Near Counterfeit?

[MarkFeld]

Your response leads me to ask a couple of follow-up questions.

 

Since the language in the HPA (copied below) makes no reference to specific numismatic items, why do you interpret it as applying only if the date of one of your creations is an exact match to a genuine coin that was legally produced? Are you aware of any cases where that language has been interpreted with respect to specific dates vs. types, in general?

 

"Imitation numismatic item means an item which purports to be, but in fact is not, an original numismatic item or which is a reproduction, copy, or counterfeit of an original numismatic item."...

 

Since the date on most coins is a major focal point and is often much more visible than a "COPY" stamp, I interpret the HPA regulations such that a non-existant date for a type does not purport to be an "original numismatic item". And if the coin in question is a defaced (over-struck or otherwise altered) genuine coin of that same type, then it does not "purport" to be a coin of that type (because it already is/was a coin of that type).

 

In the case of your 1964 Dollars, even though genuine ones would presumably be illegal to own, they were produced. So how are yours not purporting to be original numismatic items? Yes, yours are genuine Peace Dollars, but, due to their date (that of an ultra rarity), I believe they purport to be much more than mere common Peace Dollars.

 

My "1964-D" over-strike Peace Silver Dollars are a special case since some originals were actually minted. But the key aspect to consider here is that the US Government clearly states that all were destroyed and none were ever released. As such, according to the government, a "1964-D" Peace Dollar can not reasonably purport to be an original numismatic item because the issuing authority (the government itself) says none exist.

To add to this argument, even though the government says they were produced, absolutely no photographic evidence exists of any of the coins produced in 1965. None.

 

Folks aren't even "Sure" of what they look like except that they supposedly "resembled" the Peace Dollar.

 

 

Hopefully, you meant to say "even though the government says they were produced, absolutely no photographic evidence has come to light....".

 

You can't know that "no photographic evidence exists".

Mark, its been 49 years. These coins were highly anticipated once word got out that a Silver Dollar was going to be produced.

 

To assume that photographic evidence exists but "has not come to light" is ignoring basic human nature of discovery. It is totally possible that photographs "had" existed but given the destruction of so many U Mint documents in the 70's and 80's, its extremely unlikely that anything ever will come to light.

 

The 1933 Saints (more higly publicized than the 64-D Peace Dollars) eventually came into the light.

 

After 7 years, the 1913 Liberty Nickels came into the light.

 

I'm betting that if any photo's existed, especially after Daniel Carr's Overstrikes went public, that those photo's, which BTW are not illegal to possess, would most certainly have come to light.

 

But that's just my opinion as I refuse to jump into this Yeti/BigFoot/Loch Ness game of chasing something which only exists in the imaginations of those that "want" them to exist.

 

The 1964 Peace Dollars were produced more than 30 years after the 1933 Saints. And it hasn't been nearly that long since the Langbord pieces surfaced. Also, if an individual owned and had pictures of a 1964 Peace Dollar, it would be foolish to publicize them.

[coinman_23885]

 

The ultimate legal question here is this:

Has anyone been harmed the the fantasy-date over-strike "1964-D" Peace Silver Dollars ?

 

The Government has not been harmed since a legal-tender dollar was "consumed" for every "1964-D" over-strike produced.

 

A reasonable but unknowing person is not harmed because they wouldn't have the knowledge or motive to spend a significant amount for such.

 

How can anyone say either way whether someone has mistaken these pieces as the real McCoy for the moment? It is also immaterial to the interpretation or enforcement of any of the laws discussed in this thread. The purpose is to eliminate the harm that could feasibly occur. You're trying to muddy the waters.

 

Are you suggesting in your second post that the federal government lacks standing to enforce consumer protection laws and anti-counterfeiting laws? I don't think that is going to go over very well nor does it make a lot of sense, especially as it would render a good portion of the U.S. Code void. Any time a government statute is violated, the government has suffered legal "harm". The portion you quoted was in response to your standing argument. The government is an interested "person" or entity here. I'm not sure how you could interpret it in any other way.

 

The third statement is not accurate although it legally is a question for a jury or other fact finder. I believe I have seen your Peace Dollar coins sell for more than $300, which is not a trivial sum for an imitation at best and counterfeit at worst. The reasonableness question is one of whether a lay person could believe that the coin was issued by the Mint in that state. That is how the statutes are written. I love your strawman arguments. Nowhere do the statutes require proof of actual harm.

[Afterword]

"You of course since your reply seemed (to me) to question the motives of NOT reporting.

