Dcarr over strike question. 1 1

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I think it may help you to understand the purpose of the "tutorial". It was specifically designed to address the post of Mr. Carr, who had stated an inability to detect the questions (even though he had re-posted the post that asked the questions) and declared a mystery existed. Of course he was being slightly snarky, in what I choose to interpret as a humorous reply and not personal. I chose to follow in that vein in my reply, and I am sure he is quite cognizant that was the intention. It is a little like a chess encounter, and his verbal challenges are worthy of respect, by moving the chess pieces in equal level of response.

 

Your posts, as a comparative, are spiteful and designed to be demeaning and personal and attempting to belittle without cause, as you do so now, and frankly as you have done as recently as your reply to Capt. Henway. For that reason, I do not take your choice of replies as only reserved for me. It is just your nature.

 

Are you now initiating a game of "I know I am but what are you", or possibly "My daddy is bigger than your daddy"?

 

I do thank you though, for defining my post as "eloquent". I didn't particularly think so, and I suspect your labeling it as such is because the chosen use of the English language and the logic posits confused you and prevented you from exercising the ability to comprehend.

 

I will refer to my earlier suggestion as to how to assuage your ire, and that is to ignore my posts.

[nk1nk]

I think it may help you to understand the purpose of the "tutorial". It was specifically designed to address the post of Mr. Carr, who had stated an inability to detect the questions (even though he had re-posted the post that asked the questions) and declared a mystery existed. Of course he was being slightly snarky, in what I choose to interpret as a humorous reply and not personal. I chose to follow in that vein in my reply, and I am sure he is quite cognizant that was the intention. It is a little like a chess encounter, and his verbal challenges are worthy of respect, by moving the chess pieces in equal level of response.

 

Your posts, as a comparative, are spiteful and designed to be demeaning and personal and attempting to belittle without cause, as you do so now, and frankly as you have done as recently as your reply to Capt. Henway. For that reason, I do not take your choice of replies as only reserved for me. It is just your nature.

 

Are you now initiating a game of "I know I am but what are you", or possibly "My daddy is bigger than your daddy"?

 

I do thank you though, for defining my post as "eloquent". I didn't particularly think so, and I suspect your labeling it as such is because the chosen use of the English language and the logic posits confused you and prevented you from exercising the ability to comprehend.

 

I will refer to my earlier suggestion as to how to assuage your ire, and that is to ignore my posts.

 

It's a two lane highway, feel free to ignore my posts as well.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

The freedom is exercised, as a courtesy to assist you in considering improving your response method to other members. I will always extend courtesy and consideration to any reasonable suggestion from another member, and reply via action accordingly if the suggestion is not an infringement on my position of what constitutes free speech. I do not want to continue to encourage your particular bent of spiteful posts. It does nothing to support you in a meaningful manner. For the stated reasons, the freedom you are granting me is accepted.

 

Note that if a post you make is embedded in the post of another, I may comment via a response to that other person or by reference to the post. It is not personal, it is simply an exercise of free speech and the exchange of ideas and a lifelong belief that censorship in any form is wrong.

[dcarr]

Good morning Mr. Carr.

 

As a reminder, this hieroglyphic (?) is called a question mark, and is a symbol that alerts the reader that the words that were specifically directed to the reader, that came before the symbol, are formed to express to the reader that information is requested from the reader and possibly the reader can assist by providing some information of value, although it is implicitly understood that many times the reader does not provide information of value, either deliberately or because of lack of knowledge of the subject matter.

 

This symbol was developed in order to avoid confusion and to solve the mystery of the intent of words grouped together and whether or not an action was required by the person trying to comprehend the purpose of the words being grouped together.

 

With this explanation in mind, does anything strike you as to the use of the symbol...many times....in the above words that are grouped together and specifically directed to you?

 

When we examine issues closely, a mystery can easily be understood.

 

If you can logically compose and reiterate your questions, I will reiterate my answers. Otherwise, I don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Good morning Mr. Carr.

