Certainly about time this happened.

[rrantique]

Following several other recent actions in coin related legislation, President Obama has signed the Collectible Coin Protection Act into law. The Act will serve to broaden the existing Hobby Protection Act by making it unlawful to sell unmarked replica coins. The Hobby Protection Act, which was enacted in 1973, had made it illegal to manufacture or import into the United States for introduction into or distribution in commerce any imitation numismatic item that was not plainly and permanently marked “COPY”. However, the Act did not make the sale of such items illegal.

http://news.coinupdate.com/collectible-coin-protection-act-becomes-law-4637/

 

 

 

In response to an influx of unmarked replica and counterfeit coins manufactured in China, there were calls from industry groups, professionals, and collectors to strengthen the decades-old Act to help combat counterfeits.

 

The Collectible Coin Protection Act strengthens the original Hobby Protection Act by now making the sale of unmarked replica coins illegal and also expanding the scope to include any person who provides substantial assistance or support to any manufacturer, importer, or seller if that person knows or should have known that the manufacturer, importer, or seller is engaged in activity that violates the act.

 

Additionally, the law has been expanded to include the unauthorized use of registered trademarks belonging to a collectibles certification company. The owner of the trademark would have the remedies provided under the Hobby Protection Act as well as the Trademark Act of 1946. This new provision was added to specifically combat fake third party coin grading holders bearing the logos or names of legitimate coin grading services.

[brg5658]

But is the "Colorado Counterfeiter" still flying under their radar?

 

[Raisethis2]

Thanks Obama.

[Mr. Smith Guesser]

But is the "Colorado Counterfeiter" still flying under their radar?

 

 

There some of his pieces in ANACS slabs.

 

 

I wonder how that'll play out. There are several currently for sale on eBay.

[WoodenJefferson]

Until other nations, like China, take steps to prevent counterfeiting of any and all products like coins, shoes, purses, sun glasses, etc...knock-offs and counterfeit coins will still find their way to consumers.

[RWB]

If only the FTC would act, we could get rid of some domestic ones.

[brg5658]

If only the FTC would act, we could get rid of some domestic ones.

 

To give credit where credit is due, the "Colorado Counterfeiter" should be trademarked and attributed to Mr. RWB.

 

-tip-o-the-hat-

 

 

[e1cnr]

Until other nations, like China, take steps to prevent counterfeiting of any and all products like coins, shoes, purses, sun glasses, etc...knock-offs and counterfeit coins will still find their way to consumers.

 

China's socialist / communist ideology sees no problem with counterfeiting other peoples efforts. China has no reason to slow a big portion of their GDP or exports of goods modelled from items found around the world. Money produced from production of counterfeits keeps millions have citizens happy and busy (rather than rioting and hungry).

 

No country seems willing to start a trade embargo/boycott with China, because China is a big buyer of raw goods and commodities, and produces things inexpensively.

[RWB]

Sorry, but I did not invent the most appropriate moniker....

[dcarr]

If only the FTC would act, we could get rid of some domestic ones.

 

To give credit where credit is due, the "Colorado Counterfeiter" should be trademarked and attributed to Mr. RWB.

 

-tip-o-the-hat-

 

 

Sorry, but I did not invent the most appropriate moniker....

 

Where there is "credit", there is also liability.

 

A genuine original coin that has been altered to have a fantasy date is not a "counterfeit". It is an altered coin. And so long as the coin isn't intentionally misrepresented (fraud), then there is no violation.

 

[TonerGuy]

Where there is "credit", there is also liability.

 

A genuine original coin that has been altered to have a fantasy date is not a "counterfeit". It is an altered coin. And so long as the coin isn't intentionally misrepresented (fraud), then there is no violation.

 

Has this been tested in court ? Or this your (or your legal counsel's) educated opinion ?

 

Not being argumentative I am actually quite curious...

[coinman_23885]

Thanks Obama.

 

+1 I cannot wait to see the application of this statute.

 

Where there is "credit", there is also liability.

 

Perhaps, but you know that their counsel would argue affirmative defenses including that "truth is a good defense." This would be a question for a federal judge (or jury). And in my opinion, that is a bridge you really don't want to cross unless your case is iron clad as it could easily turn against you. You have promulgated some reasons why you believe that your pieces are legitimate and legal, but in my opinion, your case is far from a slam dunk. Don't overestimate your hand.

 

A genuine original coin that has been altered to have a fantasy date is not a "counterfeit". It is an altered coin. And so long as the coin isn't intentionally misrepresented (fraud), then there is no violation.

