In honor of Jason I present the Carr Peace dollar in 68+

[Nutmeg Coin]

Nice slug; what's the law on "copy" on the reverse of non-government issue coins?

[Hard Times]

I have been reading this thread with great interest - the boards have been rather dull for quite some time so it is good to have a topic with a wide range of opinions coming up. I have no strong opinion of the fantasy pieces of D Carr, but I decided to do some research on the issue of what is a counterfeit coin after reading all of the comments here. This seems to sum up things from a legal perspective based on everything have read:

 

"To falsify, deceive, or defraud. A copy or imitation of something that is intended to be taken as authentic and genuine in order to deceive another. A counterfeit coin is one that may pass for a genuine coin."

 

Key words - intent, deceive

 

While D Carr's 'intent' is not to 'deceive', his fantasy pieces could clearly pass for 'genuine' coins to the uninformed. I could easily see someone getting duped as discussed earlier in the thread. This issue of 'may pass for a genuine coin', irrespective of wrong date or mintmark to exactly duplicate a US coin, may sooner or later get the feds involved in this - they seem to be very protective of their coins (e.g. 1933 Saint) when they can make a big splash - so will the feds at some point decide that the definition of counterfeit applies to the Carr fantasy pieces?

 

Best, HT

 

 

[CaptHenway]

Nice slug; what's the law on "copy" on the reverse of non-government issue coins?

 

A definition of the terms found in the Hobby Protection Act can be found here:

 

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=6ba90b1f402763bcb0388569596c3f4b&rgn=div5&view=text&node=16%3A1.0.1.3.28&idno=16

 

It includes this definition of "imitation numismatic item":

 

(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.

 

I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on television, but by my interpretation of this paragraph, Mr. Carr's legal tender design overstrikes do not need to be considered to be counterfeits to be required by the Hobby Protection Act to be marked with the word "COPY." In my opinion Mr. Carr is in violation of the Hobby Protection Act.

 

TD

[MJ]

than to be called a criminal publicly for doing something that has been deemed legal by the US government

 

Let's be extremely clear here. It has NOT been deemed legal by any form of government. Is has simply not yet been deemed illegal - which are very different things. As coinman has clearly and eloquently elaborated in other threads, the legal case against Dcarr would be extremely damning, if court action were ever to be taken up.

 

Jason hurry up and respond so we can change the agenda of this thread to convinging Dan to strike so hologram peace dollars.

 

I have absolutely no idea what the agenda of this thread is. But I will not ever encourage counterfeits. Dcarr is quite talented, and when he creates his original bullion rounds they are often quite attractive. His counterfeits are another story.

 

Counterfeit coin. Listen to it quack, quack, quack.

I could be wrong, but I think Jason's response to the OP will be more thoughtful and less defensive than most of these posts. I am as close to being certain as I can be that he will not quack like a duck.

 

At this point, no thread about, involving, or concerning the Colorado counterfeiter will produce any positive result, change anyone's mind, or result in anything but acrimonious mudslinging.

 

So, quack, quack, quack.

 

Do you think using the name of another member in the thread title in a somewhat belittling manner is helpful? I do not interpret "most" replies as quacking like a duck. I don't even understand what that phrasing is supposed to mean in the context of the thread, and is of no value to the subject.

 

 

 

You may be right and Jason will be offended. However, the opening post implies that Jason disapproves of Mr. Carr's fantasy pieces. Unless this is not true, what is there to be offended by?

 

Now, if Jason’s only problem with the fantasy pieces is that he believes them to be illegal, he might object to his position on the matter being portrayed improperly. I doubt that even then he would be offended, when he could simply correct the misconception.

 

As I understand it, the intention of the OP was to ridicule my position (and the position of many others) that these pieces are counterfeits, and detrimental to the hobby. It is intended to be ridicule. Dcarr's fans are not trying to be helpful - they are trying to justify their knowing purchases of counterfeits.

 

Yes, the pieces are illegal. Yes, the counterfeits are an abomination. I'm concerned with that (and the precedent it sets for the Chinese and other counterfeiters). I can order up any date I want from Beijing (including dates that were never made). I see very little real difference between them and Dcarr. For some reason, however, Dcarr and his merry band of customers fiercely defend his counterfeits - even though they all decry the forgeries of the Chinese.

