Near Counterfeit?

[19Lyds]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

 

[19Lyds]

"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.

Huh?

 

Would it be too much to ask you to produce some record of "your" report?

 

Or would that be too "telling"?

[MarkFeld]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

[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.

 

I would not make that assumption.

The Secret Service certainly did and would have had to explain to the senator in

question why the pieces were seized.

 

If you have a case where counterfeits were seized illegally it needs to be posted.

[coinman_23885]

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.

 

I have no problem with the fact that 18 U.S.C. 485-487 are in pari materia with the Hobby Protection Act and that the statutes must be considered together. The HPA creates exceptions only where imitation numismatic items are clearly marked as such. Your coins are not marked with "COPY" and thus it would seem that you do not fall within the statutory exception created by the HPA. I see no reason why 18 U.S.C 485-487 cannot stand alone when the pieces are not exempted by the HPA. It seems to me at least, that your pieces violate the plain meaning of the language contained in those statutes.

 

I'm inferring then, that you are arguing that the HPA supersedes the statutes cited and repeals at least 18 U.S.C. 487 by implication. It is a well known rule of statutory interpretation that repeal by implication is not favored, and repeal or superseding of a statute by another statute only occurs where the legislature's intent to do so is express or otherwise clear. This would directly conflict with the HPA, which specifically states in 15 U.S.C. 2105 that "The provisions of this chapter are in addition to and not in substitution for or limitation of, the provisions of any law of the United States or the law of any state."

[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.

The Secret Service certainly did and would have had to explain to the senator in

question why the pieces were seized.

 

If you have a case where counterfeits were seized illegally it needs to be posted.

 

If counterfeits are seized, the owner doesn't fight it and thus, there is no adjudication, does that make the seizure legal? I ask earnestly and not facetiously. My own answer would be "Not necessarily". I would not "assume" that the seizure was legal, though I'd certainly be open to the possibility.

[Kurtdog]

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

Then make it smarter, or ignore it.

I'd rather just tell you how dumb it is. If you want me to make you smarter you're going to have to retain me. And then you're going to have to listen to everything I tell you, starting with, but not limited to, STFU on this.

 

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?

Read it in the context of the prior sentence and I'm sure you'll figure it out. Man, some of you are really delusional.

[MarkFeld]

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

Then make it smarter, or ignore it.

I'd rather just tell you how dumb it is. If you want me to make you smarter you're going to have to retain me. And then you're going to have to listen to everything I tell you, starting with, but not limited to, STFU on this.

 

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?

Read it in the context of the prior sentence and I'm sure you'll figure it out. Man, some of you are really delusional.

 

Whether you care to acknowledge it or not, your comment was ambiguous and the question about it, reasonable. Perhaps the "some of you" you speak of, are smarter than you think and not at all delusional.

[dcarr]

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

Then make it smarter, or ignore it.

I'd rather just tell you how dumb it is. If you want me to make you smarter you're going to have to retain me. And then you're going to have to listen to everything I tell you, starting with, but not limited to, STFU on this.

 

No thanks.

 

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?

Read it in the context of the prior sentence and I'm sure you'll figure it out. Man, some of you are really delusional.

 

So far in this thread you have called people "dumb" and told me to "STFU" (twice), and also said that I (and others here) have "issues", are "delusional", are "confused", "don't understand", and are "in over our heads".

 

But in all of that, I can only find one bit of actual information that you have contributed in this thread (that there are no witnesses on the stand in appeals court).

 

PS:

Just because there is no witness stand in appeals court, that doesn't mean that the Langbords couldn't retain RWB for the appeal (as a consultant). But I don't know if they have.

[CaptHenway]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

[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.

 

I have no problem with the fact that 18 U.S.C. 485-487 are in pari materia with the Hobby Protection Act and that the statutes must be considered together. The HPA creates exceptions only where imitation numismatic items are clearly marked as such. Your coins are not marked with "COPY" and thus it would seem that you do not fall within the statutory exception created by the HPA. I see no reason why 18 U.S.C 485-487 cannot stand alone when the pieces are not exempted by the HPA. It seems to me at least, that your pieces violate the plain meaning of the language contained in those statutes.

