THE WORLD'S MOST EXPENSIVE COIN

A brief history of coinage

Gold Double Eagle Coins
In February 1849, Congress authorized the striking of $20 gold coins designed by Chief-Engraver James Barton Longacre. Between 1850 and 1933, U.S. mints turned out more than 165 million Double Eagles. They were called "double eagles" because prior to 1850, "eagles" with a denomination of $10 were the largest denomination of US coinage, thus $20 were "double" the amount of the $10 coins.

Struck on March 12, 1850 (although the date is struck as 1849), this is one of the two
known trial pattern coins; the second has never been found, making this one of a kind.
This was the very first of the double eagles, issued from 1850 to 1907.

$10 eagles began production in 1795, just two years after the first U.S. mint opened. Often the name, "eagle" is thought to be a nickname but is actually the official name for "eagles", "half-eagles", etc., in the act of congress that originally authorized them.

The California Gold Rush created a constant flow of gold so instead of striking gold in traditional $10 pieces, the mint decided to also issue larger denominations. In 1849, the mint produced two proof pieces. The first resides in the Smithsonian Institution in Washington DC. The second was presented to then Treasury Secretary William M. Meredith and later sold as part of his estate. The present location of this second coin remains unknown.

The Gold Double Eagles remained the premier gold coin in the the United States until President Franklin Roosevelt's 1933 Executive Order 6102, which required Americans to turn in their gold coins and bullion. This stopped the production of gold coinage and made it illegal to own the metal except for "gold coins having a recognized value to collectors of rare and unusual coins" which meant coin collectors could retain their pieces. 

After World War I, financial instability was experienced throughout the world which caused many people to hoard gold and this ultimately affected the U.S. gold reserves. The problem was worsened in the 1930's by a banking crisis that led to the closing of all banks from March 6th to the 9th. 

It because of these crises that President Franklin D. Roosevelt legislated the Emergency Bank Relief Act of March 9, 1933 and the Gold Reserve Act of January 1934. This succeeded in putting an end to the crises and allowing banks to re-open, but gold had to be turned in and melted down, thereby discontinuing the domestic gold standard.

Roosevelt's action is often referred to as a confiscation, but technically was a call-in because those turning in their Double Eagles were given twenty dollars in paper money which had equal purchasing power at that time.

Double eagles were routinely minted through 1933, although few of the very last years' coinages were released before Roosevelt's gold recall legislation. These pieces will have very high prices today. 

In the spring of 1933, 455,500 double eagles were struck but never released for circulation although some were stolen from the government and over the years many of those were recovered. Two of these were presented by the United States Mint to the U.S. National Numismatic Collection and are on display in the Money and Medals Hall of the National Museum of American History.

The Gold Double Eagle coin measures 34 mm in diameter and contains .9675 ounce of gold in an alloy of 90% gold and 10% copper. The official gross weight of the Gold Double Eagle coin is 516 grains. 

Regular issue Gold Double Eagle coins are of two major types. They were first minted with the Liberty Head design and later the St. Gaudens gold coins. These can further be classified in six minor varieties as follows:Liberty Head (Coronet) (1849–1907)Type 1 - Liberty Head, no motto, "Twenty D." (1849–1866)
Type 2 - Liberty Head, with motto, "Twenty D." (1866–1876)
Type 3 - Liberty Head, with motto, "Twenty Dollars" (1877–1907)Saint Gaudens 1907–1933Saint Gaudens, High Relief, Roman Numerals, no motto (1907)
Saint Gaudens, Low Relief, Arabic Numerals, no motto (1907–1908)
Saint Gaudens, Low Relief, Arabic Numerals, with motto (1908–1933)
 

Liberty Head (Coronet) (1849 - 1907)Clicking on the images below will open a larger image in a new window:

  Type 1 - Liberty Head, no motto, "Twenty D." (1849–1866)

 
Type 2 - Liberty Head, with motto, "Twenty D." (1866–1876)

 
Type 3 - Liberty Head, with motto, "Twenty Dollars" (1877–1907)

Designed by Chief-Engraver James Barton Longacre, Liberty Coronet double eagles were the first design to be minted in $20 coinage. Longacre’s left-facing Liberty on the obverse is said to be modeled after a Hellenistic sculpture - the Crouching Venus.

