The Hobby Protection Act of 1973

[dcarr]

There was no need to adopt a rule banning fantasy coins because they were already required to be marked with the word "COPY." Read the text.

 

The document clearly states that a minor alteration of a date does not exempt your altered date pieces from the requirement to be marked with the word "COPY."

 

(“[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 `original numismatic item' and do not eliminate the requirement that the latter be marked with the word `Copy'.”).

 

The document indicates that an entirely-new reproduction of a coin is subject to HPA "COPY" regulations, even if the date on this new reproduction does not match previously-issued coins of that type.

 

However, it does not clearly indicate that a genuine original coin, altered to have a date that was not issued for that type, is required to have "COPY" on it.

 

There is a distinction to be made between a copy of a coin type, and a copy of a specific coin (such as a copy of an existing rare date coin).

Chinese "1886-CC" Morgan Dollars, for example, are not struck over genuine Morgan Dollars and so they are copies of the Morgan Dollar type. As such, they appear to be subject to HPA "COPY" regulations, even though the "1886-CC" date and mint mark combination was never originally minted.

 

A genuine 1944-D Lincoln cent, altered to have the apparent rare date of "1914-D" also appears to be subject to HPA regulations. This is because, even though it is a genuine coin of the Lincoln Cent type, the "1914-D" date previously exists for the Lincoln Cent type and it is generally recognized by collectors as being more valuable than a 1944-D cent.

 

But a genuine original Morgan Dollar, altered to have a "1909-o" date (for example) is not a copy of a Morgan Dollar type because it IS an actual (but altered) Morgan Dollar. Nor is it a copy of an original 1909-o Morgan Dollar because there is no such thing as an original "1909-o" Morgan Dollar.

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I would prefer that this thread not get into the question as to whether or not Mr. Carr's legal tender design overstrikes are "counterfeits" or not. That can be discussed in a separate thread that anybody wishes to start. Please do not raise the issue here.

 

I only wish to address the point as to whether or not they are required to be permanently marked with the word "COPY" in accordance with the HPA. I believe that they are. This new document that I just cited seems to indicate that I am correct.

 

TD

 

One can not be separated from the other, for the simple reason that in your previous numbered logic posits you specifically use Mr. Carr as the reference and then specifically state that without the word "copy", the pieces are counterfeit.

 

The only method to determine the answer you seek is by legal adjudication of Mr. Carr's creations.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

It was mentioned previously, though not in this thread. A legislative record review is clear about it. I think I mentioned to Mr. Carr that I had reviewed the record and could not find a reference to him that would indicate he had congressional knowledge of the intent of the wording of the HPA, and would support his adamant position that he is correct and all other positions including your position are wrong. He could only make such a claim if he was an involved individual in the construction of the law, sort of like the Federalist Papers.

 

Congress's intent is specifically indicated in the HPA as it interrelates to other statutes. I also agree with the OP - let's not make another thread about Carr, but to touch upon the law generally. There are a number of bullion pieces out there that also raise issues.

 

I disagree re. making it about Mr. Carr. The name is not being used disrespectfully, or the subject being specifically about Mr. Carr, as if this is done to chastise. Can a person separate Brown vs. Board of education by eliminating the name Brown? The OP already joined HPA and Mr. Carr in post # 9554504 in this thread. The entire point of the thread is the interweaving of the HPA and Carr, and simply because one member was adamant in his description of Mr. Carr and in terms that might not be socially acceptable to all, trying to avoid the interweaving by re-stating the intent of the thread and instructing members what not to opine is not something I agree with. This is a form of censorship, and all members should not support any form of censorship, especially on a public forum.

 

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

There was no need to adopt a rule banning fantasy coins because they were already required to be marked with the word "COPY." Read the text.

 

The document clearly states that a minor alteration of a date does not exempt your altered date pieces from the requirement to be marked with the word "COPY."

 

(“[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 `original numismatic item' and do not eliminate the requirement that the latter be marked with the word `Copy'.”).

 

The document indicates that an entirely-new reproduction of a coin is subject to HPA "COPY" regulations, even if the date on this new reproduction does not match previously-issued coins of that type.

