Near Counterfeit?

[MarkFeld]

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.

 

 

Does it make any difference if the issuing authority lied or unintentionally misinformed the public about other coins in the past?

[coinman_23885]

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.

 

 

Wasn't the same said of the 1933 Double Eagles? And I hope you address my concern of PCGS offering $10,000 to see an authentic 1964 D Peace Dollar.

[dcarr]

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."

 

Again we are back to "reasonably purport".

As I stated previously, the intent of the law was to establish boundaries and penalites for alterations of coins for fraudulent purposes, like the 1944-D cent turned into a "1914-D" cent. The law is targeted to protect the "reasonable person" that might pay money for the "1914-D" cent. But that reasonable person has to have prior knowledge that a "1914-D" cent is worth a premium over an ordinary cent or a 1944-D cent. The "reasonable person" must have some knowledge and standing in the context. Otherwise, to a person without standing, a legally-altered "hobo" nickel might reasonably purport to be some other type of coin than it is.

 

In other words, would a reasonable but uninterested and uknowledgeable person think that a carved "hobo" nickel purports to be an "original numismatic item" other than what it was originally ? Either way it wouldn't matter for this person since they have no interest or standing in the context.

 

And I also reject the premise that, a coin over-struck to have a date not originally issued for that coin type, is an "imitation". It is a genuine original coin which has been defaced to clearly show a fantasy date.

 

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.

 

>>> 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.

 

Is it still a Peace Dollar ? It started out as a legal-tender Peace Silver Dollar. No metal was added or removed. It was defaced to give it a new date, but aside from that, it still looks like a Peace Dollar. So is it a "copy" of a Peace Dollar type, or is it a genuine but altered Peace Dollar ?

 

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.

 

See my comments above about standing.

 

>>>There are some who will pay strong sums of money, believing it to be a rare U.S. Coin.

 

And how would they know (or why would they believe) that the coin is "rare" ?

 

These people that you point out, if someone was to show them an ordinary genuine 1962-D cent (for eaxmple), could they be convinced to spend a lot of money for it because it is "rare" ? Who is doing the convincing ?

 

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

 

And what happened with that offer ?

Nobody produced one.

 

Someone would have to search the internet to find that PCGS article in the first place. There are also numerous articles on the internet about my "1964-D" over-strike Peace Silver Dollars, including the Wikipedia entry. Closed internet auctions show approximate market values for them as well.

[dcarr]

Wasn't the same said of the 1933 Double Eagles?

 

No. The Government never stated for the record that no 1933 Double Eagles exist. For that coin, the Government contends that the ones that escaped did so clandestinely.

 

That is in contrast with the 1964-D Peace Dollars were the Governent states that none were issued.

 

It appears that the 1933 Double Eagles reached the Mint cashier, but the Mint contends that records show none were sold prior to the recall.

 

But the Mint says no 1964-D Peace Dollars ever reached the cashier at all.

 

[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.

 

 

Does it make any difference if the issuing authority lied or unintentionally misinformed the public about other coins in the past?

 

Not really, from a potential legal defense point of view anyway. If the issuing authority (which is the same entity that enacts and enforces the laws) states that none of the coins exist, then the public can reasonably act accordingly on that information.

 

[coinman_23885]

As I stated previously, the intent of the law was to establish boundaries and penalites for alterations of coins for fraudulent purposes, like the 1944-D cent turned into a "1914-D" cent. The law is targeted to protect the "reasonable person" that might pay money for the "1914-D" cent. But that reasonable person has to have prior knowledge that a "1914-D" cent is worth a premium over an ordinary cent or a 1944-D cent. The "reasonable person" must have some knowledge and standing in the context. Otherwise, to a person without standing, a legally-altered "hobo" nickel might reasonably purport to be some other type of coin than it is.

 

 

You keep reading an intent element into the statutes cited by myself and Mark Feld, yet the portions of the statutes we cited seemingly lack a mens rea requirement especially one of a nefarious intent. The portions cited are silent as to intent. There are crimes that are strict liability. And civilly speaking, intent is not always required. Willful disregard and even negligence can be enough.

