Near Counterfeit?

[MJ]

300

[CaptHenway]

300

 

Beer frame!

[19Lyds]

 

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.

 

No. The statute was written to prosecute "actual" abuse by folks shaving gold and silver coins, creating somewhat acceptable substitute coinage of foreign countries, which were widely used, and preying upon the ignorant yet at the same time, disrupting the economy and trust in US Coins and US Banking system.

[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.

 

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.

Not even close my friend.

 

The dies were scrapped and picked up by a private individual who then privately coined his own "fantasy" coins.

 

Almost exactly the same with the exception that real coins weren't used.

 

Or were they?

 

[19Lyds]

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.

Not really Mark. Presuming the coin was pilfered from the US Mint in Denver, then it would have been acquired for zero cost.

 

A person certainly could not use it as collateral for a loan so, zero dollars would be tied up in the coin.

 

Confiscation would be followed with encapsulation and storage in Fort Knox or as a display in the NNC at the Smithsonian.

 

It's really too bad that these "trial strikes" weren't saved for the NNC.

[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?

 

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

I was under the impression that the branch mints punched the mm's. But, its neither here nor there as I was just tossing my thoughts out.

[19Lyds]

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.

Especially with today's technology where digital identifying information can be located and removed without affecting the digital image.

[19Lyds]

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.

A neutered digital image could easily be given to a member of the press who is not required by law to reveal the source of the information received. Especially when human life in not in imminent danger or where National Security in not being compromised.

 

Many. many methods exist whereby information can be leaked without revealing the source of that information.

 

Cas in Point: The Saddle Ridge couple.

[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.

 

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.

The HPA wasn't the point of the post Tom.

 

The point of the post was that fantasy coins have been struck in the past, rejected by collectors of the time, yet accepted by collectors (and TPG's) of today.

 

Obviously, the coin created "did not exist" and since it was manufactured for "collectors", presented no harm to the government of economy of that time.

 

For whatever reason, someone decided that it was an OK thing to do.

 

Kinda like the fella that coined up the 1913 Liberty Nickels, which technically were not "issued" by the US Mint nor US Government but which are today traded publically.

 

Where is USC 18 Sec 245 in the case of those coins??

 

(Waiting for TDN to chime in)

 

[19Lyds]

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

On the "coins" Roger, not the "dies" which would make the manufacturers of the die's subject to prosecution which is Daniels point.

[19Lyds]

Sorry, I've been out all day.........

[RWB]

Some put them on the dies. The Gallery Mint was the only major one who applied them to each piece - location depended on the purchaser's request.

 

Sorry to be inattentive; I haven't seen a "point" to the ducks quacking or cars honking. It's all clear and evident, like the Colorado sky or mountains to the west of Denver.

 

[MJ]

Some put them on the dies. The Gallery Mint was the only major one who applied them to each piece - location depended on the purchaser's request.

 

Sorry to be inattentive; I haven't seen a "point" to the ducks quacking or cars honking. It's all clear and evident, like the Colorado sky or mountains to the west of Denver.

 

I totally agree. I can't for the life of me figure out why some people would want to put "copy" on something that isn't a copy. Very clear and evident.

 

Well stated Roger. Carry on.

 

MJ

[19Lyds]

Some put them on the dies. The Gallery Mint was the only major one who applied them to each piece - location depended on the purchaser's request.

 

Sorry to be inattentive; I haven't seen a "point" to the ducks quacking or cars honking. It's all clear and evident, like the Colorado sky or mountains to the west of Denver.

 

I totally agree. I can't for the life of me figure out why some people would have to put "copy" on something that isn't a copy. Very clear and evident.

 

Well stated Roger. Carry on.

 

MJ

Bless you again MJ!

[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.

The HPA wasn't the point of the post Tom.

 

The point of the post was that fantasy coins have been struck in the past, rejected by collectors of the time, yet accepted by collectors (and TPG's) of today.

 

Obviously, the coin created "did not exist" and since it was manufactured for "collectors", presented no harm to the government of economy of that time.

 

For whatever reason, someone decided that it was an OK thing to do.