 

However, it does not clearly indicate that a genuine original coin, altered to have a date that was not issued for that type, is required to have "COPY" on it.

 

There is a distinction to be made between a copy of a coin type, and a copy of a specific coin (such as a copy of an existing rare date coin).

Chinese "1886-CC" Morgan Dollars, for example, are not struck over genuine Morgan Dollars and so they are copies of the Morgan Dollar type. As such, they appear to be subject to HPA "COPY" regulations, even though the "1886-CC" date and mint mark combination was never originally minted.

 

A genuine 1944-D Lincoln cent, altered to have the apparent rare date of "1914-D" also appears to be subject to HPA regulations. This is because, even though it is a genuine coin of the Lincoln Cent type, the "1914-D" date previously exists for the Lincoln Cent type and it is generally recognized by collectors as being more valuable than a 1944-D cent.

 

But a genuine original Morgan Dollar, altered to have a "1909-o" date (for example) is not a copy of a Morgan Dollar type because it IS an actual (but altered) Morgan Dollar. Nor is it a copy of an original 1909-o Morgan Dollar because there is no such thing as an original "1909-o" Morgan Dollar.

 

Do you concur that any distinctions or lack of clarity can only be decided by legal adjudication?

[nk1nk]

By the way, I am familiar with the GBI case. I was with Coin World when they tried advertising them as official German mint "restrikes." I and another numismatist on the staff examined the coins and determined them to be fantasies struck from newly created dies. Coin World notified the FTC, which determined that the pieces were required to be marked with the word "COPY."

 

Well this sounds simple, why don't you notify the FTC about DCarr and get back with us on what they determine. That'd be great! Let's put this baby to rest!

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

By the way, I am familiar with the GBI case. I was with Coin World when they tried advertising them as official German mint "restrikes." I and another numismatist on the staff examined the coins and determined them to be fantasies struck from newly created dies. Coin World notified the FTC, which determined that the pieces were required to be marked with the word "COPY."

 

Well this sounds simple, why don't you notify the FTC about DCarr and get back with us on what they determine. That'd be great! Let's put this baby to rest!

 

Would logic not dictate that Mr. Carr could have, and in keeping with generally acceptable and wise business model planning, should have via his attorney contacted the appropriate government authorities and requested adjudication of his endeavors?

 

 

After all, Capt. Henway did not create the business model, and logic dictates it is not incumbent on him to legally justify an endeavor he did not create or participate in or purchase a creation from the business model entity. Didn't you mention you purchased an example of the creation? If so, it is a logical posit that you have the greater position of involvement that substantiates the request for adjudication to the appropriate government authorities, via your attorney.

[RWB]

There's no lack of clarity in the HPA.

 

For numismatics, in effect, HPA is a single exception to counterfeiting statutes. It allows one, and only one, means of making/distributing something that looks like a coin, but was not legally produced. The exception is addition of the word "COPY" to one face of the item in a text size specified in the law. Ron Landis and nearly everyone making legitimate replicas has understood this clear, and unequivocal condition. Maybe the mine runoff water around Loveland, Colorado makes some people there self-serving liars?

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

If a person believes there is a lack of clarity in the law, and chooses to act on a personal interpretation that a law lacks clarity and decides to proceed with an endeavor based on such a personal interpretation, regardless of what the endeavor may be, the only method that leads to clarity and hopefully does so for the person, is legal adjudication. Boggs is one example.

 

I recognize that some persons will still not agree that there is clarity, even after their particular belief has been personally legally adjudicated. That is the human condition of life, and is adequately described by the old phrase "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink". This type of personal belief is not necessarily an indication that the person is a liar.

 

It is possibly more of an affirmation of the horse phrase mentioned.

[coinman_23885]

There's no lack of clarity in the HPA.

 

For numismatics, in effect, HPA is a single exception to counterfeiting statutes. It allows one, and only one, means of making/distributing something that looks like a coin, but was not legally produced. The exception is addition of the word "COPY" to one face of the item in a text size specified in the law. Ron Landis and nearly everyone making legitimate replicas has understood this clear, and unequivocal condition.

