Certainly about time this happened.

[coinman_23885]

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......

 

I vote for none of the above. Unless the pieces comply with the HPA, if the coin otherwise is substantially similar in design or inscription to U.S. coinage, in my opinion (which is pretty worthless as I am not a judge, legislator, or involved in law enforcement) Title 18 should apply.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

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......

 

I vote for none of the above. Unless the pieces comply with the HPA, if the coin otherwise is substantially similar in design or inscription to U.S. coinage, in my opinion (which is pretty worthless as I am not a judge, legislator, or involved in law enforcement) Title 18 should apply.

 

Then you have read the clear legal definition in Title 18, or the U.S. Treasury clear legal definition, or HPA clear legal definition, of what a Token is? After all, the clear legal definitions of a Token would be the threshold test, I would think.

[coinman_23885]

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......

 

I vote for none of the above. Unless the pieces comply with the HPA, if the coin otherwise is substantially similar in design or inscription to U.S. coinage, in my opinion (which is pretty worthless as I am not a judge, legislator, or involved in law enforcement) Title 18 should apply.

 

Then you have read the clear legal definition in Title 18, or the U.S. Treasury clear legal definition, or HPA clear legal definition, of what a Token is? After all, the clear legal definitions of a Token would be the threshold test, I would think.

 

As I alluded to, the statutes do not limit the prohibition to "counterfeits" but coins that are similar in design or inscription to U.S. coins. So theoretically, a "token" could fall within the purview of the statutes. And there are no exceptions made in those statutes themselves, but the HPA would clearly provide exceptions to pieces that comply with it. If a piece does not comply with the HPA then I see no reason the Title 18 statutes wouldn't apply. And we can avoid arguments about "virgin" versus "non-virgin" planchets (Mr. Carr's terminology) by addressing the dies themselves.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

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......

 

I vote for none of the above. Unless the pieces comply with the HPA, if the coin otherwise is substantially similar in design or inscription to U.S. coinage, in my opinion (which is pretty worthless as I am not a judge, legislator, or involved in law enforcement) Title 18 should apply.

 

Then you have read the clear legal definition in Title 18, or the U.S. Treasury clear legal definition, or HPA clear legal definition, of what a Token is? After all, the clear legal definitions of a Token would be the threshold test, I would think.

 

As I alluded to, the statutes do not limit the prohibition to "counterfeits" but coins that are similar in design or inscription to U.S. coins. So theoretically, a "token" could fall within the purview of the statutes. And there are no exceptions made in those statutes themselves, but the HPA would clearly provide exceptions to pieces that comply with it. If a piece does not comply with the HPA then I see no reason the Title 18 statutes wouldn't apply.

 

Then you have not read the legal definition of Token, by any of the sources. I understand your opinions a little better now. Thank you.

[coinman_23885]

Then you have not read the legal definition of Token, by any of the sources. I understand your opinions a little better now. Thank you.

 

Are you aware of a statutory definition elsewhere in the Code that I have overlooked? To the best of my recollection, the Code was silent on the definition of a token, meaning that courts would adopt a lay definition. In any event, you asked me whether I would personally consider it a token and I don't. And I am not opining anything on a legal definition of "token" other than to say that I do not believe it actually matters within the context of the Title 18 statutes. Were you referring to something in the civil HPA statutes? Am I misunderstanding you?

[dcarr]

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.

 

No.

If someone is intent on committing fraud, they will find some way to do it, and some coin to do it with. For example, cutting parts of the "4" off of a 1944-D cent to make it look like a rare "1914-D" cent, which the perpetrator then sells to an unsuspecting buyer while intentionally withholding the key information about the coin. When it comes to such fraudulent activity, blame should go to the person who is actually perpetrating the fraud.

 

The fantasy date that I strike onto the coins is an obvious marker because, when it comes to valuing a coin, you have to know the condition, the metallic content, and the date. You can't even look up the value of a fantasy-date coin in a normal price guide because that date isn't listed. But note that my "1964-D" over-strike Peace Dollars are listed in the Krause "Unusual World Coins" catalog. This particular catalog lists only unofficial pieces, unrecognized states issues, etc. So my "1964-D" over-strike Peace Dollars have become a numismatic item in their own right. And the famous "Red Book" price guide mentions privately-altered "1964-D" Peace Dollars.

 

But think about who might be fooled into spending a huge amount of money (more than actual market value) for a "1964-D" over-strike Peace Dollar. It would have to be someone who knows the story of the original 1964-D dollars that were minted and then melted. By spending a bunch of money, the buyer would knowingly be taking a risk that either the coin is an original (and thus, illegal to own), or it is a modern re-creation of some sort.

