Dcarr over strike question. 1 1

[dcarr]

U.S. Code - Counterfeit Coins

 

"Whoever, within the United States, makes or brings therein from any foreign country, or possesses with intent to sell, give away, or in any other manner uses the same, except under authority of the Secretary of the Treasury or other proper officer of the United States, any token, disk, or device in the likeness or similitude as to design, color, or the inscription thereon of any of the coins of the United States or of any foreign country issued as money, either under the authority of the United States or under the authority of any foreign government shall be fined under this title.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 709; July 16, 1951, ch. 226, § 3, 65 Stat. 122; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(B), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2146.)"

 

This applies to everyone including those living in Colorado.

 

So long as it isn't done for fraudulent purposes, a fantasy-date over-struck coin is an altered coin, not a "counterfeit" coin.

 

From the US Mint web site (note the key underlined qualifier):

(Text as of 2/19/02) 18 U.S.C. §331

 

You provided a link to U.S.C. 331, but (seemingly conviently) ignored the above language, which does not require "fraudulent purposes".

 

The counterfeiting statute does not apply because there is no counterfeiting involved in fantasy-date over-striking. Similarly, a carved (altered) "hobo" nickel is not a "counterfeit" either, and such activity is not restricted by counterfeiting laws.

 

A hobo nickel makes a coin look less like an original numismatic item ...

 

Says who ? To use your side's argument: how would an ordinary person on the street know if a carved "hobo" nickel was a rare Mint issue or not ?

 

and [a "hobo" nickel] does not purport to make it a rare date or issue. Your coins do.

 

No, my fantasy-date over-strikes purport to be just that, non-existant dates struck onto existing coins.

 

I also don't see them as art as the only thing you are adding is a date and a mint mark. The rest of the design emulates circulating coinage. That is a major distinction.

 

Not every person interprets or appreciates art the same way. This is especially true for "performance art".

 

Many carved "hobo" nickels are still the same size as the original nickels, would still work in vending machines, and they still say "United States of America" and "Five Cents" on them.

 

Also as I have said before, as the cited federal appeals courts also acknowledged, the federal government may charge the overstriking of existing genuine coinage with unauthorized dies as counterfeiting under 18 U.S.C. 485, it can charge the practice as a violation of 18 U.S.C. 331, or it can do both. If 18 U.S.C. 331 were the sole controlling statute, I would agree that you should win against charges on that code section (which have an intent element). As for the other statutes, I don't see a work around that has already been rejected by federal appeals courts in one fashion or another over the years.

 

The point is this: If carving hobo nickels with fantasy designs is legal, then over-striking coins with fantasy-dates is also legal, so long as neither is for fraudulent purposes.

 

 

[MJ]

MJ:

 

Even though you and I disagree about the DCarr "coins," you and I are in total agreement about "no minds changed."

 

Mark

 

Round and round we go

 

mark

[coinman_23885]

U.S. Code - Counterfeit Coins

 

"Whoever, within the United States, makes or brings therein from any foreign country, or possesses with intent to sell, give away, or in any other manner uses the same, except under authority of the Secretary of the Treasury or other proper officer of the United States, any token, disk, or device in the likeness or similitude as to design, color, or the inscription thereon of any of the coins of the United States or of any foreign country issued as money, either under the authority of the United States or under the authority of any foreign government shall be fined under this title.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 709; July 16, 1951, ch. 226, § 3, 65 Stat. 122; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(B), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2146.)"

 

This applies to everyone including those living in Colorado.

 

So long as it isn't done for fraudulent purposes, a fantasy-date over-struck coin is an altered coin, not a "counterfeit" coin.

 

From the US Mint web site (note the key underlined qualifier):

(Text as of 2/19/02) 18 U.S.C. §331

 

You provided a link to U.S.C. 331, but (seemingly conviently) ignored the above language, which does not require "fraudulent purposes".

 

The counterfeiting statute does not apply because there is no counterfeiting involved in fantasy-date over-striking. Similarly, a carved (altered) "hobo" nickel is not a "counterfeit" either, and such activity is not restricted by counterfeiting laws.

 

A hobo nickel makes a coin look less like an original numismatic item ...

 

Says who ? To use your side's argument: how would an ordinary person on the street know if a carved "hobo" nickel was a rare Mint issue or not ?

 

and [a "hobo" nickel] does not purport to make it a rare date or issue. Your coins do.

 

No, my fantasy-date over-strikes purport to be just that, non-existant dates struck onto existing coins.

 

I also don't see them as art as the only thing you are adding is a date and a mint mark. The rest of the design emulates circulating coinage. That is a major distinction.

 

Not every person interprets or appreciates art the same way. This is especially true for "performance art".

 

Many carved "hobo" nickels are still the same size as the original nickels, would still work in vending machines, and they still say "United States of America" and "Five Cents" on them.