 

I am not going to rehash the entire 35+ page thread where this issue was discussed ad nauseam and in which I expressed my opinions and interpretations of the relevant statutes and administrative regulations. I will say that the issue is not as simple as you suggest. The so called "counterfeiting statute" covers more than counterfeits, but applies to any individual that "falsely makes, forges, or counterfeits any coin or bar in resemblance or similitude of any coin...."

 

The defining issue is not whether your pieces are merely "counterfeits" but rather the pieces were unauthorized pieces struck in the likeness of U.S. coinage. And to my knowledge, the Congress has never passed legislation to allow you to coin your own money including 1964-D Peace Dollars. And this is an actual issue that existed, killing your argument about changing the dates (an argument which I still found unconvincing). Also, did you strike a 1964 Franklin over a Kennedy Half Dollar? If the Chinese were to strike 1894 CC Morgan Dollars over Trade Dollars, would you call these fantasy strikes?

 

Most importantly, even if you think the coins are acceptable, the statutes against dies to strike pieces that resemble genuine products would be problematic for your argument in my opinion. And there is no ambiguity or conflict between the HPA and the counterfeiting statutes as applied to your work; both statutes can be applied as written without diminishing the effects of either. The only argument that I have really heard from you concerning this is that the government's failure to prosecute you by this point in time constitutes a sign of agreement with your pieces and their legality.

[coinman_23885]

Where there is "credit", there is also liability.

 

A genuine original coin that has been altered to have a fantasy date is not a "counterfeit". It is an altered coin. And so long as the coin isn't intentionally misrepresented (fraud), then there is no violation.

 

Has this been tested in court ? Or this your (or your legal counsel's) educated opinion ?

 

Not being argumentative I am actually quite curious...

 

Not yet. There was a poster ATS who went after round makers through a civil suit. Mr. Carr has frequently cited round makers for not including the word "copy" on its coins or dies in rebuttal to my arguments about the application of 18 U.S.C. 485 and 487 (the latter of which addresses making and possessing dies in the likeness of U.S. coins; my argument was that if not authorized by the HPA, then Section 487 would be applicable). His theory is that the government has yet to go after them, and has somehow implicitly consented to this practice as a result. He expressed his belief that his dies would similarly be acceptable.

 

My understanding is that the case will be set for trial and that the plaintiff survived all of the pretrial motions. I believe this included, in that case, a motion for summary judgment and possibly a 12(b)(6) motion. It will be interesting to see how it turns out. Any appeal could yield precedent. And if the dies and coins are held to be incompatible with the HPA, I don't see why 18 U.S.C. 485 and 487 wouldn't apply to "fantasy pieces" and the dies used to produce them. And the same poster might very well turn against fantasy pieces next...only time will tell.

 

Edited: I haven't read the complaint or other pleadings, but it is my understanding that the initial suit was based on the HPA alone. I messaged the plaintiff with a link to the thread mentioned above where the Code of Federal Regulations and Chapter 25 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code were mentioned. I am unsure whether the pleadings were ever amended or whether this was used (i.e. if the pieces fall within the purview of title 18, then surely they would violate the HPA), so any adjudication might be limited to the HPA and not the other statutes mentioned herein.

[TonerGuy]

Thank you Coinman for the extremely detailed and succinct explanation. This issue is by far not an easy one to accurately describe in so few words.

 

I would love to hear Mr. Carr's response.

 

In regards to the civil litigation you noted above, I assume that Mr Carr was not a defendant in that case. And I assume that no one has filed a separate civil complaint against Carr & Co under a theory of unfair competition (assuming there are other private mints that use a "copy" stamp) or by a consumer that bought a medal from him based on consumer protection laws ?

 

Or has he successfully defended his creation of his fantasy pieces or medals even in a civil setting ?

 

With the number of lawyers in numismatics that would seem like a case someone would pursue.

[dcarr]

Where there is "credit", there is also liability.

 

This statement from me has been misunderstood.

 

If someone has the "credit" for slinging unfounded claims of counterfeiting, then they also have the liability of any damages that result from such false accusations.

[dcarr]

Perhaps, but you know that their counsel would argue affirmative defenses including that "truth is a good defense." This would be a question for a federal judge (or jury). And in my opinion, that is a bridge you really don't want to cross unless your case is iron clad as it could easily turn against you. You have promulgated some reasons why you believe that your pieces are legitimate and legal, but in my opinion, your case is far from a slam dunk. Don't overestimate your hand.

 

Why do you make it sound like there is a case ?

There is not.

 

I am not going to rehash the entire 35+ page thread

 

Too late.

