In short, a Philadelphia woman found 10 1933 Gold Double Eagles in among her father’s possessions after he died. She took them to the U.S. Mint for verification. The Mint verified that the coins were indeed authentic and then confiscated the coins.
The reason for the confiscation is that the 1933 Gold Double Eagle is illegal to own (with one exception). They were originally minted, but were ordered melted down when President Roosevelt issued an executive order outlawing the coins.
Sure enough, however, some of the coins found their way out of the Mint. Apparently, a Philadelphia jeweler somehow ended up with ten :eek: of these coins. When he died in 1990, his belongings passed to his daughter.
She is now considering suing the government for the return of the coins, on the grounds that the Mint could not show that they were stolen or subject to forfiture.
This, of course leads to several questions:
Does she have a snowball’s chance of getting the coins back?
President Roosevelt’s order stated that gold coins were no longer legal tender. Is that order still in effect? IOW, if I owned an earlier double eagle and wanted to (very foolishly) spend it, would that be illegal?
Why, exactly, is it illegal to own the 1933 coin, even if it isn’t legal tender? A gold ring isn’t legal tender but is perfectly legal to own.
They’re stolen property. That alone should make them illegal, even without the executive order. She did the right thing, under the current laws. (I don’t necessarily agree with the whole thing, but in 70+ years, no one has seen fit to undo that anachronism.)
My impression was that she didn’t even know they were illegal to own. She was just handing them in for authentication, not to return them to the government.
My understanding is that Roosevelt outlawed the owning of gold coins, which makes whether they are allowed for transactions a moot question. It seems like an egregious violation of our property rights, so I have never understood why it was tolerated in the first place, but I’ve heard that there was an exception for small amounts of gold used in jewelry. Coins and buillion were illegal to own, though.
My understanding is that this law stood for decades, and only went away during the Nixon presidency, and that’s why existing gold coins such as the Krugerrand (sp?) became hot items in the 70s.
According to this the coins were actually seized by the federal government back in 1933, which makes the government the true owner of the coins. It was illegal to possess them, and they were to be turned over to the government. If the government is the true owner, then she can’t complain about its refusal to return them.
Assuming that they really were stolen, it doesn’t matter how many owners they’ve had or how she got them. They must be returned to their rightful owner.
" Ummm… my father somehow received stolen and/or blatantly illegal property, but … since you can’t prove the exact mechanism of his acquisition I should get them back."
M…kay
I don’t think she has a chance in hell of getting the coins back, They might offer some token compensation but even that’s doubtful. Why should they? if I discover that my father’s estate mysteriously has an fully operational A-10 Warthog stashed in a warehouse, do you think the US Airforce is going to compensate me for it after seizing it.
And beyond that a *rare metals & coins specialist * like her dad would certainly have known they were very illegal to receive and possess. You can’t credibly claim ignorance on this issue.
Exactly. And, just to keep the books straight, I’m sure the Feds handed the woman a check for the face value of the coins–$200.00. Makes you want to cry, doesn’t it?
The coins were never released so they are not official coinage. It would be like if the mint was testing out different designs for state quarters; only the official ones would be issued.
Personally, I have a very hard time believing Ms Langbord was unaware of their legal status. It was the subject of a popular book just a few months ago. Ten minutes on google would have told her it was illegal to own these coins. She must have spent more time than that looking up the address of the mint.
So Ms Langbord is either the stupidest person who hasn’t won a Darwin Award or she has a legal strategy already mapped out. While, on paper, the coins remain illegal, the last one to actually appear on the open market was retroactively made legal, in exchange for which the government got 50% of the cut from their sale. While the government declared this decision was not a precedent, Ms Langbord may be assuming a similar agreement will be reached this time as well.
At this point, hoever, the mint’s only concession has been a statement that they are not going to destroy the coins.
If that’s true, what’s to stop someone making an exact copy of the coin out of solid gold? If the coins were never released, and if they were ‘all’ melted down, then there should be no question that they are not actual 1933 coins. And if they’re not legal tender, then would the copies be counterfeits (by definition)?
This might not be a bad idea. If she kept the coins, she risked being charged with posession of stolen goods if the Feds ever found out about them. This way, she might get a deal similar to the last one, and she isn’t breaking any laws herself. I’d say that turning in the coins is a smart move.