 

As a reminder, this hieroglyphic (?) is called a question mark, and is a symbol that alerts the reader that the words that were specifically directed to the reader, that came before the symbol, are formed to express to the reader that information is requested from the reader and possibly the reader can assist by providing some information of value, although it is implicitly understood that many times the reader does not provide information of value, either deliberately or because of lack of knowledge of the subject matter.

 

This symbol was developed in order to avoid confusion and to solve the mystery of the intent of words grouped together and whether or not an action was required by the person trying to comprehend the purpose of the words being grouped together.

 

With this explanation in mind, does anything strike you as to the use of the symbol...many times....in the above words that are grouped together and specifically directed to you?

 

When we examine issues closely, a mystery can easily be understood.

 

If you can logically compose and reiterate your questions, I will reiterate my answers. Otherwise, I don't know what you are talking about.

 

I have been told I am not a very logical fellow by persons that are not very logical fellows, so I don't think I could be more logical than I have been. Of course you profess you don't know what I am talking about. I am starting to think you are one of the non-answer answer soldiers.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

“Allowing others to produce imitation pieces that approximate official coin designs or inscriptions can undermine public confidence in U.S. coin and currency, and threaten the reputation of a government obligation/issue.”

 

Yet they do allow such coins and production of same to exist, do they not? ...

 

The Hobby Protection Act (HPA) specifically allows anyone to produce replicas of United States coins (with some restrictions). If Congress was concerned with the non-fraudulent minting of things in similitude to US Coins, they would have not enacted the HPA in the form that they did.

 

In other words, Congress does not view the non-fraudulent minting of replicas of US Coins as impugning the integrity of the Federal Government. Neither do they think that of non-fraudulent alterations to existing coins.

 

Curiosity only....you certainly can have an opinion, the same as anyone. I simply don't understand your adamant declarations, not only in the above 2 replies but in most of your replies, and indeed on your website that the activities and pieces are LEGAL (you did the capitalization on your website) that your interpretation is absolutely correct. An example is your above posts. You do not know what Congress views, or what Congress does not view. You do not know what Congress thinks or what they do not think. You do not know what Congress was or is concerned about or not concerned about. You do not know what Congress would or would not have enacted, and you do not know what the Congressional view of "non-fraudulent minting" is or was, and indeed that term does not exist in the legislative record. yet you constantly declare all other thoughts that are not aligned with your opinion as wrong, wrong, wrong, and you change and finesse your wording of your position, and the wording of any particular document or existing law, and declare you are right, right, right. Fair enough.

 

The courts make rulings based on their perception of what Congress intended when passing various laws. Those rulings can be used to infer Congressional intent on what is (and what is not) in the law.

 

If there is noting that is remotely wrong with the pieces, why declare on your website that persons that purchase should not try to sell the pieces to others as a true coin? Why declare on your website that the person that has a piece has to tell anybody it is a fantasy piece? If it is LEGAL to produce the piece, wht does it suddenly become not legal by virtue of it being sold to someone else? The person that bought it from you and sold it to somebody else is not selling a counterfeit or fraudulent coin that harms the Government, are they? The person may be a con artist, but that is of no consequence. Then again, why would the person be a con artist? He bought the coin from you with your assurances that the piece is LEGAL. He bought the piece from you that the piece is over-struck on a genuine U.S. coin, and that is LEGAL. He bought the piece from you at a price you set. If he sells it for more, regardless of the story used to sell it, and states, this is a genuine U.S. coin that has a date on it that makes it very rare, and it was made by Mr. Carr, and is going up in value, because he only made so many. It is LEGAL, because he used to work at the Mint, and he even states non his website that it is LEGAL. It is a very valuable fantasy piece, but it is also a U.S. coin. What are you going to do about it?

 

Misrepresentation of an item with fraudulent intent is a crime. I am advising purchases of said items to not break the law.

 

........How is it misrepresentation? You are not reading and you are not answering the questions.........