 

My reply was that if that was "just as telling" then perhaps you should make the report and document the response.

 

Was that not what you were implying?"

 

 

 

 

My last morsel for the zombie thread from hell.

 

I do not believe that DC's 1964 D Peace Dollars are illegal, so why would you expect me to make a fraudulent report, which is what it would be?

 

If people claim that DC's 1964 D Peace Dollars are illegal, but do not report it to the proper authorities, then, yes, I believe it is telling. It shows a lack of conviction as to their claims of illegality in this matter, and/or, that the question of illegality is really inconsequential, as far as their true motives are concerned.

 

[CaptHenway]

Your response leads me to ask a couple of follow-up questions.

 

Since the language in the HPA (copied below) makes no reference to specific numismatic items, why do you interpret it as applying only if the date of one of your creations is an exact match to a genuine coin that was legally produced? Are you aware of any cases where that language has been interpreted with respect to specific dates vs. types, in general?

 

"Imitation numismatic item means an item which purports to be, but in fact is not, an original numismatic item or which is a reproduction, copy, or counterfeit of an original numismatic item."...

 

Since the date on most coins is a major focal point and is often much more visible than a "COPY" stamp, I interpret the HPA regulations such that a non-existant date for a type does not purport to be an "original numismatic item". And if the coin in question is a defaced (over-struck or otherwise altered) genuine coin of that same type, then it does not "purport" to be a coin of that type (because it already is/was a coin of that type).

 

In the case of your 1964 Dollars, even though genuine ones would presumably be illegal to own, they were produced. So how are yours not purporting to be original numismatic items? Yes, yours are genuine Peace Dollars, but, due to their date (that of an ultra rarity), I believe they purport to be much more than mere common Peace Dollars.

 

My "1964-D" over-strike Peace Silver Dollars are a special case since some originals were actually minted. But the key aspect to consider here is that the US Government clearly states that all were destroyed and none were ever released. As such, according to the government, a "1964-D" Peace Dollar can not reasonably purport to be an original numismatic item because the issuing authority (the government itself) says none exist.

To add to this argument, even though the government says they were produced, absolutely no photographic evidence exists of any of the coins produced in 1965. None.

 

Folks aren't even "Sure" of what they look like except that they supposedly "resembled" the Peace Dollar.

 

 

Hopefully, you meant to say "even though the government says they were produced, absolutely no photographic evidence has come to light....".

 

You can't know that "no photographic evidence exists".

 

Indeed. It is possible that the Mint Lab photographed their two specimens before they destroyed them, for their files. We just don't know.

Is a FOIA Request needed here?

 

That might be interesting to try.

[CaptHenway]

Upon what basis have you determined that an "original numismatic item" must have necessarily been "issued" and not merely produced at one time? I don't see any such requirement in the language.

 

"Reasonably".

 

If I see a coin that has a date on it that was never issued for that design type, then to me it doesn't reasonably purport to be an original numismatic item of that date.

 

The language also does not stipulate that "reasonably" extends to items that were never issued.

 

Your 1964-D coins bear a date which appeared on coins that were produced, even if not issued. I don't see how that distinction does away with the language "reasonably purports to be an original numismatic item". If the language said "coin" rather than "item", I might agree with you.

From a language standpoint, I think that's a stretch Mark since the coins, having not been counted but merely weighed, were not really produced.

 

And that statement, is really a stretch.............Oy!

 

And as a side note, weren't the two pieces that were sent to the Lab in Washington and subsequently destroyed from the "Philadelphia Mint" meaning NOT 1964-D Coins?

 

They may have been struck from a set of 1964-D dies that had not been shipped yet.

[CaptHenway]

Have you read the entire thread? It is an imitation numismatic item as that term is defined in the Code of a Federal Regulations accompanying the Hobby Protection Act.

 

I take issue with this premise. It has not been legally established that a genuine original Peace Silver Dollar, altered to have a date that does not exist according the to government, is an "imitation" of something.

 

I leave with a last question: How do Carr's 1964 D Peace Dollars differ from the real versions?

 

If something doesn't exist, can it be "real" ?

Perhaps you should word the question like this:

"How do Carr's 1964 D Peace Dollars differ from the original version ?"

 

Government version:

None exist (according to the issuing entity);

Illegal to own.

 

"Carr" version:

Some exist;

Legal to possess.

Has a re-punched "D" mint mark which can be used as an identifying marker.

