The Hobby Protection Act of 1973

[Afterword]

(d) Imitation numismatic item means an item which purports to be, but in fact is not, an original numismatic item or which is a reproduction, copy, or counterfeit of an original numismatic item.

[Afterword]

...or which is a reproduction, copy, or counterfeit of an original numismatic item.

[Afterword]

The term "marketplace" is also in need of clarification, but I take it to mean (Commerce) the commercial world of buying and selling.

[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 ?

 

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

 

Imitation political or numismatic items subject to the Act shall be marked in conformity with the requirements of the Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder. Any violation of these regulations shall constitute a violation of the Act and of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

Ok, so a replica of an "original numismatic item" must be marked "COPY" to comply.

 

Imitation numismatic item means an item which purports to be, but in fact is not, an original numismatic item or which is a reproduction, copy, or counterfeit of an original numismatic item. Such term includes an original numismatic item which has been altered or modified in such a manner that it could reasonably purport to be an original numismatic item other than the one which was altered or modified.

To be an "imitiation numismatic item" (a replica) the thing must be a copy or counterfeit of an "original numismatic item".

 

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

To be an "original numismatic item", the thing must be part of a coinage or issue, or a commemorative of a person, a place, or an event.

 

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”

To qualify for "original numismatic item" status, the coin must have been used in exchange AND actively traded.

.

 

Linking all these together as a whole, the conclusion is:

A "1909-o" fantasy-date over-strike Morgan Dollar (for example) is not subject to HPA "COPY" marking requirements because no such coin was previously used as a means of payment and was not actively traded, nor was it a commemorative of a person, a place, or an event.

 

This is unless you set aside the date and consider it to be a generic Morgan Dollar type only. But in that case, the over-strike IS a genuine (but defaced) Morgan Dollar type.

 

 

 

This would seem to indicate that I could make "1849" Double Eagles without "COPY" on them, for example. (I wouldn't, but this seems to allow it).

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

 

That was great. Illogical posit by an illogicalistitianist.

I will gladly pay to see that one proffered as the basis of defense in adjudication.

 

I understand now your inability to answer logical questions.

 

I will give you this; Boggs couldn't ever touch that wordplay posit and conclusion. It as if a long lost convoluted numismatic Blacks had been discovered, with the title How To Win With Nothing.

[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".

 

....

Imitation numismatic item means an item which purports to be, but in fact is not, an original numismatic item or which is a reproduction, copy, or counterfeit of an original numismatic item. Such term includes an original numismatic item which has been altered or modified in such a manner that it could reasonably purport to be an original numismatic item other than the one which was altered or modified.

To be an "imitiation numismatic item" (a replica) the thing must be a copy or counterfeit of an "original numismatic item....

 

Contrary to what you just wrote/concluded, based on the language you quoted above, an "Imitation numismatic item" does not necessarily need to be a copy or counterfeit of "an original numismatic item". It can also be "an item which purports to be, but in fact is not, "an original numismatic item". You ignored the word "or" in the first sentence you quoted.

[dcarr]

 

That was great. Illogical posit by an illogicalistitianist.

I will gladly pay to see that one proffered as the basis of defense in adjudication.

 

I understand now your inability to answer logical questions.

 

I will give you this; Boggs couldn't ever touch that wordplay posit and conclusion. It as if a long lost convoluted numismatic Blacks had been discovered, with the title How To Win With Nothing.

 

As usual, nothing of importance or relevance contributed.

 

[dcarr]

Contrary to what you just wrote/concluded, based on the language you quoted above, an "Imitation numismatic item" does not necessarily need to be a copy or counterfeit of "an original numismatic item". It can also be "an item which purports to be, but in fact is not, "an original numismatic item". You ignored the word "or" in the first sentence you quoted.

 

Can a "1909-o" fantasy-date over-strike Morgan Dollar (for example) "purport to be an original numismatic item" ?

 

That is a question that has been circled many times on these forums.

 

I say no, it does not, because knowing the date is necessary to place a valuation on a Morgan Dollar, and there is no valuation listed for such a thing.

 

And since a "1909-o" Morgan Dollar was never part of a coinage or issue or commemoration, an alteration into that can not be an imitation of any "original numismatic item". A fantasy-date of such a thing can't purport to be an original numismatic item if that numismatic item never existed.