 

I'm inferring then, that you are arguing that the HPA supersedes the statutes cited and repeals at least 18 U.S.C. 487 by implication. It is a well known rule of statutory interpretation that repeal by implication is not favored, and repeal or superseding of a statute by another statute only occurs where the legislature's intent to do so is express or otherwise clear. This would directly conflict with the HPA, which specifically states in 15 U.S.C. 2105 that "The provisions of this chapter are in addition to and not in substitution for or limitation of, the provisions of any law of the United States or the law of any state."

 

You also have to consider that I am only over-striking (altering) existing genuine coins, not making new ones from virgin planchets.

 

Regardless of the actual wording of the HPA, it is still in conflict with prior statutes, even if it says it isn't.

 

On the one hand, you can't have molds or dies in the likeness of US Coins.

On the other hand, you can use molds or dies (in whole or part) to make replica pieces in the likeness of US coins.

 

Since the 1970s there have been many die-stamped replica pieces minted and sold, which certainly resemble US Coins. The only case I know of in which any action was taken against a replica coin maker was when the Washington Mint was sued by the US Mint for making large 3" Sacagawea Dollar replicas. And the reason for that action is that the Sacagawea obverse is one of the few US coin designs that is actually copyrighted (the vast majority are not).

 

It is also interesting to note that when Bernard VonNothaus was convicted of counterfeiting for his "Liberty Dollars", the reason cited for that action was that his coins looked like real US coins (even though they really didn't that much). Of course, the case was really initiated because of his attempts to get his coins used in commerce as if they were legal tender.

 

But even though VonNothaus was convicted of "counterfeiting", Sunshine Minting (who actually made the dies and struck the coins) was never charged with anything.

 

So when there is a conflict in the statutes as we have here, it comes down to intent. Fraudulent intent will always mean trouble.

[19Lyds]

dcarr:

 

You have frequently said that no one can be harmed by your issues because the information showing that your "coins" were not issued by the U.S. government is available on the Internet. Yet you also say that the Langbords made an error by hiring RWB even though the previous chat board post you quote was available on the Internet. Frankly, I think you have just proven the point that in the future some buyers will be harmed by your work.

 

I appreciate the point that you are not defrauding anyone. But I believe that you are providing the means through which buyers in the future will be defrauded.

 

Mark

Obviously, at least at this point in time, it was an error on the part of the Langbord attorney to not fully Vet Roger prior to procuring his services as an expert witness.

 

It has nothing to do with whether or not the information was "available", only that the attorney did not utilize what "was" available.

 

For coins of a high dollar nature (i.e. rare, non-released coinage) it would behoove the potential purchaser to perform the due diligence necessary before committing such funds but, as demonstrated by the attorney, not everybody performs their required homework.

 

Note that this is not an attempt to pass the responsibility back to the purchaser but the reality of the scenario is that most folks don't even bother despite that nagging feeling that something just isn't right. Recently, an eBay listing for a 1933 Double Eagle, where the text even used the word "COPY", was completed for close to $1700.

 

Folks that get burned in situations like this would never make vialble numismatists as they lack they very thing which separates us from the layman. Curiosity about what we're doing coupled with the drive to find out about what we're collecting.

 

How many folks got burned by purchasing the 2007 Missing Edge Lettering Jefferson Presidential Dollars despite repeated warnings posted on internet coin forums? Extravagant prices were paid yet the population evidence was laid out cleaner than an accountants journal.

 

Will these folks turn their noses up at Rare Coin Investment Opportunities?

Some probably will but others will learn, in a numismatic sense, from "their" mistakes and move forward.

 

It is historically evident with a simple Internet search of what Daniel Carr's coins represent and the truth of the matter is that, even though that evidence is easily attainable, not everybody will bother to allow themselves to be saved by it!

 

In other words, despite the best efforts of society in putting up a fence and posting warning signs, there will always be that one fellow that runs headlong off the cliff only to wonder what happened half way through his fall.

