Near Counterfeit?

[CaptHenway]

"...harm the hobby."

 

Who? How? Why?

 

Could be argued some gratuitously violent shows, "harm society", yet if they're legal to produce and then distribute, I simply change the channel.

 

No one has specifically stated how collecting overstruck minted coins is a danger to anyone and no one has pointed out where these are illegal to mint and sell and collect.

 

Boils down to personal taste, followed up with then attempting to dictate to others based on that opinion.

 

Counterfeits usually end up in the hands of unknowing buyers. Once or if they find out what they really have, they might stop buying/enjoying coins and/or exit the hobby. And some of those who are aware of the vast number of counterfeits making the rounds are negatively impacted as well - at a minimum, with respect to their enjoyment of the hobby.

 

I am opposed to the Carr coins BUT, I am not convinced that they should be deemed counterfeits. And I sure wouldn't tell collectors they shouldn't buy them - that's their choice.

 

This has been my experience. Sooner or later somebody gets hurt, and they will have nothing to do with coins ever after.

 

As to whether or not the Carr pieces should be called "counterfeits" or not, we respectfully disagree.

 

The fact that his legal tender design pieces show dates that were never struck (except for the 1964-D dollar) may not be sufficient reason to make them "fantasies" rather than "counterfeits." There was a story in the news last week about a man in Canada who was making counterfeit U.S. $20 bills for fraudulent circulation. The bills used alpha-numeric district indicators and serial number prefixes that the Bureau of Engraving and Printing never ever used, but in the eyes of the Secret Service that did not make the bills not counterfeit.

 

The fact that his legal tender design pieces are struck over other legal tender coins would be a good defense should the Secret Service ever decide to make an issue of his legal tender design strikes. I have seen a numismatic counterfeit coin (a 1909-SVDB cent) struck over a later date Lincoln cent with obvious intent to defraud, but I have no idea what a jury of non-numismatists would think of either it or a 1975 quarter.

 

There is language in the U.S. statutes that would appear to me to make his legal tender design dies illegal to possess, but again one never knows what a jury would decide.

 

This is not a holy cause to me, and I do not intend to lose any sleep over it. I am no longer in the counterfeit detection business. I have my opinions, and other people have theirs.

 

TD

[RWB]

Suggestion to those who are "wrapped around the axel" on this subject:

 

Read the U.S. Code (quoted in part on page 4 [?] of this thread, or on line), then examine a genuine coin, then examine one about which one is concerned. Think through the legal language and the item's appearance. If one wants to go further, take the item to a local store and try to buy something with it. Also, consider the purpose of anti-counterfeiting laws and of the Hobby Protection Act.

 

The above is not "proof" - and certainly would not work with an Omega gold fake, but it might help some get past emotional responses and look at reality.

 

[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."

[Conder101]

Well Mark you've found the same argument I made back when the 1964-D Peace dollars first appeared. They are clearly in violation of Sec 489 (unless he has received authorization from the Sec of the Treasury, and I don't count not being arrested or failing to receive a cease and desist order as being proper authorization.) and also in my opinion the HPA.

[MarkFeld]

Well Mark you've found the same argument I made back when the 1964-D Peace dollars first appeared. They are clearly in violation of Sec 489 (unless he has received authorization from the Sec of the Treasury, and I don't count not being arrested or failing to receive a cease and desist order as being proper authorization.) and also in my opinion the HPA.

 

Thanks. Do you think it could fairly be argued that the item is not being "made", but is instead, being altered, and thus is not in violation?

[Afterword]

"The anti-counterfeiting laws passed by Congress begin rather tersely: “[w]however, with the intent to defraud, falsely makes, forges, counterfeits, or alters any obligation or other security of the United States, shall be fined…or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.” The terms “obligation or other security” include United States currency. (18 U.S.C.A. § 471.) In order for a bogus bill to be counterfeit, it must be similar enough to the authentic bill so as to confuse an ordinary, unsuspecting person."

 

Such as above, the only references I can find, regarding the matter in question, clearly state that intention plays a key roll in determining whether or not something is counterfeit.

 

"Anyone who buys , sell or exchanges counterfeit obligations of the United States with the intent that they be passed off as genuine, is in violation of Title 18 section 473 of the United States Code. A violation of this statute can result in fines and up to 20 years in prison."

 

I would think that those who buy these coins would be the real concern here. Again, depending on their intention.

[Afterword]

"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."

 

The above is referring to counterfeits. They first have to establish that the items in question are indeed counterfeit.

