Question about Daniel Carr offerings

That is insufficient.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I think you accidentally made a typo and added 2 letters to that last word

 

For who ? You, or the hypothetical innocent, unknowing, would be, future buyers that may be sold a misrepresented D.C. piece as a real Morgan ? I think not.

 

Safe space trigger warning issued lol. I can see both sides of this. I do see your protection angle.
Often what new people collect is not what they ultimately collect. The HSN shows sell vastly overpriced common coins, yet there is an argument that they both hurt and help the hobby.

Many times I see articles on how to encourage the young to enter the hobby. Something always has to spark the interest at the start, a coin in change maybe, but something unusual or different.
Often the most desirable pieces are those which have controversy following them.

 

The future buyers and as a deterrent for would-be scammers, of course. I stand by my thoughts on this. It is a reasonable and sensible request of DC.

 

I felt a little guilty about going to bed instead of staying up to support this thread, but I see that plenty of people stepped in to cover for me.

O noes! Someone got confused about one of these pieces! It's happening!

This does point to a serious problem in our hobby. I think we should respond by first outlawing and confiscating these coins, which continue to confuse and mislead naive collectors, at least judging from the traffic we get here on CoinTalk:

1968 no "s" dime?

3 different 1968 no S dime

1968 Dime(no S)

1968 no mint mark Roosevelt Dime

1968 dime. no s found

1968 San Fransisco mint set - No "S" on dime or quarter.

1968 no mint mark roosevelt dime

...and so on, ad nauseam. 1968 Philadelphia dimes continue to deceive new collectors. The problem is widespread, long-standing, and well-known. Clearly, the solution is to pull all 1968 Philadelphia dimes from circulation before they can lead more newbies astray. At the very least, they should all be countermarked with a "P" so that nobody will get confused in the future.

 

The FTC, which has already held that minor date variations are not enough to exempt a piece from the marking requirements of the HPA.

 

At least those are real government issued coins and not knock-offs made/overstruck in someone's recreation room. If the legislature wishes to recall older coins, it is certainly within its power to do so. The legislature has not acted, but it did act and bar fantasy coins not marked with the word "COPY" with the enactment of the HPA. Whether collectors like it or not, the HPA has the force of law. Vague notions of equity and collector opinions do not.

 

I certainly can't argue with that.

Here's one thing I have been confused about, though. In stories you and others have quoted about the latest HPA activity, the FTC is quoted as saying, presumably about these issues:

As I understand it, in legal statements (at least in contracts) there is are big differences among "shall", "will", and "must". I don't pretend to understand the nuances of those differences, but the use of the word "should" here caught my attention. It sounds more like a suggestion than a directive. Can you or anyone else shed more light on this?

(I also note their use of the term coin, as opposed to "token" or the like, although I'm not sure what significance to attach to it.)

 

The law is designed to protect those ignorant people not the people who know better. This is literally addressed in the FTC case that was recited as precedent in the newly updated HPA.

Please explain where it says that fraudulent intent has anything to do with the required stamping of imitation numismatic items. The FTC case also addresses this in that no intent to deceive need to be shown to prove a violation of the HPA has occurred.



Also the updated Hobby Protection Act cites that new laws are not necessary regarding the requirement of stamping what that old FTC court decision defined as being imitation numismatic items. Reading that which is linked below how do you determine that your over strikes somehow garner an exception from being labeled 'copy' or don't meet the requirements to be labeled imitation numismatic items by the courts definition of such? In the updated HPA they literally address your own comments that coins should be allowed to be sold with no markings. That's before going on to state the proceeding case law makes it unnecessary. As it has been addressed already where it was determined that imitation numismatic items do in fact require being marked as copies.

'2. Suggested Rules Modifications

Some commenters suggested modifications to the Rules. In particular, several commenters suggested modifications to address ‘‘fantasy coins,’’ government-issued coins altered by non-governmental entities to bear historically impossible dates or other features marketed as novelties. 15
Commenters variously suggested that the Commission require manufacturers of fantasy coins to stamp such items with a ‘‘FANTASY’’ mark, 16 expressly permit the sale of such items without an identifying mark, 17 or ban such items altogether. 18 One commenter specifically suggested expanding the Rules’ scope to incorporate the provisions of the CCPA before Congress adopted it and sent it to the President for his signature. 19

3. Analysis of Public Comments

From the responses to its 2014 request for public comment, the Commission concluded that there was a continuing need for the Rules, and that the costs they impose on businesses were reasonable.20 Commenters who addressed the subject supported the Rules, and no dealer or business expressed the view that they should be rescinded or revised to reduce costs. Further, the Commission noted that after the comments period closed, Congress expanded the Hobby Act’s scope (addressing, among others, persons who substantially assist or support manufacturers, importers, or sellers that violate the Act’s marking requirements). This change evinces Congress’ conclusion that the Rules did not impose undue costs upon businesses or the public. The Commission thus concluded that both
the record and Congressional action supported retaining the Rules. Additionally, the Commission found that it was unnecessary to amend the Rules to address specific collectible items (such as ‘‘fantasy coins,’’ as some commenters suggested) because it can address specific items as the need arises.21 Notably, the Commission has 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.22



