Back to the Hobby Protection Act – Please.

[coinman_23885]

Synoptic12, what do you think?

 

 

 

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

 

 

I wasn't implying that at all. I usually read through multiple posts before posting, and click reply at the end to make new posts. The comment was actually a joke directed at a different poster (not even Synoptic12). It had nothing to do with you at all.

[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 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.

 

True, but having different interpretations of US law is a natural consequence of our system. When differences in interpretation arise, it needs to be settled in the courts by the judiciary. The decisions can then be made part of our legal system via case law. I don't think this has happened here yet, but that is how the US legal system would have this resolved.

[coinman_23885]

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.

 

The idea is actually more than personal belief and interpretation, but was actually the holding of a binding/precedential FTC decision interpreting the HPA in this way.

[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.

 

The idea is actually more than personal belief and interpretation, but was actually the holding of a binding/precedential FTC decision interpreting the HPA in this way.

 

For purposes of clarity, which way did the holding interpret the aforementioned HPA language? Thanks.

[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 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.

 

The idea is actually more than personal belief and interpretation, but was actually the holding of a binding/precedential FTC decision interpreting the HPA in this way.

 

For purposes of clarity, which way did the holding interpret the aforementioned HPA language? Thanks.

 

Can someone provide a link to the FTC decision?

[Afterword]

Synoptic12, what do you think?

 

 

 

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

 

 

I wasn't implying that at all. I usually read through multiple posts before posting, and click reply at the end to make new posts. The comment was actually a joke directed at a different poster (not even Synoptic12). It had nothing to do with you at all.

 

 

 

Thanks for the clarification.

[coinman_23885]

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.

 

You also missed this, 16 CFR 304.1:

 

(d) Imitation numismatic item means an item which purports to be, but in fact is not, an original numismatic item or which is a reproduction, copy, or counterfeit of an original numismatic item. Such term includes an original numismatic item which has been altered or modified in such a manner that it could reasonably purport to be an original numismatic item other than the one which was altered or modified. The term shall not include any re-issue or re-strike of any original numismatic item by the United States or any foreign government.

 

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

 

The idea is actually more than personal belief and interpretation, but was actually the holding of a binding/precedential FTC decision interpreting the HPA in this way.

 

For purposes of clarity, which way did the holding interpret the aforementioned HPA language? Thanks.

 

In re Gold Bullion Int'l, Ltd., 92 F.T.C. 196 (1978) (finding that

coins resembling government-issued coins with date variations are subject to the Rules and should be marked as a "COPY" because they could be mistaken for an original numismatic item). The FTC wrote:

 

"[M]inor variations in dates between an original and its alleged 'copy' are insufficient to deprive the latter of its status as a 'reproduction, copy or counterfeit of an 'original numismatic item' and do not eliminate the requirement that the latter be marked with the word 'Copy'." Id. at 223.

 

True, but having different interpretations of US law is a natural consequence of our system. When differences in interpretation arise, it needs to be settled in the courts by the judiciary. The decisions can then be made part of our legal system via case law. I don't think this has happened here yet, but that is how the US legal system would have this resolved.

 

In this case, Congress has delegated rule making authority to the FTC and courts will defer to those decisions/interpretations. (I won't complicate the discussion with unnecessary legalese, but if you are interested, Google Chevron deference ). The FTC decision cited above addresses the date variation idea.

[Zoins]

Regarding, 16 CFR 304.1, my interpretation is that fantasy dates are not considered original numismatic items so I did consider the text quoted above. It also seems that in the In re Gold Bullion Int'l, Ltd. original ruling, both the Administrative Law Judge and the FTC agreed that fantasy dates are not original numismatic items as defined by the Hobby Protection Act.

 

Is a link to In re Gold Bullion Int'l, Ltd. available? It seems like it would be interesting to read the quoted text in context.

 

Here's a link to the FTC proposed rule which amends it's interpretation of the Hobby Protection Act. The comments period has closed. Has it been adopted?

[coinman_23885]

Regarding, 16 CFR 304.1, my interpretation is that fantasy dates are not considered original numismatic items so I did consider the text quoted above. It also seems that in the In re Gold Bullion Int'l, Ltd. original ruling, both the Administrative Law Judge and the FTC agreed that fantasy dates are not original numismatic items as defined by the Hobby Protection Act.

 

Is a link to In re Gold Bullion Int'l, Ltd. available? It seems like it would be interesting to read.

