[BradJ]

I'm sure the govt would love to take those off someone's hands, but its still theft on the GOVT's part.

[BradJ]

oops didn't mean to post the authors name in the title

[ArrogantBustard]

The Mint has said any others in existence were obtained illegally,

Isn't "obtained illegally" another way of saying "stolen"? If the Mint is right, the family was in posession of stolen property. One has no right to keep stolen property.

[AlextheWise1]

no, its not theft, its recovery of stolen property, if they are real, they are stolen goods.

[stylin19a]

I wonder why the family would even think of taking 'em to the mint in the first place ?

[Dog Gone]

The coins were never released into circulation, so they were stolen from the mint.

I'm not sure I have much sympathy for the family, and I sure don't have much respect for their intelligence in giving them to the mint to verify authenticity.

[hinckley buzzard]

This is no different than if a mint employee somehow managed to leave work one day with a few silver dollars in his pocket. They are stolen goods, even if not recovered till 70 years later.

[Flash Bazbeaux]

""The Mint's lawless position is that by merely claiming the coins were somehow removed from the Mint unlawfully in the 1930s, they can take the Langbords' property without proving it in a court of law," Berke said."

They didn't take the property, the lady gave them the property. What a dimwitted move. The rule is that one who possesses property has a better right to it than anyone, other than the TRUE owner. When there is a question as to who the TRUE owner is, the possessor is in the best position.

If I claim that I own something, and the person that I have the claim against actually hands the property over to me, you bet your sweet bippy I am not going to give it back. I'll let THEM prove in a court of law that they have a better right to it than than I do. Which I think is going to be her burden to do, as it seems that the PRESUMPTION ought to be that they were obtained from the government illegally.

[VOA]

While I approach Wikipedia with a "verify before trusting" attitude,
here's a pretty good write-up on the double eagles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1933_Double_Eagle

As for the books under "Further Reading", I think it may have been
David Tripp I heard on The Dennis Prager Show disussing the long history
of the double eagle(s?) found in the collection of King Farouk of
Egypt.
IIRC, the real message was the incredible time and effor the US Mint
had WASTED trying to recover a few coins (granted, they were originally
stolen) when they should have just let 'em go and build the hype
for US coins.

[KingKenrod]

There are a lot of inaccuracies in this story. For better information, read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1933_Double_Eagle

As it turns out, there is a chance the coins were legally obtained by a mint employee in 1933 during a 3 week period when the coins where minted, but not yet distributed or ordered destroyed.

[upchuck]

From the article:

The coins at the center of the lawsuit were briefly displayed this summer for an American Numismatic Association's convention in Denver. They have been secured at the U.S. Bullion Depository in Fort Knox, Ky.

"Paging Mr. Goldfinger, paging Mr. Auric Goldfinger, please pick up the nearest white courtesy telephone for an urgent message."

:)

[tenthirteen]

Something seems amiss here. The coin posted in the article shows a flying gold eagle with the motto "In God We Trust" below it. I was told that that motto was placed on currency and coinage after 1954. Since this is a 1933 coin, what gives?

[FreedomCalls]

I'm sure the govt would love to take those off someone's hands, but its still theft on the GOVT's part.

Recovering stolen property that was originally stolen from you is now consiered "theft"? Huh?

[JerseyJohn61]

There is a history of coins that were "not meant to
be release in circulation" that are now legal to own.
These coins also somehow found their ways out of the
mint and often under mysterious circumstances.

The 1856 Flying Eagle Cent. About 1500 are know to
exist and they where struck as prototypes for the
new coin that was released in 1857. Private owner-
ship at that time would have been illegal. It's
legal to own now a quite a valuable coin.

Same with the 1913 Liberty Head "nickle". Five are
know to exist and one of the most valuable pieces
on Earth. They were struck a a "dry run" production
test. But the Mint began the Buffalo 5 cent "nickle"
that year and the Liberty Heads was not released.

One thing to watch for in the future. In 1975, the
Philadelphia Mint struck hundreds of experimental
Lincoln Head cents that were made of Aluminum.
The soaring price of copper had the mint looking
for alternatives. The coins were distributed on
consignment to many of the prominent figures in
Washington D.C. . They were on loan for evaluation
and were to been returned promptly to the mint
after a set time period. Well many of these coins
were never returned and there has been little
"political" will to pursue the matter...JJ61

[grjr21]

A previous thread

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1749483/posts

[mysterio]

The mint should pay.

[weegee]

Retroactively saying that any gold which was not surrendered is "illegally" obtained?

They play by the golden rule. He who has the gold makes the rules.