 

 

 

Misrepresentation of a perfectly genuine coin is also a crime if done with fraudulent intent. For example, if a person buffed a Morgan Dollar and knew it was a damaged coin but then persuaded a person to spend a lot of money on the "high-grade mint-state" piece, that would be a crime. If I was selling polished and/or plated Morgan dollars (for example) I would also advise buyers not to misrepresent them upon resale, just like I do with fantasy-date over-strikes.

 

 

.......Where is and what is the fraudulent intent? Again, you are not reading and not answering the question. In my example, how I'd it different from what you do?...........

 

If I see anyone misrepresenting an item I produced (whether it be an over-strike or not), I will contact the person(s) involved and set the record straight.

 

 

 

.......Again, what is being misrepresented, and what record would need to be set straight? Is it not your piece produced by you?.....…...

 

So, what the heck are you warning everyone about on your website? Why do you state on the website not to try to spend it. Why not? If I go into a mom and pop store and say I want 2 of those R2D2 thingys and I am paying with this silver dollar with a fantasy date on it and silver is worth x dollars right now and your R2D2 thingys are less than that, what is not LEGAL about that?

 

I make no claims as to the legal tender status of the fantasy-date over-strikes, only that I advise people not to attempt to use them as legal tender. If the toy store owner wanted to take the over-struck silver dollar as barter in trade for the toy, that would be up to them.

 

........Why should it not be legal tender? Who are you to decide? Bit coin? Barter? If you make no claims, why advise not to? You already declare your piece is legal. It is silver is it not? It is an original U.S. coin over struck by you, it it not? If I take a $1 Bill and doodle on it and change the date on it, are you stating it is not legal tender? Exactly what would be wrong with that?........

 

If someone of similar talent as yours decides to buy your pieces, and change the design in some fashion, and then sell them as a one of a kind modified Carr piece and sells it for a lot more money than the market is selling a Carr piece for, do you have a legal problem with that?

 

So long as they market the piece with an appropriate description then I would have no problem with that. Several years ago, a "hobo" nickel carver took one of my "1933" fantasy-date over-strike Indian Head nickels and made a Hobo carving of it, leaving the "1933" date in place. They sold it for quite a bit more than I originally sold the "1933" over-strikes for. I had no problem with that at all, because they advertised it as a carved fantasy-date piece.

 

....What is and what is not appropriate? It is an original U.S. coin is it not?.......

 

If that same talented person decided to replicate your work and uses the same process and the same designs and sells them as Carr pieces and does not mark them as copies in any manner, do you have a legal problem with that?

 

I would not allow anyone to market something as a "Carr" piece if I did not make it. This would apply to fantasy-date over-strikes and original design tokens and medals. There have been a few instances on eBay where sellers of Chinese-made "1964-D" Peace dollar replicas (that were not over-strikes and were not marked "COPY") were selling them as the "Carr" piece. In those cases I contacted eBay and the auctions were quickly cancelled. I have not filed any complaints with eBay concerning the numerous auctions of Chinese "1964-D" Peace Dollars when those auctions do not attribute them as "Carr" pieces.

 

....Are you stating that my example would not be legal? Why not? How are you not going to allow it? Why would my example have to have the word copy on it? Because of the HPA? Because of some other law?......

 

Are not both examples I have used non-fraudulent alterations to existing coins? is it non-fraudulent minting of things in similitude?

 

If you are declaring the absolute legality of your position as the only correct legal position and all other positions wrong, why not have your Attorney proceed to a forum of legal adjudication and be done with all other opinions? Wouldn't that help your business grow? Or, is it better from a business standpoint to have the present atmosphere of possibly numismatic naughtiness, sort of an any press is good press thing (no play on words intended, but now that I think about it, it was pretty good )?

 

It has been said that there is no such thing as "bad press".

In the very unlikely event that there was ever a court case involving these fantasy-date over-strikes, that could actually be a boon to my business.

But that could also result in more people getting into doing this.

 

My business has not been, and is not currently, "growing". It is staying the same. I do not have plans to grow it. This is not the type of business where growing equates to more revenue. The reason is that the prices that can be obtained for collectible items is dependent on how many are produced. Growing and producing more has the effect of lowering the price that the items can be sold for, thus negating any benefits of said growth (and this isn't even taking into account the added expenses of a larger operation).