A little over a decade later, at the beginning of the 1861 minting, Assistant Engraver Anthony C. Paquet made a small modification to the reverse of the coin by using tall, narrow letters. However, when coining began with his new design, it became obvious that the border was too narrow compared with the obverse for proper striking and stacking, and striking at Philadelphia was immediately stopped. Before orders reached New Orleans and San Francisco mints to cease striking using the Paquet reverse dies, it was already too late to prevent the issue of over 19,000 these pieces.

In 1866, the motto "In God We Trust" was added to the Liberty Coronet double eagle resulting in the second subtype. Chief-Engraver James Barton Longacre died on January 1, 1869.  William Barber, his successor, and Barber’s son, Charles, made small variations in the design which in 1877, included a change on the reverse from "TWENTY D." to "TWENTY DOLLARS" resulting in the third subtype. Also, a change in the angle of the truncation of the neck on Liberty provided additional space for the placement of the date.

Saint-Gaudens Double Eagle (1907 - 1933) 
Saint Gaudens, High Relief, Roman Numerals, no motto (1907)

 
Saint Gaudens, Low Relief, Arabic Numerals, no motto (1907–1908)

 
Saint Gaudens, Low Relief, Arabic Numerals, with motto (1908–1933)

On December 22, 1907, the experimental high-relief Saint Gaudens double eagle was struck for the first time. President Theodore Roosevelt was a great admirer of ancient Greek coins and wanted to bring the same beauty to U.S. coinage. For this, he approached the sculptor, Augustus Saint Gaudens, to redesign the $10 and $20 coins who chose an advancing figure of Lady Liberty for the obverse and a flying eagle on the reverse. St. Gaudens' mark appears on the coins' obverse beneath the date.

Charles Barber, chief engraver of the US Mint at the time, did not like the new design as it took eleven strikes to make the high relief details, and because of the high relief, the coins did not stack very well. These coins are easily sold for over $10,000 even in circulated grades.  Only 12,367 were minted in all.  In the highest grades, prices for each one can reach half a million dollars in value.

The mint experimented with a reduced diameter of the coin to about the size of a checker while making it thicker in an attempt to keep the high relief. Most were destroyed with the exception of two which are in the Mint's collection. This is because it was learned that the consent of Congress was required to change the diameter of US coins.

St. Gaudens redesigned the coin for a lower relief, but it wasn't long before the design was again flattened for circulating coins. Some of the high relief coins did find their way into circulation except for the years of 1917 - 1919 when no coins were struck. Other than those dates, the coins were minted continuously until 1933. One of the high relief coins was given to President Roosevelt from Augustus Saint-Gaudens as a gift and in 1967, Cornelius van Schaak Roosevelt, a nephew of the President, donated it to the National Numismatic Collection.

St. Gaudens lived to finish only the double eagle and the Indian Eagle. These were considered to be two of the most extraordinary pieces of art on any American coin. The double eagle design has been voted the best American gold coin design. In fact, you may recognize the St. Gaudens design on the popular American Eagle gold bullion coins that were instituted beginning in 1986.

When the Saint Gaudens double eagle was first produced, several changes were made. For example, in 1907, the coins depicted the date in Roman numerals, but this was changed later that year to Arabic numerals. (1907 double eagles and 1986-1991 gold American Eagles are the only coins depicting Roman numerals for the date on American coinage.)

Also, the "In God We Trust" motto was not on the original design because President Roosevelt felt that it was not appropriate to display the name of God on money. However, the motto was added in 1908 by an act of Congress.

In 1912, the St. Gaudens' design was changed again with the addition of two stars  along the rim when Arizona and New Mexico became states, increasing the number of stars from 46 to 48.

1933 Saint Gaudens Double Eagle

 
Although the the 1933 Saint Gaudens Double Eagle is not a separate subtype, it is noteworthy to mention here because of the history associated with this year of the double eagle.