[AHFreak]

It seems to me that we have two very SEPERATE issues that the "DC fantasy coins" may, or may not be considered "in violation of"..

 

1-Counterfeiting- (in the traditional sense of what counterfeiting is-for example, taking an inexpensive metal and making it to what could be passed off as half dollars for instance. These counterfeit half dollars would never have been declared "legal tender" by the authorities, so calling them "counterfeits" is very cut and dry... Counterfeiting obviously has a negative effect on citizens, but at the end of the day, wouldn't it be the U.S. treasury who is being directly defrauded when something is made to represent and be passed off as Legal U.S tender?

 

Clearly DC fantasy pieces couldn't be counterfeit as he is taking a quarter that started as legal U.S. tender in the form of a quarter dollar before he ever does anything to it.... Once altered, it is still a U.S. quarter, legal tender, worth the same .25 in a commerce scenario... The coin in which he is "artistically altering" is/was/always will be... a U.S. quarter worth just .25 Cents in a trade/commerce scenario..

 

2-Hobby Protection Act - the way I interpret it is that it written/enacted in an attempt to address all the numismatic/exonumia related items that have been made/are being made to falsly represent a specific item, that has specific value (whether that value be numismatic or intrinsic.) Seems fairly straight forward that this legislation pertains to items that are exist for the sole purpose of deceiving/defrauding/etc.. items that are based on definition...FAKE- (fake in the sense that they are made for the sole purpose of to be fraudulently passed off sold/traded, as something that they are not), Also HPA specifically declares that for the items that are made as "genuine" reproductions, that they be labeled and stamped/sold/marketed/etc... as such as to not even if inadvertently be misconstrued as "genuine".

 

I personally don't understand how DC fantasy pieces could be unlawful under the HPA for several reasons. They aren't being made to represent something other than exactly what they are. They aren't being made to look like, resemble, or represent something that is of value in any sense... They are not misrepresented when marketed/traded/sold, I could go on if my intentions were to try to convince everyone here that my perspective and thoughts on the matter are the only correct beliefs to have on the issue.. But I know that regardless of what RWB says/thinks/believes, that everyone who has spoken on the matter have simply shared/stated THEIR OWN OPINIONS. Everyone has them... nobody's opinion is right or wrong... they are personal viewpoints and OPINIONS. Above, I wrote out a little bit of detailed perspective as to how I arrive at this specific thought/opinion on the matter....

 

 

Here is a question I have been thinking of for a day or two...

 

Are hobo nickels "counterfeit"? Are they unlawful to create/trade/sell/etc? What if I began making hobo nickels today, and found a willing buyer at an astronomical profit tomorrow? Is that counterfeit? What about a hobo nickel that is altered to the point where the date, or even the denomination is no longer visible in any way shape or form? Is that nickel, that has been altered to the point of being unrecognizable considered a counterfeit because of such alterations? How about this scenario, lets say I use a common date buffalo nickel, and alter it into a fabulous hobo nickel where the date/mintmark/motto/etc is no longer detectable, and then I sell if to a collector who likes my work... what if a decade later, that same collector decides to represent that same nickel as a Key date that has had the date/mintmark removed) and actually finds a buyer dumb enough to get on board with that belief and shell out money accordingly? Then is it a counterfeit? Would that scenario make me a counterfeiter?

 

I personally see and easily compare the DC fantasy pieces to hobo nickels... It is art on a coin... art that is being marketed and represented as such and nothing more... Now, from what I get from reading some of your thoughts, the biggest reason you have an issue with the DC pieces is because of the possibility that some poor collector/buyer will be taken one day down the road because a dishonest insufficiently_thoughtful_person decided to misrepresent the DC fantasy coin as something other than what it is.... My opinion on that, is that removing DC's fantasy pieces and anything else that could be misrep'd one day down the road will do absolutely nothing to remove/eliminate, or even slow down the bad guys. Dishonest people, who prey on unsuspecting buyers, in order to profit, and feed their greed will never ever ever run out of vehicles in which they can use to deceive/defraud/etc.. The way I see it, is if a buyer at any point in time were to ever shell out the money to buy one of DC's fantasy coins as a genuine 1975 U.S quarter, or a 1964 U.S. peace dollar, as if it were some sort of valuable error or crazy anomaly... well, its hard for me personally to feel sorry or bad for a buyer who does that, as it would be very apparent that they didn't do even 15 seconds of research before buying something they literally knew nothing about (15 seconds is all it took me, the first time I saw a 1964 peace dollar... I had never hear of DC's work, all I knew was that there was speculation that there were 1964 peace dollars made, but then they were all destroyed, however, in the event that one, or any survived, it would be extremely rare and valueable today... that's all I knew, and when I saw one of DC's 1964 peace dollars being sold, It took me less than 15 seconds to know what it was). Lets face it, when buying coins... if you don't know what you are doing to some degree, than you will be taken advantage of sooner or later (even if just inadvertently... it WILL happen if you are buying items you are not familiar with). This isn't just the case with coins, this is applicable to any and all things one might purchase in life... To me, anyone who ever buys a DC fantasy piece as a real, genuine U.S. coin because it was being represented as such.. well lets hypothetically remove DC and his coins from existence, take that same buyer but no DC coin to buy... Seems very safe to say (for me anyways) that such a buyer will be taken advantage of regardless of whether its by a DC fantasy coin, a hobo nickel, a gold bar that is only plated, etc...