 

Also as I have said before, as the cited federal appeals courts also acknowledged, the federal government may charge the overstriking of existing genuine coinage with unauthorized dies as counterfeiting under 18 U.S.C. 485, it can charge the practice as a violation of 18 U.S.C. 331, or it can do both. If 18 U.S.C. 331 were the sole controlling statute, I would agree that you should win against charges on that code section (which have an intent element). As for the other statutes, I don't see a work around that has already been rejected by federal appeals courts in one fashion or another over the years.

 

The point is this: If carving hobo nickels with fantasy designs is legal, then over-striking coins with fantasy-dates is also legal, so long as neither is for fraudulent purposes.

 

 

Show me a hobo nickel that approximates what you do (restrike the original design elements changing only the date and mint mark to a rare combination as you do with your 1964-D Peace Dollars). You make your creations (e.g. 1964-D Peace Dollars) look like much more valuable rare coins. I have never seen a hobo nickel that made a coin look to potentially have a higher numismatic value or approximate a rare/desirable issue.

Edited August 29, 2016 by coinman_23885

[dcarr]

Show me a hobo nickel that approximates what you do (restrike the original design elements changing only the date and mint mark to a rare combination as you do with your 1964-D Peace Dollars). You make your creations (e.g. 1964-D Peace Dollars) look like much more valuable rare coins. I have never seen a hobo nickel that made a coin look to potentially have a higher numismatic value or approximate a rare/desirable issue.

 

The 1964-D Peace Dollar is not a "rare" coin. It is a non-existent coin, according to the US Government.

 

Hobo nickels change much of the contours of the coin, essentially creating a "fantasy design" while sometimes leaving the original legends in place. The result can look like a rare US Mint issue coin.

 

Here is one that looks like a rare St. Gaudens pattern coin (not to me, but maybe to some mythical person, like the kind some people are worried about, that might get conned into spending way too much money):

 

This one has a Mexican eagle on it. Watch out, somebody might think it is a rare official North American Union Amero coin

 

Another one that looks like it could be a rare Indian Head nickel pattern:

 

Is this one still legal tender ?

 

Those are just a few I found in searching the OHNS site for a few minutes.

 

The point of all this is, either design elements are changed, or date digits are changed, and either way the goal is to elicit some sort of emotional or intellectual response from the viewer. This is what any artist attempts to do. So why would it matter if the design was changed or the date digits were changed, so long as neither is done for fraudulent purposes ?

 

Is re-carving details lost to circulation wear on a rare coin "counterfeiting" ?

NGC would call such a coin "tooled", not "counterfeit".

 

Edited August 29, 2016 by dcarr

[coinman_23885]

Show me a hobo nickel that approximates what you do (restrike the original design elements changing only the date and mint mark to a rare combination as you do with your 1964-D Peace Dollars). You make your creations (e.g. 1964-D Peace Dollars) look like much more valuable rare coins. I have never seen a hobo nickel that made a coin look to potentially have a higher numismatic value or approximate a rare/desirable issue.

 

The 1964-D Peace Dollar is not a "rare" coin. It is a non-existent coin, according to the US Government.

 

Hobo nickels change much of the contours of the coin, essentially creating a "fantasy design" while sometimes leaving the original legends in place. The result can look like a rare US Mint issue coin.

 

Here is one that looks like a rare St. Gaudens pattern coin (not to me, but maybe to some mythical person, like the kind some people are worried about, that might get conned into spending way too much money):

 

This one has a Mexican eagle on it. Watch out, somebody might think it is a rare official North American Union Amero coin

 

Another one that looks like it could be a rare Indian Head nickel pattern:

 

Is this one still legal tender ?

 

Those are just a few I found in searching the OHNS site for a few minutes.

 

The point of all this is, either design elements are changed, or date digits are changed, and either way the goal is to elicit some sort of emotional or intellectual response from the viewer. This is what any artist attempts to do. So why would it matter if the design was changed or the date digits were changed, so long is neither is done for fraudulent purposes ?

 

Is re-carving details lost to circulation wear on a rare coin "counterfeiting" ?

NGC would call such a coin "tooled", not "counterfeit".

 

None of those are even close to what you are doing.

[dcarr]

None of those are even close to what you are doing.

 

Both are artist modifications to existing genuine coins for non-fraudulent novelty purposes.

 

Doesn't that first one "purport" to be a rare St. Gaudens nickel ?

 

What is the threshold where modifications constitute "counterfeiting" ?

The threshold is fraud, pure and simple.

 

It is not illegal to deface money. If there is no fraudulent intent, then defacing coins can not be "counterfeiting".

 

Edited August 29, 2016 by dcarr

[coinman_23885]

Doesn't that first one "purport" to be a rare St. Gaudens nickel ?

 

No, the U.S. Mint never produced St. Gaudens five cent pieces. Moreover, the design does not closely mirror the design of the obverse of the Saint Gaudens Double Eagles. We do know, for a fact, that 1964-D Peace Dollars were produced by the Mint. You are restriking Peace Dollars that looks almost exactly the same to the untrained eye to an original Peace Dollar design (and imparted by unauthorized dies), and your coins carry the 1964 date and a "D" mint mark.