 

Here's a link to the FTC proposed rule which amends it's interpretation of the Hobby Protection Act. The comments period has closed. Has it been adopted?

 

I pulled the case quotes from my notes. I will look to see if I still have the full decision, if not, I can pull it up later.

 

The rules that the FTC proposed had nothing to do with fantasy coins and targeted distributers and those that provide material assistance. Those were adopted this year.

 

In the Federal Register page you cite, if you read it again, you will see that it rejected the idea that a new rule needed to be promulgated to address fantasy coins as those pieces were already required to be marked. It cited the same case we are discussing.

[Zoins]

Regarding, 16 CFR 304.1, my interpretation is that fantasy dates are not considered original numismatic items so I did consider the text quoted above. It also seems that in the In re Gold Bullion Int'l, Ltd. original ruling, both the Administrative Law Judge and the FTC agreed that fantasy dates are not original numismatic items as defined by the Hobby Protection Act.

 

Is a link to In re Gold Bullion Int'l, Ltd. available? It seems like it would be interesting to read.

 

Here's a link to the FTC proposed rule which amends it's interpretation of the Hobby Protection Act. The comments period has closed. Has it been adopted?

 

I pulled the case quotes from my notes. I will look to see if I still have the full decision, if not, I can pull it up later.

 

The rules that the FTC proposed had nothing to do with fantasy coins and targeted distributers and those that provide material assistance. Those were adopted this year.

 

In the Federal Register page you cite, if you read it again, you will see that it rejected the idea that a new rule needed to be promulgated to address fantasy coins as those pieces were already required to be marked. It cited the same case we are discussing.

 

I realize the FTC's stance in their proposal. That's why, in addition to requesting the case ruling, I asked if the proposed rules have been implemented after the comment period expired. The comments period expired on July 1, 2016, but FederalRegister.gov doesn't give an indication of whether the proposal has been implemented yet, and neither does Regulations.gov. They could be in a period of incorporating comments now, though it appears they only received 1 comment.

[Afterword]

"[M]inor variations in dates between an original and its alleged 'copy' are insufficient to deprive the latter of its status as a 'reproduction, copy or counterfeit of an 'original numismatic item' and do not eliminate the requirement that the latter be marked with the word 'Copy'." Id. at 223."

 

 

 

They do not state an all encompassing 'alteration of a date' but instead imply a certain degree of alteration 'a minor alteration' and without qualifying the same.

 

What is the distinction between a minor alteration of a date and a major alteration of a date? Are major alterations to a coin exempt from the requirement of the COPY stamp? If so, does the creation of a date that no existing coin possesses constitute a ‘minor’ or ‘major’ alteration?

 

I find the quoted item above less than compelling in terms of conclusive evidence that Carr's fantasy pieces are illegal.

 

[Zoins]

The FTC recognizes that there may still be questions on whether their rules apply in specific cases and they propose to address these as the needs arise. So, if there are still questions, they can be brought up with the FTC for further clarification.

 

Additionally, it is not necessary to modify the Rules to address specific collectible items, such as “fantasy coins,” as some commenters suggested. The Commission can address specific numismatic items as the need arises.

 

[coinman_23885]

I can't find my nicely formatted copy, but here is a link to the FTCs volume for 1978 and you can find the entire decision therein. Since it is long and there are several issues, I have excerpted some quotes for you at the end of this message where the FTC defines "imitation numismatic item" in precisely the same way I have:

 

https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/commission_decision_volumes/volume-92/ftc_volume_decision_92_july_-_december_1978pages_171-273.pdf

 

(Because of the copy and pasting process, some formatting such as italics may not be preserved.)

 

D. "Imitation Numismatic Item"

 

The ALJ found that no violation had occured with respect to Gold Bullion's 20 Mark Wilhelm II (1887), 10 Mark Wilhelm I (1887) and 10 Mark Wilhelm II (1888) coins, because coins of those precise descriptions were never circulated by the Gernman government. Therefore, Gold Bullion's coins were presumably not "copies" of an "original numismatic item." (I.D. 46, 51; p. 18n). In reaching this conclusion we believe the ALJ misapplied the language of the Hobby Protection Act, and we reverse his conclusions on this point, and hold that violations have occured as the result of importation of the coins in question. [10]

 

The German government never issued a 20 Mark Wilhelm II coin in 1887, doubtless out of respect for Kaiser Wilhelm I, who occupied the throne throughout that year. (Tr. 245). Germany did, however, issue a 20 Mark Wilhelm II coin dated 1888. Similarly, it issued a 10 Mark Wilhelm I in 1888, (instead of 1887 as marked on Bold Bullion's coins) and a 10 Mark Wilhelm II in 1889 (instead of 1888 as marked on Gold Bullion's coins).