 

 

.......That is a reasonable business model. However, you did not address my other question, reference non-fraudulent minting of things in similitude, and what that actually means..........

 

 

 

BTW, I did check the legislative histories of the laws stated in this thread, and your name does not appear in any capacity in the legislative record.

 

I am not sure what you mean by this.

 

.......Simple. Your adamant declarations that you know what Congress thought, intended, interpreted and what they would and would not act on, and all other opinions and positions are wrong. I must conclude that the only way you could absolutely know the correct congressional intent and interpretation of the laws being discussed. Is if you were in some manner a part of the legislative decision process, maybe as staff, expert, congressional liaison, etc. As such, your name would be part of the legislative record, as would any papers you presented. Nothing shows up. So. It would appear all you have is an opinion, and your opinion is no less right or wrong than anyone else. But unfortunately, case law does not seem to favor your opinion. I would think you would want to correct that, and proceed to an adjudication forum. As you stated. It would also be good for your business.........

 

 

.....I think you have a number of illogical logic posits in your positions, and it is a little confusing as to how you arrive at a point of singular correctness of position.

 

As a sideline question, do you see any corporate slander issues in the opinions that have been stated about your endeavors?.............

 

TTT

 

As previously mentioned, a friendly reminder concerning the questions that weren't.

[dcarr]

If there is noting that is remotely wrong with the pieces, why declare on your website that persons that purchase should not try to sell the pieces to others as a true coin?

Why declare on your website that the person that has a piece has to tell anybody it is a fantasy piece? If it is LEGAL to produce the piece, wht does it suddenly become not legal by virtue of it being sold to someone else? The person that bought it from you and sold it to somebody else is not selling a

counterfeit or fraudulent coin that harms the Government, are they?

Why (both questions) ?

Because I'm being overly cautious.

No, a person re-selling a fantasy-date over-strike coin is not harming the Government.

 

The person may be a con artist, but that is of no consequence. Then again, why would the person be a con artist? He bought the coin from you with your assurances that the piece is LEGAL. He bought the piece from you that the piece is over-struck on a genuine U.S. coin, and that is LEGAL. He bought the piece from you at a price you set. If he sells it for more, regardless of the story used to sell it, and states, this is a genuine U.S. coin that has a date on it that makes it very rare, and it was made by Mr. Carr, and is going up in value, because he only made so many. It is LEGAL, because he used to work at the Mint, and he even states non his website that it is LEGAL. It is a very valuable fantasy piece, but it is also a U.S. coin. What are you going to do about it?

I never stated anything about "con artist". If I was aware that a potential buyer was engaged in such activity, I would not sell to them.

 

If you took a damaged coin and expertly repaired it, and then sold it to a person as a repaired coin, would you want to see that person then re-sell it as a problem-free coin ? Why not ? All of that is legal. I would not want to see anyone misrepresent, upon resale, any items that I've minted, just like in the repaired coin example.

 

"Misrepresentation" would be intentionally omitting the "Carr over-strike" part.

 

If I am made aware of any such situation I would attempt to inform the buyer that the item was a Carr over-strike.

 

Why should it not be legal tender? Who are you to decide? Bit coin? Barter? If you make no claims, why advise not to? You already declare your piece is legal. It is silver is it not? It is an original U.S. coin over struck by you, it it not? If I take a $1 Bill and doodle on it and change the date on it, are you stating it is not legal tender? Exactly what would be wrong with that?........

I never stated that fantasy-date over-strikes were legal tender or not legal tender. To be cautious, I advised that they not be used for that purpose. I am not the one to decide. A defaced coin does not necessarily loose legal tender status. But it might loose status as an acceptable coin. By that I mean a sound coin that is legal tender can be accepted as such by the receiver. But the receiver is not legally mandated to accept the coin if it is not acceptable TO THEM.

 

A fantasy-date over-strike on a silver coin is still silver (no metal is added or removed and there is no melting during the process).