 

Kinda like the fella that coined up the 1913 Liberty Nickels, which technically were not "issued" by the US Mint nor US Government but which are today traded publically.

 

Where is USC 18 Sec 245 in the case of those coins??

 

(Waiting for TDN to chime in)

 

Sometimes people use an existing post to raise a new question.

[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.

I was under the impression that the branch mints punched the mm's. But, its neither here nor there as I was just tossing my thoughts out.

 

Back then the dies were made and the mint marks, if any, applied in Philadelphia.

[coinman_23885]

The point of the post was that fantasy coins have been struck in the past, rejected by collectors of the time, yet accepted by collectors (and TPG's) of today.

 

Collector perception or TPG recognition of "collectibility" is immaterial. Both groups can proclaim these as collectible, but it is within the sovereign authority of the government to pass and interpret laws regulating its coinage and items which carry the likeness of U.S. coins. There is nothing here to suggest that the federal government has adopted Carr's interpretation.

 

Obviously, the coin created "did not exist" and since it was manufactured for "collectors", presented no harm to the government of economy of that time.

 

For whatever reason, someone decided that it was an OK thing to do.

 

This is unsupported opinion and the Mickley coins were restrikes of coins that were not even legal tender at the time and BEFORE the enactment of the statutes I cited. And the use of abandoned genuine dies is distinguishable from what Carr is doing which involves the use of homemade dies that carry the likeness of U.S. coin design and inscriptions. I don't see why that distinction seems to be ignored especially in light of 18 USC 487.

 

I also find it interesting that the people who ignore these distinctions and defend Carr's work are those that have, in my opinion, a pecuniary interest should the Secret Service determine these to be counterfeits. If they are determined to be counterfeit then again it would seem (in my opinion) that the pieces would be subject to being confiscated by the U.S. Secret Service.

 

Kinda like the fella that coined up the 1913 Liberty Nickels, which technically were not "issued" by the US Mint nor US Government but which are today traded publically.

 

Where is USC 18 Sec 245 in the case of those coins??

 

Again see the distinction made above. And as is becoming the norm here, you are comparing apples and oranges. And to be clear, I agree that the 1913 Liberty Nickels might be problematic legally insofar as the pieces were never officially issued, but it is not for the reasons that I opine that Carr's pieces are problematic.

 

And no one here cited 18 USC 245.

[coinman_23885]

I totally agree. I can't for the life of me figure out why some people would want to put "copy" on something that isn't a copy. Very clear and evident.

 

Well stated Roger. Carry on.

 

MJ

 

Regardless of whether the coins are copies in the strict sense of the term, the coins carry the likeness of U.S. coins in design or inscription and must be marked as such based on statutory language - that's the argument.

[coinman_23885]

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

On the "coins" Roger, not the "dies" which would make the manufacturers of the die's subject to prosecution which is Daniels point.

 

If COPY is not placed directly on the dies, then Dan is correct that prosecution is plausible under the statutes, but is unlikely to occur because the makers ultimately complied with the HPA and marked the pieces as copies. It is more likely that the government is either unaware of this or are willing to overlook the dies since the pieces struck comply with the HPA. None of which, provides a legal defense for violation of the statute. The government is not required to pursue every violation. In my opinion (and presumably others in this thread), since Carr's pieces are not marked, they pose a threat in the secondary market.

[dcarr]

The point of the post was that fantasy coins have been struck in the past, rejected by collectors of the time, yet accepted by collectors (and TPG's) of today.

 

Collector perception or TPG recognition of "collectibility" is immaterial. Both groups can proclaim these as collectible, but it is within the sovereign authority of the government to pass and interpret laws regulating its coinage and items which carry the likeness of U.S. coins. There is nothing here to suggest that the federal government has adopted Carr's interpretation.

 

The last sentence above ignores the facts:

There certainly is something to suggest how the Government interprets the various laws as a whole.

 

Since 1973 I am aware of only two cases where the Government intervened in the production and marketing of privately-minted pieces:

 

1) The Washington Mint was sued for copyright infringement for making enlarged copies of the Sacagawea Dollar obverse. That is one of the few US coin designs that is actually copyrighted.