 

What is the threshold where modifications constitute "counterfeiting" ?

 

RWB posted the threshold for you and it is contained in the statute. It really isn't that difficult. Every time someone debunks one of your arguments, you move on to another argument that has been debunked. You repeatedly attempt to rewrite the statutes to add elements that are not there. This is beginning to become boring.

 

More importantly, even if your pieces were legal to produce, doesn't it bother you that some elderly or uninformed person could be defrauded because of your pieces? Is it your position that it is their problem, and as long as you have your fun and make money then all is well?

Edited August 29, 2016 by coinman_23885

[dcarr]

Doesn't that first one "purport" to be a rare St. Gaudens nickel ?

 

No, the U.S. Mint never produced St. Gaudens five cent pieces.

 

Right. The St. Gaudens nickel was never originally produced. So the carved nickel can't reasonably purport to be one because they don't exist (other than the carving).

 

The same goes for all the various fantasy-date pieces. They can't reasonably purport to be originals of that date because the dates don't originally exist.

 

Moreover, the design does not closely mirror the design of the obverse of the Saint Gaudens Double Eagles. We do know, for a fact, that 1964-D Peace Dollars were produced by the Mint. You are restriking Peace Dollars that looks almost exactly the same to the untrained eye to an original Peace Dollar design (and imparted by unauthorized dies), and your coins carry the 1964 date and a "D" mint mark.

 

The Liberty figure on that example does closely follow the original Double Eagle.

 

We also know for a fact that the government has stated that no 1964-D Peace Dollars exist.

 

What is the threshold where modifications constitute "counterfeiting" ?

 

RWB posted the threshold for you and it is contained in the statute. It really isn't that difficult. Every time someone debunks one of your arguments, you move on to another argument that has been debunked. You repeatedly attempt to rewrite the statutes to add elements that are not there. This is beginning to become boring.

 

Here is the RWB post you referenced:

U.S. Code - Counterfeit Coins

 

"Whoever, within the United States, makes or brings therein from any foreign country, or possesses with intent to sell, give away, or in any other manner uses the same, except under authority of the Secretary of the Treasury or other proper officer of the United States, any token, disk, or device in the likeness or similitude as to design, color, or the inscription thereon of any of the coins of the United States or of any foreign country issued as money, either under the authority of the United States or under the authority of any foreign government shall be fined under this title.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 709; July 16, 1951, ch. 226, § 3, 65 Stat. 122; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(B), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2146.)"

 

This applies to everyone including those living in Colorado.

 

Two points:

 

1)

According to your strict interpretation of this statute, the Chuck-E- Cheese pizza chain (for example) is guilty of counterfeiting because their tokens are similar in color (brassy) to the current US "Golden" dollar coins. Clearly, that was not the intent of Congress when legislating this law. And it is also clearly evident that the authorities and the courts do not view the minting of tokens or medals, or non-fraudulent defacement of coins, as a crime.

 

2)

Long after the above statute was legislated, Congress passed the Hobby Protection Act, which allows (with some restrictions) the production of privately-minted pieces in similitude to US coins.

 

Note that RWB's one foray into the legal realm was a disaster for his "clients" (the Langbords). So consider that regarding any legal commentary.

 

More importantly, even if your pieces were legal to produce, doesn't it bother you that some elderly or uninformed person could be defrauded because of your pieces? Is it your position that it is their problem, and as long as you have your fun and make money then all is well?

 

First, I reject your implied premise that the fantasy-date over-strike coins are not legal to produce.

 

It is my position that if someone is intent on perpetrating a fraud, they will find some coin to do it with. Such as adding a "D" to a 1916 Mercury dime and selling it as a genuine rare 1916-D. Or substituting a 1995-P proof Silver Eagle for the rare 1995-W proof Silver Eagle in the 10th anniversary set and then selling the set to an unsuspecting buyer letting them assume the set has the proper coins in it.

 

Is the US Mint to blame for the latter example ? They enabled the scam by producing two different proof Silver Eagles in 1995, one of them being rare and issued only in the expensive set. Are you concerned that a senior citizen could be scammed by a 1995 Eagles proof set with a swapped "P" mint Silver Eagle in it ?

 

No, the Mint is not responsible of course. The person actually perpetrating the fraud is to blame.

 

With all the scams being perpetrated against senior citizens (of which I am technically one), I would like to see more action taken against boiler-room telemarketing scammers and the like.

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

All of the commentary could have been avoided, in my opinion, if Mr. Carr had contacted the U.S. Attorney General for guidance.

 

The U.S. Attorney General does not interpret laws for the public.

If you contact them, they will likely just tell you to consult with your own lawyer.

I know this from experience.

 

 

Guidance. Guidance. Guidance.

 

Correct. The U.S. Attorney General prosecutes when the laws are defied. The U.S. Attorney General also provides guidance in the public interest. You know this. You are simply playing word games, but there is nothing wrong with that. It is America. You are free to do so. It is your Right.