 

Technical question: How many different reverse dies did you use, and do all of them have a repunched mint mark?

[CaptHenway]

Your response leads me to ask a couple of follow-up questions.

 

Since the language in the HPA (copied below) makes no reference to specific numismatic items, why do you interpret it as applying only if the date of one of your creations is an exact match to a genuine coin that was legally produced? Are you aware of any cases where that language has been interpreted with respect to specific dates vs. types, in general?

 

"Imitation numismatic item means an item which purports to be, but in fact is not, an original numismatic item or which is a reproduction, copy, or counterfeit of an original numismatic item."...

 

Since the date on most coins is a major focal point and is often much more visible than a "COPY" stamp, I interpret the HPA regulations such that a non-existant date for a type does not purport to be an "original numismatic item". And if the coin in question is a defaced (over-struck or otherwise altered) genuine coin of that same type, then it does not "purport" to be a coin of that type (because it already is/was a coin of that type).

 

In the case of your 1964 Dollars, even though genuine ones would presumably be illegal to own, they were produced. So how are yours not purporting to be original numismatic items? Yes, yours are genuine Peace Dollars, but, due to their date (that of an ultra rarity), I believe they purport to be much more than mere common Peace Dollars.

 

My "1964-D" over-strike Peace Silver Dollars are a special case since some originals were actually minted. But the key aspect to consider here is that the US Government clearly states that all were destroyed and none were ever released. As such, according to the government, a "1964-D" Peace Dollar can not reasonably purport to be an original numismatic item because the issuing authority (the government itself) says none exist.

To add to this argument, even though the government says they were produced, absolutely no photographic evidence exists of any of the coins produced in 1965. None.

 

Folks aren't even "Sure" of what they look like except that they supposedly "resembled" the Peace Dollar.

 

 

Hopefully, you meant to say "even though the government says they were produced, absolutely no photographic evidence has come to light....".

 

You can't know that "no photographic evidence exists".

Mark, its been 49 years. These coins were highly anticipated once word got out that a Silver Dollar was going to be produced.

 

To assume that photographic evidence exists but "has not come to light" is ignoring basic human nature of discovery. It is totally possible that photographs "had" existed but given the destruction of so many U Mint documents in the 70's and 80's, its extremely unlikely that anything ever will come to light.

 

The 1933 Saints (more higly publicized than the 64-D Peace Dollars) eventually came into the light.

 

After 7 years, the 1913 Liberty Nickels came into the light.

 

I'm betting that if any photo's existed, especially after Daniel Carr's Overstrikes went public, that those photo's, which BTW are not illegal to possess, would most certainly have come to light.

 

But that's just my opinion as I refuse to jump into this Yeti/BigFoot/Loch Ness game of chasing something which only exists in the imaginations of those that "want" them to exist.

 

The 1964 Peace Dollars were produced more than 30 years after the 1933 Saints. And it hasn't been nearly that long since the Langbord pieces surfaced. Also, if an individual owned and had pictures of a 1964 Peace Dollar, it would be foolish to publicize them.

 

Indeed.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Perhaps there is a provision of the U.S. Code which is more on point. But if not, in reading the one below, if I were on a jury and presented with it and nothing else, I would vote counterfeit.

 

In reading the language, I don't think it matters if a present day production bears the identical date and/or mintmark combination and/or design of coins which were actually "issued as money". I see no mention of exactness being required. But rather, what matters is that it is "...in the likeness or similitude as to design, color, or the inscription thereon of any of the coins of the United States...".

 

Still, I am open to hearing why my conclusion would be incorrect.

 

"18 U.S. Code § 489 - Making or possessing likeness of 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."

 

Good Afternoon, Mr Feld.

 

I trust your health is much improved, although some may find such trust annoying.

 

Setting aside my silly musing re. testing Spearin (the thought being States Rights of adoption, and the locale of the argument of any impropriety by Mr. Carr) and/or HPA Tax code, I am interested in 18-489.

 

Would you consider the sentence construction to be somewhat lacking?

 

Specifically, would you consider the identification of the location of offense to be important? Would you consider res gestae would be alive and well in any interpretation Mr. Carr may conclude from 18-489?

 

Respects,

John

[dcarr]

Technical question: How many different reverse dies did you use, and do all of them have a repunched mint mark?

 

There was a total of five different reverse dies.

Of those, two were used only for tests and one was defaced and scrapped without being used. All of the coins released were struck from two reverse dies, both of which had a re-punched mint mark.

