4 ms·

Doesn't the US Treasury have a history of going around and seizing gold coins? I forget exactly why but I think it was because they were all recalled when we w

by ck2 13y ago

Doesn't the US Treasury have a history of going around and seizing gold coins? I forget exactly why but I think it was because they were all recalled when we went off gold standard? I vaguely remember people finding these in deposit boxes, sharing it with the news and then magically losing it all when the treasury shows up to seize them. Ah here we go http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102 not really related but still gold-coin mind-blowing fact http://www.npr.org/2011/06/28/137394348/-1-billion-that-nobody-wants http://www.npr.org/2011/06/28/137394348/-1-billion-that-nobo...

nlh 13y ago
Just 1933 Double Eagles ($20). It's actually a fascinating story ... I'll dig up the link and post an edit shortly. Edit: the essential story - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1933_double_eagle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1933_double_eagle Edit 2: Quick aside: I know the guy who found the 10 additional coins in his vault (Roy Langbord). Super nice guy. I remember when a mutual friend called me up one day and said "So Roy just found 10 1933 $20 gold coins in his vault. Are those worth anything?" ... Gulp ...
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  Sssh, we're trying to drum up distrust in the government and drive up the price of our gold holdings here! Get with the program! :)
- MichaelGG 13y ago
  Wow that's so messed up. The Gold Reserve Act, too. It seems extremely "un-American" for the government to force people to sell their gold to the treasury. OTOH, so do a lot of things in hindsight, like the Vietnam draft. (Can you imagine US citizens today being forced to fight overseas?) Was this a common viewpoint when the act went in, or it decades of history since colouring my vision?
  - wintersFright 13y ago
    They immediately revalued the price of gold afterward so I'm sure it was seen as theft by the govt.
    - nerfhammer 13y ago
      The price of gold was increased at the same time, not afterwards. So they repaid people 65% more than it had been worth the day before.
      - wintersFright 13y ago
        wrong (ok it wasn't immediate, 8 months later they repriced it) Executive Order 6102 required all persons to deliver on or before May 1, 1933, all but a small amount of gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates owned by them to the Federal Reserve, in exchange for $20.67 (equivalent to $372.75 today[3]) per troy ounce. The United States Gold Reserve Act of January 30, 1934 required that all gold and gold certificates held by the Federal Reserve be surrendered and vested in the sole title of the United States Department of the Treasury.[1][2] The Gold Reserve Act outlawed most private possession of gold, forcing individuals to sell it to the Treasury, after which it was stored in United States Bullion Depository at Fort Knox and other locations. The act also changed the nominal price of gold from $20.67 per troy ounce to $35.
  - nerfhammer 13y ago
    It was popular at the time but it was widely assumed that the gold standard would be restored soon. In the months prior a large percentage of country's banks had failed, and immediately beforehand all of the major financial exchanges had frozen, every federal reserve branch and almost every state had suspended banking operations. Withdrawing and hoarding gold were considered to contribute to the destabilization. Here's an example editorial from the era: > There will be no sympathy with the position in which these hoarders of gold were placed. They were perfectly aware that they were helping to aggravate an already difficult situation and they, by action taken with a view to their person profit or advantage, were creating the very situation which they professed to fear. Hoarders of gold on such a scale must have been mostly men of considerable means, not subject to the blind fright of the small currency-hoarder and not drive to money-hoarding, as has happened in many parts of the country, through absolute breakdown of normal bank facilities or the fear of it. http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60712FB3E5D15738DDDA80994DB405B838FF1D3 http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60712FB3E5D...
baddox 13y ago
Sounds like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102.
ubernostrum 13y ago
It's only the 1933 Double Eagles that get seized, and only because the government's position is those coins were never legally issued, meaning private possession of one could only have come about via theft from the Mint, which makes the coins stolen government property.
- nickff 13y ago
  I think the previous poster was referring to executive order 6102 (April 5, 1933), which seized gold within the United States, and criminalized the possession of the specie.[1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102
  - ubernostrum 13y ago
    The number of exceptions in that order, and the fact that squads of government officials did not go door-to-door looking for unexempted hoards of coins, suggest that perhaps that order had more to do with PR than actual seizures.
- gretful 13y ago
  I wonder why no Statute of Limitations apply to this?