 

where this issue was discussed ad nauseam and in which I expressed my opinions and interpretations of the relevant statutes and administrative regulations. I will say that the issue is not as simple as you suggest. The so called "counterfeiting statute" covers more than counterfeits, but applies to any individual that "falsely makes, forges, or counterfeits any coin or bar in resemblance or similitude of any coin...."

 

The key word "falsely" brings intent into the context, which in this situation would be equivalent to "fraudulently". If there is no fraud, there is no violation.

 

The defining issue is not whether your pieces are merely "counterfeits" but rather the pieces were unauthorized pieces struck in the likeness of U.S. coinage. And to my knowledge, the Congress has never passed legislation to allow you to coin your own money including 1964-D Peace Dollars.

 

It is not illegal for someone to coin and use their own "money" ("Disney Dollars", for example). What you can't (legally) do is coin your own money and attempt to pass it off as government-issue legal tender. This is where Bernard Von Nothaus of Liberty Dollar got into trouble.

 

Regardless, your premise that I am "coining my own money" is completely false. It doesn't require congressional authorization for someone to legally alter an existing legal tender coin for non-fraudulent (artistic/novelty) purposes.

 

And this is an actual issue that existed, killing your argument about changing the dates (an argument which I still found unconvincing). Also, did you strike a 1964 Franklin over a Kennedy Half Dollar? If the Chinese were to strike 1894 CC Morgan Dollars over Trade Dollars, would you call these fantasy strikes?

 

I did do a couple test strikes of a "1964" Franklin over a 1964 Kennedy. I did not release either of those. An "1894-CC" Morgan dollar struck over a genuine Trade Dollar would be considered a privately-altered (over-struck) novelty/fantasy coin. But only if it was advertised and sold as such. If it were clandestinely offered as an original US Mint 1894-CC striking, then that deceptive practice would constitute fraud.

 

Mint mark aside, "1894" Morgan Dollars exist. So this is not something that I would consider to be a "fantasy date", and it is not one that I would do.

 

Most importantly, even if you think the coins are acceptable, the statutes against dies to strike pieces that resemble genuine products would be problematic for your argument in my opinion. And there is no ambiguity or conflict between the HPA and the counterfeiting statutes as applied to your work; both statutes can be applied as written without diminishing the effects of either. The only argument that I have really heard from you concerning this is that the government's failure to prosecute you by this point in time constitutes a sign of agreement with your pieces and their legality.

 

If that is the only argument you have heard, then you missed much of the prior discussions.

 

The two statutes in question are most definitely contradictory. The earlier one says that it is illegal to make or possess molds or dies in the likeness of US coins. The later HPA specifically allows replica numismatic items to be manufactured and sold. Those replicas require molds and dies for the manufacturing process. Also note that while the HPA stipulates that replicas of "original numismatic items" must be clearly marked "COPY", it does NOT mandate that the "COPY" mark must appear on BOTH sides of the coin. I do not know of any replica coins that have "COPY" on both sides. Therefore, all of the makers of replica coins have had in their possession at least one mold or die in the likeness of a US coin and without "COPY" on it. No such maker has ever been prosecuted for a violation of the earlier statute. It isn't just me - no replica coin maker since the enactment of the HPA has ever been criminally charged with a violation related to the possession of molds or dies in the likeness of a US Coin.

 

And what constitutes an "original numismatic item" is debatable - it is not fully defined in the HPA. An over-struck "1964-D" Peace Dollar does not purport to be an "original numismatic item" because the US government itself says that no 1964 dollar coins were issued and none exist.

 

[dcarr]

Where there is "credit", there is also liability.

 

A genuine original coin that has been altered to have a fantasy date is not a "counterfeit". It is an altered coin. And so long as the coin isn't intentionally misrepresented (fraud), then there is no violation.

 

Has this been tested in court ? Or [is] this your (or your legal counsel's) educated opinion ?

 

This has not been tested in court. So any claims on this forum or elsewhere that I am "counterfeiting" are false and libelous.

 

Not yet. There was a poster ATS who went after round makers through a civil suit. Mr. Carr has frequently cited round makers for not including the word "copy" on its coins or dies in rebuttal to my arguments about the application of 18 U.S.C. 485 and 487 (the latter of which addresses making and possessing dies in the likeness of U.S. coins; my argument was that if not authorized by the HPA, then Section 487 would be applicable). His theory is that the government has yet to go after them, and has somehow implicitly consented to this practice as a result. He expressed his belief that his dies would similarly be acceptable.

 

See my argument in my prior post regarding "COPY" being required on only one side of a replica coin.