 

[dcarr]

The 1964 Peace Dollars were produced more than 30 years after the 1933 Saints. And it hasn't been nearly that long since the Langbord pieces surfaced. Also, if an individual owned and had pictures of a 1964 Peace Dollar, it would be foolish to publicize them.

 

If a person only had a picture of a 1964 Peace Dollar, not any actual coin, then there would be no risk to them in publicizing the picture.

 

[MarkFeld]

Perhaps there is a provision of the U.S. Code which is more on point. But if not, in reading the one below, if I were on a jury and presented with it and nothing else, I would vote counterfeit.

 

In reading the language, I don't think it matters if a present day production bears the identical date and/or mintmark combination and/or design of coins which were actually "issued as money". I see no mention of exactness being required. But rather, what matters is that it is "...in the likeness or similitude as to design, color, or the inscription thereon of any of the coins of the United States...".

 

Still, I am open to hearing why my conclusion would be incorrect.

 

"18 U.S. Code § 489 - Making or possessing likeness of 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."

 

Good Afternoon, Mr Feld.

 

I trust your health is much improved, although some may find such trust annoying.

 

Setting aside my silly musing re. testing Spearin (the thought being States Rights of adoption, and the locale of the argument of any impropriety by Mr. Carr) and/or HPA Tax code, I am interested in 18-489.

 

Would you consider the sentence construction to be somewhat lacking?

 

Specifically, would you consider the identification of the location of offense to be important? Would you consider res gestae would be alive and well in any interpretation Mr. Carr may conclude from 18-489?

 

Respects,

John

 

John, I have no complaint with the sentence structure - it makes for a most impressive run-on and on and on sentence

[MarkFeld]

The 1964 Peace Dollars were produced more than 30 years after the 1933 Saints. And it hasn't been nearly that long since the Langbord pieces surfaced. Also, if an individual owned and had pictures of a 1964 Peace Dollar, it would be foolish to publicize them.

 

If a person only had a picture of a 1964 Peace Dollar, not any actual coin, then there would be no risk to them in publicizing the picture.

 

Of course. But the most likely person to have such a picture would be an owner or former owner of the coin. And in neither case should he publicize it.

[19Lyds]

"You of course since your reply seemed (to me) to question the motives of NOT reporting.

 

My reply was that if that was "just as telling" then perhaps you should make the report and document the response.

 

Was that not what you were implying?"

 

 

 

 

My last morsel for the zombie thread from hell.

 

I do not believe that DC's 1964 D Peace Dollars are illegal, so why would you expect me to make a fraudulent report, which is what it would be?

 

If people claim that DC's 1964 D Peace Dollars are illegal, but do not report it to the proper authorities, then, yes, I believe it is telling. It shows a lack of conviction as to their claims of illegality in this matter, and/or, that the question of illegality is really inconsequential, as far as their true motives are concerned.

Gotcha!

[19Lyds]

Upon what basis have you determined that an "original numismatic item" must have necessarily been "issued" and not merely produced at one time? I don't see any such requirement in the language.

 

"Reasonably".

 

If I see a coin that has a date on it that was never issued for that design type, then to me it doesn't reasonably purport to be an original numismatic item of that date.

 

The language also does not stipulate that "reasonably" extends to items that were never issued.

 

Your 1964-D coins bear a date which appeared on coins that were produced, even if not issued. I don't see how that distinction does away with the language "reasonably purports to be an original numismatic item". If the language said "coin" rather than "item", I might agree with you.

From a language standpoint, I think that's a stretch Mark since the coins, having not been counted but merely weighed, were not really produced.

 

And that statement, is really a stretch.............Oy!

 

And as a side note, weren't the two pieces that were sent to the Lab in Washington and subsequently destroyed from the "Philadelphia Mint" meaning NOT 1964-D Coins?

 

The fact that they were destroyed in Philadelphia does not mean that the pieces were struck in Denver. In any event, aren't there examples in the past where coins were struck at different mints counter to their actual mint mark?

 

With regards to the first part of your post, I think you are confusing production with the items being issued or released into circulation.

No. I'm not confusing anything. Well, except for Afterword. That was a little confusing.

 

I'm trying to twist words like the "experts" do. You know, to make a technical point!

 

Released, issued, manufactured, produced, monetized. yours, mine.

 

Kinda like the way my wife says it:

 

"We're in this together! A Team!

Whats yours is mine and whats mine is mine! OK?"