 

If someone was uncertain about a "1964-D" Peace Dollar, all they need do is search the internet and they would find a lot of information (such as this thread or my own web page which describes the full nature of the coins). So all it would take would be the smallest amount of due diligence to determine whether the amount of money in consideration is appropriate for the piece.

 

What would happen if someone brought one of my "1964-D" over-strike Peace Dollars into a pawn shop ? Watch the recent episode of the TV show "Pawn Stars" (the episode titled "Flying High") to find out.

 

[dcarr]

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?

 

The word "token" indicates that the piece is not legal tender.

I never called them a "token". Nor did I ever in any way claim that they are legal tender. The wording on the label was chosen by the grading/certification company.

 

[dcarr]

[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?!

 

Your analogy ($5/$100 bill) doesn't fit this situation AT ALL. Assuming that the purpose of the bleaching and reprinting the bill is to pass it off as $100 legal tender, then what you describe is fraudulent activity. The purpose of section 18 is to establish penalties for manufacturing and passing of counterfeit legal tender. Counterfeiting harms society by diluting the value of the currency. It also, of course, harms whomever ends up stuck with the counterfeit.

 

An accurate analogy to what I do would be to take a $1 bill, print something over it (but it still looks basically like a $1 bill - nobody would ever mistake it for a $100 bill), and then advertise it as an over-printed $1 bill collector's item that is not to be used as legal tender.

 

I'm not creating something this is apparent legal tender out of something that wasn't legal tender to start with. For every "1964-D" over-strike Peace Dollar that I produced (for example) a $1 legal tender coin was "consumed" in the process. So there was no apparent dilution of the currency. And I never claimed any legal tender status for my over-strikes in the first place.

 

This is a question that has never been legally answered: If you take a legal tender coin, completely stamp over it with something similar (without heating or melting and without adding or removing any metal), what is the legal tender status of the result ? None of the US statutes address this because: either the legislators never foresaw any reason why somebody would ever want to do this; and/or the legislators weren't concerned about it.

 

There are no statutes that I'm aware of that specify how much alteration to a coin is possible before the coin ceases to be legal tender.

 

About the only thing to go on is the US Mint regulations on redeeming "mutilated" coins. The US Mint will redeem "CURRENT" US mutilated coins by weight (and separated by denomination) for their estimated total face value (estimated by weight and the average number of coins of that denomination in that amount of weight). So is a totally "mutilated" coin still legal tender ? What about a carved "hobo" nickel ?

 

 

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 government's final word on the subject is that no 1964-D Peace Dollars were issued and none survived, and so they don't exist. That is the government's position, and the only one that matters here.

 

I have been asked many times by several different interested customers to produce a business strike (non-proof) "1895" Morgan Dollar over-strike. I declined. That is not one that I would do. I require some sort of obvious mark to identify the piece (such as a fantasy date, for example). Surface finish alone does not qualify, in my opinion, as a permanent mark.

 

Your pieces aren't marked ["COPY"] 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.

 

The various statutes, taken as a whole, do not address this particular issue of altering a coin to give it a date that was never issued for that type, while leaving everything else on the coin apparently the same as it was. But the use of the word "falsely" in section 18, when combined with the later enactment of the HPA, indicates that the manufacture of molds and dies in the likeness of US coins is not a "false" activity so long as it isn't for fraudulent purposes. In other words, the HPA essentially authorized non-government entities to make molds and dies in the likeness of US coins. The HPA does NOT mandate that "COPY" be put on the molds/dies. It only mandates that "COPY" be put on the final product that is distributed (if it is a replica of an original numismatic item).

 

By not requiring that "COPY" be put on the mold/dies themselves, the HPA has nullified section 18 (so long as the molds/dies are not used for fraudulent purposes).

 

Here is a scenario:

 

Suppose a replica coin maker manufactured a pair of dies that look exactly like a genuine "1856" Flying Eagle cent. These dies do NOT have "COPY" on them anywhere (the HPA doesn't require "COPY" on the dies themselves). If the maker stamps the pieces with those dies, later they can legally mark the replicas with a separate "COPY" imprint before distributing them. But suppose the replica coin maker prepared the dies but just kept them in storage and never got around to actually striking any of the replicas. What is the status of the dies ? Since nothing "false" was done with the dies, section 18 doesn't apply. What if the replica coin maker did strike some, but never got around to marking them "COPY" and never distributed any of the replicas ?

[MarkFeld]

...

The government's final word on the subject is that no 1964-D Peace Dollars were issued and none survived, and so they don't exist. That is the government's position, and the only one that matters here.

 

I think a reasonable person could understandably and easily believe that they exist. And that the government's public position isn't necessary all that matters.

 

 

[dcarr]

...

