trying a new tack, the U.S. government has brought a civil forfeiture suit seeking title to 10 1933 $20 gold pieces from the estate of Israel Switt, the Philadelphia jeweler and part-time coin dealer to whom all known specimens of the coin previously seized by the government in the 1940s were tied by pedigree.

Pursuit of the 10 coins in this manner by the government was required after a July 28 ruling by Philadelphia U.S. District Court Judge Legrome Davis in which the descendants of Switt, his daughter Joan Langbord and her two adult sons, sued the government for failure to return the rarities that they gave to the U.S. Mint to authenticate.

New York litigator Barry Berke argued on behalf of the family before Judge Davis that the Mint should bear the burden of proving that the coin was illegal and could not be privately owned. In a remarkable decision, Judge Davis, agreed.

The new civil forfeiture suit is the government response. It calls for a declaratory judgment that the King Farouk 1933 $20, which sold at auction in 2002 for $7.59 million under a consent agreement between the Mint and another Berke client, London coin dealer Stephen Fenton, to be declared the only legal specimen that can be privately owned.

It is anticipated that there will be months of legal wrangling before resolution, and given the stakes, the inevitable appeals, with the government claiming the coins could not have left the Mint because FDR nationalized gold and banned private gold coin and bullion ownership, and Berke on behalf of the Langbord family claiming that the coins were properly exchanged and entered into the stream of commerce as lawful legal tender.