 

The Hobby Protection Act plainly does not require marking only of coins that are exact replicas in every detail, of original government coinage. Rather an "imitation numismatic item" is defined as a "reproduction, copy or counterfeit of an original numismatic item." [15 U.S.C. 2106(4)] While we are left for an elucidation of the meaning of "reproduction" and "copy" to the dictionary, or cases drawn from such relatively remote areas as copy right law we need not write upon a legally barren slate when construing the meaning of "counterfeit." [11]...

 

Courts construing the criminal counterfeit statutes have recognized that the alleged counterfeit need only be "sufficiently complete to be an imitation of and to resemble the genuine article." United States v. Johnson, 434 F.2d 827, 830 (9th Cir. 1970) emphasis added. The likeness or resemblance must be one such "as is calculated to deceive an honest, sensible and unsuspecting person of ordinary observation and care when dealing with a person supposed to be upright and honest." United States v. Smith, 318 F.2d 94 (4th Cir. 1963). It is not necessary that the similarity be so great as to deceive experts of cautious persons. United States v. Weber, 210 F. 973, 976 (W.D. Wash. 1913); United States v. Sprague, 48 F. 828 (D.C. Wis. 1882). Applying these standards, courts have recognized that a "counterfeit" coin may embody fairly significant deviations from the genuine issue it is designed to copy....

 

Applying these principles here, we think it plain that a deviation of one digit in the date on a coin is not likely to distinguish it sufficiently from the original [12] to alert an "unsuspecting person of ordinary observation and care" whom the criminal counterfeit law protects, let alone the "ignorant, unthinking and credulous" who are not excluded from the protection of civil consumer law. Aronberg v. FTC, 132 F.2d 165 (7th Cir. 1942); Exposition Press, Inc. v. FTC, 295 F.2d 869 (2d Cir. 1962).

 

While those who ordinarily deal in coins may well possess a degree of knowledge as to coins superior to that of an average member of the public, it is nevertheless likely that a purchaser lacking access to a manual (and one which he or she is prepared to trust) listing the precise dates of issue of the coins in question, might be fooled as to the authenticity of a coin identical in all respects but the date of the original issue....

 

Ignoring their prior representations to consumers, respondents argue that the date of a coin is one "material factor" in its definition citing support excerpts from the Standard Catalog of World Coins (RX 43). But all that catalog points out is that the date borne by a coin is one important factor by which one may identify the coin and verify its authenticity. (RX43f). This does not mean that an alteration of one digit in the date on an imitation of an original renders the copy no longer a "counterfeit" capable of fooling one who does not consult the Standard Catalog of World Coins, just as the use of fake serial numbers or the omission of serial numbers entirely would not suffice to remove an imitation $10 note from the purview of the counterfeit laws. United States v. Chodor, supra, 479 F.2d 664. [14]

 

The position of respondents seems to be that there are certain features of a coin that determine its "identity" or "essence," which are the date, and that a simulation that fails to embody in precise detail that "essence" is neither a "reproduction, copy, or counterfeit," regardless of what a purchaser might believe. This approach, however, lacks foundation in the wording of the statute or its history and intent, and would create insuperable problems of construction. [15]

 

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that a coin is an "imitation numismatic item" within the meaning of the Hobby Protection Act if it is not sufficiently different from an original numismatic item as to alert an unsuspecting purchaser to the difference. Applying that principle here, we find that minor variations in dates between an original and its alleged "copy" are insufficient to deprive the latter of its status as a "reproduction, copy or counterfeit" of an "original numismatic item" and do not eliminate the requirement that the latter be marked with the word "Copy." Accordingly respondents violated the law by their failure to mark "Copy" upon their 10 Mark Wilhelm I (1887), 10 Mark Wilhelm II (1888), and 20 Mark Wilhelm II (1887).

 

 

[coinman_23885]

The FTC recognizes that there may still be questions on whether their rules apply in specific cases and they propose to address these as the needs arise. So, if there are still questions, they can be brought up with the FTC for further clarification.

