The Hobby Protection Act of 1973

[Afterword]

https://www.federalregister.gov/document...tnote-18-p23220

 

Exploring the link above, it would seem that HPA officials are aware and have been aware of Carr's fantasy pieces for some time now. It is also evident they read and consider applicable comments they receive regarding HPA and its functions. Some of the names I encountered you would readily recognize.

 

Why have they not pursued the matter? They seem to care. They have gone to the trouble of addressing some of the concerns presented to them pertaining to fantasy pieces.

 

So why do they not act?

 

 

[MarkFeld]

https://www.federalregister.gov/document...tnote-18-p23220

 

 

Exploring the link above, it would seem that HPA officials are aware and have been aware of Carr's fantasy pieces for some time now. It is also evident they read and consider applicable comments they receive regarding HPA and its functions. Some of the names I encountered you would readily recognize.

 

Why have they not pursued the matter? They seem to care. They have gone to the trouble of addressing some of the concerns presented to them pertaining to fantasy pieces.

 

So why do they not act?

 

 

The link doesn't work.

[Afterword]

A functioning link exists on page two of this thread toward the bottom of the page that Capt.Henway posted.

 

Sorry, but I do not know why the link I provided does not function.

[coinman_23885]

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.

 

I'm sorry Mr. Carr, but do we actually have an adjudication that genuine 1964-D Peace Dollars are illegal to own? As many seem to think here, prior case law is useless unless it refers specifically to the same design you're holding.

[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)).

 

 

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]

 

If the coin I mentioned was a violation of the HPA because (according to the court) a collector could be confused by the inscriptions "IN GOD WE TRUST" and "ONE DOLLAR" then so would your pieces which look exactly like official issues except perhaps for a date or mintmark.

 

I am also familiar with the Westminster case and the plaintiff ATS and I discussed the case in PMs before it was filed. Regardless of whether precedential, it is persuasive in that it shows that a federal district court judge interprets the law the way I suggested in this thread and others. There is an opinion in this case rejecting the defendants' motion to dismiss which promotes arguments similar to yours.

 

And for the record, while I agree with the court's holding that the similarity need not be exact to implicate the HPA, I do think the court went a bit far as applied to that specific case. Your case, however, isn't even close or borderline. If courts interpret the statute that rabidly, then the fate of your pieces should be clear IMHO.

 

[dcarr]

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.

 

I'm sorry Mr. Carr, but do we actually have an adjudication that genuine 1964-D Peace Dollars are illegal to own? As many seem to think here, prior case law is useless unless it refers specifically to the same design you're holding.

 

The US Treasury Department, not the courts, say they are illegal in private hands and subject to confiscation. See the last paragraph:

 

 

 

[MarkFeld]

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.

 

I'm sorry Mr. Carr, but do we actually have an adjudication that genuine 1964-D Peace Dollars are illegal to own? As many seem to think here, prior case law is useless unless it refers specifically to the same design you're holding.

 

The US Treasury Department, not the courts, say they are illegal in private hands and subject to confiscation. See the last paragraph:

 

 

 

That doesn't sound like an adjudication to me.

[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]

 

If the coin I mentioned was a violation of the HPA because (according to the court) a collector could be confused by the inscriptions "IN GOD WE TRUST" and "ONE DOLLAR" then so would your pieces which look exactly like official issues except perhaps for a date or mintmark.

 

NCM marketed the things as "government issue silver dollars". That is what the case was about. It is ridiculous to think, in the absence of other factors, that putting "In God We Trust" on a token or medal somehow makes it illegal. Same for "One Dollar". What about all those metal casino tokens that say "One Dollar" on them ? Certainly those are not illegal so long as the casino does not portray them as US legal tender. This case went far beyond the intent of Congress. But this case does illustrate that the intent in such activity has a major influence on the courts.

 

I am also familiar with the Westminster case and the plaintiff ATS and I discussed the case in PMs before it was filed. Regardless of whether precedential, it is persuasive in that it shows that a federal district court judge interprets the law the way I suggested in this thread and others. There is an opinion in this case rejecting the defendants' motion to dismiss which promotes arguments similar to yours.

 

The defendants in that case must not have had very good representation. Internet postings by the plaintiff clearly showed that they were well aware ahead of time that the two silver rounds had copied the basic designs of other coins (but without any denominations) and were not government-issue. But the plaintiff purchased the two pieces anyway, with the express intent of obtaining standing so as to file the lawsuit. It seems that the case could have been thrown out on those grounds, and a different judge may very well have done that.

 

And for the record, while I agree with the court's holding that the similarity need not be exact to implicate the HPA, I do think the court went a bit far as applied to that specific case. Your case, however, isn't even close or borderline. If courts interpret the statute that rabidly, then the fate of your pieces should be clear IMHO.