 

My understanding is that the case will be set for trial and that the plaintiff survived all of the pretrial motions. I believe this included, in that case, a motion for summary judgment and possibly a 12(b)(6) motion. It will be interesting to see how it turns out. Any appeal could yield precedent. And if the dies and coins are held to be incompatible with the HPA, I don't see why 18 U.S.C. 485 and 487 wouldn't apply to "fantasy pieces" and the dies used to produce them. And the same poster might very well turn against fantasy pieces next...only time will tell.

 

Edited: I haven't read the complaint or other pleadings, but it is my understanding that the initial suit was based on the HPA alone. I messaged the plaintiff with a link to the thread mentioned above where the Code of Federal Regulations and Chapter 25 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code were mentioned. I am unsure whether the pleadings were ever amended or whether this was used (i.e. if the pieces fall within the purview of title 18, then surely they would violate the HPA), so any adjudication might be limited to the HPA and not the other statutes mentioned herein.

 

To be clear, you are talking about a case that has nothing directly to do with me. The case you are talking about was discussed ATS in a thread called "Tomorrow is my day in court".

 

The plaintiff in that case has a real problem. They are suing on the basis of a violation of the HPA (which would be a civil matter, not a criminal matter). As such, they would need to have standing in the case - meaning that they would have had to suffer actual damages. The plaintiff claims that he/she purchased the two rounds and then suffered damages because they were not government mint coins.

 

So this plaintiff purchased two silver rounds from the maker/seller. One of the rounds looks like a US Silver Eagle, but it doesn't have any date on it, and it doesn't say "ONE DOLLAR" on it. The other round looks like a Canada Timber Wolf, except that it doesn't say "CANADA" on it, it doesn't have a denomination on it, and it doesn't have the Queen on it.

 

The problem for this plaintiff comes from a post they made BEFORE ordering the two rounds. The plaintiff wrote: "I just placed an order with the Westminster Mint for a Silver Eagle designed round, and a Timber wolf design round. I am wondering if anyone here has gotten any similar rounds, or maybe some of the Morgan or Peace designed rounds? "

 

From the wording here it appears that, prior to placing the order, the plaintiff was aware that these were silver "rounds" and not government-issue coins.

So the plaintiff essentially staged their own "damages" so as to achieve an apparent (but false) standing in the case. The plaintiff's argument that he/she was fooled by the rounds is revealed to be invalid (at best) given their prior statement.

 

 

[dcarr]

Thank you Coinman for the extremely detailed and succinct explanation. This issue is by far not an easy one to accurately describe in so few words.

 

I would love to hear Mr. Carr's response.

 

In regards to the civil litigation you noted above, I assume that Mr Carr was not a defendant in that case. And I assume that no one has filed a separate civil complaint against Carr & Co under a theory of unfair competition (assuming there are other private mints that use a "copy" stamp) or by a consumer that bought a medal from him based on consumer protection laws ?

 

Or has he successfully defended his creation of his fantasy pieces or medals even in a civil setting ?

 

See my prior posts for a reply to this.

 

In a civil case, someone has to suffer damages. If anyone feels that they have been "damaged" by buying a coin or medal from me, I have a full refund policy. In fact, I have never failed to give a full refund for a coin returned to me, even when some were returned years after I sold them.

 

As to "unfair competition" hurting other private mints, I do not know of a single private mint that hasn't at some point minted a "round" that has some similarities to a government coin.

 

If another private mint thought I was taking business away from them by producing fantasy-date over-strike (altered) coins, then they would have to think that "hobo" nickel carvers and the like were also taking business away from them.

 

With the number of lawyers in numismatics that would seem like a case someone would pursue.

 

In a way, the case already has been (unsuccessfully) pursued.

 

RWB recently filed with the ANA a complaint against me in an attempt to get me kicked out of the ANA. He has never bought a coin from me nor have we ever exchanged monies or goods or services, nor have we ever met or talked in person (that I know of). His complaint alleged that I violated ANA bylaws by producing and selling "1964-D" over-strike Peace Silver Dollars and over-strike 2009-DC "proofed" Silver Eagles. Even though he had no standing in the case, I had 20 days to file a rebuttal with the ANA (which I did). The ANA board reviewed the complaint and rebuttal, and determined that there was no intent to deceive on my part and no violations. And so the ANA board rejected the complaint in its entirety. I'm still an ANA member.

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Thanks Obama.

 

+1 I cannot wait to see the application of this statute.

 

Where there is "credit", there is also liability.

 

Perhaps, but you know that their counsel would argue affirmative defenses including that "truth is a good defense." This would be a question for a federal judge (or jury). And in my opinion, that is a bridge you really don't want to cross unless your case is iron clad as it could easily turn against you. You have promulgated some reasons why you believe that your pieces are legitimate and legal, but in my opinion, your case is far from a slam dunk. Don't overestimate your hand.