 

But date aside, would a fantasy-date over-strike Morgan Dollar purport to be a Morgan Dollar type ?

 

Well, it IS a (defaced) Morgan Dollar type.

So in that sense it is not purporting to be something that it wasn't already.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

 

That was great. Illogical posit by an illogicalistitianist.

I will gladly pay to see that one proffered as the basis of defense in adjudication.

 

I understand now your inability to answer logical questions.

 

I will give you this; Boggs couldn't ever touch that wordplay posit and conclusion. It as if a long lost convoluted numismatic Blacks had been discovered, with the title How To Win With Nothing.

 

As usual, nothing of importance or relevance contributed.

 

Come now, you don't believe that gobbledygook illogical logic posit either.

[MarkFeld]

Contrary to what you just wrote/concluded, based on the language you quoted above, an "Imitation numismatic item" does not necessarily need to be a copy or counterfeit of "an original numismatic item". It can also be "an item which purports to be, but in fact is not, "an original numismatic item". You ignored the word "or" in the first sentence you quoted.

 

Can a "1909-o" fantasy-date over-strike Morgan Dollar (for example) "purport to be an original numismatic item" ?

 

That is a question that has been circled many times on these forums.

 

I say no, it does not, because knowing the date is necessary to place a valuation on a Morgan Dollar, and there is no valuation listed for such a thing.

 

And since a "1909-o" Morgan Dollar was never part of a coinage or issue or commemoration, an alteration into that can not be an imitation of any "original numismatic item". A fantasy-date of such a thing can't purport to be an original numismatic item if that numismatic item never existed.

 

But date aside, would a fantasy-date over-strike Morgan Dollar purport to be a Morgan Dollar type ?

 

Well, it IS a (defaced) Morgan Dollar type.

So in that sense it is not purporting to be something that it wasn't already.

 

Again, it appears that you're editing the language in order to make your case. The language reads "an item which purports to be, but in fact is not, an original numismatic item". It doesn't contain a qualifier with respect to "something that it wasn't already".

[Afterword]

Carr's 1964 D Peace dollar does not purport to be an original numismatic item. It purports to be a 1964 D Peace dollar, which was never placed into circulation and according to the HPA this disqualifies it from the status of an original numismatic item. So it is purporting to be exactly what it is - a 1964 D Peace dollar with no status of an original numismatic item.

 

It fails the first qualifying factor for an imitation numismatic item, which is purporting to be an original numismatic item.

 

[MarkFeld]

Carr's 1964 D Peace dollar does not purport to be an original numismatic item. It purports to be a 1964 D Peace dollar, which was never placed into circulation and according to the HPA this disqualifies it from the status of an original numismatic item. So it is purporting to be exactly what it is - a 1964 D Peace dollar with no status of an original numismatic item.

 

It fails the first qualifying factor for an imitation numismatic item, which is purporting to be an original numismatic item.

 

I disagree and am of the view that 1964-D Peace Dollars were known to exist as original numismatic items at one time. There is no language in the HPA requiring that the "original numismatic items" still be known to exist presently.

[dcarr]

Again, it appears that you're editing the language in order to make your case. The language reads "an item which purports to be, but in fact is not, an original numismatic item". It doesn't contain a qualifier with respect to "something that it wasn't already".

 

Imitation numismatic item means an item which purports to be, but in fact is not, an original numismatic item or which is a reproduction, copy, or counterfeit of an original numismatic item.

 

If I understand your contention (which I am not sure I do), then I reiterate as follows:

 

For a thing to meet the criteria for being an "imitation numismatic item" (and thus, subject to "COPY" marking), it must meet the definition of the first part or the second part.

 

1) The first part:

According to the HPA definition, an "original numismatic item" must be part of a coinage or issue that was used for exchange and actively traded, or a commemorative of a person, place, or event. Does a "1909-o" Morgan Dollar meet this criteria ? No, it does not meet the standard of being an "original numismatic item" because it was never previously actively traded and none were used for exchange. So a "1909-o" fantasy-date over-strike Morgan Dollar does not "purport" to be an original numismatic item because no such original numismatic item exists as per HPA definitions.

 

2) The second part:

Is a "1909-o" fantasy-date over-strike Morgan Dollar a reproduction, copy, or counterfeit of an original numismatic item ? No. See (1) above.