15 See Comment of Luke Burgess, supra (offering example of Roosevelt dime altered to read ‘‘1945,’’ noting that Roosevelt dime was not introduced until 1946, and noting that such coins are not intended to be used as currency). 16 See id. 17 See Comment of Daniel Carr, available at
http://www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments/2014/09/17/comment-00010;
Comment of Armen Vartian, available at
http://www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments/2014/09/19/comment-00011.18
See Comment of Luke Burgess, supra. 19 See Comment of Armen Vartian, supra. 20 81 FR 23219, 23220. 21 81 FR 23220. 22
See 92 F.T.C. at 223 (‘‘[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 ‘orginal numismatic item’ and do not eliminate the requirement that the latter be marked with the word ‘Copy.’ ’’).

And here below is the courts opinion regarding what constitutes an imitation numismatic item from the FTC case.

 

And round and round we go. Dan, his work and research is a major boon to numismatics. In the decades to come you will find his pieces, both overstrikes and original works, soaring in value and his accomplishments great. Get on board or lament the fact that you didn't a couple decades from now

 

I would need to look at the full text and context of your quote, but the FTC ruling in In re Gold Bullion Int'l is clear that minor alterations (and specifically the alteration of a date to a fictitious one never issued) does not remove the coin's status as a counterfeit, reproduction, or copy. It held that the pieces are imitation numismatic items, and must be marked under the HPA. It was obligatory. The word "should" would most likely be a lack of technical precision in diction (but again, I would want to read the entire statement in its context to form an opinion).

Edited to add:

It also looks like the word "should" has been attributed with multiple dictionary definitions including some expressing obligation to do something:

I admit, however, that whenever I have drafted contracts, I have always used "shall" and "must" but never "should."

 

I see your point, and I also have concerns, but I am much more concerned with the fake coins being sold right now, as I am typing this, whether on EBAY, or elsewhere. Why so much effort against D.C. products, when the more immediate problems are there ? If you really want to help, why not patrol EBAY for scammers right now. I do on occasion, but so time consuming, due to the sheer volume of fakes being sold there.

 

EBay rarely pulls the listings I report. Most of the time, I don't even get a textbox to type a meaningful statement as to why the piece is problematic.

 

I do my part to report fakes, but more often than reporting, I contact the seller and attempt to educate them politely.

 

The argument to protect the hobby may well end up hurting the hobby. It seems it has no teeth to stop eBay listings or the Chinese from scamming, yet people are arguing to stop well crafted pieces with the nuances.

I also wonder how anyone can say it is a minor date change? If the date or mintmark coin does not exist, that would be major not minor.

 

I try both, reporting to eBay seems to do nothing, politely educating the seller occasionally works. More often than not the seller will argue or ignore, with a few even getting snarky!

 

Try different combinations of options. It's pretty clear to me that EBAY doesn't want them reported, so they try to make it a hassle to report fraudulent listings. Plus, they don't make money when they don't sell.

 

Yup, I deal with EBAY itself, rather than have to confront a disgruntled seller. I think most sellers know they are selling fakes, not all, but most.

 

The vast majority of Daniel Carr's metals come from his imagination and are beautifully executed. Those that are overstrikes use dates that the government never used on that particular coin. I just received the Morgan Dollar 1964-D and have never seen the government strike such an outstanding coin. There has never been a Morgan Dollar Graded MS70, but the one I got from Dan certainly would have a shot at it.

There is an Auction Network out there that needs government monitoring. They issue restrikes of government pattern coins, compare them to the ones listed in the Red Book for thousands of dollars, but never really make it clear to the viewer that the coin is NOT a government issue. They even got ANACS to slab the metal, and they conveniently, except for slip-ups, do not show the top of the slab where it states metal.

By doing overstrikes (I can't speak for Dan, my opinion only) it gives the metal the right composition, weight, size, etc. of the original coin. I have a medal he made from a quarter blank he found while refurbishing the press he bought from the Denver mint.

The government's position, as I read it, is that a coin is yours and you can do what you like to it (such as hobo coins) as long as you are not trying to deceive someone into thinking the coin is another more valuable coin. A common illegal example would be adding an "S" to 1909 VDB Lincoln Cent.

Daniel, with the overstrikes may be walking a fine line, but I hope he continues to, his overstrikes are such well made metals that they make the original government issues look bad. This is my opinion, and I hope the government leaves Dan alone.