 

 

 

[MarkFeld]

It seems to me that we have two very SEPERATE issues that the "DC fantasy coins" may, or may not be considered "in violation of"..

 

1-Counterfeiting- (in the traditional sense of what counterfeiting is-for example, taking an inexpensive metal and making it to what could be passed off as half dollars for instance. These counterfeit half dollars would never have been declared "legal tender" by the authorities, so calling them "counterfeits" is very cut and dry... Counterfeiting obviously has a negative effect on citizens, but at the end of the day, wouldn't it be the U.S. treasury who is being directly defrauded when something is made to represent and be passed off as Legal U.S tender?

 

Clearly DC fantasy pieces couldn't be counterfeit as he is taking a quarter that started as legal U.S. tender in the form of a quarter dollar before he ever does anything to it.... Once altered, it is still a U.S. quarter, legal tender, worth the same .25 in a commerce scenario... The coin in which he is "artistically altering" is/was/always will be... a U.S. quarter worth just .25 Cents in a trade/commerce scenario..

 

2-Hobby Protection Act - the way I interpret it is that it written/enacted in an attempt to address all the numismatic/exonumia related items that have been made/are being made to falsly represent a specific item, that has specific value (whether that value be numismatic or intrinsic.) Seems fairly straight forward that this legislation pertains to items that are exist for the sole purpose of deceiving/defrauding/etc.. items that are based on definition...FAKE- (fake in the sense that they are made for the sole purpose of to be fraudulently passed off sold/traded, as something that they are not), Also HPA specifically declares that for the items that are made as "genuine" reproductions, that they be labeled and stamped/sold/marketed/etc... as such as to not even if inadvertently be misconstrued as "genuine".

 

I personally don't understand how DC fantasy pieces could be unlawful under the HPA for several reasons. They aren't being made to represent something other than exactly what they are. They aren't being made to look like, resemble, or represent something that is of value in any sense... They are not misrepresented when marketed/traded/sold, I could go on if my intentions were to try to convince everyone here that my perspective and thoughts on the matter are the only correct beliefs to have on the issue.. But I know that regardless of what RWB says/thinks/believes, that everyone who has spoken on the matter have simply shared/stated THEIR OWN OPINIONS. Everyone has them... nobody's opinion is right or wrong... they are personal viewpoints and OPINIONS. Above, I wrote out a little bit of detailed perspective as to how I arrive at this specific thought/opinion on the matter....

 

 

Here is a question I have been thinking of for a day or two...

 

Are hobo nickels "counterfeit"? Are they unlawful to create/trade/sell/etc? What if I began making hobo nickels today, and found a willing buyer at an astronomical profit tomorrow? Is that counterfeit? What about a hobo nickel that is altered to the point where the date, or even the denomination is no longer visible in any way shape or form? Is that nickel, that has been altered to the point of being unrecognizable considered a counterfeit because of such alterations? How about this scenario, lets say I use a common date buffalo nickel, and alter it into a fabulous hobo nickel where the date/mintmark/motto/etc is no longer detectable, and then I sell if to a collector who likes my work... what if a decade later, that same collector decides to represent that same nickel as a Key date that has had the date/mintmark removed) and actually finds a buyer dumb enough to get on board with that belief and shell out money accordingly? Then is it a counterfeit? Would that scenario make me a counterfeiter?