[dcarr]

Carr's 1964 D Peace dollar does not purport to be an original numismatic item. It purports to be a 1964 D Peace dollar, which was never placed into circulation and according to the HPA this disqualifies it from the status of an original numismatic item. So it is purporting to be exactly what it is - a 1964 D Peace dollar with no status of an original numismatic item.

 

It fails the first qualifying factor for an imitation numismatic item, which is purporting to be an original numismatic item.

 

I disagree and am of the view that 1964-D Peace Dollars were known to exist as original numismatic items at one time. There is no language in the HPA requiring that the "original numismatic items" still be known to exist presently.

 

Yes, but the HPA definition of an "original numismatic item" states that it must be part of a coinage or issue, and have been actively traded and used in exchange.

 

The original 1964-D Peace Dollars were never issued, actively traded, or used in exchange.

[MarkFeld]

Carr's 1964 D Peace dollar does not purport to be an original numismatic item. It purports to be a 1964 D Peace dollar, which was never placed into circulation and according to the HPA this disqualifies it from the status of an original numismatic item. So it is purporting to be exactly what it is - a 1964 D Peace dollar with no status of an original numismatic item.

 

It fails the first qualifying factor for an imitation numismatic item, which is purporting to be an original numismatic item.

 

I disagree and am of the view that 1964-D Peace Dollars were known to exist as original numismatic items at one time. There is no language in the HPA requiring that the "original numismatic items" still be known to exist presently.

 

Yes, but the HPA definition of an "original numismatic item" states that it must be part of a coinage or issue, and have been actively traded and used in exchange.

 

The original 1964-D Peace Dollars were never issued, actively traded, or used in exchange.

 

But Peace Dollars were. And 1964-D Peace Dollars were known to exist, so I believe that they would qualify.

[MJ]

Carr's 1964 D Peace dollar does not purport to be an original numismatic item. It purports to be a 1964 D Peace dollar, which was never placed into circulation and according to the HPA this disqualifies it from the status of an original numismatic item. So it is purporting to be exactly what it is - a 1964 D Peace dollar with no status of an original numismatic item.

 

It fails the first qualifying factor for an imitation numismatic item, which is purporting to be an original numismatic item.

 

I disagree and am of the view that 1964-D Peace Dollars were known to exist as original numismatic items at one time. There is no language in the HPA requiring that the "original numismatic items" still be known to exist presently.

 

Yes, but the HPA definition of an "original numismatic item" states that it must be part of a coinage or issue, and have been actively traded and used in exchange.

 

The original 1964-D Peace Dollars were never issued, actively traded, or used in exchange.

 

But Peace Dollars were. And 1964-D Peace Dollars were known to exist, so I believe that they would qualify.

 

Man would I love to see one

 

mark

[dcarr]

Carr's 1964 D Peace dollar does not purport to be an original numismatic item. It purports to be a 1964 D Peace dollar, which was never placed into circulation and according to the HPA this disqualifies it from the status of an original numismatic item. So it is purporting to be exactly what it is - a 1964 D Peace dollar with no status of an original numismatic item.

 

It fails the first qualifying factor for an imitation numismatic item, which is purporting to be an original numismatic item.

 

I disagree and am of the view that 1964-D Peace Dollars were known to exist as original numismatic items at one time. There is no language in the HPA requiring that the "original numismatic items" still be known to exist presently.

 

Yes, but the HPA definition of an "original numismatic item" states that it must be part of a coinage or issue, and have been actively traded and used in exchange.

 

The original 1964-D Peace Dollars were never issued, actively traded, or used in exchange.

 

But Peace Dollars were. And 1964-D Peace Dollars were known to exist, so I believe that they would qualify.

 

Yes, the Peace Dollar type was issued, actively traded, and used in exchange.

 

Whether or not the HPA considers the 1964-D Peace Dollar to be an "original numismatic item" or not is debatable. I think it could depend on who is interpreting it. But what would hinder the government in any litigation regarding this is the Treasury Department's own statement that says all were melted and none exist.

 

[MarkFeld]

Carr's 1964 D Peace dollar does not purport to be an original numismatic item. It purports to be a 1964 D Peace dollar, which was never placed into circulation and according to the HPA this disqualifies it from the status of an original numismatic item. So it is purporting to be exactly what it is - a 1964 D Peace dollar with no status of an original numismatic item.