1933 is the last year double eagles were minted and 445,500 pieces total were struck although none were supposed to have circulated because of Franklin D. Roosevelt's Executive Order 6102 which made the circulation and private possession of United States gold coins illegal for general circulation - with an exemption for collectible coins. 

Most were melted down before ever reaching circulation. Because they were never officially issued, the 1933 double eagles are supposed to remain in possession of the US government. The only exception is the one auctioned on July 30, 2002 for an amazing $7,590,020 (the record for highest price paid at auction for a single U.S coin). It was originally legally obtained by King Farouk of Egypt in 1944. (More on this below.)

Two of the 1933 double eagles were presented by the United States Mint to the U.S. National Numismatic Collection and are on display in the Money and Medals Hall of the National Museum of American History and should have been the only two in existence. 

But some of the 1933 double eagles were stolen, possibly by the Mint Cashier, George McCann. At least nine of the coins are known to have ended up in the hands of collectors by way of Philadelphia jeweler Israel Switt. 

Israel Switt had many contacts and friends within the Philadelphia Mint, and reportedly had access to many points of the minting process. It has been theorized that McCann swapped 1932 double eagles for the 1933 pieces before they were to be melted down, thereby avoiding any discrepancies in accounting and inventory. And it was through his personal relationship with George McCann that Israel Switt obtained the stolen 1933 Double Eagles.

It has also been further suggested that Switt could have obtained the 1933 coins legally by exchanging gold bullion for coins. There were three weeks in March 1933 when new double eagles could have possibly been legally obtained because striking of the double eagles began on March 15th, but it was not until April 5th that President Roosevelt's executive order to ban them went into effect. Also, on March 6, 1933, the Secretary of the Treasury ordered the Director of the Mint to pay gold only under license issued by the Secretary, and the U.S. Mint Cashier's daily statements do not show that any 1933 Double Eagles were paid out although this may have allowed for an exchange.

When it was discovered that 1933 gold eagles had gotten into the hands of the public, the Secret Service launched an investigation in 1944 and seven coins were recovered that year. By 1952, only one was thought to remain in public possession.

But in 2005, the U.S. Mint discovered another ten unauthorized 1933 Double Eagle coins when private collector Joan S. Langbord contacted the mint to surrender the coins. She claimed she legally inherited the coins from her father, none other than Israel Switt, a suspect in the original theft. She voluntarily surrendered the coins which were authenticated in 2005 by the U.S Mint working with the Smithsonian Institution and the coins are now held at Fort Knox.

However, because the U.S. government did not compensate her for turning in the coins, she is planning a federal suit to get the coins back. The Mint did announce that the coins may be saved for display in August 2005, but as of December, 2007, no formal statement has been made. 

In the 1970's President Ford signed legislation that made it legal for the public to once again own gold bullion. Before 1974, any 1933 double eagles recovered were considered gold bullion and therefore melted down but today, any that are recovered now can be preserved although the Mint maintains that they cannot be considered legal possession by a member of the public since they were never officially issued and should be considered property of the government.

King Farouk's Double Eagle

King Farouk of Egypt was known to be a collector of many rare and valuable items from around the world and one of these included - you guessed it - one of the 1933 double eagles. It was in 1944 that Farouk purchased the coin by the strictest legal means. His ministers even applied to the U.S. for an export license for the coin.

It was perfect timing because the license was granted only days before the theft of double eagles from the Mint was discovered. The Treasury Department requested the return of the coin through diplomatic channels the ongoing World War II resulted in many delays.

On July 23, 1952, the Free Officers Movement under Muhammad Naguib and Gamal Abdel Nasser staged a military coup d'etat that launched the Egyptian Revolution of 1952 and Farouk was forced to abdicate.

Many of his possessions were put up for public auction including the 1933 double eagle coin. Although the U.S. again requested return of the coin and the Egyptian government said it would cooperate, it disappeared and was not seen again until over 40 years later...allegedly.

