New Article on the 1933 “Saints” 1 1

[VKurtB]

https://coinweek.com/us-coins/united-states-1933-double-eagle-20-gold-coin/
 

Some know all this, but most do not. I believe our resident Saint überfan might enjoy it.

[Alex in PA.]

Excellent historical read, thanks.  Certainly was a lot of government hoopla over some $20.00 coins.  

[Henri Charriere]

I caught the article, read it straight through, enjoyed every minute of it... then slammed into the news item about Citibank losing $500 billion on a wire transfer and a federal judge's response to their lawsuit for recovery. Basically, too bad.

[physics-fan3.14]

While there is obviously a bit missing from that article, that is one of the most complete summaries available online. I'm sure Roger can fill in details. 

[GoldFinger1969]

4 hours ago, Quintus Arrius said:

I caught the article, read it straight through, enjoyed every minute of it... then slammed into the news item about Citibank losing $500 billion on a wire transfer and a federal judge's response to their lawsuit for recovery. Basically, too bad.

$500 MILLION not billion. 

[GoldFinger1969]

10 hours ago, VKurtB said:

https://coinweek.com/us-coins/united-states-1933-double-eagle-20-gold-coin/  Some know all this, but most do not. I believe our resident Saint überfan might enjoy it.

Thanks for the heads-up, Kurt.   Now I can rant.....

I call BS on the Mint.  They tracked every single 1933 Saint -- but have no idea how 250 1928 Saints, an entire bag, disappeared, huh ?  And if the 20-25 or so 1933 Saints were all "stolen" -- then how come there is no gold shortfall ?  Usually, when something is "stolen" it's missing.  Clearly, the books were in balance because other $20 Double Eagles (Saints or Libertys) were exchanged for the 1933's.  We don't know when, but sometime between 1933 and 1937, there was some kind of exchange.

David Tripp works/worked for Sotheby's.  I'm unaware of any books he has written other than ILLEGAL TENDER and not aware of any articles in coin mags, journals, etc.  To be blunt, he's no RWB, Bowers, or Julian.  This is a guy who cried "orphan document" when he got caught during the Langbord testimony.  Instead of saying he missed the document or didn't do enough research in the right areas, he tried to cover his screwup by saying the document was akin to seeing only one side of a conversation. 

COINWEEK does a disservice by saying Tripp took off a year to research for his book and do "meticulous research."  Really ?  And the key letter from the Mint stating that exchanges were still OK (the Buffalo Froman letter) he somehow missed ?  Or maybe had no interest since Sotheby's might not have wanted to tee off their billionaire buyer of the Farouk (?) coin.

The Bottom Line As I See It:  The folks dealing in gold coins tended to be anti-FDR.  The Treasury/Mint didn't like Switt/Kosoff/Mehl/etc. and their clients, and vice-versa.  They made alot more $$$ annually than their Treasury/Mint counterparts and I'm sure that played a part in the hostility of the Treasury/Mint guys who were probably steaming mad that those guys were reaping multiples of face value for stuff they produced only a few years earlier (and which they didn't grab themselves).

A $20 coin, that maybe cost the dealers/collectors $30-$35 to exchange out of the Mint, was selling in the late-1930's for $400 - $800 a coin, a 20-40 fold increase when a decent income was $2,000 a year.  The Mint and Treasury clearly resented this windfall, and for all we know, believed that the same guys who exchanged a few 1933's out of the Mint were the same kind of folks behind the outright theft of the bag of 1928 Saints (totally my opinion but I stand by it). 

The article itself is outstanding and the best coin-by-coin analysis I've seen of all the 1933's that were ever out there.  Great article.  I just wish a few counter-researchers on their legality had been quoted.  

Edited February 27, 2021 by GoldFinger1969

[Henri Charriere]

Much ago about nothing. Nearly half a million '33's were made. What's the point of owning something like that you can never do anything with.  The very fact the author more or less meticulously pieced the story together as best be could makes for an interesting story or little else. It is fairly obvious those involved had trouble keeping their mouths shut. By comparison, when's the last time we heard a new development in the thefts from the Gardner museum? Knowing how stubborn I can be, I would have said, No comment, and carried a toothbrush to the Lewisburg pen. But that would not have solved my problem or anyone else's. An interesting story nonetheless. Can anyone think of a single fact militating against release of a gold coin today, some nearly 90 years after the deaths of all principals?  No wonder Dillinger had free reign over the midwest; our Federal agents were chasing bootleggers and coins.

