Near Counterfeit?

[MJ]

"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.

 

I have said this several times ATS and also in this thread.

 

1) No way would I want anything with the word copy on it

 

2) There is absolutely no need to do so on Carr pieces.

 

Mark

[okbustchaser]

^

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?

 

It is my OPINION that no, in that case they would then simply be altered nickels just like hobo nickels. I hold the same OPINION of the Carr pieces.

 

Edit to add: I do not now (nor do I in the foreseeable future plan to) own any of the Carr pieces--not because I consider them counterfeits--but because I don't collect any of the items I've seen him create.

 

 

 

 

 

Now, on the other hand, if he were to do an 1816 half...

[BillJones]

2) There is absolutely no need to do so on Carr pieces.

 

I am VERY disappointed with this attitude among collectors who normally have higher ethical standards.

[dcarr]

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.

 

... the statute can stand on it's own and you can simply be found in violation of it.

 

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

 

I mentioned it previously, but I would like to again point out that section 487 (quoted above) was enacted prior to the Hobby Protection Act (HPA). The two statutes appear to be contradictory. If section 487 was to stand firmly on its own, then EVERY replica coin made since the enactment of 489 would be illegal, including all those marked "COPY". Even things like Indian Head Buffalo silver rounds would be illegal as those are a "likness" to a US coin (2001 Buffallo silver dollar). This because those replica coins are manufactured using a mold or die in the likeness of a US coin.

 

But the HPA specifically allows numismatic replicas to be made, which indicates that molds or dies in the likeness of US Coins are allowed because such molds and dies have been utilized for every one of those replicas. The Feds have not shut down the people that make and advertise on TV those "Gold Buffalo Tribute Proofs" which are in the likness of the US Mint Gold Buffalos. (But note that I don't like the way those "Gold Buffalo Tribute Proofs" are marketed).

[dcarr]

2) There is absolutely no need to do so on Carr pieces.

 

I am VERY disappointed with this attitude among collectors who normally have higher ethical standards.

 

Collecting preferences are like religions. There are probably Muslims that are dissapointed that there are Christian people, and vice-versa.

 

The point being that if you expect people to always have your same preferences, you will in fact be continually very dissapointed.

[dcarr]

^

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?

 

It is my OPINION that no, in that case they would then simply be altered nickels just like hobo nickels. I hold the same OPINION of the Carr pieces.

 

Edit to add: I do not now (nor do I in the foreseeable future plan to) own any of the Carr pieces--not because I consider them counterfeits--but because I don't collect any of the items I've seen him create.

 

 

Now, on the other hand, if he were to do an 1816 half...

 

That was a good point about the Henning Nickels. I agree that if they had been struck over legal-tender US Jefferson Nickels, they would be "altered" and/or "defaced" coins like a "hobo" nickel. By the way, I have a 1944 no-P and a 1939 Henning nickel. I also collect the vintage counterfeit Morgan Silver Dollars (micro-o family). I am listed as the discoverer of the recent 1902-O VAM-92.

 

PS: I did do "1816" over-strike Bust Half Dollars a while ago:

Here is a color-toned one:

[MarkFeld]

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.

 

... the statute can stand on it's own and you can simply be found in violation of it.

 

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

 

I mentioned it previously, but I would like to again point out that section 487 (quoted above) was enacted prior to the Hobby Protection Act (HPA). The two statutes appear to be contradictory. If section 487 was to stand firmly on its own, then EVERY replica coin made since the enactment of 489 would be illegal, including all those marked "COPY". Even things like Indian Head Buffalo silver rounds would be illegal as those are a "likness" to a US coin (2001 Buffallo silver dollar). This because those replica coins are manufactured using a mold or die in the likeness of a US coin.

 

But the HPA specifically allows numismatic replicas to be made, which indicates that molds or dies in the likeness of US Coins are allowed because such molds and dies have been utilized for every one of those replicas. The Feds have not shut down the people that make and advertise on TV those "Gold Buffalo Tribute Proofs" which are in the likness of the US Mint Gold Buffalos.

 

You have probably answered these questions somewhere previously already. But if you don't mind doing so here, I have two questions, which to me, at least, are the crux of the matter:

 

 

1) Is it your position that you are not "altering" or "modifying" "original numismatic items" "in such a manner that it could reasonably purport to be an original numismatic item other than the one which was altered or modified" as per the language below?

