• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

1933 Saint-Gaudens Double Eagle Graded MS-65....no holder !!
1 1

237 posts in this topic

27 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

On the PCGS photo above, the key light is obviously coming from approximately 12 o’clock, while on the StacksBowers photo, the key light is coming from between 8 and 9 o’clock. The more you know about photographic lighting, the more you realize how utterly critical these choices are. Both the pictures on the Beatles Album “Meet the Beatles” and the classic scary Vincent Price photos are essentially single light photos (with very little fill). The direction makes all the difference in the world.

[You should be on Jeopardy!  The breadth of your knowledge is, well, breathtaking.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Quintus Arrius said:

[You should be on Jeopardy!  The breadth of your knowledge is, well, breathtaking.]

Jeopardy smart, no. Portrait and glamour photographer smart, yes.

Edited by VKurtB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, VKurtB said:

Jeopardy smart, no. Portrait and glamour photographer smart, yes.

Good thing you look very distinguished and you're spontaneity makes you a force to be reckoned with. I am deeply sorry the roadside stands you are accustomed to are scarce in Alabama. Would you be willing to concede Buffalo Head's photography skills are up to par, all things considered?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Quintus Arrius said:

Good thing you look very distinguished and you're spontaneity makes you a force to be reckoned with. I am deeply sorry the roadside stands you are accustomed to are scarce in Alabama. Would you be willing to concede Buffalo Head's photography skills are up to par, all things considered?

Who????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, VKurtB said:

Who????

@Buffalo Head Someone is going to have to help me out here as I do not believe he has spoken up.   Another member has availed himself of having 📷's taken by him of his coins and the results, by mutual assent, are incredibly sharp.  I believe they are all buried in one of the Post your recent acquisition threads.  In fact, maybe, just maybe, the professional quality of his coin photos is such that you would have no trouble breaking with long-standing custom and make a purchase solely on the strength of the quality (lighting, illumination of critical details, sharp focus, and maximum size) provided by his photos.  If he were to have access to the S-G '33, I suspect his photos would be re-touched or rejected outright for revealing the true extent of Lady Liberty's leg injury in full, living color.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Quintus Arrius said:

@Buffalo Head Someone is going to have to help me out here as I do not believe he has spoken up.   Another member has availed himself of having 📷's taken by him of his coins and the results, by mutual assent, are incredibly sharp.  I believe they are all buried in one of the Post your recent acquisition threads.  In fact, maybe, just maybe, the professional quality of his coin photos is such that you would have no trouble breaking with long-standing custom and make a purchase solely on the strength of the quality (lighting, illumination of critical details, sharp focus, and maximum size) provided by his photos.  If he were to have access to the S-G '33, I suspect his photos would be re-touched or rejected outright for revealing the true extent of Lady Liberty's leg injury in full, living color.

I know there are some awesome shooters of “coin glamour shots” around. Many are true artists. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/14/2021 at 10:21 AM, VKurtB said:

Who????

Here are a few coins of mine done by Buffalo Head. He does amazing work in my opinion.

 

On 6/14/2021 at 12:50 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

@Buffalo Head Someone is going to have to help me out here as I do not believe he has spoken up.   Another member has availed himself of having 📷's taken by him of his coins and the results, by mutual assent, are incredibly sharp.  I believe they are all buried in one of the Post your recent acquisition threads.  In fact, maybe, just maybe, the professional quality of his coin photos is such that you would have no trouble breaking with long-standing custom and make a purchase solely on the strength of the quality (lighting, illumination of critical details, sharp focus, and maximum size) provided by his photos.  If he were to have access to the S-G '33, I suspect his photos would be re-touched or rejected outright for revealing the true extent of Lady Liberty's leg injury in full, living color.

 

2E669728-25C5-43DD-8F5D-838B00324E00.jpeg

F968428C-4334-4FFE-886F-F1AF85C0E19B.jpeg

077752CA-DA0D-4C88-8C26-592D84E8E607.jpeg

C644A880-6057-423D-B3BD-AF46C0E09207.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Lem E said:

Here are a few coins of mine done by Buffalo Head. He does amazing work in my opinion.

 

 

2E669728-25C5-43DD-8F5D-838B00324E00.jpeg

F968428C-4334-4FFE-886F-F1AF85C0E19B.jpeg

077752CA-DA0D-4C88-8C26-592D84E8E607.jpeg

C644A880-6057-423D-B3BD-AF46C0E09207.jpeg

Agreed. He is an artist indeed, without the “shmaltz”, which I appreciate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1933 Update:  PCGS' Twitter feed has these nice hi-def pics plus some commentary.  I don't know if it's the lighting or even touching-up (I don't think so)....but I MUCH prefer these pics which to me are how my own eyes would see the coin rather than the pics I posted at the  beginning of this thread.