[zadok]

lets see...(1) 1933 $20 SG  worth more than (117,448,888) 20 Franc french roosters.....yep much ado bout nothing.....i think id go with the 1933 SG.....

[GoldFinger1969]

QA, I'm not sure I understand 100% what you are saying but I will say this:  if Philly Mint employees saw the striking of 1933 Saints continuing through May, they had no reason to NOT think they'd be released at some point.  But if they were sure that the 1933's would be the LAST Saints ever struck, then that and the fact that they were new (always good for a few bucks from the bigwigs in Boston, NYC, and Philly) meant that a bunch of Philly Mint employees wanted some of those coins (if not for themselves, then for a a nice payday).

So you're an employee of the Philly Mint.  It's March 1933 and you're wondering now about the ability to get a 1933 Saint with a $20 bill or even another $20 gold coin.  Maybe you don't even HAVE the money or coin (for exchange) yet -- they're not cheap unless you make a good living or have saved up.  So...you go to your boss....or maybe one of the higher-ups....and say something like "Hey, I don't have the money/coin yet to exchange for a 1933 but I really want one (or 2 or 3 or 5 or whatever)...can I still get it in a few weeks (months)?"

Well, your boss or your bosses boss -- knowing if the 1933 Saints are released or if he suspects they'll be melted down -- knows either scenario won't matter if a few non-1933 Saints are in the bunch.  So he says "Sure, we've got some at the cashier or in a partial bag or whatever.  Don't sweat it....you want a few, they're yours as long as we have them still here at the Mint." 

Mint higher-ups were always "helping themsleves" to coins and patterns (paying for them, I'm told by RWB but still making sure they took care of themselves).  If there is "no-harm, no foul" from the Buffalo Froman Letter with an exchange -- and most people still think the coins will eventually be released in their entirety (why still strike them through May ?) -- I could easily see 1 or 2 or 3 Mint employees thinking they had time past the official public deadline for exchanges in which to get a 1933 Saint.

This entire "official release" thing and "monetization" are hooey.  If Bowers is correct that Mint employees had made little runs to Philly and NYC (and maybe even Boston) for wealthy dealers/collectors and made some $$$ for themselves too with previous versions....no reason to think they weren't going to do it with the 1933's.

The entire thrust of FDR's 1933 (and subsequent) EOs and the Treasury/Mint directives as I see it is very clear:  no gold is to be released net-net, but they could have cared less about any particular year (or mintmark) being exchanged.  If they thought that releasing a 1933 Saint into the economy was the equivalent of giving the Nazi Third Reich a printing press to print U.S. currency, they would have issued a specific directive that no 1933 Saints were to be released because they were not "money" or "coins" because of the monetization baloney (which wasn't even raised at that time, it was used later).

And this entire excercise doesn't take into account that 43 of the 1933 Saints were actually with the cashier as part of the 1932 Saint balance, something which I believe Tripp never disclosed or was aware of (RWB found that out).  You've got some 1933's mixed with 1932's and you don't consider them a potential source of the coins ? 

Edited February 27, 2021 by GoldFinger1969

[VKurtB]

It is utterly clear to me that ALL 1933 Saints EXCEPT for the two put in the Smithsonian are and were stolen, period. Note the use of the passive voice. I am not saying person A stole them, or any other individual, only that they were stolen by somebody, and that’s all the government needed to show to prevail in court, by the PREPONDERANCE standard (50% + a scintilla), i.e. “more likely than not stolen”, not “beyond a reasonable doubt”. I sat next to that Mint’s counsel at that PAN talk at Pittsburgh. Listening to him simply removes any credible doubt that illegal activity liberated those 1933’s. And that is FAAAAAR more of a burden than the government ever had. 

Edited February 27, 2021 by VKurtB

[GoldFinger1969]

48 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

It is utterly clear to me that ALL 1933 Saints EXCEPT for the two put in the Smithsonian are and were stolen, period. Note the use of the passive voice. I am not saying person A stole them, or any other individual, only that they were stolen by somebody, and that’s all the government needed to show to prevail in court, by the PREPONDERANCE standard (50% + a scintilla), i.e. “more likely than not stolen”, not “beyond a reasonable doubt”. I sat next to that Mint’s counsel at that PAN talk at Pittsburgh. Listening to him simply removes any credible doubt that illegal activity liberated those 1933’s. And that is FAAAAAR more of a burden than the government ever had. 