by ck2 13y ago

nlh 13y ago

Just 1933 Double Eagles ($20). It's actually a fascinating story ... I'll dig up the link and post an edit shortly. Edit: the essential story - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1933_double_eagle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1933_double_eagle Edit 2: Quick aside: I know the guy who found the 10 additional coins in his vault (Roy Langbord). Super nice guy. I remember when a mutual friend called me up one day and said "So Roy just found 10 1933 $20 gold coins in his vault. Are those worth anything?" ... Gulp ...

sliverstorm 13y ago
Sssh, we're trying to drum up distrust in the government and drive up the price of our gold holdings here! Get with the program! :)
MichaelGG 13y ago
Wow that's so messed up. The Gold Reserve Act, too. It seems extremely "un-American" for the government to force people to sell their gold to the treasury. OTOH, so do a lot of things in hindsight, like the Vietnam draft. (Can you imagine US citizens today being forced to fight overseas?) Was this a common viewpoint when the act went in, or it decades of history since colouring my vision?
- wintersFright 13y ago
  They immediately revalued the price of gold afterward so I'm sure it was seen as theft by the govt.
  - nerfhammer 13y ago
    The price of gold was increased at the same time, not afterwards. So they repaid people 65% more than it had been worth the day before.
    - wintersFright 13y ago
      wrong (ok it wasn't immediate, 8 months later they repriced it) Executive Order 6102 required all persons to deliver on or before May 1, 1933, all but a small amount of gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates owned by them to the Federal Reserve, in exchange for $20.67 (equivalent to $372.75 today[3]) per troy ounce. The United States Gold Reserve Act of January 30, 1934 required that all gold and gold certificates held by the Federal Reserve be surrendered and vested in the sole title of the United States Department of the Treasury.[1][2] The Gold Reserve Act outlawed most private possession of gold, forcing individuals to sell it to the Treasury, after which it was stored in United States Bullion Depository at Fort Knox and other locations. The act also changed the nominal price of gold from $20.67 per troy ounce to $35.
- nerfhammer 13y ago
  It was popular at the time but it was widely assumed that the gold standard would be restored soon. In the months prior a large percentage of country's banks had failed, and immediately beforehand all of the major financial exchanges had frozen, every federal reserve branch and almost every state had suspended banking operations. Withdrawing and hoarding gold were considered to contribute to the destabilization. Here's an example editorial from the era: > There will be no sympathy with the position in which these hoarders of gold were placed. They were perfectly aware that they were helping to aggravate an already difficult situation and they, by action taken with a view to their person profit or advantage, were creating the very situation which they professed to fear. Hoarders of gold on such a scale must have been mostly men of considerable means, not subject to the blind fright of the small currency-hoarder and not drive to money-hoarding, as has happened in many parts of the country, through absolute breakdown of normal bank facilities or the fear of it. http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60712FB3E5D15738DDDA80994DB405B838FF1D3 http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60712FB3E5D...

baddox 13y ago

Sounds like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102.

ubernostrum 13y ago

It's only the 1933 Double Eagles that get seized, and only because the government's position is those coins were never legally issued, meaning private possession of one could only have come about via theft from the Mint, which makes the coins stolen government property.

nickff 13y ago
I think the previous poster was referring to executive order 6102 (April 5, 1933), which seized gold within the United States, and criminalized the possession of the specie.[1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102
- ubernostrum 13y ago
  The number of exceptions in that order, and the fact that squads of government officials did not go door-to-door looking for unexempted hoards of coins, suggest that perhaps that order had more to do with PR than actual seizures.
gretful 13y ago
I wonder why no Statute of Limitations apply to this?