 

A genuine original coin that has been altered to have a fantasy date is not a "counterfeit". It is an altered coin. And so long as the coin isn't intentionally misrepresented (fraud), then there is no violation.

 

I am not going to rehash the entire 35+ page thread where this issue was discussed ad nauseam and in which I expressed my opinions and interpretations of the relevant statutes and administrative regulations. I will say that the issue is not as simple as you suggest. The so called "counterfeiting statute" covers more than counterfeits, but applies to any individual that "falsely makes, forges, or counterfeits any coin or bar in resemblance or similitude of any coin...."

 

The defining issue is not whether your pieces are merely "counterfeits" but rather the pieces were unauthorized pieces struck in the likeness of U.S. coinage. And to my knowledge, the Congress has never passed legislation to allow you to coin your own money including 1964-D Peace Dollars. And this is an actual issue that existed, killing your argument about changing the dates (an argument which I still found unconvincing). Also, did you strike a 1964 Franklin over a Kennedy Half Dollar? If the Chinese were to strike 1894 CC Morgan Dollars over Trade Dollars, would you call these fantasy strikes?

 

Most importantly, even if you think the coins are acceptable, the statutes against dies to strike pieces that resemble genuine products would be problematic for your argument in my opinion. And there is no ambiguity or conflict between the HPA and the counterfeiting statutes as applied to your work; both statutes can be applied as written without diminishing the effects of either. The only argument that I have really heard from you concerning this is that the government's failure to prosecute you by this point in time constitutes a sign of agreement with your pieces and their legality.

 

Token....Token...Token....

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Thank you Coinman for the extremely detailed and succinct explanation. This issue is by far not an easy one to accurately describe in so few words.

 

I would love to hear Mr. Carr's response.

 

In regards to the civil litigation you noted above, I assume that Mr Carr was not a defendant in that case. And I assume that no one has filed a separate civil complaint against Carr & Co under a theory of unfair competition (assuming there are other private mints that use a "copy" stamp) or by a consumer that bought a medal from him based on consumer protection laws ?

 

Or has he successfully defended his creation of his fantasy pieces or medals even in a civil setting ?

 

See my prior posts for a reply to this.

 

In a civil case, someone has to suffer damages. If anyone feels that they have been "damaged" by buying a coin or medal from me, I have a full refund policy. In fact, I have never failed to give a full refund for a coin returned to me, even when some were returned years after I sold them.

 

As to "unfair competition" hurting other private mints, I do not know of a single private mint that hasn't at some point minted a "round" that has some similarities to a government coin.

 

If another private mint thought I was taking business away from them by producing fantasy-date over-strike (altered) coins, then they would have to think that "hobo" nickel carvers and the like were also taking business away from them.

 

With the number of lawyers in numismatics that would seem like a case someone would pursue.

 

In a way, the case already has been (unsuccessfully) pursued.

 

RWB recently filed with the ANA a complaint against me in an attempt to get me kicked out of the ANA. He has never bought a coin from me nor have we ever exchanged monies or goods or services, nor have we ever met or talked in person (that I know of). His complaint alleged that I violated ANA bylaws by producing and selling "1964-D" over-strike Peace Silver Dollars and over-strike 2009-DC "proofed" Silver Eagles. Even though he had no standing in the case, I had 20 days to file a rebuttal with the ANA (which I did). The ANA board reviewed the complaint and rebuttal, and determined that there was no intent to deceive on my part and no violations. And so the ANA board rejected the complaint in its entirety. I'm still an ANA member.

 

Token....Token...Token.....

[TonerGuy]

Interesting defenses Mr. Carr and well argued as well.

 

However, I do have to ask, since you are an ANA member, do you feel any responsibility for how others may mislabel and/or misrepresent your fantasy pieces in the near and distant future ?

 

Your over-strike pieces are so good they are sometimes difficult to distinguish from actual US Mint issued coins (of course other than the dates).

 

By the way, I really do like your limited edition special "pattern" pieces. I own several.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Interesting defenses Mr. Carr and well argued as well.

 

However, I do have to ask, since you are an ANA member, do you feel any responsibility for how others may mislabel and/or misrepresent your fantasy pieces in the near and distant future ?

 

Your over-strike pieces are so good they are sometimes difficult to distinguish from actual US Mint issued coins (of course other than the dates).

 

By the way, I really do like your limited edition special "pattern" pieces. I own several.

 

Do you consider a TPG labeling the coin a Token is accurate?

[coinman_23885]

[quote name= dcarr]

Why do you make it sound like there is a case ?

There is not.

 

I misinterpreted your intent, but I see that you clarified in another post.