It was found in possession of British coin dealer, Stephen Fenton in a sting operation at Waldorf-Astoria hotel in New York. At first he said he purchased the coin from a customer at his shop, but later under testimony swore that it came from King Farouk's collection although this could not be verified.

The charges against Fenton were dropped as he defended his ownership of the coin, but in July 2001 the case was finally settled when it was agreed that ownership was to be transferred to the U.S. government and the coin was temporarily placed in the treasury vaults of the World Trade Center. 

The U.S. Treasury then issued a document to "issue and monetize" the coin which made it the only legal tender gold coin in the United States and it could now be legally sold at auction. In July of 2001, the coin was transferred to Fort Knox. In September, the World Trade Center where the coin was temporarily stored was destroyed by the 9-11 terrorist attacks.

This brings us to the record for the highest amount paid at auction for a single U.S coin almost a year later. At an auction by Sotheyby's on July 30th, 2002, an anonymous bidder bought the coin for 6.6 million dollars. This was to include an additional 15% buyer's premium (and the $20 fee to monetize the face value coin, making it legal U.S. currency) bringing the total to an astronomical $7,590,020!

Half of the price paid was given to the U.S. Treasury while Stephen Fenton was given the other half. The auction took less than nine minutes.

The 1933 Gold Double Eagle was Never Officially Issued

The U.S. Gold Double Eagle, Saint-Gaudens type, had been issued from 1907 until 1932. Although 445,500 Double Eagles had been minted with the 1933 date, none were released into circulation because of changes made to currency laws during the Great Depression. In an effort to end the run on the banks and stabilize the economy, President Franklin Roosevelt took America off the gold standard. Not only were no more gold coins to be issued for circulation, people had to turn in the ones they had.

The 1933 Double Eagles are Ordered to be Destroyed

It became illegal for private citizens to own gold coins, unless they clearly had a collectible value. This law was enacted during desperate times to prevent the hoarding of gold currency. Since there would be no more gold currency issued in the U.S., the Mint had melted down the 1933 run of Gold Double Eagles and converted them to gold bullion bars by 1937.

Some of the Double Eagles Escaped the Melt Down

Two of the 1933 specimens were given by the Mint to the U.S. National Numismatic Collection at the Smithsonian Institute. These were the only two legal specimens to ever become part of a coin collection; however, by 1952, the Secret Service had confiscated 8 more 1933 Double Eagles! How did they leave the Mint? Why weren't they melted down?

Was the 1933 Double Eagle Switched for Another Coin?

We may never know for certain how these coins left the Mint, but there is a general consensus among scholars that a Mint cashier by the name of George McCann exchanged about 20 1933's doomed for destruction and replaced them with earlier dated Double Eagles. This way, the accounting books would balance and nobody would realize that anything was amiss.

What we do know for sure is that a Philadelphia area jeweler by the name of Israel Switt came into possession of at least 19 of the coins.

The Coin of a King

Israel Switt sold at least 9 of the 1933 Double Eagles privately to collectors, one of which found its way into the collection of King Farouk of Egypt. When the Secret Service discovered that these coins had surfaced, they confiscated them all because they were considered to be stolen property of the U.S. Mint. However, King Farouk had legally exported his coin before the theft was discovered, and the Secret Service was unable to recover his specimen through diplomatic channels.

The King's Specimen is Recovered in a Sting Operation

After King Farouk was deposed in 1952, his 1933 Double Eagle briefly appeared on the market, but when it became clear that U.S. authorities still wanted to confiscate it, it vanished again! More than 40 years later, British coin dealer Stephen Fenton showed up with it in New York, and the Secret Service finally seized it during a sting operation during which they purportedly negotiated to purchase the coin.

The 1933 Double Eagle is Nearly Destroyed by Terrorists

Fenton fought a several year-long legal battle in the U.S. courts over ownership of the coin, during time which it was stored in the Treasury Vaults at the World Trade Center. A mere 2 months before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the lawsuit was settled and the Double Eagle was moved to Fort Knox. Fenton and the U.S. Mint had come to a compromise: the coin would be sold at auction, with the proceeds split between the Fenton and the Mint.