 

So you have contacted the U.S. Attorney General on the issue being discussed. the issue of whether or not your creations/pieces are legal, and can be publicly sold legally? You just stated you know from experience.

 

I have contacted the U.S. Attorney General in the past on 4 occasions. None of the responses received were "consult your own Attorney". The topics were in the public interest. The U.S. Attorney General was most helpful and very open and provided guidance. The U.S. Attorney General prefers the poop not to hit the fan.

 

If I recall correctly, you stated you had contact with some person in some other agency either Treasury or I believe the U.S. Mint, some individual with zero authority. You were even invited by a members of this chat board that are well versed (as I recall 3 members made the offer) in the matter to assist you in the methodology of approach.

 

Have you ever contacted the U.S Attorney General, via certified return receipt U.S. Mail stating the issues you seek guidance about and/or (preferably) had an Attorney do so on your behalf?

 

Are you stating you have done so, and that is the "experience" you mention? What was the answer from the U.S. Attorney General?

 

Contacting the proverbial anonymous Kilroy is not a substitute for contacting the U.S. Attorney General. All Kilroy does is leave a little cartoon that he was there.

 

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

U.S. Code - Counterfeit Coins

 

"Whoever, within the United States, makes or brings therein from any foreign country, or possesses with intent to sell, give away, or in any other manner uses the same, except under authority of the Secretary of the Treasury or other proper officer of the United States, any token, disk, or device in the likeness or similitude as to design, color, or the inscription thereon of any of the coins of the United States or of any foreign country issued as money, either under the authority of the United States or under the authority of any foreign government shall be fined under this title.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 709; July 16, 1951, ch. 226, § 3, 65 Stat. 122; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(B), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2146.)"

 

This applies to everyone including those living in Colorado.

 

So long as it isn't done for fraudulent purposes, a fantasy-date over-struck coin is an altered coin, not a "counterfeit" coin.

 

From the US Mint web site (note the key underlined qualifier):

(Text as of 2/19/02) 18 U.S.C. §331

 

You provided a link to U.S.C. 331, but (seemingly conviently) ignored the above language, which does not require "fraudulent purposes".

 

The counterfeiting statute does not apply because there is no counterfeiting involved in fantasy-date over-striking. Similarly, a carved (altered) "hobo" nickel is not a "counterfeit" either, and such activity is not restricted by counterfeiting laws.

 

Is this according to the office of the U.S. Attorney General?

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

 

All of HIS fantasy pieces indeed start off as an actual uS coins of the same type.

 

Federal courts have already rejected this argument. Overstriking a rare, esoteric, or fantasy issue over a genuine coin does not remove it from the purview of the counterfeiting statutes nor does it merely mean that the creation must be prosecuted under the statute for falsely altering a coin. The federal government may choose either. United States v. Wilson, 451 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1971).

 

For those who haven't seen the prior discussion about that case on these forums (by now that is probably a small number), I want to reiterate that the Wilson case has important and significant differences from the situation in question. The differences are sufficient enough to invalidate it as any sort of precedent here.

 

The defendants in the Wilson case had altered genuine coins with a blatant intent to defraud. They took random-year silver Roosevelt dimes and over-struck them as "1955" dimes. They then sold the dimes representing them as genuine original US Mint 1955-dated dimes. And at the time they did this, genuine original 1955 dimes already existed, and they were selling for a significant premium in the collector market.

 

Other parts of that same case involved the defendants adding fake "D" mint marks to 1932 Washington quarters and selling them as genuine originals.

 

Has the U.S. Attorney General given you guidance concerning the important and significant differences?

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Doesn't that first one "purport" to be a rare St. Gaudens nickel ?

 

No, the U.S. Mint never produced St. Gaudens five cent pieces.

 

Right. The St. Gaudens nickel was never originally produced. So the carved nickel can't reasonably purport to be one because they don't exist (other than the carving).

 

The same goes for all the various fantasy-date pieces. They can't reasonably purport to be originals of that date because the dates don't originally exist.

 

Moreover, the design does not closely mirror the design of the obverse of the Saint Gaudens Double Eagles. We do know, for a fact, that 1964-D Peace Dollars were produced by the Mint. You are restriking Peace Dollars that looks almost exactly the same to the untrained eye to an original Peace Dollar design (and imparted by unauthorized dies), and your coins carry the 1964 date and a "D" mint mark.

 

The Liberty figure on that example does closely follow the original Double Eagle.

 

We also know for a fact that the government has stated that no 1964-D Peace Dollars exist.

 

What is the threshold where modifications constitute "counterfeiting" ?

 

RWB posted the threshold for you and it is contained in the statute. It really isn't that difficult. Every time someone debunks one of your arguments, you move on to another argument that has been debunked. You repeatedly attempt to rewrite the statutes to add elements that are not there. This is beginning to become boring.