The government's final word on the subject is that no 1964-D Peace Dollars were issued and none survived, and so they don't exist. That is the government's position, and the only one that matters here.

 

I think a reasonable person could understandably and easily believe that they exist. And that the government's public position isn't necessary all that matters.

 

 

So are you saying that some people might not believe what the government says ?

 

Any such "reasonable person" would also realize that an original 1964-D Peace Dollar (if any existed) would be illegal to own and would be subject to immediate confiscation by the government.

 

But in any case brought by the government over this, the government's own statement would be of utmost importance.

 

[coinman_23885]

The various statutes, taken as a whole, do not address this particular issue of altering a coin to give it a date that was never issued for that type, while leaving everything else on the coin apparently the same as it was. But the use of the word "falsely" in section 18, when combined with the later enactment of the HPA, indicates that the manufacture of molds and dies in the likeness of US coins is not a "false" activity so long as it isn't for fraudulent purposes. In other words, the HPA essentially authorized non-government entities to make molds and dies in the likeness of US coins. The HPA does NOT mandate that "COPY" be put on the molds/dies. It only mandates that "COPY" be put on the final product that is distributed (if it is a replica of an original numismatic item).

 

The Hobby Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. 2105, provides that "[t]he provisions of this chapter are in addition to and not in substitution for or limitation of, the provision of any law of the United States or the law of any state." As such, your attempts to limit the scope of the statutes seems futile to me. I will admit that this would create a direct irreconcilable conflict between HPA authorized pieces (those labeled with "COPY" or other appropriate marker) and the counterfeiting statute, and in that scenario, yes, the items would be permitted; however, this is no way would affect or apply to those coins that do not comply with HPA provisions. There is no conflict as applied to you, which is what matters. Your statutory conflict argument seems nothing more than an attempt to muddy the waters from the real issue.

 

You also mention alterations of original numismatic items. 15 U.S.C. 2101 © authorizes the FTC to promulgate administrative regulations which carry the full force of law. It has done so in 16 CFR 304.1 which expands upon the definition of "imitation numismatic item" defined in 15 U.S.C. 2106 and has clarified it to include "an original numismatic item which has been altered or modified in such a manner that it could reasonably purport to be an original numismatic item other than the one which was altered or modified." I see no authority to say that 1964-D Peace Dollars, which were authorized by law regardless of their fate, are not original numismatic items. Your coins reasonably purport to be 1964-D Peace Dollars. Moreover, I read the HPA as providing the only authority for the striking of legal reproductions. Coins not authorized by the HPA or that do not fall under its purview are seemingly barred by 18 U.S.C. 485.

 

Finally, striking a coin that looks exactly like a U.S. coin without a marker of some sort without legal authorization absolutely is "falsely mak[ing]" a piece in similitude to the design or inscription of U.S. coinage. IMHO, you are attempting to introduce elements that are not there by your intent argument. You intended to strike the coins regardless of whether you intended to defraud someone. You cannot accidentally strike 1964-D Peace Dollars. In that sense your intent after the production is not relevant for purposes of the statutes in Title 18. And inferring an intent element into the HPA would seem farcical at best as it would undermine its purpose to protect the uninformed public and not the numismatists you claim purchase the pieces. And you can, in my opinion, be held liable for the after market effects.

 

In short, the defining question for me is whether a person of ordinary intelligence could mistake your 1964-D Peace Dollars (or any of your other works) with a genuine design? Alternatively, whether alteration of a putative genuine original numismatic item makes the item appear to be an original numismatic item other than the one it was intended?

[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?

 

The word "token" indicates that the piece is not legal tender.

I never called them a "token". Nor did I ever in any way claim that they are legal tender. The wording on the label was chosen by the grading/certification company.

[coinman_23885]

...

The government's final word on the subject is that no 1964-D Peace Dollars were issued and none survived, and so they don't exist. That is the government's position, and the only one that matters here.

 

I think a reasonable person could understandably and easily believe that they exist. And that the government's public position isn't necessary all that matters.

 

 

So are you saying that some people might not believe what the government says ?

 

Any such "reasonable person" would also realize that an original 1964-D Peace Dollar (if any existed) would be illegal to own and would be subject to immediate confiscation by the government.

 

But in any case brought by the government over this, the government's own statement would be of utmost importance.

 

The question is whether an ordinary person of ordinary intelligence would believe the pieces were genuine 1964-D Peace Dollars. That is a question for a jury or other fact finder. I think the answer is an overwhelming "yes". Do you really think that the average person on the street, with very limited knowledge of U.S. coinage, would know about this coin? I think you are being overly optimistic.