1933 Farouk-Weitzman MS65.jpg

Edited by GoldFinger1969
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/10/2022 at 1:52 PM, Alex in PA. said:

Yes.  1933.  :luhv:

It's simply the rarest of all the Saints and has a great story, thanks to the U.S: government stealing (IMO) the Langbord 10.

Strike and appearance are maybe at best a bit above average.  I think the MCMVII UHR and High Relief (top-grade)  blow it away in terms of apperance, if not rarity and price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/10/2022 at 1:06 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

It's simply the rarest of all the Saints and has a great story, thanks to the U.S: government stealing (IMO) the Langbord 10.

Strike and appearance are maybe at best a bit above average.  I think the MCMVII UHR and High Relief (top-grade)  blow it away in terms of apperance, if not rarity and price.

"Stealing". That's the funniest line I've ever heard. They were stolen goods when the Langbords had them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/10/2022 at 4:14 PM, VKurtB said:

"Stealing". That's the funniest line I've ever heard. They were stolen goods when the Langbords had them.

I know you have a different perspective, but I didn't believe the FBI/Treasury/Mint at the time and nothing I've seen from the feds since then has assured me that they told the truth 100% and the other side lied 100%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/10/2022 at 3:26 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

I know you have a different perspective, but I didn't believe the FBI/Treasury/Mint at the time and nothing I've seen from the feds since then has assured me that they told the truth 100% and the other side lied 100%.

Wrong standard. It was NOT a criminal trial, it was civil. All they needed was a tiny bit over 50%, which they got. (Mere preponderance.) A UNANIMOUS  jury who heard every word of the testimony and got to look into the eyes of EVERY witness determined the government told the truth and the Langbords (and probably their witnesses too) lied. It was a 12-0 decision by a federal petit jury drawn from the eastern third of Pennsylvania. No "snazzy" state court "majority decision" garbage, - a 12-0 decision that really didn't take a really long time.

Literally EVERYBODY who believes the Langbords got shafted have the following in common:

They were not in that courtroom.

They did not hear and size up EVERY witness.

They did not receive the instruction on the law.

 

Everybody who DID make the decision had the benefit of all that. "We" need tons more retrospection and humility when passing judgment on this case and this jury. But that's not the long suit of goldbugs, is it? No, they'd rather take the word of a witness that the jury rejected as untrustworthy. But remember, ALL HE OFFERED was a plausible alternative set of facts and circumstances. And even if the jury believed every word, all it was was blind speculation. An alternative possibility. That MIGHT work for a criminal trial, but it was a fool's errand in a civil trial. Counsel for the Langbords threw a "Hail Mary" and it fell incomplete.

Edited by VKurtB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/10/2022 at 4:30 PM, VKurtB said:

Wrong standard. It was NOT a criminal trial, it was civil. All they needed was a tiny bit over 50%, which they got. (Mere preponderance.) A UNANIMOUS  jury who heard every word of the testimony and got to look into the eyes of EVERY witness determined the government told the truth and the Langbords (and probably their witnesses too) lied. It was a 12-0 decision by a federal petit jury drawn from the eastern third of Pennsylvania. No "snazzy" state court "majority decision" garbage, - a 12-0 decision that really didn't take a really long time.

Literally EVERYBODY who believes the Langbords got shafted have the following in common:

They were not in that courtroom.

They did not hear and size up EVERY witness.

They did not receive the instruction on the law.

 

Everybody who DID make the decision had the benefit of all that. "We" need tons more retrospection and humility when passing judgment on this case and this jury. But that's not the long suit of goldbugs, is it? No, they'd rather take the word of a witness that the jury rejected as untrustworthy. But remember, ALL HE OFFERED was a plausible alternative set of facts and circumstances. And even if the jury believed every word, all it was was blind speculation. An alternative possibility. That MIGHT work for a criminal trial, but it was a fool's errand in a civil trial. Counsel for the Langbords threw a "Hail Mary" and it fell incomplete.

...all true...but everyone in the courtroom n out of the courtroom knows just how sleazy the federal gov't was n still is...our gov't has no fiscal morals....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/10/2022 at 3:30 PM, VKurtB said:

Wrong standard. It was NOT a criminal trial, it was civil. All they needed was a tiny bit over 50%, which they got. (Mere preponderance.) A UNANIMOUS  jury who heard every word of the testimony and got to look into the eyes of EVERY witness determined the government told the truth and the Langbords (and probably their witnesses too) lied. It was a 12-0 decision by a federal petit jury drawn from the eastern third of Pennsylvania. No "snazzy" state court "majority decision" garbage, - a 12-0 decision that really didn't take a really long time.