 

Am I offended by this thread? No. Disappointed, exasperated, and frustrated perhaps. I think the OP is more offended by my comments, and he is lashing out. After all, he has a financial investment in the counterfeits, and me calling them what they are, by extension, denigrates him.

 

It is one thing to be a purist, it is another to call someone a counterfeiter and potentially affect their commerce.

 

When I see someone dealing crack cocaine, I call it what it is - illegal and harmful. When I see someone making and selling counterfeits, I call it what it is - illegal and harmful. Affecting their commerce is immaterial if what they are doing is illegal.

 

As for Jason being offended? I don't think he will be nor do I care if he was. Honesty I hope he took notice and maybe will turn in down a notch.

 

mark

 

I'm not offended. If you want to buy counterfeits, go ahead. Just don't you get offended when I call them counterfeits.

 

And consider this me not turning it down a notch.

 

You assume much and know little.

 

mark

[brg5658]

You assume much and know little.

mark

 

[johnny9434]

fantasy or not i still like it. just saying.

[ElmerFusterpuck]

If someone thinks that a Carr minted 1963 Kennedy or 1916 Barber half is 'real' or deceptive, they might need to find another hobby.

 

I'm not sure how something could be called counterfeit when the real date/mintmark doesn't even exist or never existed.

[MarkFeld]

If someone thinks that a Carr minted 1963 Kennedy or 1916 Barber half is 'real' or deceptive, they might need to find another hobby.

 

I'm not sure how something could be called counterfeit when the real date/mintmark doesn't even exist or never existed.

 

Genuine Peace Dollars dated 1964 did (and for all we know, still might) exist.

 

And based on the number of bidders I see for some of the pathetic counterfeit coins (or genuine ones with cleaning, whizzing, blatant over-grading, etc.) I see on Ebay from time to time, a great many collectors "might need to find another hobby". It can be all-too-easy easy to overestimate the numismatic knowledge of large groups of coin buyers.

[dcarr]

I have been reading this thread with great interest - the boards have been rather dull for quite some time so it is good to have a topic with a wide range of opinions coming up. I have no strong opinion of the fantasy pieces of D Carr, but I decided to do some research on the issue of what is a counterfeit coin after reading all of the comments here. This seems to sum up things from a legal perspective based on everything have read:

 

"To falsify, deceive, or defraud. A copy or imitation of something that is intended to be taken as authentic and genuine in order to deceive another. A counterfeit coin is one that may pass for a genuine coin."

 

Key words - intent, deceive

 

I agree that intent is definitely a factor.

 

While D Carr's 'intent' is not to 'deceive', his fantasy pieces could clearly pass for 'genuine' coins to the uninformed. I could easily see someone getting duped as discussed earlier in the thread. This issue of 'may pass for a genuine coin', irrespective of wrong date or mintmark to exactly duplicate a US coin, may sooner or later get the feds involved in this - they seem to be very protective of their coins (e.g. 1933 Saint) when they can make a big splash - so will the feds at some point decide that the definition of counterfeit applies to the Carr fantasy pieces?

 

Best, HT

 

My position is that it makes a difference whether a "fantasy" coin type is struck on an anonymous planchet versus over-striking a fantasy-date coin on a genuine US Mint coin of that same type. The former could be construed as making something that is apparently legal tender out of something that wasn't. The latter is in a different class of altered coins.

 

[World Colonial]

For those who are knowledgeable of the statutes which do or may apply to Mr. Carr's privately struck issues, how does this compare to the Liberty dollars?

 

For those do not recall the Liberty dollar, it was a "coin" issued with a face value of $10 and $20 struck in silver which circulated as an alternative form of payment, similar to trade tokens.

 

I ask because it is my recollection that the government claimed the Liberty dollar was covered by the counterfeit statutes and while I don't know the specifics of the trial, the end result was that it was abandoned.

 

I considered this case completely bogus and if I had been selected for the jury panel, would have voted against the government's position. I consider the idea that any remotely thinking person could or at least should have confused the Liberty dollar with any US Mint issue absurd.

 

I am also dubious about any fraudulent claim. Mr Carr's items clearly have a market and while the value may change, its my opinion its the responsibility of any buyer to know the value of what they are buying, just as with any real coin.