[dcarr]

The question is whether an ordinary person of ordinary intelligence would believe the pieces were genuine 1964-D Peace Dollars. That is a question for a jury or other fact finder. I think the answer is an overwhelming "yes". Do you really think that the average person on the street, with very limited knowledge of U.S. coinage, would know about this coin? I think you are being overly optimistic.

 

The question isn't so much what would they believe. The real question is, would an "ordinary person of average intelligence" actually spend a bunch of money on something such as this that they know nothing about ?

 

[robec1347]

...

The government's final word on the subject is that no 1964-D Peace Dollars were issued and none survived, and so they don't exist. That is the government's position, and the only one that matters here.

 

I think a reasonable person could understandably and easily believe that they exist. And that the government's public position isn't necessary all that matters.

 

 

So are you saying that some people might not believe what the government says ?

 

Any such "reasonable person" would also realize that an original 1964-D Peace Dollar (if any existed) would be illegal to own and would be subject to immediate confiscation by the government.

 

But in any case brought by the government over this, the government's own statement would be of utmost importance.

 

The question is whether an ordinary person of ordinary intelligence would believe the pieces were genuine 1964-D Peace Dollars. That is a question for a jury or other fact finder. I think the answer is an overwhelming "yes". Do you really think that the average person on the street, with very limited knowledge of U.S. coinage, would know about this coin? I think you are being overly optimistic.

I somehow can't envision the "average person on the street, with very limited knowledge of U.S. coinage" paying the amount of money required to purchase a rare, genuine 1964-D Peace Dollar without some investigative work on their part.

[coinman_23885]

The question isn't so much what would they believe. The real question is, would an "ordinary person of average intelligence" actually spend a bunch of money on something such as this that they know nothing about ?

 

I somehow can't envision the "average person on the street, with very limited knowledge of U.S. coinage" paying the amount of money required to purchase a rare, genuine 1964-D Peace Dollar without some investigative work on their part.

 

You and Mr. Carr are relying on your own numismatic knowledge that the general public does not have. Moreover, I think you have missed the point of my post entirely. This isn't about whether an individual would pay thousands or tens of thousands of dollars for the coin. It is about whether a random sampling of Americans, when shown a legitimate Peace Dollar (any 1921-1934 coin), could believe that this was a Peace Dollar as struck by the Mint bearing the date 1964. The answer to that question, I believe, is yes. It doesn't matter whether they believe it is ultra rare and would purchase it for $5 or $5,000,000. The result is the same for purposes of the statutes. Whether fraud is his intent or not (and I don't believe that it is - I will concede that), he did intend to strike the pieces and that is the only real intent that matters.

 

And as for damages, in some ways I suppose many would argue that Mr. Carr has quite a following and that some might value the piece (no pun intended) at more than the coin that was over struck. This is no way would save the pieces from the statutes I cited. At one point, the Omega counterfeit double eagles were trading at a premium over genuine pieces back when gold was under $1000.

 

P.S. I also anticipate that you will next bring up the over strike versus de novo planchet production theory that Mr. Carr has espoused. Rather than consume the thread more with topics about Mr. Carr rather than the specific statute that was enacted, I think you might enjoy this thread a bit more (although it is a whopping 37 pages long): http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=7742333&fpart=1 .

 

[dcarr]

The Hobby Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. 2105, provides that "[t]he provisions of this chapter are in addition to and not in substitution for or limitation of, the provision of any law of the United States or the law of any state." As such, your attempts to limit the scope of the statutes seems futile to me. I will admit that this would create a direct irreconcilable conflict between HPA authorized pieces (those labeled with "COPY" or other appropriate marker) and the counterfeiting statute, and in that scenario, yes, the items would be permitted; however, this is no way would affect or apply to those coins that do not comply with HPA provisions. There is no conflict as applied to you, which is what matters. Your statutory conflict argument seems nothing more than an attempt to muddy the waters from the real issue.

 

What if a replica coin maker produced a pair of dies in the likeness of a US coin, but kept them in storage and never got around to striking anything with them ? Would they be in violation of 18 U.S.C. simply because they never used the dies ?

 

You also mention alterations of original numismatic items. 15 U.S.C. 2101 © authorizes the FTC to promulgate administrative regulations which carry the full force of law. It has done so in 16 CFR 304.1 which expands upon the definition of "imitation numismatic item" defined in 15 U.S.C. 2106 and has clarified it to include "an original numismatic item which has been altered or modified in such a manner that it could reasonably purport to be an original numismatic item other than the one which was altered or modified." I see no authority to say that 1964-D Peace Dollars, which were authorized by law regardless of their fate, are not original numismatic items. Your coins reasonably purport to be 1964-D Peace Dollars. Moreover, I read the HPA as providing the only authority for the striking of legal reproductions. Coins not authorized by the HPA or that do not fall under its purview are seemingly barred by 18 U.S.C. 485.