 

Sec. 304.1 Terms defined

d) 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. Such term includes an original numismatic item which has been altered or modified in such a manner that it could reasonably purport to be an original numismatic item other than the one which was altered or modified. The term shall not include any re-issue or re-strike of any original numismatic item by the United States or any foreign government.

 

2) Is it your position that you are not "manufacturing" "imitation numismatic items" as per the language below from the Hobby Protection Act?

 

Sec. 304.6 Marking requirements for imitation numismatic items.

 

(a) An imitation numismatic item which is manufactured in the United States, or imported into the United States for introduction into or distribution in commerce, shall be plainly and permanently marked "COPY".

 

 

[TonerGuy]

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 was like kissing your sister, not very sexy.

 

 

I would buy it - depending on price. I never saw the "COPY" version that you posted above and I have to say that I do like it for what it is. I think it would be pretty cool to put together a "COPY" 1796 set.

 

Carr avoided my questions which I will take to mean he really doesnt have an answer and would rather argue than sell more of his pieces. It really makes no sense to me why he doesnt. Even if he believes that he doesnt have to under the current law, it would make sense to make some fantasy pieces with the word "COPY" on them for those of us that would like to buy them but would never buy it without. Seems silly to limit your sales just to prove a point.

 

Oh well....

[dcarr]

Carr avoided my questions which I will take to mean he really doesnt have an answer and would rather argue than sell more of his pieces. It really makes no sense to me why he doesnt. Even if he believes that he doesnt have to under the current law, it would make sense to make some fantasy pieces with the word "COPY" on them for those of us that would like to buy them but would never buy it without. Seems silly to limit your sales just to prove a point.

 

Oh well....

 

I didn't mean to avoid your question, I just got temporarily sidetracked.

Let me provide a little background information as to why I produced my first over-strikes (the "1964-D" Peace Silver Dollars).

 

I was born in Denver not far from the Denver Mint. I have always lived in Colorado. Going around to all the Denver coin shops in the 1970s as a teenager, I remember hearing all the stories about the original 1964-D Peace Dollars. I often thought what it would have been like to be able to catch a brand new 1964-D Peace Dollar right off the press before it fell into the bin of coins. What would it be like to look at such a rare high-grade coin in-hand ? Ever since then, as a collector of Denver mint items, I have wanted an original 1964-D Peace Dollar. But there are three enormous barriers to such ownership:

 

1) Locating one of the original 1964-D Peace Dollars in the first place. (My opinion is that NONE of them escaped melting, which is the government's claim as well).

 

2) If one of the original 1964-D Peace Dollars was available, it would most likely be extremely expensive.

 

3) An original 1964-D Peace Dollar is illegal to own and would be subject to immediate confiscation.

 

Years later when I restored my Denver Mint surplus Grabener coin press, I came upon the idea of finding out what it would be like to hold in my hand a pristine newly-minted "1964-D" Peace Silver Dollar. So I made a few over-strikes for myself. I showed one of them around to some people my coin club meetings and at local coin shows. Quite a few people begged me to sell them one. I debated that in my mind for a while, and researched the legal ramifications of doing so. After about a year, I finally decided to make them available as a limited mintage. They sold out rather quickly.

 

You are the ONLY person I recall ever stating that you would buy one ONLY if it had "COPY" stamped on it. A lot people told me they wouldn't want one with "COPY" on it. When I originally made a few for myself, I didn't want "COPY" on them either.

 

But if you wanted a "1964-D" over-strike Peace Dollar (or any of my other fantasy-date over-strikes), you could buy one, along with a relatively-inexpensive metal-marking character punch set and stamp "COPY" into it yourself.

 

[MJ]

2) There is absolutely no need to do so on Carr pieces.

 

I am VERY disappointed with this attitude among collectors who normally have higher ethical standards.

 

I was raised by two great parents who raised four great kids. I reared two even better kids. I don't lie, cheat or steal. My moral compass is in order. My ethics bar is set very high. Anyone who knows me would vouch for me in this regard.

 

This discussion reminds of of when my Dad used to take me to the Knights of Columbus Hall on Thursday nights as a kid. I used to have to listen to all these old white dudes pontificate on how the world should work and how righteous they were and then if anyone didn't agree with them they must be in the wrong. They used to interpret the law and bend the facts to suit their point of view as well.

