Near Counterfeit?

[coinman_23885]

Mow much altering can be done to a coin and have it still retain legal-tender status ? That has never been clearly answered. The US Mint will redeem current mutilated coins in bulk, by weight, for the estimated total face value. So, according to them, certain "mutilated" coins still retain legal-tender status.

 

The Mint buys them by weight and this is no different from a bullion or metal purchase. Given that wear and damage reduce the weight, the government is actually paying less than face value which doesn't sound as if the government is treating them as legal tender else they would buy them at face value, no?

 

The US Mint is NOT paying by scrap metal value.

The Mint buys mutilated coins "by weight" because they are mutilated and won't go through a coin counter. They simply use the total weight as a way to estimate how many coins there are. If you had a pile of mutilated copper-nickel clad quarters, the Mint would end up paying you close to face value, which would be a lot more than the total scrap value of the copper and nickel.

 

I would like to see an actual citation for the prices paid, and regardless I think the legal tender status question is still a red herring. Take a common date Peace Dollar and over striking it as to obliterate the original details and then restrike it with a similar design to represent a rare (1964 Peace Dollar) or rumored to exist date and then marketing the said piece as "collectible" is very different than coinage mutilated through commerce or purchased allegedly for face value by the government.

 

And coins that are damaged through normal commerce are distinguishable from coins manipulated intentionally by private individuals to imitate something they aren't.

The US Mint would, for example, redeem coins that intentionally had holes drilled in them.

 

See above.

 

 

And regarding the 1964 Peace Dollars, the government's official position as to how many remain is not the point. The fact is that the coins did in fact exist and it is quite possible for genuine pieces to exist. Also as best I can tell, the records support that a number of silver were destroyed, but I don't think verification of the dates actually took place so it is possible that a handful or more exist. The point of all this is that there is ample opportunity for fraud and even if you are not directly defrauding someone, you know or should know that you could be facilitating fraud by the purchasers of your coins, and I absolutely think you bare responsibility for it.

 

>>>And regarding the 1964 Peace Dollars, the government's official position as to how many remain is not the point.

 

Yes it is the point. I'll repeat my previous contention:

 

Who is going to pay a lot of money for a "1964" silver dollar ? It would have to be someone who believes that it has a high value. Why would someone ever believe that it has a high value ? Because they know the story of the original 1964 Peace Silver Dollars. And if they know that story, then they also know that either the coin they are thinking of buying is illegal to own and subject to confiscation, or it is a re-creation of some sort. Either way, they would knowingly be taking a risk with their money if they bought it.

 

 

They might believe it to be risky, but that doesn't mean they knowingly purchased a counterfeit (obviously). And that makes it acceptable to you? The fact that someone took a risk and was an insufficiently_thoughtful_person in no way excuses the producer of the item who struck them.

[MarkFeld]

Regarding your point 2 above - I have seen numerous people on Ebay bid three figures on counterfeit coins bearing dates which never appeared on genuine US coinage. Most often, it has been on counterfeit Seated, Trade and Morgan Dollars.

 

Maybe they were vintage counterfeits that are collected by some ?

I once bid $600 for a type of known (vintage) counterfeit 1900-O Morgan Silver Dollar.

 

Another possibility:

Do you know if these bidders actually paid for the item ?

It is one thing to bid a high price, but entirely different to actually pay it.

I have seen people bid up counterfeits to high prices with no intention of actually purchasing the item - for the purpose of preventing someone else from buying it.

 

They were not vintage counterfeits.

 

And the listings I was speaking of did not appear to be ones where knowledgeable people were bidding in order to protect the unwary. I am well aware of many such situations.

 

You don't know the motive(s) of the bidder(s) for sure.

Just because an item sold for only three figures doesn't prove that it was an actual purchase attempt.

Please point to examples of such completed auctions, if you can.

 

Your reply looks like a stretch and an attempt to avoid the reality that your point 2 was invalid. Typically, your retorts sound more reasonable than that. Maybe some of us have finally worn you out.

