Just got the elusive 1916 Barber Half....

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

The horse isn't dead yet!

 

No. Not at all. You'd be creating counterfeit coins. I say this because its the "Government Assay" of the individual coins that matters, not the alloy once a bunch of them have been melted into a poundable bar.

As for your comment in your "P.S.? He did not over strike Franklins onto Kennedy Halfs.

Read the production blog: http://www.moonlightmint.com/blog_5.htm

USC 18 was written to prevent counterfeiting which is essentially the "creation" of money which Congress has not authorized.

The HPA was written to prevent the "creation" of replica collectible coins without adding the word COPY to the coin which was created. For example, if the Moonlight Mint began over-striking Lincoln Wheat Cents with dies made to look like the 1955/55, then COPY would be required because it would be a "COPY" of an existing collectible numismatic item.

Counterfeit key coins have been around since collectors began collecting and the HPA basically states that its OK to create a "replica" of an existing coin as long as it is properly identified.

 

NOTHING is 100% certain and the potential for what you've described has existed for nearly 5 years yet, it has not occurred.

And despite the fact that its an easy-peasy, untraceable thing to create a photograph, scan it and upload it on a "public computer", not a single photograph has been offered for an actual 1964-D Peace Dollar. Even with PCGS's $10,000 reward.

For those that say that PCGS would be required to report the coin to the Federal Authorities, I should remind them that PCGS has graded "unauthorized" and supposedly illegal coins in the past. Specifically, the 1974 Aluminum Cent and most recently the 1974-D Aluminum Cent. I would think that if any 64-D did exist, that they'd have surfaced by now. Even the 1933 Saints floated to the top and the 1913 Liberty Nickels are openly traded. But, I digress.

The fraud which some like to say "is going to happen", simply has not happened for the most "famous" of the Daniel Carr's coins.

 

It is not over until the horse is made into a fine pulp that can be used to make glue...

You are ignoring a significant part of 18 USC 485. To fall within the statute, there are two separate offenses codified by an "or" operator meaning that only one is needed to invoke the statute. One offense is creating a piece in the "resemblance or similitude" to U.S. coinage as discussed throughout this thread. The other involves possessing or uttering, and there are separate statutory elements, like what you mention. Either will invoke the statute if you apply the plain meaning of the statute. Reading the first paragraph/statute as superfluous would violate well established principles of statutory interpretation and it would also ignore 18 USC 487, which suggests that it is more than just uttering or passing the coin that the government is concerned with. After all, it is possible to produce the dies without ever striking the first coin.

 

Doug is correct on the HPA stuff. The Hobby Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. 2106, clearly defines the term:

Additionally, 15 U.S.C. 2101 (C) authorizes the FTC to promulgate administrative regulations which carry the full force of law to effect the HPA. It has done so in 16 CFR 304.1 which expands upon the definition of "imitation numismatic item" defined in 15 U.S.C. 2106 and has clarified it to include "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."

Peace Dollars unequivocally circulated in the U.S. are part of an issue of United States Coinage and are "original numismatic items." Your process makes a Peace Dollar look to be a date and issue other than what it truly is; thus, it is making "an original numismatic item which has been altered...in such a manner that it could reasonably purport to be an original numismatic item..."

 

That is like saying gun manufactures are responsible for homicides and car manufactures are responsible for drunk drivers.

 

My position is not quite what you state here.

I do not claim any legal-tender status for my over-strikes. Nor do I advocate that anyone attempt to used them in that manner.

The threshold of how much defacement a coin can have before it is no longer legal tender is not known.

From the point of view of currency counterfeiting, there is a difference between striking a realistic-looking half dollar on an anonymous piece of metal compared to over-striking on a legal-tender half dollar. In the latter case, the item started out as legal tender and the apparent face value is not changed by the over-strike (and no metal is added or removed and there is no heating or melting).

"Falsely make" does not apply to the defacement of existing coins for non-fraudulent purposes. It speaks to the manufacture of outright currency counterfeits.

 

The metal (except for the date digit) is pushed back into the form that it was in originally. A restored classic car is like new (condition), but it isn't a new car.