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Perhaps there is a provision of the U.S. Code which is more on point. But if not, in reading the one below, if I were on a jury and presented with it and nothing else, I would vote counterfeit.

 

In reading the language, I don't think it matters if a present day production bears the identical date and/or mintmark combination and/or design of coins which were actually "issued as money". I see no mention of exactness being required. But rather, what matters is that it is "...in the likeness or similitude as to design, color, or the inscription thereon of any of the coins of the United States...".

 

Still, I am open to hearing why my conclusion would be incorrect.

 

"18 U.S. Code § 489 - Making or possessing likeness of 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."

 

Good Afternoon, Mr Feld.

 

I trust your health is much improved, although some may find such trust annoying.

 

Setting aside my silly musing re. testing Spearin (the thought being States Rights of adoption, and the locale of the argument of any impropriety by Mr. Carr) and/or HPA Tax code, I am interested in 18-489.

 

Would you consider the sentence construction to be somewhat lacking?

 

Specifically, would you consider the identification of the location of offense to be important? Would you consider res gestae would be alive and well in any interpretation Mr. Carr may conclude from 18-489?

 

Respects,

John

 

John, I have no complaint with the sentence structure - it makes for a most impressive run-on and on and on sentence

 

....accounting for the responses.....

[19Lyds]

I can see your conflict which basically boils down to "if you have to make them (presumably with dies which you should not possess?) at least stamp copy on them. Meaning, according to the HPA, which is fully backed by the law, its OK to possess similitude dies (In conflict with the USC) to manufacture coins as long as you note that they are copies.

 

None of which would help a legal challenge as applied to his coins which aren't marked as copies, which is also the only reason his otherwise outstanding work is drawing critics.

Actually, his outstanding work is drawing critics excatly the same way that the coin below was "criticized":

 

 

Discarded US Mint dies, reworked and used to "privately" strike 1804 Cents with the reverse of 1820 Cents.

 

Yet, today, fully collectible.

[dcarr]

 

The ultimate legal question here is this:

Has anyone been harmed the the fantasy-date over-strike "1964-D" Peace Silver Dollars ?

 

The Government has not been harmed since a legal-tender dollar was "consumed" for every "1964-D" over-strike produced.

 

A reasonable but unknowing person is not harmed because they wouldn't have the knowledge or motive to spend a significant amount for such.

 

How can anyone say either way whether someone has mistaken these pieces as the real McCoy for the moment? It is also immaterial to the interpretation or enforcement of any of the laws discussed in this thread. The purpose is to eliminate the harm that could feasibly occur. You're trying to muddy the waters.

 

Are you suggesting in your second post that the federal government lacks standing to enforce consumer protection laws and anti-counterfeiting laws? I don't think that is going to go over very well nor does it make a lot of sense, especially as it would render a good portion of the U.S. Code void. Any time a government statute is violated, the government has suffered legal "harm". The portion you quoted was in response to your standing argument. The government is an interested "person" or entity here. I'm not sure how you could interpret it in any other way.

 

I'm saying that these are not "counterfeits". So the counterfeiting laws are not applicable, and the quantity of apparent legal tender extant has not been diluted because these "1964-D" Peace Silver Dollars are over-struck on existing legal-tender dollar coins.

 

The third statement is not accurate although it legally is a question for a jury or other fact finder. I believe I have seen your Peace Dollar coins sell for more than $300, which is not a trivial sum for an imitation at best and counterfeit at worst. The reasonableness question is one of whether a lay person could believe that the coin was issued by the Mint in that state. That is how the statutes are written. I love your strawman arguments. Nowhere do the statutes require proof of actual harm.

 

"Reasonably purport to be an original numismatic item" means that the statutes do require that a reasonable person could potentially be harmed.

 

Suppose a hypothetical person was somehow convinced to spend way too much money for a "1964-D" over-strike Peace Silver Dollar. And then they sue to recover their losses. My points would be as follows:

 

1) Why did the person spend so much money for the coin ?

Because they had some knowledge of the story of the original 1964-D Peace Silver Dollars. If the person didn't have any specific knowledge of the 1964-D Peace Silver Dollars, but they spent a lot for one anyway, then they could have just as easily been fooled into spending a lot for any ordinary genuine coin such as a 1962-D cent.

2) If they had knowledge of the original 1964-D Peace Silver Dollars, why would they spend a lot of money for a coin that is illegal to own ? If a person buys something illegal like "crack", if the crack turns out to be fake, they can't successfully sue to get some real crack or their money back.