 

I personally see and easily compare the DC fantasy pieces to hobo nickels... It is art on a coin... art that is being marketed and represented as such and nothing more... Now, from what I get from reading some of your thoughts, the biggest reason you have an issue with the DC pieces is because of the possibility that some poor collector/buyer will be taken one day down the road because a dishonest insufficiently_thoughtful_person decided to misrepresent the DC fantasy coin as something other than what it is.... My opinion on that, is that removing DC's fantasy pieces and anything else that could be misrep'd one day down the road will do absolutely nothing to remove/eliminate, or even slow down the bad guys. Dishonest people, who prey on unsuspecting buyers, in order to profit, and feed their greed will never ever ever run out of vehicles in which they can use to deceive/defraud/etc.. The way I see it, is if a buyer at any point in time were to ever shell out the money to buy one of DC's fantasy coins as a genuine 1975 U.S quarter, or a 1964 U.S. peace dollar, as if it were some sort of valuable error or crazy anomaly... well, its hard for me personally to feel sorry or bad for a buyer who does that, as it would be very apparent that they didn't do even 15 seconds of research before buying something they literally knew nothing about (15 seconds is all it took me, the first time I saw a 1964 peace dollar... I had never hear of DC's work, all I knew was that there was speculation that there were 1964 peace dollars made, but then they were all destroyed, however, in the event that one, or any survived, it would be extremely rare and valueable today... that's all I knew, and when I saw one of DC's 1964 peace dollars being sold, It took me less than 15 seconds to know what it was). Lets face it, when buying coins... if you don't know what you are doing to some degree, than you will be taken advantage of sooner or later (even if just inadvertently... it WILL happen if you are buying items you are not familiar with). This isn't just the case with coins, this is applicable to any and all things one might purchase in life... To me, anyone who ever buys a DC fantasy piece as a real, genuine U.S. coin because it was being represented as such.. well lets hypothetically remove DC and his coins from existence, take that same buyer but no DC coin to buy... Seems very safe to say (for me anyways) that such a buyer will be taken advantage of regardless of whether its by a DC fantasy coin, a hobo nickel, a gold bar that is only plated, etc...

 

 

 

I must disagree with the part of your post I have quoted below:

 

"I personally don't understand how DC fantasy pieces could be unlawful under the HPA for several reasons. They aren't being made to represent something other than exactly what they are. They aren't being made to look like, resemble, or represent something that is of value in any sense."

 

As just one example, Mr. Carr's Peace Dollars dated 1964 "represent something other than exactly what they are". And they are being made "to look like, resemble, or represent something that is of value in any sense", as they resemble but are not 1964 Peace Dollars.

 

As for your analogy to Hobo Nickels - they don't resemble US coins which are of value - or if so, nowhere near the extent that some of Mr. Carr's creations do..

[CaptHenway]

I started working for Coin World in 1973, right after the Hobby Protection Act was passed.

 

Coin World was very actively in support of the HPA. One of the things it was aimed at were alleged Western bars that were being sold at coin shows and flea markets and the like bearing designs and legends, such as for example a stagecoach and "WELLS FARGO," that had never existed in real life.

 

These were now required to have the word "COPY" stamped into them, even though no original of such item ever existed.

[AHFreak]

Mark, I understand your viewpoint. Your statement about the 1964 peace dollar representing something other than what it is.. is thought provoking as I can see how you clearly see it that way, just like I see how someone else could very clearly see it another way... It does seem a bit confusing to me that I see and agree with both sides of the "coin" here... seriously, it is such a grey area that I could see and agree with either side...

 

On one hand, his 1964 peace dollar IS made to represent a 1964 peace dollar, (well to be clear, regardless of why it was made), it certainly represents a genuine 1964 peace dollar in every way shape and form. In my mind that is very clear. Does it make it a violation of the HPA? Im not sure. I don't see how it could unless he starts selling them as a genuine 1964 U.S. peace dollar to unsuspecting buyers...

 

I personally couldn't call it a counterfeit, because it is a genuine U.S. silver dollar, before during and after any alterations..

.

 

DC's "intent" was/is to make a novelty, a fantasy coin... He is very upfront about exactly what it is, and how it came to be... He states very adamantly, what it is, what it isn't and in between. He markets and sells it as such, without misrepresenting it in any way... he isn't deceiving, misleading, or in anyway misrepresenting anything about his fantasy coins.

 

At the same time, I do see how his "coin" certainly does leave the open possibility that one day, someone who isn't honest or upfront and could misrepresent and falsely market and/or trade this novelty item as something other than what it is/was/intended for in order to profit by deceiving/defrauding....