 

I never get tired of doing what I like

 

You are correct - I don't KNOW the motives of the bidders. But over a period of several years, I have had enough experience with such listings, to have become a very good guesser. And many of the listings in question were ended by eBay, due, in part, to my reports. So I don't have completed auction links which I can provide.

[comicdonna]

Are the people in charge at the mint aware of this persons actions?

[coinman_23885]

Are the people in charge at the mint aware of this persons actions?

 

My understanding is that he purportedly sent a letter to the US Secret Service at some point regarding the pieces that never received a response. If true, a lack of immediate response does not equal consent or provide legal immunity from future prosecution if the Feds ever decide to pursue him.

[comicdonna]

The things people do for money.

[dcarr]

"1 - How is your first point even relevant? You designed a few coins, but not the ones you produce."

 

I guess you don't understand the fine art market very well. Often, it is all about who made the item. As per my previous example - a certain painting of a Campbell's tomato soup label is worth millions of dollars because Andy Warhol painted it. He didn't even design the thing originally - Campbell's Soup did.

 

You're absolutely right; this is about who made it. You are not the government nor are you authorized to make these pieces which imitate genuine U.S. coins in design (changing the date doesn't make it any less of an imitation and I don't think this argument would hold for the 1964 Peace Dollars which contain the date of a coin actually produced even if supposedly destroyed).

 

And to analogize this to the art world is amusing. Let's see someone make convincing fakes and sell them without properly labeling them; I don't think the art world would take very kindly to it either. And most importantly, you are missing the key distinction. There is no licensing to create art; however only the federal government is permitted to strike US coinage or items with substantial similarity (unless labeled as a COPY or REPLICA per a statutory exception). Pieces which imitate actual coins are counterfeits.

 

It is "amusing" that you think collecting coins is somehow a lot different than collecting art. The two are similar.

 

My Warhol example stands. An original Campbell's tomato soup can label is worth its weight in paper. The Warhol "recreation" is the one worth a lot of money, even though the original design wasn't his and it is even copyrighted by Cambell's.

 

There is no "licensing" required to deface coins legally.

 

I'll challenge you to the same sort of task that I presented to RWB (which he did not fulfill):

A defaced US Peace Silver Dollar, defaced to look like a "1964" is an altered coin, NOT a "counterfeit". Can you point to any evidence of legal precedent that an over-struck "1964-D" Peace Silver Dollar is a "counterfeit" ?

 

"3 - All of which helps the ill informed at pawn shops and flee markets who buy your stuff, probably without actual knowledge of your operation, right?"

 

I can't make any sense out of this comment. How would publishing information about my over-strikes be worse than not publishing anything at all (like the Chinese) ?

 

What I am saying is that the population that would be duped by your wares - such as a causal buyer at a flee market or pawn shop - is unlikely to even be aware of your site and how would they know about your website? If they were scammed by someone using your creations then clearly that person wasn't aware of your operation. In other words, in terms of curbing fraud, I think your site is close to useless.

 

So a "casual buyer" walks into a pawn shop. They see a "1964-D" Peace Silver Dollar for sale in the display case. Price: $1,000. Remember, this is a "casual" buyer. As such, they don't know off-the-top-of-their-head what the thing is really worth. So they pick up a Red Book to see the listed value of a "1964" silver dollar. The Red Book has no listing for that date. But in the Red Book there is a paragraph which states:

Legislation dated August 3, 1964, authorized the coinage of 45 million silver dollars, and 316,076 dollars of the Peace design dated 1964 were struck at the Denver Mint in 1965. Plans for completing this coinage were subsequently abandoned and all of these coins were melted. None were preserved or released for circulation. Many deceptive reproductions exist."

 

If that last sentence didn't scare them off, then what ?