 

The Freedom Tower case involved intentional and carefully-constructed marketing deception by NCM, for the purpose of leading potential buyers to the assumption that the coin was a legitimate legal-tender government-issue solid silver dollar. That is vastly different than my situation where a genuine government-issue silver dollar is altered to have a novelty date and with full marketing disclosure.

 

 

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Why edit? You stated it is very different from your case.

 

Now you go back to the illogical logic baloney and try to confuse and intertwine issues that are not even the same legal thrust.

[dcarr]

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.

 

I'm sorry Mr. Carr, but do we actually have an adjudication that genuine 1964-D Peace Dollars are illegal to own? As many seem to think here, prior case law is useless unless it refers specifically to the same design you're holding.

 

The US Treasury Department, not the courts, say they are illegal in private hands and subject to confiscation. See the last paragraph:

 

 

 

That doesn't sound like an adjudication to me.

 

The 1964-D Peace Dollar situation is much like the 1933 Double Eagles, except that none of the 1964 dollars have turned up in public for people to fight over. But if one did show up in public, there would likely be litigation and the US Treasury Department could argue that the coin is illegal to own.

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

It isn't. Not even close. Nor is it an adjudicated conclusion of whether it is or is not legal to own.

 

Also struck in Denver as trials does not state that the trials were with or without D. the letter also refers to 1964. The trial strikes were for a 1964. Not a 64D. A check of the congressional record notes a funds transfer to Phil. in 66.

 

The Mint does not have adjudication authority in this matter, at all.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Doing some doodle calculations of the (3) major threads on this subject, I came up with a cost range for expert opinion and legal advice that has been provided to Mr. Carr without any cost.

 

I peg the number as a range of $55K-$80K. In reviewing the the various on-point (and illogical logic points) "briefs", all that has to be done is to have a paralegal prep the outline for case review. It looks like....give or take....17 bullet points.

 

On behalf of the members, you are welcome Mr. Carr. Just between us wrong thinking and incorrect participants, was and is this your motive? Is it possible your attorney is the beneficiary of the opinions of the board members?

 

Go forth and multiply the adjudication process.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Good afternoon, Mark. I had posted a question for you, last week I think. You may not have read it and that is why there was not a reply, or it could have been my wording.

I asked if you would buy or selll Carr pieces. I can see how that might have not been the way to phrase the question, as you are employed by another entity engaged in the numismatic business.

 

So, to re-phrase: when you were buying and selling, including on behalf of others, did you buy and/or sell Carr pieces?

[dcarr]

It is apparent that the laws Congress enacted do not directly address the issue of fantasy-date over-striking, and that Congress probably never even considered that anyone would ever want to do such a thing in the first place.

 

It is somewhat telling of what the FTC and Congress thought important that the only two significant upgrades to the HPA in 2014 were:

 

1) Adding more trademark protection against counterfeit "slabs".

 

2) Making the sellers and transaction venues liable.

 

In general terms, the 2014 legislation was "To amend the Hobby Protection Act to make unlawful the provision of assistance or support in violation of that Act, and for other purposes."

 

This would seem to make eBay a huge (and potentially very lucrative) target for litigation since that venue has facilitated the sale of a very large quantity of Chinese (and other) unmarked copies of US Currency.

 

[dcarr]

Doing some doodle calculations of the (3) major threads on this subject, I came up with a cost range for expert opinion and legal advice that has been provided to Mr. Carr without any cost.

 

I peg the number as a range of $55K-$80K. In reviewing the the various on-point (and illogical logic points) "briefs", all that has to be done is to have a paralegal prep the outline for case review. It looks like....give or take....17 bullet points.

 

On behalf of the members, you are welcome Mr. Carr. Just between us wrong thinking and incorrect participants, was and is this your motive? Is it possible your attorney is the beneficiary of the opinions of the board members?

 

Go forth and multiply the adjudication process.

 

All I will say to that is, I do take mental notes along the way.

[MarkFeld]

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.

 

I'm sorry Mr. Carr, but do we actually have an adjudication that genuine 1964-D Peace Dollars are illegal to own? As many seem to think here, prior case law is useless unless it refers specifically to the same design you're holding.

 

The US Treasury Department, not the courts, say they are illegal in private hands and subject to confiscation. See the last paragraph:

 

 

 

That doesn't sound like an adjudication to me.

 

The 1964-D Peace Dollar situation is much like the 1933 Double Eagles, except that none of the 1964 dollars have turned up in public for people to fight over. But if one did show up in public, there would likely be litigation and the US Treasury Department could argue that the coin is illegal to own.