 

+1

 

Carr's argument is a red herring. If his pieces do not comply or fall within the terms of the HPA, the other statutes apply and prohibit the production of the pieces.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I tried to elicit, using specific questions, answers that would have illustrated the either/or aspect and illogical logic of position. But, it was not to be.The questions were not answered in any meaningful manner. In fact, the questions were not answered at all.

[coinman_23885]

I tried to elicit, using specific questions, answers that would have illustrated the either/or aspect and illogical logic of position. But, it was not to be.The questions were not answered in any meaningful manner. In fact, the questions were not answered at all.

 

Which question(s)? Sometimes posts are easily lost in multipage threads.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I tried to elicit, using specific questions, answers that would have illustrated the either/or aspect and illogical logic of position. But, it was not to be.The questions were not answered in any meaningful manner. In fact, the questions were not answered at all.

 

Which question(s)? Sometimes posts are easily lost in multipage threads.

 

 

I was not 1 month ago, and was not "lost" since mr. Carr did post my post.

 

I am not going thru all that again, especially when I posted the post 2X and Mr. Carr posted it 1X and answered with in his well known talented manner.. But, they do have question marks at the end......

[coinman_23885]

I tried to elicit, using specific questions, answers that would have illustrated the either/or aspect and illogical logic of position. But, it was not to be.The questions were not answered in any meaningful manner. In fact, the questions were not answered at all.

 

Which question(s)? Sometimes posts are easily lost in multipage threads.

 

 

I was not 1 month ago, and was not "lost" since mr. Carr did post my post.

 

I am not going thru all that again, especially when I posted the post 2X and Mr. Carr posted it 1X and answered with in his well known talented manner.. But, they do have question marks at the end......

 

Oh, those questions. The quoted post listed it as " [Re: coinman_23885] " so I thought I overlooked something directed at me.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I tried to elicit, using specific questions, answers that would have illustrated the either/or aspect and illogical logic of position. But, it was not to be.The questions were not answered in any meaningful manner. In fact, the questions were not answered at all.

 

Which question(s)? Sometimes posts are easily lost in multipage threads.

 

 

I was not 1 month ago, and was not "lost" since mr. Carr did post my post.

 

I am not going thru all that again, especially when I posted the post 2X and Mr. Carr posted it 1X and answered with in his well known talented manner.. But, they do have question marks at the end......

 

Oh, those questions. The quoted post listed it as " [Re: coinman_23885] " so I thought I overlooked something directed at me.

 

Why would I direct something to you? Are you now engaged in a similar activity?

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I tried to elicit, using specific questions, answers that would have illustrated the either/or aspect and illogical logic of position. But, it was not to be.The questions were not answered in any meaningful manner. In fact, the questions were not answered at all.

 

Which question(s)? Sometimes posts are easily lost in multipage threads.

 

 

I was not 1 month ago, and was not "lost" since mr. Carr did post my post.

 

I am not going thru all that again, especially when I posted the post 2X and Mr. Carr posted it 1X and answered with in his well known talented manner.. But, they do have question marks at the end......

 

Oh, those questions. The quoted post listed it as " [Re: coinman_23885] " so I thought I overlooked something directed at me.

 

No. That is referring to following your red herring post. It is just identifying you as the previous post. It is not quoting the post. I was responding to your comment.

[coinman_23885]

 

Why would I direct something to you? Are you now engaged in a similar activity?

 

 

No, I would never engage in activity like this because I recognize the potential for fraud and deception (or even innocent confusion) involving subsequent prospective owners (i.e. not the original purchasers). I am also not much of a personal risk taker, and would not play games or walk razor thin lines in legal areas where the consequences for mistakes are potentially profound.

[dcarr]

There's no lack of clarity in the HPA.

 

For numismatics, in effect, HPA is a single exception to counterfeiting statutes. It allows one, and only one, means of making/distributing something that looks like a coin, but was not legally produced. The exception is addition of the word "COPY" to one face of the item in a text size specified in the law. Ron Landis and nearly everyone making legitimate replicas has understood this clear, and unequivocal condition. Maybe the mine runoff water around Loveland, Colorado makes some people there self-serving liars?

 

Your statements are going to cause yourself trouble again.

A differing opinion is not a "lie".