 

Here is the RWB post you referenced:

U.S. Code - Counterfeit Coins

 

"Whoever, within the United States, makes or brings therein from any foreign country, or possesses with intent to sell, give away, or in any other manner uses the same, except under authority of the Secretary of the Treasury or other proper officer of the United States, any token, disk, or device in the likeness or similitude as to design, color, or the inscription thereon of any of the coins of the United States or of any foreign country issued as money, either under the authority of the United States or under the authority of any foreign government shall be fined under this title.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 709; July 16, 1951, ch. 226, § 3, 65 Stat. 122; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(B), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2146.)"

 

This applies to everyone including those living in Colorado.

 

Two points:

 

1)

According to your strict interpretation of this statute, the Chuck-E- Cheese pizza chain (for example) is guilty of counterfeiting because their tokens are similar in color (brassy) to the current US "Golden" dollar coins. Clearly, that was not the intent of Congress when legislating this law. And it is also clearly evident that the authorities and the courts do not view the minting of tokens or medals, or non-fraudulent defacement of coins, as a crime.

 

2)

Long after the above statute was legislated, Congress passed the Hobby Protection Act, which allows (with some restrictions) the production of privately-minted pieces in similitude to US coins.

 

Note that RWB's one foray into the legal realm was a disaster for his "clients" (the Langbords). So consider that regarding any legal commentary.

 

More importantly, even if your pieces were legal to produce, doesn't it bother you that some elderly or uninformed person could be defrauded because of your pieces? Is it your position that it is their problem, and as long as you have your fun and make money then all is well?

 

First, I reject your implied premise that the fantasy-date over-strike coins are not legal to produce.

 

It is my position that if someone is intent on perpetrating a fraud, they will find some coin to do it with. Such as adding a "D" to a 1916 Mercury dime and selling it as a genuine rare 1916-D. Or substituting a 1995-P proof Silver Eagle for the rare 1995-W proof Silver Eagle in the 10th anniversary set and then selling the set to an unsuspecting buyer letting them assume the set has the proper coins in it.

 

Is the US Mint to blame for the latter example ? They enabled the scam by producing two different proof Silver Eagles in 1995, one of them being rare and issued only in the expensive set. Are you concerned that a senior citizen could be scammed by a 1995 Eagles proof set with a swapped "P" mint Silver Eagle in it ?

 

No, the Mint is not responsible of course. The person actually perpetrating the fraud is to blame.

 

With all the scams being perpetrated against senior citizens (of which I am technically one), I would like to see more action taken against boiler-room telemarketing scammers and the like.

 

What you reject is not the issue and is of course what you would state. That is not the issue.

 

The RWB foray is not the issue.

 

Your position on defining intent to perpetrate a fraud is interesting.

 

Could you please describe how your activity couldn't possibly be interpreted in any manner as an intent to perpetrate a fraud and/or is not fraudulent?

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

None of those are even close to what you are doing.

 

Both are artist modifications to existing genuine coins for non-fraudulent novelty purposes.

 

Doesn't that first one "purport" to be a rare St. Gaudens nickel ?

 

What is the threshold where modifications constitute "counterfeiting" ?

The threshold is fraud, pure and simple.

 

It is not illegal to deface money. If there is no fraudulent intent, then defacing coins can not be "counterfeiting".

 

Has the U.S. Attorney General clarified that fraud is the threshold and that is pure and simple?

 

Has Congress been alerted to this, so the existing wording of the law can be changed?

[coinman_23885]

According to your strict interpretation of this statute, the Chuck-E- Cheese pizza chain (for example) is guilty of counterfeiting because their tokens are similar in color (brassy) to the current US "Golden" dollar coins. Clearly, that was not the intent of Congress when legislating this law. And it is also clearly evident that the authorities and the courts do not view the minting of tokens or medals, or non-fraudulent defacement of coins, as a crime.

 

I never liked Chuck-E- Cheese anyway. I knew the rat was trouble.

[Afterword]

Mr. Carr, it is my judgment that there is no crime more heinous than that of having no intention of breaking the law. Countless law enforcement officers and prison staff, not to mention judicial positions such as my own, and administrative staff that support the legal system would lose their jobs if everyone were as thoughtlessly reckless as you have been proven to be in this courtroom today.

 

Life in prison with no hope of parole is too good for you, but unfortunately it is all the law will allow.

 

May God have mercy on your soul.

 

[MJ]

According to your strict interpretation of this statute, the Chuck-E- Cheese pizza chain (for example) is guilty of counterfeiting because their tokens are similar in color (brassy) to the current US "Golden" dollar coins. Clearly, that was not the intent of Congress when legislating this law. And it is also clearly evident that the authorities and the courts do not view the minting of tokens or medals, or non-fraudulent defacement of coins, as a crime.

 

I never liked Chuck-E- Cheese anyway. I knew the rat was trouble.