 

So, if someone does this, and misrepresents this thing as a legit U.S. peace dollar dated 1964, sells it for a gross profit by deceiving and defrauding.. Would they be the criminal, or would DC be the criminal?? ? For me, that is a simple answer, but I know many will answer it differently... matter of opinion I guess...

 

It is interesting/fascinating to me that something like this can be so fuzzy and impossible to really outline and define as right/wrong, legal/illegal, moral/immoral, etc..

 

To me it boils down to opinion I suppose. Everyone has one, and it should be respected as such.

 

My opinion is that, rather than eliminate someone such as DC and prevent him from making/selling his fantasy coins in the name of "protecting" vulnerable buyers/collectors.. that we should look at or consider taking a different, more effective approach I believe it is possible to be much more advantageous/helpful to the average collector/buyer/etc if we focused on helping them by actually helping them(via education, tools, knowledgible resources, etc., instead of focusing more on trying to stop the "bad guys" in which there will never be a shortage of... IMO.

[dcarr]

1. There is no debate.

 

Sadly, that appears to be the case here.

 

I have no personal opinion about Mr. Carr.

 

Based on numerous statements you posted, I certainly seems like you have a very intense opinion, and state it quite often. Some of the things you have written seem very strange, like this oddity from the other coin form (in a thread about my over-rstrikes):

 

"Boy meets girl. Boy loses girl. Boy buys big press. Boy makes fake coins. Girl, who is now a Fed Judge, sentences Boy to 10-20 for counterfeiting. Press turns out to be friendly android."

 

2. I have clear opinions about modern counterfeits, fakes and those who make them.

 

Just before this you wrote: "I have no personal opinion about Mr. Carr". So your "clear opinions" do not jive with your "personal opinions" ?

 

3. The U.S. Code is clear. Find a copy and read it for yourself -- if you learned anything from an earlier post it is that you have to do your own research.

 

Coming from a "numismatic researcher" who publishes findings for public consumption, this statement seems ironic.

[dcarr]

Counterfeits usually end up in the hands of unknowing buyers. Once or if they find out what they really have, they might stop buying/enjoying coins and/or exit the hobby.

 

Who is putting the counterfeit coins in the hands of the "unknowing buyers" ?

Often it is a seller who knows exactly what it is, but is not disclosing that fact.

 

Genuine but cleaned or otherwise doctored coins have also had an effect on collecting. The solution for both problems is 3rd party certification. But now even those holders are being faked.

 

I am opposed to the Carr coins BUT, I am not convinced that they should be deemed counterfeits. And I sure wouldn't tell collectors they shouldn't buy them - that's their choice.

 

This has been my experience. Sooner or later somebody gets hurt, and they will have nothing to do with coins ever after.

 

As to whether or not the Carr pieces should be called "counterfeits" or not, we respectfully disagree.

 

The fact that his legal tender design pieces show dates that were never struck (except for the 1964-D dollar) may not be sufficient reason to make them "fantasies" rather than "counterfeits." There was a story in the news last week about a man in Canada who was making counterfeit U.S. $20 bills for fraudulent circulation. The bills used alpha-numeric district indicators and serial number prefixes that the Bureau of Engraving and Printing never ever used, but in the eyes of the Secret Service that did not make the bills not counterfeit.

 

The $20 bills you speak of are not a good analogy for what I do. Those $20 bills were never legal tender, and they were printed and distributed for the purpose of defrauding people while not disclosing what they were.

 

A better analogy might be those colorized (but genuine) US $2 bills that were over-printed with national park vignettes or whatever.

 

There is language in the U.S. statutes that would appear to me to make his legal tender design dies illegal to possess, but again one never knows what a jury would decide.

 

The specific US Code that you refer to was written prior to the Hobby Protection Act (HPA). The HPA implies that molds and/or dies in the likeness of US coins can be utilized because that is how the numismatic replicas allowed by the HPA are made.

 

It all comes down to intent. If the intent is fraudulent, then it is illegal. Note that the US Mint web site emphasizes this, by highlighting (underlining) the word "fraudulently" in the text of 18 U.S.C. 331:

US Mint web site - text of 18 U.S.C. §331

 

(Text as of 2/19/02) 18 U.S.C. §331:

 

Whoever fraudulently alters, defaces, mutilates, impairs, diminishes, falsifies, scales or lightens any of the coins coined at the mints of the United States, or any foreign coins which are by law made current or are in actual use or circulation as money within the United States; or whoever fraudulently possesses, passes, utters, publishes, or sells, or attempts to pass, utter, publish, or sell, or brings into the United States, any such coin, knowing the same to be altered, defaced, mutilated, impaired, diminished, falsified, scaled or lightened - shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. (Emphasis added.)