 

It fails the first qualifying factor for an imitation numismatic item, which is purporting to be an original numismatic item.

 

I disagree and am of the view that 1964-D Peace Dollars were known to exist as original numismatic items at one time. There is no language in the HPA requiring that the "original numismatic items" still be known to exist presently.

 

Yes, but the HPA definition of an "original numismatic item" states that it must be part of a coinage or issue, and have been actively traded and used in exchange.

 

The original 1964-D Peace Dollars were never issued, actively traded, or used in exchange.

 

But Peace Dollars were. And 1964-D Peace Dollars were known to exist, so I believe that they would qualify.

 

Yes, the Peace Dollar type was issued, actively traded, and used in exchange.

 

Whether or not the HPA considers the 1964-D Peace Dollar to be an "original numismatic item" or not is debatable. I think it could depend on who is interpreting it. But what would hinder the government in any litigation regarding this is the Treasury Department's own statement that says all were melted and none exist.

 

I agree that it's debatable whether a1964-D Peace Dollar would be considered an "original numismatic item". But the fact that all of the 1964-D's are alleged to have been melted, might help, rather than hinder the government in any litigation. And that's because of the dramatucally added value that such an "original numismatic item" would have.

[CaptHenway]

Having some knowledge on the unseen discussion about Daniel Carr's fantasy, his "coins" fit into an area where there are loopholes in the law. Since the items he has produced (or produces) are not copies of legal tender coins and are not sold to defraud anyone, the government is afraid that any case would not hold up in court. Even though Carr's work is in the fringe of legal, they do not feel that they can make an example of him. Treasury is watching and waiting for him to cross a line before doing anything else.

 

Afterword: How is the HPA not an effective law? What would you like see changed, forgetting the political realities?

 

One of the problems with this discussion is that it is using the text of the original 1973 law. It has been updated. One of the updates is the Collectible Coin Protection Act of 2014 that allows the prosecution of those distributing/selling counterfeit coins. It fixed the Hobby Protection Act which said that the government could only prosecute the producers of the coins. CCPA also allowed the government to add to their regulations (15 CFR) to make the platforms liable after being informed. This is why eBay stopped allowing copies even if they were marked as "COPY" on their site. It was just too difficult for them to control.

 

If you want tons see the full legal text of the Hobby Protection Act will all amendments and changes, it is under 15 U.S. Code Chapter 48 and can be found https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/chapter-48

 

Here is the text of the Collectible Coin Protection Act of 2014:

 

https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/2754/text

 

I do not see that it alters the definition quoted in the first four postings in this thread, which were obtained from the FTC's website. If you have a link to a different, more recent version of the HPA, please post the link and I will inform the FTC of their error.

 

Any luck?

[CaptHenway]

To reiterate the point about minor date changes that Mr. Carr keeps choosing to ignore:

 

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

[coinman_23885]

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

 

Yes, of course. We ignore the other circuit courts of appeal that have addressed the question, and ignore a federal district court opinion case all agreeing that intent is not required.

 

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.

 

You used this argument in the past to suggest that Congress intended to incorporate an intent element into 18 U.S.C. 485. That is limiting existing law, which the HPA says it is not meant to do. Again, assuming there is a conflict, the conflict is inapplicable to you because it would only apply to pieces that are properly marked as a "COPY" as per the HPA.

 

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.

 

 

Peace Dollars were unequivocally a series, issue, and part of U.S. coinage. The 1964-D Peace Dollars struck by the Mint were indeed part of this series/issue notwithstanding that all were supposedly destroyed. Since your coin appears to be a 1964-D Peace Dollar, it does fall within the HPA.

 

With regards to the statute of limitations, you show a fundamental lack of understanding of the law. There are a number of equitable tolling doctrines that will "toll" or pause the statute of limitations. Among potentially relevant tolling doctrines would be the "continuing offense doctrine." You have produced a number of fantasy coins, and you still continue to produce fantasy coins to this day. Accordingly, the government could argue that the matter is not time barred.

 

With regards to the third paragraph, this is your fantasy.

 

 

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: (USA v. Reich)

 

See my replies in other threads (this is a case I cited in my mini brief). There are additional courts of appeal opinions and federal district court cases. You are wrong on the intent to defraud argument.