 

I hold Whack-A-Mole records in eight states

 

mark

[CascadeChris]

Oh God. Tell me you're not actually a judge. I'd hate too see the sentence you would hand down to a 10yo that steals a pack of gum

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Oh God. Tell me you're not actually a judge. I'd hate too see the sentence you would hand down to a 10yo that steals a pack of gum

 

I think he may have been attempting to be humorously satirical.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I know dan personally and I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt he is a bastion of truly ethical numismatics. His high morals and values while walking a fine line should be applauded not scorned. But I get it. Most don't know the man or truly understand the o/s processes and choose to just dig in on one or two specific possibilities of "what if this or that happens" or "you're destroying our hobby" blah blah blah ad naseum. At first I fought you guys tooth and nail because I didn't think all the unwarranted vitriol against him was fair or right. Now though, I just laugh every naysayer off. These threads are highly entertaining now. And ya know what, all you guys are doing is helping him. And that I like. Long live the moonlight mint and all the wonderfull creations coming forth. His overstrikes are nothing more than hobo nickes of the highest order and his original stuff is great. If I could find Banksy I'd commission him to do the walls of the press room. Two similar artists in their respective fields coming together. Too bad I can't also get Andy Warhol to turn his front door into a Campbell's soup can too.

 

Carry on guys and help the cause. My popcorn is popping

 

You have assumed any person in the hobby that questions the legality/status of the work is in some manner belittling the person or questioning his morals or integrity and ethic(both work and personal).

 

I have not seen heard or read where one person did so. Nor have I seen or heard or read a condemnation of the artistic talent and skill.

 

What is the unwarranted vitriol that offends you? Hobbyists are questioning the legality of the pieces. This is not unwarranted vitriol, in my opinion.

 

You use the term over strike. Fair enough. What, in your opinion,supports and anchors the over strikes to be in compliance with the language of the present laws that exist? There must be some thought that gives you confidence to declare the legitimacy of the pieces. For all I know, and I freely admit I don't know much, the producer of the pieces and/or you have received assurances from the U.S. Attorney General. However, at this particular point in time I have not seen heard or read of any such instance.

 

If this has not happened, I would think the producer would do so. Why not present the situation to the U.S. Attorney General? We are all as good citizens interested in compliance, are we not?

 

After all, using the term "while walking a fine line" would indicate you personally recognize the not so clear aspect of the question of legality, does it not?

 

What would be your position if a similarly talented person copied the original pieces with a slight modification and manufactured them in large quantities at a reduced price? What would the producer of the original pieces think? What would be his reaction? What would you think? Would it not just be another talented person taking hobo nickels to a higher order, in that there would be more availability at a lower price? What if another talented person then did the same to that producer's work?

 

Mr. Chris, you may have not seen this post, as I have not seen a response. I am still interested in your thoughts on the last paragraph.

[comicdonna]

I know dan personally and I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt he is a bastion of truly ethical numismatics. His high morals and values while walking a fine line should be applauded not scorned. But I get it. Most don't know the man or truly understand the o/s processes and choose to just dig in on one or two specific possibilities of "what if this or that happens" or "you're destroying our hobby" blah blah blah ad naseum. At first I fought you guys tooth and nail because I didn't think all the unwarranted vitriol against him was fair or right. Now though, I just laugh every naysayer off. These threads are highly entertaining now. And ya know what, all you guys are doing is helping him. And that I like. Long live the moonlight mint and all the wonderfull creations coming forth. His overstrikes are nothing more than hobo nickes of the highest order and his original stuff is great. If I could find Banksy I'd commission him to do the walls of the press room. Two similar artists in their respective fields coming together. Too bad I can't also get Andy Warhol to turn his front door into a Campbell's soup can too.

 

Carry on guys and help the cause. My popcorn is popping

After reading your post, it sounds like you've been around here, and posting for years.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I know dan personally and I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt he is a bastion of truly ethical numismatics. His high morals and values while walking a fine line should be applauded not scorned. But I get it. Most don't know the man or truly understand the o/s processes and choose to just dig in on one or two specific possibilities of "what if this or that happens" or "you're destroying our hobby" blah blah blah ad naseum. At first I fought you guys tooth and nail because I didn't think all the unwarranted vitriol against him was fair or right. Now though, I just laugh every naysayer off. These threads are highly entertaining now. And ya know what, all you guys are doing is helping him. And that I like. Long live the moonlight mint and all the wonderfull creations coming forth. His overstrikes are nothing more than hobo nickes of the highest order and his original stuff is great. If I could find Banksy I'd commission him to do the walls of the press room. Two similar artists in their respective fields coming together. Too bad I can't also get Andy Warhol to turn his front door into a Campbell's soup can too.

 

Carry on guys and help the cause. My popcorn is popping

After reading your post, it sounds like you've been around here, and posting for years.

 

 

 

Joined 8/27 but at first fought tooth and nail. I thought I may have been the only person that wondered about this, hence my original answering post in reply.

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Don't rob the bank and walk home in the snow.

[dcarr]

So you have contacted the U.S. Attorney General on the issue being discussed. the issue of whether or not your creations/pieces are legal, and can be publicly sold legally? You just stated you know from experience.

