GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Lawmaker seeks to keep Mint from seizing rare coins

• 31844
  

  Render unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser's. I don't believe the government is dealing in good faith here. I.E. In 2002, a 1933 Double Eagle gold coin was auctioned off for $7.6 million... Both parties split the proceeds of that sale. In 2005, the Mint seized 10 Double Eagle coins from the family of a Philadelphia jeweler. What's to keep the government from seizing the coin they shared the profits in? Why were the 10 coins seized and not the 1? The mint is missing out on a real money maker by destroying these coins. If they destroyed the 10 seized coins thats over $70 million we wouldn't have had to shell out on 15 Apr. Seems we're possibly missing out on billions in revenue by destroying these old coins, not to mention tax revenue their resale would generate with collectors.

  Allan Posted August 29, 2007 12:00 PM
• 30495
  

  I take issue with the government (the Mint) stating that all rare coins, particularly the 1933 Gold Double Eagle, were obtained illegally. I do not believe that. Many people are coin collectors and may not realize they are considered as such because they have coins that were handed down through the family. My grandfather used to put aside a newly minted coin because he liked it, not because he thought that it would one day be valuable. It is unknown what he had in his possession because when he died, my mother spent the coins she found put away by my grandfather. One of those could have been the 1913 nickel. Was my grandfather a thief? He was not; he was a prominent physician. Was my mother a thief? No; she did not know the coins had any value. I currently have several silver dollars dating from 1878 that my grandfather had put aside (he was born in 1880). Are they truly valuable? Maybe or maybe not. I keep them because they are part of my family keepsakes. To my way of thinking, the government has to prove without a doubt that the coins were stolen. After all this time, i doubt that is possible. The coins should not be confiscated. If the coins are sold, I agree that the Smithsonian should receive part of the proceeds AFTER the individual has paid the resulting federal (and state) taxes. It needs to be remembered that the person selling the coins needs to be paying taxes on the proceeds of the sale. If the government PURCHASES the coins, they should NEVER be destroyed as they are a part of our American heritage. They should be displayed at the Smithsonian for all to enjoy viewing.

  Jo Ann Posted August 10, 2007 9:24 AM
• 17900
  

  I think that the mint should release the coins, or at least allow people who possess them to keep them, if all the mint is going to do is destroy them. If the person in possession of the coin decides to get rid of it they should donate part of the proceeds to the Smithsonian as mentioned in the article.

  GovExec.com reader Posted July 25, 2006 2:19 PM