 

I see no authority that says an illegal-to-own and non-existant coin can be an "original numismatic item". Outright counterfeits of US coins are barred by 18 U.S.C. 485. But over-striking genuine coins is only a violation of 18 U.S.C. 485 if they are "falsely forged".

 

Finally, striking a coin that looks exactly like a U.S. coin without a marker of some sort without legal authorization absolutely is "falsely mak[ing]" a piece in similitude to the design or inscription of U.S. coinage.

 

The date is a marker. And a very obvious marker at that. There is quite a difference between your scenario here (making an outright counterfeit coin) vs. altering a genuine coin by stamping on it.

 

IMHO, you are attempting to introduce elements that are not there by your intent argument. You intended to strike the coins regardless of whether you intended to defraud someone. You cannot accidentally strike 1964-D Peace Dollars. In that sense your intent after the production is not relevant for purposes of the statutes in Title 18. And inferring an intent element into the HPA would seem farcical at best as it would undermine its purpose to protect the uninformed public and not the numismatists you claim purchase the pieces. And you can, in my opinion, be held liable for the after market effects.

 

Again, the implications of title 18 are quite different for over-striking a genuine coin compared to making an outright counterfeit.

 

By the way, the "aftermarket effects" of my "1964-D" over-strike Peace Dollars are that I originally sold them in the range of $85 to $190 (most were around $140). Recent eBay sales of these items have ranged from $325 to $525. All were listed (titled) as "Daniel Carr 1964 Peace" and were correctly described as a "private fantasy over-strike" (or similar).

 

In short, the defining question for me is whether a person of ordinary intelligence could mistake your 1964-D Peace Dollars (or any of your other works) with a genuine design? Alternatively, whether alteration of a putative genuine original numismatic item makes the item appear to be an original numismatic item other than the one it was intended?

 

For me, the defining question would be whether or not an ordinary person of ordinary intelligence would be harmed by one of the fantasy-date over-strikes.

 

[coinman_23885]

What if a replica coin maker produced a pair of dies in the likeness of a US coin, but kept them in storage and never got around to striking anything with them ? Would they be in violation of 18 U.S.C. simply because they never used the dies ?

 

Technically, yes. Would a prosecution result? Not likely.

 

I see no authority that says an illegal-to-own and non-existant coin can be an "original numismatic item".

 

See my forthcoming post with definitions.

 

The date is a marker. And a very obvious marker at that. There is quite a difference between your scenario here (making an outright counterfeit coin) vs. altering a genuine coin by stamping on it.

 

The date says the coin is a 1964-D Peace Dollar. Could someone believe it is a 1964-D Peace Dollar? Sure. You do a good job of mimicking the real McCoy when it comes to coinage.

 

You effectively obliterate the original coin and relegate it to a bullion disk and strike your own design onto it. This design happens to mirror the design inscription of genuine U.S. coinage. I don't think that distinction really holds, but even if it does, see the reasons discussed already in this thread and the other one why I still find it unsatisfactory.

 

On another note, didn't PCGS - one of two top coin grading services - even offer a $10,000 reward to see a legitimate 1964-D Peace Dollar? I wonder if anyone sent in any of your coins. In any event, this could suggest to some ill informed numismatists that legitimate coins could exist notwithstanding any government claims to the contrary (much like the 1933 Saint).

 

Again, the implications of title 18 are quite different for over-striking a genuine coin compared to making an outright counterfeit.

 

You struck 1964-D Peace Dollars. You were not authorized to strike 1964-D Peace Dollars by the government; that is, you falsely made them. And the coins, even if struck over previously genuine Peace Dollars, are not in fact, 1964-D Peace Dollars. I don't see the problem. And we still have the unresolved issue of the dies used to produce them. Did you alter genuine U.S. dies to strike the coins?

 

By the way, the "aftermarket effects" of my "1964-D" over-strike Peace Dollars are that I originally sold them in the range of $85 to $190 (most were around $140). Recent eBay sales of these items have ranged from $325 to $525. All were listed (titled) as "Daniel Carr 1964 Peace" and were correctly described as a "private fantasy over-strike" (or similar).

 

See above.

 

For me, the defining question would be whether or not an ordinary person of ordinary intelligence would be harmed by one of the fantasy-date over-strikes.

 

Unfortunately, that is not the legal standard. You do not have the ability to rewrite statutes that you do not like by adding elements that are not there. You might even argue that it is a victim-less violation. It is, in fact, a violation (in my opinion) nevertheless.

[coinman_23885]

Since the definitions of the Hobby Protection Act came into question, I decided to compile some definitions from both the United States Code and the Code of Federal Regulations and allow the legal authorities to speak for themselves (with a few comments from me of course outside of the quotes).

