1933 Double Eagles 10 Found In 04 Who Own Them

I can imagine that the Swiff family would feel somewhat "cheated" - for lack of a better word. However, atleast the coins are being honored and displayed and not divided or kept in some obscure little box or case for none to admire.

I will site an example of a family heirloom of mine. A FEW members of our family chose to donate an heirloom that belonged to our entire family and not just to those few members. They donated it to a little obscure Museum in Ohio with the notation that the heirloom was only to be viewed by members of the family. This heirloom is priceless, not only to all members of our family but, to the history of our Country. This heirloom is the first Posthumous Congressional Medal of Honor! I believe that I can understand the Swiff families feelings although it was a few members of our family that removed this Honor from us all and not the Government. This Medal, in fact, does belong to all and not just to a few! Perhaps this is not an equal comparison and there is no monetary value to this Medal but, I, among others feel "cheated" for myself and the U.S.

So therefore, I am glad that these beautiful Coins are in the hands of someone who will display them with the Honor that they deserve and not sold, hidden or squandered by a few.

I thank you all for your feedback on this subject!
But there is two thing I think your missing, The 1933 that sold in 2002 1 they tryed hide the coin and get it in the USA from england! and mint & soth/stack's split the money 3 way?

swiff family told the mint what they had found them with there fathers stuff,they could have just taken them out of the USA and sold them! The mint should have left them with some of the Coins if only 1 or 2 coins

This is what I think that mint should give 4-5 back to the family. so that leaves mint will have 8-10 dd eagles they show around parts of the USA.The ANA get them at there shows and the mint has a fair amount of coins
thanks
Angelo

is it right that they can take the stuff you paid for and chose to not turn in when they said it was law to do so, no its not right, will they do it, you bet your rearend they will. If they ever choose to say that every silver coin that the US MInt ever produced is illegal to own and say if you have any you need to turn them in, and you do not do so (no matter how you aquired them) you are breaking the law and they can and will come in and take them just like they do with illegal drugs. Now I am not saying I agree with this or anything but its just a fact. People pay for illegal drugs and since its illegal to own the police can come in your home and take it and you can do nothing, it would be the same situation if they deemed all silver coins illegal. I know this is not a popular answer but its still what would happen. If you were to leave 100 pounds of illegal drugs and your family found them after you were dead and gone would it be right for the governmebt to take that from them? People see this as different but still both would be illegal to have and both would have the same outcome

but which one is more illegal? Neither of them because illegal is illegal and that makes them the same. Cigarettes are harmful but yet not illegal so that has no bearing in the illegal factor

I say I own them. LOl

I guess you are right, if you posess illegal drugs they are deemed yours and you are the one who goes to jail for it, and they take the drugs. Only difference with coins is you dont go to jail for it, but since they are illegal to own if you didn't give them up you probably would. 9/10ths of of an illegal substance is still illegal

Like I said, its not a popular answer but still the only correct answer that there is, they are illegal to own so they belong to the Government to do with them as they see fit

As Deb said, this is a toughie. I'm no lawyer, but from everything I've read elsewhere, the ten 1933 St. Gaudens belong to the US Government, like it or not. Their origins, provenance, and pedigree are irrelevant; the government caught up to them, took possession of them, and will keep them. Here's a summary of the situation (already stated in part in previous responses): http://coins.about.com/od/famousrar...ld_Eagle.htm

While the 1933 St. Gaudens case is almost unique since the coins were "outlawed" BEFORE they were issued, it might be compared to someone finding D.B Cooper's $200,000 loot (part of it HAS been found) along the banks of the Columbia River. Despite it being 35 years later, the money is STILL stolen property, belongs to someone else, and does not belong to the finder nor possessor. There are other comparisons, particularly with lost, then rediscovered "treasure" or hoards. I am personally familiar with one instance with the US National Park Service which during reconstruction of an historical building in the 1970s found a pot of very collectible 19th century coins worth tens of thousands of dollars. With due diligence, the USNPS located the original owner's heirs and returned the treasure to them in toto. Just because the US government owned the land and building, this did not give the government ownership of the building's contents unless it was so stated in the deed. Contrary to common belief, possession is not 9/10ths of the law, especially if the possession is of stolen or lost property ("finders keepers" is not supported by law).

I don't think the Federal Government is going to treat these 33s like they treated the King Farouk 33 with a compromise between the purchaser and the government. That coin is now in the legal possession of an anonymous collector and is fully monetized. The judge in the case had a weak moment, perhaps because of the amount of money already spent on the Farouk St. Gaudens by a British citizen. Israel's coins may go to court, but since the heirs didn't buy them for ungodly amounts of money, I don't think they're gonna see anything from them.

Now, if it had been one of us who rediscovered the Israel Switt St. Gaudens, we might have weighed our actions a little more carefully than did Switt's heirs. For quite a few millions of dollars, we might have been tempted to sell them through underground channels rather than turn them into the government. Of course, this level of ethical decision-making isn't likely to cross most of our paths, so we can't state what we might or might not do.

Fred