Legal Tender at Last - and the Most Valuable Coin in the World

The 1933 Double Eagle sold at auction on July 30, 2002, for $6.6 million, plus the 15% buyer's fee, which brought the total cost to the buyer to $7,590,000, plus $20 to monetize the coin and compensate the Mint for the $20 it believes it lost when the coin was thought to have been stolen. The buyer chose to remain anonymous, so once again we don't know where the Farouk specimen is, or when it might suddenly show up again. One thing is for sure: the Secret Service can't confiscate it any more!

Ten More Specimens Hang in Limbo

In September of 2004, Joan Langbord, one of Israel Switt's heirs, discovered ten more specimens of the 1933 Double Eagle amongst his effects. Apparently unaware of the legal status of these coins (or perhaps just a bit too trusting of the government) she sent all ten specimens to the U.S. Mint to have them authenticated. The Secret Service declared the coins to be seized, and now Langbord is fighting the government over ownership while the specimens languish at Fort Knox.

Is the 1933 Double Eagle Still the World's Most Valuable Coin?

It will be interesting to see, should the 10 Langbord coins ever come to market, if the 1933 Double Eagle will retain its place as the world's highest priced coin when the number of available specimens increases ten-fold.

Unauthorized replicas

In 2004, National Collectors Mint released gold-plated replicas of the 1933 Double Eagle, ostensibly under the authority of the Northern Mariana Islands, a U.S. Commonwealth. NCM advertised and certified the coins as "legal tender of the CNMI," a bogus designation.
The replica coins did not include any "REPLICA" or "COPY" indications on their faces. The design of the replica coins match the original coins in concept of design, though were not physical replicas. The only difference in basic design between the NCM replicas and the original Double Eagle was the addition of the CNMI territorial seal under the U.S. motto on the reverse.
After some controversy over the nature and marketing of these replicas, the coins were reissued with the word "COPY" stamped across the eagle's stomach.

THE POWER OF ULTIMATE DECISION

The story goes on like this:

We understand Making Money online is a business but we also know that right now, many people are dealing with some tough economic times, so we wanted to share the following.

Enjoy it!

SPECIAL GROCERY LIST

Louise Redden, a poorly dressed lady with a look of defeat on her face, walked into a grocery store.

She approached the owner of the store in a most humble manner and asked if he would let her charge a few groceries.

She softly explained that her husband was very ill and unable to work, they had seven children and they needed food.

John Longhouse, the grocer, scoffed at her and requested that she leave his store at once.

Visualizing the family needs, she said: 'Please, sir! I will bring you the money just as soon as I can. '

John told her he could not give her credit, since she did not have a charge account at his store.

Standing beside the counter was a customer who overheard the conversation between the two. The customer walked forward and told the grocer that he would stand good for whatever she needed for her family.

The grocer said in a very reluctant voice, 'Do you have a grocery list?'

Louise replied, 'Yes sir.' 'OK' he said, 'put your grocery list on the scales and whatever your grocery list weighs, I will give you that amount in groceries.'

Louise, hesitated a moment with a bowed head, then she reached into her purse and took out a piece of paper and scribbled something on it. She then laid the piece of paper on the scale carefully with her head still bowed.

The eyes of the grocer and the customer showed a amazement when the scales went down and stayed down.

The grocer, staring at the scales, turned slowly to the customer and said begrudgingly, 'I can't believe it.'

The customer smiled and the grocer started putting the groceries on the other side of the scales. The scale did not balance so he continued to put more and more groceries on them until the scales would hold no more

The grocer stood there in utter disgust. Finally, he grabbed the piece of paper from the scales and looked at it with greater amazement.

It was not a grocery list, it was a prayer, which said:

'Dear Lord, you know my needs and I am leaving this in your hands.'

The grocer gave her the groceries that he had gathered and stood in stunned silence.

Louise thanked him and left the store.

The other customer handed a fifty-dollar bill to the grocer and said;

'It was worth every penny of it. Only God Knows how much a prayer weighs.'

Discover a whole new way to Abundance !

We do things the 4x1 Fortune way..