 

A genuine $1 bill with a non-advertising doodle on it would still be accepted as legal tender most of the time. So I would assume that it would still be legal tender.

 

....What is and what is not appropriate? It is an original U.S. coin is it not?.......

If someone took one of my fantasy-date over-strikes, modified it (like removed a mint mark, for example), I would not want them to state that I was the one that made that particular modification. What if someone made a really low-quality coin or token of some sort out of something I made, and then sold it as an unmodified "Carr" piece ? That could be damaging to my reputation because it would appear as if I was producing low quality work. I would object to someone doing that.

 

....Are you stating that my example would not be legal? Why not? How are you not going to allow it? Why would my example have to have the word copy on it? Because of the HPA? Because of some other law?......

If someone made their own version of a "1964-D" Peace Dollar over-strike and attributed it as a "Carr" piece, I would object to that as a type of brand name infringement. That would be a civil matter, not a criminal matter, I believe. If they marketed it as their own "whatever" version "1964-D" Peace Dollar over-strike, I would have no standing in that situation so I would not protest it.

 

I have already prevented numerous eBay auctions of Chinese "1964-D" Peace Dollars that were advertised as "Carr" pieces. I have contacts with eBay through their Intellectual Property Rights program and I can report such auctions and they are cancelled. I have not reported any auctions for "1964" dollars that do not attribute them to me.

 

Are not both examples I have used non-fraudulent alterations to existing coins? is it non-fraudulent minting of things in similitude?

 

.......That is a reasonable business model. However, you did not address my other question, reference non-fraudulent minting of things in similitude, and what that actually means..........

What are these two examples again ?

 

As a sideline question, do you see any corporate slander issues in the opinions that have been stated about your endeavors?.............

The "counterfeiter" claims posted on this forum could be construed as "slander" (or more accurately "libel"). I have no litigation intentions at present, however.

 

Edited September 13, 2016 by dcarr

[coinman_23885]

I thought it would be appropriate to post this stuff here for good measure (although it is already included in the companion HPA thread).

 

A federal appeals court has also indicated that the coins need not be exact copies or replicas to violate the HPA and such items must be marked. See DeMarco v. Nat'l Collector's Mint, Inc., 229 F.R.D. 73 (2d Cir. 2005) (under the HPA "imitation numismatic items" need not be exact reproductions of existing coins). The Demarco court found that a commemorative Freedom Tower Silver Dollar coin depicting the September 11th attacks was an "imitation numismatic item" even though the coin did not resemble any previously minted or presently circulating U.S. coinage. Id. at 78. The coin was inscribed with the phrases "IN GOD WE TRUST" and "One Dollar." The court concluded that although the "characteristics [of the coin] might not fool a sophisticated coin collector... they could lead an usophisticated purchaser to believe that the [commemorative] was indeed legal tender issued by the Government." Id. The court found that that the commemorative purported to be "coinage used in exchange" and was subject to the regulations of the HPA.

 

And finally regarding intent that the DCarr is so fond of, "[n]either knowledge nor intent to deceive need be shown on the part of the business to prove that the HPA has been violated." See Styczinski v. Westminister Mint, Inc., No. 14-cv-00619 (D. Minn. Nov. 14, 2014) (quoting In re Gold Bullion Int'l Ltd., 92 F.T.C. 196 (1977)).

 

And CaptainHenway found an interesting FTC response to public comments seeking advice on potential revisions to the HPA. The HPA empowers the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to enforce the HPA. In response to comments that the rules be amended to address fantasy coins, the commission rejected the need for amendments and made clear that it believed such coins were required to be marked with the words "COPY" and were legal as long as properly marked.

