Back to the Hobby Protection Act – Please.

[MJ]

I think 90% of non lawyers won't know what adjudication means so I would slap that on everything

 

I think 100% of Dan Carr collectors wouldn't care what he put in the description. There are not enough of his coins to go around anyways. He could slap a Prop 65 sticker on his flips stating these might cause cancer and it wouldn't effect sales one bet.

 

JMHO

 

mark

 

 

[Afterword]

"As the regulatory body which owns the HPA, they are the ones that guide the implementation of the law."

 

 

 

They will not attempt prosecution without a reasonable amount of certainty of an outcome in their favor. To not consider their lengthy failure to act as a possible indicator of a lack of such certainty would be illogical.

 

And to attempt to prosecute they have to spend alot of time to build the case. Government agencies are heavily under manned, they pick the low hanging fruit that is easy to grasp and that will make the most impact first. And that would be things like paper money counterfeiting. In DC's case with his fantasy pieces, it could be that he is so low on the totem pole for priority and so high in the tree for picking, that they just have not got around to it. I agree with physics, someone with time should file a suit or some kind of formal complaint with the FTC to resolve this issue as clearly alot of numismatists care and have differing opinions, and this is the only way to clear up this issue.

 

Personally, I think it is brazen and arrogant to tempt your fate with the feds - I have personal experience on this, and my opinion is DC is nuts to make the fantasy pieces without a legal ruling from the feds that specifically states with his name and his mint that these are perfectly legal. But it is his life, if he desires to risk his future in this way, well, he can.

 

Best, HT

 

 

 

You are right, they may not consider Carr’s fantasy pieces to be a credible threat to the numismatic community, technically legal or not. That might be why they use words like “can” instead of “will” and “should” instead of “must”.

 

“The Commission “can” address specific numismatic items as the need arises.”

 

The use of the word “can” in the above sentence suggests other considerations that determine whether or not they “will” address the issue. This ambiguity, combined with the unknown nature of the conditions applicable to a definite action, render the meaning of said passage unclear and open to interpretation.

 

“It concluded that such coins “should” be marked as a COPY because otherwise they could be mistaken for an original numismatic item.”

 

Here the use of the word "should" makes the sentence read more like a suggestion than a directive.

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Someone needs to look up certain words in Blacks.

[Afterword]

Someone needs to look up certain words in Blacks.

 

 

 

Thanks for the heads up, Mr.Mcknowitall. To which words are you referring.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

The Clark Gruber &Co. Moonlight Mint home page has links. The link to items for sale has a listing of the pieces for sale. The bottom of the descriptions have the following words:

 

"This product is NOT endorsed or approved by the U.S. Mint, U.S. Treasury or U.S. Government".

 

The DC.Coin.Com website Home page has a a link to the on line store. The same wording appears when the different products are selected from the menu.

 

The word "NOT" is in caps in the statement at both locations.

 

Is this sufficient substitute wording to set aside any use of the word "LEGAL" as previously used?

 

Is it selective avoidance of phrasing, and is is sufficient to alternative wording stating clearly that the pieces have not been adjudicated to be LEGAL or ILLEGAL and a person should purchase at their own risk?

 

Is stating the pieces are not endorsed or approved the same as stating the pieces have not been determined by adjudication to be legal or illegal?

 

Good morning, Mr. Carr.

 

Your latest posts, while interesting, somewhat "again" touched on old roads previously explored, but did not address the above.

 

I am wondering if you have had a chance to digest it yet? It is possible you missed the post.

 

I am glad that you have made some progress in your marketing program, by not implying on your website that the pieces are LEGAL, as you did by using caps for the word "LEGAL".

 

I am just not sure your latest choice of words are clear enough for the public to understand that the pieces have not been declared LEGAL or ILLEGAL by adjudication, and any purchases should be made with an understanding that adjudication has not occurred, yet.

 

 

I don't think the words "....NOT endorsed or approved.....by the U.S. Mint, U.S. Treasury or U.S. Government...." are quite clear. Maybe adding the words "...or by LEGAL adjudication..." would assist the public and be a method of full disclosure of the status of the pieces.