 

I've posted several times the experience I had in that regard. But I will summarize it here again:

 

When I first produced the "1964-D" Peace Dollar over-strikes, Coin World contacted me for a story about them. I freely provided whatever information they desired. They also contacted the US Mint to get their take on the situation.

 

The US Mint told Coin World that the US Mint does not interpret such laws and suggested that Coin World contact the enforcement agency, the Secret Service.

 

So Coin World contacted the Secret Service. The Secret Service told Coin World that they do not interpret the laws, they only enforce them as directed by the US Attorney, and suggested that Coin World should contact the US Attorney.

 

At that point, Coin World obtained a phone number for the Denver US Attorney office and provided it to me suggesting that I call them if I want. So I did and I talked to the US Attorney at the Denver office. I explained the situation and potential scenarios. He then stated that the US Attorney does not interpret such laws or scenarios for the public and that I should consult with my own lawyer.

 

Edited August 29, 2016 by dcarr

[CascadeChris]

Yeah sorry, I missed your response Mr.mcknowitall. These threads tend to be like the wheels of a school bus so I don't check in on them frequently. Plus any response I can give, Dan can, has and wiil, ad naseum, dish out much proper retorts than I could.

 

As to your last paragraph, if said person(s) can do it on Dans level of skill and uses authentic coins as planchet then more power to them. Nothing like compitition to spur greater advances. And I would defiantly be a buyer. That's like saying because I have a Banksey on my wall I wouldn't buy an Alec monopoly or Shepard Fairey. If their skill is on par with Dan's then bring it on but I doubt that's going to happen. The only caviot is that if they flooded the market I would probably pass as rarity is a big key, and Dan knows this. He could pound out gazillions and take the money and run but doesn't and for good reason.

 

This all boils down to one thing, Art. If you see him as an artist you're a fan, if you erroneously see him as a counterfiter you're not. What irks me though is the incessant vitriol being rehashed over and over by the "haters". I think Dan should bring defamation suits to all the ad naseum haters but then again that would be counter intuitive

 

[CascadeChris]

Joined 8/27 but at first fought tooth and nail. I thought I may have been the only person that wondered about this, hence my original answering post in reply.

 

I've been around for a while. Just recently decided to join this forum though

[dcarr]

Doesn't that first one "purport" to be a rare St. Gaudens nickel ?

 

No, the U.S. Mint never produced St. Gaudens five cent pieces.

 

Right. The St. Gaudens nickel was never originally produced. So the carved nickel can't reasonably purport to be one because they don't exist (other than the carving).

 

The same goes for all the various fantasy-date pieces. They can't reasonably purport to be originals of that date because the dates don't originally exist.

 

Moreover, the design does not closely mirror the design of the obverse of the Saint Gaudens Double Eagles. We do know, for a fact, that 1964-D Peace Dollars were produced by the Mint. You are restriking Peace Dollars that looks almost exactly the same to the untrained eye to an original Peace Dollar design (and imparted by unauthorized dies), and your coins carry the 1964 date and a "D" mint mark.

 

The Liberty figure on that example does closely follow the original Double Eagle.

 

We also know for a fact that the government has stated that no 1964-D Peace Dollars exist.

 

What is the threshold where modifications constitute "counterfeiting" ?

 

RWB posted the threshold for you and it is contained in the statute. It really isn't that difficult. Every time someone debunks one of your arguments, you move on to another argument that has been debunked. You repeatedly attempt to rewrite the statutes to add elements that are not there. This is beginning to become boring.

 

Here is the RWB post you referenced:

U.S. Code - Counterfeit Coins

 

"Whoever, within the United States, makes or brings therein from any foreign country, or possesses with intent to sell, give away, or in any other manner uses the same, except under authority of the Secretary of the Treasury or other proper officer of the United States, any token, disk, or device in the likeness or similitude as to design, color, or the inscription thereon of any of the coins of the United States or of any foreign country issued as money, either under the authority of the United States or under the authority of any foreign government shall be fined under this title.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 709; July 16, 1951, ch. 226, § 3, 65 Stat. 122; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(B), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2146.)"

 

This applies to everyone including those living in Colorado.

 

Two points:

 

1)

According to your strict interpretation of this statute, the Chuck-E- Cheese pizza chain (for example) is guilty of counterfeiting because their tokens are similar in color (brassy) to the current US "Golden" dollar coins. Clearly, that was not the intent of Congress when legislating this law. And it is also clearly evident that the authorities and the courts do not view the minting of tokens or medals, or non-fraudulent defacement of coins, as a crime.

 

2)

Long after the above statute was legislated, Congress passed the Hobby Protection Act, which allows (with some restrictions) the production of privately-minted pieces in similitude to US coins.

 

Note that RWB's one foray into the legal realm was a disaster for his "clients" (the Langbords). So consider that regarding any legal commentary.

 

More importantly, even if your pieces were legal to produce, doesn't it bother you that some elderly or uninformed person could be defrauded because of your pieces? Is it your position that it is their problem, and as long as you have your fun and make money then all is well?