 

Daniel Carrs coins are produced for niche collectors and we are quite pleased with what we are collecting or our own personal reasons.

[coinman_23885]

You also have to consider that I am only over-striking (altering) existing genuine coins, not making new ones from virgin planchets.

 

I am. 15 U.S.C. 2101 © authorizes the FTC to promulgate administrative regulations which carry the full force of law. It has done so in 16 CFR 304.1 which expands upon the definition of "imitation numismatic item" defined in 15 U.S.C. 2106 and has clarified it to include "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."

I see no authority to say that 1964-D Peace Dollars, which were authorized by law regardless of their fate, are not original numismatic items. Your coins reasonably purport to be original numismatic items. Moreover, I read the HPA as providing the only authority for the striking of legal reproductions. Coins not authorized by the HPa or that do not fall under its purview are seemingly barred by 18 USC 485.

 

Regardless of the actual wording of the HPA, it is still in conflict with prior statutes, even if it says it isn't.

 

What does this even mean? You cannot create an artificial conflict where one doesn't exist and it wasn't the intent of the HPA to supersede or repeal other federal statutes. It expressly states this in 15 U.S.C. 2105.

[dcarr]

The Secret Service certainly did and would have had to explain to the senator in

question why the pieces were seized.

 

This assumes that the Senator in question actually acted on the letter. The Senator may have chosen to just ignore the letter entirely, in favor of other pressing matters.

 

If you have a case where counterfeits were seized illegally it needs to be posted.

 

I don't know of any case where it has been ruled that actual counterfeit coins were seized illegally. While it is not explicitly illegal to possess counterfeit coins, the Secret Service exercises the power to confiscate items that it deems may be a threat to the integrity of circulating legal tender.

 

But note that the Secret Service has, in the past, confiscated coins that were actually genuine. And it has also returned to the owner counterfeit coins that it though were genuine:

1969 and 1969-S Doubled Die cents

 

1959-D Wheat Cent

[19Lyds]

"However, part of the problem is that once the items are produced and introduced into the marketplace, the intent of the coiner becomes a moot point. And both types of items are susceptible to being used to rip off the unknowledgeable/unsuspecting. "

 

Manufacturers of paring knives are not held accountable when someone injures or kills someone else with their product. The accountability lies with the individual that misused the product.

 

Any coin can be used to rip off someone unknowledgeable and unsuspecting. You cannot protect people from themselves. All you can do is make the knowledge accessible for their perusal.

 

Then that takes us back to....why would you have a problem with an 1886-CC "silver dollar" from China, struck over a genuine US silver dollar?

That's a really good question which, unfortunately, is fashioned around a deep seated hatred for Chinese Counterfeits.

 

From what I understand, the "intent" of the Chinese Copy Coins was to provide fillers for very high dollar coins which the average collector simply could not afford.

 

This "intent" has been used to the advantage of nefarious individuals within this country to create a black market for these products and the Chinese, doing what they do best and supporting their own families, are more than willing to provide a product.

 

Counterfeit Slabs are also now readily available but I don't believe for a second that the Chinese dreamt this one up. No doubt it was the same individuals that saw the market potential in exploiting the Chinese manufacturers.

 

As a collector of Morgan Dollars, I would be expected to know that there were no 86-CC, 87-CC,or 88-CC Morgans since there simply are not slots for them in any of the albums or registries. As such, I would know full well that such coins did not exist.

 

IF they were in fact struck over authentic US Morgan Dollars, I would treat them the exact same as Daniel Carr's Fantasy pieces fully realizing that they would NOT fit within my collection and as such would be purchased solely as a novelty item.

 

However, IF they produced an 89-CC or a 91-CC over an authentic US Morgan Dollar, then it could and would be considered a numismatic "counterfeit" even though it would still have the metallic content and assay of an authentic US Dollar, and as such, not be a counterfeit coin from a monetary standpoint. It's still worth a base one dollar at the local 7-11 and at any US Bank. It's just had the corner torn off or perhaps a moustache drawn on George's countenance or perhaps some initials scratched into it.

[Afterword]

"Originally Posted By: 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."

 

 

 

"Huh?