They pull out their phone and do an internet search, and find what the over-strikes are actually selling for on eBay (currently about $300 for those titled as "Carr" over-strikes). Or maybe they come to the Wikipedia article about the coins, which has a picture of one of my over-strikes with a descriptive caption:

Wikipedia article - 1964-D Peace Dollar striking

 

"4 - Maybe to the initial buyer, but you have no way to verify what happens to the pieces when they are subsequently sold, presumably the reason that federal law mandates that replicas be marked as copies. In my opinion, you know or should know that there is ample room for deception and fraud using your items, and liability should be imputed to you. If you are ever pursued by the government, I wonder if they will adopt my position.

My rebuttal to this point is outlined in my pawn shop scenario above.

 

There is a lot of room for deception with everything. Such opportunities exist with regular coins. Again you presume (without citing legal precedent) that Federal Law requires that a Genuine Peace Silver dollar, altered to have a "1964" date, must be maked "COPY".

 

Almost every type of coin ever made has been used to scam someone at one time in one way or another. By your logic, the Gallery Mint would be the one at fault for that "1793" cent copy that somebody altered for (apparently) fraudulent purposes.

Please blame the person who actually perpetrates the fraud.

 

The difference is that no further alteration is required from your products; there is an enormous difference there.

 

In 1995 the US Mint sold proof Silver Eagles with a "P" mint mark. They also sold a limited number in special gold sets that had a "W" mint mark. The "P" version is currently worth about $100. The "W" version is currently worth about $3,000. The US Mint, by their actions, facilitated the perpetration of scams. Unscrupulous individuals would put a "P" mint silver eagle into the W gold set, and let people assume the silver coin in the set was the valuable one. Was the US Mint to blame here ? Of course not. Please blame the actual perpetrator.

And if you think that the scam I just outlined required further alteration (by switching packaging), note that every one of my over-strike "1964-D" Peace Silver Dollars came in packaging containing a descriptive insert, which a scammer would have to remove to perpetrate any postulated scam successfully.

 

5 - "Your pieces are high quality - I will concede that; however this makes them even more dangerous in my opinion."

 

In the numismatic world, more people have been taken with cleaned and whizzed coins than anything else. It can be very difficult to visually detect this type of thing. In contrast, all you have to do is read the date on one of my over-strikes.

 

That's not necessarily true with coins that did in fact exist and still could exist. See the discussion of the 1964 D Peace Dollars above.

 

See my pawn shop scenario above.

And like I said, the only credible witness (besides the entire US Treasury Department itself) is the Denver Mint employee who says NONE survived.

 

[dcarr]

Are the people in charge at the mint aware of this persons actions?

 

My understanding is that he purportedly sent a letter to the US Secret Service at some point regarding the pieces that never received a response. If true, a lack of immediate response does not equal consent or provide legal immunity from future prosecution if the Feds ever decide to pursue him.

 

You are missing a lot of the story.

In 2009 I sent a letter to the Federal Trade Commission (the "FTC", which is the entity responsible with enforcing the Hobby Protection Act). In the letter I asked about my potential scenario of over-striking a coin to give it an apparent date that never existed for that type. My example in that letter was taking a 1948-1963 Franklin half dollar and altering it to make it look like a "1964" Franklin Half Dollar (which is a date that was never minted for that coin type). After several weeks without a reply, I sent the same letter again, but this second one went USPS Express Mail with signature/delivery confirmation. They got it, but never did reply.

 

Later, when I was about to come out with the "1964-D" over-strike Peace Dollars, Coin World caught wind of it and did a multi-page article on them. Coin World contacted the US Mint about them first. The US Mint told Coin World that the US Treasury does not interpret laws for the public and that enforcement of any such matters lies with the US Secret Service anyway. So Coin World contacted the US Secret Service regarding the "1964-D" Peace Dollar over-strikes. The Secret Service told Coin World that the S.S. does not interpret laws for the public, and Coin World would have to contact the US Attorneys Office. Coin World reported it all, up to this point, in their article. Coin World also got me the phone number of the Denver area US Attorney. I called him and explained the potential scenario. He told me that the US Attorney's office does not interpret laws for the public, nor do they proivide any legal opionions. He said I would have to consult with my own layer, which I did.

 

[dcarr]

The things people do for money.