 

 

B. Suggested Rules Modifications

 

Some commenters suggested modifications to the Rules. In particular, several commenters suggested modifications to address “fantasy coins,” government-issued coins altered by non-governmental entities to bear historically impossible dates or other features marketed as novelties.[12] Commenters variously suggested that the Commission require manufacturers of fantasy coins to stamp such items with a “FANTASY” mark,[13] expressly permit the sale of such items without an identifying mark,[14] or ban such items altogether.[15] Several commenters also reported an increase in imports of unmarked replica coins from Asia, and urged that the Rules cover such sales.[16] One commenter specifically suggested expanding the Rules' scope to incorporate the provisions of the CCPA before Congress adopted it and sent it to the President for his signature.[17]

 

C. Analysis

 

...Additionally, it is not necessary to modify the Rules to address specific collectible items, such as “fantasy coins,” as some commenters suggested. The Commission can address specific numismatic items as the need arises. Notably, the Commission has already addressed whether coins resembling government-issued coins with date variations are subject to the Rules. In re Gold Bullion Int'l, Ltd., 92 F.T.C. 196 (1978). It concluded that such coins should be marked as a “COPY” because otherwise they could be mistaken for an original numismatic item. See id. at 223 (“[M]inor variations in dates between an original and its alleged `copy' are insufficient to deprive the latter of its status as a `reproduction, copy or counterfeit of an `orginal numismatic item' and do not eliminate the requirement that the latter be marked with the word `Copy'.”).[18]

 

Lastly, the Commission does not propose modifying the Rules to ban the sale of fantasy coins outright. Sales of properly-marked fantasy coins are lawful under the Commission's decision in In re Gold Bullion discussed above, which held that vendors could sell coins with date variations so long as the coins are marked with the word `Copy.' ” 92 F.T.C. at 223. By contrast, the federal statute prohibiting the alteration of U.S. coins requires fraudulent intent. 18 U.S.C. 331. Accordingly, the Commission finds no grounds to adopt a rule banning fantasy coins.

 

 

[dcarr]

I thought it would be appropriate to post this stuff here for good measure (although it is already included in the companion HPA thread).

 

A federal appeals court has also indicated that the coins need not be exact copies or replicas to violate the HPA and such items must be marked. See DeMarco v. Nat'l Collector's Mint, Inc., 229 F.R.D. 73 (2d Cir. 2005) (under the HPA "imitation numismatic items" need not be exact reproductions of existing coins). The Demarco court found that a commemorative Freedom Tower Silver Dollar coin depicting the September 11th attacks was an "imitation numismatic item" even though the coin did not resemble any previously minted or presently circulating U.S. coinage. Id. at 78. The coin was inscribed with the phrases "IN GOD WE TRUST" and "One Dollar." The court concluded that although the "characteristics [of the coin] might not fool a sophisticated coin collector... they could lead an usophisticated purchaser to believe that the [commemorative] was indeed legal tender issued by the Government." Id. The court found that that the commemorative purported to be "coinage used in exchange" and was subject to the regulations of the HPA.

 

And finally regarding intent that the DCarr is so fond of, "[n]either knowledge nor intent to deceive need be shown on the part of the business to prove that the HPA has been violated." See Styczinski v. Westminister Mint, Inc., No. 14-cv-00619 (D. Minn. Nov. 14, 2014) (quoting In re Gold Bullion Int'l Ltd., 92 F.T.C. 196 (1977)).

 

And CaptainHenway found an interesting FTC response to public comments seeking advice on potential revisions to the HPA. The HPA empowers the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to enforce the HPA. In response to comments that the rules be amended to address fantasy coins, the commission rejected the need for amendments and made clear that it believed such coins were required to be marked with the words "COPY" and were legal as long as properly marked.

 

 

B. Suggested Rules Modifications

 

Some commenters suggested modifications to the Rules. In particular, several commenters suggested modifications to address “fantasy coins,” government-issued coins altered by non-governmental entities to bear historically impossible dates or other features marketed as novelties.[12] Commenters variously suggested that the Commission require manufacturers of fantasy coins to stamp such items with a “FANTASY” mark,[13] expressly permit the sale of such items without an identifying mark,[14] or ban such items altogether.[15] Several commenters also reported an increase in imports of unmarked replica coins from Asia, and urged that the Rules cover such sales.[16] One commenter specifically suggested expanding the Rules' scope to incorporate the provisions of the CCPA before Congress adopted it and sent it to the President for his signature.[17]