 

And the Hobo Nickel example is way off base. The coins are defaced so that they look less like US coinage not more like it, and the pieces are not made to resemble rarities.

 

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

 

And what happened with that offer ?

Nobody produced one.

 

Do you know that for a fact? And even if one did show up, do you think PCGS would publicly announce it and subject itself to being subpoenaed by the federal government? I don't think so. And the point of the diatribe there was that one could believe that such pieces exist and yes it reasonably purports to be an original numismatic item (and as discussed, supra, I don't think it matters if the pieces do exist and the statutory language does not say that the pieces must still exist).

[coinman_23885]

Is it still a Peace Dollar ? It started out as a legal-tender Peace Silver Dollar. No metal was added or removed. It was defaced to give it a new date, but aside from that, it still looks like a Peace Dollar. So is it a "copy" of a Peace Dollar type, or is it a genuine but altered Peace Dollar ?

 

If looks to me as if you are over striking design elements as well. In any event, per the citations cited throughout this thread, it doesn't really seem to matter.

[CaptHenway]

Wasn't the same said of the 1933 Double Eagles?

 

No. The Government never stated for the record that no 1933 Double Eagles exist. For that coin, the Government contends that the ones that escaped did so clandestinely.

 

That is in contrast with the 1964-D Peace Dollars were the Governent states that none were issued.

 

It appears that the 1933 Double Eagles reached the Mint cashier, but the Mint contends that records show none were sold prior to the recall.

 

But the Mint says no 1964-D Peace Dollars ever reached the cashier at all.

 

FWIW, as a point of clarification, Roger Burdette's Peace Dollar book says (text on P. 93, chart on P. 95) that 277,000+ struck 1964-D dollars were stored in the Cashier's Vault at one point, but as I understand the circumstances they were merely stored there and not otherwise transferred to the custody of the Cashier.

 

TD

[dcarr]

As I stated previously, the intent of the law was to establish boundaries and penalites for alterations of coins for fraudulent purposes, like the 1944-D cent turned into a "1914-D" cent. The law is targeted to protect the "reasonable person" that might pay money for the "1914-D" cent. But that reasonable person has to have prior knowledge that a "1914-D" cent is worth a premium over an ordinary cent or a 1944-D cent. The "reasonable person" must have some knowledge and standing in the context. Otherwise, to a person without standing, a legally-altered "hobo" nickel might reasonably purport to be some other type of coin than it is.

 

 

You keep reading an intent element into the statutes cited by myself and Mark Feld, yet the portions of the statutes we cited seemingly lack a mens rea requirement especially one of a nefarious intent. The portions cited are silent as to intent. There are crimes that are strict liability. And civilly speaking, intent is not always required. Willful disregard and even negligence can be enough.

 

Intent is the important factor, especially when the various statutes conflict.

Even the US Mint indicates the intent aspect on their web site by underlining the key word:

(Text as of 2/19/02) 18 U.S.C. §331

 

Can you cite any legal action involving coin "replicas" since the HPA was enacted, where it involved the use of molds or dies, or other items not marked "COPY" ?

 

In other words, since the HPA was enacted, has any replica coin maker been charged with posessing molds or dies in the likeness of US coins ?

Has any novelty coin maker been charged for making pieces that are similar in appearance to US coins, but don't have "COPY" on them ?

 

And the Hobo Nickel example is way off base. The coins are defaced so that they look less like US coinage not more like it, and the pieces are not made to resemble rarities.

 

How would somebody know that ?

How would a layperson know that a "Hobo" nickel isn't a rare US coin as minted, and how would they know that it looks less like a US coin than it did originally ?

 

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

 

And what happened with that offer ?

Nobody produced one.

 

Do you know that for a fact? And even if one did show up, do you think PCGS would publicly announce it and subject itself to being subpoenaed by the federal government? I don't think so. And the point of the diatribe there was that one could believe that such pieces exist and yes it reasonably purports to be an original numismatic item (and as discussed, supra, I don't think it matters if the pieces do exist and the statutory language does not say that the pieces must still exist).