WANT TO KNOW MORE? CLICK HERE

http://www.4x1fortune.com/index2.php?id=38330

FINDING A LIFE PARTNER

5 Golden rules for finding your life partner by Dov Heller, M.A.

A relationships coach lays out his 5 golden rules for evaluating the prospects of long-term marital success. When it comes to making the decision about choosing a life partner, no one wants to make a mistake. Yet, with a divorce rate of close to 50 percent, it appears that many are making serious mistakes in their approach to finding Mr. /Ms. Right!

If you ask most couples who are engaged why they're getting married, they'll
say: "We're in love." I believe this is the number 1 mistake people make when they date. Choosing a life partner should never be based on love. Though this may sound not politically correct, there's a profound truth here. Love is not the basis for getting married. Rather, love is the result of a good marriage.  When the other ingredients are right, then the love will come. Let me say it again: You can't build a lifetime relationship on love alone. You need a lot more. Here are five questions you must ask yourself if you're serious about finding and keeping a life partner.

QUESTION #1:
Do we share a common life purpose?

Why is this so important? Let me put it this way:  If you're married for 20 or 30 years, that's a long time to live with someone. What do you plan to do with each other all that time?  Travel, eat and jog together? You need to share something deeper and more meaningful. You need a common life purpose. Two things can happen in a marriage. You can grow together, or you can grow apart. 50 percent of the people out there are growing apart. To make a marriage work, you need to know what you want out of life bottom line-and marry someone who wants the same thing.

QUESTION #2:
Do I feel safe expressing my feelings and thoughts with this person?

This question goes to the core of the quality of your relationship. Feeling safe means you can communicate openly with this person. The basis of having good communication is trust - i.e. trust that I won't get "punished" or hurt for expressing my honest thoughts and feelings. A colleague of mine defines an abusive person as someone with whom you feel afraid to express your thoughts and feelings. Be honest with yourself on this one. Make sure you feel emotionally safe with the person you plan to marry.

QUESTION #3:
Is he/she a munch?A munch is someone who is a refined and sensitive person. How can you test? Here are some suggestions. Do they work on personal growth on a regular basis? Are they serious about improving themselves?  A teacher of mine defines a good person as "someone who is always striving to be good and do the right thing." So ask about your significant other: What do they do with their time? Is this person materialistic? Usually a materialistic person is not someone whose top priority is character refinement. There are essentially two types of people in the world:  People who are dedicated to personal growth and people who are dedicated to seeking comfort.

Someone whose goal in life is to be comfortable will put personal comfort ahead of doing the right thing. You need to know that before walking down the aisle.

QUESTION #4:
How does he/she treat other people?The one most important thing that makes any relationship work is the ability to give.  By giving, we mean the ability to give another person pleasure.
Ask: Is this someone who enjoys giving pleasure to others or are they wrapped up in themselves and self- absorbed? To measure this, think about the following: How do they treat people whom they do not have to be nice to, such as a waiters, bus boy, taxi driver, etc. How do they treat parents and siblings? Do they have gratitude and appreciation?  If they don't have gratitude for the people who have given them everything, you cannot you--who can't do nearly as much for them! Do they gossip and speak badly about others?  Someone who gossips cannot be someone who loves others. You can be sure that someone who treats others poorly will eventually treat you poorly as well. 

QUESTION #5:
Is there anything I'm hoping to change about this person after we're married?

Too many people make the mistake of marrying someone with the intention of trying to "improve" them after they're married.  As a colleague of mine puts it, "You can probably expect someone to change after marriage ...for the worse!"

If you cannot fully accept this person the way they are now, then you are not ready to marry them.

In conclusion, dating doesn't have to be difficult and treacherous. The key is to try leading a little more with your head and less with your heart. It pays to be as objective as possible when you are dating, to be sure to ask questions that will help you get to the key issues.