 

And a fantasy-date over-strike piece is not a "replica". It is an altered coin.

 

Geography lesson: There are no mines upstream from Loveland Colorado.

 

 

+1

 

Carr's argument is a red herring. If his pieces do not comply or fall within the terms of the HPA, the other statutes apply and prohibit the production of the pieces.

 

What is a "1909-o" over-strike Morgan Dollar a copy or replica of, exactly ?

 

[dcarr]

I tried to elicit, using specific questions, answers that would have illustrated the either/or aspect and illogical logic of position. But, it was not to be.The questions were not answered in any meaningful manner. In fact, the questions were not answered at all.

 

That is your opinion, because you didn't like the answers.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I tried to elicit, using specific questions, answers that would have illustrated the either/or aspect and illogical logic of position. But, it was not to be.The questions were not answered in any meaningful manner. In fact, the questions were not answered at all.

 

That is your opinion, because you didn't like the answers.

 

Yep, that is it...exactly. That is the reason. No doubt. I don't like non-answer answer things. It is a weak spot in me. I don't send these type of answers a Christmas card. I sit around most of the day figuring out which answers I like and don't like. Some answers have an interesting personality, and even though they are non-answer answers, I don't put them on the no Christmas card list.

 

A big reason questions don't like answers are there are a bunch of answer types that just answer with non-answers. I have a large stick soldier display of answers and questions in the basement. I paint symbols on them so I know which is which: ? = question soldiers, = answer soldiers, = non-answer answer soldiers. I have little forts and everything.

 

I ruminate all the time about answers and how they are living breathing creatures. It is a sickness.

 

 

I give out little "like" buttons to the winners.

 

[coinman_23885]

Carr's argument is a red herring. If his pieces do not comply or fall within the terms of the HPA, the other statutes apply and prohibit the production of the pieces.

 

What is a "1909-o" over-strike Morgan Dollar a copy or replica of, exactly ?

 

This is yet another straw man argument.

 

The HPA creates a safe harbor for producers of imitation numismatic items or those that closely approximate official U.S. designs by legalizing them so as long as the pieces comply with the requirements of the HPA. These requirements include, among others, that the word "COPY" be part of the design. If the piece is not authorized by, fall within the provisions of, and/or does not comply with the marking requirements of the HPA, then there is nothing legally excepting them from the prohibition in 18 U.S.C. 485. Put even more bluntly, if the HPA is "inapplicable" to the pieces as you maintain, then the pieces are subject to 18 U.S.C. 485-489 (as long as the statutory elements are met - I will leave that to the other DCarr thread and not ruin this thread too.)

 

You can argue, all you want, that Congress was inartful in restricting the required marking to the word "COPY" instead of allowing for additional options such as "FAKE," "NOT GENUINE," "IMITATION," "FANTASY," etc. This does not change what Congress actually wrote. It is Congress that writes the laws; not ANACS or the ANA. Your argument that the HPA repealed or modified the Title 18 statutes is also absurd, and it expressly violates Congress's announced intent in enacting the HPA. See 15 U.S.C. 2105 ("The provisions of this chapter [the HPA] are in addition to, and not in substitution for or limitation of, the provisions of any other law of the United States or the law of any state.") Your "conflict" argument posits that the HPA either partially repealed 18 U.S.C. 485 or otherwise limited that statute by adding an intent element that is not there. Had Congress wanted an intent element for the first paragraph of 18 U.S.C. 485, it could have added one like it did for the offenses enumerated in the second paragraph. The omission of an intent element is meaningful.

 

Finally, what about your 1964-D Peace Dollars? What is it a copy of replica of? It is a replica or imitation of the genuine U.S. Peace Dollars that were struck at the U.S. Denver branch mint in 1964.

 

And I'm sure your next response will be to deflect to your back up argument that the pieces are merely altered within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 331, but again, as the federal appeals court decision linked in the other threads shows, the government may prosecute the overstriking of genuine coins with unauthorized dies as counterfeits under 18 U.S.C. 485, as fraudulent alterations under 18 U.S.C. 331, or it may do both. If your pieces don't violate 18 U.S.C. 331, that still leave us to deal with 18 U.S.C. 485.