 

Would it be too much to ask you to produce some record of "your" report?

 

Or would that be too "telling"?"

 

 

Which of the two posters are you querying, and what report is it that you want a record of?

 

The only report mentioned was hypothetical.

 

 

[dcarr]

You also have to consider that I am only over-striking (altering) existing genuine coins, not making new ones from virgin planchets.

 

I am. 15 U.S.C. 2101 © authorizes the FTC to promulgate administrative regulations which carry the full force of law. It has done so in 16 CFR 304.1 which expands upon the definition of "imitation numismatic item" defined in 15 U.S.C. 2106 and has clarified it to include "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."

I see no authority to say that 1964-D Peace Dollars, which were authorized by law regardless of their fate, are not original numismatic items.

 

Of course, the law in question was enacted for the purpose of outlawing the deceptive trade practice of altering a coin such as a "1944-D" cent to make it look like a "1914-D" cent and then selling it to someone as an original 1914-D cent.

 

As far as the Government is concerned, can a "1964-D" Peace Dollar reasonably purport to be "an original numismatic item" if the government itself has publicly stated that none exist ?

 

[

Regardless of the actual wording of the HPA, it is still in conflict with prior statutes, even if it says it isn't.

 

What does this even mean? You cannot create an artificial conflict where one doesn't exist and it wasn't the intent of the HPA to supersede or repeal other federal statutes. It expressly states this in 15 U.S.C. 2105.

 

The conflict is real. It appears to be both illegal and legal to possess molds or dies in the likeness of US coins. The history of enforcement actions clearly show that the Government's interpretation of the laws is that the manufacture of replica coins is ok, so long as it isn't for fraudulent purposes.

[RWB]

[An aside comment: No person with full knowledge of the Langboard case can comment on the case. Anyone claiming otherwise is lying. Any assumptions by others are speculations without relevance to the subject of this thread.]

[coinman_23885]

As far as the Government is concerned, can a "1964-D" Peace Dollar reasonably purport to be "an original numismatic item" if the government itself has publicly stated that none exist ?

 

Since it was actually an issue struck presumably for commerce, regardless of whether any supposedly survive, yes.

 

[

Regardless of the actual wording of the HPA, it is still in conflict with prior statutes, even if it says it isn't.

 

What does this even mean? You cannot create an artificial conflict where one doesn't exist and it wasn't the intent of the HPA to supersede or repeal other federal statutes. It expressly states this in 15 U.S.C. 2105.

 

The conflict is real. It appears to be both illegal and legal to possess molds or dies in the likeness of US coins. The history of enforcement actions clearly show that the Government's interpretation of the laws is that the manufacture of replica coins is ok, so long as it isn't for fraudulent purposes.

 

Assuming arguendo that a putative conflict existed, it would be for coins and dies with the "COPY" inscription not your coins. And since the HPA does not repeal or supersede other federal law, see 15 USC 2105, coins not expressly authorized by the HPA (i.e. those not marked as copies) would still fall within the purview of 18 U.S.C. 485 which declares them illegal.

 

You have gone to great lengths in this thread to argue that the HPA does not apply to your coins (which would require them to be marked as copies) , yet that is the only statutory authority allowing replicas to be made provided that they are labeled. If your coins are not authorized by the HPA, then you have failed to provide any convincing argument that 18 USC 485 and 487 do not apply to you. And if you claim that the HPA saves you from these sections, then you are ignoring the plain, unequivocal meaning of 15 USC 2105 which says the HPA does not substitute or limit other federal or state laws.

 

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

[MarkFeld]

As far as the Government is concerned, can a "1964-D" Peace Dollar reasonably purport to be "an original numismatic item" if the government itself has publicly stated that none exist ?

 

Since it was actually an issue struck presumably for commerce, regardless of whether any supposedly survive, yes.

 

[

Regardless of the actual wording of the HPA, it is still in conflict with prior statutes, even if it says it isn't.

 

What does this even mean? You cannot create an artificial conflict where one doesn't exist and it wasn't the intent of the HPA to supersede or repeal other federal statutes. It expressly states this in 15 U.S.C. 2105.