 

So, what do you think?

 

Good Afternoon, Mr. Carr.

 

Any thoughts about the wording yet?

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

The Clark Gruber &Co. Moonlight Mint home page has links. The link to items for sale has a listing of the pieces for sale. The bottom of the descriptions have the following words:

 

"This product is NOT endorsed or approved by the U.S. Mint, U.S. Treasury or U.S. Government".

 

The DC.Coin.Com website Home page has a a link to the on line store. The same wording appears when the different products are selected from the menu.

 

The word "NOT" is in caps in the statement at both locations.

 

Is this sufficient substitute wording to set aside any use of the word "LEGAL" as previously used?

 

Is it selective avoidance of phrasing, and is is sufficient to alternative wording stating clearly that the pieces have not been adjudicated to be LEGAL or ILLEGAL and a person should purchase at their own risk?

 

Is stating the pieces are not endorsed or approved the same as stating the pieces have not been determined by adjudication to be legal or illegal?

 

Good morning, Mr. Carr.

 

Your latest posts, while interesting, somewhat "again" touched on old roads previously explored, but did not address the above.

 

I am wondering if you have had a chance to digest it yet? It is possible you missed the post.

 

I am glad that you have made some progress in your marketing program, by not implying on your website that the pieces are LEGAL, as you did by using caps for the word "LEGAL".

 

I am just not sure your latest choice of words are clear enough for the public to understand that the pieces have not been declared LEGAL or ILLEGAL by adjudication, and any purchases should be made with an understanding that adjudication has not occurred, yet.

 

 

I don't think the words "....NOT endorsed or approved.....by the U.S. Mint, U.S. Treasury or U.S. Government...." are quite clear. Maybe adding the words "...or by LEGAL adjudication..." would assist the public and be a method of full disclosure of the status of the pieces.

 

So, what do you think?

 

Good Afternoon, Mr. Carr.

 

Any thoughts about the wording yet?

 

TTT for Mr. Carr, because he stated in the 1964 Morgan thread he is not aware of this post (again). I hope this assists.

[dcarr]

The Clark Gruber &Co. Moonlight Mint home page has links. The link to items for sale has a listing of the pieces for sale. The bottom of the descriptions have the following words:

 

"This product is NOT endorsed or approved by the U.S. Mint, U.S. Treasury or U.S. Government".

 

The DC.Coin.Com website Home page has a a link to the on line store. The same wording appears when the different products are selected from the menu.

 

The word "NOT" is in caps in the statement at both locations.

 

Is this sufficient substitute wording to set aside any use of the word "LEGAL" as previously used?

 

Is it selective avoidance of phrasing, and is is sufficient to alternative wording stating clearly that the pieces have not been adjudicated to be LEGAL or ILLEGAL and a person should purchase at their own risk?

 

Is stating the pieces are not endorsed or approved the same as stating the pieces have not been determined by adjudication to be legal or illegal?

 

Good morning, Mr. Carr.

 

Your latest posts, while interesting, somewhat "again" touched on old roads previously explored, but did not address the above.

 

I am wondering if you have had a chance to digest it yet? It is possible you missed the post.

 

I am glad that you have made some progress in your marketing program, by not implying on your website that the pieces are LEGAL, as you did by using caps for the word "LEGAL".

 

I am just not sure your latest choice of words are clear enough for the public to understand that the pieces have not been declared LEGAL or ILLEGAL by adjudication, and any purchases should be made with an understanding that adjudication has not occurred, yet.

 

 

I don't think the words "....NOT endorsed or approved.....by the U.S. Mint, U.S. Treasury or U.S. Government...." are quite clear. Maybe adding the words "...or by LEGAL adjudication..." would assist the public and be a method of full disclosure of the status of the pieces.

 

So, what do you think?

 

Good Afternoon, Mr. Carr.

 

Any thoughts about the wording yet?

 

TTT for Mr. Carr, because he stated in the 1964 Morgan thread he is not aware of this post (again). I hope this assists.