 

I'm VERY comfortable with my position.

 

Mark

[CaptHenway]

100

[CaptHenway]

The fact that people do not want something, in this case the mark "COPY," does not mean that they necessarily have to get their way.

 

As a fellow resident of Colorado I do not want my outrageous monthly water bill, but it comes with the territory. Should I decide not to pay the bill because its presence offends me, the utility company would sic the law on me.

 

Should I ever be caught speeding down I-70, I do not want a ticket, but that's the law. The fact that I do not want the ticket is not a defense.

 

I do not want child-proof caps on my aspirin as I do not have any children, but again it is the law. The fact that I do not want the child-proof caps does not exempt me from the law.

[dcarr]

You have probably answered these questions somewhere previously already. But if you don't mind doing so here, I have two questions, which to me, at least, are the crux of the matter:

 

1) Is it your position that you are not "altering" or "modifying" "original numismatic items" "in such a manner that it could reasonably purport to be an original numismatic item other than the one which was altered or modified" as per the language below?

 

Sec. 304.1 Terms defined

d) 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. Such term includes an original numismatic item which has been altered or modified in such a manner that it could reasonably purport to be an original numismatic item other than the one which was altered or modified. The term shall not include any re-issue or re-strike of any original numismatic item by the United States or any foreign government.

 

2) Is it your position that you are not "manufacturing" "imitation numismatic items" as per the language below from the Hobby Protection Act?

 

Sec. 304.6 Marking requirements for imitation numismatic items.

 

(a) An imitation numismatic item which is manufactured in the United States, or imported into the United States for introduction into or distribution in commerce, shall be plainly and permanently marked "COPY".

 

To properly value a coin, the following things must be known:

1) What is it made of ?

2) What country is it from (if any) ?

3) What denomination is it (if any) ?

4) What condition is it in ?

5) What is the date and mint mark (if any) ?

 

As an example, you can't place an accurate value on a Washington Quarter unless you know what the date is. Given the condition and the date and mint mark, you can look up the value in a price guide such as the "Red Book".

But what if the date on the coin doesn't match any of the valid dates that are listed in the price guides ? If that is the case then further research is warranted. All that anyone needs to do is search the internet to easily find information regarding a "1975 Washington Quarter". Since information is readily available which indicates that no "1975" Washington quarters were originally minted, a "1975" Washington quarter does not purport to be an "Original Numismatic Item". Some people might argue that, date aside, it does purport to be an original Washington Quarter type. But in this case, the piece actually is a genuine Washington Quarter type coin (which has been defaced).

 

[dcarr]

The fact that people do not want something, in this case the mark "COPY," does not mean that they necessarily have to get their way.

 

To put it another way, people WANT "1964-D" Peace Dollars without "COPY" on them.

 

As a fellow resident of Colorado I do not want my outrageous monthly water bill, but it comes with the territory. Should I decide not to pay the bill because its presence offends me, the utility company would sic the law on me.

 

Not exactly. They wouldn't send the "law" after you. They would just turn off your water supply. You don't have to pay for something you don't want, except in the case of income taxes and real estate taxes. If you don't pay for something, then you might not get it.

 

Should I ever be caught speeding down I-70, I do not want a ticket, but that's the law. The fact that I do not want the ticket is not a defense.

 

I do not want child-proof caps on my aspirin as I do not have any children, but again it is the law. The fact that I do not want the child-proof caps does not exempt me from the law.

 

The "law" is often contradictory, inconsistent, and/or dumb. Examples:

 

Drivers and passengers in a moving car must always wear seat belts. But motorcycle riders do not have to wear seat belts, and in some states they don't have to wear a helmet.

 

There is no child-proof packaging required for alcohol or tobacco products.

[CaptHenway]

The fact that people do not want something, in this case the mark "COPY," does not mean that they necessarily have to get their way.

 

To put it another way, people WANT "1964-D" Peace Dollars without "COPY" on them.

 

As a fellow resident of Colorado I do not want my outrageous monthly water bill, but it comes with the territory. Should I decide not to pay the bill because its presence offends me, the utility company would sic the law on me.

 

Not exactly. They wouldn't send the "law" after you. They would just turn off your water supply. You don't have to pay for something you don't want, except in the case of income taxes and real estate taxes. If you don't pay for something, then you might not get it.

