What is a counterfeit US coin?

[Conder101]

As collectors, we often tell people that only items originally issued as legal tender are "coins". Everything else is "tokens" or "medals". So it does matter. A lot, I think.

To be coins they needs to be an intent for them to circulate as money, they do not need to be legal tender. Medals are not intended to be used as money, tokens are intended to be used like money but within a very limited area or just a specific merchant.

 

Large cents and half cents were not legal tender when they were issued, but they were coins and were a "part of coinage"

[19Lyds]

Were the original 1964-D Peace Silver Dollars ever granted legal tender status (legally monetized) prior to their destruction ?

 

It doesn't matter. The coins resemble the inscriptions or design of a circulating U.S. coin design and unless they are marked appropriately under the HPA, then 18 U.S.C. 485 bars them and the statute defines the prohibited classes in the way that I have articulated them here. There is no conflict as applied to you between the criminal statutes and the HPA, and the plain meaning of the statutes in Chapter 25 of Title 18 preclude your argument. You are not allowed to read provisions into statutes that are not there. It is a universal principle of statutory interpretation that the plain meaning controls, not some imagined, contrived, or strained interpretation crafted to meet the desires of those the statute could be applied against. And at best, your implied argument in the last post would suggest that the HPA would not apply to you. If this is the case, then that is actually problematic for you as the HPA sets forth the only legal exceptions where the coins could be struck without violating the statutes in Title 18 referenced above. Pick your poison.

 

In the 37 page mega thread where we discussed this ad nauseam, your only defense to 18 U.S.C. 485 was a manufactured conflict, allegedly with the HPA. Even assuming arguendo that a conflict would exist, it would only be for coins marked as copies, not your coins, and therefore you have not articulated any legal justification (in my opinion) of why your pieces are not prohibited by the statutes cited in Chapter 25 of Title 18.

 

I think it is time that I step away from this topic. All views and interpretations of the law are matter of opinion; the statutes speak for themselves.

But it does matter.

 

This constant "blending" of 15 USC (Commerce and Trade) and 18 USC (Crimes and Criminal Procedure) to satisfy your "passion" does nothing but cloud the issue here.

 

That issue amounts to the creation of Fantasy Coins produced for the pleasure of discriminating Coin Collectors which is in complete compliance with the FTC since no intent to defraud exists. Some collectors WANT these pieces and knowingly pay large premiums for these pieces knowing full well that they represent fantasy pieces which simply do not exist. .

 

A counterfeit numismatic piece is one produced with the intent to DEFRAUD the collector and as such is subject to the HPA which was written specifically to protect (coin collecting) consumers. (The purpose of the FTC)

 

18 USC, On the other hand, was written to protect the United States Government by addressing the creation of coins or currency produced with the intent of defrauding the "people" of the United States and other countries thereby devaluing the legal tender of the United States and the country itself. Too much unaccounted for and fraudulent money in the system devalues the currency. The United States Treasury is required to have laws regarding the currency of the country to protect itself and the country.

 

As I posted earlier, there is a distinction between the two descriptions of counterfeit and it has everything to do with intent which is why "both" uses of counterfeit is used in two different sections of the US Code. One governs crimes in commerce while the other governs crimes against the country.

 

The 15 USC HPA addresses fake 1955/55 Lincolns. It does not address 1907 Lincolns.

 

The 18 USC addresses fake $20 bills, 1971-S Eisenhower Dollars, 2000-P Sacagawea Dollars. It does not address "non-existent" US Coinage such as a 1938 Buffalo Nickel reshaped to look like a Hobo Skeleton complete with United States Inscriptions and Dates.

 

[19Lyds]

As collectors, we often tell people that only items originally issued as legal tender are "coins". Everything else is "tokens" or "medals". So it does matter. A lot, I think.

 

Under the HPA, it includes tokens and medals.

 

If no 1964-D Peace Dollars were ever legal tender, then they aren't "part of a coinage".

 

They were in fact authorized and struck for use in commerce, but were subsequently abandoned. Whether they exist currently doesn't matter under the statutes.

 

18 USC 485 doesn't apply to altered coins such as carved "hobo" nickels that weren't created for fraudulent purposes. 18 USC 485 clearly doesn't apply to genuine coins which have been altered into novelty items for collectors and sold as such.