 

[coinman_23885]

The HPA is a law, not a "guideline or suggestion."

But not an effective law.

 

@Afterword - What do you mean when you say that the HPA is "not an effective law?" This post make no sense to me at all. The HPA and 18 U.S.C. 331, 485-489, etc. are indeed statutes enacted by Congress. They are in effect and have the controlling force of law. None of the stuff that CaptHenway, RWB, myself, or others posted was conjured up from our imaginations.

 

 

[Afterword]

The HPA is a law, not a "guideline or suggestion."

But not an effective law.

 

@Afterword - What do you mean when you say that the HPA is "not an effective law?"

 

 

The same as you.

 

"Unfortunately, the law is meaningless unless the FTC finally does it job and enforces the HPA, or private parties begin suing to enforce it."

 

I also find the language used to be vague and ill-defined. A little too open to interpretation. However, they seem to be working on this.

[coinman_23885]

@CaptainHenway, some users have problems (at least I did) accessing your document initially; thus, I am going to post the text from the document you cited. I can only assume that others are not reading/seeing the text or else it is unfathomable that this thread contains almost 10 pages of arguments, when the issue has already been put to bed (at least as the Hobby Protection Act is concerned).

 

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.

 

So the remaining issue is whether the pieces violate 18 U.S.C. 485-489 (but that should be reserved for the other thread). (No one has ever argued that 18 U.S.C. 331 bars his fantasy pieces).

 

 

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.

 

[coinman_23885]

For good measure (in addition to Mr. Delorey's linked FTC rules revision comment), 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 unsophisticated 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. Westminster 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)).

 

[coinman_23885]

Incidentally, the HPA allows a successful complainant to recover 100% of the revenue earned by a violator....that means every penny a maker, distributor or seller of items in violation of HPA has taken in on illegal products, from the first to the last.

 

The problem is that the statute provides that a federal district court "may" award attorney's fees and costs. That means it is within the court's discretion. There are a lot of costs associated with filing the suit, and you know he would appeal if he lost. There would also be court reporter fees for depositions, fees for printing briefs/appendices at the federal circuit court of appeals level, etc. There is also a legitimate possibility that a federal district court judge would force a change of venue if requested to Colorado. It isn't as pain free as you suggest.

[dcarr]

Carr's 1964 D Peace dollar does not purport to be an original numismatic item. It purports to be a 1964 D Peace dollar, which was never placed into circulation and according to the HPA this disqualifies it from the status of an original numismatic item. So it is purporting to be exactly what it is - a 1964 D Peace dollar with no status of an original numismatic item.

 

It fails the first qualifying factor for an imitation numismatic item, which is purporting to be an original numismatic item.

 

I disagree and am of the view that 1964-D Peace Dollars were known to exist as original numismatic items at one time. There is no language in the HPA requiring that the "original numismatic items" still be known to exist presently.

 

Yes, but the HPA definition of an "original numismatic item" states that it must be part of a coinage or issue, and have been actively traded and used in exchange.

 

The original 1964-D Peace Dollars were never issued, actively traded, or used in exchange.

 

But Peace Dollars were. And 1964-D Peace Dollars were known to exist, so I believe that they would qualify.

 

Yes, the Peace Dollar type was issued, actively traded, and used in exchange.

 

Whether or not the HPA considers the 1964-D Peace Dollar to be an "original numismatic item" or not is debatable. I think it could depend on who is interpreting it. But what would hinder the government in any litigation regarding this is the Treasury Department's own statement that says all were melted and none exist.

 

I agree that it's debatable whether a1964-D Peace Dollar would be considered an "original numismatic item". But the fact that all of the 1964-D's are alleged to have been melted, might help, rather than hinder the government in any litigation. And that's because of the dramatucally added value that such an "original numismatic item" would have.

 

The potential value of an original 1964-D Peace Dollar is purely academic because one would be illegal to own. Any potential buyer willing to pay up for an original 1964-D Peace Dollar would have to be familiar with the story of them, and so they would also have to realize that the coin is illegal to own.

 

[dcarr]

For good measure (in addition to Mr. Delorey's linked FTC rules revision comment), 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 unsophisticated 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. Westminster 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)).

 

 

None of the cases that you have ever cited are strongly correlated to the exact situation at hand. None of them involved non-fraudulent alterations to existing coins.