I watched Greg Weimann's (sp.) talk on video (someone gave me/us the link).  He never addressed why the Mint suddenly went after the coins except when that guy (name escapes me, it's in RWB's SAINTS book) got promoted and basically changed policy.  The coins appreciated in price and don't tell me that wasn't a reason for the Secret Service to go after them.  If they were priced like the 1907 High Reliefs were 15 years after they came out -- like $21 or so, a 5% premium over face -- nobody would have cared.

If the U.S. Treasury/Mint had such a good case, they wouldn't have lied to the Langbord's about returning the coins and also threatening Roy Langbord with jail.  The Mint hasn't ever told us why they are considered "stolen" and basically doesn't like the exchange that took place. 

Like I said, maybe if they spent more time on the actual $5,000 in STOLEN 1928 Saints and less on exchanged 1933's, they'd have come up with some good leads at the time.  But of course, par for the course, they spent their efforts lobbying Congress to change the Mint liability procedures.

Way to go, guys !!  

 

 

Edited February 27, 2021 by GoldFinger1969

[Henri Charriere]

3 hours ago, zadok said:

lets see...(1) 1933 $20 SG  worth more than (117,448,888) 20 Franc french roosters.....yep much ado bout nothing.....i think id go with the 1933 SG.....

(I can't believe this guy took the time and trouble to look up the total rooster run -- most of which were melted (as were quite a few Saints) -- but zadok, you are definitely a contender.)

I have a question for die-hard Saint's fans, and numismatists, everywhere... 

What has it cost (and what is it continuing to cost) the government, and presumably tax-paying public, to pursue this matter which has plodded along with no conclusive resolution in sight since the days of Bonnie and Clyde?

My prediction:  the crime, as my learned colleague, VKurtB, has chosen to characterize it, will continue to go unsolved and my good friend zadok's ownership of a '33, with all due respect and for lack of a better expression, is a moot point. 

[GoldFinger1969]

Kurt, let me ask you a quasi-legal question:  shouldn't the government have to show a BEYOND a reasonable doubt standard of the evidence, since the harm to the government from losing the coins is minimal/nil....but the cost to the Langbord's (million$$$) is not ?

The government would have benefitted as the coins were sold (tax revenue).  And they already had agreed to split a previous coin.

So how could they say they faced "great harm" and the standard should be a preponderance of the evidence ?  These were 10 legit coins, not a bunch of counterfeit 100's to be put into circulation.

Not to belabor the point, but in the late-1930's these circulated and were sold openly.  Nobody cared.  Then the price rose, a new guy takes over at the Mint, and they act like Army Intelligence trying to recover the Ark of The Covenant. 

Edited February 27, 2021 by GoldFinger1969

[World Colonial]

24 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

and they act like Army Intelligence trying to recover the Ark of The Covenant. 

Reading posts on US coin forums, the uninitiated novice might have a good reason to think that much of the trivial numismatic minutia is equally important.

[GoldFinger1969]

2 minutes ago, World Colonial said:

Reading posts on US coin forums, the uninitiated novice might have a good reason to think that much of the trivial numismatic minutia is equally important.

Well, at least the government has top men working on the 1933 Saints.

Top.....Men.  

 

[VKurtB]

“Kurt, let me ask you a quasi-legal question:  shouldn't the government have to show a BEYOND a reasonable doubt standard of the evidence, since the harm to the government from losing the coins is minimal/nil....but the cost to the Langbord's (million$$$) is not ?”

 

No, absolutely NOT!!!! It’s not even an arguable point. Beyond a reasonable doubt does not exist ANYWHERE outside of a criminal prosecution, which this was not. People are losing their property EVERY DAY in this country over not just PREPONDERANCE, but even prima facie evidence. We need to grow up and see the courts as they really are.

Edited February 28, 2021 by VKurtB

[Alex in PA.]

Agreed.  People often think the saying: "You can't fight city hall." is a joke.  I spent 11+ years fighting the VA all the way to the high courts in Washington, DC.  I didn't win even though I, and the lawyers, thought I was right.