 

I am not going to rehash the entire 35+ page thread

 

Too late.

 

 

The key word "falsely" brings intent into the context, which in this situation would be equivalent to "fraudulently". If there is no fraud, there is no violation.

 

We will have to agree to disagree.

 

The defining issue is not whether your pieces are merely "counterfeits" but rather the pieces were unauthorized pieces struck in the likeness of U.S. coinage. And to my knowledge, the Congress has never passed legislation to allow you to coin your own money including 1964-D Peace Dollars.

 

It is not illegal for someone to coin and use their own "money" ("Disney Dollars", for example). What you can't (legally) do is coin your own money and attempt to pass it off as government-issue legal tender. This is where Bernard Von Nothaus of Liberty Dollar got into trouble.

 

Regardless, your premise that I am "coining my own money" is completely false. It doesn't require congressional authorization for someone to legally alter an existing legal tender coin for non-fraudulent (artistic/novelty) purposes.

 

We are talking about coins that are similar in design and inscription to official U.S. Coinage not tokens or Disney money. These are distinguishable. And it goes past mere alteration when you substantially obliterated the original coin and are over striking it with dies that are similar in appearance to U.S. Coin dies. At that point the coin is effectively no different than any other metal disk with respect to striking. And I brought up the 1964 Franklins which were not overstruck over another Frankin, but another generic half dollar. If I take a five dollar bill, bleach it and over strike it with the design of a $100 bill, are you seriously going to tell me that the piece wouldn't be treated as a counterfeit or at least a forgery?!

 

I did do a couple test strikes of a "1964" Franklin over a 1964 Kennedy. I did not release either of those.

 

I still question the legality of the pieces, but I stand corrected insofar as release is concerned.

 

Mint mark aside, "1894" Morgan Dollars exist. So this is not something that I would consider to be a "fantasy date", and it is not one that I would do.

 

So did (or possibly do) 1964-D Peace Dollars. Also, would you strike an 1895 business strike Morgan?

 

The two statutes in question are most definitely contradictory. The earlier one says that it is illegal to make or possess molds or dies in the likeness of US coins. The later HPA specifically allows replica numismatic items to be manufactured and sold. Those replicas require molds and dies for the manufacturing process. Also note that while the HPA stipulates that replicas of "original numismatic items" must be clearly marked "COPY", it does NOT mandate that the "COPY" mark must appear on BOTH sides of the coin.

 

Your pieces aren't marked on either side. And repeal by implication is not favored, and courts must give effect to both statutes. Both the HPA and the statutes in Title 18 can be applied as written, and courts are obliged to apply this plain meaning. And the fact that the government has not enforced the statutes does not render it unenforceable.

 

For everything else, I'll simply reference the mega thread.

[coinman_23885]

Where there is "credit", there is also liability.

 

A genuine original coin that has been altered to have a fantasy date is not a "counterfeit". It is an altered coin. And so long as the coin isn't intentionally misrepresented (fraud), then there is no violation.

 

Has this been tested in court ? Or [is] this your (or your legal counsel's) educated opinion ?

 

This has not been tested in court. So any claims on this forum or elsewhere that I am "counterfeiting" are false and libelous.

 

Not yet. There was a poster ATS who went after round makers through a civil suit. Mr. Carr has frequently cited round makers for not including the word "copy" on its coins or dies in rebuttal to my arguments about the application of 18 U.S.C. 485 and 487 (the latter of which addresses making and possessing dies in the likeness of U.S. coins; my argument was that if not authorized by the HPA, then Section 487 would be applicable). His theory is that the government has yet to go after them, and has somehow implicitly consented to this practice as a result. He expressed his belief that his dies would similarly be acceptable.

 

See my argument in my prior post regarding "COPY" being required on only one side of a replica coin.

 

My understanding is that the case will be set for trial and that the plaintiff survived all of the pretrial motions. I believe this included, in that case, a motion for summary judgment and possibly a 12(b)(6) motion. It will be interesting to see how it turns out. Any appeal could yield precedent. And if the dies and coins are held to be incompatible with the HPA, I don't see why 18 U.S.C. 485 and 487 wouldn't apply to "fantasy pieces" and the dies used to produce them. And the same poster might very well turn against fantasy pieces next...only time will tell.

 

Edited: I haven't read the complaint or other pleadings, but it is my understanding that the initial suit was based on the HPA alone. I messaged the plaintiff with a link to the thread mentioned above where the Code of Federal Regulations and Chapter 25 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code were mentioned. I am unsure whether the pleadings were ever amended or whether this was used (i.e. if the pieces fall within the purview of title 18, then surely they would violate the HPA), so any adjudication might be limited to the HPA and not the other statutes mentioned herein.