 

Additionally, it is not necessary to modify the Rules to address specific collectible items, such as “fantasy coins,” as some commenters suggested. The Commission can address specific numismatic items as the need arises.

 

Absolutely, although I am not sure that there are any issues that the FTC has not already addressed. Did you read the Federal Register page in its entirety that you linked? It states that "fantasy coins" are already required to be marked. The decision cited says that date variations to imaginary dates is not sufficient to remove it from the purview of the HPA or counterfeiting statutes. How much clearer can this issue be?

[coinman_23885]

How was I roped in to responding to this thread again?

[dcarr]

In other words, if the coin represents a US Peace Dollar, regardless of the date, it represents an original numismatic item.

 

But a "1964-D" over-strike Peace Dollar is an (altered/defaced) Peace Dollar type.

[Zoins]

The FTC recognizes that there may still be questions on whether their rules apply in specific cases and they propose to address these as the needs arise. So, if there are still questions, they can be brought up with the FTC for further clarification.

 

Additionally, it is not necessary to modify the Rules to address specific collectible items, such as “fantasy coins,” as some commenters suggested. The Commission can address specific numismatic items as the need arises.

 

Absolutely, although I am not sure that there are any issues that the FTC has not already addressed. Did you read the Federal Register page in its entirety that you linked? It states that "fantasy coins" are already required to be marked. The decision cited says that date variations to imaginary dates is not sufficient to remove it from the purview of the HPA or counterfeiting statutes. How much clearer can this issue be?

 

From the discussions I've been following on this thread and others, there still seems to be differing opinions on whether the FTC was considering overstruck coins. Anytime there is a difference in opinion, the FTC or courts or other government agencies can be consulted.

[nk1nk]

The FTC recognizes that there may still be questions on whether their rules apply in specific cases and they propose to address these as the needs arise. So, if there are still questions, they can be brought up with the FTC for further clarification.

 

Additionally, it is not necessary to modify the Rules to address specific collectible items, such as “fantasy coins,” as some commenters suggested. The Commission can address specific numismatic items as the need arises.

 

Absolutely, although I am not sure that there are any issues that the FTC has not already addressed. Did you read the Federal Register page in its entirety that you linked? It states that "fantasy coins" are already required to be marked. The decision cited says that date variations to imaginary dates is not sufficient to remove it from the purview of the HPA or counterfeiting statutes. How much clearer can this issue be?

 

Let me spell it out for you O V E R S T U C K. The fantasy coin case you think is so definitive is not an overstruck coin.

[MarkFeld]

In other words, if the coin represents a US Peace Dollar, regardless of the date, it represents an original numismatic item.

 

But a "1964-D" over-strike Peace Dollar is an (altered/defaced) Peace Dollar type.

 

And thus it represents an original numismatic item. Under your reasoning, why couldn't you do the same with a Lincoln cent and change the date to a 1914-D?

[dcarr]

The FTC recognizes that there may still be questions on whether their rules apply in specific cases and they propose to address these as the needs arise. So, if there are still questions, they can be brought up with the FTC for further clarification.

 

Additionally, it is not necessary to modify the Rules to address specific collectible items, such as “fantasy coins,” as some commenters suggested. The Commission can address specific numismatic items as the need arises.

 

Absolutely, although I am not sure that there are any issues that the FTC has not already addressed. Did you read the Federal Register page in its entirety that you linked? It states that "fantasy coins" are already required to be marked. The decision cited says that date variations to imaginary dates is not sufficient to remove it from the purview of the HPA or counterfeiting statutes. How much clearer can this issue be?

 

From the FTC commentary:

 

Notably, the Commission has already addressed whether coins resembling government-issued coins with date variations are subject to the Rules. In re Gold Bullion Int'l, Ltd., 92 F.T.C. 196 (1978). It concluded that such coins should be marked as a “COPY” because otherwise they could be mistaken for an original numismatic item.

 

"coins resembling government-issued coins":

 

In the GBI case, German Wilhelm coins were privately fabricated using anonymous blanks and they utilized dates not previously utilized for genuine coins of that type. So, date aside, these were copies of the German Wilhelm gold coin type. These were also deceptively marketed by the maker as genuine German Mint re-strikes.

 

A "1964-D" over-strike Peace Dollar (for example), IS a government-issued coin that has been altered or defaced. They are not copies of a Peace Dollar type. They are genuine Peace Dollar type coins that have been altered. And the alteration does not purport to be of a date that was actually issued for that coin type.