Literally EVERYBODY who believes the Langbords got shafted have the following in common:

They were not in that courtroom.

They did not hear and size up EVERY witness.

They did not receive the instruction on the law.

 

Everybody who DID make the decision had the benefit of all that. "We" need tons more retrospection and humility when passing judgment on this case and this jury. But that's not the long suit of goldbugs, is it? No, they'd rather take the word of a witness that the jury rejected as untrustworthy. But remember, ALL HE OFFERED was a plausible alternative set of facts and circumstances. And even if the jury believed every word, all it was was blind speculation. An alternative possibility. That MIGHT work for a criminal trial, but it was a fool's errand in a civil trial. Counsel for the Langbords threw a "Hail Mary" and it fell incomplete.

The ruling didn’t require the conclusion that the Langbords were thought to be lying. It was based on the belief that the coins never let the Mint legally. And while you can make all the pronouncements you want, none of us know whether that was the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/10/2022 at 4:30 PM, VKurtB said:

Wrong standard. It was NOT a criminal trial, it was civil. All they needed was a tiny bit over 50%, which they got. (Mere preponderance.) A UNANIMOUS  jury who heard every word of the testimony and got to look into the eyes of EVERY witness determined the government told the truth and the Langbords (and probably their witnesses too) lied. It was a 12-0 decision by a federal petit jury drawn from the eastern third of Pennsylvania. No "snazzy" state court "majority decision" garbage, - a 12-0 decision that really didn't take a really long time. Literally EVERYBODY who believes the Langbords got shafted have the following in common: They were not in that courtroom. They did not hear and size up EVERY witness.  They did not receive the instruction on the law. Everybody who DID make the decision had the benefit of all that. "We" need tons more retrospection and humility when passing judgment on this case and this jury. But that's not the long suit of goldbugs, is it? No, they'd rather take the word of a witness that the jury rejected as untrustworthy. But remember, ALL HE OFFERED was a plausible alternative set of facts and circumstances. And even if the jury believed every word, all it was was blind speculation. An alternative possibility. That MIGHT work for a criminal trial, but it was a fool's errand in a civil trial. Counsel for the Langbords threw a "Hail Mary" and it fell incomplete.

The judge was a clown, falling asleep in the court room and showing clear biases.  Witnesses for the Langbords were treated like crud (including RWB) while David Tripp -- who didn't even know about the March 7th 1933 telegram allowing for gold exchanges -- was treated with kid gloves.

When they thought that Roy Langbord was just a pawn shop worker, they tried to intimidate him with an arrest and read him his Miranda Rights.  Then they found out he was a lawyer and graduate of NYU Law School and they did a 180 faster than you can say "Saint-Gaudens."  xD

The same government wanted to throw Fenton in jail over the Farouk coin and they didn't find the Export/Import Letter which was key to splitting the coin.

If the 1933 Saints had fallen back in price like the MCMVII High Reliefs instead of soaring 25-50 fold....the Treasury and Mint never would have had interest in going after them.  Especially since the gold books were already balanced, so if Old Izzy had stolen the coins, there should have been a shortfall not a balanced ledger. (thumbsu

Edited by GoldFinger1969
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/10/2022 at 5:48 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

The judge was a clown, falling asleep in the court room and showing clear biases.  Witnesses for the Langbords were treated like crud (including RWB) while David Tripp -- who didn't even know about the March 7th 1933 telegram allowing for gold exchanges -- was treated with kid gloves.

When they thought that Roy Langbord was just a pawn shop worker, they tried to intimidate him with an arrest and read him his Miranda Rights.  Then they found out he was a lawyer and graduate of NYU Law School and they did a 180 faster than you can say "Saint-Gaudens."  xD

The same government wanted to throw Fenton in jail over the Farouk coin and they didn't find the Export/Import Letter which was key to splitting the coin.