 

Should I ever be caught speeding down I-70, I do not want a ticket, but that's the law. The fact that I do not want the ticket is not a defense.

 

I do not want child-proof caps on my aspirin as I do not have any children, but again it is the law. The fact that I do not want the child-proof caps does not exempt me from the law.

 

The "law" is often contradictory, inconsistent, and/or dumb. Examples:

 

Drivers and passengers in a moving car must always wear seat belts. But motorcycle riders do not have to wear seat belts, and in some states they don't have to wear a helmet.

 

There is no child-proof packaging required for alcohol or tobacco products.

 

I WANT to be able to buy bourbon without paying the federal tax on it, but that does not mean that I get what I want.

[MarkFeld]

You have probably answered these questions somewhere previously already. But if you don't mind doing so here, I have two questions, which to me, at least, are the crux of the matter:

 

1) Is it your position that you are not "altering" or "modifying" "original numismatic items" "in such a manner that it could reasonably purport to be an original numismatic item other than the one which was altered or modified" as per the language below?

 

Sec. 304.1 Terms defined

d) 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. Such term includes an original numismatic item which has been altered or modified in such a manner that it could reasonably purport to be an original numismatic item other than the one which was altered or modified. The term shall not include any re-issue or re-strike of any original numismatic item by the United States or any foreign government.

 

2) Is it your position that you are not "manufacturing" "imitation numismatic items" as per the language below from the Hobby Protection Act?

 

Sec. 304.6 Marking requirements for imitation numismatic items.

 

(a) An imitation numismatic item which is manufactured in the United States, or imported into the United States for introduction into or distribution in commerce, shall be plainly and permanently marked "COPY".

 

To properly value a coin, the following things must be known:

1) What is it made of ?

2) What country is it from (if any) ?

3) What denomination is it (if any) ?

4) What condition is it in ?

5) What is the date and mint mark (if any) ?

 

As an example, you can't place an accurate value on a Washington Quarter unless you know what the date is. Given the condition and the date and mint mark, you can look up the value in a price guide such as the "Red Book".

But what if the date on the coin doesn't match any of the valid dates that are listed in the price guides ? If that is the case then further research is warranted. All that anyone needs to do is search the internet to easily find information regarding a "1975 Washington Quarter". Since information is readily available which indicates that no "1975" Washington quarters were originally minted, a "1975" Washington quarter does not purport to be an "Original Numismatic Item". Some people might argue that, date aside, it does purport to be an original Washington Quarter type. But in this case, the piece actually is a genuine Washington Quarter type coin (which has been defaced).

 

Thank you.

 

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.".....

 

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.

 

Thanks for your indulgence.

[dcarr]

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.

 

[dcarr]

I WANT to be able to buy bourbon without paying the federal tax on it, but that does not mean that I get what I want.

 

You can legally avoid paying taxes on alcohol by not buying any.

 

But back to the subject -

Collectors wanted to buy my over-strike "1964-D" Peace Dollars without "COPY" on them. Only one person ever indicated that they would only buy one if it had "COPY" stamped on it.

 

Obviously, the government attempts to prevent people from buying things that may be harmful, like "meth", "crack", and plutonium, even though those people may really want it. A "1964-D" over-strike Peace Silver Dollar without "COPY" stamped on it is an entirely different thing.

 

[TonerGuy]

You are the ONLY person I recall ever stating that you would buy one ONLY if it had "COPY" stamped on it. A lot people told me they wouldn't want one with "COPY" on it. When I originally made a few for myself, I didn't want "COPY" on them either.

 

But if you wanted a "1964-D" over-strike Peace Dollar (or any of my other fantasy-date over-strikes), you could buy one, along with a relatively-inexpensive metal-marking character punch set and stamp "COPY" into it yourself.

 

Interesting story and thank you for taking the time to answer.

 

And I am quite surprised by the fact that you say no one wants one with "COPY" on it based on the sheer number of people that think that you should stamp "COPY" on it. But again that doesnt mean they are buyers.

 

And thank you for the interesting suggestion on how to put my own "COPY" stamp on your coins. I wasnt sure you would want that. And I would do it but I would be afraid of messing up your "art." And quite honestly I would be very nervous to do it since metal work isnt my specialty in life and your "art" isnt cheap.