 

Every time the US Mint issues a rare coin, there is the potential for someone to perpetrate a scam involving it. See my post #90 in this thread (quoted below). Is that the US Mint's fault ? Of course not. It is the fault of the person perpetrating the scam.

 

The upper half of one side (the mining scene) is taken from an original Lesher token circa 1900-1901. The rest is my original design but in the style of the Lesher tokens.

 

The over-striking pushes the original metal back into the original shape (except for the one date digit).

In 1942 a WW2 aircraft (a P38 Lightning) crash-landed in Greenland. 50 years later, it was excavated from 250 feet deep in the ice. The enormous weight of the ice had crushed it nearly flat. Over a period of several years, the aircraft was restored to flying condition and was re-named "Glacier Girl". Is Glacier Girl a reproduction of a P-38, or is it a real P-38 ?

 

I did over-strike two "1964" Franklin half dollars on 1964 Kennedy half dollars. Neither of those was released, however.

Regardless, I certainly agree with your post.

 

1964-D Peace Dollars were never issued. They were never used as a medium of exchange. They never circulated. They were never released. Same for "1916" Barber half dollars.

As such, they do not fit the HPA criteria for an "original numismatic item". Although in some ways my over-strikes are "original numismatic items" in their own right, now that they are listed in coin catalogs, prices guides, independently certified (ANACS), widely known and collected, etc.

 

As discussed throughout this thread, defacing a genuine legal-tender coin is quite a bit different than taking an anonymous blank piece of metal and making it into a whole new item that is in the resemblance or similitude to U.S. coinage.

 

COTC = Copy of the Century..........

 

Were they destroyed?

 

It is becoming intuitively obvious that a lot of the negative posters have allowed their emotions to overcome logical thinking with regard to why coins exist in the first place AND the governments wording of counterfeiting laws (such as using the word "uttering" as in you can't even talk about doing such things) and the purpose behind the laws which basically amounts to nothing more than a US Government guarantee that, regardless of condition, the coins which they mint have the specified value imprinted on them for US Commerce.

Even though gold and silver are no longer used, that basic understanding still exists.

"Coin Collectors" and the huge sums they pay for certain coins was the impetus behind the HPA assuming that the coin collectors had a reasonable grasp of the coins they were collecting.

 

Nice try, but it reads "which has been a part of a coinage or issue." Assuming that none were ever released as you contend (which is far from established given the Mint's history with other ultra rarities that supposedly were destroyed), the coins struck were unquestionably part of the Peace Dollar series; thus, it satisfies the criteria spelled out above.

You and the others seem to have problems distinguishing between the conjunctive operator "and" and the disjunctive operator "or." If the latter is used, only one of the cited conditions must be present to invoke the statute or administrative regulation.

 

With all due respect, if anyone is being overtaken by emotion or bias, it is not the posters critical of his work. Rather, many people seem to struggle with one of the most fundamental and well accepted principles of statutory and administrative regulation interpretation: When the law is unambiguous, it needs no interpretation and it speaks for itself. You and the others reading in an intent element (i.e. whether he intended to defraud or not) are either incorporating elements from different offenses (not permissible) or incorporating your view of what you think Congress was trying to accomplish. The plain meaning of the statute is unambiguous and the other analysis is contrived and not relevant. Moreover, if we seek to ascertain what Congress meant, looking to the other statute in the same chapter of related offenses, 18 USC 487, would suggest that it means much more than you claim.

In any event, I would be very interested in knowing whether there is anyone here who agrees with Carr's analysis who a) dislikes his work and/or b)does not actually own some of his fantasy overstrikes. It seems to me that people who have paid premiums for his pieces have a bias because the legality of their coin (and ultimately money) would be in question if Carr is wrong in light of new legislation meant to fortify the HPA that would seemingly prevent the sale of the said pieces. In other words, if Carr's argument is wrong, you stand to lose.

Edited to add: The Collectible Coin Protection Act prohibits the sale of pieces that do not comply with the HPA and/or those that are counterfeit (if the pieces were ever adjudicated as such).