 

 

[MarkFeld]

Counterfeits usually end up in the hands of unknowing buyers. Once or if they find out what they really have, they might stop buying/enjoying coins and/or exit the hobby.

 

Who is putting the counterfeit coins in the hands of the "unknowing buyers" ?

Often it is a seller who knows exactly what it is, but is not disclosing that fact.

 

Genuine but cleaned or otherwise doctored coins have also had an effect on collecting. The solution for both problems is 3rd party certification. But now even those holders are being faked.

 

I am opposed to the Carr coins BUT, I am not convinced that they should be deemed counterfeits. And I sure wouldn't tell collectors they shouldn't buy them - that's their choice.

 

This has been my experience. Sooner or later somebody gets hurt, and they will have nothing to do with coins ever after.

 

As to whether or not the Carr pieces should be called "counterfeits" or not, we respectfully disagree.

 

The fact that his legal tender design pieces show dates that were never struck (except for the 1964-D dollar) may not be sufficient reason to make them "fantasies" rather than "counterfeits." There was a story in the news last week about a man in Canada who was making counterfeit U.S. $20 bills for fraudulent circulation. The bills used alpha-numeric district indicators and serial number prefixes that the Bureau of Engraving and Printing never ever used, but in the eyes of the Secret Service that did not make the bills not counterfeit.

 

The $20 bills you speak of are not a good analogy for what I do. Those $20 bills were never legal tender, and they were printed and distributed for the purpose of defrauding people while not disclosing what they were.

 

A better analogy might be those colorized (but genuine) US $2 bills that were over-printed with national park vignettes or whatever.

 

There is language in the U.S. statutes that would appear to me to make his legal tender design dies illegal to possess, but again one never knows what a jury would decide.

 

The specific US Code that you refer to was written prior to the Hobby Protection Act (HPA). The HPA implies that molds and/or dies in the likeness of US coins can be utilized because that is how the numismatic replicas allowed by the HPA are made.

 

It all comes down to intent. If the intent is fraudulent, then it is illegal. Note that the US Mint web site emphasizes this, by highlighting (underlining) the word "fraudulently" in the text of 18 U.S.C. 331:

US Mint web site - text of 18 U.S.C. §331

 

(Text as of 2/19/02) 18 U.S.C. §331:

 

Whoever fraudulently alters, defaces, mutilates, impairs, diminishes, falsifies, scales or lightens any of the coins coined at the mints of the United States, or any foreign coins which are by law made current or are in actual use or circulation as money within the United States; or whoever fraudulently possesses, passes, utters, publishes, or sells, or attempts to pass, utter, publish, or sell, or brings into the United States, any such coin, knowing the same to be altered, defaced, mutilated, impaired, diminished, falsified, scaled or lightened - shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. (Emphasis added.)

 

 

As always, you make very good arguments - and I am not being at all facetious. I can't think of a single instance in which you have been other than a gentleman about this, even in the face of heavy heat, criticisms and insults.

[Kurtdog]

It all comes down to intent. If the intent is fraudulent, then it is illegal. Note that the US Mint web site emphasizes this, by highlighting (underlining) the word "fraudulently" in the text of 18 U.S.C. 331:

US Mint web site - text of 18 U.S.C. §331

 

(Text as of 2/19/02) 18 U.S.C. §331:

 

Whoever fraudulently alters, defaces, mutilates, impairs, diminishes, falsifies, scales or lightens any of the coins coined at the mints of the United States, or any foreign coins which are by law made current or are in actual use or circulation as money within the United States; or whoever fraudulently possesses, passes, utters, publishes, or sells, or attempts to pass, utter, publish, or sell, or brings into the United States, any such coin, knowing the same to be altered, defaced, mutilated, impaired, diminished, falsified, scaled or lightened - shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. (Emphasis added.)

Daniel, I think you may be getting intent confused with motive.

 

As always, you make very good arguments - and I am not being at all facetious. I can't think of a single instance in which you have been other than a gentleman about this, even in the face of heavy heat, criticisms and insults.

Mark, I think you may be getting, well, confused.

[Conder101]

Do you think it could fairly be argued that the item is not being "made", but is instead, being altered, and thus is not in violation?

 

Possibly, but Sec 487 makes it illegal to make or possess the dies used to make the items that are in likeness or similitude.