 

I had thoughts about the wording when I first wrote it. Those thoughts have not changed.

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

The Clark Gruber &Co. Moonlight Mint home page has links. The link to items for sale has a listing of the pieces for sale. The bottom of the descriptions have the following words:

 

"This product is NOT endorsed or approved by the U.S. Mint, U.S. Treasury or U.S. Government".

 

The DC.Coin.Com website Home page has a a link to the on line store. The same wording appears when the different products are selected from the menu.

 

The word "NOT" is in caps in the statement at both locations.

 

Is this sufficient substitute wording to set aside any use of the word "LEGAL" as previously used?

 

Is it selective avoidance of phrasing, and is is sufficient to alternative wording stating clearly that the pieces have not been adjudicated to be LEGAL or ILLEGAL and a person should purchase at their own risk?

 

Is stating the pieces are not endorsed or approved the same as stating the pieces have not been determined by adjudication to be legal or illegal?

 

Good morning, Mr. Carr.

 

Your latest posts, while interesting, somewhat "again" touched on old roads previously explored, but did not address the above.

 

I am wondering if you have had a chance to digest it yet? It is possible you missed the post.

 

I am glad that you have made some progress in your marketing program, by not implying on your website that the pieces are LEGAL, as you did by using caps for the word "LEGAL".

 

I am just not sure your latest choice of words are clear enough for the public to understand that the pieces have not been declared LEGAL or ILLEGAL by adjudication, and any purchases should be made with an understanding that adjudication has not occurred, yet.

 

 

I don't think the words "....NOT endorsed or approved.....by the U.S. Mint, U.S. Treasury or U.S. Government...." are quite clear. Maybe adding the words "...or by LEGAL adjudication..." would assist the public and be a method of full disclosure of the status of the pieces.

 

So, what do you think?

 

Good Afternoon, Mr. Carr.

 

Any thoughts about the wording yet?

 

TTT for Mr. Carr, because he stated in the 1964 Morgan thread he is not aware of this post (again). I hope this assists.

 

I had thoughts about the wording when I first wrote it. Those thoughts have not changed.

 

Come now Mr. Carr. You changed it from the word "LEGAL" What you are really stating in your usual deflective manner, is your original wording that stated the pieces were LEGAL exposed you and you had goofed by having that on your website, so you changed it to cloudy wording that lulls the reader into a sense of comfort...but your original thoughts are that the pieces are LEGAL. So, why change the wording at all?

[coinman_23885]

Synoptic12, what do you think?

[dcarr]

Come now Mr. Carr. You changed it from the word "LEGAL" What you are really stating in your usual deflective manner, is your original wording that stated the pieces were LEGAL exposed you and you had goofed by having that on your website, so you changed it to cloudy wording that lulls the reader into a sense of comfort...but your original thoughts are that the pieces are LEGAL. So, why change the wording at all?

 

Neither you nor I know what you are talking about.

I didn't change any wording on my website.

 

Your other post that I somehow "quietly" changed wording on something somewhere in a way that "nobody would notice" is a total fabrication.

 

And even if I did change some wording on something, so what ?

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Come now Mr. Carr. You changed it from the word "LEGAL" What you are really stating in your usual deflective manner, is your original wording that stated the pieces were LEGAL exposed you and you had goofed by having that on your website, so you changed it to cloudy wording that lulls the reader into a sense of comfort...but your original thoughts are that the pieces are LEGAL. So, why change the wording at all?

 

Neither you nor I know what you are talking about.

I didn't change any wording on my website.

 

Your other post that I somehow "quietly" changed wording on something somewhere in a way that "nobody would notice" is a total fabrication.

 

And even if I did change some wording on something, so what ?

 

Again, Mr. Carr, you are blarney trapped. Your websites are saved and depict the changes.

 

I agree, so what, indeed? I am very certain of my logic posits. I do not hold the same level of confidence in your blarney posits.

 

I wish you no ill, as hard as that is for you to grasp. In time, you may come to the logical conclusion that it is best to seek adjudication of your endeavors. It would be a selfless contribution to the hobby and a logical endeavor fitting of your talents and ability.