 

First, I reject your implied premise that the fantasy-date over-strike coins are not legal to produce.

 

It is my position that if someone is intent on perpetrating a fraud, they will find some coin to do it with. Such as adding a "D" to a 1916 Mercury dime and selling it as a genuine rare 1916-D. Or substituting a 1995-P proof Silver Eagle for the rare 1995-W proof Silver Eagle in the 10th anniversary set and then selling the set to an unsuspecting buyer letting them assume the set has the proper coins in it.

 

Is the US Mint to blame for the latter example ? They enabled the scam by producing two different proof Silver Eagles in 1995, one of them being rare and issued only in the expensive set. Are you concerned that a senior citizen could be scammed by a 1995 Eagles proof set with a swapped "P" mint Silver Eagle in it ?

 

No, the Mint is not responsible of course. The person actually perpetrating the fraud is to blame.

 

With all the scams being perpetrated against senior citizens (of which I am technically one), I would like to see more action taken against boiler-room telemarketing scammers and the like.

 

.

 

What you reject is not the issue and is of course what you would state. That is not the issue.

 

It is an issue when someone words a statement in such a manner so as to seemingly present it as a forgone conclusion that wrongdoing has occurred.

 

The RWB foray is not the issue.

 

With all the legal opinions being tossed about here, the past legal experiences of the poster are noteworthy.

 

Your position on defining intent to perpetrate a fraud is interesting.

 

Could you please describe how your activity couldn't possibly be interpreted in any manner as an intent to perpetrate a fraud and/or is not fraudulent?

 

The actual fraudulent activity described in various scenarios in this thread all have one thing in common: an intent to deceive. Synonyms for "fraudulent" are: "deceitful"; "deceptive"; "crooked"; "underhanded".

 

I have been very clear in all my statements and marketing that my fantasy-date over-strikes are just that - genuine coins that I defaced for novelty purposes.

And, for example, when asked by the Society of Silver Dollar Collectors (SSDC) to write an article about the "1964-D" Peace Dollar over-striking for their newsletter, I obliged of course because I'm always in favor of more information getting out there. I was awarded the A. George Mallis (of "VAM" fame) literary award for that article.

 

Edited August 29, 2016 by dcarr

[RWB]

Maybe this information will help readers understand certain violations of social norms. It seems to fit many historical counterfeiting operations documented in Secret Service files.

 

“…others use economic principles to characterize criminal behavior as the product of a utility calculation in which a potential criminal actor weighs the costs and benefits of his actions in deciding whether to proceed. Such a characterization only makes explanatory sense if a prospective criminal actor can bring his actions into line with the dictates of the equation—that is, he has free will and can exercise self-control.”

 

[Rebecca Hollander-Blumoff, “Crime, Punishment, and the Psychology of Self-Control,” Emory Law Journal, vol.61, issue 3.

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

So you have contacted the U.S. Attorney General on the issue being discussed. the issue of whether or not your creations/pieces are legal, and can be publicly sold legally? You just stated you know from experience.

 

I've posted several times the experience I had in that regard. But I will summarize it here again:

 

When I first produced the "1964-D" Peace Dollar over-strikes, Coin World contacted me for a story about them. I freely provided whatever information they desired. They also contacted the US Mint to get their take on the situation.

 

The US Mint told Coin World that the US Mint does not interpret such laws and suggested that Coin World contact the enforcement agency, the Secret Service.

 

So Coin World contacted the Secret Service. The Secret Service told Coin World that they do not interpret the laws, they only enforce them as directed by the US Attorney, and suggested that Coin World should contact the US Attorney.

 

At that point, Coin World obtained a phone number for the Denver US Attorney office and provided it to me suggesting that I call them if I want. So I did and I talked to the US Attorney at the Denver office. I explained the situation and potential scenarios. He then stated that the US Attorney does not interpret such laws or scenarios for the public and that I should consult with my own lawyer.

 

Thank you. Yes, you have related the story in the past, and this time in a brief manner.

My thoughts on the matter are no different. Guidance.

 

Have your Attorney contact the U.S. Attorney General via U.S. Mail Certified Return Receipt.

 

Explain your position in depth, as you have done on this and other threads.

 

I would have expected the Asst. U.S. Attorney General to answer accordingly, to protect your Rights. But you know this. You have decided not to formally contact the U.S. Attorney General.

 

Since you informally contacted the Asst. U.S. Attorney General once, according to your story, it seems you do not have an objection to contacting the U.S. Attorney General. Why not elevate the matter to a formal on the record communication using U.S. Mail Certified Return Receipt, via your Attorney?

 

[MJ]

Roger has a pebble in his shoe

 

mark

[RWB]

"Roger has a pebble in his shoe, mark"

Yes... but it's a counterfeit pebble...

 

 

An official response declaring these "things" to be legal under both counterfeiting and Hobby Protection laws would immediately eliminate ALL objection.

 

Heck, I'd pay for a display ad in Coin World where the letter could be reproduced for all to see!