 

So I take it from your post that you wouldnt be willing to add "COPY" to any of your coins ? Or would you be willing to make the changes for a buyer on request ?

[dcarr]

And thank you for the interesting suggestion on how to put my own "COPY" stamp on your coins. I wasnt sure you would want that. And I would do it but I would be afraid of messing up your "art." And quite honestly I would be very nervous to do it since metal work isnt my specialty in life and your "art" isnt cheap.

 

So I take it from your post that you wouldnt be willing to add "COPY" to any of your coins ? Or would you be willing to make the changes for a buyer on request ?

 

I would be hesitiant to stamp "COPY" on any of my fantasy-date over-strike coins because I don't consider them to be "copies" of anything. But once a coin is purchased from me, the new owner is free to do with it as they please (so long as whatever they do isn't fraudulent).

 

[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.

 

Thank you for taking the time to reply.

[Conder101]

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

No he wouldn't. He just has to show that they violate the law, in this case Title 18 chapter 25 sections 487 and 489.

 

I mentioned it previously, but I would like to again point out that section 487 (quoted above) was enacted prior to the Hobby Protection Act (HPA). The two statutes appear to be contradictory.

But once the HPA was enacted it would be a fairly simple matter to have both in compliance by simply making the dies with the raised word COPY on it so that when the pieces are cast or struck they automatically have COPY on them and are in compliance as soon as they are created.

 

To properly value a coin, the following things must be known:

1) What is it made of ?

2) What country is it from (if any) ?

3) What denomination is it (if any) ?

4) What condition is it in ?

5) What is the date and mint mark (if any) ?

Why do we have to "value" it.

 

It is made of coppernickel clad material 75%cU and 25 % Ni bonded to a copper core. A coinage material only used by the US.

It says right on it that it is from the United States of America.

It has a denomination, quarter dollar.

It is in Mint State but that isn't important to what it is.

It has a 1975 date.

 

Sure seems to me that it is purporting to be a US Quarter dollar made in 1975.

So it is purporting to be something that it really isn't. What was that definition of imitation numismatic item again?

Imitation numismatic item means an item which purports to be, but in fact is not, an original numismatic item.

 

Sure seems to fit the definition of an imitation numismatic item, and

(a) An imitation numismatic item which is manufactured in the United States, or imported into the United States for introduction into or distribution in commerce, shall be plainly and permanently marked "COPY".

[Afterword]

Report him to the proper authorities and see what happens.

[AHFreak]

Very well said MJ.... It is beyond me that so many people will question/attack/call out/etc... a man's character just because that man doesn't share the same beliefs/opinions.... Sad really...

[AHFreak]

Report him to the proper authorities and see what happens.

 

I am assuming that this has already been done... maybe Im wrong, but with how many are so passionately opposed, it would be hard for me to imagine that the authorities haven't heard about this from multiple people by now...

 

[Afterword]

"I am assuming that this has already been done... maybe Im wrong, but with how many are so passionately opposed, it would be hard for me to imagine that the authorities haven't heard about this from multiple people by now..."

 

Exactly, and if they have not - that is just as telling.

 

[CaptHenway]

"I am assuming that this has already been done... maybe Im wrong, but with how many are so passionately opposed, it would be hard for me to imagine that the authorities haven't heard about this from multiple people by now..."

 

Exactly, and if they have not - that is just as telling.

 

The fact that I have not felt compelled to "report these to the authorities" does not mean that I approve of them. It just means that I do approve of his non-legal-tender designs, and want to see his business continue.

[Mr. Smith Guesser]

There's probably no need to report them. I'm positive that the SS already knows about all this and would have done already something if they could get any criminal or civil charges to stick.

 

The point is..Just because a person is operating within the boundaries of the law, doesn't mean they're acting in a fair, just, or socially beneficially manner. My hope is that people stop buying the fantasy coins. Without a demand for them, they wouldn't be produced.

[Afterword]

"The point is..Just because a person is operating within the boundaries of the law, doesn't mean they're acting in a fair, just, or socially beneficially manner. My hope is that people stop buying the fantasy coins. Without a demand for them, they wouldn't be produced."

 

An admirable objective, but I doubt that you have much chance of succeeding.

[Mr. Smith Guesser]

"I doubt that you have much chance of succeeding."

 

Me either. I don't live in a large enough pipe dream to think I can change people's actions.