 

2) Bernard VonNothaus (the "Liberty Dollar" organization) was convicted of "counterfeiting" because they attempted to place their tokens into commerce as legal tender. The coins didn't look much like any actual US Coins, however. But note that Sunshine Minting, who made and posessed the dies, and struck the tokens, was never charged with anything.

 

Out of all the "replica" US coins made since 1973 (such as some I've already posted earlier in this thread), including many NOT marked "COPY", I do not know of a single one that was charged for possessing molds or dies in the likeness of US coins.

 

Can you point to any case since 1973 where a novelty coin maker (not involved in fraudulent activity) was charged with violating 18 U.S.C 487 (possessing molds or dies in the likeness of US coins) ?

[dcarr]

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

On the "coins" Roger, not the "dies" which would make the manufacturers of the die's subject to prosecution which is Daniels point.

 

If COPY is not placed directly on the dies, then Dan is correct that prosecution is plausible under the statutes, but is unlikely to occur because the makers ultimately complied with the HPA and marked the pieces as copies. It is more likely that the government is either unaware of this or are willing to overlook the dies since the pieces struck comply with the HPA. None of which, provides a legal defense for violation of the statute. The government is not required to pursue every violation. In my opinion (and presumably others in this thread), since Carr's pieces are not marked, they pose a threat in the secondary market.

 

There have been many "replica" coins made since 1973 that are not marked "COPY". They were made using dies that, in part, were similar or nearly identical to US coins. There is one that is being widely marketed on TV currently.

 

PS: You are wrong that my pieces are not marked. They ARE clearly marked, with a date that doesn't exist otherwise for that type.

[dcarr]

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

On the "coins" Roger, not the "dies" which would make the manufacturers of the die's subject to prosecution which is Daniels point.

 

If COPY is not placed directly on the dies, then Dan is correct that prosecution is plausible under the statutes, but is unlikely to occur because the makers ultimately complied with the HPA and marked the pieces as copies. It is more likely that the government is either unaware of this or are willing to overlook the dies since the pieces struck comply with the HPA. None of which, provides a legal defense for violation of the statute. The government is not required to pursue every violation. In my opinion (and presumably others in this thread), since Carr's pieces are not marked, they pose a threat in the secondary market.

 

Consider this:

 

All the replicas made since 1973, where "COPY" was in the die that was used to strike the pieces, few or any of those replicas had "COPY" on BOTH sides. This means that for every replica coin type made, the maker had one die WITHOUT "COPY" on it.

[CaptHenway]

The point of the post was that fantasy coins have been struck in the past, rejected by collectors of the time, yet accepted by collectors (and TPG's) of today.

 

Collector perception or TPG recognition of "collectibility" is immaterial. Both groups can proclaim these as collectible, but it is within the sovereign authority of the government to pass and interpret laws regulating its coinage and items which carry the likeness of U.S. coins. There is nothing here to suggest that the federal government has adopted Carr's interpretation.

 

The last sentence above ignores the facts:

There certainly is something to suggest how the Government interprets the various laws as a whole.

 

Since 1973 I am aware of only two cases where the Government intervened in the production and marketing of privately-minted pieces:

 

1) The Washington Mint was sued for copyright infringement for making enlarged copies of the Sacagawea Dollar obverse. That is one of the few US coin designs that is actually copyrighted.

 

2) Bernard VonNothaus (the "Liberty Dollar" organization) was convicted of "counterfeiting" because they attempted to place their tokens into commerce as legal tender. The coins didn't look much like any actual US Coins, however. But note that Sunshine Minting, who made and posessed the dies, and struck the tokens, was never charged with anything.

 

Out of all the "replica" US coins made since 1973 (such as some I've already posted earlier in this thread), including many NOT marked "COPY", I do not know of a single one that was charged for possessing molds or dies in the likeness of US coins.

 

Can you point to any case since 1973 where a novelty coin maker (not involved in fraudulent activity) was charged with violating 18 U.S.C 487 (possessing molds or dies in the likeness of US coins) ?

 

According to the highest court of the land, the collective mothers of America, "but everybody else is doing it!" is not a valid justification of an action..