 

Nothing you wrote in the other thread has adequately addressed 18 U.S.C. 485. All of your arguments go to intent; however, courts have convicted in the absence of intent and held that 18 U.S.C. 485 allows them to do so for the production of pieces in violation of that statute (see e.g. Von Nothaus). Even ignoring precedent, your interpretation of that statute would render it devoid of meaning for every potential defendant facing a counterfeiting charge for production as they would surely argue that the pieces were made in fun and there was no "intent to defraud." That would render 18 U.S.C. 485 applicable only to cases of uttering, which would effectively mean that Congress wasted its time in enacting the first paragraph.

[Afterword]

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

 

 

What does "used in exchange" mean? Does it mean selling an original numismatic item or buying something with an original numismatic item or a generic trade of one item for another or all three scenarios?

 

 

Afterword, this might clarify things for you.

 

 

18.  See also 92 F.T.C. at 217-18 (providing further guidance on scope of Act, defining Act's reference to “coinage or issue which has been used in exchange” to mean coins that have been “actively traded in the marketplace and used as a means of payment”)

[Afterword]

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

 

 

What does "used in exchange" mean? Does it mean selling an original numismatic item or buying something with an original numismatic item or a generic trade of one item for another or all three scenarios?

 

 

Afterword, this might clarify things for you.

 

 

18.  See also 92 F.T.C. at 217-18 (providing further guidance on scope of Act, defining Act's reference to “coinage or issue which has been used in exchange” to mean coins that have been “actively traded in the marketplace and used as a means of payment”)

 

 

 

Thanks, Afterword - much appreciated!

[dcarr]

Carr's argument is a red herring. If his pieces do not comply or fall within the terms of the HPA, the other statutes apply and prohibit the production of the pieces.

 

What is a "1909-o" over-strike Morgan Dollar a copy or replica of, exactly ?

 

This is yet another straw man argument.

 

It is a very valid question. If it can not be answered, then a "1909-o" fantasy-date over-strike Morgan Dollar is not a copy of anything.

 

The HPA creates a safe harbor for producers of imitation numismatic items or those that closely approximate official U.S. designs by legalizing them so as long as the pieces comply with the requirements of the HPA. These requirements include, among others, that the word "COPY" be part of the design. If the piece is not authorized by, fall within the provisions of, and/or does not comply with the marking requirements of the HPA, then there is nothing legally excepting them from the prohibition in 18 U.S.C. 485. Put even more bluntly, if the HPA is "inapplicable" to the pieces as you maintain, then the pieces are subject to 18 U.S.C. 485-489 (as long as the statutory elements are met - I will leave that to the other DCarr thread and not ruin this thread too.)

 

To violate 18 USC 485-489 activity must involve fraudulent intent or it impugns the integrity of the Federal Government.

 

You can argue, all you want, that Congress was inartful in restricting the required marking to the word "COPY" instead of allowing for additional options such as "FAKE," "NOT what GENUINE," "IMITATION," "FANTASY," etc. This does not changeCongress actually wrote. It is Congress that writes the laws; not ANACS or the ANA. Your argument that the HPA repealed or modified the Title 18 statutes is also absurd, and it expressly violates Congress's announced intent in enacting the HPA. See 15 U.S.C. 2105 ("The provisions of this chapter [the HPA] are in addition to, and not in substitution for or limitation of, the provisions of any other law of the United States or the law of any state.") Your "conflict" argument posits that the HPA either partially repealed 18 U.S.C. 485 or otherwise limited that statute by adding an intent element that is not there. Had Congress wanted an intent element for the first paragraph of 18 U.S.C. 485, it could have added one like it did for the offenses enumerated in the second paragraph. The omission of an intent element is meaningful.

 

I never stated that the HPA repealed prior statutes. But it does conflict with them. For example, the HPA allows numismatic replicas to be produced, and those need only have "COPY" on one side, not both. That means the maker of such things is allowed to have molds and/or dies in similitude to US coins, and at least one of those dies does not need to have "COPY" on it. This appears contradictory 18 USC 487.

 

Finally, what about your 1964-D Peace Dollars? What is it a copy of replica of? It is a replica or imitation of the genuine U.S. Peace Dollars that were struck at the U.S. Denver branch mint in 1964.