[dcarr]

Come now Mr. Carr. You changed it from the word "LEGAL" What you are really stating in your usual deflective manner, is your original wording that stated the pieces were LEGAL exposed you and you had goofed by having that on your website, so you changed it to cloudy wording that lulls the reader into a sense of comfort...but your original thoughts are that the pieces are LEGAL. So, why change the wording at all?

 

Neither you nor I know what you are talking about.

I didn't change any wording on my website.

 

Your other post that I somehow "quietly" changed wording on something somewhere in a way that "nobody would notice" is a total fabrication.

 

And even if I did change some wording on something, so what ?

 

Again, Mr. Carr, you are blarney trapped. Your websites are saved and depict the changes.

 

I agree, so what, indeed? I am very certain of my logic posits. I do not hold the same level of confidence in your blarney posits.

 

I wish you no ill, as hard as that is for you to grasp. In time, you may come to the logical conclusion that it is best to seek adjudication of your endeavors. It would be a selfless contribution to the hobby and a logical endeavor fitting of your talents and ability.

 

I update my websites all the time. Sometimes several times a week. I did not "quietly" change wording hoping that "nobody would notice".

 

Some wording may have been changed, but every product description for every over-strike piece still has the word "legal" (capitalization varies).

 

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Come now Mr. Carr. You changed it from the word "LEGAL" What you are really stating in your usual deflective manner, is your original wording that stated the pieces were LEGAL exposed you and you had goofed by having that on your website, so you changed it to cloudy wording that lulls the reader into a sense of comfort...but your original thoughts are that the pieces are LEGAL. So, why change the wording at all?

 

Neither you nor I know what you are talking about.

I didn't change any wording on my website.

 

Your other post that I somehow "quietly" changed wording on something somewhere in a way that "nobody would notice" is a total fabrication.

 

And even if I did change some wording on something, so what ?

 

Again, Mr. Carr, you are blarney trapped. Your websites are saved and depict the changes.

 

I agree, so what, indeed? I am very certain of my logic posits. I do not hold the same level of confidence in your blarney posits.

 

I wish you no ill, as hard as that is for you to grasp. In time, you may come to the logical conclusion that it is best to seek adjudication of your endeavors. It would be a selfless contribution to the hobby and a logical endeavor fitting of your talents and ability.

 

I update my websites all the time. Sometimes several times a week. I did not "quietly" change wording hoping that "nobody would notice".

 

Some wording may have been changed, but every product description for every over-strike piece still has the word "legal" (capitalization varies).

 

 

Thank you Mr. Carr. We have exhausted the subject.

[nk1nk]

Come now Mr. Carr. You changed it from the word "LEGAL" What you are really stating in your usual deflective manner, is your original wording that stated the pieces were LEGAL exposed you and you had goofed by having that on your website, so you changed it to cloudy wording that lulls the reader into a sense of comfort...but your original thoughts are that the pieces are LEGAL. So, why change the wording at all?

 

Neither you nor I know what you are talking about.

I didn't change any wording on my website.

 

Your other post that I somehow "quietly" changed wording on something somewhere in a way that "nobody would notice" is a total fabrication.

 

And even if I did change some wording on something, so what ?

 

Again, Mr. Carr, you are blarney trapped. Your websites are saved and depict the changes.

 

I agree, so what, indeed? I am very certain of my logic posits. I do not hold the same level of confidence in your blarney posits.

 

I wish you no ill, as hard as that is for you to grasp. In time, you may come to the logical conclusion that it is best to seek adjudication of your endeavors. It would be a selfless contribution to the hobby and a logical endeavor fitting of your talents and ability.

 

I update my websites all the time. Sometimes several times a week. I did not "quietly" change wording hoping that "nobody would notice".

 

Some wording may have been changed, but every product description for every over-strike piece still has the word "legal" (capitalization varies).

 

 

Thank you Mr. Carr. We have exhausted the subject.

 

Hallelujah praise the lord!!! This is the greatest comment of the entire thread!!!

[greysoldier]

Ain't that the truth !