 

15 U.S.C. 2106 (3):

 

The term “original numismatic item” means anything which has been a part of a coinage or issue which has been used in exchange or has been used to commemorate a person or event. Such term includes coins, tokens, paper money, and commemorative medals.

 

The U.S. Peace Dollar design was a part of U.S. coinage. The United States authorized Peace Dollar production and coins were produced in 1921-1934 and in 1964.

 

16 C.F.R. 304.1(d):

 

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. Such term includes an original numismatic item which has been altered or modified in such a manner that it could reasonably purport to be an original numismatic item other than the one which was altered or modified. The term shall not include any re-issue or re-strike of any original numismatic item by the United States or any foreign government.

 

Take note of the emphasized portion. The emphases are mine, and it is the only manipulation to the text. An original numismatic item (i.e. the "virgin planchet" in your lingo) was altered to resemble another U.S. Mint product, the 1964-D Peace Dollar. Also note that restrikes and reissues are contemplated by the statute and specifically exempted for government entities.

 

 

15 U.S.C. 2106 (4):

The term “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.

 

Your 1964-D Peace Dollars look the same as every 1921-1935 Peace Dollar. The Mint struck coins in 1964. There is no evidence of a different design. So it looks like a Peace Dollar, and bears the date of 1964 with a Denver mint mark. It therefore "purports to be, but in fact is not, an original numismatic item..."

 

16 C.F.R. 304.1 (f):

Original numismatic item means anything which has been a part of a coinage or issue which has been used in exchange or has been used to commemorate a person, object, place, or event. Such term includes coins, tokens, paper money, and commemorative medals.

 

Again, the Peace Dollar design.

 

And look, it comes with its own private enforcement mechanism in 15 U.S.C. 2102. I think this amply provides standing in some cases:

 

If any person violates section 2101 (a) or (b) of this title or a rule under section 2101 © of this title, any interested person may commence a civil action for injunctive relief restraining such violation, and for damages, in any United States District Court for a district in which the defendant resides or has an agent. In any such action, the court may award the costs of the suit, including reasonable attorneys’ fees.

 

[TonerGuy]

The question is whether an ordinary person of ordinary intelligence would believe the pieces were genuine 1964-D Peace Dollars. That is a question for a jury or other fact finder. I think the answer is an overwhelming "yes". Do you really think that the average person on the street, with very limited knowledge of U.S. coinage, would know about this coin? I think you are being overly optimistic.

 

The question isn't so much what would they believe. The real question is, would an "ordinary person of average intelligence" actually spend a bunch of money on something such as this that they know nothing about ?

 

I think you're dead wrong on this one. Coinman is correct in his analysis.

 

And the thought that "someone should have known better" is never a defense to fraud. That lack of knowing better is what the fraud is based on. In that regard every Nigeria email scam is perfectly legal because who would be stupid enough to send thousands of dollars to someone in a foreign country on the promise to pay some future funds - but it happens all of time.

 

The law isnt there to protect the smart, intelligent and well read. Its there to protect those that cannot protect themselves.

 

I really hope you do not try to test that theory because anyone who has ever stepped inside a courtroom will tell you thats a loser argument from Day 1.

 

You guys can go back and forth all day on this. The only way to find out is to buy a fantasy piece from Carr and then file suit in federal court against him and his minting operation. Let a court decide. Even the other case will not be dispositive to his coins since they are substantially different than silver rounds. I dont think that case will have much application to his situation. The dicta in the case will be an interesting read though. And hopefully Mr. Carr's legal counsel will read it very carefully.

 

I like his "pattern" pieces but I am torn in regards to his fantasy pieces.

[RWB]

If Mr. Carr's faulty logic were followed, no counterfeit coin would ever have been made -- "I didn't try to fool anybody" would cover everything. The law is simple, direct and clear....the FTC or a court needs to conclude the matter and put ALL counterfeiters and those who peddle fakes in jail.

 

End of comments.

[Afterword]

?

[Afterword]

!

[dcarr]

15 U.S.C. 2106 (3):

 

The term “original numismatic item” means anything which has been a part of a coinage or issue which has been used in exchange or has been used to commemorate a person or event. Such term includes coins, tokens, paper money, and commemorative medals.

 

The U.S. Peace Dollar design was a part of U.S. coinage. The United States authorized Peace Dollar production and coins were produced in 1921-1934 and in 1964.

 

I'm not creating new Peace Dollars. And the 1964 Dollars WERE NEVER ISSUED and they were never used for exchange or used in commerce.

