coinman_23885

All of the questions are useless speculation and designed to encourage and foment discourtesy.

 

They are excellent though, for a scandal magazine.

 

IMHO, of course.

+1

All of the questions are ... designed to ... foment discourtesy.

 

The only discourtesy the questions so far have elicited is from you Mr.Mcknowitall.

 

And you're wrong. The questions were designed to try injecting a little levity into the discussion, as did one poster claiming that as judge he'd sentence DC to life without parole, and also to hopefully not keep flogging the same dead horse on this topic, as several posters previously complained about, plus I had an additional motive.

 

As a patron of and advocate for DC, I hoped the questions would help people realize it's almost inconceivable he will be indicted, and practically impossible he would then be convicted, and any punishment whatsoever would amount to a miscarriage of justice. The government can never realistically confiscate his past products. Furthermore, there is already a substantial aftermarket premium for Moonlight Mint fantasies, and the publicity for them being generated by the critics has increased interest in them.

 

The questions you posed would be require us to speculate, and even if we could give educated guesses as to some of the questions, the questions have no probative value whatsoever to either the original post or the side discussions.

Finally an answer. You have an Attorney. That is a good thing.

That is nice. I still find it hard to believe that an attorney would give him the green light on his "fantasy" strikes. At best, as even some of his supporters concede, it is a very fine line that he is attempting to walk with no room for error. Any error could have profound consequences, and any benefits that Mr. Carr receives from the striking of these pieces would seemingly be de minimis compared to the consequences of error. You would think that an attorney would recommend seeking an adjucation prior to the production and dissemination of the pieces... Oh well; I guess some attorneys (like the general population) have higher risk tolerances unless Carr omitted relevant details to his lawyer or acts against advice...

I'll tee it up: #199

200

I couldn't resist. This thread does seem reminiscent of some from ATS several years ago.

Coinman:

 

“So I did and I talked to the US Attorney at the Denver office. I explained the situation and potential scenarios. He then stated that the US Attorney does not interpret such laws or scenarios for the public and that I should consult with my own lawyer.”

 

If Carr provided enough information regarding his ’64 D Peace Dollars for them to determine the legality of same, and they determined it to be illegal, why would they not investigate and prosecute? Or could it be that they did investigate and found no grounds for prosecution?

 

“The Attorney General is the government's lawyer, and solely represents the government's interest.”

 

If Carr related sufficient information concerning his fantasy pieces, I find it hard to believe that they would not make a determination of legality and act accordingly.

 

(Only Carr knows for certain whether he gave them sufficient information, but let us assume he did.)

This is interesting, but there are too many variables to speculate. When? Where? What was said? You get the idea.

Edited to add: Looking back, it looks like this exchange was based on hypotheticals. The US Attorney was merely refusing to act as his counsel about hypothetical situations and emphasizing that the government is his client. I would not make any assumptions.

I would think it likely that the Attorney General would not wish to answers questions regarding the legality of anything that would require a full investigation in order to make a comprehensive determination of same. I doubt very seriously that the Attorney General would offer a declaration of legal or illegal based on the information provided by Carr or one of his detractors.

 

However, he/she might initiate an investigation in to the matter based on said information, but the answer to the question of legality would likely not be forthcoming until after an official investigation was conducted, if indeed the information provided justified such action.

The Attorney General is the government's lawyer, and solely represents the government's interest. The AG should not issue advisory opinions to private citizens. The proper way to handle this would be to file a suit in federal district court seeking a declaratory judgment that the pieces putatively are not in violation of the HPA, Title 18 statutes, or their progeny and analogs. He could also seek an injunction against prosecution. The result would be binding on all parties to the suit. This would be easy to do. In fact, regardless of your views on the issue, it is what he should have done prior to striking the pieces rather than sending generic emails to government entities that are not empowered to render binding interpretations of law.

This has been suggested to Carr in the past, and if he had any interest in addressing the issue of legality, he would have done so by now. I even gave him a reference case that he could pull in PACER to see where the process has been used in the past and where he would have access to all opinions, briefs, and official pleadings filed in the Boggs counterfeiting/fantasy money case (discussed in the other thread that I linked several pages ago) to give him a head start.