 

Nobody produced one publicly. None have ever been documented.

The US Government still insists none exist, and there has been no evidence to the contrary.

 

For a person to be willing to spend any significant sum on a "1964-D" Peace Dollar, they would have to know something of the story behind them. And as such, they would be aware that, either the coin is an original (in which case it would be illegal to own), or it is a recreation or an alteration of some sort.

[MJ]

This thread has a lot of words in it

 

MJ

[19Lyds]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

Mark, its been 49 years. These coins were highly anticipated once word got out that a Silver Dollar was going to be produced.

 

To assume that photographic evidence exists but "has not come to light" is ignoring basic human nature of discovery. It is totally possible that photographs "had" existed but given the destruction of so many U Mint documents in the 70's and 80's, its extremely unlikely that anything ever will come to light.

 

The 1933 Saints (more higly publicized than the 64-D Peace Dollars) eventually came into the light.

 

After 7 years, the 1913 Liberty Nickels came into the light.

 

I'm betting that if any photo's existed, especially after Daniel Carr's Overstrikes went public, that those photo's, which BTW are not illegal to possess, would most certainly have come to light.

 

But that's just my opinion as I refuse to jump into this Yeti/BigFoot/Loch Ness game of chasing something which only exists in the imaginations of those that "want" them to exist.

[coinman_23885]

Intent is the important factor, especially when the various statutes conflict.

Even the US Mint indicates the intent aspect on their web site by underlining the key word:

(Text as of 2/19/02) 18 U.S.C. §331

 

There is no conflict and the statutes I am citing are different crimes and/or violations. It doesn't matter if intent is required for offense X if you are charged or sued with offense/violation Y which doesn't have a specific intent element.

 

 

Can you cite any legal action involving coin "replicas" since the HPA was enacted, where it involved the use of molds or dies, or other items not marked "COPY" ?

 

In other words, since the HPA was enacted, has any replica coin maker been charged with posessing molds or dies in the likeness of US coins ?

Has any novelty coin maker been charged for making pieces that are similar in appearance to US coins, but don't have "COPY" on them ?

 

 

I'm not going to waste my time looking for any because it doesn't matter. There have been a number of statutes that have never had prosecutions under them or that are only pursued rarely. If there are none, it is not unreasonable to say that you could be the first.

 

And the Hobo Nickel example is way off base. The coins are defaced so that they look less like US coinage not more like it, and the pieces are not made to resemble rarities.

 

How would somebody know that ?

How would a layperson know that a "Hobo" nickel isn't a rare US coin as minted, and how would they know that it looks less like a US coin than it did originally ?

 

 

Now you are grasping at straws. Legally there is a distinction in whether the coins could have been reasonably be confused as genuine 1964-D Peace Dollars. But it doesn't matter because the government isn't required to prosecute every offender (giving you the benefit of the doubt that they are offenders).

 

Bottom Line: Do what you like, but you shouldn't be surprised if this ever ends up in federal court be it in a civil or criminal action.

 

Everything stated herein is my opinion for legal purposes and should be treated as such.

[19Lyds]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

Is a FOIA Request needed here?

[19Lyds]

"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.

 

You of course since your reply seemed (to me) to question the motives of NOT reporting.

 

My reply was that if that was "just as telling" then perhaps you should make the report and document the response.

 

Was that not what you were implying?

[19Lyds]

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.

I can see your conflict which basically boils down to "if you have to make them (presumably with dies which you should not possess?) at least stamp copy on them. Meaning, according to the HPA, which is fully backed by the law, its OK to possess similitude dies (In conflict with the USC) to manufacture coins as long as you note that they are copies.

[coinman_23885]

I can see your conflict which basically boils down to "if you have to make them (presumably with dies which you should not possess?) at least stamp copy on them. Meaning, according to the HPA, which is fully backed by the law, its OK to possess similitude dies (In conflict with the USC) to manufacture coins as long as you note that they are copies.