 

There is a huge difference there. A hobo nickel isn't being made to resemble another U.S. coin closely, but is being defaced to look less like circulating currency - that's a huge difference. Your process goes well beyond and also completely defaces the original surface of the coin and overstrikes them with designs imparted by your own dies onto the planchet. This overstriking obliterates the details originally there.

 

Your opinions are noted. Can you cite any case where, in the opinion of a judge or jury, an over-struck novelty coin, sold as such, was ruled to be a violation ?

 

Anti-counterfeiting prosecutions of numismatic items are very rare, and I have never seen someone as brazen as to create items like this and then chronicle the whole thing on the internet. So no, I don't have actual cases that mirror this exact fact pattern - you are unique in this respect (and fortunately so in my opinion).

One very SMALL point.

 

The 1964-D Peace Dollars were NOT "legally" authorized which is WHY the program was abandoned and NO photographic evidence was taken of the pieces that had been minted. Authority came from certain "approvals" under the "assumption" that Congress would "authorize" the production of the coins.

[Conder101]

The 1964 D peace dollars were legally authorized. The 1965 appropriations bill passed 7/28/1964 and signed by Johnson authorized production of 45 million standard silver dollars and appropriated $600K to cover expenses.

 

Production was delayed while the mint concentrated on producing smaller coins due to the coin shortage but as part of a may 15th 1965 press release Johnson said "Consequently I have directed the Mint to proceed with the making of silver dollars, up to the amount authorized by the Congress, during the remainder of the current fiscal year, ending June30." (emphasis is mine)

 

So they were authorized, and Johnson iterated that they had been authorized.

 

(Information found in A Guidebook of Peace Dollars by RWB pgs 80 and 87.)

[dcarr]

If no 1964-D Peace Dollars were ever legal tender, then they aren't "part of a coinage".

 

They were in fact authorized and struck for use in commerce, but were subsequently abandoned. Whether they exist currently doesn't matter under the statutes.

 

It could matter whether or not they were "part of a coinage".

"Part of a coinage" means an issue which was legally monetized and released into commerce. The original 1964-D Peace Dollars were never issued.

 

18 USC 485 doesn't apply to altered coins such as carved "hobo" nickels that weren't created for fraudulent purposes. 18 USC 485 clearly doesn't apply to genuine coins which have been altered into novelty items for collectors and sold as such.

 

There is a huge difference there. A hobo nickel isn't being made to resemble another U.S. coin closely, but is being defaced to look less like circulating currency - that's a huge difference. Your process goes well beyond and also completely defaces the original surface of the coin and overstrikes them with designs imparted by your own dies onto the planchet. This overstriking obliterates the details originally there.

 

The entire surface of some hobo nickels are "worked". My over-striking doesn't completely obliterate the details already there. And I'm not making my pieces look any more like a US Coin than they already are to start with.

 

In fact, they look less like a US coin than they did when I started, because of the date imparted onto them, which is a date that was never originally issued.

 

Your opinions are noted. Can you cite any case where, in the opinion of a judge or jury, an over-struck novelty coin, sold as such, was ruled to be a violation ?

 

Anti-counterfeiting prosecutions of numismatic items are very rare, and I have never seen someone as brazen as to create items like this and then chronicle the whole thing on the internet. So no, I don't have actual cases that mirror this exact fact pattern - you are unique in this respect (and fortunately so in my opinion).

 

Your use here of the term "brazen" is unwarranted and inappropriate.

 

Do you have any cases that are, at least, similar ?

Any case where someone modified a coin and sold it as such.

[dcarr]

As collectors, we often tell people that only items originally issued as legal tender are "coins". Everything else is "tokens" or "medals". So it does matter. A lot, I think.

To be coins they needs to be an intent for them to circulate as money, they do not need to be legal tender. Medals are not intended to be used as money, tokens are intended to be used like money but within a very limited area or just a specific merchant.

 

Large cents and half cents were not legal tender when they were issued, but they were coins and were a "part of coinage"

 

That is a good point.

 

But the half cents and large cents were actually issued.

The 1964-D Peace Dollars were never issued. And by destroying them without being legally monetized, the government did not intend for them to circulate as money.

 

Not that it matters a whole lot, but at the time the Hobby Protection Act was written, half cents and large cents were legal tender. The 1964-D Peace Dollars were not.

 

[coinman_23885]

This constant "blending" of 15 USC (Commerce and Trade) and 18 USC (Crimes and Criminal Procedure) to satisfy your "passion" does nothing but cloud the issue here.