 

C. Analysis

 

...Additionally, it is not necessary to modify the Rules to address specific collectible items, such as “fantasy coins,” as some commenters suggested. The Commission can address specific numismatic items as the need arises. Notably, the Commission has already addressed whether coins resembling government-issued coins with date variations are subject to the Rules. In re Gold Bullion Int'l, Ltd., 92 F.T.C. 196 (1978). It concluded that such coins should be marked as a “COPY” because otherwise they could be mistaken for an original numismatic item. See id. at 223 (“[M]inor variations in dates between an original and its alleged `copy' are insufficient to deprive the latter of its status as a `reproduction, copy or counterfeit of an `orginal numismatic item' and do not eliminate the requirement that the latter be marked with the word `Copy'.”).[18]

 

Lastly, the Commission does not propose modifying the Rules to ban the sale of fantasy coins outright. Sales of properly-marked fantasy coins are lawful under the Commission's decision in In re Gold Bullion discussed above, which held that vendors could sell coins with date variations so long as the coins are marked with the word `Copy.' ” 92 F.T.C. at 223. By contrast, the federal statute prohibiting the alteration of U.S. coins requires fraudulent intent. 18 U.S.C. 331. Accordingly, the Commission finds no grounds to adopt a rule banning fantasy coins.

 

 

I have replied to theses issues in "The Hobby Protection Act of 1973" thread.

 

Edited September 13, 2016 by dcarr

[RWB]

Counterfeits. Just like any others from any where. Very plain, very simple.

[7.jaguars]

I disagree. Counterfeit what? He does not strike issues that have been issued by the mint or elsewhere and they are therefore not purporting to be something that already exists. He clearly advertises his issues at what they are. So, I will keep it simple also: enjoy them if you will, leave them if you won't. 

[VKurtB]

14 hours ago, RWB said:

Counterfeits. Just like any others from any where. Very plain, very simple.

RWB has a long and voluminous record of viewing the Carr fantasy pieces as being counterfeits. I disagree fully and completely, and by the way, so does the American Numismatic Association, its Board of Governors, and its Legal Counsel, all of whom have studied the issue at ad nauseam length. I am in possession of the letter stating this unambiguously. The section of the Hobby Protection Act that deals with altered coins (yes, there is a separate section for them) does require intent to deceive in order for a violation thereof to occur. It's why Mr. Carr offers the warnings he does. He is not intending to deceive, but he wants to warn others against it as well.

As I have spoken personally with Mr. Carr, he is aware that his original designs are not my particular cup o' tea, and I own only one, an early Amero coin I use to torture conspiracy theorists about an American Currency Union (try it, it's tons of fun). But I find his fantasy overdates extraordinarily charming, and I own quite a few. I also am aware that I have taken onto myself, and my progeny, the special duty to take care that they are never represented as something they are not.

Edited October 14, 2020 by VKurtB

[Alex in PA.]

It is marvelous to read a Thread with so many 'Out House Lawyers' commenting in it.  And to the Dude who said "How are his pieces.........distinguishable from China's finest?"

If you can't see that ya best start collecting Hummels.  

[VKurtB]

6 minutes ago, Alex in PA. said:

It is marvelous to read a Thread with so many 'Out House Lawyers' commenting in it.  And to the Dude who said "How are his pieces.........distinguishable from China's finest?"

If you can't see that ya best start collecting Hummels.  

By the way, while the VonNutHouse (my commentary) Liberty coins were deemed by the government to be counterfeits, they were not eligible to be exhibited at ANA shows, and one exhibit was "pulled". Now that the government has changed its position, they are allowed again, as are Mr. Carr's pieces. So sayeth the Chief Judge. Keep in mind, this is from an organization that had to allow Disney corporate lawyers to examine all exhibits at Anaheim before the ANA show there opened in 2016. They were looking for improper use of Disney "intellectual property". As if...