 

Of course the U. S. Treasury Department could argue that. But you stated that the 1964-D Peace Dollars would be illegal to own and pointed to a statement by the U.S Treasury Department, in support of your statement. That is a far cry from adjudication. There are also a number of (potentially significant) differences between the 1933 Double Eagles and the 1964-D Peace Dollars.

[MarkFeld]

Good afternoon, Mark. I had posted a question for you, last week I think. You may not have read it and that is why there was not a reply, or it could have been my wording.

I asked if you would buy or selll Carr pieces. I can see how that might have not been the way to phrase the question, as you are employed by another entity engaged in the numismatic business.

 

So, to re-phrase: when you were buying and selling, including on behalf of others, did you buy and/or sell Carr pieces?

 

Hi John,

 

I did not handle any of those pieces, as best I can remember. However, if I were conducting my own business again and an informed client wanted me to procure one on his behalf, I might be willing to try to do so. I would need to give it more thought in a non-hypothetical setting.

[coinman_23885]

It is apparent that the laws Congress enacted do not directly address the issue of fantasy-date over-striking, and that Congress probably never even considered that anyone would ever want to do such a thing in the first place.

 

Now we are getting somewhere. Congress has empowered the FTC to enact regulations and rules to enforce the HPA and to give it substance. When Congress has empowered an administrative agency to issue these regulations and a statute is ambiguous, vague, or does not address an issue leaving a gap, it is within the power of the agency to issue rules/opinions with the binding force of law. See Chevron USA, Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). I left a lengthy quote from Chevron at the end of this post for you. Just so you know, Chevron deference is a real thing and is a guiding principal of interpretation in administrative law for the time being (and it isn't limited to the EPA - it applies to all administrative agencies with power to issue regulations).

 

In any event, the FTC has enacted administrative regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations, which do, in fact, address fantasy pieces. As cited above, an imitation numismatic item includes an original numismatic item altered to look like another original numismatic item other than the one modified or altered. The FTC has also issued opinions indicating that the coin need not be an exact imitation or replica, but must be capable of generating confusion among average people (not collectors with specialized knowledge of coins).

 

When a court reviews an agency's construction of the statute which it administers, it is confronted with two questions. First, always, is the question whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court,

 

Page 467 U. S. 843

 

as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress. [Footnote 9] If, however, the court determines Congress has not directly addressed the precise question at issue, the court does not simply impose its own construction on the statute, [Footnote 10] as would be necessary in the absence of an administrative interpretation. Rather, if the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute. [Footnote 11]

 

"The power of an administrative agency to administer a congressionally created . . . program necessarily requires the formulation of policy and the making of rules to fill any gap left, implicitly or explicitly, by Congress."

 

Morton v. Ruiz, 415 U. S. 199, 415 U. S. 231 (1974). If Congress has explicitly left a gap for the agency to fill, there is an express delegation

 

Page 467 U. S. 844

 

of authority to the agency to elucidate a specific provision of the statute by regulation. Such legislative regulations are given controlling weight unless they are arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute. [Footnote 12] Sometimes the legislative delegation to an agency on a particular question is implicit, rather than explicit. In such a case, a court may not substitute its own construction of a statutory provision for a reasonable interpretation made by the administrator of an agency. [Footnote 13]

 

We have long recognized that considerable weight should be accorded to an executive department's construction of a statutory scheme it is entrusted to administer, [Footnote 14] and the principle of deference to administrative interpretations

 

"has been consistently followed by this Court whenever decision as to the meaning or reach of a statute has involved reconciling conflicting policies, and a full understanding of the force of the statutory policy in the given situation has depended upon more than ordinary knowledge respecting the matters subjected to agency regulations. See, e.g., National Broadcasting Co. v. United States, 319 U. S. 190; Labor Board v. Hearst Publications, Inc., 322 U. S. 111; Republic Aviation Corp. v.

 

Page 467 U. S. 845

 

Labor Board, 324 U. S. 793; Securities & Exchange Comm'n v. Chenery Corp., 332 U. S. 194; Labor Board v. Seven-Up Bottling Co., 344 U. S. 344."

 

". . . If this choice represents a reasonable accommodation of conflicting policies that were committed to the agency's care by the statute, we should not disturb it unless it appears from the statute or its legislative history that the accommodation is not one that Congress would have sanctioned."

 

United States v. Shimer, 367 U. S. 374, 367 U. S. 382, 383 (1961). Accord, Capital Cities Cable, Inc. v. Crisp, ante at 467 U. S. 699-700.