 

I'm not blending anything here. It is Carr who attempts to conflate the HPA with the criminal statutes cited. More specifically, Carr alleges (and you agreed in the other thread) that a putative conflict with the HPA exempts Carr from the criminal statute statutes. I disagree. Any such putative conflict would be for coins marked as COPY and permitted by the HPA. Items in which the HPA does not apply or that do not comply with the HPA fall within the plain meaning of the criminal statutes of Title 25 of Chapter 18. That is and always has been my position. You are changing your position and suggesting that I am reading the HPA into criminal statutes. I am saying that the criminal statutes, standing on their own, should apply to Carr. I am engaging in debates with the HPA only as Carr has introduced them.

 

A counterfeit numismatic piece is one produced with the intent to DEFRAUD the collector and as such is subject to the HPA which was written specifically to protect (coin collecting) consumers. (The purpose of the FTC)

 

The statute covers counterfeits and all other coins (regardless of what you call them) that carry the semblance in design or inscription of U.S. coins that have circulated. Please read the actual statute and you will see my point.

 

18 USC, On the other hand, was written to protect the United States Government by addressing the creation of coins or currency produced with the intent of defrauding the "people" of the United States and other countries thereby devaluing the legal tender of the United States and the country itself. Too much unaccounted for and fraudulent money in the system devalues the currency. The United States Treasury is required to have laws regarding the currency of the country to protect itself and the country.

 

Show me where the statute states that it does not apply to numismatic counterfeit items? The plain meaning of an unambiguous statute needs no further interpretation, it speaks for itself.

 

The 15 USC HPA addresses fake 1955/55 Lincolns. It does not address 1907 Lincolns.

 

So you're arguing that the HPA doesn't apply. Fine. Then you have yet to provide a convincing argument of why the statutes in Chapter 25 of Title 18 don't apply. That is my point.

 

[coinman_23885]

 

The entire surface of some hobo nickels are "worked". My over-striking doesn't completely obliterate the details already there. And I'm not making my pieces look any more like a US Coin than they already are to start with.

 

The designs are imparted by non genuine U.S. dies. With regards to your other point, are you saying that overstriking the piece does not destroy the original devices and inscriptions?

 

Your use here of the term "brazen" is unwarranted and inappropriate.

 

Perhaps it could have been said more tactfully and in a politer way, but it is completely applicable and accurate. Per your own admission in the other thread, this is a "grey line" legally. In my opinion, you are dancing on the lines of criminal and civil statutes, and you have chronicled the entire thing and put it in the public domain. Your defense (other than strained interpretations and reading non-existent provisions into statutes) is tantamount to either "others do it too," or "show me where someone else has been prosecuted for the same thing," when it appears you are the only one bold enough to try it to my knowledge. My comment was also based on this post:

 

According to the highest court of the land, the collective mothers of America, "but everybody else is doing it!" is not a valid justification of an action..

 

I think this situation is more like the "collective mothers of America" are interpreting their own rules in such a way that allows the kids to have a little bit more fun.

 

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary defines "brazen" as "marked by contemptuous boldness." I think it is perfectly applicable, when presented with statutory authorities that were cited in the two threads. Your defenses are not as rock solid as you think in my opinion, and if the government was inclined to prosecute you, I don't think they would lose.

 

Also, you seem convinced that the Secret Service and U.S. Treasury have zero interest in your work. The moment one of these passes in circulation or someone mistakenly believes the coins to be what they purport to be (especially in the case of the 1964 dollars), then that could change. Moreover, the only person that we know of to contact them (you) had an interest in the outcome; thus, I am sure you framed the issues for them in a way that was conducive to your end goal (that's human nature and something we all tend to do). And those who might be harmed by your coins in the secondary market likely lack the sophistication to complain to the proper federal agencies, so I wouldn't see the inaction of federal authorities as implied consent to the production of your fantasy pieces. To the contrary, if someone with the sophistication and legal expertise required were to write an articulate complaint complete with citations actually came forward, I wouldn't be surprised to see this receive more attention.

 

This will be my last post to this thread except for responding to the last question posed by Mr. Carr. And for the 10 millionth time (and for legal purposes) - everything contained herein is opinion except for the plain meaning of statutes and federal administrative regulations which speak from themselves.