 

It is amazing the things that people will do for fun

 

PS:

If I had wanted to stay in the shadows and make actual counterfeit coins, selling them to unsuspecting buyers, I probably could have made a lot more money than I did with the over-strikes. But I have no desire or plans to ever deceive anyone.

[coinman_23885]

You're comparing apples to oranges and you know it. In any event, you are the only one making 1964 D Peace Dollars in this manner that is known publicly; thus, there will be no precedent unless someone is actually scammed using one of your pieces and the government decides to pursue you.

 

 

Edited: And the item may very well be from a genuine Peace Dollar planchet, but it is not a genuine 1964-D Peace Dollar and hence the use of the term counterfeit. Also, as a hypothetical to you, if someone were to acquire a Peace Dollar blank and then strike a condition rarity Peace Dollar, would you not consider it counterfeit?

 

And one last point, who is to say a novice wouldn't confuse some of your pieces as patterns?

[coinman_23885]

 

PS:

If I had wanted to stay in the shadows and make actual counterfeit coins, selling them to unsuspecting buyers, I probably could have made a lot more money than I did with the over-strikes. But I have no desire or plans to ever deceive anyone.

 

I don't think anyone here has ever accused you of trying to pass them off. The question is whether your products are legal and what ramifications your stuff will have in secondary markets.

[dcarr]

 

PS:

If I had wanted to stay in the shadows and make actual counterfeit coins, selling them to unsuspecting buyers, I probably could have made a lot more money than I did with the over-strikes. But I have no desire or plans to ever deceive anyone.

 

I don't think anyone here has ever accused you of trying to pass them off. The question is whether your products are legal and what ramifications your stuff will have in secondary markets.

 

I have been accused of "counterfeiting" even though there is no legal basis for such an accusation.

 

What market "ramifications" have there been since the release of those Smithsonian $100 Union coins ? None, really.

 

The only "ramifications" that can currently be cited for my "1964-D" over-strike Peace Silver Dollars is that the issue prices varied from about $110 to $175, but they now routinely sell in internet auctions for $300 to $500.

 

[coinman_23885]

 

PS:

If I had wanted to stay in the shadows and make actual counterfeit coins, selling them to unsuspecting buyers, I probably could have made a lot more money than I did with the over-strikes. But I have no desire or plans to ever deceive anyone.

 

I don't think anyone here has ever accused you of trying to pass them off. The question is whether your products are legal and what ramifications your stuff will have in secondary markets.

 

I have been accused of "counterfeiting" even though there is no legal basis for such an accusation.

 

What market "ramifications" have there been since the release of those Smithsonian $100 Union coins ? None, really.

 

The only "ramifications" that can currently be cited for my "1964-D" over-strike Peace Silver Dollars is that the issue prices varied from about $110 to $175, but they now routinely sell in internet auctions for $300 to $500.

 

I'm curious to your interpretation of 18 USC 485 and 487, particularly as Section 487 precludes maintaining dies similar in"design or the inscription thereon" of genuine U.S. coins. Why do you believe these to be inapplicable?

 

DISCLAIMER: I am not opining either way, but would like to hear your interpretation of the said statutes reproduced below.

 

[MJ]

Dan Carr takes on all comers and has either knocked them all out or is ahead on all score cards

 

MJ

[coinman_23885]

Dan Carr takes on all comers and has either knocked them all out or is ahead on all score cards

 

MJ

 

Would you be so kind as to provide your interpretation of 18 USC 485 and 487? I am curious from an intellectual stand point, and it is always nice to hear multiple viewpoints.

[dimefreak]

My only issue with Mr Carr is that he has yet to make 1932 or 1933 mercury dime.... curse you Mr Carr!!! Dude does great work! I like his stuff.... but serious Dan.... make those Mercs

[coinman_23885]

One last question: If the creators of the NORFED Dollars were convicted of counterfeiting in violation of 18 USC 485, then why would your coins be excepted from that section? You asked me directly for a precedent (not a statute).