 

And I'm sure your next response will be to deflect to your back up argument that the pieces are merely altered within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 331, but again, as the federal appeals court decision linked in the other threads shows, the government may prosecute the overstriking of genuine coins with unauthorized dies as counterfeits under 18 U.S.C. 485, as fraudulent alterations under 18 U.S.C. 331, or it may do both. If your pieces don't violate 18 U.S.C. 331, that still leave us to deal with 18 U.S.C. 485.

 

It could be argued that the original 1964-D Peace Dollars were never "part of a coinage or issue" as the HPA requires of a coin for it to be an "original numismatic item". Also, the US government could never successfully claim that I made unmarked copies of a coin that exists when the government itself has previously declared that they don't exist.

 

And, if somehow the "1964-D" Peace Dollar over-strikes were deemed to be the only fantasy-date over-strike coin I produced that is in violation, that Statute of Limitations has run out on that one.

 

To violate 18 USC 485 it would have to be proven by the prosecution that the non-fraudulent alteration of existing coins for novelty purposes somehow impugned the integrity of the Federal Government.

 

Nothing you wrote in the other thread has adequately addressed 18 U.S.C. 485. All of your arguments go to intent; however, courts have convicted in the absence of intent and held that 18 U.S.C. 485 allows them to do so for the production of pieces in violation of that statute (see e.g. Von Nothaus). Even ignoring precedent, your interpretation of that statute would render it devoid of meaning for every potential defendant facing a counterfeiting charge for production as they would surely argue that the pieces were made in fun and there was no "intent to defraud." That would render 18 U.S.C. 485 applicable only to cases of uttering, which would effectively mean that Congress wasted its time in enacting the first paragraph.

 

Again, for there to be a violation of 18 USC 485 the activity must involve fraudulent intent or it must impugn the integrity of the Federal Government.

 

From the other thread:

 

 

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

 

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Perry REICH, Defendant-Appellant.

 

Docket No. 06-1445-cr.

 

Decided: March 2, 2007

We also note that of the provisions originally enacted in the 1948 Act, those requiring an intent to defraud were generally oriented toward a different purpose than those not requiring such an element.   Provisions in the first category frequently criminalized forgeries and counterfeits likely to be used to defraud private citizens out of their money or property-for example, the forgery of U.S. and foreign obligations and securities, 18 U.S.C. §§ 471, 478.   Those in the second category, meanwhile-like § 505-criminalized activities likely to impugn the reputation or integrity of the federal government regardless of whether the perpetrator intended to defraud private citizens.   See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 497 (prohibiting forgery of letters patent);  18 U.S.C. § 498 (prohibiting forgery of military discharge papers);  18 U.S.C. § 506 (prohibiting forgery of the seal of any U.S. department or agency).   In those provisions enumerating separate but related crimes and assigning different intent requirements to each, those crimes most likely to defraud private citizens were the ones containing an intent-to-defraud element.   See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 485 (requiring an “intent to defraud” to “pass[ ], utter[ ], publish[ ], [or] sell[ ]” counterfeit coins or bars, but not to “falsely make[ ], forge[ ], or counterfeit[ ]” such coins or bars (emphasis added));  18 U.S.C. § 507 (prohibiting the forgery of ship's papers without an intent to defraud, but prohibiting the “utter[ing], publish[ing], or pass[ing]” of such papers only with “intent to defraud”).  Section 505's prohibition on forging a judge's signature, which is concerned with preserving the integrity of the courts, falls logically into the category of crimes Congress intended to penalize even when the actor did not intend to deprive others of money or property.   In light of this meaningful variation, we decline to read into § 505 an intent-to-defraud element Congress chose to omit.

 

According to this ruling, there are two categories of violations. Those that require an intent to defraud, and those that don't. For the latter, the Court decided that Congress intended this to be for offences which "impugn the reputation or integrity of the Federal Government", even when there was no intent to defraud.

 

A fantasy-date alteration (for novelty purposes) to an existing genuine coin does not dilute the total quantity of circulating or outstanding legal tender. It does not impugn the integrity of the Federal Government.