[VKurtB]

54 minutes ago, Alex in PA. said:

"How are his pieces.........distinguishable from China's finest?" - quoting another person

For those who don't know, China does not use actual United States coins as their "planchets" and Daniel Carr does. That is what makes all the difference in the world, and in fact, implicates a completely different section of statute law. The fact that someone could be so ignorant as to even ask such a question boggles the mind.

[RWB]

Any coin-like object that has wording claiming to be a product of the US Mint (or other countries) and NOT in fact made by the US Mint, is a counterfeit. The legal definition is of long standing and has been modified ONLY by HPA and its requirement for the word "COPY" to be stamped on a replica. Landis and other honest people understood that. The language is clear and unambiguous.

A counterfeit US coin needs only "United States of America" (or something similar) and a legal tender denomination. That interpretation is extremely liberal since a "slug" can be entirely blank and still fall under US counterfeiting law. The legal phrase "likeness or similitude" covers both appearance AND potential use.

Collectors almost universally complain about counterfeits (including 'impossible dates') from China, Vietnam and other garden spots, but turn a blind eye on the same thing when done domestically. Hypocrisy is not a numismatic value.

Edited October 14, 2020 by RWB

[VKurtB]

5 minutes ago, RWB said:

China, Vietnam and other garden spots

Which pieces among those use actual legal tender U.S. coins as their "planchets"? And don't even attempt to claim that doesn't make a difference, because we all know that it makes ALL the difference.

[comicdonna]

1 minute ago, RWB said:

Any coin-like object that has wording claiming to be a product of the US Mint (or other countries) and NOT in fact made by the US Mint, is a counterfeit. The legal definition is of long standing and has been modified ONLY by HPA and its requirement for the word "COPY" to be stamped on a replica. Landis and other honest people understood that. The language is clear and unambiguous.

 

One of the benefits of this is to protect people from purchasing a "Fantasy" coin, thinking it's the real thing.  I realize Mr Carr discloses but, what happens when the buyer sells?   Is disclosure guaranteed?  They should have the word copy  stamped onto them.

[Alex in PA.]

I personally have no opinion one way or the other.  I leave such items as 'legal', 'counterfeit', etc. to the lawyers who are paid to determine such intricate matters.

[RWB]

Just now, comicdonna said:

One of the benefits of this is to protect people from purchasing a "Fantasy" coin, thinking it's the real thing.  I realize Mr Carr discloses but, what happens when the buyer sells?   Is disclosure guaranteed?  They should have the word copy  stamped onto them.

Disclosure has no effect whatever.

Anyone making, distributing a counterfeit is culpable, as is anyone making the dies, hubs or using a machine to make the counterfeits. These counterfeits have already led to multiple questions from innocent people and confusion. That will only increase. Event the properly marked Landis pieces have been scraped and abused, then passed as authentic large cents.

HPA allows confiscation of ALL material and equipment sued to make counterfeits and recovery of all money paid by anyone for them.

[RWB]

6 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

Which pieces among those use actual legal tender U.S. coins as their "planchets"? And don't even attempt to claim that doesn't make a difference, because we all know that it makes ALL the difference.

The material used as a "planchet" does not matter. Also, deliberate mutilation of US coin for creation of an illegal item is a separate felony.

[VKurtB]

1 hour ago, RWB said:

The material used as a "planchet" does not matter. Also, deliberate mutilation of US coin for creation of an illegal item is a separate felony.

Then by that reasoning, all elongates are similarly felonious, because at least one side, and both if you know where to look, of those pieces still have legends that are still visible.

And it's only "illegal" if it's not made from an actual coin. Making them as DC does makes them "altered coins", legally no different from an elongate, and requires intent to deceive in order for a violation to occur. So say I, and so does the ANA in the letter YOU HAVE RECEIVED, from their legal counsel Hollie Wieland. What you continue to "spew" here (intentionally provocative verb, yes) is pure disinformation, and worse, you KNOW it's disinformation, which is intellectually dishonest on your part.

 

By the way, in the U.K. the making of elongates is actually illegal, but there are still ubiquitous machines making them.

 

Edited October 14, 2020 by VKurtB