Falling in love is a great feeling, but when you wake up with a ring on your finger, you don't want to find yourself in trouble because you didn't do your homework.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Another perspective...
There are some people in your life that need to be loved from a distance. It's amazing what you can accomplish when you let go of or at least minimize your time with draining, negative, incompatible, not-going anywhere relationships.  Observe the relationships around you. Pay attention. Which ones lift and which ones lean? Which ones encourage and which ones discourage? Which ones are on a path of growth uphill and which ones are going downhill? When you leave certain people do you feel better or feel worse?  Which ones always have drama or don't really understand, know, or appreciate you?

The more you seek quality, respect, growth, peace of mind, love and truth around you...the easier it will become for you to decide who gets to sit in the front row and who should be moved to the balcony of your life.

An African proverb states, "Before you get married, keep both eyes open, and after you marry, close one eye." Before you get involved and make a commitment to someone, don't let lust, desperation, immaturity, ignorance, pressure from others or a low self-esteem make you blind to warning signs. Keep your eyes open, and don't fool yourself that you can change someone or that what you see as faults isn't really that important.

Once you decide to commit to someone, over time their flaws, vulnerabilities, pet-peeves and differences will become more obvious. If you love your mate and want the relationship to grow and evolve, you've got to learn how to close one eye and not let every little thing bother you. You and your mate have many different expectations, emotional needs, values, dreams, weaknesses and strengths. You are two unique individual children of God who have decided to share a life together.  Neither one of you is perfect, but are you perfect for each other? Do you bring out the best in each other? Do you compliment and compromise with each other, or do you compete, compare and control? What do you bring to the relationship? Do you bring past relationships, past hurt, past mistrust, past pain? You can't take someone to the altar to alter them. You can't make someone love you or make someone stay. If you develop self-esteem, spiritual discernment, and "a life" you won't find yourself making someone else responsible for your happiness or responsible for your pain. Manipulation, control, jealousy, neediness and selfishness are not the ingredients of a thriving, healthy, loving and lasting relationship. Seeking status, sex, and security are the wrong reasons to be in a relationship.

WHAT KEEPS A RELATIONSHIP STRONG IS:
1. Trust
2. Communication,
3. Intimacy,
4. A sense of humour,
5. Sharing tasks
6. Some getaway time without business or children,
7. Daily exchanges (a meal, shared activity, a hug, a call, a touch,
a note),  
8. Sharing common goals and interests,
9. Giving each other space to grow without feeling insecure,
10. Giving each other a sense of belonging and assurances of commitment if these qualities are missing, the relationship will erode as resentment, withdrawal, abuse, neglect, dishonesty and pain WILL replace the passion.

There it goes,
so happy hunting for your partner for life!!

WHY ARE BLACK WOMEN SCARING OFF THEIR MEN?

WHY BLACK WOMEN ARE SCARING OFF THEIR MEN?

Have you met this woman? She has a good job, works hard, and earns a good salary. She went to college, got her Master's degree; she is intelligent. She is personable, articulate, well-read, interested in everybody and everything. Yet she's single.

Or maybe you know this one. She is active in the church, faithful, and committed. She sings in the choir, serves on the usher board, and attends every committee meeting. She loves the Lord and knows the Word. You'd think that with her command of the Scriptures and the respect of her church members, she'd have a marriage as solid as a rock. But again, no husband!

Or perhaps you recognize the community activist. She's a black lady - or as she prefers, an African woman-on-the move. She spots a short natural, sometimes cornrow braids, or even dreadlocks. She’s an organizer, a motivator, a dynamo. Her work for her people speaks for itself - organizing women for self-help collective, raising funds for a community cause, educating others around a new issue in South Africa. Black folks look up to her, and white folks know she's a force to be reckoned with. Yet once again, the men leave her alone.

What do these women have in common? They have so much. What is it they lack? Why is it they may be able to hook a man but can’t hold him?

The women puzzle over this quandary themselves. They gather at professional clubs, at sorority meetings or over coffee at the office and wonder what's wrong with black men.

They hold special prayer vigils and fast and pray and beg Jesus to send the men back to church. They find the brothers attending political strategizing sessions or participating in protests, but when it comes time to go home, the brothers go home to someone else.