 

"Styczinski v. Westminster Mint, Inc" was settled out of court. There was NO ruling. That case sets no precedent at all.

 

I am quite familiar with the National Collectors Mint (NCM) "Freedom Tower" case. The real issue with that was how NCM purported it to be a "Government-Issue Silver Dollar" in the advertisements for it. The coin was not government issue, it was not legal tender, and it was not made of solid silver. This advertising tact is what actually got them into trouble, not the coin itself.

 

Emotions somewhat overwhelmed logic in the case due to the 9/11 tragedy (which people rightly felt NCM was attempting to cash in on). NCM was guilty of offences, but not of violating the HPA. That part of the ruling was grossly in error in my opinion and could very well have been reversed on appeal. At least one other important legal opinion agrees with me:

 

I am Armen Vartian, an attorney specialized in matters involving rare coins and other collectibles. I received my J.D. in 1981 from Harvard Law School, and am admitted to practice in California, Illinois and New York, in addition to numerous federal circuits and district courts nationwide. My clients include many of the most important stakeholders in the rare coin and collectibles businesses, including Heritage Auctions (VP-General Counsel 1986-90), Professional Coin Grading Service (PCGS)(outside counsel since 1990) and the Professional Numismatists Guild (Legal Counsel since 1992), as well as collectors and investors in rare coins and other collectibles. I have written the “Collectibles and Law” column in the numismatic trade publication Coin World since 1996, and am the author of the book “Legal Guide to Buying and Selling Art and Collectibles” (Bonus Press 1997). I submit these comments in a personal capacity and am not speaking for any of the above entities or anyone else with whom I have had a professional relationship. ...[/Quote]

... The only other HPA case of note was DeMarco v. National Collector’s Mint, 229 F.R.D. 73 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). This was a class action relating to a coin called “Freedom Tower Silver Dollar”. In October 2004, New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer had sued National Collector’s Mint, Inc., alleging that NCM engaged in “false advertising and deceptive, fraudulent, and illegal practices” in marketing coins featuring the World Trade Center and said to have been minted with silver found at Ground Zero. Spitzer noted that these coins displayed the motto “In God We Trust” and the denomination “One Dollar”, and were available in sets with genuine 2004 American Eagle coins, “foster[ing] the impression that the former are legal tender.” Although the coins were minted under authority of the Northern Marianas Islands, apparently the reference to the Marianas was subtle (the coin referred to them only along its edges), and allegedly some consumers thought the coins were U.S. coinage because of the motto and the denomination. The New York State Supreme Court ruled that the coins were, in fact, deceptive and ordered NCM to stop selling them, arrange for customer refunds, and pay a civil penalty of approximately $370,000. The case was based entirely on New York State law, and the HPA was not mentioned. Subsequently, a civil class action was filed in New York federal court under the HPA on behalf of customers who purchased Freedom Tower Silver Dollars. The plaintiffs alleged that these coins “purported to be” original numismatic items under the Act because of the motto and denomination, and because they were marketed as being “legal tender”. The court accepted these arguments, stating “[T]he term ‘imitation numismatic item’ includes not only reproductions or counterfeits of existing coins, but also any item that ‘purports to be, but in fact is not, an original numismatic item’. The FTSD falls within the ambit of the statute because it ‘purports to be, but is not, an original numismatic item’. The FTSD purports to be a legally authorized, government-issued silver dollar. However, the Complaint alleges that the FTSD is neither legally authorized nor government-issued, and is certainly not a ‘silver dollar’ which is U.S. legal tender….That makes it an imitation numismatic device. Defendants’ argument that the coin is not a reproduction of a real Government-minted coin reads half the definition of that term out of the statute”. I believe that the New York state court correctly applied New York law, but that the federal court misapplied the HPA. The “Freedom Tower Silver Dollars” were not “imitations” of any conceivable original numismatic item. By definition they were made after September 11, 2001, so there was never any doubt that they were contemporary pieces of the type Congress stated were covered by existing counterfeiting laws and were not covered by the HPA. The Commission in Gold Bullion International, while recognizing that Congress’s use of the word “counterfeit” in the HPA allowed some leeway in regulating coins which resembled actual “original numismatic items”, clearly would not have gone as far as did the DeMarco judge, to find that a coin which itself was original was in fact a copy subject to the HPA. The court’s quoting of the definition of “imitation numismatic item” ignores the fact that this definition was itself qualified by the statute’s definition of “original numismatic item”. It seems ludicrous to think that Congress intended that Freedom Tower Silver Dollars be sold to the public carrying a “COPY” mark. Current Situation Manufacturers and distributors of coins as collectibles are faced with the near-unlimited scope of the DeMarco opinion, which declares, in effect, that anything that looks like it might be a legal tender coin must be marked “COPY”. But other than size and shape, how many other indicia of legal tender coinage need to be present before the HPA applies? This problem is not the result of the statute itself, which in my opinion was clear that the HPA applies only to copies of formerly-circulating coins and medals. It is in the interpretation of the statute, which has seized upon the “counterfeit” and “purports to be” language to distort Congress’s meaning and substitute the HPA for FTC Act Section 5 as an all-purpose consumer protection law. But Section 5 does not provide a private right of action, and the HPA does. Hence the seller of Freedom Tower Silver Dollars facing a private class action while the Commission [FTC], apparently, chose not to act. Clarity is needed, and the Commission should amend the regulations to accomplish this. ...[/Quote]