[19Lyds]

The 1964 D peace dollars were legally authorized. The 1965 appropriations bill passed 7/28/1964 and signed by Johnson authorized production of 45 million standard silver dollars and appropriated $600K to cover expenses.

 

Production was delayed while the mint concentrated on producing smaller coins due to the coin shortage but as part of a may 15th 1965 press release Johnson said "Consequently I have directed the Mint to proceed with the making of silver dollars, up to the amount authorized by the Congress, during the remainder of the current fiscal year, ending June30." (emphasis is mine)

 

So they were authorized, and Johnson iterated that they had been authorized.

 

(Information found in A Guidebook of Peace Dollars by RWB pgs 80 and 87.)

I stand corrected.

[dcarr]

...I am saying that the criminal statutes, standing on their own, should apply to Carr.

 

Why should the statutes apply to "Carr" and not anyone else ?

As per your interpretation of the criminal statutes, all of these pieces shown below would be illegal. Should the criminal statutes apply to these items ? For each one, "yes" or "no", and why.

 

Looks like a plausible US coin, says "United States of America" and "One Hundred Dollars" on it, does NOT say "COPY" anywhere, not over-struck on a legal tender coin:

 

Struck by dies that are definitely in similitude to an actual US coin, is not marked "COPY" anywhere, not over-struck on a legal tender coin:

 

Struck by dies that are definitely in similitude to an actual US coin (2001 Buffalo Dollar), is not marked "COPY" anywhere, not over-struck on a legal tender coin:

 

Looks like a plausible US coin, looks almost exactly like a known "original numismatic item", is not marked "COPY" anywhere, not over-struck on a legal tender coin:

 

Looks exactly like an actual legal-tender US coin, struck from dies that are an exact likeness of a real legal-tender US coin, neither die was marked "COPY", the piece was stamped "COPY" some time AFTER it was struck, not over-struck on a legal-tender coin:

 

This last item, what is the legality of it between the time it was struck, and the time it was marked "COPY" ? What are the legal ramifications of posessing these dies in complete likeness to a US coin, and striking pieces which are not necessarily marked "COPY" right away (but are marked prior to release) ?

[Afterword]

It is up to the proper authorities to interpret the laws everyone has been dissecting. Their interpretation is all that matters.

 

Besides, it seems to me this is more about moral, rather than legal issues.

 

 

 

[coinman_23885]

Why should the statutes apply to "Carr" and not anyone else ?

As per your interpretation of the criminal statutes, all of these pieces shown below would be illegal. Should the criminal statutes apply to these items ? For each one, "yes" or "no", and why.

 

I agree that most of those would be legally problematic, so I don't think they should be excepted and the statutes should only apply to you. And I am glad that you did post them, as it serves as an excellent springing point for this thread. Nevertheless, it doesn't change my position nor the law.

[19Lyds]

This constant "blending" of 15 USC (Commerce and Trade) and 18 USC (Crimes and Criminal Procedure) to satisfy your "passion" does nothing but cloud the issue here.

 

I'm not blending anything here. It is Carr who attempts to conflate the HPA with the criminal statutes cited. More specifically, Carr alleges (and you agreed in the other thread) that a putative conflict with the HPA exempts Carr from the criminal statute statutes. I disagree. Any such putative conflict would be for coins marked as COPY and permitted by the HPA. Items in which the HPA does not apply or that do not comply with the HPA fall within the plain meaning of the criminal statutes of Title 25 of Chapter 18. That is and always has been my position. You are changing your position and suggesting that I am reading the HPA into criminal statutes. I am saying that the criminal statutes, standing on their own, should apply to Carr. I am engaging in debates with the HPA only as Carr has introduced them.

 

A counterfeit numismatic piece is one produced with the intent to DEFRAUD the collector and as such is subject to the HPA which was written specifically to protect (coin collecting) consumers. (The purpose of the FTC)

 

The statute covers counterfeits and all other coins (regardless of what you call them) that carry the semblance in design or inscription of U.S. coins that have circulated. Please read the actual statute and you will see my point.

 

18 USC, On the other hand, was written to protect the United States Government by addressing the creation of coins or currency produced with the intent of defrauding the "people" of the United States and other countries thereby devaluing the legal tender of the United States and the country itself. Too much unaccounted for and fraudulent money in the system devalues the currency. The United States Treasury is required to have laws regarding the currency of the country to protect itself and the country.