 

To be clear, you are talking about a case that has nothing directly to do with me. The case you are talking about was discussed ATS in a thread called "Tomorrow is my day in court".

 

The plaintiff in that case has a real problem. They are suing on the basis of a violation of the HPA (which would be a civil matter, not a criminal matter). As such, they would need to have standing in the case - meaning that they would have had to suffer actual damages. The plaintiff claims that he/she purchased the two rounds and then suffered damages because they were not government mint coins.

 

So this plaintiff purchased two silver rounds from the maker/seller. One of the rounds looks like a US Silver Eagle, but it doesn't have any date on it, and it doesn't say "ONE DOLLAR" on it. The other round looks like a Canada Timber Wolf, except that it doesn't say "CANADA" on it, it doesn't have a denomination on it, and it doesn't have the Queen on it.

 

The problem for this plaintiff comes from a post they made BEFORE ordering the two rounds. The plaintiff wrote: "I just placed an order with the Westminster Mint for a Silver Eagle designed round, and a Timber wolf design round. I am wondering if anyone here has gotten any similar rounds, or maybe some of the Morgan or Peace designed rounds? "

 

From the wording here it appears that, prior to placing the order, the plaintiff was aware that these were silver "rounds" and not government-issue coins.

So the plaintiff essentially staged their own "damages" so as to achieve an apparent (but false) standing in the case. The plaintiff's argument that he/she was fooled by the rounds is revealed to be invalid (at best) given their prior statement.

 

 

To be clear, I never suggested you were a party of interest to that case or any other civil proceeding (or even a criminal one for that matter). That would be reckless and I would never do that. I was merely mentioning that any HPA precedent could potentially be applicable to fantasy pieces. And even though it is a civil case, the interpretation of the criminal statutes could effect the interpretation of civil statutes in some cases. I'm not saying that will happen here (probably not), but it is a possibility if courts think the statutes involve similar enough phrasing or if they are in pari materia.

 

And it looks like the plaintiff in that case was able to overcome a motion to dismiss, so an adjudication on the merits will likely occur.

[coinman_23885]

This has not been tested in court. So any claims on this forum or elsewhere that I am "counterfeiting" are false and libelous.

 

Actually the defendants of any would be case could attempt to prove within the context of a civil case that you violated those statutes (including the Title 18 statutes). They might be unsuccessful, but so could you. That's where I was going with my comments that I wouldn't cross that bridge if I were you unless I was absolutely sure I had an iron clad case as you could generate precedent that could be adverse to your interests. The fact that there has been no adjudication on your pieces doesn't mean legally that the claims are false - that would be your burden to prove and has yet to be legally established. I'm not implying either way, but am saying that the law is not as black and white as you (or perhaps even I from your perspective) might think it is.

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

[quote name= dcarr]

Why do you make it sound like there is a case ?

There is not.

 

I misinterpreted your intent, but I see that you clarified in another post.

 

I am not going to rehash the entire 35+ page thread

 

Too late.

 

 

The key word "falsely" brings intent into the context, which in this situation would be equivalent to "fraudulently". If there is no fraud, there is no violation.

 

We will have to agree to disagree.

 

The defining issue is not whether your pieces are merely "counterfeits" but rather the pieces were unauthorized pieces struck in the likeness of U.S. coinage. And to my knowledge, the Congress has never passed legislation to allow you to coin your own money including 1964-D Peace Dollars.

 

It is not illegal for someone to coin and use their own "money" ("Disney Dollars", for example). What you can't (legally) do is coin your own money and attempt to pass it off as government-issue legal tender. This is where Bernard Von Nothaus of Liberty Dollar got into trouble.

 

Regardless, your premise that I am "coining my own money" is completely false. It doesn't require congressional authorization for someone to legally alter an existing legal tender coin for non-fraudulent (artistic/novelty) purposes.

 

We are talking about coins that are similar in design and inscription to official U.S. Coinage not tokens or Disney money. These are distinguishable. And it goes past mere alteration when you substantially obliterated the original coin and are over striking it with dies that are similar in appearance to U.S. Coin dies. At that point the coin is effectively no different than any other metal disk with respect to striking. And I brought up the 1964 Franklins which were not overstruck over another Frankin, but another generic half dollar. If I take a five dollar bill, bleach it and over strike it with the design of a $100 bill, are you seriously going to tell me that the piece wouldn't be treated as a counterfeit or at least a forgery?!

 

I did do a couple test strikes of a "1964" Franklin over a 1964 Kennedy. I did not release either of those.

 

I still question the legality of the pieces, but I stand corrected insofar as release is concerned.