 

[dcarr]

Of course the U.S. Treasury Department could argue that. But you stated that the 1964-D Peace Dollars would be illegal to own and pointed to a statement by the U.S Treasury Department, in support of your statement. That is a far cry from adjudication. There are also a number of (potentially significant) differences between the 1933 Double Eagles and the 1964-D Peace Dollars.

 

Yes, there are some differences between the two. The existence of 1933 Double eagles is confirmed.

 

Any surviving 1964-D Peace Dollars have been declared to be property of the US Treasury. That is why I stated that they would be illegal for a private entity to own one. But yes, there would have to be court proceedings if both parties contested the ownership.

 

PS:

You sound like someone who knows someone who has a 1964-D Peace Dollar

 

[dcarr]

It is apparent that the laws Congress enacted do not directly address the issue of fantasy-date over-striking, and that Congress probably never even considered that anyone would ever want to do such a thing in the first place.

 

Now we are getting somewhere. Congress has empowered the FTC to enact regulations and rules to enforce the HPA and to give it substance. When Congress has empowered an administrative agency to issue these regulations and a statute is ambiguous, vague, or does not address an issue leaving a gap, it is within the power of the agency to issue rules/opinions with the binding force of law. See Chevron USA, Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). I left a lengthy quote from Chevron at the end of this post for you. Just so you know, Chevron deference is a real thing and is a guiding principal of interpretation in administrative law for the time being (and it isn't limited to the EPA - it applies to all administrative agencies with power to issue regulations).

 

In any event, the FTC has enacted administrative regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations, which do, in fact, address fantasy pieces. As cited above, an imitation numismatic item includes an original numismatic item altered to look like another original numismatic item other than the one modified or altered. The FTC has also issued opinions indicating that the coin need not be an exact imitation or replica, but must be capable of generating confusion among average people (not collectors with specialized knowledge of coins).

 

You are reading into the HPA "fantasy" provisions which are not there.

The word "fantasy" does not appear anywhere in the HPA code as of 12 September 2016.

 

"an imitation numismatic item includes an original numismatic item altered to look like another original numismatic item other than the one modified or altered."

 

We can argue in circles all day like a NSCAR race. So here we go around again:

The quoted paragraph above does not address or prohibit fantasy-date alterations.

Suppose you took a 1903 Morgan Dollar and carved just the one date digit to make it look like a "1909" fantasy date. The coin is still a Morgan Dollar. But it does not look like any specific original numismatic item because there is no such thing as a "1909" Morgan Dollar. In general terms, the piece does still look like a Morgan Dollar design type. But it already was that before the alteration. So that has not changed.

 

"The FTC has also issued opinions indicating that the coin need not be an exact imitation or replica, but must be capable of generating confusion among average people (not collectors with specialized knowledge of coins)"

 

A "hobo" nickel carving could confuse ordinary people. So could a "ONE DOLLAR" casino token. Neither of those are prohibited by the HPA.

 

[coinman_23885]

You are reading into the HPA "fantasy" provisions which are not there.

The word "fantasy" does not appear anywhere in the HPA code as of 12 September 2016.

 

"an imitation numismatic item includes an original numismatic item altered to look like another original numismatic item other than the one modified or altered."

 

We can argue in circles all day like a NSCAR race. So here we go around again:

The quoted paragraph above does not address or prohibit fantasy-date alterations.

Suppose you took a 1903 Morgan Dollar and carved just the one date digit to make it look like a "1909" fantasy date. The coin is still a Morgan Dollar. But it does not look like any specific original numismatic item because there is no such thing as a "1909" Morgan Dollar. In general terms, the piece does still look like a Morgan Dollar design type. But it already was that before the alteration. So that has not changed.

 

(1) The piece is different than what you do as you restrike the entire piece (including the devices, inscriptions, date, and mint mark).

(2) it no longer appears to be a 1903 Morgan Dollar but a Morgan of another date and is an imitation numismatic item.

(3) What about your 1964 Franklins overstruck over a Kennedy? What about your 1964-D Peace Dollars? You pick and choose creations at random - it is fun to watch actually.

(3) The FTC has the authority to issues rules, regulations, and decisions with the binding force of law - it has decided that fantasy pieces are covered by the act and must be marked ; did you not see Tom Delorey's link?

(4) Arguing that your pieces isn't covered by the HPA doesn't help you, but undermines your position. If not authorized by the HPA, it is a counterfeit.

(5) Even your supporters haven't had much to say in light of the FTC's conclusion that amendments to the federal regulations for the HPA were unnecessary to include fantasy pieces as the FTC has decided that these were required to be marked anyway under existing FTC precedent and the statute/regulations as they appear now without the word "fantasy."