[dcarr]

In other words, if the coin represents a US Peace Dollar, regardless of the date, it represents an original numismatic item.

 

But a "1964-D" over-strike Peace Dollar is an (altered/defaced) Peace Dollar type.

 

And thus it represents an original numismatic item. Under your reasoning, why couldn't you do the same with a Lincoln cent and change the date to a 1914-D?

 

Because 1914-D cents were actually issued, and they are well-known in the numismatic field as a rare premium-value date.

 

1964-D Peace Dollars were never issued, so they can not be "part of a coinage or issue used in commerce".

[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 ?

 

 

No reply to the above ?

 

[MarkFeld]

In other words, if the coin represents a US Peace Dollar, regardless of the date, it represents an original numismatic item.

 

But a "1964-D" over-strike Peace Dollar is an (altered/defaced) Peace Dollar type.

 

And thus it represents an original numismatic item. Under your reasoning, why couldn't you do the same with a Lincoln cent and change the date to a 1914-D?

 

Because 1914-D cents were actually issued, and they are well-known in the numismatic field as a rare premium-value date.

 

1964-D Peace Dollars were never issued, so they can not be "part of a coinage or issue used in commerce".

 

You implied that in the case of your 1964-D dollars, over-strikes are exceptions to "represents an original numismatic item" (because they were actual over struck Peace dollars). Now your justification is because 1964-D's weren't issued. But they were produced. Can you point me to language which allows that issued vs. produced distinction?

[RWB]

Does Mr. Carr have a letter from the U.S. Attorney General stating that his items are legal to make, sell and own?

Nope. Just more Carr quacks.

 

Maybe a letter from the 4th assistant deputy AG's cocker spaniel dog?

Nope. More quacking.

 

Maybe a letter from his Granny?

Nope. More quacking.

 

Nearly every crook proclaims their innocence....a mere" babe in the woods," or "it's 'their' fault," or some other set of lies and attempts to redirect attention away from illegal and immoral actions.

[coinman_23885]

The FTC recognizes that there may still be questions on whether their rules apply in specific cases and they propose to address these as the needs arise. So, if there are still questions, they can be brought up with the FTC for further clarification.

 

Additionally, it is not necessary to modify the Rules to address specific collectible items, such as “fantasy coins,” as some commenters suggested. The Commission can address specific numismatic items as the need arises.

 

Absolutely, although I am not sure that there are any issues that the FTC has not already addressed. Did you read the Federal Register page in its entirety that you linked? It states that "fantasy coins" are already required to be marked. The decision cited says that date variations to imaginary dates is not sufficient to remove it from the purview of the HPA or counterfeiting statutes. How much clearer can this issue be?

 

From the FTC commentary:

 

Notably, the Commission has already addressed whether coins resembling government-issued coins with date variations are subject to the Rules. In re Gold Bullion Int'l, Ltd., 92 F.T.C. 196 (1978). It concluded that such coins should be marked as a “COPY” because otherwise they could be mistaken for an original numismatic item.

 

"coins resembling government-issued coins":

 

In the GBI case, German Wilhelm coins were privately fabricated using anonymous blanks and they utilized dates not previously utilized for genuine coins of that type. So, date aside, these were copies of the German Wilhelm gold coin type. These were also deceptively marketed by the maker as genuine German Mint re-strikes.

 

A "1964-D" over-strike Peace Dollar (for example), IS a government-issued coin that has been altered or defaced. They are not copies of a Peace Dollar type. They are genuine Peace Dollar type coins that have been altered. And the alteration does not purport to be of a date that was actually issued for that coin type.

 

We have been over this, and this argument was rejected by a federals appeals courts (the Wilson case that was discussed in other threads). Of course this wasn't decided under the HPA, but the court did find the resulting coins were counterfeits. The HPA, however, covers all reproductions, copies, and counterfeits per the plain meaning of the language in the statute.

[coinman_23885]

No reply to the above ?

 

I will let my words and positions speak for themselves. This is not personal, in my opinion (and I believe it is supported by case law) you are running a high tech counterfeiting operation. Yes, if I had my way, I would deprive you of the ability to produce your fantasy coins (unless they were marked as required by the HPA).

[Zoins]

Opinions are just that, opinions. I don't think anyone on this thread is authorized by the Federal government to interpret the laws of the land for others.