 

None of which would help a legal challenge as applied to his coins which aren't marked as copies, which is also the only reason his otherwise outstanding work is drawing critics.

[19Lyds]

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

 

"Reasonably".

 

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

 

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

 

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

From a language standpoint, I think that's a stretch Mark since the coins, having not been counted but merely weighed, were not really produced.

 

And that statement, is really a stretch.............Oy!

 

And as a side note, weren't the two pieces that were sent to the Lab in Washington and subsequently destroyed from the "Philadelphia Mint" meaning NOT 1964-D Coins?

[coinman_23885]

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

 

"Reasonably".

 

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

 

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

 

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

From a language standpoint, I think that's a stretch Mark since the coins, having not been counted but merely weighed, were not really produced.

 

And that statement, is really a stretch.............Oy!

 

And as a side note, weren't the two pieces that were sent to the Lab in Washington and subsequently destroyed from the "Philadelphia Mint" meaning NOT 1964-D Coins?

 

The fact that they were destroyed in Philadelphia does not mean that the pieces were struck in Denver. In any event, aren't there examples in the past where coins were struck at different mints counter to their actual mint mark?

 

With regards to the first part of your post, I think you are confusing production with the items being issued or released into circulation.

[coinman_23885]

Also PCGS CoinFacts makes reference to a May 31, 1973 press release stating that 1964-D Peace Dollars were never officially issued and released and any outstanding coins "are the property of the United States, which is entitled to recover [them]."

 

This doesn't sound like the government says or even believes that none exist in private hands (not that it seemingly matters legally anyway).

[19Lyds]

I can see your conflict which basically boils down to "if you have to make them (presumably with dies which you should not possess?) at least stamp copy on them. Meaning, according to the HPA, which is fully backed by the law, its OK to possess similitude dies (In conflict with the USC) to manufacture coins as long as you note that they are copies.

 

None of which would help a legal challenge as applied to his coins which aren't marked as copies, which is also the only reason his otherwise outstanding work is drawing critics.

His coins aren't marked as copies because they are not copies. They are original fantasy pieces.

[coinman_23885]

I can see your conflict which basically boils down to "if you have to make them (presumably with dies which you should not possess?) at least stamp copy on them. Meaning, according to the HPA, which is fully backed by the law, its OK to possess similitude dies (In conflict with the USC) to manufacture coins as long as you note that they are copies.

 

None of which would help a legal challenge as applied to his coins which aren't marked as copies, which is also the only reason his otherwise outstanding work is drawing critics.

His coins aren't marked as copies because they are not copies. They are original fantasy pieces.

 

Have you read the entire thread? It is an imitation numismatic item as that term is defined in the Code of a Federal Regulations accompanying the Hobby Protection Act. And since the HPA sets forth the only regulations under which such items can be lawfully produced, if that doesn't apply, then nothing saves him from 18 U.S.C. 485-489 (reproduced in their entirety somewhere herein) which bars the production of coins and the dies, hubs, etc., required to produce items which resemble or are similar to actual U.S. coinage in design or inscription. His defense to my citation was a claim that the HPA effectively repealed or limited application of these statutes to him despite the fact that HPA specifically says otherwise. I'm not sure how he can claim that the HPA doesn't apply to him (or else COPY would appear) and yet claim that it also protects him from the anti-counterfeiting statute (and the statute addresses more than just counterfeits but includes other coins made with U.S. coin designs or inscriptions).

 

Since this thread is only going in circles and is becoming repetitive, I don't really see a point of continuing to post here. This will likely be my last post to this thread.

 

I leave with a last question: How do Carr's 1964 D Peace Dollars differ from the real versions?

 

No, I was not or didn't see the post. Oh lord....Did I do it?

 

Congratulations on your first 25+ page thread!

[19Lyds]

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

 

"Reasonably".