 

"The FTC has also issued opinions indicating that the coin need not be an exact imitation or replica, but must be capable of generating confusion among average people (not collectors with specialized knowledge of coins)"

 

A "hobo" nickel carving could confuse ordinary people. So could a "ONE DOLLAR" casino token. Neither of those are prohibited by the HPA.

 

That is because they do not alter original numismatic items to make them appear to be other numismatic items (i.e. other than the one altered or modified).

 

 

[dcarr]

You are reading into the HPA "fantasy" provisions which are not there.

The word "fantasy" does not appear anywhere in the HPA code as of 12 September 2016.

 

"an imitation numismatic item includes an original numismatic item altered to look like another original numismatic item other than the one modified or altered."

 

We can argue in circles all day like a NSCAR race. So here we go around again:

The quoted paragraph above does not address or prohibit fantasy-date alterations.

Suppose you took a 1903 Morgan Dollar and carved just the one date digit to make it look like a "1909" fantasy date. The coin is still a Morgan Dollar. But it does not look like any specific original numismatic item because there is no such thing as a "1909" Morgan Dollar. In general terms, the piece does still look like a Morgan Dollar design type. But it already was that before the alteration. So that has not changed.

 

(1) The piece is different than what you do as you restrike the entire piece (including the devices, inscriptions, date, and mint mark).

There is no threshold specified in the HPA as to the extent of any modifications.

If a hand-carved alteration of a single date digit (yielding a fantasy date) is allowed by the HPA, then a more-extensively retooled piece would also be allowed.

 

(2) it no longer appears to be a 1903 Morgan Dollar but a Morgan of another date and is an imitation numismatic item.

An imitation of what numismatic item ?

 

(3) What about your 1964 Franklins overstruck over a Kennedy? What about your 1964-D Peace Dollars? You pick and choose creations at random - it is fun to watch actually.

So ? The examples are all pretty much the same.

The "1964" Franklins struck over 1964 Kennedy coins were tests and they were not released.

 

(3) The FTC has the authority to issues rules, regulations, and decisions with the binding force of law - it has decided that fantasy pieces are covered by the act and must be marked ; did you not see Tom Delorey's link?

"Fantasy" pieces like that of Gold Bullion International (GBI) are covered. Those pieces were deceptively promoted; they were not over-strikes on genuine coins; and they were privately minted on anonymous blanks in a way to lead people to believe that they were genuine German mint coins.

 

A fantasy-date over-strike does not create a new coin of that design type - it modifies an existing one into a form that did not exist at the time. This is a much different situation than the above, especially considering that no deceptive portrayal or marketing is involved.

 

(4) Arguing that your pieces isn't covered by the HPA doesn't help you, but undermines your position. If not authorized by the HPA, it is a counterfeit.

A genuine coin with an altered fantasy date is not a "counterfeit", with or without the HPA.

 

(5) Even your supporters haven't had much to say in light of the FTC's conclusion that amendments to the federal regulations for the HPA were unnecessary to include fantasy pieces as the FTC has decided that these were required to be marked anyway under existing FTC precedent and the statute/regulations as they appear now without the word "fantasy."

Maybe people are tired of this roundabout. Silence does not indicate anything.

 

Using my prior example, take a 1903 Morgan Dollar and carve the "3" into a "9" to make a "1909" fantasy date "hobo" (without changing anything else on the original coin), would such a thing be required to have "COPY" stamped on it ? Yes or no.

 

The FTC's conclusion addresses falsely-fabricated "fantasy coins" as in GBI, but doesn't really address altered genuine coins with fantasy dates.

 

"The FTC has also issued opinions indicating that the coin need not be an exact imitation or replica, but must be capable of generating confusion among average people (not collectors with specialized knowledge of coins)"

 

A "hobo" nickel carving could confuse ordinary people. So could a "ONE DOLLAR" casino token. Neither of those are prohibited by the HPA.

 

That is because they do not alter original numismatic items to make them appear to be other numismatic items (i.e. other than the one altered or modified).

 

Some "hobo" nickels most certainly do look like different original numismatic items to a large portion of the population.

[coinman_23885]

 

(4) Arguing that your pieces isn't covered by the HPA doesn't help you, but undermines your position. If not authorized by the HPA, it is a counterfeit.

 

A genuine coin with an altered fantasy date is not a "counterfeit", with or without the HPA.

 

Federal appeals court judges seem to disagree. Go figure.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

You are reading into the HPA "fantasy" provisions which are not there.

The word "fantasy" does not appear anywhere in the HPA code as of 12 September 2016.

 

"an imitation numismatic item includes an original numismatic item altered to look like another original numismatic item other than the one modified or altered."

 

We can argue in circles all day like a NSCAR race. So here we go around again:

The quoted paragraph above does not address or prohibit fantasy-date alterations.