According to your strict interpretation of this statute, the Chuck-E- Cheese pizza chain (for example) is guilty of counterfeiting because their tokens are similar in color (brassy) to the current US "Golden" dollar coins. Clearly, that was not the intent of Congress when legislating this law. And it is also clearly evident that the authorities and the courts do not view the minting of tokens or medals, or non-fraudulent defacement of coins, as a crime.

 

I never liked Chuck-E- Cheese anyway. I knew the rat was trouble.

 

I hold Whack-A-Mole records in eight states

 

mark

Very impressive!

According to your strict interpretation of this statute, the Chuck-E- Cheese pizza chain (for example) is guilty of counterfeiting because their tokens are similar in color (brassy) to the current US "Golden" dollar coins. Clearly, that was not the intent of Congress when legislating this law. And it is also clearly evident that the authorities and the courts do not view the minting of tokens or medals, or non-fraudulent defacement of coins, as a crime.

I never liked Chuck-E- Cheese anyway. I knew the rat was trouble.

Doesn't that first one "purport" to be a rare St. Gaudens nickel ?

No, the U.S. Mint never produced St. Gaudens five cent pieces. Moreover, the design does not closely mirror the design of the obverse of the Saint Gaudens Double Eagles. We do know, for a fact, that 1964-D Peace Dollars were produced by the Mint. You are restriking Peace Dollars that looks almost exactly the same to the untrained eye to an original Peace Dollar design (and imparted by unauthorized dies), and your coins carry the 1964 date and a "D" mint mark.

What is the threshold where modifications constitute "counterfeiting" ?

RWB posted the threshold for you and it is contained in the statute. It really isn't that difficult. Every time someone debunks one of your arguments, you move on to another argument that has been debunked. You repeatedly attempt to rewrite the statutes to add elements that are not there. This is beginning to become boring.

More importantly, even if your pieces were legal to produce, doesn't it bother you that some elderly or uninformed person could be defrauded because of your pieces? Is it your position that it is their problem, and as long as you have your fun and make money then all is well?

Show me a hobo nickel that approximates what you do (restrike the original design elements changing only the date and mint mark to a rare combination as you do with your 1964-D Peace Dollars). You make your creations (e.g. 1964-D Peace Dollars) look like much more valuable rare coins. I have never seen a hobo nickel that made a coin look to potentially have a higher numismatic value or approximate a rare/desirable issue.

 

The 1964-D Peace Dollar is not a "rare" coin. It is a non-existent coin, according to the US Government.

 

Hobo nickels change much of the contours of the coin, essentially creating a "fantasy design" while sometimes leaving the original legends in place. The result can look like a rare US Mint issue coin.

 

Here is one that looks like a rare St. Gaudens pattern coin (not to me, but maybe to some mythical person, like the kind some people are worried about, that might get conned into spending way too much money):

 

This one has a Mexican eagle on it. Watch out, somebody might think it is a rare official North American Union Amero coin

 

Another one that looks like it could be a rare Indian Head nickel pattern:

 

Is this one still legal tender ?

 

Those are just a few I found in searching the OHNS site for a few minutes.

 

The point of all this is, either design elements are changed, or date digits are changed, and either way the goal is to elicit some sort of emotional or intellectual response from the viewer. This is what any artist attempts to do. So why would it matter if the design was changed or the date digits were changed, so long is neither is done for fraudulent purposes ?

 

Is re-carving details lost to circulation wear on a rare coin "counterfeiting" ?

NGC would call such a coin "tooled", not "counterfeit".

None of those are even close to what you are doing.

U.S. Code - Counterfeit Coins

 

"Whoever, within the United States, makes or brings therein from any foreign country, or possesses with intent to sell, give away, or in any other manner uses the same, except under authority of the Secretary of the Treasury or other proper officer of the United States, any token, disk, or device in the likeness or similitude as to design, color, or the inscription thereon of any of the coins of the United States or of any foreign country issued as money, either under the authority of the United States or under the authority of any foreign government shall be fined under this title.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 709; July 16, 1951, ch. 226, § 3, 65 Stat. 122; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(B), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2146.)"

 

This applies to everyone including those living in Colorado.

 

So long as it isn't done for fraudulent purposes, a fantasy-date over-struck coin is an altered coin, not a "counterfeit" coin.

 

From the US Mint web site (note the key underlined qualifier):

(Text as of 2/19/02) 18 U.S.C. §331

 

You provided a link to U.S.C. 331, but (seemingly conviently) ignored the above language, which does not require "fraudulent purposes".