[Henri Charriere]

11 minutes ago, Alex in PA. said:

Agreed.  People often think the saying: "You can't fight city hall." is a joke.  I spent 11+ years fighting the VA all the way to the high courts in Washington, DC.  I didn't win even though I, and the lawyers, thought I was right.

[Somehow a comment from you without an emoji just seems incomplete.]

[Hoghead515]

Was 1933 the last year they minted the Saint Gaudens? I was looking thru a few issues of the Numismatic Scrapbook Magazine and you could buy a 1931 or 1932 for around 80 bucks. Big price jump over the years. We're the 1931 and 32 pretty common? I also saw where a 1907 sold for around $90. It said in the book the 1907 was very rare. Im looking forward to reading more about these. Sounds like there is alot of history behind the saints. 

 

 

[GoldFinger1969]

23 minutes ago, Hoghead515 said:

Was 1933 the last year they minted the Saint Gaudens? I was looking thru a few issues of the Numismatic Scrapbook Magazine and you could buy a 1931 or 1932 for around 80 bucks. Big price jump over the years. We're the 1931 and 32 pretty common? I also saw where a 1907 sold for around $90. It said in the book the 1907 was very rare. Im looking forward to reading more about these. Sounds like there is alot of history behind the saints. 

Yes, Hog, 1933 was the last Saint-Gaudens coin.  Those prices for a 1931 or 1932 sound like from the late-1930's when things started to recover economically.  I believe that a bigtime dealer -- Kossoff, Mehl, or someone -- told a client who had been offered a 1933 Saint for about $800 to NOT buy it because he thought the price would come down as with other rare ones (i.e, 1926-D, 1925-S) when a few more turned up.

The 1931 and 1932 were not "common" in commerce but if you wanted them you could get them from the Philly Mint or via mail order.   Roger's book shows the actual purchase list for 1932 Saints and it is about 150 coins, but that includes a single order from NJ for about 50 coins.  However, all of the 1929-32 Saints today are ultra-rare because the bulk of them never left the Mint and were melted down, with none travelling overseas to resurface years later in the Great European Bank Hoards.

By 1907 Saint...you mean the 1907 High Relief...or the 1907 Arabic flat-relief version ?  The 1907 High Relief traded at a nice premium of $35 once it came out....then it fizzled over the years...and by 1920 you could buy one for $21 or $22 !!   I would bet a Mint State or Gem Uncirculated (as it was called before the TPGs) would have sold for $90 right after WW II. 

Get Roger's book.  It's not only about the Saint-Gaudens coins, but you'll learn about international commerce, the Gold Standard, and American economic history.  You won't regret it. 

[Hoghead515]

 It is a July 1941 issue and you are right. The auctioneer selling the the 31 and 32 was Kossoff.  I cant find the issue again that had the 1907 in it but I remember it talking about it being Arabic. Ill post a picture of the page with the auction results. It's very cool and interesting. It's also got results from Bolender and Mehl. Very interesting stuff for people who want to see it 

 

 

[GoldFinger1969]

Yes, I recently picked up some catalogs from the 1990's and later and they are fascinating to read.

Roger's SAINTS book and Bowers book on DOUBLE EAGLES (less of an investment in time and money if you want to read his book first) include many citations of auctions from the 1920's - 1950's of the kind you posted above.

Great post and pic on those auctions ! 

[MarkFeld]

23 hours ago, VKurtB said:

It is utterly clear to me that ALL 1933 Saints EXCEPT for the two put in the Smithsonian are and were stolen, period. Note the use of the passive voice. I am not saying person A stole them, or any other individual, only that they were stolen by somebody, and that’s all the government needed to show to prevail in court, by the PREPONDERANCE standard (50% + a scintilla), i.e. “more likely than not stolen”, not “beyond a reasonable doubt”. I sat next to that Mint’s counsel at that PAN talk at Pittsburgh. Listening to him simply removes any credible doubt that illegal activity liberated those 1933’s. And that is FAAAAAR more of a burden than the government ever had. 

If the 1933 Saints were stolen, rather than exchanged, (which was legal), why was there no shortage reflected in the records? Those records were supposedly extremely meticulous. The Mint can’t have it both ways - or at least shouldn’t be able to.