Suppose you took a 1903 Morgan Dollar and carved just the one date digit to make it look like a "1909" fantasy date. The coin is still a Morgan Dollar. But it does not look like any specific original numismatic item because there is no such thing as a "1909" Morgan Dollar. In general terms, the piece does still look like a Morgan Dollar design type. But it already was that before the alteration. So that has not changed.

 

(1) The piece is different than what you do as you restrike the entire piece (including the devices, inscriptions, date, and mint mark).

(2) it no longer appears to be a 1903 Morgan Dollar but a Morgan of another date and is an imitation numismatic item.

(3) What about your 1964 Franklins overstruck over a Kennedy? What about your 1964-D Peace Dollars? You pick and choose creations at random - it is fun to watch actually.

(3) The FTC has the authority to issues rules, regulations, and decisions with the binding force of law - it has decided that fantasy pieces are covered by the act and must be marked ; did you not see Tom Delorey's link?

(4) Arguing that your pieces isn't covered by the HPA doesn't help you, but undermines your position. If not authorized by the HPA, it is a counterfeit.

(5) Even your supporters haven't had much to say in light of the FTC's conclusion that amendments to the federal regulations for the HPA were unnecessary to include fantasy pieces as the FTC has decided that these were required to be marked anyway under existing FTC precedent and the statute/regulations as they appear now without the word "fantasy."

 

"The FTC has also issued opinions indicating that the coin need not be an exact imitation or replica, but must be capable of generating confusion among average people (not collectors with specialized knowledge of coins)"

 

A "hobo" nickel carving could confuse ordinary people. So could a "ONE DOLLAR" casino token. Neither of those are prohibited by the HPA.

 

That is because they do not alter original numismatic items to make them appear to be other numismatic items (i.e. other than the one altered or modified).

 

 

You have just increased my projected free advice cost range donated to Mr.Carr to $90K.

 

Please stop it. You have donated to much.

 

Repetitive information/advice will no longer be added to your contribution amount.

[coinman_23885]

You are reading into the HPA "fantasy" provisions which are not there.

The word "fantasy" does not appear anywhere in the HPA code as of 12 September 2016.

 

"an imitation numismatic item includes an original numismatic item altered to look like another original numismatic item other than the one modified or altered."

 

We can argue in circles all day like a NSCAR race. So here we go around again:

The quoted paragraph above does not address or prohibit fantasy-date alterations.

Suppose you took a 1903 Morgan Dollar and carved just the one date digit to make it look like a "1909" fantasy date. The coin is still a Morgan Dollar. But it does not look like any specific original numismatic item because there is no such thing as a "1909" Morgan Dollar. In general terms, the piece does still look like a Morgan Dollar design type. But it already was that before the alteration. So that has not changed.

 

(1) The piece is different than what you do as you restrike the entire piece (including the devices, inscriptions, date, and mint mark).

(2) it no longer appears to be a 1903 Morgan Dollar but a Morgan of another date and is an imitation numismatic item.

(3) What about your 1964 Franklins overstruck over a Kennedy? What about your 1964-D Peace Dollars? You pick and choose creations at random - it is fun to watch actually.

(3) The FTC has the authority to issues rules, regulations, and decisions with the binding force of law - it has decided that fantasy pieces are covered by the act and must be marked ; did you not see Tom Delorey's link?

(4) Arguing that your pieces isn't covered by the HPA doesn't help you, but undermines your position. If not authorized by the HPA, it is a counterfeit.

(5) Even your supporters haven't had much to say in light of the FTC's conclusion that amendments to the federal regulations for the HPA were unnecessary to include fantasy pieces as the FTC has decided that these were required to be marked anyway under existing FTC precedent and the statute/regulations as they appear now without the word "fantasy."

 

"The FTC has also issued opinions indicating that the coin need not be an exact imitation or replica, but must be capable of generating confusion among average people (not collectors with specialized knowledge of coins)"

 

A "hobo" nickel carving could confuse ordinary people. So could a "ONE DOLLAR" casino token. Neither of those are prohibited by the HPA.

 

That is because they do not alter original numismatic items to make them appear to be other numismatic items (i.e. other than the one altered or modified).

 

 

You have just increased my projected free advice cost range donated to Mr.Carr to $90K.

 

Please stop it. You have donated to much.

 

Repetitive information/advice will no longer be added to your contribution amount.

 

Nothing I have written in these threads is intended as legal advice to Mr. Carr or anyone else (nor should it be construed to suggest a professional/advisory relationship). My comments are effectively a public plea for him to stop producing his fantasy overstrikes. It is my position that regardless of DCarr's intent, the possibility for fraud by subsequent owners and confusion is a problem. Whether Carr intends it or not, the end result is the same.