 

The conflict is real. It appears to be both illegal and legal to possess molds or dies in the likeness of US coins. The history of enforcement actions clearly show that the Government's interpretation of the laws is that the manufacture of replica coins is ok, so long as it isn't for fraudulent purposes.

 

Assuming arguendo that a putative conflict existed, it would be for coins and dies with the "COPY" inscription not your coins. And since the HPA does not repeal or supersede other federal law, see 15 USC 2105, coins not expressly authorized by the HPA (i.e. those not marked as copies) would still fall within the purview of 18 U.S.C. 485 which declares them illegal.

 

You have gone to great lengths in this thread to argue that the HPA does not apply to your coins (which would require them to be marked as copies) , yet that is the only statutory authority allowing replicas to be made provided that they are labeled. If your coins are not authorized by the HPA, then you have failed to provide any convincing argument that 18 USC 485 and 487 do not apply to you. And if you claim that the HPA saves you from these sections, then you are ignoring the plain, unequivocal meaning of 15 USC 2105 which says the HPA does not substitute or limit other federal or state laws.

 

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

Well said, Kenny. And with respect to the 1964-D dollars, nowhere does the language require that the "original numismatic item" presently be known to exist. It is known that they existed at one time and it is not known that they don't exist now.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

As far as the Government is concerned, can a "1964-D" Peace Dollar reasonably purport to be "an original numismatic item" if the government itself has publicly stated that none exist ?

 

Since it was actually an issue struck presumably for commerce, regardless of whether any supposedly survive, yes.

 

[

Regardless of the actual wording of the HPA, it is still in conflict with prior statutes, even if it says it isn't.

 

What does this even mean? You cannot create an artificial conflict where one doesn't exist and it wasn't the intent of the HPA to supersede or repeal other federal statutes. It expressly states this in 15 U.S.C. 2105.

 

The conflict is real. It appears to be both illegal and legal to possess molds or dies in the likeness of US coins. The history of enforcement actions clearly show that the Government's interpretation of the laws is that the manufacture of replica coins is ok, so long as it isn't for fraudulent purposes.

 

Assuming arguendo that a putative conflict existed, it would be for coins and dies with the "COPY" inscription not your coins. And since the HPA does not repeal or supersede other federal law, see 15 USC 2105, coins not expressly authorized by the HPA (i.e. those not marked as copies) would still fall within the purview of 18 U.S.C. 485 which declares them illegal.

 

You have gone to great lengths in this thread to argue that the HPA does not apply to your coins (which would require them to be marked as copies) , yet that is the only statutory authority allowing replicas to be made provided that they are labeled. If your coins are not authorized by the HPA, then you have failed to provide any convincing argument that 18 USC 485 and 487 do not apply to you. And if you claim that the HPA saves you from these sections, then you are ignoring the plain, unequivocal meaning of 15 USC 2105 which says the HPA does not substitute or limit other federal or state laws.

 

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

Very interesting Posts.

 

Other than actually/presumably link.

 

Does Spearin supercede in States that have not adopted, or tested?

 

Has HPA been tested in State where Mr. Carr maintains place of business?

 

I also seem to recall a tax code, in ref. HPA (hint-hint).

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

[An aside comment: No person with full knowledge of the Langboard case can comment on the case. Anyone claiming otherwise is lying. Any assumptions by others are speculations without relevance to the subject of this thread.]

 

The Post you allude to wasn't the most brilliant Post I have read that references your participation. In fact, it was somewhat silly.

[dcarr]

Well said, Kenny. And with respect to the 1964-D dollars, nowhere does the language require that the "original numismatic item" presently be known to exist. It is known that they existed at one time and it is not known that they don't exist now.

 

The language says "reasonably purport" (to be an original numismatic item).

"Reasonably" has a wide latitude of interpretation. No where in the language does it define the range of "reasonably". I am not aware of any case history where the "reasonable" bounds have been defined. "Reasonably" could be interpreted to apply only to items that are actually known to exist.