 

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

 

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

 

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

From a language standpoint, I think that's a stretch Mark since the coins, having not been counted but merely weighed, were not really produced.

 

And that statement, is really a stretch.............Oy!

 

And as a side note, weren't the two pieces that were sent to the Lab in Washington and subsequently destroyed from the "Philadelphia Mint" meaning NOT 1964-D Coins?

 

The fact that they were destroyed in Philadelphia does not mean that the pieces were struck in Denver. In any event, aren't there examples in the past where coins were struck at different mints counter to their actual mint mark?

 

With regards to the first part of your post, I think you are confusing production with the items being issued or released into circulation.

According to Rogers Book, trial strike pieces were also minted in Philadelphia. Two were sent to the Washington DC Labs and the rest melted.

 

I do not have exact figures just yet but from the book I read that part of a "locked gondola" were mutilated before it was desided just to melt the entire lot in Denver (including blanks and planchets).

 

This accounts for the "count" by weight since the coins were never really counted.

 

My reference to the two Lab coins, which were destroyed in 1970 was that possibly they were Philadelphia strikes and as such, may not have had mint marks backing up the fact that no Denver coins were photographed.

[19Lyds]

I can see your conflict which basically boils down to "if you have to make them (presumably with dies which you should not possess?) at least stamp copy on them. Meaning, according to the HPA, which is fully backed by the law, its OK to possess similitude dies (In conflict with the USC) to manufacture coins as long as you note that they are copies.

 

None of which would help a legal challenge as applied to his coins which aren't marked as copies, which is also the only reason his otherwise outstanding work is drawing critics.

His coins aren't marked as copies because they are not copies. They are original fantasy pieces.

 

Have you read the entire thread? It is an imitation numismatic item as that term is defined in the Code of a Federal Regulations accompanying the Hobby Protection Act. And since the HPA sets forth the only regulations under which such items can be lawfully produced, if that doesn't apply, then nothing saves him from 18 U.S.C. 485-489 (reproduced in their entirety somewhere herein) which bars the production of coins and the dies, hubs, etc., required to produce items which resemble or are similar to actual U.S. coinage in design or inscription. His defense to my citation was a claim that the HPA effectively repealed or limited application of these statutes to him despite the fact that HPA specifically says otherwise. I'm not sure how he can claim that the HPA doesn't apply to him (or else COPY would appear) and yet claim that it also protects him from the anti-counterfeiting statute (and the statute addresses more than just counterfeits but includes other coins made with U.S. coin designs or inscriptions).

 

Since this thread is only going in circles and is becoming repetitive, I don't really see a point of continuing to post here. This will likely be my last post to this thread.

 

I leave with a last question: How do Carr's 1964 D Peace Dollars differ from the real versions?

 

No, I was not or didn't see the post. Oh lord....Did I do it?

 

Congratulations on your first 25+ page thread!

No. His pieces are NOT imitation "numismatic items". They are original items of coins which were not produced by the US Mint yet minted onto original US Mint stock.

 

And yes, I've read the entire thread which includes the heavily biased opinions on both sides.

 

Look, this is a discussion of words. Some words are used, others are ignored and still others are interpreted with a certain bias.

 

I mentioned earlier that there are definite distinctions with the term "counterfeit".

 

Specifically:

 

Counterfeit numismatic item

Counterfeit US Money

 

Both counterfeits are addressed by different statutes.

 

One Statute addresses the creation of counterfeit "money" while the other addresses the creation of counterfeit numismatic items.

 

Counterfeit money is used to defraud the US Government and the corporations which use that money.

 

Counterfeit numismatic items are replica's or copies or rare collectible US Coins such as 1909-SVDB, 1955/55, 3Legged Buffalo, etc. The intent with these is to defraud the collector into believing they are buying a rare and collectible coin.

 

Daniel Carrs product fit neither definition since he is not "creating money" nor is he creating counterfeit numismatic collectible coins.

 

Deviating from those basic facts could be construed as normal since collectors want to protect their collections and investments. But in protecting those collections, one just needs to ask him/herself, "How Many 1975 Quarters are in your Collection?"