 

This risk of confusion is no longer hypothetical. Mike Fahey (senior authenticator ANACS) wrote a counterfeit detection column for the September 12, 2016 issue of Coin World in which he is clear that he has received "a number of emails and phone calls from confused numismatists" concerning the fantasy overstrike pieces produced by Carr in the last year.

[Afterword]

No one knows what is going on behind closed doors at HPA. There may be factors involved that prevent them from acting. Considerations neither you nor Carr nor anyone else has considered. There are other interests that can be impacted negatively by their actions. They mention some of them at that link I posted (which unfortunately does not function).

 

HPA could be doing the best they can.

 

[dcarr]

You are reading into the HPA "fantasy" provisions which are not there.

The word "fantasy" does not appear anywhere in the HPA code as of 12 September 2016.

 

"an imitation numismatic item includes an original numismatic item altered to look like another original numismatic item other than the one modified or altered."

 

We can argue in circles all day like a NSCAR race. So here we go around again:

The quoted paragraph above does not address or prohibit fantasy-date alterations.

Suppose you took a 1903 Morgan Dollar and carved just the one date digit to make it look like a "1909" fantasy date. The coin is still a Morgan Dollar. But it does not look like any specific original numismatic item because there is no such thing as a "1909" Morgan Dollar. In general terms, the piece does still look like a Morgan Dollar design type. But it already was that before the alteration. So that has not changed.

 

(1) The piece is different than what you do as you restrike the entire piece (including the devices, inscriptions, date, and mint mark).

(2) it no longer appears to be a 1903 Morgan Dollar but a Morgan of another date and is an imitation numismatic item.

(3) What about your 1964 Franklins overstruck over a Kennedy? What about your 1964-D Peace Dollars? You pick and choose creations at random - it is fun to watch actually.

(3) The FTC has the authority to issues rules, regulations, and decisions with the binding force of law - it has decided that fantasy pieces are covered by the act and must be marked ; did you not see Tom Delorey's link?

(4) Arguing that your pieces isn't covered by the HPA doesn't help you, but undermines your position. If not authorized by the HPA, it is a counterfeit.

(5) Even your supporters haven't had much to say in light of the FTC's conclusion that amendments to the federal regulations for the HPA were unnecessary to include fantasy pieces as the FTC has decided that these were required to be marked anyway under existing FTC precedent and the statute/regulations as they appear now without the word "fantasy."

 

"The FTC has also issued opinions indicating that the coin need not be an exact imitation or replica, but must be capable of generating confusion among average people (not collectors with specialized knowledge of coins)"

 

A "hobo" nickel carving could confuse ordinary people. So could a "ONE DOLLAR" casino token. Neither of those are prohibited by the HPA.

 

That is because they do not alter original numismatic items to make them appear to be other numismatic items (i.e. other than the one altered or modified).

 

 

You have just increased my projected free advice cost range donated to Mr.Carr to $90K.

 

Please stop it. You have donated to much.

 

Repetitive information/advice will no longer be added to your contribution amount.

 

Nothing I have written in these threads is intended as legal advice to Mr. Carr or anyone else (nor should it be construed to suggest a professional/advisory relationship). My comments are effectively a public plea for him to stop producing his fantasy overstrikes. It is my position that regardless of DCarr's intent, the possibility for fraud by subsequent owners and confusion is a problem. Whether Carr intends it or not, the end result is the same.

 

This risk of confusion is no longer hypothetical. Mike Fahey (senior authenticator ANACS) wrote a counterfeit detection column for the September 12, 2016 issue of Coin World in which he is clear that he has received "a number of emails and phone calls from confused numismatists" concerning the fantasy overstrike pieces produced by Carr in the last year.

 

Nowhere in that article did it state that the person with the "1922-D" fantasy-date over-strike half dollar paid anything more than "issue" price for it.

 

Inquiries from "confused numismatists" about normal coins happen all the time.

How often does it happen, for example, that a person finds a Wheat Penny in change thinking they've struck it rich, only to be disappointed to find out their coin is only worth 5 cents ?

 

It is one thing to find, or be given, a coin and think (hope) that it might be worth a lot of money. It is all together a different thing to have the knowledge to be motivated enough to actually SPEND a lot of money for a coin.

 

Knowledge is key to everything. I've done my utmost to provide complete information.

 

Also note that ANACS would certify that "1922-D" fantasy-date over-strike half dollar as just that.

 

[dcarr]

 

(4) Arguing that your pieces isn't covered by the HPA doesn't help you, but undermines your position. If not authorized by the HPA, it is a counterfeit.

 

A genuine coin with an altered fantasy date is not a "counterfeit", with or without the HPA.