 

The counterfeiting statute does not apply because there is no counterfeiting involved in fantasy-date over-striking. Similarly, a carved (altered) "hobo" nickel is not a "counterfeit" either, and such activity is not restricted by counterfeiting laws.

 

A hobo nickel makes a coin look less like an original numismatic item ...

 

Says who ? To use your side's argument: how would an ordinary person on the street know if a carved "hobo" nickel was a rare Mint issue or not ?

 

and [a "hobo" nickel] does not purport to make it a rare date or issue. Your coins do.

 

No, my fantasy-date over-strikes purport to be just that, non-existant dates struck onto existing coins.

 

I also don't see them as art as the only thing you are adding is a date and a mint mark. The rest of the design emulates circulating coinage. That is a major distinction.

 

Not every person interprets or appreciates art the same way. This is especially true for "performance art".

 

Many carved "hobo" nickels are still the same size as the original nickels, would still work in vending machines, and they still say "United States of America" and "Five Cents" on them.

 

Also as I have said before, as the cited federal appeals courts also acknowledged, the federal government may charge the overstriking of existing genuine coinage with unauthorized dies as counterfeiting under 18 U.S.C. 485, it can charge the practice as a violation of 18 U.S.C. 331, or it can do both. If 18 U.S.C. 331 were the sole controlling statute, I would agree that you should win against charges on that code section (which have an intent element). As for the other statutes, I don't see a work around that has already been rejected by federal appeals courts in one fashion or another over the years.

 

The point is this: If carving hobo nickels with fantasy designs is legal, then over-striking coins with fantasy-dates is also legal, so long as neither is for fraudulent purposes.

 

Show me a hobo nickel that approximates what you do (restrike the original design elements changing only the date and mint mark to a rare combination as you do with your 1964-D Peace Dollars). You make your creations (e.g. 1964-D Peace Dollars) look like much more valuable rare coins. I have never seen a hobo nickel that made a coin look to potentially have a higher numismatic value or approximate a rare/desirable issue.

 

All of HIS fantasy pieces indeed start off as an actual uS coins of the same type.

 

Federal courts have already rejected this argument. Overstriking a rare, esoteric, or fantasy issue over a genuine coin does not remove it from the purview of the counterfeiting statutes nor does it merely mean that the creation must be prosecuted under the statute for falsely altering a coin. The federal government may choose either. United States v. Wilson, 451 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1971).

 

For those who haven't seen the prior discussion about that case on these forums (by now that is probably a small number), I want to reiterate that the Wilson case has important and significant differences from the situation in question. The differences are sufficient enough to invalidate it as any sort of precedent here.

 

The defendants in the Wilson case had altered genuine coins with a blatant intent to defraud. They took random-year silver Roosevelt dimes and over-struck them as "1955" dimes. They then sold the dimes representing them as genuine original US Mint 1955-dated dimes. And at the time they did this, genuine original 1955 dimes already existed, and they were selling for a significant premium in the collector market.

 

Other parts of that same case involved the defendants adding fake "D" mint marks to 1932 Washington quarters and selling them as genuine originals.

Wilson is absolutely on point. The defendants in Wilson claimed that they could not be convicted under 18 U.S.C. 485 because the coins in question (which were produced by overstriking genuine U.S. coins with unauthorized dies) were mere alterations and that the applicable statute was the alteration statute, 18 U.S.C. 331, that you repeatedly cite (and excerpted from the Mint's website). The court rejected that argument and found both statutes applicable. It convicted the defendants of counterfeiting in violation of 18 U.S.C. 485.

I also do not see how this would not apply to your 1964-D Peace Dollars, struck over existing Peace Dollars. As for intent, there were other cases cited in the linked thread that show that while intent for possession or uttering under 18 U.S.C. 485 is required, no intent is required for the production of pieces in the likelihood or similitude of U.S. coinage.

U.S. Code - Counterfeit Coins

 

"Whoever, within the United States, makes or brings therein from any foreign country, or possesses with intent to sell, give away, or in any other manner uses the same, except under authority of the Secretary of the Treasury or other proper officer of the United States, any token, disk, or device in the likeness or similitude as to design, color, or the inscription thereon of any of the coins of the United States or of any foreign country issued as money, either under the authority of the United States or under the authority of any foreign government shall be fined under this title.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 709; July 16, 1951, ch. 226, § 3, 65 Stat. 122; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(B), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2146.)"