3) If a person knew enough to think that a "1964-D" Peace Silver Dollar was very valuable, but somehow didn't know it was illegal to own, ignorance of the law comes into play A person arrested for attempting to buy crack could not successfully claim that they didn't know crack was illegal.

 

[coinman_23885]

I can see your conflict which basically boils down to "if you have to make them (presumably with dies which you should not possess?) at least stamp copy on them. Meaning, according to the HPA, which is fully backed by the law, its OK to possess similitude dies (In conflict with the USC) to manufacture coins as long as you note that they are copies.

 

None of which would help a legal challenge as applied to his coins which aren't marked as copies, which is also the only reason his otherwise outstanding work is drawing critics.

Actually, his outstanding work is drawing critics excatly the same way that the coin below was "criticized":

 

 

Discarded US Mint dies, reworked and used to "privately" strike 1804 Cents with the reverse of 1820 Cents.

 

Yet, today, fully collectible.

 

Which is nothing like Carr 's use of homemade dies not produced by the Mint that carry the design and inscription of genuine US coins.

[coinman_23885]

 

I'm saying that these are not "counterfeits". So the counterfeiting laws are not applicable, and the quantity of apparent legal tender extant has not been diluted because these "1964-D" Peace Silver Dollars are over-struck on existing legal-tender dollar coins.

 

Call them whatever you like, the language covers coins and dies that carry U.S. coin designs and inscriptions. It still falls within the plain meaning of the statute. You are reading things into the statute that are not there.

 

And I also find no legal basis in the plain meaning of 18 USC 485-489 that would suggest that the counterfeiting or other unauthorized imitations of US numismatic coins as opposed to other coins are excepted as suggested by 19yds.

 

The third statement is not accurate although it legally is a question for a jury or other fact finder. I believe I have seen your Peace Dollar coins sell for more than $300, which is not a trivial sum for an imitation at best and counterfeit at worst. The reasonableness question is one of whether a lay person could believe that the coin was issued by the Mint in that state. That is how the statutes are written. I love your strawman arguments. Nowhere do the statutes require proof of actual harm.

 

"Reasonably purport to be an original numismatic item" means that the statutes do require that a reasonable person could potentially be harmed.

 

Suppose a hypothetical person was somehow convinced to spend way too much money for a "1964-D" over-strike Peace Silver Dollar. And then they sue to recover their losses. My points would be as follows:

 

1) Why did the person spend so much money for the coin ?

Because they had some knowledge of the story of the original 1964-D Peace Silver Dollars. If the person didn't have any specific knowledge of the 1964-D Peace Silver Dollars, but they spent a lot for one anyway, then they could have just as easily been fooled into spending a lot for any ordinary genuine coin such as a 1962-D cent.

2) If they had knowledge of the original 1964-D Peace Silver Dollars, why would they spend a lot of money for a coin that is illegal to own ? If a person buys something illegal like "crack", if the crack turns out to be fake, they can't successfully sue to get some real crack or their money back.

3) If a person knew enough to think that a "1964-D" Peace Silver Dollar was very valuable, but somehow didn't know it was illegal to own, ignorance of the law comes into play A person arrested for attempting to buy crack could not successfully claim that they didn't know crack was illegal.

 

You can't possibly know that, and the statute is to prevent potential abuse. And ignorance of the law by your consumers doesn't make you any less culpable. Yet another logically fallacious strawman argument contrived by you.

 

 

[CaptHenway]

Technical question: How many different reverse dies did you use, and do all of them have a repunched mint mark?

 

There was a total of five different reverse dies.

Of those, two were used only for tests and one was defaced and scrapped without being used. All of the coins released were struck from two reverse dies, both of which had a re-punched mint mark.

 

Thank you.

[dcarr]

I'm saying that these are not "counterfeits". So the counterfeiting laws are not applicable, and the quantity of apparent legal tender extant has not been diluted because these "1964-D" Peace Silver Dollars are over-struck on existing legal-tender dollar coins.

 

Call them whatever you like, the language covers coins and dies that carry U.S. coin designs and inscriptions. It still falls within the plain meaning of the statute. You are reading things into the statute that are not there.

 

The Government's own interpretation of the statutes indicates that they do not see a problem with possessing molds or dies in the likeness of US coins so long as they aren't used for fraudulent purposes. I say that because I know of no legitimate replica coin maker that has ever been charged with violating 18 U.S.C. 487.