 

Federal appeals court judges seem to disagree. Go figure.

 

What court case are you referring to here, involving a non-fraudulent fantasy-date alteration to a genuine coin ?

 

[MarkFeld]

You are reading into the HPA "fantasy" provisions which are not there.

The word "fantasy" does not appear anywhere in the HPA code as of 12 September 2016.

 

"an imitation numismatic item includes an original numismatic item altered to look like another original numismatic item other than the one modified or altered."

 

We can argue in circles all day like a NSCAR race. So here we go around again:

The quoted paragraph above does not address or prohibit fantasy-date alterations.

Suppose you took a 1903 Morgan Dollar and carved just the one date digit to make it look like a "1909" fantasy date. The coin is still a Morgan Dollar. But it does not look like any specific original numismatic item because there is no such thing as a "1909" Morgan Dollar. In general terms, the piece does still look like a Morgan Dollar design type. But it already was that before the alteration. So that has not changed.

 

(1) The piece is different than what you do as you restrike the entire piece (including the devices, inscriptions, date, and mint mark).

(2) it no longer appears to be a 1903 Morgan Dollar but a Morgan of another date and is an imitation numismatic item.

(3) What about your 1964 Franklins overstruck over a Kennedy? What about your 1964-D Peace Dollars? You pick and choose creations at random - it is fun to watch actually.

(3) The FTC has the authority to issues rules, regulations, and decisions with the binding force of law - it has decided that fantasy pieces are covered by the act and must be marked ; did you not see Tom Delorey's link?

(4) Arguing that your pieces isn't covered by the HPA doesn't help you, but undermines your position. If not authorized by the HPA, it is a counterfeit.

(5) Even your supporters haven't had much to say in light of the FTC's conclusion that amendments to the federal regulations for the HPA were unnecessary to include fantasy pieces as the FTC has decided that these were required to be marked anyway under existing FTC precedent and the statute/regulations as they appear now without the word "fantasy."

 

"The FTC has also issued opinions indicating that the coin need not be an exact imitation or replica, but must be capable of generating confusion among average people (not collectors with specialized knowledge of coins)"

 

A "hobo" nickel carving could confuse ordinary people. So could a "ONE DOLLAR" casino token. Neither of those are prohibited by the HPA.

 

That is because they do not alter original numismatic items to make them appear to be other numismatic items (i.e. other than the one altered or modified).

 

 

You have just increased my projected free advice cost range donated to Mr.Carr to $90K.

 

Please stop it. You have donated to much.

 

Repetitive information/advice will no longer be added to your contribution amount.

 

Nothing I have written in these threads is intended as legal advice to Mr. Carr or anyone else (nor should it be construed to suggest a professional/advisory relationship). My comments are effectively a public plea for him to stop producing his fantasy overstrikes. It is my position that regardless of DCarr's intent, the possibility for fraud by subsequent owners and confusion is a problem. Whether Carr intends it or not, the end result is the same.

 

This risk of confusion is no longer hypothetical. Mike Fahey (senior authenticator ANACS) wrote a counterfeit detection column for the September 12, 2016 issue of Coin World in which he is clear that he has received "a number of emails and phone calls from confused numismatists" concerning the fantasy overstrike pieces produced by Carr in the last year.

 

Nowhere in that article did it state that the person with the "1922-D" fantasy-date over-strike half dollar paid anything more than "issue" price for it.

 

Inquiries from "confused numismatists" about normal coins happen all the time.

How often does it happen, for example, that a person finds a Wheat Penny in change thinking they've struck it rich, only to be disappointed to find out their coin is only worth 5 cents ?

 

It is one thing to find, or be given, a coin and think (hope) that it might be worth a lot of money. It is all together a different thing to have the knowledge to be motivated enough to actually SPEND a lot of money for a coin.

 

Knowledge is key to everything. I've done my utmost to provide complete information.

 

Also note that ANACS would certify that "1922-D" fantasy-date over-strike half dollar as just that.

 

I take issue with your comment "I've done my utmost to provide complete information"

 

No, you haven't - by intentionally failing to mark "copy" on your "fantasy over-strikes".

[coinman_23885]

This risk of confusion is no longer hypothetical. Mike Fahey (senior authenticator ANACS) wrote a counterfeit detection column for the September 12, 2016 issue of Coin World in which he is clear that he has received "a number of emails and phone calls from confused numismatists" concerning the fantasy overstrike pieces produced by Carr in the last year.

 

Nowhere in that article did it state that the person with the "1922-D" fantasy-date over-strike half dollar paid anything more than "issue" price for it.

 

Have you inquired to find out? Do you even care? What if someone has been defrauded by someone using one of your wares?