 

 

 

[dcarr]

To reiterate the point about minor date changes that Mr. Carr keeps choosing to ignore:

 

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

 

This is in reference to the Gold Bullion International (GBI) case. They minted Germany Wilhelm gold pieces using a date that was not originally minted for that type. These were NOT fantasy-date over-strikes. They were privately struck on newly-fabricated blanks. And then GBI deceptively marketed them as German mint restrikes. That was a major problem. The court ruling found that they violated the HPA even though the date on the pieces didn't match any previously-minted coins of that type. If you set aside the date issue, the pieces were copies of the original Wilhelm gold coin type, but were not marked "COPY". This is unlike the situation where an existing genuine coin is altered to have a date that was never issued for that type, and without deceptively advertising it.

 

Had GBI over-struck existing Wilhelm gold coins with a fantasy date, and marketed them as such, there probably never would have been any court case in the first place.

 

[dcarr]

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

 

Yes, of course. We ignore the other circuit courts of appeal that have addressed the question, and ignore a federal district court opinion case all agreeing that intent is not required.

 

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.

 

You used this argument in the past to suggest that Congress intended to incorporate an intent element into 18 U.S.C. 485. That is limiting existing law, which the HPA says it is not meant to do. Again, assuming there is a conflict, the conflict is inapplicable to you because it would only apply to pieces that are properly marked as a "COPY" as per the HPA.

 

For there to be a violation of 18 USC 485-489, there must be fraudulent intent or the activity must impugn the integrity of the Federal Government. If neither of those things has occurred, then there is no violation of 18 USC 485-489, regardless of what the HPA says.

 

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.

 

 

Peace Dollars were unequivocally a series, issue, and part of U.S. coinage. The 1964-D Peace Dollars struck by the Mint were indeed part of this series/issue notwithstanding that all were supposedly destroyed. Since your coin appears to be a 1964-D Peace Dollar, it does fall within the HPA.

 

To fall within the HPA, the item must have been "a coinage or issue which has been used in exchange” and "actively traded in the marketplace and used as a means of payment". The original 1964-D Peace Dollars were never issued or used for anything.

 

[With regards to the statute of limitations, you show a fundamental lack of understanding of the law. There are a number of equitable tolling doctrines that will "toll" or pause the statute of limitations. Among potentially relevant tolling doctrines would be the "continuing offense doctrine." You have produced a number of fantasy coins, and you still continue to produce fantasy coins to this day. Accordingly, the government could argue that the matter is not time barred.

 

I don't think you fully understood what I wrote. If (and that is a purely hypothetical "if") the "1964-D" fantasy-date Peace Dollar over-strikes were determined to be in violation but none of the other fantasy-date over-strikes were in violation, then there would only be the one instance of violation 5+ years ago and not any "continuing offence". Therefore, the Statute of Limitations would definitely apply.

 

For there to be a violation of 18 USC 485-489, there must be fraudulent intent or the activity must impugn the integrity of the Federal Government

 

With regards to the third paragraph, this is your fantasy.

 

 

Can you cite any specific court rulings to back that up ?

 

There is this opinion which I posted previously:

 

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.