 

Back in 2014, Roger took action against Dan to have him expelled from the ANA. While the ANA may not be authorized to interpret Federal law, they can evaluate members against the ANA Bylaws and Code of Ethics. After review at the time, the ANA decided to take no action. For those interested in attempting to apply this new ruling, should another action be taken?

 

I bring this up because I'm not sure minds will be changed based on opinion. Additionally, Dan has stated he believes in his rights strongly enough that he will defend them, as he did in the ANA case linked above. Would it not be better to have the officials address this instead of seemingly never ending, never resolved discussions?

[coinman_23885]

In other words, if the coin represents a US Peace Dollar, regardless of the date, it represents an original numismatic item.

 

But a "1964-D" over-strike Peace Dollar is an (altered/defaced) Peace Dollar type.

 

And thus it represents an original numismatic item. Under your reasoning, why couldn't you do the same with a Lincoln cent and change the date to a 1914-D?

 

Because 1914-D cents were actually issued, and they are well-known in the numismatic field as a rare premium-value date.

 

1964-D Peace Dollars were never issued, so they can not be "part of a coinage or issue used in commerce".

 

You implied that in the case of your 1964-D dollars, over-strikes are exceptions to "represents an original numismatic item" (because they were actual over struck Peace dollars). Now your justification is because 1964-D's weren't issued. But they were produced. Can you point me to language which allows that issued vs. produced distinction?

 

His style is very much like that of a politician. He doesn't answer the question or gives a very vague answer (relying on logical fallacies and strawmen arguments) and then tries to deflect and pivot to something else. Maybe had he used this talent to run for political office, he could work to revise the law so that it would protect the uninformed while allowing for reasonable amendments to the HPA to allow for artistic expression. Instead he blatantly ignores the law (in my opinion of course).

[coinman_23885]

Opinions are just that, opinions. I don't think anyone on this thread is authorized by the Federal government to interpret the laws of the land for others.

 

Back in 2014, Roger took action against Dan in the context of the ANA. While the ANA may not be authorized to interpret Federal law, they can evaluate members against the ANA Bylaws and Code of Ethics. After review at the time, the ANA decided to take no action. For those interested in attempting to apply this new ruling, should another test be taken?

 

You use the phrase "new ruling" which implies that you believe it has some sort of precedential value. It does not. The ANA can barely even handle its own legal affairs, and we are expected to blindly rely on their judgment? The issue before them was merely whether he violated the ANA Code of Ethics (or whatever they call it). If it doesn't want to enforce its bylaws, it is free to ignore them. Federal courts are not given the same leniency with respect to the law.

 

P.S. Mr. Carr: Isn't one of your family members a Colorado attorney? If so, why haven't you had your family member file a declaratory judgment action for you if you are convinced that you are correct and that no reasonable judge or jury would adopt my legal interpretation? I PMed you long ago the case information for Boggs that you could use as a head start. The filing fee for federal district court is only $400 (less than the cost of four of your newest pieces), and I am sure your family member would be more than happy to cut you a deal on legal fees.

[Zoins]

Opinions are just that, opinions. I don't think anyone on this thread is authorized by the Federal government to interpret the laws of the land for others.

 

Back in 2014, Roger took action against Dan in the context of the ANA. While the ANA may not be authorized to interpret Federal law, they can evaluate members against the ANA Bylaws and Code of Ethics. After review at the time, the ANA decided to take no action. For those interested in attempting to apply this new ruling, should another test be taken?

 

You use the phrase "new ruling" which implies that you believe it has some sort of precedential value. It does not. The ANA can barely even handle its own legal affairs, and we are expected to blindly rely on their judgment? The issue before them was merely whether he violated the ANA Code of Ethics (or whatever they call it). If it doesn't want to enforce its bylaws, it is free to ignore them. Federal courts are not given the same leniency with respect to the law.

 

P.S. Mr. Carr: Isn't one of your family members an attorney? If so, why haven't you had your family member file a declaratory judgment action for you if you are convinced that you are correct and that no reasonable judge or jury would adopt my legal interpretation? I PMed you long ago the case information for Boggs that you could use as a head start. The filing fee for federal district court is only $400 (less than the cost of four of your newest pieces), and I am sure your family member would be more than happy to cut you a deal on legal fees.

 

To have a declaratory judgement, doesn't there need to be a legal action? Since you appear to feel strongly enough to try to influence others on this, why don't you take Dan to court? It seems like someone will need to take some legal action to get the declaratory judgement you are interested in. Dan has stated that he is willing and able to defend his position.