 

This applies to everyone including those living in Colorado.

 

So long as it isn't done for fraudulent purposes, a fantasy-date over-struck coin is an altered coin, not a "counterfeit" coin.

 

From the US Mint web site (note the key underlined qualifier):

(Text as of 2/19/02) 18 U.S.C. §331

 

You provided a link to U.S.C. 331, but (seemingly conviently) ignored the above language, which does not require "fraudulent purposes".

 

The counterfeiting statute does not apply because there is no counterfeiting involved in fantasy-date over-striking. Similarly, a carved (altered) "hobo" nickel is not a "counterfeit" either, and such activity is not restricted by counterfeiting laws.

A hobo nickel makes a coin look less like an original numismatic item, and does not purport to make it a rare date or issue. Your coins do. I also don't see them as art as the only thing you are adding is a date and a mint mark. The rest of the design emulates circulating coinage. That is a major distinction.

Also as I have said before, as the cited federal appeals courts also acknowledged, the federal government may charge the overstriking of existing genuine coinage with unauthorized dies as counterfeiting under 18 U.S.C. 485, it can charge the practice as a violation of 18 U.S.C. 331, or it can do both. If 18 U.S.C. 331 were the sole controlling statute, I would agree that you should win against charges on that code section (which have an intent element). As for the other statutes, I don't see a work around that has already been rejected by federal appeals courts in one fashion or another over the years.

U.S. Code - Counterfeit Coins

 

"Whoever, within the United States, makes or brings therein from any foreign country, or possesses with intent to sell, give away, or in any other manner uses the same, except under authority of the Secretary of the Treasury or other proper officer of the United States, any token, disk, or device in the likeness or similitude as to design, color, or the inscription thereon of any of the coins of the United States or of any foreign country issued as money, either under the authority of the United States or under the authority of any foreign government shall be fined under this title.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 709; July 16, 1951, ch. 226, § 3, 65 Stat. 122; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(B), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2146.)"

 

This applies to everyone including those living in Colorado.

 

So long as it isn't done for fraudulent purposes, a fantasy-date over-struck coin is an altered coin, not a "counterfeit" coin.

 

From the US Mint web site (note the key underlined qualifier):

(Text as of 2/19/02) 18 U.S.C. §331

 

You provided a link to U.S.C. 331, but (seemingly conviently) ignored the above language, which does not require "fraudulent purposes".

He also ignores the federal appeals court decision that puts that issue to bed (and against his position). Apparently, he does not seem to understand that it is the judiciary that interprets the law.

As I have stated earlier, the use of a genuine legal tender host coin does not automatically make something made from it automatically legal.

 

The example I cited was a counterfeit 1909-SVDB cent we saw at ANACS which was struck over a genuine 1960-D Lincoln cent. That coin was made with intent to deceive and defraud, and is a counterfeit by any tortured interpretation of the law.

 

Mr. Carr's overstrikes are NOT made with intent to deceive or defraud. However, the fact that they are struck over genuine, legal tender U.S. coins does not make them exempt from the provisions of the Hobby Protection Act, just as the 1909-SVDB cent cited above is not exempt from the anti-counterfeiting laws.

Intent to defraud is not necessary under the current iteration of anti-counterfeiting laws for the production of the pieces. Intent only becomes an issue when uttering, possessing, etc.

 

All of HIS fantasy pieces indeed start off as an actual uS coins of the same type.

Federal courts have already rejected this argument. Overstriking a rare, esoteric, or fantasy issue over a genuine coin does not remove it from the purview of the counterfeiting statutes nor does it merely mean that the creation must be prosecuted under the statute for falsely altering a coin. The federal government may choose either. United States v. Wilson, 451 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1971).

We have no right to interpret law and use our interpretation of said law as an excuse to harass and condemn. If someone believes a law has been or is being violated report it to the proper authority, whose job it is to interpret law and they will act or not act accordingly.

What are you talking about?

(1) No one is harassing him.

(2) We absolutely have the right to interpret the law and to make personal and business judgments accordingly. Doing so is the foundation of the business world and all business/financial decisions we make. I won't bore you to tears with examples.