 

Edit: The government's argument was that the coins resembled US coins closely enough or could be confused with US coins.

[dcarr]

I'm curious to your interpretation of 18 USC 485 and 487, particularly as Section 487 precludes maintaining dies similar in"design or the inscription thereon" of genuine U.S. coins. Why do you believe these to be inapplicable?

 

DISCLAIMER: I am not opining either way, but would like to hear your interpretation of the said statutes reproduced below.

 

The main intent with 18 USC 485-487 was to outlaw the manufacture and the passing (spending) of false legal-tender items in commerce.

 

The Hobby Protection Act (HPA) was enacted much more recently than 18 USC 485-487. If 18 USC 485-487 were to stand on its own, almost every replica coin ever made would be illegal, including those marked "COPY", as well as things like the cheesy Indian Head Buffalo silver rounds that are not marked "COPY". But molds or dies in the likeness of US coins are allowed because they are nessesary for making the replica coins that the HPA specifically allows.

 

You may have seen the late-night TV commercials selling the Gold Buffalo "tribute" coins. I personally do not like the deceptive nature of the ads. But there they are on TV: privately-made replicas of a US coin made using dies that are in the likeness of a US coin. The US government has moved against that same company before, fining them and banning them from offering certain coins in the past. So the company that has been selling those Gold Buffalo "tribute" coins for a few years on TV is already on the Fed's "radar", but no acton has been taken (because the items offered are legal, although unsavory).

 

The intent is a major factor. That is why the US Mint underlined "fraudulently" so as to highlight the key word:

US Mint web site - (Text as of 2/19/02) 18 U.S.C. §331

[dcarr]

My only issue with Mr Carr is that he has yet to make 1932 or 1933 mercury dime.... curse you Mr Carr!!! Dude does great work! I like his stuff.... but serious Dan.... make those Mercs

 

At some point, perhaps yes.

"1922" and "1946" also possible

[dcarr]

One last question: If the creators of the NORFED Dollars were convicted of counterfeiting in violation of 18 USC 485, then why would your coins be excepted from that section? You asked me directly for a precedent (not a statute).

 

Edit: The government's argument was that the coins resembled US coins closely enough or could be confused with US coins.

 

Bernard VonNothaus (of NORFED fame) was convicted of "counterfeiting", in spite of the fact that his pieces didn't look like any particular US coins. But his downfall was pushing his coins to be used in commerce as (or in place of) legal tender.

 

Take one of the NORFED 1-oz silver coins that was promoted for use in circulaton. It had a $10 or $20 face value, and said "USA" on it. Von NotHaus was making something that might appear to have a $10 or $20 legal-tender face value, when in fact it didn't have any government-endorsed legal-tender status.

 

Contrast that with what I do. I'm not creating any apparent legal tender out of something that wasn't legal tender to start with. In other words, I only over-strike using the same (or lower) face value that the host coin had originally.

And I don't encourage anyone to attempt to use any of my over-strikes as legal tender (in fact, I recommend people NOT to try that).

 

The basic difference is making a coin and trying to get people to accept it in commerce vs altering an existing coin and offering it as a novelty item to collectors.

 

NORFED had set up a network of distributors to scale up the passing of "Liberty Dollars" into circulation in mass. The Feds wouldn't allow that.

 

[MarkFeld]

 

PS:

If I had wanted to stay in the shadows and make actual counterfeit coins, selling them to unsuspecting buyers, I probably could have made a lot more money than I did with the over-strikes. But I have no desire or plans to ever deceive anyone.

 

I don't think anyone here has ever accused you of trying to pass them off. The question is whether your products are legal and what ramifications your stuff will have in secondary markets.

 

I have been accused of "counterfeiting" even though there is no legal basis for such an accusation.

 

What market "ramifications" have there been since the release of those Smithsonian $100 Union coins ? None, really.

 

The only "ramifications" that can currently be cited for my "1964-D" over-strike Peace Silver Dollars is that the issue prices varied from about $110 to $175, but they now routinely sell in internet auctions for $300 to $500.