 

16 C.F.R. 304.1(d):

 

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. Such term includes an original numismatic item which has been altered or modified in such a manner that it could reasonably purport to be an original numismatic item other than the one which was altered or modified. The term shall not include any re-issue or re-strike of any original numismatic item by the United States or any foreign government.

 

Take note of the emphasized portion. The emphases are mine, and it is the only manipulation to the text. An original numismatic item (i.e. the "virgin planchet" in your lingo) was altered to resemble another U.S. Mint product, the 1964-D Peace Dollar. Also note that restrikes and reissues are contemplated by the statute and specifically exempted for government entities.

 

"Product" implies that the item was actually issued and put forth ("produced" for consumption and/or use). The 1964 Peace Dollar is not a US Mint "product" since none were issued or even saved. I never called the pre-over-strike pieces "virgin planchets". I call them "host coins". While they may be flattened somewhat prior to over-striking, no metal is added or removed, they are not heated or melted, and some of the original design elements remain before and after the over-striking.

 

15 U.S.C. 2106 (4):

The term “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.

 

Your 1964-D Peace Dollars look the same as every 1921-1935 Peace Dollar. The Mint struck coins in 1964. There is no evidence of a different design. So it looks like a Peace Dollar, and bears the date of 1964 with a Denver mint mark. It therefore "purports to be, but in fact is not, an original numismatic item..."

 

Yes, it looks like a Peace Dollar. Is it a Peace Dollar ? It was a Peace Dollar before the over-striking, and only the date was changed (traces of the original outlines remain visible under magnification, however). So is it a Peace Dollar after the over-striking ? There is no legal precedent that says it is or isn't. There is no legal precedent indicating whether or not it is still legal tender. There are no statutes which define how much alteration or mutilation can be done on a coin before it loses legal tender status.

 

We'll just disagree here. Purports to be an original numismatic item ? The majority of people out on the street probably don't even know what "numismatic" means. For this item to purport to be an original numismatic item, the viewer would have to first know what a numismatic item even is. And as I've noted before, you couldn't even value the thing without first looking up a "1964" silver dollar in a price guide or on the internet.

 

16 C.F.R. 304.1 (f):

Original numismatic item means anything which has been a part of a coinage or issue which has been used in exchange or has been used to commemorate a person, object, place, or event. Such term includes coins, tokens, paper money, and commemorative medals.

 

Again, the Peace Dollar design.

 

And again, is an over-struck Peace Dollar still a Peace Dollar and is it still legal tender ? What amount of alterations to a coin invalidate the legal tender status ?

 

Here is an item which, according to your definition, might "reasonably purport to be and original numismatic item". Do you think the Smithsonian could get in trouble for licensing and selling this item, and could NGC get in trouble for "certifying" it ? (note that it is not marked "COPY", but it does say "United States of America" and "One Hundred Dollars" on it):

 

 

 

And look, it comes with its own private enforcement mechanism in 15 U.S.C. 2102. I think this amply provides standing in some cases:

 

If any person violates section 2101 (a) or (b) of this title or a rule under section 2101 © of this title, any interested person may commence a civil action for injunctive relief restraining such violation, and for damages, in any United States District Court for a district in which the defendant resides or has an agent. In any such action, the court may award the costs of the suit, including reasonable attorneys’ fees.

 

If anyone feels that they have suffered "damages" and they want to return one of my "1964-D" over-strike Peace Dollars, I will gladly give them a full refund of what I sold it for.

 

[Kurtdog]

Your analogy ($5/$100 bill) doesn't fit this situation AT ALL.

Nonetheless, when you start making replicas of those, and selling them at a discount, let me know, I can use some for my collection.

[dcarr]

If Mr. Carr's faulty logic were followed, no counterfeit coin would ever have been made -- "I didn't try to fool anybody" would cover everything. The law is simple, direct and clear....the FTC or a court needs to conclude the matter and put ALL counterfeiters and those who peddle fakes in jail.

 

End of comments.

 

No, that is not what my logic states.

If you alter a genuine coin and the result appears different from anything that was issued, then it is an altered coin, not a counterfeit.

 

If you strike (for example) a "1895" Morgan silver dollar on a blank piece of metal and spend it or sell it to an unsuspecting buyer, then that is a "counterfeit".

 

[coinman_23885]

I'm not creating new Peace Dollars. And the 1964 Dollars WERE NEVER ISSUED and they were never used for exchange or used in commerce.

 

The Peace Dollar was a series that circulated and was used in commerce. The 1964-D Peace Dollars which were duly authorized by statute are part of that series regardless if the pieces were released and distributed.

 

Yes, it looks like a Peace Dollar. Is it a Peace Dollar ? It was a Peace Dollar before the over-striking, and only the date was changed (traces of the original outlines remain visible under magnification, however). So is it a Peace Dollar after the over-striking ?