I know these women because I am among all these women. And after asking over and over again "What's wrong with these men?” it finally dawned on me to ask the question, "WHAT'S WRONG WITH WOMEN?" What I have found, and what many of these women have yet to discover, is that the skills that make one successful in the church, community or workplace are not the skills that make one successful in a relationship.

Linear thinking, self-reliance, structured goals and direct action assist one in getting assignments done, in organizing church or club activities or in positioning oneself for a raise. But the relationship building requires different skills. It requires making decisions that not only seek to gratify you, but also satisfy others. It means doing things that will keep the peace rather than achieve the goal, and sometimes it means creating the peace in the first place.

Maintaining a harmonious relationship will not always allow you to take the straight line between two points. You may have to stop to conquer or yield to win. In too many cases, when dealing with men, you will have to sacrifice being right in order to enjoy being loved.

Being acknowledged, as the head of the household is an especially important thing for many black men, since their manhood is so often actively challenged everywhere else.

Many modern women are so independent, so self-sufficient, so committed to the cause, to the church, to career - or their narrow concepts of same, that their entire personalities project an ”I don't need a man" message. So they end up without one. An interested man may be attracted but, he soon discovers that this sister makes very little space for him in her life.

Going to graduate school is a good goal and an option that previous generations of blacks have not had. But sometimes the achieving woman will place her boyfriend so low on her list of priorities that his interest wanes. Between work, school and homework, she’s seldom "there" for him for the preliminaries that might develop into a commitment to a woman. She's too busy to prepare him a home-cooked meal or to be a listening ear for his concerns because she is so occupied with her own.

Soon he uses her only for uncommitted sex since to him she appears unavailable for anything else. Blind to the part she’s playing in the problem, she ends up thinking, "Men only want one thing." And she decides she's better off with the degree than the friendship.  When she's 45, she may wish she'd set different priorities while she was younger.

It's not just the busy career girl who can't see the forest for the trees. Couples I know were having marital troubles. During one argument, the husband confronted the wife and asked what she thought they should do about the marriage, what direction they should take. She reached for her Bible and turned to Ephesians. "I know what Paul says and I know what Jesus says about marriage," she told him. "What do you say about our marriage?” the man asks. Dumbfounded, she could not say anything. Like so many of us, she could recite the Scriptures but could not apply them to everyday living. Before the year was out, the husband had filed for divorce.

Women who focus on civil rights or community activism have vigorous fighting spirits and are prepared to do whatever, whenever, to benefit black people. That's good. That's necessary. But it needs to be kept in perspective. It's too easy to save the world and lose your man. A fighting spirit is important on the battlefield, but a gentler one is wanted on the home front. Too many women are winning the battle and losing the home.

Sometimes in our determined efforts to be strong believers and hard workers, the contemporary women downplay, denigrate or simply forget their more traditional feminine attributes. Men value women best for the ways they are different from them, not the ways they are the same. Men appreciate women for their grace and beauty. Men enjoy women for their softness and see it as a way to be in touch with their tender side, a side they dare not show to other men.

A hard-working woman is good to have on your committee. But, when a man goes home, he'd prefer a loving partner to a hard worker.  It's not an easy transition for the modern black woman to make. It sounds submissive, reactionary, outmoded, and oppressive. We have fought so hard for so many things, and rightfully so. We have known so many men who were shaky, jive and untrustworthy. Yet we must admit that we are shaky, jive and wilful in our own ways. Not having a husband allows a woman to do whatever she wants, when and how she wants to do it. Having one means a woman has to share the power and certain points will have to be surrendered.

We are terrified of marriage and commitment - yet dread the prospect of being single and alone. Throwing ourselves into work seems to fill the void without posing a threat. But like any other drug, the escape eventually becomes the cage. To make the break, we need to do less and "be" more. I am learning to "be still and know," to be trusting. I am learning to stop competing with black men and to collaborate with them, to temper my assertive and aggressive energy with softness and serenity.

I'm not preaching a philosophy of "women should be seen and not heard." But I have come to realize that I - and many of my smart and independent sisters are out of touch with their feminine centre and therefore out of touch with their men.