 

I say an over-struck Peace Silver Dollar, does not reasonably purport to be a numismatic item because the Government says all were destroyed and they "were never issued".

 

[MarkFeld]

Well said, Kenny. And with respect to the 1964-D dollars, nowhere does the language require that the "original numismatic item" presently be known to exist. It is known that they existed at one time and it is not known that they don't exist now.

 

The language says "reasonably purport" (to be an original numismatic item).

"Reasonably" has a wide latitude of interpretation. No where in the language does it define the range of "reasonably". I am not aware of any case history where the "reasonable" bounds have been defined. "Reasonably" could be interpreted to apply only to items that are actually known to exist.

 

I say an over-struck Peace Silver Dollar, does not reasonably purport to be a numismatic item because the Government says all were destroyed and they "were never issued".

 

You could "reasonably" argue that point. I, on the other hand, prefer to err on the side of caution and "reasonably" argue otherwise. You have a personal stake in the issue, while I don't.

[dcarr]

As far as the Government is concerned, can a "1964-D" Peace Dollar reasonably purport to be "an original numismatic item" if the government itself has publicly stated that none exist ?

 

Since it was actually an issue struck presumably for commerce, regardless of whether any supposedly survive, yes.

 

[

Regardless of the actual wording of the HPA, it is still in conflict with prior statutes, even if it says it isn't.

 

What does this even mean? You cannot create an artificial conflict where one doesn't exist and it wasn't the intent of the HPA to supersede or repeal other federal statutes. It expressly states this in 15 U.S.C. 2105.

 

The conflict is real. It appears to be both illegal and legal to possess molds or dies in the likeness of US coins. The history of enforcement actions clearly show that the Government's interpretation of the laws is that the manufacture of replica coins is ok, so long as it isn't for fraudulent purposes.

 

Assuming arguendo that a putative conflict existed, it would be for coins and dies with the "COPY" inscription not your coins. And since the HPA does not repeal or supersede other federal law, see 15 USC 2105, coins not expressly authorized by the HPA (i.e. those not marked as copies) would still fall within the purview of 18 U.S.C. 485 which declares them illegal.

 

You have gone to great lengths in this thread to argue that the HPA does not apply to your coins (which would require them to be marked as copies) , yet that is the only statutory authority allowing replicas to be made provided that they are labeled. If your coins are not authorized by the HPA, then you have failed to provide any convincing argument that 18 USC 485 and 487 do not apply to you. And if you claim that the HPA saves you from these sections, then you are ignoring the plain, unequivocal meaning of 15 USC 2105 which says the HPA does not substitute or limit other federal or state laws.

 

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

The HPA does NOT stipulate that the molds or dies be marked "COPY".

 

The premise of your argument is that my fantasy-date over-strike coins are "replicas". I believe that premise is incorrect. They are genuine original coins that have been altered to have a date which was never issued for that type. As such, they are best described as "fantasy" coins, not "replicas". A "replica" is a remake of an original item, not an alteration of an original item into a new form.

 

And as I stated previously, the Government's enforcement actions (or non-actions) indicate their interpretation of the laws. For example, this item has been widely advertised on TV for a couple years now (and still is), so they certainly know about it: Gold Buffalo "tribute proof"

This is just one of many look-alike products that have been sold over many years without being marked "COPY".

[MarkFeld]

As far as the Government is concerned, can a "1964-D" Peace Dollar reasonably purport to be "an original numismatic item" if the government itself has publicly stated that none exist ?

 

Since it was actually an issue struck presumably for commerce, regardless of whether any supposedly survive, yes.

 

[

Regardless of the actual wording of the HPA, it is still in conflict with prior statutes, even if it says it isn't.

 

What does this even mean? You cannot create an artificial conflict where one doesn't exist and it wasn't the intent of the HPA to supersede or repeal other federal statutes. It expressly states this in 15 U.S.C. 2105.

 

The conflict is real. It appears to be both illegal and legal to possess molds or dies in the likeness of US coins. The history of enforcement actions clearly show that the Government's interpretation of the laws is that the manufacture of replica coins is ok, so long as it isn't for fraudulent purposes.