And by the way, I don’t know anyone other than you, who has maintained that the Farouk example (which was granted an export license) was stolen. Period!😉

Edited February 28, 2021 by MarkFeld

[GoldFinger1969]

31 minutes ago, MarkFeld said:

If the 1933 Saints were stolen, rather than exchanged, (which was legal), why was there no shortage reflected in the records? Those records were supposedly extremely meticulous. The Mint can’t have it both ways - or at least shouldn’t be able to.

Mark, I think Kurt even considers any exchange past April 6th to be ILLEGAL.  And he may consider those exchanges before then to be illegal since none were "recorded" in a ledger.  As I understand it, the 1933 Indian Head $10 pieces (about 35-40) are ALL legal because about 5 of them were recorded as sales from the Mint -- and thus, since the government can't tell which of the 35-40 are the 5 recorded sales, they all get legal status (for now ).

31 minutes ago, MarkFeld said:

And by the way, I don’t know anyone other than you, who has maintained that the Farouk example (which was granted an export license) was stolen. Period!😉

Isn't there some dispute as to whether a picture in some book is the Farouk coin or some other coin ?  I remember reading about it years ago somewhere but wasn't as involved in the 1933 discussion at that time so it went in one ear and out the other.  But I believe they ID'd the various coins by marks in the field.

Now, some guy voluntarily turned in his 1933 Saint in 2018 (Weinman I think referenced that in his 2018 PA talk).  That may be the coin in question in that book.  But what irks me is he didn't even fight for his coin....presumably, he's got some $$$ and I wish he would have shopped for a more favorable venue than the one in Philly (the judge was biased against the Langbords).  He might have won.  Certainly, with private property rights under assault, he would have gotten more exposure and a possible political settlement.

Edited February 28, 2021 by GoldFinger1969

[Henri Charriere]

Ask Alexa.

[GoldFinger1969]

One more thing....I think it is HILLARIOUS that posters ATS (and maybe here and elsewhere) were contacted by the FBI or Treasury to get "dirt" on possible witnesses who might testify for the Langbords.  That and the sliming of Roger Burdette ("He's an IT guy") shows you they didn't rely on the facts, but on a moronic judge with a reputation for sloppiness and bias well-known to those in his courtroom over the years.  Guy was counting the days to his fat judicial pension, no doubt. 

Edited February 28, 2021 by GoldFinger1969

[RWB]

1 hour ago, MarkFeld said:

If the 1933 Saints were stolen, rather than exchanged, (which was legal), why was there no shortage reflected in the records? Those records were supposedly extremely meticulous. The Mint can’t have it both ways - or at least shouldn’t be able to.

Nothing reported missing by count, by weight, by melt. The first "theft" was by Treasury of the legal property of coin owners. The second "theft" was again by Treasury in stealing the Langbord's coins under false pretense. The Treasury is ahead by the aggregate monetary value of the coins, which means that the books do not balance.

[PS: The article is the usual reheated leftovers, stirred around and occasionally misunderstood. There's also far too much space devoted to irrelevant material. There's nothing requiring comment because there nothing interesting or new presented.]

Edited February 28, 2021 by RWB

[VKurtB]

1 hour ago, MarkFeld said:

(which was legal)

A duly constituted trial court found otherwise. Even the “exchange” was illegal at any date it could have reasonably happened. All 1933 examples were under lock and key, and the Mint cashier purloined them. Read the CoinWeek article again, Mark. Read it again. That is, if your ideology allows you to read plain English.

Edited February 28, 2021 by VKurtB

[VKurtB]

1 hour ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

One more thing....I think it is HILLARIOUS that posters ATS (and maybe here and elsewhere) were contacted by the FBI or Treasury to get "dirt" on possible witnesses who might testify for the Langbords.  That and the sliming of Roger Burdette ("He's an IT guy") shows you they didn't rely on the facts, but on a moronic judge with a reputation for sloppiness and bias well-known to those in his courtroom over the years.  Guy was counting the days to his fat judicial pension, no doubt. 

Nobody other than RWB’s own words “slimed” RWB in that trial. RWB’s own braggadocio “ats” (since conveniently deleted) slimed RWB.

Edited February 28, 2021 by VKurtB

[numisport]

The chain of events is difficult for me to ponder. What made me laugh when this all started is when it was explained that these 10 Saints were FOUND in a safe deposit box. What a joke really ?

I thought this was a good read by the way.