(3) We also have the right to express those views, particularly when it relates to laws enacted to protect our society and our hobby. If there is a question of legality, there is also a legitimate interest to the larger coin community that has members that may not be aware of the relevant issues or potential issues. These threads have potential educational value or at least may provoke others to take a closer look instead of blindly relying on the legal interpretation/posts made by the self interested producer of the coins. This is why I will not stop posting. I am not arguing with his supporters or Carr himself at this point (none of which will care). I post what I post so that others will be aware of the issues/opposition and perhaps be inclined (hopefully) to research the matter more fully.

There may be a simple path to determine the interpretation of the laws. Directly contact the U.S. Attorney General. Not a person at the U.S. Mint. Not a person at the Treasury.

 

State all the positions of why the pieces are within the definition of the law and are legal under the present language of the law.

 

As I recall, this was previously suggested.

He won't do this of course nor will he seek a civil adjudication of the issue. If he calls attention to pieces that are no longer hypotheticals (i.e. that he has now made and freely distributed) and the government rejects his arguments, then he is royally screwed. Deep down, I think he knows that he is tip toeing a fine line at best and that his arguments are far from ironclad (and that characterization of his position is giving him much more credit than I think his arguments deserve).

For the time being, we must wait to see. Maybe the guy ATS that sued the bullion round company for HPA violations will take the Carr pieces up some day.

P.S. Where is Brandon when you need him? I'm sure he could post more comical memes that are perfect for this thread and topic.

Nowhere in that Coin World article did it state how the person acquired it or what the person paid for it, or if they even actually purchased it. And if they did actually purchase it, and they paid up to about $100 for it, then no harm done since that is the approximate current market value.

It doesn't matter. The individual mistook the coin for a genuine 1922 half dollar as struck by the Mint. Legally that is enough. It doesn't matter whether you agree with the law and think it is well rooted in sound policy or not.

As for your "harm" argument, I suppose it is merely repetition of your bogus standing argument. The government has standing to enforce it own laws, and Article I, Section 8 plainly gives Congress exclusive power to pass laws concerning the regulation of counterfeits and the unauthorized use of images of U.S. coins and currency as well as to coin money.

I have had enough of the DCarr threads. It doesn't matter how much evidence or legal citation there is to support everything we have told you, you are now blatantly ignoring the law IMHO. The government is slow and inefficient. In time, I do think the issues will be revisited by the government as more and more people are fooled by your "fantasy" pieces.

P.S. Thank you HT for posting this!

This illustrates a valuable point. The average person looking up a non-existent date in a standard reference work will NOT, upon seeing the date not listed, assume "Oh, it must be a fantasy coin created by a private minter" and shrug it off. He or she WILL assume that it is a fabulously rare coin that must be worth a lot of money. This is why such pieces are supposed to be marked in accordance with the Hobby Protection Act of 1973.

 

TD

Yet every time you or I (or any other poster) brings up that point, we are written off as stupid, naïve, and "grasping at straws." Maybe this will cause people to wake up. The HPA and counterfeiting statutes are not written for informed collectors and numismatists, but the "average" American - think lowest common denominator.

Yes, the coin fetched about $4,000 at Heritage this afternoon. Not too bad for this market. Congratulations to the winning (floor) bidder. I noticed there were at least (3) different bidders between $3,000 - $4,000 on the coin.

 

It will probably be some time before I, personally, ever see a 1964-D Silver Dime I like better than that coin. But, it may possibly happen.

 

Wondercoin

Congratulations to you and your consignor!

Good luck to your consignor!

I can't even get my NORFED pieces slabbed even though the government has clearly stated its legal for collectors to own. Yet another example of how one must be connected to achieve desires. One more example of why I moved my registry sets to custom and have been attempting to withdraw from the boards. As I've aged and started making more money thus obtaining more impressive coins I've found more pleasure taking my hobby back into the closet if you will?. My last two posts were deleted, no strike just deleted. The last one was in French, as was the OP and politely as for as my posts can be; it too, gone. Has ATS began to moderate here as well?

 

The Norfed (Liberty Dollar) issues are listed in Krause "Unusual World Coins", 6th Edition, United States section.

 

According to PCGS, they will slab anything listed in that section of that catalog. But it remains to be seen if they would actually do that if one was submitted.

 

That's interesting especially as the NORFED pieces were legally adjudicated to be counterfeits. I guess if PCGS will slab those and the electrotype I linked earlier, your pieces shouldn't face any different treatment in my humble opinion.... Good luck!

#50!

 

 

 

 

 

This made me laugh so much.