Question about Daniel Carr offerings

How would you ever get that idea???

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I'll bet you say that to all the horses.

 

He's one of those social justice warriors. I'll bet you a shiny new dime.

 

The horse has been here as long as Doug I believe, 2 years before myself. I don't know how many hoof years that is, but he is what he is.

 

I just made a comment, you can take it any way you want. I thought the thread was about Daniel Carr and some people are very passionate about his work. To sit on the side and make remarks, that IMHO are not very funny, takes away from the discussion. I never mentioned a name, but I guess if the shoe fits, wear it. I guess I can mare, err I meant bear, a few tries at humor. The dime will probably be "dull".

 

These prehistoric horses.


(I'm clearly joking.)

 

The GBI products were not over-strikes. So in no way could they be considered altered coins. And GBI clearly had fraudulent intent because their wares were intentionally marketed as official German Mint restrikes.

 

The base premise of this argument is false, that laws are being violated.

ROM's marketing commentary made implications which were questionable. They were nicely asked if they would stop using "Daniel Carr" in their listings because doing so actually does violate eBay keyword and intellectual property (brand name) policy.

If they want to go and make their own fantasy-date over-strikes, however they want, that is their business. I would have nothing to say about that, so long as they leave my name out if it.

 

So the FTC says that changing the date isn't sufficient and that private restrikes with fictitious dates are still imitation numismatic items that are required to be marked. Now you seem to claim that the HPA does not apply to altered coins, which is another bogus argument. The definition of "imitation numismatic item" specifically contemplates alterations to existing original numismatic items.

16 C.F.R. § 304.1 Terms defined...

(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.



Also, show me where "intent to defraud" appears anywhere in the text of the Hobby Protection Act, the accompanying Code of Federal Regulations sections, and case law. The answer is easy: It isn't there.

What trivial distinction will you make next? That the GBI people were not emulating silver coins, but you are? The GBI coins were foreign but yours are U.S. (despite the fact that both are covered)? Maybe you will argue that it is inapplicable since the GBI coins are dated 1887 and 1888 and most of yours are dated in the 20th century.... In order to successfully distinguish a case, the distinction must be legally meaningful.

 

It appears that the FTC interprets the GBI case the same way that I do. When the concept of fantasy coins was mentioned in public comments, some commenters suggested that the pieces should be required to be marked with the word "FANTASY." The FTC rejected this argument and specifically cited the GBI decision and said that fantasy coins were legal under the GBI decision as long as MARKED with the word COPY. Put another way, your pieces are legal to sell only if marked in compliance with the HPA which is what has been argued here all along.

It seems the only people that don't understand this are you and supporters who have an inherent self-interest in the application of the Hobby Protection Act to your pieces. Should an adverse ruling occur, the very people buying your products may have difficulty unloading them with the rules against selling unmarked coins now in effect.

 

Again, the liberty dollars are being bought and sold freely on eBay. The confiscated ones were also released back to the original owners. You are misleading people with your personal opinions and beliefs.

 

[QUOTE="dcarr]I have NEVER asked anyone to post about my work or products, or to do anything other than express their own opinion.[/QUOTE]

WOW! I thought I was just asking a simple question, not starting a war...

Up until this month I never knew what a Daniel Carr coin was. I probably had heard the term but it didn't register as something that I was looking for so it just went by me as inessential information.

Now, because of another thread I decided to look up your web page to see what the excitement was all about. Your silver coins are shown to be struck over original coins of the same type and I was intrigued by that fact, along with the fact the the gold coins are not struck on original coins.

Since you have joined the thread perhaps you can eliminate the speculation and arguments and just enlighten me. You do stress that your coins are overstruck on actual type coins. Why do you do that rather than fresh planchets? And why only the silver coins?

 

Well that in itself is at least some recommendation.

 

The HPA provisions concerning the sale of unmarked coins and those who provide material support/aid were not in effect until 2014, if I recall correctly, well after NORFED. The pieces should not be sold on eBay, and eBay is exposing itself to liability under the HPA for allowing the pieces to be sold there.

See 15 U.S.C. 2101 (d):

(d) Provision of assistance or support
It shall be a violation of subsection (a) or (b) for a person to provide 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 any act or practice that violates subsection (a) or (b).

Subsection B sets out the marking requirement for imitation numismatic items:

The manufacture in the United States...or the sale in commerce of any imitation numismatic item which is not plainly and permanently marked “copy”, is unlawful and is an unfair or deceptive act or practice in commerce under the Federal Trade Commission Act [15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.].

 

They are not coins. You seem to have a problem with confusing your opinions with facts.

 

(1) The statute uses the word "imitation numismatic item" which was defined in the GBI case. That is not my personal opinion, but the binding one of the FTC.

(2) It absolutely is a coin albeit a badly mangled one that now hosts images imparted by counterfeit dies.

 

i will not argue with you, your opinion and interpretation of the law is just that. For whatever personal reason you have, you are misleading people to believe that as fact which is disingenuous.

You are also in the wrong forum for your continued trolling, this is not a legal forum, it is a coin forum.

 

Believe whatever you want. You are wrong to suggest that I am misleading anyone or imposing my personal opinions. My emphasis is on court opinions and not my own. If we were discussing my personal opinions of what the law should be, I would ban all imitation numismatic items regardless of whether marked or not. That is not the law however.

On another note, you state that this is a "coin forum" and that Carr's pieces are not "coins." Doesn't that suggest, if true, that this topic shouldn't be discussed here at all (especially under "coin chat") by your logic? As such, wouldn't your continued posts to this thread constitute trolling?

 

It seems you point is only to troll? It is a coin forum, where coins and numismatic items are discussed. While legal opinions in brief may be of some importance, clearly you are way over the line.

You are trolling this thread in an effort to force your opinion as the only and correct one. You know better than anyone else how the law should be interpreted, yet you reveal nothing of your legal qualifications.

Again, I will not argue with you. Your opinion is duly noted.

 

Over-striking existing genuine coins is a type of altering, which is legal to do so long as it isn't done for fraudulent purposes.

I have over-struck cents and nickels in the past.