 

Show me where the statute states that it does not apply to numismatic counterfeit items? The plain meaning of an unambiguous statute needs no further interpretation, it speaks for itself.

 

The 15 USC HPA addresses fake 1955/55 Lincolns. It does not address 1907 Lincolns.

 

So you're arguing that the HPA doesn't apply. Fine. Then you have yet to provide a convincing argument of why the statutes in Chapter 25 of Title 18 don't apply. That is my point.

I totally disagree. You ARE blending the two.

 

If I take a 1922 Peace Dollar and wear it down to be undiscernable as a silver dollar, does it make it a non-silver dollar wh9ich cannot be spent at a store?

 

If I simply wear down the date area and then punch a 1964 into that area, does it make it a non-silver dollar which cannot be spent or deposited at a bank?

 

Daniel Carr is not "making "silver dollars". He using actual "silver dollars", as such they are NOT counterfeit under 18 USC.

 

The pieces he makes are of coins which DO NOT EXIST and as such, 15 USC the HPA, does not apply.

 

It is just that simple.

 

 

[dcarr]

 

The entire surface of some hobo nickels are "worked". My over-striking doesn't completely obliterate the details already there. And I'm not making my pieces look any more like a US Coin than they already are to start with.

 

The designs are imparted by non genuine U.S. dies. With regards to your other point, are you saying that overstriking the piece does not destroy the original devices and inscriptions?

 

The designs are already there before the over-striking. Is my over-striking imparting the designs ? Enhancing them perhaps, but not imparting designs onto something that didn't already have the same design on it (only the date and surface texture is changed). The over-striking matches up with the original devices and inscriptions (except for the date). Outlines from the original design can still be seen under magnification.

 

Your use here of the term "brazen" is unwarranted and inappropriate.

 

Perhaps it could have been said more tactfully and in a politer way, but it is completely applicable and accurate. Per your own admission in the other thread, this is a "grey line" legally. In my opinion, you are dancing on the lines of criminal and civil statutes, and you have chronicled the entire thing and put it in the public domain. Your defense (other than strained interpretations and reading non-existent provisions into statutes) is tantamount to either "others do it too," or "show me where someone else has been prosecuted for the same thing," when it appears you are the only one bold enough to try it to my knowledge. My comment was also based on this post:

 

According to the highest court of the land, the collective mothers of America, "but everybody else is doing it!" is not a valid justification of an action..

 

I think this situation is more like the "collective mothers of America" are interpreting their own rules in such a way that allows the kids to have a little bit more fun.

 

My point here is that the government doesn't seem to interpret its own rules the same way you interpret their rules. That is why I asked you to cite a case where the government's interpretation was demonstrated to be the same as yours, but you have not cited any such case.

 

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary defines "brazen" as "marked by contemptuous boldness." I think it is perfectly applicable, when presented with statutory authorities that were cited in the two threads. Your defenses are not as rock solid as you think in my opinion, and if the government was inclined to prosecute you, I don't think they would lose.

 

Also, you seem convinced that the Secret Service and U.S. Treasury have zero interest in your work. The moment one of these passes in circulation or someone mistakenly believes the coins to be what they purport to be (especially in the case of the 1964 dollars), then that could change. Moreover, the only person that we know of to contact them (you) had an interest in the outcome; thus, I am sure you framed the issues for them in a way that was conducive to your end goal (that's human nature and something we all tend to do).

 

That is incorrect. In the other thread I clearly stated that Coin World contacted the US Mint and the Secret Service, inquiring to both about my "1964-D" Peace Silver Dollar over-strikes.

 

And those who might be harmed by your coins in the secondary market likely lack the sophistication to complain to the proper federal agencies, so I wouldn't see the inaction of federal authorities as implied consent to the production of your fantasy pieces. To the contrary, if someone with the sophistication and legal expertise required were to write an articulate complaint complete with citations actually came forward, I wouldn't be surprised to see this receive more attention.

 

Again we come back to who might be harmed (hypothetically).

What "unsophisticated" person is going to know that a "1964-D" Peace Dollar might have significant value, enough for them to pay much more than the real market value (currently $300-$500) ? A person who knows about the 1964-D Peace Dollar, who has the inkling and ability to pay a lot for one, is not a person that is "unsophisticated".

 

I don't think that a person without standing would carry much, if any, weight. The complaining person would have to have standing in the case, to have actually been harmed.