 

Mint mark aside, "1894" Morgan Dollars exist. So this is not something that I would consider to be a "fantasy date", and it is not one that I would do.

 

So did (or possibly do) 1964-D Peace Dollars. Also, would you strike an 1895 business strike Morgan?

 

The two statutes in question are most definitely contradictory. The earlier one says that it is illegal to make or possess molds or dies in the likeness of US coins. The later HPA specifically allows replica numismatic items to be manufactured and sold. Those replicas require molds and dies for the manufacturing process. Also note that while the HPA stipulates that replicas of "original numismatic items" must be clearly marked "COPY", it does NOT mandate that the "COPY" mark must appear on BOTH sides of the coin.

 

Your pieces aren't marked on either side. And repeal by implication is not favored, and courts must give effect to both statutes. Both the HPA and the statutes in Title 18 can be applied as written, and courts are obliged to apply this plain meaning. And the fact that the government has not enforced the statutes does not render it unenforceable.

 

For everything else, I'll simply reference the mega thread.

 

It is your opinion the pieces are not Tokens, and therefore a TPG labeling the pieces as a Token (with a passing use of the word "fantasy") is not accurate. Is that a correct interpretation of your statements?

[TonerGuy]

Interesting defenses Mr. Carr and well argued as well.

 

However, I do have to ask, since you are an ANA member, do you feel any responsibility for how others may mislabel and/or misrepresent your fantasy pieces in the near and distant future ?

 

Your over-strike pieces are so good they are sometimes difficult to distinguish from actual US Mint issued coins (of course other than the dates).

 

By the way, I really do like your limited edition special "pattern" pieces. I own several.

 

Do you consider a TPG labeling the coin a Token is accurate?

 

Honestly I dont know much about this subject other than my personal feelings. I dont know the technical differences between a token, a coin or a medal. I know what I think. I think token is accurate. I dont think they should be called coins though.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Interesting defenses Mr. Carr and well argued as well.

 

However, I do have to ask, since you are an ANA member, do you feel any responsibility for how others may mislabel and/or misrepresent your fantasy pieces in the near and distant future ?

 

Your over-strike pieces are so good they are sometimes difficult to distinguish from actual US Mint issued coins (of course other than the dates).

 

By the way, I really do like your limited edition special "pattern" pieces. I own several.

 

Do you consider a TPG labeling the coin a Token is accurate?

 

Honestly I dont know much about this subject other than my personal feelings. I dont know the technical differences between a token, a coin or a medal. I know what I think. I think token is accurate. I dont think they should be called coins though.

 

Thank you.

[coinman_23885]

It is your opinion the pieces are not Tokens, and therefore a TPG labeling the pieces as a Token (with a passing use of the word "fantasy") is not accurate. Is that a correct interpretation of your statements?

 

I don't think his pieces are accurately described as tokens (at least not the fantasy pieces). If the coins were substantially different enough that someone unfamiliar with numismatics could tell the difference between them and normal money (e.g. one side was different and had Dan Carr productions or something that would clearly alert the beholder that it is either not a genuine coin or at least is grossly altered) then I would opine differently.

 

And there is also a point of contention about the point in time that a coin loses coin/legal tender status and merely becomes like any other disk of metal (such as one I could make in my garage). For instance, if I melted a bunch of mutilated Morgan Dollars and produced my own .900 fine planchets, could I strike 1893-S dollars without fear of violating federal law? What about if I over struck the coins over XF or AU 1893 P coins?

 

Edited: Compare also the 1964-D Peace Dollars which were also legally authorized and produced. It is unclear whether any survive, but I see no distinction in the law for pieces supposedly destroyed,

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

It is your opinion the pieces are not Tokens, and therefore a TPG labeling the pieces as a Token (with a passing use of the word "fantasy") is not accurate. Is that a correct interpretation of your statements?

 

I don't think his pieces are accurately described as tokens (at least not the fantasy pieces). If the coin were substantially different enough that someone unfamiliar with numismatics could tell the difference between them and normal money (e.g. one side was different and had Dan Carr productions or something that would clearly alert the beholder that it is either not a genuine coin or at least is grossly altered) then I would opine differently.

 

And there is also a point of contention about the point in time that a coin loses coin/legal tender status and merely becomes like any other disk of metal (such as one I could make in my garage).

 

I see.

 

I refer you to the TPG coin depicted in this Thread, and the labeling.

 

Is it a Token and Fantasy piece, or a Token with a Fantasy date MM, or is it strictly a Fantasy piece, and the Token portion of the description is incorrect, within the context of the Law, and, well, to be specific Title 18?

 

Careful now......