 

 

[dcarr]

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

 

 

What does "used in exchange" mean? Does it mean selling an original numismatic item or buying something with an original numismatic item or a generic trade of one item for another or all three scenarios?

 

 

Afterword, this might clarify things for you.

 

 

18.  See also 92 F.T.C. at 217-18 (providing further guidance on scope of Act, defining Act's reference to “coinage or issue which has been used in exchange” to mean coins that have been “actively traded in the marketplace and used as a means of payment”)

 

Interesting ...

 

1964-D Peace Dollars were not "actively traded in the marketplace".

Neither was something like a "1909-o" Morgan Dollar, for example.

So neither is considered to be an "original numismatic item" by the HPA.

 

But here is another angle:

 

Now that the Carr "1964-D" fantasy-date over-strike Peace Dollars have been out there for a while and have achieved some level of market acceptance (prices realized and demand, purchases by prominent numismatists, numerous articles in the press, widely discussed in numismatic circles, listings in major reference catalogs, certification by 3rd parties, sold by major auction houses, etc), are they now a sort of "original numismatic item" in their own right ?

 

[MarkFeld]

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

 

 

What does "used in exchange" mean? Does it mean selling an original numismatic item or buying something with an original numismatic item or a generic trade of one item for another or all three scenarios?

 

 

Afterword, this might clarify things for you.

 

 

18.  See also 92 F.T.C. at 217-18 (providing further guidance on scope of Act, defining Act's reference to “coinage or issue which has been used in exchange” to mean coins that have been “actively traded in the marketplace and used as a means of payment”)

 

Interesting ...

 

1964-D Peace Dollars were not "actively traded in the marketplace".

Neither was something like a "1909-o" Morgan Dollar, for example.

So neither is considered to be an "original numismatic item" by the HPA........

 

 

So any rare/valuable date coin which, due to its rarity, has failed to trade actively in the marketplace, would be fair game?

[dcarr]

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

 

 

What does "used in exchange" mean? Does it mean selling an original numismatic item or buying something with an original numismatic item or a generic trade of one item for another or all three scenarios?

 

 

Afterword, this might clarify things for you.

 

 

18.  See also 92 F.T.C. at 217-18 (providing further guidance on scope of Act, defining Act's reference to “coinage or issue which has been used in exchange” to mean coins that have been “actively traded in the marketplace and used as a means of payment”)

 

Interesting ...

 

1964-D Peace Dollars were not "actively traded in the marketplace".

Neither was something like a "1909-o" Morgan Dollar, for example.

So neither is considered to be an "original numismatic item" by the HPA........

 

 

So any rare/valuable date coin which, due to its rarity, has failed to trade actively in the marketplace, would be fair game?

 

I suppose "actively" could mean two or more times ?

Or maybe just one time if there was "active" bidding on it ?

 

[CaptHenway]

Stellas were never issued, but they are original numismatic items.

[physics-fan3.14]

Literally, us:

 

 

 

[dcarr]

Stellas were never issued, but they are original numismatic items.

 

Were they intentionally released by the US Mint ?

If so, would giving them away or selling them amount to an implicit "issuance" ?

 

 

[MarkFeld]

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

 

 

What does "used in exchange" mean? Does it mean selling an original numismatic item or buying something with an original numismatic item or a generic trade of one item for another or all three scenarios?

 

 

Afterword, this might clarify things for you.

 

 

18.  See also 92 F.T.C. at 217-18 (providing further guidance on scope of Act, defining Act's reference to “coinage or issue which has been used in exchange” to mean coins that have been “actively traded in the marketplace and used as a means of payment”)

 

Interesting ...

 

1964-D Peace Dollars were not "actively traded in the marketplace".

Neither was something like a "1909-o" Morgan Dollar, for example.

So neither is considered to be an "original numismatic item" by the HPA........

 

 

So any rare/valuable date coin which, due to its rarity, has failed to trade actively in the marketplace, would be fair game?

 

I suppose "actively" could mean two or more times ?

Or maybe just one time if there was "active" bidding on it ?

 

So perhaps you jumped the gun in your conclusion regarding what might qualify as an "original numismatic item".