A step in the right direction, but.........

......do we call the feds instead of SleazeBay?

http://news.coinupdate.com/collectible-coin-protection-act-becomes-law-4637/

Chris

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Won't help with the sellers in china. But they would probably get us if we sold fake Chinese coins from the US to people in china.

I wonder how you would even begin to report it - because there have been a few sellers on ebay I would have like to report to the feds.

 

Apparently, the new law not only targets anyone who facilitates the sale of counterfeit coins but those who use counterfeit slabs of reputable certification companies to perpetrate the crime.

Chris

 

Wait, does this apply to all counterfeit coins? Does this end collecting imitation colonial era coins?

 

Yay

 

That doesn't do much to solve the problem. The fakes are getting scary good... do the feds have officials and judges who are experts on detecting counterfeit collectible coins and other items? Even if they did I think anything reported would go on a backlog years long. More than long enough for any individual front operation to get rich and disappear of their own accord.
The real threat isn't run-of-the-mill flea market copies, it's high end numismatic forgeries that fool even seasoned collectors. I feel like this legislation only addresses the former, as there is room for debate on the latter.

 

My question here is this. Who is sponsoring and writing this law on behalf of us collectors?

I never heard anything about it here, no mention of support, no asking for ideas, and while I dont believe everything coin related needs posted on CoinTalk, this sure seems big, with lots of implications into many of our businesses, and I never heard a peep unless I just entirely missed it.

 

Well Im just curious, because it sounds like something we wouldve wanted, had it addressed the correct problems, it just seems to have made the waters more muddy and not capable of going after the culprits that arent in this country to begin with. So who was up there jumping up and down for it to pass? Was it a stand-a-lone bill? Was it a rider?

Just off the few posts that have been made already, it seems to have created more problems than it will solve, and nothing will even happen until like you said all the various cases get brought to court.

 

Im glad this is in place, and always wanted it. But now that it "here", im realizing that it leaves a lot of unanswered questions. Im not sure where they can draw a line on this, and if they can, how can they prove intent? Unless of course, you have a wheel barrel full of 16d Mercs.

 

Maybe, someday, someone will "transcribe" the new changes into the old law.

I can't. It makes me dizzy so I expect that enforcement will be "business as usual".
Meaning, no enforcement.

 

Wouldn't "proof on intent" simply amount to proving that whomever manufactured the piece sold it as original?

Nah. That's too simple.

Well gee! How was I to know that when the tide comes in it covers up the lot?? I don't live here!

 

Yes. If they can prove who is manufacturing or distributing the pieces. But I have a better chance of finding a AU 09s vdb in circulation, then discovering a ship in our harbors with a crate full of counterfeits. We know a lot of coins come from China, and the US use more products from there than any of our own.

 

This will only increase outsourcing lol

 

if that person knows or should have known that the manufacturer, importer, or seller is engaged in activity that violates the act.

If a person doesn't know and shouldn't know I e not buying thousands of the same rare coin at $3 each then the law is a bit clearer in my reading of it then I think you are saying. If Ngo certifies a coin and you sell it if they didn't know then it looks to me that you the buyer and then seller shouldn't have known either

 

"The Collectible Coin Protection Act strengthens the original Hobby Protection Act by now making the sale of unmarked replica coins illegal and also expanding the scope to include any person who provides substantial assistance or support to any manufacturer, importer, or seller if that person knows or should have known that the manufacturer, importer, or seller is engaged in activity that violates the act."

I think we are reading different articles. The article I read says knows or should have known. I interpret this to mean that if you do know, or should know. To me "should know" means if you are displaying yourself as a rare coin dealer and selling thousands of 1804 dollars there is a problem. I don't see how a reasonable person could think that a standard coin dealer should know it is fake if it fooled ngc as well.

We really just don't see eye to eye here doug.