 

Assuming arguendo that a putative conflict existed, it would be for coins and dies with the "COPY" inscription not your coins. And since the HPA does not repeal or supersede other federal law, see 15 USC 2105, coins not expressly authorized by the HPA (i.e. those not marked as copies) would still fall within the purview of 18 U.S.C. 485 which declares them illegal.

 

You have gone to great lengths in this thread to argue that the HPA does not apply to your coins (which would require them to be marked as copies) , yet that is the only statutory authority allowing replicas to be made provided that they are labeled. If your coins are not authorized by the HPA, then you have failed to provide any convincing argument that 18 USC 485 and 487 do not apply to you. And if you claim that the HPA saves you from these sections, then you are ignoring the plain, unequivocal meaning of 15 USC 2105 which says the HPA does not substitute or limit other federal or state laws.

 

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

The HPA does NOT stipulate that the molds or dies be marked "COPY".

 

The premise of your argument is that my fantasy-date over-strike coins are "replicas". I believe that premise is incorrect. They are genuine original coins that have been altered to have a date which was never issued for that type. As such, they are best described as "fantasy" coins, not "replicas". A "replica" is a remake of an original item, not an alteration of one into a new form.

 

And as I stated previously, the Government's enforcement actions (or non-actions) indicate their interpretation of the laws. For example, this item has been widely advertised on TV for a couple years now (and still is), so they certainly know about it:Gold Buffalo "tribute proof"

 

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

[dcarr]

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

 

"Reasonably".

 

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

 

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

 

[MarkFeld]

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

 

"Reasonably".

 

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

 

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

 

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

[coinman_23885]

The premise of your argument is that my fantasy-date over-strike coins are "replicas". I believe that premise is incorrect. They are genuine original coins that have been altered to have a date which was never issued for that type. As such, they are best described as "fantasy" coins, not "replicas". A "replica" is a remake of an original item, not an alteration of an original item into a new form.

.

 

Whatever you want to call them, they would seemingly fall within the HPA as "imitation numismatic pieces" within HPA. I think you might have overlooked this post of mine, which directly addresses this point:

 

15 U.S.C. 2101 © authorizes the FTC to promulgate administrative regulations which carry the full force of law. It has done so in 16 CFR 304.1 which expands upon the definition of "imitation numismatic item" defined in 15 U.S.C. 2106 and has clarified it to include "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 language says "reasonably purport" (to be an original numismatic item).

"Reasonably" has a wide latitude of interpretation. No where in the language does it define the range of "reasonably". I am not aware of any case history where the "reasonable" bounds have been defined. "Reasonably" could be interpreted to apply only to items that are actually known to exist.

 

That's because the term reasonably has been applied in a number of criminal and tort contexts and has a clear legal meaning. See e.g. Black's Law Dictionary 1293 (9th ed. 2009)(defining reasonable as "fair, reasonable, or moderate under the circumstances" or "according to reason [as in] ."). The question of whether a person of average intelligence and knowledge could feasibly mistake this for genuine U.S. 1964 Peace Dollar is dispositive, and it is ultimately a question for a federal jury be it in a civil or criminal context should the government ever pursue you. Given that your coin looks almost exactly as the design of a U.S. Peace Dollar sans the date, I cannot imagine a jury showing you any love.

 

And while we are on the issue of statutory interpretation, one must also consider the intent of the legislature in enacting the Hobby Protection Act. It is not meant to protect informed numismatists or educated lawyers so much as to protect the uninformed lay person who has probably never heard of the Redbook and might not even know the story of the coins. There are some who will pay strong sums of money, believing it to be a rare U.S. Coin.

 

Edited: PCGS even offered $10,000 to see a genuine 1964-D Peace Dollar. Given that PCGS is touted as one of two leading coin authentication services, couldn't someone reasonably believe that these were legitimate? Think of the deeply misguided numismatist in training.

 

http://www.pcgs.com/top100/reward.aspx

[dcarr]

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

 

If the issuing authority (the Government) had not stated publicly and for the record that no original 1964-D Peace Silver Dollars exist, then that would be a different situation.