 

And I also find no legal basis in the plain meaning of 18 USC 485-489 that would suggest that the counterfeiting or other unauthorized imitations of US numismatic coins as opposed to other coins are excepted as suggested by 19yds.

 

I think what 19lyds was trying to point out (in part) is that non-official coins are collected and they can have significant value. Another recent but similar example to the privately-minted 1802 Large Cents is the Carson City Morgan Dollar re-strikes. After finding some old cancelled and buried dies in Carson City next to the Mint building, they were put to use striking some unofficial "1884-CC" Morgan Dollars.

 

"Reasonably purport to be an original numismatic item" means that the statutes do require that a reasonable person could potentially be harmed.

 

... the statute is to prevent potential abuse.

 

That is what I just said.

 

And ignorance of the law by your consumers doesn't make you any less culpable. Yet another logically fallacious strawman argument contrived by you.

 

I was not talking about my consumers. They are perfectly aware of what they are buying - I go to great lengths to ensure that.

 

The question is about whether or not a hypothetical "reasonable person" could potentially be harmed if they thought that a "1964-D" over-strike Peace Dollar is an original. If this person is ignorant of the law, then that disqualifies them as being a "reasonable person".

 

[CaptHenway]

The 1964 Peace Dollars were produced more than 30 years after the 1933 Saints. And it hasn't been nearly that long since the Langbord pieces surfaced. Also, if an individual owned and had pictures of a 1964 Peace Dollar, it would be foolish to publicize them.

 

If a person only had a picture of a 1964 Peace Dollar, not any actual coin, then there would be no risk to them in publicizing the picture.

 

Chatting with Carl Carlson at an ANA convention one year, he told me that he once photographed a 1933 $20 for a client who wished to remain anonymous. The client got all the prints and the negatives. I suspect that it is the mystery piece illustrated in one of the 1933 $20 books that does not match any of the publicly known specimens. Whether or not this is so, and the identity of the client, died with Carl.

 

I don't know what would happen if somebody were to mail me a print of a genuine 1964-D dollar specimen and I were to use it in an article. I suspect that the Secret Service or the Mint Police would come a-calling asking for the envelope it came in. Since it has not happened, I am not going to worry about it.

 

TD

[CaptHenway]

I can see your conflict which basically boils down to "if you have to make them (presumably with dies which you should not possess?) at least stamp copy on them. Meaning, according to the HPA, which is fully backed by the law, its OK to possess similitude dies (In conflict with the USC) to manufacture coins as long as you note that they are copies.

 

None of which would help a legal challenge as applied to his coins which aren't marked as copies, which is also the only reason his otherwise outstanding work is drawing critics.

Actually, his outstanding work is drawing critics excatly the same way that the coin below was "criticized":

 

 

Discarded US Mint dies, reworked and used to "privately" strike 1804 Cents with the reverse of 1820 Cents.

 

Yet, today, fully collectible.

 

Here's an interesting question........if I were to use my Wayback Machine to go back and buy these dies from Mickley after he were done with them, bring them to now and use them to make a "Second Restrike," would they be subject to the provisions of the Hobby Protection Act of 1973? Obviously Mickley was not subject to the HPA of 1973, but times have changed.

[MarkFeld]

I'm saying that these are not "counterfeits". So the counterfeiting laws are not applicable, and the quantity of apparent legal tender extant has not been diluted because these "1964-D" Peace Silver Dollars are over-struck on existing legal-tender dollar coins.

 

Call them whatever you like, the language covers coins and dies that carry U.S. coin designs and inscriptions. It still falls within the plain meaning of the statute. You are reading things into the statute that are not there.

 

The Government's own interpretation of the statutes indicates that they do not see a problem with possessing molds or dies in the likeness of US coins so long as they aren't used for fraudulent purposes. I say that because I know of no legitimate replica coin maker that has ever been charged with violating 18 U.S.C. 487.

 

And I also find no legal basis in the plain meaning of 18 USC 485-489 that would suggest that the counterfeiting or other unauthorized imitations of US numismatic coins as opposed to other coins are excepted as suggested by 19yds.

 

I think what 19lyds was trying to point out (in part) is that non-official coins are collected and they can have significant value. Another recent but similar example to the privately-minted 1802 Large Cents is the Carson City Morgan Dollar re-strikes. After finding some old cancelled and buried dies in Carson City next to the Mint building, they were put to use striking some unofficial "1884-CC" Morgan Dollars.

 

"Reasonably purport to be an original numismatic item" means that the statutes do require that a reasonable person could potentially be harmed.