 

Surely you are not aware of all of the "ramifications" that may have occurred with respect to the $100 a union coins or your 1964 Peace Dollars.

[Conder101]

The US Mint will redeem current mutilated coins in bulk, by weight, for the estimated total face value. So, according to them, certain "mutilated" coins still retain legal-tender status.

They do still have to be recognizable as US coins. If they are mutilated to the point of being unrecognizable they are not redeemable for face value, just metal value.

[Kurtdog]

Dan Carr takes on all comers and has either knocked them all out or is ahead on all score cards

 

MJ

If I were his lawyer I'd be telling him STFU. This is one of the dumbest threads I think I've ever read on this coin forum. You coin boys and girls are in way over your heads on this one. This one has issues. Let him alone.

[Secretsqrl]

It is unlawful in the US to create such an item. No where on the coin does it say "Copy" or "Replica". It is basically a counterfeit coin and illegal to buy sell or possess.

[Afterword]

This thread should have died a long time ago. There is nothing new to be said about the subject.

 

It has turned into a zombie thread that feeds on repetition.

[dcarr]

Surely you are not aware of all of the "ramifications" that may have occurred with respect to the $100 a union coins or your 1964 Peace Dollars.

 

That is why I said that basically no detrimental ramifications can currently be cited.

[dcarr]

The US Mint will redeem current mutilated coins in bulk, by weight, for the estimated total face value. So, according to them, certain "mutilated" coins still retain legal-tender status.

They do still have to be recognizable as US coins. If they are mutilated to the point of being unrecognizable they are not redeemable for face value, just metal value.

 

If they are totally indeterminate as actual US coins, the US Treasury will not redeem them for "metal value". You'd have to go to a scrap metal dealer for that.

 

[dcarr]

If I were his lawyer I'd be telling him STFU.

 

I have nothing to hide. It is already widely known what I do.

 

This is one of the dumbest threads I think I've ever read on this coin forum.

 

Then make it smarter, or ignore it.

 

You coin boys and girls are in way over your heads on this one. This one has issues. Let him alone.

 

By "this one", who or what do you mean ?

 

[dcarr]

It is unlawful in the US to create such an item. No where on the coin does it say "Copy" or "Replica". It is basically a counterfeit coin and illegal to buy sell or possess.

 

If you are certain of that, then cite the legal precedent that a genuine coin, altered to have a date that was never originally issued for that type, is a "counterfeit".

 

Also please cite the statute that says counterfeit coins are illegal to possess.

 

[disme]

It is unlawful in the US to create such an item. No where on the coin does it say "Copy" or "Replica". It is basically a counterfeit coin and illegal to buy sell or possess.

 

If you are certain of that, then cite the legal precedent that a genuine coin, altered to have a date that was never originally issued for that type, is a "counterfeit".

 

Also please site the statute that says counterfeit coins are illegal to possess.

I don’t know about a statute but a friend of mine some years ago told one too many

people about his collection of around 25 counterfeit U.S. coins. One day the Secret

Service showed up on his doorstep and seized them all. He complained (through his

senator &&) but never got a single item back. A few were die struck but most were

lead casts, especially of nickels.

 

One assumes that the Secret Service seized the counterfeits legally.

[MarkFeld]

It is unlawful in the US to create such an item. No where on the coin does it say "Copy" or "Replica". It is basically a counterfeit coin and illegal to buy sell or possess.

 

If you are certain of that, then cite the legal precedent that a genuine coin, altered to have a date that was never originally issued for that type, is a "counterfeit".

 

Also please site the statute that says counterfeit coins are illegal to possess.

I don’t know about a statute but a friend of mine some years ago told one too many

people about his collection of around 25 counterfeit U.S. coins. One day the Secret

Service showed up on his doorstep and seized them all. He complained (through his

senator &&) but never got a single item back. A few were die struck but most were

lead casts, especially of nickels.

 

One assumes that the Secret Service seized the counterfeits legally.

 

I would not make that assumption.