If the 1933 Saints had fallen back in price like the MCMVII High Reliefs instead of soaring 25-50 fold....the Treasury and Mint never would have had interest in going after them.  Especially since the gold books were already balanced, so if Old Izzy had stolen the coins, there should have been a shortfall not a balanced ledger. (thumbsu

....there was never any issue about whether the coins were stolen as u say there was no indication that any gold was not accounted for....issue was whether there was legal ownership established...the trial including the judge was a joke, but the defense was poorly presented n not based on any actual "empirical" facts...so basically was a clowns versus clowns circus...the gov't never proved their case n the defense foundered....my only questions would be how the jury was chosen were challenges presented n did any of the jurors buy new houses or cars following the trial....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/10/2022 at 5:07 PM, zadok said:

....there was never any issue about whether the coins were stolen as u say there was no indication that any gold was not accounted for....issue was whether there was legal ownership established...the trial including the judge was a joke, but the defense was poorly presented n not based on any actual "empirical" facts...so basically was a clowns versus clowns circus...the gov't never proved their case n the defense foundered....my only questions would be how the jury was chosen were challenges presented n did any of the jurors buy new houses or cars following the trial....

That’s quite a charge to suggest. Unsupported by facts, and unduly harsh. The jury ruled. Deal with it.  The OTHER thing the jury lacked that all the critic commentators have, is a rooting interest in the outcome, something that gets you EXCLUDED from the jury pool. I served as a jury foreman in that same exact courtroom. (Meth criminal case.) Your suggestion is a PERSONAL affront to me. 
 

The ONLY THING that the government had to prove is that it is SLIGHTLY more likely than not that the 10 coins left under surreptitious circumstances. When they proved that EACH AND EVERY 1933 DE, with the ONLY exception being the Smithsonian pieces, went through Izzy Switt’s hands (EVERY ONE, even the Farouk) the case was won. 

Edited by VKurtB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/10/2022 at 11:16 PM, VKurtB said:

That’s quite a charge to suggest. Unsupported by facts, and unduly harsh. The jury ruled. Deal with it.  The OTHER thing the jury lacked that all the critic commentators have, is a rooting interest in the outcome, something that gets you EXCLUDED from the jury pool. I served as a jury foreman in that same exact courtroom. (Meth criminal case.) Your suggestion is a PERSONAL affront to me. The ONLY THING that the government had to prove is that it is SLIGHTLY more likely than not that the 10 coins left under surreptitious circumstances. When they proved that EACH AND EVERY 1933 DE, with the ONLY exception being the Smithsonian pieces, went through Izzy Switt’s hands (EVERY ONE, even the Farouk) the case was won. 

My position is that without Israel Switt, these 10 coins would have been melted down.  We should have been grateful that the guy "snuck" them out of Philly Mint and preserved them.  A settlement would have been fair to BOTH sides -- and the public and the U.S. Treasury and IRS (lots of taxable income as the coins were sold).

Indeed, the U.S. government was talking settlement with the Langbords and their attorney as they discussed the coins.  Once the government had the coins (bad strategy on the Langbord attorney's part, IMO), the government basically said "Bleep You."

Not very honorable or ethical, regardless of the merits of the trial and who you think should have won.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember, had the coins been split 50-50....the government would have ended up with close to 75% of the proceeds.  Their half of the coins PLUS 35-40% income tax rate on the sale of the Langbord's share.

Edited by GoldFinger1969
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/10/2021 at 10:08 AM, Quintus Arrius said:

I respectfully disagree. I feel like Henry Fonda did in "12 Angry Men." Everything I can think of militates squarely against not having this certified.

Does "everyone" know what it is? Did "everyone" also know who owned it and where it was kept and under what circumstances?  (That knock on the door is VKurtB.  He wants to see the coin up close and personally.)

The coin has already lost a few points on grading; coins do not get better with age. They stay the same or degrade.  Once the chain of custody is broken, all bets are off. 

Few true collectors are going to buy a coin solely on the strength of a paper. What happened to differing "opinions"?  What if it is submitted for cross-grading and declined? Grades matter.

Encapsulation is state-of-the-art protection, verification of authenticity, provenance, and state of preservation, attributes that are magnified in importance should this coin, once again, fall into the hands of a non-collector.  Foregoing encapsulation requires that the owner attempt preservation of a coin, maintain documentation, the integrity of the receptacle chosen and the environment it is stored in.

To me, encapsulation for a coin like this is mandatory and it would be especially helpful if also comes with a special presentation case and document briefly summarizing its history. My personal feeling is the successful bidder will be a speculator. If it is me, I will post the coin on the thread featuring your latest U.S. acquisition, sit back, and enjoy the commentary it evokes: Counterfeit!  Definitely a fake!  The color looks off.  Looks flat.  No way that's an MS65!  If it were real, you wouldn't be holding it like that.  That and $3 will get you on the subway, etc.  😉

I know where this coin & all the other 1933's came from but I don't know how Weitzman acquired the coin. He did not own it before 2020 & he didn't own the inverted Jenny's or the other stamp before 2020. And the coin was not stored at the World Trade Center. It and all the other 1933's had not been seen until they were purchased from an estate along with all the other top examples of coins & Currency that have went up for auction in the past 18 months.  What is the Langbord 10?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/11/2022 at 3:26 PM, The Real Owner said:

I know where this coin & all the other 1933's came from but I don't know how Weitzman acquired the coin. He did not own it before 2020 & he didn't own the inverted Jenny's or the other stamp before 2020. 