 

... the statute is to prevent potential abuse.

 

That is what I just said.

 

And ignorance of the law by your consumers doesn't make you any less culpable. Yet another logically fallacious strawman argument contrived by you.

 

I was not talking about my consumers. They are perfectly aware of what they are buying - I go to great lengths to ensure that.

 

The question is about whether or not a hypothetical "reasonable person" could potentially be harmed if they thought that a "1964-D" over-strike Peace Dollar is an original. If this person is ignorant of the law, then that disqualifies them as being a "reasonable person".

 

I don't think ignorance of the law (to which you make reference) automatically disqualifies someone from being considered a "reasonable person". There are countless extremely reasonable persons who are ignorant about a great many laws.

[dcarr]

I can see your conflict which basically boils down to "if you have to make them (presumably with dies which you should not possess?) at least stamp copy on them. Meaning, according to the HPA, which is fully backed by the law, its OK to possess similitude dies (In conflict with the USC) to manufacture coins as long as you note that they are copies.

 

None of which would help a legal challenge as applied to his coins which aren't marked as copies, which is also the only reason his otherwise outstanding work is drawing critics.

Actually, his outstanding work is drawing critics excatly the same way that the coin below was "criticized":

 

 

Discarded US Mint dies, reworked and used to "privately" strike 1804 Cents with the reverse of 1820 Cents.

 

Yet, today, fully collectible.

 

Here's an interesting question........if I were to use my Wayback Machine to go back and buy these dies from Mickley after he were done with them, bring them to now and use them to make a "Second Restrike," would they be subject to the provisions of the Hobby Protection Act of 1973? Obviously Mickley was not subject to the HPA of 1973, but times have changed.

 

When Mickley made those re-strikes, had 18 USC 485-487 been enacted yet ?

And, at the time, were large cents valid legal tender (there was a time when they weren't) ?

 

If those dies were used today it would be a similar situation to the recent unofficial "1884-CC" strikes from original dies.

[dcarr]

I don't think ignorance of the law (to which you make reference) automatically disqualifies someone from being considered a "reasonable person". There are countless extremely reasonable persons who are ignorant about a great many laws.

 

True. But what I'm getting it is, it would be very unlikely for a person to know that a "1964-D" Peace Dollar could be worth a lot of money, while simultaneously not knowing that it would be illegal to own (if original).

 

 

[coinman_23885]

When Mickley made those re-strikes, had 18 USC 485-487 been enacted yet ?

 

No. See the legislative history for 18 USC 485, 487, and 489 below (at the end of this post). Even the predecessor statutes seem to post date those. NGC has a blurb about these restrikes in its coin explorer, dating them to approximately the 1850s when such coins weren't even considered legal tender.

 

And, at the time, were large cents valid legal tender (there was a time when they weren't) ?

 

I believe Walter Breen had the date listed as 1965.

 

If those dies were used today it would be a similar situation to the recent unofficial "1884-CC" strikes from original dies.

 

Those were struck using original genuine U.S. Mint dies, yours aren't. And if you did have original 1964 D Peace Dollar dies then the U.S. Secret Service would definitely be paying you a visit.

 

 

 

 

 

[coinman_23885]

The Government's own interpretation of the statutes indicates that they do not see a problem with possessing molds or dies in the likeness of US coins so long as they aren't used for fraudulent purposes. I say that because I know of no legitimate replica coin maker that has ever been charged with violating 18 U.S.C. 487.

 

You have proffered no evidence that the government assumes the position you have attributed to it and there is no intent element in the HPA or the portions of the criminal statutes cited in 18 USC 485-489 against your argument. The only evidence of an intent element cited by you was for a different criminal statute. Different crimes, even if similar, can have different elements. There is nothing in the plain meaning of any of those statutes that exempts your wares.

 

Legal Disclaimer: Everything contained in this post is clearly opinion except for the plain meaning of the statutes that speaks for itself.

[RWB]

All legitimate replica coin makers put "COPY" on their products in compliance with the law.

[MarkFeld]

I don't think ignorance of the law (to which you make reference) automatically disqualifies someone from being considered a "reasonable person". There are countless extremely reasonable persons who are ignorant about a great many laws.

 

True. But what I'm getting it is, it would be very unlikely for a person to know that a "1964-D" Peace Dollar could be worth a lot of money, while simultaneously not knowing that it would be illegal to own (if original).

 

 

Even such knowledge on the part of the buyer might not or probably wouldn't give you an out.