 

 

Sec 487

Whoever, without lawful authority, makes any die, hub, or mold, or any part thereof, either of steel or plaster, or any other substance, in likeness or similitude, as to the design or the inscription thereon, of any die, hub, or mold designated for the coining or making of any of the genuine gold, silver, nickel, bronze, copper, or other coins coined at the mints of the United States; or

 

Whoever, without lawful authority, possesses any such die, hub, or mold, or any part thereof, or permits the same to be used for or in aid of the counterfeiting of any such coins of the United States—

 

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than fifteen years, or both.

 

 

"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."

 

The above is referring to counterfeits. They first have to establish that the items in question are indeed counterfeit.

No you don't, the statute can stand on it's own and you can simply be found in violation of it.

 

On one hand, his 1964 peace dollar IS made to represent a 1964 peace dollar, (well to be clear, regardless of why it was made), it certainly represents a genuine 1964 peace dollar in every way shape and form. In my mind that is very clear. Does it make it a violation of the HPA? Im not sure. I don't see how it could unless he starts selling them as a genuine 1964 U.S. peace dollar to unsuspecting buyers...

He doesn't have to sell them as genuine 1964 dollars, if they represent themselves as such the HPA requires them to be marked with COPY.

 

And sections 487 and 489 do not require fraudulent intent for you to be in violation of them.

[TonerGuy]

Has Dan Carr ever provided a reason why he simply doesnt put "copy" on some of his fantasy pieces ?

 

Ive read his defense of his right to coin these pieces but I cannot remember ever reading an explanation of why he just doesnt add the required verbiage under HPA ?

 

Is it because he believes it would harm the value/price of his "art ?" Or it would in some way impact his "art" negatively ?

 

I guess I am at a lost to understand why he wouldnt since it would appear that simple act would open his product to a much larger market.

 

Why not sell to the masses as opposed to a few thousand collectors ?

 

Nothing against him or his work (which I do find to be very impressive) but I would never purchase one of his overstrikes because of the failure to add "copy" to it - thats my personal feelings. However, I would buy if they comply with the HPA. I might be alone in that feeling but somehow I doubt it.

 

 

 

[19Lyds]

A counterfeit is a copy of an existing known coin or note.

So a Henning nickel isn't a counterfeit, because the US mint never made a 1944 nickel that didn't have a mintmark.

 

Even if it isn't a counterfeit it is still in violation of the HPA because it requires a piece to be marked COPY if it PURPORTS to be a genuine item, and that piece definitely purports to be a 1975 quarter dollar even though none were made.

I don't know much about the Henning Conder. My statement just refers to the normal persons thinking.

Henning Nickels are definitely counterfeit, lots of folks know about them, and they are definitely collectible.

[Afterword]

"No you don't, the statute can stand on it's own and you can simply be found in violation of it."

 

So the prosecutor could tell the judge that he does not have to prove the items in question are counterfeit?

[braddick]

^

Would the Henning Nickels many keep referring to in order to make their argument be considered counterfeits if they were struck over genuine U.S. minted nickels?

[CaptHenway]

Has Dan Carr ever provided a reason why he simply doesnt put "copy" on some of his fantasy pieces ?

 

Ive read his defense of his right to coin these pieces but I cannot remember ever reading an explanation of why he just doesnt add the required verbiage under HPA ?

 

Is it because he believes it would harm the value/price of his "art ?" Or it would in some way impact his "art" negatively ?

 

I guess I am at a lost to understand why he wouldnt since it would appear that simple act would open his product to a much larger market.

 

Why not sell to the masses as opposed to a few thousand collectors ?

 

Nothing against him or his work (which I do find to be very impressive) but I would never purchase one of his overstrikes because of the failure to add "copy" to it - thats my personal feelings. However, I would buy if they comply with the HPA. I might be alone in that feeling but somehow I doubt it.

 

 

 

This is a great question. I would have no objection to the overstrikes if they were marked "COPY" in accordance with the guidelines specified in the Hobby Protection Act.

 

TD

[Afterword]

"I would have no objection to the overstrikes if they were marked "COPY" in accordance with the guidelines specified in the Hobby Protection Act."

 

 

 

It is not really a copy, but is said to be a work of art, so perhaps the artist's initials would suffice.

[CaptHenway]

"I would have no objection to the overstrikes if they were marked "COPY" in accordance with the guidelines specified in the Hobby Protection Act."

 

 

 

It is not really a copy, but is said to be a work of art, so perhaps the artist's initials would suffice.