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Ain't that the truth !

 

Be patient. The only subject exhausted was the use by Mr. Carr of the word "LEGAL".

 

If the end game for you is Truth, it has not quite been achieved at this time.

[jerseycat10]

Thank you Mr. Carr. We have exhausted the subject.

 

[dcarr]

I wish you no ill, as hard as that is for you to grasp. ...

 

Ain't that the truth !

 

Be patient. The only subject exhausted was the use by Mr. Carr of the word "LEGAL".

 

If the end game for you is Truth, it has not quite been achieved at this time.

 

I think you do (wish ill). I think you also wish ill on hobo nickel carvers and collectors because if you had your way there wouldn't be any.

 

Your posts frequently have a subtle passive-aggressive suggestion that something nefarious is always going on. I haven't figured out if you actually believe that, or you are just playing a game (I think maybe the latter). But either way, it is wacky

[coinman_23885]

I think you do (wish ill). I think you also wish ill on hobo nickel carvers and collectors because if you had your way there wouldn't be any.

 

Your posts frequently have a subtle passive-aggressive suggestion that something nefarious is always going on. I haven't figured out if you actually believe that, or you are just playing a game (I think maybe the latter). But either way, it is wacky

 

If we wished you ill, we would have sent the mini-brief and legal analysis provided by multiple posters to the U.S. Secret Service and Department of Justice. Contrary to what you may believe, I don't think any of the posters here have resorted to that. I think everyone is trying to keep this civil.

 

The "we" refers to your collective opposition.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I wish you no ill, as hard as that is for you to grasp. ...

 

Ain't that the truth !

 

Be patient. The only subject exhausted was the use by Mr. Carr of the word "LEGAL".

 

If the end game for you is Truth, it has not quite been achieved at this time.

 

I think you do (wish ill). I think you also wish ill on hobo nickel carvers and collectors because if you had your way there wouldn't be any.

 

Your posts frequently have a subtle passive-aggressive suggestion that something nefarious is always going on. I haven't figured out if you actually believe that, or you are just playing a game (I think maybe the latter). But either way, it is wacky

 

Thank you for your psychoanalysis Mr. Carr. A conversation usually ends in such attempts at belittlement and name calling by a participant that can not logically defend their position. You feel what you feel. It does not change the fact that your endeavors have not been adjudicated. You choose not to do so. You do not want to consider the long term aspects of your actions, including others that will attempt to follow suit. You do not grasp the long term issues for the hobby. Your psychoanalysis thoughts do not alter the issues, nor is it effective in attempting to cower or shame or silence me. It is silly to waste your time doing so. Your talents are evident as is your mechanical engineering background. That is where you should continue to concentrate your efforts. There is much you can contribute to the hobby legally.

[CascadeChris]

I wish you no ill, as hard as that is for you to grasp. ...

 

Ain't that the truth !

 

Be patient. The only subject exhausted was the use by Mr. Carr of the word "LEGAL".

 

If the end game for you is Truth, it has not quite been achieved at this time.

 

I think you do (wish ill). I think you also wish ill on hobo nickel carvers and collectors because if you had your way there wouldn't be any.

 

Your posts frequently have a subtle passive-aggressive suggestion that something nefarious is always going on. I haven't figured out if you actually believe that, or you are just playing a game (I think maybe the latter). But either way, it is wacky

 

Thank you for your psychoanalysis Mr. Carr. A conversation usually ends in such attempts at belittlement and name calling by a participant that can not logically defend their position. You feel what you feel. It does not change the fact that your endeavors have not been adjudicated. You choose not to do so. You do not want to consider the long term aspects of your actions, including others that will attempt to follow suit. You do not grasp the long term issues for the hobby. Your psychoanalysis thoughts do not alter the issues, nor is it effective in attempting to cower or shame or silence me. It is silly to waste your time doing so. Your talents are evident as is your mechanical engineering background. That is where you should continue to concentrate your efforts. There is much you can contribute to the hobby legally.