 

In one of Scott Travers' books, he states he was an expert witness who testified against a dealer who was prosecuted under investment advisor statutes, basically for gouging his clients. Considering that these clients could (and in my opinion should) have spent five minutes to know what they were buying before they spent tens of thousands of dollars, I wouldn't have convicted this dealer. In my opinion, it should have been a civil suit.

 

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

In both issues, it was a lot more complicated than you opine. There are Threads on both issues that discuss in depth the facts. As to the Liberty Dollars, there was a heck of a lot more at stake, and abandonment is not what occurred, and what occurred was certainly not because the Government decided their position did not have merit.

[World Colonial]

In both issues, it was a lot more complicated than you opine. There are Threads on both issues that discuss in depth the facts. As to the Liberty Dollars, there was a heck of a lot more at stake, and abandonment is not what occurred, and what occurred was certainly not because the Government decided their position did not have merit.

 

Thanks and I am sure there is.

 

As for the Liberty dollars, I know exactly what you are alluding to and no, I don't believe the government's case had any merit.

[CaptHenway]

Nice slug; what's the law on "copy" on the reverse of non-government issue coins?

 

A definition of the terms found in the Hobby Protection Act can be found here:

 

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=6ba90b1f402763bcb0388569596c3f4b&rgn=div5&view=text&node=16%3A1.0.1.3.28&idno=16

 

It includes this definition of "imitation numismatic item":

 

(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.

 

I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on television, but by my interpretation of this paragraph, Mr. Carr's legal tender design overstrikes do not need to be considered to be counterfeits to be required by the Hobby Protection Act to be marked with the word "COPY." In my opinion Mr. Carr is in violation of the Hobby Protection Act.

 

TD

 

I am surprised that there have been no comments on my opinion that Mr. Carr's legal tender overstrikes are required by the Hobby Protection Act to be marked with the word "COPY."

 

TD

[mumu]

Nice slug; what's the law on "copy" on the reverse of non-government issue coins?

 

A definition of the terms found in the Hobby Protection Act can be found here:

 

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=6ba90b1f402763bcb0388569596c3f4b&rgn=div5&view=text&node=16%3A1.0.1.3.28&idno=16

 

It includes this definition of "imitation numismatic item":

 

(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.

 

I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on television, but by my interpretation of this paragraph, Mr. Carr's legal tender design overstrikes do not need to be considered to be counterfeits to be required by the Hobby Protection Act to be marked with the word "COPY." In my opinion Mr. Carr is in violation of the Hobby Protection Act.

 

TD

 

I am surprised that there have been no comments on my opinion that Mr. Carr's legal tender overstrikes are required by the Hobby Protection Act to be marked with the word "COPY."

 

TD

 

Sorry about that.

[MJ]

Nice slug; what's the law on "copy" on the reverse of non-government issue coins?

 

A definition of the terms found in the Hobby Protection Act can be found here:

 

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=6ba90b1f402763bcb0388569596c3f4b&rgn=div5&view=text&node=16%3A1.0.1.3.28&idno=16

 

It includes this definition of "imitation numismatic item":

 

(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.

 

I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on television, but by my interpretation of this paragraph, Mr. Carr's legal tender design overstrikes do not need to be considered to be counterfeits to be required by the Hobby Protection Act to be marked with the word "COPY." In my opinion Mr. Carr is in violation of the Hobby Protection Act.

 

TD

 

I am surprised that there have been no comments on my opinion that Mr. Carr's legal tender overstrikes are required by the Hobby Protection Act to be marked with the word "COPY."

 

TD

 

If it were a copy I would be on your side

 

 

 

mark

[brg5658]

 

I am surprised that there have been no comments on my opinion that Mr. Carr's legal tender overstrikes are required by the Hobby Protection Act to be marked with the word "COPY."

 

TD

 

CaptHenway,

 

I agree with you that the DCarr over-strikes of the same design as US Mint issued authentic coins (but with minimal mint mark or date changes) should be covered by the HPA, and should be marked COPY. The law explicitly states that it does not have to be an "exact copy"...Many people seem to miss that "or" -- and DCarr items certainly purport (appear) to be original numismatic items.

 

Show any over-strike DCarr item with a US Mint design to a non-collector or novice, and they will most assuredly not recognize it as an imitation without the COPY (required by law) stamped on it. His over-strikes are dead ringers for the real thing, and I don't see how any reading of the HPA would suggest they should not be struck with COPY.

 

(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.