Try to keep the noise down

Nice to see you around doc.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Thanks for your opinion. I've read it before. Nothing more for you to add here and as you are the FIRST REPLY it seems that you are trying to stir up trouble. If I were a moderator, I would PM you with a warning that if you posted again on this thread I would suspend you for a day or two.

 

It's his opinion, Insider, and I respect it. He feels passionately, and I understand that. The thread, so far, is alive and well and ain't going to Haides in a handbasket like some of the other DC threads.





Just keep the noise down people.

 

The argument about the legality of these coins is certainly interest and obviously people here are very passionate about it. On one hand, yes they are essentially high quality copies of a US coin but on the other hand they are coins that never existed in the first place.

Here is my take on it...and this is my opinion and my opinion only. I'm not looking to argue or stir the pot.

In my personal opinion, this coin does not violate the Hobby Protection Act of 1973 because it is not a copy of a real coin. Therefore, anyone who participates in his hobby and has the slightest education should know it is not a real coin. If it was a 1921-D it would need to be marked "COPY" but since a 1964-D Morgan never existed in the first place...it is a copy of nothing. Therefore it shouldn't need to me marked as such.

On the flip side (and this is my personal opinion again)...this coin does strongly resemble real government issued currency that could still circulate. Therefore, it could be mistaken for real money and spent. Since it is not real but could easily be passed on as such...I suppose counterfeit laws could come into play if it was ever to be spent.

Again, my take only.

 

Just saw this was an old thread. Of course he can have a say - his grading opinions are a BIG ASSET to CT. Glad I didn't tag @physics-fan3.14 for his old post.

 

As some one mentioned earlier Richie, that would be 'fraud'........

 

You are absolutely right...it would be fraud. I just wonder if the manufacture of the coin could be held liable for such fraud. I honestly don't know, but I hope not.

 

We're not lawyers........thank God.

 

Hey, idiots and lawyers want to prosecute gun manufactures, car manufactures, bar owners etc. when someone misuses their products. In my world, IN MOST CASES (there probably are a few exceptions so STUFF YOUR COMMENTS about them) these idiots would be thrown out of court AND be fined for being stupid and wasting the court's time. Adults need to be responsible for their personal actions. The world would be better for it.

 

I couldn't agree more.

 

Well, unfortunately the *LAW* as currently written disagrees with you. As @Coinchemistry 2012 has explained many times, both here and on the NGC forums, any piece which looks exactly like the original but has only changed the date/mintmark, is still considered an illegal counterfeit and requires the COPY mark.

And just because he hasn't been prosecuted yet doesn't mean that what he's doing isn't illegal. It just means it hasn't caught up with him yet.

 

Final HPA revision to go into effect tomorrow. I think there was a proposal to require fantasy coins to be labeled with the word 'FANTASY' but it must have been rejected.

http://www.coinworld.com/news/us-coins/2016/11/hobby-protection-act-undergoes-revision.all.html

 

Perhaps someone here can go whining to the Feds about this for their own gratification and ruin things for the rest of us.

That's just what we need in this country, more self-righteous, nitpicking do gooders to worry about unimportant things. Don't sweat the small stuff. It's too bad trivial borderline law-breaking has become so important to many while real criminals get ignored by most of us. I'll include myself in that category as I haven't objected directly to anything going on either.

 

So back to the original thread...your photo (while a wee bit on the dark side Lord Vader) makes her look like she has a peaches 'n' creme complexion it almost looks burnished or satin finished, all the ghosting clearly shows up so I'd say you did a nice job Green...hope the new studio works out well for you...aaah the toys the toys!!! LOL

 

Boom!

 

Hey, I'll bet one day these fantasy coins will be very popular with ALL collectors and the coins with the most parts of the under -design visible will be worth the most...just like our half cents struck on cut-down TAL tokens.

 

+ 1,000,000. I work around those creeps day in and day out. I don't need more here.

 

Here's the problem with turning to statutes, p-f pi, SOMETIMES they're obsolete while still on the books. I'm sitting here with literally tons of law books and in each of them there are statutes on the books that a court has invalidated, yet they remain on the books. Determining what is and is not illegal involves NOT ONLY statute, but case law and prosecutorial discretion as well.

And then again, sometimes courts MAKE things illegal that statute says ARE legal. I've been involved in one of those, too.

Basically, co-equal branches is a myth. We effectively have one branch that is superior to the other two - the judiciary.

 

With the same fact set, Doug? I'm going to need a citation on that. Even if there is a citation, we now have a new regulatory backup to the new HPA of 2014. Dan Carr was a FULL participant in the comment period for these regs, so no one can reasonably claim that the feds are not aware of what Dan is doing, and how. Until a prosecutorial authority moves on him, what Dan is doing is quite legal, and just got even more legal today.

Here's one change that could make Dan's pieces illegal - if silver got down to about a buck an ounce. New situation - because his pieces would become standard commerce pieces.