 

I think this sums you up quite well Mcknowitall

 

Projection:

 

Projection is the misattribution of a person’s undesired thoughts, feelings or impulses onto another person who does not have those thoughts, feelings or impulses. Projection is used especially when the thoughts are considered unacceptable for the person to express, or they feel completely ill at ease with having them. For example, a spouse may be angry at their significant other for not listening, when in fact it is the angry spouse who does not listen. Projection is often the result of a lack of insight and acknowledgement of one’s own motivations and feelings.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

You are probably correct. I do not have the background knowledge to confirm your thoughts.

[dcarr]

Thank you for your psychoanalysis Mr. Carr. ...

 

I'm not a professional psychologist.

 

So you may want to get a second opinion

 

[dcarr]

I think you do (wish ill). I think you also wish ill on hobo nickel carvers and collectors because if you had your way there wouldn't be any.

 

Your posts frequently have a subtle passive-aggressive suggestion that something nefarious is always going on. I haven't figured out if you actually believe that, or you are just playing a game (I think maybe the latter). But either way, it is wacky

 

If we wished you ill, we would have sent the mini-brief and legal analysis provided by multiple posters to the U.S. Secret Service and Department of Justice. Contrary to what you may believe, I don't think any of the posters here have resorted to that. I think everyone is trying to keep this civil.

 

The "we" refers to your collective opposition.

 

The "collective opposition" has already sent death threats and a complaint to the ANA (there may be more, but that is what I am aware of): ANA complaint and rebuttal .

The people behind those are not posters here, however (as far as I know).

 

This reads a lot like "ill will" to me:

Why help him [dcarr] out and give him any more free advice at this point? If anything, you are only alerting him to potential legal issues that could be used against him in the future.

 

And this:

For reasons that I will not list here (I want to give Mr. Carr more than enough metaphorical rope to hang himself with) ...

 

This doesn't exactly sound like you want to be friends.

 

Legal wrangling aside, if you had your way, would you deprive collectors of something that they want to collect and fully understand ? Like how Mr.McKnowitall would deprive hobo nickel collectors of the opportunity to enjoy them ?

 

 

[MJ]

John you are acting like a child. I know you are smarter and better then that. Please stop.

 

mark

[Afterword]

Synoptic12, what do you think?

 

 

 

If you are implying that I am Synoptic12, you are mistaken.

 

 

[MarkFeld]

Synoptic12, what do you think?

 

 

 

If you are implying that I am Synoptic12, you are mistaken.

 

 

I'm certain that he wasn't and have no Idea why you even considered that possibility.

[Afterword]

Synoptic12, what do you think?

 

 

 

If you are implying that I am Synoptic12, you are mistaken.

 

 

I'm certain that he wasn't and have no Idea why you even considered that possibility.

 

 

 

He appears to be replying to one of my posts. So I provided clarification in the event that he did indeed mean to imply I was Synoptic12.

[Zoins]

If you struck them with a produced date, everyone would agree it was criminal - why does changing a single digit (but making a coin that, for all intents and purposes, is *exactly* the same as an official release) make it OK?

 

The reasoning is due to the language of the Hobby Protection Act. The HPA requires the imitation numismatic item to purport to be an original numismatic item. In the case of an existing date, an original numismatic item exists. In the case of a fantasy date, an original numismatic item does not exist. That's just from the text of the law quoted in the OP.

[MarkFeld]

If you struck them with a produced date, everyone would agree it was criminal - why does changing a single digit (but making a coin that, for all intents and purposes, is *exactly* the same as an official release) make it OK?

 

The reasoning is due to the language of the Hobby Protection Act. The HPA requires the imitation numismatic item to purport to be an original numismatic item. In the case of a produced date, an original numismatic item exists. In the case of a fantasy date, an original numismatic item does not exist. That's just from the text of the law quoted in the OP.

 

But that's based on your personal interpretation regarding what constitutes "an original numismatic item". A number of others believe that simply changing/altering the date to one which supposedly doesn't exist doesn't preclude the item from representing "an original numismatic item". In other words, if the coin represents a US Peace Dollar, regardless of the date, it represents an original numismatic item.