 

 

[mommam17]

What really surprises me about these D Carr coins is their popularity. Collectors buy them and talk about future coins he will make. I would not own one myself and wonder what % of collectors like them?

[CaptHenway]

What really surprises me about these D Carr coins is their popularity. Collectors buy them and talk about future coins he will make. I would not own one myself and wonder what % of collectors like them?

 

I like his original work. See the thread ATS with the Panama Canal medal. Great design.

 

I have no problem with him. We just have a serious difference of opinion on one particular segment of his work.

 

Everybody on both sides of that issue needs to chill out. Believe what you believe, but remember that in the great scheme of things, this is a small matter.

 

TD

[19Lyds]

The point of the post was that fantasy coins have been struck in the past, rejected by collectors of the time, yet accepted by collectors (and TPG's) of today.

 

Collector perception or TPG recognition of "collectibility" is immaterial. Both groups can proclaim these as collectible, but it is within the sovereign authority of the government to pass and interpret laws regulating its coinage and items which carry the likeness of U.S. coins. There is nothing here to suggest that the federal government has adopted Carr's interpretation.

 

Obviously, the coin created "did not exist" and since it was manufactured for "collectors", presented no harm to the government of economy of that time.

 

For whatever reason, someone decided that it was an OK thing to do.

 

This is unsupported opinion and the Mickley coins were restrikes of coins that were not even legal tender at the time and BEFORE the enactment of the statutes I cited. And the use of abandoned genuine dies is distinguishable from what Carr is doing which involves the use of homemade dies that carry the likeness of U.S. coin design and inscriptions. I don't see why that distinction seems to be ignored especially in light of 18 USC 487.

 

I also find it interesting that the people who ignore these distinctions and defend Carr's work are those that have, in my opinion, a pecuniary interest should the Secret Service determine these to be counterfeits. If they are determined to be counterfeit then again it would seem (in my opinion) that the pieces would be subject to being confiscated by the U.S. Secret Service.

 

Kinda like the fella that coined up the 1913 Liberty Nickels, which technically were not "issued" by the US Mint nor US Government but which are today traded publically.

 

Where is USC 18 Sec 245 in the case of those coins??

 

Again see the distinction made above. And as is becoming the norm here, you are comparing apples and oranges. And to be clear, I agree that the 1913 Liberty Nickels might be problematic legally insofar as the pieces were never officially issued, but it is not for the reasons that I opine that Carr's pieces are problematic.

 

And no one here cited 18 USC 245.

Well gosh. What can I say?

 

I mean, its only been, what, more than FOUR years since these were produced and sold with the Secret Service, US Treasury, FTC being notified??

 

Do you suppose that the Secret Service is REALLY that dumb to have not initiated some sort of action? Like maybe contacting the US Attorney and issuing a cease and desist like the US Treasury did following the use of the "America the Beautiful" roll and slabs scenario??

[coinman_23885]

I mean, its only been, what, more than FOUR years since these were produced and sold with the Secret Service, US Treasury, FTC being notified??

 

Do you suppose that the Secret Service is REALLY that dumb to have not initiated some sort of action? Like maybe contacting the US Attorney and issuing a cease and desist like the US Treasury did following the use of the "America the Beautiful" roll and slabs scenario??

 

How long were the NORFED people under investigation before charges were brought?

[19Lyds]

I mean, its only been, what, more than FOUR years since these were produced and sold with the Secret Service, US Treasury, FTC being notified??

 

Do you suppose that the Secret Service is REALLY that dumb to have not initiated some sort of action? Like maybe contacting the US Attorney and issuing a cease and desist like the US Treasury did following the use of the "America the Beautiful" roll and slabs scenario??

 

How long were the NORFED people under investigation before charges were brought?

Fairly quickly after a man was arrested for trying to use one of the Liberty Dollars at a merchant, tht was supposed to accept them, called the police.

 

I cannot find the actual news article but I distinctly remember that this action brought the Liberty Dollar into the limelight.

 

NORFED was closed down shortly after this.

[coinman_23885]

From the best I can tell, the number is closer to 3 years or more since production.

[Kurtdog]

This thread has a lot of words in it.

Big words, too. I love it when they use those.