 

"How many 1975 IKE Dollars are in your collection?"

 

The answer is always none since none were minted or ever considered for minting.

 

I see a clear product line here that is not aimed at the coin collecting community in general, just a niche of collectors that are looking for unusual items.

 

Carry On.

 

[coinman_23885]

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

 

"Reasonably".

 

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

 

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

 

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

From a language standpoint, I think that's a stretch Mark since the coins, having not been counted but merely weighed, were not really produced.

 

And that statement, is really a stretch.............Oy!

 

And as a side note, weren't the two pieces that were sent to the Lab in Washington and subsequently destroyed from the "Philadelphia Mint" meaning NOT 1964-D Coins?

 

The fact that they were destroyed in Philadelphia does not mean that the pieces were struck in Denver. In any event, aren't there examples in the past where coins were struck at different mints counter to their actual mint mark?

 

With regards to the first part of your post, I think you are confusing production with the items being issued or released into circulation.

According to Rogers Book, trial strike pieces were minted in Philadelphia. Two were sent to the Washington DC Labs and the rest melted.

 

I do not have exact figures just yet but from the book I read that part of a "locked gondola" were mutilated before it was desided just to melt the entire lot in Denver (including blanks and planchets).

 

This accounts for the "count" by weight since the coins were never really counted.

 

My reference to the two Lab coins, which were destroyed in 1970 was that possibly they were Philadelphia strikes and as such, may not have had mint marks backing up the fact that no Denver coins were photographed.

 

PCGS Coin Facts says that 300,000 pieces were minted at Denver in addition to the trial strikes; however, I trust ROger more. I hope he chimes in. Thanks for posting the new information in this thread.

[dcarr]

Intent is the important factor, especially when the various statutes conflict.

Even the US Mint indicates the intent aspect on their web site by underlining the key word:

(Text as of 2/19/02) 18 U.S.C. §331

 

There is no conflict and the statutes I am citing are different crimes and/or violations. It doesn't matter if intent is required for offense X if you are charged or sued with offense/violation Y which doesn't have a specific intent element.

 

 

Can you cite any legal action involving coin "replicas" since the HPA was enacted, where it involved the use of molds or dies, or other items not marked "COPY" ?

 

In other words, since the HPA was enacted, has any replica coin maker been charged with posessing molds or dies in the likeness of US coins ?

Has any novelty coin maker been charged for making pieces that are similar in appearance to US coins, but don't have "COPY" on them ?

 

 

I'm not going to waste my time looking for any because it doesn't matter. There have been a number of statutes that have never had prosecutions under them or that are only pursued rarely. If there are none, it is not unreasonable to say that you could be the first.

 

What, legal precedents don't matter ? Is that what you are saying ?

 

As far as I know, no US court has ever ruled that someone was in violation for posessing molds or dies in likeness to US coins when using them to make novelty items. Also as far as I know, no US court has ever ruled that someone was in violation for altering a coin for non-fraudulent (novelty) purposes.

 

And the Hobo Nickel example is way off base. The coins are defaced so that they look less like US coinage not more like it, and the pieces are not made to resemble rarities.

 

How would somebody know that ?

How would a layperson know that a "Hobo" nickel isn't a rare US coin as minted, and how would they know that it looks less like a US coin than it did originally ?

 

 

Now you are grasping at straws. Legally there is a distinction in whether the coins could have been reasonably be confused as genuine 1964-D Peace Dollars. But it doesn't matter because the government isn't required to prosecute every offender (giving you the benefit of the doubt that they are offenders).

 

Again, I think your premise is off.

There are no "genuine [original] 1964-D Peace Dollars". So says the government. Given that, how could the Government successfully claim that a novelty item could be confused with something it says doesn't exist ?

 

I refer again to my previous post about how the hypothetical "reasonable person" must have standing in the context. And to have standing, they must have some knowledge of the subject.