 

Except for the Statehood quarters that he very nicely designed, I do not think that he can be considered to be the "artist" of any legal tender U.S. coin. All he did was "COPY" somebody else's design(s).

[Afterword]

"Except for the Statehood quarters that he very nicely designed, I do not think that he can be considered to be the "artist" of any legal tender U.S. coin. All he did was "COPY" somebody else's design(s)."

 

He created a coin that never existed by altering the design of a U.S. coin. What is or what is not art is very subjective. Art is created with all kinds of objects that were designed by someone other than the artist. To me, initials would be more appropriate, considering the claim that it is a work of art.

 

I question the motives of this individual and whether or not he created the item in question for art's sake, but I believe he has covered himself in terms of legal prosecution.

[RWB]

“Basil Fawlty: Next contestant, Mrs. Sybil Fawlty from Torquay. Specialist subject - the bleeding obvious.”

 

Very interesting to read the contortions by some who want to condemn some modern counterfeits and justify others, or require some to comply with the HPA but not others.

 

“There's enough material there for an entire conference.”

[Fawlty Towers, II-4]

[19Lyds]

Oh My Gosh!

 

Was too much paid for this Unauthorized Restrike made from discarded US Mint Dies and decried by many prominent collectors of the time?

 

May the folks the created the piece(s) burn in Hell! Muahahahah!

 

BTW, given the price paid I'm sure I'd never, ever, ever, collect coins again! The NERVE!

 

So much "harm" and so little time.................

 

I guess I now need to dump all my Dan Carr coins.

 

Maybe I'll bury them in the ground since I cannot spend them nor risk damaging the hobby any further by reselling them?

 

What to do? What to do?

[BillJones]

"Art" has nothing to do with it. The whole thing is based on the fact that pieces which are not marked "COPY" are easier to sell.

 

I have objected to Carr's copies of U.S. coins for a long time, and mostly heard the same blow-backs you have seen here.

 

I still say that these things are dangerous and detrimental to the hobby. If he put "COPY" on his creations, I would have no objection to them, but he won't. Therefore I join the others who dislike them.

[TonerGuy]

"Art" has nothing to do with it. The whole thing is based on the fact that pieces which are not marked "COPY" are easier to sell.

 

Not to question your knowledge, but I kinda have to...

 

Based on what information did you use to come to the opinion that pieces without the "COPY" are easier to sell ?

 

And why do you think that is ? I would think that more people would buy the pieces marked "COPY" than without just based on the numerous remarks I have seen over the years posted here and ATS lambasting Carr's fantasy pieces.

 

 

[BillJones]

"Art" has nothing to do with it. The whole thing is based on the fact that pieces which are not marked "COPY" are easier to sell.

 

Not to question your knowledge, but I kinda have to...

 

Based on what information did you use to come to the opinion that pieces without the "COPY" are easier to sell ?

 

And why do you think that is ? I would think that more people would buy the pieces marked "COPY" than without just based on the numerous remarks I have seen over the years posted here and ATS lambasting Carr's fantasy pieces.

 

 

The Gallery Mint made many fine copies of classic U.S. coins which had "COPY" included on the piece. Now they are out of business, and I take the problem was they couldn't sell enough of their products to keep going.

 

If Carr put "COPY" on his stuff, would you buy it? Fess up.

 

Unfortunately the Gallery Mint stuff was used for nefarious purposes too. There was a 1794 Gallery Mint cent copy that had the "COPY" effaced from it, and then the piece was "circulated." People thought for a while that it was new Sheldon variety. Despite that I would still defend the Gallery Mint because they obeyed the law.

 

Here is a 1796 Gallery Mint half dollar ... The word "COPY" is fairly well hidden on the reverse. I bought this when I could not afford "the real thing," but it was like kissing your sister, not very sexy.

 

 

And here is an example of the real thing ...

 

[CaptHenway]

"Art" has nothing to do with it. The whole thing is based on the fact that pieces which are not marked "COPY" are easier to sell.

 

Not to question your knowledge, but I kinda have to...

 

Based on what information did you use to come to the opinion that pieces without the "COPY" are easier to sell ?

 

And why do you think that is ? I would think that more people would buy the pieces marked "COPY" than without just based on the numerous remarks I have seen over the years posted here and ATS lambasting Carr's fantasy pieces.

 

 

There have been various people that have posted in the forums (mostly ATS) that have said (I am paraphrasing here, but I believe that I have the sense of the various postings correct) that they would not want to buy a piece that was defaced with the word "COPY" because it would be less aesthetic.

 

I am sure that you could find those comments via the search function.