 

It is not a 1964-D Peace Dollar, which is what matters. In any event, you obliterate the so called host coin, substantially obliterating the original devices, motto, and date.

 

And again, is an over-struck Peace Dollar still a Peace Dollar and is it still legal tender ? What amount of alterations to a coin invalidate the legal tender status ?

 

Were the 1964 Franklins struck over genuine 1964 Kennedy Half Dollars still Kennedy Half Dollars?

 

Here is an item which, according to your definition, might "reasonably purport to be and original numismatic item". Do you think the Smithsonian could get in trouble for licensing and selling this item, and could NGC get in trouble for "certifying" it ? (note that it is not marked "COPY", but it does say "United States of America" and "One Hundred Dollars" on it):

 

I could argue that it is distinguishable since it is sanctioned by a government institution, but I still don't like it. If anything, you make a case for seizing and outlawing those.

 

 

Your analogy ($5/$100 bill) doesn't fit this situation AT ALL.

Nonetheless, when you start making replicas of those, and selling them at a discount, let me know, I can use some for my collection.

 

Could we call these "fantasy errors"?

 

 

(thumbs u (thumbs u (thumbs u

 

With that said, I think I am done with this thread.

 

[Afterword]

?!

[dcarr]

I'm not creating new Peace Dollars. And the 1964 Dollars WERE NEVER ISSUED and they were never used for exchange or used in commerce.

 

The Peace Dollar was a series that circulated and was used in commerce. The 1964-D Peace Dollars which were duly authorized by statute are part of that series regardless if the pieces were released and distributed.

 

It is questionable as to whether or not the original 1964 Dollars were even legally authorized. The President ordered them struck, but Congress did NOT authorize them. In fact, the reason that they were all destroyed is because Congress didn't authorize them. This is one reason why an original (if one even existed) would be illegal to own today.

 

[

Yes, it looks like a Peace Dollar. Is it a Peace Dollar ? It was a Peace Dollar before the over-striking, and only the date was changed (traces of the original outlines remain visible under magnification, however). So is it a Peace Dollar after the over-striking ?

 

It is not a 1964-D Peace Dollar, which is what matters. In any event, you obliterate the so called host coin, substantially obliterating the original devices, motto, and date.

 

And again, is an over-struck Peace Dollar still a Peace Dollar and is it still legal tender ? What amount of alterations to a coin invalidate the legal tender status ?

 

Were the 1964 Franklins struck over genuine 1964 Kennedy Half Dollars still Kennedy Half Dollars?

 

How much of an alteration to a coin can there be before the legal tender status is nullified ? This is not addressed in any of the statutes.

 

Here is an item which, according to your definition, might "reasonably purport to be and original numismatic item". Do you think the Smithsonian could get in trouble for licensing and selling this item, and could NGC get in trouble for "certifying" it ? (note that it is not marked "COPY", but it does say "United States of America" and "One Hundred Dollars" on it):

 

I could argue that it is distinguishable since it is sanctioned by a government institution, but I still don't like it. If anything, you make a case for seizing and outlawing those.

 

If the government picks and chooses when and where to attempt to enforce the statutes, doesn't that constitute "selective enforcement" which a defendant could argue to their advantage ?

 

Your analogy ($5/$100 bill) doesn't fit this situation AT ALL.

Nonetheless, when you start making replicas of those, and selling them at a discount, let me know, I can use some for my collection.

 

Could we call these "fantasy errors"?

 

 

(thumbs u (thumbs u (thumbs u

 

With that said, I think I am done with this thread.

 

But we haven't gone around in circles long enough to get dizzy yet.

 

[TonerGuy]

Mr. Carr I assume that you have never bothered to ask for nor have received an advisory opinion from the FTC. If you have please post it. If your counsel hasnt advised you that you can/should get one... shame on him/her. You really should. Not only because of you can quite these types of discussions but you would then know without question if you are operating on legally shaking ground. And if by chance the FTC does find against your position you can change your business model so as to protect yourself & assets.

 

Why would you want to continue to operate on less than solid ground and risk what you have built so far ?

 

Litigation will cost you in excess of $100,000 and while I realize that your profits must be extraordinary (the US Govt would like to have the profits levels you have in regards to Seigniorage) that only makes you a target. And even if you succeed at trial in defending your position the likelihood of being reimbursed for your legal expenses are very low.

 

Here are some examples of FTC opinions. It appears this situation is ripe for an Advisory Letter from the FTC.

 

http://www.ftc.gov/policy/advisory-opinions

 

These types of situations are exactly why the FTC allows such opinions to issue.

 

Why not simply clear away any argument from anyone and ask the FTC issue an opinion ?