Question about Daniel Carr offerings

So what is your plan of action, besides being a wordsmith.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Anyone purchasing Mr. Carr's pieces know what they are. You are attempting to defend/protect hypothetical misrepresentation in the future. There are more immediate threats on EBAY right now. Someone with your knowledge, and persistence, might better be served there. Imho.

 

Eventually a FTC complaint or lawsuit.... There are a few other pet projects in the pipeline first. EBay cannot monitor its website 24/7 with 100% accuracy, but it should at least have an adequate reporting mechanism that allows for enforcement. I do not believe the existing software is sufficient.

 

In definite agreement there.

 

If I were Mr.Carr I would ignore you and at this point not even reply to your postings.
There is an old saying here in Philadelphia reference Abscan "Money talks and BS walks"
so far your walking

 

That would make things so much nicer actually. His responses to me have included factual distortions of the record in cases to suit his argument. If he ignores me, I would anticipate less of those posts, which detract from the more informative posts.

If you would block me, that would be great too.

 

Well the good news is my PL have shipped

 

Date aside, an 1887 Wihelm gold coin struck on a virgin blank is a copy of a Wilhelm gold coin TYPE.

Date aside, a "1964" over-strike on a genuine original Morgan Dollar is NOT a copy of a Morgan Dollar type. It is an altered Morgan Dollar.

That is the difference, and a significant one.

 

It is almost as if you aren't reading anything that has been posted. Is it stupid that the HPA chose only the word "COPY" without choosing additional adjectives? Yes, but like it or not, the definition of imitation numismatic items can include altered original numismatic items. That is explicitly stated in the definition. I'm not missing anything. I understand why it may seem incongruous to those who aren't reading the cited materials, but it is what the statute/CFR requires.

 

Every court ruling you cited involved fraudulent intent and/or intentional deception.
None of the court cases you cited involved novelty alterations to existing coins.

 

You haven't comprehended the HPA definition of "original numismatic item".

 

Most of what coinchemistry has posted is actually informative, sprinkled with personal opinion/interpretation. Why would you ignore him? Because you disagree?

 

How can you think that telling potential scammers, "don't even think about it," on your website is sufficient? You can protect yourself from liability and protect others from getting scammed by signing your work.

 

To fall on his sword of righteous indignation?

 

Wow, I missed 3 pages of replies watching football yesterday evening. Good news is my PL strike has shipped.

Looking forward to the clashed example Dan..

 

Let me try to sum up this thread so far. Mr. Carr is operating illegally or inside the border of legality. The ex-lawyer and others are offended and think Mr. Carr should be shut down. The ex-lawyer has cited trial opinions (is that what case law is?) that may be interpreted in different ways; yet only one (which ever it is) should prevail in a Federal Court.

Mr. Carr has a following for his collectibles and the folks in the government who might be concerned about what he is doing show no interest. Yeah, sanity reigns for now. So...keep posting as this is very entertaining.

 

There was no fraudulent intent in Von Nothaus, GBI, or the Westminster cases. I would need to read Delmarco again, but I don't recall an intent to defraud there either. Repeating yourself doesn't make it true.

 

I prefer that they do ignore me. Their goal is to bury the relevant resources with fluff to quell dissent. If they stop responding, the threads will be much leaner.

 

You continue to troll the thread. Your goal is to assert that your personal opinion and interpretation is fact, it is not. Frankly, as I have stated before your assertions are libelous.