 

You say that the Government doesn't have to prosecute every offender. From what I can tell, the government has NEVER prosecuted ANYONE for the (supposed) offences were are debating. Wouldn't that cause a problem for them (the defence could claim "selective enforcement") ?

 

Bottom Line: Do what you like, but you shouldn't be surprised if this ever ends up in federal court be it in a civil or criminal action.

 

Don't be surprised if it doesn't.

[coinman_23885]

Most of my argument has centered around the 1964 D Peace Dollars specifically.

[coinman_23885]

What, legal precedents don't matter ? Is that what you are saying ?

 

No. I am saying that the lack of a specific case with this exact fact pattern is unlikely to exist, and the lack of case law does not make those statutes inoperable.

 

And your standing issue is a red herring. The federal government has standing to enforce its laws. The "reasonableness" standard is whether the average unsuspecting person of normal intelligence could mistake your piece as a genuine 1964-D Peace Dollar or other coin. You are now intentionally misconstruing what was said to presumably to be the beginning of a strawman argument.

 

And if the government's position is that none of the coins exist, explain the need for the 1973 press release I cited. You are selectively reading the facts and law to support your position.

[dcarr]

Also PCGS CoinFacts makes reference to a May 31, 1973 press release stating that 1964-D Peace Dollars were never officially issued and released and any outstanding coins "are the property of the United States, which is entitled to recover [them]."

 

This doesn't sound like the government says or even believes that none exist in private hands (not that it seemingly matters legally anyway).

 

Did you not see the document scan I posted earler in this thread ?

Please go back and look at it (page 24). The Government does state that any such extant coins would be subject to confiscation (they are just covering their backs here).

But the Government's final words in the document (literally their last words) said: "the pieces were never issued".

[dcarr]

Have you read the entire thread? It is an imitation numismatic item as that term is defined in the Code of a Federal Regulations accompanying the Hobby Protection Act.

 

I take issue with this premise. It has not been legally established that a genuine original Peace Silver Dollar, altered to have a date that does not exist according the to government, is an "imitation" of something.

 

I leave with a last question: How do Carr's 1964 D Peace Dollars differ from the real versions?

 

If something doesn't exist, can it be "real" ?

Perhaps you should word the question like this:

"How do Carr's 1964 D Peace Dollars differ from the original version ?"

 

Government version:

None exist (according to the issuing entity);

Illegal to own.

 

"Carr" version:

Some exist;

Legal to possess.

Has a re-punched "D" mint mark which can be used as an identifying marker.

[dcarr]

What, legal precedents don't matter ? Is that what you are saying ?

 

No. I am saying that the lack of a specific case with this exact fact pattern is unlikely to exist, and the lack of case law does not make those statutes inoperable.

 

Lack of case law certainly doesn't guarantee them to be operable either.

 

And your standing issue is a red herring. The federal government has standing to enforce its laws. The "reasonableness" standard is whether the average unsuspecting person of normal intelligence could mistake your piece as a genuine 1964-D Peace Dollar or other coin. You are now intentionally misconstruing what was said to presumably to be the beginning of a strawman argument.

 

Even if a disinterested but "reasonable" person were to confuse a genuine Peace Dollar altered to have a "1964" date as an original 1964-minted Peace Dollar, would it matter ? Unless the "reasonable" person is contemplating the purchase of such coin, they have no standing and there is no potential for harm.

 

The ultimate legal question here is this:

Has anyone been harmed the the fantasy-date over-strike "1964-D" Peace Silver Dollars ?

 

The Government has not been harmed since a legal-tender dollar was "consumed" for every "1964-D" over-strike produced.

 

A reasonable but unknowing person is not harmed because they wouldn't have the knowledge or motive to spend a significant amount for such a coin.

 

A reasonable but knowing person (numismatist) is not harmed because they would be aware of the entire 1964-D Peace Dollar situation.

 

And if the government's position is that none of the coins exist, explain the need for the 1973 press release I cited. You are selectively reading the facts and law to support your position.

 

See my previous post regarding the 1973 press release.