Apparently, he did.  I know he won the 1933 at Sotheby's famous auction in 2002.  He was a collector of unique objects -- not necessarily coins -- and he may have accumulated the stamps years later.

On 2/11/2022 at 3:26 PM, The Real Owner said:

And the coin was not stored at the World Trade Center. 

No, had the U.S. Government and Steven Fenton NOT made a deal, the coin would have remained at the vault located at the WTC.  I believe it was removed a few weeks or a month or two before the 9/11 attacks.

On 2/11/2022 at 3:26 PM, The Real Owner said:

It and all the other 1933's had not been seen until they were purchased from an estate along with all the other top examples of coins & Currency that have went up for auction in the past 18 months.  What is the Langbord 10?

A bit of a mish-mash, so let me try and separate them:

  • 1933's had been seen over the years up to about 1945-50 when they began to be confiscated and destroyed.  The Weitzman/Fenton/Farouk 1933 was in Farouk's "estate" if you can call it that when auctioned off in England in the early-1950's.
  • Top coins and currency in the last 18 months have come from NUMEROUS sources, not just a single estate.
  • The Langbord Ten are the 10 1933 Double Eagles that were found in an old safe belonging to the descendants of Israel Switt, a 1930's antique and gold dealer who had connections to the Philadelphia Mint and is believed to have swapped or stolen (take your pick xD) the 10 coins.  His daughter is Joan Langbord, who found the coins.
Edited by GoldFinger1969
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/10/2022 at 11:42 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

My position is that without Israel Switt, these 10 coins would have been melted down.  We should have been grateful that the guy "snuck" them out of Philly Mint and preserved them.  A settlement would have been fair to BOTH sides -- and the public and the U.S. Treasury and IRS (lots of taxable income as the coins were sold).

Indeed, the U.S. government was talking settlement with the Langbords and their attorney as they discussed the coins.  Once the government had the coins (bad strategy on the Langbord attorney's part, IMO), the government basically said "Bleep You."

Not very honorable or ethical, regardless of the merits of the trial and who you think should have won.

Okayeeeee. Have you ever heard from anyone who had to go to the endgame with the IRS? It’s even the same department but a different bureau. Both are the Treasury Dept. They typically don’t “negotiate with criminals”, they just take the stuff. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/11/2022 at 4:28 PM, VKurtB said:

Okayeeeee. Have you ever heard from anyone who had to go to the endgame with the IRS? It’s even the same department but a different bureau. Both are the Treasury Dept. They typically don’t “negotiate with criminals”, they just take the stuff. 

So the Langbord's are criminals ?  Someone call the Philadelphia Mint and have them up their security:  Joan Langbord was 7 years old when the coins left the Mint.xD  Her 2 kids weren't born yet (although I'm sure the government will say it's possible 7-year old Joan had 2 sons already and were her accomplices). xD

Seriously, we know Isreal Switt got the coins.  Not sure how Joan Langbord, 90-years old or close to it at the trial, deserves being called a criminal.  Nor her 2 sons (one of whom is a pretty big enterainment lawyer, I understand).

Edited by GoldFinger1969
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/11/2022 at 4:51 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

So the Langbord's are criminals ?  Someone call the Philadelphia Mint and have them up their security, Joan Langbord was 7 years old when the coins left the Mint.  Her 2 kids weren't born yet (although I'm sure the government will say it's possible 7-year old Joan had 2 sons already and were her accomplices). xD

Seriously, we know Isreal Switt got the coins.  Not sure how Joan Langbord, 90-years old or close to it at the trial, deserves being called a criminal.  Nor her 2 sons (one of whom is a pretty big enterainment lawyer, I understand).

Ever hear of “receiving stolen goods”? It is a crime. Look it up. The Langbords could have been charged with it. And probably would have been if the butt-stupid Rendell decision at the 3rd circuit not been overturned en banc. Yes, I believe the entire Switt/Langbord clan was and is a crime family. It’s Philly, after all, and they are emblematic of Philly’s crime family history. 

Edited by VKurtB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
1 1